A few weeks ago, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean was pilloried for calling the Republican Party "pretty much a white, Christian party."
(He also said that many in the GOP had "never made an honest living," which is a pretty stupid thing to say and probably just as applicable to his own party)
Yet John Danforth is now saying pretty much the same thing. The former Republican senator from Missouri notes that, "Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians."
Danforth's comments are noteworthy because he's a moderate and civilized, a species increasingly rare both within his party and in politics in general. In addition to being well-respected in Republican circles, he also had the unenviable task of serving the current president as ambassador to the UN; so he can hardly be dismissed as anti-Bush.
As well-respected Republican, a Bush appointee and a retired Episcopal priest from the heart of Red America, his warning against the theocratic aims of some in his own party can't be easily waved away as the incoherent ramblings of a so-called atheist, Christian-hater from the coast.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Environmentalism "versus" economics, pt. 239
Two weeks ago, several roads in the southeastern part of upstate New York's Adirondack Park were severely damaged by mudslides provoked by heavy rains. Conservationists are trying to determine how much ecological damage to Lake George was caused by all this.
The chairwoman of the Lake George Fund suggested that better regulations "would have protected the stream banks, our shorelines, the whole stream corridor. And the trees would have stabilized those soils and kept them from eroding the way that we saw them change so drastically."
In other words, she claims that cutting down the trees for commercial or residential development made the destructive mudslides much more likely and more damaging when they did occur. Heavy rains are not unheard in this part of upstate New York. Yet, the level of destruction and devastation was unprecedented; one state Transportation Department official said he'd never seen anything like it in his 25 years.
Some peddle the simplistic dichotomy that environmental and economic concerns are mutually exclusive, but fair-minded people know otherwise. Sometimes environmental and economic considerations are at odds, but more often than most people believe, the two are complimentary. The destroyed roads crippled many businesses in the Warrensburg/Bolton area, a region almost entirely dependent on fresh air tourism like camping and hiking. A tad more concern for the area's environment might've prevented, or at least significantly mitigated, the mudslides as well as the big financial hit many small businesses took as a result.
Adirondack Almanack blog wonders why the mainstream media in the region hasn't explored this question.
The chairwoman of the Lake George Fund suggested that better regulations "would have protected the stream banks, our shorelines, the whole stream corridor. And the trees would have stabilized those soils and kept them from eroding the way that we saw them change so drastically."
In other words, she claims that cutting down the trees for commercial or residential development made the destructive mudslides much more likely and more damaging when they did occur. Heavy rains are not unheard in this part of upstate New York. Yet, the level of destruction and devastation was unprecedented; one state Transportation Department official said he'd never seen anything like it in his 25 years.
Some peddle the simplistic dichotomy that environmental and economic concerns are mutually exclusive, but fair-minded people know otherwise. Sometimes environmental and economic considerations are at odds, but more often than most people believe, the two are complimentary. The destroyed roads crippled many businesses in the Warrensburg/Bolton area, a region almost entirely dependent on fresh air tourism like camping and hiking. A tad more concern for the area's environment might've prevented, or at least significantly mitigated, the mudslides as well as the big financial hit many small businesses took as a result.
Adirondack Almanack blog wonders why the mainstream media in the region hasn't explored this question.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Soccer cheats and why they do it
There are many reasons cited why Americans don't like to watch soccer. Admittedly, Americans like to watch soccer a lot more than they used to, as decent attendances in Major League Soccer The creation of two soccer-only television channels, Fox Soccer Channel and Gol TV, show that there's some interest in the sport out there. But the sport is not yet as popular in the US as it is in much of the rest of the world.
The main reason most Americans think they don't like soccer is because there's supposedly not enough scoring. Strange, though, that a 1-0 baseball game is lauded as a pitchers' duel that true fans appreciate. Even a 14-7 NFL football game, really only 2-1 in terms of touchdowns, is praised as a defensive struggle. But 1-0 and 2-1 soccer games are derided as borefests.
However, one reason cited by many Americans for not liking soccer IS worth commenting on. Diving, or simulation as it's officially referred to, is a true blight on the sport. This commentary at Matchnight rightly refers to diving as cheating.
The author properly mentions other forms of cheating, particularly diving's evil twin: shirt-pulling.
As a youth coach, I tell my kids that if they dive, I'll yank them out of the game immediately. It's not only cheap, but it's counterproductive. If you dive and don't get the call, you're taking yourself out of the play. Fortunately, I've never had to act on this threat.
(My other biggest pet peeve, besides bad sportsmanship, is when defenders stop and wave their hands in the air like fools appealing for an offside call. Again, players should do their jobs and let the refs do theirs. I actually did bench one of my players last week for doing it.)
But while I'm not one to eagerly jump on the 'it's all the ref's fault' bandwagon, some blame for this scourge has to be placed with the officials. One of the dirty little secrets of diving is that sometimes it's the only way to get a deserved call. Sometimes, it's an illegitimate method to get a legitimate call. That's why it's done.
When you see a defender foul a forward, if the forward merely stumbles, he probably won't get the legitimate call. If the forward flops to the ground theatrically (but not too theatrically), he's far more likely to get the call. The refs assume that if the attacking player merely stumbles, then whatever happened must not have been a foul. In essence, this is the mentality that encourages diving.
I remember watching a Kansas City-Metrostars Major League Soccer game earlier this year. A through-ball was played to a KC forward. The Metros defender pushed the KC forward. The KC forward stumbled but stayed on his feet and the ball went out of bounds for a goal kick. Amazingly, the referee awarded a penalty kick anyway for KC. This was the right and proper call according to the rules, but one that is almost never made in the absence of a player flopping to the ground like he was gunned down with an AK-47.
The Matchnight column referred to a far more pathetic incident. In a Columbus-New England match, NE's Marshall Leonard elbowed a Columbus player Mario Rodriguez. It was clearly a yellow card offense on Leonard's part. However, while Rodriguez was elbowed just above the belly button, he collapsed to the ground clutching his THROAT. Leonard was properly given a caution, but Rodriguez was unjustly spared the yellow card he merited for his shameless display.
Two years ago, Metrostars' midfielder Amado Guevara infamously collapsed to the ground clutching his face after an opposing player (who was on the bench) inexplicably snapped Guevara in the back with a towel. He was widely condemned and has been mostly a good boy ever since.
The Matchnight columnist noted some of the absurdities surrounding the pronouncements coming from FIFA, the international soccer federation.
It's hard not to laugh at FIFA's 'Fair Play' posturing when they introduce farcical new guidelines, as at the current U20 World Cup in Holland, whereby players are pompously booked for toe-poking the ball a couple of inches after a free kick has been given. Sure, it's not good, but it's hardly the greatest problem soccer's facing right now. Meanwhile a player like Rodriguez can get away scot-free with trying to have an opponent sent off. Even if he's not penalized during the game, the MLS Disciplinary Committee could finally defy its past record and show some spine by retroactively fining and cautioning him (and all others who do the same) for blatantly bringing the game into disrepute.
'Simulation' will only be eliminated if referees start calling legitimate fouls when players don't dive.
The main reason most Americans think they don't like soccer is because there's supposedly not enough scoring. Strange, though, that a 1-0 baseball game is lauded as a pitchers' duel that true fans appreciate. Even a 14-7 NFL football game, really only 2-1 in terms of touchdowns, is praised as a defensive struggle. But 1-0 and 2-1 soccer games are derided as borefests.
However, one reason cited by many Americans for not liking soccer IS worth commenting on. Diving, or simulation as it's officially referred to, is a true blight on the sport. This commentary at Matchnight rightly refers to diving as cheating.
The author properly mentions other forms of cheating, particularly diving's evil twin: shirt-pulling.
As a youth coach, I tell my kids that if they dive, I'll yank them out of the game immediately. It's not only cheap, but it's counterproductive. If you dive and don't get the call, you're taking yourself out of the play. Fortunately, I've never had to act on this threat.
(My other biggest pet peeve, besides bad sportsmanship, is when defenders stop and wave their hands in the air like fools appealing for an offside call. Again, players should do their jobs and let the refs do theirs. I actually did bench one of my players last week for doing it.)
But while I'm not one to eagerly jump on the 'it's all the ref's fault' bandwagon, some blame for this scourge has to be placed with the officials. One of the dirty little secrets of diving is that sometimes it's the only way to get a deserved call. Sometimes, it's an illegitimate method to get a legitimate call. That's why it's done.
When you see a defender foul a forward, if the forward merely stumbles, he probably won't get the legitimate call. If the forward flops to the ground theatrically (but not too theatrically), he's far more likely to get the call. The refs assume that if the attacking player merely stumbles, then whatever happened must not have been a foul. In essence, this is the mentality that encourages diving.
I remember watching a Kansas City-Metrostars Major League Soccer game earlier this year. A through-ball was played to a KC forward. The Metros defender pushed the KC forward. The KC forward stumbled but stayed on his feet and the ball went out of bounds for a goal kick. Amazingly, the referee awarded a penalty kick anyway for KC. This was the right and proper call according to the rules, but one that is almost never made in the absence of a player flopping to the ground like he was gunned down with an AK-47.
The Matchnight column referred to a far more pathetic incident. In a Columbus-New England match, NE's Marshall Leonard elbowed a Columbus player Mario Rodriguez. It was clearly a yellow card offense on Leonard's part. However, while Rodriguez was elbowed just above the belly button, he collapsed to the ground clutching his THROAT. Leonard was properly given a caution, but Rodriguez was unjustly spared the yellow card he merited for his shameless display.
Two years ago, Metrostars' midfielder Amado Guevara infamously collapsed to the ground clutching his face after an opposing player (who was on the bench) inexplicably snapped Guevara in the back with a towel. He was widely condemned and has been mostly a good boy ever since.
The Matchnight columnist noted some of the absurdities surrounding the pronouncements coming from FIFA, the international soccer federation.
It's hard not to laugh at FIFA's 'Fair Play' posturing when they introduce farcical new guidelines, as at the current U20 World Cup in Holland, whereby players are pompously booked for toe-poking the ball a couple of inches after a free kick has been given. Sure, it's not good, but it's hardly the greatest problem soccer's facing right now. Meanwhile a player like Rodriguez can get away scot-free with trying to have an opponent sent off. Even if he's not penalized during the game, the MLS Disciplinary Committee could finally defy its past record and show some spine by retroactively fining and cautioning him (and all others who do the same) for blatantly bringing the game into disrepute.
'Simulation' will only be eliminated if referees start calling legitimate fouls when players don't dive.
Monday, June 27, 2005
African Union: we have no time for 200,000 (400,000?) homeless
This essay is part of a weekly feature on my blog that presents interesting stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, Israel and Iraq.
You really have to wonder what sort of incriminating photos Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe has of South Africa's otherwise respectable president Thabo Mbeki. How else to explain Mbeki's disgraceful sycophancy to the dinosaur who's destroying South Africa's neighbor?
Earlier this month, I deplored the Mugabe regime's mass razing of poor townships in the capital Harare (not coincidentally, an opposition stronghold).
US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice called on the African Union and other African leaders to speak out against the atrocity. After all, denouncing such idiocies as this is precisely what was supposed to separate the AU what its predecessor, the Organization for African Unity (often derided as a social club for dictators).
Well, the AU rejected the call by Rice and a similiar one by British Foreign Minister Jack Straw. An AU spokesman said the organization had more important things to consider. Apparently it couldn't even spend a few minutes to speak out against this disaster which has left 200,000 homeless and two young children dead. (The UK Independent puts the number at 400,000)
That's at least 200,000 homeless in the city of Harare alone. By contrast, the entire country of Liberia, which recently ended its second devastating civil war in the last 15 years has only 150,000 internally displaced people, according to the UN Refugee Agency.
A spokesman for President Mbeki, whose failed 'quiet diplomacy' in the Zimbabwe crisis has earned much criticism, bristled at Rice's and Straw's calls.
"South Africa refuses to accept the notion that because suddenly we're going to a G8 summit, we must be reminded that we must look good and appease the G8 leaders," the spokesman said.
Ah yes, the old 'blame the westerners and the opposition (the "westernized")' card that Mugabe himself has so perfected. After all, it's been clearly demonstrated that when bad things happen in Africa, the key point according to some is not the skin color of the victim, but the skin color of the perpetrator.
Consider the regime's of apartheid South Africa, Iain Smith's racist Rhodesia and Mugabe's Zimbabwe. The primary victims of all three regimes were black. Two earned widespread condemnation from the continent's leaders, while one provokes avid defenders.
I wonder how Mbeki and his spokesman would explain the condemnation as 'inhuman' of Mugabe's destruction by the Roman Catholic archbishop of Harare. The archbishop is black, since it apparently matters.
Update: The UK Independent puts the number of homeless at 400,000. And as though the creation of possibly 400,000 homeless wasn't enough, Mugabe's regime is ignoring a famine, according to The Independent. Unofficial estimates obtained by [the paper] suggest the death rate is already outstripping the birth rate nationwide by 4,000 a week. 4000 a week times 52 weeks... I can't even bear to do the math.
You really have to wonder what sort of incriminating photos Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe has of South Africa's otherwise respectable president Thabo Mbeki. How else to explain Mbeki's disgraceful sycophancy to the dinosaur who's destroying South Africa's neighbor?
Earlier this month, I deplored the Mugabe regime's mass razing of poor townships in the capital Harare (not coincidentally, an opposition stronghold).
US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice called on the African Union and other African leaders to speak out against the atrocity. After all, denouncing such idiocies as this is precisely what was supposed to separate the AU what its predecessor, the Organization for African Unity (often derided as a social club for dictators).
Well, the AU rejected the call by Rice and a similiar one by British Foreign Minister Jack Straw. An AU spokesman said the organization had more important things to consider. Apparently it couldn't even spend a few minutes to speak out against this disaster which has left 200,000 homeless and two young children dead. (The UK Independent puts the number at 400,000)
That's at least 200,000 homeless in the city of Harare alone. By contrast, the entire country of Liberia, which recently ended its second devastating civil war in the last 15 years has only 150,000 internally displaced people, according to the UN Refugee Agency.
A spokesman for President Mbeki, whose failed 'quiet diplomacy' in the Zimbabwe crisis has earned much criticism, bristled at Rice's and Straw's calls.
"South Africa refuses to accept the notion that because suddenly we're going to a G8 summit, we must be reminded that we must look good and appease the G8 leaders," the spokesman said.
Ah yes, the old 'blame the westerners and the opposition (the "westernized")' card that Mugabe himself has so perfected. After all, it's been clearly demonstrated that when bad things happen in Africa, the key point according to some is not the skin color of the victim, but the skin color of the perpetrator.
Consider the regime's of apartheid South Africa, Iain Smith's racist Rhodesia and Mugabe's Zimbabwe. The primary victims of all three regimes were black. Two earned widespread condemnation from the continent's leaders, while one provokes avid defenders.
I wonder how Mbeki and his spokesman would explain the condemnation as 'inhuman' of Mugabe's destruction by the Roman Catholic archbishop of Harare. The archbishop is black, since it apparently matters.
Update: The UK Independent puts the number of homeless at 400,000. And as though the creation of possibly 400,000 homeless wasn't enough, Mugabe's regime is ignoring a famine, according to The Independent. Unofficial estimates obtained by [the paper] suggest the death rate is already outstripping the birth rate nationwide by 4,000 a week. 4000 a week times 52 weeks... I can't even bear to do the math.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
CIA agents arrested in Italy
I've written several essays (such as here and here) criticizing the premises underpinning the Guanatamo Bay detention center.
As I wrote earlier: Let's say it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that every single action of every single soldier were acting in a way that was not only in accordance with international law but in a way that would make their mothers proud. Even if that happened, Gitmo would deserve a scathing rebuke. My objections are based primarily on the abhorrent political and (extra-)legal principles on which the internment camp is based.
Specifically I object to the fact that Gitmo detainees were arrested by American forces outside of lands subject to American jurisdiction and detained against their will, yet the administration refuses to either classify them as prisoners of war or as common criminals. I object that this is the policy of the US government.
Instead, the Bush administration decided to invent a pseudo-legal classification called 'enemy combattants,' so it could avoid both presenting evidence (like for common criminals) or treating them according them Geneva Convention (like for prisoners of war).
They did so based on the fiction that the suspected terrorists represent a class of combattant unprecedented in history. In fact, the suspected terrorists are non-state combattants, just like mercenaries and just like rebel groups. The former are dealt with via the traditional justice system; the latter are usually treated as prisoners of war.
Since the suspected terrorists were captured in what the president calls the 'WAR on terrorism,' it wouldn't be unreasonable to call them prisoners of war. Since other terrorists like Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman or Timothy McVeigh were tried and convicted via the traditional justice system, it wouldn't be unreasonable to treat them as regular criminals. But clearly, they must be one or the other.
Some say that Gitmo detainees are being treated like they were in Club Med (or 'Club G'itmo' as Rush Limbaugh calls it). For example, this CNS News article offers a headline more appropriate to a satirical publication like The Onion: Conservatives Tout Guantanamo Bay's Cuisine.
"For Sunday, they're going to be having -- let me see -- orange glazed chicken, fresh fruit grupe, steamed peas and mushrooms, rice pilaf -- another form of torture for the hijackers," huffed a California congressman.
Kidnapping people in a foreign land, detaining them without charge, having to present evidence against them or allowing them a chance to defend themselves and holding them indefinitely on the arbitrary whim of US authorities would normally be considered outrageous and un-American. After all, these were some of the objectionable tactics cited in America's own Declaration of Independence.
But as long as you give the detainees rice pilaf, it's perfectly acceptable to deny them their freedom (said breathlessly) without even the pretense of due process, the rule of law or any other kind of civilized justice.
But if detainees ARE indeed being treated so luxuriously (even putting aside gastronomy), one has to wonder why the US administration has been doing everything possible to prevent UN observers from visiting Guanatanamo. After all, if the UN folks tasted our orange glazed chicken, they might not be so 'anti-American'!
Yet the really interesting news come from Italy, whose government was one of our government's closest collaborators in the Iraq aggression. A few days ago, an Italian judge ordered the arrest of 13 CIA officers for secretly transporting a Muslim preacher from Italy to Egypt.
The officers are accused of kidnapping a Muslim preacher in Italy and sending him to the north African country where he was reportedly tortured (presumably with something stronger than steamed peas and mushrooms).
The US embassy in Rome and the CIA in Washington refused to deny the allegations.
First off, this is an example of how the Bush administration spits its allies... even on those who backed it to the hilt on the Iraq aggression.
This isn't exactly unprecedented, however. Only last week, the administration was accused of lying to the British government, its closest ally, over the use of Napalm in Iraq. So much for the vaunted 'special relationship.'
Normally, the Bush administration could've asked Italy to extradite the preacher to Egypt. Except that would've required the much-detested due process and European countries are usually hesistant to send suspects to countries that practice torture or the death penalty.
What's interesting is this. Kidnapping is one of the most common tactics commonly used by terrorists. So does that make the CIA agents terrorists?
Italy could've simply thrown the CIA agents in prison without trial, charge or evidence and call them... well... I'm sure the Italians could've come up with some scary sounding classification for them. They could've then kept the agents in detention indefinitely, perhaps even force feeding them fresh fruit grupe, until the Italian government felt like doing something with them.
Italy could've done that, according to Bushian logic, but it didn't. The alleged CIA kidnappers were charged through Italy's regular justice system.
Nevertheless, don't be surprised if a less friendly country invents some kanagaroo procedure to deal with American POWs (or whatever classification is invented instead) while cleverly citing the precedent of our commander-in-chief.
As I wrote earlier: Let's say it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that every single action of every single soldier were acting in a way that was not only in accordance with international law but in a way that would make their mothers proud. Even if that happened, Gitmo would deserve a scathing rebuke. My objections are based primarily on the abhorrent political and (extra-)legal principles on which the internment camp is based.
Specifically I object to the fact that Gitmo detainees were arrested by American forces outside of lands subject to American jurisdiction and detained against their will, yet the administration refuses to either classify them as prisoners of war or as common criminals. I object that this is the policy of the US government.
Instead, the Bush administration decided to invent a pseudo-legal classification called 'enemy combattants,' so it could avoid both presenting evidence (like for common criminals) or treating them according them Geneva Convention (like for prisoners of war).
They did so based on the fiction that the suspected terrorists represent a class of combattant unprecedented in history. In fact, the suspected terrorists are non-state combattants, just like mercenaries and just like rebel groups. The former are dealt with via the traditional justice system; the latter are usually treated as prisoners of war.
Since the suspected terrorists were captured in what the president calls the 'WAR on terrorism,' it wouldn't be unreasonable to call them prisoners of war. Since other terrorists like Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman or Timothy McVeigh were tried and convicted via the traditional justice system, it wouldn't be unreasonable to treat them as regular criminals. But clearly, they must be one or the other.
Some say that Gitmo detainees are being treated like they were in Club Med (or 'Club G'itmo' as Rush Limbaugh calls it). For example, this CNS News article offers a headline more appropriate to a satirical publication like The Onion: Conservatives Tout Guantanamo Bay's Cuisine.
"For Sunday, they're going to be having -- let me see -- orange glazed chicken, fresh fruit grupe, steamed peas and mushrooms, rice pilaf -- another form of torture for the hijackers," huffed a California congressman.
Kidnapping people in a foreign land, detaining them without charge, having to present evidence against them or allowing them a chance to defend themselves and holding them indefinitely on the arbitrary whim of US authorities would normally be considered outrageous and un-American. After all, these were some of the objectionable tactics cited in America's own Declaration of Independence.
But as long as you give the detainees rice pilaf, it's perfectly acceptable to deny them their freedom (said breathlessly) without even the pretense of due process, the rule of law or any other kind of civilized justice.
But if detainees ARE indeed being treated so luxuriously (even putting aside gastronomy), one has to wonder why the US administration has been doing everything possible to prevent UN observers from visiting Guanatanamo. After all, if the UN folks tasted our orange glazed chicken, they might not be so 'anti-American'!
Yet the really interesting news come from Italy, whose government was one of our government's closest collaborators in the Iraq aggression. A few days ago, an Italian judge ordered the arrest of 13 CIA officers for secretly transporting a Muslim preacher from Italy to Egypt.
The officers are accused of kidnapping a Muslim preacher in Italy and sending him to the north African country where he was reportedly tortured (presumably with something stronger than steamed peas and mushrooms).
The US embassy in Rome and the CIA in Washington refused to deny the allegations.
First off, this is an example of how the Bush administration spits its allies... even on those who backed it to the hilt on the Iraq aggression.
This isn't exactly unprecedented, however. Only last week, the administration was accused of lying to the British government, its closest ally, over the use of Napalm in Iraq. So much for the vaunted 'special relationship.'
Normally, the Bush administration could've asked Italy to extradite the preacher to Egypt. Except that would've required the much-detested due process and European countries are usually hesistant to send suspects to countries that practice torture or the death penalty.
What's interesting is this. Kidnapping is one of the most common tactics commonly used by terrorists. So does that make the CIA agents terrorists?
Italy could've simply thrown the CIA agents in prison without trial, charge or evidence and call them... well... I'm sure the Italians could've come up with some scary sounding classification for them. They could've then kept the agents in detention indefinitely, perhaps even force feeding them fresh fruit grupe, until the Italian government felt like doing something with them.
Italy could've done that, according to Bushian logic, but it didn't. The alleged CIA kidnappers were charged through Italy's regular justice system.
Nevertheless, don't be surprised if a less friendly country invents some kanagaroo procedure to deal with American POWs (or whatever classification is invented instead) while cleverly citing the precedent of our commander-in-chief.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
The childlike administration
The president's political maven Karl Rove is in the news after he charged liberals as being soft on terrorism.
Granted, Rove didn't go quite as far as right-wing icon Ann Coulter who's made millions of dollars with a book whose entire theme was: liberals were and continue to be traitors. No hyperbole here. The exact title of her book is: Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism. But Rove's comments are perhaps more insidious precisely because they are less blunt.
This isn't entirely surprising: Rove merely enunciated what has been the underlying theme of Republican political strategy ever since 9/11. After all, smearing opponents as 'soft on [enemy du jour]' served Republicans quite well during the Cold War, so they see no reason to change it now.
According to The Washington Post, Rove cited a petition which called for 'moderation and restraint' following the 9/11 attacks.
Rove fumed, "I don't know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt as I watched the twin towers crumble to the earth, a side of the Pentagon destroyed and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble," according to a text provided by the White House.
And this pretty epitomizes what's wrong with the administration: they pander to our basest, most savage emotions.
The purpose of government in civilized countries should be to MODERATE the most extreme instincts of the masses; that's why we have representative, not direct, democracy. In a time of crisis, the purpose of government is to offer a cool, rational analysis of the situation and offer well-thought solutions that make sense, rather than decisions arrived at hastily and blinded by anger and emotion. The Founding Fathers often warned of the tyranny of the majority and designed a system designed to RESTRAIN the majority's most extreme impulses.
Essentially that's the difference between adults and children. Children act on their natural impulses. Adults, hopefully, learn to MODERATE and RESTRAIN them.
When angry, children often lash out irrationally after everyone around them, including those who didn't directly cause the anger. In the same situation, we expect adults to show a little, yes, restraint. We expect the adults to more intelligent, reasoned response to a provocation. Imagine if everyone who got punched in the face took an AK-47 and gunned down each person within a three-block radius. What prevents that from happening? Moderation and restraint.
Moderation and restraint are why we send kids to time out. Moderation and restraint are why we often count to ten when angry, before opening our mouthes or clenching our fists. Moderation and restraint don't necessarily imply inaction, but they do imply INTELLIGENT action. Moderation and restraint give you the opportunity to use the gray matter in your head.
Perhaps Rove's and the administration's hostility toward moderation and restraint explain the debacle that resulted in the badly planned, nonsensical aggression against Iraq that now even the CIA suspects might have become counterproductive. Those of us practiced in moderation and restraint feared before the aggression that it would prove counterproductive.
Children often stomp their feet, snivel uncontrollably, hit people (you might call it 'unleashing their power') and throw their toys when something bad happens. We expect adults to show moderation and restraint when something doesn't go their way. We should expect that of our president and his advisors too.
After all, isn't 'moderation and restraint' precisely what we're preaching to the Arab world?
No wonder they don't believe us.
Granted, Rove didn't go quite as far as right-wing icon Ann Coulter who's made millions of dollars with a book whose entire theme was: liberals were and continue to be traitors. No hyperbole here. The exact title of her book is: Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism. But Rove's comments are perhaps more insidious precisely because they are less blunt.
This isn't entirely surprising: Rove merely enunciated what has been the underlying theme of Republican political strategy ever since 9/11. After all, smearing opponents as 'soft on [enemy du jour]' served Republicans quite well during the Cold War, so they see no reason to change it now.
According to The Washington Post, Rove cited a petition which called for 'moderation and restraint' following the 9/11 attacks.
Rove fumed, "I don't know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt as I watched the twin towers crumble to the earth, a side of the Pentagon destroyed and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble," according to a text provided by the White House.
And this pretty epitomizes what's wrong with the administration: they pander to our basest, most savage emotions.
The purpose of government in civilized countries should be to MODERATE the most extreme instincts of the masses; that's why we have representative, not direct, democracy. In a time of crisis, the purpose of government is to offer a cool, rational analysis of the situation and offer well-thought solutions that make sense, rather than decisions arrived at hastily and blinded by anger and emotion. The Founding Fathers often warned of the tyranny of the majority and designed a system designed to RESTRAIN the majority's most extreme impulses.
Essentially that's the difference between adults and children. Children act on their natural impulses. Adults, hopefully, learn to MODERATE and RESTRAIN them.
When angry, children often lash out irrationally after everyone around them, including those who didn't directly cause the anger. In the same situation, we expect adults to show a little, yes, restraint. We expect the adults to more intelligent, reasoned response to a provocation. Imagine if everyone who got punched in the face took an AK-47 and gunned down each person within a three-block radius. What prevents that from happening? Moderation and restraint.
Moderation and restraint are why we send kids to time out. Moderation and restraint are why we often count to ten when angry, before opening our mouthes or clenching our fists. Moderation and restraint don't necessarily imply inaction, but they do imply INTELLIGENT action. Moderation and restraint give you the opportunity to use the gray matter in your head.
Perhaps Rove's and the administration's hostility toward moderation and restraint explain the debacle that resulted in the badly planned, nonsensical aggression against Iraq that now even the CIA suspects might have become counterproductive. Those of us practiced in moderation and restraint feared before the aggression that it would prove counterproductive.
Children often stomp their feet, snivel uncontrollably, hit people (you might call it 'unleashing their power') and throw their toys when something bad happens. We expect adults to show moderation and restraint when something doesn't go their way. We should expect that of our president and his advisors too.
After all, isn't 'moderation and restraint' precisely what we're preaching to the Arab world?
No wonder they don't believe us.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Supreme Court ok's government-imposed land redistribution
Yesterday, a divided US Supreme Court authorized government-imposed land redistribution in a controversial and much-followed ruling.
The case involved a Connecticut municipality's use of eminent domain. Eminent domain is a process by which the government can take private land for public use, provided the owners are compensated. Typically, this is done so that roads or bridges or other public infrastructure can be built.
Eminent domain is actually authorized by the US Constitution's 5th Amendment which concludes: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The key question in this case was the definition of the phrase 'public use.'
The town of New London, CT wanted to use eminent domain on a number of properties so it could pave the way for a large private commercial development complex including a riverfront hotel, health club and offices that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.
This case is an excellent example of why our democracy is constitutionally limited. Or at least in theory.
Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, who as a city council member approved the development, said, "I am charged with doing what's best for the 26,000 people that live in New London. That to me was enacting the eminent domain process designed to revitalize a city ... with nowhere to go."
In other words, the government can seize your home if it's supposedly in the best economic interests of a majority of your fellow citizens.
In fact, the right to private property, like any other right, is utterly meaningless if it can be removed by a simple majority vote.
"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, in his majority opinion.
But is seizing the homes of ordinary, middle class folks to give to rich private developers a traditional and long accepted function of government? Perhaps in Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, but I didn't think it was so here in the United States.
In dissent, [Justice Sandra Day] O'Connor criticized the majority for abandoning the conservative principle of individual property rights and handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled.
"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," O'Connor wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
This decision must confuse some conservatives. The Court trashed the whole concept of private property rights and ok'd government-imposed land redistributions but at least it wasn't 'activist.'
This is particularly relevant to my city. Right near our downtown hockey arena, there is a Burger King with an ugly sitting area in front of it. It is indeed a concerte eyesore. In fact, it's a reminder of the failed dream of a previous administration to build 'another Rockefeller Center' in the plaza. That area was razed several decades ago during the city's disastrous and misnamed 'urban renewal' program that destroyed so many historic buildings and erected blight in their place.
Now, some have floated the idea of eminent domaining the BK property for some new grandiose scheme to revive downtown. BK's owners don't want to sell the property.
Nevermind that the slow but steady progress our downtown has made in the last decade has been driven by small business owners, while the magic bullet approaches to big chains have fallen through.
I'm sure the region's big developers are salivating at the prospect, following the New London decision. My city's experience with disastrous magic bullet schemes in the last half century should give residents pause for thought. Making downtown more pedestrian friendly will do far more to help downtown shops, restaurants and museums than pie-in-the-sky nonsense like replacing BK with another Rockefeller Center or further money-sucking eyesores like a parking garage. Besides, if they can seize BK to give to someone richer simply because it's not fancy, schmancy enough for sophisticated tastes, then why can't they seize your home to do the same?
Update: The Green Party of the United States, the country's third largest and only major progressive party, has also come out with a statement denouncing the Supreme Court decision.
The case involved a Connecticut municipality's use of eminent domain. Eminent domain is a process by which the government can take private land for public use, provided the owners are compensated. Typically, this is done so that roads or bridges or other public infrastructure can be built.
Eminent domain is actually authorized by the US Constitution's 5th Amendment which concludes: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The key question in this case was the definition of the phrase 'public use.'
The town of New London, CT wanted to use eminent domain on a number of properties so it could pave the way for a large private commercial development complex including a riverfront hotel, health club and offices that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.
This case is an excellent example of why our democracy is constitutionally limited. Or at least in theory.
Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, who as a city council member approved the development, said, "I am charged with doing what's best for the 26,000 people that live in New London. That to me was enacting the eminent domain process designed to revitalize a city ... with nowhere to go."
In other words, the government can seize your home if it's supposedly in the best economic interests of a majority of your fellow citizens.
In fact, the right to private property, like any other right, is utterly meaningless if it can be removed by a simple majority vote.
"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, in his majority opinion.
But is seizing the homes of ordinary, middle class folks to give to rich private developers a traditional and long accepted function of government? Perhaps in Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, but I didn't think it was so here in the United States.
In dissent, [Justice Sandra Day] O'Connor criticized the majority for abandoning the conservative principle of individual property rights and handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled.
"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," O'Connor wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
This decision must confuse some conservatives. The Court trashed the whole concept of private property rights and ok'd government-imposed land redistributions but at least it wasn't 'activist.'
This is particularly relevant to my city. Right near our downtown hockey arena, there is a Burger King with an ugly sitting area in front of it. It is indeed a concerte eyesore. In fact, it's a reminder of the failed dream of a previous administration to build 'another Rockefeller Center' in the plaza. That area was razed several decades ago during the city's disastrous and misnamed 'urban renewal' program that destroyed so many historic buildings and erected blight in their place.
Now, some have floated the idea of eminent domaining the BK property for some new grandiose scheme to revive downtown. BK's owners don't want to sell the property.
Nevermind that the slow but steady progress our downtown has made in the last decade has been driven by small business owners, while the magic bullet approaches to big chains have fallen through.
I'm sure the region's big developers are salivating at the prospect, following the New London decision. My city's experience with disastrous magic bullet schemes in the last half century should give residents pause for thought. Making downtown more pedestrian friendly will do far more to help downtown shops, restaurants and museums than pie-in-the-sky nonsense like replacing BK with another Rockefeller Center or further money-sucking eyesores like a parking garage. Besides, if they can seize BK to give to someone richer simply because it's not fancy, schmancy enough for sophisticated tastes, then why can't they seize your home to do the same?
Update: The Green Party of the United States, the country's third largest and only major progressive party, has also come out with a statement denouncing the Supreme Court decision.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Iraq jihadists potentially worse than al-Qaeda: CIA
Remember back in the day when the Bush administration claimed that the Iraq war would make us safer? Remember how they said that the aggression was essential to the so-called war on terrorism, how it was critical to eliminating Islamist extremism?
Like so many other things, they were wrong.
The war in Iraq is creating a new breed of Islamic jihadists who could go on to destabilise other countries, according to a CIA report, reports the British daily The Guardian.
Of course, this is precisely what many of us predicted BEFORE the war, but saw our warnings dismissed as the rantings of 'wimpy lefty peaceniks.'
No one likes an 'I told you so' but given the almost profane eagerness many Americans had for this aggression, it's worth reminding that discresion is the better part of valor. Maybe the next time our Leader proposes a controversial war, we can have a real debate, like they had in Britain, rather than poor substitutes like flag waving and ribbon wearing.
Worryingly, the extremists are becoming more sophisticated in their methods to maximize death and destruction, especially against civilians.
While the number of Iraq attacks have diminished, they have become more deadly. More than 1,000 Iraqis and 120 US soldiers have been killed since the new Iraqi cabinet was formed in April.
Insurgents once again demonstrated their capacity for inflicting carnage on civilians when they detonated four cars bombs in western Baghdad last night, killing at least 23 people and injuring around 50. At least one was driven by a suicide bomber.
Most disturbingly:
The CIA believes Iraq to be potentially worse than Afghanistan, which produced thousands of jihadists in the 1980s and 1990s. Many of the recruits to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida had fought in Afghanistan.
So the Iraq created by President Bush has the potential to be even more dangerous than the Afghanistan that breeded Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda.
Could someone please explain again to me the logic of this invasion?
Given the extremely dangerous situation in the Iraq created by our commander-in-chief, it's nice to know that Congress is focused on non-issues like flag burning.
Like so many other things, they were wrong.
The war in Iraq is creating a new breed of Islamic jihadists who could go on to destabilise other countries, according to a CIA report, reports the British daily The Guardian.
Of course, this is precisely what many of us predicted BEFORE the war, but saw our warnings dismissed as the rantings of 'wimpy lefty peaceniks.'
No one likes an 'I told you so' but given the almost profane eagerness many Americans had for this aggression, it's worth reminding that discresion is the better part of valor. Maybe the next time our Leader proposes a controversial war, we can have a real debate, like they had in Britain, rather than poor substitutes like flag waving and ribbon wearing.
Worryingly, the extremists are becoming more sophisticated in their methods to maximize death and destruction, especially against civilians.
While the number of Iraq attacks have diminished, they have become more deadly. More than 1,000 Iraqis and 120 US soldiers have been killed since the new Iraqi cabinet was formed in April.
Insurgents once again demonstrated their capacity for inflicting carnage on civilians when they detonated four cars bombs in western Baghdad last night, killing at least 23 people and injuring around 50. At least one was driven by a suicide bomber.
Most disturbingly:
The CIA believes Iraq to be potentially worse than Afghanistan, which produced thousands of jihadists in the 1980s and 1990s. Many of the recruits to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida had fought in Afghanistan.
So the Iraq created by President Bush has the potential to be even more dangerous than the Afghanistan that breeded Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda.
Could someone please explain again to me the logic of this invasion?
Given the extremely dangerous situation in the Iraq created by our commander-in-chief, it's nice to know that Congress is focused on non-issues like flag burning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)