Dems say AG Gonzales lied to Congress about the NSA massive call database program. And it looks to us like he did. Read the testimony for yourself.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
The Porpoise Song
Josh Marshall:
What's Chavez up to today?
[Thanks, Latin American News Review].
Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez will discuss poverty when he meets for the first time with Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican, the state news agency said citing diplomatic sources."Poverty is a shared problem in Latin America and in the case of Venezuela, Chavez' current government is promoting programs geared to eliminating it," the state news agency ABN said quoting Caracas' ambassador to the Vatican, Ivan Rincon Urdaneta.
Since he began his presidency in 1999, this will be the third visit by Chavez to the Vatican, but his first visit with the German pontiff. Chavez says he is a fervent Christian and frequently quotes the Bible in his speeches.
On his upcoming European tour Chavez plans to meet with lawmakers in Britain and attend a European Union-Latin America-Caribbean summit in Austria.
Torture as policy
As if we still needed it.... More forthcoming proof of a wholesale and conscious change in policy at the highest levels of the US government towards allowing torture. See Andrew Sullivan's post on this.
I honestly care little about the debate over the number of prosecutions of low-ranking military people and contractors - the so-called bad apples - which is nearly a red herring. I care much more about prosecuting for crucially important moral and pragmatic reasons those who have formed the policy and turned the US into an overtly torturing nation that talks out of the side of its mouth.
I honestly care little about the debate over the number of prosecutions of low-ranking military people and contractors - the so-called bad apples - which is nearly a red herring. I care much more about prosecuting for crucially important moral and pragmatic reasons those who have formed the policy and turned the US into an overtly torturing nation that talks out of the side of its mouth.
Autistic warrior
This Old Brit tells the story of an autistic teen in Oregon recruited for fighting duty in Iraq. [via Appletree].
Towards a new generation of whale eaters
This is part of the reason why the Japanese position on whaling is utter crap (see also this earlier post on strategy). Few people eat whalemeat in Japan any more. Most Japanese will tell you they've never eaten whalemeat.
Japan's position has been to harvest whales for "scientific research," which is the easiest way through the International Whaling Commission ban on whaling. It has systematically consolidated allies in the IWC in order to bring back commercial whaling. Now it finds that the market doesn't exist, so they're going with the traditionalist argument in order to create a market.
Sometimes traditions are not worth maintaining. The arguments for this one are entirely specious.
Japan's position has been to harvest whales for "scientific research," which is the easiest way through the International Whaling Commission ban on whaling. It has systematically consolidated allies in the IWC in order to bring back commercial whaling. Now it finds that the market doesn't exist, so they're going with the traditionalist argument in order to create a market.
Sometimes traditions are not worth maintaining. The arguments for this one are entirely specious.
A pro-whaling body affiliated to the Japanese government has set up a company that aims to sell 1,000 tonnes of whale meat, most for school meals, over the next year, local media reported yesterday.The meat will be sold cheaply to makers of school lunches, and there are also plans to boost sales to "family friendly" restaurants and hospitals.
Although the International Whaling Commission banned commercial whaling in 1986, Japan continues to kill whales for what it describes as scientific research. Environmental groups and other IWC members, including Britain, have condemned the hunts as commercial whaling in disguise...
The company, set up by the pro-whaling Institute of Cetacean Research in Tokyo, forms part of a countrywide campaign to re-establish whale meat in the traditional Japanese diet.
Chagos
Families exiled from the Chagos islands in the 1960s and 70s to make way for a US Indian Ocean airbase have won a new victory in their long fight to return...
But the government was given permission to appeal, and the islanders must also overcome UK and US residence vetoes...
Some 2,000 residents of the British territory - who mainly worked on coconut plantations - were removed when Britain leased Diego Garcia to the US to use as a military base...
The US says it opposes any return on security grounds.
Nukak
Sad.... The further disenchantment of the world. And another case of displacement in Colombia.
[My version of this NY Times page has two large ads for the upcoming Disney Broadway musical, "Tarzan." "More Tickets on Sale Now!" Thanks, Disney!]
Wait...
[My version of this NY Times page has two large ads for the upcoming Disney Broadway musical, "Tarzan." "More Tickets on Sale Now!" Thanks, Disney!]
Since time immemorial the Nukak-Makú have lived a Stone Age life, roaming across hundreds of miles of isolated and pristine Amazon jungle, killing monkeys with blowguns and scouring the forest floor for berries.Plus, if they're good, maybe there's a trip to Broadway in the future from a certain American benefactor. And caps.But recently, and rather mysteriously, a group of nearly 80 wandered out of the wilderness, half-naked, a gaggle of children and pet monkeys in tow, and declared themselves ready to join the modern world...
Are they sad? "No!" cried a Nukak named Pia-pe, to howls of laughter. In fact, the Nukak said they could not be happier. Used to long marches in search of food, they are amazed that strangers would bring them sustenance — free.
What do they like most? "Pots, pants, shoes, caps," said Mau-ro, a young man who went to a shelter to speak to two visitors.
Ma-be added, "Rice, sugar, oil, flour." Others said they loved skillets. Also high on the list were eggs and onions, matches and soap and certain other of life's necessities.
"I like the women very much," Pia-pe said, to raucous laughs.
One young Nukak mother, Bachanede, breast-feeding her infant as she talked, said she was happy just to stay still. "When you walk in the jungle," she said, "your feet hurt a lot."
Wait...
When asked if the Nukak were concerned about the future, Belisario, the only one in the group who had been to the outside world before and spoke Spanish, seemed perplexed, less by the word than by the concept. "The future," he said, "what's that?"
All right, that's enough now
When I was about 8 years old, my best friend Brad and I put on a "play."
We lived in Asia. My parents were part of a small expat community that had dinner parties, poker nights, and the occasional play, which they would produce quite elaborately with full costumes and sets in our fine expatriate homes. Brad and I wanted to produce our own play.
My mother helpfully invited some of the other families to the play, as well as some of my father's colleagues. She made hors d'oeuvres; audience members brought scotch as ducats. My mother set up chairs in the living room, our stage.
We had no plan, no script.
We were, however, Cub Scouts members with a fondness for playing "war" in the jungle that extended for miles from our back garden after a small peanut field and The Big Rocks. The play would be about the Civil War.
The audience settled into their seats. Brad stood in the middle of the living room in his Cub Scout uniform. Pointing his toy rifle in the direction of my parents bedroom, where I awaited my stage entry bedizened in my own Cub Scout uniform, Brad fired. And said "bang."
I splotched ketchup on my pants for blood and limped into the living room with my rifle for a crutch (John Wayne reference). My first ever theatrical line, delivered with an 8 year-old's bathos, went something on the order of "I'm shot."
Brad and I then needed to set up the tent. We had, however, neglected to consider that the tent required stakes. Two minutes into the play, we were rolling in a collapsed tent in the living room without a clue as to what to do next. The unfortunate plight in which we found ourselves produced slumberparty giggles.
My mother, deus ex machina, stepped in, "all right, you boys, that's enough now."
A couple of months later, having survived the humiliation of the first stagger-through, we announced the staging of a much improved version of the original. This performance would take place in the peanut field, more generous terrain for pitching the tent. We envisioned rows of seats in the middle of the field. Alas, everyone was busy with other duties and events on the day of the curtain-raising. Our immediate neighbors assured us that they would watch the play from their living room window....
Some remembrances after reading this article.
We lived in Asia. My parents were part of a small expat community that had dinner parties, poker nights, and the occasional play, which they would produce quite elaborately with full costumes and sets in our fine expatriate homes. Brad and I wanted to produce our own play.
My mother helpfully invited some of the other families to the play, as well as some of my father's colleagues. She made hors d'oeuvres; audience members brought scotch as ducats. My mother set up chairs in the living room, our stage.
We had no plan, no script.
We were, however, Cub Scouts members with a fondness for playing "war" in the jungle that extended for miles from our back garden after a small peanut field and The Big Rocks. The play would be about the Civil War.
The audience settled into their seats. Brad stood in the middle of the living room in his Cub Scout uniform. Pointing his toy rifle in the direction of my parents bedroom, where I awaited my stage entry bedizened in my own Cub Scout uniform, Brad fired. And said "bang."
I splotched ketchup on my pants for blood and limped into the living room with my rifle for a crutch (John Wayne reference). My first ever theatrical line, delivered with an 8 year-old's bathos, went something on the order of "I'm shot."
Brad and I then needed to set up the tent. We had, however, neglected to consider that the tent required stakes. Two minutes into the play, we were rolling in a collapsed tent in the living room without a clue as to what to do next. The unfortunate plight in which we found ourselves produced slumberparty giggles.
My mother, deus ex machina, stepped in, "all right, you boys, that's enough now."
A couple of months later, having survived the humiliation of the first stagger-through, we announced the staging of a much improved version of the original. This performance would take place in the peanut field, more generous terrain for pitching the tent. We envisioned rows of seats in the middle of the field. Alas, everyone was busy with other duties and events on the day of the curtain-raising. Our immediate neighbors assured us that they would watch the play from their living room window....
Some remembrances after reading this article.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Sure it does: never
It's a bit of a "when did you stop beating your wife" question, but here he goes.
Apart from this, Bush should take comfort from Ahmadinejad's pluralistic appeal to fundamentalisms of all types. God is Allah, and we all await the apocalypse. Ain't that right, Mr. President? Mr. Faith-Based Community?
President Bush says a lengthy letter from Iran's leader doesn't answer the question the world is asking, which is: "When will you get rid of your nuclear program?"Read the letter, dimwit. Ahmadinejad says explicitly that every country has the right to develop technologically as it sees fit. The US has lived by this rule up until the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Given that the US doesn't follow the treaty any more, its sole claim to limiting Iran's nuclear program is a power claim based in the hope that other countries will follow along with sanctions, war, whatever.
Apart from this, Bush should take comfort from Ahmadinejad's pluralistic appeal to fundamentalisms of all types. God is Allah, and we all await the apocalypse. Ain't that right, Mr. President? Mr. Faith-Based Community?
Dangerous professors of the mind
Cold shower on Horowitz's "Most Dangerous Professors" list. From Mark Levine, dangerous professor, writing in [gasp, fainting spell, smelling salts and kerchief] Mother Jones. See also this earlier post.
When I first heard that David Horowitz had included me in his list of the "101 most Dangerous Professors in America," I was quite pleased. It was an honor, after all, to receive such a distinction from one of the doyens of the neoconservative movement.But my ego quickly returned down to earth when, during a debate we had a few weeks ago on Mother Jones Radio, he admitted, without a hint of embarrassment, that he hadn't actually read any of my books or academic articles, but only perused my website and perhaps a Mother Jones article or two. Indeed, he didn't even know the intern who actually did the "research" on me for his book.
DOD CIA, Hayden
Good article from the Project on Government Oversight on the CIA, DOD and the Hayden nomination for CIA Director.
Toys for America
From BLDGBLOG: [Image: This is the world mapped according to toy exports and toy imports, respectively]. Maps from Worldmapper.
Mango season
Right now, mango frenzy is in full swing, not least in Mumbai, a city where people know better than anyone how to reincarnate a mango: street vendors across the city start squeezing mango juice for around 20 rupees (about 45 cents, at about 44 rupees to $1); fashionable bars mix mango martinis for around 20 times as much; and restaurants at five-star hotels launch mango minifestivals featuring expensive avant-garde mango curiosities.
Photo: Santosh Verma, NY TimesTuesday, May 09, 2006
Palestinian aid
Well, good. I couldn't see withholding aid from Palestine as a good strategy in any way, shape, or form. If you're worried about Hamas' stance regarding Israel, remember that aid always comes with strings attached - these have yet to be uncovered. We'll see how genuine the US position is on this, but at least for now Europe appears to have pressured them into Palestinian assistance.
The United States bowed to pressure from its allies on Tuesday and agreed to support a new program to temporarily funnel additional humanitarian aid directly to the Palestinian people.
A statement by Mideast peacemakers, issued after a day of closed-door diplomatic meetings, did not suggest precisely how much or what kind of aid they would provide. But the agreement seemed to underscore a concern that months of withholding most aid from the Palestinians, part of an effort to pressure the new Hamas-led government toward a more accommodating stance with Israel, was harming the Palestinian people.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the European Union would take the lead in the new effort. The United Nations and Russia, the other partners in the Quartet peacemaking group along with the U.S., also endorsed the program.
"The thrust of this is the international community is still trying to respond to the needs of the Palestinian people," Rice said.
Google searches
For the hell of it, here are the internet searches during the past day that have brought visitors to Phronesisaical. Hope we've been helpful. I've punctuated for poetry purposes.
Warm forts underride the game,
impuestos harakiri antecedenes.
Wohlstetter theory pith,
asians ivy league,
stupider.
Iran government photos
give 2 example of animals whose senses are said to be more developed than that of human,
Emerald detention center in Encinal, TX.
Dinner party conversation,
headless waiters photograph,
the hypocrisy of politics,
jake gyllenhaal nude.
Warm forts underride the game,
impuestos harakiri antecedenes.
Wohlstetter theory pith,
asians ivy league,
stupider.
Iran government photos
give 2 example of animals whose senses are said to be more developed than that of human,
Emerald detention center in Encinal, TX.
Dinner party conversation,
headless waiters photograph,
the hypocrisy of politics,
jake gyllenhaal nude.
The mighty Norwegianity hangs it up for now...
Damn.... Norwegianity is leaving us. Mark ("da Wege") is joining Ford Bell's Minnesota campaign for U.S. Senate. I wish them all the best. Whether he wants it or not, I hope Mark's next step will be a move to DC where the drinks will be on me (at least the first time).
The Wege has powered through all the trials and tribulations of blogging with a serious commitment of time and energy and patience. Norwegianity has had a quick take on the pulse of all things political, cultural, and blogoful; my first daily stop in the blogosphere. I've also enjoyed the cd compilations he has shared with many of us at his own expense. Good taste, that guy.
For those of you who've never set up a blog, the technical part is easy (once the annoying little html kinks are worked out). The difficult part is in building readership, thinking about what you want to do with the medium and what the limitations are, discovering meta-blog services, networking, getting linked, and maintaining motivation to continue the conversation at moments when it seems like few people are listening and/or you have little to say. It can also be time-consuming.
Mark has been crucially important to the existence of Phronesisaical. He was the first to give me advice on setting up a blog and finding visitors; he has linked to this blog far more times than anyone else in an attempt to help us gain readers; he has shared his broader ideas about the blogosphere and its meaning, how it's important as well as unimportant. He has also always brought others along with him in his successes.
He is a good and decent guy with sharp wit, intelligence, a talent for the rant when ranting needs to be done, a strong commitment to the public good, an embodiment of liberal hope, and sheer generosity.
Mark's departure signals a great loss for the lefty blogosphere, but a gain for Minnesotan and hopefully US politics. I'll be following the campaign.
Thanks for everything. May Fortuna gaze kindly upon your new life.
His farewell is typical Wege:
Umm, and,... oh yeah, my obituary-sounding epitaph notwithstanding, the Wege may be back and blogging in the fall.
The Wege has powered through all the trials and tribulations of blogging with a serious commitment of time and energy and patience. Norwegianity has had a quick take on the pulse of all things political, cultural, and blogoful; my first daily stop in the blogosphere. I've also enjoyed the cd compilations he has shared with many of us at his own expense. Good taste, that guy.
For those of you who've never set up a blog, the technical part is easy (once the annoying little html kinks are worked out). The difficult part is in building readership, thinking about what you want to do with the medium and what the limitations are, discovering meta-blog services, networking, getting linked, and maintaining motivation to continue the conversation at moments when it seems like few people are listening and/or you have little to say. It can also be time-consuming.
Mark has been crucially important to the existence of Phronesisaical. He was the first to give me advice on setting up a blog and finding visitors; he has linked to this blog far more times than anyone else in an attempt to help us gain readers; he has shared his broader ideas about the blogosphere and its meaning, how it's important as well as unimportant. He has also always brought others along with him in his successes.
He is a good and decent guy with sharp wit, intelligence, a talent for the rant when ranting needs to be done, a strong commitment to the public good, an embodiment of liberal hope, and sheer generosity.
Mark's departure signals a great loss for the lefty blogosphere, but a gain for Minnesotan and hopefully US politics. I'll be following the campaign.
Thanks for everything. May Fortuna gaze kindly upon your new life.
His farewell is typical Wege:
For quite some time now I've felt that blogging just wasn't enough. This is a bellweather year, and us common folk may not again have this many opportunities for meaningfully contributing to a political campaign. This year and in 2008 we'll reshape our government and determine how we're going to clean up this ungodly mess George Bush has made of everything.UPDATE:
I'll be a tweaker, not a decider, but I will have an opportunity to help Ford Bell's campaign more effectively get their message out. And what is that message?Single-payer universal health careThat's a message I stand behind wholeheartedly. Single-payer universal health care would lower our national health care bill while extending coverage to all Americans, and not just the affluent and the lucky few who are still covered by their employers.
Getting our troops out of Iraq
And Iraq is the place we need to remove ourselves from as quickly as feasible. We are doing ourselves and the Iraqis no favors by staying, and Bush's dreams of permanent bases are more likely a ticket to WWIII and not that neocon empire favored by the unhinged right.
Taking a sabbatical from posting at Norwegianity is not a requirement of this job, but I personally believe it is a necessity. Instead of reading eight newspapers and several dozen blogs a day, I need to begin focusing in on key issues. Rather than being an inch deep and worldwide, I need to gain a deeper understanding of health care and other issues of concern to Minnesotans. The two jobs simply are not compatible.
Umm, and,... oh yeah, my obituary-sounding epitaph notwithstanding, the Wege may be back and blogging in the fall.
Ahmadinejad's letter
Here is a very rough and apparently quick translation of Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush. It's found in English at Le Monde (click on "document" on the sidebar for the .pdf or try this link).
It's a rambling letter. Ahmadinejad discusses technological development, 9-11, the Iraq War, Israel, global poverty, the commonality in Christian and Islamic morality, human rights, the nature of accountable government, and the takeover of the world by a shared monotheism.
There is too much here to post the whole thing, so I've simply linked. I started to excerpt the letter for this post, then gave up. Selection is, well, selective. I was also tempted to correct typos and grammar - it looks to me like a bad translation from the French. But.... So, I simply encourage you to read the entire letter.
UPDATE:
Juan Cole reminds (via Sadly, No!):
Wampum has posted the entire text of the letter, and they've cleaned it up a bit (which I was too lazy to do): Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.
UPDATE 3:
Andrew Sullivan asks the right question about perhaps the most interesting part of Ahmadinejad's letter.
It's a rambling letter. Ahmadinejad discusses technological development, 9-11, the Iraq War, Israel, global poverty, the commonality in Christian and Islamic morality, human rights, the nature of accountable government, and the takeover of the world by a shared monotheism.
There is too much here to post the whole thing, so I've simply linked. I started to excerpt the letter for this post, then gave up. Selection is, well, selective. I was also tempted to correct typos and grammar - it looks to me like a bad translation from the French. But.... So, I simply encourage you to read the entire letter.
UPDATE:
Juan Cole reminds (via Sadly, No!):
In any case, [Ahmadinejad's] letter to Bush holds no prospect of reducing tensions. It should be remembered that then Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh angered Washington in the early 1950s by nationalizing Iranian petroleum. Eisenhower slapped sanctions on Iran and destroyed its economy. Washington at that time thought Mosaddegh was a pinko, though in fact he was a relatively conservative aristocrat. At the height of the crisis, Mosaddegh wrote a letter to Eisenhower, which was ignored. Ike had the CIA overthrow the elected, parliamentary government of Iran and install the Shah as a megalomaniacal dictator. So the tradition of letter-writing by Iranian leaders at times of tensions with Washington isn't replete with successes. Of course, the Iranians took revenge for the heavy-handed US interference with their form of government. They made an Islamic Revolution in 1978-79, and more recently elected Ahmadinejad. What Washington wouldn't do to have that nice Mr. Mosaddegh back.UPDATE 2:
Wampum has posted the entire text of the letter, and they've cleaned it up a bit (which I was too lazy to do): Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.
UPDATE 3:
Andrew Sullivan asks the right question about perhaps the most interesting part of Ahmadinejad's letter.
Ahmadinejad is appealing to Bush on the basis of their shared faith in the coming Apocalypse. It seems to me a perfectly good question for journalists to ask the president if he does indeed share Ahmadinejad's belief that God controls all human events, that the world will soon come to an end, and that there seems to be an acceleration of change that suggests this might be coming soon. That's what Bush's pre-millennialist base believes. It's what Ahmadinejad believes. Does the president?
Death nonpenalty redux
Roxtar (Black Sky Theory, and commenting fame) develops an argument against capital punishment, mentioned below. I'll repost it here in full with my comments following. MT's are, as always, also worth checking out here.
I like this. The novel part is looking at the nature of "penalty," rather than justifications for punishment as social policy. Most philosophical arguments tend to consider the policy of capital punishment (CP) in terms of the broader society – a crime is a crime precisely because it harms others and, ostensibly, society as a whole. You're thinking about the actual penalty phase of the individual criminal by dropping the effect of CP on possible deterrence of would-be criminals. So, you move to a retributive-type argument.
To be pedantic, the main arguments in philosophy re CP come from three theoretical positions: that CP is/is not a deterrent in society regarding possible future crimes (future-oriented); that CP is/is not retribution for the crime already committed (past-oriented); that CP is wrong because criminals ought to and can undergo rehabilitation in which the punishment and motivation for rehabilitation stem from exclusion from society. [MT mentions the rehab issue]. All three are complicated further by the practical issue that CP is, in actual society, distributed unjustly according to race and means, and that the criminal justice system is fallible and, worse, often prosecutes erroneously and unjustly.
I tend to think, simply, that the latter consideration is good enough to get rid of CP. If somehow problems of both inequality and proof were overcome, I'd have to rethink this position. But it's good enough for me for now.
In your argument, there’s a tacking between deterrence and retributive views, and I think this is because you’ve constructed the argument to be directed at a specific audience: Christian pro-life, pro-CP people. Rehabilitative arguments often come from religious thinkers, for instance, but you’re looking at only those Christians making retributive claims. The idea behind retribution can take the form of eye for an eye (lex talionis) or the less religious Kantian view that the crime of murder is a kind of opting out of a society in which the Golden Rule applies (or categorical imperatives against using human beings as means, etc.). CP completes the opt-out. Case closed. The tack re deterrence is that belief in a miserable next few decades functions as more of a deterrent than death, whether one believes in an afterlife or one is an atheist.
In psychological terms, I'm not sure how much it matters if a criminal is executed after one day in prison or five years. Five years (and appeals, etc.) may actually engender hope that he'll see out his natural years for a criminal who fears death. Only the God-fearing criminal would fear hell/God – and that may actually be a deterrent for would-be criminals in the first place, as long as they're genuine believers. Tough to prove, though, in the absence of those hypothetical criminals. So, the psychological element may satisfy the religious person seeking CP for a criminal (retribution), but it’s unclear what effect it has on the criminal himself. In deterrence terms, knowing that one could be executed the following day after conviction could actually be more horrifying to the criminal and/or potential criminal, without resorting to the atheism-or-believer case. But framing the discussion in this way assumes that the "penalty" part of CP is terror at the prospect of death, not the death itself (and this is a deterrence argument).
I can see the merits of your move – it’s a sort of deconstructive critique of an inconsistent religious view. But I don’t know how much it extends to a broader argument against CP as criminal justice policy. For one thing, it grants Christians their most mythical beliefs as the basis for the argument and then builds a reductio out of those beliefs. The problem is that one has to grant them in the first place.
Few issues lead to such apparently inconsistent positions as does the death penalty. Much of the "pro-life" community, for example, is staunchly pro-death in this context. As a criminal defense lawyer, I might be expected to categorically oppose capital punishment; under circumstances where culpability is beyond doubt, however, I have no problem with it at all, but for reasons other than those you might expect.Helmut's comments (edited slightly for grammar from the original):
It's well established that the death penalty is not a deterrent. I would argue that it's not even a penalty. And if it's neither a deterrent nor a penalty, what's the point? Follow my reasoning, here.
First, I approach the question from my own atheistic point of view. Death is nothing more than the permanent termination of consciousness. Once one's consciousness has been terminated, there can be no punishment, no joy, no amusement, no irritation, no nothing. By this reasoning, the death "penalty" is actually an end to the awareness that one is being punished, or, in other words, the premature end of punishment. If Mr. Killer is jailed on Tuesday and executed on Wednesday, he's only been punished for one day, after which his consciousness is humanely and mercifully extinguished. That doesn't strike me as particularly penal. I suspect that most people, when presented with a hypothetical choice between 40 years in a penitentiary and a swift, painless demise, would at least give serious consideration to the "easy way out", with emphasis on the word easy.
But most people do not share my godless take on things, so my argument must address the majority view. In the Christian tradition, there is an afterworld. Those who have accepted Jesus as their Lord and savior are admitted to Heaven, an eternal paradise. Now the various sects of Christianity have various means by which a sinner can be admitted to heaven. Baptism by immersion, confession and absolution, whatever. Even the most evil baby-raping murderer can enjoy Eternal Bliss, if he does what is necessary. If Mr. Killer has complied with the requirements, he attains paradise immediately after riding the spike. Again, not particularly penal.
Let's suppose, however, that our subject's crimes were so gross, so heinous, that even God can't forgive them. And to make matters worse, he's proud of his crimes, and professes an eagerness to commit even more and more egregious offenses. In such a case, Hell looms as the ultimate punishment. The doomed will spend eternity roasting on the coals and being tortured by Satan and his legions of lesser imps and demons.
"Aha!", says the pro-death Christian. "That's the ticket!" Or is it?
Eternity is a long, long time. And if we execute Mr. Killer at age 30, we've only added about 40 years to his torment. Do the math; 40 years is an incalculably, infinitesimally small percentage of eternity. It doesn't even equal the percentage of an ocean represented by a single molecule of water! By executing Mr. Killer, we have only increased his damnation by an amount too small to measure.
Life imprisonment, on the other hand, will consume 100% of the damned's Earthly life, during which time he may contemplate the horrible fate which awaits him. Consequently, such a fate imposes decades of temporal punishment on the criminal, followed by eternal punishment on his immortal soul. QED, the death penalty is less penal than life imprisonment.
As life imprisonment is more penal than death, it should be the preferred mode of punishing the worst among us. It has the additional benefits of allowing for correcting for racial bias in capital cases and righting the occasional wrongful conviction. Furthermore, the expense of keeping prisoners fed, clothed and housed for life is a small percentage of our total corrections budget. There is an economy of scale at work here. We could more than make up for it by not imprisoning people for possessing small amounts of marijuana, for example.
Now, you may argue that the death penalty serves other functions, such as providing "closure" to the victims and their families, or quenching our species' unique thirst for revenge. Well, that's fine. But the justice system doesn't exist to provide psychological remedies for the wronged, and in many states (including mine) the "closure" afforded by the death "penalty" is not available anyway, under any circumstances. So, let's drop the pretense that we're punishing anyone by executing them. If we're satisfying our bloodlust, let's just say so. And if we're not willing to say so, then we shouldn't be doing it.
I like this. The novel part is looking at the nature of "penalty," rather than justifications for punishment as social policy. Most philosophical arguments tend to consider the policy of capital punishment (CP) in terms of the broader society – a crime is a crime precisely because it harms others and, ostensibly, society as a whole. You're thinking about the actual penalty phase of the individual criminal by dropping the effect of CP on possible deterrence of would-be criminals. So, you move to a retributive-type argument.
To be pedantic, the main arguments in philosophy re CP come from three theoretical positions: that CP is/is not a deterrent in society regarding possible future crimes (future-oriented); that CP is/is not retribution for the crime already committed (past-oriented); that CP is wrong because criminals ought to and can undergo rehabilitation in which the punishment and motivation for rehabilitation stem from exclusion from society. [MT mentions the rehab issue]. All three are complicated further by the practical issue that CP is, in actual society, distributed unjustly according to race and means, and that the criminal justice system is fallible and, worse, often prosecutes erroneously and unjustly.
I tend to think, simply, that the latter consideration is good enough to get rid of CP. If somehow problems of both inequality and proof were overcome, I'd have to rethink this position. But it's good enough for me for now.
In your argument, there’s a tacking between deterrence and retributive views, and I think this is because you’ve constructed the argument to be directed at a specific audience: Christian pro-life, pro-CP people. Rehabilitative arguments often come from religious thinkers, for instance, but you’re looking at only those Christians making retributive claims. The idea behind retribution can take the form of eye for an eye (lex talionis) or the less religious Kantian view that the crime of murder is a kind of opting out of a society in which the Golden Rule applies (or categorical imperatives against using human beings as means, etc.). CP completes the opt-out. Case closed. The tack re deterrence is that belief in a miserable next few decades functions as more of a deterrent than death, whether one believes in an afterlife or one is an atheist.
In psychological terms, I'm not sure how much it matters if a criminal is executed after one day in prison or five years. Five years (and appeals, etc.) may actually engender hope that he'll see out his natural years for a criminal who fears death. Only the God-fearing criminal would fear hell/God – and that may actually be a deterrent for would-be criminals in the first place, as long as they're genuine believers. Tough to prove, though, in the absence of those hypothetical criminals. So, the psychological element may satisfy the religious person seeking CP for a criminal (retribution), but it’s unclear what effect it has on the criminal himself. In deterrence terms, knowing that one could be executed the following day after conviction could actually be more horrifying to the criminal and/or potential criminal, without resorting to the atheism-or-believer case. But framing the discussion in this way assumes that the "penalty" part of CP is terror at the prospect of death, not the death itself (and this is a deterrence argument).
I can see the merits of your move – it’s a sort of deconstructive critique of an inconsistent religious view. But I don’t know how much it extends to a broader argument against CP as criminal justice policy. For one thing, it grants Christians their most mythical beliefs as the basis for the argument and then builds a reductio out of those beliefs. The problem is that one has to grant them in the first place.
More manipulation of science
Via Mike the Mad Biologist, the CDC gets into the act of trumping scientists for religiopoliticos.
UPDATE:
See also Steve Gimbel's related discussion of "Einstein's Jewish science" at Philosophers' Playground.
Mike adds, "Anyone who has been following the War on Epidemiology isn't surprised by this–it's par for the course."Researchers organizing a federal panel on sexually transmitted diseases say the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention allowed a congressman to include two abstinence-only proponents, bypassing the scientific approval process.
Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., who chairs the House subcommittee on drug policy, questioned the balance of the original panel, which focused on the failure of abstinence-until-marriage programs. In e-mail to Health and Human Services officials, his office asked whether the CDC was "clear about the controversial nature of this session and its obvious anti-abstinence objective."
Last week the title of the panel was changed and two members were replaced. One of them was a Penn State student who was going to talk about how abstinence programs were tied to rising STD rates...
"At the CDC, they're beside themselves," said Jonathan Zenilman, president of the American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association and conference organizer. "These people aren't scientists; they haven't written anything. The only reason they're here is because of political pressure from the administration."
UPDATE:
See also Steve Gimbel's related discussion of "Einstein's Jewish science" at Philosophers' Playground.
Civic populism
Harry Boyte guest authors on Civic Populism at Peter Levine's blog. Please read, discuss.
Civic populism addresses the dysfunctions of a Me First Culture because it challenges the technocratic politics--domination by detached experts--that generates such a culture. Technocracy, spreading through society like a silent disease, presents itself as an objective set of truths, practices, and procedures. But it turns people into abstract categories. It decontextualizes problems from civic life. It privatizes the world and creates a pervasive sense of scarcity. It profoundly erodes a culture of equal respect.Civic populism counters the impersonal, hierarchical patterns of technocracy while transforming the Me First Culture of isolation, fear, consumerism and scarcity that is technocracy's degraded progeny. Civic populism retrieves citizen politics as the way we negotiate the plural, relational, narrative qualities of the human condition in order to solve problems and live together without violence. It revitalizes civic cultures of mediating institutions that have narrowed in recent decades to providing services to needy clients and consumers. It generates a spirit of abundance by tapping the enormous civic energies and talents now stifled by technocracy. Finally, civic populism cultivates civic habits and outlook among professionals and amateurs alike--an understanding of ourselves as citizens working alongside our fellow citizens, neither above nor below.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Rat catchers: a development project from a small corner of the world
Objective:To remove the health hazards associated with ridding farms of rats and improve the rate of extermination, by introducing an improved prototype of a traditional rat catching device at an affordable price.
Rationale: There are about 15,000 members of the Irula tribe in southern India's Tamil Nadu state, and many of them earn a living by catching rats from farms. Rats destroy a quarter of the grain grown on area farms each year. To combat this pest, Irula men use a traditional earthen pot fumigation method. Smoke is blown through their mouths, which affects their lungs, and leads to severe respiratory and heart problems. Not only that, but this method is highly inefficient, as it catches only two-fifths of the total rat population. The project will upgrade the Irula's technology with a new device that blows smoke through a hand-operated blower. It is made of steel, so it will not break like a mud pot. Four models have been manufactured at an affordable price.
Innovation/ Effectiveness: This is the first project that aims to alleviate the occupational health hazards inherent in catching rats. All activities are locally-based in remote villages. Advanced technology will improve the health of rat catchers and will enable them to catch and kill 70 percent more vermin. In addition, the community's unemployed women will construct these devices as a collective self-employment venture.
Death nonpenalty
Take a look at Roxtar's argument against capital punishment being a penalty at all.
I have to go out for a while, but I'll participate later here and there.
I have to go out for a while, but I'll participate later here and there.
Catapulting the propaganda
Via Stygius, see this piece in the Washington Post:
Career appointees at the Department of Agriculture were stunned last week to receive e-mailed instructions that include Bush administration "talking points" -- saying things such as "President Bush has a clear strategy for victory in Iraq" -- in every speech they give for the department.
"The President has requested that all members of his cabinet and sub-cabinet incorporate message points on the Global War on Terror into speeches, including specific examples of what each agency is doing to aid the reconstruction of Iraq," the May 2 e-mail from USDA speechwriter Heather Vaughn began.
The e-mail, sent to about 60 undersecretaries, assistant secretaries and other political appointees, was also sent to "a few people to whom it should not have gone," said the department's communications director, Terri Teuber . The career people, we are assured, are not being asked to spread the great news on Iraq in their talks to food stamp recipients, disadvantaged farmers, enviros or other folks...
Now, you might still be scratching your heads, trying to figure out how this is going to work when people expect a talk about agriculture issues. Not to worry. The attachments -- which can be viewed at http://www.washingtonpost.com/fedpage -- show how easy it is to work a little Iraq happy talk into just about anything....
Giving thanks on a Monday
After clawing ant-farm routes through the bouillon cube of pollen that DC has been for over a week, a fresh rain has arrived to wash it away. Spring chicken soup for allergies.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Science fiction future peak
An interesting bit of musing by our friendly solecist:
Riding the van out of the airport Friday night to the Park-and-Fly lot, with the planes floating down in the distant violet gloaming, an eerie recognition came over me that life today is as much like science fiction as it will ever get -- at least as far ahead as I can see. Some of my friends' kids may never fly in airplanes. They may never own cars. At some point twenty, thirty years ahead, they may not take for granted throwing a light switch in a dark room...
I think our future perception of all this will be as a kind of reverse science fiction -- in the sense that sci fi has until now always been presumed to take place in the future. The science fiction of my friends' children will take place in the past. When some of them are old, the omnipresent electric power of this time, and all the wonders that ran on it, will seem like an unfathomable occult force that saturated the world like a spell. They will tell stories about it in the flickering firelight, and their grandchildren will blink in amazement.
Homeless but blogful
Follow through the links on this one, beyond 3 Quarks Daily to Wandering Scribe, then to the BBC article. Check out the comments for today, especially the link to another blogger who has taken to trashing Wandering Scribe as a con artist.
It's all a curious case of trust, mistrust, the decent and the vile in human beings, and a big dose of serious paranoia in the blogworld.
It's all a curious case of trust, mistrust, the decent and the vile in human beings, and a big dose of serious paranoia in the blogworld.
Eurovision 2006
It looks to be absolutely super. Everyone has already talked up Lordi, the Finnish death metal band in Halloween garb, who has inspired much debate about Finnish identity and Eurovision victory strategy. But has anyone really paid attention to the fabulous darkhorse German band, Texas Lightning?
Texas Lightning (Germany) 'No, no never' 14-1
Germanic country music - what took them so long? While some might carp that this is an unfeasible concept (Spanish skiffle, anybody?), the quintet, Texas Lightning, prove their worth by teaming an Australian glamourpuss with permasmiling men in 10-gallon hats, wielding diddly guitars, double basses and ukuleles. There are times when you suspect that this is just one big postmodern joke and that Texas Lightning might suddenly peel off masks to reveal mischievously grinning Scissor Sisters, but the song is a little cracker (Patsy Cline is alive and well and whooping it up in on the Autobahn). Would it be appallingly xenophobic to suggest that if they get up early enough on the day, Texas Lightning might be able to leave their towels on the coveted top spot? Of course it would.
Forking duck
Who is the speaker and what is she referring to?
...it's all great fun, then you get halfway through and you think, "What the hell have I agreed to do, it's too hard, too stressful." And then you get over that and it's fine, and then you absolutely love it for a couple of weeks, and then you start thinking, "Oh my God, is this ever going to end?" and then you realise it's not going to end and you have to make the best of every night. And then you start to learn again, and you do that for a little while, and then you go back to thinking, "When will this fucking be over?" and then you get to the place where you're like, "Oh my God, it's going to be over soon, and this is such a wonderful experience!"' She forks in some duck salad.
Bomb Brazil
Brazil has joined the select group of countries with the capability of enriching uranium as a means of generating energy.A new centrifuge facility was formally opened on Friday at the Resende nuclear plant in the state of Rio de Janeiro.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
One down, one hundred to go
In the spirit of the Wege's call to arms below to call rotten pundits on their rotten punditry, Michael Bérubé and Editor and Publisher go to work on the hopelessly helpless Richard Cohen of the Washington Post. French-bashing by Cohen is involved, of course.
Oh, and if you want to see a bit of French-bashing toolery (pronounced "tuilerie") so inane it's inanal, see these wingers at work!
Oh, and if you want to see a bit of French-bashing toolery (pronounced "tuilerie") so inane it's inanal, see these wingers at work!
Bolivia wins
Bolivia appeared to have won its gamble in nationalising its energy reserves after Latin American countries made peace at an emergency summit.
Evo Morales, the first indigenous Bolivian President, was attacked by some as a "radical" and "populist" this week after he sent in troops to reassert sovereignty over the country's massive natural gas reserves. But leaders of Argentina, Venezuela and Brazil agreed to open talks on new prices for the impoverished Andean nation's natural gas at a summit in the Argentine city of Puerto Iguazo.
Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva suggested the state-owned energy company Petrobras could reverse its earlier decision to freeze investment in Bolivia after the takeover.
"As a company, Petrobras will always invest wherever it sees a chance to obtain a return for its investments," Lula said after meeting with President Morales, Argentine President Nestor Kirchner and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Reconquista, huh?
A post by David Neiwert from a few weeks ago on the "Reconquista" myth - the rightwing fantasy that Mexicans are engaging in a subtle invasion of the US Southwest - continues Neiwert's important documentation of the racist-nativist roots in the right's immigration theology. One Glenn Spencer apparently drives the ideology upon which commentators such as big-blogger Michelle Malkin and others rest their own screeds about "what if whites did that?" There's more to learn on this - click Neiwert's links - but here's a sample of Reconquista / Minuteman thinking:
To turn this in a different direction, I admit that I don't understand American nativism of the sort embodied by the Reconquista / Minutemen agitators. I don't know what is defended nor what nativist claims exist apart from the legalistic idea of citizenship. But even in the latter case, unless Minutemen really do want those jobs that many immigrants accept, isn't mere citizenship an empty value? When that emptiness is filled in with nationalism or patriotism, isn't it the case that the object of nationalism and patriotism for the US context is a multivalent, morally and culturally pluralistic society?
It seems from most angles difficult to avoid falling into racist justifications on the question. This may be why Reconquista mythologizers and Minutemen resort to accusing latinos of racism when they express latino identity and solidarity: a classic move of projecting one's shortcomings or deepest fears onto one's enemy (see Karl Rove for the political version of this move).
The problem for me is that if I try to understand the R/M people, this requires me to put myself in their place in order to attempt a self-explanation of their claims. When I try to put myself in their place, I find no place there.
The so-called reconquista, an alleged plot to turn several American states into a Mexican state or some kind of puppet government controlled by Mexico, has been a top concern for Spencer for years. Back in 1999, he put it like this: "The consul general says Mexico is reconquering California. A Mexican intellectual suggests that anyone who doesn't like Mexicans should leave California. What else do you need to hear? RECONQUISTA IS REAL... . EVERY ILLEGAL ALIEN IN OUR NATION MUST BE DEPORTED IMMEDIATELY. ... IF WE CAN BOMB THE TV STATION IN BELGRADE [in the former Yugoslavia] WE CAN SHUT DOWN [U.S. Spanish-language stations] TELEMUNDO AND UNIVISION."It's generally a good thing to be able to attempt to place oneself in another's position in order to better understand it - this is the core of the moral life, the internalized basis for respect and obligation. Liberal pluralistic nations are based upon this understanding in that they attempt to design institutions that are fair to differing belief systems and moral and cultural perspectives. Some individual people have fairly expansive moral and cultural imaginations; others don't, but might try anyway; and yet others simply don't.
To turn this in a different direction, I admit that I don't understand American nativism of the sort embodied by the Reconquista / Minutemen agitators. I don't know what is defended nor what nativist claims exist apart from the legalistic idea of citizenship. But even in the latter case, unless Minutemen really do want those jobs that many immigrants accept, isn't mere citizenship an empty value? When that emptiness is filled in with nationalism or patriotism, isn't it the case that the object of nationalism and patriotism for the US context is a multivalent, morally and culturally pluralistic society?
It seems from most angles difficult to avoid falling into racist justifications on the question. This may be why Reconquista mythologizers and Minutemen resort to accusing latinos of racism when they express latino identity and solidarity: a classic move of projecting one's shortcomings or deepest fears onto one's enemy (see Karl Rove for the political version of this move).
The problem for me is that if I try to understand the R/M people, this requires me to put myself in their place in order to attempt a self-explanation of their claims. When I try to put myself in their place, I find no place there.
Happy birthday, Sigmund
Today is Freud's 150th birthday.
UPDATE:
See this lovely piece on Freud by Jon at Posthegemeony.
UPDATE 2:
See also The Naked Gaze's interesting piece on Freud, eels, and doodles.
UPDATE:
See this lovely piece on Freud by Jon at Posthegemeony.
UPDATE 2:
See also The Naked Gaze's interesting piece on Freud, eels, and doodles.
Friday, May 05, 2006
How does this thing work?
Inspired by My Left Wing, I thought it might be useful to remind ourselves - as the administration and the right yuck it up about Zarqawi's weapon handlery - just how fortunate we are.
UPDATE:
And here's a reminder from Tom Tomorrow regarding the Kennedy drunk driving case (or pill-popping driving). See here. Frankly, I enjoy a little Sunday afternoon methamphetamine and crack driving. The only problem is when you have one of those really bad trips and you discover how Michelle Malkin's mind works.
UPDATE:
And here's a reminder from Tom Tomorrow regarding the Kennedy drunk driving case (or pill-popping driving). See here. Frankly, I enjoy a little Sunday afternoon methamphetamine and crack driving. The only problem is when you have one of those really bad trips and you discover how Michelle Malkin's mind works.
Unfighting terrorism
After four years, numerous appeals, millions of dollars, and a massive investment of government personnel and resources, the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui concluded Wednesday with a life sentence. Many have cited the case as an example of how difficult it is to try terrorists in civilian courts. In fact, it is an object lesson in how the government's overreaching has undermined our security.
Four years ago Moussaoui was on the verge of pleading guilty to offenses that would have resulted in a life sentence. But he was unwilling to accept the government's insistence that he admit to being the 20th hijacker of Sept. 11, 2001 -- an allegation the government has long since dropped.
For almost two years, the case was stalled as the government sought Moussaoui's execution while denying him access to witnesses in its control who had testimony establishing that he was not involved in the Sept. 11 plot at all. Due process has long required the government to turn over such "exculpatory" evidence, but the government, citing national security, refused to afford Moussaoui access to this evidence. In October 2003 the trial court offered a reasonable solution: Allow the trial to proceed but eliminate the death penalty, because that's what the government's exculpatory evidence related to. The government refused that solution and spent several more years trying Moussaoui. The case ended where it began -- with Moussaoui facing life in prison.
Meanwhile, at a secret CIA "black site" prison, the United States is holding the alleged mastermind of Sept. 11, Khalid Sheik Mohammed. And at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it has Mohamed al-Qahtani, who the government now claims is the real would-be 20th hijacker. But the administration can't try either of these men, because any such proceeding would turn into a trial of the United States' own tactics in the war on terrorism. The CIA has reportedly water-boarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed -- a practice in which the suspect is made to fear that he is drowning in order to encourage him to talk. And Army logs report that interrogators threatened Qahtani with dogs, made him strip naked and wear women's underwear, put him on a leash and made him bark like a dog, injected him with intravenous fluids and barred him from the bathroom so that he urinated on himself. With these shortsighted and inhumane tactics, the administration essentially immunized the real culprits, so it was left seeking the execution of a man who was not involved in Sept. 11.
The Moussaoui case is emblematic of the administration's approach to fighting terrorism. It has repeatedly overreached and sought symbolic victories, adopting tactics that have undermined its ability to achieve real security while disregarding less flashy but more effective means of protecting us. In the early days after Sept. 11, Attorney General John Ashcroft sought to reassure us with repeated announcements of the detention of large numbers of "terror suspects" -- ultimately the government admitted to detaining 5,000 foreign nationals in the first two years after Sept. 11. Yet to this day not one of them stands convicted of a terrorist offense. Similarly, the administration launched a nationwide ethnic profiling campaign, calling in 8,000 young men for FBI interviews and 80,000 more for registration, fingerprinting and photographing by immigration authorities, simply because they came from Arab and Muslim countries. Not one of those 88,000 has been convicted of terrorism....
Cinco de Mayo
It's most appropriate to take a reflection for the day from Madam Mayo:
No, the Cinco de Mayo is not Mexico's Independence Day. It is the commemoration of the Mexican victory against France in the first Battle of Puebla, May 5, 1862. The second battle of Puebla, a year later, was won by the French Imperial Forces, which then went on to occupy Mexico City and install Maximilian von Habsburg on the Mexican throne. Curiously, most Americans have no idea that France invaded our sister republic. It's quite a story (and one with many parallels to the current U.S. imbroglio in Iraq). I've been marinating my imagination in it for the past few years, as I am writing a novel set in Mexico City during the period. Apropos of the Cinco de Mayo, a little note here about General Achille Bazaine, who is turning into one of my favorite characters. Perhaps you will see why when you read this excerpt from With Maximilian in Mexico, a memoir by Sara Yorke Stevenson, an American who was resident in Mexico City at the time. She writes:He was a plain-looking man, short and thick-set, whose plebian features one might search in vain for a spark of genius or or a ray of imagination; and yet under the commonplace exterior dwelt a kindly spirit, an intelligence of no mean order, and, despite a certain coarseness of thought and expression too common among Frenchmen, a soul upon which the romance of life had impressed its mark in lines of fire.
Radioactive insects
At Appletree:
The old tanks of nuclear waste have been leaking for years, releasing as much as 1 million gallons of nuclear waste into the groundwater. Some local [Hanford] plants, cockroaches, wasps, and ants are measurably radioactive. The nuclear waste continues to ooze underground, down toward the nearby Columbia River.
An Army of One
Let it not be said that we here at this blog don't report all the good news having to do with Iraq.
A former lieutenant in Saddam Hussein's army on Friday will become the first Iraqi to graduate from the Army's Ranger School, a 61-day training ordeal that pushes soldiers to their physical and mental limits in forests, swamps and mountains."I have a big, huge faith in the future of Iraq and that's why I'm here," said Capt. Arkan, who was identified only by his first name to protect him and his family back home.
Arkan, 25, a lieutenant in the Iraqi army in Baghdad at the time of the U.S.-led invasion, said he felt no animosity toward the United States when bombs began falling on the city in March 2003.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Norway banned from the treehouse
From First Draft, also via Norwegianity, another Bushian hissyfit:
U.S. President George Bush has declined to meet Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg at the White House, said reports reaching here from Oslo on Tuesday.Bush's staff would not arrange the meeting because of the Norwegian left-center coalition government's criticism of the war in Iraq, and Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen's support for a boycott of Israeli products, according to Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK).
Jan Petersen, who was Norway's foreign minister in the last center-right government, told NRK that he feared a phone conversation Stoltenberg had with Bush shortly after last fall's election put a damper on relations between the United States and Norway.
In the conversation, Stoltenberg told Bush that he would order the withdrawal of Norwegian officers from Iraq.
Janne Haaland Matlary, a professor at the University of Oslo, said her sources also indicate that Norway no longer is part of the "inner circle" at NATO.
Bad pundits
I kinda like this idea. This gets at an important part of politics - the framing, the message, and the people who massage and manage them. But it's also crucial for reconstructing politics that liberal blogs learn to "create." Blogs are a medium that could potentially be used for piecing together good policy through proposals, criticism, and revision. I often worry that the engagement with the right - whether bloggers or pundits - is a waste of time because it's carried out on their terms: ranting disdain of opposing views.
The commentariat is under fire like never before and post-Colbert at the Correspondents' dinner, their studiously "not getting it" is rubbing people the wrong way, especially bloggers.
Bad timing. Except for the odd primary here and there this is a perfect time of year for bloggers to rip the stuffing out of the plush-bottomed talking heads. After two decades of talk show shouting people are more than ready to shout back.
Before the Democrats can really get going, there's a lot of dismantling that needs to be done. Now and the next few weeks are the time when we need to take down as many pundits and talk show hosts as possible.
Not generically but specifically going after the pompous gas bags who have been first to rely on RNC talking points and most resistant to any kind of "serious" back and forth on critical issues.
How many can we damage or take down? Well, that's getting into Powerline territory. It's not about the scalps, it's about this being a necessary step. People need to get their news from other sources. Me, I'd love to see a Sunday morning talk show boycott. That crap rots your brains, infuriates you and leaves you unfit to be around. Listen to some music instead and rest your brain for the coming week so when opportunities to do good arise you can take advantage of them.
Bringing down the commentariat is doing good. The right has played a disingenuous game, trashing the media while coopting them at the same time. If liberals start pushing the idea of getting news online instead from the TV, people would start getting better quality news. And blogs are a big part of that. The role of the blog is not so much to create but to point. Point at accurate news, meaningful analysis, serious dialogues. All the things most Americans haven't been getting.
And it's also time to reward those journalists who have done good, who have reported the truth and aggrieved the powerful. Your best rule of thumb is pretty simple. Any reporter the right complains about is someone who's probably worth reading.
Security trap
At TPMCafe, John Ikenberry does a nice job of looking at the errors of the Bush administration in the grand geopolitical scheme of things (via 3 Quarks Daily). I know I go on and on about this same set of problems of legitimacy, sovereignty, and the overlooked dimensions of globalization. Ikenberry does a nice clear job here of summarizing some of the crucial points.
A realist analysis - based as it is in the analysis of relations between states - misses far too much of the dynamics between NGOs, civil society movements, the evolving nature of international legitimacy, and popular will and its effectiveness or lack thereof. Iraq is a liberal internationalist adventure only if one assumes the neocons' "democratization" claim. Given that democratization was an afterthought justification (to WMDs, alleged aggression, terrorism sponsorhip, etc., etc.) for the war, the liberal internationalist explanation serves as an ex post facto justification rather than a genuine normative argument about this administration's foreign policy.
Further, as Ikenberry points out, and I've repeated ad nauseam, the legitimacy of unilateral power is only partly based in economic and military might. The US, during the Cold War, provided the better of two opposing normative claims about society. The choice was fairly easy given the empirical evidence of "success" in fulfilling those normative claims on both sides. Despite Cold War abuses by the US, they never rose to the extremes of Stalin's purges, pogroms, mass forced migrations, and other crimes.
The US had in its favor a stronger claim to legitimacy in that a democratic and relatively free society offered a better vision of the future than one that was growing increasingly oppressive and regressive.
The state, I suggest, is now shaped on three sides – by economic globalization (and its transnational financial actors), by domestic polities and representatives, and by other transnational entities that often place demands on states to take up the democratic deficits in domestic politics. The state as a central facilitator of economic globalization and of command economies is undergoing its own challenges of democratic legitimacy. The US, as the central power player, is subject to the most scrutiny and the loudest demands to live up to the ideals that gained it international legitimacy in the first place. But now these ideals are developed in new directions and by new and evolving entities while current US foreign policy remains trapped in the intellectual patterns of the Cold War, including its notion of the nature of power. This anachronistic logic risks dooming the US to a continuing loss of legitimacy in the international sphere.
Iraq poignantly represents this logic: the fundamental contradiction and trap of having used might for the wrong reasons, changing the reasons to fit whatever signs of success arise; a growing loss of control over those signs or situations; and the inability to exit the fiasco "succesfully," in any sense of the word. Withdrawal may be the best practical option for the US, but it entails moral failure on top of moral failure. In the context of Ikenberry's essay, it also admits of a deeper failure to uphold a modicum of international legitimacy, as well as a failure to hold onto a respectable use of power, and possibly means a weakening of that very power inherited through the end of the Cold War.
Globally, I still subscribe to the view that we are operating on new political and ethical territory. Global civil society organizations use the communication and information technologies of economic globalization in order to challenge and reform the limits and legitimacy of state and global institutional power. This is accomplished not only through shaming and other techniques, but also through serving to inform moral and political obligations and commitments of domestic polities that apply pressure on state power from “below.” This creates a feedback loop of publics: not only in the (Deweyan) sense of publics created as a response to perceived sets of indirect consequences to actions, but also of the global flow of information transforming domestic concerns and pressures, and thus the nature of democratic states.
Global civil society has little direct effect on states except through publicizing transgressions of the emerging and perhaps necessarily vague sense of a global ethic. Where it does have the most effect is in the loop through which global civil publics themselves are formed out of perceived effects of actions and the seeking of solutions. Rather than this entailing a new fixed form of liberalism in which certain values, beliefs, and commitments are instilled within a polity and filter up and down to the state level, the process is experimental in fits and starts. Civil society, of course, takes on some characteristics of states when its players become powerful actors. These actors are nonetheless always dependent on the public interests that give rise to and support them, unlike stronger states. To the extent that civil society actors represent themselves as saviors, they inadvertently imply that the public they purportedly represent is not democratic.
At this point, however, we are subject to feeble claims by the administration and its supporters that "the media" doesn't accurately report its message or alleged successes. Continuing reliance on demonizing "the media" in addition to all political opponents and criticism is the deathknell of the weak, which is perhaps an even more dangerous situation than we've yet seen from this administration.
I truly dislike the standard categories for thinking through the new and changing forms of global politics. The Iraq War, for instance, is analyzed mostly through the traditional lens of realism or neo-realism or as viewed as the product of a brand of Wilsonian liberal internationalism. Despite views to the contrary (see this post of mine, and then this exchange at Lawyers, Guns, and Money in the comments), I think neither lens provides a clear picture, whether descriptively or normatively.Bush foreign policy is failing – but it is important to come to grips with why it is failing. To be sure, it is failing because Bush stumbled into an epic disaster in Iraq. But the problems are not just about policy incompetence, ideological blindness, or high risk policy choices gone bad. I would argue that Bush foreign policy is failing – in the large sense – because it is inconsistent with the realities of a transforming international system that shapes and limits the way the United States can effectively exercise power and – more importantly -- assert its authority.
Because of this, the Bush administration has run into trouble, or as I would put it, it has gotten America caught in a “security trap.” It is a security trap in the sense that as the Bush administration tries to solve the nation’s security problems by exercising its power or using force, it tends to produce resistance and backlash that leaves the country more isolated, bereft of authority, and, ultimately, insecure.
The problem is that when liberals take over the reins of foreign policy, they too will fall into this trap unless they understand the problem and devise a grand strategy that works with rather than against these evolving global realities...
Two other shifts in the global system reinforce this “problem” of American power. The end of the Cold War has eliminated a common threat that tied the United States to a global array of allies. The end of this Cold War threat has meant that the U.S. does not need these allies in the same way as in the past but it also means that other states do not need the U.S. as much as in the past. As a result, American power is less clearly tied to a common purpose (Cold War: containment of communism. Today: not sure). This makes American power less intrinsically legitimate and desirable in the eyes of states and peoples around the world.
The other long term shift is the rise of democratic community. The world is increasingly filled with democracies – and together these democracies form a sort of democratic community. This fact of democratic community has paradoxical effects on American foreign policy. On the one hand, it gives the United States the ready access to partners and the ability to pursue complex forms of cooperation. American power itself is seen – because the U.S. is a democracy – as more benign and accessible to other democracies. The United State, in turn, is surrounded by affluent, capable, and friendly states. On the other hand, these democratic states are not likely to respond to domination or coercion by the United States. Indeed, they will expect the United States to operate within rules and institutions of the democratic community....
A realist analysis - based as it is in the analysis of relations between states - misses far too much of the dynamics between NGOs, civil society movements, the evolving nature of international legitimacy, and popular will and its effectiveness or lack thereof. Iraq is a liberal internationalist adventure only if one assumes the neocons' "democratization" claim. Given that democratization was an afterthought justification (to WMDs, alleged aggression, terrorism sponsorhip, etc., etc.) for the war, the liberal internationalist explanation serves as an ex post facto justification rather than a genuine normative argument about this administration's foreign policy.
Further, as Ikenberry points out, and I've repeated ad nauseam, the legitimacy of unilateral power is only partly based in economic and military might. The US, during the Cold War, provided the better of two opposing normative claims about society. The choice was fairly easy given the empirical evidence of "success" in fulfilling those normative claims on both sides. Despite Cold War abuses by the US, they never rose to the extremes of Stalin's purges, pogroms, mass forced migrations, and other crimes.
The US had in its favor a stronger claim to legitimacy in that a democratic and relatively free society offered a better vision of the future than one that was growing increasingly oppressive and regressive.
The state, I suggest, is now shaped on three sides – by economic globalization (and its transnational financial actors), by domestic polities and representatives, and by other transnational entities that often place demands on states to take up the democratic deficits in domestic politics. The state as a central facilitator of economic globalization and of command economies is undergoing its own challenges of democratic legitimacy. The US, as the central power player, is subject to the most scrutiny and the loudest demands to live up to the ideals that gained it international legitimacy in the first place. But now these ideals are developed in new directions and by new and evolving entities while current US foreign policy remains trapped in the intellectual patterns of the Cold War, including its notion of the nature of power. This anachronistic logic risks dooming the US to a continuing loss of legitimacy in the international sphere.
Iraq poignantly represents this logic: the fundamental contradiction and trap of having used might for the wrong reasons, changing the reasons to fit whatever signs of success arise; a growing loss of control over those signs or situations; and the inability to exit the fiasco "succesfully," in any sense of the word. Withdrawal may be the best practical option for the US, but it entails moral failure on top of moral failure. In the context of Ikenberry's essay, it also admits of a deeper failure to uphold a modicum of international legitimacy, as well as a failure to hold onto a respectable use of power, and possibly means a weakening of that very power inherited through the end of the Cold War.
Globally, I still subscribe to the view that we are operating on new political and ethical territory. Global civil society organizations use the communication and information technologies of economic globalization in order to challenge and reform the limits and legitimacy of state and global institutional power. This is accomplished not only through shaming and other techniques, but also through serving to inform moral and political obligations and commitments of domestic polities that apply pressure on state power from “below.” This creates a feedback loop of publics: not only in the (Deweyan) sense of publics created as a response to perceived sets of indirect consequences to actions, but also of the global flow of information transforming domestic concerns and pressures, and thus the nature of democratic states.
Global civil society has little direct effect on states except through publicizing transgressions of the emerging and perhaps necessarily vague sense of a global ethic. Where it does have the most effect is in the loop through which global civil publics themselves are formed out of perceived effects of actions and the seeking of solutions. Rather than this entailing a new fixed form of liberalism in which certain values, beliefs, and commitments are instilled within a polity and filter up and down to the state level, the process is experimental in fits and starts. Civil society, of course, takes on some characteristics of states when its players become powerful actors. These actors are nonetheless always dependent on the public interests that give rise to and support them, unlike stronger states. To the extent that civil society actors represent themselves as saviors, they inadvertently imply that the public they purportedly represent is not democratic.
At this point, however, we are subject to feeble claims by the administration and its supporters that "the media" doesn't accurately report its message or alleged successes. Continuing reliance on demonizing "the media" in addition to all political opponents and criticism is the deathknell of the weak, which is perhaps an even more dangerous situation than we've yet seen from this administration.
Digby on liberals
I picked this up via Peter Daou. Digby does the necessary, the urgent, the good, and the true.
Ok. Let's go over this again, shall we? Let us stipulate that the left blogosphere is a bunch of shrieking freaks who have completely lost our marbles. We are rude, crude and out of control. But louder than the other side? Because of some blogswarms? If only.
For the last twenty years we have had your rightwing radio, your rightwing TV, your rightwing publishing, your rightwing speakers bureaus and your rightwing magazines and your rightwing pulpits. Then you have your imbalanced panels on news shows, your intermarried politicos and journalists and your faux liberal punditocrisy. Yet, our little blogswarms have the entire journalistic establishment all atwitter, wondering what has happened to the discourse?
The entire DC establishment went stark raving bonkers for eight years, followed by nearly five years of a kind of courtier sycophancy we haven't seen since Louis XVI. I do not know the explanation for why this happened, although I have my suspicions. (The question brings out almost as many possibilities as "why did we invade Iraq?") But it happened. I saw it with my own eyes. Now they decide that something's gone wrong?
Are we "louder" now? Certainly. We were veritably silent before. But the entire rightwing media infrastructure still spews out its disgusting bile on a daily basis. perhaps the sound of it has become so familiar to those who live and work in Washington that they no longer hear it. To those of us in the "fever swamp" it is a little alarming. On 6/6/06, Ann Coulter will release her new book about liberals called "Godless." This is on the heels of Ramesh Ponnuru's new one called "The Party of Death." Hannity's last book was called "Deliver us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism and Liberalism".
You see, the real difference between the Right blogosphere and the Left is that the Left blogosphere is angry at the ideology and governance of the Republican party and the media who report on it. We believe the political press has been complicit where it has not been weak and we are taking our complaint directly to them, loudly and in no uncertain terms. It's angry and vitriolic, but it's political.
The right blogosphere, on the other hand, is no longer outraged at the Democratic party. They think they are clowns --- they can barely get off a good Teddy Kennedy joke before nodding off. And except for the war correspondents whom they believe are cowardly and are refusing to report the good news in Iraq, the energy has gone out of their liberal media critique. But, make no mistake, they are still very, very angry --- at rank and file Americans like me.
The gripe on the right side is that "liberals" literally shouldn't exist. We are Godless, death-loving traitors whose very existence is a blight on the American way of life. They don't hate our leadership. They hate us personally.
This post by Thomas Crown at RedState sums it up nicely, I think:I repeat: Should the entire American Left fall over dead tomorrow, I would rejoice, and order pizza to celebrate. They are not my countrymen; they are animals who happen to walk upright and make noises that approximate speech. They are below human. I look forward to seeing each and every one in Hell.
Why are Germans orange?
Germans love to fake 'n' bake. So much so that the skin colors in late winter are postively alarming -- ranging from jaundice yellow to Tuscan terracotta.
Don't believe the hype
Rodger Payne:
In mid-March, Michigan History Professor Juan Cole had an excellent piece "Fishing for a Pretext to Squeeze Iran" on the Truthdig website.
In the article, Cole reveals some of the words uttered by Iranian President Ahmadinejad that have not been widely quoted in the US:Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state.In the piece, Cole also points out many of the same facts about Iran's alleged nuclear program that I have mentioned.
In fact, the Iranian regime has gone further, calling for the Middle East to be a nuclear-weapons-free zone. On Feb. 26, Ahmadinejad said: “We too demand that the Middle East be free of nuclear weapons; not only the Middle East, but the whole world should be free of nuclear weapons.”
None of Iran's actions in pursuit of nuclear energy are illegal (only the secrecy), its research facilities are not especially sophisticated, and the best guess of the US intelligence community is that an Iranian bomb is a decade away -- under worst-case assumptions.
Professor Cole also recasts some of Ahmadinejad's words that have been often quoted in the US:President Ahmadinejad, it should be freely admitted, has, through his lack of diplomatic skills and his maladroitness, given his enemies important propaganda tools. Unlike his predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier. He went to an anti-Zionist conference and quoted Ayatollah Khomeini, saying that the “Occupation regime” must “vanish.” This statement about Israel does not necessarily imply violence. After all, Ariel Sharon made the occupation regime in the Gaza Strip vanish. The quote was translated in the international press, however, as a wish that “Israel be wiped off the map,” and this inaccurate translation has now become a tag line for all newspaper articles written about Iran in Western newspapers.This coincides with what I wrote yesterday about the way the administration is manipulating its rhetoric to make Iran sound like a bigger threat than it is. Nuclear Iran has noticed too, and the media is again behaving like a lapdog rather than a watchdog.
In another speech, Ahmadinejad argued that Germans rather than Palestinians should have suffered a loss of territory for the establishment of a Jewish state, if the Germans perpetrated the Holocaust. This argument is an old one in the Middle East, but it was immediately alleged that Ahmadinejad was advocating the shipping of Israelis to Europe. That was not what he said.
Confession games
People might confess if they were beaten or inhumanely interrogated. Irrational people might be tricked into confessing. But there seems to be no place in the rational actor model for false confessions.
The granddaddy of all games, however, suggests that rational people might confess to crimes that they did not commit. The prisoner's dilema is at core a story of how prisoner's may be induced to confess -- irrespective of whether or not they are guilty. If you face a high enough prospect of conviction if an alleged codefendant finks, and if you will be given a lower sentence if you confess first, it can be entirely rational to falsely confess.
So here's a testable hypothesis -- a disproportionate number of false confessions will occur when the confessing defendant is alleged to have a codefendant. Indeed a cursory review I did a few years back of cases posted at The Innocence Project suggest that this might in fact be the case.
You can find more information of the tragedy of wrongful convictions at either of these blogs: www.truthaboutfalseconfessions.com (operated by Alan Hirsch) or http://blog.law.northwestern.edu/bluhm/false_confessions (operated by Steve Drizin).
Rolling
From Decorabilia:
Jim lays claim to a nice little phrase: the "Laugh-a-Minutemen." © Decorabilia.
The Minutemen: perpetual comedy machine.UPDATE:As Ali chanted "Minutemen go home!" through a bullhorn, Gilchrist treated his message as a metaphorical call to arms.
"Minutemen, stand your ground. Do not fire unless fired upon, and if it's war he wants, then let it begin here," Gilchrist cried.
Gilchrist then yelled, "Let's roll," and the Minutemen boarded a fleet of RVs, campers and cars to begin their cross-country trek aimed at raising awareness of their cause.
Jim lays claim to a nice little phrase: the "Laugh-a-Minutemen." © Decorabilia.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Bio-chem suit
Cheney has some odd fetishes.
Purdum reports that Cheney travels with a chemical-biological suit at all times. When he gave his friend Robin West and his twin children a ride to the White House a couple of years ago, West commented on the fact that Cheney’s motorcade varied its daily path. “And he said, ‘Yeah, we take different routes so that “The Jackal” can’t get me,’” West tells Purdum. “And then there was this big duffel bag in the middle of the backseat, and I said, ‘What’s that? It’s not very roomy in here.’ And [Cheney] said, ‘No, because it’s a chemical-biological suit,’ and he looked at it and said, ‘Robin, there’s only one. You lose.’”
Deconstruct before you reconstruct
Glenn Greenwald discusses the new theme of some on the right: we're not manly enough in Iraq (manly, in an Ann Coulter kind of way). This means turning off the "compassionate conservatism" button, overcoming "white guilt," and killing everything in sight. "Hearts and minds".... Here's a sample of such suggestions:
...Which is why there are times when we really should turn off the “smart” bombs and show our seriousness by putting the world on notice that, when we believe the situation calls for it, we are willing to ignore the inevitable bad press and the howls of protest from human rights groups, and exhibit a show of strength and military professionalism that is politically disinterested and tactically thorough and lethal.Robert Farley also has a nice discussion of Greenwald's post.
Of course, no one wishes to see innocent civilians die (only the unserious make the claim that those who support what they consider to be a necessary war somehow luxuriate in collateral deaths). But at the same time, from a practical standpoint, there is nothing wrong with fighting a war as if it is a war—and sometimes the only way to disabuse the enemy of the notion that we are constrained by a moral calculus that makes little sense in urban combat situations is to refuse to show the kind of restraint they have come to anticipate and count on.
Make sure to praise your coffee today
UPDATE:
While we're at it, why not your groovy shirt too? Here's some Donovan (and here) to help you out:
Do you have a shirt that you really love,
One that you feel so groovy in ?
You don't even mind if it starts to fade,
That only makes it nicer still.
I love my shirt, I love my shirt,
My shirt is so comfortably lovely.
I love my shirt, I love my shirt,
My shirt is so comfortably lovely.
Do you have some jeans that you really love,
Ones that you feel so groovy in ?
You don't even mind if they start to fray
That only makes them nicer still.
I love my jeans, I love my jeans,
My jeans are so comfortably lovely.
I love my jeans, I love my jeans,
My jeans are so comfortably lovely.
When they are taken to the cleaners,
I can't wait to get them home again.
Yes, I take 'em to the cleaners
And there they wash them in a stream,
Scrub a rub dub dub
And there they wash them in a stream -
Know what I mean.
Do you have some shoes that you really love,
Ones that you feel so flash in ?
You don't even mind if they start to get some holes in
That only makes them nicer still.
I love my shoes, I love my shoes,
My shoes are so comfortably lovely.
I love my jeans, I love my jeans,
My jeans are so comfortably lovely.
I love my shirt, I love my shirt,
In fact I love my wardrobe.
I love my shirt, I love my shirt,
My shirt is so comfortably lovely....
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Disorientation
Oh, that's okay. 40% isn't yet cutting into the investor class.
Most American young people can't find Iraq on a map, even though U.S. troops have been there for more than three years, according to a new geographic literacy study released on Tuesday.
Fewer than 4 in 10 Americans aged 18-24 in a survey could place Iraq on an unlabeled map of the Middle East, a study conducted for National Geographic found. Only about one-quarter of respondents could find Iran and Israel on the same map.
Shocking
New Army documents released by the American Civil Liberties Union today reveal that Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez ordered interrogators to "go to the outer limits" to get information from detainees. The documents also show that senior government officials were aware of abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan before the Abu Ghraib scandal broke.
Invade Japan
Via Political Theory Daily Review comes this article on Japan's push to grow its nuclear industry.
Energy-hungry Japan is revving up its drive to secure uranium abroad as global demand for nuclear power rises amid stubbornly high oil and gas prices and growing environmental concerns. Major Japanese trading and energy firms are looking at multibillion yen investments in uranium mine projects, with electronics conglomerate Toshiba in February purchasing Westinghouse, the US power plant arm of British Nuclear Fuels, for about US$5.4 billion. Meanwhile, the government, which attaches great importance to nuclear power as a key to ensuring national energy security, is also considering assistance to help domestic firms in the intensifying global competition for fuel at nuclear power plants. Among those measures are financial aid and more investment-insurance coverage by government-affiliated organizations. Japan is already the world's third-largest nuclear power nation in terms of the number of civilian nuclear plants in operation. Uranium prices are climbing as energy-hungry China and India are stepping up construction of nuclear power plants to fuel their high-flying economies, while some industrialized countries, including the US and Britain, are moving to build new nuclear power plants after many years of suspension following nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island in the US in 1979 and Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986. Nuclear power generation has begun to come under the spotlight again due to growing environmental concerns as well as the high prices for oil and gas. Nuclear power plants generate much less carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas widely blamed for global warming, than coal-fired facilities. Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power generation are not available in sufficient amounts - and at affordable prices.
Bolivian nationalization of resources
As you've seen by now, Evo Morales has ordered the Bolivian military to take control of their natural gas industry. This action mirrors that taken by Chavez in Venezuela a few years ago. The latter has actually been rather successful since foreign oil companies have mostly met the new obligations willingly in order to continue earning massive sums from Venezuela's petroleum resources.
The language used in the press yesterday and today is "seized," which underscores the claim that this is an aggressive taking of resources that belong to others. One main thing to keep in mind - a big part of the reason Morales is now president of Bolivia - is that Bolivia in the past (like many "developing" countries) has owned nearly none of their own national resources. That honor went to Brazil, the US, and others. As such, the country has remained in extreme poverty.
This may be an over-simplification but the tradeoff is between foreign ownership of resources (and little trickle-down, but at least a "healthy" investment climate!) versus solving perhaps the most pressing problem of South America: extreme and pervasive poverty. One can only fully make the case for the former if one overlooks the latter.
I like ND Blue's take:
The language used in the press yesterday and today is "seized," which underscores the claim that this is an aggressive taking of resources that belong to others. One main thing to keep in mind - a big part of the reason Morales is now president of Bolivia - is that Bolivia in the past (like many "developing" countries) has owned nearly none of their own national resources. That honor went to Brazil, the US, and others. As such, the country has remained in extreme poverty.
This may be an over-simplification but the tradeoff is between foreign ownership of resources (and little trickle-down, but at least a "healthy" investment climate!) versus solving perhaps the most pressing problem of South America: extreme and pervasive poverty. One can only fully make the case for the former if one overlooks the latter.
I like ND Blue's take:
It's kind of funny that we are so worried about Iran and Iraq, we are letting countries in Latin America nationalize their energy companies. That is the same thing Iran tried to do after WWII and their attempts got them a CIA lead coup against a democratically elected leader.
If there is anything good to come out of Bush's insane foreign policy, it is the loosening of the economic stranglehold on Latin America....
Soup society
Ned explains soup classism:
...The crowd grows unruly, restive. First comes a titter. Then a guffaw. At last, the entire ballroom is doubled over in cruel horse-laughter at poor Chunky Beef Noodle. Utterly humiliated, she runs from the room, never to be seen again in Society.
The footman, attempting to restore order, cries out in a stentorian voice above the tumult, "Andalusian Gazpacho!"
And all is well again. The Grand Ball may continue.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Pledge, if you like
From Lance Mannion:
Here it is in German:Ich gelobe Treue auf die Fahne der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, auf die Republik, die eine Nation unter Gott ist, vereinigt durch Freiheit und Gerechtigkeit fur alle.
In French:
J´engage ma fidelité au drapeau des États-Unis d´Amérique et à la République qu'il répresente, une nation sous Dieu, indivisible, avec liberté et justice pour tous.
And in Spanish:
Yo prometo lealtad a la bandera
de los estados Unidos de America,
y a la Republica que representa,
una Nacion bajo Dios,
entera,
con libertad y justicia para todos.
Lawless president
Bushy the Kid, or King George, or Shogun Ji-o-ru-ju [via arse poetica].
President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution....
Next up, pogroms
But first, the purges. Via Jeffrey Lewis, who has the links:
“I wouldn’t say they are anti-Bush as much as to say they generally support the more conciliatory policy positions of the State Department bureaucracy,” Mr. Gallington said. “Even though CIA is not a policy organization, they actively participate in influencing national security policy.
“I would say it seems clear that the leaks out of the CIA in recent years are both substantively, and in timing, seem intended to embarrass the president.”
He said a “purge” is the answer for a leak-weary Bush administration. “It’s already under way,” he said.
Shangri-la
Ray Davies and one of the most beautiful and majestic places in the world come together (right now...) in the magic-evoking term. Actually, this Spiegel article discusses a discovery of what may very well be what "Shangri-la" (of James Hilton's marvelously fantastic piece of orientalism) or "Shambhala" refer to. This is the mythical realm that fired the imaginations of European explorers. The terrain is so forbidding to exploration by foot that the imagination was left to fill in the unreachable blindspots in the Himalayan geography. The Silver Palace of Garuda, and the "cradle of Tibetan culture"....
Bruno Baumann carefully guides his canoe through the raging waters of the Sutlej River. Suddenly he can hardly believe his eyes: a huge labyrinth of caves appears behind a gate-like formation in the middle of the rock face of the cliffs. Along a stretch of the river extending for several kilometers, a lost city of crumbled monasteries, temples and walls, glinting in reds and silvers in the afternoon sun, rises up to 400 meters (1,312 feet) above the river valley...
At an altitude of more than 5,000 meters (16,400 feet), large settlements protrude from barren cliffs. The structures, made of pounded clay, cannot possibly be dilapidated Lama temples. "The cradle of Tibetan culture doesn't lie in Lhasa," says Baumann, as he descends from Mt. Kailash, "but in the distant past of the Shang Shung kings."...The remnants of ancient foundations are everywhere, and the remains of ramparts extending several hundred meters line the top of the cliff. Locals call the mountain "Khardong," or "In the View of the Palace."
This, Baumann realizes, must have been where it all began, the cradle of Tibetan culture, in a bleak, high valley settled by nomads, at least 1,000 kilometers (622 miles) from Lhasa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)