Tuesday, June 29, 2004

Al Gore - attack dog of the left?

I read a few days ago where Al Gore said "democracy disappeared in Rome when Caesar crossed the Rubicon in violation of the Senate's long prohibition against a returning general entering the city while still in command of military forces. Bush, too, has gone to war and has come back into 'the city' and declared that our nation is now in a permanent state of war." ' [ Los Angeles Times, June 24, 2004]. I believe this is not entirely correct. Actually, democracy became progressivley more fettered in Rome, and finally disappeared, as a result of the Roman Senate failing to take action when Julius Caesar failed to disband his army on returninig to the Roman state. The Senate had long since abrogated its duties, by submitting to first Marius', and then Sulla's dictatorial aspriations, allowing them to continue on as Consuls beyond their appointed terms. It was only a small step by then to acquiescing to Caesar.
In sum, the loss of democracy is never, I believe, due to the action of an individual tyrant, it happens because the people consent to the act of tyranny. Sadly, I see the United States Congress (and the Supreme Court, even more so) failing to say "no" at appropriate moments. One would suppose enough people would remember the Tonkin Resolution, and dthus be a little shy of granting the President carte blanche to deploy his military in any time/place he wishes to.
Of course, the appearance of a tyranny does require a tyrant. Someone who is so certain he is right that he is willing to take any action without regard to others opinions. I see that in the United States today, also.

Tuesday, June 22, 2004

Is there a link? The Vice President speaks.

Apparently, those who have/had "links" to al Qaeda are to be placed in the column of Those-Who-Are-Against-Us. And I have to say, I do not doubt that the government of Iraq had links to al Qaeda. After all, they all live on the same planet. As to we all, I believe. I could be wrong here; it is possible that our Vice President does not live on this planet: Speaking of the [September 11] commission, he [Vice President Dick Cheney] said, "They did not address the broader question of a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda in other areas, in other ways." He said "the evidence is overwhelming." He described the ties and cited numerous links back to the 1990's, including contacts between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials. (New York Times, June 17, 2004).
The thing is, the United States government ALSO had contacts with al Qaeda. Mostly through the CIA, of course, which appears to be the branch of government most tasked with the handling of foreign affairs these days. It was the CIA that provided arms, including SAMs (Surface to Air Missiles) to al Qaeda and the Taliban. To be honest, most of the aid sent to Afghanistan was provided to the Taliban rather than directly to their ally al Qaeda. The CIA even provided textbooks to Taliban madrassa schools. Intended to demonize the Soviet Union, they proved to be such effective tools of instruction they continued to be used by the Taliban to demonize all things western, including, of course, their providers. This is a truly wondrous irony, or would be if the results hadn't proved so deadly.
So, when it comes to the question of "links", I would hope the veep would be a little more circumspect in his assertions.

Monday, June 21, 2004

Strange bedfellows indeed!

"Politicians and pastors can make strange bedfellows, but there's something different about President Bush's faith-based campaign to stay in the White House." San Francisco Chronicle, June 21, 2004.
I've asked around a bit over the last few weeks, just to get an idea of what peoples reactions are to the Grand Communion Debate among some Catholic bishops in the U.S. I generally get a blank look, but that's normal when an American is asked about current events.
Now, the President claims fellow-traveller status with Pope John Paul II on the issue of abortion (that is to say, don't allow it at all, never, no way, no how). At the same time, John Kerry, who actually is a catholic, favors non-state-intervention on abortion (I personally tend to favor the uninvolvement of the state on issues of morality; after all, I mean, ask a politician what's right?).
Now, the Pope's stance on abortion is informed by his stance on killing. That is to say, "Thou shalt not kill." Pretty clear. Pretty sweeping. This, however, is clearly not the rationale for the president's opposition to abortion. In fact, there is considerable evidence to support the idea that the president is generally in favor of killing a lot of people. From the statehouse of Texas, where he appeared to relish the execution of more people than were killed in any other state, to the White House, where he steadfastly claims the right to detain, imprison, and kill people without recourse to any oversight from courts of law in America or elsewhere in the world.
So, my question is: where does George Bush derive his anti abortion stance from?
I would have to believe he was a hypocrite if I thought it was for the purpose of winning votes now, wouldn't I?

Sunday, June 20, 2004

Why I could be wrong ---

Many people have asked me how I came to use the quote at the top of this blog... Actually, no one at all has asked; but I'm going to tell you anyway. A long time ago - in fact, in an earlier millenium, I did very poorly on a calculus exam. I went to my professor and asked, in particular, about one question which I thought I'd answered brilliantly. My professor quickly scanned the page in question and pointed to an operation near the bottom. He said "Here: Good idea; too bad it's wrong." From time to time since then, it has seemed to me that the same could be said of other ideas I have had. Perhaps even of ideas others have had, as well. Some of my ideas have worked out, some have not. I really have no idea if my batting average is better or worse than most. Probably about average, I expect. So far, at least, I seem to have survived everything, though there have been a few close calls. But those are topics for future posts. Enjoy!

Tuesday, June 15, 2004

Time to move on to more interesting topics

I have not failed to note that most of my recent posts were pretty much rehashes of the fiasco in Iraq. I was hoping to find something new and amusing in the news, and I knew it was only a matter of time.
Now, the Supreme Court (of the United States) has ridden to my rescue.

"When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. (AP, June 14, 2004)

Yep; it sure would be imprudent if the Supreme Court actually exerted itself to resolve questions of constitutional law! Who do you think they are, anyway? What is the Court for? Why, it's there to dodge thorny questions of constitutional law. Or maybe to tell the states (read, Florida) how to interpret their own laws about things like, for instance, elections.

I actually remember when this "under God" thing was inserted into the pledge. As an elementary schooler at the time, I was required to stand and recite the pledge every day. Not reqired to, you say? Sure, I could have remained sitting, or stood in silence. I guess for those who don't believe in such a thing as peer pressure, or have forgotten the horrible sense of being different, in those early years, being the only child not saying the pledge would be easy. Even as I aquiesced, and joined in the reciting, though, I wondered to myself: "Whose God are we under?"

I guess the Court wonders about that, too...

Tuesday, June 08, 2004

How Paul Wolfowitz sees the world. Originally posted December 11, 2003

According to the latest report, Asstistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has issued yet another ukase regarding Iraq. As ever, he is wrong in this one, as he has been in all the others. One can only speculate as to why it is appropriate for the United States Defense Department to be issuing ANY conditions regarding who can and who cannot contract to work in the (formerly) sovereign nation of Iraq. Is Mr. Wolfowitz finally acknowledging what many Iraqis, and many from other countries, have suspected all along: that Iraq is now, in fact, a wholly-owned fief of the United States?
The real belly laugh, though, is the wonderful logic shown by the statement “Every effort must be made to expand international cooperation in Iraq.” Mr. Wolfowitz proposes to expand international cooperation by LIMITING international cooperation. Clearly, Mr. Wolfowitz has learned the lessons of Newspeak as described so nicely by George Orwell. I believe Mr. Wolfowitz sees himself, however, as being Machiavellian, rather than Orwellian. He is wrong about this too.
There is also the chilling phrase “…encourage the expansion of international cooperation in Iraq AND IN FUTURE EFFORTS.” (emphasis mine). Where are these future efforts to take place? Are these anticipated invasions of independent nations also going to be for the purpose of distributing sweetheart contracts to friendly corporations? Be forewarned, Iran, Syria, North Korea. You might be next.
As I have noted before, it remains a mystery to me why the deficit-ridden American taxpayer continues to pay this ever bellicose man to continue his destructive ways.

Sunday, June 06, 2004

Sometimes I feel almost prescient. Originally posted November 18, 2002

I haven't seen any polls lately showing how great a majority of the population favors going to war. I suppose since the President has a "mandate" for war, the polls have become irrelevant. Still, it has seemed to me right along that the popularity of war has been pretty much a vote for war in the abstract. That is, a war without consequences for us, but with lots of dead "evildoers" on display on the early newscasts.
When the war actually begins, even with the tightly managed news coming out of the Pentagon, I believe its popularity will quickly subside. It certainly will when the cameras start showing the body bags being offloaded.
Last week, on Veterans Day, the president spoke at the Vietnam
Memorial. It would have been better if he had looked at the memorial. And perhaps reflected on the design for the memorial of the next war.


Thursday, June 03, 2004

What about Afghanistan?

From time to time I try to imagine what would have ensued if the president had sent an additional 135 thousand troops to Afghanistan, instead of miring them down in Iraq. No way that was going to happen, of course, because Afghanistan just isn't going to get as many column inches in the news as Iraq. Also, no oil.
Still, just imagine: perhaps the government of Afghanistan would extend beyond the suburbs of Kabul; maybe the Taliban would be out of business; al Quaeda would be unable to operate in the middle east; the opium fields wouldn't be burgeoning. Maybe Osama bin Laden would have been captured! There'd be less terrorism!
At a minimum, both Afghanistan and Iraq would be much quieter, and safer places.
On the other hand, Saddam Hussein (apparently the only brutal thug dictator the President really cares about) would still possess the ability to launch weapons-of-mass-destruction-related-program-activities against us within as short a time as 45 minutes!
Meantime, the president continues to imagine a "free and democratic" Iraq. Sorry Mr. Bush. Not in the cards. There are three possibilities in that sorry state: a.) Continued U.S. military occupation (not politically palatable); b.) an Iraq unified by a dictator (Saddam lite?); or c.) a number of mini-Iraq states divided by ethnic/religious differences (fighting each other for oil/power/money).
As some others have pointed out (David Brooks, even), it might be that when we say democracy, middle-eastern people see something entirely different from what we think they see.
They see things like American warplanes dropping bombs, American soldiers torturing Iraqis, American companies milking Iraq for oil. Not a pretty sight.