As The Professor Says

As Casey Stengel, known to baseball fans of a certain age as "The Perfesser" used to say

"You Could Look It Up".

In this age of cut/paste writing, there are a lot of boiler plate phrases that seem to be included everywhere certain subjects are mentioned. Like the one about "...Thought by some to cause global warming...", referring to CO2 when talking about the Greenhouse Effect. Where, of course, "some" actually means "everyone who isn't making money from CO2 emissions."

But that's a topic for a later post.

The phrase that currently sticks in my brain is

"Government of Iraq."

Finally I just couldn't take it any more. But, before I decided to howl in protest, I decided to follow the Perfesser's advice; I looked it up. Here is the definition, (courtesy of Wikipedia):
"A government is a body that has the authority to make and the power to enforce laws within a civil, corporate, religious, academic, or other organization or group. In its broadest sense, 'to govern' means to administer or supervise, whether over a state, a set group of people, or a collection of assets.
The word government is ultimately derived from the Greek κυβερν'ν (kybernan), which means 'to steer'.
Typically, 'the government' refers to the executive function. In many countries (particularly those having parliamentary systems), the government refers to the executive branch of government or a specifically named executive, such as the Blair government (compare to the administration as in the Bush administration in U.S. usage). In countries using the Westminster system, the party in government will also usually control the legislature.
The 'Welsh Assembly Government' is the name of the executive branch of Wales, and 'Scottish government' is the unofficial term to describe the Scottish Executive."
It seemed to me that the operative word here with respect to "Government of Iraq" is "Power", so I "looked it up";
" Political power (imperium in Latin) is a type of power held by a person or group in a society. There are many ways to hold such power. Officially, political power is held by the political leader of a state, such as a president, prime minister, or monarch, as representatives or holders of the sovereignty. Political powers are not limited to heads of states, however, and the extent to which a person or group holds such power is related to the amount of societal influence they can wield, formally or informally. In many cases this influence is not contained within a single state and it refers to international power.
Political scientists have frequently defined power as 'the ability to influence the behaviour of others' with or without resistance."
I think it's especially cool that the creators of these Wikipedia entries added a dash of Greek and Latin to their work. Very nice!

However, my point (finally) is in the form of a question:

What Government?

A Cautionary Note

Here's something I read a few years ago. I didn't remember the exact place I had read it. I re-encountered it a few days ago. Just thought I'd share it with you:
" ... it is reasonable and understandable that the question is often asked: 'Why can't we take a specific and troubling dilemma straight to God, and in prayer secure from Him sure and definite answers to our requests?'
This can be done, but it has hazards. We have seen [alcoholics] ask with much earnestness and faith for God's explicit guidance on matters ranging all the way from a shattering domestic or financial crisis to correcting a minor personal fault, like tardiness. Quite often, however, the thoughts that seem to come from God are not answers at all. They prove to be well-intentioned unconscious rationalizations. The [alcoholic], or indeed any man, who tries to run his life rigidly by this kind of prayer, by this self-serving demand of God for replies, is a particularly disconcerting individual. To any questioning or criticism of his actions he instantly proffers his reliance upon prayer for guidance in all matters great or small. He may have forgotten the possibility that his own wishful thinking and the human tendency to rationalize have distorted his so-called guidance. With the best of intentions, he tends to force his own will into all sorts of situations and problems with the comfortable assurance that he is acting under God's specific direction. Under such an illusion, he can of course create great havoc without in the least intending it. (emphasis mine)
We also fall into another similar temptation. We form ideas as to what we think God's will is for other people. We say to ourselves, 'this one ought to be cured of his fatal malady,' or 'That one ought to be relieved of his emotional pain,' and we pray for these specific things. Such prayers, of course, are fundamentally good acts, but often they are based upon a supposition that we know God's will for the person for whom we pray. This means that side by side with an earnest prayer there can be a certain amount of presumption and conceit in us..."Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., Copyright 1952. Pp 103-104.
I remember thinking when I first read it "Havoc; yeah, especially if it's the President of the United States!"

Confessions of a Defeatocrat

George W. Bush predicts terrible consequences to follow if United States troops leave Iraq. As if there are not already terrible consequences as a result of their presence. In fact, those things he is predicting are occurring now precisely because of the presence of the occupying troops. "Bush told reporters last week that he invites a change in strategy if the plan isn't working. But he also said the U.S. will not leave until the job is done."The President, as usual, has things precisely backwards; the job won't be done until the troops leave. Things like this: "...The worst bloodshed took place about 50 miles north of Baghdad, around the predominantly Sunni town of Duluiyah and the larger, predominantly Shiite town of Balad. The two communities are separated by the Tigris River..." will continue not occasionally, but every day. Here's the complete Washington Post story:

Washington Post October 15 2006: Iraq Violence Spreads...

Note that in this report, as in very report from Iraq since the invasion three years ago, the killing and destruction is always couched in terms of Shiite versus Sunni. You know, the people who are spending the month of Ramadan fasting, praying, seeking insight into the Will of God as detailed in the holy books of the Old Testament and the Quran. Well, yes, the God of the Old Testament is a pretty bloody God.
What to do?
If we stay: The sectarian violence will continue.
If we go: The sectarian violence will continue.
Since we have been there: Thousands of Iraqis, men, women, children, have been killed. Many by our bombs and bullets.
After we leave:Thousands of Iraqis, men, women, children, will be killed. Not, however, by our bombs and bullets.
When will it end? Not while we remain there.
What will Iraq look like? Not like the vision George W. Bush had when he waved his magic wand. It is most likely to look either like the old Iraq only now ruled over by Saddam Lite, or it will look like three mini-Iraqs, ruled by three "strongmen"; in a more-or-less-continuous state of conflict.
Can the United States influence the outcome? Only in terms of when it will end. The longer the occupying forces stay, the longer it will take.

Hindsight Bias!

Apparently, the neocon apologistas who have been claiming that "No One Could Have Forseen What Has Happened" have some cred with the "liberal-leftist" mainstream media. Or, maybe this is what happens when short attention spans banish memories of anything beyond the current fiscal year or some similar time marker. Appearing in the Washington Post, a news outlet I generally think well of, is this:

Washington Post: Iraq War Naysayers May Have Hindsight Bias

Such an incredibly tortured attempt to deny the facts that were so apparent before the attack on Iraq, and to claim that there were no voices trying to warn of the obvious (to me, anyway) wrongness, is a serious maiming of the record. So blatantly in error that I actually sent off, using a rather miffed tone admittedly, Letter-to-Editor of the Post:
"Editor, With all due respect, do you really believe that the million or so people who were marching to protest the then-imminent Disaster In Iraq in January of 2003 were exhibiting hindsight bias? In fact, I was marching in San Francisco not because, as the cynics were saying, because I was a naive simpleton peacenik. I said it at the time, and I say it again to you now; I was marching not because I thought it would prevent the disaster from happening - I was marching precisely to preserve my right later on to say 'I Told You So!'"

Originally posted on March 18, 2003

Over time I have sent the WaPost a number of letters. I think one was actually printed, but it was probably a slow news day. Enough said.