At Gitmo, still no day in court
Well, now that the Jackson trial is over, the media are looking around for another trial to cover. So its about time the media noticed that the US military has been ignoring an order of the US Supreme Court for the last year.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
WWWA-TV
Rapidly spreading around the progressive blogosphere are references to "WWWA-TV" and you may be wondering what it means.
Well, it stands for "Where the White Women At?" television, as defined byThe Poor Man in a blockbuster story about a merger of NBC and CNN into WWWA.
Well, it stands for "Where the White Women At?" television, as defined byThe Poor Man in a blockbuster story about a merger of NBC and CNN into WWWA.
The new network will consist of a WWWA channel, as well as WWWA Headline News, which will deliver all day's key missing white women developments every half hour. Most of WWWA's time will be devoted to covering current missing white women, but there will also be talk shows where groups of white men get together to discuss the significance of the day's missing or imperilled white women. Additionally, there are plans for a game show, hosted by Tom DeLay and James Dobson, where family member compete in trivia contests and gross-out physical challenges in order to determine whether or not their comatose white women relatives are kept on life support. For his part, FOX president Roger Ailes said the deal was no threat to his network. "WWWA will probably become the public's most trusted source for white women news, but we at FOX view this as an opportunity. While WWWA is focused on white women, we will be able to satisfy the public's curiousity about shark attacks, babies falling down wells, and celebrity murders, as well as the latest stories of Beloved Leader's brilliant triumphs over terrorists, Frenchmen, and their villianous Democrat allies.
Beautiful
Canadian military marks first gay marriage
Never mind.
Two servicemen . . . exchanged vows May 3 at the chapel at Canadian Forces Base Greenwood, N.S., in front of 45 friends and a United Church minister. Lt.-Cmdr. David Greenwood, the base's head chaplain, helped arrange the ceremony but couldn't preside over it since he is an Anglican. "I think there was a sense that many people thought they would never have seen something like this in their lifetimes - and not in a negative way, but in a positive way," Greenwood said Tuesday from his base office. "So they might be able to provide some comfort and solace to someone who might be in fear or in peril." The couple, one a sergeant and the other a warrant officer who are both in their late 30s, approached the chaplain about the possibility of holding the ceremony on the base. They went through a marriage preparation course and a United Church minister was found to conduct the service.So I guess now the sky will be falling in Canada any day now - fire and brimstone will rain down from the heavens, and the booming wrath of God will . . . 0ops, sorry, this happened more than a month ago - I guess I missed the thunderbolts.
Greenwood said there was no resistance by military or religious officials to the wedding. He added it was simply a matter of time before someone made the request. "It was something that I was very proud to be able to be involved in," he said after describing a service that included scriptural readings, gospel music and an exchange of rings.
Never mind.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Gay Americans -- get here as fast as you can
I think all gay people in the US had better move to Canada as soon as they can.
I was doing some searching tonight to find out how many anti-gay marriage initiatives are going to be on the 2006 mid-term ballots. Now, maybe I didn't look hard enough, but it surprised me that I could not find any list on pro-democratic sites, though there was mention of 10 or 15 state initiatives. As you will recall, the 11 anti-gay initiatives in 2004 got Christian activists out to the polls all fired up: this won the election for Bush and Republicans. They all passed by a significant margin. So I do not doubt that the Republicans are already planning that any states where they are vulnerable to Democratic challengers in 2006 will also feature an anti-gay ballot initiatives. I just hope the Democrats are organizing to deal with this.
Anyway, back to my warning. While searching, I noted a chilling new article from the Southern Poverty Law Centre which argues that targeting and demonizing gays has been a deliberate focus of the Christian Right over the last 30-years. Its not just gay marriage -- it is the gay person's right to live in the United States that they are attacking, or to live at all. The article describes Christian 'reconstructionists' as wanting the death penalty for homosexuality. "Ten Commandments" judge Roy Moore is quoted in a 2002 custody decision, describing gays as "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature . . . [t]he State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit [homosexual] conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle."
Here are some other recent statements by so-called Christian leaders:
"Homosexuals . . . want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the earth." "Our great nation is under violent attack from within. We are now at the 11th hour, a point of no return." "What's at stake here is the very foundation of our society, not only of America but all Western civilization." "I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain: if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died."
Alternet reprints this LA Weekly article The New Blacklist about the anti-gay boycotts and how they connect to the whole Christian Right agenda. It quotes investigative journalist Chip Berlet's summary of these connections:
All together now, everybody sing --
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword;
His truth is marching on.
I was doing some searching tonight to find out how many anti-gay marriage initiatives are going to be on the 2006 mid-term ballots. Now, maybe I didn't look hard enough, but it surprised me that I could not find any list on pro-democratic sites, though there was mention of 10 or 15 state initiatives. As you will recall, the 11 anti-gay initiatives in 2004 got Christian activists out to the polls all fired up: this won the election for Bush and Republicans. They all passed by a significant margin. So I do not doubt that the Republicans are already planning that any states where they are vulnerable to Democratic challengers in 2006 will also feature an anti-gay ballot initiatives. I just hope the Democrats are organizing to deal with this.
Anyway, back to my warning. While searching, I noted a chilling new article from the Southern Poverty Law Centre which argues that targeting and demonizing gays has been a deliberate focus of the Christian Right over the last 30-years. Its not just gay marriage -- it is the gay person's right to live in the United States that they are attacking, or to live at all. The article describes Christian 'reconstructionists' as wanting the death penalty for homosexuality. "Ten Commandments" judge Roy Moore is quoted in a 2002 custody decision, describing gays as "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature . . . [t]he State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit [homosexual] conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle."
Here are some other recent statements by so-called Christian leaders:
"Homosexuals . . . want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the earth." "Our great nation is under violent attack from within. We are now at the 11th hour, a point of no return." "What's at stake here is the very foundation of our society, not only of America but all Western civilization." "I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain: if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died."
Alternet reprints this LA Weekly article The New Blacklist about the anti-gay boycotts and how they connect to the whole Christian Right agenda. It quotes investigative journalist Chip Berlet's summary of these connections:
What's motivating these people is . . . an incredible dread, completely irrational, of a hodgepodge of sexual subversion and social chaos. The response to that fear is genuinely a grassroots response, and it's motivated by fundamentalist Christian doctrines like Triumphalism and Dominionism, which order Christians to take over the secular state and secular institutions. The Christian right frames itself as an oppressed minority battling the secular-humanist liberal homofeminist hordes . . . The re-election of Bush was a sort of tipping point for these people, who take it as a mandate from God -- they see that the leadership of America is within their grasp, and when you get closer to your goal, it's very energizing. It reaches a critical mass, in which the evangelicals feel they have permission to push their way into public and cultural policy in every walk and expression of life.
All together now, everybody sing --
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword;
His truth is marching on.
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Card trick
51st State of the Union: Now This Guy Is Good Want to see a neat card trick? Look at this one that Angus found and posted on 51st State.
Why not?
So they're finally found a drug that helps people lose weight. It apparently also helps prevent diabetes. Drug helps prevent type 2 diabetes
And at the end of the story, here's the killjoy: "Dr. Despres cautioned that rimonabant is not intended as a quick fix for those who want to pop a pill to shed a few pounds, saying it should be prescribed only for those at risk of diabetes and heart disease who have not responded to other means - such as diet and exercise - to improve their health. "It has to be said loud and clear, this won't be a weight-loss drug, it won't be a miracle drug. This is really, really the wrong approach."
Well, I am using a drug to quit smoking. So can someone please tell me why is using a drug to lose weight "the wrong approach"?
Party pooper!
And at the end of the story, here's the killjoy: "Dr. Despres cautioned that rimonabant is not intended as a quick fix for those who want to pop a pill to shed a few pounds, saying it should be prescribed only for those at risk of diabetes and heart disease who have not responded to other means - such as diet and exercise - to improve their health. "It has to be said loud and clear, this won't be a weight-loss drug, it won't be a miracle drug. This is really, really the wrong approach."
Well, I am using a drug to quit smoking. So can someone please tell me why is using a drug to lose weight "the wrong approach"?
Party pooper!
Thanks again, Jean
The international illegality of 'regime change' is being noted across the blogosphere today. Here is Informed Comment : ". . . As Michael Smith reports for the London Times, 'regime change' is illegal in international law without a United Nations Security Council resolution or other recognized sanction (national self-defense, or rescuing a population from genocide). "
Regardless of how sleazy the sponsorship scandal proves Chretien to be, or how much I dislike his propensity to undermine Martin, I will always be grateful that Chretien did his job as prime minister.
He kept Canada out of an illegal war. He said in 2003 that the US stated goal of regime change in Iraq was illegal. Here's the Reuters story of March 1, 2003: "Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien on Friday strongly criticized U.S. calls for the removal of President Saddam Hussein and told the United States to limit its ambitions in Iraq to disarmament. "If you start changing regimes, where do you stop, this is the problem. Who is next? Give me the list, the priorities," Chretien said on a visit to Mexico City. He said there was nothing about ending Saddam's rule in U.N. Security Council resolution 1441, the legal and diplomatic basis for much of the international pressure on Baghdad. "I think that if I read 1441, it's talking about disarmament of the government of Saddam Hussein. That is the resolution that we are working on. If you read it it is not talking about a regime change," he said. Speaking to reporters at his hotel in the Mexican capital, Chretien was visibly agitated. He clenched his fists and held them in the air while speaking."
Oh, and from the same news story, here is Ari Fleischer saying "The president has made it clear his policy remains to settle this peacefully. He hopes it can be done peacefully, but the goal remains disarmament and regime change."
Just one more proof that the "Everybody always knew the US was going to war" line is just another convenient lie.
Regardless of how sleazy the sponsorship scandal proves Chretien to be, or how much I dislike his propensity to undermine Martin, I will always be grateful that Chretien did his job as prime minister.
He kept Canada out of an illegal war. He said in 2003 that the US stated goal of regime change in Iraq was illegal. Here's the Reuters story of March 1, 2003: "Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien on Friday strongly criticized U.S. calls for the removal of President Saddam Hussein and told the United States to limit its ambitions in Iraq to disarmament. "If you start changing regimes, where do you stop, this is the problem. Who is next? Give me the list, the priorities," Chretien said on a visit to Mexico City. He said there was nothing about ending Saddam's rule in U.N. Security Council resolution 1441, the legal and diplomatic basis for much of the international pressure on Baghdad. "I think that if I read 1441, it's talking about disarmament of the government of Saddam Hussein. That is the resolution that we are working on. If you read it it is not talking about a regime change," he said. Speaking to reporters at his hotel in the Mexican capital, Chretien was visibly agitated. He clenched his fists and held them in the air while speaking."
Oh, and from the same news story, here is Ari Fleischer saying "The president has made it clear his policy remains to settle this peacefully. He hopes it can be done peacefully, but the goal remains disarmament and regime change."
Just one more proof that the "Everybody always knew the US was going to war" line is just another convenient lie.
Well, I was one of the millions who didn't know
Atrios refers to Kevin Drum's rather astounding statement about the Downing Street memo:
Atrios continues:
Well, I WAS paying attention, but I didn't know in 2002 that the US was determined to go to war against Iraq.
I actually believed that Bush still was making up his mind.
I actually believed that whether Saddam accepted the inspectors back actually mattered, that what Iraq reported about its weapons actually mattered, that whether the UN supported the war actually mattered.
And I thought that the anti-war demonstrations in September and October of 2002 and in January 2003 actually mattered too -- the millions who marched in these demonstrations around the world must also have believed their opinion would make a difference.
Well, I guess we were all just fools. Of course, I do keep forgetting that I am hopelessly naive. I think I was the only person in North America who also believed "I did not have sex with that woman."
Kevin Drum, you should be ashamed of yourself for falling for this spin. The idea that "everyone" knew in 2002 that the US had decided to go to war is ridiculous -- its an RNC talking point, designed to spread the blame around and let Bush off the hook for all his lies.
UPDATE: I guess The Editors were in the Coalition of the Shilled too: "Bush lied to us. Stood up there, pulled his most serious face, and lied to us. Chumped us. Played us like chumps. And now God knows how many people are dead, and Iraq is shaping up to be a bigger, bloodier Lebanon, and American power and credibility has been pissed away. All the while he lied to our chump faces. At what point does this become intolerable? At what point do people start saying 'enough'?"
UPDATE II -- THE BEGINNING: Americablog points to this New York Review of Books article "The Secret Way to War" which explains the backstory about why these Downing Steet Memos are important.
(And I promise to quit with the updates now!)
"Was the Iraq war a foregone conclusion by early 2002? Of course it was. These new memos provide further evidence of that, but I'm not sure there's anyone who really doubted it in the first place."
Atrios continues:
Look, this is just bullshit. There are two sets of people here. One consists of inside the beltways types and assorted news junkies and the other consists of The Amerkin Public. The former knew the Iraq war was a foregone conclusion by early 2002, but didn't bother to tell the Amerkin Public. They still haven't . . . The American press did not bother to tell people. And, now, they still don't want to bother to tell people. This isn't about attacking Drum, I've fallen into this trap before myself. Everyone should've known this in 2002. But, they didn't. It's just like Russert calling the Downing Street Memo the 'famous' Downing Street Memo? Famous to whom? To all the fuckers who didn't give a shit enough in 2002 to tell us what was obvious to anyone who was paying attention.
Well, I WAS paying attention, but I didn't know in 2002 that the US was determined to go to war against Iraq.
I actually believed that Bush still was making up his mind.
I actually believed that whether Saddam accepted the inspectors back actually mattered, that what Iraq reported about its weapons actually mattered, that whether the UN supported the war actually mattered.
And I thought that the anti-war demonstrations in September and October of 2002 and in January 2003 actually mattered too -- the millions who marched in these demonstrations around the world must also have believed their opinion would make a difference.
Well, I guess we were all just fools. Of course, I do keep forgetting that I am hopelessly naive. I think I was the only person in North America who also believed "I did not have sex with that woman."
Kevin Drum, you should be ashamed of yourself for falling for this spin. The idea that "everyone" knew in 2002 that the US had decided to go to war is ridiculous -- its an RNC talking point, designed to spread the blame around and let Bush off the hook for all his lies.
UPDATE: I guess The Editors were in the Coalition of the Shilled too: "Bush lied to us. Stood up there, pulled his most serious face, and lied to us. Chumped us. Played us like chumps. And now God knows how many people are dead, and Iraq is shaping up to be a bigger, bloodier Lebanon, and American power and credibility has been pissed away. All the while he lied to our chump faces. At what point does this become intolerable? At what point do people start saying 'enough'?"
UPDATE II -- THE BEGINNING: Americablog points to this New York Review of Books article "The Secret Way to War" which explains the backstory about why these Downing Steet Memos are important.
(And I promise to quit with the updates now!)
Saturday, June 11, 2005
Silent night/ 7 o'clock news
When I looked at Antiwar.com tonight, I suddenly thought of this -- anyone remember it?
Silent night, holy night
All is calm, all is bright
Round yon Virgin Mother and Child
Holy Infant so tender and mild
Sleep in heavenly peace
Sleep in heavenly peace.
* select the first song on Player One - show controls - play.
Silent night, holy night
All is calm, all is bright
Round yon Virgin Mother and Child
Holy Infant so tender and mild
Here was the evening news* in 1966 . . .
. . . In Washington the atmosphere was tense today as a special subcommittee of the House Committee on Un-American activities continued its probe into anti-Vietnam war protests. Demonstrators were forcibly evicted from the hearings when they began chanting anti-war slogans. Former Vice-President Richard Nixon says that unless there is a substantial increase in the present war effort in Viet nam, the U.S. should look forward to five more years of war. In a speech before the Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in New York, Nixon also said opposition to the war in this country is the greatest single weapon working against the U.S.
And here is the evening news today:
Army Recruitment Crisis Deepens
34 Iraqis, 2 US Marines Killed in Iraq Attacks
US Says Air Strike Kills 40 Insurgents
Iraq Hardliners Fear Defeat in Election
Diverse Afghan Groups Behind Unrest
Israeli Soldiers Denounce Revenge Attack
Support for Gaza Pullout Slumps as Threats to Sharon Rise
Disputed Iraq Raids Blamed on Bad Intelligence
Poll: 42% Say US Headed to Vietnam-Like Situation in Iraq
Poll: Bush Job Approval Dips to New Low
Iraq Sunnis Reject Compromise on Constitution
Iraq Bomb Kills 5 US Marines
Iraq Shootings May Lead to Curbs on Private Guards
Contractor Alleges Abuse by Marines
CIA Didn't Tell FBI About 9/11 Hijackers
Iran Has Frozen Work at Nuclear Site
US: Syria Out to Kill Beirut Politicians
Nuclear Warrior Replaces Bolton as Arms Control Chief . . .
That's the 7 o'clock edition of the news. Goodnight
Sleep in heavenly peace
Sleep in heavenly peace.
* select the first song on Player One - show controls - play.
Good, better, best
Good.
One of Nick Anderson's Pulitzer prize winning cartoons.
Better.
Brian Gable, Globe and Mail
Best.
Brian Gable, Globe and Mail
PS: By the way, it is the cartoons themselves, not the events they protray, that are good, better or best, IMHO.
One of Nick Anderson's Pulitzer prize winning cartoons.
Better.
Brian Gable, Globe and Mail
Best.
Brian Gable, Globe and Mail
PS: By the way, it is the cartoons themselves, not the events they protray, that are good, better or best, IMHO.
Sunrise, sunset
Sunrise, sunset
Sunrise, sunset
Swiftly fly the years
One season following another
Laden with happiness and tears.
As a parent, it's often hard to decide where your pity for your child's pain should stop, and your obligation to your child's future should begin.
I thought about this while watching the coverage of the 13-year-old Texas girl with Hodgkins in remission who wanted to refuse the radiation treatments which her doctors recommended to try to prevent recurrance of the cancer.
First, the tone of the coverage surprised me. The law says that no 13-year-old is considered to be sufficiently independent and mature that she can make her own decisions about medical treatment. The law also says that the state is obliged to care for children who are in danger. Any time society wants to change these laws, it can certainly do so. But the TV news last week adopted the tone that the 'state' was just being a big, bad meanie, ripping this child away from the loving arms of her family who just didn't want her to suffer anymore.
Well, sure, who would want more radiation treatments? Of course she didn't want to go through this again. But that's not the point. Sometimes being a parent means making the hard decisions on your child's behalf, and being strong enough to deal with her tears.
We had a miserable case like this here a few years ago -- a 12-year-old boy had bone cancer in his leg, and the boy didn't want his leg removed. So the parents tried to go the alternative medicine route and the doctors tried to stop them. After an ugly legal fight lasting some weeks, the court ruled that the doctors could remove the leg. Well, of course, by that time the cancer had spread and amputation would no longer have offered any hope of cure. So the boy died about two months later.
Now the Texas girl's cancer has also recurred.
Sunrise, sunset
Swiftly fly the years
One season following another
Laden with happiness and tears.
As a parent, it's often hard to decide where your pity for your child's pain should stop, and your obligation to your child's future should begin.
I thought about this while watching the coverage of the 13-year-old Texas girl with Hodgkins in remission who wanted to refuse the radiation treatments which her doctors recommended to try to prevent recurrance of the cancer.
First, the tone of the coverage surprised me. The law says that no 13-year-old is considered to be sufficiently independent and mature that she can make her own decisions about medical treatment. The law also says that the state is obliged to care for children who are in danger. Any time society wants to change these laws, it can certainly do so. But the TV news last week adopted the tone that the 'state' was just being a big, bad meanie, ripping this child away from the loving arms of her family who just didn't want her to suffer anymore.
Well, sure, who would want more radiation treatments? Of course she didn't want to go through this again. But that's not the point. Sometimes being a parent means making the hard decisions on your child's behalf, and being strong enough to deal with her tears.
We had a miserable case like this here a few years ago -- a 12-year-old boy had bone cancer in his leg, and the boy didn't want his leg removed. So the parents tried to go the alternative medicine route and the doctors tried to stop them. After an ugly legal fight lasting some weeks, the court ruled that the doctors could remove the leg. Well, of course, by that time the cancer had spread and amputation would no longer have offered any hope of cure. So the boy died about two months later.
Now the Texas girl's cancer has also recurred.
Isn't there someone who will let us surrender?
A month ago, I titled a post "Americans surrender in Iraq", based on a NYT story which said that the insurgents were ready to negotiate a surrender. To my eye, it appeared that America was using the media to declare its own intent to surrender, but saving face by implying it was merely responding to an insurgent initiative.
Now, here's another straw in the wind showing that America is giving up -- this Boston Globe story Decisive victory doubtful in Iraq says that "Military operations in Iraq have not succeeded in weakening the insurgency, and Iraq's government, with U.S. support, is now seeking a political reconciliation among the nation's ethnic and tribal factions as the only viable route to stability, according to U.S. military officials and private specialists."
So it looks to me like America is still trying to surrender through the media, but this time saving face by implying that the Iraqi government wants to negotiate peace and America is merely supporting them.
But perhaps I need to make a significant revison in my surrender thesis.
Perhaps it isn't actually "America" which wants to surrender, but rather just the American military. Maybe they're trying to get their boys and girls out of Iraq before the military collapses again as badly as it did after Vietnam. But the Bush administration isn't listening.
The Globe article points out that "despite US estimates that it kills or captures 1,000 to 3,000 insurgents a month the number of daily attacks is going back up . . to at least 70 per day", that the insurgents have "steady streams of funding and weapons", that they are "mounting an effort comparable to where they were a year ago", that in the first five months of 2005, almost 1.000 Iraqi police and security have been killed, that more than half of the attacks now involve suicide bombers, and that an average of two US soldiers day each day "and untold thousands of Iraqi civilians are being caught in the crossfire." And we've all heard the stories about how miserable the military recruiting numbers have been lately, to the point that they are recruiting less qualified candidates, and refusing to discharge people who shouldn't be in the military anymore. And fragging may be making a comeback.
So how can Dick Cheney say that the insurgency is in its "last throes"?
The article quotes a military specialist on the Cheney remark - 'There is simply no basis for making that statement". He's obviously forgotten that the Bush administration thinks they do not have to deal with actual facts -- they can create their own reality by wishing it to be so.
So as the military gets weaker and more desperate to surrender, how long can the Bush administration sustain its mythical but comfortable belief that freedom is on the march? How long will they continue to believe that the combination of tough talk and Tinker Bell clapping can suspend the laws of time and space and physics, so that they can continue to think that things are going exactly according to plan in Iraq.
If the military is trying to surrender, will the Bush administration let them? Or will the military be forced to stay on and on in Iraq, hunkered down in their bases year after year, seeing thousands of soldiers and ten of thousands of Iraqis die? The Bushies are, after all, a bunch of chickenhawks, backed up by the 101st Fighting Keyboarders. They've always thought they knew better than the military how to win a war -- yeah, just talk them to death!
Now, here's another straw in the wind showing that America is giving up -- this Boston Globe story Decisive victory doubtful in Iraq says that "Military operations in Iraq have not succeeded in weakening the insurgency, and Iraq's government, with U.S. support, is now seeking a political reconciliation among the nation's ethnic and tribal factions as the only viable route to stability, according to U.S. military officials and private specialists."
So it looks to me like America is still trying to surrender through the media, but this time saving face by implying that the Iraqi government wants to negotiate peace and America is merely supporting them.
But perhaps I need to make a significant revison in my surrender thesis.
Perhaps it isn't actually "America" which wants to surrender, but rather just the American military. Maybe they're trying to get their boys and girls out of Iraq before the military collapses again as badly as it did after Vietnam. But the Bush administration isn't listening.
The Globe article points out that "despite US estimates that it kills or captures 1,000 to 3,000 insurgents a month the number of daily attacks is going back up . . to at least 70 per day", that the insurgents have "steady streams of funding and weapons", that they are "mounting an effort comparable to where they were a year ago", that in the first five months of 2005, almost 1.000 Iraqi police and security have been killed, that more than half of the attacks now involve suicide bombers, and that an average of two US soldiers day each day "and untold thousands of Iraqi civilians are being caught in the crossfire." And we've all heard the stories about how miserable the military recruiting numbers have been lately, to the point that they are recruiting less qualified candidates, and refusing to discharge people who shouldn't be in the military anymore. And fragging may be making a comeback.
So how can Dick Cheney say that the insurgency is in its "last throes"?
The article quotes a military specialist on the Cheney remark - 'There is simply no basis for making that statement". He's obviously forgotten that the Bush administration thinks they do not have to deal with actual facts -- they can create their own reality by wishing it to be so.
So as the military gets weaker and more desperate to surrender, how long can the Bush administration sustain its mythical but comfortable belief that freedom is on the march? How long will they continue to believe that the combination of tough talk and Tinker Bell clapping can suspend the laws of time and space and physics, so that they can continue to think that things are going exactly according to plan in Iraq.
If the military is trying to surrender, will the Bush administration let them? Or will the military be forced to stay on and on in Iraq, hunkered down in their bases year after year, seeing thousands of soldiers and ten of thousands of Iraqis die? The Bushies are, after all, a bunch of chickenhawks, backed up by the 101st Fighting Keyboarders. They've always thought they knew better than the military how to win a war -- yeah, just talk them to death!
Thursday, June 09, 2005
A short history
Neddie from American Street points to this great art-essay, Robert R. Crumb's "Short history of America", which was reprinted in the Guardian recently.
Neddie asks: If you could wave a wand at one of those frames and magically make the destruction stop at that moment in time, which frame would it be?
Yes -- what IS next?
Neddie asks: If you could wave a wand at one of those frames and magically make the destruction stop at that moment in time, which frame would it be?
Yes -- what IS next?
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
"If you could see her through my eyes . . .
. . . she wouldn't look Jewish at all" -- Joel Grey in Cabaret.
I just wanted to remind everybody else that once upon a time, anti-semitism was pretty common. I myself was reminded of it when I read the gratuitously bigoted language in this Canadian Press story.
So here is a test.
See if you can figure out which word I have replaced in this news story:
Sorta jumps out at you, doesn't it?
I just wanted to remind everybody else that once upon a time, anti-semitism was pretty common. I myself was reminded of it when I read the gratuitously bigoted language in this Canadian Press story.
So here is a test.
See if you can figure out which word I have replaced in this news story:
Cotler might amend Jewish bill
. . . [Justice Minister Cotler said] it's beyond his legal reach to protect provincial marriage commissioners or religious organizations who turn away Jewish couples . . . "That's right," Cotler said, when asked if his hands are tied by jurisdictional limits. Ottawa has the authority to define marriage, but provinces have the power to solemnize weddings. A range of conflicts has already emerged. Human rights challenges are underway in cases where religious groups refused to rent halls for Jewish celebrations. Marriage commissioners in several provinces, including Manitoba and B.C., have stepped down after receiving provincial orders to perform Jewish weddings against their beliefs. A couple in Prince Edward Island shut down their bed-breakfast rather than rent a room to a Jewish couple. "These are very significant issues," says Conservative justice critic Vic Toews, a vocal opponent of the bill. "We are opening up a Pandora's box, and this minister has steadfastly refused (to concede) that there are any problems." . . . The bill is expected to pass the Commons in a vote as early as next week . . . If it becomes law, Canada would be just the third country in the world after the Netherlands and Belgium to legalize Jewish marriage. Toews and other critics say crucial details must be worked out before the bill is enshrined in law. He says Cotler must "deal with each of the provinces in terms of enacting corresponding legislation that will protect religious organizations and those who object to Jewish marriage for reasons of conscience." Derek Rogusky, spokesman for Focus on the Family Canada, says those who oppose Jewish weddings are uneasy. "Faith-based groups are not all that confident if their rights are going to be left up to the courts," said the senior vice-president of the conservative family values group. Equality protections tend to trump religious freedoms in legal fights over Jewish rights, he said. The divisive debate continues to expose deep rifts among political parties and Canadians in general. Nearly three dozen Liberals are against changing the definition of marriage to allow Jewish weddings. Former Liberal Pat O'Brien's decision this week to bolt the party because of his concerns about the bill pushed the minority government to consider amendments. Cotler says any changes must be consistent with the need to balance equality rights and religious freedom. Still, he supports the bill as it is and suggested there will be little more than tinkering with language to calm fears over its impact.
Sorta jumps out at you, doesn't it?
Words CAN hurt them
The Poor Man writes about the basic brilliance of Amnesty International calling the American ghost prison system a gulag:
On the whole, progressives try to deal with "reality". We pride ourselves on making a conscious effort not to be tricked by orwellian language. As a result, perhaps, we have not understood the crucial importance of this same orwellian language to the right wing. We attack what we think is their "reality" problem, but the right wing isn't listening because we're not dealing directly with the pseudonyms and talking points through which they can quell any vestige of uneasiness about what they are actually doing.
Offensive, unjustified and unprovoked war becomes "the Bush doctrine".
Protests against American agression becomes "they hate our freedom"
Bugging the security council becomes "reforming the UN"
Intolerant creationist bible worship becomes "intelligent design"
Threatening judges and picketing hospitals becomes "culture of life".
Demonizing gay people becomes "protecting the sancity of marriage"
The wrongfully imprisoned and possibly innocent people in Gitmo are "enemy combatants"
Locking people up without charge or trial or legal process becomes "protecting the American people"
As long as they continue to frame the world with poorly-defined but comforting pseudonyms, the right wing (and I include the Canadian right wing too) can continue to think of themsevles as morally upright, Christian people.
One thing I remember reading about Watergate was this -- that the worst thing about it was realizing "the nut at the end of the bar was right" -- you know, that blowhard guy who was ranting about conspiracies and bribery and crooks and liars and cover-ups.
Well, now we progressives may well be the 2005 version of the "nut at the end of the bar" -- and maybe people will listen if we use the language they understand.
This is a very significant post -- the realization that words can actually hurt the American right wing is an insight I have not seen before.. . . a lot of techniques have been tried to make Republicans care that they, and their party, are supporting torture. Reporting facts has been tried, unsuccessfully. Releasing graphic photographs was also tried, to no avail. Asking nicely didn't work, begging didn't work, and guilt-tripping didn't work either. But there was one thing that hadn't been tried yet, not really, not until Amnesty tried it the other day: name-calling.
Childish? Can be. But effective. Report, photograph, explain, analyze, moralize - all useless. But it the post-modern world of the modern right wing, where objective facts are social constructs and the endlessly mutable text is all that really is, there is still one thing that has the power to inspire a reaction: words. Pick your word carefully, like, say, the word “gulag”, and watch the fun begin .
. . the moral degenerates who are the postmodern Republican party [are] fundamentally only concerned with words, appearances, and the power both can wield . . . Amnesty’s use of the word “gulag” in reference to Republican policies weakens the Republican party, a group that cares nothing for human rights, only power, and has substantially strengthened Amnesty, a group that cares only about exposing powerful violators of human rights, and has no fear of making enemies, with a decades-long record to back it up.
On the whole, progressives try to deal with "reality". We pride ourselves on making a conscious effort not to be tricked by orwellian language. As a result, perhaps, we have not understood the crucial importance of this same orwellian language to the right wing. We attack what we think is their "reality" problem, but the right wing isn't listening because we're not dealing directly with the pseudonyms and talking points through which they can quell any vestige of uneasiness about what they are actually doing.
Offensive, unjustified and unprovoked war becomes "the Bush doctrine".
Protests against American agression becomes "they hate our freedom"
Bugging the security council becomes "reforming the UN"
Intolerant creationist bible worship becomes "intelligent design"
Threatening judges and picketing hospitals becomes "culture of life".
Demonizing gay people becomes "protecting the sancity of marriage"
The wrongfully imprisoned and possibly innocent people in Gitmo are "enemy combatants"
Locking people up without charge or trial or legal process becomes "protecting the American people"
As long as they continue to frame the world with poorly-defined but comforting pseudonyms, the right wing (and I include the Canadian right wing too) can continue to think of themsevles as morally upright, Christian people.
One thing I remember reading about Watergate was this -- that the worst thing about it was realizing "the nut at the end of the bar was right" -- you know, that blowhard guy who was ranting about conspiracies and bribery and crooks and liars and cover-ups.
Well, now we progressives may well be the 2005 version of the "nut at the end of the bar" -- and maybe people will listen if we use the language they understand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)