« October 2003 | Main | December 2003 »
Memo to the idiot activists: It's 2003, not 1903. The historical problem with the objectification of women wasn't that women were treated like objects, ladies, but that women weren't treated like, or allowed to be, anything else. Now women can be objects when they wanna be (for fun, for love, for money, for a while) and then run off and be secretary of state or attorney general or the governor of Louisiana.
- Dan Savage
Bush jets off for Thanksgiving dinner with 600 troops in Baghdad. Good P.R. move, and it made those 600 troopers feel better, I am sure. I didn't read the speech he gave - it would only piss me off, and I am too well-fed and -drunk to be pissed off - but I am sure he tied the whole effort to subdue the Iraqis to the War on Terra.
Hesiod thinks Bush is a "yellowbellied coward" (no, I swear) for not announcing his travel plans and flying in broad daylight, which I think is a bit much.
Kynn at Shock and Awe also slams Bush for not inviting the "terrorists" to "bring it on." This is like calling Bush a sissy for not challenging Saddam to a duel.
John Constantine at Hellblazer thinks it was a good thing, and also compliments Sen. Clinton for going to Afghanistan (and announcing it first).
So do Tacitus and Oliver Willis. (A sentence you have probably never read before and will likely never read again.)
Matt Yglesias is furious over this "stunt". (Best comment on that thread: "Maybe now he can find time to squeeze in a funeral or two.")
Nick at The Agonist doesn't express an opinion one way or another, but does point to this Drudge post that supposedly transcribes the notes of a Washington Post reporter who went with Bush on the trip. Sean-Paul thinks it was a good thing.
Jeff Jarvis at Buzzmachine thinks it was absolutely the best thing ever, and lashes out at the BBC (surprise!) and others for expressing insufficient awe.
On the other hand, the Left Coaster thinks the trip shows how completely the administration owns the media, which played up a pre-packaged photo op as if Bush had stormed Normandy single-handedly.
Kelley at Suburban Blight thinks Bush is a smart, quick cowboy (that's a compliment) with cojones and chutzpah. I think Kelley has had one too many glasses of Thanksgiving wine.
The increasingly anti-Muslim Sasha Castel thinks it's wonderful, and props up the Democratic Underground straw man as the target of her ire.
Pejman Yousefzadeh thinks Bush can do no wrong. Business as usual, then, for Pej.
Jay Caruso thinks it's pretty cool and tries to make fun of Hillary's appearance. Classy.
Update 11/28/03: Matt Yglesias grumbles that no Democrats were invited and then says, "what the troops need is not a visit from the commander-in-chief, but a commander-in-chief who knows what he's doing." Have some leftover turkey, Matt.
Nico Pitney at Not Geniuses mocks the Democratic flummox over the whole thing. Best comment of the thread: "the event has been refered to as a 'pre-emptive visit to our soldiers' funerals'."
Demosthenes at Shadow of the Hegemon says it was more stunt than substance and makes the point that most presidential trips to war zones have been made to prop up support for a losing effort.
Juan Cole thinks Bush must be disappointed he had to sneak in and out of the country under cover of darkness, when he had grand fantasies pre-war:
"Air Force One would land in full daylight at Baghdad International Airport. W. would emerge from the plane, waving and smiling, his cowboy boots glinting in the desert sun. He would pass in review of the Iraqi military with its new generals, which might do some goose stepping for him just for show, the now reformed lads smiling warmly under their freshly waxed moustaches."Er, shrill.
Kos would have been much more impressed if Bush had spent the night in-country and visited one of those schools U.S. troops are supposedly opening all the time.
Will Baude at Crescat Sententia liked the trip, I think. He goes through so many twists and turns it's hard to tell:
I for one would have been much impressed if he'd done the whole trip without letting any cameras there at all, only telling reporters where he'd been when he returned, and telling them it wasn't a stunt at all and he didn't want to talk about it. Of course this reverse stunt would still have been a stunt, but it would have been an even classier stunt, and I'd like to see a little more class from our current President.
That Will Baude guy, he's some intellectual, huh?
James at Outside the Beltway thinks the best thing about it was it was a surprise. Huh? I guess the nation is now like a four-year-old who wants you to do a trick for them.
"I celebrated Thanksgiving in an old-fashioned way. I invited everyone in my neighbourhood to my house, we had an enormous feast, and then I killed them and took their land."
-- Jon Stewart
(Via Seth Finkelstein at Infothought.)
Try it for yourself!
Googlism for: mithras
mithras is the savior god of the light
mithras is the cosmic soldier saving the world
mithras is the god of light who fights the prince of evil
mithras is associated with the sun
mithras is the lord of the contract
mithras is helped by a dog
mithras is excluded from the list of 'elements'
mithras is a beneficent genius presiding over the sun
mithras is a very legible typeface and hence applicable to a wide range of display uses
mithras is a figure to be feared
mithras is said to be waiting in heaven for the end of time
mithras is a colossal
mithras is a savior god in an era of savior gods
mithras is of course worshipped no longer
mithras is shown shooting an arrow of water from a rock
mithras is alive
mithras is the only deity specifically illegal within the empire
mithras is said to have sprung from the primeval rock or cosmic egg
mithras is often shown as a young man in the act of killing a massive bull
mithras is the persian god of light and defender of humanity
mithras is no more and no less than a morbid angel clone
mithras is worshipped here
mithras is used
mithras is a two man band will there ever be a possibility to see
mithras is certainly no dummy he might not be a thrygragos either
mithras is the same as fire
From the New York Times:
Amnesty International called on Wednesday for an investigation into police tactics during last week's Free Trade Area of the Americas meetings here, joining a swelling chorus of complaints that the police used unwarranted violence to stifle mostly peaceful demonstrators.Also on Wednesday, a coalition of labor, environmental and antiglobalization groups detailed an array of violent police actions against protesters, reporters and others trying to navigate downtown streets last Thursday and Friday.
At a news conference, members of the coalition said the police had fired on unarmed protesters with rubber bullets that left large welts, forced them to the ground and handcuffed them at gunpoint and used pepper spray on them. They said the police also stopped hundreds of people on the streets, searched them without cause and sometimes seized their possessions.
Dozens of protesters were jailed for hours or even a few days, and the coalition members said many had been denied water, food and, in some cases, medical treatment.
Ah, Miami police chief John Timoney, former Philly chief and architect of R2K protest crackdown, is at it again.
Hear that noisy protest from the right-wingers like Volokh on behalf of the sacred principle of free speech? Nope, me neither.
So, it's Thanksgiving Day. If you're like me, you might need some reminders on how to get through a whole day of togetherness with your family. Of course, if you're like me, you might have decided to spend the day in Key West at the clothing-optional resort with an eight ball and a very friendly poly-sci major down from Miami for the holiday who you met at the dockside bar. But, let's assume you want to spend it with your family, instead.
1. Carry no weapons, at least for one day. Even if you firmly believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms, leave them in the safe at home this time. No firearms, much lower death rate. Lower death rate = good.
2. Limit your drinking. I know, three quick drinks followed by a 1.5 liter bottle of Cabernet was your stress-reduction plan. But there are serious downsides. First, if you get hammered you are likely to pop off at the worst possible moment. Bad. Second, you are less likely to notice and be able to ward off the (probably deserved) attack on your person that results from your aforementioned popping off. In other words, if you're trashed, you can't dodge the fireplace poker screaming towards your face. Worse. Third, you have to be sober enough to execute step #3.
3. Sleep Elsewhere. Even if you're broke and mom will be bitterly disappoined if you don't stay on her couch for the night, spring for a room at a motel and leave at an appropriate time after dinner. If you're trashed (see #2), you shouldn't drive. So, stay sober, and when belligerent uncle Don starts in on his fifth whiskey, say goodnight.
4. Have an Escape Plan. Say, like me, you have a bigoted brother who is sure to mouth off about the gays or blacks or whatever. You know it's possible that he's going to say or do something that makes you really, really mad at some point during the evening. If it comes, you have to have a place to go to get away. If there is a place where you can go for a walk, do it. Keep your coat someplace handy and, preferably, near a door. If you can't go someplace in the house or out for a walk, get into the car and, if necessary, execute step #3 early. It's better to have people wondering what the hell happened to you rather than you knocking the offending family member unconscious. Trust me on this one.
These are just a few tips that just might get you through the next 24 hours without cuts, bruises or any additions to your (already-impressive) arrest record. And, Happy Thanksgiving!
"Beeep. Hi? My name is Misty and I think I maybe got married last night. Could someone call me back and tell me if I could get an annulment? I'm at Circus Circus? Room - honey what room is this? - oh yeah. Room 407. Thank you. Beeep."
David Neiwert at Orcinus is bitterly disappointed:
It is, frankly, foolishness at this point in time to even vote for a Republican. Not because the party lacks candidates who are utterly unworthy of support; there are, indeed, smart, thoughtful and honest Republicans even still, though they are harder to come by. But even they represent, and remain an integral part of, a party that has become nearly absolutely corrupted by its near-absolute power, and almost permanently tainted by its lust for utter control of the political and social landscape.... The GOP, after its performance in 2000 -- and especially considering its performance in the intervening years -- will not have my vote. They have proven themselves utterly untrustworthy, and thereby unworthy of the responsibilities and honor of public office. And I know that I am not alone in this: The GOP no longer will have the votes of many other middle-of-the-road Americans, including my friends' parents.
Ultimately, all politics is personal, and human nature being what it is, there was a measure of mistrust of all conservatives that came with this assessment. What I observed over time was that none of my conservative friends would seriously defend Bush v. Gore but would switch subjects or revert to a "get over it" kind of response. None would acknowledge that there were perfectly good, perhaps even patriotic, reasons not to get over it. None would acknowledge that, were the shoe on the other foot, they too would be seriously outraged -- and I mean long-term outrage.
The rest of his long post is very good, and goes into detail about why the conservative movement has truly imperiled the country.
Had a conversation with a close friend on her 40th birthday. I was expressing amazement that we're hitting that milestone when she said confidently, "Don't worry. Forty is the new thirty."
Yeah, and ugly is the new pretty. I'm still laughing.
Say you find a blog you like, but they don't have an RSS feed. You're a busy reader, so a lack of a feed makes it hard - or even impossible - to read that site. (In my case, I now have 205 feeds I subscribe to.) Out of luck? Not any more. With MyRSS, you can create a feed for any blog you like. The feed is hosted by MyRSS, and in order to keep their bandwidth usage down, they will only update free feeds once a day. Still, it's much better than nothing. (Pay feeds are an option and are updated once an hour.)
(Via Lisa Williams at Learning the Lessons of Nixon.)
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution presents an abridged list of the 1,049 federal laws implicated by marriage status. Shell at Across the Atlantic observes:
One of the arguments against gay marriage is that property inheritance and medical decision making could be set up by legal documents instead of marriage. Not all of marriage's benefits can be so easily recreated.
Exactly right. The status of being married is interwoven into our legal framework. Same-sex couples should be entitled to exercise all of those rights (and incur the responsibilities) on the same footing as straight couples. Why is this so hard to grasp?
David Brooks in the New York Times waxes overwrought:
Anybody who has several sexual partners in a year is committing spiritual suicide. He or she is ripping the veil from all that is private and delicate in oneself, and pulverizing it in an assembly line of selfish sensations.But marriage is the opposite. Marriage joins two people in a sacred bond. It demands that they make an exclusive commitment to each other and thereby takes two discrete individuals and turns them into kin.
Well, 2003 was a banner year of spiritual suicide for me, then. As I bounce along my merry way, ripping the veil from all that is private and delicate in myself, I sure didn't feel like I pulverized it. In fact, I think that which is private, delicate, joyful, loving, and life-affirming is thriving as well as can be. So, a big middle finger to you, Mr. Brooks. We liberal, polyamorous, sadomasochistic perverts are doing great - and they say living well is the best revenge.
Professor Juan Cole at Informed Comment has a post about General Tommy Franks' recent interview (warning: NewsMax) which starts this way:
Friends, the Republic is in real danger. It is not the UN black helicopters that threaten it, but elements of the United States officer corps. That is, if their thinking is in any way exemplified by Tommy Franks. Franks has speculated that in the wake of a major WMD attack, the US will scrap its constitution and adopt a military government. I can't imagine a more fascist, irresponsible thing for him to say.
Cole goes on to make points near and dear to my heart. The officer corp is overwhelmingly Christian conservative Republican, making them view many Americans with contempt. Cole points out that, militarily, terrorism is nothing. We suffered tremendous loss of life in the past without destroying the Constitution. And anyway, the military's performance in Iraq and elsewhere gives no confidence that they would be better than the FBI in preventing terror attacks.
Would the military ever take over the government in the event of, say, a nuclear bomb being detonated in a major city? And would the people acquiesce? I think the greatest danger is in a frightened government asking the military to step in - to restore order, to help with logistics and aiding victims, and to impose a curfew while the FBI goes about its work, looking for more terrorists and more plots. In my view, the greatest danger is that posse comitatus would be either repealed or ignored, and the military becomes an everyday form of government authority for Americans. The public thus habituated, the military then would have real political power. Of course, the tradition of civilian control runs deep in our military. It would take a lot for officers to abandon that tradition. But a nuclear bomb - or the threat of another one - might do it.
So while I may not be gone for good, I think I'll be just posting less in the near future. It's not just my dad's health. Most things just don't seem worth commenting on.
The Associated Press reports:
The Turkish government on Sunday ordered the nation's mosques to deliver an anti-terrorism message as authorities pieced together evidence to determine who was behind a string of suicide bombings that killed 57 people and wounded hundreds more.
I really had to read that a couple of times before I was sure it said what it said. I was stunned. The government of Turkey ordered mosques to deliver an anti-terrorism sermon? Surely, this is risible. How would it be enforced? The article explains:
The Directorate for Religious Affairs, which controls all mosques in Turkey, said the anti-terrorism sermon should be preached Tuesday, the first day of a three-day Muslim holiday marking the end of Ramadan."Terrorism, violence and anarchy have nothing to do with Islam," the sermon reads. "Our duty is to love one another, and to live like brothers in unity."
At which, I realized that I was totally through the looking glass. There is a government ministry in Turkey which controls all mosques. That's stunning. And the ministry actually wrote a sermon and ordered the clergy - or whoever - to read it at next services. Totally stunning. How could a country's houses of worship be controlled by the government? My Establishment-Clause-schooled brain could not comprehend it.
Then, I started to see the advantages. Maybe we need a system of state-run religious institutions in the United States, too. I can imagine the fun we'd have composing sermons to be read - preferably at gunpoint - about the pressing issues of the day. And as an atheist, I couldn't help but think that this would stunt the religious' desire to mingle church and state for a long time to come.
On the main topic, is this order going to have any real effect in Turkey? Is there any evidence that Turks were involved in the attacks this past week? And does anyone really think that radicals are worshipping at mosques run by the government? So, on that level, it's still risible.
This week I am to meet my dad's oncologists, so pain management is much on my mind. Coincidentally, the local NPR station is running a show tomorrow at noon about how terminal patients don't get enough pain medication. On one hand, doctors are deterred by the threat of prosecution if John Ashcroft decides they are prescribing too many controlled substances. On the other hand, as a medical-professional friend tells me, doctors often have their own issues about pain and medication. They are trained in a medical culture that breeds contempt for patients and their silly complaints, especially those of pain. In addition, there is a subset of patients who have no obvious physical ailment who nevertheless say they are in pain, and while it may be that medicine simply doesn't understand the cause yet, doctors tend to treat such patients as drug fiends or head cases: "If a patient comes in asking for a specific kind of pain medication, don't give him any." Right. Even though the patient may know his or her pain better than the doctor, and know which medications work, and which don't. And if a patient comes in complaining that her left leg is broken, treat the right leg or, better, tell her to get up and walk home.
But these nightmares of callous doctors usually occur in hospitals. Once they conclude the patient is going to die no matter what, they send them along to hospice. In hospice, they know you're going to die soon anyway, so (a) you're probably in real pain and (b) you're unlikely to sell your prescription to make a few extra bucks. So you usually get your pain meds, and given the rapid advances in our state-subsidized pharmaceutical industry, they really work. Which is a mercy.
From the Village Voice:
SexBlogs plugs Philadelphia's own Delicious Corsets. Good on 'em. Psydde Delicious, DJ and eponymous part-owner of the company, is a great guy.
I'm largely out of it due to being ill and in pain. I will be better tomorrow ... I hope.
CNN is now reporting, without details, that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.
Update: The ruling orders that marriage licenses be issued to same-sex couples. However, the order does not take effect immediately.
Update: The Belleville News-Democrat:
Same-sex couples are legally entitled to wed under the Massachussetts constitution, the state's highest court ruled Tuesday, stopping short of allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law.The court ruled 4-3, ordering the Legislature to come up with a solution within 180 days.
The Supreme Judicial Court's ruling closely matches the 1999 Vermont Supreme Court decision, which led there to the Legislature's approval in 2000 of civil unions that give couples many of the same benefits of marriage.
Half a loaf. Still, better than nothing.
From the Boston Globe:
Racism can make you stupid.That is the message of an unusual and striking new series of experiments conducted at Dartmouth College, with the help of brain-imaging equipment and a crew of undergraduate volunteers.
According to the findings, the more biased people are, the more their brain power is taxed by contact with someone of another race, as they struggle not to say or do anything offensive. The effect is so strong, the team found, that even a five-minute conversation with a black person left some of the white subjects unable to perform well on a test of cognitive ability.
"Just having a prejudice makes you stupider," said John Gabrieli, a professor of psychology at Stanford University who was not involved in the research. "It is really interesting."
This is really funny. And it explains a lot. (Via Howard Bashman at How Appealing.)
Wonderful. Simply fucking wonderful. From the Knight Ridder website:
TIKRIT, Iraq - In a tactic reminiscent of Israeli crackdowns in the West Bank and Gaza, the U.S. military has begun destroying the homes of suspected guerrilla fighters in Iraq's Sunni Triangle, evacuating women and children, then leveling their houses with heavy weaponry.At least 15 homes have been destroyed in Tikrit as part of what has been dubbed Operation Ivy Cyclone Two, including four leveled on Sunday by tanks and Apache helicopters that allegedly belonged to suspects in the Nov. 7 downing of a Black Hawk helicopter that killed six Americans.
Family members at one of the houses, in the village of al Haweda, said they were given five minutes to evacuate before soldiers opened fire.
How long will this immoral idiocy continue?
U.S. forces struck dozens of targets on Monday, killing six guerrillas and arresting 21 others, the military said. The operation is expected to continue through Wednesday, said Col. James Hickey, commander of the 1st Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division.
"Dozens of targets." Doing the math, this means U.S. forces are going to destroy at least 70 civilian homes because of something we think someone related to the people inside may have done.
Hickey said the four homes were destroyed on Sunday because enemy fighters lived and met there. Leveling the homes will force the fighters to find other meeting places, he said."Those four people used those houses as sanctuary, and we're not allowing them to have sanctuary," Hickey said.
This is not about denying sanctuary. This is collective punishment, which is a war crime. Col. James Hickey is a war criminal. As are the people who ordered these raids, and the other soldiers carrying them out.
So, who ordered it?
It was unclear whether the decision to destroy the houses was part of an overall strategy approved in Washington. White House spokesman Scott McClellan declined to comment specifically, referring questions about the razings to the Defense Department, but he praised the military's efforts to get tough with Iraqi insurgents. ...Officials at the Department of Defense referred questions to Central Command in Tampa, which oversees all military operations in Iraq. Spokesmen there declined to comment.
So, are we winning hearts and minds?
On Monday, angry residents of al Haweda, where three of the destroyed homes were, said the tactic will spawn more guerrilla fighters and perhaps spark an Iraqi uprising similar to the Palestinian intifada in the West Bank and Gaza."This is something Sharon would do," said 41-year-old farmer Jamel Shahab, referring to the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon. "What's happening in Iraq is just like Palestine."
Outstanding. Direct comparisons to the Israelis, now. And we know how well these tactics have worked for them.
The whole world will read this story, folks. Imagine the reaction from the 1.3 billion Muslims around the world. Imagine what our allies are thinking about this:
Shahab stood amidst the rubble of the former home of 55-year-old farmer Omar Khalil, who was arrested shortly before the home was destroyed. The military said Khalil's son, who escaped, is one of the suspects in the downing of the Black Hawk.Khalil's wife, Kafey, sat wailing near her wrecked house. "I have no son. I have no husband. I have no home. I will be a beggar."
Kafey Khalil said military officials first visited the house two days ago, demanding that her husband turn in her son. He refused.
Then at about 10 p.m. Sunday, the military returned, she said.
"They started shouting at us, `Get up! Get out!''' she said. "They brought a big truck for us. It was so cold we felt like we were dying. After five minutes they started shooting. We didn't have time to get anything but blankets. They brought in the tanks and the helicopters and started bombing."
After the shooting stopped, the women and children were released and were left at the scene, they said. They were sifting through the wreckage on Monday, attempting to salvage what few items remained.
Two other homes nearby were also in shambles. What walls remained were pierced by tank rounds. A small boy held up what was left of the family's TV set.
In the backyard of one home, a cow lay dead, its stomach split open by a large caliber round, its unborn calf half-exposed. A dog limped nearby, a piece of shrapnel protruding from its body.
Tank tracks had churned up the sandy earth. Spent 5-inch-long shell casings littered the ground. Boys collected them and displayed handfuls to journalists.
Let's solidify our image as thoughtless, technology-laden monsters, shall we? Back to Col. Hickey:
Hickey said counterstrikes against fighters around Tikrit have been continuous, but that Ivy Cyclone Two represents a higher level of coordination using more advanced weapons.For example, Sunday night's action included the launching of a missile from Baghdad, 55 miles away, at the abandoned home of former Saddam henchman Izzat Ibrahim al Duri, who is No. 6 on the coalition's most-wanted list. A reporter and photographer from Knight Ridder were allowed to witness the destruction, which was completed by laser-guided artillery fire.
Hickey said al Duri's house was destroyed to deny guerrillas a meeting place, though it was unclear that such high-tech weaponry was needed to destroy the structure, which appeared completely looted. ...
Hickey promised no letup in the campaign. He also promised to deal harshly with weapons violations. "If we see someone with a weapon," he said, "he becomes a ballistics test," meaning the man is shot.
"You won't see guns in Tikrit," he said.
And the Washington insiders get the last word:
A State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, suggested Monday that the tactic was not sanctioned in Washington. "I can't wait to see al-Jazeera's presentation of it," the official said, referring to a satellite TV network viewed widely throughout the Middle East.A request for comment from the White House went unanswered.
(Via Tacitus, who is also troubled by it.)
Certain events in my life recently have reminded me to tell people that everyone* needs three legal documents: a will, a living will, and a medical power of attorney. These documents will spare your family expense, uncertainty about your end-of-life wishes, and confusion and potential conflict over who is in charge of making medical decisions for you when you're incapacitated.
Will - This is the obvious one. A will directs how your property is to be divided in the event of your death. If you're saying, "I have no assets, so I don't need a will", there are three answers to that: First, you may have no assets today, perhaps, but you presumably will graduate/get out of debt/get a better job someday. Second, everyone has some items of personal property - pictures, an heirloom, your Pez collection - that family members will want for sentimental reasons. Third, in the event you die in an accident (or worse), many states give your estate (which is a stand-in for you personally) the right to sue the person who caused your death. The proceeds from such a lawsuit also are distributed through your will.
Wills are cheap and easy to draft. You can use a website like this to prepare yours, or consult an attorney. Stationery stores will often carry will forms.
Living Will (also known as an Advance Directive) - This document sets forth your wishes regarding your end-of-life care. Do you wish to be resusitated in all circumstances? What if you are in a persistant vegitative state, like the recent Schiavo case - do you want the feeding tube in, or out?
Medical Power of Attorney - This document grants someone the power to make medical decisions for you in the event you are incapacitated (but not dying, like in the living will situation.)
Both living wills and medical powers are cheap and easy to prepare. You can use a website like this one or consult an attorney. Also, often your local hospital or doctor may have forms you can fill out. In either case, distribute copies of the documents to the person who you want to exercise powers under them and tell your doctor, friends and family what your end-of-life wishes are. If you are hospitalized or are otherwise under a doctor's care, have copies of the documents placed in your medical file.
If you get all three documents prepared, you will be doing your loved ones a great service.
* - This does not apply to anyone who has absolutely no one in the world who they care about or cares about them. I assume that no one reading this blog falls into that set, because LGF doesn't link to me.
On the first day I posted to this blog - August 7 - I attributed the following thoughts to Bush & Co.:
"The situation is chaotic, and we are sick of taking casualties. We can't take the loss of morale and political heartburn they cause. Also, we need to draw our forces down under 100,000 both for budgetary reasons and unless we have those divisions freed up, we're not a credible threat to invade the other places we want to threaten, like Iran and Syria. So long as we're spending $4 billion a month to occupy Iraq, Bush is vulnerable. He promised security on the cheap, with no sacrifices necessary."So, we're going to train a few Iraqis to go out there and take the brunt. They'll be able to violate human rights at will, and no one will be able to complain. They can say, hey, at least we're not Saddam. All the better if the 'insurgency' continues so the new government - backed by a strong American military presence - can impose dictatorial rule and prevent our nightmare of a popularly elected Sharia-based government. That's all we need!
"We can pull our troops back to bases where they can't be touched, and they'll only sortie out in force to engage in search-and-destroy. We own the sky, and that will continue. But we're going to give the cities and the infrastructure to the Iraqis; let them blame the lack of electricity on themselves. In the meantime, on to 2004 - and another term!"
I feel sorry for the Iraqis.
Still do.
From London's Evening Standard:
GEORGE Bush's administration has called on US companies in Britain to relocate jobs to America in an astonishing move that could trigger a major trade war.US-based multinationals have been told they will receive compensation from American trade authorities if they cancel contracts in Britain and take jobs home, according to CBI director-general Digby Jones.
Speaking at the CBI's annual conference in Birmingham, Jones said: 'Three chief executives of American companies investing in Britain have told me to my face that they have been told to close down, bring their stuff home and make it in the US.'
He said the companies were major employers in defence or manufacturing. ...
Unilever chairman Niall FitzGerald said: 'There is a mid-Atlantic trade storm whipping up. There will be retaliation and then retaliation to that retaliation, which could lead us to a 1930s decline.' ...
American companies have a massive presence in Britain and are responsible for providing an estimated one million jobs.
According to the Department of Trade and Industry, more than 17,000 new jobs were created by US firms in the last year alone.
There are an estimated 5,700 US companies operating here, covering every sector of the economy. They range from car manufacturing giant Ford to investment banks Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch. Pharmaceuticals giant Pfizer and household goods group Procter & Gamble also have huge operations here.
(Via Atrios, of course. Emphasis supplied.)
What a shrewd move on Shrub's part. Twisting arms among his corporate buddies to make them relocate to the U.S. (at least temporarily) plays to the people who are out of a job without the government having to spend a cent. It'll just be the consumer who pays the tab in the form of higher prices. (Also, I hope that Bush's poodle, Blair, appreciates the ass-fucking he is now getting.) And, to the extent that the companies he is targeting are suppliers to the U.S. government, he has real leverage over them. "You want your contract renewed?," he can ask. "Well, you better make sure I get re-elected."
It's a disguised campaign contribution and disguised tax all in one. Brilliant.
Problem: If you're a blogger, you probably link to the New York Times website. But links to nytimes.com go stale after a couple weeks.
Solution: Subscribe to the sections of the Times you like to read using these feeds. Then, use the links to stories you get through those feeds to post. Such links never go stale.
(Via Kevin Drum at CalPundit.)
I am pretty technologically illiterate, so I have been scratching my head trying to figure out how to implement this ever since I heard about it a week or two ago. There was all this other discussion in the posts I was reading that obscured the answer to the question: how do I fix it? I broke it down for all the other tech-illiterate bloggers like me out there.
Via Fred Clark at Slacktivist, I am reminded that you can search for the Time magazine cover from the week of your birth. Here's mine, entitled "The Computer in Society":
Born under the sign of the punchcard, that's me.
Laura at War and Piece attends an American Enterprise Institute event with premier Neo-Con warmongers:
And frankly, I found it kind of disturbing that not a single other person at that event that day dared breach protocol to challenge the outrageousness of Mylroie's and Perle's insistence that it was the CIA and State Departments which got Iraq wrong, when all available evidence makes clear it was Perle and Mylroie who got Iraq wrong. Maybe those who disagree with the neocons have just decided to save themselves the high blood pressure of bothering to go to AEI Iraq events at all. It is only worth going, as so many foreign diplomats and journalists do, because Perle is undeniably reflective of a kind of prevailing worldview of a certain group of people - such as Doug Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy at the Pentagon, who many of us don't often get the chance to personally listen to.
Laura's story is interesting because it gives an insight into what happens when reality confronts fantasists like Perle - they curl up into their right-wing think-tank cocoon, and talk to themselves, and tell themselves they were right all along, despite the evidence. And meanwhile, thousands of people die.
Update: Fuck! Now Reuters says that two Blackhawks went down.
Update update: Now the radio says that it was a mid-air collision. (A) Sad to say, that's probably the best possible scenario, as opposed to guerillas demonstrating the ability to down multiple aircraft, and (B) I gotta stop blogging about such events in real time.
I can't find it on the wires yet, but the local news station is reporting another U.S. Blackhawk helicopter has gone down, this time in northern Iraq. Here's the news item.
In other news, Iraq's US-puppet Governing Council announced today that the U.S. intends to substantially withdraw its troops from Iraq by June, 2004. (Just in time for elections!) Some American forces will remain, but they will no longer be an "occupying force." (This might also just turn out to be a semantic trick - the same number of troops, but not "occupiers" because the new government would "invite" them to remain.)
Lovely. Look for the emergence of Hussein II, except one who is pro-American, sometime in the next six months.
Kevin Drum at Calpundit points out this Washington Post article:
Four former chiefs of Israel's powerful domestic security service said in an interview published Friday that the government's actions and policies during the three-year-old Palestinian uprising have gravely damaged the country and its people.(Emphasis added.)The four, who variously headed the Shin Bet security agency from 1980 to 2000 under governments that spanned the political spectrum, said that Israel must end its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, that the government should recognize that no peace agreement can be reached without the involvement of the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, and that it must stop what one called the immoral treatment of Palestinians.
"We must once and for all admit that there is another side, that it has feelings and that it is suffering, and that we are behaving disgracefully," said Avraham Shalom, who headed the security service from 1980 until 1986. "Yes, there is no other word for it: disgracefully....We have turned into a people of petty fighters using the wrong tools."
...."Why is it that everyone -- [Shin Bet] directors, chief of staff, former security personnel -- after a long service in security organizations become the advocates of reconciliation with the Palestinians? Because they were there." said Yaakov Perry, whose term as security chief between 1988 and 1995 covered the first Palestinian uprising, or intifada. "We know the material, the people in the field, and surprisingly, both sides."
The security chiefs denounced virtually every major military and political tactic of the Sharon administration, adding their voices to the dissent in Israel against the prime minister's handling of a conflict that has claimed the lives of more than 2,500 Palestinians and nearly 900 Israelis and foreigners.
This is momentous in and of itself, as Kevin points out. The people who have the most experience and expertise in combatting the Palestinian insurgents are convinced that Israel has been using the wrong strategy - wrong because it is both ineffective and immoral. Of course, you can probably count the minutes on your fingers before the right wing is calling them "self-hating Jews."
But there is another part of the article that is particularly apropos to our situation:
Perry said the country is "going in the direction of decline, nearly a catastrophe" in almost every area -- economic, political, social and security. "If something doesn't happen here, we will continue to live by the sword, we will continue to wallow in the mud and we will continue to destroy ourselves," he said. ...(Emphasis added.)"Terror is not thwarted with bombs or helicopters," said Shalom, who asked rhetorically: "Why does this increase terror? Because it is overt, because it carries an element of vindictiveness."
"The problem, as of today, is that the political agenda has become solely a security agenda," said [Carmi] Gillon, who has also served as an ambassador. "It only deals with the question of how to prevent the next terror attack, not the question of how it is at all possible to pull ourselves out of the mess that we are in today."
Those words should be remembered - and acted upon - by the people in the U.S. government who are thinking about how to counter the threat to this country. We cannot win the so-called "War on Terror" using military means alone. We are in a primarily political struggle, and therefore have to figure out how to convince people - not the radicals or terrorists - who are essentially swayable that we are right and the people who advocate mass murder of civilians are wrong.
One way to start is by not killing large numbers of civilians ourselves. And staying out of countries that do not threaten us. And by actually living up to promises we make - such as, pressing authoritarian governments to become more democratic.
Reynolds [writes]: The real problem with the Iraq war is that it's (1) waged by a Republican President; and (2) obviously in the United States' national interest. To some people, those characteristics are enough to brand it evil.Now since Reynolds's post is entirely about Sullivan's attack on Clark, "some people" in that last sentence can only refer to Clark. Reynolds is effectively asserting that Clark is hostile to anything that helps the American national interest: in other words, that Clark is unpatriotic. ...
The next time one of the warbloggers tells you that it's a myth that their side likes to question the patriotism of those who disagree with them, just think about what Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Reynolds -- neither of them, unfortunately, as obscure as Ted Rall -- said about Wesley Clark.
The AFP caption:
During the raid : An Iraqi woman holds her child a US soldier stands guard moments during an early morning US Army forces raid in Tikrit.
Etch-A-Sketch on-line.
From the AP:
An Austrian man who was among 17 Europeans taken hostage by Islamic extremists in the Sahara Desert said Friday that he had recently received a friendly call from his main captor, who was concerned about his well-being.
If this is true, it's probably the worst case of reverse-Stockholm Syndrome I've ever seen.
Okay, this porn movie (17 MB, avi) has me conflicted. On one hand, it made me laugh. The photography is great. They may have even had some kind of point. (Porn treats women like meat? The common man wants to get his cock sucked?) On the other hand, it sort of creeps me out in an alienating kind of way.
(Via A Cumwhore's Diary.)
In an e-mail sent to Widmar Monday, Lillian reported in large purple letters that she was "VERY EXCITED :)!!!" to find his "computer diary," but was perplexed that he hadn't mentioned it to her.Upon receipt of the e-mail, Widmar mentally raced through the contents of his blog. He immediately thought of several dozen posts in which he mentioned drinking, drug use, casual sex, and other behavior likely to alarm his mother.
"I don't have one of those sites that's a big tell-all about one-night stands and wild parties," Widmar said. "I mostly write about the animation I like or little things that happen to me and my friends. But there are definitely things in there that I wouldn't, well, write home to Mom about."
Matthew Yglesias quotes Glenn Reynolds, the Hack of Record, for me (since I won't link to the asshole):
I actually got several variations on this theme, from antiwar types who always seem glad when people die in Iraq, so long as they're Americans or our allies. They're usually the same people who puff up if you "question their patriotism."I don't question it. They've put its existence beyond question by wishing for America to lose.
All of you right-wingers can go to hell. Right now.
From the New York Times:
A little-noticed measure approved by both the House and Senate would significantly expand the F.B.I.'s power to demand financial records, without a judge's approval, from car dealers, travel agents, pawnbrokers and many other businesses, officials said on Tuesday.Traditional financial institutions like banks and credit unions are frequently subject to administrative subpoenas from the Federal Bureau of Investigation to produce financial records in terrorism and espionage investigations. Such subpoenas, which are known as national security letters, do not require the bureau to seek a judge's approval before issuing them.
(Emphasis added.)
Get that? You have no Fourth Amendment rights anymore. A completely warrantless search on "any other institution doing cash transactions with "a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax or regulatory matters."
Oh, and then there's this little gem:
Asked what had prompted the measure, the official said: "This is coming from 3,000 dead people. There's an ever-expanding universe of places where terrorists can hide financial transactions, and it's only prudent and wise to anticipate where they might be and to give law enforcement the tools that they need to find them."
Anybody want to bet my buddy Mark Corallo delivered that line?
From the New York Times:
Two major unions formally delivered their support to presidential candidate Howard Dean on Wednesday, giving the Democratic front-runner an army of supporters and extra cash in his bid for the party's nomination.The executive board of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees voted unanimously to endorse Dean, and the Service Employees International Union announced it was backing the former Vermont governor.
It's over. When can we start seeing the other candidates drop out?
From the New York Times:
Clark Tells Veterans He Backs Amendment on Flag Desecration.
Well, that does it for me. If he's willing to undermine free speech to pick up votes, he doesn't deserve the nomination. I once thought he'd be a great V.P. pick, but not now.
Update: Fuck Kerry, too. Not that he has a prayer, anyway.
Shortly before the president issued his executive order, and just weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, I raised my voice in strong support of military commissions. As deputy solicitor general in the Nixon administration, I had been in charge of the government's criminal and internal security cases before the Supreme Court. ...When I proposed using military commissions to try terrorists, I conceived of trials with fair and reliable procedures designed to ascertain guilt -- or, equally important, innocence. I knew there would be critics of this approach but was confident that both legal and policy factors justified such trials.
Now, two years later, I reluctantly conclude that the administration's approach to military commissions confirms many of the critics' worst fears. ...
All of this needs to be scrutinized and sorted out quickly -- especially now that the administration has identified six potential defendants for these military trials. Given the stakes for both security and liberty interests, a more precise and balanced -- and therefore more credible -- approach to military justice certainly is in order.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Via the AP:
A new top-secret intelligence report warns that Iraqis are losing faith in U.S.-led occupation forces, a development that is increasing support for the resistance, officials said Wednesday. ...It suggests spiraling violence and a lack of confidence in the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council may be bringing efforts to a turning point, sending more Iraqis over to the side of insurgents fighting occupation troops, said two officials speaking on condition of anonymity.
We need to move the transition to self-government along faster. Not that it will be a panacea, but it will reduce the risk of all-out resistance to American occupation. Even if we do succeed in installing something like a democratically-elected government, there is no guarantee that the different Iraqi factions will be capable of peaceful coexistence.
Once again, this is what those of us who were against the invasion warned against.
Presidential contender Howard Dean plans to air television commercials showing footage of President Bush's landing on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln -- images Bush deployed as a triumphant visual coda to the Iraq conflict but which Dean says are now powerful reminders of a war gone wrong.
Gutsy. Dean continues to keep his eye on the ball. Paying attention, everyone? (Via Oliver Willis.)
Dong Resin interviews the PATRIOT Act:
DR: What is a "bioterrorist?"PA: People who cultivate bioweapons like anthrax.
DR: Right.
PA: -also guys who carve a hole in a pumpkin and then microwave it to body temperature for "recreational use."
DR: Really?
PA: Absolutely. I mean, what are we, France? Time for a little self-control, BillyBob.
The whole thing is hilarious. (Via The Minor Fall, The Major Lift.)
[T]he more we think about it, the less likely we think Nader will try another run. He was a novelty item last time around. That support is gone. This time around he'd be just another loser. His legacy will be reduced to one word: Spoiler.
The one good thing is that no self-respecting Democrat will contribute to Ralphie's ego-trip this time around.
The New Yorker writes up the Great Krugman/Luskin/Atrios unravelling.
This is literally yesterday's news, but the United States Supreme Court has consolidated several cases brought on behalf of the prisoners held at Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in order to decide the following question:
Whether United States courts lack jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba.
This is momentous stuff, even though a jurisdictional issue may seem banal. The whole reason why BushCo chose to site the prisoners in Cuba was because they thought U.S. law would not govern there. Obviously, the Administration doesn't - or at least didn't - want the prisoners to have any legal process. Given that the prisoners are now such a potent propaganda tool to use against us and have apparently yielded whatever useful intelligence they are going to give us, I would not be surprised if the administration would be relieved to lose this case, just to have some kind of resolution. (In addition, the wingers would be outraged by such a decision, which would redound to the Republicans' political favor.)
Has anyone created an entry for "Volokian" in the winger dictionary yet? It would have to include multiple meanings, including "using moderate language to obscure radical thought" and "using free speech as a cover for attacking liberals."
Case in point, David Bernstein's latest stupidity, which Kevin Drum rightly mocks:
You really have to watch out for those radical lefties, don't you? Why, with the exception of every branch of government, most churches, the military, unions, corporations, and the media - yes, except for those few minor institutions they're practically everywhere!
![](http://<a target="_blank" href="http://www.wikio.com/subscribethis?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmithras.blogs.com%2Fblog%2F"><img src="http://www.wikio.com/shared/images/wikiothis/en/subblue.gif" style="border: none;" alt="http://www.wikio.com"/></a>){kind=link}
Recent Comments