An AFP article in South Africa's Daily Mail and Guardian reports:
A United Airlines flight from London to Washington was rerouted to Bangor, Maine, late on Tuesday to prevent Yusuf Islam, the British pop musician formerly known as Cat Stevens, from entering the United States
Aside from the actual merit or not of denying Islam entry...
Maybe there's a logical reason that the poorly explained intro didn't mention, but I was left wondering when Bangor, Maine ceased being part of the US.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Bush said it, not me
"We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace... And across the world, the enemies of human rights are responding with violence."
-President Bush, Speech to UN General Assembly.
-President Bush, Speech to UN General Assembly.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Does anyone use copy editors anymore?
Comments heard on radio/TV broadcasts in the last few days...
"[Afghan leader Hamid] Karzai is seeking re-election in his country's first ever presidential election."
"The film debuts for the first time tommorrow."
"[Some baseball player] hit a grand slam home run."
"[Afghan leader Hamid] Karzai is seeking re-election in his country's first ever presidential election."
"The film debuts for the first time tommorrow."
"[Some baseball player] hit a grand slam home run."
On John Kerry
What a lot of people don't realize is that I would love to vote for John Kerry. I'm not a masochist. I'm not a hopeless romantic. I don't like beating my head against a brick wall. I despise most of what Bush has done, most of what he stands for and I'm sad about what he's done to this country. And I'm even sadder that he might get elected with a popular plurality this time because it'll mean we deserve him.
I hate what Bush has done to this country and I know Kerry is the best chance to beat Bush. But I simply can't justify voting for a guy who supported the three worst things Bush did. The three worst public policy decisions of the last quarter century. Notably the Iraq invasion, the Patriot Act and the doctrine of pre-emption (ie: old-fashioned naked aggression). I can't vote for a guy who implicitly endorses the anti-democratic lawyering campaign against Nader trying to get on the ballot; a campaign which is just as odious as what the Republicans tried to pull in Florida (of course, Dems didn't have the high ground in that farce either).
I'd love to vote for a Democrat because I remember what the Democrats used to be and what they could be once again. But I can't. The Democrats will never change so long as their progressive wing allows themselves to be effectively neutered by the ABB argument or the lesser of two evils garbage. A neutering which is already well underway as demonstrated by the fact that most Democrats are ENRAGED by the three things I mention above but are voting for a candidate who supports those. By refusing to exercise the only leverage they have, withholding their vote from non-progressive candidates, progressive Democrats are allowing themselves to be held hostage by the corporatist wing of the party. It's not what Bush, Darth Vader Cheney or the evil Republicans are doing to them. It's what they are doing to themselves.
The real problem I have with John Kerry is this nagging doubt. Actually, it's a near certainty. John Kerry is a very smart individual. He's not a cowboy. He's not a gunslinger. He's not a guy who does reckless things first and asks questions later (if at all) simply to be seen as a [hold hand over heart] man of action.
Therefore, I can't help but think that Kerry knew in his heart that the Iraq war was a bad idea long before it ever got underway. I can't help but thinking that if the issue had been put before Congress in 2001, Kerry might've voted against the Iraq war blank check. I can't help but thinking that if John Kerry weren't running for president, he'd have voted against it.
So not only was he wrong, but he should've known better. Not only should he have known better, but I can't help but believing he DID know better and went against his conscience anyway. I think he went against his conscience because back then, opposing the war was not the politically or patriotically correct thing to do. The brief neo-McCarthyistic period following 9/11 made it so no so-called respectable politician could disagree with military action proposed by the president. To do so would give aid and comfort to the terrorists. .
And that's fundamentally what gets me about Kerry. It's not just that he was wrong to vote for Iraq, but that I'm confident he knew he was wrong at the time. Robert McNamara anyone?
Bill Clinton's presidency taught me one important thing about elected officials. Character DOES matter. Political courage DOES matter. It's not just WHAT you believe on particular issues, but how hard you're willing to fight for them. Bill Clinton may have said all the right things about tolerance blah blah blah. But what he DID was to sign the farcical Don't Ask Don't Tell decree and the ludicrous Defense of Marriage Act. Those were his ACTIONS. When push came to shove, he caved to the political correctness of the day.
When push came to shove on Iraq, John Kerry caved too.
What use is it that he, as chief EXECUTIVE, believes in the right things if he refuses to fight for them. And that was the fundamental problem with Democrats during 2002-2003: they may have believed the right things in their hearts but they, with a few honorable exceptions, refused to stand up to the extremist Republican agenda when it mattered.
Is the radical agenda going to disappear if Kerry wins? Of course not. It's likely the Republicans will still have a majority in both houses of Congress. If Kerry won't stand up to them when it counts, as he's already proven capable, then why should I waste my vote on him?
I hate what Bush has done to this country and I know Kerry is the best chance to beat Bush. But I simply can't justify voting for a guy who supported the three worst things Bush did. The three worst public policy decisions of the last quarter century. Notably the Iraq invasion, the Patriot Act and the doctrine of pre-emption (ie: old-fashioned naked aggression). I can't vote for a guy who implicitly endorses the anti-democratic lawyering campaign against Nader trying to get on the ballot; a campaign which is just as odious as what the Republicans tried to pull in Florida (of course, Dems didn't have the high ground in that farce either).
I'd love to vote for a Democrat because I remember what the Democrats used to be and what they could be once again. But I can't. The Democrats will never change so long as their progressive wing allows themselves to be effectively neutered by the ABB argument or the lesser of two evils garbage. A neutering which is already well underway as demonstrated by the fact that most Democrats are ENRAGED by the three things I mention above but are voting for a candidate who supports those. By refusing to exercise the only leverage they have, withholding their vote from non-progressive candidates, progressive Democrats are allowing themselves to be held hostage by the corporatist wing of the party. It's not what Bush, Darth Vader Cheney or the evil Republicans are doing to them. It's what they are doing to themselves.
The real problem I have with John Kerry is this nagging doubt. Actually, it's a near certainty. John Kerry is a very smart individual. He's not a cowboy. He's not a gunslinger. He's not a guy who does reckless things first and asks questions later (if at all) simply to be seen as a [hold hand over heart] man of action.
Therefore, I can't help but think that Kerry knew in his heart that the Iraq war was a bad idea long before it ever got underway. I can't help but thinking that if the issue had been put before Congress in 2001, Kerry might've voted against the Iraq war blank check. I can't help but thinking that if John Kerry weren't running for president, he'd have voted against it.
So not only was he wrong, but he should've known better. Not only should he have known better, but I can't help but believing he DID know better and went against his conscience anyway. I think he went against his conscience because back then, opposing the war was not the politically or patriotically correct thing to do. The brief neo-McCarthyistic period following 9/11 made it so no so-called respectable politician could disagree with military action proposed by the president. To do so would give aid and comfort to the terrorists. .
And that's fundamentally what gets me about Kerry. It's not just that he was wrong to vote for Iraq, but that I'm confident he knew he was wrong at the time. Robert McNamara anyone?
Bill Clinton's presidency taught me one important thing about elected officials. Character DOES matter. Political courage DOES matter. It's not just WHAT you believe on particular issues, but how hard you're willing to fight for them. Bill Clinton may have said all the right things about tolerance blah blah blah. But what he DID was to sign the farcical Don't Ask Don't Tell decree and the ludicrous Defense of Marriage Act. Those were his ACTIONS. When push came to shove, he caved to the political correctness of the day.
When push came to shove on Iraq, John Kerry caved too.
What use is it that he, as chief EXECUTIVE, believes in the right things if he refuses to fight for them. And that was the fundamental problem with Democrats during 2002-2003: they may have believed the right things in their hearts but they, with a few honorable exceptions, refused to stand up to the extremist Republican agenda when it mattered.
Is the radical agenda going to disappear if Kerry wins? Of course not. It's likely the Republicans will still have a majority in both houses of Congress. If Kerry won't stand up to them when it counts, as he's already proven capable, then why should I waste my vote on him?
Three stories from The Globalist
Three good stories from the excellent website The Globalist.
-America's neoconservatives: all muscle, no history?. The United States is unique in having a powerful domestic constituency that favors the use of force — or the threat to use force — as the solution of choice to most security challenges. This “all carrot, no stick” approach is puzzling and worrying to many observers. Thomas Wright examines America’s ideological hawks and their post-Iraq future.
-Resurrecting Empire. Some members of the U.S. coalition in Iraq argue that the insurgency there is merely an aberration. But to gloss over resistance of Western subjugation that occurred throughout the Middle East in the past is to ignore a key lesson in history. Author Rashid Khalidi explores how the history of Western domination in the region has conditioned its people to resist outside control.
-Sweden's Long Climb. Conventional wisdom in the US says that social democracy is incompatible with innovation and economic growth and it promotes laziness. One of the keys to understanding modern Sweden is that the country — for a very long time, longer than is widely known — remained very poor. Its economy finally took off in the 19th century, then boomed in the 20th... Rather like the Japanese a little later, having imported innovations, the Swedes began to produce their own.
-America's neoconservatives: all muscle, no history?. The United States is unique in having a powerful domestic constituency that favors the use of force — or the threat to use force — as the solution of choice to most security challenges. This “all carrot, no stick” approach is puzzling and worrying to many observers. Thomas Wright examines America’s ideological hawks and their post-Iraq future.
-Resurrecting Empire. Some members of the U.S. coalition in Iraq argue that the insurgency there is merely an aberration. But to gloss over resistance of Western subjugation that occurred throughout the Middle East in the past is to ignore a key lesson in history. Author Rashid Khalidi explores how the history of Western domination in the region has conditioned its people to resist outside control.
-Sweden's Long Climb. Conventional wisdom in the US says that social democracy is incompatible with innovation and economic growth and it promotes laziness. One of the keys to understanding modern Sweden is that the country — for a very long time, longer than is widely known — remained very poor. Its economy finally took off in the 19th century, then boomed in the 20th... Rather like the Japanese a little later, having imported innovations, the Swedes began to produce their own.
Monday, September 20, 2004
Is Karl Rove secretly running the Kerry campaign?
Suddenly, John Kerry came out and said the Iraq war "was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama Bin Laden and the terrorists."
Now my initial reaction is that people far less intelligent, far less educated and far less experienced knew this a long time ago. We knew this even before the war started, back when Kerry voted in favor of giving the president a blank check to invade this random, non-threatening country.
Now suddenly that the war and occupation are somewhat less politically correct than they once were, Kerry has changed his mind. He's morphed into the anti-war candidate.
The whole theme of the Bush campaign is that Kerry is a flip flopper. They have to use this theme because they don't have much else to run on. When in trouble, as the old political axiom goes, change the subject. The Bush people are masters at changing the subject. Iraq in chaos? No problem, let's scream about evil gays. Arrogant foreign policy making terrorism more likely? No problem, let's focus on what Kerry did in 1968. No sign of bin Laden? Um... I got it: tell people that liberals will ban Bibles!!!
So when faced with a campaign based on him being a flip flopper, what does Kerry do?
He flip flops.
Karl Rove couldn't have scripted this any better.
Now my initial reaction is that people far less intelligent, far less educated and far less experienced knew this a long time ago. We knew this even before the war started, back when Kerry voted in favor of giving the president a blank check to invade this random, non-threatening country.
Now suddenly that the war and occupation are somewhat less politically correct than they once were, Kerry has changed his mind. He's morphed into the anti-war candidate.
The whole theme of the Bush campaign is that Kerry is a flip flopper. They have to use this theme because they don't have much else to run on. When in trouble, as the old political axiom goes, change the subject. The Bush people are masters at changing the subject. Iraq in chaos? No problem, let's scream about evil gays. Arrogant foreign policy making terrorism more likely? No problem, let's focus on what Kerry did in 1968. No sign of bin Laden? Um... I got it: tell people that liberals will ban Bibles!!!
So when faced with a campaign based on him being a flip flopper, what does Kerry do?
He flip flops.
Karl Rove couldn't have scripted this any better.
Democrats fighting Nader harder than Bush?
I read an interesting press release over at the Green Party's website. Though the Greens didn't endorse him, they deplore tactics used by Democrats to keep Ralph Nader and his running mate Peter Camejo off the ballots in many states. What's worse is: Florida Republicans missed the September 1 filing deadline to place Mr. Bush on the state ballot, but Florida Democrats are refusing to hold them to state election rules. Yet they did file legal challenges to keep Nader off the ballot (though the suit was rubbished by the state's supreme court).
Astonishingly, the Florida Democratic chairman defended his party's inaction, "To keep an incumbent president off the ballot in a swing state the size of Florida because of a technicality, I just don't think would be right."
So it's ok to keep Nader (a guy far closer to the agenda of most Democrats) off the ballot on a "technicality" but they won't go after President Bush (who Democrats demonize as Hitler redux). They say Nader shouldn't run because it's an emergency and we must stop Bush at all costs. They whine that Nader will "steal" votes from Kerry. But when they have the chance to stop Bush, even on a "technicality," they refuse take it.
And you know very well that if Bush wins Florida again by a narrow margin, Democrats will again be whining about Nader. I wonder if they'll remember this incident.
Of course not.
It makes you wonder why Democrats are fighting Nader harder than they are fighting Bush. Are they masochistic or just incompetent?
This incident invalidates any possible future snivelling that Nader will have cost Kerry the election.
Astonishingly, the Florida Democratic chairman defended his party's inaction, "To keep an incumbent president off the ballot in a swing state the size of Florida because of a technicality, I just don't think would be right."
So it's ok to keep Nader (a guy far closer to the agenda of most Democrats) off the ballot on a "technicality" but they won't go after President Bush (who Democrats demonize as Hitler redux). They say Nader shouldn't run because it's an emergency and we must stop Bush at all costs. They whine that Nader will "steal" votes from Kerry. But when they have the chance to stop Bush, even on a "technicality," they refuse take it.
And you know very well that if Bush wins Florida again by a narrow margin, Democrats will again be whining about Nader. I wonder if they'll remember this incident.
Of course not.
It makes you wonder why Democrats are fighting Nader harder than they are fighting Bush. Are they masochistic or just incompetent?
This incident invalidates any possible future snivelling that Nader will have cost Kerry the election.
Friday, September 17, 2004
Not quite getting the concept
I read this BBC article where Turkey's prime minister blasted the European Union for allegedly interfering in his country's internal affairs.
Now, it might sound like a simplistic case of a non-western country telling the imperialist west to mind its own damn business.
Except Turkey wants to join the EU.
The EU has rules and regulations. Turkey's government was considering a law to criminalize adultery. But the EU didn't endorse it and told Turkey so.
The Turkish prime minister said no one should use the EU as an excuse to pressure Turkey.
Um... I don't think he quite gets the concept. The EU is a club. It has entry standards. If you want to get in, you have to follow those standards. If you don't like the standards, then don't join. It's that simple.
Some countries don't like the onerous standards of such "clubs." For example, Zimbabwe didn't like the Commonwealth's rules that waging war on your own people is a bad idea.
So they weren't content in blaming the "racist" British (Mugabe's black opponents were denied food aid or beaten by thugs or arrested and tortured all on the orders of Tony Blair, of course). Instead of just whining about the horrible British, they quit the club. It was that simple.
Turkey needs to quit complaining. Either they adhere to European standards and join the club, or do whatever they want and deny themselves the benefits of membership.
Now, it might sound like a simplistic case of a non-western country telling the imperialist west to mind its own damn business.
Except Turkey wants to join the EU.
The EU has rules and regulations. Turkey's government was considering a law to criminalize adultery. But the EU didn't endorse it and told Turkey so.
The Turkish prime minister said no one should use the EU as an excuse to pressure Turkey.
Um... I don't think he quite gets the concept. The EU is a club. It has entry standards. If you want to get in, you have to follow those standards. If you don't like the standards, then don't join. It's that simple.
Some countries don't like the onerous standards of such "clubs." For example, Zimbabwe didn't like the Commonwealth's rules that waging war on your own people is a bad idea.
So they weren't content in blaming the "racist" British (Mugabe's black opponents were denied food aid or beaten by thugs or arrested and tortured all on the orders of Tony Blair, of course). Instead of just whining about the horrible British, they quit the club. It was that simple.
Turkey needs to quit complaining. Either they adhere to European standards and join the club, or do whatever they want and deny themselves the benefits of membership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)