Islamofascism

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -Theodore Roosevelt

I was reading this piece in which GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee was yammering on about 'Islamofascism.'

Islamism is diffuse, Puritanical and globalist.

Fascism is centralized, corporate and nationalist.

Both are examples of extreme conservativism but no serious person would combine the two... which I imagine is why so many Republican candidates are doing so.

These guys should be disqualified just for their abuse of language in using this phrase.

But maybe the incumbent has abused language to such an extreme that truth has become irrelevant.

Cheats

Soccer is not infested with drugs cheats like cycling, athletics, the National Football League and Major League Baseball. And it's not a hotbed of hoodlum culture (at least among the players) like the NFL and Non-Basketball Association.

Soccer players taking dives is obnoxious, but it's a dishonesty that's ultimately trivial compared to the dishonesty plaguing "real American" sports.

Diving won't kill you... or land you in jail.

Important announcement

I'd like to point out that I was one of the six people in this country whose ever played baseball at any point in my life who was NOT named in the Mitchell Report.

Thank you for your attention.

How the military stabs in the back Our Troops

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -Theodore Roosevelt

For a great many Americans, 'Support Our Troops' is an empty catchphrase that is mostly limited to wearing a ribbon or slapping a bumper sticker on the family car. Perhaps a showy acknowlegement at Memorial Day ceremonies. Or the daily incantation of "They're Our Heroes." All of these are fine and dandy but they don't truly affect the lives of soldiers in any meaningful way.

North Country Public Radio is currently running a good series on how the government is failing miserably when it comes to actually supporting Our Troops. Specifically in terms of how the Army treats soldiers diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Fort Drum, which is in NCPR's listening area, is home of the 10th Mountain Division. Soldiers from here have been deployed extensively in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Part 1 of the series reports on what the Army says it does to help PTSD-afflicted soldiers.

Part 2 reports on what many soldiers say the Army ACTUALLY treats soldiers diagnosed with PTSD.

Part 3 explains how many PTSD-afflicted soldiers, feeling discarded by the military, have taken matters into their own and organizing their group therapy sessions to make up for the Pentagon's negligence.

Apparently these men and women are Our Heroes when they can serve as a PR prop for the chickenhawks in the White House but are treated as a much of weaklings and whinea**es once they've been used and discarded by our misleaders in DC.

But you probably already knew that.

On worthlessESPN

It's no secret that I loathe worthlessESPN (tm). 15-20 years ago, it was a good network that did substantive reporting and journalism. It did so while it remained irreverent and able to poke fun at itself.

Now, it's lost the sense of humor that keep SPORTS in the right perspective. It's almost completely devoid of substance. It's emulated cable 'news' channels by wasting air time with yap show hosts who feel that sound and fury pass for sporting analysis. And most egregiously, it's descended into a PR machine which makes sport almost completely incidental.

Pretty much any sport they touch, they ruin with an avalanche, flood and hurricane of hype. Every week brings a new 'game of the year'!! Every tempest in a teapot is treated like Watergate squared!!

Oops, sorry. I forgot a few exclamation points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On those rare occassions when they do cover soccer, they tend to destroy it with hype just like everything else (except for the Champions League ironically enough). Contrary to what the geniuses at worthlessESPN might think, no one cares what brand toilet paper David Beckham prefers. Though we wouldn't mind seeing him play soccer for 90 minutes in a competitive match one of these years. Playing soccer, as one might recall, is perhaps the least important reason he came to Major League SOCCER but it's certainly part of the equation.

worthlessESPN is such garbage that I rarely watch it anymore unless soccer's on, especially since it stopped covering the NHL.

I have no desire to watch televised poker. I have no desire to watch one of their 'general sports' shows spend 15 out of 22 non-commercial minutes talking about then NFL when it precedes a two-hour NFL pregame show. I have no desire watching 10 minutes of yammering on spring football workouts for the State U's backup punt coverage team.

worthlessESPN is a godsend if you like football, especially the NFL... which I like less and less primarily because of this overhype. worthlessESPN isn't bad if you like baseball... but only in the spring and early summer, before pointy ball sucks all the oxygen out of the room. It's good if you like the Non-Basketball Association. But if you like any other sport, you probably already know not to waste your time with with them.

It doesn't bother me that the folks at worthlessESPN don't care about soccer. It no longer bothers me that many there have an active contempt for soccer. When you're a soccer fan in this country, you're used to the fact that some ninnies are so insecure about the future of the sports they like that they have to take infantile and wholly unoriginal cheap shots at sports that are becoming more popular. They view sporting interest as some kind of zero sum game. The sports media establishment is notoriously small-minded. It's just the way things are.

But what I've come to hate about worthlessESPN is how much coverage they give to non-sporting events... or should I say, sporting non-events.

I was at a place last night where the TV was tuned to worthlessESPN's flagship news program FootballCenter. An erroneous graphic referred to it as SportsCenter; you know it was erroneous because it listed 'sports' in the plural. This brief experience reminded me of why I stopped watching worthlessESPN in the first place.

The first segment was one about the Atlanta Falcons' owner. They were making a mountain out a molehill, which is pretty much par for the course for them. But whatever.

The second segment was about fantasy football. Not real football, mind you. But worthlessESPN's own little fantasy league. I have to say that I'm not particularly concerned about how the injury to the Colts' 4th string long snapper will affect the fantasy league tables. But maybe I'm in the minority.

This was immediately followed by a segment where they simulated a fake college football tournament, since the NCAA doesn't hold a real one (at least not for Division I, or the bowl suburban development or whatever it's called now).

At this point, I found the remote and changed the channel.

No one complained.

So worthlessESPN went from a segment on semi-real pro football to fake pro football to a segment on fake college football.

Appropriate, I suppose, for a fake network.

International Human Rights Day

I am remiss for having neglected to post an essay in honor of Human Rights Day, December 10. Better late than never.

The basic framework for international human rights is embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The content of the Declaration was due in large part to Eleanor Roosevelt, who was President Truman's appointee to the United Nations' Commission for Human Rights, which elected her chairman. All UN member states have ratified the Declaration, which is essentially the closest thing to a world constitution. Since all UN member states have chosen to accept the document, they should all respect it.

Much of the Declaration is what one might expect from a human rights' document. It contains provisions on the equality of all citizens, the right to not be a slave, the freedom of religion and freedom of movement.

There are many provisions which the US government is blatantly ignoring in the so-called war on terror, including (but not limited to):

-Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. (Article 2)

-No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. (Article 5)

-Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. (Article 8)

-Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. (Article 10)

-Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. (Article 11, Section 1)

The US is not the only violator of the Declaration. But it's particularly galling since an American was the driving force behind the document (to say nothing of the fact that such violations are being funded with my tax dollars).

But the main purpose of this essay is to highlight some of the provisions of the Declaration that might not be expected in some quarters but are considered no less fundamental human rights under international law.

Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (Article 17, Section 1)

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. (Article 22)

Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. (Article 23, Sections 3 and 4)

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. (Article 24)

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (Article 25, Section 1)

I think it's interesting how the Declaration reflects how the scope of rights and freedoms is viewed differently in different parts of the world. The American tradition is to view rights very narrowly, in a negative sense. Most of the Bill of Rights' amendments begin, "Congress shall pass no law...." The framework of rights in this country is very much based on the individual and is almost exclusively centered around economic considerations. People should thrive or starve exclusively on their own (or by the roulette wheel of private charity).

Rights and freedoms are viewed differently in other parts of the world. People in most other western countries, for example, accept rights and freedoms but also accept the counterbalancing notion of social responsibility and the greater good and a governmental role therein. To take one issue, they generally view universal access to health care not as stealing but as providing a key service to every citizen. They don't view the "right to get sick and die due to lack of access to health care" as a freedom worth having. The framework of rights in most other western countries has more of a balance between economic, social and, in some cases, cultural considerations.

Americans view rights as protection against the oppression of government; the pursuit of happiness means to be left alone. Europeans view rights as protection against the oppression of chance; the pursuit of happiness means being given a real opportunity to do so. People in some parts of the world view rights as the protection against chaos or disorder. Everyone has their own perspective. Every society has their own priorities.

But the Declaration is what all countries have consciously accepted should be the basic framework for rights and freedoms.

The importance of critical reading

The explosion of anonymous and semi-anonymous blogs and other non-traditional outlets makes critical reading skills even more key. But even with "mainstream" news outlets, this skill remains important.

For example, take this story from Bloomberg.

Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.

Conservative bloggers have jumped all over this, citing it as 'proof' of the hypocrisy of climate change activists, jaunting around the world, sipping their chardonnay. They're probably French too!

20,000 cars sounds like a huge amount of pollution if you have no frame of reference. And this 'objective' news article provided no frame of reference.

20,000 cars represents less than 0.01 percent of all the motor vehicles in the United States alone. This means American-owned cars will cause more pollution in 8 hours than this conference.

Another fact: there are over 20,000 cars in Essex County, one of the most rural, least populous counties in New York state.

This conference climate is going tackling planet-wide issues of climate change, problems that could cause havoc across the globe. The pollution equivalent to that produced by cars in one small US county is a mere drop in the bucket if some of these planetary issues can be addressed.

That is the real perspective needed.

'Dictator' loses election... critics mystified

I'm on record (several times) as no fan whatsoever of Venezuela's leader Hugo Chavez. I believe he is an egomaniac so obsessed with his international reputation that he's willing to cozy up to reactionary theocrats.

However, it seems only fair that I should acknowledge recent events in the country.

Chavez put forth a referendum on proposed changes to the country's constitution, which included ending limits on presidential terms, halting the central bank's autonomy and cutting the working week.

(Renegade Eye blog has a more thorough look at all the changes)

Chavez's changes were narrowly defeated: 51-49 percent.

But wait? How is that possible? Dictators never lose elections.

The Venezuelan leader has been called many things by critics. He's been called a dictator. He's been called anti-democratic. He's been called a loudmouthed populist demagogue. He's been called a strong man. He's been called the head of a personality cult. The last three by myself. I won't re-write history and deny what I said.

But fair is fair. Chavez did not rig this election. He did not initiate mass arrests of opponents of the changes. He did not shut down newspapers hostile to the changes. He did not order his army to fire on protesters, in stark contrast to the truly dictatorial and murderous regime in Burma or the US-backed regime in Ethiopia.

The campaign on both sides was vibrant and often virulent, but that's quite the opposite of what one might expect in a state supposedly as repressed as Venezuela. Autocratic states are comatose with fear.

Chavez was bitter about defeat, but he said he'd accept the result. He later added that he would step down in 2013 when his current term ended.

He may not like democracy, ex-paratrooper that he is, but the fact of the matter is that this is an example of him respecting democracy. He's made 'people power' the center of his agenda. The fact that he respected 'people power' even when it went against what he wanted is a reality that his sometimes fair-minded and often not critics must acknowledge.

The other thing critics must acknowledge is that the constitution he implemented allows for a recall vote in the middle of his term. Something opponents tried and failed in 2004 (shortly after the US-backed coup attempt against him in 2002). While I'm not sure if this is a great idea, one certainly can't accuse this of being the anti-democratic machinations of a power hungry megalomaniac.

Chavez may be a loudmouthed populist demagogue, in much the same way as Rudy Giuliani. He may invoke anti-imperialist screeds in a vainglorious attempt to become the new Developing World Idol. But at the end of the day, his tirades really aren't the central issue to anyone other than the chattering classes (like the blogosphere) and those in the media that need good copy. At the end of the day, he should be judged first and foremost on whether he's improving the lives of ordinary Venezuelans.

And at the end of the day, the only judgement on Chavez that matters will be cast not by bloggers, western intellectuals or American editorial writers but by Venezuelans themselves.


Update: Despite his friendliess with Chavez, Bolivian president Evo Morales is what a progressive leader should be. He is worried improving the lives of his people, not becoming a rock star of the leftist world. Frustrated with opposition to his reforms, Morales has called for a referendum on whether he and nine regional governors should remain in office. Here's a guy who's willing to risk his presidency that comes with it to advance what he believes would improve the country. This is a leader who's willing to do what's right even if it means he might lose power. You have to admire that.