The United Nations system has been under serious pressure in the last few years, ever since its refusal to authorize the American-led aggression against Iraq. One of the main criticisms of American neo-conservatives has been of the UN's Human Rights Commission.
Granted, this is merely a fig leaf in a greater effort* to discredit the UN into submissiveness. And though advocacy groups had complained about the HRC for years, neo-cons never showed any particular interest in the commission or in human rights in general (except as a rhetorical device) before the UN-disapproved Iraq invasion.
Yet, however disingenuous some criticisms may have been, its clear that the UN Human Rights Commission as presently constituted is worthless.
Most recently, the commission passed a resolution criticizing human rights violations in Sudan's Darfur region but refused to name the Sudanese government specifically. Yet even that watered down resolution was seen as a bitter pill for the Khartoum regime to swallow.
The HRC comprises 54 UN member states, divided by geography and headed by a chief appointed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
In other words, approximately one out of every four UN member states is on the commission. One can expect bad human rights' abusers to serve on the commission merely by the law of averages. This year's guardians of human rights include Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and, arguably the most repressive state in the world, Saudi Arabia.
Secretary-General Annan recognized that the HRC was harming the reputation of the UN as a whole and called for it to be scrapped and replaced by a much smaller council. Though the right wing should be beware: he also wants a new council to have more power, which might be problematic to the neo-con strategy of 'accountability without authority.'
The HRC is so useless that even its own head trashed it. The highly respected Louise Arbour, who is a former justice on the Canadian Supreme Court and was once head of the War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, called the commission selective and unfair.
"There is something fundamentally wrong with a system in which the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world is answered by reference to just four states," she said.
The current HRC's sole purpose is to protect its members from being named and shamed. Annan, Arbour and others are right to call for a new body with both accountability AND authority.
*-For more on the UN's rough year and the dubiousness of its harshest critics, read here
Monday, April 25, 2005
Followup on tsunami relief
In mid-January, I wrote an essay in which I expressed doubt about whether the PROMISES of money toward relief for the Asian tsunami would actually translate into actual money. A friend of mine though the tsunami touched world opinion in a way that other disasters hadn't. She thus expressed confidence that the promises would in fact be realized and encouraged me to re-explore the issue in a few months.
Unfortunately, the signs are not good.
Last month, the BBC reported: [T]he Asian Development Bank said there was a shortfall of more than $4bn promised for rebuilding India, Indonesia, the Maldives and Sri Lanka.
That's a $4 billion that was promised and not received... and that's only for four countries.
More recently, the Inter Press Service reported that of the $6.7 billion pledged overall, only $2.5 billion has actually been paid or committed. Not spent, but committed.
Unfortunately, the signs are not good.
Last month, the BBC reported: [T]he Asian Development Bank said there was a shortfall of more than $4bn promised for rebuilding India, Indonesia, the Maldives and Sri Lanka.
That's a $4 billion that was promised and not received... and that's only for four countries.
More recently, the Inter Press Service reported that of the $6.7 billion pledged overall, only $2.5 billion has actually been paid or committed. Not spent, but committed.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Reconciliation methods in traditional societies
This essay is part of a regular feature on my blog that presents interesting stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, Israel and Iraq.
The New York Times had a good article on the reconciliation process in Uganda. Northern Uganda has been the home of arguable the world's most savage rebel group, the grossly misnamed Lord's Resistance Army.
The fighting features rebels who call themselves the Lord's Resistance Army and who speak earnestly of the import of the Ten Commandments, but who routinely hack up civilians who get in their way. To add to their numbers, the rebels abduct children in the night, brainwash them in the bush, indoctrinate them by forcing them to kill, and then turn them - 20,000 over the last two decades - into the next wave of ferocious fighters seeking to topple the government. Girls as young as 12 are assigned as rebel commanders' wives. Anyone who does not toe the line is brutally killed, explains The NYT.
The International Criminal Court at The Hague represents one way of holding those who commit atrocities responsible for their crimes. The raw eggs, twigs and livestock that the Acholi people of northern Uganda use in their traditional reconciliation ceremonies represent another.
The two very different systems - one based on Western notions of justice, the other on a deep African tradition of forgiveness - are clashing in their response to one of this continent's most bizarre and brutal guerrilla wars, a conflict that has raged for 18 years in the rugged terrain along Uganda's border with Sudan.
War crimes tribunals should focus on the organizers and instigators of mass atrocities and the worst perpetators, such as LRA leader Joseph Kony, who tells his followers that he is in direct contact with God, and that God says it is right to kill in the cause of toppling [Ugandan President Yoweri] Museveni's evil government.
Kony explained, "If you pick up an arrow against us and we ended up cutting off the hand you used, who is to blame? You report us with your mouth, and we cut off your lips. Who is to blame? It is you! The Bible says that if your hand, eye or mouth is at fault, it should be cut off."
The rebels began cutting off the lips, hands, noses and breasts of civilians, intending that their victims survive as constant warnings to others.
Much like with the gacaca* system in Rwanda, sticking with traditional notions of reconciliation is generally a good idea, particularly in traditional societies. This is not based on softness, but on pragmatism. These societies had to deal with conflict and its aftermath long before western-style courts with robed judges were introduced.
Furthermore, western systems are more focused on punitive justice whereas post-conflict societies need a greater emphasis on restorative justice if they are ever going to move forward.
War crimes tribunals should focus on scum like Kony. Kids were abducted into the LRA and forced at gunpoint to commit atrocities or drugged up so they'd be more willing to do so, they should follow established paths to reintegrating into society as much as possible.
*-For more on the Rwandan gacacas, see here
The New York Times had a good article on the reconciliation process in Uganda. Northern Uganda has been the home of arguable the world's most savage rebel group, the grossly misnamed Lord's Resistance Army.
The fighting features rebels who call themselves the Lord's Resistance Army and who speak earnestly of the import of the Ten Commandments, but who routinely hack up civilians who get in their way. To add to their numbers, the rebels abduct children in the night, brainwash them in the bush, indoctrinate them by forcing them to kill, and then turn them - 20,000 over the last two decades - into the next wave of ferocious fighters seeking to topple the government. Girls as young as 12 are assigned as rebel commanders' wives. Anyone who does not toe the line is brutally killed, explains The NYT.
The International Criminal Court at The Hague represents one way of holding those who commit atrocities responsible for their crimes. The raw eggs, twigs and livestock that the Acholi people of northern Uganda use in their traditional reconciliation ceremonies represent another.
The two very different systems - one based on Western notions of justice, the other on a deep African tradition of forgiveness - are clashing in their response to one of this continent's most bizarre and brutal guerrilla wars, a conflict that has raged for 18 years in the rugged terrain along Uganda's border with Sudan.
War crimes tribunals should focus on the organizers and instigators of mass atrocities and the worst perpetators, such as LRA leader Joseph Kony, who tells his followers that he is in direct contact with God, and that God says it is right to kill in the cause of toppling [Ugandan President Yoweri] Museveni's evil government.
Kony explained, "If you pick up an arrow against us and we ended up cutting off the hand you used, who is to blame? You report us with your mouth, and we cut off your lips. Who is to blame? It is you! The Bible says that if your hand, eye or mouth is at fault, it should be cut off."
The rebels began cutting off the lips, hands, noses and breasts of civilians, intending that their victims survive as constant warnings to others.
Much like with the gacaca* system in Rwanda, sticking with traditional notions of reconciliation is generally a good idea, particularly in traditional societies. This is not based on softness, but on pragmatism. These societies had to deal with conflict and its aftermath long before western-style courts with robed judges were introduced.
Furthermore, western systems are more focused on punitive justice whereas post-conflict societies need a greater emphasis on restorative justice if they are ever going to move forward.
War crimes tribunals should focus on scum like Kony. Kids were abducted into the LRA and forced at gunpoint to commit atrocities or drugged up so they'd be more willing to do so, they should follow established paths to reintegrating into society as much as possible.
*-For more on the Rwandan gacacas, see here
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Being a jerk is NOT the state's pasttime
Even Colin Powell, John Bolton's former boss, has expressed doubts about his fitness to serve as UN ambassador. Apparently Bolton is quite rude and has nasty temper.
Now, this isn't a big deal to people like the petulant Angry New Yorker blogger, who complained about the Democratic 'babies' saying mean things about poor Mr. Bolton.
Angry New Yorker sniffed: We're really at a loss at to what the issue is here regarding the accusation that John Bolton, nominee for U.S.'s U.N. Ambassador, was "verbally abusive" and chased a woman staffer around a hotel throwing things at her. First of all, at the risk of being undiplomatic, we don't care. In New York verbal abuse is almost the state pastime.
Perhaps lack of class is something to be proud of in New York City, but up here in the boonies, it's not. Like some NYC residents, he thinks that NYC is the be all and end all of New York state.
And where I work, chasing a woman staffer around a hotel throwing things at her is probably grounds for dismissal. In the Bush administration, it's apparently grounds for a promotion.
In his graceful way, Angry New Yorker continues: So if some wallflower ten years ago was traumatized and couldn't take a dressing down -- deserved or not -- without quivering in her Legg's we're most definitely not getting teary-eyed about it. Granted, no one enjoys working for a jerk -- and there's no shortage of those in either New York City or in the broader work world. But we've also worked with plenty of idiots, incompetents and deadwood, and there are times when lighting a bonfire under someone's lazy ass is just what the doctor ordered.
Being a jerk, as he put it, may not be a fatal flaw in other offices but perhaps is not the best quality to have in the nation's #2 diplomat. Especially considering the beating America's reputation has taken precisely as the result of the administration's contempt for diplomacy.
Laughably, President Bush yesterday accused Democrats of blocking Bolton's nomination for political reasons.
As we know, Bush's nomination of a vehemently anti-UN man to represent America at the UN was not the least bit political.
'Partisan politics' or doing something 'for political reasons' is one of the most common, and lamest, complaints heard in Washington. A politician is one who practices politics. Politics is, by definition: The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.
So yes, the Democrats are playing politics by blocking Bolton. Just as the administration is playing politics by defending him. So what? Besides, the minority Dems can't block Bolton without the help of Republican senators... some of whom are uneasy about him as well.
I admit that this doesn't really matter that much. I'm sure if Bolton gets voted down, the administration will nominate someone even more hardline, even more obnoxious, even more undiplomatic. Maybe Jesse Helms is available.
But if the best defense of Bolton supporters is whining about 'obstructionism,' then it's obvious he should be voted down.
Now, this isn't a big deal to people like the petulant Angry New Yorker blogger, who complained about the Democratic 'babies' saying mean things about poor Mr. Bolton.
Angry New Yorker sniffed: We're really at a loss at to what the issue is here regarding the accusation that John Bolton, nominee for U.S.'s U.N. Ambassador, was "verbally abusive" and chased a woman staffer around a hotel throwing things at her. First of all, at the risk of being undiplomatic, we don't care. In New York verbal abuse is almost the state pastime.
Perhaps lack of class is something to be proud of in New York City, but up here in the boonies, it's not. Like some NYC residents, he thinks that NYC is the be all and end all of New York state.
And where I work, chasing a woman staffer around a hotel throwing things at her is probably grounds for dismissal. In the Bush administration, it's apparently grounds for a promotion.
In his graceful way, Angry New Yorker continues: So if some wallflower ten years ago was traumatized and couldn't take a dressing down -- deserved or not -- without quivering in her Legg's we're most definitely not getting teary-eyed about it. Granted, no one enjoys working for a jerk -- and there's no shortage of those in either New York City or in the broader work world. But we've also worked with plenty of idiots, incompetents and deadwood, and there are times when lighting a bonfire under someone's lazy ass is just what the doctor ordered.
Being a jerk, as he put it, may not be a fatal flaw in other offices but perhaps is not the best quality to have in the nation's #2 diplomat. Especially considering the beating America's reputation has taken precisely as the result of the administration's contempt for diplomacy.
Laughably, President Bush yesterday accused Democrats of blocking Bolton's nomination for political reasons.
As we know, Bush's nomination of a vehemently anti-UN man to represent America at the UN was not the least bit political.
'Partisan politics' or doing something 'for political reasons' is one of the most common, and lamest, complaints heard in Washington. A politician is one who practices politics. Politics is, by definition: The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.
So yes, the Democrats are playing politics by blocking Bolton. Just as the administration is playing politics by defending him. So what? Besides, the minority Dems can't block Bolton without the help of Republican senators... some of whom are uneasy about him as well.
I admit that this doesn't really matter that much. I'm sure if Bolton gets voted down, the administration will nominate someone even more hardline, even more obnoxious, even more undiplomatic. Maybe Jesse Helms is available.
But if the best defense of Bolton supporters is whining about 'obstructionism,' then it's obvious he should be voted down.
Grasping at the tiniest of straws
Earlier this week, embattled House Majority Leader Tom DeLay launched a salvo against Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and other so-called 'activist judges.' As I've mentioned before, 'activist judges' is a perjorative used by conservatives against judges who insist that legislators respect the constitutions.
Most of it was pretty run-of-the-mill stuff that I normally wouldn't dignify with its own entry. But one comment caught my eye. Of Justice Kennedy, Rep. DeLay said, "And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous."
He does research? On the Internet?
OH THE HUMANITY!
I don't think The Simpsons could spoof DeLay any better since he's already become such a cariciature of himself.
Then again, if I were under siege and facing serious allegations of sleaze and influence peddling, I suppose I'd be grasping at any straws I could too.
Perhaps DeLay objects so much because the Internet was invented by Democrat Al Gore.
Most of it was pretty run-of-the-mill stuff that I normally wouldn't dignify with its own entry. But one comment caught my eye. Of Justice Kennedy, Rep. DeLay said, "And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous."
He does research? On the Internet?
OH THE HUMANITY!
I don't think The Simpsons could spoof DeLay any better since he's already become such a cariciature of himself.
Then again, if I were under siege and facing serious allegations of sleaze and influence peddling, I suppose I'd be grasping at any straws I could too.
Perhaps DeLay objects so much because the Internet was invented by Democrat Al Gore.
Friday, April 22, 2005
'Self-loathing' or non-stereotypical?
Stephen Minarik, the new chairman of the New York State Republican Party, inherits an organization in poor shape. Republicans hold none of the major statewide offices, except for Gov. George Pataki. And the governor is not particuarly popular, if not loathed, and is generally expected not to seek a fourth term in 2006. The GOP has a tiny minority in the state Assembly. Its narrow majority in the state Senate shrunk even more with several rare losses (3 of 62, which is high by NY legislative standards) by incumbents in last year's elections.
So to get attention (and much needed money) for his party, Minarik launched a high profile Stop Hillary campaign against Mrs. Clinton, the state's junior senator. Invoking Hillary is one of the best ways to raise huge sums of cash... for Democrats and Republicans alike. Piles of non-New York state cash will likely flow in to NY GOP coffers as a result of this campaign. Sen. Clinton has already blasted "the right-wing attack machine" to raise her own non-NYS money in response.
I've never been a big fan of Mrs. Clinton and I didn't vote for her. Essentially, she became a well-known figure and popular among her supporters primarily because of who her husband happens to be. She's certainly smart and talented, but if her husband hadn't become president, do you really think her first elected office would be US Senator from a state she'd never lived in? It all seems sort of the antithesis of feminism.
Yet, the vitriol of criticism against her is breathtaking. I understand that some people don't like the fact that she's a bit a liberal, but other more liberal politicians don't get savaged nearly as much as she does. (Though as a senator, he hasn't been as ultraliberal as her reputation would suggest as demonstrated by her surprising popularity in the very conservative upstate New York)
Some claim that her critics hate the fact that she's a strong woman. Yet, there are other strong women politicians that don't get savaged nearly as much as she does. She's not only ambitious, but poor at disguising her ambition. But there are other unashamedly ambitious politicians who don't get savaged as much as she does. As First Lady, she was an unelected official who tried to devise a major policy in secret, but none of the other unelected officials on the same commission got savaged as much as she did. Appointed presidential commissions were hardly invented by Bill Clinton.
Sen. Clinton is not even the only major politician who owes her job to the fame of relatives. Such as Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski (daughter of Alaska Gov. Frank), GOP Rep. Mary Bono (wife of Sonny) and the many Democratic Kennedys who've been elected to Congress.
It's not that she's the target of criticism that baffles me. It's the amount and the vitriol that baffles me. No single reason explains it.
In a sense, I think Sen. Clinton is a bit like the state of Israel. Both certainly deserve some of the criticism they receive but the sheer quantity of the vitriol is wholly disproportionate to any sense of fairness. They both have large numbers of people who will defend them blindly and rabidly even against the most legitimate criticisms.
One of those defenders is Sen. Clinton's husband, the former president. I suppose it's not surprising since on a personal level, he owes her big time for not ditching him in the late 90s. But that's personal and this essay is not about the personal.
Except that it is.
In defending his wife, former Pres. Clinton criticized a Republican political consultant at heart of the Stop Hillary campaign. The consultant, Arthur Finkelstein, happens to be gay and actually married his partner in Massachussetts last year.
Mr. Clinton said, "I thought, one of two things. Either this guy believes his party is not serious and is totally Machiavellian in its position, or you know, as David Brock said in his great book 'Blinded by the Right,' there's some sort of self-loathing or something. I was more sad for him."
Arthur Finkelstein is a shameless promoter of smear politics. But it's outrageous that Mr. Clinton lowered himself to Finkelstein's level with a wholly inappropriate attack. Perhaps this particular case can be chalked up to the excessive zeal of a husband defending his wife (though I'm a bit skeptical). Nevertheless, Mr. Clinton's attack perpetuates a myth I detest.
'Self-loathing' is despicable smear. I see it no different than when extreme elements of the pro-Iraq war crowd defame anti-war people as 'anti-American' or 'terrorist lovers.' It's an offensive leap of anti-logic.
Just as many people assume that religious people must necessarily be conservative, others assume that gays must necessarily be liberal. I've found it extremely arrogant and presumptuous that some people act like gays and blacks OUGHT to be liberal by the mere fact of their gayness and blackness. Conservative gays are called 'self-loathing.' Conservative blacks are called 'Uncle Toms.' This is a widespread assumption as reprehensible as anything Bill Frist said.
The fundamental flaw is that this presumes that homosexuality is the only characteristic of gays, that dark skin is the only characteristic of blacks. Gays and blacks can't care about crime. They can't care about jobs. They can't want lower taxes. Gays have to be pigeonholed as gays only. Blacks have to be pigeonholed as blacks only. They are not allowed to be simple citizens who care about other issues that affect them and their country, state and town. They need to stay inside their little box and conform to their stereotype.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask Finkelstein how he can feel at home in a party where exploiting anti-gay sentiment is at the heart of their current national agenda; rather than derision and assumption and presumption, you can give him a chance to explain himself. It's reasonable to challenge him to lead an uprising in his party against this bigotry,to show a little courage, to fight the correct and Right enemy. But deriding him as self-loathing merely because no gay could possibly have anything in common with a single Republican value, that's not only tremendously arrogant, but over the line of decency.
The Democratic Party does not have the right to the vote of every gay person or every black person, just as the Republican Party does not have the right to the vote of every Christian or every soldier. They need to earn votes on merit, not identity.
So to get attention (and much needed money) for his party, Minarik launched a high profile Stop Hillary campaign against Mrs. Clinton, the state's junior senator. Invoking Hillary is one of the best ways to raise huge sums of cash... for Democrats and Republicans alike. Piles of non-New York state cash will likely flow in to NY GOP coffers as a result of this campaign. Sen. Clinton has already blasted "the right-wing attack machine" to raise her own non-NYS money in response.
I've never been a big fan of Mrs. Clinton and I didn't vote for her. Essentially, she became a well-known figure and popular among her supporters primarily because of who her husband happens to be. She's certainly smart and talented, but if her husband hadn't become president, do you really think her first elected office would be US Senator from a state she'd never lived in? It all seems sort of the antithesis of feminism.
Yet, the vitriol of criticism against her is breathtaking. I understand that some people don't like the fact that she's a bit a liberal, but other more liberal politicians don't get savaged nearly as much as she does. (Though as a senator, he hasn't been as ultraliberal as her reputation would suggest as demonstrated by her surprising popularity in the very conservative upstate New York)
Some claim that her critics hate the fact that she's a strong woman. Yet, there are other strong women politicians that don't get savaged nearly as much as she does. She's not only ambitious, but poor at disguising her ambition. But there are other unashamedly ambitious politicians who don't get savaged as much as she does. As First Lady, she was an unelected official who tried to devise a major policy in secret, but none of the other unelected officials on the same commission got savaged as much as she did. Appointed presidential commissions were hardly invented by Bill Clinton.
Sen. Clinton is not even the only major politician who owes her job to the fame of relatives. Such as Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski (daughter of Alaska Gov. Frank), GOP Rep. Mary Bono (wife of Sonny) and the many Democratic Kennedys who've been elected to Congress.
It's not that she's the target of criticism that baffles me. It's the amount and the vitriol that baffles me. No single reason explains it.
In a sense, I think Sen. Clinton is a bit like the state of Israel. Both certainly deserve some of the criticism they receive but the sheer quantity of the vitriol is wholly disproportionate to any sense of fairness. They both have large numbers of people who will defend them blindly and rabidly even against the most legitimate criticisms.
One of those defenders is Sen. Clinton's husband, the former president. I suppose it's not surprising since on a personal level, he owes her big time for not ditching him in the late 90s. But that's personal and this essay is not about the personal.
Except that it is.
In defending his wife, former Pres. Clinton criticized a Republican political consultant at heart of the Stop Hillary campaign. The consultant, Arthur Finkelstein, happens to be gay and actually married his partner in Massachussetts last year.
Mr. Clinton said, "I thought, one of two things. Either this guy believes his party is not serious and is totally Machiavellian in its position, or you know, as David Brock said in his great book 'Blinded by the Right,' there's some sort of self-loathing or something. I was more sad for him."
Arthur Finkelstein is a shameless promoter of smear politics. But it's outrageous that Mr. Clinton lowered himself to Finkelstein's level with a wholly inappropriate attack. Perhaps this particular case can be chalked up to the excessive zeal of a husband defending his wife (though I'm a bit skeptical). Nevertheless, Mr. Clinton's attack perpetuates a myth I detest.
'Self-loathing' is despicable smear. I see it no different than when extreme elements of the pro-Iraq war crowd defame anti-war people as 'anti-American' or 'terrorist lovers.' It's an offensive leap of anti-logic.
Just as many people assume that religious people must necessarily be conservative, others assume that gays must necessarily be liberal. I've found it extremely arrogant and presumptuous that some people act like gays and blacks OUGHT to be liberal by the mere fact of their gayness and blackness. Conservative gays are called 'self-loathing.' Conservative blacks are called 'Uncle Toms.' This is a widespread assumption as reprehensible as anything Bill Frist said.
The fundamental flaw is that this presumes that homosexuality is the only characteristic of gays, that dark skin is the only characteristic of blacks. Gays and blacks can't care about crime. They can't care about jobs. They can't want lower taxes. Gays have to be pigeonholed as gays only. Blacks have to be pigeonholed as blacks only. They are not allowed to be simple citizens who care about other issues that affect them and their country, state and town. They need to stay inside their little box and conform to their stereotype.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask Finkelstein how he can feel at home in a party where exploiting anti-gay sentiment is at the heart of their current national agenda; rather than derision and assumption and presumption, you can give him a chance to explain himself. It's reasonable to challenge him to lead an uprising in his party against this bigotry,to show a little courage, to fight the correct and Right enemy. But deriding him as self-loathing merely because no gay could possibly have anything in common with a single Republican value, that's not only tremendously arrogant, but over the line of decency.
The Democratic Party does not have the right to the vote of every gay person or every black person, just as the Republican Party does not have the right to the vote of every Christian or every soldier. They need to earn votes on merit, not identity.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
'Support our troops'... sometimes
Sadly, 'Support our troops' has become an empty catchphrase used to silence criticism of the Iraq aggression. I've seen more than a few bumper stickers and lawn signs that read 'I support our troops and President George W. Bush' next to an American flag.
I was a bit skeptical of 'support our troops' from the beginning. Not because it was an inherently bad phrase. The sentiments of the literal words are perfectly reasonable. No one I know, and I know some pretty hard core anti-war folks, has suggested we spit on or curse at returning Iraq vets like they did during Vietnam. A colleague's son returned from Iraq recently and was welcomed back by a big gathering; a big gathering organized by some friends of mine who I know opposed the Iraq war.
The problem is that while the words and the phrase may be reasonable in a vacuum, they are used in a particular context in the real world.
I objected to how the otherwise reasonable sentiment has been exploited: in favor of an unjust war. But seeing this signs were the last straw. The signs represent a insidious propaganda of the highest order: equating the troops, the president and the nation. Not only because they are on the same sign, but because they are part of the same, indivisible sentence. The implication of these signs is clear: if you oppose one, you oppose the other two.
I believe we can best support our troops by not sending them on unprovoked invasion of non-threatening countries based on bogus reasons. But that doesn't fit neatly onto a bumper sticker. And it also doesn't really appeal to our society's instincts for macho chest-beating first, thinking later.
It's sad when a phrase that seems honorable enough on the surface gets hijacked for political reasons.
The 'support our troops' folks mostly insist that the phrase is separate from support or opposition to the war. Yet in my town, and in most towns, 'support our troops' rallies only started AFTER anti-Iraq war rallies started happening. And in my town, like most towns, the big 'support our troops' rallies generally stopped once the anti-war rallies petered out. If it was really only about 'supporting our troops,' then shouldn't the rallies continue regularly since American troops are still fighting, being injured and dying abroad? Do we only 'support our troops' when liberal hippies criticize belligerence and militarism? Aren't troops the #2 victims of that belligerence and militarism?
The 'canonize the veterans' movement is an offshoot of 'support our troops.' And it has the same characteristics. All veterans should be canonized, except for those who disagree with patriotically correct orthodoxy of support the wartime Leader no matter what.
John Kerry is a veteran. He even voted for the Iraq invasion. But once he started criticizing President Bush, he became a traitor and a turncoat. Ralph Nader is an Army veteran but 'canonize the veterans' movement would spit on him in a second if they had the chance. I'm sure they loathe the Veterans for Peace organization.
The worst part is that many people mouth 'support our troops' but don't mean it as substance.
When there were long delays in getting body armor and armor plated vehicles to American troops in Iraq, the 'support our troops' crowd should've taken to the streets to demand that 'support our troops' be translated into action. Especially when it was reported (by Fox News nonetheless) that the Pentagon was giving protective vests to foreign troops before providing them to American troops. I guess preserving the facade of the 'coalition of the willing' was more important to the administration than protecting American lives. The 'support our troops' crowd should've gone ballistic about this. But they didn't. They were too busy demanding everyone support the wartime Leader no matter what.
[Incidentally, that US troops were in many cases poorly equiped was a problem brought to widespread public attention by the supposedly liberal, troop-hating news media]
The hawkish Washington Post ran an editorial illustrating the lunacy of the Don't Ask Don't Tell farce that is the military's policy against gays. It points out how this sham policy is used against soldiers who the military had previously lauded.
ARMY SGT. ROBERT Stout received a Purple Heart after an exploding grenade in Iraq last May left shrapnel in his face, arm and legs. He would like to remain in the military, and he said in an interview that he would reenlist were it not for the "don't ask, don't tell" policy... Now he'll be lucky if he's allowed to serve out his tour, which ends in May, without being kicked out of the service. For under U.S. policy, even the most decorated and patriotic gay soldier is just a homosexual to be rooted out at the military's earliest convenience.
When he was injured, he instantly became one of 'our heroes', a great man, a profile in courage. But when he admitted he was gay, he just as instantly became a pariah, a scumbag, worthy only of being expelled from the Army. No one's demanding we support him. The instant he admitted he was gay, he was no longer one of OUR troops.
The editorial also points out the practical effects of this stupid policy. They are pretty much the same as any irrationally exclusionary policy.
According to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office, the services have spent $190 million recruiting and training replacements for gay service members kicked out during the past 10 years. More than 750 of the 9,488 men and women discharged from the military during that time, moreover, "held critical occupations"; many had training in languages important to the war on terrorism. The gay ban, in other words, is as self-defeating as it is demeaning to people who want to serve their country at a time of great need.
A military acquaintance of mine once said that it was sad that so many otherwise talented people won't even consider a career in the military. I suspect many of them HAVE considered such a career but felt they weren't wanted. Maybe they've seen all these cases of honorable soldiers who gave years of loyal service (and possibly their well-being), received many honors and then were stabbed in the back by the institution that once claimed them as heros.
Maybe they're realizing that 'support our troops' might not apply to them.
I was a bit skeptical of 'support our troops' from the beginning. Not because it was an inherently bad phrase. The sentiments of the literal words are perfectly reasonable. No one I know, and I know some pretty hard core anti-war folks, has suggested we spit on or curse at returning Iraq vets like they did during Vietnam. A colleague's son returned from Iraq recently and was welcomed back by a big gathering; a big gathering organized by some friends of mine who I know opposed the Iraq war.
The problem is that while the words and the phrase may be reasonable in a vacuum, they are used in a particular context in the real world.
I objected to how the otherwise reasonable sentiment has been exploited: in favor of an unjust war. But seeing this signs were the last straw. The signs represent a insidious propaganda of the highest order: equating the troops, the president and the nation. Not only because they are on the same sign, but because they are part of the same, indivisible sentence. The implication of these signs is clear: if you oppose one, you oppose the other two.
I believe we can best support our troops by not sending them on unprovoked invasion of non-threatening countries based on bogus reasons. But that doesn't fit neatly onto a bumper sticker. And it also doesn't really appeal to our society's instincts for macho chest-beating first, thinking later.
It's sad when a phrase that seems honorable enough on the surface gets hijacked for political reasons.
The 'support our troops' folks mostly insist that the phrase is separate from support or opposition to the war. Yet in my town, and in most towns, 'support our troops' rallies only started AFTER anti-Iraq war rallies started happening. And in my town, like most towns, the big 'support our troops' rallies generally stopped once the anti-war rallies petered out. If it was really only about 'supporting our troops,' then shouldn't the rallies continue regularly since American troops are still fighting, being injured and dying abroad? Do we only 'support our troops' when liberal hippies criticize belligerence and militarism? Aren't troops the #2 victims of that belligerence and militarism?
The 'canonize the veterans' movement is an offshoot of 'support our troops.' And it has the same characteristics. All veterans should be canonized, except for those who disagree with patriotically correct orthodoxy of support the wartime Leader no matter what.
John Kerry is a veteran. He even voted for the Iraq invasion. But once he started criticizing President Bush, he became a traitor and a turncoat. Ralph Nader is an Army veteran but 'canonize the veterans' movement would spit on him in a second if they had the chance. I'm sure they loathe the Veterans for Peace organization.
The worst part is that many people mouth 'support our troops' but don't mean it as substance.
When there were long delays in getting body armor and armor plated vehicles to American troops in Iraq, the 'support our troops' crowd should've taken to the streets to demand that 'support our troops' be translated into action. Especially when it was reported (by Fox News nonetheless) that the Pentagon was giving protective vests to foreign troops before providing them to American troops. I guess preserving the facade of the 'coalition of the willing' was more important to the administration than protecting American lives. The 'support our troops' crowd should've gone ballistic about this. But they didn't. They were too busy demanding everyone support the wartime Leader no matter what.
[Incidentally, that US troops were in many cases poorly equiped was a problem brought to widespread public attention by the supposedly liberal, troop-hating news media]
The hawkish Washington Post ran an editorial illustrating the lunacy of the Don't Ask Don't Tell farce that is the military's policy against gays. It points out how this sham policy is used against soldiers who the military had previously lauded.
ARMY SGT. ROBERT Stout received a Purple Heart after an exploding grenade in Iraq last May left shrapnel in his face, arm and legs. He would like to remain in the military, and he said in an interview that he would reenlist were it not for the "don't ask, don't tell" policy... Now he'll be lucky if he's allowed to serve out his tour, which ends in May, without being kicked out of the service. For under U.S. policy, even the most decorated and patriotic gay soldier is just a homosexual to be rooted out at the military's earliest convenience.
When he was injured, he instantly became one of 'our heroes', a great man, a profile in courage. But when he admitted he was gay, he just as instantly became a pariah, a scumbag, worthy only of being expelled from the Army. No one's demanding we support him. The instant he admitted he was gay, he was no longer one of OUR troops.
The editorial also points out the practical effects of this stupid policy. They are pretty much the same as any irrationally exclusionary policy.
According to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office, the services have spent $190 million recruiting and training replacements for gay service members kicked out during the past 10 years. More than 750 of the 9,488 men and women discharged from the military during that time, moreover, "held critical occupations"; many had training in languages important to the war on terrorism. The gay ban, in other words, is as self-defeating as it is demeaning to people who want to serve their country at a time of great need.
A military acquaintance of mine once said that it was sad that so many otherwise talented people won't even consider a career in the military. I suspect many of them HAVE considered such a career but felt they weren't wanted. Maybe they've seen all these cases of honorable soldiers who gave years of loyal service (and possibly their well-being), received many honors and then were stabbed in the back by the institution that once claimed them as heros.
Maybe they're realizing that 'support our troops' might not apply to them.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Bill Frist's "blasphemy"
Part of the Theocracy Brigade's agenda is to make the phrase 'religious right' redundant in the minds of most Americans. If you are religious, then you must be conservative, at least moderately so. That's what they want to drum into the minds of Americans until it becomes an unquestioned assumption. Never mind that many of the great liberal social reformers in American history have been motivated precisely because of their faith, from the abolitionists to Cesar Chavez to the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and his associates in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
The Theocracy Brigade usually advances their agenda in a very stealthful way. That's how they've become so powerful. They worked from the grass roots up and flew under the political radar for a long time until they were already entrenched. They usually seize upon issues which are relatively unimportant in practical terms but hugely symbolic. Like whether society will collapse if the Ten Commandments aren't posted in every school bathroom or court hallway. Or whether we [however that's defined] should acknoweldge [however that's defined] America as a Christian nation [however that's defined].
With control of the presidency and the Congress and control of the judiciary their next, not-too-distant goal, they are so drunk with power that perhaps are losing a bit of the subtle touch that got them so much.
Democrats in the Senate have used the filibuster to block several of President Bush's more extreme judicial nominees. Once approved, judges serve for life unless they retire or are impeached and removed for misconduct. So prudence doesn't seem like the worst thing in the world.
Republicans are screaming bloody murder so you'd think this tactic were widespread and that the president couldn't get any of his men approved. It turns out Democrats have only blocked 10 of Bush's judicial nominees, while nearly 200 have been approved by the Senate.
You'd think this obstructionism is new but it's not. During Bill Clinton's second term, Republicans vigorously blocked many of his judicial nominees and Democrats complained about obstructionism.
[T]he Senate confirmed only thirty-nine of the eighty-one judicial nominees that Clinton sent to the Senate in 2000. In all, forty-two judicial nominees remained unconfirmed when Clinton left office in January 2001. Thirty-eight of them never received a hearing.
And that was in a single year. Democrats have only blocked ten in over four years.
Having pioneered this tactic in the late 90s, Republicans are shocked (SHOCKED) that Democrats are now doing this, if much more sparingly.
Republican obstruction of Clinton's judicial appointments was so bad that it caused a serious shortage of judges. It was so severe that it prompted an extraordinary intervention by Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who usually avoids the spotlight.
In late 1997, he said that the nation's ``quality of justice'' may be threatened by the [GOP controlled] Senate's delay in acting on scores of President Clinton's judicial nominees. In his year-end report, the nation's top-ranking judge pointed a finger of blame at the Senate for ``serious delays in the appointment process.''
I even had one conservative critic brazenly tell me that although Republicans have controlled the presidency for 16 of the last 24 years, they never really cared much about judges until the last couple of years. I wonder what he'd make of Reagan's attorney general Ed Meese who once said that the appointment of judges would "institutionalize the Reagan revolution so it can't be set aside no matter what happens in future presidential elections."
So the Republican solution to this problem: end the 200+ year old filibuster which was designed precisely to be a check on mob rule and one party domination of the entire government structure. Of course, filibusters have been used in the past for less noble purposes like blocking civil rights legislation in the 60s. It's a brake on mob rule. It's also a break on democracy. You take the good with the bad.
Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is threatening to scrap the filibuster to ram through the handful of judicial nominees that Democrats have blocked. But he did so by using pathetic exploitation of religion to advance his party's agenda. Frist's broadside was shocking only in its overtness.
In a recorded speech that will air this weekend, he is expected to say that the Democrats' blocking of a handful of extreme judges constitutes an attack on 'people of faith.'
The title of the event during which Frist's speech will air, "Justice Sunday: Stop the Filibuster Against People of Faith."
The head of the organization sponsoring Justice Sunday: Stop the Filibuster Against People of Faith said that "activist courts" are conspiring "to rob us of our Christian heritage" and urges "values voters" to support Frist while a brochure originating from his church says the filibuster "was once abused to protect racial bias, and now it is being used against people of faith."
In fairness, if Frist does not saying anything of this nature, I will publish a retraction. But what I mentioned above leaves very little room for surprise.
Conservative Sen. Trent Lott (Frist's predecessor), surprisingly enough, offered a more reasonable explanation of Democratic actions. "People of faith were abused, but they weren't abused perhaps because of their faith." But because of their politics.
While one may disagree with the characterization of asking tough questions as 'abuse,' it's certainly a more fair analysis that Frist's and his allies.
The Theocracy Brigade thinks religious people can only be conservative. And that Christians (and perhaps conservative Jews, an unlikely ally) are the only true people of faith. It's a shameful way to conduct politics, but these people have repeatedly proven that they have no shame.
But other people of faith aren't taking this disgrace lying down. Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, released a letter. It said that Frist and those like him. "appear unable to discern the difference between authentic faith and partisan politics..... thus fostering a redefinition of religion that is blasphemy and a redefinition of democracy that is scary" [emphasis mine]
He wrote to Frist: "Even the suggestion that a person's support or opposition to religious faith can be determined by that person's support or opposition to a political initiative called "the nuclear option" is derogatory of religion and an insult to democracy....Though I personally disagree with you, ... I never would pass judgment on the integrity of your religious faith because of your commitment to that political strategy."
Amen.
The Theocracy Brigade usually advances their agenda in a very stealthful way. That's how they've become so powerful. They worked from the grass roots up and flew under the political radar for a long time until they were already entrenched. They usually seize upon issues which are relatively unimportant in practical terms but hugely symbolic. Like whether society will collapse if the Ten Commandments aren't posted in every school bathroom or court hallway. Or whether we [however that's defined] should acknoweldge [however that's defined] America as a Christian nation [however that's defined].
With control of the presidency and the Congress and control of the judiciary their next, not-too-distant goal, they are so drunk with power that perhaps are losing a bit of the subtle touch that got them so much.
Democrats in the Senate have used the filibuster to block several of President Bush's more extreme judicial nominees. Once approved, judges serve for life unless they retire or are impeached and removed for misconduct. So prudence doesn't seem like the worst thing in the world.
Republicans are screaming bloody murder so you'd think this tactic were widespread and that the president couldn't get any of his men approved. It turns out Democrats have only blocked 10 of Bush's judicial nominees, while nearly 200 have been approved by the Senate.
You'd think this obstructionism is new but it's not. During Bill Clinton's second term, Republicans vigorously blocked many of his judicial nominees and Democrats complained about obstructionism.
[T]he Senate confirmed only thirty-nine of the eighty-one judicial nominees that Clinton sent to the Senate in 2000. In all, forty-two judicial nominees remained unconfirmed when Clinton left office in January 2001. Thirty-eight of them never received a hearing.
And that was in a single year. Democrats have only blocked ten in over four years.
Having pioneered this tactic in the late 90s, Republicans are shocked (SHOCKED) that Democrats are now doing this, if much more sparingly.
Republican obstruction of Clinton's judicial appointments was so bad that it caused a serious shortage of judges. It was so severe that it prompted an extraordinary intervention by Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who usually avoids the spotlight.
In late 1997, he said that the nation's ``quality of justice'' may be threatened by the [GOP controlled] Senate's delay in acting on scores of President Clinton's judicial nominees. In his year-end report, the nation's top-ranking judge pointed a finger of blame at the Senate for ``serious delays in the appointment process.''
I even had one conservative critic brazenly tell me that although Republicans have controlled the presidency for 16 of the last 24 years, they never really cared much about judges until the last couple of years. I wonder what he'd make of Reagan's attorney general Ed Meese who once said that the appointment of judges would "institutionalize the Reagan revolution so it can't be set aside no matter what happens in future presidential elections."
So the Republican solution to this problem: end the 200+ year old filibuster which was designed precisely to be a check on mob rule and one party domination of the entire government structure. Of course, filibusters have been used in the past for less noble purposes like blocking civil rights legislation in the 60s. It's a brake on mob rule. It's also a break on democracy. You take the good with the bad.
Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is threatening to scrap the filibuster to ram through the handful of judicial nominees that Democrats have blocked. But he did so by using pathetic exploitation of religion to advance his party's agenda. Frist's broadside was shocking only in its overtness.
In a recorded speech that will air this weekend, he is expected to say that the Democrats' blocking of a handful of extreme judges constitutes an attack on 'people of faith.'
The title of the event during which Frist's speech will air, "Justice Sunday: Stop the Filibuster Against People of Faith."
The head of the organization sponsoring Justice Sunday: Stop the Filibuster Against People of Faith said that "activist courts" are conspiring "to rob us of our Christian heritage" and urges "values voters" to support Frist while a brochure originating from his church says the filibuster "was once abused to protect racial bias, and now it is being used against people of faith."
In fairness, if Frist does not saying anything of this nature, I will publish a retraction. But what I mentioned above leaves very little room for surprise.
Conservative Sen. Trent Lott (Frist's predecessor), surprisingly enough, offered a more reasonable explanation of Democratic actions. "People of faith were abused, but they weren't abused perhaps because of their faith." But because of their politics.
While one may disagree with the characterization of asking tough questions as 'abuse,' it's certainly a more fair analysis that Frist's and his allies.
The Theocracy Brigade thinks religious people can only be conservative. And that Christians (and perhaps conservative Jews, an unlikely ally) are the only true people of faith. It's a shameful way to conduct politics, but these people have repeatedly proven that they have no shame.
But other people of faith aren't taking this disgrace lying down. Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, released a letter. It said that Frist and those like him. "appear unable to discern the difference between authentic faith and partisan politics..... thus fostering a redefinition of religion that is blasphemy and a redefinition of democracy that is scary" [emphasis mine]
He wrote to Frist: "Even the suggestion that a person's support or opposition to religious faith can be determined by that person's support or opposition to a political initiative called "the nuclear option" is derogatory of religion and an insult to democracy....Though I personally disagree with you, ... I never would pass judgment on the integrity of your religious faith because of your commitment to that political strategy."
Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)