Thanks to the American president's brilliant foreign policy 'strategy,' we now see a cozying up between Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, a supposed Marxist (who are notoriously hostile to all religion) and radical religious fundamentalist Ahmadinejad of Iran.
Not many people could help join an alleged Marxist with a staunch theocrat, but Bush managed the trick.
Maybe he's a uniter after all!
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Monday, September 18, 2006
Republicans against torture
It's not often that I praise Republicans in this blog but I have to tip my cap to Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Warner. While President Bush wants to arbitrarily re-define the Geneva Convention so as to allow torture, degradation and other 'alternative' interrogation methods, these Republican senators have demanded the administration not betray America's fundamental values in its war on terror (or whatever the euphemism of the day is). Bush's former secretary of state Colin Powell, another Republican, has also come out against the president's plan.
McCain was a victim of torture by people who didn't respect Geneva Convention. Powell was a former joint chiefs of staff chairman whose job it was to look out for the well-being of American soldiers. Both have far more credibility than the president on this issue. They also realize that information obtained under torture is notoriously unreliable. It's quite logical: if someone's torturing you, you're far more likely to tell them what you think they want to hear, whether it's the truth or not. That's precisely why evidence gained under torture is inadmissible in the courts of most civilized countries.
Even Gen. Jacques Massu, whose French forces in Algeria committed widespread torture in the late 1950s, recently expressed regret for the atrocities. "Torture is not indispensible in wartime; you could easily do without it... we could've done things differently." Before adding, "If France recognized and condemned these practices, I would take this for progress."
France quit Algeria in 1962 despite the torture, indefinite detention and other widespread human rights abuses,. Or more likely, because of them. The abuses undermined France's moral authority. This made it easier for the Algerian nationalists to portray the French as degenerate thugs and galvanize support for the independence movement. The same thing harmed the British cause in Kenya.
The president's plan would also deny the right of suspected terrorists to see the evidence against them. If another country put an American in some kangaroo court where they were essentially refused the opportunity to defend themselves, any administration in Washington would rightly condemn this travesty against justice.
"They hate us because we're free," the president's apologists constantly intone. Not allowed to see the evidence against them? This farce is more reminiscent of Stalinist show trials than anything in America's long judicial tradition.
These Republicans are right to refuse to legalize the president's desire for lawlessness and to authorize his refusal to be accountable to anyone. They realize that the war against fanaticism will never be won on the battlefield, any more than the Cold War was won via a NATO 'liberation' of Eastern Europe. The US must instead win the battle of ideas against the illiberal forces of belligerent theocracy. These senators realize what the president refuses to acknowledge: the battle of ideas can only be won if America holds itself to a much higher moral standard than the Evil Doers.
Update: Perhaps my praise was premature.
McCain was a victim of torture by people who didn't respect Geneva Convention. Powell was a former joint chiefs of staff chairman whose job it was to look out for the well-being of American soldiers. Both have far more credibility than the president on this issue. They also realize that information obtained under torture is notoriously unreliable. It's quite logical: if someone's torturing you, you're far more likely to tell them what you think they want to hear, whether it's the truth or not. That's precisely why evidence gained under torture is inadmissible in the courts of most civilized countries.
Even Gen. Jacques Massu, whose French forces in Algeria committed widespread torture in the late 1950s, recently expressed regret for the atrocities. "Torture is not indispensible in wartime; you could easily do without it... we could've done things differently." Before adding, "If France recognized and condemned these practices, I would take this for progress."
France quit Algeria in 1962 despite the torture, indefinite detention and other widespread human rights abuses,. Or more likely, because of them. The abuses undermined France's moral authority. This made it easier for the Algerian nationalists to portray the French as degenerate thugs and galvanize support for the independence movement. The same thing harmed the British cause in Kenya.
The president's plan would also deny the right of suspected terrorists to see the evidence against them. If another country put an American in some kangaroo court where they were essentially refused the opportunity to defend themselves, any administration in Washington would rightly condemn this travesty against justice.
"They hate us because we're free," the president's apologists constantly intone. Not allowed to see the evidence against them? This farce is more reminiscent of Stalinist show trials than anything in America's long judicial tradition.
These Republicans are right to refuse to legalize the president's desire for lawlessness and to authorize his refusal to be accountable to anyone. They realize that the war against fanaticism will never be won on the battlefield, any more than the Cold War was won via a NATO 'liberation' of Eastern Europe. The US must instead win the battle of ideas against the illiberal forces of belligerent theocracy. These senators realize what the president refuses to acknowledge: the battle of ideas can only be won if America holds itself to a much higher moral standard than the Evil Doers.
Update: Perhaps my praise was premature.
Friday, September 15, 2006
The Arab world fiddles while Darfur burns
I read that Pope Benedict XVI caused a stir by quoting a medieval emperor who trashed the Muslim prophet Mohammad, an Orthodox Christian emperor in fact.
The media reported that the emperor's quote, repeated by Benedict was:
Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.
Now, it probably wasn't the smartest thing in the world to invoke a quote invoking the prophet of one of the world's major religions. If the most important leader of the Muslim faith trashed the Christian prophet Jesus, Christians would probably be a little annoyed too.
Benedict's comments seems more odd since Christianity has been just as guilty of spreading its faith 'by the sword.' The Middle Ages, when this quote was made, were dominated by holy wars of Christian armies invading Muslim lands.
However, it's worth remembering that the media did not quote Benedict's entire speech, only this controversial segment. So he may or may not have criticized Christian-inspired violence as well. If Benedict erred, it was in not being explicit about whether violence is inherent in the religion of Islam or if the faith has been perverted by extremist interpretations thereof.
The fury it caused is ironic since the whole purpose of the Pope's speech was to denounce religious-inspired violence, adding that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul."
"The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application," he added. "Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today."
The uproar it caused in the Muslim world is reminiscent of the near eruption of World War III over some cartoons of the prophet Mohammad.
There certainly is Islamophobia. There are indeed self-proclaimed Christians who are openly anti-Muslim.
These bigots would roundly reject Benedict's denunciation of violence and explicitly subscribe to the emperor's characterization of Mohammad's tactics.
Take this anti-Muslim bigot who said:
"We must conquer the Muslims not simply with the sword but we must also change their hearts."
Such fanatics do not hide their view that the current tension is nothing less than a battle between Christian extremists and Islamic extremists.
"The reality is that this is a war against the Muslim religion."
No sugar coating it. To the brainwashed, the phrase 'extremist Islam' is redundant.
But there another reality: some extremely hypersensitive people in the Muslim world who are looking for reasons to be offended. Would-be martyrs need to feel angry. Cynical religious leaders and politicians need their flocks to feel persecuted in order to better manipulate them against an exterior enemy. This is as true of America's Theocracy Brigade as of al-Qaedists.
I was listening to the excellent public radio program The World. And before the story on Benedict's comments, they did a story on the ongoing genocide in Darfur, western Sudan. The juxtaposition of these two stories stupified me.
This genocide has not gained a ton of attention in the west, but it's gained more coverage than most African issues. Even the president took a break from encouraging Congress to sanction torture by demanding action to halt the genocide.
The Washington Post editorial page and New York Times' columnist Nicholas Krystof are among those in the mainstream US media who've dilligently tried to keep this genocide in the news.
Now, the Israeli aggression against southern Lebanon caused hundreds of deaths. The numbers vary but even the highest, most partisan estimate says that 1300 Lebanese were killed.
The rape of southern Lebanon provoked a gigantic international outcry against Israel. Not only from the Muslim world, but from most of the western world as well. Not all, but most.
The genocide in Darfur has claimed over 200,000 lives. The genocide is being perpetrated by Aranb Muslims against black Muslims. It's been sponsored by a military regime that was once aligned with Islamists. What has been the reaction fo the Muslim and Arab worlds to this mass slaughter?
Virtual silence.
200,000 actively murdered in Darfur? The Arab and Muslim worlds play ostrich.
0.6 percent of that number killed as 'collateral damage' in Lebanon? The Arab and Muslim worlds denounce Israel like it's run by Stalin.
A couple of dumb cartoons published? Rioting, boycotts and fatwas.
This is completely irrational behavior for anyone who claims to be interested in humanity.
And in fact, that's one of the most striking observations one can make. Western aggression against Muslims, whether by the US against Iraq or Israel against Lebanon, has been widely attacked in the west itself. Angry editorials. Protest movements. Huge marches. Prime ministers have been kicked out of office.
We've all seen on TV huge marches against Israel's immoral occupation of the Palestinian territories in Riyadh or Damascus, but where are the marches against Morocco's immoral occupation of the Western Sahara? Where are the demands to sever diplomatic relations with the genocidal Sudanese junta?
I guess those don't serve propaganda purposes quite as well or advance the victimhood/martyr syndrome.
I don't argue for one second that the Israeli aggression ought not to have been criticized; I lambasted it myself.
But if one kind of violence should be villified, why is a far greater kind of violence being completely ignored?
It's been demonstrated that some people will riot over cartoons and go apoplectic when the Pope quotes a 14th century monarch in the middle of an academic speech. Maybe now those same people should prove they can get angry about mass murder. Maybe they can show that they can get upset about what is so far the greatest crime against humanity of the 21st century.
Update: Apparently some Muslims are so upset with the Pope's perceived linking of Islam to violence that they have attacked churches and killing a nun. Talk about living down to stereotypes!
Further update: While some of the Muslim anger is understandable to a certain extent, the hysteria around quotatations and cartoons seems a hideous overreaction. To what extent is this accidental and to what extent meticulously manufactured?
The media reported that the emperor's quote, repeated by Benedict was:
Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.
Now, it probably wasn't the smartest thing in the world to invoke a quote invoking the prophet of one of the world's major religions. If the most important leader of the Muslim faith trashed the Christian prophet Jesus, Christians would probably be a little annoyed too.
Benedict's comments seems more odd since Christianity has been just as guilty of spreading its faith 'by the sword.' The Middle Ages, when this quote was made, were dominated by holy wars of Christian armies invading Muslim lands.
However, it's worth remembering that the media did not quote Benedict's entire speech, only this controversial segment. So he may or may not have criticized Christian-inspired violence as well. If Benedict erred, it was in not being explicit about whether violence is inherent in the religion of Islam or if the faith has been perverted by extremist interpretations thereof.
The fury it caused is ironic since the whole purpose of the Pope's speech was to denounce religious-inspired violence, adding that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul."
"The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application," he added. "Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today."
The uproar it caused in the Muslim world is reminiscent of the near eruption of World War III over some cartoons of the prophet Mohammad.
There certainly is Islamophobia. There are indeed self-proclaimed Christians who are openly anti-Muslim.
These bigots would roundly reject Benedict's denunciation of violence and explicitly subscribe to the emperor's characterization of Mohammad's tactics.
Take this anti-Muslim bigot who said:
"We must conquer the Muslims not simply with the sword but we must also change their hearts."
Such fanatics do not hide their view that the current tension is nothing less than a battle between Christian extremists and Islamic extremists.
"The reality is that this is a war against the Muslim religion."
No sugar coating it. To the brainwashed, the phrase 'extremist Islam' is redundant.
But there another reality: some extremely hypersensitive people in the Muslim world who are looking for reasons to be offended. Would-be martyrs need to feel angry. Cynical religious leaders and politicians need their flocks to feel persecuted in order to better manipulate them against an exterior enemy. This is as true of America's Theocracy Brigade as of al-Qaedists.
I was listening to the excellent public radio program The World. And before the story on Benedict's comments, they did a story on the ongoing genocide in Darfur, western Sudan. The juxtaposition of these two stories stupified me.
This genocide has not gained a ton of attention in the west, but it's gained more coverage than most African issues. Even the president took a break from encouraging Congress to sanction torture by demanding action to halt the genocide.
The Washington Post editorial page and New York Times' columnist Nicholas Krystof are among those in the mainstream US media who've dilligently tried to keep this genocide in the news.
Now, the Israeli aggression against southern Lebanon caused hundreds of deaths. The numbers vary but even the highest, most partisan estimate says that 1300 Lebanese were killed.
The rape of southern Lebanon provoked a gigantic international outcry against Israel. Not only from the Muslim world, but from most of the western world as well. Not all, but most.
The genocide in Darfur has claimed over 200,000 lives. The genocide is being perpetrated by Aranb Muslims against black Muslims. It's been sponsored by a military regime that was once aligned with Islamists. What has been the reaction fo the Muslim and Arab worlds to this mass slaughter?
Virtual silence.
200,000 actively murdered in Darfur? The Arab and Muslim worlds play ostrich.
0.6 percent of that number killed as 'collateral damage' in Lebanon? The Arab and Muslim worlds denounce Israel like it's run by Stalin.
A couple of dumb cartoons published? Rioting, boycotts and fatwas.
This is completely irrational behavior for anyone who claims to be interested in humanity.
And in fact, that's one of the most striking observations one can make. Western aggression against Muslims, whether by the US against Iraq or Israel against Lebanon, has been widely attacked in the west itself. Angry editorials. Protest movements. Huge marches. Prime ministers have been kicked out of office.
We've all seen on TV huge marches against Israel's immoral occupation of the Palestinian territories in Riyadh or Damascus, but where are the marches against Morocco's immoral occupation of the Western Sahara? Where are the demands to sever diplomatic relations with the genocidal Sudanese junta?
I guess those don't serve propaganda purposes quite as well or advance the victimhood/martyr syndrome.
I don't argue for one second that the Israeli aggression ought not to have been criticized; I lambasted it myself.
But if one kind of violence should be villified, why is a far greater kind of violence being completely ignored?
It's been demonstrated that some people will riot over cartoons and go apoplectic when the Pope quotes a 14th century monarch in the middle of an academic speech. Maybe now those same people should prove they can get angry about mass murder. Maybe they can show that they can get upset about what is so far the greatest crime against humanity of the 21st century.
Update: Apparently some Muslims are so upset with the Pope's perceived linking of Islam to violence that they have attacked churches and killing a nun. Talk about living down to stereotypes!
Further update: While some of the Muslim anger is understandable to a certain extent, the hysteria around quotatations and cartoons seems a hideous overreaction. To what extent is this accidental and to what extent meticulously manufactured?
Thursday, September 14, 2006
'Another Africa' and its 'New News'
This essay is part of a (more or less) weekly feature on this 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, Iraq and Iran*. (*-added on the suggestion of a reader)
Black Looks blog points to a piece in Salon which excerpts the incomparable Chinua Achebe's Another Africa. The excerpt explores a theme common to Achebe's work: the cariciaturization of black Africa in the west. Whether it was the sensationalist novels of late 19th and early 20th centuries or the sensationalist TV programs of today. It seems everything we hear out of Africa is bad.news. Achebe takes issue with this one-sided characterization.
I am presently reading New News Out of Africa: Uncovering Africa's Renaissance by Charlayne Hunter-Gault (who I wrote about here). Hunter-Gault, an African-American journalist who lives in Johannesburg, explored a similar theme in her book. The new news out of Africa, she concludes, is that forward strides are being made too.
We in the west get a very biased picture of Africa. Certainly, war, hunger, poverty, disease and corruption are a part of the African reality. A part. Not the whole thing. There are certainly bad things happening on the continent. Most of these things are worse in Africa than any other continent. But it's easy to be cynical. It's easy to either write off the continent. It's just as easy to patronize Africans as helpless children, instead of recognizing that the majority of them are far more innovative and resilient than you'll ever be. They have to be that way or they'd be dead. Of course, the reason most westerners see Africans as passive victims is because portraying them as proactive or entreprenurial isn't as good for ratings and circulation.
Black Looks blog points to a piece in Salon which excerpts the incomparable Chinua Achebe's Another Africa. The excerpt explores a theme common to Achebe's work: the cariciaturization of black Africa in the west. Whether it was the sensationalist novels of late 19th and early 20th centuries or the sensationalist TV programs of today. It seems everything we hear out of Africa is bad.news. Achebe takes issue with this one-sided characterization.
I am presently reading New News Out of Africa: Uncovering Africa's Renaissance by Charlayne Hunter-Gault (who I wrote about here). Hunter-Gault, an African-American journalist who lives in Johannesburg, explored a similar theme in her book. The new news out of Africa, she concludes, is that forward strides are being made too.
We in the west get a very biased picture of Africa. Certainly, war, hunger, poverty, disease and corruption are a part of the African reality. A part. Not the whole thing. There are certainly bad things happening on the continent. Most of these things are worse in Africa than any other continent. But it's easy to be cynical. It's easy to either write off the continent. It's just as easy to patronize Africans as helpless children, instead of recognizing that the majority of them are far more innovative and resilient than you'll ever be. They have to be that way or they'd be dead. Of course, the reason most westerners see Africans as passive victims is because portraying them as proactive or entreprenurial isn't as good for ratings and circulation.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Get a job!
I don't normally get into cheap athlete or celebrity bashing but every so often, one of them says something so ridiculously clueless that it deserves to be lambasted.
At the beginning of the month, defender Ashley Cole moved from the London soccer club Arsenal (the Gunners) to their crosstown rivals Chelsea. He did so because Chelsea offered him more money. If he'd simply said that, I'd have no problem. Players move for more money all the time. It's not a big deal. Any team sports fan is used to it by now. If another company offered me 9% more money to do the same job, I might take it too.
But he described the situation in the most absurd possible terms
"I don't believe the board (of directors of Arsenal) gave a damn about keeping me," he sniffed.
"The truth is that the Gunners had done nothing all season to hold on to me," he whined.
As if those comments weren't melodramatic enough: the 25-year-old left-back was told of the board's refusal to sanction the deal (to keep him) while he was driving his car and says he "nearly swerved off the road."
So you might think they were offering him barely more than minimum wage.
In fact, they were offering him a mere 55,000 pounds a week which, if you do the conversion and multiplication, translates to US$5.3 million per year.
Oh the trials and tribulations of the nearly starving big time soccer player.
He wanted the equivalent of $5.8 million a year. Which is fine, but if he considers 'only' $5.3 million to be an insult, then the real insult is to all the people who shell out ridiculous on tickets and shirts to pay his wages.
Worst of all, he sniveled that the Arsenal board, "preferred to haggle over a difference of 5,000 pounds" a week... or $500,000 a year.
For someone that out of touch with reality, it's no surprise that he didn't bemoan HIS OWN REFUSAL "haggle over a difference of 5,000 pounds."
Contributions to the Feed Ashley Cole Fund can be made at 1-800-GET-A-CLUE!
At the beginning of the month, defender Ashley Cole moved from the London soccer club Arsenal (the Gunners) to their crosstown rivals Chelsea. He did so because Chelsea offered him more money. If he'd simply said that, I'd have no problem. Players move for more money all the time. It's not a big deal. Any team sports fan is used to it by now. If another company offered me 9% more money to do the same job, I might take it too.
But he described the situation in the most absurd possible terms
"I don't believe the board (of directors of Arsenal) gave a damn about keeping me," he sniffed.
"The truth is that the Gunners had done nothing all season to hold on to me," he whined.
As if those comments weren't melodramatic enough: the 25-year-old left-back was told of the board's refusal to sanction the deal (to keep him) while he was driving his car and says he "nearly swerved off the road."
So you might think they were offering him barely more than minimum wage.
In fact, they were offering him a mere 55,000 pounds a week which, if you do the conversion and multiplication, translates to US$5.3 million per year.
Oh the trials and tribulations of the nearly starving big time soccer player.
He wanted the equivalent of $5.8 million a year. Which is fine, but if he considers 'only' $5.3 million to be an insult, then the real insult is to all the people who shell out ridiculous on tickets and shirts to pay his wages.
Worst of all, he sniveled that the Arsenal board, "preferred to haggle over a difference of 5,000 pounds" a week... or $500,000 a year.
For someone that out of touch with reality, it's no surprise that he didn't bemoan HIS OWN REFUSAL "haggle over a difference of 5,000 pounds."
Contributions to the Feed Ashley Cole Fund can be made at 1-800-GET-A-CLUE!
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Every vote counts... if it's counted
The UK Observer's Paul Harris has a good piece entitled 'The myth of fair elections in America .'
He writes: The debacle surrounding the Republican victory in 2000 demonstrated to the world that America's electoral process is wide open to abuse. But as Paul Harris discovers, the system has actually worsened since then... The prospect of a 'second Florida' is now more likely not less ... America's democratic system is simply starting to fail... by a simple collapse in its ability to count everyone's votes accurately and fairly.
Before you reflexively dismiss this as left-wing or conspiracy theorist whining, he also writes that the problems are not caused by some takeover by a Neocon cabal and that he doesn't believe that there is a cunning secret plan, set out in detail beforehand and then masterfully carried out to deliberately steal presidential elections.
Essentially, he notes that America's extremely decentralized electoral system is responsible for much of the chaos. Not only does each state have their own electoral laws, but within most states, each COUNTY can choose for itself how it lets its citizens vote. In the moderately sized New York alone, there are 62 counties.
He also notes that elections are often run and controlled by state office holders or county level election supervisors. Often these officials are nakedly partisan and all too willing to use the power of that office to favour one party over another. Their county or state is, after all, their patch of turf and they seek to protect it for their side.
Think this is hysterical fantasy? Think again.
In New York, for example, there are two elections commissioners in each county who run the polls. These are not non-partisan officials. There is one Democrat commissioner and one Republican commissioner who jointly run the elections. So we have to trust that commissioners chosen by the two main parties in internal, non-public deilberations will always act in a fair way. We have to trust that explicitly partisan officials who owe their jobs to the party bosses will act in a non-partisan way. Do you think that's open to abuse?
My dad was once a Democrat election commissioner for this county but he refused to order a re-run an election that had a minor problem with the ballot. He didn't order a re-run the election because he did not have legal authority to do so; such a decision could only be ordered by the state board of elections or the courts. Unfortunately for my dad, the guy who lost this election was both a very small-minded, petty man and the chairman of the county Democrat committee. So for following the law, my dad was fired (since it was the party's choice). He was replaced by the chairman's wife.
Furthermore, in New York, the party of each county's two elections commissioners depends on the party affiliation of the top two finishers in the governor's race. If a smaller party finishes first or second in the governor's race, then that party gets to appoint half the elections commissioners. That almost happened in 1990 when the Conservative candidate came within a whisker of outpolling the Republican for second place.
But that also means that elections commissioners are responsible for running the elections which will decide whether or not they have a job. Isn't that a pretty big conflict of interest?
Combine that with the much documented problems with voting machines, which The Observer pieces mentions combined with state secrecy regarding those problems and it hardly inspires confidence in the voting process.
Harris concludes You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to be seriously worried about this state of affairs. In many ways, it is more worrying that the system is not being deliberately stolen from on high. It is actually broken from the ground up.
He writes: The debacle surrounding the Republican victory in 2000 demonstrated to the world that America's electoral process is wide open to abuse. But as Paul Harris discovers, the system has actually worsened since then... The prospect of a 'second Florida' is now more likely not less ... America's democratic system is simply starting to fail... by a simple collapse in its ability to count everyone's votes accurately and fairly.
Before you reflexively dismiss this as left-wing or conspiracy theorist whining, he also writes that the problems are not caused by some takeover by a Neocon cabal and that he doesn't believe that there is a cunning secret plan, set out in detail beforehand and then masterfully carried out to deliberately steal presidential elections.
Essentially, he notes that America's extremely decentralized electoral system is responsible for much of the chaos. Not only does each state have their own electoral laws, but within most states, each COUNTY can choose for itself how it lets its citizens vote. In the moderately sized New York alone, there are 62 counties.
He also notes that elections are often run and controlled by state office holders or county level election supervisors. Often these officials are nakedly partisan and all too willing to use the power of that office to favour one party over another. Their county or state is, after all, their patch of turf and they seek to protect it for their side.
Think this is hysterical fantasy? Think again.
In New York, for example, there are two elections commissioners in each county who run the polls. These are not non-partisan officials. There is one Democrat commissioner and one Republican commissioner who jointly run the elections. So we have to trust that commissioners chosen by the two main parties in internal, non-public deilberations will always act in a fair way. We have to trust that explicitly partisan officials who owe their jobs to the party bosses will act in a non-partisan way. Do you think that's open to abuse?
My dad was once a Democrat election commissioner for this county but he refused to order a re-run an election that had a minor problem with the ballot. He didn't order a re-run the election because he did not have legal authority to do so; such a decision could only be ordered by the state board of elections or the courts. Unfortunately for my dad, the guy who lost this election was both a very small-minded, petty man and the chairman of the county Democrat committee. So for following the law, my dad was fired (since it was the party's choice). He was replaced by the chairman's wife.
Furthermore, in New York, the party of each county's two elections commissioners depends on the party affiliation of the top two finishers in the governor's race. If a smaller party finishes first or second in the governor's race, then that party gets to appoint half the elections commissioners. That almost happened in 1990 when the Conservative candidate came within a whisker of outpolling the Republican for second place.
But that also means that elections commissioners are responsible for running the elections which will decide whether or not they have a job. Isn't that a pretty big conflict of interest?
Combine that with the much documented problems with voting machines, which The Observer pieces mentions combined with state secrecy regarding those problems and it hardly inspires confidence in the voting process.
Harris concludes You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to be seriously worried about this state of affairs. In many ways, it is more worrying that the system is not being deliberately stolen from on high. It is actually broken from the ground up.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Saddam/al-Qaeda link rubbished by GOP Senate
The Republican-controlled US Senate's Intelligence Committee has released a report stating that There is no evidence of formal links between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders in Iraq prior to the 2003 war.
(Even Fox News published a report on the story)
Bear in mind, this isn't after the fact second guessing. They were looking only at information that was available in 2003 that was used to justify the invasion.
The report stated what is common sense to anyone familiar with Middle East politics: Religious Islamists and secular nationalists are sworn enemies.
Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support, the Senate report noted.
There were three main reasons used to justify the aggression against Iraq.
-Weapons of mass destruction that threatened America's security
-Links between Saddam and al-Qaeda
-Mass atrocities committed by Saddam's regime
The WMD myth was discredited a long time ago.
The faux Saddam/al-Qaeda link is now rubbished by a body controlled by the president's own party.
At least, the (state-sponsored) atrocities are over.
Or maybe not.
There's nothing we can do to go back in time and reverse this debacle. I don't know for sure if the Bush administration outright lied, were self-delusional or were merely grossly incompetent. But I do know they got it 100 percent wrong on the most significant foreign policy decision in over a generation.
When they ask you to give them the benefit of the doubt about launching a war against Iran, when they ask you to not ask questions and just trust them, ask yourself if they've done anything in the past to earn that trust.
(Even Fox News published a report on the story)
Bear in mind, this isn't after the fact second guessing. They were looking only at information that was available in 2003 that was used to justify the invasion.
The report stated what is common sense to anyone familiar with Middle East politics: Religious Islamists and secular nationalists are sworn enemies.
Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support, the Senate report noted.
There were three main reasons used to justify the aggression against Iraq.
-Weapons of mass destruction that threatened America's security
-Links between Saddam and al-Qaeda
-Mass atrocities committed by Saddam's regime
The WMD myth was discredited a long time ago.
The faux Saddam/al-Qaeda link is now rubbished by a body controlled by the president's own party.
At least, the (state-sponsored) atrocities are over.
Or maybe not.
There's nothing we can do to go back in time and reverse this debacle. I don't know for sure if the Bush administration outright lied, were self-delusional or were merely grossly incompetent. But I do know they got it 100 percent wrong on the most significant foreign policy decision in over a generation.
When they ask you to give them the benefit of the doubt about launching a war against Iran, when they ask you to not ask questions and just trust them, ask yourself if they've done anything in the past to earn that trust.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Bizarro world
The race for the local Congressional seat (NY-20) is something straight out of bizarro world. For one thing, I'm still shocked that this actually appears to be something resembling a competitive race. Upstate New York is a very conservative area. The district has far more Republicans than Democrats. The seat representing my area has bee in Republican hands since the 1978 election. I can't even remember the last time a GOP incumbent was even faced with a close election. While the Republican incumbent has had little drips and drabs of problems, there's no 'perfect storm' to indicate that he'd be vulnerable in what has always been considered a safe GOP seat. Yet somehow, Rep. John Sweeney has a race on his hands.
His Democrat opponent, Kirsten Gillibrand, is certainly savvy and has a campaign behind her with two attributes Democrat candidates for this seat usually lack: professionalism and a fair amount of money. She's slick and smooth and without a great deal of substance or vision. She strikes me like Hillary Clinton-lite. Her main campaign theme is 'Sweeney = Bush.' Given how conservative this area is, I'm surprised that it appears to be working; the latest poll has her trailing by only 8 percent for a seat Republicans usually win by at least 25 points without breaking a sweat. Then again, this area is more conservative than Republican and a lot of traditional 'smaller government' conservatives are dismayed with the direction of the current Republican administration.
I believe there are two smaller party opponents in the race, but you wouldn't know it by reading the local Post-Star. The paper regularly runs editorials (rightly) criticizing Sweeney and Gillibrand for attacking each other and not talking enough about substance. Given their avowed disgust with the two major party candidates, you'd think the daily would do a little digging to see what the smaller party candidates think about the important issues. Especially since their reporters are already spending time on the alleged non-issues brought up by Sweeney and Gillibrand so denounced in the editorials. But it's no secret that The Post-Star, like most other corporate media outlets that claim to 'not make news, just report it,' would rather pretend that smaller party candidates didn't exist at all.
However, the most recent diversion is amusing enough to comment on.
Gillibrand proposes an eventual withdrawal from Iraq but it's cautious and fuzzy enough to be 'flexible.' As I said, Hillary Clinton-lite.
Sweeney has been an unquestioning defender of President Bush's non-strategy for unlimited and directionless war.
MoveOn.org has been airing commercials denouncing Sweeney, who's gotten tons of outside help too. Sweeney attacked the MoveOn ads which, in his words, were designed "to help Kirsten Gillibrand who, while cheering them on, was caught red-faced profiteering off the war in Iraq with war stock that has tripled as young American men and women fight for freedom."
In reality, Gillibrand's husband owns some sort of retirement fund which has investments in so-called defense contractors. That's the 'profiteering' in question.
Sweeney denounces her for allegedly profiting from an ad infintum war that he has voted for at every step of the way.
Is it only acceptable for companies with Republican ties to profit from the 'fight for freedom'?
Let me get this straight: Gillibrand wants end a disaster from which she's accused of profiting from personally. Sweeney is comfortable with the non-strategy of American troops dying in Iraq indefinitely, with no clear mission and with no expectations of Iraqis being able to provide for their own security.
Which is the less honorable position?
His Democrat opponent, Kirsten Gillibrand, is certainly savvy and has a campaign behind her with two attributes Democrat candidates for this seat usually lack: professionalism and a fair amount of money. She's slick and smooth and without a great deal of substance or vision. She strikes me like Hillary Clinton-lite. Her main campaign theme is 'Sweeney = Bush.' Given how conservative this area is, I'm surprised that it appears to be working; the latest poll has her trailing by only 8 percent for a seat Republicans usually win by at least 25 points without breaking a sweat. Then again, this area is more conservative than Republican and a lot of traditional 'smaller government' conservatives are dismayed with the direction of the current Republican administration.
I believe there are two smaller party opponents in the race, but you wouldn't know it by reading the local Post-Star. The paper regularly runs editorials (rightly) criticizing Sweeney and Gillibrand for attacking each other and not talking enough about substance. Given their avowed disgust with the two major party candidates, you'd think the daily would do a little digging to see what the smaller party candidates think about the important issues. Especially since their reporters are already spending time on the alleged non-issues brought up by Sweeney and Gillibrand so denounced in the editorials. But it's no secret that The Post-Star, like most other corporate media outlets that claim to 'not make news, just report it,' would rather pretend that smaller party candidates didn't exist at all.
However, the most recent diversion is amusing enough to comment on.
Gillibrand proposes an eventual withdrawal from Iraq but it's cautious and fuzzy enough to be 'flexible.' As I said, Hillary Clinton-lite.
Sweeney has been an unquestioning defender of President Bush's non-strategy for unlimited and directionless war.
MoveOn.org has been airing commercials denouncing Sweeney, who's gotten tons of outside help too. Sweeney attacked the MoveOn ads which, in his words, were designed "to help Kirsten Gillibrand who, while cheering them on, was caught red-faced profiteering off the war in Iraq with war stock that has tripled as young American men and women fight for freedom."
In reality, Gillibrand's husband owns some sort of retirement fund which has investments in so-called defense contractors. That's the 'profiteering' in question.
Sweeney denounces her for allegedly profiting from an ad infintum war that he has voted for at every step of the way.
Is it only acceptable for companies with Republican ties to profit from the 'fight for freedom'?
Let me get this straight: Gillibrand wants end a disaster from which she's accused of profiting from personally. Sweeney is comfortable with the non-strategy of American troops dying in Iraq indefinitely, with no clear mission and with no expectations of Iraqis being able to provide for their own security.
Which is the less honorable position?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)