mirager's Xanga

Thursday, March 20, 2003

Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:20:35 GMT

I haven't updated in over a month. Somehow I'm getting premium service.

I feel sick.

I feel really, really sick. I have a family member in the 101st Airborne Division and I fear for his safety.

There were reports earlier that the Turks might be planning their own little military campaign in Northern Iraq, although such a story never appeared in any of the major media outlets online. But if that's true, it's disheartening.

It also sickens me to hear Bush make promises of democracy when the United States actively supports other brutal regimes in the region and is likely to repress the rights of the Kurds in some fashion to placate Turkey, our strong regional ally.

What will happen to US credibility once the rebuilding period begins?

Sigh.

Monday, February 17, 2003

Mon, 17 Feb 2003 16:42:48 GMT

A reader once posted this comment, which supposedly justified his conservative ideological position:

I have a question for you. What do you do with the bully on the playground? He taunts and treathens innocent little kids everyday. He punches them and takes their lunch money. You try and talk to him to convince him that his way is not a good way to make friends on the playground. The bully laughs in your face, shoves you to the ground and takes your lunch money. You gather all the other kids on the playground and you all agree that this bully must stop. The bully agrees to stop, he even shows sincerity in his voice, but he continues on his bullying ways. The kids on the playground all gather again and agree, this is our final warning to the bully, stop picking on the kids in the playground or suffer severe concequences. The bully continues to bully all the kids on the playground. NOW WHAT DO YOU DO!!!!!!

To which I reply with this article. Just prior to the weekend, the Bush Administration filed a brief urging the city of New York to deny a permit to the recent anti-war march in a time when the President is trying to sell large-scale military action to a skeptical domestic and international audience.

Who's the bully?

Sunday, February 16, 2003

Sun, 16 Feb 2003 05:50:53 GMT

I have a confession to make. I put this weblog on hold for a while because I was trying to put a radio show in place, which I was planning to run in conjunction with a weekly update here. Unfortunately, I didn't get the show, which is (so say the least) a tremendous disappointment, given the amount of pre-planning I did. Moreover, I had been told that the chances of getting a public affairs show on the campus radio show were really good, as if approval was almost automatic. Oh well. Anyway, after that tremendous disappointment, my attention comes back to this blog.

Patriot Act: Part Deux

A lot has been going on recently, the most frightening of which is John Ashcroft's intention to further restrict the civil liberties otherwise guaranteed in a little document called the Bill of Rights. The Center for Public Integrity managed to get its paws on a copy of the proposed legislation now being distributed among Republican Congressional leaders. It's good to see the separation of powers in the Bush Administration alive and well. Anyway, there's some scary stuff here, including secret trials and the elimination of judicial review, all based on circumstancial evidence of "terrorist intent." Remember, John Ashcroft has already branded environmentalists as terrorists in Oregon and the Justice Department is blacklisting members of certain peace movements and leftist groups from boarding airplanes. Anyway, this is what's particularly scary:

Section 501, “Expatriation of Terrorists”: This provision, the drafters say, would establish that an American citizen could be expatriated “if, with the intent to relinquish his nationality, he becomes a member of, or provides material support to, a group that the United Stated has designated as a ‘terrorist organization’.” But whereas a citizen formerly had to state his intent to relinquish his citizenship, the new law affirms that his intent can be “inferred from conduct.” Thus, engaging in the lawful activities of a group designated as a “terrorist organization” by the Attorney General could be presumptive grounds for expatriation.

Wow. As I've already suggested, Ashcroft has not been shy about using his power to attack ideological enemies, including environmentalists, euthanasia proponants in Oregon, leftist and anti-war organizations and (most recently) distributors of medical marijuana in California. This, of course, is not even mentioning the appalling conduct involving the semi-recent detainment of Islamic immigrants in CA. And now he wants to expand the power of the Justice Dept. to expatriation? Man oh man.

This legislation has no chance of passing, although the Justice Department could try and slip it through while the Congress has its attention elsewhere, such as what happened in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks. But it signifies the continued attempts to erode civil liberties that the Ashcroft Justice Dept. has been undertaking, especially after the attacks on New York and Washington.

It should be noted that the Patriot Act has not 'caught' a single terrorist.

Time to Screw Germany

Another piece of apalling news: Rumsfeld's plan to completely pull all American troops out of Germany as retaliation for that country's opposition to war in Iraq. Grow up. According to the article:

Another Pentagon source said: 'The aim is to hit German trade and commerce. It is not just about taking out the troops and equipment; it is also about cancelling commercial contracts and defence-related arrangements.'

The Pentagon plan - and the language expressed by officials close to Rumsfeld - has horrified State Department officials, who believe that bullying other countries to follow the US line will further exacerbate anti-Americanism and alienate those European countries that might support a United Nations resolution authorising a war.

OK, so we want to send the German economy into a tailspin, increasing anti-Americanism and feelings of bitterness from the EU? This is completely and utterly absurd. Yes, the German economy has grown up on the presence of American troops there, but to unilaterally pull out of Germany with destructive intent will, in the short term, damage the country most likely to emerge as the EU's primary economic engine, which, in the long term, will ruin relations between American and German businesses. What a stupid idea.

Are we trying to destroy the EU? Sometimes I think we are. After all, the whole point of this stupid war is to get Iraqi oil easier and more cheaply than the EU gets it now.

Protests Protests Protests

And then there's the anti-war protests in New York, London and other cultural and economic centers throughout the United States and Europe. Which, of course, is not getting the just media attention it deserves. Take this CNN article, for example. First, we have the (typical) violent image of raucous protestors. There's no mention of the massive London turnout in the first half of the article, even though it was the largest public demonstration in British history. And then, of course, is the mention of pro-war gatherings--this time, portrayed in a photgraph, with patriotic looking Americans and some flags smattered in the foreground for good measure--as if those these sorts of gathernings somehow matched anti-war rallies in terms of scope, size and political importance.

Maybe they're right. As Atrios points out, these guys got pretty good turnout. Over 50 people! Well, that's certainly as noteworthy as the hundreds of thousands in New York, Los Angeles and elsewhere. Good job CNN!

Thursday, February 06, 2003

Thu, 06 Feb 2003 05:44:22 GMT

I'm sure all my loyal readers (which I hear number in the thousands) have missed my independent voice over the last few days and sporadically throughout the last two weeks. Here's the story: now that class has started, I'm finding that I don't have the time to update this weblog daily in any sort of detail. I mean, I could, but I do this primarily as a recreational activity and I need to spend my intellectual energy focused on my schoolwork, which includes around one hundred pages of reading a night. Needless to say, I don't really have the time to digest the news in a manner that lends itself to daily webloging until I get my schedule under control.

I'll write this weekend though!

Sunday, February 02, 2003

Sun, 02 Feb 2003 17:05:56 GMT

Liar Liar Pants on Fire

Apparently, our intelligence agencies don't believe President Bush's accusations of links between Iraq and al Qaeda. According to this New York Times article, a serious split has emerged between the CIA and the FBI and the rest of the Bush Administration:

Some analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency have complained that senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for war, government officials said.

At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network. "We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there," a government official said.

Basically, Colin Powell will be presenting circumstantial evidence to the United Nations, tentatively linking Iraq to al Qaeda without any significant facts backing that up. Nobody doubts that Saddam Hussein probably has chemical and biological weapons in some capacity, but the Bush Administration has to make the case that the United States needs to act immediately and invade, rather than, say, simply sharing its "super secret" proof of Iraqi weapons with the weapons inspectors. Reports are suggesting that the Administration's arguments may be tenuous and largely circumstantial, reaching conclusions our intelligence agencies don't even support.

But, we'll just wait and see what Powell actually says.

Saturday, February 01, 2003

Sat, 01 Feb 2003 20:06:32 GMT

Dennis Kucinich Throwing Hat Into Ring?

I can't believe this slipped under my radar. Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich is considering a bid for the Presidency. Kucinich is one of several progressive Democrats in northern Ohio. He voted against the war in Iraq and frequently opposes free trade measures. He also has crossover support...from the Green Party, that is:After 9-11, Kucinich electrified the progressive wing of American politics with his masterpiece of a speech, “A Prayer for Peace”. The supporters of Kucinich have been urging him to run for president. They even created an entire website, http://www.draftkucinich.com , for their cause. On Sunday, January 12, 2003, the Plain Dealer published a front-page article discussing a possible run for the presidency for Kucinich. The article discussed how former Green Party Presidential Candidate and consumer advocate, Ralph Nader, is urging Kucinich to run.

This presents an interesting scenario. Could the Democrats win over the Greens with Kucinich as a Candidate? The Democrats could win over the Greens if they do not nominate another cowardly Centrist Republicrat. With Bush’s approval rating falling, there is an opportunity for meaningful regime change. Kucinich will fight tooth and nail for what he believes in and would make a wonderful Democratic presidential candidate. His message is clear. Kucinich believes in an “America which stands not in pursuit of an axis of evil, but which is itself at the axis of hope and faith and peace and freedom.”

Kucinich might just be the kind of candidate the Democrats need to shift the debate and bring the American far left back into the party. Of course, he won't get the nod for the nomination, but he's the perfect candidate to try and frame the issues to appeal to a leftist audience.

Saturday, February 01, 2003

Sat, 01 Feb 2003 17:08:45 GMT

Oh man...

As I'm sure everybody has heard by now, the Space Shuttle Columbia burst into flames on reentry, killing all the astronauts on board, including the first Israeli in space.

Man oh man. That is terrible.

Friday, January 31, 2003

Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:59:54 GMT

Tricky Dick Cheney

Dick Cheney, the man responsible for the hard lines towards North Korea and Iraq before Powell's diplomatic efforts prevailed, is more powerful than ever, at least according to an article in the New York Times.

As we all know, Dick Cheney is the most powerful Vice President in history. And this article highlights the fact that Mr. Cheney has special access to the President:

As the White House buzzed with preparations for the State of the Union address and some allies protested the administration's march toward war in Iraq, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney pulled up their chairs on Monday for their weekly lunch.

Their privacy was sacrosanct, administration officials said: No one but the steward was allowed in the small dining room off the Oval Office. Afterward, as usual, Mr. Cheney refused to tell even his top aides what had occurred.

Cheney has been pushing for war harder than anybody not named Rumsfeld, and it's no surprise that this excessively powerful Vice President has the ability to co-opt the President's most powerful advisors and policy makers--not that Bush is a big fan of debating policy to begin with--and push through his own agenda, which is more often than not in line with the interests of oil. Cheney operates in so much secrecy he has been able to avoid questions about his conduct as Halliburton, an energy company still under investigation. And he has refused to released documents about his 2001 energy task force, winning a major victory when a judge ruled against those documents' release.

The article also points out his expertise with bioterrorism, which I have absolutely no problem with. In fact, I welcome the Vice President to help create policy in a couple of areas of expertise. But I find the increasing power of the Vice President ridiculous when he is given the ability to meet with the President in secret, suggesting that Bush weighs Cheney's opinions much more than several other advisors. The point of putting together a Cabinet and a set of advisors is to weigh a number of viewpoints and form policy making debates. Unfortunately, Bush's autocratic rule and his tendency to listen to only a few key advisors (Cheney, Rummy, Rice) suggests that we have an irresponsible and lazy Administration on our hands.

Dick Cheney has too much power.

Oh yeah, via Atrios, he's speaking today at a rally selling bumper stickers, one labelled "No Muslims -- No Terrorism" and another featuring Janet Reno, with the caption "A.K.A. The Butcher of Waco." Classy, Dick.

Thursday, January 30, 2003

Thu, 30 Jan 2003 20:44:34 GMT

%$#%$#%$#%$#@

Stupid xanga didn't post my post!!!

I spent about an hour discussing various tangents revolving around the inevitable war in the Middle East. Sigh.

Thursday, January 30, 2003

Thu, 30 Jan 2003 00:08:17 GMT

State of the Union: The Day After

The polls are rolling in now, including this one from Gallup. The poll only sought out the viewers of last night's SotU and as a result do not represent the President's approval ratings and image throughout the country. Those polled break down as 40% Republican, 31% Independent and 28% Democrat. So take these with a gigantic grain of salt. But with that in mind, check out the response to Bush's economic proposals:

Speech watchers are dubious about the economic program Bush presented in his speech: 49% say the program is likely to get the country out of its current economic problems, while 43% say it will not. Last year, speech watchers were far more optimistic about Bush's economic program, with 73% expecting his program to work and just 22% saying it would not. When the elder President Bush delivered his State of the Union address in 1992, in the midst of a recession, the speech watchers then reacted in a similar way to last night's speech watchers: 47% thought the elder Bush's economic program would work, while 47% did not.

Most speech watchers, 61%, say their confidence in Bush's economic leadership has not changed as a result of the speech. Another 28% say they have more confidence and 10% say less confidence. In 1992, speech watchers reacted quite similarly: 32% said more confidence and 9% said less confidence, with 58% saying no change.

That's a lot of skeptical viewers for a Republican leaning audience. It's interesting that only 49% of the audience believes that Bush's economic program will work when Republicans make up two fifths of those polled. Clearly, the economy is catching up to the President. What's especially interesting is the comparison to W's father, and we all know what happened to him. But is the public skeptical about the tax cut plan?

Speech watchers are much more positive about Bush's arguments for his tax cuts and the changes he has proposed for Medicare. By 67% to 23%, viewers say Bush made a convincing case for the changes in Medicare, and by 58% to 36%, they say he made a convincing case for the tax cuts.

Again, this is a Republican leaning audience but the support of tax cuts is far greater than general support for Bush on the economy. I wonder how this will pan out over the general electorate.

So what about Iraq? I'm not really convinced that these Gallup polls give any clear indication about new support for a war in the Middle East, since they are so heavily skewed Republican and provide no suprises, unlike the response on the economy.

We will see the international response a bit more clearly once Powell presents our "super secret US and UK only" evidence to the Security Council next week. Nobody really doubts that Iraq possesses chemical and biological weapons in some capacity, so Powell will need to prove the tenuous link between Iraq and al Qaeda Bush mentioned most recently in the State of the Union and from time to time last year. Personally, I'm not convinced there is a link between the secular state and fundamentalist terror organization. But we will see.

There's really not much else to blog about today.