My free bottle of wine is here!
I just hope Mankas Hill Vineyards doesn't find themselves in a lawsuit with the makers of a certain popular French movie.
In which I write down all those musings of which the world has been horribly deprived until this moment. (Progressive Politics, Liberal Religion, Sex, and the occasional abnormality that bubbles forth from goodness knows where.)
Today, USA Today ran a story entitled, "Anti-drug advertising campaign a failure, GAO report says," which exposes the fact that the ad campaign actually INCREASES the chances of teen drug use. On the opposing page, they ran one of the very same ads. How apropos!Here's a quote from that USA Today story:
A $1.4 billion anti-drug advertising campaign conducted by the U.S. government since 1998 does not appear to have helped reduce drug use and instead might have convinced some youths that taking illegal drugs is normal, the Government Accountability Office says.The GAO report, released Friday, urges Congress to stop the White House's National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign unless drug czar John Walters can come up with a better strategy. President Bush's budget for 2007 asks Congress for $120 million for the campaign, a $20 million increase from this year.
Our tax dollars at work. If I'm going to fund propaganda, could it at least be effective propaganda? There is a drug problem in this country. Criminalization and bad advertising don't seem to be working. Some fresh approaches, please. Even if some new way doesn't work, I'd rather fail in new ways than fail in the same way we've been failing for decades. Then we'd at least be learning something. As it is, there are just a lot of people in jail who don't have to be, a lot of tax revenue the government isn't getting, and a lot of addicts who aren't getting treatment. The only people who win under the current system are the prison industry, the drug kingpins, and the politicians who exploit this "war" for political purposes. Not exactly the folks I'd like to be subsidizing.
BF: I think what they’re doing – it’s such a political problem – is that they’re taking the spotlight and doing whatever they can to focus that spotlight on Iraq, and trying to separate Iraq from the larger challenges that we have with the rise of the fundamentalist extremists, and that will be it. When they take that spotlight and put it on Iraq, it takes it off of Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah, plus other areas where terrorism [exists].[emphasis Greewald's] Well, that sure shows the political winds have changed. Republicans are claiming that Democrats are focusing too much on Iraq. But I thought foreign policy and war were issues that were good for Republicans. Isn't Bush always saying that "Iraq is the central front on the war on terror"? (Yes, he is.) What's happened? Well, it seems Americans have been souring on Iraq for some time, and Republicans now desperately want them to think of something else. Our job in the lefty blogosphere right now is to make sure the administration can't distract America with parlor tricks. Iraq is going deeper into hell, and we need a big change in strategy or we're just going to get sucked down further in it. I'm for withdrawal, but I'd be open to plausible alternatives, if there are any.
No society that oppresses women, denies advancement on merit even to men, indulges in fantastic hypocrisy, wallows in corruption, undervalues secular learning, reduces its god to a nasty disciplinarian and comforts itself with conspiracy theories will ever compete with us.To which Billmon replies:
For a second I thought Ralph had been reading the Texas GOP's party platform, but he was just ragging on the Arabs again.
I don't know a whole lot about Ahmadinejad: he's a hardliner who got elected on a platform of cleaner government, has taken harsh rhetorical stances against the US, talks about bringing about a post-Zionist era, and apparently has some pretty apocalyptic beliefs that are the Islamic equivalent of Christian rapturist and "end times" beliefs. From what I know, it sounds like he and Bush deserve each other. It's too bad we can't just lock the two in a room together so they can argue or blow each other up or compare notes on their batshit religious beliefs.Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad voiced defiance on Tuesday as a deadline neared for Iran to halt work the West fears is a step toward building nuclear bombs, and challenged US President George W. Bush to televized debate.
“I suggest holding a live TV debate with Mr. George W. Bush to talk about world affairs and the ways to solve those issues,” he said.
In a press conference, Ahmadinejad condemned the US and British role in the world since World War II but made no direct mention of the international nuclear confrontation.
Iraq is a war that is saddled with more incoherent premises than can be counted. Yet the most baffling part of it has to be that the more we succeed in stabilizing the new government and empowering majority rule, the more we hand over to our arch Iranian enemy (the New Hitlers) control over large parts of that strategically vital country. Thus, the principal result in exchange for all the lives lost and hundreds of billions of dollars squandered is to ensure that Iraq will be ruled by those most opposed to U.S. interests.But it's not just our actions in Iraq that benefit Iran. The other forgotten war, in Afghanistan, has benefitted them, too. The Guardian has an article on a recently released study by Chatham House (I don't know anything about that organization) spelling out the consequences of our recent actions in the region:
I think the worldview of the Bush administration makes any progress in the Middle East impossible. It wants contradictory things: Middle Eastern states that are both democratic and pro US-Israel. They want to diminish Iran's influence, but also want to diminish Iran's neighbors. They want to use military force on a nation to get it to like us more. (That worked so well when Al-Qaeda attacked us, didn't it?) They want the backing of the world community, but also want to go it alone and not be encumbered by the tedious process of building alliances and forging consensus. They want more leverage with Iran and Syria, but back Israel's military actions unconditionally, even when a large number of Israelis think those military actions were misguided.In particular, Iran has now superseded the US as the most influential power in Iraq, regarding its former adversary as its "own backyard". It is also a "prominent presence" in its other war-torn neighbour, Afghanistan, according to Chatham House's analysts.
The report said: "There is little doubt that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the war on terror in the Middle East.
"The United States, with coalition support, has eliminated two of Iran's regional rival governments - the Taliban in Afghanistan in November 2001 and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq in April 2003 - but has failed to replace either with coherent and stable political structures."
Anyway, the joke is that the GOP is coming apart at the seams now over the race. Steve Laffey is the wrong-o-sphere’s candidate of choice, and now the GOP is marching into Rhode Island with millions to save Chafee’s ass. I guess nobody on the right cared about the practicalities of the matter like those of us on the left did — we didn’t launch a challenge in a state where the Republican stood any chance of defeating a Democratic nominee even after a contentious primary. If anyone in the media ever gets over their fixation on us as dirty urchins, maybe they can acknowledge that.(Emphasis mine.) So the RI senate primary could really be the place where righty blogs declare their independence of the Republican establishment. It could also be the place where they hand a Senate seat to the Democrats. We'll have to check back on this race often to see how things shape up. Atrios points out that the media isn't leaping on this like they lept on Lamont-Lieberman. Apparently, Republican intra-party spats aren't as interesting to them as Democratic ones:Still, I have to say I respect wingy blogs for standing up to the Republican party for once; usually they just function and another part of the right wing echo-chamber with no message (and no power) of their own, hence much of their irrelevance. And even though Mike Krempasky’s post about Liddy Dole smacks of "get back in the kitchen and bake me a pie," and I understand that Dole is in a bind (Laffey would probably get killed by Whitehouse, Chafee is the only Republican who stands a chance,) — I’ve actually got to hand it to them for pitching a fit in the situation. They’ve got their guy, they believe in him, he’s being attacked by vicious and aburdly racist ads by the NRSC (go figure) and they’re saying "enough."
When I was in Connecticut I tried to kid a NYT reporter by asking if they were going to devote as much attention to the Rhode Island race as they did to the Connecticut race. I got a somewhat confused look, and then in a response a question about how Matthew Brown was doing.Well, Republican intra-party spats are very interesting to me, and you can bet I'll be keeping an eye on this one.
Matthew Brown dropped out of the Democratic primary race in April.
Many people around the globe are mourning the loss of Pluto from the pantheon of planets today after astronomers voted overwhelmingly in favor of a definition of the word "planet" that includes only the first 8 planets. The change had been discussed for years, so no one should have been surprised that it finally happened. The new definition essentially corrects an astronomical mistake from 76 years ago, and shows that astronomy can move forward in the face of new information about the solar system. Pluto is now rightly classified with the rest of the recently discovered Kuiper belt objects, rather than awkwardly stuck in with the planets.If anyone has cause to complain, he does. And if he can accept the new definition, so can everyone else.
The funniest bit is the way desperate suckers are trying to spin total defeat of the IDF into some kind of victory. What's impressed me is that no Israelis are saying that. All the Israeli commentators I've read have faced up to the fact that they got hosed. It's the Americans, totally out of touch with reality and desperate to stay that way, who are finding lame excuses for the IDF, like "Hezbollah didn't really WIN, since they didn't wipe out Israel."As always, it's sad when parody personalities have greater insight than official pundits. I'm not sure I agree that it's been entirely a positive for Hezbollah though. Here's Totten quoting Michael Young from Reason:
The best answer to that comes from an Israeli columnist I read, who said, "If a lightweight boxer fights a heavyweight and gets a draw, the lightweight won." Except I'm not sure it was even a draw. I think Hezbollah flat-out won, not just in PR/Propaganda terms but by anybody's standards. They're in total control of the field of battle, Southern Lebanon -- I hope none of you are dumb enough to think that this "International Peacekeeping Force" is going to actually try to disarm Hezbollah after the Israelis couldn't do it by force of arms.
Hezbollah's victory is no different than most other Arab victories in recent decades: the "victory" of October 1973, where Egypt and Syria managed to cross into Israeli-held land, their land, only to be later saved from a thrashing by timely United Nations intervention; the "victory" of 1982, where Palestinian groups were ultimately expelled from West Beirut, but were proud to have stayed in the fight for three months; the Iraqi "victory" of 1991, where Saddam Hussein brought disaster on his country but still held on to power. Now we have the Hezbollah "victory" of 2006: the Israelis bumbled and blundered, but still managed to create a million refugees, to kill over 1,000 people, and to kick Lebanon's economy back several years. One dreads to imagine what Hezbollah would recognize as a military loss.Now that the fighting has stopped, we'll have to see how many Lebanese think Hezbollah are heroes, and how many Lebanese think Hezbollah are an annoying bunch of foreign-backed troublemakers that provoked Israel into devastating their country. Naturally the Bush administration will say that the latter reaction is stronger than the former, but anyone who listens to them when it comes to judging the Middle East should have their heads examined for large holes out which their brain has fallen. I don't know much about the various factions in Lebanese politics. I suspect that many Lebanese will be vehemently pro or anti Hezbollah depending on their ethnic or religious affiliation. Right now most of what I've read seems to indicate the Hezbollah's prestige has shot up dramatically in the larger Arab and Muslim worlds. But those larger worlds didn't get their infrastructure bombed and civilians killed. As always, I welcome expert opinion (or more likely, given the prominence of my blog, informed amateur opinion) on this matter.
“[W]e did not believe, even by one percent, that the captive operation would result in such a wide-scale war, as such a war did not take place in the history of wars. Had we known that the captive operation would result in such a war we would not have carried it out at all.”
The Dutch generally use drugs less than Americans do, according to national surveys in both countries (and these surveys might understate Americans’ drug usage, since respondents are less likely to admit illegal behavior). More Americans than Dutch reported having tried marijuana, cocaine and heroin. Among teenagers who’d tried marijuana, Americans were more likely to be regular users.And I think three paragraphs is the limit before I get myself in intellectual property hot water. I'm glad to see the {War on Drugs = Stupidity} meme spreading. Our descendents will shake their heads in dismay when they look back this travesty.
[...]The good news about drugs, Cohen says, is that the differences among countries aren’t all that important — levels of addiction are generally low in America as well as in Europe. The bad news is that the occasional drug fad get hyped into a crisis that leads to bad laws.
“Prohibition does not reduce drug use, but it does have other impacts,” he says. “It takes up an enormous amount of police time and generates large possibilities for criminal income.”
An American man helped foil a burglary 4,589 miles away in northern England after spotting suspects raiding a shop whilst watching a webcam over the Internet, police said on Friday.The man from Dallas, Texas was using a live camera link to look at Mathew Street, an area of Liverpool synonymous with the Beatles as it is home to the famous Cavern Club where the band regularly played.
He saw intruders apparently breaking into a sports store and alerted local police.
"We did get a call from someone in Dallas who was watching on a webcam that looks into the tourist areas, of which Mathew Street is one because of all the Beatles stuff," a Merseyside Police spokeswoman told Reuters.
"He called directly through to police here."
Officers were sent to the scene and three suspects were arrested.
As more and more areas are covered by webcams, I think we'll see this kind of thing more often. Of course, it may take the form of invasions of privacy ("so-and-so was seen entering a sex toy shop"). These days, it's best to assume you're always on camera. They're too cheap not to become ubiquitous.
It takes two to quagmire. In Vietnam, America had an enemy that enjoyed significant popular support and effective supply lines. Neither is true in Iraq. Isolated atrocities will continue to happen in the days ahead, as dwindling numbers of the more depraved Ba'athists confront the totality of their irrelevance. But these are the death throes: the regime was decapitated two weeks ago, and what we've witnessed is the last random thrashing of the snake's body.I think the level of denial of reality and the lack of "lessons learned" on the part of these folks is truly astonishing. That folks who said this kind of stuff and haven't admitted error are getting any respect at all shows you how little that quaint thing called reality matters to those convinced of their own correctness. Fortunately, I think many Americans are seeing through the bullshit, but unfortunately that may not matter, because Bush clearly holds in contempt all of the institutions designed to check executive power.As I wrote back then, apropos Robert Fisk's massive bulk loo-paper purchase in the run-up to war, "I can't say this strikes me as a 25-roll war". By the time you read this, Tariq Aziz and the last five Ba'athists in Baghdad may be holed up in Fisk's Ba'athroom, and he'll be hailing the genius of their plan to lure the Americans to their doom by leaving his loo rolls on the stairwell for the Marines to slip on.
But, for everyone other than media naysayers, it's the Anglo-Aussie-American side who are the geniuses. Rumsfeld's view that one shouldn't do it with once-a-decade force, but with a lighter, faster touch has been vindicated, with interesting implications for other members of the axis of evil and its reserve league.
Okay, lets recap.I wish he'd just get it over with and switch parties. My respect for him would actually go up if he did. "What a nice, moderate Republican that Lieberman is. A bit sanctimonious and completely deluded on Iraq, and that stuff attacking computer games back in the 90's was stupid. But strong on the environment and overall a tolerable being."
1. We find out that Joe Lieberman hung out with Jodi Rell and Rob Simmons on Thursday.
2. He's been endorsed by Nancy Johnson and Chris Shays.
3. NOW, today we learn that Joe flat-out refuses to back Democratic Congressional candidates Diane Farrell, Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy!
Is it NOW safe to call him the de facto Republican candidate?!
Yesterday, they said life begins with conception.-From a comment by Dover Bitch front paged by Digby.
Today, they say life begins with intercourse.
Tomorrow, they will tell us life begins with dinner and a movie.
To summarize:
Even though a Democratic Congress would be far better according to the LCV than a Republican congress, even though all Republican members of Congress vote to support the leadership of that Congress, even though there isn't a congressional district in the country where the Republican nominee would vote better or even as well as the Democratic nominee, even though Patrick Murphy would vote better than Fitzpatrick, even though Fitzpatrick didn't really vote all that well, and even though Fitzpatrick's warchest is filled with the money of Republicans who received a score of uner 10 according to the LCV, the LCV is going to endorse Fitzpatrick. That seems like the smart, strategic move in order to help the environment.
These days, the entire single-issue, non-partisan, progressive advocacy organization infrastructure in Washington, D.C. has become a pathetic farce that has no impact on either elections or the issue areas for which they advocate. None of these organizations have accomplished a single progressive legislative victory at the national level since Republicans have held the trifecta. Their advocacy on behalf of "moderate" Republicans has gotten hem nowhere, except that it keep Republicans in power and hard-right conservatives in charge of legislating on their advocacy areas.
Bennett found that nearly one-third of adults were unaware that the Republican Party is more conservative than the Democratic Party. And lest the reader think that this is an expression of cynicism rather than a lack of knowledge, Bennett found that whether or not respondents knew there were major differences between the two parties was associated with the amount of knowledge they had of major politicians and the parties but not with their levels of governmental trust.Whoa, dude. That's like...far out. People are in like, totally different universes, man. I'm like, in a wackly little buble of knowledge.
Add pre-emptive nuclear annihilation of entire countries to the list of policies (along with the use of torture as an interrogation tool, rendition, laweless detention of U.S. citizens, and presdiential law-breaking) which are so self-evidently contrary to the defining values of our country that they used to be taboo even to advocate, but are now commonly accepted policies among many mainstream pundits, including those who most ardently support the current president.Here's an excerpt from the Walter Williams column he's reacting to:
Today's Americans are vastly different from those of my generation who fought the life-and-death struggle of World War II. Any attempt to annihilate our Middle East enemies would create all sorts of handwringing about the innocent lives lost, so-called collateral damage.I suppose it's just "handwringing" to think about the tens or hundreds of millions of people who would be killed in such an annihilation. And please, spare me the "those of my generation" condescension. It seems to me that those who fought World War II did so with a greater sense of moral responsibility than Walter Williams is showing here (not to mention a better grasp of global strategy than our administration is displaying). In World War II, no one in the United States was advocating the annihilation of nations that hadn't even attacked us. And from what I've read there was a good deal of "handwringing" about the atomic bomb and the firebombing of Axis cities. And there's a good deal of debate today as to whether those actions were an optimal use of military resources, and whether they were morally justified.
Of course the article is ridiculous. But that is the point. The right is trying to define the boundaries of the ME debate and it usually starts out by coming up with some extreme ridiculous argument.So when some other commentator comes out pushing for a "limited bombing" campaign, be sure to evaluate that proposal on its own merits. Don't be fooled just because it sounds more reasonable than nuclear genocide.
This argument gets played up and then the rest of the conservative pundits swoop in with slightly less ridiculous "solutions" to the problem which appear to be tame in context. I think Digby has talked about this type of tactic a bunch of times....
Of course use of nuclear weapons would be ludicrous....but now when the neocons come in later and say that limited airstrikes on strategic targets in the ME is the solution, it seems reasonable in comparison (but ridiculous in terms of ME stability itself)
Whatever problems we face in the world it's important to understand that the choices are "do basically nothing" or "let George Bush do something" and it's doubly important to be able to recognize that "do basically nothing" is often going to be the preferable option.One of the most dangerous aspects of the Bush administration is the fact that it seems impossible to persuade or convince this administration to move away from any particular policy. This lack of strategic flexibility makes it easy for those who oppose us to take advantage of us. They can make any strategic move they wish if the proper counter-move for the U.S. would be a diplomatic one, because they know that this administration can't do diplomacy worth a damn. Similarly, they can take advantage of our presence in Iraq, knowing that the "move" of withdrawing is simply not in Bush's strategic toolkit.
If Iran is really out to conquer the region, it would need tanks, lots and lots of tanks, plus air cover, since tank armadas are dead ducks in the open desert. So, is Iran building up its tank fleet and air force preparatory to its upcoming blitzkriegs? Here's what the Center for Strategic and International Studies says about Iran:Now of course Iran might very well be focusing on nuclear and missile technology. But in all this Iran hysteria it's important not to inflate all aspects of the threat.
"Most of Iran's military equipment is aging or second rate and much of it is worn. Iran lost some 50-60% of its land order of battle in the climatic battles of the Iran-Iraq War, and it has never had large-scale access to the modern weapons and military technology necessary to replace them. It also has lacked the ability to find a stable source of parts and supplies for most of its Western-supplied equipment, and has not have access to upgrades and modernization programs since the fall of the Shah in 1979."
I think Sailer is being a little flip about the Iranian airforce.First, the F4 was and is a very credible fighter. It may have first entered service in the late '50s, but you know what? The fighters that make up the front line of the US line-up all entered service in the 1970s, 30 years ago (that's right: the F-14, F-16, and F-18 all debuted in the '70s). Age of first introduction is not a very interesting metric.
But this reader also agrees that the overall inflation of Iran on the part of this administration is "another giant con-job" a la the buildup to the Iraq invasion.
For now, membership will be restricted to the eight "classical" planets in the solar system: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.I wonder what all the poor Pluto-fetishist whiners will say. Will they still love their eccentric icball, now that its a dwarf planet, along with Ceres?Much-maligned Pluto doesn't make the grade under the new rules for a planet: "a celestial body that is in orbit around the sun, has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a ... nearly round shape, and has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit."
Pluto is automatically disqualified because its oblong orbit overlaps with Neptune's.
Instead, it will be reclassified in a new category of "dwarf planets," similar to what long have been termed "minor planets." The definition also lays out a third class of lesser objects that orbit the sun -- "small solar system bodies," a term that will apply to numerous asteroids, comets and other natural satellites.
CNN.com says: "It was unclear how Pluto's demotion might affect the mission of NASA's New Horizons spacecraft, which earlier this year began a 91/2-year journey to the oddball object to unearth more of its secrets."
Is CNN proposing that they might have to turn around and go home now that the classification of the target of the New Horizons probe has changed? These reporters are literally not rocket scientists. There could be some changes here and there to some of the detailed plan for the encounter based on what looks most scientifically interesting, but there isn't anything more irrelevant to the process than what Pluto is called.
But the data on young Americans tell a different story. Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result. According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections.From this, the author concludes that Democrats are doomed. I would point out the following: There are other ways to get voters than by breeding them. Even though it's true that most people vote like their parents, if liberals can convert more conservatives than vice versa, the fertility gap could be lessened. Another source of voters is immigration: if liberals can do better than their opponents at wooing new citizens, that is another potential source of strength. Given that the most vehement anti-immigration rhetoric seems to be coming from Republicans, I suspect that the Democrats are doing pretty well with America's newly minted citizens. If Latin American immigrants voted Republican more, I bet there would be a lot less talk of building a wall on the border (or maybe it would just be different people doing the talking).
But the very concept of the issue seemed to be almost completely alien to most of the undecided voters I spoke to... So I tried other ways of asking the same question: "Anything of particular concern to you? Are you anxious or worried about anything? Are you excited about what's been happening in the country in the last four years?"There's a lot more; go read. When you spend your time in the blogosphere, you don't realize how many people don't care, or don't even realize that there's something to care about.
These questions, too, more often than not yielded bewilderment. As far as I could tell, the problem wasn't the word "issue"; it was a fundamental lack of understanding of what constituted the broad category of the "political." The undecideds I spoke to didn't seem to have any intuitive grasp of what kinds of grievances qualify as political grievances. Often, once I would engage undecided voters, they would list concerns, such as the rising cost of health care; but when I would tell them that Kerry had a plan to lower health-care premiums, they would respond in disbelief--not in disbelief that he had a plan, but that the cost of health care was a political issue. It was as if you were telling them that Kerry was promising to extend summer into December.
Summary: Despite all the ominous warnings of wily terrorists and imminent attacks, there has been neither a successful strike nor a close call in the United States since 9/11. The reasonable -- but rarely heard -- explanation is that there are no terrorists within the United States, and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad.I'm a little more worried about international terrorism than the author of this article seems to be. Even if Al Qaeda is defunct, other organizations may eventually arise and use similar tactics.
Maybe on her next tour, Madonna can stimulate herself with fluorescent multi-colored sex toys shaped like crosses, crescents, and stars of David while in the background a chorus of eunochs with enormous nipple piercings burn the Bible, Talmud, and Koran with a penis-shaped acetylene torch. The resulting common sense of injury and outrage that would pour forth from all the offended theists could lay the foundation for lasting peace in the Middle East.Had I known this would get around, I would have tightened it up a bit. But now I feel obligated to keep it in original "comment of the day" form for all time.
The above list explains why I typically receive 50-100 (sometimes more) responses whenever I post personal ads. This is in addition to getting hit on almost every time I go out alone (and all that those men know about me is that they like the way I look, they don’t even know about all the other qualities I have that make me more appealing than most other women).
So, I have a *lot* of choices of men who want to date me. Given that, of course I choose to date only the highest quality men -- men who are also fit, attractive, intelligent, educated, financially successful, etc. I’m attracted to men from any race and a wide age range (21 to 50 or so) so the pool of men who meet those requirements is quite large, which allows me to add all sorts of additional restrictions if I want -- must be atheist, must be libertarian, must not want (more) children, must be financially independent or self-employed and available for frequent world travel, etc.
Arrogant, yes. But so refreshing! I hope Ms. Passey finds her dream man. I hope he strides right off the pages of an Ayn Rand novel and sweeps her off her Objectivist feet. I hope they fall madly in love and produce lots of Libertarian children. (But she doesn't want children. Oh well. They can have lots of Libertarian non-procreative sex instead.)
A strange move on a day that many were expecting Iran might do something crazy. My guess is that the commercial dispute gave an opening for Iran to give the world a hint that it can use oil as a weapon. It's just too suspect coming on the same day as Iran's response to the UN on its nuclear program. Kish, where this oil rig was seized is Iran's answer to Dubai. It's an island of luxury hotels and ports, and the center of Iran's oil trade with Europe. They are in the final stages of building an oil exchange there that will be the first major oil trading market based on the euro rather than the dollar. Seizing the Romanian rig almost within sight of this building could be Iran's way of determining Europe's posture in the upcoming diplomatic battle over the nuclear program. Will they risk derailing the opening of the petroeuro exchange to stick up for Romania? Iran may be using the European response to this provocation to see how viable it could be to evade any impending sanctions.[links added] It's a joy to have Maniak as a resource, this is as good an analysis as anything I've seen out there. I'm still interested in more input to make sense of this.
Tuesday , 22 August 2006
Kubilay ATASOYU, Ankara, JTW - Artillery shells fired from Iran landed in the PKK armed bases in Northern Iraq. It is reported that many PKK militants were killed and many more were wounded. At the same time Turkish Army has been bombing the bases. Turkish military is sharing intelligence on the PKK in the region with Iran. The PKK is a terrorist organization according to the Turkish, Iranian, American and European laws.
Following the recent killing one of the top commanders of the Iranian security forces by the Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK), the PKK's name in Iran, Iran has escalated its attacks on Qandil (Kandil) mountains. The PKK has at least 10 camps in and around Qandil region. Turkey has also bombed the region.For an interesting view of what it's like in Kurdish Iraq, take a look at Michael J. Totten's excellent writeup of his visit there (he's also guest blogging at Sullivan's site). From the sound of things, it's pretty under control there, but they do it via massive ethnic profiling. And they're just waiting for an opportunity to declare independence, which could make things with Turkey and Iran messier very quickly.
The PKK has had armed training and military camps in Northern Iraq for the years. The US promised to remove all of these camps during the Iraq war, yet no concrete step has been taken. Turks blamed the US of not combating against the PKK terrorism. Turkish security expert Prof. Dr. Ihsan Bal argues that the PKK issue undermines Turkey-US relations.
SULAIMANIYA, Iraq, Aug. 19 — Artillery shells fired from Iran have landed in remote northern villages of Iraqi Kurdistan in the past four days and have killed at least two civilians and wounded four others, a senior Kurdish official said Saturday. Dozens of families have fled the region.
As I said, it appears to be an open and shut case: he is clearly and knowingly running as "a candidate for office under the designation of another party or organization." As such, if I am reading this correctly, according to Connecticut Democratic Party rules, Lieberman's registration in the Democratic Party should be voided for two years.
Just 35 percent of 1,033 adults polled say they favor the war in Iraq; 61 percent say they oppose it -- the highest opposition noted in any CNN poll since the conflict began more than three years ago.Now if only our political arena reflected this reality.
If this program is unlawful, federal law expressly makes the ordering of surveillance under the program a federal felony. That would mean that the president could be guilty of no fewer than 30 felonies in office. Moreover, it is not only illegal for a president to order such surveillance, it is illegal for other government officials to carry out such an order.It seems pretty simple: FISA requires you to get a warrant to conduct certain kinds of surveillence. Bush didn't get the warrant, but did the surveillance. Therefore, he broke the law. Breaking this law is a felony. The issues aren't that complex. The very simplicity of the case is causing major embarrassment. No one in official Washington is willing to make the obvious "He's not wearing any clothes at all!" statement. They desperately want to believe that there are hopelessly complicated issues at stake, so they don't have to take any action that might upset any of their fellow insiders. Again, Greenwald:
This has been the most bizarre part of the NSA scandal all along: the President got caught red-handed violating an extremely clear law -- he admitted to engaging in the very behavior which that law says is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine -- and yet official Washington (the political and pundit classes) simply decided to pretend that wasn't the case.
The alliance between George Bush and Tony Blair is in danger after it was revealed that the Prime Minister believes the President has 'let him down badly' over the Middle East crisis.All I can say is, it's about frickin' time. Blair's capitulation to Bush's insanity is something I've never fully grokked. Blair's support has lent a fig leaf of a tiny amount of international legitimacy to Bush's disasterous and immoral Iraq venture, and thereby made it more difficult for people to see it for the colossal failure that it is. I won't easily forgive Blair for being a Bush enabler, just as I won't easily forgive Lieberman for essentially doing the same thing. But at least the orbital mind control lasers are no longer functioning on the British Prime Minister. Joementum has yet to break free of their control.A senior Downing Street source said that, privately, Mr Blair broadly agrees with John Prescott, who said Mr Bush's record on the issue was 'crap'.
The source said: "We all feel badly let down by Bush. We thought we had persuaded him to take the Israel-Palestine situation seriously, but we were wrong. How can anyone have faith in a man of such low intellect?"
In an unusual show of religious solidarity, Muslim and Jewish leaders added their condemnation of the self-styled Queen of Pop, famous for peppering her concerts and videos with controversial religious and sexual imagery.
"I think her idea is in the worst taste and she'd do better to go home," Mario Scialoja, head of Italy's Muslim League said.
Riccardo Pacifici, spokesman and vice president of the Roman Jewish community, added Madonna should have pulled the routine considering where she was performing -- a stadium a mile from the gates of Vatican City.
So let me get this straight- one shouldn't engage in gaudy, opulent displays of Christian imagery too close to the Vatican, home of the gaudiest, most opulent displays of Christian imagery on the planet? Maybe they don't want the competition.
I love it when my thoughts are echoed in the larger media world:While the country does not want a leader wallowing in the weeds, Scarborough concluded on the segment, "we do need a president who, I think, is intellectually curious."
"And that is a big question," Scarborough said, "whether George W. Bush has the intellectual curiousness -- if that's a word -- to continue leading this country over the next couple of years."
If I was going to surrender my conscience to some god-king, it would not be to an inarticulate dry drunk whose profound incuriosity about the world is matched only by his smug certainty about the correctness of his judgements on it.UPDATE: Sullivan's guest bloggers link to the video.
Kerry Calls Lieberman the New Cheney
Aug. 20, 2006 — Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., blasted a fellow Democrat, Sen. Joe Lieberman, for continuing his bid in the Connecticut Senate race despite a narrow loss to newcomer Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary earlier this month."I'm concerned that [Lieberman] is making a Republican case," Kerry told ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" in an exclusive appearance.
Kerry accused the 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate of "adopting the rhetoric of Dick Cheney," on the issue of Iraq.
I'll link to Taylor Marsh and Daily Kos for analysis. One thing I object to is ABC's use of the phrase "fellow Democrat". I think "erstwhile fellow Democrat" would be more apropos.
British holidaymakers staged an unprecedented mutiny - refusing to allow their flight to take off until two men they feared were terrorists were forcibly removed.My favorite part of Greenwald's response:
The extraordinary scenes happened after some of the 150 passengers on a Malaga-Manchester flight overheard two men of Asian appearance apparently talking Arabic.
Passengers told cabin crew they feared for their safety and demanded police action. Some stormed off the Monarch Airlines Airbus A320 minutes before it was due to leave the Costa del Sol at 3am. Others waiting for Flight ZB 613 in the departure lounge refused to board it.
Personally, I don't blame anyone for having irrational thoughts and fears prior to flying. Our brains generate irrational fears in all sorts of different situations, and particularly with the fear-mongering and relentless media hyping of every rumored terrorist threat, it is hardly surprising that people will have these thoughts.
But the point here is best illustrated by analogy. "Courage" is not the absence of fear, but is instead the taking of action notwithstanding that fear. Identically, "rationality" is not the absence of irrational fears or thoughts, but is instead the choice not to allow those fears and thoughts to dictate behavior. The blame lies not with those who entertain such fear, but with those who allow it to govern their conduct, and more so, those who purposely stoke and exaggerate those fears due either to their own fears and/or because doing so is to their advantage.
If the case in favor of belief in God were utterly airtight, then the world would be full of confident practitioners of a single faith. But imagine such a world, where the opportunity to make a free choice about belief was taken away by the certainty of the evidence. How interesting would that be?Lizard at Journal of Applied Misanthropology gives this view the royal smackdown it so richly deserves:
Wow. Just...wow.Amen, brother! Check out his post (I comment there). I may not agree with Lizard on gun issues, but he can rip bad theology a new asshole in a most invigorating way. It feels almost like a cheap shot to attack such lame formulations of Christianity; it's too much like shooting fish in barrel. But a lot of people eagerly lap up exactly this kind of theological crap, so I think it's fair game. (Just like astrology.)
Why are there religious wars? Because God finds them "interesting".
Why are (if Christian theology is correct) uncounted billions of human beings consigned to an eternity of unimaginable torment? Because God thought it would be amusing.
Why are children being murdered and women being gang raped due to factional differences between groups allegedly practicing the same faith? Because it affords God some momentary amusement.
I am not the one saying this -- Collins is.
As Hefner approached 80, his sexual prowess had dimmed. With Viagra he could summon a facsimile of his youth. The result, as described by St. James, was as spontaneous and erotic as a tax audit. After much female fluffing, Hefner always finished solo, which is ironic: the man responsible for the fantasyscape of generations, the role model for promiscuity, is in the end like a teenage boy masturbating alone to Playboy. The only difference: Hefner brought himself to orgasm amidst a living Playboy tableaux, as naked women writhed in a "pseudo-lesbian thing."What a wonderful, sad, poignant mixture: here's Hugh, living out the beautiful "pseudo-lesbian" multiple bed-partner fantasy. But alas, he is unable to take advantage of it fully, and requires a product touted by Bob Dole to do so in even a limited fashion. What a wonderful mixture of envy and pity rises in my heart at the thought of his situation. Hugh Hefner seems to be living a life that is half wet dream, half Hadean torture straight out of Greek mythology.
The perks came with a price. Life at the mansion was tightly controlled. At 9 p.m. curfew was imposed when they weren't out with Hefner. Lest Hef be seen as a cuckold, Girfriends weren't allowed to see other men (an edict the women violated). Privacy was limited; security shadowed them at clubs; their phone calls were screened. "It is not a real, equal or intimate relationship," St. James writes, should the reader be in doubt.And the living quarters apparently left something to be desired:
With time, though, the shabbiness of the private quarters began to grate. Furniture looked like it came from Goodwill, she writes. Hefner, an animal lover, let Girlfriends keep dogs as pets. Carpets were filthy and smelled of urine which "added to the general scent of decay."I hope that should I ever somehow acquire a harem, I will be a much more kind, progressive, and empowering manager of it than Mr. Hefner. At least he could change the carpets. (I think landlord/tenant laws in here in Albany, CA require that, don't they?) And a 9pm curfew? WTF? That is controlling and pathetic.
An even starker contrast is noticeable between Israel-supporters in Israel and Israel-supporters in America. Israel’s partisans in the U.S. often talk as though Israel rarely makes any mistakes, that because Israel is a democracy with a right to defend itself it can do no or little wrong. Israelis themselves rarely do this.One of the things that frustrates me most about the American right-wing mind is that it conflates criticism of something with hatred of something. If you criticize Israel, you must hate it and want Hezbollah to win. If you don't like the way our occupation of Iraq is being conducted, you must hate our troops. If you point out something in America that you feel needs to be changed, you must despise your homeland. I don't know if they actually think this way, or just use this as a rhetorical device to score political points, or whether they can tell the difference. But they act as if they believe it, at least when it comes to criticism from the left: I don't hear right wingers accusing each other of hating Amercia when they criticise secularism, the judicial system, or Hollywood.
I've contrasted several times the Isrealis' willingness to acknowledge so openly and quickly that their war in Lebanon was going so poorly with the absurd insistence by Bush supporters in the U.S., sustained over several years, that the disaster in Iraq was going well. As Totten notes, these supporters apply their same absolutist, reality-denying mindset to Israel as they apply to the conduct of George Bush and the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
Facing Senator Joseph I. Lieberman’s independent candidacy, Republican officials at the state and national level have made the extraordinary decision to abandon their official candidate, and some are actively working to help Mr. Lieberman win in November.Despite Mr. Lieberman’s position that he will continue to caucus with Democrats if re-elected, all three Republican Congressional candidates in Connecticut have praised Mr. Lieberman and have not endorsed the party’s nominee, Alan Schlesinger. An independent group with Republican ties is raising money for Mr. Lieberman, who has been a strong supporter of President Bush on the Iraq war.
I'm glad to see this is getting more widespread approval. Can you believe that the entire Democratic establishment lined up behind this guy? Boy do they look stupid. Strip him of all his committee assignments and seniority now, please.