Here's what passes for hard-hitting investigative journalism during the summer silly season - PM's travels paid for by taxpayers. The boondogle of Paul Martin's recent jaunt to Timmins is fearlessly exposed by the Globe and Mail. And reporter Gloria Galloway is shocked - SHOCKED! - that Paul Martin isn't even embarassed about such a horrendous and inappropriate waste. She writes "And he admits without hesitation that his travel was paid for by the taxpayers of Canada."
The story notes that Jack Layton and Stephen Harper have been travelling this summer too. Layton's tour "has been financed by his party and by using the limited travel points that are alloted [to MPs.] Other expenses have come out of MPs' office budgets" while Harper, says the article "has made extensive use of a party-funded minibus". So it sure sounds to me like taxpayers are funding at least a portion of their expenses too, though the article tries its best to bury this information through the use of obscure terminology for taxpayer's money ('travel points' and 'office budgets').
Basically, just another gonzo story.
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Friday, July 29, 2005
AP connects Bolton to the Niger claim
This AP story - Rice Proposes State Department Shuffle - is very strange.
The first six paragraphs describe a announcement from Condi Rice to reorganize some unnamed State department offices into a Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation.
Then it veers off into a completely different track -- it lists things which Rice DID NOT mention during her announcement, and then it makes a surprising statement about John Bolton.
Not that I don't appreciate writer Anne Gearan's points -- she is titled as AP Diplomatic Writer, and apparently she knows her background.
But its very strange, none the less. After describing Rice's announcement about the office reorganization, the story continues:
And did you note this sentence (emphasis mine) : "The State Department's existing Bureau of Arms Control and International Security was . . . a participant in the dealings surrounding the administration's false claim that Saddam tried to acquire uranium . . . from the African nation of Niger. Until recently, that office was headed by John R. Bolton . . ."
Now, I haven't read every single thing about Plamegate or Rovegate or whatever it is now called, but I had not heard anything before that stated so firmly that Bolton was connected to the Niger claim.
Is this actually new news, buried in the 10th paragraph of an 11-paragraph story?
(Thanks to this Kos diary for the link.)
The first six paragraphs describe a announcement from Condi Rice to reorganize some unnamed State department offices into a Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation.
Then it veers off into a completely different track -- it lists things which Rice DID NOT mention during her announcement, and then it makes a surprising statement about John Bolton.
Not that I don't appreciate writer Anne Gearan's points -- she is titled as AP Diplomatic Writer, and apparently she knows her background.
But its very strange, none the less. After describing Rice's announcement about the office reorganization, the story continues:
Rice's brief address Friday said nothing about Saddam, al-Qaida or the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. The insurgency in Iraq is a mix of Sunni Arab opponents of the overthrow of Saddam and foreign supporters of al-Qaida and other terror groups bent on ousting the United States. Rice was once of the chief architects of the Iraq war as President Bush's first-term national security adviser, and she was one of the most vocal advocates of the administration's claim that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction that could be used against the United States or Iraq's neighbors. 'The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons,' Rice said in a September 2002 interview with CNN. 'But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.' The State Department's existing Bureau of Arms Control and International Security was one of the arms of the U.S. government keeping track of Saddam's capabilities, and was a participant in the dealings surrounding the administration's false claim that Saddam tried to acquire uranium - a component of nuclear weapons - from the African nation of Niger. Until recently, that office was headed by John R. Bolton, now Bush's embattled nominee to be United Nations ambassador. The administration also contended Saddam had ties to al-Qaida terrorists, and hinted that he might provide them with WMD. That claim was rejected by the independent Sept. 11 Commission's report last summer.
And did you note this sentence (emphasis mine) : "The State Department's existing Bureau of Arms Control and International Security was . . . a participant in the dealings surrounding the administration's false claim that Saddam tried to acquire uranium . . . from the African nation of Niger. Until recently, that office was headed by John R. Bolton . . ."
Now, I haven't read every single thing about Plamegate or Rovegate or whatever it is now called, but I had not heard anything before that stated so firmly that Bolton was connected to the Niger claim.
Is this actually new news, buried in the 10th paragraph of an 11-paragraph story?
(Thanks to this Kos diary for the link.)
Its a natural
So Village Voice reporter Ron Pearlstein suggests that the Democrats should become the party which guarantees that Americans will never have to pay another bill for medical care, in this article Unfucking the Donkey.
Well, duhhhh!
Of course they should.
Why do they think the Liberals have now been in power in Canada for 12 years, with no end in sight? It was Martin's vigorous defense of the Canada Health Act and his promise to deal with waiting lists that likely gave him the thin margin of safety last June. Why do they think there is not a provincial premier anywhere in Canada, regardless of their party, who dares to talk about bringing back personally-funded health care -- except Ralph Klein, who is on his way out as premier.
If Social Security is the 'third rail' of American politics, medicare is Canada's third rail. We just will not do without it, regardless of how high a percentage of our income tax it consumes. It is perhaps the one government expenditure (other than, perhaps, highways) which everybody supports, everybody needs, and everybody uses.
Pearlstein writes "The most glorious thing about congressional Democrats is that they have drawn the line and said: No further. Don't. Touch. Social. Security. It is a heroic stand. What's more, it's been enormously politically effective. Now think about this: They are drawing on the capital of an entitlement passed 70 years ago. It is the duty of every generation of Democrats to produce new geese to lay 70 years of golden eggs. It is the only way our party has grown . . . Democratic congressmen can do that, for example, by making a credible collective pledge that if you vote Democrat enough you will never pay another medical bill as long as you live. You really think people wouldn't stop voting Republican then?"
If Hillary Clinton wants to run for President, she should promise to implement medicare. She is already associated with medicare in the public mind -- she was in charge of Clinton's health care effort 12 years ago. Her lack of success with this plan can now be blamed on the secret agenda of the Republicans who scuttled it not because medicare was a bad idea for Americans but because it was such a good idea -- the Republicans knew how effective it would be in it assuring a generation of middle-class votes for the democrats.
For Hillary, its her natural issue.
Well, duhhhh!
Of course they should.
Why do they think the Liberals have now been in power in Canada for 12 years, with no end in sight? It was Martin's vigorous defense of the Canada Health Act and his promise to deal with waiting lists that likely gave him the thin margin of safety last June. Why do they think there is not a provincial premier anywhere in Canada, regardless of their party, who dares to talk about bringing back personally-funded health care -- except Ralph Klein, who is on his way out as premier.
If Social Security is the 'third rail' of American politics, medicare is Canada's third rail. We just will not do without it, regardless of how high a percentage of our income tax it consumes. It is perhaps the one government expenditure (other than, perhaps, highways) which everybody supports, everybody needs, and everybody uses.
Pearlstein writes "The most glorious thing about congressional Democrats is that they have drawn the line and said: No further. Don't. Touch. Social. Security. It is a heroic stand. What's more, it's been enormously politically effective. Now think about this: They are drawing on the capital of an entitlement passed 70 years ago. It is the duty of every generation of Democrats to produce new geese to lay 70 years of golden eggs. It is the only way our party has grown . . . Democratic congressmen can do that, for example, by making a credible collective pledge that if you vote Democrat enough you will never pay another medical bill as long as you live. You really think people wouldn't stop voting Republican then?"
If Hillary Clinton wants to run for President, she should promise to implement medicare. She is already associated with medicare in the public mind -- she was in charge of Clinton's health care effort 12 years ago. Her lack of success with this plan can now be blamed on the secret agenda of the Republicans who scuttled it not because medicare was a bad idea for Americans but because it was such a good idea -- the Republicans knew how effective it would be in it assuring a generation of middle-class votes for the democrats.
For Hillary, its her natural issue.
Four guys in a gym in Leeds
Juan Cole comments on the end of the GWOT:
. . . they have finally realized that if they are fighting a war on terror, the enemy is four guys in a gym in Leeds. It isn't going to take very long for people to realize that a) you don't actually need to pay the Pentagon $400 billion a year if that is the problem and b) whoever is in charge of such a war isn't actually doing a very good job at stopping the bombs from going off . . . former CIA analyst Marc Sageman estimates the number of radical Muslims who can and would do significant harm to the US in the hundreds. That's right. The old "war on terror" was a war of the world's sole superpower on a few hundred people. (I exclude Iraq because it is not and never was part of any 'war on terror,' though the incredible incompetence of the Bush administration has contributed to the ability of terrorists to operate there.)Cole also has an interesting summary of how a suicide bomber is created -- worth reading.
The Double CYA Rule
I defer to POGGE in postings about the Maher Arar inquiry because he had done so much research in this area. But today, I couldn't resist posting about this snippet of bureaucratic buck-passing: The Globe and Mail: Mountie's lawyer accuses RCMP of shirking responsibility for Arar.
Here is what happened at the inquiry: "a lawyer [Don Bayne] for leading RCMP investigator Michel Cabana accused senior Mounties of ducking responsibility for the Arar affair by shifting blame to front-line officers . . . in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks, [then-Deputy RCMP Commissioner Gary]Leoppky issued an urgent directive to investigators to 'pull out all the stops' in giving the Americans whatever information they needed, as quickly as possible."
Now, however, Leoppky says that this directive didn't mean Cabana and other front-line RCMP officers were permitted to suspend the usual time-consuming restrictions on information-sharing with the US. So 'pulling out all the stops' actually just meant 'business as usual'. Who wouldda thunk it?
Its just another example of how people have to protect themselves in any bureaucracy. Call it the Double CYA (cover your ass) Rule -- if you think you have permission from a superior to ignore a policy, don't believe it. Before you actually do it, you must tell the superior in writing that you are going to do this, and get specific permission AGAIN. Sounds bureaucratic, I know -- but its a bureaucracy you're working in.
Here is what happened at the inquiry: "a lawyer [Don Bayne] for leading RCMP investigator Michel Cabana accused senior Mounties of ducking responsibility for the Arar affair by shifting blame to front-line officers . . . in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks, [then-Deputy RCMP Commissioner Gary]Leoppky issued an urgent directive to investigators to 'pull out all the stops' in giving the Americans whatever information they needed, as quickly as possible."
Now, however, Leoppky says that this directive didn't mean Cabana and other front-line RCMP officers were permitted to suspend the usual time-consuming restrictions on information-sharing with the US. So 'pulling out all the stops' actually just meant 'business as usual'. Who wouldda thunk it?
Its just another example of how people have to protect themselves in any bureaucracy. Call it the Double CYA (cover your ass) Rule -- if you think you have permission from a superior to ignore a policy, don't believe it. Before you actually do it, you must tell the superior in writing that you are going to do this, and get specific permission AGAIN. Sounds bureaucratic, I know -- but its a bureaucracy you're working in.
Yes, I've heard that, too
The main reason I subscribed to Salon several years ago was Garrison Keillor's Mr. Blue column. Then, he quit writing it.
But finally, he is back with a regular Salon column every Wednesday. And this week his column is about how many people in Washington have heard cool stuff about other people in Washington Thanks to All Spin Zone for the tip.
But finally, he is back with a regular Salon column every Wednesday. And this week his column is about how many people in Washington have heard cool stuff about other people in Washington Thanks to All Spin Zone for the tip.
Another eeuuuu! story
Now here's a headline you don't see every day: Man gets amputated foot back after police seize it briefly.
People keep the darndest soveniers.
When the orthopods removed the 4"-long metal plate which had been used to fix my broken leg, they gave it to me at the hospital, telling me that most people wanted to keep these things. Well, not me. When I got home, out it went.
People keep the darndest soveniers.
When the orthopods removed the 4"-long metal plate which had been used to fix my broken leg, they gave it to me at the hospital, telling me that most people wanted to keep these things. Well, not me. When I got home, out it went.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Has everyone signed on to GSAVE?
Slate's Fred Kaplan notes a NYT story that the Bush administration has decided to change the name of its counterterrorist campaign from "the global war on terror"(GWOT) to "the global struggle against violent extremism" (GSAVE) He asks
Three aspects Kaplan doesn't mention. First, as a number of bloggers have pointed out, Kerry said in October that the US should develop a criminal focus rather than a military forus to the GWOT, and the Republicans said this was ridiculous -- now, they also seem to be taking a criminal justice approach.
Second, this appears to be a change they are desperate to make quickly, so the Bush administration is rolling it out in mid-summer, instead of waiting until their preferred product-launch period in the fall.
And third, call me paranoid, but the Bush administration may see more substance to the change than just sloganeering.
"Terror" is rarer and more serious than "violent extremism". Terror is violence focused on civilians and innocent people which is designed to overthrow a government, while violent extremism can target infrastructure or economy or a specific cause. The goal of violent extremism can be much less radical, such as causing economic damage to an industry or challenging a country's justice system, or changing a particular law or policy. Acts of 'violent extremism' could include a large number of acts now seen as criminal, such as setting loose a computer virus or selling drugs to finance the purchase of weapons or being arrested for vandalism during a demonstration.
For example, one would not likely describe PETA as a terrorist group, though they are certainly violent extremists. Likewise one could define criminal organizations like the Mafia or the Hells Angels as violent extremists. Ultimately, the terminology could even apply to peace activists and groups. This NYT story from a week ago says "The Federal Bureau of Investigation has collected at least 3,500 pages of internal documents in the last several years on a handful of civil rights and antiwar protest groups . . . [and have said that] any intelligence-gathering activities related to political protests are intended to prevent disruptive and criminal activity at demonstrations . . ."
Expanding the terminology means all of these groups can be more easily targetted, monitored and proscuted though the Patriot Act, which allows all manner of warrentless searches and secret wiretaps.
Under the new terminology, the definition of what constitutes 'peace' becomes a meaningless concept. While wars have a beginning and an end, struggles can go on forever.
So while the range of action has widened, the focus of action has softened, making a situation where a much larger number of groups can be targetted for a much broader number of crimes for a much longer time. No wonder Bush wants the Patriot Act to be permanent.
After 9/11, there was a great rush of support for the US and their Global War on Terror as nations responded seriously to the Bush call for support. I wonder how many other countries will sign on to the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism, especially as we come to understand its political and personal ramifications.
I wonder even how many Americans would sign on to this?
. . . Are these guys really this clueless? First, this is the administration's solution to the spike in terrorist incidents, the Taliban's resurgence in Afghanistan, and the politico-military deterioration in Iraq - to retool the slogan? Second, the White House and the Pentagon are just now coming around to the idea that the struggle is as much ideological as military? This wasn't obvious, say, three or four years ago? . . . It took four years for the president of the United States to realize that fighting terrorism has a political component? It took six months for his senior advisers to retool a slogan? We are witnessing that rare occasion when the phrase "I don't know whether to laugh or cry" can be uttered without lapsing into cliché.
But the shallowness gets deeper still. The Times story doesn't notice what appears to be the driving force behind the new slogan—a desire for a happier acronym. Look at the first letters of Global War on Terrorism. GWOT. What does that mean; how is it pronounced? Gwot? Too frivolously rowdy, like a fight scene in a Marvel comic book (Bam! Pfooff! Gwot!). Gee-wot? Sounds like a garbled question (Gee what?). Then look at Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism. Its acronym is GSAVE—i.e., gee-save. We're out to save the world, see, not wage war on it. Or, as national security adviser Stephen Hadley puts it in the Times piece, "We need to dispute both the gloomy vision and offer a positive alternative." Does Hadley, and do all our other top officials, really believe this nonsense? Are they so enraptured with PR that they think a slogan and a strategy are the same thing and that retooling the one will transform the other? Have we lapsed into the banality of the mid-'70s, when President Gerald Ford tried to beat back 20-percent price hikes by urging Americans to wear gigantic lapel pins that read "WIN"—for Whip Inflation Now? The Times notes, midway into the story, that the "language shifts" come at a time when Karen Hughes, one of President Bush's most trusted advisers, is about to take over the State Department's office of "public diplomacy." If changing GWOT to GSAVE is a sign of campaigns to come, we are in sorrier shape than anyone might previously have imagined.
Three aspects Kaplan doesn't mention. First, as a number of bloggers have pointed out, Kerry said in October that the US should develop a criminal focus rather than a military forus to the GWOT, and the Republicans said this was ridiculous -- now, they also seem to be taking a criminal justice approach.
Second, this appears to be a change they are desperate to make quickly, so the Bush administration is rolling it out in mid-summer, instead of waiting until their preferred product-launch period in the fall.
And third, call me paranoid, but the Bush administration may see more substance to the change than just sloganeering.
"Terror" is rarer and more serious than "violent extremism". Terror is violence focused on civilians and innocent people which is designed to overthrow a government, while violent extremism can target infrastructure or economy or a specific cause. The goal of violent extremism can be much less radical, such as causing economic damage to an industry or challenging a country's justice system, or changing a particular law or policy. Acts of 'violent extremism' could include a large number of acts now seen as criminal, such as setting loose a computer virus or selling drugs to finance the purchase of weapons or being arrested for vandalism during a demonstration.
For example, one would not likely describe PETA as a terrorist group, though they are certainly violent extremists. Likewise one could define criminal organizations like the Mafia or the Hells Angels as violent extremists. Ultimately, the terminology could even apply to peace activists and groups. This NYT story from a week ago says "The Federal Bureau of Investigation has collected at least 3,500 pages of internal documents in the last several years on a handful of civil rights and antiwar protest groups . . . [and have said that] any intelligence-gathering activities related to political protests are intended to prevent disruptive and criminal activity at demonstrations . . ."
Expanding the terminology means all of these groups can be more easily targetted, monitored and proscuted though the Patriot Act, which allows all manner of warrentless searches and secret wiretaps.
Under the new terminology, the definition of what constitutes 'peace' becomes a meaningless concept. While wars have a beginning and an end, struggles can go on forever.
So while the range of action has widened, the focus of action has softened, making a situation where a much larger number of groups can be targetted for a much broader number of crimes for a much longer time. No wonder Bush wants the Patriot Act to be permanent.
After 9/11, there was a great rush of support for the US and their Global War on Terror as nations responded seriously to the Bush call for support. I wonder how many other countries will sign on to the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism, especially as we come to understand its political and personal ramifications.
I wonder even how many Americans would sign on to this?
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
The Eeuuuu! story of the day
If you barbeque, read this story -- Barbecuers beware: Bristles can fall off wire brushes, be ingested in food
When one of our Labradors was a puppy, he kept trying to eat just about anything, from stones to paper towels. And our vet told us the cheery stories of all these Labs they had operated on to remove socks etc. One story was about the Lab who ate a barbeque brush -- they had to operate to get the plastic handle, but they couldn't get all the bristles - some had to move out on their own. The Lab was OK eventually, though of course the owners were thousands poorer.
Needless to say, we immediately tossed the brush.
When one of our Labradors was a puppy, he kept trying to eat just about anything, from stones to paper towels. And our vet told us the cheery stories of all these Labs they had operated on to remove socks etc. One story was about the Lab who ate a barbeque brush -- they had to operate to get the plastic handle, but they couldn't get all the bristles - some had to move out on their own. The Lab was OK eventually, though of course the owners were thousands poorer.
Needless to say, we immediately tossed the brush.
CHEAP-TV
So, is the problem really that there are no 'visuals'? In The Supreme Challenge: Zero Visuals Times 9, Washington Post's Howard Kurtz writes "The amount of airtime devoted to untangling [Supreme] court decisions has been dwarfed by the cases involving Martha Stewart, Michael Jackson and Kobe Bryant, not to mention wife killer Scott Peterson, runaway bride Jennifer Wilbanks and missing-in-Aruba Natalee Holloway. By contrast, major court rulings on medical marijuana, racially influenced jury selection and government seizure of private property tend to be one- or two-day stories at best."
He blames the lack of visuals. But what he doesn't mention, and maybe doesn't realize, is this -- covering a police investigation story or a courtroom story is EASY, and therefore CHEAP. It requires virtually no research, promotes the excitement of 'breaking news' and gets the reporters lots of camera time.
For a missing person case, its all just interviews -- "And how did you feel when you saw the kidnappers driving away with your daughter?" -- and repetitions of police press releases.
For a courtroom case, its even easier -- just attend the trial, or even get a junior staffer to do it, then do a wrap-up outside-the-courthouse standup up just repeating what was said inside. "In dramatic testimony today, defendant XX told the jury . . . "
Hey, what could be simpler? "CHEAP-TV is now broadcasting live from . . . "
He blames the lack of visuals. But what he doesn't mention, and maybe doesn't realize, is this -- covering a police investigation story or a courtroom story is EASY, and therefore CHEAP. It requires virtually no research, promotes the excitement of 'breaking news' and gets the reporters lots of camera time.
For a missing person case, its all just interviews -- "And how did you feel when you saw the kidnappers driving away with your daughter?" -- and repetitions of police press releases.
For a courtroom case, its even easier -- just attend the trial, or even get a junior staffer to do it, then do a wrap-up outside-the-courthouse standup up just repeating what was said inside. "In dramatic testimony today, defendant XX told the jury . . . "
Hey, what could be simpler? "CHEAP-TV is now broadcasting live from . . . "
How Democrats can shoot themselves in the foot
This article -- Valuing Patriotism by Will Marshall from the Democratic Leadership Council is being rightly creamed by Kos, Digby, Atrios, and Gilliard.
In Canada, I don't think anyone would ever see such an article about one of our parties by a supposed 'supporter'. Or, if such a silly, subversive and self-promoting article were written, the party would ignore it.
Will Marshall founded and made himself president of something called the Progressive Policy Institute. His article, published in the magazine he edits, bashes the Democratic party's own core membership every second sentence while promoting his personal hobbyhorses as 'solutions' for the party's supposed problem. Marshall says that Democrats are not sufficiently patriotic (a basic RNC talking point -- is this guy actually a stealth Republican?) Then, he says Democrats should demonstrate their patriotism by, first, somehow getting Ivy League campuses like Harvard and Yale to reinstate the ROTC; second, stopping the promotion of increases in government spending on veterans benefits, military health care, military housing, etc and instead just promoting "intangible" support of "being recognized and honored for the sacrifices they make to preserve our way of life"; third, promoting a major expansion of the military, by 100,000 troops, to be paid for by raising taxes; and fourth, reinstating "national service"! Yes, he actually says that Democrats should show their patriotism by renaming the Selective Service System as the "national service system" and linking university grants and loans to "whose who agree to serve."
It should be noted that according to Will Marshall's biography, he has never actually been elected to anything. No wonder.
In Canada, I don't think anyone would ever see such an article about one of our parties by a supposed 'supporter'. Or, if such a silly, subversive and self-promoting article were written, the party would ignore it.
Will Marshall founded and made himself president of something called the Progressive Policy Institute. His article, published in the magazine he edits, bashes the Democratic party's own core membership every second sentence while promoting his personal hobbyhorses as 'solutions' for the party's supposed problem. Marshall says that Democrats are not sufficiently patriotic (a basic RNC talking point -- is this guy actually a stealth Republican?) Then, he says Democrats should demonstrate their patriotism by, first, somehow getting Ivy League campuses like Harvard and Yale to reinstate the ROTC; second, stopping the promotion of increases in government spending on veterans benefits, military health care, military housing, etc and instead just promoting "intangible" support of "being recognized and honored for the sacrifices they make to preserve our way of life"; third, promoting a major expansion of the military, by 100,000 troops, to be paid for by raising taxes; and fourth, reinstating "national service"! Yes, he actually says that Democrats should show their patriotism by renaming the Selective Service System as the "national service system" and linking university grants and loans to "whose who agree to serve."
It should be noted that according to Will Marshall's biography, he has never actually been elected to anything. No wonder.
Did you know . . .
. . . there is a worldwide tire shortage? I didn't, but apparently it is affecting particularly the industries which use those vehicles with huge tires, like in the mining industry. Here's the story from today's Star Phoenix: Saskatoon StarPhoenix - canada.com network: "'We get calls from all around the world from tire dealers and customers looking for relief,' said Bob Bennett, general manager of the mining tire group at Kal Tire in Vernon, B.C. . . . Bennett has heard pleas from as far away as Russia, England and Chile, but with the Big Three manufacturers -- Michelin, Goodyear and Bridgestone -- struggling to keep pace with demand, there's little that can be done. [It is expected that] the issue will be resolved by mid-2006, but some industry estimates say it could be at least 2008 before suppliers catch up."
But what does it MEAN?
Progressive Blog Digest provides a roundup of recent Rovegate stuff: in summary, it depends on what the meaning of "negligent" is, it depends on what the meaning of "covert" is, it depends on what the meaning of "notify" is . . .
Monday, July 25, 2005
It all comes down to the people's law vs. the 'divine' law
We stopped subscribing to Newsweek after one too many cover stories about Jesus and his angels.
So without Orcinus, I would have missed this great column on the basic similarity between homegrown and international terrorism --Untrue Believers by Christopher Dickey:
And while you are visiting Orcinus, take a gander at his next post, The Zigzag March of the Minutemen. I think Dave Neiwert is doing the best analysis in North America today on the dangers of the -isms (racism, anti-semitism, nationalism, fascism, etc)
So without Orcinus, I would have missed this great column on the basic similarity between homegrown and international terrorism --Untrue Believers by Christopher Dickey:
The sentencing of Eric Rudolph, who bombed abortion clinics, a gay bar and the Atlanta Olympics, ought to be a milestone in the Global War on Terror . . . Rudolph killed two people, but not for want of trying to kill many more. In his 1997 attack on an Atlanta abortion clinic, he set off a second bomb meant to take out bystanders and rescue workers. Unrepentant, of course, Rudolph defended his actions as a moral imperative: “Abortion is murder, and because it is murder I believe deadly force is needed to stop it.” The Birmingham prosecutor declared that Rudolph had “appointed himself judge, jury and executioner.” Indeed. That’s what all terrorists have in common: the four lunatics in London earlier this month; the 19 men who attacked America on September 11, 2001; Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City, and many others. They were all convinced they had noble motives for wreaking their violence. Terrorists are very righteous folks. Which is why the real global war we’re fighting, let’s be absolutely clear, should be one of our shared humanity against the madness of people like these; the rule of man-made laws on the books against the divine law they imagine for themselves. It’s the cause of reason against unreason, of self-criticism against the firm convictions of fanaticism. [emphasis mine]. . . [Quoting writer Eric Hoffer] “faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves” fits the profile of terrorists everywhere. "in exchanging a self-centered for a selfless life we gain enormously in self-esteem. The vanity of the selfless, even those who practice utmost humility, is boundless." The threat is more vast when it comes from those inspired by Al Qaeda, because Osama bin Laden’s pseudo-chivalric ideology of “sacrifice” and “martyrdom” has proved so infectious among small groups of young people on the margins of Muslim societies. Rudolph and McVeigh were basically loners, although they, too, claimed they were fighting for a greater cause—in Rudolph’s case, the “right to life.” . . . the difference between rationalism and obscurantism should be underlined at every opportunity. And that’s not what’s happening. Instead, since the detour into Iraq it seems the intellectual compass of those who led us there has gotten lost in a fog of moral pieties, and sweet reason has surrendered to missionary zeal. To be a true believer in the Global War on Terror you are supposed to believe that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq, but that they would never think of fighting back outside of Iraq. Any effort to understand the enemy or his motivations is treated as an apology for what he does. At times we seem to be infected by the very pathology we are fighting against . . . facing the basic painful facts and addressing them logically, reasonably, without demagoguery is not a surrender to terrorism, it is the first crucial step toward defeating it. Righteous murderers may claim they're defending Islam or unborn babies, but clearer heads and common sense can distinguish true believers from those who believe in truth.
And while you are visiting Orcinus, take a gander at his next post, The Zigzag March of the Minutemen. I think Dave Neiwert is doing the best analysis in North America today on the dangers of the -isms (racism, anti-semitism, nationalism, fascism, etc)
This is good news
U.S. court issues tough opinion on cattle trade
They rejected all of the R-CALF arguments
They rejected all of the R-CALF arguments
. . . [Montana Judge] Cebull erred on all counts when he sided with Montana-based ranching group R-CALF, the [Appeal Court] judges said. Canadian ranchers hope the written reasons would now convince Cebull to shelve a planned hearing on the long-term fate of the border and rule to dismiss the case. Many U.S. groups were encouraged by the tone and content of the appeal court's 56-page opinion, which attacked, one by one, all the vehement objections to trade presented by R-CALF. 'We are very pleased with the opinion . . . which upholds every aspect of USDA's rule-making process,' said Terri Teuber, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, adding her agency is making no assumptions about what Cebull will do. 'It sends a strong signal to the district court about how this case should be resolved,' said Mark Dopp, spokesman for the American Meat Institute. 'It would certainly seem a logical step (to dismiss the case).'But R-CALF won't be going down without a fight.
R-CALF made it clear Monday that it still wants a full hearing and the fight isn't over.Round and round and round she goes, and where she stops, nobody knows.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)