blogenlust

Follow Me

So it was raining and I was bored (and inspired by Shakespeare's Sister and Rook), so I switched over to TypePad:

http://blogenlust.typepad.com
Please follow me there.

It's Only Propaganda If You Get Caught

In North Korea they call it state-run media. Here we call it "pre-packaged television programs":

Washington -- The comptroller-general has issued a blanket warning that reminds federal agencies they may not produce "newscasts" promoting administration policies without clearly stating that the government itself is the source. Twice in the last two years, agencies of the federal government have been caught distributing prepackaged television programs that used paid spokesmen acting as newscasters and, in violation of federal law, failed to disclose the Bush administration's role in developing and financing them. Those were not isolated incidents, David Walker, the comptroller-general, said in a letter dated Thursday that put all agency heads on notice about the practice. In fact, it has become increasingly common for federal agencies to adopt the public relations tactic of producing "video news releases" that look indistinguishable from authentic newscasts and are sometimes picked up by local news programs. It is illegal for the government to produce or distribute such publicity material domestically without disclosing its own role.

Of course, it isn't just federal agencies producing "video news releases" that is the problem. The problem is that people like Armstrong Williams and Jim-Jeff Gannon-Guckert are paid mouthpieces for this Administration's policies, all the while maintaining the cover of objectivity (no matter how flimsy of a cover that may be, especially in the case of JimJeff).

What Is Our Policy Towards Iran?

Not surprisingly, the one thing lacking in all discussions of the recent increase in tension between Iran and the United States is a public critique of U.S. policy towards Iran. This is a consequence of both a Democratic Party without a cogent foreign policy agenda, and a more general, apolitical post-9/11 mentality that discourages criticism of Bush's foreign policy. It's an extremely dangerous position to be in, particularly at a time when foreign policy decisions carry as many consequences as they have in recent years. Lately, not a day seems to go by where the Bush Administration does not mention Iran, and specifically, the likelihood of a military confrontation in some form. Anybody that has paid even a passing attention to Bush's rhetoric over the last five years would recognize this gem from an interview he gave to German television today:

"First of all you never want a president to say never, but military action is certainly not, is never the president's first choice," Bush said, when asked if he could rule out military action against Iran. "Diplomacy is always the president's, or at least always my first choice and we've got a common goal, and that is that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon," he said in the interview taped in Washington and broadcast before his arrival in Brussels Sunday for summits with NATO and the EU.

If I looked hard enough, I could probably find an almost verbatim quote from exactly two years ago that instead referenced Iraq. In other words, we seem to be following the same path that led us to invade Iraq as we are now with Iran. And yet, it might just be me, but I haven't heard any serious public debate about whether this is a good idea, or what possible alternative responses might look like. I do know that we need to put pressure on Iran, but we need to do so in a way that does not exclusively rely on the threat of military action. Military action, including a surgical strike, will do nothing but embolden the mullah's grasp on power. First of all, with the way that their nuclear program is spread around the country, it is highly unlikely that a strike will take out the entire program. Moreover, even though it is true that Iran has a fledging pro-democracy/anti-mullah faction, such a strike might alienate their support, since given the choice, they will likely side with the mullahs--no matter how much they despise them--if it means fighting off foreign invasion. This puts us in a very difficult spot, and it's where you end up when you have a dearth of opinions that are open to consideration while formulating foreign policy. We're basically left in the position where we have to decide whether a nuclear Iran creates a more stable situation than invading/attacking Iran to prevent them from becoming nuclear. Unfortunately, it didn't have to be that way, but it's where our policy (or lack thereof) has taken us.

Questions

Is it really a good idea for Rush Limbaugh to go to the world's largest opium den? Regardless, I'm sure we can expect some fair and balanced coverage of all the good things we're doing in Afghanistan. Rush lie? Please! Oh, and did you know that we're handing out ecstasy to traumatized soldiers? 'Tis true. But don't even think about asking for medical marijuana to treat your cancer/AIDS/anorexia/glaucoma/MS/wasting syndrome.

Set your Tivo

I love Frontline. If I could marry it, I would. I'm especially excited to watch this Tuesday's program, entitled "A Company of Soldiers," which is an inside look at the U.S. Army's 8th Cavalry Regiment stationed in Baghdad. It's pretty raw, which means it has some bad language. Imagine that: soldiers in war, using bad language. What is this world coming to?

Democrats Don't Always Roll Over

Apparently the consensus (at least from readers of this blog) is that Democrats will roll over with the Negroponte confirmation. It's probably true that Negroponte will be confirmed, and the best that we can hope for is that a lot of noise is made throughout the confirmation process like the stance taken against the Gonzales nomination. The notion of Democrat's rolling over, however, is not completely fair to the Democrat's (so far) successful efforts to uphold 20 Bush judicial nominations. I suppose an argument can be made that these are just as important as confirming people like Negroponte and Gonzales, and that Democratic efforts to fillibuster these appointments are laudatory. So it's good to keep in mind that Democrats haven't been rolling over to everything the Bush Administration puts forward. I bring this up because I just finished reading an excellent post from Matt at 1115. He reminds us that Bill Frist is trying to "go nuclear" on the Democrat's ability to fillibuster judicial nominees, and also points out that Pat Robertson has warned Frist that if he can't deliver the "nuclear option", he can't assume he'll have the Religious Right's support if he ran for President. Since we know that Frist is jonesing to be President, and since we know it's basically the kiss of death for a Republican to run for President without the Religious Right's support, we can assume that Frist will do everything in his power to change the rules and eliminate Democratic resistance. Now I'm not sure what Democrat's can do to respond to the "nuclear option," but they've got to do something, and I'm pretty confident they'll do everything in their power to stop him. Like Matt, it's more than a little ironic that the Party so eager to tout its ability to dish out democracy abroad is so eager to squash it back home. Not that anybody here notices. Or cares.

Negroponte

Wow. I'd suggest that Democrats do everything in their power to prevent the confirmation of Negroponte as National Intelligence Director. Some background: 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Terrorism Link To Iraq

This article from the Washington Post highlights the danger of defining victory in Iraq as being able to hold an election. The fact is that the effects of our actions and mishandling of the post-war period have yet to play out, and according to US military and intelligence officials, it may not be a happy ending:

The insurgency in Iraq continues to baffle the U.S. military and intelligence communities, and the U.S. occupation has become a potent recruiting tool for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, top U.S. national security officials told Congress yesterday. "Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists," CIA Director Porter J. Goss told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. "These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism," he said. "They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries." [...] "Our policies in the Middle East fuel Islamic resentment," Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate panel. "Overwhelming majorities in Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia believe the U.S. has a negative policy toward the Arab world." Jacoby said the Iraq insurgency has grown "in size and complexity over the past year" and is now mounting an average of 60 attacks per day, up from 25 last year. Attacks on Iraq's election day last month reached 300, he said, double the previous one-day high of 150, even though transportation was virtually locked down.

60 attacks a day? Pshaw! There are 60 muggings in NYC every day!! Or so Brit Hume might say. On a serious note, this is a perspective that needs to be aired more publically. I am surprised by how often I encounter people who don't take into consideration the physics of international relations: Every action has a reaction. I don't have to remind anyone that John Kerry was right to say we need to fight a more sensitive war on terrorism, one where we understand that actions may have consequences that negate benefits. Abu Ghraib is a perfect example. Our attempt to snuff out the insurgency by using torture to gather intelligence actually backfired in that it verified the very worst caricatures of the American occupation. We're much worse off now, in terms of winning the hearts and minds, than we would ever have been without Abu Ghraib. We have to realize, and our actions have to demonstrate, that the war on terrorism is more a war about winning hearts and minds, than it is about invading and overthrowing regimes. Update: Not that I have to drive home the point about Abu Ghraib, but this news is exactly what I'm talking about.

Jerry Brown Blogs!

I'd like to cordially invite Oakland mayor Jerry Brown to join us at the next meeting of the BARBARians. (via TalkLeft)

Powdered Keg Redux

The assassination of a political leader. The forming of alliances. Where have I heard this one before? Along with Steve Soto, I can't quite tell on what grounds the Bush Administration is going after Syria for the assassination of Hariri. It seems forced and over the top, and when combined with our recent saber rattling towards Iran, a little unnerving. I'm still not sure whether Bush is audacious and stupid enough to start another war (a much bigger war), or whether he is just ratcheting up the rhetoric. I'm also not very confident that he can do the latter without also starting the former. But all is not lost. We have the chronically incompetent Rice, and her new sidekick, Elizabeth Cheney, on the job. We're in good hands.

Local News

I'm not a big fan of local media. I find it dangerously lacking in substance and context, and think it is a major reason why (generally) people don't seem to a) care what is going on in the world, and b) know what is going on in the world. In my opinion, local news (and certainly cable news, too) is a major reason why a large percentage of this country thinks Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and had weapons of mass destruction. A recent study from Broadcasting and Cable (via Cursor) seems to validate my concerns:

Although many considered the November presidential election a referendum on Iraq, that would have been hard to tell by the time devoted to the war in local TV newscasts. Of 44 network affiliate evening newscasts studied in 11 markets, stations averaged 25 seconds of Iraq war coverage per newscast. The only story given less coverage was foreign policy, at 13 seconds. The presidential election got almost five times that coverage at two minutes, though local races barely beat it out at 30 seconds. Iraq was also beaten out by sports, weather, health, crime, injury, economy, “other,” and even bumpers, teases and intro music. [...] According to the report, the typical pre-election newscast broke down this way: * Ads: 8 minutes * Sports/weather: 6 minutes * Elections: 3 minutes, 11 seconds * Crime: 2 minutes, 34 seconds * Local interest : 1 minute, 56 seconds * Teasers, intros: 1 minute, 43 seconds * Health: 1 minute, 22 seconds * Other: 1 minute, 12 seconds * Injury: 55 seconds * Business/economy: 47 seconds * Iraq: 25 seconds * Foreign policy: 13 seconds

I understand that local news is by definition local, but for many people it is the only news they watch. I think the problem stems from the fact that local news coverage only fills a half-hour time spot. Twenty-two minutes is not enough to offer comprehensive coverage of the day's events--even if it is local. Not to pick on my home state, but I would be curious to see the breakdown of Milwaukee's local news. During football season, which in Wisconsin is about 300 days of the year, Packer coverage takes a huge chunk of the twenty-two minutes of news. And during the real football season, the local news is often followed by another half hour of Packer coverage. Packer's Extra, it's called. Now, to a certain extent, stations have the right to present what it knows its audience wants to watch. At the same time, though, these stations--as news stations--have certain responsibilities to maintain. It's definitely a balancing act, and I think a very good argument can be made that local news stations are not living up to their responsibility to cover what their audiences need to know versus what they want to know. One last thing: I suspect some people might argue that news from Iraq isn't local, and therefore doesn't have to be addressed on the local news. I would respond that Iraq is very much a local issue, not just because local men and women are dying and fighting in the war, but also because of the huge financial cost incurred by this war, and paid by U.S. taxpayers. We ought to have a little more oversight as to how our money is being spent.

Monday Night Picture Blogging

I was in NYC this past weekend, thus explaining the dearth of posts. Today I was too tired and too busy to write anything, and hopefully tomorrow I will feel more inspired. In the meantime, here are a few photos from the weekend. We were lucky to be in Central Park for the unfurling of Christo's Gates:

The reason for the trip, though, was that I had a meeting (top-secret) with the UN Security Council, all of whom happen to be big fans of Blogenlust. Here is where we met:

Deja Vu All Over Again

Seriously, is this Administration barking mad?

BRUSSELS, Belgium (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Wednesday that Iran must live up to its international obligations to halt its nuclear program or "the next steps are in the offing." "And I think everybody understands what the 'next steps' mean," Rice told reporters after a meeting with NATO foreign ministers and European Union officials. [...] "We believe this is a time for diplomacy," the secretary said Wednesday, adding that human rights in Iran and Tehran's sponsoring of terror groups are also causes for concern. "The message that we are giving to Iran: We do have diplomatic means at our disposal, we are doing this bilaterally as well as multilaterally, and I believe that a diplomatic solution is in our grasp, if we can have unity of purpose, unity of message with the Iranians and if the Iranians understand that the international community is quite serious about it living up to its obligations."

She's right about that last part. This is a time for diplomacy, but the United States should not reduce diplomacy to the level of school yard taunting. Instead of trying to encourage Iran to stop their nuclear program, Rice is actually giving them an excuse to speed it up and cover it up further. After all, Iran's biggest enemy already surrounds it, and it's now threatening invasion on a daily basis. What would you do if you were Iran? I get the impression that this Administration doesn't care whether Iran abandons their nuclear program, in much the same way that they didn't really care whether Iraq had WMD. All that matters is that Iran appears to be a threat, and that is what Rice is laying the groundwork for. My prediction is that if we do attack Iran, it will not be built up like our invasion of Iraq. It will be some type of surprise attack, that provokes an Iranian response, which we'll then use to justify a full-on invasion--draft and all.

Daou Report

Apparently the Daou Report has been incorporated by Salon. In principle, I don't really mind the move. What I do mind is that in order to read more than one of the blog highlights you have to jump through Salon's advertisement hoops. In fact, I don't even mind Salon's advertisements--usually if I'm going to read one of their articles, I don't mind viewing a few ads. But the thing I found so great about the Daou Report was that you could quickly skim through dozens of blogs without clicking on anything. For me, this was the essence of it's coolness, and sadly it's missing in the new format. Oh well, maybe they'll fix it. Update: I just realized that if you use an RSS reader, you can still read the highlights sans advertisements. I recommend Newsfire.

He's Baaaaaaack

Via War and Piece, it appears that Ahmed Chalabi is positioning himself to be the next Prime Minister of Iraq:

WASHINGTON - The former Iraqi exile leader who helped found the Iraqi National Congress, Ahmad Chalabi, is seeking his country's highest office and says he has accepted an informal nomination to be prime minister. In a phone interview yesterday with The New York Sun, Mr. Chalabi said he had said yes to the request from prominent members of the United Iraqi Alliance list, the slate of candidates that will likely control a majority of seats in the transitional national assembly to be announced in the coming days. [...] If Mr. Chalabi manages to secure enough support to be prime minister of Iraq, it will mark an extraordinary comeback for the man most analysts wrote off last May, when American and Iraqi soldiers raided his home and confiscated computers on charges that he had employed thugs to bully bureaucrats in the finance ministry. Throughout last summer, Mr. Chalabi was targeted by an untrained judge appointed by the Americans; all charges were eventually dropped. The CIA had written off the former banker as having no political base in Iraq, while leading Democratic politicians blamed him for fabricating intelligence on Saddam Hussein's links to Al Qaeda and arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

And how could they forget his ties to Iranian intelligence? Isn't democracy grand?! Also, as The Left Coaster notes, this is great news for US military in Iraq because it means they'll be kicked out coming home soon! And in other Iraqi related news, Swopa at Needlenose has two great posts on the effects of the Iraqi elections, especially in light of the Kurds' success at the polls. Frankly, I'm so sick of posting about Iraq. I really wish the elections were the "be all, end all" they were presented to be, and I really wish that I wasn't compelled to post on everything I find outrageous and disgusting. You'd think that I would be numb to it all by now, but unfortunately, not yet.

Just AThought

Despite the President's man date, he's having a hard time convincing his own Party to sign on to his Social Security reform bill. Why? Becasue partisanship can never trump self-interest, and even Republicans know that Bush's plan isn't going to help the majority of their constituents. This is also why Republican's blindly support the President's aggressive foreign policy. The percentage of angry military personnel and families is not high enough to affect election results. If this changes-- if a draft were re-instated, or if military sacrfice became more egalitarian--then even Republicans would think twice about writing the President another blank check to go to war (not that he needs their permission).

50+

What is the number of people killed in Iraq over the last 48 hours?

Iraqi Election: You mean there's results?

Did you know that the Iraqi elections had results? Me either. Well they do, and they're in (sort of), and it doesn't look good for the "Freedom is on the March" candidates:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A Kurdish ticket pulled into second place ahead of U.S.-backed Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's candidates in Iraq (news - web sites)'s national election after votes were released Monday from the Kurdish self-governing area of the north. Insurgents struck Iraq's security forces with suicide bombs and mortar fire, killing more than 30 people. First election returns from the Sunni heartland confirmed on Monday that many Sunnis stayed away from ballot box, leaving the field to Shiite and Kurdish candidates. A Shiite-dominated ticket backed by the Shiite clergy leads among the 111 candidate lists, with a final tally of last week's election for a 275-member National Assembly expected by week's end. Allawi, who favors strong ties with the United States, had hoped to emerge as a compromise choice for prime minister, but the Shiite cleric-backed ticket say they want one of their own for the top job.

Actually, it depends on how you define Freedom. If you mean Freedom to draft an Islamic Constitution, then Freedom be marching! If you mean Freedom to assert your right to create an autonomous Kurdish state, then Freedom be marching! But if you mean Freedom to forge strong ties with the United States, then, well, better luck next time! (If there is another election). Now, I'm no Juan Cole, but it's not good for the US if their candidate finishes a distant third. It's also troubling, no matter what Cheney says, that top Shiites are calling for an Islamic constitution. On top of it all, it's probably not good that the Kurds might think they have a mandate to push for an automous state of their own. These are all mere insignificant (and messy) details. All that matters is that there even was an election.

A Raise for Special Forces

One of the most worrisome trends of Rumsfeld's tenure as Secretary of Defense is the increased reliance on private military corporations (PMCs) to function in rolls traditionally taken by the United States military. Basically, it's Rumsfeld's way of slimming down the military to be a more mobile and responsive fighting force that is heavily reliant on Special Forces. Ironically, many of these PMC's employ former Special Forces officers, having drawn them away from the US military with lucrative salaries. So, in effect, Rumsfeld's efforts to make the military more Special Forces-ish, has had the unintended (yet predictable) consequence of depleting the number of veteran Special Forces officers. This shouldn't be a surprise, since unintended consequences are pretty popular with anything this Administration decides to do. So, I wasn't too surprised to read this in yesterday's New York Times:

The Defense Department has approved a series of incentives for members of elite Special Operations Forces who remain in the military, including a $150,000 bonus for the most experienced and highly trained combat personnel who promise six additional years in uniform, military officials said Saturday. The pay and incentives package was devised to stem an exodus of senior sergeants, petty officers and warrant officers to higher-paying civilian security jobs in places like Baghdad and Kabul, just as they are needed to continue playing a pivotal role in combating terrorists and training indigenous security forces worldwide. "Our investment in these professionals is great, and the experience gained through years of service makes them invaluable assets to our nation's defense," said Lt. Col. Alex Findlay, a personnel officer with the Special Operations Command. "Younger replacements can be trained, but experience is irreplaceable in the current worldwide war on terrorism."

This should have been done from the start, since many former Special Forces officers have already made the switch. And why shouldn't they? Even with the increased incentives, PMC salaries are still higher. The real solution is to recognize that we can't keep outsourcing military duties to private companies, because the free market will always pay more than what the federal government can pay for the same position. This will mean that we have to increase the size of the military, and it might also mean we'll have to start using the military more wisely. Both of which are not bad ideas, in my opinion.

Rice Reassures

I'm glad that Rice reassured us that we have no plans to attack Iran. Ooops. My bad. Correct link here.

Response to Hinderaker

As promised, today John Hinderaker posted a response to Camille Gage's recent op-ed in the Star Tribune. Hinderaker includes in his post a copy of an article he sent to the newspaper as part of an effort to set the record straight on Gage's allegations. I'm not too concerned with the first half of the article, since it primarily consists of background information from this post that appeared on Power Line in October 2004. However, I think the second half of the article, the half in which Hinderaker berates the Star Tribune for failing to fact check Gage's story, raises some interesting questions. First things first, though. This is what we know about the original story posted on Power Line. Read it because it's important to know what's going on. Also, it's important to understand that Gage's op-ed was specifically addressing the allegations charged in this piece from Agape Press, because in his response, Hinderaker uses smoke and mirrors to confuse people on what is actually being alleged. Turning to Hinderaker's post, he writes:

"Because the editors did no fact checking, they did not know that the FAIR report, far from having "no factual basis," has been the subject of a criminal investigation."

It would have been nice for Hinderaker to cite where he learned of this criminal investigation, since I've spent some time on Lexis Nexis trying to find a citation. I haven't had any luck, and that doesn't mean there isn't an investigation ongoing, just that it might not be "national news." However, in a January 27, 2005 Journal Sentinel article, there is mention of an investigation into possible voter fraud in Milwaukee. But these charges don't seem to be related to those made by FAIR. Interestingly, Mike Johnson, the spokesman for the Milwaukee FBI office told the AP: "If it appears federal criminal violations may have occurred, we'll open a criminal investigation." Next, Hinderaker claims:

"Because the editors did no fact checking, they did not know that the FAIR representatives have submitted sworn affidavits saying they went to deputy registrars in Racine and Milwaukee who accepted their registration to vote, even though they made it clear they were not eligible Wisconsin voters.

Because the editors did no fact checking, they did not know that the FAIR representatives made tapes of their conversations with the deputy registrars which are consistent with their sworn accounts, and have been turned over to federal and state law enforcement authorities."

Again, a citation would be nice, and I haven't seen anything about this in Lexis Nexis (which doesn't necessarily prove it's not true). The only source I could find was on the FAIR website, from a November posting of two press releases on the allegations. The first ends by mentioning that the tapes were handed over to the Racine and Milwaukee District Attorney's offices. The second mentions that Milwaukee DA Michael McCann decided "not to pursue criminal prosecutions resulting from FAIR's investigation which unconvered evidence that noncitizens and illegal aliens were being registered to vote in the county." Somewhat defensively in my opinion, the press release continues with: "He was not referring to prosecution of Voces de la Frontera or others involved in registering noncitizens and illegal aliens to vote." I'm not sure what the difference is, but presumably, if there were criminal investigations filed against Voces de la Frontera, it would be noted on FAIR's site. It's not, though. Oh, and I've emailed Hinderaker for another source on this information, and haven't heard back from him yet. Finally, Hinderaker adds:

"Because the editors did no fact checking, they did not know that two liberal activists are already under indictment for voter fraud in Racine County."

Hmm...I think Hinderaker is trying to suggest that these two activists are the same two sent by FAIR. Unfortunately, they're not. The two people involved were associated with Project Vote, and they were indicted because they were felons on probation, which makes it illegal for them to register voters. Now, maybe Hinderaker is talking about two other liberal activists associated with the FAIR investigation that were indicted for voter fraud in Racine County, but I haven't been able to find any articles announcing such indictments. Now, after doing this research, I'm not very satisfied with Hinderaker's response. He doesn't seem to address the content of the original article, and makes claims that aren't easily supported by evidence. Of course, I haven't put that much energy into finding the sources Hinderaker cites, but I've done enough to know that his claims are not as clear cut as he suggests. And, in fact, it seems as though he is purposely confusing the story. I say purposely because Hinderaker is a lawyer, and presumably he isn't an idiot and can figure out that these things don't add up. There's one more thing that I came across, which I find interesting, but haven't been able to fully verify. In 2000, a Susan Tully from Viroqua, Wisconsin unsuccessfully ran as a Republican candidate for Congress. I learned this from a recent article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that detailed some overdue bills associated with then Governor Tommy Thompson and his campaigning for local Congressional candidates. Of course, a Susan Tully is also the Midwest Field Director for FAIR, and the source of the Agape Press article. Now, as I said, I don't know if this is the same person, I just found it an interesting connection. I tried to email Tully at FAIR about this, but her email bounced. UPDATE: Interesting. Susan Tully is the Midwest Field Director for FAIR and she was the losing candidate for a Congressional office in 2000. Here's a November 2000 article from the Journal Sentinel that mentions how Tully moved to Wisconsin from California. If you read her biography at FAIR, it also mentions her residency in California. Now if I were a tinfoil hat type of guy, I might see a connection here... DOUBLE UPDATE: Hinderaker responded. We've been exchanging a few emails. I first asked him if he had a second source for the allegations:

I've talked to the people who signed the affidavits and reviewed the transcripts of the tape recordings they made. Most of this has not appeared in the newspapers.

In a follow-up email I asked about the criminal investigation and the two indictments. He responds:

As I understand it, the indictments are not directly related. How all of these events in Milwaukee and elsewhere fit into a general pattern of corruption is yet to be determined. The criminal investigation is pending. A joint federal-state task force is looking into the broad issue of voter fraud in Milwaukee, and I suspect it will be a while before this plays itself out.

Was that the impression you got of the situation after reading his response to the Star Tribune?

Semper Fi, Jesus

You might remember John Eldridge and his desire to turn lazy docile men into good Christian warriors. It seems he's getting some help from Mark "Gunny" Hestand and his Christian Warrior Boot Camp:

The teens are part of "Boot Camp," a youth group that mixes Marine Corps values and combat techniques with Bible study. The concept is the brainchild of Hestand, who started the group in 2001 to encourage youth involvement in the church. As far as he knows, Boot Camp is unique in the Christian world.

While some may find the juxtaposition of military and the church to be unusual, or even alarming, Hestand said he believes the two share key principles.

"We take the basic principles that are Christian and basic principles of warfare and we merge them," he said. "Our enemy is Satan. Our weapon is not an M-16, it's the Bible. We're trying to get them to be warriors for God."

Hestand lists the Marine values of honor, courage and commitment as analogous to Christianity."One of the reasons I chose the Marine style over other military branches is that almost anything they say you could replace the word 'Marine' with 'Christian,'"Hestand said.

Boot Camp has just over a dozen members - all in junior high or high school - who have signed pledges of commitment to the group. Every Sunday, participants arrive early to church in their camouflage fatigues and black boots.

Once the 90-minute service commences, the boys gather outside, usually in the church's south parking lot, where for 20 minutes they do physical training like new recruits under the barks and orders of drill sergeants.

"We really get in their face," Hestand said.

The next 20 minutes are dedicated to combat techniques, such as ambushes or guerrilla tactics. The last 45 minutes are spent on Bible study.

"We take the basic principles that are Christian and basic principles of warfare and we merge them." Unoriginal bastard, Hitler did that 70 years ago! The basic premise of Hestand's Boot Camp is beyond disturbing, it's fascist. You could easily exchange Islam for Christianity, and we (and by we, I especially mean the Christian Right) would instead be talking about terrorist training schools. The thing that irks me the most is that nitwits like James Dobson wage a cultural crusade against the likes of SpongeBob and Janet Jackson, but are virtually silent when it comes to the bullshit from their own people. Immersing kids in a culture of killing in the name of Jesus? That's cool. SpongeBob's butt exposed on television? Crusade!! The question I want to know is how is Hestand funding his Boot Camp? Faith-based funds?

Freedom! Liberty! Bigotry!

Shakespeare's Sister asks the best question of the night:

How can a speech riddled with references to freedom and equality contain a call for a federal marriage amendment denying rights to a sizable portion of the American public? Or a demand to make tax cuts favoring the wealthiest permanent? Or a recommitment to funding faith-based initiatives over those which, in a country where freedom to practice or not practice religion as one sees fit, do good works in the name of humanity instead of God? Unmitigated horseshit.

Go read the rest. She's also right about Pelosi and Reid--how hard is it to find some personable and energetic Democrats to go on television and articulate policy?

Purple Finger, Brown Nose

God. I have to say that the purple finger imagery from this speech is the lamest attempt at political theater since, well, the President landed on an aircraft carrier, dressed in a flight suit, and prematurely declared Mission Accomplished. For some reason it reminded me of Tobias on Arrested Development, and how he got blue paint all over the place, while waiting to be called back by the Blue Man Group. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I pity you. Update: If you were lucky enough to miss the speech, Rising-Hegemon has pictures of the Purple Fingerers (scroll down a bit).

Islamic Law in Iraq?

One of the concerns about bringing full-fledged democratic elections to Iraq was that it might result in an Islamist government ruled by Islamic law. From a humanrightsfreedomdemocracyliberty! standpoint (which we seem to care about in this instance), this would be disconcerting since strict Islamic law isn't particularly kind to women. So what to make of this?:

The turnout for the top-finishing electoral list, a coalition of Islamist parties supported by the Shiite clerical establishment, has convinced leading clerics in Najaf that religious parties will have a majority in the National Assembly that will write Iraq's next constitution, several of them said.

The clerics of Najaf who orchestrated the Shiite coalition say they expect a constitutional debate between hard-line Islamists, who want Quranic law to be the constitution's primary source, and moderate Muslims who want a milder form of religious law. This debate, they say, will dwarf any challenge from secular parties.

It's important to remember that this election, although a step in the right direction, only chose the parties that would put forth the people to draft an Iraqi Constitution. An election where real leaders are chosen won't come until the end of this year. Thus, given the intensity and variety of political, religious, and cultural factors trying to inluence the drafting of this Constitution, we're by no means out of the woods yet. In reality, the response to the election results will be far more important than the election itself.

On a side note, this is embarrasingly ridiculous.

All You Have To Do Is Ask

In an editorial in yesterday's StarTribune, Camille Gage sounds a note of caution over using blogs as a primary source of news. This caution resulted from a recent run-in with John Hinderaker, of the popular conservative blog Powerline. From the editorial:

As a graduate student in public affairs at the University of Minnesota, I recently heard an in-class presentation by John Hinderaker, who, with partner Scott Johnson, runs the Powerline blog. Powerline played a role in breaking the Rathergate affair and was recently named "Blog of the Year" by Time magazine. Prior to Hinderaker's presentation, the week before the November elections, I visited the Powerline site. To my surprise an Oct. 27 post covered alleged voter fraud in Racine, Wis., my hometown. The charges involved the registering of illegal aliens to vote. The story seemed outrageous, so I made a few phone calls to check it out. What I discovered was troubling. There was no factual basis for the voter fraud allegations. Powerline posted the story based on the word of a single individual employed by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). This was hearsay at best, posted as "news" at a time when voter registration efforts by the Democrats and 527 groups were coming under fire by conservatives. At class I asked Hinderaker if posts to Powerline were fact-checked. He was dismissive of the question, so I asked if he was aware that the Racine voter fraud story was inaccurate. He stated that he was not, slapped his hands together and stated that the blogosphere was all about speed and therefore did not allow for fact-checking. Mr. Hinderaker went on to say, "Our readers let us know when we get it wrong." And therein lies the cautionary Catch-22: Bloggers may serve as media watchdogs, but who will watch the blogs? Do you have time to fact-check what you read online?

It's a good question, and one that bloggers and journalists should be weighing when they post stories or run with something they read on a blog (and I speak from experience on this!). Unfortunately, though, instead of using Gage's article as a starting block for a discussion on blogs and journalism, many conservative bloggers have turned to attacking Gage and impugning her credibility. Some examples are here, here, and here. Hinderaker even went so far as to call Gage a "miscreant" and criticized her for not elaborating on who she contacted and what information she found in order to conclude that there wasn't any factual basis to the story. He also added:

We are, of course, preparing a response. It will focus, I think, on the fact-checking that the Strib did before they printed Ms. Gage's attack on us. I talked to Commentary Editor Eric Ringham today, and he acknowledged that the Strib didn't do any fact-checking at all before they accused us of not fact-checking. That's right: None. Zilch. Zippo. Nada. And Ms. Gage, if that's really her name, has no knowledge about the voter fraud scandal which has now resulted in a federal criminal investigation.

And then, in an update, he notes that Gage gave money to the Dean campaign, as though that actually means anything. Now I understand that in Hinderaker's world, things move fast, and there isn't anytime for fact-checking, so I took two minutes and emailed Gage about who she contacted and what information she discovered. She was kind enough to respond with the notes she used for the story, which I've pasted below with her permission:

I began by calling Tom Farley, the news editor at the Racine Journal Times. Mr. Farley had no knowledge of the allegations. He pointed out that there is no city position with the title "Deputy Registrar of Voters" (what the post cited). He stated the City Clerk's office dealt with voter registration and suggested I call the Carolynn Moskonas, the Racine County Clerk. I then called Ms. Moskonas at the City Clerks office. She was unaware of this matter. Ms. Moskonas explained to me that at the direction of the state legislature, volunteers involved in voter registrations drives must attend a training. They are then considered "deputy registrars." I decided to go to the source of the allegations and contacted Susan Tully, Midwest field director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). I told her I was a student researching allegations of voter fraud. I asked her if she would name the individual or group in question. She declined to name the individual, but said the group was Voces de la Frontera, a group that works with Hispanic immigrants. I asked her directly how she knew the individual in question was an illegal immigrant and asked if she had spoken to them. She quickly admitted that she did not actually know if the individual in question was an illegal alien. I asked her when the alleged voter fraud occurred. She informed me the incidents took place in August and September, 2004. I then asked her which law enforcement agency she contacted and she told me she had called the FBI. I then did an internet search on Voces de la Frontera. The first hit was a recent press release, released jointed by Wisconsin Citizen Action and Voces de la Frontera regarding their successful voter registration drive. I called Nathan Sooy, the contact listed on the press release. I asked Mr. Sooy if had was aware of these allegations. He informed me that this was the first he had heard about it. I asked him if they had been contacted by the State Elections Board, the Secretary of State or any other law enforcement agency regarding these charges and he said that neither Wisconsin Citizen Action nor Voces de la Frontera had been contacted.

After reading her notes, it's not hard to conclude that there really isn't any factual evidence as Gage claimed in her article. If Hinderaker, et. al. really had a problem with Gage's allegation, all they had to do was send her an email and ask her nicely to verify the source and information. But, clearly it was far easier for them to impugne her credibility than to take a few minutes to check her story out (Hinderaker says he contacted the StarTribune, but why not directly contact Gage?) And this, in my opinion, is one of blogging's biggest problems: too often blind partisanship overtakes sound reasoning, and the result is misinformation under the guise of "information you won't hear on CNN or Fox!!" Both the Right and Left are guilty of this, and I think it's the most important point of Gage's article.

Jack v. Jay?

Something I've been following closely during the past week is the fallout from Jack Shafer's Blog Overkill article. As I wrote earlier, I think Shafer's piece is solid because it recognizes both blogging's promise and limitations--Yes, blogs have tremendous influence on the mainstream media, but no, blogging will never replace it. Seems obvious to me, but the article spawned a fairly substantial debate on exactly who it is that claims blogs will take over the world of journalism. Shafer made it pretty clear that he thought it was people like Dave Winer, Jeff Jarvis, and Jay Rosen--and, if you're like me, and didn't attend the Conference, but read Shafer's account, it would be easy to walk away thinking the same thing. According to Jay Rosen, though, this is a gross mischaracterization of his position. I can't vouch for Winer or Jarvis because I don't regularly read their blogs, but I can vouch for Rosen, whose excellent Blogging vs. Journalism Is Over clearly articulates the same point (blogs have influence-yes, replace?-no) Shafer makes in Slate. So why is Rosen upset? Maybe because Blogging vs. Journalism Is Over was given at the same conference Shafer attended! Rosen's justifiably annoyed that Shafer had to knock-down the blogging triumphalist strawman in order to make the same point many attendees were making. I'm not sure why Shafer chose to do this, but maybe it was because he thought it would be better for the article he intended to write if he didn't come across as repeating what people have been saying all along. Whatever the reason, it's unfortunate that the discussion surrounding the article has become a distraction from the less dramatic point that Shafer and Rosen actually agree. Just a thought: It seems that the desire to tear down blog triumphalism hinges on the use of the world "revolutionize" to describe blogging's impact on journalism. There's something about that word, which puts even blog sympathizers on the defensive because they're wary of the connotation "revolutionary" can carry. I think when people like Rosen use the word "revolutionize" to describe blogging's influence on journalism, what they mean is that it's having a functional impact on the field. That is, the way journalism is being done, is changing because of media like blogs. Misunderstandings have arisen, though, because people have misinterpreted "revolutionize" to mean "over-throw." When these people hear that "blogs have revolutionized journalism" they're thinking of "revolutionize" in terms of blogs replacing traditional journalism. But that isn't the case. Blogging's impact on journalism is more "revolutionary" in the sense of the Industrial Revolution, than the Islamic Revolution. For the purposes of the debate, it might be less distracting and more practical for people to start finding another way to characterize blogging's influence.

Civilized vs Uncivilized: 100 Years Later

Tom Wolfe has an interesting op-ed in Sunday's Times, in which he compares President Bush's second Inaugural Address to Teddy Roosevelt's Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. What's interesting to Wolfe is that nobody at the Council on Foreign Relations was able to connect President Bush's:

"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands",

with President Roosevelt's:

"We would interfere with them only in the last resort, and then only if it became evident that their inability or unwillingness to do justice at home and abroad had violated the rights of the United States or had invited foreign aggression to the detriment of the entire body of American nations."

After reading both speeches, I think Wolfe is correct to draw this analogy. However, I'm surprised and disappointed at what he chose to leave out of the comparison. The underlying theme of TR's corollary is that the people of the United States (and it's Anglo-Saxon culture) are more civilized and superior to peoples that are not as politically or culturally advanced. For instance:

"Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may lead the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power."

It can basically be boiled down to race, and this becomes more clear when you undersand that TR was talking about expanding America's sphere of influence into the Far East. In this sense, Roosevelt was framing America's growing Imperialism in a charitable way-- the "civilized" Americans would be helping their "uncivilized" brethern. I can't help but detect a similar trace of cultural arrogance in Bush's foreign policy, whose ideological framework was laid out in the second Inaugural. The way Bush talks to the Middle East about bringing freedom and democracy to that region is not unlike Roosevelt's way of talking to the people of the Far East. In fact, the rhetoric of freedom is used to gift wrap the War on Terrorism in much the same way that helping the uncivilized was used to garnish American Imperialism. One hundred years later we realize that notions of cultural superiority should have no role in dictating our foreign policy (didn't the whole world say, "Never Again!" at Auschwitz this week?). I'm disappointed that Wolfe could write such an endearing piece comparing TR's rhetoric with W's without noting their most abhorrent similarities.

Election in Iraq

I'm glad to see that all hell didn't break lose during the Iraqi election, and I'm curious to see what the final numbers are and which parties will have the most control. By most accounts, it seems that the election pretty much played out as expected: The Shiites and Kurds got out the vote, and the Sunnis didn't. Last night I watched about an hour of TV coverage on Fox and MSNBC (itself a bizarre spectacle), and I was struck by how few people were actually at the polling places. Of course, that might be because voter turnout was sporadic throughout Iraq, but you would think that if the media was going to show up at a polling place, they'd show up at a polling place with lots of people. Maybe President Bush was right to lower expectations, or as Sadly, No! points out, maybe he was wrong. I think we would have been able to find "victory" in just about anything that happened today. So, were the elections the "resounding success" President Bush claims them to be? Probably too early to tell, but probably not too early, as Hoder notes, to start hearing confirmations from the neoconservatives that their dangerous experiment "works". Before we start bringing democracy to Iran, though, Juan Cole warns us on what we can expect in the more immediate aftermath of the Iraqi election:

Many of the voters came out to cast their ballots in the belief that it was the only way to regain enough sovereignty to get American troops back out of their country. The new parliament is unlikely to make such a demand immediately, because its members will be afraid of being killed by the Baath military. One fears a certain amount of resentment among the electorate when this reticence becomes clear. Iraq now faces many key issues that could tear the country apart, from the issues of Kirkuk and Mosul to that of religious law. James Zogby on Wolf Blitzer wisely warned the US public against another "Mission Accomplished" moment. Things may gradually get better, but this flawed "election" isn't a Mardi Gras for Americans and they'll regret it if that is the way they treat it.

Breaking News

President Bush rolled out the trailer for next week's State of the Union today, and boy, are we in for a doozie of a surprise!

He also gave a brief preview of the State of the Union address he will deliver on Wednesday: "I will remind the country we're still at war. I want to thank the Congress for providing the necessary support for our troops who are in harm's way."

Good thing, because I almost forgot. And I bet their families almost forgot, too. I bet he'll also remind us by asking us to continue making the ultimate sacrifice: more tax cuts.

Friday Nude Ann Coulter Blogging

Back by popular demand... (via Wonkette) Hope you have a nice weekend.

Queer Eye For the War Criminal

Dick Cheney: (via Getty Images) Pure Class.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney raised eyebrows on Friday for wearing an olive-drab parka, hiking boots and knit ski cap to represent the United States at a solemn ceremony remembering the liberation of Auschwitz. Other leaders at the event in Poland on Thursday marking the 60th anniversary of the death camp's liberation, such as French President Jacques Chirac and Russian President Vladimir Putin, wore dark, formal overcoats and dress shoes or boots.

Isn't that a Triple Fat Goose jacket? Schweet! On the bright side, at least he wasn't wearing this.

Time to Leave?

Today I learned that one of the Marines killed in Tuesday's helicopter crash had been corresponding with a close friend. I'd actually read a few of the letters between the two, so in a small sense, I feel as though I know a bit about him despite the fact we never met and he had know idea who I was. It turns out that the Marine killed was in the same unit as another person my friend knows. This person was severely injured in Fallujah last November, and had he not been, would likely have been on the helicopter with the rest of his unit. This is extremely upsetting for me, even as someone with no real physical connection to these guys. I can't imagine how their families, and the families of other soldiers killed in action must feel when the Commander in Chief consistently proves himself to be an insensitive prick:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 - President Bush's opening statement at his news conference on Wednesday was striking for what it left out: any mention of the 31 Americans who died overnight in the crash of a Marine helicopter in Iraq, the largest number of American deaths in a single incident since the war began. Mr. Bush instead focused on his long-term goal of "ending tyranny in our world," and then cast the Iraqi election coming Sunday as part of a march of freedom around the globe. He said that if he had told the reporters in the room a few years before that the Iraqi people would be voting, "you would look at me like some of you still look at me, with a kind of blank expression." [...]

Though the tone of the news conference was at times light and bantering, in response to a question later Mr. Bush did address the helicopter crash: "Obviously any time we lose life it is a sad moment," he said. [...] "It's almost a policy," said the adviser, who asked not to be named because the president does not want aides talking about the inner workings of the White House, "because if you mention one, you have to mention them all."

I'm not even going to comment on the insensitivity of this because I think it speaks for itself. Bush is trying to run a faith-based foreign policy. He has faith in the fact that if he just ignores the negative and accentuates the positive, we'll all be fine and Iraq will be a beacon of freedom, democracy, and liberty. This is not going to happen as long as George W. Bush has any measure of influence on our foreign policy and the sooner he realizes this, the better off we're going to be. I admire Senator Ted Kennedy for publicly saying what no doubt many of his peers are thinking to themselves:

''The U.S. military presence has become part of the problem, not part of the solution,'' Kennedy said in a speech to Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies. ''We need a new plan that sets fair and realistic goals for self-government in Iraq, and works with the Iraqi government on a specific timetable for the honorable homecoming of our forces.''

Bush likes to talk about our "long-term goals" as if they are justification for the mess he created. The fact is, Bush has never defined anything resembling a concrete goal when it comes to Iraq. Freedom and democracy are dreams, not goals. Moreover, he's never actually addressed the logistics of our plan to achieve whatever the hell it is we're trying to achieve. It was always frustrating for me during the election when people would criticize Kerry for not having a real plan for Iraq. Although that might have been true, it would have been nice for these people to hold the President to the same standard, since he is our Commander and Chief and he's never really said what his plan is. Personally, I've always been a bit concerned about the cut and run option. I've never been sure that it wouldn't make things worse and create a situation that we would have to eventually deal with on a much more dangerous scale. But at this point, I have zero confidence in this Administration's ability to competently deal with the situation, so I'm beginning to rethink whether getting the hell out of there might not be such a bad idea.

Should We Believe the Blogging Hype?

Even though I could use the money (every dollar counts!), I'm not going to work over Jack Shafer for this piece he wrote for Slate on the hype surrounding blogging. Overall, I think it's pretty solid because it recognizes both blogging's potential and limitations. As I've written previously, I don't think it is correct to assume (or wish) that blogs are going to take over the major media anytime soon. At best, blogs are complementary to, and a watchdog on, the traditional media. Hoping for anything more is wishful thinking. I do think, though, that Shafer gives too much credence to those that believe blogs will revolutionize media. He starts off comparing the hype around blogs to that of Guerrilla Television from the 1970s. On the surface the comparison seems relevant, since the premise of guerrilla television was that anybody with a small video camera could produce their own news and (cross your fingers!) one day take over NBC. The comparison fails, however, when you realize that blogging utilizes a prefabricated infrastructure--the Internet--that is cheap, extremely popular, and easy to utilize. This luxury wasn't available for guerrilla producers or pamphleteers, which ultimately stunted its potential growth. For instance, I could post this, and theoretically, it wouldn't be hard for millions of people to read it within 24 hours. But if I wrote this on a piece of paper or videotaped myself reading it, it would take weeks (at best) for the same number of people to consume it. The bottom line is that there is power in speed, and that is what is so significant about blogging, and it is why blogging has already had more influence than previously thought revolutionary media. If I were at the same conference, I might have had a similar reaction, since it sounds like there was a lot of over-hyped optimism about the revolutionary power of blogging. I think this is inescapable whenever you get a bunch of people together that are on the cutting edge of a developing technology. It's that type of optimism that puts these people on the cutting edge in the first place. But when you put them all in the same room, you run the risk of creating an optimistic echo chamber. Blogging is very cool and very promising, to be sure, but it isn't going to replace the mainstream media, at least in the foreseeable future. I've totally digressed from my original point: I think Shafer's account is a good summary of the current blogging landscape. And even though he might have been affected by the triumphant group-think, I think his skepticism about how far blogging will go is warranted. So read it for yourself and tell me what you think. UPDATE (1/30): According to others that were there, it sounds like Shafer created the impression of the over-hyped optimism just to be able to knock it down. Of course, if this is true, bad for Shafer, and bad for my critique of the over-hypers, but in the end, I think his main point still stands.

There's Room For Only One Meddler In These Here Elections!

Bush's War on Irony continues at full force:

BEIRUT, Lebanon — Iran (search) should stay out of Iraq's elections, President Bush said Wednesday on pan-Arab television.

"Iranians should not be trying to unduly influence the elections," Bush said of Sunday's polls in an interview with the Dubai-based satellite channel Al-Arabiya, according to a White House transcript.

He also buried the expectations bar about 10 feet in the Iraqi sand:

"The fact that they're voting in itself is successful," Bush said.

No, it isn't.

Cha-Fucking-Ching

Who needs a tax cut?

The budget deficit is becoming a knottier problem in the short term and will be a potentially catastrophic one in the future, the Congressional Budget Office reported today. The report suggests that President Bush, in the budget he will deliver to Congress in two weeks, will have a harder time keeping his promise to cut the deficit in half during his presidency. The CBO's annual report on the budget outlook foresees a deficit of $400 billion this year. It also forecast a cumulative deficit of $1.3 trillion from 2005 to 2014, an increase of nearly 60% from the CBO's $861-billion estimate of just four months ago.

There is no way in hell Bush is going to cut the deficit in half by 2008, not with tax cuts and total war:

These figures take into account some of the administration's request today for another $80 billion for the war in Iraq, but they do not assume an extension. Nor do they assume the likely extension by Congress of some major tax cuts that were enacted in 2001 and 2003 and are scheduled to expire in 2009 and 2011.

Yeah, I'm sure we won't need any more money for Iraq or Afghanistan.

Obituary

Coalition of the Willing (2003-2005) Also known as the Coalition of the Bribed, The Coalition? of the Willing? Ha! Ha!, The Not Your Daddy's Coalition, and The You Call That A Coalition? Coalition , the Coalition of the Willing was a 45 (or 48 depending on who's counting)-member group of nations first brought together to find WMD, stop torture, and bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. When no WMD was found, the Coalition started advocating torture, and when people started to realize that freedom and democracy really meant an illegitimate election, membership slowly diminished, until the Coalition was no more. The Coalition is survived by The United States, Great Britain, and don't forget Poland (though, not for long). (via the wonderful Cursor)

Expensive Targets

The soon-to-be-built, yet-to-be-bombed US Embassy in Iraq will cost you, the US taxpayer, $1.5 billion. To put this in perspective, the Freedom Tower will also cost $1.5 billion. When finished, they will be the two most expensive targets in the world! It seems like we throw $80 billion down the Iraqi rabbit hole every few months... (via Atrios)

BARBARians in SF

Ok, it's that time again. This Thursday, January 26, 6-9pm at The Uptown at 17th and Capp in SF. Unfortunately, this conflicts with the BARFF (Bay Area Resident's Focus on the Family) Meet Up at The Stud, so attendance might be low. More details here. For the uninitiated, BARBARians stands for Bay Area Resident Bloggers and Readers. So if you somehow fit into that description, and even if you don't (I'm pretty sure the "Resident" part was only added to make the acronym work), feel free to join us.

James Dobson Goes To The Movies For Your Kids So You Don't Have To

Via The American Street, I noticed this handy guide to movies from James Dobson's Focus on Fascism the Family organization. It's particularly helpful if you want to know how many times the word "fuck" was used in Closer ("about 40, with a handful of 'shits'"), the sexual content of Racing Stripes ("There's a bit of magnetism between animals that comes across in subtly sexualized humor meant to go over the heads of youngsters while amusing their parents"), or the spiritual content of Darkness ("The entire plot hinges on ritualistic satanic sacrifice"). I especially enjoyed this hot description of the sexual content in The Incredibles:

Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl revel in their visibly passionate relationship. Quick kisses, longing gazes, lingering touches and wink-wink romanticism hint at some of the best things marriage has to offer. Elastigirl becomes concerned that Mr. Incredible has developed a wandering eye, but she's proved wrong. Elsewhere, Mirage wears an outfit that reveals a bit of cleavage. (All the superhero getups are skintight.)

Some of the best things marriage has to offer?? I need a cold shower! Overall, this is a great resource if you want your kids to grow up being square like their parents.

Onward Christian Warriors!

I have the feeling that if Bush actually read books, he'd probably like this one.

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Movies like "Braveheart" and "Legends of the Fall" are on the viewing list for men in a growing Christian movement that calls for them to throw off their "nice guy" personas and emulate warriors. The book which inspired the movement, John Eldredge's "Wild at Heart," has already sold 1.5 million copies in English and been translated into 16 languages, most recently Korean. Eldredge believes many Christian men have become bored, "really nice guys" and invites them to rediscover passion by viewing their life's mission as having a battle to fight, an adventure to live and a beauty to rescue. [...] Men have been flocking to retreats and forming small groups to study it. Some are organized by Eldredge and his team, but many are just informally arranged by readers of the book. These groups have sprung up as far away Kazakhstan and even among tribes along the Amazon River in South America.

And guess where Eldredge used to work:

Eldredge, who is a trained counselor and worked for 13 years for Christian organization Focus on the Family, said we are currently living in a "fatherless age" with many men having abandoned their children if not physically then emotionally. His own father was an alcoholic who after some good years when Eldredge was young became increasingly distant. Chase had lost his father, who he described as "very cold," just a few months before he attended the retreat. " A lot of what it brings out is how much you are impacted by your own father. What role model he set for you and how God relates to us as the big father," Chase said. Eldredge said he used characters such as Mel Gibson's warrior Wallace in "Braveheart" because the characters often embody men who are engaging their passions by fighting noble battles, rescuing women and finding adventure.

This explains so goddamn much. What is it with these people and their fathers? Their entire interpretation of Christianity boils down to dealing with their repressed aggression towards a father figure. Nevermind the fact that had Jesus actually read Eldredge's book, we would never had Christianity in the first place. And where would we be then?!? Incidentally, in case you were wondering, women can be good Christian Warriors, too.

News From Iraq

The Good News:

Iraqi security forces have arrested the "most lethal" top lieutenant of al-Qaida's leader in Iraq -- a man allegedly behind 75 percent of the car bombings in Baghdad since the U.S.-led invasion, the prime minister's office said Monday. Sami Mohammed Ali Said al-Jaaf, also known as Abu Omar al-Kurdi, was arrested during a Jan. 15 raid in Baghdad, a government statement said Monday. Two other militants linked to Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's terror group also have been arrested, authorities announced Monday. Al-Jaaf was "the most lethal of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's lieutenants," the statement said.

Of course this is great progress, but it still seems like we've had car bombs in or near Baghdad at least once a day since January 15. The Bad News:

The protest in Baghdad and others in towns across southern Iraq, including Kut, Amarah and Karbala, marked the latest campaign by Sadr's group, a grass-roots movement led by Shiite clergy that claims to speak on behalf of the Shiite downtrodden. Through protests, sermons and declarations by the reclusive Sadr, the movement is signaling its doubts about the Iraqi election, ending months of ambiguity over whether Sadr had surrendered his arms for a place in the political process. [...] Sadr's men have stopped short of calling for a boycott but insist they are not supporting the election. In coded language, they have ridiculed Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the country's most influential religious leader, whose perceived backing of the top Shiite coalition has made it the favorite in the vote. Loath to provoke the U.S. military, which killed hundreds of its followers in last year's fighting, the Sadr movement has relegated its militia to a lower profile while keeping up its strident rhetoric.

I don't know how much influence Sadr has within the greater Shiite community, but I do know he can get people's attention. If a solid percentage of Shiites join Sunnis in boycotting the election, then the election will really be futile.

The Next Episode In The Long Series of Legitimate Iraqi Elections

Even though both the Americans and the Iraqis are admitting that the upcoming Iraqi elections will be "less than perfect," I've heard a lot of talk about the symbolic importance these elections will provide the people of Iraq. The argument is basically this: Even though half the country has promised not to vote, and we can't provide full security at the polling places, and even though Iraqi expatriots aren't planning to vote, it doesn't really matter because it's still an election. It's still better than what they had before. Oh really? You might recall the last Iraqi election before the war to bring "real" elections to Iraq:

Wednesday, 16 October, 2002, 11:41 GMT 12:41 UK Saddam 'wins 100% of vote' Iraqi officials say President Saddam Hussein has won 100% backing in a referendum on whether he should rule for another seven years. There were 11,445,638 eligible voters - and every one of them voted for the president, according to Izzat Ibrahim, Vice-Chairman of Iraq's Revolutionary Command Council. [...] Before the vote, Washington dismissed the referendum as a farce after the last such vote gave the Iraqi leader 99.96% support. "Obviously it's not a very serious day, not a very serious vote and nobody places any credibility on it," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said on Tuesday. In London, the Foreign Office painted a stark picture of the "choice" facing the Iraqi voters: "You can't have free elections when the electorate goes to the polls in the knowledge that they have only one candidate, that candidate routinely murders and tortures opponents of the regime and the penalty for slandering that sole candidate is to have one's tongue cut out."

But apparently you can have free elections when the second largest religious minority decideds to boycott the election. This is why I don't buy the argument that we should keep to the election schedule just because it's an election. Elections, almost by definition, have to be considered legitimate (offer not valid in Florida or Ohio). It's really quite simple: If everyone knows it won't be legitimate before it even happens, then don't have it until people think it'll be legitimate. This time around, we're going to be like Saddam Hussein insisting that the will of the people has spoken and that (of course!) the results are accurate. Meanwhile, the rest of the world will be echoing the words of Ari Fleishcher: "Obviously it's not a very serious day, not a very serious vote and nobody places any credibility on it." Does anybody want to bet that there will be more than 11 million voters this time around?

Sie konnen nicht dort gehen

At least somebody is trying to hold Rumsfeld accountable for his actions:

MUNICH - United States Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has cancelled a planned visit to Munich. Rumsfeld has informed the German government via the US embassy he will not take part at the Munich Security Conference in February, conference head Horst Teltschik said. The New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights filed a complaint in December with the Federal German Prosecutor's Office against Rumsfeld accusing him of war crimes and torture in connection with detainee abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. Rumsfeld had made it known immediately after the complaint was filed that he would not attend the Munich conference unless Germany quashed the legal action. [...] The organisation alleges violations of German legislation which outlaws war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide independent of the place of crime or origin of the accused. [...] The Center for Constitutional Rights said it and four Iraqis tortured in US custody had filed a complaint with German authorities against Rumsfeld, former CIA director George Tenet and eight other senior military and civilian officials over abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq.

This is good stuff. The same thing happened, although unsuccessfully, to Kissinger. I think Steve Soto said it best, "You know we have sunk a long way when we have to get lessons on war crimes, international law, and accountability from the Germans."

Tilting at Windmills

It's interesting to read all the post-speech commentaries glow about the ambitious, idealistic, and historic agenda put forth by the President. For 24 hours, at least, it seemed that "the expansion of freedom in all the world" was easy and without consequence. In fact, without any mention of Iraq and Afghanistan, one could almost forget that half a world a way, the very ideals and ambition adored by 51% of the country, have failed miserably for over a year, with no end in sight. This speech wasn't ambitious, it was audacious. It wasn't idealistic, it was out of touch. And it was far more Quixotic than Wilsonian. How much worse do things need to get in Iraq for people (and much of the fawning press) to start recognizing the disconnect between this:

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

And this:

BAGHDAD, Jan. 21 -- A car bomb exploded outside a Shiite Muslim mosque killing 15 people and wounding 40 in Baghdad on Friday as worshipers celebrated one of the year's most important Muslim holidays. Police cordoned off the Taf Mosque in southwest Baghdad so it was not possible to observe the scene, but survivors taken to Yarmouk Hospital described a white car plowing into the mosque and detonating.

The only reason this disconnect is allowed to exist is because we've become numb to the death and destruction in Iraq. Reports of the daily car bombs are read like sports scores on the news, often quickly and out of context. Flag-draped coffins and the wounded are censored from our view, lest we start to realize that exporting freedom has real consequences. As a country, we've hardly been asked to sacrifice (unless you're in the military), and have actually been "rewarded" economically with tax cuts. But listening to the President, you'd think the negative effects of our actions were just a bad dream cooked up by his opponents. Some have accused Bush's rhetoric as being too idealistic. I don't think that was a mistake. This Administration has always tried to mask its failures and scams in the rhetoric of idealism and crisis. Yesterday was no different. To obscure how massively he's failed at implementing these ideas, Bush had no choice but to overcompensate and act as though he was our Messianic Savior who re-invented sliced bread. It's actually a good indication of how we're doing: the more rosy a picture Bush paints, the worse off we are.

Four More Years

So it's official: Bush is sworn in for a second term. I had a chance to listen to a little of his speech, and from what I heard, any hope that version 2.0 is going to be more moderate and less Bush-like is wishful thinking. Much of the speech was like what we've come to expect from Bush over the last four years. He spoke as though there were no opposition or wariness to the actions of the past, and issued veiled threats of similar actions in the future. Even though he didn't explicitly mention Iraq or Afghanistan, you can be sure that he was talking about them, and probably also Iran and Syria, when he says things like:

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. [...] My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve, and have found it firm.

And he made it pretty clear just who needs our help the most:

From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America, which you have granted in good measure. Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well – a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean white people. I still think there is reason to be somewhat optimistic about the future, though. We already know that Bush won't change, but what will change is the dynamics of the people that support him. During the election, Bush painted himself into the corner with the Religious Right, and if he doesn't deliver, their support will switch to the Roy Moore's of the world. Personally, I don't think Bush has the guts to follow through, and early indications back that up. The other thing to keep in mind is that as things in Iraq deteriorate and the public's dissatisfaction for the war continues to grow, we're going to start seeing Republicans positioning themselves away from the President (not only on Iraq, but also Social Security) in order to win re-election or run for the Republican nomination. We've already seen a little bit of this with people like Gingrich and Whitman. At the least, this will slow down and complicate Bush's agenda, and maybe even prevent us from bringing democracy to another "dark corner" of the world. Overall, I have my fingers crossed that Republican hubris over the next four years will render them unelectable in 2008.

Blogging and Journalism

Jay Rosen at PressThink was kind enough to post a draft of the essay he plans to deliver at the Blogging, Journalism, and Credibility Conference next weekend at Harvard University. The essay, entitled "Bloggers vs. Journalists Is Now Over", is very good and insightful. Here are some of the parts I found most interesting:

The question now isn't whether blogs can be journalism. They can be, sometimes. It isn't whether bloggers "are" journalists. They apparently are, sometimes. We have to ask different questions now because events have moved the story forward. By "events" I mean things on the surface we can see, like the tsunami story, and things underneath that we have yet to discern. That's why we're conferencing: to find the deeper pattern, of which blogging and journalism are a part. So that is what I give you: my best attempt at scratching out a pattern. [...] When 90 percent of the op-ed style writing was done on actual op-ed pages, editorial page editors had sovereignty over that region of public dialogue. With blogging and the online space generally, that rule is gone. Opinion in reaction to the news can come from anywhere, and the bloggers are frequently better at it than the sleepy op-ed page ever was. Newspaper op-ed pages can still have influence; they can still be great. But they are not sovereign in their domain, and so their ideas, which never anticipated that, are under great pressure. [...] Instead of wrestling with blogging's actual potential in journalism, we have tended to fight about bloggers' credentials as journalists. This is a matter of far less importance, although I would never say "credentials don't matter." Even fights about credentials matter, sometimes. But that is a poor way to go about discovering what blogging means for journalists and the future of the public service franchise. Today there is every reason in the world for journalists to finally get religion about blogging while bloggers get their thing with journalism straight.

I've been thinking a lot about this topic lately, and have admittedly found it difficult to get a full grasp of the issue, not only because of its complexity, but also because of how quickly the gist of the debate changes. As Rosen notes, the "bloggers vs. journalists" debate changed monumentally the moment the tsunami hit, and it's hard to know how it will change and evolve during the next major crisis. For bloggers, the tsunami (and, at least ostensibly, Rathergate--although I think this is more of an example of the dangerous mob mentality that exits potentially in the blogosphere) bolstered their credibility among journalists and the public. The medium is evolving so quickly, though, that something could happen tomorrow that destroys all this earned cred. As a result, it's difficult to have a definitive understanding of What It All Means. Keep that in mind as you read some of my thoughts on the topic. I've never quite understood all the fuss about blogging and credibility. Originally, credibility became an issue when the Internet was just beginning to become a major source of public information. It was easy for people to dismiss anything that was published on the Internet for no other reason than the fact that it originated online. In a sense, the Internet was seen as the world's shitty high school newspaper--fun to read over lunch, but something you shouldn't take too seriously. This, of course, has changed in large part due to the blogosphere, but it hasn't changed because blogs are replacing journalists. It's happening because blogs are a great source for niche information (i.e. liberal politics, foreign affairs, etc), they're fun to read, and they're interactive--often the reader can participate in the discussion in ways they can't with other media. The popularity, and by extension the credibility, of blogs has been driven purely by the large numbers of people that read them (e.g., Kos gets 260k/day, Instapundit gets 150k/day). If that many people are taking the time to read blogs, there must be something there. It might not be journalism per se, but it is something close. At the least, it is something complementary, and not threatening. The thing I find most interesting about the debate on the credibility of bloggers is that it hasn't originated with the public. Instead, it largely has derived from the Journalism Establishment, who for reasons that are sometimes valid and other times petty, feel threatened by the blogging phenomenon. This insecurity comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what blogs are about. It arises out of a misguided generalization that bloggers are, as some critics suggest, anonymous, irresponsible, and unaccountable for what they write. They create an image of the blogosphere that is akin to a Wild West type anarchy. To generalize like this is to ignore a lot of very good bloggers (who also happen to be journalists), and to ignore the reasons why these people blog. The truth is that many political and media bloggers write to supplement what the media has already written. They may take a decidedly biased tone where journalists have (traditionally) remained objective. But this is accepted by the public because it's what people apparently want. As someone notes in Rosen's essay, objectivity is dead. People want to read the news through the lens of their political bias. It's why Fox News is so popular and it's why blogs are taking off. Of course, blogs also serve as a watchdog on the media, which in my opinion, is a good thing and something journalists should embrace. An apt comparison to this is John Stewart's appearance on Crossfire. Tucker Carlson and the Crossfire gang were critical of Stewart because they didn't think Stewart was upholding certain journalistic standards in his role as anchor of The Daily Show. The criticism was ridiculous, not only because The Daily Show is satire, but because Crossfire and much of the rest of the media are equally guilty (and more culpable) of the very same things they accused of Stewart. And this is pretty much where a lot of the debate on bloggers vs. journalism has focused--blogs aren't respected because they're not playing by the same rules as everyone else. The reality of the situation is that blogs refocus the public's attention on things that Journalism either doesn't bother with or sufficiently investigate. It's interesting that Journalism has been so concerned about holding bloggers accountable, but doesn't seem to be equally concerned with holding the President or his Secretary of Defense to the same level of accountability. That is why blogs are flourishing and journalism is in an existential crisis. Blogs are just a lot better at shining a light on things than most media outfits because, I think, they have more freedom to examine things without the journalistic red tape that sometimes limits traditional journalism. It is true that this sort of lawlessness among blogs can be abused, but the pure number of blogs combined with the intelligence and skill of many of the top bloggers serves as a vital check on this lawlessness. In this way, I think the freedom enjoyed by blogs is beneficial to everyone, including journalism. These are just some random thoughts that I've been thinking about lately, so for a more coherent and detailed account of this issue, you'd be well served to check out the awesome Press Think.

Rice has a history of succeeding at failure

Noticeably absent from the discussions surrounding Rice's merits for the Secretary of State position is the fact that in October 2003, she was charged with managing the post-war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We want to cut through the red tape and make sure that we're getting the assistance there quickly so that they can carry out their priorities," Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said. "It's a new phase, a different phase we're entering." Rice will head the Iraq Stabilization Group, which will have coordinating committees on counterterrorism, economic development, political affairs and media messages. Each committee will be headed by a Rice deputy and include representatives of the State, Defense and Treasury departments and the CIA. [...] The new structure will give Bush's top White House aides a stronger voice in decisions and will make the president more directly accountable [ed. HA! Good one!]. Because of their close relationship, many people will assume Bush signed off on Rice's decisions.

So, 15 months ago, after expressing dissatisfaction with the progress in Iraq, Bush appoints Rice to oversee, among other things, counterterrorism and political affairs in Iraq so that he can have more control over, and be more accountable for, events there. Mission Accomplished, indeed! (Note to Democrats: This would have been a nice thing to mention during the election.) With this in mind, her statements on Iraq at today's confirmation hearing are not encouraging:

WASHINGTON — The U.S. is committed to improving "Iraq's capability to defend itself" and that improvement is directly tied to the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the region, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told a Senate panel Tuesday as hearings opened into her nomination as secretary of State. [...] "The Iraqis will take more and more responsibility for fighting the terrorists, for rooting out the Baathists, and we will help them get there," Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. She said the Bush administration was well-aware that the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq was tied to the successful training of an Iraqi security force. "The goal is to get the mission accomplished," she said. "We're right now focused on security for the election." Iraq is scheduled to hold its first democratic election Jan. 30.

I'm not sure there is anything Rice accomplished as head of the Iraqi Stabilization Group that makes me feel any better about our prospects in Iraq--especially now that she is Secretary of State. Arguably, things have gotten far worse since Rice took over post-war Iraq in October 2003, and we should all be wondering why we should expect to get different results with her as Secretary of State than as head of the Iraqi Stability Group.

Break

I'm taking a break from the blog. Maybe a week or more. Probably not less. See you then!

Vote and Die!

Has there ever been a serious explanation for why we need to maintain the January 30th Iraqi election timeline? We're now saying that the elections are going to be "less than perfect," a gross understatement suggesting the only thing we have to worry about is voting irregularities on the scale of those that are common in all elections. In reality, "less than perfect" actually means that there is going to be widespread violence, large percentages of the population boycotting the vote, and a sense that the election is nothing but a prelude to civil war. Any one of these things should be enough to seriously consider the merits of postponing the election for a few months, but when all three are highly probable, our obstinence borders on negligence. The actions we've taken, combined with a lack of planning, have created a dangerously unstable environment that is ripe for chaos, perhaps sparked by a botched election. The right thing to do is hold off on elections until we can guarantee greater participation from the Sunnis and provide greater security at the polls. Honestly, though, I've always felt that these elections were more for us than them, and the Bush Administration's actions back this up. If we really cared about fostering democracy in Iraq, we'd never seriously consider rushing into these elections. Instead, the elections on January 30th will be held up as progress and vindicate the President's motivations and rhetoric that lead us into this mess in the first place. In effect, we'll define victory down to the lowest denominator and use it as an excuse to start scaling back our presence, leaving in our wake the Iraqi Civil War of 2005, which ironically will ultimately decide who controls Iraq.

Macworld SF 2005

If you're an Apple enthusiast (and why wouldn't you be?), you've probably heard about Macworld SF 2005. On Tuesday, Steve Jobs kicked it all off with the introduction of iWork, Mac mini, and the iPod Shuffle. All of them look very cool, but I'm especially drawn to the Mac mini. I used to have the G4 Cube and loved it. This looks about a quarter of the size and comes with all the best features for $500. The iPod Shuffle looks great in theory, but I'm skeptical on how popular it will become. In my opinion, the best part about it is its size and portability, but I'm not sure why it's necessary to have the music constantly shuffling. Personally, I could probably live with that, especially for use while working out. But I have my doubts about whether it can achieve popularity on the same level as the iPod mini. And while we're on the subject of Apple products, you should definitely check out NewsFire--an awesome and stylish RSS reader for OS X. If you haven't jumped on the RSS bandwagon, this is a nice program to get you started. Basically, since I've started using an RSS reader, I've been able to check hundreds of blogs and newspapers in half the time it would normally take me with my bookmarks. Of course, another nice RSS utility is LiveMessage Alerts (full disclosure: i'm employed by them). If you have an MSN account and use MSN Messenger you can sign up for my Alerts (on the left) and choose how you'd like to be alerted whenever I update my site (either by email, MSN Messenger, or text message). It's a great way to keep up with your favorite blogs, sports scores, and breaking news. You can give them a try here, and place them on your site here. At the very least, take a closer look at RSS. I'm certain you'll see what all the fuss is about.

We're All Going To Die

Try not to think about this while riding BART under the Bay:

Tokyo, San Francisco and Los Angeles lead a world list of urban areas that could suffer catastrophic losses in lives and property from earthquakes, flooding, tsunamis or terrorism, the world's largest reinsurance company said in a report Tuesday. [...] With a risk index of 710, Tokyo and its 35 million inhabitants were far ahead of No. 2, the San Francisco Bay area, which rated 167, mainly due to Tokyo's high risk of multiple disasters, its huge population and roughly 40 percent share of the country's economy.

As the SFist notes, maybe this will be the thing to bring down housing costs. It might thin out our traffic problem, too.

Psych!

Salvadoran-style death squads in Iraq? Pshaw!

PENTAGON "Somebody has been reading too many spy novels." That reaction came today from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to reports, published on Newsweek's Web site, that suggest military planners are mulling a so-called "Salvador option" for use against Iraqi insurgents. [...] Rumsfeld says "the Pentagon doesn't do things like that." He also says the type of training that Iraqi soldiers are receiving "doesn't involve the kinds of things that are characterized in that story."

If Rumsfeld says it, it must be true.

Scum

But don't millions of Americans laugh everyday?

"Inmate Says Graner Laughed During Abuse" FORT HOOD, Texas - A Syrian inmate at Abu Ghraib said Army Spc. Charles Graner Jr. was the Baghdad prison's primary torturer who laughed while physically abusing him and threatened to kill him more than once. Amin al-Sheikh, testifying via videotaped deposition shown in court Tuesday, said Graner also made him eat pork and drink alcohol, in violation of his Muslim faith, and that he listened through his cell wall while Graner and other Americans forced a Yemeni prisoner eat from a toilet.

I can't help but think that had Graner never been caught on film, he'd be on an accelerated path towards promotion. I don't know why I would think that...

Oops

This is funny. "Hardcore Porn Takes Over Political Site":

LONDON (Reuters) - A Conservative party association in the small Welsh town of Delyn is trying to buy back its Web site domain name after it was taken over by pornographers. The site once promoted the activities of the local Conservative association, offering news about area councilors and useful contact numbers. Now users are confronted with offers to buy hardcore movies featuring group, lesbian and anal sex, as well a raft of explicit images of naked women.

This is my favorite part, though:

A spokesman for Welsh Conservatives -- who stressed he had not seen the offending site -- said the problem arose when the Delyn conservatives took on a new Internet address but forgot to renew their ownership of the old name, which was subsequently snapped up by a pornographer. "It was brought to our attention by a student from Oxford University who was logging onto the site to do some research," he added.

A twofer! The classic "It wasn't me looking at porn" defense, paired with the "Just doing my anatomy homework!" excuse. Yeah, we believe you.

The Bush Principle

Via War and Piece: The Bush Administration is bringing new meaning to the term "fucking up":

WASHINGTON -- The man who insisted that President Bush make the claim that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium for nuclear weapons in Africa is poised to assume a top State Department job that would make him the lead US arms negotiator with Iran and North Korea, according to administration officials. Robert G. Joseph, a special assistant for national security to President Bush until a few months ago, is on the short list to become undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, the nation's senior diplomat in charge of negotiating arms control treaties, said the officials, who spoke on the condition they not be named. Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice, who was Joseph's boss at the National Security Council, has been a strong supporter of Joseph, the officials said. Joseph did not respond to messages yesterday. [...] "He should have been fired or reprimanded," said Joseph Cirincione, a senior arms-proliferation specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. "We see instead that he could be given the key position in the Department of State for all treaty and nonproliferation matters."

It almost seems like there's a direct correlation between the magnitude of the mistakes made and the level of promotion received. But what do I know? I don't have an MBA and Bush is the CEO President. The thing we all have to keep in mind is that this only seems outrageous to us because we're outside the Administration. From Bush's standpoint, the inclusion of the Iraq-Uranium-Africa connection was gold--it was successfully used over and over again in the run-up to the war, and people ate it up. It didn't matter that the intelligence was wrong, because they never cared about the intelligence in the first place. They only cared about one thing: getting their goddamn stupid war on. Bush's job performance standards are defined in terms of how successfully an individual used whatever it took as a means to an end. If an individual accomplished this, despite whatever scruples he or she may have had, their loyalty to Bush was proven, which in turn guaranteed they'd stick around and, in many cases, be promoted. This is what happens when you have a President that prides loyalty over competence. This, too.

Abu Ghraib = Cheerleader Camp

Someone should punch this guy in the face.

FORT HOOD, Texas (Reuters) - A lawyer for Charles Graner, accused ringleader in the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal, on Monday compared piling naked prisoners into pyramids to cheerleader shows and said leashing inmates was also acceptable prisoner control. "Don't cheerleaders all over America form pyramids six to eight times a year. Is that torture?" Guy Womack, Graner's attorney, said in opening arguments to the 10-member U.S. military jury at the reservist sergeant's court-martial. [...] Womack said using a tether was a valid method of controlling detainees, especially those who might be soiled with feces. "You're keeping control of them. A tether is a valid control to be used in corrections," he said. "In Texas we'd lasso them and drag them out of there." He compared the leash to parents who place tethers on their toddlers while walking in shopping malls.

Some pro bono advice for Charles Graner: Find a new lawyer. Who is Guy Womack? Only the USA's preeminent expert in Strange But True Law!! Apparently it is strange but true that if you pile a bunch of naked people in a pyramid, take pictures, and laugh at them, you might be charged with torture.

Big Dick is Watching You

"Get some devastation in the back." --Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R), quoted by the AP, to a staff photographer taking a picture of him before leaving tsunami-stricken southern Sri Lanka. The devastation:

We're Losing

Newsweek is reporting that the Pentagon is seriously considering a proposal that would bring Salvadoran-style death squads to Iraq as a means of going on the offensive against the insurgency:

Jan. 8 - What to do about the deepening quagmire of Iraq? The Pentagon’s latest approach is being called "the Salvador option"—and the fact that it is being discussed at all is a measure of just how worried Donald Rumsfeld really is. "What everyone agrees is that we can’t just go on as we are," one senior military officer told NEWSWEEK. "We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defense. And we are losing." Last November’s operation in Fallujah, most analysts agree, succeeded less in breaking "the back" of the insurgency—as Marine Gen. John Sattler optimistically declared at the time—than in spreading it out. Now, NEWSWEEK has learned, the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration’s battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success—despite the deaths of innocent civilians and the subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal. (Among the current administration officials who dealt with Central America back then is John Negroponte, who is today the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Under Reagan, he was ambassador to Honduras.)

Chalk this up as another brilliant proposal from the "Do As I Say, Not As I Do": Bringing Democracy and Freedom to the Middle East policy currently in vogue with this Administration. It's pretty fucking ironic that an Administration that claims the Iraqi insurgency is acting out of desperation would even consider such a disgustingly vile and desperate proposal. The writing is on the wall: We're losing. Big time. It is only a matter of time before those words start publicly leaving the lips of people in Washington and Baghdad. And when they do, it won't just be from people like you and I. It will be from conservatives like Newt Gingrich and in publications like The Weekly Standard. Even though I've never agreed with the stated purpose of this war, I understand the vital importance of seeing it through the right way. The danger of leaving Iraq much worse than we found it is far greater than the "danger" that led us into war in the first place. A different Administration might look at the current situation and decide it needs to take a step back and reconsider the direction we're heading. Not this Administration. When the going gets tough, they seem to always make it worse. The Poorman said it best:

And, before you ask: no, I have no clue about how we can improve things in Iraq. I don’t have a single idea for how we can un-shit the bed, and I don’t hold out much hope that this whole bed-shitting episode is ever going to be brought to a lemony-fresh conclusion. I do, however, know who shit the bed, and have some sense of how frequently he shits there. Let’s stop shitting for a start.

I don't think death squads constitute a "stop shitting."

An Opening for Democrats

One positive thing that might result from Bush's re-election is that Republican candidates and officeholders across the country will be irrevocably tied to his policy failures. Bush is lucky to have been up for re-election in 2004 instead of 2005 or 2006 because if it wasn't painfully clear how bad things were in 2004, it probably will be by 2006. On issues like Iraq and the economy, there is already evidence of top Republicans positioning themselves away from the President. This is particularly unusual so soon after the President won re-election and a "mandate." Two recent examples of this are Newt Gingrich and Christie Todd Whitman, both of whom have written books critical of the President, and both of whom, it seems, have Presidential ambitions. I suspect we'll see more and more of this in the next few years, especially if things continue to get worse. Things will get really interesting if someone like Bill Frist has to decide whether his continuing adherence to the Administration's every word jeopardizes his ability to win a Presidential primary. Of course, this is great news for Democrats, unless it turns out that non-Bush Republicans can do a better job of a) distancing themselves from Bush, and b) articulating a viable alternative. I don't want to get too confident that this won't happen until I see what shape the new Democratic leadership takes in the next few weeks. The election for the DNC chairperson is just around the corner, and the result will have serious implications for the Democrats' ability to shape a message and a platform over the next two to four years. If Democrats can successfully package distinct policies with a focused message, it shouldn't matter what the Republicans are saying. At the moment this is still a big if, but it is enough to be optimistic about our future prospects.

But Can They Drink?!

Looks like we've got some competition.

Double Standard

"Soldier In Iraq Prison Scandal Goes To Trial", Reuters, 7 January 2005:

FORT HOOD, Texas (Reuters) - U.S. Army Spc. Charles Graner, the accused ringleader of the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal that outraged the world, went on trial on Friday ready to offer a defense he was just following orders. [...] The Bush administration and military leaders have blamed the abuses on a small group of soldiers and said there was no policy of mishandling prisoners.

"Specter Expects Gonzales Confirmation", Associated Press, 7 January 2005:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Friday he feels certain that Alberto Gonzales will be confirmed as attorney general despite concerns about his role in a Bush administration legal doctrine that critics said undermined prisoner-of-war protections and a law against torture.

So the guy that oversaw the legal opening to allow torture gets confirmed as AG the very same day the guy who carried out this legal opening goes to trial. Wonderful. The reemergence of the torture debate has really brought out an ugly side of our culture. I was listening to Imus talk to Ann Coulter (don't ask me why) today and they were both saying that they didn't see anything wrong with what Gonzales did. Imus even went so far as to say something like, "we should be able to slap around a few Muslims to get them to talk [sic]." What the fuck is going on here?

Chatter Chatter

This must be a coincidence:

U.S. intelligence monitors are picking up less terror threat talk than a year ago, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Thursday. A variety of factors could be contributing to the lull, Ridge said, and he warned that terrorists "are strategic actors and long-range planners" who could be merely lying low before striking again. "There certainly is a diminution, reduction in the amount of intelligence, and the decibel level is lower," Ridge told reporters, comparing information picked up over the past several months to the similar period a year ago. Ridge offered no single explanation for the drop, saying it could be stepped-up U.S. efforts to boost security, increase military action, disrupt terrorist leaders and their finances or, simply, the "hardening of America."

Or it could be that the election is over.

Happy Torture Day!

Barring any sudden growth of balls in certain Senators and Congress men and women, Alberto Gonzales begins his path towards Attorney General today. I just wanted to take a moment to congratulate my country for honoring such a stand-up guy. As Mark Danner writes in today's New York Times, we've got a lot to be proud of:

When Alberto Gonzales takes his seat before the Senate Judiciary Committee today for hearings to confirm whether he will become attorney general of the United States, Americans will bid farewell to that comforting story line. The senators are likely to give full legitimacy to a path that the Bush administration set the country on more than three years ago, a path that has transformed the United States from a country that condemned torture and forbade its use to one that practices torture routinely. Through a process of redefinition largely overseen by Mr. Gonzales himself, a practice that was once a clear and abhorrent violation of the law has become in effect the law of the land. [...] By using torture, we Americans transform ourselves into the very caricature our enemies have sought to make of us. True, that miserable man who pulled out his hair as he lay on the floor at Guantánamo may eventually tell his interrogators what he knows, or what they want to hear. But for America, torture is self-defeating; for a strong country it is in the end a strategy of weakness. After Mr. Gonzales is confirmed, the road back - to justice, order and propriety - will be very long. Torture will belong to us all.

I suppose people might say I'm overreacting, and maybe I am. After all, Gonzales says he's done with his days of torture, making it seem as though it was all just an innocent frat prank. Even if I accept this at face value (which I don't), it still doesn't matter because the damage has been done. Remember that this wasn't irreparable damage, as we could have at the least held some people accountable for these actions. Instead, just about everyone but the lowest people involved have remained employed, or worse, promoted. Maybe the message this sends is lost on most of this country, but it definitely isn't lost on the rest of the world--especially the part of the world we're trying to give "freedom and democracy." We really screwed the pooch with this entire torture debacle, and today, god willing, we're going to make it cool to screw the pooch.

Ann Coulter Nude

Ann Coulter in ways you've only seen her in your dreams.

Another Day

Goddamn. Another day, another bombing. It's becoming mundane. This is especially disheartening:

The number of Iraqi policemen killed in the last four months of 2004 was at least 1,300, according to Iraqi Interior Ministry figures released Wednesday.

When the security forces we are waiting to replace us are being killed at a faster rate than our forces, it isn't a good sign. And I thought the US Army had a difficult sales pitch for new recruits. Imagine trying to recruit Iraqi policmen... update: Not like the President cares things are getting worse in Iraq.

5000?

Something that seems to be lost in all the tsunami coverage is the fact that it looks like thousands of Americans have lost their lives:

AS MANY as 5000 Americans are still unaccounted for a week after the world's deadliest tsunami pounded a dozen countries across the Indian Ocean, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said today.Mr Powell told reporters aboard his plane en route to Bangkok that the confirmed toll of Americans still stood at 15 with a defence department worker listed as missing. "The number of private citizens or citizens unaccounted for still lingers around 4-5000," he said, adding the figure was based on phone calls from relatives or friends inquiring about their whereabouts.

As Far East notes, if 5000 people are still missing, most of them are probably not coming back. And a few days ago, Digby also expressed some amazement that we haven't heard much about the seemingly high American death toll. Has there been much attention paid to this? I haven't been watching or following the television coverage of the tsunami, so I wouldn't necessarily know. I would think, though, that (about) 5,000 dead Americans would at least merit more attention from the press, if not from the Administration.

Pimp of the Nation

PusBoy notes the classy line-up scheduled for the Kick Ass Inauguration later this month. Joining Gloria Estefan (which Bush is getting inaugurated?), John Michael Montgomery (who?), and Kelsey Grammer (representing the sacredness of the institution of remarriage), will be the "teenage singer Jo Jo joined by Kid Rock." Yes, the same Kid Rock who, in his passionate ballad Pimp of the Nation, eloquently sang,

While you be left pimpin Barbra Bush What's up granny First name Annie Dried up cunt and a saggin fanny The highlight of your sex adventures You wanna suck this take out your denchers A show of life is all I'm givin Old pimp young hoes is how I'm livin But for now rap's the occupation But watch one day I'll be Pimp Of The Nation

And also the same Kid Rock who has been known to dress in the American flag:



All this can be yours for only $150 or more.

You Know His Work

Check out this great ad campaign: (Via AMERICAblog)


You might also find this encouraging:

A dozen high-ranking retired military officers took the unusual step yesterday of signing a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee expressing "deep concern" over the nomination of White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales as attorney general, marking a rare military foray into the debate over a civilian post. The group includes retired Army Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The officers are one of several groups to separately urge the Senate to sharply question Gonzales during a confirmation hearing Thursday about his role in shaping legal policies on torture and interrogation methods.

It's good to see people finally raising some hell about Gonzalez's role in the sanctioning of torture. However, I'm afraid it might be a little too late. It would have been nice to see these things out in the open the day after he was nominated, but I guess we have to take what we can get. Gonzalez should just be thankful that he isn't from Ethiopia.

Quick Math

Today's math lesson is brought to you by the country of Iraq: Where the Road To Democracy is Paved With Bombs and Bodies: 200,000 insurgents > 150,000 US Soldiers 1 assassinated Baghdad governor + 1 attack on Allawi's HQ = 2nd thoughts There are 26 days until the Iraqi elections and it is becoming quite clear that a) we don't have enough troops to provide the security required to pull off this election and, b) we are quickly losing the numbers game of us vs. them. The fact of the matter is that both of these things have been quite clear for a long time and we've done little to stop them. As a result, any intentions of bringing real democracy to the Middle East are now a pipe dream bomb, and in it's place is a smoke and mirrors campaign (surprise!), aimed directly at the American public, charged with creating the impression that democracy is both easy and messy, and that things are really going swell, no matter what those pessimistic liberals might say. TalkLeft notes that both the interim President of Iraq and the Defense Minister are questioning the rationality of holding elections at the end of the month. At what point will the puppet masters agree? At what point will we witness the Flip Flop to end all Flip Flops?

Social Security

The fact that the privatization of Social Security seems to be the Bush Administration's pet project for 2005 is a bit of a mixed blessing for me. On the one hand, I barely have a grasp on the basics of the issue, so recent discussions of SS have been over my head (thus the lack of posts on the subject). On the other hand, it forces me to learn more about a topic that will be very important, not only this year, but also in the future. So all in all, I guess I should be thankful that Bush is trying to destroy Social Security. I think those who have compared the Administration's marketing of the war and tax cuts to their Social Security project are correct. Bush's M.O. has always been to confuse an issue with smoke and mirrors so that people really don't understand why something is necessary or how it will affect them. Often this is done by obsessively accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative (Don't mess with Mister In-Between!!). Thankfully, there are people I trust like Paul Krugman who can sort through the fact from fiction on the issue of Social Security:

Here's the truth: by law, Social Security has a budget independent of the rest of the U.S. government. That budget is currently running a surplus, thanks to an increase in the payroll tax two decades ago. As a result, Social Security has a large and growing trust fund. When benefit payments start to exceed payroll tax revenues, Social Security will be able to draw on that trust fund. And the trust fund will last for a long time: until 2042, says the Social Security Administration; until 2052, says the Congressional Budget Office; quite possibly forever, say many economists, who point out that these projections assume that the economy will grow much more slowly in the future than it has in the past. So where's the imminent crisis? Privatizers say the trust fund doesn't count because it's invested in U.S. government bonds, which are "meaningless i.o.u.'s." Readers who want a long-form debunking of this sophistry can read my recent article in the online journal The Economists' Voice (www.bepress.com/ev). [...] In fact, the Bush administration's scaremongering over Social Security is in large part an effort to distract the public from the real fiscal danger.[...]As a budget concern, Social Security isn't remotely in the same league. The long-term cost of the Bush tax cuts is five times the budget office's estimate of Social Security's deficit over the next 75 years. The botched prescription drug bill passed in 2003 does more, all by itself, to increase the long-run budget deficit than the projected rise in Social Security expenses. That doesn't mean nothing should be done to improve Social Security's finances. But privatization is a fake solution to a fake crisis. In future articles on this subject I'll explain why, and also outline a real plan to strengthen Social Security.

The problem is that SS probably does need some reform, but the Bush Administration's notion of reform is far too extreme for what the reality of the problem requires. Of course, this is consistent with other "problems" Bush has sought to "fix." Frankly, I don't need to know anything about Social Security to know that when Bush is trying to fix something there is usually an underlying motivation that has nothing to do with helping regular Americans and everything to do with helping his "base." In this case, it will be the Wall St. brokers who stand to make a killing on privatized Social Security.

Powell: Shiites Will Win

It looks like Colin Powell, fresh off his Times Square gig, wants to get in on a little Sylvia Browne action, too. Demonstrating why he gets paid the big bucks to keep his damn mouth shut, he boldly predicts a Shiite victory in the upcoming Iraqi election:

US Secretary of State Colin Powell on Sunday predicted a Shiite victory in the Iraqi elections, but moved to assuage concerns it could bolster Iranian influence inside the country. [...] "The new government that comes into place in Baghdad, the transitional national assembly, will be majority Shiite," Mr Powell said on NBC's Meet the Pressshow. "That's the majority of the population."

Of course, this is a little like predicting the outcome of a game that has already happened, since we know that Iraqi Sunnis have decided to sit out the election:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Less than a month before Iraq's election, Sunnis nationwide are deciding to sit it out. Political leaders of Iraq's once-dominant sect say that it's because insurgents are intimidating Sunnis when they try to register to vote and threatening voter registration officials in Sunni strongholds. Opponents say the Sunnis - a 30 percent minority of Iraqis - are withdrawing to save face in the Jan. 30 election, which they appear sure to lose to majority Shiite parties. [...] Intimidation of registrants and registars in Sunni communities is one explanation for the low figures, said al Ezy. Dr. Huda al Nuaimi, a political science professor who lives in a Sunni neighborhood of Baghdad, said she was among the intimidated. She tried to pick up her voter registration card, she said, but the man who had them was threatened if he handed them out, so she could not pick it up. Al Nuaimi, a secularist, supports the Islamic Party's call for a delay in balloting. "If we postponed the elections, it doesn't mean we are going to give up to terrorists as much as it could mean allowing the Iraqis to vote in a safe environment," she said.

You can almost smell the legitimacy of this election from here.

Back in the U.S. [S.R.]

As the distinguished gentlemen King of Zembla and mrgumby2u have already pointed out, this is a very bad idea.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration is preparing plans for possible lifetime detention of suspected terrorists, including hundreds whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts, The Washington Post reported Sunday. Citing intelligence, defense and diplomatic officials, the newspaper said the Pentagon and the CIA had asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for those it would not set free or turn over to courts at home or abroad. As part of a solution, the Defense Department, which holds 500 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, plans to ask the U.S. Congress for $25 million to build a 200-bed prison to hold detainees who are unlikely to ever go through a military tribunal for lack of evidence, defense officials told the newspaper.

Christ, why waste the money? We ought to just kill them, right? I mean, if we're going to completely trash the Constitution we should do so in style. Not Gulag-style, but Auschwitz-style. I'm not sure what I find more disturbing, the fact that we have the audacity to propose this, or the fact that the public is generally complicit with the idea of indefinitely detaining people with no evidence. I agree with Digby, Democrats (and everyone with a brain) need to start taking a stand on the issue of torture, and a good place to start will be the confirmation hearing for Alberto Gonzalez. I'm sure we'll be cast as treasonous scum obstructing the ascension of an (minority!) American hero. So be it. We need to draw a line somewhere, and if we can't draw it at torture, we should just give up and get in line for our chance to piss on everything this country has ever stood for. On the bright side, three cheers for people like Richard Lugar and Carl Levin, politicians willing to stand up to the notion of indefinite detainment with no evidence. They could definitely use more support, so please take a few minutes to contact your representatives and tell them they should buck up and fight this proposal.

Just Call Me Sylvia Browne

You heard it here first. Packers go 10-6. Nevermind this, though.

Frank Rich Speaks

If I were you, I'd read Frank Rich's latest column. Some salient excerpts:

So the soldiers soldier on, and we party on. As James Dao wrote in The New York Times, "support our troops" became a verbal touchstone in 2004, yet "only for a minuscule portion of the populace, mainly those with loved ones overseas, does it have anything to do with sacrifice." Quite the contrary: we have our tax cuts, and a president who promises to make them permanent. Such is the disconnect between the country and the war that there is no national outrage when the president awards the Medal of Freedom to the clowns who undermined the troops by bungling intelligence (George Tenet) and Iraqi support (Paul Bremer). Such is the disconnect that Washington and the news media react with slack-jawed shock when one of those good soldiers we support so much speaks up at a town hall meeting in Kuwait and asks the secretary of defense why vehicles that take him and his brothers into battle lack proper armor. [...] The ethos could hardly have been more different during the World War II so frequently invoked by Mr. Bush. As David Brinkley recounted in his 1988 history, "Washington Goes to War," the Roosevelt administration's first big push "was a tremendous voluntary program to reduce the deficit, encourage saving, trim spending and thus curb inflation - the sale of war bonds." Though bonds would not in the end pay for the war - that would require the sacrifice of paying taxes - F.D.R. believed that his campaign "would give the public a sense of involvement in a war being fought thousands of miles away, a war so distant many Americans had difficulty at times remembering it was there at all." Gen. George Marshall, the Army's chief of staff, took it on himself to write notes by hand to the family of each man killed in battle until the volume forced the use of Western Union telegrams. [...] Washington's next celebration will be the inauguration. Roosevelt decreed that the usual gaiety be set aside at his wartime inaugural in January 1945. There will be no such restraint in the $40 million, four-day extravaganza planned this time, with its top ticket package priced at $250,000. The official theme of the show is "Celebrating Freedom, Honoring Service." That's no guarantee that the troops in Iraq will get armor, but Washington will, at least, give home-front military personnel free admission to one of the nine inaugural balls and let them eat cake.

I'd love to know how we can fix this disconnect, especially since our outrage bar has been raised so high that we're virtually blind to everything wrong with this war and Administration.

Gay Adoption

It is unfortunate that in the year 2005 we have to have a court battle about whether homosexuals are fit to adopt children. Fortunately, the activist judges courts are making the right decisions:

In his ruling Wednesday, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy Fox said the ban enacted by an Arkansas state agency in 1999 had nothing to do with protecting children's health or welfare, but instead was an attempt to regulate "public morality," which is beyond the agency's authority. Fox also issued a series of findings, based on testimony by child welfare and mental health experts: -- Children of lesbian and gay parents are as well-adjusted as other children. -- Being raised by lesbian or gay parents doesn't increase a child's risk of psychological, behavior or academic problems, confusion about gender identity, difficulties in relating to peers, or child abuse. -- There is no evidence that heterosexual parents can guide children through adolescence any better than homosexual parents can. The issue of whether parents' sexual orientation affects children's well- being is critical not only to the Arkansas case -- which is headed for an appellate court -- but also to a case before the U.S. Supreme Court over Florida's ban on adoptions by lesbians or gays. It could also affect a case in San Francisco Superior Court on California's ban on same-sex marriage. [...] But officials in Arkansas and Florida argue that the ideal situation for a child, which a state is entitled to promote in its laws, is to be raised by a mother and father. That position was endorsed by the federal appeals court in Atlanta that upheld a Florida law banning adoption by any gay, lesbian or bisexual. The state has a legitimate interest in "promoting an optimal social structure for educating, socializing and preparing its future citizens to become productive participants in civil society," the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said last January. For an adopted child, the court said, an "optimal home" is "one in which there is a heterosexual couple or the potential for one." [...] "We have never argued that it was detrimental to children to be placed with homosexuals but just that it would not be optimal," said Julie Munsell, spokeswoman for the Arkansas Department of Human Services. Foster children in such homes would be under stress, she said, "because the social climate in our state has not been accepting of those lifestyles."

The issue here is whether homosexual parents can provide an optimal environment for raising children. Those arguing that it isn't are arguing solely on the basis of moral prejudices, because if they were looking at the situation rationally, they would realize that it isn't about the gender make-up of your parents, it's about the love and attention you give your child. If two men or two women can raise a child in a loving and supportive environment there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to adopt children. Like the issue of gay marriage, the slippery slope in this case is pretty steep. If we aren't going to allow homosexual adoptive parents because they won't provide an optimal environment for raising children, we should be more stringent on heterosexuals that can't provide an "optimal environment." Example: "Oh, you work 80 hours/week? It's not that it's bad, its just that it isn't optimal. Sorry." Of course, the real problem in this country is that there are already more kids up for adoption than interested parents. Then why should we be denying perfectly good parents the right to adopt children solely on the basis of their sexual orientation?

Friday Fake Smile Blogging

Happy New Year 2005! Things can only get better, right?

"We don't have much leverage with the Iranians right now."

Apparently Susan Rice thinks we need an Iran Policy. Feeling a bit shrill lately, Susan? Don't you realize we already have one? They're evil. Very evil. What more do we need to know?

Has President Bush quietly concluded that the United States can live with a nuclear-armed Iran? If this seems preposterous, recall the president's words at his year-end news conference. Asked about U.S. policy toward Iran, he said: "We're relying upon others, because we've sanctioned ourselves out of influence with Iran . . . in other words, we don't have much leverage with the Iranians right now." [...] Consider what's at stake. Oil-rich Iran is arguably the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism. Iran was behind the 1996 bombing of the U.S. military barracks at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. It is funding anti-Israeli terrorist groups, harboring al Qaeda operatives and meddling in Iraq. Iran clandestinely built a sophisticated uranium enrichment program that the United States and European nations agree is intended to produce nuclear weapons. Iran has missiles capable of delivering such weapons to Iraq, Israel and even parts of Europe. President Bush says the greatest threat to U.S. national security is a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists. A nuclear Iran, not Saddam Hussein's Iraq, is a truly dangerous manifestation of that threat. So how has the Bush administration acted to protect us? Overstretched with 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and paralyzed by internal policy disputes, the administration's response has been to posture, threatening to take Iran to the U.N. Security Council, while effectively having no Iran policy at all. In response to one of the most urgent threats to the United States, Bush has subcontracted American security to the Europeans. Last week the president confirmed this as his approach, arguing that the United States has no choice. "We've sanctioned ourselves out of influence," the president said, almost echoing Vice President Cheney, who as chief executive of Halliburton pressed for lifting U.S. sanctions against Iran.

"We don't have much leverage with the Iranians right now." Translation: I shit the bed with Iraq, and we don't even have enough troops to threaten a few thousand Iraqis much less the entire military of Iran. As much as it would have been more relevant to attack Iran instead of Iraq, could you imagine how badly we would have screwed that up? Iran is nearly twice the size of Iraq and even more populated (with mountains). There is a reason why we went to Iraq--we thought it would be easier. Of course we need an Iran policy, it should have been one of our top priorities from the get go, and especially after 9/11. Unfortunately, our current Iran policy is procrastination. The President is actually right to say that we don't have any leverage with Iran. As a result, our policy is to wait until we do. At the rate we're going this could take years, and who knows what type of condition our military will be in by then. In the meantime, Iran will continue to discreetly develop nuclear capabilities and will continue to strengthen its ties with terrorist organizations. Mark Kleiman asks a damn good question, "Is there really no Democrat left willing to make the criticisms that are dying to be made?" This could be a great point upon which to develop a Democratic policy towards the war on terrorism. Just saying.

Blogs and Resumes

Is a blog the type of thing you put on a resume? More specifically, should I put Blogenlust on my resume? In the past I wasn't sure it was the type of thing I wanted to share with prospective employers, but recently I've been thinking it might be an interesting addition. Thoughts? Bueller?

Unspeakable

Over 125,000 feared dead. And the number seems to be increasing by tens of thousands every few hours. I don't know what to say other than don't take anything for granted... This destruction will take years and billions of dollars to rebuild. The damage to the tourism industry in these countries (their biggest economic sector) is immeasurable and who knows how long until they will recover. Yet, why does it seem that the First World is in a philanthropic pissing contest about how much money they are giving in comparison to other countries? I'll admit, I think the US should have given more upfront, and in a perfect world, Bush should have declared that we'll promise to spend however much money it will take to rebuild and recover from the destruction. Instead, the original declaration of $15 million brought forth silly arguments between countries over who was giving what and why weren't they giving more. This has lead US officials like Powell and Bush to offer petty defenses of how much money the US gives in charity each year. This completely misses the point. We shouldn't be feeling good about ourselves just because we donate the most money each year (we also have the most money to give). We should have been pledging to provide as much as it would take from the very beginning. In other words, it's not necessarily the amount of money we first pledged that gets me upset. It's the fact that we didn't say from the get go that we were going to do whatever it takes. Maybe it is a meaningless point, but it bothers me how even the most unavoidable disasters can be so quickly politicized. One last thing...The State Department is reporting that thousands of Americans are still missing. I don't want to assume the worst just yet, but we're talking about 9/11 type numbers here. It got me to thinking of the differences in our reaction to both events. Of course, there is a huge difference in that we were attacked on 9/11, but to me at least, death and destruction is still death and destruction. It is interesting to think about even if you compare our response to the tsunami to the response of other countries to 9/11. I'll never forget the Le Monde headline: "Today We're All Americans." How come it took the President of the United States three or four days to make public statements to the effected countries? Just thinking aloud here (and through a heavily congested head...so please forgive the disconnected thinking and writing :))

Buyer's Remorse

A nice Wednesday morning punch in the face:

Washington -- Despite a clear-cut re-election and the prospect of lasting GOP dominance in Congress, President Bush prepares for his second term with the lowest approval rating of any just-elected sitting president in more than half a century, according to a series of new surveys. [...] A new Gallup survey conducted for CNN and USA Today puts Bush's approval rating at 49 percent -- close to his pre-election numbers. That's 10 to 20 percentage points lower than every elected sitting president at this stage since World War II, according to Gallup. Bush's Gallup rating echoed a survey published last week by ABC News and the Washington Post, which put his approval rating at 48 percent. That poll also found that 56 percent of Americans said the Iraq war was not worth fighting. Time magazine put Bush's overall approval at 49 percent.

And I thought the Gallup Poll was supposed to be a Bush-friendly poll! When I see things like this, I realize how badly the Democrats, and I mostly mean John Kerry, dropped the ball this past election. Now that my post-election traumatic depression is pretty much behind me, I think I can clearly say that I agree with John at AMERICAblog: Kerry sucked. Of course, that doesn't mean I think he would have been a bad President, and it isn't to say that he lacked the right background or temperament for the job. This is strictly in the way that he ran his campaign. In my opinion, there were too many things that Kerry could have used in his favor to undermine Bush's strongpoints on Iraq and the war on terrorism. A coordinated counterattack on many of the false and misleading claims put out daily by the Bush campaign was too little too late. I can't forgive the Kerry campaign for this because anyone who has followed previous Bush campaigns knows this is a major part of their M.O. Despite all the talk of mandates and a decisive victory, Bush remains a widely unpopular President. He should have been a sitting duck, but Kerry enabled him to become a lame duck. The issue now is to figure out how to turn this from an irrelevant bitching point to something that can be learned from. Personally, I'd like to see a better Party definition and an improved articulation of Party policies and ideas (I think blogs can serve an important purpose in this regard). That way, Democrats from our nominee to local candidates are on the same wavelength when it comes to what we stand for and how we'll benefit people when elected. I think Kerry's flip-flop image was highlighted by a lack of a defined Democratic stance on many issues, but most especially Iraq and the war on terrorism. A clear position on these two issues must be the starting point for 2006 and 2008. I'm afraid that if we don't do this now, I'll be writing the same post 4 years from now. The good news from these poll numbers is that a lot of people in this country still aren't happy with the politics of George W. Bush. That is something that should give Democrats a lot of hope for the future. They just need to do a much better job of selling themselves.

New Bin Laden Recording

Juan Cole has a very interesting analysis of Osama bin Laden's latest recording, in which he calls on Iraqis to boycott the January 30 elections.

Bin Laden's intervention in Iraq was hamfisted and clumsy, and will benefit the United States and the Shiites enormously. Most Iraqi Muslims, Sunni or Shiite, dislike the Wahhabi branch of Islam prevalent in Saudi Arabia, and with which Bin Laden is associated. Nationalistic Iraqis will object to a foreigner interfering in their national affairs. Zarqawi is widely hated in Iraq because the operations of his group often kill innocent Iraqis as opposed to American troops. The Shiites in particular despise Zarqawi, and are aware of his hopes of provoking a Sunni-Shiite bloodbath in Iraq. (The muted Shiite response to the US assault on Fallujah in November and December derived in large part from a conviction that the city had become a base for Zarqawi and like-minded Salafi terrorists). Zarqawi websites have claimed credit for the assassination in 2003 of Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim, a respected Shiite leader, which involved descrating the Shiite holy city of Najaf. The mainstream of the Kurds hates Zarqawi, because of his earlier association with the small Kurdish radical Muslim terrorist group, Ansar al-Islam, which targeted the two major Kurdish parties. Bin Laden as much as declared Grand Ayatollah Sistani an infidel. But Sistani is almost universally loved by the 65% of Iraqis who are Shiites, and is widely respected among many Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen, as well. Bin Laden, the Saudi engineer, makes himself look ridiculous trying to give a fatwa against the Grand Ayatollah of Najaf. If anything, to have al-Qaeda menacing the Shiites in this way would tend to strengthen the American-Shiite alliance. If Bin Laden had been politically clever, he would have phrased his message in the terms of Iraqi nationalism. By siding with the narrowest sliver of Sunni extremists, he denied himself any real impact. By adopting Zarqawi, who has killed many more Iraqis (especially Shiites) than he has Americans, he simply tarnishes his own image inside Iraq. It appears that Bin Laden is so weak now that he is forced to play to his own base, of Saudi and Salafi jihadists, some of whom are volunteer guerrillas in Iraq. They are the only ones in Iraq who would be happy to see this particular videotape.

I'm really in no position to effectively argue against Cole, especially when it comes to the political situation in Iraq and the greater Middle East. He is probably correct to suggest that there is a potential for this to blowback into bin Laden's face, and it very well could be a sign that bin Laden is increasingly desperate. However, from an American political perspective, one consequence of bin Laden's comments is a further confusion about who it is we are actually fighting in Iraq. In my opinion, this is great political news for Bush. It comes at a time when the situation in Iraq is rapidly deteriorating, and any connection the Bush Administration can make between the Iraqi insurgency and 9/11 is good for them, because it makes the increasingly steep sacrifices more worthwhile for the American public. Perhaps this is why General Richard Myers made the astoundingly incorrect statement that "This attack [in Mosul], of course, is the responsibility of insurgents, the same insurgents who attacked on 9/11." Now why would bin Laden want to help Bush out? I can think of at least one good reason. Since the US is bogged down in Iraq, enabling the Bush Administration to continue to link Iraq and Al Qaeda gives them more justification for staying put, which would further deteriorate American morale and military resources. Of course, it also may be the case that bin Laden had other intentions (like those Cole suggests), and that the positive political implications for Bush are an unintended consequence. So what are the consequences of this good news for the Bush Administration? I'd say any added confusion to who or what or why we're fighting in Iraq is always helpful because when people don't know exactly what is going on, they can't get outraged and they can be easily misled. And where would the Bush Administration be without an apathetic and gullible American electorate? Another potential consequence is that they can use this to widen the war. If AQ and the insurgency are interchangeable, than it is easier to justify an excursion into Syria or Iran. It will be interesting to see how this gets played out. The other night the local news led with the new bin Laden tape, and claimed it was definitive evidence of a link between the insurgency and AQ. Who needs OBL when you have the local news!?

Tsunami Relief

update: US aid has increased to $35 million... You might have already seen this at Eschaton, but if you haven't, let me reiterate how disgusting this is:

Link: The Bush administration yesterday pledged $15 million to Asian nations hit by a tsunami that has killed more than 22,500 people, although the United Nations' humanitarian-aid chief called the donation "stingy." Context, context... The war on terror will take center stage at next month’s second inauguration for President Bush in Washington, D.C. ... The estimated budget for the event is $30-40 million, but that will not cover security costs.

The deathtoll has risen to over 50,000 people and officials are concerned this number could double once disease sets in. Yet, the United States of America, the richest country in the world, is sending pocket change. Rob at AMERICAblog asks a good question:

How Christian is George W. Bush? Evidently not very. In one of the largest natural disasters in recent years, the Bush administration response of $15 million is the equivalent of what George Bush spends in Iraq in TWO HOURS. That's right, at $177 million a day in Iraq, $15 million is a pittance. Those are great Red State Values. What would Jesus do? I expect that he would have spent more time and money trying to help people in a natural disaster than the pathetic response the Bush administration has provided. Democrats should be on television right now calling on the Bush administration to do right in this human disaster. That's what I call Blue State Values.

Qubit has a list of relief organizations where you can donate to the relief efforts.

Fa-La-La-La-Fel

One of the more exciting gifts I received this weekend was Bill O'Reilly's Who's Looking Out For You?. At first I thought it was a joke. Since most of my family knows where I stand on issues of politics (but apparently doesn't read this blog), I assumed that people would know that you don't give people like me books by people like O'Reilly (especially for Christmas!). Afterall, you'd never consider giving your Jewish friend the Koran with the implication that he should read it because he might be so surprised at what he reads that he would consider converting. This, I believe, was the subversive message of my brand new O'Reilly book. (BTW, You try smiling as you talk about how you can't wait to read it in front of 20 people!!) Anyway, because I have a soapbox from which to ridicule it, I've decided to actually read the book. Shouldn't take more than the 4 hour plane ride I'm about to embark on since its dimensions are 14 font, 1/2 inch spacing between lines, and 2 inch margins. And if I skim through the self-indulging, I can probably finish it before we take off. I've actually started reading it (last night, over a dish of falafel), and was surprised at O'Reilly's witty sense of humor, like this from page 3:

If you are going to drink a quart of bourbon a day or smoke crack, this book is not going to help you. In fact, if you are in the above category, you've probably stolen this book. Give it back. Now.

LOL!! ROTFLMAO!!

Or this, from page 8:

There is no question that our society has now embraced the casual approach when it comes to having children. Columnist Kathleen Parker nailed it. "Today having a baby is like swinging through McDonald's for a burger. One baby all the way, hold the dad."

HSIJPMP!!

And please, spare me the jokes about Bill "You Have Really Spectacular Boobs" O'Reilly's Middle Eastern food fetish and infidelity. O'Reilly is pure class, as illustrated on page 29:

Years ago I was friends with a fellow broadcaster. Because we were both single and liked the ladies, we had some great times.

See, "had some great times." Nothing to worry about, that is, unless you look like Halle Berry (page 59):

Now, I rarely go to parties, primarily because I am not often invited. I think we all know why. Also, I'm not much of a schmoozer unless you look like Halle Berry.

Inbetween these humorous gems, O'Reilly does a good job of talking about himself. A lot. And when he isn't talking about himself, he does a very shrewd job of painting himself as a politically independant Everyman, that (you guessed it) is looking out for you! One thing that I've noticed about O'Reilly's writing is that he does seem to criticize both Republicans and Democrats, but he does so in a way that the criticisms of Republicans are petty (e.g. Bush works too hard at what he does, so don't expect him to change much), whereas the criticisms of Democrats are more damaging. (e.g. Clintons caused 9/11). I don't think it is particularly honest, especially for such a "fair and balanced" guy like O'Reilly, but I didn't really expect a whole lot more. Finally, O'Reilly is incredibly gifted at constructing strawmen and easily knocking them down. He valiantly argues for things like better families, as though anybody would honestly argue against that (in O'Reilly's world, it is the Clinton's and liberals who argue against these things). As for myself, I can't wait to read the chapter on how cheating on your wife and kids with a co-worker leads to a closer family. If I can stand to, I'll write more about the second half of the book later. I'd also like to point out that I extended an invitation to watch Fahrenheit 9/11 or borrow another book of my choosing to the person who gave me the O'Reilly book. Of course, as you might imagine, that was an excercise in futility.

Moral Values

Ah yes, those upstanding citizens, otherwise known as the College Republicans, are at it again:

The College Republican National Committee is under fire for using front organizations to collect millions of dollars in contributions, including money from elderly people with dementia. During the 2004 campaign, the group sent out direct-mail solicitations under such letterheads as "Republican Headquarters 2004" and "Republican Election Committee." One four-page letter asked prospects to send $1,000 together with an American flag pin for President Bush to wear to "Republican Headquarters" to ensure that Bush knows "there are millions who are giving him the shield of God to protect him in the difficult days ahead." In small print at the bottom of one page, the letter notes: "A project of and paid for by College Republican National Committee." Many donors complained that they thought the money was going directly to the Republican Party, and not to the college group, which is no longer affiliated with the GOP. The controversy over the letters has produced angry responses from leaders of state College Republican chapters, including those in Washington state, North Carolina and New York.

Back in the day, when I was the Treasurer of the campus College Republicans, I never would have dreamed of something like this. Then again, I was never CR material in the first place. (via Political Wire)

Syria? Why not.

Now that Christmas is over, we can forget all that peace on earth and goodwill towards men shit. Syria, bitches!!

The US is contemplating incursions into Syrian territory in an attempt to kill or capture Iraqi Ba'athists who, it believes, are directing at least part of the attacks against US targets in Iraq, a senior administration official told The Jerusalem Post. The official said that fresh sanctions are likely to be implemented, but added that the US needs to be more "aggressive" after Tuesday's deadly attack on a US base in Mosul. The comment suggested that the US believes the attack on the mess tent, in which 22 people were killed, may have been coordinated from inside Syrian territory. "I think the sanctions are one thing. But I think the other thing [the Syrians] have got to start worrying about is whether we would take cross-border military action in hot pursuit or something like that. In other words, nothing like full-scale military hostilities. But when you're being attacked from safe havens across the border – we've been through this a lot of times before – we're just not going to sit there. "You get a tragedy [like the attack in Mosul] and it reminds people that it is still a very serious problem. If I were Syria, I'd be worried," the senior administration official said.

It's funny they should mention this. Just yesterday I caught myself thinking, "WTF? 2001, 2003, 2005? Isn't it about time we invade another country?" In all seriousness, even if the insurgency is being directed out of Syria, the simple fact is that if the conditions in Iraq were better, the insurgency wouldn't be so popular. Invading or attacking Syria will do nothing to improve those conditions, and if the past is prologue in anyway, it will make the situation even worse. Not like that will stop us or anything. Hopefully, an article like this is nothing more than a way this Administration thinks it can pressure Syria into stopping whatever it may be doing. Even I don't think this Administration is stupid enough to widen the war at this point. But, then again, stranger things have happened.

A Word From Our Sponsors

Dear Readers, Just wanted to take a moment to wish everyone who visits Blogenlust a safe and happy Holidays! I'll be celebrating Christmas with my family over the next two days, and will (probably) not be posting until after Christmas. Peace Out, John UPDATE: Gmail invites make nice stocking stuffers. I have about 6 or 7 to give away, so contact me if you'd like one. DOUBLE UPDATE:: Don't forget that The Christmas Story is on for 24 straight hours (until Christmas night at about 8p EST) on TBS!!

Connect The Dots, La La La

CONNECTION: "Iraq Base Was Hit By A Suicide Attack, U.S. General Says," Washington Post, December 23rd, 2004:

BAGHDAD, Dec. 22 -- Investigators believe a suicide bomber penetrated security at a U.S. military base in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul and detonated an explosive Tuesday that killed 22 people, including 14 U.S. service members, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Wednesday. The attack, which also wounded 69, was the deadliest on an American installation since the beginning of the war in March 2003.

"Iraq's Unsecured Ammo Dumps Providing Explosives For Insurgency," The Dallas Morning Star, December 22nd, 2004:

"We simply did not have enough troops - I would argue we still do not - in Iraq to secure the country after the victory over Iraq's military," said David Kay, who led the CIA's initial efforts to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. "The result is an insurgency that did not have to worry about how to arm itself."

Since the war began on March 19, 2003, military and civilian weapons teams have found more than 10,000 ammo dumps. They have secured or destroyed more than 414,000 tons of artillery shells, bombs, bullets, rockets and other munitions.

But the CIA survey team scouring the country for weapons of mass destruction told Congress last fall that the "lower limit" of munitions scattered across Iraq was 600,000 tons.

NO CONNECTION:
General Richard Myers, December 22nd, 2004:

Gen. Richard Myers at today's Pentagon briefing: "This attack [in Mosul], of course, is the responsibility of insurgents, the same insurgents who attacked on 9/11, the same type of insurgents who attacked in Beirut, the same insurgents who -- type of insurgents who attacked the Cole, Khobar Towers, and the list goes on."

LaLaLa LaLaLa

"Oh, you have a blog?"

If you're not a closet blogger, you might have to deal this holiday season with probing questions from people who have no clue what a blog actually is. In situations like these, it is important to know what wannabe hipsters think blogs are all about. Thankfully, there is Time Magazine, always having one finger on America's pulse, and another up George Bush's ass. In the latest issue, Time notes 10 things they learned about blogs this year. This includes:

Bloggers Make Money Earn a living in your pajamas! Online ads (along with Google's automated ad server) allow popular bloggers to go pro. Joshua Micah Marshall of talkingpointsmemo.com, a political blog, says he makes $5,000 a month from banner ads—enough to hire a research assistant.

This is especially helpful for those bloggers (like myself) who have enough questions to answer about why they can't find permanent employment. "Oh, you write a blog?" says Uncle Mind Your Own Damn Business, "How much money do you make a month? How many research assistants have you hired?" Perhaps the best way to answer questions like this is to defer to your pet:

Pets Have Blogs Too It started as an in-joke among feline-friendly bloggers: why not post pictures of their cats every Friday afternoon? Friday catblogging became a hit, and soon even NASA was playing along by posting pictures of the Cat's Eye nebula.

And if your relatives and friends are still taking you seriously by this point, they'll probably stop after reading this:

Blogging Can Get You Fired When Delta flight attendant Ellen Simonetti, 30—a leggy blond and self-styled "queen of the sky"—began her blog, she thought it would be fun to post pinup snapshots of herself in uniform. Delta wasn't amused and promptly fired her. Undaunted, Simonetti retitled the blog Diary of a Fired Flight Attendant and detailed her legal battle to get her job back.

As for me, I'll be winging it this year. Last year, I told everyone I wrote Eschaton, and people were really impressed. Unfortunately, I can't use that this year, so I think I'll say that I was on the front-lines of Rathergate, which in my extended family will probably be considered a badge of honor.

SNOW IN DECEMBER!!!!!!! OH SHIT!!

Must be a slow news day for Drudge... Amazing that it would snow throughout the Midwest and Central Plains at the end of December. And there must be another Ice Age coming if Chicago is bracing for sub-zero temperatures...three days before Christmas. I guess we can be thankful that there isn't anything really serious to report on.

Occupation Is Messy

People continue to needlessly die because of Donald Rumsfeld, yet he still has a job, and the President's Chief of Staff thinks he's doing a "spectacular job." Here is what Rumsfeld had to say today, in response to the attack at the dining hall in Mosul:

"Someone who's attacking can attack at any place at any time using any technique, and it is an enormous challenge to provide force protection, something that our forces worry about, work on constantly. They have to be right 100 percent of the time. An attacker only has to be right occasionally," Rumsfeld said.

Besides being a great counterargument to his missile defense proposal, it also ignores the fact that people had been worried about an attack at this dining hall for months. This wasn't a freak accident, these people were sitting ducks!

CNN personnel who have visited the base said the dining area is a tent-like facility with no hardened protection -- and that soldiers had specifically raised concerns that they could be targeted by insurgents at meal time. One had told CNN it was only a matter of time before there was an attack on the mess hall. "There is a level of vulnerability when you go in there, and you don't feel like there's a hard roof over your head," said Lt. Col. Paul Hastings, an officer at Camp Marez.

I think Kos is right, this was borderline criminal negligence. Look, this situation fucking sucks. We're left with a huge mess that is getting worse by the day and there isn't a light at the end of the tunnel. Some people back in Washington are hesistant about getting of rid of Rumsfeld because they think we're at such a crucial stage that his dismissal might screw things up. Clearly, these people aren't paying attention. Things can't get much worse, so why not try and find a Secretary of Defense that isn't an incompetent arrogant war criminal? What's the worst that could happen? Iraq goes to shit? It's too late!!

Contractors Start Pulling Out

It just occurred to me that the biggest problem facing our occupation in Iraq is not necessarily the fact that our troops are spread too thin, but that we're relying so heavily on private military contractors to provide essential services for us and Iraq. As a result, it is distressing that a major U.S. contractor had decided to call it quits.

WASHINGTON — For the first time, a major U.S. contractor has dropped out of the multibillion-dollar effort to rebuild Iraq, raising new worries about the country's growing violence and its effect on reconstruction. Contrack International Inc., the leader of a partnership that won one of 12 major reconstruction contracts awarded this year, cited skyrocketing security costs in reaching a decision with the U.S. government last month to terminate work in Iraq. "We reached a point where our costs were getting to be prohibitive," said Karim Camel-Toueg, president of Arlington, Va.-based Contrack, which had won a $325-million award to rebuild Iraq's shattered transportation system. "We felt we were not serving the government, and that the dollars were not being spent smartly." [...] "It's not a terrible loss," said Amy Burns, spokeswoman for the Pentagon's Iraq Project and Contracting Office, which oversees the bulk of the reconstruction work in the country. "It actually may be good that we're both moving on." But reconstruction experts say Contrack's withdrawal might foretell trouble with other contractors. ""It's a very bad sign," said Michael O'Hanlon, a scholar at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington who has closely followed the reconstruction process. "If this is how other private companies are thinking, it's a very bad potential warning." Coming as U.S. reconstruction officials have been touting signs of progress, Contrack's withdrawal underscores the challenges in the $18.4-billion effort to rebuild Iraq. The effort to revamp the country is considered vital to providing Iraqis with jobs and services and to weakening the insurgency. So far, however, it has been beset with delays, violence, allegations of graft and waste, and frustration among ordinary Iraqis and top U.S. military commanders at the lack of progress.

It's not a good sign when costly no-bid contracts (i.e. bribery) won't keep companies from sticking it out. The big problem with all of this is that we're contracting the job of reconstructing Iraq to private military contractors who can pick up and leave whenever they want. Frankly, I think this is a big mistake, because reconstruction is so crucial to our efforts. If we can quickly and sufficiently reconstruct the infrastructure of Iraq, we can undermine the rhetoric and motivations of the insurgency. As it stands now, the US military doesn't have control of reconstruction because we don't have enough troops. And if more contractors start pulling out, we won't even have enough of them to finish the job. If that happens, shit we didn't even know existed will start hitting the fan. Reconstruction should be the absolute top priority because it is the answer to basically all of our problems. It provides an answer to the insurgency, it provides a ticket home for all of our troops, and it provides the quickest route to political and economic reforms. I wonder how many Americans realize that the US military is not in control of reconstructing Iraq? I wonder if they'd care?

Travel Day

Today is a travel day for blogenlust, as I'm on my way from balmy Oakland to freezing Wisconsin. Can't complain, though, because if there is one time of year I don't mind the snow or cold it is Christmas Winter Solstice. Right now I'm at LAX, which looks more like a Juicy Couture fashion show than an airport. On the flight here I had the chance to read America's Other Finest News Source, USA Today. In a guest editorial defending...I think I just saw Ashton Kutcher...President Bush's dream of bankrupting the US with a national missile defense shield (presumably one that works), Baker Spring writes:

If President Bush, in the wake of 9/11, announced that the United States had been deliberately leaving the country vulnerable to attack by airplanes, most Americans would be incredulous — and angry. Yet this is exactly our situation when it comes to ballistic missile attack. We're completely vulnerable to any state or terrorist group armed with a ballistic missile. Fortunately, Bush is moving to eliminate this vulnerability by constructing a limited ballistic-missile-defense system and declaring it operational as soon as possible. [...] Yes, the missile-defense system we're pursuing right now is limited. Future tests may reveal problems. But this is an argument for moving quickly to make the defense better, not giving up. Even with its initial limitations, the system we're building now will keep our enemies guessing. That's exactly what we need. So let's take what we've learned from this scrubbed test and use it to improve, not end, this vital program

Here's the problem with Spring's thesis: Even if you construct an extremely expensive invisible shield around the United States, terrorists can still use airplanes as missiles! In other words, if you eliminate one option, it makes other options that much more appealing, and in this case, the other options are that much harder to prevent (i.e. floating a bomb into a harbor or igniting a tanker of liquid natural gas). In addition, it should be noted that our missile defense system is a huge black hole into which billions of dollars of our tax money gets thrown year in and year out, and the best part is that it doesn't even work.

A Swell Proposal

Make September 11 Election Day? Damn. You really can't make this stuff up anymore.

Deuling Storylines

White House Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, yesterday on ABC's This Week:

"Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a spectacular job."..."The President has provided good direction for our military, and Secretary Rumsfeld is transforming our military to meet the threats of the 21st Century."..."There are no guarantees, but we'll work hard to provide security. It'll be a wonderful success story."

The CIA, the DIA, and the State Department (make sure to read the whole article), to President Bush:

WASHINGTON - The CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department have warned President Bush that the United States and its Iraqi allies aren't winning the battle against Iraqi insurgents who are trying to derail the country's Jan. 30 elections, according to administration officials. The officials, who agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity because intelligence estimates are classified, said the battle in Iraq wasn't lost and that successful elections might yet be held next month. But they said the warnings -including one delivered this week to Bush by CIA Director Porter Goss - indicated that U.S. forces hadn't been able to stop the insurgents' intimidation of Iraqi voters, candidates and others who want to participate in the elections. "We don't have an answer to the intimidation," one senior official said. Nor have the United States and interim Iraqi government been able to find any divisions they can exploit to divide and conquer the Sunni Muslim insurgency, the intelligence reports say.

The reason we don't have an answer to the intimidation is that we don't have enough boots on the ground to secure order. As a result, we've created an increasingly confident and brazen insurgency that knows we're spread too thin to effectively stop them. Hopefully, I don't have to remind anyone that it was Secretary "I'm too busy to give a shit" Rumsfeld's "spectacular work" that created this situation.

Invasion v. Persuasion

Just read an interesting article by George Packer in The New Yorker entitled "Invasion vs. Persuasion." It's subject is how (not if) the United States should go about spreading freedom in the non-democratic world:

The best role for critics in the President’s second term will be not to scoff at the idea of spreading freedom but to take it seriously—to hold him to his own talk. The hard question isn’t whether America should try to enlarge the democratic order but how. It’s a question that the Administration seems to have thought about very little, yet it makes a big difference.

As examples, Packer contrasts the recent events in Ukraine with those in Iraq. Packer argues that events in Ukraine have been heavily influenced by the work of Western governments and NGOs over the last ten years. As a result, the political opposition was adequately funded and organized enough to successfully take on the corrupt government.

The popular uprising in Ukraine has now secured a new Presidential election, the previous vote having been discredited by huge fraud. There’s a quiet American story behind that achievement. For years, beginning in the nineteen-nineties, governmental and non-governmental organizations poured millions of dollars into Ukraine’s politics, building up the parties, training civil-society groups and journalists, establishing election monitors. These efforts helped strengthen the opposition against a corrupt government, but they were nonpartisan: technical support was given to all parties. [...] But in Ukraine the meddlers have done nothing worse than help guarantee a people’s right to choose a government freely. The effort succeeded for two reasons: there was a democratic movement already in place; and outside support did not come with a “Made in America” label, because the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe also played an important part. “The thrust of the campaign is to oblige Ukraine to have a free and fair election,” Thomas Carothers, a democracy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, says. “This is a human right. It’s not American. It’s not unilateralist.”

If our attempts to spread democratic reform to Ukraine can be characterized as subtle, then our excursion in Iraq is more like a bull in a china shop:

In Iraq, the United States has tried to stage-manage the political transition alone, and has seen every plan overtaken and nullified by events. Lacking legitimacy in the eyes of both Iraq and the rest of the world, defying international standards and declaring its own, the Administration has had to base its claim on good intentions. But in the war of perception between that claim and the daily stories of tortured prisoners and civilian deaths America is losing. According to Carothers, who has just co-edited the first technical book on democracy promotion in the Middle East, the Iraq model has set back the cause of Arab reformers. At this point, the Administration seems ready to hold an election and declare victory. Meanwhile, the insurgency looks increasingly like a civil war. An election, though politically necessary, might only worsen the conflict. Shiite politicians and clerics are organizing a unified ballot that will guarantee the majority Shiites a vast share of next month’s election spoils at the expense of the country’s alienated Sunnis. The elected parliament, which will write a constitution, isn’t likely to be truly representative, or to create a political consensus out of this violent polarization. More probably, the losers will opt out and the civil war will intensify.

At first I was reluctant to buy into Packer's thesis that we need to actively promote democracy in places where it is non-existant. Afterall, we've been so fucking successful in Iraq and Afghanistan it hurts. However, after thinking about it a bit, and learning about the NGO and Western governmental influences in Ukraine, I think he might be on to something. The Bush Administration has created this paradigm that dictates that things can only get done by flexing our military muscle. As a result, diplomacy and soft-power have been marginalized at a time when both are vital to our foreign policy. The problem, highlighted by recent events in Ukraine, is that reality doesn't fit into the Bush Administration's paradigm. That is to say, military force is rarely the best way to create democratic institutions in a country (and a region) that has few democratic experiences. Instead, history has shown that it is often efforts similar to those in Ukraine that are the most successful in creating long term democratic reforms. I think this is an important point for Democrats to take into consideration when it comes to articulating their own foreign policy, and also demonstrating why the Bush foreign policy has been unsuccessful and counterproductive. And speaking of a Democratic foreign policy... The current foreign policy debate in this country is dominated by Bush's "foreward strategy of freedom," and even Democrats would be hard-pressed to articulate their foreign policy (answer: ABB: Anything but Bush's...and we all know how well that worked last time). Even if our foreign policy doesn't change, this country would be much better off with a larger discussion on the topic. If the Democrats have any hopes of retaining a Congressional or national majority within the next generation, they'd better start speaking up and standing up for policies they believe in. It doesn't have to be exactly like Packer's thesis (although that would be a good start), it just has to be something.

Things I've Seen

This weekend (I had babysitting duty so there was some extra time for movies!): * Friday night I saw The House Of Flying Daggers, an awesome Chinese film in the same mold as Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Hero. The cinematography is beautiful, the plot is very interesting, and the fight scenes are awesome. I highly recommend this one, even if you aren't into these types of movies. * Rented Collateral and Born Rich last night. Collateral was good--lots of action, intensity, and good acting. I hadn't realized how good of an actor Jamie Foxx was until I saw him in Ray, and he is just as good in a supporting role here (he received a Golden Globe nomination for this role). Tom Cruise plays a decent bad-ass hitman, too. Born Rich is a documentary by Jamie Johnson, the 21 year old heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune. The film is his attempt to understand the effects of inheriting so much money, and in the process he interviews various other "rich kids" about how they are dealing with their own wealth. Included in this group are Ivanka Trump, Josiah Hornblower (Vanderbilt/Whitney heir), S.I. Newhouse IV (media heir), Luke Weil (gaming heir), and Cody Franchetti (textile heir). Some of these people are more grounded than others, but many of them have this strange complex about not wanting to talk about their money and worry about the social perception of having so much money. I think a lot of them were concerned that they would be widely recognizable because of their money, but the fact is, you probably wouldn't recognize any of these people on the street unless you were also a part of the top .001% of the richest class. I mean, it's one thing to be rich and recognizable like Paris Hilton, and it's a totally different thing to be rich and Jaime Johnson. They are not mutually exclusive, but that is how these people see themselves. Overall, if you like documentaries, you'll probably like this film. Has anyone seen A Day Without Mexicans ? I rented this also, but haven't had a chance to see it yet. I've heard it's really good. Briefly, it's about what would happen if all the Mexicans suddenly disappeared from California. I'd imagine all hell would break loose, and the same would happen in any other place!

What if?

What if Rummy was never born? Maureen Dowd tries to make the unknown known.

Spare Pre-Paid Phone Cards?

I've become a big fan of the Imus Morning Show, listening to it everyday on my way to work. Lately, Imus has been very critical of the Administration and Congress for not providing more assistance to soldiers and their families. For instance, Rick Santorum was a guest on yesterday's program, and Imus drilled him on why death benefits for the families of soldiers killed in Iraq were only $12,000. Santorum, the literal panty waste that he is, was proud to announce that Congress has actually doubled that amount from $6,000. As if that is something to be proud of. Imus' concern stems from a recent trip to Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital, where he realized that the conditions and equipment injured soldiers received were not on par with the level of sacrifice they had given to end up in the hospital. He rightfully blames the Congress and Administration for not doing more for the troops they've sent off to be killed and injured in a war of choice. On the same note, a caller on today's program explained that pre-paid calling cards were the number one request from soldiers at Walter Reed. Apparently the government isn't covering phone charges, which has led to a rationing of phone minutes among the hospitalized. Needless to say, Imus wasn't very happy about this news:

"The number one request at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center was phone cards. The government doesn't pay long distance phone charges, you can't even make that up, and wounded soldiers are rationing their calls home and a lot of them will be their at Walter Reed for the holidays. Well I'll buy ten thousand dollars worth of phone cards and send it to them. Here is where you can send your phone cards..." Walter Reed Medical Family Assistance Center, 6900 Georgia Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20307-5001

If you've got any spare change lying around, or even some spare phone cards, give a thought to sending them to the above address. I couldn't imagine being there and not having the means to talk to my friends and family because I couldn't afford a long distance phone call. This makes me even more upset when I think about how much money certain corporations tied to this Administration are making from this war. Not to mention the fact that that asshole Rumsfeld still has a job. I could go on, but won't. Just try and send a phone card if you have the means.

Ban Adultery

UPDATE: Sonofabitch. Thanks to mrgumby2u, it turns out that, like Bill O'Reilly, I was punk'd. Although, I must confess that I saw this first at the Agonist, so I'm not the only one. The King is on the story. I should have known when I couldn't find anything about "Defend Our Marriages" on Google. Anyway, I think Ottawarotic (in comments) brings up a good point...the Democrats (or someone) should be advocating this, since it will drive home the point how hypocritical it is to talk about only gay marriage being a threat to the institution o' marriage. A group called Defend Our Marriages is pushing to bundle anti-adultery legislation with an anti-gay marriage bill. Shockingly, even the most ardent anti-gay marriage lawmakers are wary to support such an addition. I wonder why?

When members of a pro-family lobby group called Defend Our Marriages were looking to add anti-adultery language to the proposed constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage, the office of Representative Dan Burton was one of their first stops. After all, the 11-term Indiana Republican has a long history of fighting for family values, and was a co-sponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment introduced last May. But Burton balked when it came to backing the adultery provision. "We couldn't even get a meeting with him," said DOM member Sandy Slokum, noting that her group had chosen to approach Burton because of the 100% rating he'd received from the Christian Coalition. "His office basically slammed the door in our faces. Doesn't he believe in the seventh commandment?" said Slokum. Perhaps not. In 1998, Burton was forced to admit to having had an adulterous affair in the 1980s, during which he fathered a son. Were the amendment banning both homosexual marriage and adultery to take effect, Burton would lose many of the privileges of marriage, including tax benefits, inheritance rights, even the ability to visit loved ones in the hospital. Burton might even have to run for his congressional seat as a single man, not an easy task in era in which "single" is short-hand for homosexual, and single candidates are often derided as "limp wrists" and "switch hitters."

While I couldn't disagree more with the motives of groups like Defend Our Marriages, I admire their consistency. In fact, I'd like to see them take it a step further. We should ban divorce. If marriage is such a sacred institution, it should never be broken. After, all isn't this where the slippery sloap of denying gay marriage, and even adultery, is eventually heading? Of course, this will never happen because people don't like government getting involved in their personal lives, unless it is another person's gay marriage or it's a woman's reproductive rights. The other major roadblock to such legislation, illustrated by Dan Burton, is the high rate of adultery in the group of people voting on it. Self-interest will always squash principle, especially in the Congress.

blogger meetup recap

Last night I met up with some other Bay Area Bloggers and Reader (thanks Ryan!). It was a good time, and I had the chance to meet a few new people (drew at Scamboogah, J at suckful, shystee, and the king). Discussion ranged from who was the laziest person in the Bay Area, to Heraldblog's legendary banter with Debbie "Kill! Torture! Kill! ARGH!" Daniel. And speaking of Debbie (link goes to her collected "works"), she thoughtfully weighs in on the Christmas debate. You really can't make this stuff up! We also discussed The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012, which I promised to share with a few people. Also, on the way home I realized I might have given the impression that all I do is blog while I'm at work (not that there is anything wrong with that). While there is a (small) element of truth to this, I also get up damn early and write a lot before I go into work. Just for the record.

Baby Steps

Maybe before we try to crash a projectile into a comet, we should master crashing a projectile into a moving missile. Just a thought.

Jesus Christ

Jesus is the reason for the season. And don't you ever fucking forget it. Or you'll go to hell. Especially if you're gay. Or Jewish. And Lord help you if you're a Jewish gay Democrat:

Dec. 14, 2004 - Emboldened by their Election Day successes, some Christian conservatives around the country are trying to put more Christ into Christmas this season. In Terrebonne Parish, La., an organization is petitioning to add "Merry Christmas" to the red-lighted "Season's Greetings" sign on the main government building and is selling yard signs that read, "We believe in God. Merry Christmas." And a Raleigh, N.C., church recently paid $7,600 for a full-page newspaper ad urging Christians to spend their money only with merchants who include the greeting "Merry Christmas" in ads and displays. "There is a revival taking place in our nation that is causing Christian and right-minded people to say, `Wait a minute. We've gone too far,'" says the Rev. Patrick Wooden Sr., pastor of the Raleigh church. "We're not going to allow the country to continue this downward spiral to the left." In California, a group called the Committee to Save Merry Christmas is boycotting Macy's and its corporate parent, Federated Department Stores, accusing them of replacing "Merry Christmas" signs with ones wishing shoppers "Season's Greetings" or "Happy Holidays." The organization cites "the recent presidential election showing political correctness is offending millions of Americans."

Get used to this. I'm beginning to think these people won't stop until we all live in the Church of the United States of Jesus Christ. I don't quite understand why it is so hard for them to understand that Christmas is a Christian holiday, and not an American holiday. It might be a surprise, but not all Americans are Christian, and in fact, many people celebrate other religious holidays during the month of December. Yes, it's true. The month of December belongs to everyone, and it isn't exclusively owned by American Christians. I don't even know why they care so much, Jesus wasn't even born in December. And speaking of facists Kooky Kristians, make sure to check out this post (via BlondeSense) at Jesus Politics.

Bingo

Writing in Foreign Policy magazine, Moises Naim examines the ideological casualties of war "that lie buried in the sands of Iraq." He notes that a large problem has been the disconnect between the worldview this Administration creates with its rhetoric and the worldview that drives its policy:

More fundamental, disappointments in Iraq also dealt a blow to a worldview that, for all its references to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, as an epochal event, still hearkens back to the Cold War. Consider the two primary responses to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon: Instead of concentrating all energies and resources to fight the strange, stealthy, and stateless network that perpetrated the attacks, the United States launched military assaults against two nation-states. First, it rightly attacked Afghanistan, a country whose government had been the subject of a friendly takeover by such networks. The second was Iraq, a country with a standing army and a dictator evocative of the Cold War era. Iraq offered a target more suited to the mindset of U.S. leaders and military capabilities than the more complicated terrorist networks operating inside powerful states, including the United States itself. In other words, facing the prospect of waging a new kind of war against a new kind of opponent, the Bush administration chose instead to fight a familiar enemy whose face and address it knew. Yet U.S. troops quickly found themselves fighting not enemy soldiers but what Pentagon lawyers now call “unlawful combatants”—fighters with nationalities as fuzzy as they are irrelevant to determining their leaders, their chains of command, their loyalty, and their lethal willingness to die for their cause.

One of the major consequences of September 11 is the emergence of non-state entities as major international players. The Bush Administration is correct to treat these non-state entities as significant threats, but they have incorrectly approached the situation In order to truly understand the problem you first need to understand how the problem began. In the case of these non-state entities (in militarese- "assymetrical threats"; in Bushese--"terrorists") you have to look at military globabilization. By this I mean the extension of the war system, or global arms trade, from nation-states to non-state entities. This extension creates a number of serious problems. First, terrorist organizations have become as plugged into the global arms trade as nation-states, enabling them to be similarly armed. As a result, these entities are now in equal competition for weapons of mass destruction, but don't face the same types of consequences if they choose to use them (i.e. MAD, etc). This brings up a second problem. Since terrorist organizations are not sovereign entities, it is extremely difficult (almost impossible) to destroy their operational source. In contrast, when a nation-state attacks another nation-state, there are clear targets and a (relatively) limited battlefield, and victory is more definable. Of course there are other problems, like compliance with international rules of war, but I think the two mentioned sufficiently serve Naim's point. As Naim points out, the Bush Administration talks like they understand the problem, but their actions don't. This failure arises out of a tendency to apply a realist worldview to the effects of liberal interconnectedness. Or, in other words, by attacking nation-states while aiming at non-state entities, they not only fail to accurately respond to the threat, but they actually make things worse. Exhibit A: the war in Iraq. There has been a lot of discussion over the past few weeks about how the Democrats need to come up with a strategy for the war on terrorism. I think that Naim's point is one for Democrats to ponder because it provides a simple and effective alternative to the Republican's percieved strong points--security and foreign policy. The Democrats must be able to show how and why the Republicans are wrong on security and they need to show how they will do things better. This is certainly easier said than done, but I think Naim is pointing in the right direction for where Democrats can find an answer to their foreign policy problems.

Update: Renewal of Iraq

According to the White House, we haven't made any progress in Renewing Iraq since October 21st, 2004. I'm sure there is a good explanation for the lack of updates, so I'd be glad to give the White House a helping hand: * The Washington Times reports that preparations for the January 30th Iraqi National Elections are going swimmingly. With 6 weeks to go we've registered .25% of eligible voters! As Major Ben Wild notes, "[The Iraqis] are very excited about democracy!" Whoa! Don't all register at once, Iraq! * Iraqi President Ghazi Yawar is optimistic about his country's future: "This could in the long term create an environment in which an Iraqi Hitler could emerge like the one created by the defeat of Germany and the humiliation of Germans in World War I," Yawar told the London-based Asharq al-Awsat newspaper." At least he didn't say another Saddam Hussein! * Today, December 13th 2004, is the 1st Anniversary of Saddam Hussein's capture!! The day was marked by violence across Iraq, including a suicide car bombing that killed 13 people in Baghdad and a report that seven U.S. Marines died in combat in western Iraq. So you see, there is clearly no reason to read anything into the lack of updates coming from the White House on our renewal efforts in Iraq.

'Bout Time

New "Get Your War On":



Thanks to Generik for pointing this out.

Neocon Stupidity

Some people just don't get it. Bill Kristol is now arguing that we need to off the Syrian regime as a way of stopping the Iraqi insurgency.

U.S. military intelligence officials agree: They have recently concluded, according to the Washington Post, "that the Iraqi insurgency is being directed to a greater degree than previously recognized from Syria, where they said former Saddam Hussein loyalists have found sanctuary and are channeling money and other support to those fighting the established government."

What to do? We have tried sweet talk (on Secretary Powell's trip to Damascus in May 2003) and tough talk (on the visit three months ago by Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Rodman and Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt). Talk has failed. Syria is a weak country with a weak regime. We now need to take action to punish and deter Assad's regime.

It would be good, of course, if Secretary Rumsfeld had increased the size and strength of our army so that we now had more options. He didn't, and we must use the assets we have. Still, real options exist. We could bomb Syrian military facilities; we could go across the border in force to stop infiltration; we could occupy the town of Abu Kamal in eastern Syria, a few miles from the border, which seems to be the planning and organizing center for Syrian activities in Iraq; we could covertly help or overtly support the Syrian opposition (pro-human rights demonstrators recently tried to take to the streets of Damascus to protest the regime's abuses). This hardly exhausts all the possible forms of pressure and coercion. But it's time to get serious about dealing with Syria as part of winning in Iraq, and in the broader Middle East.

Even if Syria is helping out the insurgency, invading another Middle Eastern country (not to mention with who's army?) isn't going to do anything constructive for our efforts in Iraq, or for that matter, the war on terrorism. This is such a classic case of neocon stupidity. Instead of dealing with the fact that the insurgency exists because we screwed up, they pass the buck to Syria and then argue we need to invade it. It would almost be funny if it weren't so scary.

(via War and Piece)

Bay Area Blogger Meet-Up

The second meeting of the Bay Area Resident Bloggers and Readers will be at 6pm this coming Wednesday at Ben & Nick's Bar & Grille in Oakland. If you live in the area, read or publish a blog, and enjoy beer and good conversation, please feel free to join us. Especially if you're into buying rounds. I had a great time at the first event, and hope that even more people show up this time. If you have any questions, or need the secret password, you can drop me a line via the email link on the left.

Things I've Seen

Movies I've seen in the past three weeks: * Ocean's Twelve: Saw it last night, and didn't think it was very good. Great cast, but the story was a little hard to follow because it seemed as though they were writing the script as the movie unfolded. The problem with this is that there was absolutely no explanation for various plot twists and new character introductions, which makes things less believable. Even though it was so-so, I'd say it was entertaining, and probably best suited for a rental/flight. * Closer: Great story. Great cast. Great movie. I heard a lot of people (girls) mumbling on the way out of the theater that the movie was disturbing, but I think they were just having a difficult time dealing with one of the major themes of the movie: the truth hurts. Of course, another major theme is that Natalie Portman is beautiful (and a good actress). * Kinsey: Another excellent movie. It's all about sex--boring sex, kinky sex, all kinds of sex. And it's all about how prudish people deny their sexuality and try to deny others' sexuality because they aren't comfortable with their own. In this sense, it's a great movie for a country that has a collective hernia if a boob comes out on television for a split second or when sex is used to sell football. Liam Neeson is really good, and should get a nomination for his role as Alfred Kinsey. Tonight I'm going to see The Blind Boys of Alabama at the Masonic Auditorium in San Francisco (work perk!). These guys are pretty amazing--they met at a blind school in Alabama many years ago, and are now one of the best gospel groups around. They recently put out an album with Ben Harper, which I strongly recommend. If anyone has any other movie suggestions or reviews, let me know.

The Ironic War

Sometimes you read something and it just makes you shake your head and wonder WTF is going on. This article via Reuters is one example. Iraq, keeper of the world's second largest oil reserves, and invaded by the United States for control over that very same oil, is in a fuel crisis:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. officials in Baghdad fear that a fuel crisis, which has left Iraqi homes cold and dark and drivers waiting days for petrol, may inflame unrest before the election. "If the current situation does not improve quickly, public confidence in the government may deteriorate significantly," a diplomat wrote this week in a note circulated among the U.S.-led coalition occupying Iraq and obtained by Reuters. Blaming sabotage, banditry and guerrilla attacks on convoys, the note urged "extraordinary efforts" to ease shortages in Baghdad and elsewhere that have sent fuel prices soaring. [...] For Iraqis, who are to vote for a national assembly on Jan. 30, shortages of electricity and fuel are, aside from insecurity in much of the country, prime complaints since the war. With Iraq in the grip of winter, when temperatures drop close to freezing during 12 hours of darkness, electricity seems in shorter supply even than a few months ago, despite constant U.S. efforts to repair war and sabotage damage. Typically many households have two hours of power before a four-hour blackout. [...] On Friday, the North Oil Company said it was halting output at its refinery in Baiji, 180 km (110 miles) north of the capital, because of sabotage. An explosion also hit a pipeline near Baquba, northwest of Baghdad. Baiji and Baquba are both areas populated by Iraq's once dominant Sunni Arab minority, where loyalties to Saddam Hussein were once strong and where the insurgency against the occupation and pro-U.S. Iraqis is in full swing. U.S. and Iraqi officials fear violence could increase as the election nears. The cost of paraffin for heating has risen fivefold in the capital and bottled cooking gas tenfold, causing serious hardship for the many Iraqis without jobs or regular income. Lines several km (miles) long snake from the city's petrol stations where drivers can fill up for a subsidized 3 U.S. cents a liter. The choice is to pay 20 times as much to profiteers. Anger has boiled over, fights and shooting have broken out.

This war was about oil, plain and simple. There was never any other rational excuse, even in spite of the litany of reasons we were told in the run-up to the war. Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney aren't stupid--they knew their excuses were bullshit, and knew they couldn't come out and say, "Yeah, it's the oil, stupid." And so it is that irony, and not oil, is Iraq's greatest export at the moment. We invaded Iraq for the oil, but don't have enough troops to protect the oil industry, which we were told would pay for the entire misadventure and help fund Iraq's blossoming democracy. Like just about everything else with this war, this great plan backfired, and the only people paying the consequences are those who didn't make the decision. The cost of these consequences is quickly escalating to the point that all the oil in the world won't be able to cover it:

The latest energy problems come as sources in Congress said the U.S. government, facing mounting violence and demands from troops for better equipment, is assembling a funding package for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan that could outstrip earlier estimates, by as much as $75 billion to $100 billion.

But not to worry, as the "greatest Secretary of Defense the United States has ever had," Donald Rumsfeld has a plan:

"I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense...[Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it."
[Source: Senate Appropriations Hearing, 3/27/03]

We're in good hands.

BIll O'Reilly Gets Punk'd

God I love the Internets.

PMD Don't Mean PM Dawn

Thomas Friedman makes an argument that the biggest intelligence failure leading up to the war was not the failure to find WMD, but the failure to calculate the number of PMD--People of Mass Destruction.

Let me explain: America's greatest intelligence failure in Iraq was not the W.M.D. we thought were there, but weren't. It was the P.M.D. we thought weren't there, but were. P.M.D., in my lexicon, stands for "people of mass destruction." And there were far more of them in Iraq than anyone realized. The failure of U.S. intelligence to understand what was happening inside Iraqi society during the decade-plus of U.N. sanctions that preceded our invasion is the key to many of the problems we've encountered in post-Saddam Iraq. The U.N. sanctions pulverized Iraqi society - a society already beaten down by an eight-year Iran-Iraq war, the war over Kuwait and some 30 years of Saddam's tyranny. As Saddamism and sanctions chewed up the Iraqi people during the 1990's, many people of talent left. Before the war, the Bush team told anyone who would listen that Iraq had the most talented secular elite in the Arab world. And it was right. The only problem was that during the 1990's many in that elite moved to Amman, Damascus, Beirut, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain and Cairo, where they worked as professors, music teachers and engineers. Meanwhile, back in Iraq, those who had no access to Baath Party privileges got steadily ground down. Many Iraqi youth, unable to connect with the outside world and unable to find jobs at home, turned to religion. Saddam encouraged this with a mosque-building program. By wrapping himself in an aura of Islam, Saddam also hoped to buttress his own waning legitimacy. So Wahhabi religious influence flowed into the Sunni areas from Saudi Arabia, as Iranian religious influence flowed into Shiite regions. You know all those masked Iraqi youth you see in the Al Jazeera videos, brandishing weapons and standing over some foreigner whose head they are about saw off? They are the product of the last decade of Saddamism and sanctions. Those youth were 10 years old when the U.N. sanctions began. They are the mushrooms that Saddam and the sanctions were growing in the dark. The Bush team had no clue they were there. These deracinated, unemployed, humiliated Sunni Iraqi youth are our biggest problem today. Some clearly have become suicide bombers. We can't say what percentage, because, unlike the Palestinians, the Iraqi suicide bombers don't even bother to tell us their names or do a farewell video for mom. They not only are ready to commit suicide on demand, but they are ready to do it anonymously. That bespeaks a very high level of commitment or psychosis, or both. I would estimate that U.S. forces have been hit with over 200 of these human missiles, and we still are not sure how they are recruited and deployed. What we are facing, I think, is a crude underground suicide supply chain - a mutant combination of Wal-Mart and Wahhabism.

Wal-Mart and Wahhabism? Isn't that redundant? Friedman brings up an interesting point regarding Hussein's efforts to stoke religious fervor as a means of maintaining power. Forgive me, but I can't help but make a similar connection: Many American youth, unable to connect with the outside world and unable to find jobs at home, turned to religion. George Bush and Karl Rove encouraged this with an anti-gay marriage amendment proposal. By wrapping himself in an aura of Christianity, Bush also hoped to buttress his own waning legitimacy. I know, it's a stretch. Anyway, back to Friedman. Of course he is right. We failed (big time) to understand that when you "liberate" a country that has only known tyranny for the past thirty years, and is as ethnically divisive as Iraq, you're not going to be left with a pretty situation. As the great American hero, Donald Rumsfeld once said, "Quit your whiny bitching, soldier. Freedom is messy." Actually, "we failed" is a little bit misleading. There were lots of people, like the State Department, the CIA, and the military brass who did accurately predict that we were heading into a very hostile situation that would require far more troops than we had planned. At the time, their opinions were considered downright blasphemous by the people in the know--Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz--all of whom, for the record, still have a job. I disagree with Friedman on one point, though. He concludes that if we can figure out the supply chain flow chart for how the Iraq insurgencies recruit members and turn them into suicide bombers, he would feel a lot safer. I won't. The suicide bombings will increase, and so will the number of people willing to kill themselves, as long as we're in Iraq and as long as we continue to perpetuate the myth that we're bringing freedom, democracy and liberty to the Iraqi people. The Iraqis aren't idiots. They see the contradiction between our actions and our message, and they (rightfully) don't like it. That's the big problem that not even a two fold increase in troops can solve.

No More Lighters On Airplanes

Wow. Go Congress!

WASHINGTON (AP) - Passengers already are barred from smoking on commercial flights. Now they won't be allowed to bring their butane lighters on board either. As part of the intelligence reform bill passed Wednesday, Congress added the lighters to the long list of items, including scissors, pen knives and box cutters, that passengers are barred from carrying on to planes. The ban does not apply to checked luggage.

I never understood why this was even possible in the first place (answer: tobacco lobby), especially after 9/11 and double especially after Richard Reid tried to blow up a plane by lighting his shoe bomb with a lighter. This should have been a no brainer, and I'm glad that Congress has finally done something about it. Note: This isn't an endorsement of the new intelligence bill, which I think doesn't really do too much in the way of making us safer, but it just goes to show that not all pork is bad.

Morale, What Is It Good For?

The Associated Press article mentioned in an earlier post leads with the following graphs:

CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait - Disgruntled U.S. soldiers complained to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Wednesday about the lack of armor for their vehicles and long deployments, drawing a blunt retort from the Pentagon (news - web sites) chief. "You go to war with the Army you have," he said in a rare public airing of rank-and-file concerns among the troops. In his prepared remarks earlier, Rumsfeld had urged the troops — mostly National Guard and Reserve soldiers — to discount critics of the war in Iraq (news - web sites) and to help "win the test of wills" with the insurgents. Some of soldiers, however, had criticisms of their own — not of the war itself but of how it is being fought.

From Dominic D. P. Johnson's Overconfidence and War, page 14:

The confidence of soldiers, commanders, statesmen, and nations has long been appreciated as an ingredient of success. Napolean believed that, in war, morale was three times more valuable than physical strength. More than a century and a half later, writing about the Vietnam War, Leslie Gelb and Richard Betts suggested that high morale remained a key attribute: "Optimism is psychologically necessary for dedicated and energetic performance." Indeed, differences in morale can turn tides of wars. Low morale can lead to military coups or domestic revolutions that bring down the home government (as with Milosevic in Serbia); high morale can allow nations to keep fighting apparently hopeless battles for years without surrendering (as with the resistance against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan). Weaker sides sometimes win wars--even against superpowers--and this is often attributed to the higher resolve of the underdog. In extreme cases, the resolve of a weaker power can render even massage military coercion by the stronger side effectively useless. The United States failed to break Norh Vietnamese resolve despite years of carnage and more tonnage of bombs dropped during all of World War II. As Ho Chi Minh promised: "Kill ten of our men and we will kill one of yours. In the end, it is you who will tire."

This further highlights the fact that there are serious problems inherent in our inability to a) put more troops into Iraq, and b) rotate those that are there often and reliably. I'm worried that the morale of our troops is dangerously low, not only because many of them have been there longer than they ever expected, and for reasons that now seem exaggerated (to put it nicely), but also because there seems to be no end in sight. For all the electoral praise Bush and Co. received for being stronger on Iraq and the war on terrorism, I still haven't heard a substantial proposal from them for how the hell we're going to get out of Iraq and what constitutes winning. That might not be a huge concern for you and I, after all, we can just turn off CNN or Fox and the war goes away. But for those there, who have families and loved ones back home, not knowing an exit plan, or even what constitutes victory, has got to be a huge and unnecessary burden. In contrast, we're fighting people whose motivations and goals are crystal clear. They want independence and freedom (irony is alive and well!), and probably want it more than however much we want whatever goals we have. That, in a nutshell, is why we're going to have one hell of a time winning this war (in any real sense of the word "winning"). Update: As PusBoy and BlondeSense note, Rumsfeld's full quote is even more disgusting: "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have." I like what BlondeSense says, "So a big fuck you, you're going to die for Christmas," courtesy of the SecDef. Not to mention that this is just another beautiful example of irony in action. Rumsfeld, of course, went to war in Iraq with the Army he wanted and wished for.

Rumsfeld's Greatest Hits: Tough Love

Via AMERICAblog is this gem regarding Rumsfeld's recent trip to Kuwait. Apparently the conditions in Iraq are so bad that our soldiers aren't afraid to ask the Secretary of Defense some uncomfortable questions. Maybe we should send the press corp there for a while. From the AP:

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked. A big cheer arose from the approximately 2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear the secretary of defense. Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question. "We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north," Wilson said after asking again. Rummy's reply? [Not from AP, but from AMERICAblog] "You go to war with the Army you have."

All class, that Rumsfeld. He should have just said, "Your selfish fellow Americans back in the States, who can't even find Iraq on a goddamn map, need their precious tax cuts."

Rumsfeld's Greatest Hits: Private Military Corporations

Speaking of Rumsfeld, we often hear that one of his biggest wet dreams is to transform the military into a leaner fighting force, but we don't usually hear how he is actually going about doing it. At first glance, it sounds counterintuitive--we're already short of troops, why would we want to have even fewer? It's an honest question, but it fails to understand the culture of corporate greed that has seeped its way into the highest offices of the Pentagon. One of the things that Rumsfeld has done is increase the US military's reliance on private military corporations, which provide non-combat services like security, logistics, and training. In the past, the military was primarily responsible for these services, but over the course of the last few years, we've passed the buck, via contracts, to huge multi-national corporations. Iraq and Afghanistan have been the mother-of-all contracts for these companies because of all the work that needs to be done, and the lack of US military to do it. Now, I know next to nothing about business, but I do know that when you introduce a profit-seeking element into an area where it was previously lacking, and throw in a lack of oversight and accountability, corruption is nearly certain. And guess what? It's exactly what's happening. The market for these PMC's is booming, and nobody has a really good idea how much the companies are pulling in, but it is definitely in the billions. Unlike other sectors of the economy, PMCs can hardly employ people fast enough. Of course, as you might expect, this leads to some problems. In the latest issue of Mother Jones, Barry Yeoman details the types of people these corporations are hiring to keep up with demand:

To an unprecedented degree, the United States and its allies have turned to private companies to fill tens of thousands of jobs once performed only by soldiers, from prison interrogators to bodyguards for high-ranking officials. Several of these companies have even engaged in firefights as part of their work. To Iraqis, the corporate guards are often indistinguishable from U.S. troops, with whom they often cooperate. Yet there is one key difference between the contract soldiers and U.S. troops: With pressure to quickly fill thousands of jobs, many companies have recruited former police officers and soldiers who engaged in human rights violations -- including torture and illicit killings -- for regimes such as apartheid South Africa, Augusto Pinochet’s Chile, and Slobodan Milosevic’s Yugoslavia. Some of these firms perform only cursory pre-employment screening, if any -- making it easy for those with questionable backgrounds to slip through unnoticed. “There is no interest on the part of many firms to do background checks,” says Marco Nicovic, an attorney in Serbia who serves as vice president of the International Bodyguard and Security Services Association. “For men who are wanted and have arrest warrants, Iraq is a way out. It’s easier, safer for them to start clean there.”

What is left unsaid in all of this is that we, the US taxpayers, are paying their salaries at a cost that is probably higher than what it would take to enlarge the military. And say you were about to leave the military (as if they'd let you), and you had the choice to re-enlist or get paid 10x more and work for a PMC, what would you do? Clearly, there are many concerns associated with the use of PMCs, but perhaps the biggest in my book is, as Yeoman writes, "To Iraqis, the corporate guards are often indistinguishable from U.S. troops, with whom they often cooperate." In other words, if you've got ex-Pinochet henchman running around in Iraq without any accountability for their actions, they're bound to do something that will hurt our image (if it is even possible anymore) in the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. It doesn't even matter to an Iraqi whether they are contractors or aren't even American--they look like, are armed like, and are employed by the United States. The Arab world won't take its anger out on Blackwater or DynCorp. They will, and do, take it out on us. Finally, it adds to the growing list of contradictions filed under "Do As We Say, Not As We Do" a.k.a. The Abu Ghraib Rule. That is, it is silly for us to complain about the illegality of insurgents posing as civilians or not dressed in official military gear if we are going to employ non-military personnel to work alongside our own military. In this sense, our confusion, is equally their confusion.

Rumsfeld Psyched for 2nd Term

Are you psyched? I'm so psyched I could puke:

"The president asked me if I would be willing to stay on, and I told him I would be delighted to do that," Rumsfeld said.

I'm speechless.

Musharraf to the UK: "We need to fight the root causes of terrorism"

It looks like Pervez Musharraf had a little more to say to Tony Blair and the UK then he did to George W. Bush and the US:

In an earlier interview for the BBC's Newsnight programme, it was suggested to the general the world was less safe - in part because of the campaign [the war on terrorism]. "Absolutely," he said, adding that the social grievances that helped recruit terrorists were not being addressed. Standing next to Mr Blair he added that it was crucial to tackle the "core of what creates terrorists, what creates an extremist, militant environment which then leads on to terrorism". "That is the resolution of political disputes." [...] In his interview with Newsnight, to be broadcast later on Monday, Mr Musharraf said there was a failure to tackle the core problems behind militancy. "We are fighting it in its immediate context, but we are not fighting it in its strategic, long-term context." He said a war on terror needed to combat the political disputes and social inequalities that gave rise to extremism. "What gives rise to a young man or woman to give up her or his life? It is the political disputes and we need to resolve them and also illiteracy and poverty. "These combined are breeding grounds of extremism and terrorism."

Isn't it surprising that he didn't mention this in Washington when he visited Bush to congratulate him on his re-election? It shouldn't be. We in America don't get to question the efficiency and effectiveness of the way we fight the war on terrorism. That would be downright unpatriotic! In our national discourse, the possibility that terrorism could be combated more effectively by directly addressing its root causes (poverty, political dictatorships, oil, etc) is about as pie in the sky as more efficient fuel standards for new auto engines. Or national healthcare. We've been drilled over and over again that military action is the only way we can win the war on terrorism, even as this thesis is continuously debunked with each passing day in Iraq. The fact is, Musharraf is right--relying primarily on military power to beat terrorism is a viscious circle that is unwinnable. I do not see how we are going to win unless we change our mentality. Of course, you cannot totally dismiss military power, but you can certainly use it more intelligently than we have so far. Such power should be used to complement and reinforce political, social, and economic power, all of which are just as important, if not more, than military force. Why? Because political, social, and economic power do not inherently provoke the problem. This illustrates my biggest problem with Bush's foreign policy: When you cast the battle in a black and white, good vs. evil, immoral vs moral framework you limit yourself to the most extreme ways of fighting the problem. It creates a bloodthirstyness that is unquenchable, but also destructive to those who try to quench it. Another consequence is that any alternative policy suggestions are immediately and completely marginalized, so that if a politician wants to become elected, he or she has to tease this bloodthirstyness (See Howard Dean, John Kerry, and any Democrat running for office from 2002-2004), which makes it even less likely that we'll ever be able to change this mentality. In this sense, we're our own worst enemy.

Bells of Dublin

The Best Holiday CD. Ever. The Chieftains' The Bells of Dublin

Pakistan: "We're Tired of Looking for OBL." GWB: "That's Cool. It is Hard Work."

This story is much funnier if you pretend it comes from The Onion. You might have heard that Pakistan scaled back its efforts to find bin Laden a few weeks ago. Essentially they gave up looking for him (after all, it's hard work) to instead negotiate a truce with terrorists and rely on information provided by the not so friendly tribal leaders of the South Waziristan area of Pakistan. This is sort of like John Kerry hiring Karl Rove to help him beat George W. Bush. Considering that bin Laden is a threat to our security, and that we basically outsourced our search for him to Pakistan, I would expect this to be an alarming development. Well, I expect wrongly:

Dec. 4, 2004 - President Bush offered no criticism Saturday of Pakistan's role in the still-unsuccessful hunt for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, even though Pakistan's army is pulling back from the region where the terrorist mastermind is believed hiding. After an Oval Office meeting with Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Bush said, "His army has been incredibly active and very brave ... flushing out an enemy that though they had found safe haven." Bush characterized Musharraf as "a determined leader to bring to justice not only people like Osama bin Laden but to bring to justice those would inflict harm and pain on his own people. ... I am very pleased with his efforts."

For all the shit I give this Administration, I have to say I admire their consistency when it comes to unaccountability. Musharraf a "dedicated leader"? And I'm the pope:

Neither Bush nor Musharraf publicly mentioned Washington's concerns over Musharraf's backtracking on a pledge to relinquish his military post. The general, who seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999, had pledged in December 2003 to relinquish his army position as part of a commitment to civilian rule. His government pushed through a law this year, however, to allow him to keep the separate role. That caused some quiet unease that Pakistan was not progressing toward democracy as had been hoped.

What I find frustrating is that we really do need Pakistan helping us, but that doesn't mean we have to relinquish the upper hand when it comes to publicly pressuring them to keep up the good fight. And I understand that there are certain domestic political issues in Pakistan we need to be wary of, but I don't think that necessitates a public capitulation on our part.

We need more troops? Really?

Q: What do you get when you invade and occupy two large countries with organized and effective insurgencies? A: Quagmires? Q: Yes, of course, but what else? A: A dangerously overextended military??

With nearly all of the Army's 10 divisions serving in Iraq, preparing for deployment there or refitting from a combat tour in that country, there are few forces available to deal with a new major threat or emergency, military experts say. As Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, said at a congressional hearing last month, "I'm committed to providing the troops that are requested [for Iraq]. But I can't promise more than I've got." The Army is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites) and maintaining a military presence in the Balkans, Germany, South Korea (news - web sites) and other foreign countries with a total force of just under 500,000. It had more than 800,000 under arms when it waged the brief Persian Gulf war in 1991. "You need a bigger Army if you're going to carry out the Bush national security strategy," said Lawrence Korb, who served as assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration. "Right now, you're really using the reserves at an unsustainable pace, and you're violating the norms that you have for deploying people overseas that you've established not only for equity but for retention." The U.S. has more troops in all branches serving abroad than it averaged from 1950 to 2003, and three times as many overseas as it had in December 2001, according to a study by the Washington-based Heritage Foundation. "If you look at the world--and what we're likely to see in the future in terms of potential threats and areas where we need to be involved, either to deter or actually conduct operations--I think it's clear that we need a larger force than what we have," said Michelle Flournoy, a former deputy assistant defense secretary now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Yet Rumsfeld continues to hawk his lean, mean fighting machine transformation of the military, even in spite of the fact that our military has turned into an occupying force, and not a fighting force. Why he still has a job is beyond me. And what happened to the people who accurately predicted the number of troops we'd need to occupy a country twice the size of Idaho? Belittled, fired, and/or resigned. So we're now left with few options: the first is to dramatically increase the size of our military. We can do this by draft or we can do this by raising military pay and lowering qualifying standards. I would hope we went with the latter before we reinstate the draft, even though raising military pay will cost a lot of money that we don't really have (not that that should stop us). We could also take our troops out of Korea, Germany, the Balkans, and Columbia and re-distribute them to the US and the Middle East. In addition to being a huge sign of desperation, it would also leave us extremely vulnerable in parts of the world we need to remain stable. So this is probably unlikely in the short term. Finally, we could just pick up camp in Iraq, cut the number of troops we have there by half or more, and leave. Critics of this option often argue that our presence is so badly needed that if we left all hell would break loose. Clearly, these people aren't paying attention. We're there, and hell has been raining down on us so much we can't even secure the road to the Baghdad Airport. My guess is that we'll do option 1B (increase the military with pay incentives and lowered qualifying standards) until we find the right moment to declare Iraq a "Beacon of Freedom and Democracy in the Middle East. " Lastly, all of this should illustrate just how stupid it was for the press and the Right to collectively laugh at Kerry for wanting to restore our alliances. If this Administration had ever taken diplomacy serious, we might have had more non-US troops to help us out. Now, we're stuck with a dwindling coalition, and a situation in Iraq that couldn't be more uninviting to anyone crazy enough to flirt with the idea of sending their troops into the shit storm. I'm in a great mood this morning.

Internet Terrorism

I'm a big believer that we aren't taking the threat of Internet-related terrorism as serious as we should. So, I'm glad to see that George Tenet feels the same way (not that he can do anything about it these days):

Former CIA Director George J. Tenet yesterday called for new security measures to guard against attacks on the United States that use the Internet, which he called "a potential Achilles' heel." "I know that these actions will be controversial in this age when we still think the Internet is a free and open society with no control or accountability," he told an information-technology security conference in Washington, "but ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control." The former CIA director said telecommunications -- and specifically the Internet -- are a back door through which terrorists and other enemies of the United States could attack the country, even though great strides have been made in securing the physical infrastructure. The Internet "represents a potential Achilles' heel for our financial stability and physical security if the networks we are creating are not protected," Mr. Tenet said. He said known adversaries, including "intelligence services, military organizations and non-state actors," are researching information attacks against the United States.

I think it's difficult to overestimate how much our everyday lives rely on potentially vulnerable technologies. Internet technologies provide significant support for telecommunication systems within the United States. The systems rely on the Internet and networks for voice and data services, which include cellular phone and wireless local-area networks. Individuals and groups have shown that with motivation and an Internet connection, it is possible to develop viruses and hacking techniques, which disrupt these vital communication resources. A more extensive and developed cyber-attack would severely thwart the ability to communicate. The consequences would not be limited to telecommunications. The effects would cascade into industries such as business and finance and have a profound impact on the national economy. Another area where we are vulnerable is in satellite technology. In the military, satellites are crucial tools for gathering and sending information and intelligence. Notably, as a recent situation illustrates, satellites are subject to disruptive attacks on their operations. In the summer of 2003, a Cuban electronics base successfuly jammed an American satellite that provided anti-government programming to Iran. The event produced a new sense of alarm, because it revealed that other countries now possess the the capability and resolution to interfere with the ability of the US to collect and communicate information via satellite. Therefore, this has serious implications on military and intelligence actions, as it hinders the unrestricted access to information provided by satellites, and necessary for any successful operation. This might sound alarmist, but I think these technologies represent a major, relatively exposed vulnerability. At the very least we should be discussing the implications of the threat and be working harder at prevention. Although, I think Tenet's suggestion of almost draconian regulation takes it two steps too far:

The way the Internet was built might be part of the problem, he said. Its open architecture allows Web surfing, but that openness makes the system vulnerable, Mr. Tenet said. Access to networks like the World Wide Web might need to be limited to those who can show they take security seriously, he said.

The people who would not be granted access are those that most likely have the ability to override such a denial of service. It will be virtually impossible to design technology that is completely impenetrable to terrorists. As a result, the best we can do is make sure things are as secure as possible and have backup systems in place in the event of a crippling attack. If your interested in learning more about this stuff, I highly recommend Robert Latham's Bombs and Bandwith.

No Shit?

Tell me something I didn't know?

Victor Conte, the man at the center of the BALCO doping scandal, says he provided performance-enhancing drugs to Marion Jones before and after the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, and gave steroids to Barry Bonds' trainer, Greg Anderson. The charges are among several explosive allegations the man in the center of the BALCO scandal made in a wide-ranging interview in the upcoming issue of ESPN the Magazine.Conte's claims include: He personally gave "The Clear," an undetectable steroid, to Bonds' trainer. He watched Marion Jones inject human growth hormone in 2001. Conte says he ended his relationship with Jones because she was careless about taking the drugs, and twice left her growth hormone behind in hotel rooms. His first steroid client was former NFL linebacker Bill Romanowski. Olympic drug testers are so ill-equipped to detect sophisticated steroids, they gave Tim Montgomery a clean bill of health while he was on an elaborate cocktail of insulin, growth hormone and "The Clear."

Fasten your seatbelts, the BALCO case is going to be like unmasking Santa Claus to a six year old. Performance enhancing drugs are like vitamins to many of the top athletes in a variety of sports. This case should do away with the allusion that the problem is sporadic.

Red: It's the New Black

Frank Rich has a great piece on the Nascarization of the nightly news in today's New York Times. By Nascarization, Rich means the emergence of the red state cool (red is the new black!) that is sweeping the nation, and is now rearing its (ugly) head on basic cable:

There's a war on. TV remains by far the most prevalent source of news for Americans. We need honest information to help us navigate, not bunkum skewed to flatter one segment of the country, whatever that segment might be. Yet here's how Jeff Zucker, the NBC president, summed up the attributes of Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw's successor, to Peter Johnson of USA Today: "No one understands this Nascar nation more than Brian." Mr. Zucker was in sync with his boss, Bob Wright, the NBC Universal chairman, who described America as a "red state world" on the eve of Mr. Brokaw's retirement. Though it may come as news to those running NBC, we actually live in a red-and-blue-state country, in a world that increasingly hates all our states without regard to our provincial obsession with their hues. Nonetheless, Mr. Williams, who officially took over as anchor on Dec. 2, is seeking a very specific mandate. "The New York-Washington axis can be a journalist's worst enemy," he told Mr. Johnson, promising to spend his nights in the field in "Dayton and Toledo and Cincinnati and Denver and the middle of Kansas." (So much for San Francisco - or Baghdad.) I don't mean to single out Mr. Williams, who is prone to making such statements while wearing suits that reek of "New York-Washington axis" money and affectation. But when he talks in a promotional interview of how he found the pulse of the nation in Cabela's, a popular hunting-and-fishing outfitter in Dundee, Mich., and boasts of owning both an air rifle and part interest in a dirt-track stock-car team, he is declaring himself the poster boy for a larger shift in our news culture. He is eager to hunt down an audience, not a story.

I agree. Like any fad, red state cool is more about opportunism than a signal of a real cultural shift. In this case, it's the networks running with a narrative they've helped to create, and are now trying to reinforce, not for the sake of news, but for the sake of their own financial gain. The real shift is not occurring in American culture, it's occurring in the news culture. It's the Foxification of news: an appeal to patriotic emotion whose top priority is the comfort of its audience in spite of what the actual news may be. Fox invented it, CNN and the rest of cable news aspire to it, and now the Big Three want it, too.

Misleading Headline

Did someone say information wars? Here is the current headline on CNN's frontdoor:

While technically it is true that we are sending 1,500 troops to Iraq, the reality is that we are extending the stays of more than 10,000 other soldiers who are currently serving in Iraq but were scheduled to return to the States. This will raise the total number of troops to 150,000, which is 2,000 more than the size of the force we used to invade Iraq in March 2003. Although it is a semantic difference, the difference between the implications of each message is quite substantial. Highlighting that only 1,500 troops are going to Iraq, without also mentioning that 11,000 more are sticking around longer than expected is disingenuous because it is intended to depict a picture of Iraq that's contrary to reality. More to the point: the more troops we send over to Iraq the worse off the situation appears to be, and the less number of troops it appears we're sending to Iraq the less bad the situation looks. That being said, I don't think raising the troop levels is a bad thing. We really should have done this 10 months ago. Had we done it then, we might have been able to stabilize the country for the long term. The only thing 12,000 troops will do now is allow us to get to the elections without things getting much worse. Beyond that, god knows what will happen. update: Of course, they took the number out of the headline as soon as I finished writing the post.

Overconfidence and War

I got my grubby little hands on a copy of Dominic D.P. Johnson's Overconfidence and War: The Havoc and Glory of Positive Illusions. The book looks great and I can't wait to read it. President Flightsuit, quite appropriately in my opinion, adornes the front cover. You can almost see the hubris dripping from his smirk. Based on what I've read so far, it sounds like it couldn't be more relevant to the situation we face in Iraq and the general trends of our foreign policy over the last four years. I'm only about four pages in, but I wanted to share this brief anecdote that opens the book:

On 16 November 1532 the Spanish explorer Francisco Pizarro and his modest force of 168 men attacked and defeated an Inca army of 80,000 soldiers at Cajamarca in Peru. Despte the incredible asymmetry in manpower, the Spaniards apparently won by means of superior weaponry and the effects of their opponents' surprise at the novelty of cannon, horses, and trumpets. The greater mystery is what led the conquistadors to believe they could win. There are accounts of the whole valley being full of Inca soldiers, filing out of their huge encampment for most of the morning. What gave the Spaniards the audacity to stay and fight?

Just in case you deduce from this that overconfidence is a good thing, Pizarro's story is immediately contrasted to Custer. I'll try to pass along interesting tidbits as they come up.

Information Wars

We're fighting two wars in Iraq these days. The first is against the insurgency, and depending on who you believe, we're facing an uphill climb. The other war is for the hearts and minds of the Arab world. This war is more difficult because as we try to fight the first war, we're simultaneously shooting ourselves in the foot in the second--afterall, the killing of innocent people is virtually unavoidable in urban combat. Moreover, whereas the first war is fought on the battlefield, the second war is often played out on Western and Arab cable television. In this regard, according to the LA Times, the US military is trying to bolster its offensive in the information war.

The Pentagon in 2002 was forced to shutter its controversial Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), which was opened shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, after reports that the office intended to plant false news stories in the international media. But officials say that much of OSI's mission -- using information as a tool of war -- has been assumed by other offices throughout the U.S. government. Although most of the work remains classified, officials say that some of the ongoing efforts include having U.S. military spokesmen play a greater role in psychological operations in Iraq, as well as planting information with sources used by Arabic TV channels such as Al-Jazeera to help influence the portrayal of the United States. Other specific examples were not known, although U.S. national security officials said an emphasis had been on influencing how foreign media depict the United States. These efforts have set off a fight inside the Pentagon over the proper use of information in wartime. Several top officials see a danger of blurring what are supposed to be well-defined lines between the stated mission of military public affairs -- disseminating truthful, accurate information to the media and the American public -- and psychological and information operations, the use of often misleading information and propaganda to influence the outcome of a campaign or battle. [...] Advocates of these programs said that the advent of a 24-hour news cycle and the powerful influence of Arabic satellite television made it essential that U.S. military commanders and civilian officials made the control of information a key part of their battle plans. "Information is part of the battlefield in a way that it's never been before," one senior Bush administration official said. "We'd be foolish not to try to use it to our advantage." [...] Advocates also cite a September report by the Defense Science Board, an outside panel that advises Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, which concluded that a "crisis" in U.S. "strategic communications" has undermined American efforts to fight Islamic extremism worldwide. The study cited polling in the Arab world that revealed widespread hatred of the United States throughout the Middle East. A poll taken in June by Zogby International revealed that 94 percent of Saudi Arabians have an "unfavorable" view of the United States, compared with 87 percent in April 2002. In Egypt, the second largest recipient of U.S. aid, 98 percent of respondents held an unfavorable view of the United States. The Defense Science Board recommended a presidential directive to "coordinate all components of strategic communication including public diplomacy, public affairs, international broadcasting, and military information operations." Di Rita said there is general agreement inside the Bush administration that the U.S. government is ill equipped to communicate its policies and messages abroad in the current media climate. "As a government, we're not very well organized to do that," he said.

While I certainly can understand the desire to pursue these types of activities, I'm not sure it is in our best interest. The Arab world already doesn't trust us, and information like this will not do anything to alleviate those concerns. On top of that, where do these psy-operations stop? If they're using CNN to get to the insurgents in Fallujah, they're probably using CNN to get to people in the United States. That would actually explain a lot... If you're interested in another perspective on the same issue, check out Control Room. You'll see that the public affairs/psy-op division of the US Army is just as important to our efforts (perhaps more) as the soldiers on the ground. You'll also see that the efforts of these PA/PO divisions are received by an incredibly skeptical, and often hostile, Arab media and population. The problem that we're facing in the information war is that even when you put lipstick on a pig, in the end you're still left with a pig. Lying and deceiving people about our military actions in Iraq isn't going to make them more acceptable. On the contrary, waging a smarter and more efficient war will likely do more towards winning the hearts and minds than the spin doctors on the television. Unfortunately, I think we're past the red line in both wars in that there is nothing we can do at this point to change things in our favor.

What's Going on in North Korea?

I've always been sort of fascinated about North Korea, particularly the cult of personality surrounding Kim Jong Il and the level of secrecy which the country keeps from the rest of the world. According to the Christian Science Monitor, though, Kim's cult might be scaling back because of an increase in protest activities:

BEIJING - Years can drift by between press conferences in Pyongyang. But recently the tiny resident press corps, namely the ITAR-Tass correspondent Stanislav Varivoda and two Chinese journalists, were summoned to hear Mr. Varivoda's story refuted. He reported last month that portraits of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il had disappeared from key public buildings. Further, the media had stopped using the honorific "Dear Leader" in official bulletins. "There's not normally much to do here but this has caused a storm," Varivoda said in a phone interview from Pyongyang. "At the press conference they said nothing I reported is true." Small signs often portend big changes in closed societies, especially in the secretive court of North Korea's Kim dynasty. Observers are wondering if this is just another mad whim from the palace - like the edicts forbidding women to wear red trousers or to eat hamburgers. Or if, after 3 million deaths from starvation on his watch, Kim Jong Il's star many finally be falling - something suggested by numerous North Korean refugees in recent interviews. Resident diplomats see nothing unusual in the country but confirm the portraits are gone in a few places. The 62-year-old Kim continues to be addressed with more than a thousand honorifics such as "The Lodestar of the 21st Century" and "Guardian of Our Planet."

The article also mentions that opposition to Kim is intensifying:

Refugees also indicate that opposition has become more open and daring. More and more pamphlets and banners are appearing calling for Kim's overthrow. Almost all refugees report seeing slogans such as "Down with Kim Jong Il" painted on walls, pylons, and railway carriages throughout the country. Statues and murals of the Kims have been defaced, and the halls erected for worship of the Kim family have been burnt down. Some officials have been found killed in their homes.

I had no idea that there was so much organized opposition to Kim in North Korea! I've often seen video of brainwashed North Korean schoolchildren reciting threats against the United States, so I just assumed that everyone felt that way or was prisoned if they voiced any dissent. If these reports are accurate, I have hope that the situation on the Korean peninsula might be resolved peacefully. Internal pressure, combined with the ever-present external pressure on the Kim regime, might be the straw that finally breaks the camel's back. Go containment!

13% ???

According to this chart, included in this article on the current state of Iraq in last week's New York Times, the United States currently has about 138,000 troops in Iraq. This number has remained pretty constant since the beginning of the war, when we had slightly more (150,000 total) in theater. 138,000 might sound like a lot, but when you're talking about occupying the country the size of Iraq, it hardly amounts to much. Especially when you consider that 21,000 soldiers are being treated for injuries at Landstuhl AFB in Germany:

Nov. 29, 2004  |  Berlin -- About 21,000 American soldiers, most of them from units sent to Iraq, have been treated at the biggest U.S. military hospital outside the United States since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001, the hospital said Monday. The Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany handles many U.S. combat casualties, but it did not break down the figure into battlefield and noncombat patients. Landstuhl doctors treated 17,878 U.S. soldiers from Iraq and 3,085 from Afghanistan through Sunday, hospital spokeswoman Marie Shaw told The Associated Press. The patients were treated for anything from gunshot wounds to noncombat ailments such as kidney stones, she said.

If you add the number of US troops in Afghanistan (17,900) to those in Iraq (138,000) you get 155,900. Therefore, those 21,000 soldiers hospitalized in Germany account for approximately 13% of all the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. This doesn't even take into consideration the number of soldiers that have been killed, injured but not hospitalized, or emotionally traumatized. Moreover, it is important to remember that the vast majority of soldiers in Iraq rarely see combat. Now I don't know about you, but this percentage seems really high to me. I have a feeling, though, that the number I came up with might not be accurate, or it might not even be that unusual for a military in a time of war, so if there is anyone with a better handle of statistics than I, please feel free to correct or verify these numbers. [this might put things in perspective] However, if the number is close to accurate, it further underscores the difficulty of refreshing troop levels in Iraq over a long period of time. Many of our soldiers are serving their second or third tour in Iraq and Afghanistan, and since casualties have been rising over the last six months, the chances that a soldier will be the victim of some type of casualty is increasing in probability. This raises the question as to how we're going to replace these soldiers as the duration of our occupation lengthens. I've suggested before that we're facing a fork in the road in Iraq. We could either dramatically increase our troop levels or (mostly) get the hell out of there. A lot of people have raised the reinstatement of the draft as a likely response to the first option, while others, in response to the latter, predict we'll manufacture a victory sometime after the Iraqi elections (whenever they happen). Personally, I think the the latter is the most likely and viable option, although we'll still need to find ways of replenishing our troops in the mean time. In this regard, we're ferociously targeting lower-middle class teenagers and single, middle aged mothers. Whereas many people see this as a sign that a draft is imminent, I prefer to see it as treading water until we can figure out a way to get out of Iraq without doing more damage than we did when we went in. My point (yes, I have one) is that the percentage of troops we're taking out of Iraq and Afghanistan because of injuries seems alarmingly high, especially on top of the already tenuous sustainability forecasts in both countries. We need to do something, and what that is will probably have enormous implications for the next four years. UPDATE: 134 troops have been killed in November. The second most in a month since last April when 135 died.

How To Talk To Conservatives

The Rockridge Institute has posted an excerpt of George Lakoff's Don't Think of An Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate in order to help people get through difficult family conversations during the holiday season. Unfortunately, I didn't find this in time to post before Thanksgiving, but the holiday season is now in full force, so these suggestions and guidelines might be helpful if, like me, you are politically outnumbered at family gatherings. At a quick glance, some of these suggestions seem pretty straightforward. Yet, if you have ever gotten into a heated political discussion, you know that it can be difficult to "avoid a shouting match", "stay calm", and "show respect." Personally, I think staying good humored is one of Lakoff's best suggestions. Political discussions certainly deal with serious issues, but approaching a conversation too seriously will often push people away from your viewpoint, rather than open them up to a new perspective. For instance, if you've been reading this blog for a while you know that I had a lot of energy and emotion invested in the election. The blog wasn't my only outlet, either. I broached the subject with friends and family on many occassions, and much to my dismay, I never seemed to get anywhere with people who weren't already predisposed to my views. At the time, and even now, I found it incredibly frustrating. I felt that my heightened seriousness about the issue should have been enough to at least make people question their own convictions. Unfortunately, I didn't see any evidence that this happened, and I think it is because seriousness (and I mean serious seriousness) has a tendency to come off as cute. Yes, cute as in, "Oh, isn't it cute that John thinks the state shouldn't prevent a man from marrying a man?" or "Awww, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11?? How cute!!" There probably is also a tendency for (my) seriousness to come across as unhinged. This is something I've been trying to work on in the past few weeks, but the truth is, I've found it pretty difficult to be more good humored when it comes to these types of things. So, I'm open to suggestions, and interested in hearing how other people approach these conversations, if at all.

Casualties

From Juan Cole:

CBS has elicited from the Pentagon the real figure of US casualties in Iraq, which is more like 25,000. That number includes the 1230 or so killed and the 9300 classified as "wounded in battle," but also 17,000 classified as non-combat sick or injured, of whom 80 percent do not return to their units in Iraq. Although some of the 17,000 are victims of disease, some unspecified number have actually been injured as a result of being in a theater of war. If you have an "accident" while guns and bombs are going off all around you, is it really an "accident"? The Editor and Publisher piece blames the "US press" for under-reporting these figures. But obviously it is the Department of Defense that constructed the categories that allowed some war heroes to be shunted off as victims of "accidents." So it isn't the press's fault. It is Donald Rumsfeld's fault (and, sure, Karl Rove and George W. Bush, the Teflon Twins).

At some point, the definition of the word casualty changed from dead and wounded to dead in combat. When you change the definition that dramatically, it is nearly impossible for the population for whom the soldiers fight to really understand the ugliness of war.

Inaugural SE WI Blogger Meet-Up

Tonight I had a chance to meet up with some fellow bloggers in Wisconsin. It was the inaugural "Multi-Annual SE WI Blogger Meet-Up." Nobkid, Heraldblog, and I checked out the Jazz Estate and Paddy's Irish Pub in Milwaukee. Both were nice establishments with good music and good M & M's, respectively. I've known NOB for a very long time, but this was my first chance to actually meet HB, whose blog I found in my early days of blogging. A fun time was had by all. If you live in the area (or don't), and would care to join us for the Christmas installment, please let us know. Happy Thanksgiving!

Brett Faverah: Best Ever?

ESPN has a nice profile on Brett Favre, who is about to start his 200th game in a row. To put that in perspective, Joe Montana didn't even play 200 games in his career! Favre is simply one of the best players in the NFL, and I'm not sure there is an athlete I'd rather have leading my team in all of pro sports. As a Packer fan growing up in Wisconsin (I know, it's redundant), I've had the chance to follow his career and the thing that stands out in my mind is his ability to overcome adversity. In this past year alone, Favre has had to deal with a lot of serious issues off the field:

In the last 11 months, Favre has lost his father, Irv, to a heart attack; lost his brother-in-law, Casey Tynes, in an all-terrain vehicle crash on his estate in Mississippi; and learned that his wife, Deanna, had breast cancer. Favre has played through a series of injuries this season -- concussion, bruised hamstring, sprained hand, sprained thumb -- but on Monday night he will step on Lambeau Field against the St. Louis Rams and start his 200th consecutive game, an amazing NFL record he continues to push further and further out of reach. By any measure, Favre's success under duress surpasses all understanding.

In spite of all this, Favre and the Packers have won five straight games, and are now tied for first place in their division. More importantly, my prediction is still intact. Fun fact: Favre's first completion was to himself.

What's going down in Ukraine?

Viktor Yushchenko v. Victor Yanukovych? It's no wonder the situation in Ukraine is unclear at the moment! A Fistful of Euros has been my main source of information in the blogosphere about what is going on in Ukraine. As far as the major media is concerned, I don't think you will find anything better than the BBC. Not only are they reporting about what's going on, but they also provide a lot of very good background material and context (what's that!?) surrounding the events as they unfold. You know, everything you would expect a major news outfit to provide. For instance, the domestic political situation in the Ukraine sounds strikingly similar to that of the United States. Paging David Brooks!

Political culture and the popular mentality differ significantly across Ukraine. In the western cities of Lviv or Ivano-Frankivsk, it is easy to think you are somewhere in Central Europe. But the eastern regions bordering Russia often feel - and look - like part of industrial Russia. There, Ukrainian nationalism is seen as the biggest threat coming from the West. And the enforced need to learn Ukrainian over recent years has caused serious, lingering resentment. Mr Yanukovych's supporters have set up a rival protest near Kiev's Dynamo Kiev football stadium. One of their banners reads "Don't sell Ukraine to America!" Anti-American, anti-western slogans were a key part of Mr Yanukovych's campaign.

I think it is also important to point out the international implications of the Ukranian situation. Ukraine is a point of contention between the European Union and Russia. The former would like it to eventually join, while such a move would be a major blow, both politically and culturally, for the latter. In this sense, then, the situation can be understood in terms of which direction Ukraine will move in the next few years. Finally, be sure to check out these pictures (via Grammar.Police) of Victor Yushchenko, the opposition candidate who claims the difference in his appearance is due to a ricin attack! it is rumored suffered a ricin attack causing his change in appearance.

Why We Aren't Winning

Philip Gourevitch offers an important take on the battle of Fallujah, and our broader crisis in Iraq, in the newest New Yorker:

Guerrilla fighters need only thwart a great power to claim victory, but a great power must deliver on its promises—and there are none greater than the promises of freedom, stability, and democracy that the President has made to the Iraqi people. [...] Still, it is true that the trouble in Iraq is not an indigenous incapacity for freedom and self-rule. The trouble is with the way that Bush imagined he could impose those blessings on such a vexed country—as if simply to be invaded by America is a form of salvation. “First we blow up your house, then we pay you to rebuild it,” a colonel in Falluja told the Times, while marine intelligence officers warned that the devastation of the city makes it fertile ground for a reinvigorated insurgency. In Falluja, as in Iraq as a whole, the challenge is to maintain sufficient control to be able to repair the damage that military victory has inflicted. Judging from the Administration’s record, that will be the hard part.

From the very beginning, the notion that we could impose democracy on a country that just (forcibly) finished 30+ years of tyrannical rule was absolutely absurd. To do this with the number of troops we had was absolutely hubristic. Bush likes to talk in a way that suggests the war in Iraq, and our subsequent problems there, were forced on us by a duty to respond to grave threats facing the nation. Our duty, he often says, is to bring democracy and freedom to the people of Iraq. The reality is that we'd be a lot closer to the democratic ideal we were sold had this Administration made more informed and realistic decisions. I, for one, can't wait to see how we spin the Iraqi election on January 30th. If I were a betting man, I'd say that even if 1/4 (or less) of the population votes, we'll declare victory and get the hell out of dodge unless we don't like the results. And it will be pretty hard for us not to like the results, since we'll have a "say" in who wins. The only other option that we have is to continue to go down the path we are currently on. I doubt this is sustainable, both politically and militarily (even for W.), and rather than face the consequences of further escalation, we'll bail. Not everyone, of course, but enough to recharge the troops for Iran or Iraq III. Incidently, Gourevitch is the author of We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda, an amazing account of the Rwandan genocide (yes, it was genocide) during the mid-1990s. I imagine that in a few years there will be a similar book on Sudan, which we'll all read and wonder why the hell we didn't do more.

Arnold for President?

Even though we just finished a Presidential election, it is never too early for candidates to start thinking about the next one. Here in California, there is a lot of speculation about whether Arnold Schwarzenegger will run for re-election in 2006 and/or push for a Constitutional amendment that would allow him to run for President in 2008 or beyond. The latter would require a major media campaign which has already begun in California. At work last week, I helped put together a program on this topic. As a result, I had the opportunity to speak with a few Constitutional scholars about the likelihood of a new amendment enabling foreign-born Americans to run for the country's highest office. Their general sense of things was that it would be extremely unlikely, although one suggested that the current political climate might make it more possible for such an amendment to be passed. He said that Constitutional amendments historically pass when either one party has a hegemony, or the amendment is seen to be in the best interest of both parties. He suggested the latter might be in play, since Arnold is not the only foreign-born politician with Presidential potential. Jennifer Granholm, the Democratic governor of Michigan is a rising star in the Democratic party, and she was born in Canada. So, if both parties think they would benefit from the proposed amendment, it is certainly more likely that such an amendment will be proposed. However, half of the US Senate and a number of governors, are at least considering making a run in 2008, and since we are talking about politicians, we have to remember that self-interest trumps everything. Bill Frist definitely has Presidential ambitions, and as the Senate Majority leader, he might have something to say about an amendment that would instantly create a major political rival. Same goes for people like Hillary Clinton and Diane Feinstein. The last thing they want is another Democratic female vying for national office. In other words, while it might be a mutual interest of the two parties, it isn't necessarily in the best interest for many of the people that will ultimately be responsible for voting on such a measure. In the end, I think the Republicans have more to gain in allowing Schwarzenegger to run, but they probably won't push it until they are out of the White House. I'm also not sure the Democrats have, dare I say, the political capital to do anything about this unless it is proposed by the Republicans. In the short term, then, I don't really see this going anywhere. Personally, I don't really see what the big deal is. We are a nation of immigrants and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to prevent immigrants from aspiring to the nation's highest political office. We shouldn't destroy the illusion that anyone can grow up to be President of the United States, just because they are a naturalized citizen.

I'll be Back.

Away in L.A. Be back Sunday night.

Control Room

If you are looking for a good rental this weekend, I definitely suggest that you check out Control Room, an excellent documentary about Al Jazeera and its coverage of the US war in Iraq. I think the movie is important to see on a number of levels. First, it does an amazing job of illustrating how closely related Al Jazeera is to Fox and CNN. We are often told that Al Jazeera is nothing more than the "mouthpiece for bin Laden" and Arab propaganda. The reality, though, is that such claims are American propaganda meant to dispel the powerful images of the side of war we don't get to see in the States, but are often seen on Al Jazeera. One great part of the film shows Donald Rumsfeld, with no hint of irony, criticize Al Jazeera by saying, "We're dealing with people who will lie just to advance their cause." Secondly, the movie highlights the increasingly close relationship between the media and war. War requires the support of the people, and the media is often the apparatus used to manipulate people into supporting the war. The film highlights the differences in approach between the US and Arab media in their attempts to provoke emotion and support for the war effort. This is something I've always found fascinating, and if you're really interested in reading more about it, check out just about anything from the French philosopher, Paul Virilio. Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, the film shows a side of the Arab people that we don't normally get to see in the United States. I realized just how pervasive the pejorative stereotype of Arabs is in this country. The truth is they are just like us, and that is something from the film that every American needs to see. And off topic, I also saw Ray last weekend. Unbelievable movie, and incredible acting by Jamie Foxx.

Liar

It is the ability to lie like this that turned President Clinton into a two-term President. From his remarks at his Presidential Library Dedication this morning:

I once said to a friend of mine, about three days before the election--I heard all these terrible things--I said, "You know, am I the only person in the entire Untited States of America who likes George W. Bush and John Kerry, who believes they're both good people, who believes they both love our country and they just see the world differently?"

Not everyone can lie this well with a straight face. Of course, Clinton's Presidency showed that this isn't always a good thing, either.

Iraqn

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks it's deja vu all over again. And it gets even better. In today's Washington Post, Colin Powell throws what's left of his credibility out the window--just for oldtime's sake:

SANTIAGO, Chile, Nov. 17 -- The United States has intelligence that Iran is working to adapt missiles to deliver a nuclear weapon, further evidence that the Islamic republic is determined to acquire a nuclear bomb, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Wednesday. Separately, an Iranian opposition exile group charged in Paris that Iran is enriching uranium at a secret military facility unknown to U.N. weapons inspectors. Iran has denied seeking to build nuclear weapons. "I have seen some information that would suggest that they have been actively working on delivery systems. . . . You don't have a weapon until you put it in something that can deliver a weapon," Powell told reporters traveling with him to Chile for an Asia-Pacific economic summit. "I'm not talking about uranium or fissile material or the warhead; I'm talking about what one does with a warhead."

Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah. The big problem here is that even if this is true, and it very well may be, we don't have the credibility to really do anything about it. We've all read about the boy who cried wolf, and unfortunately that boy is now in charge of our foreign policy. So, if Iran is indeed an imminent threat, the Administration's warnings might fall on deaf ears. Especially since Iraq is in flames and everybody now understands how much that threat was exagerrated. Of course, Iran was always a greater threat than Iraq, and so in some sort of perverse way, it is karmic justice that we can't effectively respond or deter Iran because of how badly we screwed ourselves in Iraq. The Bush Administration might realize this, and just be talking tough to countries like Iran and North Korea to keep them on their toes. Unfortunately, though, I don't believe that. This Administration has continuously demonstrated it has ADD when it comes to dealing with threats--they always take their eye off of the present problem to focus on the next one. It is hubris, plain and simple, and it will catch up to us sooner or later.

Point - Counterpoint

Point: We Only Kill Bad Guys Iyad Allawi, The Independent, 15 November 2004

"Prime minister Iyad Allawi said there had been no civilian casualties during the battle for Fallujah, contradicting accounts from residents inside the city."

Donald Rumsfeld, Associated Press, 8 November 2004

"U.S. forces are disciplined, they are well-led, they are well trained...and there aren't going to be large numbers of civilians killed and certainly not by U.S. forces."

Counterpoint: Nice Fucking Try, Guys 800 Civilians Feared Dead in Fallujah, InterPress News, 16 November 2004

Speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of U.S. military reprisal, a high-ranking official with the Red Cross in Baghdad told IPS that ”at least 800 civilians” have been killed in Fallujah so far. His estimate is based on reports from Red Crescent aid workers stationed around the embattled city, from residents within the city and from refugees, he said. ”Several of our Red Cross workers have just returned from Fallujah since the Americans won't let them into the city,” he said. ”And they said the people they are tending to in the refugee camps set up in the desert outside the city are telling horrible stories of suffering and death inside Fallujah.” [...] ”The Americans close their ears, and that is it,” the Red Cross official said. ”They won't even let us take supplies into Fallujah General Hospital.” The official estimated that at least 50,000 residents remain trapped within the city. They were too poor to leave, lacked friends or family outside the city and therefore had nowhere to go, or they simply had not had enough time to escape before the siege began, he said. Aid workers in his organisation have reported that houses of civilians in Kharma, a small city near Fallujah, had been bombed by U.S. warplanes. In one instance a family of five was killed just two days ago, they reported. ”I don't know why the American leaders did not approach the Red Cross and ask us to deal with the families properly before the attacking began,” said a Red Cross aid worker, who also spoke on condition of anonymity. ”Suddenly they attacked and people were stuck with no help, no medicine, no food, no supplies,” he said. ”So those who could, ran for the desert while the rest were trapped in the city.” [...] The U.S. military claims to have killed 1,200 ”insurgents” in Fallujah. Abdel Khader Janabi, a resistance leader from the city has said that only about 100 among them were fighters. ”Both of them are lying,” the Red Cross official said. ”While they agree on the 1,200 number, they are both lying about the number of dead fighters.” He added that ”our estimate of 800 civilians is likely to be too low.” The situation within Fallujah is grim, he said. If help does not reach people soon, ”the children who are trapped will most likely die.” He said the Ministry of Health in the U.S.-backed interim Iraqi government had stopped supplying hospitals and clinics in Fallujah two months before the current siege. ”The hospitals do not even have aspirin,” he said. ”This shows, in my opinion, that they've had a plan to attack for a long time and were trying to weaken the people.”

Institutionalizing Infallibilty

I am more than a little concerned about Bush's recent efforts to further insulate himself from dissenting opinions. When important decisions need to be made, it is prudent to carefully think about the consequences of acting one way or the other. With Colin Powell's departure, the President's ability to do this on important foreign policy issues has greatly diminished. To make matters worse, it appears that Porter Goss is turning the CIA into one big echo chamber:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 - Porter J. Goss, the new intelligence chief, has told Central Intelligence Agency employees that their job is to "support the administration and its policies in our work,'' a copy of an internal memorandum shows. "As agency employees we do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies," Mr. Goss said in the memorandum, which was circulated late on Monday. He said in the document that he was seeking "to clarify beyond doubt the rules of the road." While his words could be construed as urging analysts to conform with administration policies, Mr. Goss also wrote, "We provide the intelligence as we see it - and let the facts alone speak to the policymaker.'' The memorandum suggested an effort by Mr. Goss to spell out his thinking as he embarked on what he made clear would be a major overhaul at the agency, with further changes to come. The changes to date, including the ouster of the agency's clandestine service chief, have left current and former intelligence officials angry and unnerved. Some have been outspoken, including those who said Tuesday that they regarded Mr. Goss's warning as part of an effort to suppress dissent within the organization. In recent weeks, White House officials have complained that some C.I.A. officials have sought to undermine President Bush and his policies.

This is not good. I don't know if this is an overt attempt to purge the CIA of ideas and analysis contrary to the Bush White House, but it sure looks like it. I do know that this unnecessarily increases the pressure on the CIA to provide the White House with intelligence it wants, and not necessarily what it needs. This is a recipe for disaster because it raises the risk that we will be blind-sided by a terrorist attack or misled into a war by faulty intelligence. Again. I think that the CIA has gotten an unfair share of the blame for 9/11 and Iraq. Afterall, it was the CIA who gave the President the Presidential Daily Briefing headlined, "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US". And with Iraq, much of the intelligence the Administration used was cherry picked to bolster the reality they wanted to produce. However, that doesn't mean that the CIA, and the intelligence community in general, should be immune to reform. Such reform, though, should be non-partisan, which is something that Goss does not seem capable of doing. If there is any Agency that should encourage outside-the-box thinking and a full consideration of opposing viewpoints it is the CIA. Unfortunately, our safety is now jeopardized because of this Administration's undying need to politicize everything.

Good Question

Harold Meyerson wants to know, What Are Democrats About? He probably isn't alone:

Once more, the theme of themelessness. Cover the Democrats for any length of time and you become expert in campaigns that don't seem to be about anything. They have policies; Democrats are good at policies. But all too often the campaigns lack a message -- a sense of what the candidate's about and what he aims to do.

Unfortunately, the fact that Bush was horrible for four years doesn't mean people will automatically vote against him. People want to have a few more reasons, preferably regarding what a candidate will actually do better than his opponent. Strange, this democratic process.

Historically the Democrats have been the party of security, but that's an identity they need to reclaim. The challenge of radical Islam demands more of them than a foreign policy of realpolitik; empiricism -- while a welcome counter to Bush's indifference to fact -- is not enough. The challenge of a global labor market demands more of them than a commitment to mid-career retraining; defending the American middle class means creating the kind of global standards that the Democrats created on the national level during the 1930s and '40s, the time of their greatest popularity. That's a daunting challenge, one that requires the Democrats to think and develop a story about the new threats to the American dream. If they do they'll come up with a more plausible list of culprits -- and solutions -- than the Republicans ever will. They may even come up with a new sense of self, with a purpose, with a theme.

The first thing we need to do is create and articulate a policy for the war on terrorism. It was a big issue this time around, and will likely remain so in 2008. This year Kerry tried to run on the fact that Iraq was so FUBAR that it would be irresponsible to re-elect Bush. I think a lot of people agreed, but Kerry didn't have a catchy alternative for people to chew on. It is probably a safe bet that our foreign policy will be even more FUBAR by '08, so it will be extremely important to come up with a policy that is universally understood to be the Democractic Party policy. Send your suggestions here.

No More Moore

I am a firm believer that too much Michael Moore is a bad thing. As a result, I'm concerned about the sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11.

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Director Michael Moore is planning a sequel to "Fahrenheit 9/11," his polemic against the Bush administration, to be released about the time of the next presidential campaign, according to a spokeswoman for his distributor. The sequel, dubbed "Fahrenheit 9/11 and 1/2," will revisit the same issues as Moore's earlier documentary, which he repeatedly said was aimed at swaying the outcome of the presidential race against President George W. Bush. "We want to get the cameras rolling now and have it ready in two (to) three years," Moore told Daily Variety columnist Army Archerd on Thursday. "Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information (in this election), and we want to educate and enlighten them. They weren't told the truth."

Earth to Michael: Don't do it! Please. I wish Moore would stick to films like Bowling for Columbine, Roger & Me, and the to be released SICKO--excellent movies that are political, but not necessarily partisan. Like it or not, Moore evokes a rabid emotional response from the Right in ways that only the Clintons and (part of) Janet Jackson can match. Fahrenheit 9/11 was a good film in that it forced those who saw it to question what had happened over the past four years. Unfortunately, though, I think that some of the issues brought up in the film were too easily dismissed because of who was bringing them up. That's because Moore has a tendency to come across as someone who shouldn't be taken seriously, and rightly or wrongly, this is not helpful for our cause. There are ways of getting these points across without immediately turning off half the country, and I would rather us pursue these ways than present them in another divisive film.

The New Face of State

Juan Cole has some thoughts on the shake-up at the State Department. He summarizes the arguments on how Powell was marginalized and ineffective, but also adds an important counterargument:

But insiders in Washington have told me enough stories about Powell victories behind the scenes that I am not sure the marginalization argument is decisive. Powell had an alliance with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the two of them could sometimes derail the wilder plans of the Department of Defense. Blair, and probably Powell, convinced Bush to fight al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan before going on to an Iraq war. Imagine how dangerous the situation would be if the US were bogged down in Iraq as it is now, but Bin Laden's 40 training camps were still going full steam! Likewise, I have it on good authority that Powell and Blair derailed a Department of Defense plan to install Ahmad Chalabi as a soft dictator in Iraq within 6 months of the fall of Saddam. Jay Garner had been given this charge, and Powell was able to get Paul Bremer in, instead, with a charge to keep the country out of Chalabi's corrupt hands. So at some crucial junctures, Powell has played an essential role in ensuring the implementation of a more sensible policy. Without him in the administration, hotter heads may well prevail.

If you thought our foreign policy was brazen and hardline as it is, imagine if Powell was absent from the equation during the last four years! Unfortunately, though, his replacement is just another "yes" person surrounding Bush. I don't think you can effectively conduct foreign policy in today's world without at least one person offering an opposing viewpoint. Bush has been praised for putting the war on terrorism in easy to understand, black and white, us v. them rhetoric, but the reality of the situation is anything but this stark. The opinions the President hears should reflect this. On the way into work this morning I was listening to Imus talk with Maureen Dowd. They were both commenting on how Bush's new appointees were essentially attempts to consolidate White House power over the few remaining institutions that aren't overtly partisan. With Rice in at State and Goss in at the CIA, we have two of our most vital foreign policy resources turning into extended wings of the White House. As both pointed out, this is not good for our safety. UPDATE: Josh Marshall agrees with Imus and Dowd.

Context in Iraq

Sadly you have to turn to an Asian newspaper to find an analysis of the situation in Iraq like this. Glaringly absent from most of the US coverage is the fact that Iraqis are divided along ethnic and religious lines. These divisions, in collusion with our actions, have serious consequences for us and the future of Iraq. For instance, many of the Iraqi National Guard soldiers fighing alongside the Marines in Fallujah are Kurdish. This has serious implications because there is a long history of animosity between the Iraqi Kurds and their Muslim compatriots. Tying the Kurds to our attacks, while perhaps necessary, goes a long way towards further inflaming the ethnic tensions. Likewise, the tensions between the Sunnis and Shi'ites is very serious, and yet dangerously under reported. This too has a long history: Shi'ites were a severely persecuted minority under Saddam's secularist regime, and have tried to use the recent power vacuum to exert more influence on Iraq's future. In a nutshell, today's problems boil down to the fact that Fallujah is Sunni and Najaf is Shi'ite. The Shi'ites and their leaders (Sistani, al Sadr) have been nearly silent about our attacks on Fallujah, which is in stark contrast to the public declarations against our past targeting of Sadr and Najaf. For us this silence is not even noticeable, but for the Sunni population in and around Fallujah it is deafening. So not only are the tensions between Kurds and Muslims gearing up, but also the tensions between Sunnis and Shi'ites. Therefore, these tensions, in combination with an increasingly vulnerable occupying force and a leader that is increasingly perceived as a puppet, create a recipe for disaster that appears to be heading towards civil war. Read the whole article, but I found these paragraphs especially important:

Sources in Baghdad tell Asia Times Online that the population is even angrier than usual: the majority of the Sunni-dominated capital sees the assault on Fallujah as part of a massive campaign of normalization of US neo-colonial crimes. Baghdadis seem to be very much aware of the almost impenetrable media blackout imposed by the Pentagon - and the fact that all mainstream Fallujah war "news" comes from embedded media censored by the Pentagon. Fallujah has always been defiant toward Saddam Hussein. Now its civilian population has been reduced to a bunch of "insurgents". No one puts in context why Fallujah has become the symbol of the Iraqi resistance: it's because on April 2003, marines opened fire on a peaceful demonstration, killing at least 18 people and wounding hundreds. Now, reports from family and friends about the deadly devastation inflicted by AC-130 gunships, F-16s, 2,000-pound bombs, cluster bombs and the most lethal snipers in the world against what is essentially a collection of slums should be telling the real story - but they will never make it to embedded CNN or BBC. Al-Jazeera's office in Baghdad was closed by Allawi's "government" in August. Even the al-Arabiya network is being criticized by Iraqi bloggers such as Raed for "doing its best to be as Bushy-friendly as they can; just some fragments of news that don't mean anything. No one is covering what the hell is happening in Iraq." According to official Pentagon spin, "hundreds and hundreds" of "terrorists" have already been killed in Fallujah. There's no proof - and there's no way to independently confirm it. Also because of the news blackout, nobody knows how many Fallujah civilians are dead. Sat-phone calls to Baghdad by trapped Fallujah civilians tell of rows of decomposing bodies littering the streets. Firdoos al-Abadi, the lady who is the head of the Iraqi Red Crescent's emergency committee, sums it all up: "It is a disaster inside Fallujah. There is no water, no electricity, no food. They [the Americans] are forbidding doctors from helping the people." The Red Crescent sent a convoy of four trucks to the city on Thursday with some first aid kits, food, blankets and tents. But a makeshift hospital set up in a mosque is helpless because the doctors are severely under-equipped.

Context is everything and informed opinions about the situation in Iraq are virtually impossible without it. When the Pentagon controls everything coming out of the country (an entirely different problem!), it is understandable that the big picture is more difficult to see. However, that does not absolve the media because there are several important contextual issues not requiring Pentagon-approval that are simply not being reported.

Powell Bails

Powell's resignation shouldn't really be a surprise. It became pretty clear early in this Admimistration that Powell was nothing more than a trophy member. He didn't wield any power on issues that mattered (cough, Iraq, cough) and he was basically used as a tool by the Vice President and others to sell the war in Iraq (cough, bullshit UN speech, cough). In the end, I think the soldiers' mentality that Powell brought to the job was manipulated to the point that he was almost irrelevant in serious foreign policy decisions. I can't really forgive him for this, even if the fix was in on him from the start. My respect for Powell was very high before he joined Bush's Cabinet and it steadily decreased over the last four years. The big moment for me was his speech to the UN, which he knew was a scam. Of course, this is most upsetting because Powell is about the only one that I trusted in this Administration to not completely fuck things up. Hopefully they don't promote anyone who fucked up more (e.g. Rice) to SoS. UPDATE: Apparently, Rice is the top choice. This sucks. Remember, besides being one of the most incompetent NSA's of all time, Rice has been in charge of the rebuilding of Iraq since last October! Seriously think about how bad things have deteriorated in Iraq during the last year. It is amazing that she is even allowed to keep her job much less be promoted to Secretary of State! Hopefully this is just a rumor.

Wilco

I scored a ticket to see Wilco in Oakland tonight. It was an opportunity to sit back, relax, and listen to awesome music--perfect for a Sunday night. They played some of my favorite songs, which aren't often performed including A Magazine Called Sunset and Be Not So Fearful. The latter, along with a cover of Don't Fear the Reaper, were what you might consider political tributes to the Bay Area crowd. If you haven't had a chance to check out Wilco, by all means do so. In my opinion, they are one of the best things around no matter what your musical tastes may be. Sample tunage:

Fallujah

About a week or so ago, I mentioned that I knew of a guy who was going to be a part of the assault on Fallujah. His commanders had told his company that they should all pray a lot and that they would all be heroes. I just found out last night that he was severely injured earlier this week and was sent to Germany for medical treatment. From what I understand, he'll be ok, but he might lose a limb. Unfortunately, as Atrios points out, there are literally hundreds of people this week alone just like this guy that we don't hear enough about. Why not?Here's an article that asks this very question--and the answer he comes up with shouldn't really sit well with anybody.

Masters of War

Via Juan Cole, I found this incredible story about how the Secret Service showed up at a Denver high school's talent show because a band called the Coalition of the Willing performed Dylan's "Masters of War." Unbelievable:

- Parents and students say they are outraged and offended by a proposed band name and song scheduled for a high school talent show in Boulder this evening, but members of the band, named Coalition of the Willing, said the whole thing is being blown out of proportion. The students told ABC News affiliate KMGH-TV in Denver they are performing Bob Dylan's song "Masters of War" during the Boulder High School Talent Exposé because they are Dylan fans. They said they want to express their views and show off their musical abilities. But some students and adults who heard the band rehearse called a radio talk show Thursday morning, saying the song the band sang ended with a call for President Bush to die. Threatening the president is a federal crime, so the Secret Service was called to the school to investigate.

Welcome to the good old US of A. Big Brother is watching. As Cole notes, "Now we know why Usamah Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri haven't been caught. The US security services are busy shifting through old lyrics looking for the realy terrorists." The song, if you haven't heard it, is an amazingly timeless song about politicians and war that was originally written during Vietnam. You can listen to the song here: You can find the lyrics on Dylan's homepage. Here are a few of my favorite lines:

You that never done nothin' But build to destroy You play with my world Like it's your little toy You put a gun in my hand And you hide from my eyes And you turn and run farther When the fast bullets fly Like Judas of old You lie and deceive A world war can be won You want me to believe But I see through your eyes And I see through your brain Like I see through the water That runs down my drain You fasten the triggers For the others to fire Then you set back and watch When the death count gets higher You hide in your mansion As young people's blood Flows out of their bodies And is buried in the mud

Hypocrisy, Thy Name is Cheney

John (no relation) at AMERICAblog points out some more hypocrisy from the Administration. This time it's about the Administration and Lynn Cheney's lack of outrage when Evangelical Christians write things like this:

Joe Glover, president of the Family Policy Network, has worked tirelessly for family values, including the fight against legalized homosexual "marriage." He says it was conservative Christians who put the president back in office and who held to the belief that the president shared their views. But Glover says the day after the election, that all seemed to go out the window. "The day after George Bush was elected president again, because of this morals revolution taking place in our country, he allows his vice president to not only put his lesbian daughter on the platform, but to bring her lesbian 'partner' up on the stage with him," Glover says. "It almost seems to be a slap in the face from the get-go against the very conservatives that re-elected the president at a time when he ought to paying them some homage and respect." Glover says the Cheney daughter's open flaunting of her homosexuality is the antithesis of what the administration claims to stand for -- and that the post-election display sends a mixed message to Bush supporters.

All John Kerry did was point out what everyone already knew, and yet he was rhetorically crucified from everyone on the Right, including the Vice President and his family. Family values, my ass. I really hope that hypocrisy like this will be the downfall of the Evangelical Christians' increasing influence.

Finally!

Our long national nightmare is over. I hope I never have to see Nancy Grace again. I actually work a block from the courthouse and was outside when the verdict was announced. I wasn't sure what the reaction would be, but everyone cheered like they had just witnessed Michael Jordan hitting the game winning goal of the Super Bowl. It was a bit strange. A pathetic, but sort of funny story: About a week ago I was walking into work when I heard two journalists wondering aloud whether anything could be read into what the jury had ordered for take-out lunch. What will these people do now? Probably move to Utah.

Science Friday

Next up, Cold Fusion:

Nov. 11, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- The world of male contraception has been limited to condoms and vasectomies. But researchers now point to a new method that shows promise -- a shot that prompts an immune reaction to a protein produced in the male reproductive system. The method worked in experiments on male monkeys, most [ed: MOST?!] of which regained their fertility when the treatments were stopped, researchers report in Thursday's issue of the journal Science. "Immunocontraception for males is a possibility and hopefully will be developed for human use over the next several years," said Dr. Michael O'Rand of the University of North Carolina.

How does this work, you ask?

"We don't understand the exact mechanism yet, but we think the immunocontraception works by preventing the sperm from freeing itself from the seminal fluid to make its way to the uterus and oviducts to fertilize the egg," O'Rand said.

That is code for, "I don't know but it would be pretty fucking cool, even though it really just makes you sterile!" Men, don't get your vas deference in a bundle. This could be awhile.

Que pasa con Gonzales?

I agree with Phil Carter, the author of the incredible blog Defense Tech, on the nomination of Alberto Gonzales as the next Attorney General. That is, I have serious issues with Gonzales's most recent legal advice regarding the war on terrorism. For instance:

The second set of tough questions arises out of Gonzales' work on a series of legal policies adopted by the Bush administration as part of the war on terrorism. As White House counsel, Gonzales played a key role in pushing the administration to brand the Geneva Conventions "obsolete" and "quaint" and to unilaterally declare them inapplicable to al-Qaida and the Taliban. Gonzales played a key role in the decision to use Guantanamo Bay as a global detention facility because it was believed to be outside the reach of U.S. courts and the rule of law. (The Supreme Court held otherwise in Rasul v. Bush in June 2004.) And, perhaps most disturbingly, Gonzales sat at the apex of the storm that swirled within the Bush administration's legal ranks over the use of "coercive interrogation" practices and torture to extract information from detainees in Cuba, Afghanistan, and Iraq. One of the "torture memos," produced in this period by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for Gonzales, argued that the president had the extra-constitutional power to nullify both the Geneva Conventions and the federal war crimes statute when he deemed it necessary, based on his inherent authority as commander in chief of the armed forces.

Carter later points out that it is sort of funny that the candidate who was elected because of moral values appoints people that have undermined democratic ideals in favor of personal loyalty. I'll go one step further and say that torture is not a moral value and any candidate that both promotes moral virtue and torture is a fucking hypocrite (see Frank Rich). I suspect Carter feels the same way, but he is just more polite than I am. Even though I have reservations about Gonzales, he is certainly better than Ashcroft, and Bush certainly could have chosen a far worse nominee (oh, I don't know, Jerry Falwell?). Regardless, Abu Ghraib and Gitmo have been such black marks on our national image (at least internationally, but unfortunately not so much domestically)that I have a hard time supporting the promotion of anyone who wrote and promoted the policies that led to those horrendous events. It is a sad set of affairs when "at least he is better than Ashcroft" is enough of a qualification to become the Attorney General. UPDATE: mrgrumby2u agrees, and the Political Animal has more, too.

Frank Rich Speaks

Try to read Frank Rich's column this morning in The New York Times. Rich argues that despite the conventional wisdom that the country is turning more conservative, the evidence suggests that the much talked about conservative values are nothing more than a facade, hiding us all from the "excess and vulgarity [that is] enjoyed by a vast, bipartisan constituency." In fact, as the article points out, those casting stones are as guilty of deteriorating values as anybody else.

There's only one problem with the storyline proclaiming that the country swung to the right on cultural issues in 2004. Like so many other narratives that immediately calcify into our 24/7 media's conventional wisdom, it is fiction. Everything about the election results - and about American culture itself - confirms an inescapable reality: John Kerry's defeat notwithstanding, it's blue America, not red, that is inexorably winning the culture war, and by a landslide. Kerry voters who have been flagellating themselves since Election Day with a vengeance worthy of "The Passion of the Christ" should wake up and smell the Chardonnay. The blue ascendancy is nearly as strong among Republicans as it is among Democrats. Those whose "moral values" are invested in cultural heroes like the accused loofah fetishist Bill O'Reilly and the self-gratifying drug consumer Rush Limbaugh are surely joking when they turn apoplectic over MTV. William Bennett's name is now as synonymous with Las Vegas as silicone. The Democrats' Ashton Kutcher is trumped by the Republicans' Britney Spears. Excess and vulgarity, as always, enjoy a vast, bipartisan constituency, and in a democracy no political party will ever stamp them out. If anyone is laughing all the way to the bank this election year, it must be the undisputed king of the red cultural elite, Rupert Murdoch. Fox News is a rising profit center within his News Corporation, and each red-state dollar that it makes can be plowed back into the rest of Fox's very blue entertainment portfolio. The Murdoch cultural stable includes recent books like Jenna Jameson's "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star" and the Vivid Girls' "How to Have a XXX Sex Life," which have both been synergistically, even joyously, promoted on Fox News by willing hosts like Rita Cosby and, needless to say, Mr. O'Reilly. There are "real fun parts and exciting parts," said Ms. Cosby to Ms. Jameson on Fox News's "Big Story Weekend," an encounter broadcast on Saturday at 9 p.m., assuring its maximum exposure to unsupervised kids.

I think a paraphrasing of an old adage is in order here: Where there is hot air, there is fire. Bill O'Reilly, Bill Bennet, and Rush are the three poster boys for what really is the conservative paradox: Those who rally around moral values the most, tend to rally around those that are morally bankrupt. In pointing this out, Rich highlights Thomas Franks' What's the Matter with Kansas?, an excellent book that is devoted to this subject. One of Franks' main arguments is that conservatives truly interested in moral values tend to vote for people who appeal to their values only in so far as it gets the politician elected. Once elected, the politician abandons these people and their values for corporate interests, which ultimately hurt the interests of the constituency that elected him/her in the first place. It's a vicious circle in that the longer people keep electing politicians like this, the worse off they will get, which in turn increases religious and moral fervor enough to keep them voting on values. On this point, Rich is more clear than me:

Mr. Wittman echoes Thomas Frank, the author of "What's the Matter With Kansas?," by common consent the year's most prescient political book. "Values," Mr. Frank writes, "always take a backseat to the needs of money once the elections are won." Under this perennial "trick," as he calls it, Republican politicians promise to stop abortion and force the culture industry "to clean up its act" - until the votes are counted. Then they return to their higher priorities, like cutting capital gains and estate taxes. Mr. Murdoch and his fellow cultural barons - from Sumner Redstone, the Bush-endorsing C.E.O. of Viacom, to Richard Parsons, the Republican C.E.O. of Time Warner, to Jeffrey Immelt, the Bush-contributing C.E.O. of G.E. (NBC Universal) - are about to be rewarded not just with more tax breaks but also with deregulatory goodies increasing their power to market salacious entertainment. It's they, not Susan Sarandon and Bruce Springsteen, who actually set the cultural agenda Gary Bauer and company say they despise.

It is hypocrisy, plain and simple, and I've attended enough Catholic schools to know that hypocrisy is never the answer to WWJD? (Interestingly, I also learned what hypocrisy is from the Catholic Church!) Democrats need to reformulate Rich's article into a stump speech, because I think it will have a lot of traction in areas that should vote Democratic, but don't for the reasons discussed by Franks. It might not convince everyone, but I think it is more convincing than what we've been doing.

Strategic Reframing

I hate to beat a dead horse on this issue, but I really believe that Democrats' success in reframing certain issues will make or break their electoral hopes in the near future. An article in today's SF Chronicle lays out the various ways in which gay groups of both parties will try and reframe the gay marriage debate.

Washington -- From adopting a NASCAR dad to embracing the moral rhetoric of the 1960s civil rights movement, gay and lesbian leaders are rethinking their message and market after last week's sweeping election losses, but they are refusing to retreat on same-sex marriage. The Nov. 2 election was "a wake-up call for gay and lesbian Americans and organizations," Patrick Guerriero, president of the gay Log Cabin Republicans, declared in a new mission statement. [...] "One inescapable conclusion is that we have not framed the issues right with the American public," Trammel said. The "big lesson" of the election is "figuring out how to talk about issues in a way where you're not for or against gay people ... how the nation addresses our role in society is really the key issue, and we as Democrats have to talk about that in a way that connects with Middle America." [...] Among the strategies under discussion: -- Courting Republicans who now dominate Washington and are indebted to the social and religious conservatives who helped provide a record GOP turnout rather than devoting the lion's share of money and lobbying to liberal Democratic allies. -- Continuing a strategic legal attack using "the right plaintiffs in the right place at the right time," as David Buckel, director of the Lambda Legal Marriage Project, put it, to challenge the new state marriage bans and to continue the push for marriage rights in more liberal jurisdictions, including California, New Jersey and New York. -- Going on the offensive with state ballot initiatives to expand inheritance rights, hospital visitation and other benefits for gay and lesbian couples rather than defending losing battles against same-sex marriage bans. -- Finding new allies in the religious community. "We have allowed the radical right to usurp and control the lexicon of family values, faith and morality," Guerriero said. Trammel agreed, saying it is "extremely important" to "not let people who are anti-gay seize the mantle of religion and morality." -- Creating a new message for moderate to conservative voters who may be uncomfortable even using the words gay and lesbian by personalizing the issue with mainstream gay couples who are raising children or caring for elderly parents. [...] Scott Huch, a member of the "Austin 12" group of gay Republicans who met with then-Gov. George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign to discuss gay issues, suggested, only half-jokingly, that "hairdressers and dancers and sweater- folders and waiters from Dupont, Boystown, WeHo, Chelsea and the Castro could 'adopt' mechanics and farmers and NASCAR fans and hunters in the red states. Talk about gay adoption." Guerriero suggests hosting "rural barbecues and town hall meetings for honest discussions with people who disagree with us. ... Like it or not, Michael Moore, Bruce Springsteen and Rosie O'Donnell will never convince the Iowa farmer, the South Carolina veteran or the West Virginia coal miner to be on our side."

I think these ideas are a step in the right direction, and the last was stolen directly from the Heraldblog Playbook! That doesn't mean it will be enough, though. I honestly believe that gay marriage is an issue that the Republicans don't have to lord over us, and all that it will take is some strategic thinking and patience. The latter will most likely be the hardest, but it is also the most important. Moreover, this type of excercise should not be limited to gay marriage and other wedge issues. Perhaps the biggest problem for Kerry and Democrats in the last election was not clearly articulating an alternative to Republican policies in the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. The election cleary illustrated to me that not liking the status quo does not necessarily translate into votes unless people really know where we stand on an issue. All of the post-election signs illuminate how big of a problem this is for Democrats. The good news, I think, is that it is something that everyone can work on, and I'm optimistic that people will be open to a re-articulation of Democratic policies. update: This would be a good time to recommend again George Lakoff's Don't Think of An Elephant, which is showcased on the right. It is an excellent and short guide to reframing Democratic policies that I think everyone interested in this subject should read.

Looking For A Nicer Adjective Than "Stupid"

This is amazing:

WASHINGTON Nov 10, 2004 — Leaders of several women's groups said Tuesday that Democrat John Kerry fell short in his bid for the White House because he didn't make a more direct appeal for support from women voters. They noted 2000 Democratic nominee Al Gore got 11 percent more support from women voters than George W. Bush did. Kerry's advantage over Bush among women was less 51-48 in national exit polls. [...] The Bush campaign referred to the liberation of Afghan and Iraqi women to appeal to women voters, said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority. But "Kerry never drew a very strong contrast with Bush" on women's issues until the end of the campaign, said Martha Burk, chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations.

It might be the case that there were issues, like terrorism, that trumped womens' usual voting concerns. On these types of issues, it is possible, don't ask me why, that Bush was more appealing. However, it is utterly absurd to suggest that John Kerry failed to "draw a strong contrast" with Bush on womens' issues. Just off the top of my head: John Kerry wanted to protect a womens' control over her body, George W. Bush was against that. Can't get more of a contrast than that! If John Kerry does decide to run again, he must find new and innovative ways of appealing to the femaie vote. Like not wearing any pants to stump speeches, or even better, not running at all.

Draft Dean

Like I wrote earlier, I'm all for drafting Dean for the DNC Chair. I think that Dean has the name recognition, skill, and tenacity to effectively articulate Democratic policy. When he speaks, you know where he stands and that is important for our side. Plus, he has demonstrated the ability to raise a lot of money and do so in an innovative way. If you feel likewise, take a few minutes to sign the petition and invite others to do so, too. The petition will be forwarded to the DNC, who after seeing the overwhelming support for Dean, will have no choice but to appoint him to the Chairman position. Not unlike how Dean's netroots were going to deliver him to the 04 nomination! Just kidding. This time it really will work.

Quiz

Who said this?:

"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."

UPDATE: If you said James Dobson you were close.

Kerry in 2008?

Maybe this is a good idea, but right now, a week after such a devastating loss, it sounds really bad to me:

WASHINGTON — Less than a week after conceding defeat to President Bush, Sen. John F. Kerry is calling key Democratic donors to lay the groundwork for a political organization that would give him a voice in national politics and position him for another White House run in 2008, close associates say. His friends, contributors and former campaign aides say he was energized by winning almost 56 million votes — more than any other candidate in U.S. history, except for Bush — and intends to wield influence as the titular leader of the Democratic Party. Kerry confidants said in interviews Monday that key members of the campaign's finance team were planning to remain loyal to the 2004 nominee — even as potential 2008 contenders such as Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and John Edwards of North Carolina begin building support — in case he decides to run.

Obviously, I think Kerry should have been the next President. Unfortunately, while he did garner 56 million votes, Bush still got 59 million. We can argue about why that happened until we are blue in the face, but at the end of the day Kerry still lost by 3 million votes. (sigh) To George W. Bush. Frankly, I think our next candidate has to start from scratch, and I'm not sure that all of the attacks on Kerry will have been forgotten by then. After all, he'll still be the liberal, wind-surfing senator from Taxachusetts that speaks French. However unfair or trivial those criticisms may be, they clearly stuck in the minds of enough people to decide the election. Therefore, Kerry should join Hillary on the list of those who should not run for President in 2008. I have yet to decide whether Howard Dean should join that list. I really liked Dean. Unfortunately, he was branded as a crazy liberal extremist, which was not really fair. He was against the Iraq war, and he was right. He is fiscally conservative and socially liberal and has governed with an open-mind. Those are the qualities I want in my President. Unfortunately, while I feel he should have broad appeal, I'm not sure he will. Of course, that could change in a year, but right now I'd rather see Dean as the DNC Chairman, where I think he can have the most immediate and long-term benefits for the Party.

Eight year-olds, Dude

Jesus. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

The Dude : Fuckin' Quintana... that creep can roll, man. Walter Sobchak : Yeah, but he's a pervert, Dude. The Dude : Yeah. Walter Sobchak : No, he's a sex offender. With a record. He served 6 months in Chino for exposing himself to an eight year old. The Dude : Oh! Walter Sobchak : When he moved to Hollywood he had to go door to door to tell everyone he was a pederast. Donny : What's a... pederast, Walter? Walter Sobchak : Shut the fuck up, Donny. Jesus Quintana : You ready to be fucked man? I see you rolled your way into the semis. Dios mio, man. Liam and me, we're gonna fuck you up. The Dude : Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Jesus Quintana : Let me tell you something, bandejo. You pull any of your crazy shit with us, you flash a piece out on the lanes, I'll take it away from you, stick it up your ass and pull the fucking trigger 'til it goes "click." The Dude : Jesus. Jesus Quintana : You said it man. Nobody fucks with the Jesus. Walter Sobchak : Eight year-olds, Dude.

Dollar Falling

Will someone with a greater knowledge of economics please start reassuring me about this:

The dollar could slide still further, in spite of hitting an all-time low against the euro last week in the wake of George W. Bush's re-election, currency traders have said. The dollar sell-off has resumed amid fears among traders that Mr Bush's victory will bring four more years of widening US budget and current account deficits, heightened geopolitical risks and a policy of "benign neglect" of the dollar. Many currency traders were taken aback on Friday when the greenback fell in spite of bullish data showing the US economy created 337,000 jobs in October. "If this can't cause the dollar to strengthen you have to tell me what will. This is a big green light to sell the dollar," said David Bloom, currency analyst at HSBC, as the greenback fell to a nine-year low in trade-weighted terms.

And please do a better job than Brad DeLong, Dan Drezner, and Atrios. Thanks.

Post-Arafat

Given the fact that Yasir Arafat is on his deathbed, the optimist in me says that the possibilities for a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are as good as they've been in recent years. However, there are a lot of reasons to be cautious with that optimism. In the best possible scenario, the Palestinian leadership will put forth a moderate leader, which will put pressure on the United States and Israel to work with him, since their biggest obstacle to peace is no longer there. This could open the door to renewed peace talks and usher in an era of trust that has been sorely lacking on both sides. Unfortunately, as the peace process has illustrated in the past, things aren't that cut and dry. Arafat, for all his shortcomings, is really the only Palestinian leader with the political capital to speak for all Palestinians. For any new leader to be effective, he will have to be able to rally his entire population (both domestic and exiled). The biggest roadblock to this could be Hamas. Hamas has better leadership and is more united than the PLO, and have not targeted Arafat in the past for reasons I am not sure of. However, with Arafat's death looming, it is likely that Hamas will want to have a larger and more prominent role in the Palestinian leadership. Moreover, Hamas has the ability to influence large portions of the Palestinian population, which could either be very helpful or extremely devastating to the new leader. When Arafat dies, I think Hamas' reaction will reveal whether a smooth transition is possible. Hamas' response could further influence the prospects for peace with Israel. Israel and the US will probably have a lot of conditions that the new leadership will need to meet in order for Israel to recognize its legitimacy. I guarantee that one of those conditions will be that Hamas cannot have a role in the leadership. So, if Hamas does take an active role in pursuing leadership positions, than things could get really interesting and messy. Overall, I would think that it is in the best interests of all Palestinians to get behind their new leader, even if he is not immediately accepted by the US and Israel. The consequences of running around with their heads cut off are, in the long run, more substantial than dealing with Israel when they don't accept the legitmacy of the new leadership. On the other hand, I think it is also in the best interest of the US and Israel to try as hard as they can to accept the legitimacy of the new Palestinian leadership (although I respect the possible concerns raided if Hamas takes an active leadesrhip role). With the raid on Fallujah on the way, and a continuously deteriorating situation in Iraq, a good step forward in the wake of Arafat's death would go along way for everybody.

They're Baaaaaack

The Crusades:

NEAR FALLUJAH, Iraq, Nov 6 (AFP) - With US forces massing outside Fallujah, 35 marines swayed to Christian rock music and asked Jesus Christ to protect them in what could be the biggest battle since American troops invaded Iraq last year. Men with buzzcuts and clad in their camouflage waved their hands in the air, M-16 assault rifles laying beside them, and chanted heavy metal-flavoured lyrics in praise of Christ late Friday in a yellow-brick chapel. They counted among thousands of troops surrounding the city of Fallujah, seeking solace as they awaited Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's decision on whether or not to invade Fallujah. "You are the sovereign. You're name is holy. You are the pure spotless lamb," a female voice cried out on the loudspeakers as the marines clapped their hands and closed their eyes, reflecting on what lay ahead for them. [...] One spoke of their Old Testament hero, a shepherd who would become Israel's king, battling the Philistines some 3,000 years ago. "Thus David prevailed over the Philistines," the marine said, reading from scripture, and the marines shouted back "Hoorah, King David," using their signature grunt of approval. The marines drew parallels from the verse with their present situation, where they perceive themselves as warriors fighting barbaric men opposed to all that is good in the world. "Victory belongs to the Lord," another young marine read.

Yes, it is Drudge, but still, this is a little unsettling. And in the event I get blasted for this, no, it is not because they are religious. Certainly I am in no position to judge how people cope with the stress of combat. Nevertheless, it is unsettling to me that people are casting this as a religious crusade (it's not just the troops), and I think it is most disturbing that Drudge would even write about it. Of course, I also find it distressingly similar to this:

We praise God, seek His help, and ask for His forgiveness. We seek refuge in God from the evils of our souls and our bad deeds. A person who is guided by God will never be misguided by anyone and a person who is misguided by God can never be guided by anyone. I bear witness that there is no God but Allah alone, Who has no partner. [...] These battles cannot be viewed in any case whatsoever as isolated battles, but rather, as part of a chain of the long, fierce, and ugly crusader war. Every Muslim must stand under the banner of There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is God's Prophet.

Thus spoke bin Laden. Again, I don't think that casting the seige of Fallujah, the war in Iraq, or the war on terrorism in religious rhetoric is a very smart thing to do. The percentage of Muslims who support bin Laden and feel that we are in the midst of a holy war with Islam is pretty small. We don't need to start giving people excuses to change their minds, though.

Sitting on Stories

I was watching The Chris Matthews Show this morning and he had on Evan Thomas, a Newsweek reporter who just published a very long and informative inside piece on each of the candidates' campaign. Matthews pointed out that Kerry's now infamous statement that he "voted for the $87 Billion before he voted against it" was actually a Republican set up. Here is what Thomas wrote:

In the third week of March, the BC04 team learned, Kerry was headed to West Virginia to talk about national security. The Mountain State was a critical swing state, full of veterans who could go either way. (By summer Bush was spending so much time there, his advisers were joking that their unofficial slogan was "If it's Sunday, it's West Virginia!") On Monday, March 15, McKinnon repaired to his ad shop, Maverick Media, to crank out a spot that would air on the West Virginia airwaves just in time to greet Kerry. In the ad, a grave baritone voice intones, "Mr. Kerry?" calling on the senator to cast his vote for or against more funding for the troops in Iraq. Kerry appears to vote no again and again (in fact, it was a single vote). At 7 the next morning the ad was digitally whisked to West Virginia, where it began playing on local TV. That noon, when Kerry addressed a veterans group in West Virginia, a heckler kept demanding to know why he had voted against more funding for the troops. In his considered but long-winded fashion, Kerry tried to explain that he had wanted to vote for the funding, but only if the Senate passed an amendment that would whittle down President Bush's earlier tax cut for the rich. Kerry voted for the amendment, but when it failed, he voted against the funding. The heckler pressed, and Kerry, losing patience, fell into senatorial procedural shorthand. "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it," he said. At Bush-Cheney headquarters, Joe Kildae, a 25-year-old campaign intern who monitored the war room (and never seemed to sleep), was watching. In his cubicle he kept three televisions and a battery of TiVos and VCRs. As soon as he saw Kerry make his remark on Fox News, he stood up in his cubicle and caught the eye of his boss, Steve Schmidt. Schmidt had seen the clip, too. The two men nodded at each other. Kildae thought to himself: "We're going to be seeing this a lot." He immediately hit pause on his digital recorder, wound the clip back and copied it to tape. Using a program called TVEyes, he pulled up an instant rough transcript. He e-mailed the transcript of Kerry's "flip-flopping" to an "alert list" of top aides, who could then click on a link to see the video. "You gotta see this," Kildae told campaign communications adviser Terry Holt. "Oh, my God," Holt replied. "You have to send that to me on my BlackBerry." The video of Kerry's shooting himself in the foot flew around Bush-Cheney headquarters and, very soon, into the hungry ether beyond.

Now, on the program this morning they made it pretty clear that the heckler was planted by the local Republicans, and Matthews went on to congratulate Thomas for his reporting of the story. My question is why is this something that comes out after the election? Wouldn't that have changed the way people understood Kerry's comment in a fundamental manner? I would think so. Of course, this isn't necessarily a partisan complaint. These types of things can go both ways. But what is the responsibility of the media if not to give us the whole story? Why did Matthews congratulate Thomas for telling us important information only after it became important? In effect, Thomas took a story with possibly serious implications for the campaign and turned it into a cute anecdote about the effectiveness and skill of the Republican spin machine (which, of course, deserves praise but in this instance I think it needs to be presented in the proper context). It is hard to say what type of implications the real story would have had on the election. It probably would have been marginal, at best. My biggest problem is not getting the story when it was a story.

Terrorism or Values?

The conventional wisdom that suggests George W. Bush won the election because of values and gay marriage initiatives on several state ballots has taken a few hits in the last day or two. Many people, including myself, tried to explain the huge turnout for Bush by arguing that moral value issues like gay marriage motivated evangelical Christians to come out and vote in large numbers. While this did happen, a few people are making the claim that it does not, by itself, explain Bush's victory. For instance, Paul Freedman writes in Slate that it was not values, but terrorism:

More to the point, the morality gap didn't decide the election. Voters who cited moral issues as most important did give their votes overwhelmingly to Bush (80 percent to 18 percent), and states where voters saw moral issues as important were more likely to be red ones. But these differences were no greater in 2004 than in 2000. If you're trying to explain why the president's vote share in 2004 is bigger than his vote share in 2000, values don't help. If the morality gap doesn't explain Bush's re-election, what does? A good part of the answer lies in the terrorism gap. Nationally, 49 percent of voters said they trusted Bush but not Kerry to handle terrorism; only 31 percent trusted Kerry but not Bush. This 18-point gap is particularly significant in that terrorism is strongly tied to vote choice: 99 percent of those who trusted only Kerry on the issue voted for him, and 97 percent of those who trusted only Bush voted for him. Terrorism was cited by 19 percent of voters as the most important issue, and these citizens gave their votes to the president by an even larger margin than morality voters: 86 percent for Bush, 14 percent for Kerry. These differences hold up at the state level even when each state's past Bush vote is taken into account. When you control for that variable, a 10-point increase in the percentage of voters citing terrorism as the most important problem translates into a 3-point Bush gain. A 10-point increase in morality voters, on the other hand, has no effect. Nor does putting an anti-gay-marriage measure on the ballot. So, if you want to understand why Bush was re-elected, stop obsessing about the morality gap and start looking at the terrorism gap.

Similarly, but also a bit surprisingly, David Brooks argues that it was Bush's job approval that put him over the top on Tuesday:

He won because 53 percent of voters approved of his performance as president. Fifty-eight percent of them trust Bush to fight terrorism. They had roughly equal confidence in Bush and Kerry to handle the economy. Most approved of the decision to go to war in Iraq. Most see it as part of the war on terror. The fact is that if you think we are safer now, you probably voted for Bush. If you think we are less safe, you probably voted for Kerry. That's policy, not fundamentalism. The upsurge in voters was an upsurge of people with conservative policy views, whether they are religious or not.

Frankly, the values argument makes more sense to me, but only because I really believe that Bush has not made us safer and that Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terror. However, if these numbers are accurate, a pretty good case can be made that the threat of terrorism was a big boost for the President. I also don't think this means that Democrats should give up on the value issues many of us have been discussing since Tuesday. I still think it is something Democrats need to work on, even if it didn't necessarily cost us the election.

Movies

I've seen a few movies lately, but haven't really commented on them because my attention has been in other places the last few weeks. Last night, I saw The Motorcycle Diaries, which is about the young Che Guevara's travels through South America with a good friend. I thought the movie was great--the scenery was beautiful and the acting and dialogue were top-notch, too. It looks at the part of Che's life when society's injustices really became apparent to him, and as a result, I got an understanding of how Che Guevara became the Che Guevara he is remembered as today. Gael Garcia Bernal does an excellent job as Guevara, and if you haven't seen him in Y Tu Mama, Tambien, you should. Last weekend I saw Friday Night Lights, which also is great. It's based on the book of the same title, which is itself based on a true story of a Texas high school football team in the late 1980s. It does an awesome job of depicting how serious high school football is in Texas. One of my favorite lines illustrates this: In the scene, people were listenening to a local radio show discussing a recent loss by the team, and a caller complains that the team is doing "too much learning in school" and that's the reason they lost. Back in college, we discussed this book in a class on the rhetoric of war, and the film just reinforces everything we talked about. The imagery, tactics, and emotions are extremely war-like. Billy Bob Thorton plays a really good coach, too. Finally, a few weeks ago I saw a strange, but pretty good autobiographical documentary called Tarnation. It's about a guy who grew up in a not-so normal family--his mom suffered from schizophrenia and was largely absent from his upbringing (both physically and mentally) and he lived with his grandparents, who we later realize were responsible for his mother's health. The main character and director is Jonathon Caouette and the content of the film is entirely old home-videos that were culled together using his Mac. The result is an incredibly personal portrait of Jonathon's life and a close-up look at the many problems he faced. The one issue I had with the film is that I didn't think it came to much of a conclusion. As an emotional film to watch, I sort of expected more closure at the end. Nevertheless, it is still remarkably made and I would recommend it to anyone interested in documentaries.

Exit Poll Analysis

I've got the LA Times' national exit polls in my hand and wanted to share with you some interesting results: Region East 24% (of all voters) 42% (Bush) 57% (Kerry) Midwest 24% 54% 45% South 32% (!!!) 57% 42% West 20% 49% 50% Sexuality Heterosexual 96% (of all voters) 53% (Bush) 46% (Kerry) Gay/Lesbian/Bi 4% 17% (!!) 83% The South is the reason why Bush won the popular vote. When 1/3 of all votes cast come from your strongest region, you're doing alright. I think that the South came out in droves because of the gay marriage initiatives in many of the southern states, and speaking of which, I find it hard to believe that homosexuals only cast 4% of all the votes. Something tells me there were a lot of Southern voters who were lying on that one. And what's up with 17% of the GLB vote going to Bush?

Stop Hillary!

People are already looking towards 2008, and let me just be the first to say that I am totally against Hillary being the Democratic nominee. Don't get me wrong, I like Hillary and agree with her on a lot of things, but she is just too damn polarizing--imagine gay marriage x10 and you'll have an idea of what it will be like if she is the nominee in '08. To give you an idea of how bad this would be, Republicans used the word HillaryCare to describe Kerry's Healthcare policy and it was reason enough to turn millions (wrongly) away from it. A smaller reason against supporting a Clinton nomination is that I'm not a big fan of the whole dynasty thing. I definitely have Bush fatigue, and we'll all have Clinton fatigue soon enough. Besides, there have to be some fresh faces out there that we can rally around and I'm open to some suggestions. One person I can think of is Richardson from New Mexico...

Mobilizing Democratic Values

In his column yesterday, Nicholas Kristof really shines a light on the problem facing Democrats and liberals that came to the fore in Tuesday's election:

One of the Republican Party's major successes over the last few decades has been to persuade many of the working poor to vote for tax breaks for billionaires. Democrats are still effective on bread-and-butter issues like health care, but they come across in much of America as arrogant and out of touch the moment the discussion shifts to values. "On values, they are really noncompetitive in the heartland," noted Mike Johanns, a Republican who is governor of Nebraska. "This kind of elitist, Eastern approach to the party is just devastating in the Midwest and Western states. It's very difficult for senatorial, Congressional and even local candidates to survive." [...] Bill Clinton intuitively understood the challenge, and John Edwards seems to as well, perhaps because of their own working-class origins. But the party as a whole is mostly in denial. To appeal to middle America, Democratic leaders don't need to carry guns to church services and shoot grizzlies on the way. But a starting point would be to shed their inhibitions about talking about faith, and to work more with religious groups. Otherwise, the Democratic Party's efforts to improve the lives of working-class Americans in the long run will be blocked by the very people the Democrats aim to help.

There is a reason why Republicans push values the way they do, and it is because their economic and domestic policies are extremely hard to swallow for the majority of the country. It is a classic bait and switch. If Democrats can create their own message on values and present it to the country, it will go along way towards courting the so-called 'red staters.' Along this line, George Lakoff recently said (on NPR) that there are more liberal evangelicals in this country than conservative, and that the problem is they are just not as well organized as their conservative counterparts. As hard as this might be to believe at the moment, I think he is probably on to something. Democrats and liberals cannot let Republicans and conservatives monopolize Christian values. Liberal values like making sure the worst off in society are taken care of are just as much a part of the foundation of Christianity as the right to life. As I see it, there are two major components of religious and evangelical values in this country. Conservatives have done a good job of using Old Testament values to win elections. I think Democrats can go along way if they really embrace Beatitude-values and connect them with their political policies. So instead of Red vs. Blue, we will have Old vs. New.

BTW

...that Redskins myth is bullshit.

Yo!

I'd like to apologize if I got a little carried away last night and today. I was frustrated and this blog has always been a place for me to vent and express myself. I only write about this stuff because I'm hard-wired to care about it, and I realize that venting my frustration (while cathartic) adds nothing helpful towards convincing others to consider the political policies that I advocate. That isn't really like me--I think people like Michael Moore are entertaining, but don't really achieve what they want because of the way they deliver it. I think I was moving in that direction today, and I regret it. Smarter people than I have the right idea, and anybody interested in winning next time should pay attention and take notes. That being said, I'm still really frustrated about how things went last night. The way I look at it now, though, I can do one of either two things. I can continue to complain and throw blame around, which would probably result in alienating the people I want to open up to the things I believe in. The other thing I could do is think about why I'm frustrated, what people could have done differently, and how we can fix it next time. The best route, I believe, is the latter, and it is the one I'm going to try and focus on in this blog and in my conversations with others over the forseeable future. I really think that Democrats can do a better job framing their policies and reaching out to people that are open to their politics (by open, I mean those who can most benefit from Democratic politics, but haven't voted Democratic in the past few elections). I think this has been a fundamental mistake at the party level, and last night proved that it has to change in order for Democrats to win a national election (and Will Saletan agrees). We can't always rely on the charisma of a Clinton to win the Presidency, we need to have ideas and policies first and charisma second (I think I read that this afternoon at Atrios). I don't think it is practical to wait for the Democratic leadership to take this up. It really has to start with people in their everyday conversations. Anyhoo...I really hate posting things like this...I'd rather just share things I find interesting and comment on them. That is what I'm going to get back to while keeping in mind what I wrote above. Also, on a side note, if anyone can tell me why the posts taper as you scroll down I'd REALLY appreciate it.

Kerry Concedes

Oh well. update: My brother took this picture at the Kerry HQ in Ames, IA. It got picked up by the AP, too!

ugh.

Obviously, I'm incredibly disappointed. I did not expect this to happen the way it did, which I guess is why I do this as a hobby and not professionally. However, it seems that the margin in Ohio is pretty damn close and might take a few days to figure out. At this point, though, I think the writing is on the wall, but I don't want to concede anything just yet. I hear it could be ten or eleven days before all the results are in... I can't quite get myself to fathom how a state (Ohio) that has 6.0% unemployment and has lost over 250,000 jobs in the last four years decided to re-elect Bush. [update: My home county of Racine, WI, which has the highest unemployment in the state of Wisconsin, also voted to re-elect President Bush.] This country clearly has serious issues with accountability, which is sad, because ultimately, I think, it is us who will be forced to be accountable for this Administration's actions. I'm also really upset about the message we just sent to the rest of the world. I think it is really easy for people to dismiss what the rest of the world thinks about our country, but that just demonstrates peoples' ignorance of how things work. So, to anyone reading this from abroad, I'm sorry and I don't quite understand it myself. More broadly, I'm pretty disturbed by some of the state election results I've seen. More than a few states voted to ban gay marriage, and more than a few states elected extremist officials (Colburn?? WTF!) And don't forget Kentucky, who elected a Senator with dementia. It is nights like tonight that make me feel like a foreigner in my own country. I have to say that I really liked John Kerry as a candidate. Sure, he might have shot himself in the foot over Iraq, but I thought he was a really good choice to face Bush. Admittedly, I was first skeptical about his chances, but the more I learned about him, the more I liked. Tonight, he didn't lose to Bush, he losed to ignorance. People are just not informed well enough in this country and someday they'll wake up and have to face the very real consequences of the last four years and what looks like the next four years. I don't necessarily blame Kerry for this (although he could have done a little more, probably), I mainly blame the media in this country. When 60% of the country still believes Saddam had something to do with 9/11 that is a big fucking problem and it stems from the media's inability to clearly articulate the facts from the spin. Ok, I'm done venting for now. We'll see what happens in Ohio and I'll have my fingers crossed. Update: Normally I might laugh at something like this, but not this morning. TBOGG articulates what I'm thinking:

I look at the big map and all of the red in flyover country and I feel like I've been locked in a room with the slow learners. We have become the country that pulls a dry cleaning bag over its head to play astronaut.

What's on TV Tonight?

Fasten your seatbelts and pour yourself a drink. It's going to be a fun night.

Hmmm...

It's tied.