No, not the ones from Ben's High School days that he tells me about late at night. Picked up a copy of the Los Angeles Times this weekend. It was the first time I had held the actual print on paper version. Occasionally I'll check out an article online, but the L.A. Times has this pain in the arse registration process that acts as a big deterrant. I'll link the articles I'm about to discuss, but just know that you'll have to jump through a few hurdles if you want to read the originals.
So in no particular order, here's my take on three articles that bothered me.
1) Under the headline "Support of U.S. Military Role in Mideast Grows"
More than three-fourths of Americans-including two-thirds of liberals and 70% of Democrats-now say they support the decision to go to war. And more than four-fifths of these war supporters say the still will back the military action even if allied forces don't find evidence of weapon of mass destruction.
That last sentence blew my mind. What the fuck was this war supposed to be about anyway. I have a feeling that the high approval rating reflects these Americans' desire to win the war now that it's begun, which is not the same thing as saying that launching the war was a good idea. Or, Bush and his team are unbelievably good spin-monkeys and Americans are too dumb to see through it. A bit of both methinks.
2) "Kerry Accuses GOP of 'Fake Patriotism' in Flap"
The Massachusettes Senator is running for Pres. in 2004 and is stepping up his criticism of the chimp. It's about fucking time. Here's what he said recently.
In the course of his remarks the senator restated his frequent criticism of President Bush's foreign policy and said the administration had so ruptured relations with U.S. allies that only a new president could mend the damage. "What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States."
Then there was this reaction from the usual pack of knuckleheads in the GOP.
Senator Kerry crossed a grave line when he dared to suggest the replacement of America's commander in chief at a time when America is at war," [RNC Chairman Marc] Racicot said. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said the statement amounted to "petty, partisan insults launched solely for personal political gain.
Scuzzy Tom Delay also had similar words. Nevermind Frist, I think his comment is within the bounds of fair play, though he's totally fucking wrong on this issue. The outrage here is not Kerry's remarks. The outrage is Marc Racicot, who chairs the Republican National Committee, stating in bold terms that criticisim of "the commander in chief" is unacceptable. Two words for that idea: Fuck...That. These same petty bitches tried some similiar shit on Tom Daschle two weeks ago when he rightly criticized Chimpy for his inept diplomacy. Insinuating that these types of criticisms "cross the line" is outrageous. Paul Krugman picked up on this story in his latest column and he, of course, stated the matter more eloquently: "Mr. Racicot, not Mr. Kerry, is the one who crossed a grave line; never in our nation's history has it been considered unpatriotic to oppose an incumbent's re-election." (GO READ THIS KRUGMAN COLUMN AFTER YOU READ THIS. PLEASE!)
Kerry has responded well to this bullcrap, saying: "I don't need any lessons in patriotism or in caring about America from the likes of the right wing and Tom Delay and others." The Senator later added, "I'm not going to let the likes of Tom Delay question my patriotism, which I fought for and bled for in order to have the right to speak out." John Kerry: Silver Star, Bronze Star, THREE Purple Hearts (you know, the kind they give out for being wounded in combat), two combat tours in Vietnam. Delay: Did Not Serve. Fuck you Delay, Fuck you Racicot, and good for you John Kerry for calling it like it is and not backing down.
3) Under the headline, "Judge in Moussaoui Trial 'Disturbed' by Prosecutors' Tactics"
I'll just quote here.
The federal judge overseeing the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui said Friday she was "disturbed" at the volume of classified material prosecutors were withholding from the accused Sept. 11 conspirator, and indicated they may be unfairly preventing him from preparing a defense.
The judge went on to say,
"The court, too, is disturbed by the extent to which the United States' intelligence officials have classified the pleadings, orders and memorandum opinions in this case."
The judge added that she "further agrees with the defendant's skepticism of the government's ability to prosecute this case in open court in light of the shroud of secrecy under which it seeks to proceed." The U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal defendants public trials.
No shit it does. There are also well established methods of sharing evidence that defense attorneys need without revealing sensitive intelligence information. This is bullshit abuse, plain and simple. But if you think that might happen, don't worry because,
If the government loses that battle, it is expected to transfer the case to a military tribunal where a defendant's rights, including access to witnesses, would be more limited.
Well, that's just fucking great. If your complaint is, "Who cares about Moussaoui?" that is not the issue at stake here. The Federal Government has to stack the deck against a guy who has already admitted to being a member of Al Qaeda. If they can stack the deck against this guy and get away with it, a guy with a high profile and a lot already going against him, then they're gonna start stacking the deck against defendants where the evidence is more questionable and the case more unknown. Let's cut the shit with the extra-legal tactics please. Welcome to the vision of John Ashcroft's America. This judge is right to stand against it.
I'm going to bed.
Posted by mike at April 8, 2003 05:35 AM1 Argument That Sacres Me
Miliary Service = Patriotism
Kerry makes the argument that he fought and bled for his patriotism, in order to have the right to speak out. Certainly his service is evidence of his patriotism. One thing that is troubling is that this was "in order to have the right to speak out". Like he didn't have that right before his service? Do we civilians who have no plans on entering the service not have that right?
But the central issue is that a troubling amount of media coverage I've seen in the past few weeks includes the argument that in order to be considered patriotic, one must serve. Of course, this isn't said so directly but it's implied. As it is in your blog entry where you compare the military records of Kerry and DeLay. Certainly DeLay is entitled to show his patriotism in ways other than military service. Does this make his arguments less valid than Kerry's? No, that would be ad hominem. His arguments are less valid because they are wrong (political discourse should be stifled during war), not because he didn't serve.
Krugman addresses this slightly differently, noting that politicans can prove their patriotism by setting aside "personal politics" for the good of the country. I don't see how this is required to prove their patriotism, or to give them the "right to speak out" (Kerry's words). Krugman goes on to indite the Bushies and DeLay for not having the nation's best interests in mind, which I completely agree with, but does that make them less patriotic or just poor leaders?
Or do we have so fuzzy a definition of patriotism that we use "unpatriotic" to mean "bad dudes in general"? Krugman's main point couldn't be more right-on and in need of being said, but this argument that military service is necessary for patriotism is what's scary.
Posted by: Adam on April 8, 2003 04:09 PMthis is on the view of media and its ability to alter consciousness.
Basically, all of north america is ridiculously susceptible to spin and television. none of you know who don cherry is, but that's ok. he's a hockey establishment in Canadia; he coached boston for over a decade in the 70s(ish). anyway, on his weekly hockey spot during one of the main games, he reprimanded the canadian public for their lack of support and essentially called them shitty friends and allies to the us, suggesting that if there was no US, there wouldn't be any canada. the cbc received several thousand phone calls, letters, and faxes saying that there was no reason for don cherry to talk politics instead of hockey. since that night support for the US incursion (we all know it's not a 'coalition', no matter what ari fleischer says) has gained 15 popularity points in the pole.
i don't believe in silent majority; it all comes down to who's asking the questions and who they decide to ask.
Posted by: Paul on April 8, 2003 06:53 PM