Sen. John Ried Edwards, your baby face makes me hot for the presidential race. Edwards is my preliminary pick for president ....below are my reasons why in no particular order…
1. He’s smmaht. Edwards was a trial lawyer.
2. Minority vote. Edwards is one of the few white powerful politicians that is talking about the culture separation between white and black. He also formed the One America Committee to fight poverty.
3. American dream. Edwards was the first person in his family to go to college. He’s bachelors degree is in textile technology. His father worked in a textile mill and his mother worked in a post office.
4. Sympathy vote. His first born son died in a freak car accident when he was 16 in 1996.
5. His wife. Elizabeth Edwards discovered that she had a lump in her breast a week before election day in 2004. The day after the election Elizabeth was diagnosed with breast cancer. She is now in remission. She has also talked openly about her weight issues.
6. He’s attractive. Yes, American’s do take attractiveness in consideration.
7. He is rich…. He isn’t from old money, he is a self made man who can use that money to run for president.
~LP
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Stanford Law Prof Lessig's Code 2.0 is online and free
You know, after a long, hard day of final exams, sometimes you just want to pour yourself a very large drink and read a good book. Sadly, these times tend to come at the end of the semester, when student loan funds are running low and one's budget is tight. You can afford a very large drink, or a new book - but not both.
Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig wants to help you. (Actually, he's probably never met you, doesn't know you, and cares not one whit about you - but stay with me here.) He's just released his new book, Code 2.0, on the Intertubes for free as a PDF file. It's all about internet governance structures - both legal and technical. I'm just starting it now, but I've Lessig's Free Culture (also available for free), and found it to be a cracking good read. That one's about the need for copyright reform - but it's really interesting, trust me.
Both books are released under a Creative Commons license, which is an absolutely splendid and remarkably progressive scheme for media licensing that I have neither the time, nor the patience, to explain in detail. The Creative Commons website can do that better, anyway. It's worth a look, if for no other reason than that it's got a large library of other free, creative-commons licensed books.
Anyway - thanks to Lessig and the Creative Commons, I can print out a good book for free, and blow the book-buying money on booze. Is that great or what?
Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig wants to help you. (Actually, he's probably never met you, doesn't know you, and cares not one whit about you - but stay with me here.) He's just released his new book, Code 2.0, on the Intertubes for free as a PDF file. It's all about internet governance structures - both legal and technical. I'm just starting it now, but I've Lessig's Free Culture (also available for free), and found it to be a cracking good read. That one's about the need for copyright reform - but it's really interesting, trust me.
Both books are released under a Creative Commons license, which is an absolutely splendid and remarkably progressive scheme for media licensing that I have neither the time, nor the patience, to explain in detail. The Creative Commons website can do that better, anyway. It's worth a look, if for no other reason than that it's got a large library of other free, creative-commons licensed books.
Anyway - thanks to Lessig and the Creative Commons, I can print out a good book for free, and blow the book-buying money on booze. Is that great or what?
Monday, December 11, 2006
Outsourcing the Commander-in-Chief
Paul Krugman has a great response to President Bush's comment that he won't "out-source" his responsibilities of commander-in-chief. This was in response to questions about why the President won't simply adopt the ISG's recommendations for moving forward in Iraq. The Krugman link is behind the NY Times times-select firewall but here's an excerpt:
That’s pretty ironic. You see, outsourcing of the government’s responsibilities — not to panels of supposed wise men, but to private companies with the right connections — has been one of the hallmarks of his administration. And privatization through outsourcing is one reason the administration has failed on so many fronts.
For example, an article in Saturday’s New York Times describes how the Coast Guard has run a $17 billion modernization program: “Instead of managing the project itself, the Coast Guard hired Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, two of the nation’s largest military contractors, to plan, supervise and deliver the new vessels and helicopters.”
The result? Expensive ships that aren’t seaworthy. The Coast Guard ignored “repeated warnings from its own engineers that the boats and ships were poorly designed and perhaps unsafe,” while “the contractors failed to fulfill their obligation to make sure the government got the best price, frequently steering work to their subsidiaries or business partners instead of competitors.”
In Afghanistan, the job of training a new police force was outsourced to DynCorp International, a private contractor, under very loose supervision: when conducting a recent review, auditors couldn’t even find a copy of DynCorp’s contract to see what it called for. And $1.1 billion later, Afghanistan still doesn’t have an effective police training program.
In July 2004, Government Executive magazine published an article titled “Outsourcing Iraq,” documenting how the U.S. occupation authorities had transferred responsibility for reconstruction to private contractors, with hardly any oversight. “The only plan,” it said, “appears to have been to let the private sector manage nation-building, mostly on their own.” We all know how that turned out.
On the home front, the Bush administration outsourced many responsibilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. For example, the job of evacuating people from disaster areas was given to a trucking logistics firm, Landstar Express America. When Hurricane Katrina struck, Landstar didn’t even know where to get buses. According to Carey Limousine, which was eventually hired, Landstar “found us on the Web site.”
It’s now clear that there’s a fundamental error in the antigovernment ideology embraced by today’s conservative movement. Conservatives look at the virtues of market competition and leap to the conclusion that private ownership, in itself, is some kind of magic elixir. But there’s no reason to assume that a private company hired to perform a public service will do better than people employed directly by the government.
In fact, the private company will almost surely do a worse job if its political connections insulate it from accountability — which has, of course, consistently been the case under Mr. Bush.....
So what happens now? The failure of privatization under the Bush administration offers a target-rich environment to newly empowered Congressional Democrats — and I say, let the subpoenas fly. Bear in mind that we’re not talking just about wasted money: contracting failures in Iraq helped us lose one war, similar failures in Afghanistan may help us lose another, and FEMA’s failures helped us lose a great American city.
And maybe, just maybe, the abject failure of this administration’s efforts to outsource essential functions to the private sector will diminish the antigovernment prejudice created by decades of right-wing propaganda.
Why I Don't Like Rahm Emanuel
Stuff like this. I know he's a Democrat and I know he's some sort of power broker but one of the reasons I don't like the Delays and the Hasterts and the Bushes and the Roves is the win-at-all-costs attitude they bring to the table. This includes lying to the general public, which when the truth is revealed only serves to taint all public servants. This in turn leads to a general malaise about government, which tends to reinforce the entire premise of the modern Republican party. So, if you care about this country, stop lying and supporting liars.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Maliki on the way out?
Obviously rumors are a dime a dozen in Iraq but this bears some pondering. If Juan Cole comments on it, I'll post a link.
Friday, December 8, 2006
Handwringing
There are two parts to the ISG. And depending on who you are, you've been emphasizing one or another part. There is the analysis section and there is the recommendation section. Supporters of the war emphasize the recommendation section and try to ignore the analysis section. The recommendations are no guarantee to success in Iraq. Everyone knows this because there are no good options left. So no recommendations are going to seem "wise" and a key to "victory." That's why it will be relatively easy for die-hard supporters to trash the report. All they need do is keep the focus off the analysis.
Those who oppose the war, conversely, will stick to the sections of analysis that clearly state the wretched conditions and utter failure of our policies. They will use that analysis to support the notion that since there are no good options left, it's best to cut our losses and simply leave. Something the ISG report does not come out and state (though you could make an argument).
And then there are those on the fence. And this is where the debate really turns. These are the people who are unable to accept the magnitude of suffering we have wrought and the magnitude that is still left to play out, regardless of what we do, because of what we did.
I think we need to leave. But I accept that in leaving tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, will die before the violence is settled. I accept that Iraq may very well be worse when it's all said and done than what it was before Saddam ran the place. But I also accept that the longer we stay, the further we get from stability. I also accept that the longer we stay, the more our military suffers, the weaker we get, the more dangerous the world gets, the less we are prepared to deal with new threats, the more it will cost in human suffering and national treasure.
There are no good options left. Own it and pick your poison.
Those who oppose the war, conversely, will stick to the sections of analysis that clearly state the wretched conditions and utter failure of our policies. They will use that analysis to support the notion that since there are no good options left, it's best to cut our losses and simply leave. Something the ISG report does not come out and state (though you could make an argument).
And then there are those on the fence. And this is where the debate really turns. These are the people who are unable to accept the magnitude of suffering we have wrought and the magnitude that is still left to play out, regardless of what we do, because of what we did.
I think we need to leave. But I accept that in leaving tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, will die before the violence is settled. I accept that Iraq may very well be worse when it's all said and done than what it was before Saddam ran the place. But I also accept that the longer we stay, the further we get from stability. I also accept that the longer we stay, the more our military suffers, the weaker we get, the more dangerous the world gets, the less we are prepared to deal with new threats, the more it will cost in human suffering and national treasure.
There are no good options left. Own it and pick your poison.
Thursday, December 7, 2006
Britney, please keep your clothing on
I know this isn't very political or is it? Britney please for everyone sakes keep your clothing on. I am tired of hearing about her lack of underwear problem on CNN, it's very distracting. How am I supposed to analyze the Iraq war and the news about the mother who microwaved her baby when I see news about Britney Spears vagina?
For every politician and other humans, hear this plea... please god woman put some underwear on, you have 2 kids.
~LP
For every politician and other humans, hear this plea... please god woman put some underwear on, you have 2 kids.
~LP
TPM Series - The Investigators
Over at talkingpointsmemo.com, in their Muckracker section, they are profiling the Senate and House chairmen who will have investigatory powers in the upcoming congress. Here's the link to the article on Senators Patrick Leahy (Judiciary) and Carl Levin (Armed Services). Here's the link to the article on Rep. Henry Waxman (Government Reform) and Senator Joseph Lieberman (Homeland Security and Government Affairs). And finally, here's the link to the article about Senator Jay Rockefeller (Intelligence) and Rep. Silvestre Reyes (House Permanent Subcommittee on Intelligence).
While I don't believe there will be an impeachment in President Bush's future (President Cheney, anyone?), I do believe the Dems need to shed some light on exactly what the government has been doing the past six years. These people are the ones who bear that responsibility. I don't expect a whole lot from Senator Lieberman but Rep. Waxman is a bulldog.
While I don't believe there will be an impeachment in President Bush's future (President Cheney, anyone?), I do believe the Dems need to shed some light on exactly what the government has been doing the past six years. These people are the ones who bear that responsibility. I don't expect a whole lot from Senator Lieberman but Rep. Waxman is a bulldog.
Changes are good
The Graveyard is still a young blog (less than a week old!), so expect to see some tinkering every now and again as we figure out what works for us. I've added a blog roll to the right. If we go through a dry spell, with minimal posting, feel free to browse through those.
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Consensus
MSNBC is talking about the ISG report with a couple of the members from the Group there to explain the process, former Senator Chuck Robb of Virginia and former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. One of the things they keep touting is the bi-partisan process. In particular, how an even number of Democrats and Republicans got together and came up with over 70 unanimous recommendations for dealing with the war in Iraq.
There is this idea that Democrats and Republicans getting together to talk about problems is a remarkable event and there's this wide-eyed disbelief and awe any time it happens. It is the unfortunate effect, I believe, of the last 12 years of Republican congressional rule (with a special emphasis on the last half of that) where Democrats were routinely shut out of bill negotiations and conferences.
Having said that, I fear this media awe over the presence of a bi-partisan conversation will skew any analysis of what that conversation has produced. It will be assumed to be full of Great Ideas. And opposing these Great Ideas, or even criticizing them, will only mean to the mainstream media that one is Unreasonable and Not Serious, which would in turn mean that one should be ignored.
Sandra Day O'Connor is saying that she hopes the media plays an impartial or supportive role in selling the ISG report to the country so that Serious Politicians can build a consensus. The problem is there already is a consensus. Most Americans want to withdraw. It's time to come home, it's not getting better, it's not going to get better, we're not helping, and it costs too much to stay, especially in the current open-ended "until the job is done" way.
So the Iraqi Study Group hopes the media helps them make their case. They hope the American people are listening.
Meanwhile, the American people settled this issue about a month ago and now they're waiting for the signs that anyone's heard.
There is this idea that Democrats and Republicans getting together to talk about problems is a remarkable event and there's this wide-eyed disbelief and awe any time it happens. It is the unfortunate effect, I believe, of the last 12 years of Republican congressional rule (with a special emphasis on the last half of that) where Democrats were routinely shut out of bill negotiations and conferences.
Having said that, I fear this media awe over the presence of a bi-partisan conversation will skew any analysis of what that conversation has produced. It will be assumed to be full of Great Ideas. And opposing these Great Ideas, or even criticizing them, will only mean to the mainstream media that one is Unreasonable and Not Serious, which would in turn mean that one should be ignored.
Sandra Day O'Connor is saying that she hopes the media plays an impartial or supportive role in selling the ISG report to the country so that Serious Politicians can build a consensus. The problem is there already is a consensus. Most Americans want to withdraw. It's time to come home, it's not getting better, it's not going to get better, we're not helping, and it costs too much to stay, especially in the current open-ended "until the job is done" way.
So the Iraqi Study Group hopes the media helps them make their case. They hope the American people are listening.
Meanwhile, the American people settled this issue about a month ago and now they're waiting for the signs that anyone's heard.
The Iraq Study Group Report is here! Also, a song.
The Iraq Study Group Report is online! Boo-yah! No more relying on leaks or half-assed punditry! (Note: The punditry on this blog is whole-assed, and is entirely trustworthy.) I'm so psyched, I've written a song for the occasion. In your head, it should sound like a sort of "sound of music/mary poppins" musical theater thingie:
"The Way Forward: A Children's Holiday Song"
It's here! It's here!
I can't believe they made it!
It's here! It's here!
It's so great, we invaded for it!
Children, put away your toys,
Gather round now, make no noise,
because it's that special time of year:
The Iraq Study Group Report is here!
It's long - so long - 160 pages,
But that's okay, they've been writing it for ages.
All the good little boys and girls
are so eager to learn the rules
That will let us leave Iraq without disgraaace
Ending our adventure without losing face!
(slowly) Do we stay or do we go?
Baker and Hamilton know,
and the time is very near when we will know it too,
because
(back to normal)
It's here! It's here!
I can't believe they made it!
It's here! It's here!
It's so great, we invaded for it!
Children, put away your toys,
Gather round now, make no noise,
because it's that special time of year:
The Iraq Study Group Report is here!
"The Way Forward: A Children's Holiday Song"
It's here! It's here!
I can't believe they made it!
It's here! It's here!
It's so great, we invaded for it!
Children, put away your toys,
Gather round now, make no noise,
because it's that special time of year:
The Iraq Study Group Report is here!
It's long - so long - 160 pages,
But that's okay, they've been writing it for ages.
All the good little boys and girls
are so eager to learn the rules
That will let us leave Iraq without disgraaace
Ending our adventure without losing face!
(slowly) Do we stay or do we go?
Baker and Hamilton know,
and the time is very near when we will know it too,
because
(back to normal)
It's here! It's here!
I can't believe they made it!
It's here! It's here!
It's so great, we invaded for it!
Children, put away your toys,
Gather round now, make no noise,
because it's that special time of year:
The Iraq Study Group Report is here!
Digby Speaks
You should listen. This is the best analysis I've seen for something I've been feeling in my gut for awhile. This is the reason why the Clintonian centrist approach may have been right in '92 but it is definitely not right now.
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
The #@#$&!#@ Media - Iraq Edition
I was watching CNN coverage of the Gates hearing for a little while today. And if you let CNN be the guide, the most newsworthy aspect to all the issues covered today for the incoming Sec Def is that he said we're not winning the war in Iraq.
If you recall, just before the election, our esteemed President said we were winning.
Stop the presses! We've got a hot one! Sec Def is using a different set of talking points! Oh, well, I guess there's no telling what dynamic bureaucratic in-plays are in store between the Pentagon and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue now!
I can't believe this is passing for news. My question is who cares? We've known for a long time that the President is either delusional or believes that the entire war effort rests on his ability - nay, his will to express boundless optimism in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. It doesn't matter what's there. It doesn't matter if the magical pony is waiting for you when you wake up in the morning. It only matters that you believe it's there and that the morning is just around the corner. So I'm not surprised the President wants to say we're winning and continues to do so.
And I'm not surprised the new Sec Def is taking a different tack. The only question is does it really matter that they have different talking points?
Why are the media so obsessed with talking points? Why do they dwell so much on the process of politics and not the policy? Everything, I mean absolutely everything, is a horse race.
Joe Klein criticized Barack Obama the other day for saying we should set a timetable for troop withdrawal. He didn't criticize the idea, which he said may be the right idea. He criticized Obama for saying it. Oh, this makes him look weak on national security! This sure will hurt Obama's chances in the Red States!
This is what kills me about the debate on Iraq. Everyone's so focused on coming up with a "face-saving" policy for those who supported the war and one that the President will accept. To echo Matt Yglesias here, maybe we should, you know, um, focus on the best policy for the United States and not worry so much about people's political careers. Maybe instead of finding a face-saving policy we should find a troop-saving policy.
And maybe the media should stop worrying about its political power play coverage. Stop talking about the horse race. Let's talk about minimum wage. Let's talk about the donut hole in prescription drug benefits. Or how about we stop debating what to call the war in Iraq and start talking about people's ideas about what to do in Iraq? Start educating the country. I'm pretty sure people don't need Candy Crowley to pucker her face and find innumerable ways to end words with "-fest" (wonk-fest, love-fest, hate-fest, etc.).
If you recall, just before the election, our esteemed President said we were winning.
Stop the presses! We've got a hot one! Sec Def is using a different set of talking points! Oh, well, I guess there's no telling what dynamic bureaucratic in-plays are in store between the Pentagon and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue now!
I can't believe this is passing for news. My question is who cares? We've known for a long time that the President is either delusional or believes that the entire war effort rests on his ability - nay, his will to express boundless optimism in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. It doesn't matter what's there. It doesn't matter if the magical pony is waiting for you when you wake up in the morning. It only matters that you believe it's there and that the morning is just around the corner. So I'm not surprised the President wants to say we're winning and continues to do so.
And I'm not surprised the new Sec Def is taking a different tack. The only question is does it really matter that they have different talking points?
Why are the media so obsessed with talking points? Why do they dwell so much on the process of politics and not the policy? Everything, I mean absolutely everything, is a horse race.
Joe Klein criticized Barack Obama the other day for saying we should set a timetable for troop withdrawal. He didn't criticize the idea, which he said may be the right idea. He criticized Obama for saying it. Oh, this makes him look weak on national security! This sure will hurt Obama's chances in the Red States!
This is what kills me about the debate on Iraq. Everyone's so focused on coming up with a "face-saving" policy for those who supported the war and one that the President will accept. To echo Matt Yglesias here, maybe we should, you know, um, focus on the best policy for the United States and not worry so much about people's political careers. Maybe instead of finding a face-saving policy we should find a troop-saving policy.
And maybe the media should stop worrying about its political power play coverage. Stop talking about the horse race. Let's talk about minimum wage. Let's talk about the donut hole in prescription drug benefits. Or how about we stop debating what to call the war in Iraq and start talking about people's ideas about what to do in Iraq? Start educating the country. I'm pretty sure people don't need Candy Crowley to pucker her face and find innumerable ways to end words with "-fest" (wonk-fest, love-fest, hate-fest, etc.).
Active Denial System: Someone didn't think this through
The US Air Force has developed a new non-lethal weapon, the Active Denial System. It's designed to work as a "goodbye" weapon, a device that motivates unruly crowds to disperse by firing millimeter-wave radiation at them. There'd certainly be good reason to leave - the device is said to induce unbearable agony. Wired has an excellent article on ADS, leading off with this scenario:
"The crowd is getting ugly. Soldiers roll up in a Hummer. Suddenly, the whole right half of your body is screaming in agony. You feel like you've been dipped in molten lava. You almost faint from shock and pain, but instead you stumble backwards -- and then start running. To your surprise, everyone else is running too. In a few seconds, the street is completely empty."
That's the ideal response to ADS use, the one that the military is counting on. But what if it goes down like this, instead?
""The crowd is getting ugly. Soldiers roll up in a Hummer. Suddenly, the whole right half of your body is screaming in agony. You feel like you've been dipped in molten lava. You almost faint from shock and pain, but instead you stumble backwards -- and then start running. To your surprise, everyone else is running too. The man in front of you trips on something, and falls. You trip over him. You try to get up, but the crowd is so dense, you can't rise. People trample your legs, arms - a boot hits your face, but you scarcely notice, because that horrible molten-lava feeling is still there. You see others on the ground as well - men, women, children, screaming in pain. You think the man you tripped on is dead, his skull crushed.
In a few seconds, the street is choked with screaming, agonized, desperate people. You still feel as if you're burning. Is this hell?"
No, this is what's going to happen when you fire agony-rays on dense crowds of people with no idea what's going on. The Active Denial System will create total, instant panic. This thing has a 500-meter range - you can use it to instantly turn an entire mob into something with no capacity to reason, to think of anything other than escape. That's what it's designed for. And that is why, if it's ever used for "riot control", history may never forgive us.
Lest you believe I'm just hand-waving here - we know, for an absolute fact, that mass panic can kill. It happened in August of 2005, when a crowd of Shiite pilgrims in Baghdad became convinced a bomb was about to go off. There was no bomb, but nearly a thousand died in the panic.
I'm not saying that there may not be legitimate uses for this weapon. But the thing that scares the crap out of me is that the primary, intended use of ADS would almost assuredly result in disaster. I doubt that even rubber bullets or tear gas could create this level of panic. Nor can they create the sheer level of torment people will suffer when they're trapped in the ADS field by that panic. Someone didn't think this through all the way, and I sincerely hope someone does before we see the ADS deployed.
"The crowd is getting ugly. Soldiers roll up in a Hummer. Suddenly, the whole right half of your body is screaming in agony. You feel like you've been dipped in molten lava. You almost faint from shock and pain, but instead you stumble backwards -- and then start running. To your surprise, everyone else is running too. In a few seconds, the street is completely empty."
That's the ideal response to ADS use, the one that the military is counting on. But what if it goes down like this, instead?
""The crowd is getting ugly. Soldiers roll up in a Hummer. Suddenly, the whole right half of your body is screaming in agony. You feel like you've been dipped in molten lava. You almost faint from shock and pain, but instead you stumble backwards -- and then start running. To your surprise, everyone else is running too. The man in front of you trips on something, and falls. You trip over him. You try to get up, but the crowd is so dense, you can't rise. People trample your legs, arms - a boot hits your face, but you scarcely notice, because that horrible molten-lava feeling is still there. You see others on the ground as well - men, women, children, screaming in pain. You think the man you tripped on is dead, his skull crushed.
In a few seconds, the street is choked with screaming, agonized, desperate people. You still feel as if you're burning. Is this hell?"
No, this is what's going to happen when you fire agony-rays on dense crowds of people with no idea what's going on. The Active Denial System will create total, instant panic. This thing has a 500-meter range - you can use it to instantly turn an entire mob into something with no capacity to reason, to think of anything other than escape. That's what it's designed for. And that is why, if it's ever used for "riot control", history may never forgive us.
Lest you believe I'm just hand-waving here - we know, for an absolute fact, that mass panic can kill. It happened in August of 2005, when a crowd of Shiite pilgrims in Baghdad became convinced a bomb was about to go off. There was no bomb, but nearly a thousand died in the panic.
I'm not saying that there may not be legitimate uses for this weapon. But the thing that scares the crap out of me is that the primary, intended use of ADS would almost assuredly result in disaster. I doubt that even rubber bullets or tear gas could create this level of panic. Nor can they create the sheer level of torment people will suffer when they're trapped in the ADS field by that panic. Someone didn't think this through all the way, and I sincerely hope someone does before we see the ADS deployed.
Monday, December 4, 2006
Speaking of Candidates
I know he's not officially running and there's still a lot of debate on whether or not he will throw his hat in the ring, but I consider Gore a candidate. Anyway, read the GQ interview this month and think along with me of what might have been...
Goodbye, Good Luck, and Don’t Come Back
John R. Bolton has resigned today. The now former UN ambassador who has repeated anti-UN and anti-cooperation comments frequently has turned in his papers. Poor Bush is allll upset, he is “deeply disappointed” that Senators blocked his nomination. Well it’s hard to nominate someone to the UN who feels like the UN is ineffective.
Bush said, “They [Senators] chose to obstruct his confirmation, even though he [Bolton] enjoys majority support in the Senate, and even though their tactics will disrupt our diplomatic work at a sensitive and important time. This stubborn obstructionism ill serves our country, and discourages men and women of talent from serving their nation.” I have a sudden need to break out the tequila after that pant load.
Wait, wait, wait, hold on here…Republicans are the majority in the Senate so of course he has ‘majority’ support. Tell me, when did Bush start talking about diplomacy? Even United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan couldn’t say anything positive about Bolton today. The only thing he did say about Bolton was that Bolton could have been more cooperative with other ambassadors in the UN.
Senator Lincoln Chafee (R) from RI was one of the key Senators to block Bolton’s nomination, the second time. He did support Bolton against his constituents’ wishes the first time it came to a vote. Although, it’s great that a republican stood up against Bolton, Linc is not a shining example of a progressive republican. He did take millions from the party and used all the dirty tricks in the republican handbook to try to win reelection this year, he lost.
I am happy that Bolton is stepping down, the less elephants the better. I will be watching the news intently looking for more resignations.
~LP
Bush said, “They [Senators] chose to obstruct his confirmation, even though he [Bolton] enjoys majority support in the Senate, and even though their tactics will disrupt our diplomatic work at a sensitive and important time. This stubborn obstructionism ill serves our country, and discourages men and women of talent from serving their nation.” I have a sudden need to break out the tequila after that pant load.
Wait, wait, wait, hold on here…Republicans are the majority in the Senate so of course he has ‘majority’ support. Tell me, when did Bush start talking about diplomacy? Even United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan couldn’t say anything positive about Bolton today. The only thing he did say about Bolton was that Bolton could have been more cooperative with other ambassadors in the UN.
Senator Lincoln Chafee (R) from RI was one of the key Senators to block Bolton’s nomination, the second time. He did support Bolton against his constituents’ wishes the first time it came to a vote. Although, it’s great that a republican stood up against Bolton, Linc is not a shining example of a progressive republican. He did take millions from the party and used all the dirty tricks in the republican handbook to try to win reelection this year, he lost.
I am happy that Bolton is stepping down, the less elephants the better. I will be watching the news intently looking for more resignations.
~LP
Sunday, December 3, 2006
Sacred Cows
Every nation needs sacred cows. Especially a democracy. Every nation needs certain accepted values that serve as a starting point for cooperation and building/sustaining a communal identity.
We have ours. They've been systematically challenged for the last six years.
Habeas Corpus. The idea that one could challenge the legality of one's imprisonment. Imagine for a moment what it must have been like before the 12th Century, before the writ of habeas corpus was considered a necessary check on the arbitrary exercise of power. Now imagine the wretched life of a peasant in medieval Europe suffering through widespread disease, a short life span, abject poverty, and the feudal way of life and then realize that at least this peasant had the minimal protection of the writ of habeas corpus. Legislation passed before the election made this value conditional to the whims of the President. And making an exception as overly broad as that pretty much swallows the right.
The right to counsel. Enshrined in the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Gone. These Amendments are a recognition by our Founding Fathers, with a long common law history that predates our Constitution, that there is an inherent inequality between the State and the Individual which often demands the intercession of a third party advocate, with knowledge and expertise not shared by the Layman. The Administration has repeatedly barred access of its prisoners to their attorneys and has thus far resisted attempts to institute any judicial check on its discretion in this matter.
The right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. Fourth Amendment. The NSA surveillance program, the Patriot Act, FBI and DIA surveillance of peace groups, access to library records, financial records, cell phone calls, travel records, Sneak and Peek searches. Most of this done without judicial oversight, approval, or knowledge. Most if it claimed under the right of the President's Commander in Chief powers. Some of it without congressional approval, some of it with, and some of it explicitly against congressional mandate. All of it done without the minimal necessary safeguards and openness to ensure some level of legality, if any. Even accepting for a moment, which I do not, that all this was somehow necessary to make us safe from terrorist activity, there's no way to verify that the scope of this surveillance and intelligence gathering effort is still related to the initial terrorism justification. It's frightening enough to think a federal agent can enter your home, search through your most personal effects, and report to the government on what he finds with impunity. It's downright terrifying to consider that all of this can go on and you'd be none the wiser.
Freedom of Speech and the right to peaceably assemble. We've all heard of free speech zones and we've all heard the stories of the President and Vice-President's publicly funded appearances where citizens wanting to question their leaders were arrested for "disturbing the peace." And now we hear Newt Gingrich saying that the answer to fighting terror may be in curbing certain kinds of speech.
The thing about sacred cows is that no matter what else comes up we are supposed to leave them intact. We do not do this because we are a slave to tradition. We do this because it's our defense against being a slave to fear. It's okay to debate their meaning, to debate how best to apply them in particular situations, and it's even okay to discuss why we have them.
Democracy is a complicated social experiment. There are a lot of moving parts. And we never could have gotten this far without these shared values. And we've paid a high price over the years for these values because there has always been a countervailing pressure appealing to our basest instincts. It's tough to build consensus. It's tough to wait for the country to follow you into the field when you know there's an important battle ahead. But if you do it right and the country is behind you, once you get there, there's almost no limit to what you can accomplish.
We've had leaders in the past who have lied and scared us into situations we weren't ready for or had no business being in. We've regretted it almost every time. I'm thinking of Iraq and Vietnam but this isn't just about war. How about the Red Scare nonsense? The countervailing pressures have gone too far once again. The base appeals to our greatest fears has led us down a road we will surely regret.
But this time the effects, with the aid of technology and national tragedy, are far worse than what we've faced before, the changes far more deeply embedded into the foundational pillars of our country. Now the sacred cows are being mortally wounded and, I fear, gangrene is starting to set in. And it won't be long, I'm afraid, before the average Joe and Jane start to feel it creeping up the back of their necks.
To whom will they turn to save them? Not the dead elephants, one would hope.
We have ours. They've been systematically challenged for the last six years.
Habeas Corpus. The idea that one could challenge the legality of one's imprisonment. Imagine for a moment what it must have been like before the 12th Century, before the writ of habeas corpus was considered a necessary check on the arbitrary exercise of power. Now imagine the wretched life of a peasant in medieval Europe suffering through widespread disease, a short life span, abject poverty, and the feudal way of life and then realize that at least this peasant had the minimal protection of the writ of habeas corpus. Legislation passed before the election made this value conditional to the whims of the President. And making an exception as overly broad as that pretty much swallows the right.
The right to counsel. Enshrined in the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Gone. These Amendments are a recognition by our Founding Fathers, with a long common law history that predates our Constitution, that there is an inherent inequality between the State and the Individual which often demands the intercession of a third party advocate, with knowledge and expertise not shared by the Layman. The Administration has repeatedly barred access of its prisoners to their attorneys and has thus far resisted attempts to institute any judicial check on its discretion in this matter.
The right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. Fourth Amendment. The NSA surveillance program, the Patriot Act, FBI and DIA surveillance of peace groups, access to library records, financial records, cell phone calls, travel records, Sneak and Peek searches. Most of this done without judicial oversight, approval, or knowledge. Most if it claimed under the right of the President's Commander in Chief powers. Some of it without congressional approval, some of it with, and some of it explicitly against congressional mandate. All of it done without the minimal necessary safeguards and openness to ensure some level of legality, if any. Even accepting for a moment, which I do not, that all this was somehow necessary to make us safe from terrorist activity, there's no way to verify that the scope of this surveillance and intelligence gathering effort is still related to the initial terrorism justification. It's frightening enough to think a federal agent can enter your home, search through your most personal effects, and report to the government on what he finds with impunity. It's downright terrifying to consider that all of this can go on and you'd be none the wiser.
Freedom of Speech and the right to peaceably assemble. We've all heard of free speech zones and we've all heard the stories of the President and Vice-President's publicly funded appearances where citizens wanting to question their leaders were arrested for "disturbing the peace." And now we hear Newt Gingrich saying that the answer to fighting terror may be in curbing certain kinds of speech.
The thing about sacred cows is that no matter what else comes up we are supposed to leave them intact. We do not do this because we are a slave to tradition. We do this because it's our defense against being a slave to fear. It's okay to debate their meaning, to debate how best to apply them in particular situations, and it's even okay to discuss why we have them.
Democracy is a complicated social experiment. There are a lot of moving parts. And we never could have gotten this far without these shared values. And we've paid a high price over the years for these values because there has always been a countervailing pressure appealing to our basest instincts. It's tough to build consensus. It's tough to wait for the country to follow you into the field when you know there's an important battle ahead. But if you do it right and the country is behind you, once you get there, there's almost no limit to what you can accomplish.
We've had leaders in the past who have lied and scared us into situations we weren't ready for or had no business being in. We've regretted it almost every time. I'm thinking of Iraq and Vietnam but this isn't just about war. How about the Red Scare nonsense? The countervailing pressures have gone too far once again. The base appeals to our greatest fears has led us down a road we will surely regret.
But this time the effects, with the aid of technology and national tragedy, are far worse than what we've faced before, the changes far more deeply embedded into the foundational pillars of our country. Now the sacred cows are being mortally wounded and, I fear, gangrene is starting to set in. And it won't be long, I'm afraid, before the average Joe and Jane start to feel it creeping up the back of their necks.
To whom will they turn to save them? Not the dead elephants, one would hope.
Hi, my name is LP
Every liberal cringes when they hear the name Bush and I am sure we are all going to break out the expensive bubbly or vodka on his last day but Bush isn’t the only political problem child. What is truly scary is that Bush is not an individual case. We have Rove. Yes, yes Cheney is scary also but Rove gets other ‘problems’ elected.
After coming off the campaign trail, I the liberal princess, have learned a great deal about the ground game. One of the things I have learned is that we have to get elected. No, of course this is not a new idea, it is just more vital now. We did well this year. We took over Congress but before we pat ourselves on the back we must look at the reasons we won. We won because Americans are fed up with the war and Bush. We were only able to motivate people after the fact. We need to motivate voters to vote before things go bad.
America faces a slue of significant problems which CNN keeps reminding us about. Potential presidents are being rolled out. Consultants are hiring for Iowa and New Hampshire. The camps are beginning to get their ducks in a row. There are new methods of micro-targeting and more ways to spend millions on advertising. If anything we can say that this presidential election cycle will be entertaining.
Just remember, we can not truly celebrate until the elephants are truly six feet under and watch closely for their dirty ticks.
~LP
After coming off the campaign trail, I the liberal princess, have learned a great deal about the ground game. One of the things I have learned is that we have to get elected. No, of course this is not a new idea, it is just more vital now. We did well this year. We took over Congress but before we pat ourselves on the back we must look at the reasons we won. We won because Americans are fed up with the war and Bush. We were only able to motivate people after the fact. We need to motivate voters to vote before things go bad.
America faces a slue of significant problems which CNN keeps reminding us about. Potential presidents are being rolled out. Consultants are hiring for Iowa and New Hampshire. The camps are beginning to get their ducks in a row. There are new methods of micro-targeting and more ways to spend millions on advertising. If anything we can say that this presidential election cycle will be entertaining.
Just remember, we can not truly celebrate until the elephants are truly six feet under and watch closely for their dirty ticks.
~LP
Saturday, December 2, 2006
Out Damned Spot
I was listening to the radio yesterday and heard a pundit talk about Bush Administration efforts to open back channels to Iran and Syria, in an effort to get a handle on Iraq. Of course, talking to the neighbors is a good thing. There are certain regional issues that the Administration should have been aware of and sensitive to all along. So, by all means, we should be talking to Iran and Syria about Iraq.
The problem I'm having, though, with the diplomacy discussion is that it tends to reinforce one of the biggest misperceptions about the nature of this conflict. Many of the Bush supporters have blamed a whole variety of outside pressures as the reason the policy is failing. They say Al Qaeda is out there fomenting dissent. They say Iran is funding and training Shiite militias. They say the border with Syria is uncontrolled and the enemy is smuggling in supplies and reinforcements. They even blame the outside media, saying the media message has given "comfort" to the enemy.
Meanwhile, descriptions of Iraqis have been at best paternalistic and condascending and at worst racist and offensive. And it's only getting worse. Now it is not uncommon to hear conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh advocate gratuitous bombing campaigns to teach Iraqis a lesson. Just the other day, Bill O'Reilly said he had no respect for Iraqis and called them a "stone age people."
The truth is we're losing this war partly because we still haven't acknowledged our enemy. It's not Al Qaeda. It's not Iran or Syria. We're fighting Iraqis and we've always been fighting Iraqis. At first, after the Mission Accomplished speech, we couldn't admit we were fighting Iraqis because they welcomed us, right? So we made Zarqawi into a bogeyman and described his connections to Al Qaeda as stronger than they actually were (which, ironically enough, only grew stronger the more we puffed him up).
Then the Administration kept exaggerating and advertising the presence of foreign fighters, when they knew full well their numbers weren't as strong or influential as they made them out to be (though ironically by promoting the accomplishments of that foreign force they in fact bolstered its credibility which in turn attracted more foreigners to come join in the fun).
Then the Administration started complaining about the Iranian presence in Iraq and about the comfort the porous Syrian borders were giving the enemy. I'm not sure why, while we're having so many problems dealing with one country, you'd want to pick a fight with two other countries (and then of course we're still in Afghanistan). Not only did this close the door to cooperation with two influential regional powers, it actually encouraged Syria and Iran to intervene against us.
Over time, the reality on the ground has forced us to recognize the true nature of this war. It's an Iraqi war, fought by Iraqis, against Iraqis, and largely right in front of us. To the extent that we've joined the fight, we've lacked clear objectives and we don't seem to know how any particular battle gets us closer to our goals. Which at this point simply seems to be peace and order.
So what will negotiating with Syria and Iran accomplish? Very little. It needs to happen but it isn't a sign of progress. It's too late, actually. After the past three years, the only issues left to settle has to be settled with the Iraqis. We've inserted ourselves into an ethnic conflict. And we made it worse by our disingenuous doublespeak. Does anyone believe that the words "Democracy" and "Freedom" mean anything to the Iraqis at this point when it comes from the mouth of our president?
It may still be possible for Iraq. Democracy is still possible. I say that because I believe that in the marketplace of ideas, it's still a formidable force. But if Iraq achieves democracy, it will be in spite of our bungling and not because of it. And at the end of the day, when you consider all the lives lost on every side and all the suffering, the price paid will hardly have been worth it. And that, my friends, is a stain on the hands of our president that will never come clean.
The problem I'm having, though, with the diplomacy discussion is that it tends to reinforce one of the biggest misperceptions about the nature of this conflict. Many of the Bush supporters have blamed a whole variety of outside pressures as the reason the policy is failing. They say Al Qaeda is out there fomenting dissent. They say Iran is funding and training Shiite militias. They say the border with Syria is uncontrolled and the enemy is smuggling in supplies and reinforcements. They even blame the outside media, saying the media message has given "comfort" to the enemy.
Meanwhile, descriptions of Iraqis have been at best paternalistic and condascending and at worst racist and offensive. And it's only getting worse. Now it is not uncommon to hear conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh advocate gratuitous bombing campaigns to teach Iraqis a lesson. Just the other day, Bill O'Reilly said he had no respect for Iraqis and called them a "stone age people."
The truth is we're losing this war partly because we still haven't acknowledged our enemy. It's not Al Qaeda. It's not Iran or Syria. We're fighting Iraqis and we've always been fighting Iraqis. At first, after the Mission Accomplished speech, we couldn't admit we were fighting Iraqis because they welcomed us, right? So we made Zarqawi into a bogeyman and described his connections to Al Qaeda as stronger than they actually were (which, ironically enough, only grew stronger the more we puffed him up).
Then the Administration kept exaggerating and advertising the presence of foreign fighters, when they knew full well their numbers weren't as strong or influential as they made them out to be (though ironically by promoting the accomplishments of that foreign force they in fact bolstered its credibility which in turn attracted more foreigners to come join in the fun).
Then the Administration started complaining about the Iranian presence in Iraq and about the comfort the porous Syrian borders were giving the enemy. I'm not sure why, while we're having so many problems dealing with one country, you'd want to pick a fight with two other countries (and then of course we're still in Afghanistan). Not only did this close the door to cooperation with two influential regional powers, it actually encouraged Syria and Iran to intervene against us.
Over time, the reality on the ground has forced us to recognize the true nature of this war. It's an Iraqi war, fought by Iraqis, against Iraqis, and largely right in front of us. To the extent that we've joined the fight, we've lacked clear objectives and we don't seem to know how any particular battle gets us closer to our goals. Which at this point simply seems to be peace and order.
So what will negotiating with Syria and Iran accomplish? Very little. It needs to happen but it isn't a sign of progress. It's too late, actually. After the past three years, the only issues left to settle has to be settled with the Iraqis. We've inserted ourselves into an ethnic conflict. And we made it worse by our disingenuous doublespeak. Does anyone believe that the words "Democracy" and "Freedom" mean anything to the Iraqis at this point when it comes from the mouth of our president?
It may still be possible for Iraq. Democracy is still possible. I say that because I believe that in the marketplace of ideas, it's still a formidable force. But if Iraq achieves democracy, it will be in spite of our bungling and not because of it. And at the end of the day, when you consider all the lives lost on every side and all the suffering, the price paid will hardly have been worth it. And that, my friends, is a stain on the hands of our president that will never come clean.
Friday, December 1, 2006
Birth of an Idea
With the Republican Party being sustained by a nastrogastric tube and a ventilator, with the departure of fan favs Rick Santorum, Katherine Harris, and Bill "She's got more brain activity than I do" Frist, with the death of Republican ideas such as privatizing Social Security, the Unitary Executive theory, torture, suspension of Habeas Corpus, the Bush Dynasty, Mission Accomplished, the Democracy Domino Theory, the K Street Project, Global Not-Warming-Really-It's-Not, Heckuva Job Brownie, Tenet, Rumsfeld, Allawi, Maliki, Chertoff, Harriet Myers, Ashcroft, Delay, and Hastert, and with the oncoming Progressive Movement Stampede threatening to stomp out all vestiges of the glorious Republican Revolution of 1994 and its accompanying codpieces and semene stained dresses, we decided that a place was needed to lay all these things to rest, once and for all, for the sake of the kids, so that this long national nightmare can once again be put to its proper place, underground, beneath six feet of dirt, scorn, sarcasm, and (yes) joy, giddy giddy joy. So welcome to the Elephant's Graveyard. And whatever you do, no matter how much it might look like they're still alive, no matter how much they beg, or how hungry they say they are, DON'T FEED THE ELEPHANTS!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)