A Level Gaze |
|
|
"What effect must it have on a nation if it learns no foreign languages? Probably much the same as that which a total withdrawal from society has upon an individual." --G.C. Lichtenberg LinksNew Email Address! levelgaze@gmail.com Blogs NoWarBlog The Lefty Directory The Agonist aintnobaddude alicublog Alas, a Blog Altercation Ambivalent Imbroglio AmericaBlog American Street Amygdala Anger Management Angry Bear Armed Liberal Bad Attitudes Barney Gumble Bartcop Beyond Corporate Billmon Blah3 Body and Soul Booman Tribune Brad DeLong Busy Busy Busy Buzzflash By Neddie Jingo Calculated Risk CalPundit Chase me ladies Chris Nelson Contested Terrrain Cooped Up Conceptual Guerilla corrente Counterspin Crooked Timber Daily Howler Daily Kos Decembrist Demosthenes Driftglass D-Squared Digest Electrolite Eschaton Ethel Ezra Klein Fafblog! Fanatical Apathy Firedoglake First Draft Fistful of Euros get donkey! Globblog The Hamster Here's What's Left Horowitz Watch Housing Bubble Hullabaloo Intl News Istanblog James Wolcott Jesus' General Juan Cole Junius Lean Left Left Coast Breakdown Letter from Gotham Liberal Oasis MacDiva MadKane Mahablog Majikthise Making Light Marginal Revolution Mark Kleiman Matthew Yglesias MaxSpeak Media Whores Online Michael Finley Michael Froomkin MyDD My Left Wing Nathan Newman Off the Kuff Oliver Willis Orcinus Pandagon Pen-Elayne Pfaffenblog PLA The Poor Man R.B. Ham Raed in the Middle Ragout Raw Story ReachM High Cowboy Rittenhouse Review The Road to Surfdom Roger Ailes Rude Pundit Ruminate This Seeing the Forest Seize the Fish Self Made Pundit Sideshow Sirotablog Sisyphus Shrugged Skippy Slacktivist South Knox Bubba Steve Gilliard Talking Points Memo Talk Left The Talking Dog Tapped TBogg Ted Barlow Testify! Thinking It Through Through the Looking Glass TNR Online Tres Producers TRR Two Tears in a Bucket uggabugga Unknown News Vaara Wampum War Liberal Winning Argument Wonkette WTF Is It Now General Interest BBC News The Economist Metafilter RealPolitik Robot Wisdom 
Archives 
|
Monday, March 31, 2003
One of many reasons to respect international opinion Sulaimaniyah, Iraq - A major reason for the lack of a Shiite uprising in southern Iraq could lie hundreds of miles away in the Iranian capital, Tehran, where the leading Iraqi Shiite cleric has lived in exile for more than 20 years. Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Hakim has sent instructions to his supporters and secret cells in Basra, Najaf, Karbala and other southern Iraqi cities not to start an uprising or support the American-led coalition in any way, according to two of his top advisers. Al-Hakim also issued a "message to the Iraqi people" last week urging them not to side either with the United States or the Iraqi regime. And in his most direct challenge to the United States, al-Hakim warned coalition forces that they must leave Iraq soon after toppling Saddam Hussein's regime, or Iraqis would rebel against them. Why didn't we see this coming? I'll tell you. Before the war began, Hakim stressed that he was not an Iranian puppet, and that his group was focused purely on getting rid of Saddam.* He pledged cooperation with the US, and very nearly offered his forces to help us. Now that the war has begun, and Rumsfeld et al. have clumsily slapped at Iran, Hakim has pulled back. Khameni told him to, and Hakim had no option but to obey. Hakim depends upon the Iranian government. We depended on Hakim to help keep the Iraqi Shi'ites in order. Although it had long been whispered in the dark corridors of the Bush administration that Iran would be next in our crosshairs, Iran kept quiet. The Iranian elite had been willing to hold their noses and deal with the Great Satan to get rid of the hated Saddam. Rumsfeld slapped* them* so hard they switched and took the part of the reviled man who had launched a war against them that took 2,000,000 Iranian lives. Iran is Iraq's longstanding and natural enemy. Their noninterference with Hakim could have made capturing Basra easy. But Rumsfeld screwed it up. * = links t/k Advisers split as war unfolds This WaPo article, detailing some of the divisions within the executive branch, contains this interesting paragraph: Bush, who appears to value tension among his top advisers, "has been very Delphic on this and hard to read" on the emerging internal debate, a Bush adviser said. Why would he value tension? Well, it could mean that he likes to see evidence of his people, with their various backgrounds and perspectives, fighting for what they believe in, and presenting their president with a variety of options. Or it could mean that he enjoys having lots of accomplished and intelligent people fighting for his favor, because he is the Leader. Perhaps he doesn't understand any of the substantive considerations behind various policy decisions and the tension is the only thing about the process that captures his attention. During the 2000 campaign we were told that, despite Bush's evident utter lack of relevant education and experience, everything would be fine because he'd appoint the best people who would give him the right information to make good decisions. But it all breaks down when these people give him differing recommendations. Tension among his top advisers should scare the living hell out of him. Did nobody think these advisers might have their own constituencies and agendas? Did nobody think they might have honest differences of opinion? It's all up to Dubya and his empty, disengaged head to decide which of the positions put forward by these highly intelligent and experienced men and women is best for the country. Does anyone have confidence in his ability to make the right decisions about war and world diplomacy all by himself? Friday, March 28, 2003
Mr. Cranky reviews media coverage of the Iraq war in a fair and balanced fashion: FOX NEWS: Like an Iraqi soldier dressed in civilian clothes, Fox News has crept in under the false cover of objectivity to unleash a blitzkrieg of bias so right wing that channel-surfers often mistake it for a eugenics infomercial. The only nod at an actual exchange of ideas is Hannity bitch-slapping the hapless Colmes while slobbering permaguest Bill Bennett slowly undoes his belt buckle in anticipation of giving that liberal fucker his final comeuppance. It's enough the scare the teeth right out of Ann Coulter's vagina. Glad to know someone's paying attention. via Metafilter Thursday, March 27, 2003
Pretend Wolf Blitzer is here and do what's right. Is it fair for U.S. travelers to boycott France over its position on the Iraq war? Yes 1208 (56%) males = 479 females = 729 No 965 (44%) males = 421 females = 544 Total number of respondents: 2173 Monday, March 24, 2003
Shared Sacrifice I've got a question for the patriots among American oil producers: Why don't you sell your oil to domestic consumers for $20/barrel? You supply somewhere around half of US demand. Your costs of production haven't gone up. The only thing driving up the market is turmoil in other countries. The high price of fuel is crippling the economy. You supported this war. How about you chip in and do your part? What's that? You'd rather make billions profiteering? No, no, I understand completely. Carry on, then. Sunday, March 23, 2003
Iraq and the Geneva Convention I don't see what good compliance with the Convention will do the Iraqi regime. Our stated goal is to destroy it utterly. Every reasonable assessment says it will be destroyed. It will no longer exist to be punished. It's by virtue of the Iraqi government's "evil" that we're there in the first place. Why are we whining about the prisoners' piddling not-very-bad treatment even as we assert far worse as having a matter of course there? "Saddam--who gassed his own people, runs them through plastic shredders, dissolves them live in acid, withholds medical attention to millions of children, and is mean to his dog--put some POWs on camera. Wow. He's even worse than we thought." This, even as every US cable and network station is showing footage of Iraqi prisoners. Can't we even be rational? This is important, dammit. Wow. I'm watching Michael Moore receiving the Best Documentary Feature Oscar. Many in the audience had tears in their eyes when he was announced. He took up the whole speech to bash the war and Bush. "...fictitious election that gave us a fictitious president. Sending us to war for fictitious reasons..." Many boos from the audience, but a lot of support, too. I've got problems with Moore, but being insufficiently tough on Bushco isn't one of them. Maybe this means the Greens will work against the Republicans from now on. Maybe. Monday, March 17, 2003
Be a little afraid SARS--severe acute respiratory syndrome--has appeared, awfully widespread, awfully quickly. The first mention of it comes out, and it turns out to be in nine countries. The cause has not yet been identified. No one has been cured of it yet. It's often fatal. It will probably be here tomorrow. A new communicable, fatal, incurable disease bears watching. Jesus Christ! via DeLong, from the New York Times, this on Bush administration trade strategery: The most glaring example here of going-it-alone tendencies was the United States' last-minute refusal to sign off on an agreement that would help poor nations buy generic medicines through exemptions from trade rules. Developing nations had pinned their hopes on this agreement to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other diseases. But the United States, with the strong approval of the American pharmaceutical industry, exercised the veto that every nation possesses and destroyed the deal. They can find time to do this while prosecuting an unjust war? I'm speechless. They had said they were ok with keeping people from dying, and then they decided not to, to make their rich friends richer. No wonder they hate us. A Quick Thought We waited until the very last minute to call off the UN vote. Smacks very much of taking our ball and going home. Bush Speech Why are his eyebrows raised? Seems like he's trying to curry favor, to seem earnest, like a 6-year-old angling for candy. Peaceful efforts to disarm have failed "because we are not dealing with peaceful men." Unlike...uh...us, I guess. He dragged out the Al Qaeda "connection" again. Truth means nothing to these people. I'd bet they could get every single Nobel laureate to tell them there is no substanstive basis for this assertion, and they wouldn't pay any attention; they'd only worry what Mr. and Mrs. America think. He's obviously reading from a teleprompter. He's fixed in the middle distance, a little left of center. He refers to himself as "Commander in Chief" without reference to the armed forces. "We believe in the mission of the United Nations." "In the early 1990's," blah, blah, Resolutions 678, 687 -- it's about WMD's again. "All foreign[ers]...including journalists...should leave Iraq immediately." Will they? Is this unprecedented? Probably the Iraqi civilians should leave as well. His eyes don't track together. He reads only with his right eye. The left eye doesn't move. "War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished." Does that include Americans? "We are a peaceful people, but we are not a fragile people." Huh? We have the largest army in the world, and deploy it in over 100 countries. Because we're peaceful? Even if all of our deployments are for altruistic purposes, even if they're there to make or keep peace, it doesn't mean we're a peaceful people. You might have a lot of nice things to say about the big guy with the baseball bat who's keeping two other guys from killing each other, but 'peaceful' isn't one of them. As to the latter part of the quote: we fly into a coordinated national tizzy when there's a report of a shark attack. We can't come to terms with the fact that Shit Happens. We're probably the most psychically fragile population on earth. We are now on Level Orange Security Alert. What's red for? If Saddam's the most significant source or sponsor of terrorism, and we're planning to invade his country, and we assume he's going to fight back, why the fuck aren't we on red? You poke what you tell us is the biggest wasp's nest in the world, and you don't expect to be stung? Do they have to call you on the phone and tell you they're coming for red to be invoked? Are you lying about Hussein and terrorism, or you just monumentally stupid? Geez that guy gets my blood up. Powell Resigniation Countdown Begins What the hell is this, and why is it coming out now? A former White House covert operations official has told The American Reporter that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, then a military aide to the U.S. Army command staff in Vietnam, misunderstood a general's instructions and mistakenly ordered the notorious March 16, 1968, My Lai massacre, and successfully covered up his error until now. The former official's allegations concerning the events, whose 35th anniversary occurs on Sunday, could not immediately be confirmed. *** The source said he is a liberal Democrat who was a CIA officer for many years before accepting a military commission from President Reagan. He also was a military liaison to Saudi Arabia's royal family and said he was responsible for the destruction of a satellite-bearing Russian rocket on a launch pad in Russia, and was shot during that operation. The source, a high-ranking retired military officer who said he had served Presidents Nixon and Reagan, said an unexpurgated transcript of the secret proceedings of a military tribunal that convicted Calley would reveal Powell's role. The transcripts remain classified, he said. *** Powell's role in the My Lai massacre has been the subject of many articles over the years, but until now there has been no suggestion made that he was responsible for ordering it. This "liberal Democrat" doesn't mention having worked for any actual democratic administrations. I'm sure Reagan appointed all sorts of liberals to the military brass. I'm sure the covert ops agencies are lousy with liberals. They're not? Doesn't matter, we've got a transcript that proves the allegation. What's that? It's classified? Let's get a confirmation from the source, then. What's that? "the source...said he would deny the information if he was named in this story because he has suffered several heart attacks and might not survive the controversy his charges could create..." Oh. Is this story coming out now because of this? Probably. Any way you look at it, it stinks to high heaven. Saturday, March 15, 2003
Neocons and Antisemitism Calpundit has an interesting question about neoconservatives and antisemitism. Given "the (highly condensed) relevant facts:"
Kevin wonders "about the best way to clearly distinguish legitimate criticism of neocons from mere anti-semitism." What I'd like to see are some reasonable guidelines for discourse, guidelines that suggest which lines of attack on neoconservatism are reasonable and which ones aren't, and what kinds of criticism of Israel are legitimate and which ones aren't. If there were any consensus on this, it would make both criticism and defense of neocon theology a lot easier and a lot less polemical. It would make it a lot easier for me, anyway. Having taken my typical way-too-long time to mull this over, a lot of other people have commented on the issue already. I don't have a lot to add, but I'd like to be on the record on this one. First, there are flaws in the premises. Sure, lots of neocons are Jewish. Lots of anti-war protesters are Jewish. Lots of communists are Jewish. Lots of democrats are Jewish. So, the first principle in keeping clear of antisemitism is to keep mention of people's religion out of the argument, unless there's something specific and direct in the religion that pertains directly to the issue. As Judiasm, per se, has nothing to say to any of these issues, mentioning it is a red herring and indicates the possibility of antisemitism. "Pro-Israel" is a gross generalization. It is content-free and prone to misuse. Does it mean pro-Sharon? Does it mean pro-the Israeli people? If so, does that include Israeli Arabs? Does it mean pro-the state of Israel? If so, does it mean anti-Palestinian? Etc., etc. I believe what people are referring to when they say "pro-Israel," they mean "pro-Sharon" or "Likudnik." If you mean Likudnik, say so. Antisemitism is bigotry against all Jews. Making the relevant distinctions when criticizing people, criticizing those with whom you disagree rather than an entire nation (and, by a widely-held misconception, an entire religion), is precisely how one avoids bigoted statements. It is not reasonable "to infer they are pro-Israel largely becauase they are Jewish." There are millions of Jewish Israeli citizens in whom it is entirely reasonable to infer pro-Israel sentiments who do not share the neocons' viewpoints and goals. Another red herring. Avoiding the appearance of antisemitism is just an issue of precision, nothing more. Saturday, March 08, 2003
Are you talking to me? Something struck me, hard, in Bill Keller's column in today's New York Times, namely the title. "Is It Good for the Jews?" What's wrong with it? Before I had a clear idea myself, I googled the phrase and found it to be more than merely the "staple of Jewish satire" that Keller asserts. It's often posed by Jews as a serious question, one that, given their history, is as often as not, deadly serious. I couldn't help remembering the firestorm that resulted from H. Ross Perot's 1992 Nashville speech to the NAACP in which he referred to blacks as "you people." To me, it amounts to the same thing as "the Jews," the belief that they are, to the person, fundamentally different from the rest of us, and can be addressed collectively, based on the shared possession of one fundamental difference. You don't find anyone in public life referring to "the Catholics," "the Hispanics," "the Irish," or even "the Republicans." To do so would be creeping bigotry; it would deny their humanity as individuals. Why is it ok for people, and especially for Jews themselves, to use this collective reference? Perhaps there are Zionists for whom the use of the collective reference advances their agandas. It's also likely there are Jews who have absorbed into their religio-racial identities the prejudices and misconceptions arising from centuries of living among Europeans for whom they were Other. Possibly (and I do not advance this hypothesis), the idea is the consequence of seeing Jews, qua Jews, as God's Chosen People. I grew up the son of a father of Jewish descent and a Catholic mother in a very un-Jewish part of the country, and neither believed in, or practiced Judiasm. But I was continually subjected to the assumptions of the people around me, children and adults alike, of "what Jewish people were like," what their sensitivities were, what their beliefs were, etc. Despite the fact that I wasn't actually Jewish, I didn't have the freedom to be an individual in many others' eyes, in any of these senses. I was a Jew before I was a person. The irony was deafening. It was just this misapprehension about the special identity status of Jews that undergirded the justifications of the Inquisition, the pogroms, and, Godwin's Law be damned, the Holocaust. The current, widely-circulated theses that the interests of Jews and Israel, or those of Israel and the Likudniks, are identical, that give us the lovely formulation that it's anti-semitic to oppose Sharon's policies (UGH!), share the same logic. Wednesday, March 05, 2003
Relative Democracy Uh, Tom, why is there "something admirable about the Turkish democracy's refusing to be bribed into a war its people don't want," and nothing admirable about French democracy refusing to be bullied into a war its people don't want? What's admirable about British democracy that its government is pursuing a war its people don't want? Tuesday, March 04, 2003
Don't play nice with bigots Nicholas Kristof seems to have a problem with the "sneering tone" with which the "educated elite" addresses conservative (read "evangelical" or "born again") Christianity. The media, he contends, should be nicer to them. My educated, elite reply? I'm aware that conservative Christianity refers to a large (46% of Americans, he says) and differentiated group, among whom are millions of decent, pleasant, hard-working people who are good citizens. I have no problem with them or their religious beliefs or practices. Among them are also many superstitious, narrow-minded, bigoted knuckledraggers. Although I don’t like their beliefs, it’s a free country and they’re entitled to their opinions and the right to express them. It's the leadership that makes my blood boil. The central tenet behind all of their actions is that “if you do not believe as we do, you're unworthy.” This is rank and wide-ranging bigotry. Accordingly, in their benevolence and compassion, they regard it as a duty to convert others to their faith. They believe homosexuality is an abomination and attempt to change the law to reflect this belief. They are superstitious and see the devil everywhere. Many of them expect to be taken seriously while asserting the universe to have been created less than 10,000 years ago. Many of them take the book of Revelation literally and are actively working to bring about the end of the world. I'm not supposed to sneer at this? As long as the rank-and-file conservative Christians elevate such mean-spirited and destructive individuals to positions of power, I'm going to use every means at my disposal to discredit them, including contemptious sneering. I don't have problems with Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, or Buddhists, although in each group are individuals and groups I find hateful. There is nothing intrinsic to any of these religions that makes its adherents hateful or a threat to others. The belief and practice of these (and other) religions give fulfillment and meaning to the lives of their adherents. Although I don't participate in religion, I have no problem with people who do. However, those who try to force their beliefs and practices on me, in a country founded on a separation of church and state no less, will not receive my respect or courtesy. Edit: Missing sentence replaced. Update: TBogg and Atrios agree. |