Radio National, from Australia's ABC, has a great program on the struggle between streetcars and automobiles.
At one time, streetcars (or trams as they were known in some other countries) dominated the roads. The show noted It's not very well known, especially when people think about the US and think about this pre-eminent car culture that at one time in the early 1920s, one person in ten had an automobile in the US and everyone else used rail, and particularly in the cities, everyone used street rail or streetcars.
What's most interesting is that the documentary focused the city of Los Angeles.
So how did a US city that once had one of the most extensive rail networks in the world become synonymous with the car culture, bad air and traffic gridlock?
What happened was a conspiracy.
National City Lines was a company that was basically formed with the money from General Motors; it was owned and ostensibly led by a group of three brothers from northern Minnesota that had a small bus company, but essentially the money came from General Motors, and General Motors subsidiaries. It began in the mid-'30s, 1935, they began buying up systems in the Midwest and in the southeast. Then more systems came for sale and General Motors pulled in some other companies to help fund this venture. They went to Standard Oil, California, Phillips Petroleum, Firestone Tyre, Mack Truck, and pretty soon these companies were investing in buying up streetcar systems through the Midwest and coming out into the west
Essentially, all the companies that had an interest in promoting the car culture conspired to buy up the streetcar systems and rip them up. GM produced motorcars which ran on oil (trams used electricity) and used rubber tires. Mack produced trucks, which now transport most of the nation's freight... in contrast to the 19th and early 20th centuries when freight was hauled by, you guessed it, rail.
In the late 1940s, GM and its partners were actually convicted of criminal conspiracy but were fined a derisory $5000 and GM executives were fined a token $1. Hardly a disincentive to future conspirators.
But by then, the damage was already done and the car culture quickly suffocated the country, both metaphorically and, in places like Los Angeles, literally too.
Streetcars ran on electricty. Had they been maintained, research might well have led to technological advancements that would have led to mass produced electric-powered vehicles.
Instead, research money went elsewhere with nefarious consequences. Some bad. Some really bad. Others even worse.
Monday, October 16, 2006
(Sporting) Justice is served
I wrote earlier about the travesty of last year's Major League Soccer season. The Los Angeles Galaxy won the league championship playoffs despite having finished with the 9th best record in the 12 team league (no mean feat for a league where only 8 teams made the playoffs). This year, justice has been served. The 'champions' finished tied for the 8th best record in the league but failed to qualify for the playoffs altogether. Good riddance!
(For the record, I fancy a Houston-New England final)
(For the record, I fancy a Houston-New England final)
Sunday, October 15, 2006
800 years of liberty down the drain
Last month, I praised a group of Republican senators who obstructed President Bush's attempts to legalize torture, degradation and other inhumane behavior antithetical to American values.
It looks like I spoke too soon. Several of them compromised with the White House to strike a deal that wasn't much of a compromise. As the business magazine The Economist (hardly a wild-eyed leftist publication) described the bill that passed: Not only does it permit the CIA to continue its harsh interrogation of suspected terrorists in secret prisons abroad, it also strips foreign detainees of one of the civilised world's most ancient legal protections—the right to challenge their detention in court.
Habeus corpus, the protection against arbitrary arrest and detention, is arguably the most fundamental right in a free society. In fact, it's more fundamental than the right to vote or freedom of speech because those don't really matter if you're stuck in jail indefinitely, for no justifiable reason and with no recourse.
Some people snidely dismiss accusations of torture in Guantanamo Bay. There is systematic torture against the people held in Gitmo. It's not necessarily physical abuse by US soldiers, which probably is not systematic. It's the mere fact that George W. Bush has ordered they be detained indefinitely, for no justifiable reason and with no recourse.
Some critics have objected to the fact that I've referred to Gitmo as a kidnapee camp. But really, how can it be described as anything else? These people were arrested outside the US, where American law has no jurisdiction. They've been held against their will. They've been held without being charged with any crime. They have absolutely no idea when or if they will be released. They have absolutely no idea when or if they will even be charged with a crime. They have absolutely no recourse to making any of these things happen. In what way are these people NOT kidnapees?
They are not prisoners of war, according to the president. They are not common criminals because they're not being given the same judicial process. To describe them as anything other than kidnapees is a betrayal of the English language.
"But they are terrorists!" I can hear people screaming at me.
"How do you know?" is my response.
That's precisely why these people need to be subject to due process. If they are evil terrorists who were planning to attack America, present the evidence in a real court. Then a conviction will be secured and these guys will (legally) be put away for life.
Some contend that these people are foreigners and thus aren't subject to protections of the US Constitution. This is a gross hypocrisy. If US constitutional protections don't apply to foreigners, then how could US criminal law (the supposed reason they were detained in the first place) apply to those same foreigners?
Given suspected terrorists real trials would have an impact in several ways. President Bush claims that the threat by Islamic extremists is real but most people around the world think this is grossly overblown. This is because everything is being kept secret (as usual for this administration) so we are left to take the Bush administration's word for it. A word which hasn't much value anymore.
Public trials would present evidence against these people in a true public legal forum. The world would see that the terrorist threat is real and that there really are bad people out there. It would bolster the administration's credibility. The fact that they refuse to do so is telling.
Right now, America is seen as a lawless nation internationally because of things like Guantanamo Bay. Bringing Gitmo into the universe of legality would help improve America's battered image around the world.
This is important not because of some mythical global popularity contest. This is important because anti-American hatred is what fuels anti-American terrorist sentiment. Not all anti-American terrorist sentiment is based on rational criticisms but much of it is. The idea that we can keep people detained for years without trial or chage makes us seem more like a third world dictatorship than the beacon of freedom President Bush would have us believe.
The 'compromise' essentially scraps 800 years of the most fundamental liberty you can have in a free society.
"I'm not going to support a bill that's blatantly unconstitutional...that suspends a right that goes back to [the Magna Carta in] 1215," declared Arlen Specter, Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee—though he ended up voting for the bill after his amendment failed.
Even Britain's George III, from whom the US colonies seceded, had to respect habeus corpus. But in the name of 'the war for freedom,' America's George II thinks he doesn't have to.
It looks like I spoke too soon. Several of them compromised with the White House to strike a deal that wasn't much of a compromise. As the business magazine The Economist (hardly a wild-eyed leftist publication) described the bill that passed: Not only does it permit the CIA to continue its harsh interrogation of suspected terrorists in secret prisons abroad, it also strips foreign detainees of one of the civilised world's most ancient legal protections—the right to challenge their detention in court.
Habeus corpus, the protection against arbitrary arrest and detention, is arguably the most fundamental right in a free society. In fact, it's more fundamental than the right to vote or freedom of speech because those don't really matter if you're stuck in jail indefinitely, for no justifiable reason and with no recourse.
Some people snidely dismiss accusations of torture in Guantanamo Bay. There is systematic torture against the people held in Gitmo. It's not necessarily physical abuse by US soldiers, which probably is not systematic. It's the mere fact that George W. Bush has ordered they be detained indefinitely, for no justifiable reason and with no recourse.
Some critics have objected to the fact that I've referred to Gitmo as a kidnapee camp. But really, how can it be described as anything else? These people were arrested outside the US, where American law has no jurisdiction. They've been held against their will. They've been held without being charged with any crime. They have absolutely no idea when or if they will be released. They have absolutely no idea when or if they will even be charged with a crime. They have absolutely no recourse to making any of these things happen. In what way are these people NOT kidnapees?
They are not prisoners of war, according to the president. They are not common criminals because they're not being given the same judicial process. To describe them as anything other than kidnapees is a betrayal of the English language.
"But they are terrorists!" I can hear people screaming at me.
"How do you know?" is my response.
That's precisely why these people need to be subject to due process. If they are evil terrorists who were planning to attack America, present the evidence in a real court. Then a conviction will be secured and these guys will (legally) be put away for life.
Some contend that these people are foreigners and thus aren't subject to protections of the US Constitution. This is a gross hypocrisy. If US constitutional protections don't apply to foreigners, then how could US criminal law (the supposed reason they were detained in the first place) apply to those same foreigners?
Given suspected terrorists real trials would have an impact in several ways. President Bush claims that the threat by Islamic extremists is real but most people around the world think this is grossly overblown. This is because everything is being kept secret (as usual for this administration) so we are left to take the Bush administration's word for it. A word which hasn't much value anymore.
Public trials would present evidence against these people in a true public legal forum. The world would see that the terrorist threat is real and that there really are bad people out there. It would bolster the administration's credibility. The fact that they refuse to do so is telling.
Right now, America is seen as a lawless nation internationally because of things like Guantanamo Bay. Bringing Gitmo into the universe of legality would help improve America's battered image around the world.
This is important not because of some mythical global popularity contest. This is important because anti-American hatred is what fuels anti-American terrorist sentiment. Not all anti-American terrorist sentiment is based on rational criticisms but much of it is. The idea that we can keep people detained for years without trial or chage makes us seem more like a third world dictatorship than the beacon of freedom President Bush would have us believe.
The 'compromise' essentially scraps 800 years of the most fundamental liberty you can have in a free society.
"I'm not going to support a bill that's blatantly unconstitutional...that suspends a right that goes back to [the Magna Carta in] 1215," declared Arlen Specter, Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee—though he ended up voting for the bill after his amendment failed.
Even Britain's George III, from whom the US colonies seceded, had to respect habeus corpus. But in the name of 'the war for freedom,' America's George II thinks he doesn't have to.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
The revolt of the generals
I've said many times about how the Iraq aggression was a horrible idea badly executed. I've explained countless times why it's a horrible idea half of the equation. But The Nation had an excellent piece on the badly executed part.
A series of high-ranking retired military leaders have attacked War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's handling of the conflict and called for his resignation. Their attack is not a partisan political jibe by a bunch of wild eyed, Blame America first' lefitsts.
Their criticisms are based on the fact that the Iraq aggression is both against the national interest and harmful to the institution of the military.
The generals argue that the Pentagon made enormous strategic errors in the beginning of the war. Primarily, not committing enough troops to the mission and disbanding the Iraqi army, thus creating a large population of unemployed, angry men with guns. This decision essentially created the Iraqi insurgency. The generals contend that these errors can not be remedied by our indefinite occupation of the country.
Retired Lieut. Gen. William Odom calls the Iraq War "the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States" and draws a grim parallel with the Vietnam War. He says that US strategy in Iraq, as in Vietnam, has served almost exclusively the interests of our enemies. He says that our objectives in Vietnam passed through three phases leading to defeat. These were: (1) 1961-65, "containing" China; (2) 1965-68, obsession with US tactics, leading to "Americanization" of the war; and (3) 1968-75, phony diplomacy and self-deluding "Vietnamization." Iraq has now completed two similar phases and is entering the third, says Odom, now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.
Such dissent even from retired generals is virtually unprecedented in American history. Why?
The fact that so many retired generals are speaking out against the war and against Rumsfeld, and are doing so at such forums as New York's prestigious Council on Foreign Relations, reflects the depth and intensity of the military's dissent. Traditional discipline and career-protecting reticence prompt many disillusioned field-grade officers (majors and above) to keep silent. These are "the Carlisle elite," who attend the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and from whose ranks are selected the generals and top leaders of tomorrow.
And how can blame them.
Rumsfeld publicly humiliated all who dissented, beginning with Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki, who was virtually dismissed the day he honestly gave his views to Congress.
I've said from the beginning that the Bush administration's modus operandi is to listen to the views that support its pre-existing opinions and ignore the ones that don't... or worse, as Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame found out. The more I read, the more convinced I am this is true. They let their opinions drive the facts, instead of vice versa. And it's soldiers in Iraq who pay the highest price.
For an administration that intones the mantra 'support our troops' every 3.2 seconds, you'd think they'd be a little more keen on actually listening to them.
A series of high-ranking retired military leaders have attacked War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's handling of the conflict and called for his resignation. Their attack is not a partisan political jibe by a bunch of wild eyed, Blame America first' lefitsts.
Their criticisms are based on the fact that the Iraq aggression is both against the national interest and harmful to the institution of the military.
The generals argue that the Pentagon made enormous strategic errors in the beginning of the war. Primarily, not committing enough troops to the mission and disbanding the Iraqi army, thus creating a large population of unemployed, angry men with guns. This decision essentially created the Iraqi insurgency. The generals contend that these errors can not be remedied by our indefinite occupation of the country.
Retired Lieut. Gen. William Odom calls the Iraq War "the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States" and draws a grim parallel with the Vietnam War. He says that US strategy in Iraq, as in Vietnam, has served almost exclusively the interests of our enemies. He says that our objectives in Vietnam passed through three phases leading to defeat. These were: (1) 1961-65, "containing" China; (2) 1965-68, obsession with US tactics, leading to "Americanization" of the war; and (3) 1968-75, phony diplomacy and self-deluding "Vietnamization." Iraq has now completed two similar phases and is entering the third, says Odom, now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.
Such dissent even from retired generals is virtually unprecedented in American history. Why?
The fact that so many retired generals are speaking out against the war and against Rumsfeld, and are doing so at such forums as New York's prestigious Council on Foreign Relations, reflects the depth and intensity of the military's dissent. Traditional discipline and career-protecting reticence prompt many disillusioned field-grade officers (majors and above) to keep silent. These are "the Carlisle elite," who attend the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and from whose ranks are selected the generals and top leaders of tomorrow.
And how can blame them.
Rumsfeld publicly humiliated all who dissented, beginning with Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki, who was virtually dismissed the day he honestly gave his views to Congress.
I've said from the beginning that the Bush administration's modus operandi is to listen to the views that support its pre-existing opinions and ignore the ones that don't... or worse, as Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame found out. The more I read, the more convinced I am this is true. They let their opinions drive the facts, instead of vice versa. And it's soldiers in Iraq who pay the highest price.
For an administration that intones the mantra 'support our troops' every 3.2 seconds, you'd think they'd be a little more keen on actually listening to them.
Friday, October 13, 2006
The sound of one hand clapping
Apparently there was a second pseudo-debate between New York's gubenatorial aspirants held in Buffalo. I say pseudo-debate because only two of the (I believe) six candidates were invited to the closed debate. No brownie points for guessing which two parties' flag-bearers were invited by the 'we don't make news, we just report it' corporate media sponsors.
(Need a hint about which parties were invited? Check here)
(Need another hint? This guy wasn't one of the invited)
I won't link to the an article about the event because it would imply legitimacy for what was really yet another wasted opportunity to help better inform New York voters.
Even (insert deity of choice) rendered its verdict: the whole thing was a big snow job.
The two major party US Senate candidates will hold the first of two pseudo-debates next Friday.
The most prominent anti-war candidate in the race was refused permission to participate.
Shocking, I know.
Green candidate Howie Hawkins noted that the US Supreme Court has ruled “it is of particular importance that candidates have the…opportunity to make their views knows so that the electorate may intelligently evaluate the candidates’ personal qualities and their positions on vital public issues before choosing among them on Election Day.” (Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1).
Apparently, giant media conglomerates think differently.
I wonder if it's of any relevance that Hawkins' opponent, incumbent Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, receives more money from Big Media than any other politician.
(Need a hint about which parties were invited? Check here)
(Need another hint? This guy wasn't one of the invited)
I won't link to the an article about the event because it would imply legitimacy for what was really yet another wasted opportunity to help better inform New York voters.
Even (insert deity of choice) rendered its verdict: the whole thing was a big snow job.
The two major party US Senate candidates will hold the first of two pseudo-debates next Friday.
The most prominent anti-war candidate in the race was refused permission to participate.
Shocking, I know.
Green candidate Howie Hawkins noted that the US Supreme Court has ruled “it is of particular importance that candidates have the…opportunity to make their views knows so that the electorate may intelligently evaluate the candidates’ personal qualities and their positions on vital public issues before choosing among them on Election Day.” (Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1).
Apparently, giant media conglomerates think differently.
I wonder if it's of any relevance that Hawkins' opponent, incumbent Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, receives more money from Big Media than any other politician.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Extreme Islam may not be fascism but it's still illiberal
In an email exchange, a friend of mine commented on how some on the European left act as apologists for radical Islam.Or perhaps more accurate, reactionary Islam.
Their political enemies are far right loudmouths like Jorg Haider (Austria) and Jean-Marie Le Pen (France). And since the far right hates Muslims, then those who oppose the far right should love Muslims.
The flaw in this analysis is that it doesn't distinguish between peaceful Muslims and extremist Muslims. The Le Pens of this world insist there is no distinction, that all Muslims are violent. That's assinine. But it's equally assinine to pretend that no Muslims are violent. Any serious analysis must have a nuance that reflects the complex reality of humanity.
The fear I have is that Europe's democratic left will make the same mistake it made in both the 1930s and the 1950s and cozy up to extremists who are really antithetical to their views. The democratic left must unambiguously dissociate itself from all gratuitous violence, whether in the name of Christianity, Islam, corporatism or whatever. Islamism (which is not merely Islam but an extreme politicized perversion of the religion) may not be fascist but it's certainly illiberal and should be opposed by all on the democratic left.
This doesn't seem to be a big problem in the US. While there is certainly some anti-Islamic bias in this country, Muslims seem better integrated into mainstream society than in Western Europe, where they are marginalized in distinct ghettos of many major cities. Maybe the American obsession with money and materialism perversely creates some unifying goals. I'm not sure what the reasons are but you don't hear much apologia in the American left for extreme Islam. Maybe progressives in the US realize that you don't have to pick between Bush and al-Qaedaism, that you can oppose two violent ideologies at the same time.
Islamism is completely antithetical to the liberal, progressive and leftist world views. Extremist Islam hates gays, oppose tolerance, loathes the democratic free exchange of ideas, wants women in their place as maids and baby factories, promotes religious bigotry and uses war, violence and force to try to impose its puritanical dystopia.
In short, its goals are much closer to the Christian Theocracy Brigade's wish list than any progressive ideology. In fact, Islamists and the Theocracy Brigade have actually united in various international conferences to oppose gay rights, abortion and contraception for the purpose of fighting HIV/AIDS. For the (largely secular) European left to reject Christian religious extremists and decide that Islamic religious extremists would be one iota better is complete stupidity. And very dangerous. If the European left is to have any credibility, it must recognize that they would be the first people the Islamists would go after: the secular 'hedonists.'
There's clearly an integration problem amongst much of Europe's Muslim population. One must resist the temptation to assign all of the blame to one side. Clearly, anti-Arab racism in France and anti-Asian racism in England contributes to the sentiment of Muslim isolation. But Muslims in Europe also need to make a more conscious effort to integrate into their societies. Racism will never disappear if Muslims keep themselves completely separated. Such integration must be encouraged by Muslim leaders and non-Muslim leaders alike. Not via demands. Not via legislation. Not via the threat of expulsion. Not via treating all Muslims as would-be terrorists. Not via patronizing lectures. Encouragement.
As someone who's lived in two overwhelmingly Muslim countries, I know that most Muslims are normal, peaceful people who want the same things for themselves and their kids as people here. But I also know that when I was there, I tried to adapt to the Islamic West African culture as much as I could and be respectful of their ways. That didn't mean I became exactly like them. It didn't mean I abandoned everything I grew up believing as an American. But I accepted certain norms by choosing to live there. I lived as a part of them, not apart from them. I knew this going in. If I couldn't in good conscience accept this, I wouldn't have chosen to live there. Westerners who live in Africa are generally expected to be respectful of local customs and are criticized when they aren't. That's perfectly reasonable. So why can't that work both ways?
In Arab countries, women are expected to cover their heads. But in the west, when two people meet, it's quite disconcerting when one party has their face covered completely. When western women are in Arab or Asian countries, they should respect their cultural norm on the issue. So when Arab or Asian women are in western countries, why shouldn't they respect the western cultural norm, especially in private? Why should a perfectly reasonable man be savaged for asking the question?
(And the hysterical overreaction alone is symptomatic. When even the mere mention of serious, important questions become taboo, that should ring alarm bells in a pluralistic, democratic society)
It's important to preserve some of your native culture but it's also important to integrate too and not live completely separate lives. Why should an Algerian live in France if he's only ever going to interact with other Algerians? If you reject British culture, don't choose live in Britain. If you hate French culture, don't live in France. If you think Algerian or Pakistani culture is so much better, I don't begrudge you that. Just choose to live in Algeria or Pakistan. But when you choose to live in a country, whether it's Western, African, Asian or Arab, you implicitly choose to abide by certain basic, commonly accepted standards. If you can't accept those standards in good conscience, live somewhere else.
European progressives must not suddenly become tolerant of intolerance or of anti-progressive ideologies simply to spite their domestic political opponents. It can only lead to disaster.If Arabs expect to remain faithful to Arab values, Africans to African values and Asians to Asian values, then surely the west can remain faithful to western values.
Their political enemies are far right loudmouths like Jorg Haider (Austria) and Jean-Marie Le Pen (France). And since the far right hates Muslims, then those who oppose the far right should love Muslims.
The flaw in this analysis is that it doesn't distinguish between peaceful Muslims and extremist Muslims. The Le Pens of this world insist there is no distinction, that all Muslims are violent. That's assinine. But it's equally assinine to pretend that no Muslims are violent. Any serious analysis must have a nuance that reflects the complex reality of humanity.
The fear I have is that Europe's democratic left will make the same mistake it made in both the 1930s and the 1950s and cozy up to extremists who are really antithetical to their views. The democratic left must unambiguously dissociate itself from all gratuitous violence, whether in the name of Christianity, Islam, corporatism or whatever. Islamism (which is not merely Islam but an extreme politicized perversion of the religion) may not be fascist but it's certainly illiberal and should be opposed by all on the democratic left.
This doesn't seem to be a big problem in the US. While there is certainly some anti-Islamic bias in this country, Muslims seem better integrated into mainstream society than in Western Europe, where they are marginalized in distinct ghettos of many major cities. Maybe the American obsession with money and materialism perversely creates some unifying goals. I'm not sure what the reasons are but you don't hear much apologia in the American left for extreme Islam. Maybe progressives in the US realize that you don't have to pick between Bush and al-Qaedaism, that you can oppose two violent ideologies at the same time.
Islamism is completely antithetical to the liberal, progressive and leftist world views. Extremist Islam hates gays, oppose tolerance, loathes the democratic free exchange of ideas, wants women in their place as maids and baby factories, promotes religious bigotry and uses war, violence and force to try to impose its puritanical dystopia.
In short, its goals are much closer to the Christian Theocracy Brigade's wish list than any progressive ideology. In fact, Islamists and the Theocracy Brigade have actually united in various international conferences to oppose gay rights, abortion and contraception for the purpose of fighting HIV/AIDS. For the (largely secular) European left to reject Christian religious extremists and decide that Islamic religious extremists would be one iota better is complete stupidity. And very dangerous. If the European left is to have any credibility, it must recognize that they would be the first people the Islamists would go after: the secular 'hedonists.'
There's clearly an integration problem amongst much of Europe's Muslim population. One must resist the temptation to assign all of the blame to one side. Clearly, anti-Arab racism in France and anti-Asian racism in England contributes to the sentiment of Muslim isolation. But Muslims in Europe also need to make a more conscious effort to integrate into their societies. Racism will never disappear if Muslims keep themselves completely separated. Such integration must be encouraged by Muslim leaders and non-Muslim leaders alike. Not via demands. Not via legislation. Not via the threat of expulsion. Not via treating all Muslims as would-be terrorists. Not via patronizing lectures. Encouragement.
As someone who's lived in two overwhelmingly Muslim countries, I know that most Muslims are normal, peaceful people who want the same things for themselves and their kids as people here. But I also know that when I was there, I tried to adapt to the Islamic West African culture as much as I could and be respectful of their ways. That didn't mean I became exactly like them. It didn't mean I abandoned everything I grew up believing as an American. But I accepted certain norms by choosing to live there. I lived as a part of them, not apart from them. I knew this going in. If I couldn't in good conscience accept this, I wouldn't have chosen to live there. Westerners who live in Africa are generally expected to be respectful of local customs and are criticized when they aren't. That's perfectly reasonable. So why can't that work both ways?
In Arab countries, women are expected to cover their heads. But in the west, when two people meet, it's quite disconcerting when one party has their face covered completely. When western women are in Arab or Asian countries, they should respect their cultural norm on the issue. So when Arab or Asian women are in western countries, why shouldn't they respect the western cultural norm, especially in private? Why should a perfectly reasonable man be savaged for asking the question?
(And the hysterical overreaction alone is symptomatic. When even the mere mention of serious, important questions become taboo, that should ring alarm bells in a pluralistic, democratic society)
It's important to preserve some of your native culture but it's also important to integrate too and not live completely separate lives. Why should an Algerian live in France if he's only ever going to interact with other Algerians? If you reject British culture, don't choose live in Britain. If you hate French culture, don't live in France. If you think Algerian or Pakistani culture is so much better, I don't begrudge you that. Just choose to live in Algeria or Pakistan. But when you choose to live in a country, whether it's Western, African, Asian or Arab, you implicitly choose to abide by certain basic, commonly accepted standards. If you can't accept those standards in good conscience, live somewhere else.
European progressives must not suddenly become tolerant of intolerance or of anti-progressive ideologies simply to spite their domestic political opponents. It can only lead to disaster.If Arabs expect to remain faithful to Arab values, Africans to African values and Asians to Asian values, then surely the west can remain faithful to western values.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Somehow, lying about sex seems insignificant in comparison
While I've certainly been disturbed by the authoritarian tendencies of the Bush administration, its hostility toward accountability and the rule of law and the general direction they are taking this country, I've never quite bought the argument that America is now a totally fascist state, even if there are some parallels. But you don't have to think that Bush is the second coming of Hitler, Franco or Pinochet to be disturbed by stuff like this.
A Colorado man named Steve Howards recounts his horror story of daring to tell the truth to Vice-President Dick Cheney's face.
"He [Cheney] was walking through the area shaking hands. Initially, I walked past him. Then I said to myself, ‘I can’t in good conscience let this opportunity pass by.’ So I approached him, I got about two feet away, and I said in a very calm tone of voice, ‘Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible.’ And then I walked away.”
Howards says he knew the Administration has a “history of making problems” for people who protest its policies, so he wanted to leave off at that.
But the Secret Service did not take kindly to his comment.“About ten minutes later, I came back through the mall with my eight-year-old son in tow,” Howards recalls, “and this Secret Service man came out of the shadows, and his exact words were, ‘Did you assault the Vice President?’ ”
Here’s how Howards says he responded: “No, but I did tell Mr. Cheney the way I felt about the war in Iraq, and if Mr. Cheney wants to be shielded from public criticism, he should avoid public places. If exercising my constitutional rights to free speech is against the law, then you should arrest me.”
Which is just what the agent, Virgil D. “Gus” Reichle Jr, proceeded to do.
“He grabbed me and cuffed my hands behind my back in the presence of my eight-year-old son and told me I was being charged with assault of the Vice President,”Howards recalls.
[...]
“First of all, I was scared,” Howard recalls. “They wouldn’t tell my wife where they were taking me. Second of all, I was incredulous this could be happening in the United States of America. This is what I read about happening in Tiananmen Square. They hauled me away to Eagle County jail and kept me with my hands cuffed behind my back for three hours.”
At the jail, the charge against him was reduced to harassment, he says, and he was released on $500 bond. The Eagle County DA’s office eventually dropped that charge.
To his credit, Howards sued the Secret Service thug.
Given the number of articles I've read on similiar events, such a despicable action on the part of Bush/Cheney's storm trooper-esque entourage is hardly an isolated event by a bad apple.
You expect this sort of garbage in Mugabe's Zimbabwe, where it really is a crime to insult the president or vice-president. If our soldiers really are fighting for freedom, maybe they're doing so in the wrong places.
America may not be a fascist country yet but it sure seems that any town becomes that way when the emperor or vice-emperor visit.
A Colorado man named Steve Howards recounts his horror story of daring to tell the truth to Vice-President Dick Cheney's face.
"He [Cheney] was walking through the area shaking hands. Initially, I walked past him. Then I said to myself, ‘I can’t in good conscience let this opportunity pass by.’ So I approached him, I got about two feet away, and I said in a very calm tone of voice, ‘Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible.’ And then I walked away.”
Howards says he knew the Administration has a “history of making problems” for people who protest its policies, so he wanted to leave off at that.
But the Secret Service did not take kindly to his comment.“About ten minutes later, I came back through the mall with my eight-year-old son in tow,” Howards recalls, “and this Secret Service man came out of the shadows, and his exact words were, ‘Did you assault the Vice President?’ ”
Here’s how Howards says he responded: “No, but I did tell Mr. Cheney the way I felt about the war in Iraq, and if Mr. Cheney wants to be shielded from public criticism, he should avoid public places. If exercising my constitutional rights to free speech is against the law, then you should arrest me.”
Which is just what the agent, Virgil D. “Gus” Reichle Jr, proceeded to do.
“He grabbed me and cuffed my hands behind my back in the presence of my eight-year-old son and told me I was being charged with assault of the Vice President,”Howards recalls.
[...]
“First of all, I was scared,” Howard recalls. “They wouldn’t tell my wife where they were taking me. Second of all, I was incredulous this could be happening in the United States of America. This is what I read about happening in Tiananmen Square. They hauled me away to Eagle County jail and kept me with my hands cuffed behind my back for three hours.”
At the jail, the charge against him was reduced to harassment, he says, and he was released on $500 bond. The Eagle County DA’s office eventually dropped that charge.
To his credit, Howards sued the Secret Service thug.
Given the number of articles I've read on similiar events, such a despicable action on the part of Bush/Cheney's storm trooper-esque entourage is hardly an isolated event by a bad apple.
You expect this sort of garbage in Mugabe's Zimbabwe, where it really is a crime to insult the president or vice-president. If our soldiers really are fighting for freedom, maybe they're doing so in the wrong places.
America may not be a fascist country yet but it sure seems that any town becomes that way when the emperor or vice-emperor visit.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Abolish the APA?
North Country Public Radio reported on a plan by NY state Senate candidate Tim Merrick. Merrick is a Democrat running for the 45th district seat against incumbent Republican Sen. Betty Little. While she seems like a pleasant enough person, I not a huge fan of Little as a politician. But at least she's never proposed gutting the Adirondack Park Agency.
The APA was created in 1971 to develop long-range land use plans for both public and private lands within the [Adirondack] Park.
The Park is the largest publically protected area in the lower 48 states, greater in size than Yellowstone, Everglades, Glacier, and Grand Canyon National Park combined.
According to Article 14 of the state constitution, the Park should be kept forever wild. The APA was created to ensure that any development was closely monitored and was in conformity with constitutional requirements.
The APA has been fairly unpopular among residents within the Park itself. They view it as an Albany-based institution whose sole purpose is to micromanage land use inside the Blue Line.
However, it has achieved its desired effect. The Adirondack Park is unique. With a few exceptions, it has retained its rural character. The local economy is driven by this rural character as it depends greatly on tourists engaging in outdoor activities like hiking, camping and skiing.
However, this is under threat as the understaffed APA is being deluged by applications from developers, such as the controversial massive project in Tupper Lake. As a result, the APA has been criticized for hastily approving applications without giving them thorough review.
Merrick has called for essentially dismantling the APA and devolving its powers to towns within the Park. I hope this proposal is nothing more than a lame attempt for a Democrat to appeal to the very conservative and anti-government residents of the Park.
(Anti-government except in their reliance on taxpayer subsidies)
It's not clear from Merrick's vague proposals how 'Home Rule' could be granted while ensuring that towns and villages within the Park respected the constitution's provisions.
He also suggested [creating an] ombudsman program to help landowners within park with projects which is a perfectly reasonable suggestion.
APA procedures should be streamlined and be made friendlier to ordinary homeowners based in the Park. It should be given more resources to analyze proposals in a timely manner. But the agency should not be dismantled nor should a carte blanche be given to developers who want to raze the trees and mutate the Park into Anyplace, USA.
The APA was created in 1971 to develop long-range land use plans for both public and private lands within the [Adirondack] Park.
The Park is the largest publically protected area in the lower 48 states, greater in size than Yellowstone, Everglades, Glacier, and Grand Canyon National Park combined.
According to Article 14 of the state constitution, the Park should be kept forever wild. The APA was created to ensure that any development was closely monitored and was in conformity with constitutional requirements.
The APA has been fairly unpopular among residents within the Park itself. They view it as an Albany-based institution whose sole purpose is to micromanage land use inside the Blue Line.
However, it has achieved its desired effect. The Adirondack Park is unique. With a few exceptions, it has retained its rural character. The local economy is driven by this rural character as it depends greatly on tourists engaging in outdoor activities like hiking, camping and skiing.
However, this is under threat as the understaffed APA is being deluged by applications from developers, such as the controversial massive project in Tupper Lake. As a result, the APA has been criticized for hastily approving applications without giving them thorough review.
Merrick has called for essentially dismantling the APA and devolving its powers to towns within the Park. I hope this proposal is nothing more than a lame attempt for a Democrat to appeal to the very conservative and anti-government residents of the Park.
(Anti-government except in their reliance on taxpayer subsidies)
It's not clear from Merrick's vague proposals how 'Home Rule' could be granted while ensuring that towns and villages within the Park respected the constitution's provisions.
He also suggested [creating an] ombudsman program to help landowners within park with projects which is a perfectly reasonable suggestion.
APA procedures should be streamlined and be made friendlier to ordinary homeowners based in the Park. It should be given more resources to analyze proposals in a timely manner. But the agency should not be dismantled nor should a carte blanche be given to developers who want to raze the trees and mutate the Park into Anyplace, USA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)