I'm starting to understand why people don't vote. Not just the apathetic types who don't know what party the president belongs to. Not voting is sometimes an expression of principled disgust for the status quo. I'm not sure if that conscious boycott sends any more of a message that voting for a smaller party candidate or writing in someone's name, but I no longer wave my hand in contempt at this category of non-voters. I still don't agree with it, but I can respect it a little more.
People's reaction to Ralph Nader's candidacy has made me come to this appreciation. And I mean not people's reaction to the substance of Nader's candidacy, but to the fact of his candidacy.
It's disheartening to read sources like Alternet and The Nation jumping on to the ABB bandwagon. I stopped reading The Nation a while ago for other reasons; I thought it was predictable, not especially challenging and lacking in intellectual rigor. Alternet purports to "[provide] readers with crucial facts and passionate opinions they can't find anywhere else" yet their 'Nader doesn't have the right to run' columns are found all over the place.
That these so-called 'alternative' publications would so eagerly mimick the self-serving rationalizations of the Democratic establishment is sad. Even if these folks had endorsed no one, rather than a smaller party candidate, I could've accepted it. But the regular Nader bashing columns in these publications hardly meshes with their self-glorifying iconoclastic image. I don't like using the phrase 'sell-out' but it fits here.
Certainly any progressive should be condemning the Donkey Party's machinations to keep Nader off the ballot in many states; machinations which may be Democratic, but certainly not democratic. Richard Nixon would be proud of what they're doing.
If you believe in a fair electoral process, you should condemn these Democratic actions which are anything but democratic. If you believe that winning an election is more important than the democratic health of this country, if you believe we need to sacrifice democracy in order to save it, then you should vote for Kerry. Or better yet, vote for Ashcroft.
Elections are no longer driven by issues anymore, even if I'm hardly the first person to point out this.
I'd be willing to bet that if you gave a majority Kerry supporters a blind test with Kerry's and Nader's positions on a few dozen issues (but not identified as such) and asked them which they agree with and which are most important to them, they'd correspond more closely to Nader's agenda than Kerry's.
The most vicious anti-Nader rants come from the least likely people... at least if the world were rational. I've challenged any ABB Kerry supporter to name four Nader positions that they strongly object to. None has answered the challenge.
The irony is that while the two causes championed by President Bush that most enrage liberals and progressives are the Patriot Act and the Iraq war, Kerry supported those two things while Nader opposed them. So, who's the real ABB candidate again?
These ABBers demand that instead of supporting the guy doing the bad stuff, I must waste my vote on his willing accomplice.
When I issued the above challenge, one respondent said something to the effect: "I went to Nader's website. I was surprised to find that I agreed with him on almost everything. And that makes me even more convinced not to vote for him."
My head spun when I read that comment. It's then I determined that people who don't vote because of a principled disgust for the status quo are doing far more to adhere to his principles and are far more deserving of my respect in that regard than anyone who holds the above mentality.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Profane campaign
The presidential campaign and the puditocracy are yet again obsessed with the past. Democrats are accusing President Bush of pulling strings regarding his National Guard service. Republicans openly wonder if John Kerry REALLY deserved his Purple Hearts because he didn't lose any limbs. Both of these non-issues have to do with incidents that did (or didn't) happen in the late 60s and early 70s. There are over 100,000 mostly young American soldiers in Iraq. Over 1000 of them have died and who knows how many injured. No one bothers to count how many Iraqi civilians have been killed or injured. The invasion of Iraq, supported by both Bush and Kerry, had nothing to do with fighting terrorism but has proven a recruiting godsend to al-Qaeda and related groups. No significant weapons of mass destruction have been found. President Bush promised to find Osama bin Laden 'dead or alive' but, unless the conspiracy theorists are right, that obviously hasn't happened. To waste time arguing about three-decade old incidents while all this is going on borders on profane.
On the pro-theocracy crowd
A few readers have questioned my repeated assertion that some conservatives hold pro-theocracy views. Contrary to what some might infer, it has nothing really to do with abortion or stem cell research, which even many moderates and atheists have issues with.
My suggestion is based on the presumption by some people they, and those of their political stripe, know God and no one else does.
It's based on comments like those of Sen. Zell Miller to the Republican National Convention that "God is not indifferent to the United States of America" (if God is on our side, then does he hate the French?).
The Moderate Republican (refreshingly, such creatures still do exist) points to a Peoria Star-Journal editorial on the Illinois US Senate race which demonstrates what I'm talking about.
Some excerpts:
U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes did it again Tuesday when he declared that if Jesus were an Illinoisan, he would not vote for Barack Obama because the Democrat supports abortion rights.
[...]
This isn't the first time Keyes has suggested that God is on his side in his bizarre campaign. Earlier, the new Illinoisan (by way of Maryland) said a vote for him is a "victory . . . for God." On a grander scale, he said the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were "God's way of confronting us with the truth" about the evils of abortion.
Wryly noting that:
Claiming to speak for the Almighty is a dicey exercise. There's always the chance He'll deliver a reminder that He speaks for himself.
Are these things exactly theocracy according to a strict dictionary definition? Perhaps not, but they're pretty darned close.
The Star Journal sums it up quite nicely on those who believe they have a monopoly on morality and righteousness.
At his second inaugural, as the Civil War neared its end, [Abraham] Lincoln refused to declare that God wanted the North to win, though he might justifiably have claimed the high moral ground on the issue of slavery.
"Both (North and South) read the same Bible and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other," the president said. "The prayers of both could not be answered; and those of neither has been answered fully."
Amen.
My suggestion is based on the presumption by some people they, and those of their political stripe, know God and no one else does.
It's based on comments like those of Sen. Zell Miller to the Republican National Convention that "God is not indifferent to the United States of America" (if God is on our side, then does he hate the French?).
The Moderate Republican (refreshingly, such creatures still do exist) points to a Peoria Star-Journal editorial on the Illinois US Senate race which demonstrates what I'm talking about.
Some excerpts:
U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes did it again Tuesday when he declared that if Jesus were an Illinoisan, he would not vote for Barack Obama because the Democrat supports abortion rights.
[...]
This isn't the first time Keyes has suggested that God is on his side in his bizarre campaign. Earlier, the new Illinoisan (by way of Maryland) said a vote for him is a "victory . . . for God." On a grander scale, he said the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were "God's way of confronting us with the truth" about the evils of abortion.
Wryly noting that:
Claiming to speak for the Almighty is a dicey exercise. There's always the chance He'll deliver a reminder that He speaks for himself.
Are these things exactly theocracy according to a strict dictionary definition? Perhaps not, but they're pretty darned close.
The Star Journal sums it up quite nicely on those who believe they have a monopoly on morality and righteousness.
At his second inaugural, as the Civil War neared its end, [Abraham] Lincoln refused to declare that God wanted the North to win, though he might justifiably have claimed the high moral ground on the issue of slavery.
"Both (North and South) read the same Bible and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other," the president said. "The prayers of both could not be answered; and those of neither has been answered fully."
Amen.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Powell declares Darfur 'genocide'
Late last week, Secretary of State Colin Powell declared the crisis in Darfur, Eastern Sudan to be genocide. Some criticized Powell for waiting so long, but in fairness, he said long ago that whether Darfur was legally genocide or not was almost beside the point; the atrocities were intolerable and resulting man-made humanitarian catastrophe disastrous regardless of the semantic description. This is one foreign policy situation where the Bush administration is actually on the right side.
The US becomes the first major outsider to state the obvious. The Washington Post reports: Both the African Union and the Arab League have said there is no genocide. The European Union said it does not have enough information.
Despite the desire of its leader, Alpha Oumar Konaré, to prove its relevance, the African Union is proving as ineffectual as its predecessor, the Organization for African Unity. So much for the much vaunted 'African solutions to African problems' utopia.
That the Arab League adopts a 'see no evil' policy is hardly surprising; anything bad in the world is automatically the fault of Israel and the United States.
That the EU has adopted a head in the sand policy despite overwhelming independent evidence to the contrary is more disturbing, though hardly surprising. If the Bush administration trusts militarism as its preferred option, the EU has traditionally gone with the 'interminable peace conferences no matter how little progress is made' route. Slobodan Milosevic appreciated this tactic. What's happening in Darfur is, by all accounts, worse than what's happening in Chechnya, but the Russian conflict draws far more ire from Europe's politicians, editorialists and indignant outrage specialists.
While Powell's declaration is just that, words, it is not insignificant. To my knowledge, it's the first time the US has ever declared a situation genocide while the crisis was actually happening.
Security Council members Britain, Spain and Germany back U.S. efforts to establish a commission of inquiry. But some European diplomats expressed concern that Powell's statement would complicate efforts to win broader support. China warned that it may veto the resolution, noting that it does not believe genocide has occurred. "There are problems in Darfur, but we don't see it as that category," said Wang Guangya, China's ambassador to the United Nations. The council should "come up with constructive ideas to help solve the problem, not to make the problem more complicated."
It must be nice to insist on such patience when it's not your people getting massacred. China, of course, has a sterling human rights reputation, as the people of Tibet will attest.
Will Powell's declaration "complicate" efforts to set up a commission of inquiry? Who cares?
By the time the inquiry is set up (after much haggling), does its investigation, delivers its report and then the Security Council spends months arguing furiously whether or not to inflict even a slap on the wrist to Khartoum, the genocide will be over. By then, there'll be no one left to kill.
The UN should place sanctions on the complicit and/or willfully obstructionist Sudanese regime immediately. Then it can go on debating further courses of action.
Furthermore, the US should push its Arab 'allies' to pressure Sudan's junta to stop coordinating the massacres. Maybe then, the Arabs' alleged concern for the plight of the poor Palestinians (it's about human rights, they say, not anti-Semitism) might be taken a little more seriously.
The US becomes the first major outsider to state the obvious. The Washington Post reports: Both the African Union and the Arab League have said there is no genocide. The European Union said it does not have enough information.
Despite the desire of its leader, Alpha Oumar Konaré, to prove its relevance, the African Union is proving as ineffectual as its predecessor, the Organization for African Unity. So much for the much vaunted 'African solutions to African problems' utopia.
That the Arab League adopts a 'see no evil' policy is hardly surprising; anything bad in the world is automatically the fault of Israel and the United States.
That the EU has adopted a head in the sand policy despite overwhelming independent evidence to the contrary is more disturbing, though hardly surprising. If the Bush administration trusts militarism as its preferred option, the EU has traditionally gone with the 'interminable peace conferences no matter how little progress is made' route. Slobodan Milosevic appreciated this tactic. What's happening in Darfur is, by all accounts, worse than what's happening in Chechnya, but the Russian conflict draws far more ire from Europe's politicians, editorialists and indignant outrage specialists.
While Powell's declaration is just that, words, it is not insignificant. To my knowledge, it's the first time the US has ever declared a situation genocide while the crisis was actually happening.
Security Council members Britain, Spain and Germany back U.S. efforts to establish a commission of inquiry. But some European diplomats expressed concern that Powell's statement would complicate efforts to win broader support. China warned that it may veto the resolution, noting that it does not believe genocide has occurred. "There are problems in Darfur, but we don't see it as that category," said Wang Guangya, China's ambassador to the United Nations. The council should "come up with constructive ideas to help solve the problem, not to make the problem more complicated."
It must be nice to insist on such patience when it's not your people getting massacred. China, of course, has a sterling human rights reputation, as the people of Tibet will attest.
Will Powell's declaration "complicate" efforts to set up a commission of inquiry? Who cares?
By the time the inquiry is set up (after much haggling), does its investigation, delivers its report and then the Security Council spends months arguing furiously whether or not to inflict even a slap on the wrist to Khartoum, the genocide will be over. By then, there'll be no one left to kill.
The UN should place sanctions on the complicit and/or willfully obstructionist Sudanese regime immediately. Then it can go on debating further courses of action.
Furthermore, the US should push its Arab 'allies' to pressure Sudan's junta to stop coordinating the massacres. Maybe then, the Arabs' alleged concern for the plight of the poor Palestinians (it's about human rights, they say, not anti-Semitism) might be taken a little more seriously.
Update on the 'mandatory gratuity' case
The man at the center of the "mandatory gratuity" fracas (see here) will apparently not be charged. According to The Post-Star, the Warren County (NY) district attorney said her office's legal research found a federal court case in Indiana in which a judge ruled that a patron can not be forced to leave a gratuity. Had the addition to the bill been called a surcharge or service charge, though, it would have been a legal obligation and [the defendant] could be prosecuted for refusing to pay it.
"The court in that case said a service charge could be forced on a customer but a tip can not," the district attorney said. "We'll advise him [the defendent] by letter that we're withdrawing the charge ASAP so he doesn't have to come up to court."
The defendent's lawyer summed it up quite well. "The word gratuity comes from the Latin word for free," he said. "If it's a gratuity for the waitress' services, it can't be required."
The difference between what the man left for his meal and the bill (including "mandatory gratuity") was $11. He could've faced up to a year in jail.
Basically, if the restaurant had called it by a different name, service charge instead of gratuity, it would've been legal.
The owner of the restaurant said he's fairly sure he and the county will get sued over the incident.
I still oppose the idea of a separate service charge, whatever the name. I think the cost of a meal should reflect the total cost of everything the owner needs to pay his bills and make a profit. That's what fast food places do. That's what supermarkets do. That's what nearly every other service-providing business does. If the owner can't meet his costs and still make a profit without the service charge, just raise the prices of the menu items.
But in practice, it's tough. Living near a tourist town, I know how obnoxious tourists can be. Many of them don't bring their civility with them on vacation. Some have the attitude that "Without me and my money, this backwater would be nothing." Many of them are rude, loud, presumptuous and refuse to control their kids. I've been in restaurants with groups of tourists and though, "No matter how much of a tip they leave, it won't compensate the server for their idiocy. Unless it's 50%."
Still, though, if you run a restaurant in a tourist town, that's the reality. Raise the prices on the food so your servers can be properly remunerated for their aggravation.
"The court in that case said a service charge could be forced on a customer but a tip can not," the district attorney said. "We'll advise him [the defendent] by letter that we're withdrawing the charge ASAP so he doesn't have to come up to court."
The defendent's lawyer summed it up quite well. "The word gratuity comes from the Latin word for free," he said. "If it's a gratuity for the waitress' services, it can't be required."
The difference between what the man left for his meal and the bill (including "mandatory gratuity") was $11. He could've faced up to a year in jail.
Basically, if the restaurant had called it by a different name, service charge instead of gratuity, it would've been legal.
The owner of the restaurant said he's fairly sure he and the county will get sued over the incident.
I still oppose the idea of a separate service charge, whatever the name. I think the cost of a meal should reflect the total cost of everything the owner needs to pay his bills and make a profit. That's what fast food places do. That's what supermarkets do. That's what nearly every other service-providing business does. If the owner can't meet his costs and still make a profit without the service charge, just raise the prices of the menu items.
But in practice, it's tough. Living near a tourist town, I know how obnoxious tourists can be. Many of them don't bring their civility with them on vacation. Some have the attitude that "Without me and my money, this backwater would be nothing." Many of them are rude, loud, presumptuous and refuse to control their kids. I've been in restaurants with groups of tourists and though, "No matter how much of a tip they leave, it won't compensate the server for their idiocy. Unless it's 50%."
Still, though, if you run a restaurant in a tourist town, that's the reality. Raise the prices on the food so your servers can be properly remunerated for their aggravation.
Monday, September 13, 2004
Still more Blatter problems
This is part of occassional series on the buffoonery of Sepp Blatter, president of international soccer's governing body FIFA. It's been said of Blatter that he has 50 ideas every day, 51 of which are bad. Blatter is a sufferer of foot-in-mouth disease, though many fans would love to give him foot-in-rear syndrome..
Tim Cahill, a player for the English club Everton, scored a goal and lifted his jersey over his head in celebration. For this, he was given a yellow card (caution). Since he'd received a caution earlier in the game, the second yellow resulted in a red card. He was kicked out of the game and will be suspended for his team's next contest.
A ludicrious decision by the referee?
Earlier this year, FIFA adopted rule changes saying that a player must be cautioned when... he removes his shirt over his head or covers his head with his shirt.
This was Cahill's offense.
Unfortunately, the referee was merely enforcing ludicrious rules and he said he specifically mentioned this provision to team captains before the game.
Most reasonable people wouldn't blame him for doing his job. But Sepp Blatter is not a reasonable person.
The czar of world soccer, who happened to be at the game, opined, "I don't agree with the referee. He should never expel the player just for pulling the shirt over his head. If he takes it off, then OK - he's ready to go to the dressing room."
The ref didn't expel the player for that offense, he cautioned him. But as any referee, save Andy D'Urso, knows: two yellow cards makes a red card.
The head of world soccer is doesn't even know rules he himself pushed through.
That said, maybe someone will mention the contradiction to Blatter and this absurdity will end. But since Blatter has raised micromanagement to an art form, I won't hold my breath.
Tim Cahill, a player for the English club Everton, scored a goal and lifted his jersey over his head in celebration. For this, he was given a yellow card (caution). Since he'd received a caution earlier in the game, the second yellow resulted in a red card. He was kicked out of the game and will be suspended for his team's next contest.
A ludicrious decision by the referee?
Earlier this year, FIFA adopted rule changes saying that a player must be cautioned when... he removes his shirt over his head or covers his head with his shirt.
This was Cahill's offense.
Unfortunately, the referee was merely enforcing ludicrious rules and he said he specifically mentioned this provision to team captains before the game.
Most reasonable people wouldn't blame him for doing his job. But Sepp Blatter is not a reasonable person.
The czar of world soccer, who happened to be at the game, opined, "I don't agree with the referee. He should never expel the player just for pulling the shirt over his head. If he takes it off, then OK - he's ready to go to the dressing room."
The ref didn't expel the player for that offense, he cautioned him. But as any referee, save Andy D'Urso, knows: two yellow cards makes a red card.
The head of world soccer is doesn't even know rules he himself pushed through.
That said, maybe someone will mention the contradiction to Blatter and this absurdity will end. But since Blatter has raised micromanagement to an art form, I won't hold my breath.
The World
For news' afficianados, I'd highly recommend the program The World, which is broadcast on many public radio stations. It's a world news show designed for American audiences, but without the insularity or self-referential nature of many other public affairs shows on the airwaves. Host Lisa Mullins is one of the best interviewers I've ever heard. She's understated and lets her guest give thorough answers. But she's unafraid to challenge the guest; if I'm ever left asking my radio a question after a guest speaks, Mullins almost always asks it. Although her questioning is pointed, it's respectful. She's not like some broadcast journalists who are aggressive to the point of hostile, who think they, not the invited experts, are the star of the show.
Saturday, September 11, 2004
Rumsfeld steps in it again
Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld has stuck his foot in his mouth again. When asked of the prison abuse scandals, he replied, "Does it rank up there with chopping someone's head off on television?" he asked. "It doesn't."
Another brilliant move by the secretary. "Our crimes are slightly less disgusting that the terrorists' crimes." That's the way to gain moral authority. That's the way to win the "hearts and minds" not only of Iraqis, but of everyone else who we're supposedly trying to influence.
Way to go, Mr. Secretary. Way to douse the flames of anti-Americanism. Way to make us safer!
The Washington Post headline on the story read: Rumsfeld says terror outweighs jail abuse.
Wrong again.
Jail abuse IS terror. It's the kind of terror we allegedly invaded Iraq to get rid of.
Another brilliant move by the secretary. "Our crimes are slightly less disgusting that the terrorists' crimes." That's the way to gain moral authority. That's the way to win the "hearts and minds" not only of Iraqis, but of everyone else who we're supposedly trying to influence.
Way to go, Mr. Secretary. Way to douse the flames of anti-Americanism. Way to make us safer!
The Washington Post headline on the story read: Rumsfeld says terror outweighs jail abuse.
Wrong again.
Jail abuse IS terror. It's the kind of terror we allegedly invaded Iraq to get rid of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)