Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Conservative Values Trading Cards

There's a political candidate some are calling "Ol' Tool Shed" because of his TV ad showing him sitting in his tool shed. Apparently, he said at one point that he and his friends get together there to discuss conservative values.

Some liberals and I were thinking, we've probably heard in the news what all these values are. Do those folks at the tool shed really sit around rehashing what's in public discourse? How interesting is that?

I wondered if those folks at the tool shed might have their conservative values on trading cards, and trade them like baseball cards. "I'll trade your tax cuts for 10,000 NPR cuts." You know, that kind of thing.

Then the ideas started flying:

"I'll see your Defense of Marriage and raise you One Immigrant Wall."

"I'll see your Prison Lobby and raise you one American Exceptionalism."

"I'll see your Heartland and raise you one Happy Slave."

Anyone else have suggestions?

Oh, here's one: "I'll see your Joe the Plumber and raise you one Bigger Oil Producer than Saudi Arabia in 2017."

Continue . . .

Thursday, April 7, 2011

A Moonshine Party

I understand that the Tea Party is a movement desiring small government and low taxes, and that its name references the Boston Tea Party which was a protest against taxation without representation.

But what about the moonshiners? They eschewed not only taxation without representation, but taxation of all kinds. If Tea Partiers are serious, shouldn't they become Moonshine Partiers?

Continue . . .

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Explaining Conservatives

For some years, I've been explaining liberals and conservatives this way: A liberal is someone who wants to control how much money someone else makes; a conservative is someone who wants to control how much sex someone else has.

Neither side exerts any control over itself -- the distinction is in how each side tries to control others.

For example, if liberals really wanted to help the poor, we would spend our own income, privately, to do so. But instead, we want to tax others -- the rich -- to pay for social programs. And, if conservatives really wanted to save lives, then before engaging in war, they would explore all possible alternatives and consider likely undesirable or mixed outcomes that would show the loss of lives and money to be unwise.

Given today's conservatives' general support of our current wars and death penalty, it would be hard to understand their anti-abortion stance if it were not for my original premise. By forcing us all to give birth to, and care for, all the babies we conceive, they think they can reduce how much sex we have. But if we are allowed to abort our babies, then we are getting away with sex and not having to face the consequences. My premise also explains their stance on gay marriage. Opposing it allows them to at least imagine that they are reducing gay sex, which is a subset of all sex.

Recently, a friend postulated a different explanation of what makes a conservative vs. a liberal. He said that it depends on the degree of exploitation on is willing to tolerate. For example, conservatives may oppose unions and civil rights movements because these rally against exploitation. Conservatives may favor business deregulation because it allows businesses to behave more abusively toward the environment and general public.

Now, I counter with yet another explanation about conservatives and liberals. It's not so much about money and sex, or exploitation. It's about authority. Basically, conservatives align themselves with icons and institutions of authority, and liberals align themselves with questioning, opposing, subverting authority.

For instance, why are conservatives so worried now about the Middle East uprisings against totalitarian governments when the Iraq war was justified, in the mid 2000's, on the basis of bringing self-determinism to the Middle East? My answer is that it's about authority -- with the U.S. needing to be, in conservatives' eyes, the highest authority. Mubarak was playing our game by shutting off supplies to Palestinians and keeping control of the Muslim Brotherhood. Saudi Arabia was keeping the oil flowing. Gaddafi had renounced WMD's in the early 2000's, which had seemed he was submitting to U.S. authority expressed in our invasion of Iraq. But now these three governments are being removed, questioned, or fought, and conservatives are worried about how the U.S. will maintain its authority in the Middle East.

Opposition to abortion and gay marriage is also related to authority. The process of getting married and having children is traditional, and tradition carries authority. For sex to happen out of wedlock, or for its resultant child to be aborted, or for it to happen between same-sex partners subverts tradition and is thus frowned upon.

"Family Values" is about authority. Opposition to the "Ground Zero Mosque" is about authority -- indeed, it has been called by conservatives a "slap in the face" for being so close to the World Trade Center site, where it was shown that despite our robust military and authority in the world, we can be penetrated.

Fossil fuels are now a tradition and are associated with big international businesses which have lots of money and carry lots of authority. Nuclear energy and its associated weapons also carry lots of authority. However, wind power, tidal power, algae fuel, and other alternative energy sources carry comparatively little authority.

For what other issues can the conservative vs. liberal stance be explained by positions with respect to authority?

Continue . . .

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Not The Last Semi-Authoritarian Regime?

I was going to joke that, with all these Middle East protests, soon only Iraq would have a semi-authoritarian regime. The current government there has been cited as one of the most corrupt in the world, but I have been thinking that most Iraqis are tired of upheaval and would need a few years off before engaging in large-scale political activism. And, as if to forestall protests, Maliki said he would not run for prime minister for a third term.

But now there are small protests in Iraq and efforts to make them large protests. So maybe we will see a larger movement. The problem in Iraq is that it is the Middle Eastern country most fractured along ethnic and sectarian divides. Protests there would not take the form of "people vs. government" so much as "people vs. people vs. government," in violent competition to see what group might prevail. We saw this situation already in the civil war that flared prior to the surge, Awakening Councils, and the near purging of Sunnis from Baghdad. And with some of the U.S. military still there, it would be hard for us to maintain the distance stance we have kept from other protests. After all, this is the country that the U.S. had a direct hand in "liberating." Can we allow it to appear to need to be liberated again?

Continue . . .

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Killing Government Programs

Representative Gohmert wants to introduce legislation allowing members of Congress to carry concealed weapons to the Capital and around D.C. This is one way to shrink government -- let Congressmen shoot each other.

On the other hand, there is Peter King's move to ban guns within 1000 feet of a government official.

Don't they know that if both laws are passed, they'll need to build a gigantic capital building?

P.S. I'd put this on facebook, but I'm trying not to use violent language in public forums. My public blog, on the other hand, is basically a private forum.

Continue . . .

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Being Counted


The podcaster asked me if I thought it was a cluster fuck. I said, to describe it that way would be to disavow our newly cultivated caution against hyperbole. I said, instead, I would just call it . . . crowded.

During the drive up, Svetx had asked what would be most important to me about the rally. I said the important thing was to be counted. I had learned that phrase from a friend who was in a civil rights march one time. She got arrested, and said later that it was important to her to be counted with respect to that issue.

This was my time to be counted. I wanted attendance at this rally to beat that of Glenn Beck’s. On the phone the night before, my step-father had assured me it would NOT surpass the Beck rally, and I needed to prove him wrong.

Svetx said she was going to restore sanity. She said that, in any discourse, that was the first thing that should always be restored.

We woke on Saturday in friend G’s apartment right across the street from the College Park metro station. We took our time and ventured into the chilly morning around 9:30.

At the metro station, the ticket line unfolded before us, laying dismay upon dismay, like some awful vista of a mob trying to fit itself into a few dinghies to escape the land-roving aliens in War of the Worlds. The crowd filled the large sheltered space before the ticket machines; it went 4-persons wide up the steps, around the corner, along the parking lot and into the parking deck. And it was not moving very fast, as if everyone were figuring out the ticket machines for the first time.

I had not prepared properly. I should have had us purchase tickets the night before. This was not sane.

I texted that sentiment to friends who were driving up from NC that morning. They texted back that they were at the station in Springfield and having the same trouble.

One woman in line front of us said the line was worse than the line for Obama’s inauguration. A guy behind us said to bear in mind that this was a college stop and would draw an inordinately large crowd for a Stewart/Colbert event.

This was my second strike. Not only should I have bought Metro tickets the night before, I should have thought that this might be a bad place to board the Metro. Svetx and I talked about driving to another station, or even driving downtown. But we figured, countryfolks like us shouldn’t try to drive in the city on a day like this. We stayed in the line. And, an hour later, we were buying tickets and heading to the platform where, thankfully, the distribution of people allowed us decent positioning to get on the train.

We College Parkers did fill the train though, so that from the next stop onward, virtually no more were able to get on. Crowds on the platforms would look at us in disbelief as our doors opened and our ranks swelled outward a little, taking a breath, before retracting so that the doors could slam again. One rider yelled to waiting passengers, “Go to Greenbelt,” meaning, ride out of town to a station not crowded, then get on an empty train coming in.

We had seen our first sign at College Park. It read, “Fear Through the Ages” and gave examples like “Satan” and “Fallen Women.” On the train we saw a woman with “I Could Be Working.” I was glad I had not executed my own sign idea, “Algae Oil -- The Sanest Transportation Fuel,” because now it seemed bland compared to these others.

Folks pressed against us on the train said we should get off at the Archives. Sailing into that station, we saw hordes of people, shadowy through the train’s tinted glass. We wondered why this platform, the Metro exit point for rally-goers, was even more packed than those we had passed. Then, stepping out, of the train, we saw why. The exit escalator and gates were simply clogged.

But this crowd was moving steadily, if slowly. We would get out. As long as nobody set off a bomb or something and caused a panic.

Ahead someone held a tall sign on a stake, like a military standard, leading the way. The Metro ceiling was high enough to allow this sign to tower above the rest of us, broadcasting its message even to this underground audience before emerging to its intended venue of daylight on the mall.

For the Metro’s part, it doesn’t help that you have to run your ticket as you LEAVE the station, not just as you enter. Why on earth does DC require this?

Upstairs in daylight, everyone walked with long strides on streets, sidewalks, low walls bordering sidewalks, heading south toward sunlight, toward the wide open space lined with grand marble buildings, toward shimmering glints in windows. We ignored regulatory walk signs and simply crossed, giving cars no chance. We passed hucksters selling activist buttons and signs -- the pink booby awareness people, the abortion people, some Guantanamo people -- groups I’ve only seen, heretofore, on TV -- and one guy advertising “Generic Signs” holding my favorite for the day: “My Balls Itch No Matter Who’s In Charge.”

Clearly, this was the big time.

Ahead of us bobbed other signs advancing toward the Mall, including “God Hates Figs: Mark 11:12-14”


We were on 7th, which was supposed to be the back of the Rally. Entering the Mall, though, it seemed the crowd stretched equally far toward the Capitol and toward the Washington Monument.

I’ve been tuned to crowd murmurs since, as a child, my Dad would listen to the Metropolitan Opera on the radio. He once told me that as soon as we heard the crowd noise on the radio broadcast, that would be the top of the hour, and I could set my watch.

I would do this every Saturday. I learned to spot that audience murmur as soon as I heard it. Now, entering the Mall, we became enveloped in a crowd murmur far more substantive. The 200,000+ voices sounded hushed under the big bright sky, with no concert hall to lend its reverberation. But like the South Dakota grass, there was power in the numbers.

And, like the South Dakota grass, there were waves. We would hear a roar coming and, country boy that I am, I would experience slight panic -- was there a terrorist attack going on ahead where we couldn’t see? The roar would come closer and we would hear the strength in those voices, the mid-range growing, alarming; and then there would be the hands in the air and we would raise our hands too, and the wave would pass on.

It probably took us half an hour to cross the Mall on 7th. Then we spent another half-hour crossing back. Like hardening concrete, the mob was getting denser, and we needed to quickly pick the spot we would be cemented to. So we stood at the back of 7th sort of behind and to the side of the TV trucks.


We could barely see a jumbotron and hear a stand of speakers; then an ambulance parked in our line-of-sight, and obscured both of these. We essentially saw and heard nothing through the entire rally.

In front of us, on 7th, the concrete never fully hardened. People oozed past in both directions, pressing each other. And, strangely, immediately to my left, there was a constant single-person thick trickle of people going both in to, and out of, the grass behind us. It was like when you take a decongestant, and you can’t believe how relentlessly your snot flows out. This line of people flowed through the whole rally. A grumpy northeasterner just to the other side of this trickle kept griping at the people. “We’re going to cut this off. There’s no room back there. Why are you heading there?”

Expressing counter sentiment, one passing mom said, “Cut it off after me. My son just went through.”

When the Rally was over, we just stayed where we were. The crowd thinned slowly. A set of signs went by, each held by a different person: “How Do We Get Out Of Here?” “I Don’t Know.” “How ‘Bout That Way?” “Okay.”

Svetx and I laid down in the grass and rested our backs. The late October sun was still bright, but angled low in the sky. It would be a long time before anyone could freely walk wherever one wanted. I later heard that, into the night on blocks surrounding the mall, people could be seen still wandering or just sitting on the sidewalks in their folding lawn chairs, with no idea what to do for the night. Hotels and transportation were probably booked, leaving them with no options.

Text messages had been impossible during the rally, but when they finally started again, friends said that they were at the Archives steps. We met up there, and wandered to view the WWII Memorial.

The WWII Memorial does make great use of spacial divisions, with upper layers of flat pools giving way to waterfalls which spill to lower layers; and curving ramps that draw the visitor down to its bottom layer. But what’s with the columns depicting names of states and territories? Arkansas, Alabama . . . these words alone do not represent soldiers fallen in war. If I had not known this was a WWII memorial, I would have thought it was simply a monument commemorating the states, as stamps and quarters do.

The Vietnam Memorial, on the other hand, is a truer memorial in my view. There is no confusion about what the names listed there mean, and no way not to be conscious of the death. Every visit there, I have seen people making rubbings from the names of the dead, and volunteers helping them and answering questions. This is what a memorial is for -- place to address the pain. I’ve known no one who died in that war, but it is hard even for me to go there without being moved to tears. Svetx’s father was in the war and surely he knows lots of names on the wall. I think about how I’m so glad he survived, and I think about the others coming here who know a name on the wall, and for whom the only explanation I can give is that a president did not want to appear soft on communism.

Friend S pointed out that the list of names for memorial for an Iraq and Afghanistan war would have a distinction from the Vietnam list: Many would be Latin American.

We moved on to the Lincoln Memorial, which now stood on its hill in the setting sun. Inside are the words of a president who served during war and claimed responsibility for his decisions about that war, vocally questioned his own wisdom, and observed the correlation between the slashes of the swords and the lashes of the whips in slavery. How refreshing this is compared to today’s politicians who never seem to question themselves, and never acknowledge how our nations past actions may have contributed to present strife.

The Lincoln Memorial has been the site of past rallies of people who really needed to rally. They were oppressed, or protesting a war, for instance. In my lifetime, I have also seen rallies of laborers, people seeking abortion rights, women’s rights. I have not felt moved to attend any of these. Why, of all rallies, did I come to the Rally to Restore Sanity/Fear?

Because it struck a chord. Because I get it -- at least, I hope I can claim to be one of the “It Getters” that Colbert identified as the viewers of his first show back in 2005. It was a rally about rallies, with signs mostly mocking or referencing slogans from past rallies, and Stewart invoking the criteria on which past rallies have been judged -- the size and composition of the crowd -- and declaring the rally to have some exaggerated number of people, just as past rally organizers have done.

We were not desperate people fighting for civil rights, as many Americans rightfully have done; and we do not perceive ourselves to be living under a socialist or Muslim president. We are the more middle-ground folks, the “million moderates,” in Stewart’s words.

Probably, we can afford to be moderate because we are just lucky. But surely it is a good sign that our rally was more than double the size of the teabaggers’.

Continue . . .

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Ideas for Signs for the Rally to Restore Sanity


Here's all I have so far:

"Hitler . . . Was a 'Ho!"

"Once you steep loose tea, you can't go back to bags."

"Hey Teabaggers, you're not grassroots. Everybody knows Fox News and Dick Armey sencha!"

"The best way to steep tea . . . is in a French press!"

Continue . . .

Monday, June 7, 2010

Suggestion for Tea Baggers:


Start your own currency. Call it the Camellia. Create a national directory of businesses and consumers who deal in the Camellia. Buy and sell as much of your goods and services as you can with it. Start your own banks with it. Heck, start a health-care plan with it. Show the rest of us how healthy a back-to-basics economy would be. Best of all, it could not be taxed.

Act fast, or the liberals will beat you to it.

Continue . . .

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

It's Too Bad . . .

. . . that the bastion of morals, the Catholic Church, has done so much to protect the pedophiles in its ranks.

. . . that while we were supposed to be experiencing the economic growth that comes from cutting taxes on the rich, we have an economic collapse caused, in part, by the rich who most directly benefitted from the tax cuts.

. . . that just two years after Republicans at their convention chanted "Drill Baby Drill" in support of offshore drilling, an offshore oil rig explodes and creates one of our nations worst environmental disasters.

It's not that we should wholly condemn the Catholic church or never cut taxes or never drill for oil offshore. It's that we should give up mantras and lines of absolute thinking. Wise regulation on all fronts would be good. Of course, a politician can never campaign on a platform of "wise regulation."

Continue . . .

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

My Kid Could Have Written That

How many pairs of glasses does it take to watch a movie these days, anyway? Going in, I hoped previews would still be playing, because we were late. But when I saw the intentionally blurred double-vision images on the screen, I knew we were in to it already. I tried to watch without the glasses, but that was impossible. I had to keep them on and cope with the artificial feeling of paper cutouts set at varying distances in front of me, like the layered images in a Viewmaster or targets at the shooting range. You could tell that everything in the frame had a discrete distance classification: there would be the foreground image, like maybe some seed pods lazily floating; then the middle-ground images, like maybe the characters in the scene; and then the background, which was usually a single flat plane like a normal movie. I would have preferred the whole movie to be on a single plane so that I would not have been thinking about the 3-D effect. When someone in the seats ahead of us got up to go to the bathroom, he looked like he, too, was a part of the movie. Indeed, some objects in the movie looked closer than the real people in front of me, and this makes me think of combining live-action with 3-D cinema. Let’s remake Rocky Horror so that it blends better with its simultaneous re-enactors.

I heard that this is the movie James Cameron had wanted to make since he was 14. I believe it. With a planet called “Pandora” and the precious metal called “unobtainium,” it seems like he wrote it more like when he was 4 and did not revise it since. The alien Na’vi are portrayed with the same lack of nuance, with obvious elements of African and Native American hunting, dance, spirituality, and medicine mixed to achieve generic foreign-ness. If you wondered where banal world music comes from, it is probably James Cameron’s Pandora.

A friend said it would have helped to see some kind of exchange in the alien society -- a place where they are gambling, or paying taxes. “Like the cantina in Star Wars!” Svetx said. Indeed. The basic grit and grind of life. As it stands, you think the Na’vi do nothing but pay homage to nature and hunt, hardly a believable or even interesting existence.

People are marveling at the special effects, but wasn’t the flying more exciting in the Superman movies of the ’70’s? The battle more exciting at the end of Star Wars episode IV? Who can forget the quick character development of showing each fighter pilot in his cockpit talking on his intercom?

In more recent history, I remember almost being moved to tears by two awesome movie battles: The battle on the fields of Pelennor in Return of the King, for all its orchestration couched in desperation and forboding; and the middle of The Incredibles where it showed the family working together with all its awesome powers unleashed. There was nothing so satisfying in Avatar.

There is one thing I do admire about this movie, and that is it’s own paradoxical nature. It is the feel-good blockbuster of this holiday season. But what we feel good about is the pagan nature-creatures triumphing over a U.S. military that is essentially working for a large corporation. Anyone who has looked at a newspaper headline in recent years surely can’t miss the parallel to U.S. involvement in the Middle East. I expect this movie to draw fire from war supporters as well as fundamentalist Christians. Looking on the Internet now though, I can’t find scathing reviews from a Christian website. If anyone finds one, please let me know. If there really are none, then maybe the Christian Right does not notice the connections to our foreign policy, or doesn’t think this is what our foreign policy amounts to. In that case, in a seasonal action blockbuster, what’s not to like?

Continue . . .

Friday, November 13, 2009

The Bible Does Not Mention Sex Videos Either


Carrie Prejean is saying thatbreast implants are not un-Christian because the Bible does not mention them at all, and thus, they are not forbidden.

Now, I don't claim to be a Christian. And I'm no Bible expert. But I think it's safe to say that another thing the Bible does not mention is sex videos. So why is Prejean claiming she made her sex video before her conversion to Christianity? (Her then-boyfriend counters that it was made after her conversion.) If it's not mentioned in the Bible, then, like implants, it's not forbidden. And it's not like God isn't watching anyway, sex video or not!

But back to those implants. While the Bible does not mention them specifically, Timothy 2:9 - 2:11 from Bible Wiki says "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection." I would not call breast implants modest or associate them with shamefacedness; and with a price of $4000 to $10,000, I would call them "costly array." On the other hand, the next passage in Timothy says, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve." This could be taken to mean that, since beauty pageant officials forced Prejean to get the implants, that she was obeying this authority of a man.

Interpretations aside, I think we all know exactly what breast implants are for: enhancement of sex appeal for personal gain. While some Christians claim that another aspect of sexuality, homosexuality, is a choice, I think we can all agree that breast implants are a choice. In fact, Prejean says it's a personal choice. So I say to Prejean: St. Anthony the Abbot gave up all his personal possessions; for you, the path to wisdom lies in giving up your breast implants.

Continue . . .

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Did you hear about Sarah Palin's new treatise on values?

It's called "Gouging Roe." Honk!

Continue . . .

Friday, July 10, 2009

Palin Reality TV: I Called It!

I first suggested a Palin reality TV show back on 11/17/08 in a comment on this post at the former Mudflats location. Now Levi Johnston has mentioned it. You know it would be huge. It's all she ever wanted anyway. And I called it. Most of politics is thinly veiled reality TV, attracting narcissists with no shame. The veil is thinnest of all with Palin.

So how about some show title suggestions:

Trailin' Palin
Much Ado about the Shrew
No Taxes, Just Taxidermy
Tantrums and Tangents: The Calculus of Raising Trig
Speaking in Tongues
The Maverick Matriarch

Continue . . .

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Algae Exec Stuffs Fox News' Willard


I have not been following Cody Willard, but he looks to me like another failed attempt, like Tucker Carlson, to make conservatism look youthful and cool while actually being just a whining chump.

So here's this short segment from Fox News' Happy Hour (also viewable off this page) where they introduce algae, "that same stuff you try to keep off the inside of your fish tank," as some funky new kind of energy source -- as if they have not already had a bald algae executive on their show.

There is a lot in the video. The CEO of Origin Oil, Riggs Eckelberry, says that getting oil out of algae is ten times more expensive than getting it out of a seed. I had not known of this drastic discrepancy. It is probably a big reason why algae is not already a source of fuel oil. But Eckelberry claims that his company has found a new way to extract oil that cuts this cost significantly.

Then, instead of asking how this relates to the "food vs. fuel" problem with biofuels, or energy security, or global warming, Cody Willard (you wonder if his name was derived from William Frederick "Buffalo Bill" Cody to evoke connotations of the wild west and Ronald Reagan in the susceptible minds of conservatives) wants to make sure he's not paying for it with his taxes.

Eckelberry says his company is not government subsidized. It is just a technology company that wants to sell products to algae growers. It's the algae growers that can and do receive some government subsidies. Willard balks at this, and Eckelberry reminds him that traditional oil companies have received government subsidies too. Willard balks at this too. (And I balk at this, but do any of us really know what the world would look like if there were no government subsidies for anything? Ideologue's projections are always over simplified.)

Wild Bill Cody says, "Google didn't need help. Twitter didn't need help."

Eckelberry shuts him down with, "Who created the Internet?"

Ka-blam.

Also, twice in the segment, Willard says, "It's penny stock. Don't buy it just because you saw it on our show." I can understand not wanting to buy in to the algae sector just yet. But I'm not sure that penny stock in a company with possibly one of the major keys to success for this industry deserves such an emphatic "don't buy" statement either.

And then Willard asks if he can cook with the oil from algae. As if this has not been brought up before in every algae discussion . . . as if people are not already stealing used cooking oil from restaurants to turn into biofuel . . . what a doof.

Continue . . .

Thursday, June 25, 2009

I Said It First

Paul Krugman cites Barney Frank identifying Weaponized Keynesianism. But at the end of this post back in February, I had the idea before either of them.

Continue . . .

Monday, June 15, 2009

Snubbed Again

The Neoneocon rejected one of my comments again, so I am forced to reproduce it from memory on my own site, where it will have far fewer readers.

She was going on about how Iran's current reelection of a hardliner should not be a surprise to anyone and is a slap in the face for Obama's idealistic administration. I wrote back, "Indeed, an antagonistic blowhard being elected president twice in a row is not a surprise at all." Was that offensive? Only if she recognizes Bush in that description, right?

Then I noted that Iran had had two reformist presidents before Ahmadinejad: Rafsanjani and Khatami. (Here Juan Cole gives a brief history of the election of those two, the reformist voters becoming disillusioned and staying home when Ahmadinejad was elected the first time, and now coming out in droves again for this election, which was probably rigged.) I said that Iran electing a reformist is not unlikely at all.

Then I reminded the neoneocon that while she's claiming the present Iranian election is a blow to Obama's idealism, wasn't it neocon idealism that said our invasion of Iraq would spread Western style democracy in the Middle East? And isn't it a blow to their ideology that while reformist presidents had been elected in Iran before our invasion, a hardliner has been elected twice since?

What is with these people.

Continue . . .

Friday, May 22, 2009

My Torture Memo

I once worked on a video about an elderly woman known for her civil rights activism. Her husband had been a town mayor and also an activist, but she said that his head was in it more than his heart. He was more of a pragmatist striving for even-handed governance and justice rather than a crusader for a moral cause.

I won't claim to be any kind of effective activist or pragmatist, but I do at least share with the woman's husband a desire to be pragmatic. So, with respect to torture, I'm less interested in the moral issues than the question of whether it gains us more usable information than non-tortuous techniques.

All I can do is stack up the case made by one camp against the case made by the other. There is the claim by Marc Thiessen, for instance, that the plot to attack the Library Tower in Los Angeles was foiled because of information gained through torture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. But this article by Timothy Noah cites a fact sheet provided by the Bush White House in 2002 saying the Library Tower plot had been discovered and broken up, and this was before KSM's capture in March of 2003.

Thiessen and Dick Cheney (for example, in his speech yesterday) say the recently released torture memos only tell part of the story, that they don't tell of the useful information that was gained form torture. Maybe, in time, more information shedding light on this will be declassified. But until then, we are lacking specifics.

Meanwhile, there is this detailed account of how Zubaidah gave little information . . . until he was tortured, at which point he provided awealth of information that sent CIA agents scrambling all over the globe spending millions of dollars chasing false leads. And there is this account by Ali Soufan stating that much useful information was gained by traditional interrogations of Zubaidah, while the torture used later backfired in events that are still part of that still classified information Cheney is referring to. Soufan also cites a chronological problem with a torture-defenders' argument: that torture of Zubaidah lead to the capture of Jose Padilla. And yet, Padilla was captured before the torture was approved in August of 2002.

Can the torture defenders make arguments that are not so easily debunked?

Consider also, besides Zubaidah's, the false leads produced by torture of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. Torture of al-Libi yielded much valuable information about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. al-Libi's testimony was inserted into Colin Powell's fateful speech by al-Libby, and the U.S. saddled itself with a six-year-and-counting insurgency consisting of Iraqis who had not been our enemies before that invasion.

So, really, Dick Cheney? Torture has saved hundreds of thousands of lives?

To really determine whether torture works, we would need to see all information gained from torture and determine what percentage was helpful; and compare this to all the information gained from non-torturous techniques and the percentage of that which was helpful. I doubt we'll ever have access to all that information.

With the evidence we do have tilted toward showing torture does not work, why not then err on the side of morality and forbid torture?

5/24 Update: What is a Mancow anyway . . . a giant man-boob? Apparently so. Also, the results of Zubaidah's torture interrogations are more clear than I had thought. Here is Marcy Wheeler explaining what the 9/11 Commission reported of information gained by Zubaidah's torture. In summary, 10 pieces of not-very-useful information were learned from 83 sessions of waterboarding.

Continue . . .

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

I just saw Meghan McCain on Colbert . . .

. . . and did so many spit takes I drank my chocolate milk twice. I have decided that she, rather than her sister Bridget, would have been a better subject of that year 2000 smear campaign before the South Carolina primary, for the purpose of denying McCain Republican votes.

I think of the prudish Republicans I know, and I'm sure they're about to bust a gasket over the Republican being the "Party of the Pro-Sex Woman." With such talk coming from a candidate's daughter, there is no need to invent a story about his siring illegitimate black children.

McCain's campaign manager from 2000, Richard Davis, in the above article, says there is no response to a personal smear campaign like that. To respond is to be defeated, he says. However, I believe I have just thought of a suitable response: "Sure I sired illegitimate black children. It makes me more Jeffersonian!" Turn the issue right back on those Constitution beaters.

Incidentally, that link about Jefferson having Black descendants is to a book written by a TV producer I worked for on this project about a local architect.



But, getting back to the Pro-Sex Party with it's allegiance to the founding fathers. If Jefferson was so busy siring children by his slave(s), then would he say the government needs to uphold the sanctity of marriage? Or would he be more open to variants on the institution, such as gay marriage?

Continue . . .

Monday, May 4, 2009

Coming Around on the Carbon Regulation Thing

Just as Mowgli was raised by wolves, I was raised by Republicans, and the vestiges of their teachings still resound within my pained and indecisive heart. So, despite my well documented love of algae farming as a prospective alternative oil source, I've been filled with enough free-market claptrap to have my doubts about carbon caps, credits, and regulations. I have stated that I fear the creation of a new market overlaying the existing one -- that such an artificial construct will not last.

But it has come to me like this. Any time a lobbyist has influence in government, this is also not a free market force . . . correct? So there goes Exxon spending 9.32 million on lobbying in the first quarter of 2009 in attempts to get its way with environmental regulations, drilling rights (on federal land), and tax breaks.

And there went the corn ethanol lobby trying to prevent Schwarzenegger from passing California's plan to cut carbon emissions by gas and Diesel producers by 15% over the next 11 years.. The lobbyists were worried that the corn ethanol industry would be harmed. But their very existence seems to me the result of governmental forces in the form of subsidies. From 2006 to 2011, the corn ethanol industry will receive 5.7 billion in federal tax cuts. Who knows where these large corporate bastions of capitalism would be if they really had to compete in a truly free market, without government intervention?

So given that so much non-market governmental influence has steered the course of our private sector anyway, I've decided I will no longer express doubts about reasonable and gradual enforced reductions in carbon emissions, or about carbon caps and trading. It seems to me to amount to the government helping one industry or another, but not necessarily an overall increase in government influence.

California passed that regulation. This has eliminated that state as a market for corn ethanol. Obama wants to set similar regulations to a national level. I say, bring it. And if this helps the algae to flow as a very low carbon-footprint product, then that's all the better.

Continue . . .

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Blog Friends, AKM of "The Mudflats" Needs Our Support

I've been saying to myself for a while that the best way to get news these days is to read a blog by someone who knows what they are talking about. I was just reading today another post saying the same thing -- that good, insightful blogs are written by people with particular interest and knowledge in the subject matter; their statements can easily be backed up with links; and comments provide immediate feedback and support or critique. The excellent news blogs that I read are Informed Comment about the Middle East by Juan Cole, who has lately been touring the talk shows; Small Wars Journal about U.S. military operations, contributed to by John Nagl, David Kilcullen, and others who have been on NPR (and I hope other large media venues) talking about our revised approach to Afghanistan; Paul Krugman on economics; and, since the nomination of Sarah Palin as Republican VP candidate, The Mudflats by anonymous blogger AKM.

AKM writes about Alaska politics. AKM is funny and very knowledgeable and clearly puts much time into blogging. The blog has a tremendous following as indicated by the well over 150 comments it gets on each post. And, I'd say the comments are some of the most entertaining on the 'Net, as comments go.

Lots of politicians up there take criticism from AKM. For a while, one state legislator, Mike Doogan, has been trying to find out who AKM really is. Progressive Alaska wrote about his exchange with Doogan, with Doogan asking for AKM's identity. Doogan eventually did find out who AKM is and outed him/her on Friday in an apparent attempt to intimidate AKM.

There have always been anonymous writers. Daily Kos notes that Mark Twain and George Orwell, both pseudonums, wrote political and social commentary. Ben Franklin had several pseudonyms. Doogan said that he supports freedom of speech as long as the speaker makes his/her true identity known. I don't know the legalities of all this, but Kos and others are talking about everyone's right to remain anonymous if we choose. Kos notes several statements by the Supreme Court upholding the right to "pamphleteer" anonymously. Reasons for remaining anonymous are personal -- a person could be afraid of repercussions from an employer with conflicting views, for instance. This is one big reason why voting is anonymous in our country as well.

Strangely, Doogan is a Democrat (the party AKM is generally aligned with) who was openly critical of Sarah Palin when she was made the VP candidate. He used to be a journalist who did not hesitate to skewer politicians and make enemies. As far as I know, the worst thing AKM said about Doogan was justifiably criticize his email etiquette in responding to emails from concerned citizens. But reading Doogan's emails cited by AKM shows that me might be "losing it." His obsession with AKM could be another sign of this.

Since being outed, The Mudflats has experienced a swell in traffic compounding the swell a few months ago when Palin hit the national stage and everyone needed a blogger who had been on the case of Alaska politics for a while -- except that The Mudflats had only been around since May of 08. It's rise to fame so soon is lucky and also warranted. This surge in popularity will benefit The Mudflats and backfire upon Doogan. Meanwhile, The Mudflats is happy to hear from supporters, including anonymous bloggers. Stay tuned over there for indications of how The Mudflats and its followers, Mudpuppies, rally and will not be intimidated.

Continue . . .