February 24, 2005
US threatens Canadian sovereignty over missile plan.
Globe and Mail
article. In response to the Canadian announcement that it will not participate in the US's new missile defense system, and will not allow them to be deployed on its territory, the US said it didn't care and would go ahead and do whatever the hell it felt like doing. What they mean is that they would defend "North America", even if it includes Canada. But it's an amazingly rude attitude to take. Especially given that there never has been and probably never will be any missiles coming from that direction.
The formal announcement Thursday that Canada will refuse any further participation in the controversial U.S. missile-defence shield was met with an immediate warning that Canada had given up its sovereignty.
Although Prime Minister Paul Martin said Canada would “insist” on maintaining control of its airspace, U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci warned that Washington would not be constrained.
“We will deploy. We will defend North America,” he said.
“We simply cannot understand why Canada would in effect give up its sovereignty – its seat at the table – to decide what to do about a missile that might be coming towards Canada.”
If Mr. Celluci can't understand why the Canadians are doing this, let me try to explain. There's virtually no chance that those missiles would be aimed at Canada. They would be aimed at the US. Nobody hates Canada. Everybody hates the US. The only reason anyone would want to aim missiles at Canada would be to take out missile defense installations. In other words, having those missiles there makes Canada a target; so why take the risk if you don't think anyone is going to attack you? The Americans don't seem to realize that missile installations (and other military centers) become targets in the event of war, thus endangering the people who live in the area. They don't make us safer. They endager us.
American arrogance is getting so out of hand it's not even funny. And what a stupid thing to do. And to our closest and most reliable ally, partner and neighbor too.
Add: See
here for Prime Minister's tart response to the American threats. They definitely do not want the US firing missiles over Canada without their permission.
US could help Iran join the WTO.
In the
Iranians for Peace blog was this post entitled
Help Iran Become More Involved in the World Economy. A suggestion that if the US wants to help Iran become more democratic and prosperous then why not help it join the WTO instead of blocking its application.
In the literature of "interaction between democracy and growth" there is no proof showing that democracy leads to economic growth. But based on the experiences of other countries, we know that higher levels of per capita gross domestic product (GDP) will eventually bring waves of democracy and rationality to countries. Iran will not be an exception to this rule. If Iranians are successful in increasing the growth rate of their economy, they can hope that a more developed economy will result in a better educated population and politicians, higher urbanization rate, easier access to internet, and stronger private sector. All of these factors will eventually influence certain irrational behaviors in the government level. For example, look at China's experience. China as a country with a vast trade relationship with others can not logically follow any hostile policy against global peace.In fact, any country which has a certain level of involvement in the world economy should be in favor of a stabilized and peaceful world to keep its profits. So I strongly believe that if the United States is really interested to promote democracy in the Middle East, she should encourage active participation of Iranian politicians, business people and scholars in the global events, instead of trying to isolate them. This involvement not only serves national economic growth, but it also brings new ideas to the country. Unfortunately, we have seen that the US has always voted against Iran's membership in the WTO. Such actions are completely in contradiction with the U.S. claims of helping people reach more freedom. If the U.S. lets a country like Iran enter the WTO, then that country has to change a lot of rules and regulations in a more democratic and liberalized way. I believe that the democracy derived from such indigenous and gradutal changes will be much more sustainable and less costly.
Pretty sophisticated thinking, and strong evidence that the Iranians are perfectly capable of managing their own affairs. And very clearly that they understand what democracy involves.
Iranian bloggers for peace.
Via Alternet's
News Log I found that there are about 75,000 blogs in Iran. And a new group called
Iranian Bloggers for Peace.
Admidst the rumblings and mumblings and threatening and blustering and posturing currently poisoning relations between the US and Iranian governments, has anyone asked the Iranian people what they want? Even a cursory glance at the thriving
Iranian blogosphere makes it clear that a majority of the country's citizens want peace. When do they want it? Now! There are approximately 75,000 blogs in Iran (Iraq, by comparison, has only about 50), amounting to a virtual independent media controlled by the citizens.
The new group blog,
Iranians For Peace, launched by Iranian journalist N Alavi and other Iranian writers, is a platform for a diverse array of anti-war voices from all over the globe. Writes blogger Sima Shakhsari, "... this is one way of telling the world that despite our differences, we do not want the U.S. military, or any other military for that matter, to attack Iran."
A few more Iranian blogs (in English) not to be missed are Shakhsari's own
Farangopolis,
Iranian.com and
No War On Iran.
The folks over at Wampum have just announced the
Winners of the 2004 Koufax Awards. Lots of links to interesting blogs over there, although most of the them are the standard ones.
I know the folks at Wampum put in a lot of work to do these awards, but I can't say I'm all that impressed. I personally thought the behaviour of the so-called "leftist" blogosphere during the election year was abominable: dishonest, rude, irresponsible, and hypocritical. I was really disgusted, and still am. And to call themselves the "Left" while supporting someone like Kerry, whose proudest boast is that he volunteered to go kill commies is rather appalling. I don't see anything "leftist" about the ideas and policies promoted by most of these blogs. I think they're mostly about attempting to evade responsibility for their actions by blaming everything on Bush and the Republicans. Which is kinda disgusting.
And yes, they are dishonest. Especially in the failure to acknowledge and address the incredible corruption and corporate malfeasance of so many of the Democratic politicians. But what do I know?
Sorry I sound so angry, but I think most of these people are living in a dream world, and by doing so making things worse not better. For instance, leading people to believe that there's even the most remote chance that the Democrats would change or improve anything is ridiculous and immature.
Gomer Says Hey.
James Wolcott hits the nail on the head with this
post about Bush's hypocrisy in criticizing other nations' human rights violations while presiding over what is arguably the least free, more repressive and violent human rights abuser in the world. And maybe in history.
That joint press conference with Bush and Putin--jayzus. I suppose it's healthier for the well-being of the world not to have Bush in his belligerent rooster mode, mouth downturned with determination as he chops the air with his fist and puts the bad guys on notice that he means business, but oy is it embarrassing watching him act like Andy of Mayberry with world leaders, praising Putin as an honest "fella," sorta inviting Chirac to visit the Crawford ranch since he's always "lookin' for a good cowboy," and referring to the members of the press as "a nice bunch of folks." It's wonder he didn't send in Aunt Bea to present the Russian premier with homemade chicken pot pie. Bush was less gauche and aggressive this trip, yet more of a sagebrush rube, playacting the part as if he thought it had made him a beloved character at home. The most interesting aspect of the press conference was how unamused and uncharmed Putin looked as Bush did his John Denver thank-God-I'm-a-country-boy shtick. He refused to play along. Unfortunately, the questions from the reporters present were so rambling and shambling that they didn't penetrate Bush's strawman act and throw him off script. Reporters seem to have forgotten how to ask brief, pointed questions that elude easy deflection; they talk out the clock. If the American reporters had anything other than rubber-tipped arrows in their armory, they would ask the president where this administration gets off lecturing other countries about human rights abuses and rollbacks of civil liberties when it's flying suspects to other countries to be tortured, abusing prisoners in Guantanamo, and running its own far-flung gulag archipelago. Lecturing Putin is an exercise in hubris when American liberty itself is under such rapid assault and decay.
Bush embarrasses every human being by his actions. And, frankly, Europe and Russia contribute to it by refusing to publicly address and acknowledge America's own extensive human rights violation.
Having said that, I think it's also time to stop blaming Bush for things that Americans have done, and time for Americans to take responsibility for their own actions. If you work for or invest in an American corporation (as Mr. Wolcott does) then you are just as responsible, if not more so. Words aren't going to make any difference. What will is standing up for what is right, and refusing to support or finance these horrors any longer.
February 23, 2005
Europeans playing with Bush.
In an article in Common Dreams,
Europe, Unbow Yourself, Matthew Rothschild expresses bewilderment as to why Europe is playing "nice" with Bush on his trip, and tells them they should wake up. He thinks Bush has outwitted them, and is puzzled by it.
He thinks because they've agreed to let NATO take on some of the training of Iraqi security forces that this means they've come around to the American view. He also thinks that this will make it harder for them to stand up to the US next time around, say over Iran.
Bush has persuaded NATO to send some trainers—mostly American—to Iraq. So maybe the European powers are just putting up a front of pleasantry while leaving the fighting to Americans.
But if the insurgency surges, Bush may come to NATO for more than that, and the rationale for resisting such an appeal has now been undercut.
On the subject of Iran, European leaders seem to be deluding themselves that Bush somehow wants to resolve the nuclear crisis there peacefully.
They should stop kidding themselves.
I think he's severely underestimating how wily they're being. They're not really coming up with much support. France, for instance, is contributing a whopping ONE trainer to the NATO effort. (It would be hard to be less, wouldn't it?) And virtually no money at all. It's all symbolic. Just enough to keep the US from being upset, but not enough to make the slightest bit of difference. And there's no commitment for further help in the event the insurgency gets worse. Americans may want to believe that there is, but there isn't.
What I think they're doing is playing with the US. They're leading it to believe that they are on their side and that they will be with them, while continuing to go on pursuing their own agenda. For instance, they pretty much shut Bush down on the proposed lifting of sanctions on arms sales to China, something the US really wants to prevent.
But basically they seem to want the US to fail in Iraq. Or if not outright fail, at least to suffer the consequences on its own. And there seems to be a deliberate policy to avoid making any financial contributions, the idea being that slowly but surely the US is being weakened by the money its spending. But they're not going to bail the US out. On the contrary, they are going to try to take advantage of their weakness.
They're not kidding themselves. It's the Americans who are kidding themselves. The Europeans are just playing around, giving Bush plenty of rope to hang himself; and that's exactly what he's doing.
For more on the European view on Iraq, see
this interview in the International Herald Tribune with Javier Solana, the EU foreign minister. Written by Judy Dempsey. He's quite pessimistic, and says Iraq is "not over."
Astronomers discover "invisible" galaxy of "dark matter".
Via
Yahoo News.
Astronomers have discovered an invisible galaxy that could be the first of many that will help unravel one of the universe's greatest mysteries.
The object appears to be made mostly of "dark matter," material of an unknown nature that can't be seen.
... The newfound dark galaxy was detected with radio telescopes. Similar objects could be very common or very rare, said Robert Minchin of Cardiff University in the UK.
"If they are the missing dark matter halos predicted by galaxy formation simulations but not found in optical surveys, then there could be more dark galaxies than ordinary ones," Minchin told SPACE.com.
In a cluster of galaxies known as Virgo, some 50 million light-years away, Minchin and colleagues looked for radio-wavelength radiation coming from hydrogen gas. They found a well of it that contains a hundred million times the mass of the Sun. It is now named VIRGOHI21.
The well of material rotates too quickly to be explained by the observed amount of gas. Something else must serve as gravitational glue.
"From the speed it is spinning, we realized that VIRGOHI21 was a thousand times more massive than could be accounted for by the observed hydrogen atoms alone," Minchin said. "If it were an ordinary galaxy, then it should be quite bright and would be visible with a good amateur telescope."
The ratio of dark matter to regular matter is at least 500-to-1, which is higher than I would expect in an ordinary galaxy," Minchin said. "However, it is very hard to know what to expect with such a unique object -- it may be that high ratios like this are necessary to keep the gas from collapsing to form stars."
Hunter Thompson's Political Genius.
John Nichols discusses Hunter Thompson's contribution to American politics in
Hunter Thompson's Political Genius. Via
Common Dreams and
Nation.
Norman Mailer had the best take on Hunter Thompson's passing.
"He had more to say about what was wrong with America than George W. Bush can ever tell us about what is right," mused Mailer upon learning of Thompson's suicide.
Anyone who read Thompson knew that the so-called "gonzo journalist" was about a lot more than sex, drugs and rock-and-roll -- although it is Thompson who gets credit for introducing all three of those precious commodities to the mainstream of American journalism. The gun-toting, mescaline-downing wildman that showed up in Doonesbury as "Uncle Duke" was merely the cartoon version of an often serious, and always important, political commentator who once said that his beat was the death of the American dream. Thompson was to the political class of the United States in the latter part of the 20th century what William Hazlitt was to the English poets of the early 19th century: a critic who was so astute, so engaged and so unyielding in his idealism that he ultimately added more to the historical canon than did many of his subjects.
Besides Hunter's journalism, he discusses his 1970 campaign for sheriff, a radical experiment in "sixties" activism.
In 1970, fresh from covering the assassinations, police riots and related disappointments of the 1968 presidential campaign, Thompson waded into the fight himself as a "pro-hippie, anti-development" candidate for sheriff of Pitkin County, Colorado, which included the ski town of Aspen. Thompson wanted to win, in order to save what was still a rural, live-and-let-live county from the influx of Hollywood stars, corporate hoteliers and the rest of the elite entourage that would make it nation's premier ski resort. But he also wanted to teach a lesson about politics that would have meaning far beyond Colorado.
Thompson ran on what he and his backers dubbed the "Freak Power" ticket, declaring in an advertisement in the Aspen Times that, "(In) 1970 Amerika a lot of people are beginning to understand that to be a freak is an honorable way to go. This is the real point: that we are not really freaks at all - not in the literal sense -- but the twisted realities of the world we are trying to live in have somehow combined to make us feel like freaks. We argue, we protest, we petition -- but nothing changes. So now, with the rest of the nation erupting in a firestorm of bombings and political killings, a handful of "freaks" are running a final, perhaps atavistic experiment with the idea of forcing change by voting..."
At a time when many of his contemporaries were disappearing into a drug haze, or shouting silly "Smash-the-State" slogans, Thompson was exploring a more radical prospect. He wanted to combine "Woodstock vibrations, New Left activism, and basic Jeffersonian Democracy with strong echoes of the Boston Tea Party ethic" into what the writer-candidate referred to as "a blueprint for stomping the (conservative Vice President Spiro) Agnew mentality by its own rules -- with the vote, instead of the bomb; by seizing the power machinery and using it, instead of merely destroying it."
While it's nice to remember things like this, I think Thompson above all would tell us now that the problems with American politics are just a reflection of the much more serious problems in American culture, and that it would be a waste of time to attempt to deal with the former without first dealing with the latter. This society has deep and profound problems, sort of a group psychosis aggravated by epidemics of greed and irresponsibility. Until this is acknowledged attempting to change things through elections is just an exercise in futility. At least, this seems to be the message I get from Thompson's life work.
Certainly it's more than time to face up to the fact that the folks who claimed back in 1970 or so that things could be changed through the "system" were wrong. They've made it worse. As I said above, this isn't a political problem. It's a social and psychological one.
Add: I just notice that the Nation has put up one of Thompson's 1965 articles on the Hell's Angels,
The Motorcycle Gangs: Losers and Outsiders. A nice long article on a very important slice of modern American culture. A nice piece of straight journalism, pre-Gonzo style.
"We're bastards to the world and they're bastards to us," one of the Oakland Angels told a Newsweek reporter. "When you walk into a place where people can see you, you want to look as repulsive and repugnant as possible. We are complete social outcasts--outsiders against society."
A lot of this is a pose, but anyone who believes that's all it is has been on thin ice since the death of Jay Gatsby. The vast majority of motorcycle outlaws are uneducated, unskilled men between 20 and 30, and most have no credentials except a police record. So at the root of their sad stance is a lot more than a wistful yearning for acceptance in a world they never made; their real motivation is an instinctive certainty as to what the score really is. They are out of the ball game and they know it--and that is their meaning; for unlike most losers in today's society, the Hell's Angels not only know but spitefully proclaim exactly where they stand.
The fact that most of the Angels were simply poor and dispossessed strikes me as being quite relevant to today's America. There is an enormous and ever-growing "underclass" in the US today, of all races and in all areas. People that no longer have any stake in the country, don't share in the profits, and in fact are generally considered to be "anti-American" or "outlaws", simply because they're poor. (More and more in fact it seems that you're considered to be "anti-American" just if you're not part of the corporate world, regardless of anything else you are or do.) And there's a lot of anger out there as well. So if the past is any guide, I would expect a new generation of "outlaws" to emerge, ones much more desperate and therefore more violent than their predecessors.
Canadians won't participate in US missile plan.
Globe and Mail article. At the recent NATO meeting in Brussels, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin informed the US that Canada will definitely not be participating in the American missile defense program. That is, it will not allow the missiles to be places on Canadian territory, which is a very important part of the plan, almost essential in fact. American officials have been really pushing for this, but the growing anti-Americanism in Canada as elsewhere makes it politically impossible.
Prime Minister Paul Martin will deliver a firm ‘no' to Canadian participation in the U.S. missile-defence plan and break a lengthy silence that fomented confusion on both sides of the border.
The announcement, first reported by Radio-Canada, will come in the House of Commons and end a streak of obfuscation where Mr. Martin refused to state Canada's position.
The end of that silence — scheduled for Thursday — will also come as an about-face for a Prime Minister who had repeatedly stated his support for missile defence when he was a Liberal leadership candidate barely a year ago.
Mr. Martin had promised a new era of Canada-U.S. relations after bitter divisions over the war in Iraq. But American officials had warned it would be an inauspicious start to any new era if Canada refused to join a missile plan.
This is rather ominous. It's not just the missile system itself. It indicates that the Canadians no longer see their security as tied to that of the US, and that they are no longer willing to go along with whatever their (formerly) more powerful southern neighbor wants. Or, in this case, virtually demanded.
Women and blogging.
Kevin Drum of
Washington Monthly made a
post about the lack of women editorializing or blogging on politics, or what he perceives to be a lack this. As you would expect, he got
lots of responses.
Meryl Yourish: "A (female) blogger sent me this link to Kevin Drum being an idiot (yes, I know, he is often an idiot, but this time, it's personal—he mentioned women bloggers)."
And this one, where she doesn't call me an idiot: "The scholarship behind Drum's thesis simply boggles the mind. Why, it's as if he took all of five minutes to think about the issue before he wrote his post."
Trish Wilson: "I get so tired of this same stupid question coming up every three months. The guys don't read or link to political women who blog, and then have the audacity to feign innocence every two months (from three, previously). They wonder where we are. As we have said the last three or four times this discussion has come up, we're out there. You just have to take the time and energy you take to link to and read the primarily middle- and upper-class, white, male bloggers and find us. Guys, you have no excuse."
Random Thoughts: "I'm tired of this discussion. I'm tired of the comments that say women aren't as analytical, competitive, interested, bloviating, or motivated. I'm tired of reading about the boys network at the top, even though it does exist."
Pinko Feminist Hellcat: "Having the gall to point out that yes, we exist, is apparently unforgivable. The attacks women go for this--women who stated this quite civilly were called hysterical and accused of attacking people. They were also called dykes, ugly, manhaters, moonbats, and had their looks derided and their appeal to the opposite sex questioned. Because, you know, that's civil."
Brutal Women: "In other news, the fucktards are back."
Avedon Carol: "On the other hand, I'm staring you right in the face, Kevin, and even though you've said you read me every day you don't have me on your blogroll. It's things like this that make me tear out my hair when people wonder why women are underrepresented in the top-rated weblogs, or journalists, are whatever."
Media Girl: "[Some poor schmoe named Aaron is] nothing like the horses asses and raging bulls that litter the landscape, like the goombas and ninnies who pop up periodically to wonder why women bloggers aren't more popular, or the fuckwits who wield misogyny like a phallic sword."
Ilyka Damen: "Having proposed the most supportable theory, that 'there are plenty of women who blog about politics but they don't get a lot of traffic or links from high-traffic male bloggers,' a theory supported by a quick review of
his own blogroll, Drum concludes instead that the delicate flowers of blogdom are averse to the medium's 'fundamental viciousness.' What can you say to that beyond, 'Bitch,
please' . . . ?"
What She Said!: "The saddest part of this all, Kevin, is that there are some really excellent writers out here. There are women writing extraordinary commentary, with sharp analysis and flawless arguments and you'd rather waste time in another gender-jerkoff than reading it."
Echidne of the Snakes: "There is one theory about all this that has some merit, I believe, and that is that some men don't want to read what women write (unless it is on sex), so if a blogger can be identified as a woman she will lose those readers whose print looks too feminine...."
Ayn Clouter: "As noted below, Kevin Drum has stirred up the usual hornet’s nest about under-representation of
femmes pixelle on the web. This tempest in a herbal tea pot is missing the really big picture far above the heads of all these busybloggers."
Sisu: "We can say right up front that the shallowness of Kevin Drum's argument turns off this woman. Maybe we're in a Pauline Kael bubble of our own, but most of the women we know -- fellow bloggers, readers, friends and relatives -- adore fiery political discourse and keep coming back for more."
Conglomerate: "I know from trying to get a group blawg together of female law professors, that most of the participants were pressed for time. Blogging is a second (or third or fourth) job after teaching and writing, and a lot of the women that I know have a few extra jobs anyway with child-rearing."
Ann Althouse: "
Sigh. Why is he assuming that promulgating opinions is a mean and domineering sort of behavior? I've certainly noticed that a lot of bloggers that I find unreadable display this tendency, but I think the best blogs are reasonable, good-natured, humorous, and well-rounded."
Long story; short pier: "You want to know what the funny thing is? The ice-edged gut-punching joke of it all? Five minutes spent perusing any feminist comment thread or discussion group would be enough to rapidly disabuse Messr. Drum and his commentariat of the idea that women aren’t 'comfortable with the food fight nature of opinion writing.'"
Loaded Mouth: "In reply to your idiocy, I refer you to What She Said!. Then maybe, just maybe, you could start linking to women bloggers instead of using the old and busted (not to mention repeatedly debunked) 'Where are they?' argument."
Dummocrats: "Drum's hypothesis is that opinion writing on the web is too vitriolic and rough for delicate females. Clearly he's never read one of Lucas' takedowns of Michael Moore. But, all kidding aside, he may have a point. Sometimes the comments on the site
do get pretty rough. The language is nasty and personally, I refuse to deal with that."
Elayne Riggs: "I think, if anything, female bloggers should be thanking Kevin Drum rather than piling on his latest version of the every-three-months "where are the women bloggers/why aren't women bloggers more 'famous' or 'popular' (i.e., listed higher up in a self-selecting ranking system)" discussion."
James Joyner: On the food-fight nature of political blogging as a turnoff for women: "It's as good a reason I can come up with."
That's just a small part of them. It certainly is a subject that many women have strong feelings on. In any case, the discussion did at least bring up links to lots of interesting blogs by women.
Personally, I don't see any lack of women expressing their opinions on political matters. I just see the men in control not paying attention because they just don't want to address the fundamental problems. Which are that this is a very sexist society, still very much a man's world, and that the men want to keep it that way since they benefit from it.
I mostly now read female bloggers, since I find them more interesting and less likely to merely engage in useless Bush-bashing and an endless cycles of attacks. Also because I believe that the most crucial issue of our times is the role of women. This is what's behind the Islamic extremist, the Christian fundamentalist, the Jewish ones and so much more.
I think the majority of so-called A-list male bloggers are incredibly boring as well as sexist. It's true that the majority of them deliberately don't link to most of the women, but mostly to other A-list males who in turn link back to them. It's a vicious circle, and the ladies are quite right to be upset about it.
More Americans than ever believe Saddam and Iraqis part of 9/11.
A new
Harris poll indicates that the majority of Americans believe that Saddam supported Al Qaeda and that Iraqis were involved in the 9/11 attacks, despite proof that this simply isn't so. What's even more amazing is that the numbers believing this lie seem to have increased since the election.
On other issues concerning Iraq, the attitudes of large majorities of the public have not changed significantly in the past few months.
* 88 percent of U.S. adults believe that Saddam Hussein would have made weapons of mass destruction if he could have (down slightly from 90% in November).
* 76 percent believe that the Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein (same as November).
* 64 percent believe that history will give the U.S. credit for bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq (up slightly from 63% in November).
* 64 percent believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda (up slightly from 62% in November).
* 61 percent believe that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was a serious threat to U.S. security (down slightly from 63% in November).
More surprising perhaps are the large numbers (albeit not majorities) who believe the following claims not made by the president and which virtually no experts believe to be true:
* 47 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001 (up six percentage points from November).
* 44 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis (up significantly from 37% in November).
* 36 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded (down slightly from 38% in November).
Another interesting finding is that only 46 percent believe that Saddam Hussein was prevented from developing weapons of mass destruction by the U.N. weapons inspectors, a fact which most reports now support.
Why so many people believe something that has been proven false is very strange. I guess it's because Americans are starting to realize the damage that they've done to the Iraqis, and are desperate to believe that MUST have been some reason. Americans just wouldn't attack innocent people, now would they?
I won't say that these views are all inaccurate. I also believe that Saddam would have developed WMDs if he could, but it's very clear now (and was two years ago) that he simply couldn't. If we are going to start charging people with the crimes that they _may_ commit, or would _like_ to commit, there are a lot of people who'd be in trouble.
This is very sad. It's a telling indication of just how incompetent and dishonest the American media have been covering this issue. I'd also say that the vicious Bush-bashing and endless attacks on the Republicans by the so-called leftist blogosphere has also damaged the credibility of opponents to Bush's policies, and is leading many people to believe just the opposite of what they claim.
On the issue of remaining in Iraq, the poll reports that 59% of Americans now think that the troops should be brought home within the next year.
World faces "bird flu pandemic."
Guardian
article on the growing bird flu crisis. There is also a
special section on the topic, with numerous articles.
The world is facing the "gravest possible danger" of a bird flu pandemic that could kill millions of people, a leading health official warned today.
Dr Shigeru Omi, the World Health Organisation's Western Pacific regional director, said governments must take rapid action to stop bird flu spreading if it mutated into a form that was highly contagious among humans.
Speaking at the opening of a bird flu conference at Ho Chi Minh City, southern Vietnam, Dr Omi said the impact of bird flu could be "enormous, and certainly much greater than Sars" - the unrelated Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, which killed almost 800 people in 2003.
He said the world was "now overdue" for an influenza pandemic. Mass epidemics have occurred every 20-30 years, and it has been almost 40 years since the last one happened.
Dr Omi's warning is the latest in a series from experts becoming increasingly concerned over the H5N1 bird flu virus, which devastated the poultry industry across south-east Asia as it swept through almost a dozen countries last year.
The virus has killed 45 people - 32 Vietnamese, 12 Thais and one Cambodian - in cases largely traced to contact with sick birds. It is estimated that bird flu kills three of every four people it infects, although it has so far not been very virulent and has not infected people easily.
Social security debate.
The New York Times has a
special section on the social security debate, with a number of articles and reports. It's turning into quite a battle, considering that there still isn't a formal bill presented to Congress with the specifics laid out.
February 22, 2005
British politics and the war in Iraq.
The Guardian has a
special section on Politics and Iraq, just focusing on the various political and legal aspects of the war. All of the various trials, scandals, shattered careers and such. It's getting to be quite a tangled mess, as this article,
The law and the War makes very clear. It won't go away.
The Rush to War by Richard Norton-Taylor is rather interesting. It discusses the high-level legal objections made to the proposed war. out that just two weeks before the invasion Lord Goldsmith, the British Attorney General, warned that it could be illegal. "Could"? And a high-ranking woman resigned, claiming it was clearly illegal.
The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, warned less than two weeks before the invasion of Iraq that military action could be ruled illegal.
The government was so concerned that it might be prosecuted it set up a team of lawyers to prepare for legal action in an international court.
And a parliamentary answer issued days before the war in the name of Lord Goldsmith - but presented by ministers as his official opinion before the crucial Commons vote - was drawn up in Downing Street, not in the attorney general's chambers.
The full picture of how the government manipulated the legal justification for war, and political pressure placed on its most senior law officer, is revealed in the Guardian today.
It appears that Lord Goldsmith never wrote an unequivocal formal legal opinion that the invasion was lawful, as demanded by Lord Boyce, chief of defence staff at the time.
The Guardian can also disclose that in her letter of resignation in protest against the war, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy legal adviser at the Foreign Office, described the planned invasion of Iraq as a "crime of aggression".
She said she could not agree to military action in circumstances she described as "so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law".
Her uncompromising comments, and disclosures about Lord Goldsmith's relations with ministers in the run-up to war, appear in a book by Philippe Sands, a QC in Cherie Booth's Matrix chambers and professor of international law at University College London.
Exclusive extracts of his book
Lawless World are published in today's Guardian.
The fact that the legal advisors were apparently pressured to change their opinions would mean that Blair and others responsible for the invasion knew what they were doing was illegal at the time they did it. That could lead to all kinds of trouble. Political trouble for Blair and Labor in the short run; and demands for reparations and prosecutions of war criminals in the long run.
Chinese inflation rate continues to decline.
The Chinese seem to be doing a pretty good job of managing their rapidly growing and changing economy, according to this
article via Yahoo News. Inflation is down for the fifth straight month, an indication that something is going well. Briefly, harvests were good and food is cheap.
BEIJING (Reuters) - Chinese annual consumer price growth fell for a fifth straight month, declining to 1.9 percent in the year through January partly due to easing food inflation and providing more evidence that pressure to raise interest rates has abated.
... The annual inflation rate has been declining since it reached a seven-year high of 5.3 percent in July and August of last year. It is now at its lowest since the year through October 2003, when it rose 1.8 percent.
Moderating food inflation, the result of good harvests, are the chief reason for the lower inflation. Food makes up an estimated 35 to 40 percent of the index.
Grain cost 14.2 percent more in January than a year earlier, but its pace of inflation slowed from rates above 30 percent last year. Vegetable prices fell 10.2 percent from January 2004, after a rise of 1.0 percent in the year through September and of 5.8 percent in the year through August.
The entire article gives a nice overview of the current state of China's domestic economy, something you don't hear too much about. The article also says that wages are beginning to rise, which may come as a surprise to those who claim China's growing prosperity is due entirely to its cheap labor.
Note that food costs are included in the inflation figure. In the US, the standard inflatioin figures you hear typically exclude food and energy, altho I've never been able to understand why. Well, they claim they're too "volatile", which doesn't make sense to me. I would think that would make it even more important to include them. But I'm not an economist, so what do I know?
Well, there is one thing I do know. And that is that in corporate America, "inflation" is a code word for "wage increases". It doesn't really represent the prices of most goods or services. At least, that's how Alan Greenspan thinks of it. Because of his depression-era economics and his corporate perspective, he thinks of wage increases as a "problem", something that damages or at least threatens the economy. When in fact, they represent increased purchasing power and are generally the sign of a growing and prosperous economy. The failure of corporate America to increase wages as profits and costs go up is the major reason that the American economy has become so stagnant in recent years. People can't spend more money if they don't have more. It's as simple as that, but the great minds in the business community can't see it.
Report on US abuse in Afghanistan.
Mother Jones has a lengthy report by Emily Bazelon on the extensive prisoner abuse and torture in Afghanistan over the last three years,
From Bagham to Abu Ghraib. More horrific details of cruelty and sadism, which apparently continues and is getting worse. Even more fightening is the idea that the failure to deal with it in Afghanistan led to even worse in Iraq, where it also continues and is getting worse.
Americans, and the world, have become accustomed to accounts like Mustafa’s in connection with Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison. But his story hints at another scandal—one that has received little sustained media attention and sparked no public outrage. Over the past three years, numerous reports—from Afghan and American human rights groups, and from the Pentagon itself—have documented allegations of abuse inside U.S. compounds in Afghanistan. Hundreds of prisoners have come forward, often reluctantly, offering accounts of harsh interrogation techniques including sexual brutality, beatings, and other methods designed to humiliate and inflict physical pain. At least eight detainees are known to have died in U.S. custody in Afghanistan, and in at least two cases military officials ruled that the deaths were homicides. Many of the incidents were known to U.S. officials long before the Abu Ghraib scandal erupted; yet instead of disciplining those involved, the Pentagon transferred key personnel from Afghanistan to the Iraqi prison. “Had the investigation and prosecution of abusive interrogators in Afghanistan proceeded in a timely manner,” Human Rights Watch executive director Brad Adams noted in an open letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last fall, “it is possible that…many of the abuses seen in Iraq could have been avoided.”
Even now, with the attention of the media and Congress focused on Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the problems in Afghanistan seem to be continuing. The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, created in 2002 during the early stages of the transition to Afghan self-governance, has collected a total of 120 reports of abuse by coalition forces; 50 of them were made just since last May. Many of the complaints involve excessive force by soldiers during the course of an arrest. But others come from former detainees who say that soldiers stripped them naked and sexually abused them. The Afghan commission and Human Rights Watch, as well as a smaller group, the Washington, D.C.-based Crimes of War Project, have also gathered evidence on detainee abuse at American “forward operating bases” near Kandahar, Gardez, Khost, Orgun, Ghazni, and Jalalabad. Investigators estimate that in each of these places, between 5 and 20 prisoners are held at a time, compared to as many as 200 at Bagram.
It’s hard to explain how facts this disturbing have garnered so little attention—especially in light of the connection to Abu Ghraib. According to the U.S. military’s own investigators, it was at Bagram that interrogators devised and tested the methods that would shame the United States in Iraq. Documents and witness accounts from both detainees and soldiers starkly portray how an initially disciplined interrogation effort deteriorated, in a climate of lawlessness and pressure to produce intelligence, to the point where officers and soldiers first bent the rules, and finally broke them.
I do find the question as to why these reports have received so little attention a bit ingenuous. It suggests that the majority of Americans are disturbed by these type of things and that they don't approve of them. But they _do_ approve of them. The government is doing exactly what the American people want. At least the majority of them. But people just don't want to face up this reality; they don't want to admit that their idealistic view of Americans as fundamentally decent people is a myth, more based on the movies than anything in real life.
Another reason that Americans don't want to face up to this, is that it would mean that they are legally responsible for it. Eventually all of this crimes will result in the US paying large reparations and damages. These will be substantial, and the American people will do everything in their power to avoid accepting responsibility for their actions. That's why so many so-called "liberals" are also silent. Because they realize that it's their taxes that are paying for it, and that by continuing to vote in what are obviously corrupt elections, and by continuing to work for and invest in the corporations that are behind this, they have legitimized and empowered the people that are doing these things.
But this is what America is now. It's not an aberration. It represents what has become the very heart of its culture. It's not just a few bad apples, or even a few bad barrels. It's the whole damn orchard. As Hunter Thompson so aptly put it:
We have become a Nazi monster in the eyes of the whole world--a nation of bullies and bastards who would rather kill than live peacefully. We are not just Whores for power and oil, but killer whores with hate and fear in our hearts. We are human scum, and that is how history will judge us . . . No redeeming
social value. Just whores. Get out of our way, or we'll kill you.
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid rich kids like George Bush?
They are the same ones who wanted to have Muhammad Ali locked up for refusing to kill gooks. They speak for all that is cruel and stupid and vicious in the American character. They are the racists and hate mongers among us--they are the Ku Klux Klan. I piss down the throats of these Nazis..
That's calling it like it is. See some more Hunter
quotes in the Guardian. This one also seems apropos.
"We cannot expect people to have respect for law and order until we teach respect to those we have entrusted to enforce those laws."
Anyway, Mother Jones posts a note for folks concerned about these practices.
The American Civil Liberties Union is pushing the Bush administration to release more documents on its treatment of foreign prisoners; at
aclu.org, you can encourage your senators to get involved. Go to
endtorturenow.org to learn more about a campaign by Human Rights First against torture of detainees in U.S. custody.
February 21, 2005
"Is Damascus blind?"
The Lebanese Daily Star has a passionate
editorial on the need for Syria to end its occupation of Lebanon. It really gets across just how important this is to the Lebanese.
The writing is on the wall. It is scrawled in very large, angry letters all over Beirut, and it can be seen in the office of French President Jacques Chirac, and it can be seen trailing, like graffiti, behind U.S. President George W. Bush wherever he goes. The question now is, "Is Damascus blind?"
The writing says that Syria must leave Lebanon and grant to the Lebanese their right to determine their own affairs. Sooner or later, the prophecy inherent in the words will be fulfilled - they must. It is the course of history, and the momentum of Lebanese history has been gathering pace over the last few months: Since the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri last Monday, it has reached a fever pitch of pace.
A mass demonstration in Beirut one week after Hariri's slaying was a statement of communal unity that has rarely been witnessed in Lebanon - it has been likened to the buildup to the country's 1943 independence from France. It was a declaration for the Lebanese longing for true sovereignty. It is a declaration being echoed in Washington and Paris: Last night in Brussels, Bush and Chirac issued a joint statement calling for the immediate withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. They also reiterated their support for the UN investigation into Hariri's murder that is expected to begin work in Beirut this week. The European Union is also coming on board."
It is a formidable international voice that has coalesced and is now demanding Damascus act wisely and fulfill historical inevitability - not next year, not in six months' time, but now. Certainly, the assembled voices say, Syria must withdraw before Lebanese national elections scheduled in May. These elections, Bush and Chirac insist, "can mark another milestone in Lebanon's return to independence and democracy if they are free and fair, conducted without outside interference, and guaranteed by international observers."
The
Daily Star is an awesome news site. If you want more on things Syrian,
Professor Joshua Landis speciallizes in the subject, and has been blogging recent developments at
syriacomment.com.
Speaking of which, his entry in
today's post comments on a report in the
Times of London that Syria has rejected demands to leave Lebanon, claiming it won't do it until Israel gives up the Golan Heights. Which won't be happening soon.
Ayman Abdel Nour, a leading Syrian analyst, said yesterday that Damascus had now told senior American officials that a unilateral withdrawal of its 15,000 troops was out of the question until Israel ended its occupation of the Golan Heights, which it seized from Syria in 1967 and annexed 14 years later.
“Syria has national interests which must be fulfilled before it can withdraw from Lebanon and this has been relayed to American members of Congress, the Senate and the State Department,” Nour said. “If the United States uses its leverage and pressures Israel fully to return the Golan Heights, only then can Syria fully withdraw from Lebanon.”
Nour also said Syria was concerned that if its forces were driven out of Lebanon in a humiliating manner, it could lead to a rift between the peoples of the two countries which would “last for generations”
Well, if they don't leave, even in the face of the kind of sentiment that the Daily Star describes, then they'll be facing the same resentment anyway. They certainly do tend to hold onto their grudges in the Middle East.
I hope that this red-blue thing in the US doesn't turn into that type of hatred, and continue on for generations and centuries. I think it might though. The right-wingers are so full of hatred, it's hard to imagine them ever coming to their senses.
Chinese send 11 billion new year's messages.
Yahoo news story. China now has mobile phone users than the US has people, and they sent over 11 billion text and other messages over the recent New Year's celebrations. Just a mark of what a wired world this is getting to be.
BEIJING (Reuters) - Chinese mobile phone users sent a record 11 billion text messages during the week-long Spring Festival holiday, ringing in the Lunar New Year in style, Xinhua news agency said Friday.
... "In addition to text messages, people sent pictures and songs via their mobile phones as festival greetings," Xinhua said.
By the end of 2004, Chinese mobile phone users had surpassed 330 million. They sent a total of 217.7 billion messages last year.
Brooklyn's Abu Ghraib.
A lot of Americans are trying to deny the realities of the extensive torture and abuse happening in American prisons worldwide by telling themselves that this is just a few bad apples, and, most importantly, that this doesn't happen inside the US. But it does, and has been been going on for a long time now.
Larry Cohler-Esses
reports in the New York Daily News that both Jews and Muslims suspected of so-called "terrorism" were held in inhumane conditions, and subjected to repeated beatings, and other abuse. The details in fact are remarkably similar to those reported to have happened in Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Defense attorneys call it Brooklyn's Abu Ghraib. On the ninth floor of the federal Metropolitan Detention Center in Sunset Park, terrorism suspects swept off the streets after the Sept. 11 attacks were repeatedly stripped naked and frequently were physically abused, the Justice Department's inspector general has found.
The detainees - none of whom were ultimately charged with anything related to terrorism - alleged in sworn affidavits and in interviews with Justice Department officials that correction officers:
* Humiliated them by making fun of - and sometimes painfully squeezing - their genitals.
* Deprived them of regular sleep for weeks or months.
* Shackled their hands and feet before smashing them repeatedly face-first into concrete walls - within sight of the Statue of Liberty.
* Forced them in winter to stand outdoors at dawn while dressed in light cotton prison garb and no shoes, sometimes for hours.
"In December, they left me outside for more than four hours [wearing] only a jumpsuit and a light prison coat," Ahmed Khalifa, an Egyptian, told the Daily News. "I asked them to let me inside. They were laughing and pointing to me. When I finally got back inside, I felt like I had frostbite."
There's a lot more in the article, pretty horrific in places. Strip searches 6 times a day, even though they were shacked in chains and held in solitary!!! Especially hard to realize this is New York we're tallking about. Note that these were not just Muslims.
Oded Ellner - one of five Israeli Jewish terrorist suspects - said he sought medical help after MDC's allegedly meager, often spoiled meals left him with severe dysentery symptoms. The doctor came with five guards and a camera, he said. She then ordered him to strip and shift his backside into a small space in the cell door so she could conduct a rectal exam from outside the cell.
"I'm a human being, not an animal!" Ellner said he shouted. "I have a right to an exam." The guards, he said, "just laughed," and all walked away.
These practices are now standard in American prisons, both here and abroad. Prisoners, especially those not American citizens, are simply not considered to possess any rights at all. They're not even considered human. Consider the cruelty in deliberately giving prisoners spoiled food in order to make them sick. They wouldn't even do that to an animal.
And there is a deliberate policy of hiring sadistic and violent people as prison guards and officers, not to mention doctors and lawyers. It just keeps getting worse. I know that's hard to believe, but that's the way it is. Note that none of these people were ever charged with anything (except visa violations.) They suffered permanent injuries.
And people wonder why the folks in NY were attacked.
February 20, 2005
German chancellor questions need for NATO.
In a Guardian
article on Bush's visit to Europe, and his attempts to "mend fences" with the Europeans, they discussed the various ways that major European leaders were actually moving against Bush, or at least not according to his wishes. They mention Russian President Putin's announcement last week of new deals with Iran and that he will go there on a visit soon. But what really struck my eye was this mention of NATO by the German leader.
Meanwhile, Chancellor Schroder surprised an international security conference in Munich last week by questioning Nato's usefulness and whether the alliance was the appropriate forum any longer for US-European policy-making - this in advance of Mr Bush's visit to Nato's headquarters tomorrow.
That's potentially a very big development. I've long questioned the need for NATO, and have thought that, since it's not really under the direct control of any democratically elected government, and since no one seems to know just exactly what it's there for (it certainly isn't to protect the "North Atlantic"), there's the danger that it could someday turn into a rogue force. And since it in effect forces the Europeans to support a force that primarily serves American interests, I've wondered if someday the Europeans would stop wanting to support it, and instead focus on building their own EU-wide miitary.
If they did so that would be a landmark in US-EU relations, and a major blow to American hegemony. A very major blow. And it's striking that Schroeder should mention that just before Bush visits. It indicates that the Europeans are more than ready to confront the Americans on even the most major issues, and in new and unexpected ways.
In any case, NATO certainly isn't supporting the US in Iraq.
The biggest announcement of the week is expected to be an agreement that just over 100 security personnel from Nato's 26 members will train Iraqi police and soldiers either in Iraq or outside.
100 personnel out of 26 countries? That's not what I'd call a major contribution. And also not one I'd expect to make any real difference.
Bush's winning streak coming to an end.
In
Bush's Tipping Point, Robert Kuttner asks if Bush's defeat on Social Security along with a host of other problem has made him a lame duck already. Via the
American Prospect Online. Also see their
special section on Social Security, a cornucopia of articles and studies. Some quite useful, some unfortunately tinged by ideological bias.
The great Social Security battle of 2005 could well be remembered as the tipping point that ended George W. Bush’s remarkable winning streak. It’s now clear that Democrats are not about to provide Bush bipartisan cover for privatization. Even usually reliable Republicans are putting some distance between themselves and the president.
... In short, despite his election win and his increased majorities in both chambers of Congress, Bush’s winning streak is in big trouble in two fronts. First, his latest round of policy proposals is splitting his own base while unifying the Democrats. Second, the budgetary chickens are coming home to roost sooner than anticipated. Bush’s whole game was to make sure that the most costly aspects of his tax and program cuts would not bite until after he left office. But it’s apparent now that the bombs designed to detonate on his successor’s watch are going off prematurely, at the very beginning of his second term.
It is astounding how the legislative magic and party discipline can quickly disappear once a chief executive becomes a lame duck. As soon as Republicans find that they can oppose a White House priority without being struck dead, they will find it easier to do it again. Conversely, the often feckless Democrats are learning in the Social Security battle that there is just no substitute for party unity. Ironically, Bush’s second term could be a time for the bipartisanship that he falsely promised in 2001 -- not the fig-leaf kind but the real article. And this bipartisanship would be in opposition to Bush’s own policies.
It says a lot that Bush's Social Security plan may not even make it out of committee, much less pass in the full Congress. They'll come up with some meaningless bill to save face, but it looks like privatization is going down, and Bush's "political capital" with it.
The media is making much of
Bush's trip to Europe, saying over and over again that he'll be able to "mend fences", without having to change his policies or make any concessions, basically that everyone will just go along with the Americans forever regardless of what they do. That they'll just let the awesome mess in Iraq slip by as "one of those things." But they can't, and won't. Major damage to the US's international relations have been done, and they won't be repaired for a long, long time. In fact, it will grow a lot worse before it gets better.
Everyone outside of the US, and I mean _everyone_, thinks that talk of invading Iran is absolutely insane and will only make things worse. Yet Bush still seems to think he can continue to do this type of thing without arousing serious opposition.
US military power reaches its limits in Iraq.
Looking at the stalemate in Iraq, Andrew J. Bacevich says
We aren't fighting to win anymore. It's clear that the Americans aren't even fighting to really "win" in Iraq anymore. The original plans for a quick and easy victory, a "shock and awe", have given way to a desperate attempt to merely hold down the insurgency enough for the US to make some sort of dignified withdrawal, or let the Iraqi government deal with it while the US hunkers down in its permanent bases and focuses on stealing the oil. But the limits of the vaunted American "superpower military machine" have definitrely been reached; and worse, the rest of the world knows it.. Via
LA Times and
Common Dreams.
Optimists are placing their hopes on a crash program to create a new Iraqi security force that just might permit us in a year or so to begin reducing the size of our garrison. Pessimists have their doubts. But virtually no one is predicting we will be even remotely close to crushing the insurgency. The decisive victory promised by the war's advocates back in March 2003 — remember all the talk of "shock and awe"? — has now slipped beyond our grasp.
Of course, following the heady assault on Baghdad, the conflict took an unexpected turn — precisely as wars throughout history have tended to do. As a consequence, today a low-tech enemy force estimated at about 10,000 fighters has stymied the mightiest military establishment the world has ever seen. To be sure, the adversary cannot defeat us militarily. But neither can we defeat it. In short, U.S. troops today are no longer fighting to win, but simply to buy time: This has become the Bush administration's substitute for victory. Worse, in a war such as in Iraq, time is more likely to work in the other guy's favor.
Whether this reality has yet to fully sink in with the majority of the American people is unclear. No doubt President Bush hopes the citizenry will continue to snooze. Better to talk about Social Security reform and banning gay marriage than to call attention to the unhappy fact that we are spending several billion dollars per month and losing, on average, two soldiers per day — not to prevail but simply to prolong the stalemate. Moreover, if the administration gets its way, we can expect that expenditure of blood and treasure to continue for many months, until there emerges an Iraqi government able to fend for itself or Iraq descends into chaos.
Pending the final judgment of President Bush's war, this much we can say for sure: Two years after the dash on Baghdad seemingly affirmed the invincibility of the U.S. armed forces, the actual limits of American power now lay exposed for all to see. Our adversaries, real and potential, are no doubt busy contemplating the implications of those limits.
I believe that the rate of death of Americans is now up to three a day. There seems to be a lot about this that Americans aren't hearing about.
Most people are going to assume that those Americans who point out the increasing weakness of the US military are "anti-American" or traitors who want to see America fall. But most of us are just concerned with the growing evidence that the US military is not capable of effectively defending us. If they can be defeated by a few ten thousand "insurgents", then how would they do against well organized and equipped armies in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions; especially if those are backed by adequate navies and air forces, unlike Vietnam and Iraq?
America's large military has a lot of elaborate and costly weapons systems (aircraft carriers, missiles, thousands of WMDs of all types, nuclear submarines and such) that either don't work, or aren't of much real use in an Iraq-type insurgency or other more conventional war. All they are really good for is to frighten other nations and get them to develop their own (mostly conventional) armed forces, which they've done really well. So in that sense they weaken the US rather than strengthening it. Or they drain resources that would be better spent on basic supplies such as individual and vehicle armor, bullets, and very un-sexy items. (All of which are in very short supply in Iraq.) And the rest of the world has finally caught on to this.
End of entries. ( ) ( )
