Sunday, February 16, 2003

Opposing War Is Good, But Not Good Enough

Faleh A. Jabar is an Iraqi dissident who offers an interesting perspective especially if you oppose the war but are also against leaving Iraq to stew in its own juices until Hussein dies of old age (a.k.a. the "containment" policy).
Opposing the war in itself is good but not good enough. Letting the Leviathan off the hook is a grave mistake for which we will pay sooner rather than later. Opposing war, which is an instrument of politics, should not lead us to forget the crux of the things political. It is not weapons of mass destruction that count most; what really counts is the political system that controls them. Ignoring this fact by the forces of peace simply serves the war camp.

Dozens of nations have chemical and biological weapons. None has deployed them, except Saddam's regime, first against the Iranian forces, later against Iraqi civilians. Governments should be held responsible for such crimes. Ironically, the United States let Saddam get away with no punishment for the actual deployment of chemical and biological weapons back in 1988, but it is now adamant about confronting him for a possible deployment of such weapons in the future. This is the logic of preemption. Yet there is no law, domestic or international, that permits a prosecutor to go after an ex-convict for a future, would-be offense. There is every law to bring a culprit to trial for actually breaching human norms in the first place.

In all the decades of struggle and international lobbying, one approach has never been tried: a meaningful political process to disengage the various components of the regime from each other--above all, a drive to split the ruling class-clan.

Here's what I think ought to happen. One, threaten Saddam with indictment. Two, give him an alternative for safe passage at the same time; this may create a crack in the ruling class-clan. Three, send a list of thirty or so of his aides who are persona non grata and demand that they leave the country with him. This ought to convince the rest of the class-clan members that they are not threatened en masse--only those who were most responsible for the offenses of the regime. Four, encourage this class-clan to oust Saddam into exile and sweeten the deal by offering a mini-Marshall plan. This mini-Marshall plan would be made available provided power was transferred to a civilian, interim government.

Such continued pressure, a political onslaught, should be backed by threat of force. A few warning shots may well be sufficient. This would help split the ruling group and embolden the people to take matters into their hands. A painfully slow process of regime disintegration has already been going on, and this political pressure would hasten the process along. An invasion, on the other hand, would wrench matters out of Iraqi hands and would risk untold consequences.

Friday, February 14, 2003

OK, I don't normally mess with these, but this one struck me as pretty funny.

Cynical Liberal
How Republican Are You?

brought to you by Quizilla

Thursday, February 13, 2003

What scares me is the likelihood that the people this guy talks to are registered and active voters.

Wednesday, February 12, 2003

Are Europeans Really So Much Worse Off than Americans?

From the Economist:
Taking account of how Americans waste a chunk of their income on heating, air conditioning, prisons and the like, while also attaching value to Europe's superior public transport, Mr Gordon suggests that perhaps half of the current gap in living standards between America and Europe, as measured by GDP per head, is illusory. Add in the value of their extra leisure time and Europe's living standards are now perhaps only 8% behind America's, he suggests, not the 23% suggested by official data. Indeed, on Mr Gordon's broader measure, Europeans' productivity may have overtaken that of their poor American cousins.
(via sixdifferentways)
Another one of those email scams

FROM: GEORGE WALKER BUSH

DEAR SIR / MADAM,

I AM GEORGE WALKER BUSH, SON OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH, AND CURRENTLY SERVING AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITES STATES OF AMERICA. THIS LETTER MIGHT SURPRISE YOU BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT MET NEITHER IN PERSON NOR BY CORRESPONDENCE.

I CAME TO KNOW OF YOU IN MY SEARCH FOR A RELIABLE AND REPUTABLE PERSON TO HANDLE A VERY CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS TRANSACTION, WHICH INVOLVES THE TRANSFER OF A HUGE SUM OF MONEY TO AN ACCOUNT REQUIRING MAXIMUM CONFIDENCE.

I AM WRITING YOU IN ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE PRIMARILY TO SEEK YOUR ASSISTANCE IN ACQUIRING OIL FUNDS THAT ARE PRESENTLY TRAPPED IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ.

MY PARTNERS AND I SOLICIT YOUR ASSISTANCE IN COMPLETING A TRANSACTION BEGUN BY MY FATHER...

[More...]

Sunday, February 09, 2003

Putting God on Notice

Life is the frontier we explore deeper and deeper with every breath. It's as basic and as complex as anything we know.

Now, there's something new happening with the creation of life, and no one is sure what to make of it. No longer is the act of creation seen as the sole province of God or nature or the Great Whatever. Tomorrow belongs to me. And to you and other humans.

Thursday, February 06, 2003

Former President Ronald Reagan turned 92 today.

We all know that he is the patron saint of today's American conservatives, but here's one commentator who thinks that Reagan's legacy isn't as conservative as we might at first believe.

Wednesday, February 05, 2003

Curtains for Saddam?

Guernica Reproduction Covered at UN

NEW YORK.- The "Guernica" work by Pablo Picasso at the entrance of the Security Council of the United Nations has been covered with a curtain. The reason for covering this work is that this is the place where diplomats make statements to the press and have this work as the background. The Picasso work features the horrors of war. On January 27 a large blue curtain was placed to cover the work.

Fred Eckhard, press secretary of the U.N. said: "It is an appropriate background for the cameras." He was questioned as to why the work had been covered.

A diplomat stated that it would not be an appropriate background if the ambassador of the United States at the U.N. John Negroponte, or Powell, talk about war surrounded with women, children and animals shouting with horror and showing the suffering of the bombings.

This work is a reproduction of the Guernica that was donated by Nelson A. Rockefeller to the U.N. in 1985.




Also mentioned in the New York Times and the Sydney Morning Herald.

Thursday, January 30, 2003

I haven't read both of these articles yet, but I'm guessing they're good and could foster some pretty good discussion:

Anti-Americanism in Europe

and conversely,

Anti-Europeanism in America. (via aldaily)

Tuesday, January 28, 2003

Ok. I have to ask. I'm getting into part III of the Brothers Karamazov, but I've taken about ten days off. Where are you all? Sean, have I caught up to your breaking point yet? Can we still mull some discussion off of this? If we do another book read, I think we need something a little less, um, heady and long and literary, to say a few words. I'm just saying, for an experiment, it probably wasn't the best piece to pick. But I was all for it at the time, so I'm definitely not coming down on anyone. Thoughts?

Sunday, January 26, 2003



Stars, it turns out, eat their young. Wow.

Iraq gets a 'B'.

Ummm....OK.

Setting aside the issue of whether academic metaphors are really appropriate in the whole discussion of war with Iraq, should we really be impressed with a grade of 'B' when the course was presumably being taken "Pass/Fail"?

Just a bit of incongruity that struck me as funny.

Saturday, January 25, 2003

Sometimes I wonder if the greatest force in the universe is not gravity, or the strong nuclear force, or love, but black humor.

Response to a letter received from Tom Daschle

Senator Daschle,

I agree with you. The night of November 5th was long and difficult. The Republican control of Senate (along with the presidency) does put a lot of things that I belive in, that I find importance in, at risk. I agree that it would be preferable to have a Democratically controlled Senate. I appreciate your offer to join the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, but I'm going to decline. Here's why:

In the months after the terrorist attacks, you personally voted for, and led the Democratic Senators to follow suit, to allow President Bush free reign over the money and armed forces of this country to go on any whim that he found fanciful, putting our lives and the lives of millions around the world at risk. During the President's campaign to bomb Iraq, I've not heard you nor any of the Democratic leaders calling out for a rebuttal. You've consistently stood by his side, patting his back, and nodding in assent to every item that he's set out on the agenda.

You state that "with the Republicans in the majority, there will be no action on affordable healthcare coverage for the millions of Americans without health insurance. There will be no accountability for the corporations whose recklessness has sent Americans' 401(k) plans plummeting. There will be no serious discussion on helping Americans who are out of work find new jobs ... no chance for better child care benefites .. no hope of raising minimum wage for those who are struggling to make ends meet in low-paying jobs ... and more."

This is true, Tom. However, in the elections last year, none of these issues were raised by you and your Democrat partners during their campaigns. You painfully ceded all of the issues that the Democratic Party supposedly stands for, opting instead to align yourselves with Bush and the "war against Terror" and Homeland Security. You and your party failed to establish any difference between yourselves and your opponents, deciding instead to play on the fears that the media has been feeding the public for the past year and half. To try to separate yourselves from the Republicans, you decided to make personal attacks on your opponents past history, further burying the issues that I and several million like me hold dearly and desperately want to be raised. You and your people failed us Tom, not the other way around.

Don't tell me that you need funds to stop the Repbulicans. You made your bed. Now we all have to lie in it. Not only have you failed to address any of the issues above, but we've seen thousands more getting laid off in the past year. We've seen Ken Lay and his cohorts escape justice. We've seen Dick Cheney with-holding documents about his company's dirty dealings in Afghanistan and Iraq under the false premise of "National Security". You've allowed people to get away with the destruction of people's lives only to find themselves the benefactors of Golden Parachute clauses and million dollar dream-houses. What happened, Tom?

I'm aware of the fact that some of the very few truly progressive Democrats are up for re-election in 2004. Should I choose to support any of them, I will make a check out to their personal campaigns, Tom. But you sir, you will not be getting a single penny from me. Thanks for the offer, but I politely decline to join you in another year of lip-service and doublespeak. And should you, sir, through some twist of fate become the Democratic nominee for President in 2004, rest assured that I will again be supporting a third party candidate.

Goodbye, Tom.

Friday, January 24, 2003

Methinks we've been discussing somebody a little often.

Tuesday, January 21, 2003

A left-wing blogger named Ted Barlow has been on a roll as of late, doing -- I kid you not -- lightbulb jokes. Like this:

Q: How many Green party voters does it take to change a lightbulb?


A: Dude, we shouldn't have to change lightbulbs. GE has this secret lab in Costa Rica, and they made a lightbulb out of hemp that totally lasts forever.


Start here and then just scroll down through them all. And then, for extra credit and hilarity, someone else has, in the same vein, done a wonderful Den Beste lightbulb joke.





Thursday, January 16, 2003

Sometimes it's hard to grasp the present-day relevance of the speeches and writings of historical figures; the temptation is often to say, "How does something written and said in 1967 apply to me in 2003?" Well, check this out: a reprint of a Martin Luther King speech, with selected phrases converted into hyperlinks to present-day news reports, making the relevance very -- and, in most cases, sadly -- clear.

The Seafarer: A poem in Anglo-Saxon.

MÆG ic be me sylfum soðgied wrecan
siþas secgan hu ic geswincdagum
earfoðwile oft þrowade
bitre breostceare gebidan hæbbe
gecunnad in ceole cearselda fela
atol yþa gewealc

þær mec oft bigeat
nearo nihtwaco æt nacan stefnan
þonne he be clifan cnossað

calde geþrungen
wæron fet mine forste gebunden
caldum clommum þær þa ceare seofedun
hate ymb heortan hungor innan slat
merewerges mod

þæt se mon ne wat
þe him on foldan fægrost limpeð
hu ic earmcearig iscealdne sæ
winter wunade wræccan lastum
winemægum bidroren

bihongen hrimgicelum hægl scurum fleag
þær ic ne gehyrde butan hlimman sæ
iscaldne wæg hwilum ylfete song
dyde ic me to gomene ganetes hleoþor
ond huilpan sweg fore hleahtor wera
mæw singende fore medodrince
stormas þær stanclifu beotan þær him stearn oncwæð
isigfeþera ful oft þæt earn bigeal
urigfeþra

nænig hleomæga
feasceaftig ferð frefran meahte

forþon him gelyfeð lyt se þe ah lifes wyn
gebiden in burgum bealosiþa hwon
wlonc and wingal hu ic werig oft
in brimlade bidan sceolde

nap nihtscua norþan sniwde
hrim hrusan bond hægl feol on eorþan
corna caldast

forþon cnyssað nu
heortan geþohtas þæt ic hean streamas
sealtyþa gelac sylf cunnige
monað modes lust mæla gehwylce
ferð to feran þæt ic feor heonan
elþeodigra eard gesece

forþon nis þæs modwlonc mon over eorþan
ne his gifena þæs god ne in geoguþe to þæs hwæt
ne in his dædum to þæs deor ne him his dryhten to þæs hold
þæt he a his sæfore sorge næbbe
to hwon hine dryhten gedon wille

ne biþ him to hearpan hyge ne to hringþege
ne to wife wyn ne to worulde hyht
ne ymbe owiht elles nefne ymb yða gewealc
ac a hafað longunge se þe on lagu fundað

bearwas blostmum nimað byrig fægriað
wongas wlitigað woruld onetteð
ealle þa gemoniað modes fusne
sefan to siþe þam þe swa þenceð
on flodwegas feor gewitan

swylce geac monað geomran reorde
singeð sumeres weard sorge beodeð
bitter in breosthord

þæt se beorn ne wat
sefteadig secg hwaet þa sume dreogað
þe þa wræclastas widost lecgað

forþon nu min hyge hweorfeð ofer hreþerlocan
min modsefa mid mereflode
ofer hwæles eþel hweorfeð wide
eorþan sceatas cymeð eft to me
gifre and grædig

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gielleð anfloga
hweteð on wæl weg hreþer unwearnum
ofer holma gelagu

forþon me hatran sind
dryhtnes dreamas þonne þis deade lif
læne on londe ic gelyfe no
þæt him eorðwelan ece stondað

simle þreora sum þinga gehwylce
ær his tiddæge to tweon weorþeð
adl oþþe yldo oþþe ecghete
fægum fromweardum feorh oðþringeð

forþon þæt is eorla gewham æftercweþendra
lof lifgendra lastworda betst
þæt he gewyrce ær he on weg scyle
fremman on foldan wið feonda niþ
deorum dædum deofle togeanes
þæt hine ælda bearn æfter hergen
ond his lof siþþan lifge mid englum
awa to ealdre ecan lifes blæd
dream mid dugeþum

dagas sind gewitene
ealle onmedlan eorþan rices
nearon nu cyningas ne caseras
ne goldgiefan swylce iu wæron
þonne hi mæst mid him mærþa gefremedon
ond on dryhlicestum dome lifdon

gedroren is þeos duguð eal dreamas sind gewitene
wuniað þa wacran ond þas woruld healdaþ
brucað þurh bisgo blæd is gehnæged
eorþan indryhto ealdað ond searað
swa nu monna gehwylc geond middangeard
yldo him on fareð onsyn blacað
gomelfeax gnornað wat his iuwine
æþelinga bearn eorþan forgiefene

ne mæg him þonne se flæschoma þonne him þæt feorg losað
ne swete forswelgan ne sar gefelan
ne hond onhreran ne mid hyge þencan
þeah þe græf wille golde stregan
broþor his geborenum byrgan be deadum
maþmum mislicum þæt hine mid nille

ne mæg þære sawle þe biþ synna ful
gold to geoce for godes egsan
þonne he hit ær hydeð þenden he her leofað
micel biþ se meotudes egsa forþon hi seo molde oncyrreð
se gestaþelade stiþe grundas
eorþan sceatas ond uprodor

dol biþ se þe him his dryhten ne ondrædeþ
cymeð him se deað unþinged
eadig bið se þe eaþmod leofaþ
cymeð him seo ar of heofonum

meotod him þæt mod gestaþelað forþon he in his meahte gelyfeð

stieran mon sceal strongum mode
ond þæt on staþelum healdan
ond gewis werum wisum clæne
scyle monna gehwylc mid gemete healdan
wiþ leofne ond wið laþne bealo
þeah þe he hine wille fyres fulne
oþþe on bæle forbærnedne
his geworhtne wine wyrd biþ swiþre
meotud meahtigra þonne ænges monnes gehygd

uton we hycgan hwær we ham agen
ond þonne geþencan hu we þider cumen
ond we þonne eac tilien þæt we to moten
in þa ecan eadignesse
þær is lif gelong in lufan dryhtnes
hyht in heofonum

þæs sy þam halgan þonc
þæt he usic geweorþade wuldres ealdor
ece dryhten in ealle tid

Amen

:: This endlessly fascinating poem, which I think I understand less each time I read it, has been translated many times by many authors and scholars. A selection of translations, some in verse and some in prose, can be found here, with a hypertext edition of the poem, along with a Canadian scholar's Masters thesis on the poem, here.

*Crickets* Hello?

Oliver's right, this story shouldn't die...

Veterans decry Rumsfeld's draft comments
WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 (UPI) -- A Vietnam War veterans' group is taking exception to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's comments this week on the possibility of a new draft.

"Secretary Rumsfeld said troops from Vietnam War conscription 'added no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services ... '" Bobby Muller, president of Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation said in a statement issued Friday. "As Vietnam veterans who served with conscripted soldiers, we find Secretary Rumsfeld's egregious slur a grave insult to the memory, sacrifice and valor of those who lost their lives, and, further, dismissive of the hundreds and thousands of lives, both in the U.S. and in Vietnam, who were devastatingly shattered by the Vietnam War."

Rumsfeld, while commenting on a bill introduced to initiate the draft, said it was unnecessary.

"We're not going to re-implement a draft," he said Tuesday. "There is no need for it at all."

He spoke of the fact that many of those who were drafted were trained, served for a short time and then left the service.

Rumsfeld first referred to the many exemptions issued to certain men in the draft and then said, "what was left was sucked into the intake, trained for a period of months, and then went out, adding no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time, because the churning that took place, it took enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone."

This has hardly been reported in the media. Thoughts?