Mike's Blog

No we weren't lying, really.

From Today's Krugman Column

We were not lying," a Bush administration official told ABC News. "But it was just a matter of emphasis." The official was referring to the way the administration hyped the threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the United States.

I happen to disagree, I think they were indeed lying. But that's not my main point here.

A British newspaper, The Independent, reports that "intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic were furious that briefings they gave political leaders were distorted in the rush to war." One "high-level source" told the paper that "they ignored intelligence assessments which said Iraq was not a threat."

Hmm...not a threat eh? Maybe because he was contained? Oh wait, I forgot. Containment didn't work because while the U.S. had Hussein under wraps he was uh...attacking...wait no. He wasn't attacking anything. I've seen this bit on overhyped intelligence elsewhere, including domestic reports on how the CIA was pissed over The Bush Team's overstatements on Iraq. That's the Central Intelligence Agency now. The organization that's not exactly known for its reluctance to fuck with the affairs of other countries. If they're pissed off about the deliberate misrepresentation of intelligence, what does that say?

Sure enough, we have yet to find any weapons of mass destruction. It's hard to believe that we won't eventually find some poison gas or crude biological weapons. But those aren't true W.M.D.'s, the sort of weapons that can make a small, poor country a threat to the greatest power the world has ever known. Remember that President Bush made his case for war by warning of a "mushroom cloud." Clearly, Iraq didn't have anything like that — and Mr. Bush must have known that it didn't.

Stated here better than I possible could. I've said all along that the US will find something. Whatever it is though, whether it's some leftover shit from the Iran wars of the 80s or some sort of substance "that could be used to," etc., the administration is going to trump up the find like they just uncovered ICMB's loaded with VX gas and pointed at New York City. That "mushroom cloud" reference was indeed in reference to NYC, and I think the exact quote from the Chimp was, "I'm not going to wait until there's a mushroom cloud over New York City to act." (The exact quote is either that or something nearly identical to that. I don't have time to go searching for it right now but if you want to challenge me on it....which will be a waste of time....sigh...I guess I will.)

One wonders whether most of the public will ever learn that the original case for war has turned out to be false. In fact, my guess is that most Americans believe that we have found W.M.D.'s. Each potential find gets blaring coverage on TV; how many people catch the later announcement — if it is ever announced — that it was a false alarm? It's a pattern of misinformation that recapitulates the way the war was sold in the first place. Each administration charge against Iraq received prominent coverage; the subsequent debunking did not.

Fox news is probably the biggest offender in this category. "US SOLDIERS MAY HAVE UNCOVERED X,Y, AND Z." And then later, briefly, "oh wait no they didn't BUT THEY STILL HAVE LEADS ON P,Q, AND R." Other media outlets have done this to one degree or another.

For example, in September Mr. Bush cited an International Atomic Energy Agency report that he said showed that Saddam was only months from having nuclear weapons. "I don't know what more evidence we need," he said. In fact, the report said no such thing — and for a few hours the lead story on MSNBC's Web site bore the headline "White House: Bush Misstated Report on Iraq." Then the story vanished — not just from the top of the page, but from the site.

In 1984, this kind of lost information was disposed of via The Memory Hole. There's a "Hole" lotta that going on these days (get it? I spelled it with a....nevermind). And finally:

Now it's true that the war removed an evil tyrant. But a democracy's decisions, right or wrong, are supposed to take place with the informed consent of its citizens. That didn't happen this time. And we are a democracy — aren't we?

As Spike Lee would say, the public has been bamboozled on this one. And if Spike Lee said it, it must be the gospel truth (For those of you with impaired senses of humor, that last sentence was a joke. Repeat, a joke. But I do love Spike Lee. Yes, in a homosexual way as well. (another joke)).

But the public was lied to on this one. I'm inviting anyone to agree or disagree, and I PROMISE that I'll be civil in my responses. Really. So post it up, please. It's terrible lonely here sometimes in my underground, hermetically sealed bunker/military fortress. This blog is the only contact I have with the outside world....

Krugman's latest

A Conversation with Ben

Sketch Ben: Yo, I smoked those last two cigarettes that were on your desk.
Me: Uh, yeah. I think they may have been yours anyway.
Sketch Ben: Yeah, it's like NAFTA. Or something.

Ben is lacking the following:
A Valid Driver's License
Valid Registration
A Valid Inspection Sticker
Insurance

His truck is lacking:
The Right Rear-View Mirror
A Fully Functional Horn
Clean Oil (The oil hasn't been changed in three years. No joke.)

Me: Dude, if the cops pull you over, they're gonna arrest you.
Sketch Ben: I know.
Me: No I'm serious.
Sketch Ben: I know.
(Both of us laugh)
Sketch Ben: You know, when all those violations I have, that's gonna pile up to some huge penality. The judge is gonna be like, "Mr. Koenig you will serve two consecutive life sentences for the following crimes...."
Me: Yeah you should take care of that shit.
Sketch Ben: No man. Life is all about lying to yourself.

So True. So True.

Glad This Guy's in The Senate

Excerpts from the AP interview with Rick Santorum, US Senator, Pennsylvania (R)

I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. and I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

Come again? Santorum's follow up:

You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Yeah. Steve and Bob are getting it on and your family life is over. Remember that one.

In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality -

At this point Santorum is interrupted by the AP reporter with the following line:

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

Glad I'm not the only one. In that first italicized paragraph, I think Santorum is actually quoting Gore Vidal of all people. Bizzare. My Salon Guide to Contemporary Authors has this on Vidal:

The City and the Pillar was the first American novel to deal frankly and positively with homosexual love. With it, Vidal assumed a lifelong role: that of a Cold War-era Marquis de Sade, shocking bien-pensant America with his real and fictional enormities. (He resists the "gay" label-saying that there is no such thing as a homosexual person, only homosexual acts.)

I think during the next election the Democratic Party should run ads that blast Santorum for the homophobe that he is while including the following tagline: "Rick Santorum: He's Also A Fan Of Gore Vidal. Who Is A Fag." This will simultaneously draw the ire of the non-homophobe crowd while cutting out some of his bullshit "we gotta protect the Amercian Family," political base.

I hate Rick Santorum and the fuckers who support him.
Goddamn Link

Bitch what?

Liberals have resisted Christianity pretty well. Christians are already a majority in America, and we can't even stop public school teachers from passing out condoms to fourth-graders or prevent Hollywood from producing movies that portray Christians as marauding skinheads.
(break)
Someday, liberals will denounce democracy, citing the atrocities of Red China as proof of what such a monstrous system of government can do.
-Ann Coulter, from her latest column

Sure we will Annie. What the fuck is this woman referring to? Seriously now. It's been obvious for years that this bitch suffers from some form of Tourette's Syndrome, but even the worst TS sufferers manage to make more sense than Coulter.

When I have more time, I want to write something longer on how Jesus was indeed a liberal. You know, all that stuff about "feeding your enemies," and it being "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven," etc. I'm no Biblical scholar, but the meanings there seem pretty obvious to me.

Unless, of course, Jesus was just kidding. That Jesus...what a joker.
(Note: I'm going to hell)

Crazy Annie's Latest

Team Monkey House = Total Domination

Wednesday Night at CBGB in St. Louis, Bar Trivia Night.

The Winners? Team Monkey House, comprised of Miss Arianna Haut and myself.

Wasn't even close suckas.

Well, actually, it probably was pretty close. I think we got 15 out of 20 questions right and Team Shawn and Lori probably had 14. Maybe some other slapdicks in the bar were close also but the point is CLOSE DOESN'T MEAN JACK SQUAT!

So yeah we won. Our prize was six free drinks. Arianna walks up to the bar and the bartender is like "Yes?" and she's like "Uh, I'm Team Monkey House." Creative guy that I am, I chose a Rolling Rock for my free drink. Arianna got a white Russian and the remaining drinks were more Rolling Rocks and some Gin and Tonics to be distributed amongst the crew. Team Monkey House is magnanimous like that.

Other highlights of the evening were running into a) Matthew Korfhage, a local struggling artist/my fiction writing instructor at Wash U. and b) Forrest, the dude who gives me my assignments at work. It was great listening to the two of them argue about the income distribution in England vs. the rest of Western Europe and the United States. Why were they discussing this? I don't fucking know. It was trivia night okay? Dudes who are interested in subjects like income distribution in Europe show up. But the important point to remember is this: Team Monkey House dominated them all.

The Onion

One more-

This is an Onion parody of Christopher "Snitchens" Hitchens. If you have no idea who the fuck this guy is, it probably won't be that funny to you.

The only thing I object to in the article are the references to Snitch as a "leftist" and "member of the Far Left." The guy is neither, and has said he would vote for Bush if he could in the next election (he's British, they can't vote...yet). I am a Leftist. This asshole does not play for my squad.

Onion Snitch Parody

And then this is just sad but altogether too true:

Tortured Ugandan Political Prisoner
Wishes Uganda Had Oil
KAMPALA, UGANDA—A day after having his hands amputated by soldiers backing President Yoweri Museveni's brutal regime, Ugandan political prisoner Otobo Ankole expressed regret Monday over Uganda's lack of oil reserves. "I dream of the U.S. one day fighting for the liberation of the oppressed Ugandan people," said Ankole as he nursed his bloody stumps. "But, alas, our number-one natural resource is sugar cane." Ankole, whose wife, parents, and five children were among the 4,000 slaughtered in Uganda's ethnic killings of 2002, then bowed his head and said a prayer for petroleum.

Kids at Guantanamo Bay

Great. They've got fucking kids as POWs in Guantanamo. Did you know this? I sure as hell didn't. Do you think if the public knew this that it'd be all cool and the gang? I doubt it.

What a mess Guantanamo is. In a few years, they'll gradually let these guys loose and deport them, quietly, never having charged most of them with anything.

But hey, anything for the War on Terra right? Right? Guys....?

Link. Props again to Pete for finding this.

Newt who? Get the hell out of here.

Newt Gingrinch, you know the guy who was fined 300,000 dollars by a Congressional Committes for ethics violations, is desperate to get in the news.

In a speech delivered at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank in Washington, Gingrich contrasted the experience of the State Department with the Defense Department. He said the State Department had failed in its efforts to apply diplomatic pressure to persuade Iraq to disarm and comply with U.N. resolutions, and it is time for "bold, dramatic change" at the department.

The State Department failed. True. I guess that had nothing to do with the contant threats coming from Washington, and the open secret that war was coming to Iraq, regardless of any diplomacy. Gingrich was careful to say something nice about Powell, however.

"I think Secretary Powell is an extraordinary figure and I think he's a very effective advocate, but I think he is currently presiding over an institution that's broken," Gingrich said.

1) The institution isn't broken at all numbnuts. 2) Who the hell has been trying to break it all this time? You and your "force first, diplomacy later.....maybe" crowd.

I guess not everyone was thrilled with the Lizard popping his head up again:

"He saw an opportunity to get on TV, and I'm sure he wanted to reorganize us as effectively as he wanted to reorganize the Congress," this ['senior official'} said.

It's over Newt. Go home. You're a fucking leper within your own party of slimeballs, liars, and criminals. Take the hint asshole.

Gingrich blowing smoke out his arse

If I Ever Meet Ari Fleischer, I will Punch Him in the Face

The White House expressed confidence Tuesday that coalition forces would locate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction despite comments from chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix that the United States had attempted to discredit his team in the days leading up to the war.

(break)

Fleischer responded to statements made by Blix during an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp., that in the days leading up the war the United States seized on his alleged failure to include details of a drone and cluster bomb found in Iraq in his oral presentations to the U.N. Security Council.

(break)

"I think it's unfortunate if Hans Blix would in any way criticize the United States at this juncture. The United States is working with Iraqis to build a new country for them. And I think that would just be unfortunate if his position today is to criticize the United States," Fleischer said.

So it's unfortunate "if Hans Blix would in any way criticize the United States at this juncture?" I can't emphasize how much I want to chokeslam Ari Fleischer right now. If Blix weren't the gentleman that he is, there would have been a lot more criticism heading towards the White House, who had been trying to undermine his job since Day 1. Bush and Crew had made the decision to invade Iraq a long time ago, well before Bush even took office. To them, Hans Blix, weapons inspections, and the whole idea of "international consensus," were all just nuisances.

Fuck I am angry today.

UPI Article

Let's see it asshole!

President Bush, in his State of the Union address, described a vast Iraqi weapons program and talked about several mobile labs, 30,000 munitions, 500 tons of chemical weapons, 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin. These weapons were supposedly deployed in the war and controlled by field commands that we have long since overrun — so where are they?
-Nick Kristoff in his latest column

There were about a dozen other lies in that State of the Union address. If this lying sack-of-shit shows me all of the above items, we'll call it even on the S.O.T.U.A. Oh, and all those other grudges? They'll still be there, don't worry.

This is a Disgrace - A post on the real story about Jessica Lynch

Thanks to Pete for the heads up on this one.

The linked article is another account of the "rescue" of Pvt. Jessica Lynch, a U.S. soldier who was wounded in Iraq.

The story that was reported in the US media was an account of a daring rescue by US Marines that managed to save Ms. Lynch from harrowing, hostile conditions.

Bullshit. Fucking Pentagon Propaganda Bullshit.

The Iraqi doctors and staff treating this woman were terrorized by U.S. Marines. These are the doctors and staff who undertook considerable risk to themselves during their treatment of Ms. Lynch, including an incident in which an ambulance driver trying to deliver her to an American checkpoint was fired upon.

I've seen other accounts like this, on this same story, elsewhere as well. And since I know that the people who put out the false story have no concept of the word 'shame,' I'm not surprised by the lies at all. I am, however, still outraged. Not so much at the Marines, because I know shit gets confusing sometimes and you can't always determine your friends from your enemies, though some of what these particular Marines did goes beyond what is understandable, even during a war. I'm more outraged at the people who put out the false story, and the docile US media that lapped it all up.

The Iraqi doctor interviewed for the article had some nice insight into what the United States is today.

“There are two faces to Americans,” Dr Harith said. “One is freedom and democracy, and giving kids sweets. The other is killing and hating my people. So I am very confused. I feel sad because I will never see Jessica again, and I feel happy because she is happy and has gone back to her life. If I could speak to her I would say: ‘Congratulations!’”

As Americans, let's try to get back to looking more like the first face that this doctor describes.

The Real Deal

Update: Seems that some US media are getting it right. Or partially right. In the Washington Post's case, the article reads like the newspaper is grudgingly admitting that the Lynch rescue may not have gone off exactly as the military put it.

NY Times Story

Washington Post Story

Oh and by the way, I'm not letting Time, Newsweek and any of the cable news channels off the hook yet until they get the damn story right.

Man that fallout was quick

Consequences of Bush's Pre-emption Doctrine: Coming soon to a thea....wait, no they're already here. Way to go assholes.

The article in the Washington Post is titled, Mulling Action, India Equates Iraq, Pakistan. The byline underneath reads: Pre-Emption Cited in Kashmir Conflict

Some relative quotes:

Asserting the same right of preemptive war that the United States used to justify its invasion of Iraq, Indian officials have accused Washington of failing to end Pakistan's support for guerrillas in Indian-controlled areas of Kashmir and warned that India may be forced to take limited military action against its nuclear-armed neighbor.

But then on the other side:

Western diplomats assert that the case against Pakistan is not as clear-cut as Indian officials claim, noting that some Pakistani militants are nearly as hostile to Musharraf as they are to India and the United States.

What the fuck does India care about whom else Pakistani militants are hostile towards? India is looking out for India. Just as the U.S. was looking out for itself in this recent war. Saddam is/was hostile towards Iran, Kurds in the North, Shi'ites in the South, Turkey, etc. These other hostilities never seemed to bother the U.S. while it was deploying its own pre-emption strategy.

When it's somebody else using pre-emption as justification, it will always be a different case in the eyes of Washington. "No, no guys, this time its different. Trust us." Some of these other countries will heed these lies and back off, but others won't. In an event, there will be a shitload of nations trying to use Bush's pre-emption strategy for their own ends. (I could also bring up here that a certain Austrian-born guy with a moustache once invaded Poland on the grounds that acting first was a necessity. But that would be inappropriate, wouldn't it?)

Actually, I'm surprised it took as long as a month before some other country began citing pre-emption as a tool in fighting its political wars. Bank on more parties following suit.

Here

Op-Ed

Happy Easter. In a second I'm going to head to church to hang with Jesus for a little while. I'll be like "Sup J-dogg," and he'll be like "Take thee this message unto thine roomate Sketch Ben and telleth he that his ripped green shorts should be thrown to the fires of Gehenna, for they are displeasing in the sight of the Lord. Oh, and a Pascal 'sup to you too T."

That's usually how our conversations begin. Before I go though, thought I'd post an op-ed that should run in this Tuesday's paper here at school. It was originally going to be entirely about Syria but then....well, it's hard to get in everything in 750 words. I know some people aren't going to get the end paragraph, or if they do, they'll just think it's dumb, but I had to throw it in somewhere.

I'll tell Jesus you say 'sup.

Fear-Mongering and The Road to Damascus

Well, it only took a little more than three years, but I finally think that George W. Bush and I have found some common ground. Both of us think that this recent war went just a little too well for the United States and both of us are wondering what comes next.

I vaguely remember a story about some other guy who was going to Damascus. I think his name was Paul, but it could have been Ringo. Anyway, this guy was also heading to Damascus to change the place, forcefully if necessary. As the story goes, somebody stopped him along the way and changed his mind. Let’s hope something similar happens to the United States before it gets to Damascus or anywhere else.

Fareed Zakaria and Democracy

Back in 1997, I wore a lot of flannel shirts, had a ponytail, and road my bike to school.

I also read Foreign Affairs quite a bit. Why? Don't ask. Anyway, I distinctly remember an essay entitled "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy," by somebody named Fareed Zakaria. I can also remember not being sure if I agreed or disagreed with the article, but felt it was important none the less. In fact, that same damn issue of Foreign Affairs is sitting on a shelf in Scarsdale right now.

Anyway, this Zakaria fellow apparently turned the long essay into a book called The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. Reading the review, I'm again not sure what to think. For example, I'm all for making the IRS some kind of independent fiscal agency that sets instead of just collects taxs. And sometimes I agree with his thesis, which seems to be: More Democracy = More Dysfunctional Govt. and Less Freedom. (For a better idea of what the book is about, read the review, linked below.)

I bristle though when people use "freedom" as their defense for all kinds of crap. As in, "Why should I pay such high taxes? Don't you believe in freedom?"Or, "If you don't believe in my right to have this handgun, you don't believe in freedom." The review makes a reference to Napoleonic France and offers a comparitive example, an unfair one I think, saying "...equality trumped freedom. The result was a new Napoleonic despotism."

Freedom and Equality are not mutually exclusive. I have no patience for assholes who think they are, just because they define freedom as "the right to do whatever the fuck I want." That is not freedom.

I think I'll get and read Zakaria's book, and I think I'll have the same mixed feelings I had about his article. Either way, he is someone who should be respected.

Review of Zakaria's Book

Something Funny

2 things:

1) Have I ever mentioned to you how awesome Reid is for letting me use space on his server for this blog? He is awesome. And I hear he can speak German now so watch out! German speakers are crazy. (See examples M. Nitsch, F. Nitsch, and, of course, G. Nitsch.)

2) On a totall unrelated topic, Pete sent me this link. It's some animation of the Chimp dancing in his office. Worth a look.

Chimpy McSmirkster Dancing

New PK in the Hizzouse

New Column from Paul Krugman today. As usual, an excellent piece.

If you want the main thrust in a sentence, it'd be something like: While everyone is distracted by the war, the GOP is exacerbating a fiscal nightmare at home that no one notices among Iraq-hysteria. Relevant quotes:

[W]e have entered a new stage in the tax-cut debate. Until now, the Bush administration and its allies haven't made any effort to explain how they plan to replace the revenues lost because of tax cuts. Now, however, party discipline is starting to crack: a few Republicans in the House and Senate, and many erstwhile supporters on Wall Street are beginning to notice how much we're looking like a banana republic.

Yes, the banana republic scenario I can see happening. And then after blasting Congress's new budget that makes major cuts in services to the poor:

Aside from its mean-spiritedness, this suggestion [ that the budget can be balanced without significant cuts to programs affecting the middle class] is simply false: our deficits are too large, and our current spending on the poor too small, for even the most Scrooge-like of governments to offer additional tax cuts for the rich without raising taxes or cutting benefits for the middle class.

Every Tuesday and Friday Folks.
Behind Our Backs

I like Ron Reagan (no, not the one you're thinking)

The modern Conservative movement is obsessed with Ronald Reagan. The guy is not even dead yet and the far-right lionizes him as if he were Washington or Lincoln. The Bush II team would like to think of themselves as Reagan's heirs. Apparently Ronald Reagan Jr. strongly disagrees.

"The Bush people have no right to speak for my father, particularly because of the positionhe's in now," he said during a recent interview with Salon. "Yes, some of the current policies are an extension of the '80s. But the overall thrust of this administration is not my father's -- these people are overly reaching, overly aggressive, overly secretive, and just plain corrupt. I don't trust these people."

Hmmm...there's an image problem when Ronald Reagan's son is calling "these people," "just plain corrupt." The criticism doesn't stop there though.

Reagan took a swipe at Bush during the 2000 GOP convention in Philadelphia, which featured a tribute to his father, telling the Washington Post's Lloyd Grove, "The big elephant sitting in the corner is that George W. Bush is simply unqualified for the job... What's his accomplishment? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?"

Yeah that pretty much sums up my thoughts on that matter too. Except that I think that Bush still drinks. (Think what goes well with pretzyls that cause you to choke and smack your head on a coffee table. The guy also looks like he's been tranqaulized during his press conferences.) After an explaination that he has nothing personal against Bush, we get this:

But Reagan has strong feelings about Bush's policies, including the war in Iraq, which he ardently opposes. "Nine-11 gave the Bush people carte blanche to carry out their extreme agenda -- and they didn't hesitate for a moment to use it. I mean, by 9/12 Rumsfeld was saying, 'Let's hit Iraq.' They've used the war on terror to justify everything from tax cuts to Alaska oil drilling."

This I can remember clearly. The fucking day after the attack there's already a group of Republican assholes drafting a bill to reduce the capital gains tax. Whether you think reducing the tax is right or wrong, the timing could not have been more devious or more callous. On his father's military buildup:

Of course, Reagan's father was also known for his military buildup and aggressive foreign policy. "Yes," he concedes, "there are some holdovers from my dad's years, like Elliott Abrams and, my God, Admiral Poindexter, who's now keeping watch over us all. But that observation doesn't hold up. My father gave a speech a couple years after he left the White House calling for 'an international army of conscience' to deal with failed states where atrocities are taking place. He had no thought that America should be the world's policeman. I know that for a fact from conversations I had with him. He believed there must be an international force to intervene where great human tragedy was occurring. Rwanda would have been a prime example, where a strike force capable of acting quickly could have gone in to stop the slaughter.

Pay attention to that last part. It's an idea that I've brought up before. There is a great need for some sort of Rapid Expedionary Force to stop atrocities like Rwanda. The whole reason the U.S. stood back and did nothing there was because of all the heat Clinton took (for a Bush I initiated mission) over the Marine deaths in Somalia. Bush I got it right: the U.S. should have intervened in Somalia to prevent the masssive humanitarian catastrophe there. But after those Marine deaths, the public would have been whipped into a frenzy by Tom Delay and the right if Clinton had stepped in and done something. Clinton was wrong not to have moved anyway and he has since stated that he thinks not acting in Rwanda was the biggest mistake of his Presidency. Whenever I hear this "never again" sloganeering regarding the Holocaust, I want to scream because it has happened again in several places at different times (Rwanda, Burundi, Cambodia, Ukraine, Kosovo, Nigeria.)

Set up this force and I'll be the first to join. I mean that.

Another point:

"There were, and will be, a lot of people killed over there. And if you don't care about the Iraqi casualties, what about the American? We stand to lose more people in the next months of occupation than we lost in the weeks of war. One of the reasons we escaped largely unscathed so far was because our military moved so fast. But now we're sitting targets -- we have to establish bases, patrol the streets, guard checkpoints. We're sitting targets for suicide bombers and other terrorists."

The Israelis have learned that lesson the hard way. I fear the U.S. will too. Last thing:

Reagan, who says the label "progressive" would fit him, does not belong to a political party. "I'm certainly not a Republican; I couldn't belong to any party that had leaders like Tom DeLay. And the Democrats are too busy trying to out-Republican the Republicans."

Tom Delay pretty much sums up what's wrong with the GOP. There's a lot of other real good stuff in this article. There's also some defense of Pres. Reagan's policies. I don't like the legacy the elder Reagan left behind, but I'd take the Gipper to this fucker we currently have in office.

I'll link this up, but getting into Salon can be tricky. You may have to watch an ad first, then you get a one day pass, no charge. Maybe the link will just go right through though.

Reagan Blasts Bush

Ass Clown Coalition pt. Deuce, or, More about Congo than you ever wanted to know (the country, not the movie, jackass)

In regards to my earlier piece, Alissa took umbrage (what a pompous word Tolles) to some of my thoughts on the ‘Coalition of the Willing.” Many of her points are good, the entire piece is well reasoned, and I really appreciate the post. That being said, I have to disagree with some of her points and clarify some of my own arguments (you knew I would, asshole that I am). Below is my response to what she posted. I’ve excerpted some parts, and these appear as italicized text. If you read the rest of my post here, I strongly recommend you first read Alissa’s arguments in the “comments” section of the “Coalition of the No-Talent Ass Clowns,” piece. Hers is number 14 I think. (Aside: if you’re reading this Shawn, post something, sometime, on something, you lazy, lazy bitch.)

So with that disclaimer, here goes…..

I believe that political support is actually a very important aspect of international relations.

I never said that it wasn’t. I meant to emphasize that the political support of countries like Palau contributes little, and certainly cannot be compared with the political support of nations like Turkey, France, Germany, all of whose (critical) support we’ve failed to get.

Norms – just the set of things that are considered acceptable for states to do – are extremely important in setting limits to what states can do, and in setting expectations of what states should do.

Agreed. Which is why I have such a problem with this pre-emption strategy/justification.

Offering support for the US isn’t just saying, “We are afraid of the US, so we’ll go along with whatever it says.” Rather, it’s saying, “The US is doing something good, right, noble, and we believe others should act in a similar way.”

Maybe. Perhaps some are saying some form of the latter statement. Personally, I serious doubt it. Mostly I think it’s the former “afraid of the US,” statement that acts as the prime motivator for a lot of these countries. See the Nigeria example. I think Mexico will be next for retribution, also Chile, and possibly even the EU.

Then again, I can’t really say for sure that these countries aren’t acting out of some sort of high principle. So then I certainly can’t say with any kind of conviction what these countries’ motivations are. I’m not sure this particular debate can be resolved.

I’d also question whether there’s anything wrong with the US offering additional aid to countries that support us – the US is a hegemon, which comes with a lot of responsibilities, but why should we not discriminate in favor of our allies?

I have no problem supporting allies. I have a problem with supporting corrupt govts, dictatorships, and countries that will use the support to further their own wars. Maybe then I just have a problem with soe of these allies. Some of the nations on the Coalition list fit into the above categories. Others examples not on the list, like Pakistan, also fit into these categories. This is, obviously, my own personal judgment, and anyone is free to disagree.

One last comment on the nature of foreign assistance – rarely does it take the form of a check to be spent on whatever the country’s leadership wants to buy. It almost always comes with many conditions – that it has to be spent on products purchased from American companies, on only products from some particular sector, etc. It’s not a bundle of cash sent overseas, not by any stretch.

Yes I know. That’s the idea at least. The money goes to a designated program sometimes/public works policy whatever. Or it gets rerouted. In practice, this is often the way it works. A lot of these governments’ record on corruption and graft ain’t so good. Not infrequently, the U.S./IMF/WB/XYZ/WWF/NWA-set conditions are ignored (see Zaire example below.)

But let’s say for argument’s sake that all the money did go to its intended source(s)/progams. That’s great, but the flip side is that this funding then frees up capital within the receiving country, capital which would have been used on these same sources/programs, to go buy guns, surface to air missiles, land mines, etc. So yes, I’ll stick to my contention that the U.S. is indirectly funding some really dirty wars and turning a blind eye to the consequences.

And then there’s the Africa thing. Here we go……

Africa’s problems can’t be blamed on the US (Liberia excepted, of course) – its security problems are rooted in colonialism, the newness of its institutions, bad governance, etc., as you well know. I don’t think it’s fair to put such blame for Africa’s problems on the US for seeking out multilateral support for a major war.

Oh boy…..Well….not all of Africa’s problems can be blamed on the U.S. Certainly the problems that Alissa lists all contribute to the chaos that is that continent to some degree or another. But as long as we’re assigning blame to outside parties, the U.S. does indeed deserve a shitload of blame (this does not mean Africans themselves get off the hook entirely, they own partial responsibility for different problems to different degrees.)

So gather round kids to listen to Grandpa Crazy Mike tell ya tales of whittlin’, beaver skinnin’, cougar wrastlin’, and African History. Prior to around oh….let’s say 1957, the year that Ghana became the first country in sub-Saharan Africa to gain independence, the U.S. did not really give a fuck what went on in Africa. It had other things to worry about. But by 1960, often referred to as “the year of independence for Africa,” (because of the large number of countries that became autonomous in that year), the U.S. starting taking a real hard look at the continent. You can probably guess why. Two words: Cold War.

Around then, the United States and the Soviet Union started fucking with the affairs of practically every country in Africa. And no, I don’t think that’s an overstatement. Remember: all these countries, even the little ones with no resources and no power whatsoever, had U.N. votes. This was one reason for intervening in Africa, the other big reason being the usual reach for geopolitical power, spheres of influence, yada yada yada. And yes, “fucking with the affairs of a country” is a broad term and is something that takes many forms, ranging from mild to serious.

The biggest example of U.S. meddling in that particular time and place came in 1960, in what used to be the Belgian Congo. In that year, Belgium pulled out, and unlike France and Britain, (but not Portugal) Belgium said, “See ya! You want some help from us? Fuck no! You’re independent remember?” Despite this dick maneuver, Congo went forward and held elections. (Aside: Wasn’t Congo (the Crichton-based project the worst movie ever? I think it was.) The Congo election was won by a guy named Patrice Lumumba, a socialist with close ties the Soviet Union. In 1960 he became his country’s first Prime Minister. This obviously didn’t please the U.S. too much. My parents say they can remember seeing images of Lumumba on T.V., and remember getting the impression that he was a bad guy (Overt TV message then, Socialist = One step shy of Satanist. A lot of that feeling hangs around today.) Washington denounced Lumumba as “Castro or worse,” (source upon request). Like a lot of countries in the first year of independence, Congo was pretty chaotic, and Lumumba had a rough time in office. That is, he did, until he was assassinated.

Among African historians, it’s generally agreed that this wasn’t some random act of violence in a violent country, which was how the story got reported. Four parties were involved in the plot to kill Lumumba and three of those parties were African individuals: Moise Tshombe, a Congolese opposition politician, Joseph Kasavubu, President (not PM) of Congo and a supposed ally of Lumumba, and a guy named Joseph Desireé Mobutu. The fourth party was the CIA. There’s a couple of interesting reads out there on CIA involvement in Africa and particularly in Congo. Yes, the CIA was directly involved in Congo during this time (shocking I know). This fact should not be contestable. After Lumumba’s death, Kasavubu took over until 1965 when he was forced out by General Mobutu. This General later changed his name to Mobutu Sese Seko, and became dictator of the county for the next 32 years. He also renamed the country Zaire in 1971. Mobutu was a brutal dictator who often “used violence against his own people,” (Sound familiar?). He was heavily supported by the U.S. because of his anti-Communist stance and because Congo/Zaire, being the largest and one of the richest countries in sub-Saharan Africa, was in a position to fuck with its neighbors’ political affairs. These were mostly socialist or socialist-leaning nations: Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Tanzania, Angola, Zambia, and a few others. Mobutu, when he was not brutally crushing domestic opposition or stealing the U.S. foreign aid for himself (so much for those stringent rules on where foreign aid is supposed to go), or committing atrocities against his more uppity critics, was busying instigating the wars in Central and Southern Africa. The effects of these wars remain today, and a few are even still going on, (see Angola, Rwanda/Burundi).

The point is this (“finally Tolles, you windy asshole” ): The U.S., through its funding and sometimes direct CIA support of African dictators can be blamed, at least partially, for Africa’s problems. Congo/Zaire is the best example of the U.S. supporting a dictator, but other US-backed despots reigned in Malawi (Hastings Banda) and Angola (Jonas Savimbi), and in a few other places. Anyone who wants to get really bored can ask me about these examples and their consequences some other time. The U.S. didn’t care about supporting these dictators and their crimes back then, and the U.S. really doesn’t care when it supports bad guys now. To cite one example, Pakistan has become an extremely important ally to the U.S. recently, despite the fact that Pakistan is run by a military dictator with a not-so-great human rights record, (Pervez Musharaf) who recently re-wrote his country’s constitution so that he could have nearly unlimited powers. And this guy is on our side. So when I hear Chimpy McSmirkster thunder on about how Saddam is a dictator, my reaction is, “Oh Yeah? This hasn’t seemed to matter much in the past.” When I hear the chimp talk about “liberating the Iraqis,” one word pops into my head: hypocrite. End of sermon.

Note to Alissa: If you feel I’ve misrepresented your arguments or have been unfair in any way, I’m sorry. I really didn’t mean to. I can fix/amend things if you have any major objections. And again, I really do appreciate your post.

So Three Guys Walk Into A Bar Right?

Actually, I was the one who walked into the bar. About a week and a half ago, I get off work at 8 in the evening and immediately turn on the Cardinals game. It's the 5th inning and Woody Williams has got a no hitter going through five. I'm like, "Shit! I gotta see this," so I find an old man's bar a little ways off 70 East.

So I go in, sit down, order a beer, and of course, Woody Williams promptly gives up a hit. Fucking great. But the game is still on and I have a beer so I'm pretty happy. Anyway, to the right of me there's sitting three guys, two of whom are obviously tanked. Most of what they were saying was hillarious but I'll excerpt the best part.

Drunk Guy #1-So I'm driving down this highway right? And I see this woman on the side of the road hitchhiking....

Drunk Guy #2-(interrupting) yeah you don't see many of those anymore....just too dangerous or...shit...i don't know

DG#1-yeah so anyway, I ask her where she's going and she says "Phoenix,'" so I'm like "okay hop in." So she does and we talk for a little bit and then she suddenly asks me, "How much money you have on you right now?" and I'm like, "I don't know....sixty, eighty bucks maybe." So she says, "Okay give me fifty and I'll blow you right now."

DG#2: So didja get it right there? Huh? Huh?"

DG#1: Fuck no! I pulled over to the side of the road and was like, "Get the fuck out of my car bitch." And I left her there.

Sober Guy #3: Well....that might have been fot the best. She probably made a lot of money doing that sort of thing.

DG#1 Yeah maybe.....(pause). Maybe some guys paid her. Then again, maybe some guys robbed her. I can see some trucker takin' her out into the dessert and robbing and killing her, being like, "I'll cut your fucking hands off bitch so they'll never be able to fucking identify you!"

At this point, the two drunk guys burst out laughing while the third sober guy and I, eavesdroping, sort of sat there in silence and tried to stare at our beers as intently as possible. Crazy fuckers these two. Now here's the funny thing. After they exchange stories like these, the conversation turns to environmentalism and it turns out these guys are hard core environmentalists. They're talking about wind power and hydrogen this, and all this other crap that quickly got too technical for me to follow. I mean, crazy fucking technical. These guys were obviously engineers from someplace, maybe Boeing down the road, but I just thought it was funny that guys who can laugh about cutting a prostitute's hands off can also hold such a high-level discussion in the next breath.

When the two guys left, the third sober guy remained. I asked him, "So you know those two?" His response with an embarassed smile, "Yeah...loosely. Very loosely. I actually met them this morning." We laughed about that for a while and made some other chit-chat, but then the Cards were whuppin' some ass so I started to leave. On the way out, the guy made a point to tell me to have a good evening. I think he was grateful for having one half-sane conversation in that bar.

Coalition of the No-Talent Ass Clowns

This would be a better name than the existing, "Coalition of the Willing" jibber-jabber we have now. That or something like, "Coalition of the Inept, Brutal, and Utterly Dependant on U.S. Aid." From the White House website.

President Bush is assembling a Coalition that has already begun military operations to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, and enforce 17 UNSC resolutions. Contributions from Coalition member nations range from: direct military participation, logistical and intelligence support, specialized chemical/biological response teams, over-flight rights, humanitarian and reconstruction aid, to political support.

Notice that last item on the list. "Political support," translates into: a) countries who don't want to piss off the U.S. and this administration in particular (frankly, I don't blame them), b) countries desperately seeking foreign aid and/or debt relief, c) countries who are already under indirect U.S. control, and d) countries looking to make friends with the U.S. as insurance against a less than friendly neighbor (Iraq excluded from this latter category)

So of the 49 countries that the White House lists, only 9 do not fall into one of the four categories listed above (United States (duh), U.K., Austrlia, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, and Kuwait (who does not fall under category (d) if we assume that Iraq could represent an actual threat to its immediate neighbors.)

All of the other 40 Ass-Clowns in the coalition fall into one of the categories listed above, and sometimes fall into more than one. The former Soviet Bloc countries are examples of (d), nations looking for a U.S. friend as a counterweight to Russia's influence. Afghanistan and Albania fall into category (c). (And please, no bullshit on how Afghanistan has been liberated. The U.S. controls Kabul and a bunch of warlords contain all the rest of that place. The word "Afghanistan" is actually Pashto for "seriously fucked up land." But hey, we've moved onto other brown people.) The Latin American countries are mostly looking for debt relief and/or increased loans to combat narco-trafficking (Colombia). The Philippines wants more money and more Marines to fight its own guerilla insurgents (Abu Sayaff, a group whom 600 Marines were deployed to combat some months ago. So that covers (b). There's a handful of countries (Palau, Micronesia, Soloman Islands) that I must confess I know little about. My guess is, however, that these nations too are more concerned with securing U.S. aid than with, say, finding themselves at war with Saddam Hussein. Someone correct me If i'm wrong on this. That leaves the African countries and since I've spent too much time reading about Africa in the past year, I'll tell you a little story.

Mamadou Diouf was at the University today to give a guest lecture to the students in Nancy Johnson's class on African Politics. Professor Diouf teaches history at the University of Michigan, specializing in Senegal. He's a big name in the field, at least he is to people who care about that sort of thing. I, being one of those people, was grateful when Professor Johnson graciously invited me to Diouf's lecture. Though he spoke about Iraq only briefly, he had an interesting take on certain African nations' support for the "Coalition." But first, read this bit from the White House site:

The Coalition will also liberate the Iraqi people from one of the worst tyrants and most brutal regimes on earth.

Uh, correction. Some of your ass-clown coalition members represent "the most brutal regimes on earth." Certainly all five African countries on the list qualify: Rwanda, Uganda, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Angola. The first two on the list are currently fighting against one another, the third and fourth have fought 3 wars in the past five years. (Remember that whole genocide thing back in '94 that took place in Rwanda? Think things are good in the hood over there? Think again.) Angola has been engulfed in one of the world's most gruesome civil wars ever since Portugal pulled the fuck out of that country (after decades of kicking and screaming) in 1975. These countries want money so that they can then turn around and buy guns from third parties to fight one another. To include nations at war with each other in some part of a coalition is a joke. No, joke is the wrong word. Dangerous is the word that comes to mind. This whole idea of giving guns and money to fight proxy wars sounds familiar....something like....Oh wait! That's what Reagan did in the 80s when he funded both fucking sides of the Iran/Iraq wars. Now, the U.S. is realizing that giving these "brutal regimes" money and weapons may not have been the best idea. But surely that won't turn into some sort of problem this time because...uh...because....African countries don't like fighting wars? No, shit that's not it. But Bush is a smart man, he must know what he's doing.....(Seriously, if I could get Bush to tell me the capital of one of his African nation "Coalition members," I'd stop riding the guy's ass so hard. For like a day. Maybe.

Oh, and by the way, Nigeria flat out refused to join, knowing that support for invading a Muslim country would touch off riots that would, in Professor Diouf's words, "kill 5,000 people in two days." (Nigeria's got a whole lot of dem Muslims). The U.S. said it understood Nigeria's concerns, then cut its foreign aid the next day. So maybe the best name for this sham would be "Coalition of the 'Sign up or we'll break your fucking knees'." Yes, there it is.

Update: Mitz informs me that Australia belongs in category of countries whose contributions actually matter. True. They have 2,000 troops stationed there. Duly noted.

White House "Coalition of the Willing" Page

Controversy!....My first step towards total world domination

Wow. Some of my friends have actually noticed this thing and have posted comments. I'm flattered. Feel free to post more in the future if you like, since I will be updating this thing pretty frequently.

So one at a time:
Non-sketch Ben-Sure. I see your point that Bush is not the only President to invoke God (though i did mention that in the beginning of the post.) Nor is he the only President to invoke God on behalf of some pretty awful things, the slavery example you list being a particularly apt example. (Aside: Did you know that slavery was actually banned in Georgia, of all places, until 1750? The reason the ban was lifted? Someone decided that Genesis 17: 12-13, where Abraham purchases slaves with money earned from working for his father-in-law, was justification enough to make slavery a state-sanctioned activity. Hey, if it's good enough for the Patriarch....)

But anyway, Bush's religious rhetoric is especially significant in the way it is employed, not just because it's religious rhetoric. Example: In his first address to the nation after 9/11, Bush began his statement with a quotation from the 23rd Psalm, "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for the Lord is with me." In this case, it's safe to assume that "me" was meant to indicate The United States and not Bush personally, but the quote was completely inappropriate. Here it is, some fucking guy who directs planes to kill a whole bunch of civilians in the the name of God, and Bush's first response is....to invoke the name of God. This is the whole, "God is on my side, no he's got my back asswipe," argument. A professor of mine had a good response to this irony, saying, "What is this anyway? 800 AD?" The point is, neither side should be invoking the protection of God, particularly when the conflict contains an extremely strong religious aspect, as this one does. World War II didn't, nor did the Mexican War, nor the border disputes with Canada during the 1840s (fifty-four forty or fight, etc.) the last two of which are examples of manifest destiny. I can't think of a President who invoked God when confronted with a religiously-tinged conflict.

So do I hold Bush to a different standard for acceptable use of religious rhetoric? Yes I do. But that's because this conflict has, at the minimum, shades of a religious controversy. But Ben is definately right, other Presidents have invoked God for one cause or another. T. Roosevelt was known for this, FDR did it, Eisenhower certainly, Reagan..no shit, and Jimmy Carter (who was a great President, think what you will it's a free country) may have been the biggest Bible Thumper of them all (though he was careful to limit his rhetoric during public addresses.) Ben, if you have some counter-points or think I'm missing something, let me know and I'll post it on the main entry section.

Ruder-Yeah man, those names are pretty cool, particularly Van Lingle Mungo of the 1940s. That one may take the award for best name. Although I'll have to go with either Wiki Gonzalez or Kiko Calero for best name today, over Yorvit Torrealba, which is a damn good name. If Kiko Calero can help the Cardinals win the series this year, you know what I'm naming my first kid (Woman! I don't care if it is a baby girl. Her name is Kiko.)

Greg C.-That last post confirms what we all know: you're a fuckin' weirdo. But that's why we love you.

Oh, and a word on the profanity thing that Ben brings up. Someone else has also suggested that I tone it down a bit. Yeah, my arguments would probably stand stronger if I didn't cuss so much. What's with motherfuckers always cursing and shit anyway? But then again, I think toning down the profanity would make the posts that much more boring to read. The profanity is more entertainment than raw emotion. It's not like I'm debating in some sort of respectable forum anyway. (Fuck You Mr. Senator! I don't give a fuck if your wife is in the room. You challenge me again and I will skull-fuck you whitefish!) That last parenthetical remark is what we call in the biz, "a joke." But point duly noted Ben. I'll consider it in the future.

No fucker, God is on MY side. Got it?

"We sit outside and argue all night long,
about a god we've never seen but never fails to side with me."
-Primitive Radio Gods

One thing that gets under my skin is Bush's constant tendency to invoke God. And Yes, I know that other Presidents have done it, and no I'm not talking about statements like "God Bless America," though even that statement is often weilded like some kind of political mace. (Don't make me dredge up examples from shit I've read in the past few months. Please. I will if need be, but not right now.)

The difference between Chimpy McSmirkster and his predecessors is that he constantly invokes God's name in a way that suggests God is always on the side of the United States. I can't say with certainty if God is or not, but I consider it arrogant, (if not blasphemous) to always claim the protection of the almighty. Here's some dude named Abe Lincoln:

"He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offence came."

Lincoln added that the war was a curse to both armies. Also though, it's embarassing to me, as a Christian, to be lumped in the same category as this schmuck. Every time Bush tries to interpret something about God's will I feel like shouting: "Have you read the same fucking Bible I've read? Is there another, alternate version that omits all the parts about helping the needy and feeding your enemies? A part that says 'It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.'" An omision of that last parable might explain the whole fucked-up tax break scam. Bush and I seem to have very different takes on Christianity and God, and I don't want him speaking for the U.S. about God, and by extension, speaking about God for citizen Crazy Mike.

This article can explain what I'm talking about better. Pete sent it to me with this comment: "This is what would piss me off the most if I were from the Middle East. "So you americans say that doing something in the name of god is fanatical and crazy but your president says that he has god guiding him through the war?" The irony has not lost been lost on me either.

Bush Puts God on his Side

Gabriel Garcia Who?

Sunday NY Times has an intersting article, A3, on the new novelists in post-Garcia-Marquez Colombia. Garcia's masterpiece, 100 Years of Solitude, was written in 1967 and introduced "Magical Realism" to the Latin American literature scene. The idea was to first examine the fantastic aspects of Jorge Luis Borges, Julio Cortazar (who reads like a bad acid trip), and others who wrote stories that brought mythology and surrealism to a Latin American setting. Then, combine these styles with the more straightforward stories of European authors, as well as a few Latin writers like Nicolas Guillen (before he sold himself and his talent to Castro.) The resulting fusion was called Magical Realism, and is said to have ushed in the vanguard of 60's and 70's Latin writers: Mario Vargas Llosa, Carlos Fuentes, etc. Then came Isabel Allende, Rosario Ferre, blah blah blah. I like Garcia-Marquez and love Fuentes, (in a very non-sexual way, the guy is like 73 now...twenty years ago maybe...)but like all literary movements, magical realism is giving way.

The Times article focuses on a few Colombian writers, none of whom I've heard of. This guy Mario Mendoza and his book Satanas sounds interesting, as do Jorge Franco and his book Rosario Tijeras. The gist of the article is that these guys have not grown up in the Colombia of Garcia-Marquez, i.e. Colombia is far more fucked up now. So the novels are all those things that book reviewers like to use such as "gritty," and "raw." In sum, an interesting article that also gives its due to the origiinal Colombian master. Read it if your into this kind of thing.

I guess I did learn something from all those Spanish Lit classes I've taken here. Ain't that some shit? Not damn near enough, but maybe I can fool some artsy chick at a bookstore or something. I wonder if I should mail this to my old Colombian boss Juan? Oh wait...he's too busy snorting coke. (This is not meant to be an ethnic slur, Juan did snow a whole lot, even on the job, and I doubt he's got a new hobby. Like reading.

New Generation of Novelists Emerges in Colombia

The Bus Takes Tolles To School

Adam "The Bus" Mitz raises an interesting point on my last post on John Kerry. You can read his entire response in the comments section, but I think his objection goes something like this: "Is military service a prerequisite to be considered a patriot or are the opinions of those that serve in the military somehow given more weight than the opinions of those who don't?" In a nutshell, he is taking issue with my comparison between Kerry's service and Delay's non-service. (Mitz-let me know if I've completely mangled your message here so I can fix it.)

The answer to the Military Service(M.S.) = patriot question is a resounding hells no. For two reasons.

1) Not only are many citizens proscribed from M.S., but a majority of U.S. citizens are ineligible. Consider the following categories: women (who can serve but who are allowed to serve under very narrow conditions), the disabled, homosexuals, conscientious objectors, and simply those who don't meet the fairly stringent qualifications that the military requires. Are the voices of these people somehow less important than those with M.S. on their resumes? No they're not.

2) A Patriot, as Paul Krugman mentions in the column I cite, is one who is willing to make personal sacrifices in order to achieve a higher good. This can be done through means other than military service, even if it's only simple things like oil conservation, charitable donations, etc. John Kerry has passed this test, and the medals he has received are testament to his extreme display of personal sacrifice. Tom Delay has not passed this test. Though he was eligible for the draft, he did not serve. Now you might say, "Well, neither have you Tolles." True, of course. But 2003 is different from 1968. Back then, men were being conscripted and if you actively avoided the draft, through legal or illegal methods, that means that some other schmuck who was less connected, less clever, or simply less lucky took your spot. To me, this is the very definition of the abdication of sacrifice. Now maybe Delay had a legitimate reason for not serving, or maybe he didn't. My point was that insinuations that Kerry's criticisms of Bush are unpatriotic, are beyond outrageous since Kerry has clearly displayed extreme personal sacrifice in the past. It is questionable, to say the least, whether the same can be said of Delay and Racicot. In any event, they are the ones that crossed a line with their attacks, not Kerry.

And yes, if for some bizarre reason, I were conscripted to go fight in Iraq right now, I wouldn't hesitate to go. This holds even though I strongly oppose the war. I am not a conscientious objector, (since in order to be one, one has to renounce violence in all its forms, not just renounce violence selectively. There are several cases I can sight where I think violence is justified.) so therefore, if I refuse to go or flee to Canada or something, I am being unpatriotic by forcing someone else to take up my responsibility. And since I am a citizen who enjoys the liberties guarenteed me by the Constitution, the govt. has a right to conscipt me, whether or not I agree with its cause. Oh, and in terms of the civil disobedience argument, by the time a draft comes, civil disobedience is too late; the government will get the number of people it wants, whether you're included or someone else is. In orer to be effective, civil disobedience needs to make its impact before the draft begins.

All in all, I think Mitz's criticism is a fair one based on what I posted last night. I should have been more clear and less flippant with my remarks on Delay. Although I think Mitz and I can agree that Tom Delay is "a piece of shit." That's a real political science term....seriously. So anyway, Mitz 1, Tolles 0 on that particular post. Other criticisms are always appreciated.

3 Stories That Scare Me

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.

Paul Krugman's Latest

Story on John Kerry

Story on Moussaoui Trial

The Battle of Los Angeles

Dan says he refuses to pay for parking. Dan has never been to L.A.

But I was there, this weekend in fact, for the NAQT National Championship Tournament, aka Geekfest 2003. For those of you who don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, consider yourself lucky. It's basically like Jeopardy in teams formed from different colleges. But not as cool and for no money. Also, you don't pick categories or any of that shit, you're just read questions one at a time, trying to answer it faster than the opposing team. But Alex Trebek is there for whatever reason. (If you believe that, leave this site right now.) We played poorly and ended up splitting the rounds with a record of 7 and 6. The title "Lord and High Protector of all Nerds in all of Nerdom," was not to be ours. Thank God.

So anyway, my first observation about L.A. was that you pay for parking everywhere, including the parking lot of the hotel where we were staying. For this reason alone I could never live in that city. That and the fact that it's a model of how not to design an urban complex, unless of course your goals include ungodly sprawl, traffic, and pollution. Still, The Doors were from Los Angeles and L.A. Woman Arianna tells me that I haven't seen the nicer parts, so I give the city props on the basis of those two bits of information.

The highlight of my weekend was wearing sunglasses the entire time, including indoors and during NAQT rounds. It's L.A. okay? I have to make an attempt to look cool so fuck off. Also, I was waiting for someone to make a snide comment about me wearing my shades indoors so that I could then tell him that I was blind and that he shouldn't be so cavalier in mocking the disabled. Then I'd laugh as he walked away in shame.

The other hightlight was sticking my finger in the face of some fat guy with a gaudy orange sweater. No, it wasn't as sexy as it sounds. This was just some guy spouting out some crap about how the U.S. had no choice but to go to war with Iraq, yada yada. I'm willing to concede that there may be a few arguments, but this guy wasn't making any of them. Finger out and sunglasses on, I entered the debate with, "That's HORSESHIT. Listen, if you have about five hours after the round to debate this crap with me, we can do it. But I will slam you on all of your arguments. Right now I have a round to play." He didn't approach me afterwards, for whatever reason.

So that's that. Next time I should check out the ocean and get my ass kicked in some kind of urban sports competition. That should be fun.

Paul Krugman is the Shiznit

For the unenlightened, Paul Krugman is the Princeton economist who also happens to write a twice weekly column for the New York Times. Of the seven regular columnists that the Times keeps on its roster, Krugman is by far and away the best writer, and sometimes the only one to call the Bush Administration on its general malfeasance. He has his own website, as well as another unofficial site that keeps track of Krugman and his work, so I'll try to link those soon. Krugman is especially important because in the past three years, the Times has lost three excellent columnists. A. M. Rosenthal, the former editor in chief of the paper turned columnist, retired three years ago. In the summer of 2001, the excellent Gail Collins left to become editor of the Times editorial page, and just last month, Frank Rich took a new assignment as editor of the Arts and Entertainment Section.

While I wish Rosenthal the best in his (well-earned) retirement and am grateful that Collins and Rich are doing excellent work within other divisions of the newspaper, the Opinion section of NYT is now immeasureably poorer for their departure. Paul Krugman remains the one excellent voice among six others who range from decent (Nicolas Kristof) to fair (Thomas Friedman, Bob Herbert) to mediocre (Maureen Down, Bill Keller) to nearly useless and occasionally outright mendacious (William Safire, the unrepentant Nixonite who takes wild stabs in predicting foreign policy, often gets it completely wrong, and then refuses to budge from his errors.) To be fair, Safire may indeed be the best writer on the sqaud, as he certainly has an ear for the English language. He just takes a warped, Hobbesian view of politics that serves no one. (Again, remember how he pushed the story on how Mohammad Atta had met with Iraqi officials in Prague, and kept harping on the subject as a ways to convince his readers that Saddam was indeed in cohoots with Bin Laden and crew? This story was pushed until the story was refuted by some naive organization that doesnt's support American values...what's the name of that organization again...oh yeah it was the motherfucking CIA that revealed that the story was horseshit. Safire's fictitious scandal-mongering was embarassing, but his retreat from the story was even more embarassing, claiming that the CIA was just trying to conceal its hand, even while Chimpy McSmirkster was desperately grasping for something, anything, to link Saddam and Osama. After all, they both speak Arabic right? But enough on old man Safire. He will be dead soon.

The point is, Krugman is the most honest and intelligent member of a group whose columns and opinions are quite possibly the most important in professional journalism. The fact that he's one of the few figures on the left who actually scares right-wingers, (see Andrew Sullivan or some asshole like Larry Kudlow bitch about PK without actually, you know, offering a rebuttle, and you'll see what I mean.) If you don't read the guy religiously like I do, every Tuesday and Friday, you should. It takes about three minutes to read a column and you will finish significantly more well-informed.

Below is a link to his latest column. As mentioned above, I'll have the websites on him linked up soon. Also linked is the full text of Nick Kristof's latest, which is tolerable, on the Iraq war. His point is that Iraq is not going to be another Vietnam, though it might start to resemble the Gaza Strip or Lebannon, both places where the Israelis have kicked ass in lighting wars only to discover that they can't defend against every asshole willing to strap dynamite to his chest. F-16s in those situations....not so helpful. I'm going to L.A. this weekend, so I won't update this till Monday. Next big piece though, Cursor vs. Townhall. It'll be super fierce.

Krugman's Latest

Kristof's piece

C'mon now...

So some people don't like the anti-war protesters. To borrow a line from National Review Online editor Jonah Goldberg, who is an asshole, albeit a funny asshole, "an observation like this is on par with the revelation 'Bear Uses Woods for Bathroom.'" Think about it. It's funny. Really.

But c'mon already. Some of these reactions are getting out of hand. From ABC news we learn that, "The insults lobbed at antiwar demonstrators range from Boston hecklers calling them "traitors" to Minnesota's governor proposing that arrested activists should cover their own law-enforcement costs." Cretins are free to hurl whatever insults they want of course. After all, heckling is a mandatory class that all Bostonians take beginning in kindergarten and extending through high school. Plus many of them are....how do you say....ah yes! Many of them are what you call the white trash, yes?

On the other hand, the fucking Governor of Minnesota is now making assanine statements about the protest. I'll go along with his idea right after society starts making murderers, rapists, child-molesters, arsonists, and about three hundred other categories of criminals pay for their "law enforcement costs." Makes you kind of long for the days when that state elected pro-wrestlers to its highest office.

In the same ABC news piece, someone had this to offer: "A lot of people might say [protesting] sends the wrong message to Iraq. But I believe it sends the message that we're a free country." The thoughts of a hemp-wearing, America-hater no doubt! One who obviously has no regard for the safety of U.S. soldiers fighting for...oh wait. It's actually a quote from Major Tony Figueroa, a C-130 rescue pilot. A guy actually serving in Iraq right now, with military experience, unlike certain other characters in the White House who....nevermind. I won't pretend that Major Figueroa speaks for anyone in the military but himself, but the quote is one example among many I've read on how this idea that all U.S. military personnel are gung-ho about an Iraq invasion and therefore you better not undermine them you leftist bastards, is really just a crock of shit. A crock of shit even larger and smellier than Rush Limbaugh's ass I'm afraid.

(Complete Text of ABCnews Article)

I am the laziest bastard to have ever sprung from a womb

Seriously. How do I expect to ignite controvery, instigate thought-provoking discussion, and find my face on a grainy flier at the post office unless I start showing a little bit of fucking dedication?

....anywho

I thought I'd begin with some political discourse, since that's what racks my brain twenty-four seven. For the 0.7 people out there who give a shit about this space, plus the one other guy who stumbles here while surfing for Asian he-she pornography, play on playa...

So where do I stand politically? I'm so glad you asked! I can explain it best this way: imagine a line with points labeled 0 through 10. This will represent the traditional left/right political scale with 0 being, let's say, anarchism in its pure form and 10 being, shit I don't know....pure fascism. There's a whole host of problems associated with a simplified scale like this, but I'll just point out the three most glaring inadequacies. 1) How do we all agree on political definitions? For example, have you ever really gotten a good explanation of what fascism is? (There's an interesting little history about fascism and Mexico, but now is not the time.) 2) If you're a complex, broad-minded person, as intelligent people are wont to be (hint!), you probably assign yourself different numbers based on a particular issue. A 3 here, a 7 there, etc. I myself am a solid 10 when it comes to cockroaches. I fucking hate those things and hope that they and all their ilk are soon vanquished by the wrath of the Almighty. 3) A lot of issues can't be boiled down to a number, just like a lot of poltical ideologies can't be boiled down to left/right. If you're the kind of person that goes for absolute truths, you're welcome to look elsewhere, but you won't find it.

So anyway, on this 0 to 10 scale, I put myself at 3. Further right on a few issues, further left on others. But here's the thing: if you had asked me about my political outlook in September 2000, I would have explained my viewpoint by means of this pedantic little scale and you would have been duly bored, as intellegent people are wont to be (hint!), and you would say something like, "fine, fine, shit already! I was just trying to make conversation. I didn't need to hear your crazy manifesto on this shit." Then I would move on to the next unlucky soul.

But seriously, since September of 2000 a lot of things have changed, and not for the better. In April of 2003, the 0 to 10 scale doesn't work. The political discourse has been effectively shifted rightward, like it or not. So now the new scale is something like 0 to 12, or 0 to 14. I say "something like" because I'm not exactly sure where the rightward limit is anymore, and that is extremely unsettling. Certain statements and actions that I would have thought suitable only for milita members in Sep of 2000 are now seriously bantied about. Some of these ideas have actually been implemented (think secret courts). Generally, I think this country lost its fucking mind after 9/11 and hasn't gotten it back yet. It may never, but I'm still holding out. Anyway, with the new scale, I'm still at 3, which means my views haven't changed, but I am farther from the center. So it only seems like I've drifted leftward.

Bored? Sorry. In this blog I'll make an attempt to link to stories I feel are important, particularly ones that tend to get missed by the mainstream. The next post will explain that, briefly, and have a few links posted. This is just so you know where the messenger is coming from. And in any event, I'm doing this mostly for my benefit, just to sort shit out. Feel free to like it or not.