I was reading a little bit about the US Cold War nuclear planning in the 1960's, and came across these two facts, which really struck me:
1) A PREEMPTIVE nuclear war would attack 1000 targets with 3000 warheads;
and
2) A RETALIATORY nuclear strike would attack 700 targets with 1700 warheads.
These two facts struck me because the attitude that informed this war planning seemed counter-intuitive at first. If somebody hits you, and you're going to hit back, don't you want to hit them with everything you've got?
Part of the difference in the scale of attack is certainly due to war planners anticipating some portion of our capabilities being disabled in the case of a retaliatory strike. But the numbers are incredible: in a full scale preemptive strike, 3 nuclear warheads were to be delivered to each target. That's a lot of redundant destruction. Which got me thinking about the character of preemptive strikes in general.
If you're going to hit somebody first, and you don't know whether they've got a black belt in karate, or a knife, or if somebody's got their back, you drop them quick, and make sure they don't get up. Go for the knees, the throat, the eyes, the groin.
A preemptive strike means targets are hit that don't really need to be hit, because a preemptive strike has a lot of strategic redundancy.
Which got me thinking about the attitude of "our leaders," who launched a preemptive war in Iraq, as part of a larger campaign in our New Kind of War. "Our leaders," who rose to prominence during the Cold War, who built their house of cards during the Cold War, find great value in preemption. Whatever THEY're trying to get at now, it's worth an awful lot to them (look out Iran).
Right now, we're reorganizing our Federal Bureaucracies left and right for the War on Terror, spending blood and dollars hand over fist in our Central Front in the War on Terror, using National Security Letters to draft private citizens into the War on Terror. Imagine what the War on Terror costs in terms of administrative overhead alone. Screw bullets, there are bureaucrats to pay. We're going to be paying this off forever...
OUR POLITICIANS ARE UP TO SOMETHING AND WE DESERVE TO KNOW WHAT.
The War on Terror is a preemptive war. The United States has not seen terror anything like what Northern Ireland or Israel have seen. More people dead in Iraq than on 911. More people dead in car accidents every year than on 911. More people shot to death in the ghetto every year than on 911.
We don't re-organize our society because of car accidents, we build more roads and make it cheaper to drive than to use mass transit.
We don't re-organize our society because of inner city violence, we copyright rap music and sell it to white teenagers who play violent video games and manufacture more guns and sell Army surplus AK47's and crack to gangsters and keep the white kids hooked on speed for their attention defect disorder. We make thieves because the wealthy have more money than they know how to possibly spend. We make weapons for peace, use copyright to sell people their culture, we tell people our culture is a culture of peace and we put them in debt and put them to work and brainwash them into USA #1 because YOUR reality is entertainment for some monarch or oligarch.
OUR POLITICIANS ARE UP TO SOMETHING AND WE DESERVE TO KNOW WHAT.
If the War on Terror is a preemptive war, and the War in Iraq is at all part of the War on Terror, it may not really matter what happens in Iraq.
There's a war on for your mind. Propaganda is marketing. If they don't hook you in with Iraq, they've got something else in the pipe, be sure of it.
Showing posts with label iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iraq. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
The War in Iraq is a Decoy
We are told that the War on Terror is a New Kind of War, and that the War in Iraq is the central front in this War.
Why is it, then, that our government and our media go to such great lengths to paint us a picture of a conventional war, when we are in reality engaged with an unconventional enemy?
The War in Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror, except insofar as it serves to distract the public from the erosion of civil liberties in the United States, and from the careful establishment of legal precedents by a rogue Administration bent on paving the way for Fascist rule.
One advantage of this approach is the fragmentation of opposition. We have been told there would be more fierce opposition to the War on Iraq were there a draft; we are not often told that the War on Terror does, in fact, have a draft.
One reason we have not heard more about the War on Terror's draft is that those who are drafted are not allowed to discuss it. This means that the 150,000 or so persons who have received national security letters since the start of the Iraq War, and who have been compelled to become agents of the national intelligence infrastructure, are silent warriors in this New Kind of War, with no citizens to rally around them.
Who are these people? What are their duties? To whom do their duties pertain?
We cannot know the answers to these questions. How then can we know that the Constitution is being upheld? How can we be informed voters, or claim to participate in a Democracy with our votes?
Why is it, then, that our government and our media go to such great lengths to paint us a picture of a conventional war, when we are in reality engaged with an unconventional enemy?
The War in Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror, except insofar as it serves to distract the public from the erosion of civil liberties in the United States, and from the careful establishment of legal precedents by a rogue Administration bent on paving the way for Fascist rule.
One advantage of this approach is the fragmentation of opposition. We have been told there would be more fierce opposition to the War on Iraq were there a draft; we are not often told that the War on Terror does, in fact, have a draft.
One reason we have not heard more about the War on Terror's draft is that those who are drafted are not allowed to discuss it. This means that the 150,000 or so persons who have received national security letters since the start of the Iraq War, and who have been compelled to become agents of the national intelligence infrastructure, are silent warriors in this New Kind of War, with no citizens to rally around them.
Who are these people? What are their duties? To whom do their duties pertain?
We cannot know the answers to these questions. How then can we know that the Constitution is being upheld? How can we be informed voters, or claim to participate in a Democracy with our votes?
Friday, March 16, 2007
Failure in Iraq?
Our multi-headed National Strategy for Victory in Iraq is organized around "Eight Pillars." These "Eight Pillars" represent distinct strategic objectives, each with a "corresponding interagency working group."
Considering that Islam is defined in large part by a doctrine called "The Five Pillars," I fear it may be difficult to underestimate the negative impact of this verbiage in our battle to win the "hearts and minds" of the Muslim world. Islam, according to Huston Smith, "joins faith to politics, religion to society, inseparably."
Are "The Eight Pillars" of our National Strategy some bit of cultural insensitivity, or worse yet, a sick joke by the planners of this occupation? It would seem, if nothing else, the use of such religiously-loaded language is profoundly unhelpful in the context of a religio-political people under military occupation, as the Qur'an states: "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2:256).
Imagine how you would feel if a foreign occupation of our country was guided by "The Thirteen Commandments."
Paul Wolfowitz has asserted that our mission in Iraq is "not a crusade," although we can perhaps forgive those in the Middle East who may believe otherwise: our President has himself used that very term, and the Administration consistently frames the violence as religiously-motivated, even as we push our "Eight Pillars" on these people. Our strategy to "isolate enemy elements from those who can be won over to the political process by countering false propaganda" would seem to amount to imposing a heretical doctrine on a subjugated people, while marketing this heresy as salvation.
Although we undoubtedly possess the raw military strength to "bomb Iraq back into the stone age," such a move would be politically suicidal for much of Washington. As General David Patraeus put it, "there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq." At present, we would seem also to lack a viable diplomatic or political approach.
Among the top goals of the National Strategy is the reform of Iraq's economy, "which in the past has been shaped by war, dictatorship, and sanctions." The United States of America is in no small part responsible for the war, dictatorship, and sanctions that shaped Iraq's economy in the past, and we have done almost nothing to bring about meaningful reform. We have only brought more war, caused more damage to Iraq's infrastructure, and propped up a puppet government in a fortress far removed from Iraq's citizenry.
While the politicians in Washington warn us against the risk of failure in Iraq, it is important to recognize that our present conflict is itself an acknowledgment of our previous Iraq policy's failure. This acknowledgment compounds the failure of our previous policy by failing to rectify our previous mistakes.
We need to dramatically alter our direction if we are to stop compounding our own mistakes. Our current policy is simply to add fuel to the fire and stir the pot.
Considering that Islam is defined in large part by a doctrine called "The Five Pillars," I fear it may be difficult to underestimate the negative impact of this verbiage in our battle to win the "hearts and minds" of the Muslim world. Islam, according to Huston Smith, "joins faith to politics, religion to society, inseparably."
Are "The Eight Pillars" of our National Strategy some bit of cultural insensitivity, or worse yet, a sick joke by the planners of this occupation? It would seem, if nothing else, the use of such religiously-loaded language is profoundly unhelpful in the context of a religio-political people under military occupation, as the Qur'an states: "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2:256).
Imagine how you would feel if a foreign occupation of our country was guided by "The Thirteen Commandments."
Paul Wolfowitz has asserted that our mission in Iraq is "not a crusade," although we can perhaps forgive those in the Middle East who may believe otherwise: our President has himself used that very term, and the Administration consistently frames the violence as religiously-motivated, even as we push our "Eight Pillars" on these people. Our strategy to "isolate enemy elements from those who can be won over to the political process by countering false propaganda" would seem to amount to imposing a heretical doctrine on a subjugated people, while marketing this heresy as salvation.
Although we undoubtedly possess the raw military strength to "bomb Iraq back into the stone age," such a move would be politically suicidal for much of Washington. As General David Patraeus put it, "there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq." At present, we would seem also to lack a viable diplomatic or political approach.
Among the top goals of the National Strategy is the reform of Iraq's economy, "which in the past has been shaped by war, dictatorship, and sanctions." The United States of America is in no small part responsible for the war, dictatorship, and sanctions that shaped Iraq's economy in the past, and we have done almost nothing to bring about meaningful reform. We have only brought more war, caused more damage to Iraq's infrastructure, and propped up a puppet government in a fortress far removed from Iraq's citizenry.
While the politicians in Washington warn us against the risk of failure in Iraq, it is important to recognize that our present conflict is itself an acknowledgment of our previous Iraq policy's failure. This acknowledgment compounds the failure of our previous policy by failing to rectify our previous mistakes.
We need to dramatically alter our direction if we are to stop compounding our own mistakes. Our current policy is simply to add fuel to the fire and stir the pot.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
What Are We Really Doing in Iraq?
The Admministration has given the Citizenry of the United States of America varied and malleable rationale for our invasion and occupation of Iraq, ranging from false pretenses to revisionist propaganda.
While the Executive refuses to relinquish its ideological crusade, and the Legislature squabbles over the political ramifications of sparing thousands upon thousands of soldiers and civilians unnecessary suffering, We Citizens, strong-armed into funding this war, are deprived by Our Federal Government of all but the most basic figures regarding the true human and economic costs of this man-made disaster.
The Administration and its Neocon allies have played the Press like a fiddle, and the Press has obediently followed along.
Who really benefits from this war? Is it really right to view the Iraq conflict as "a war" in the singular sense of the word?
Are We an occupying force confronting a nationalist insurgency?
Are We fighting terrorists in the Global War on Terror?
Are We fighting a proxy war in an ideological standoff with Iraq's neighbors?
Are We peacekeepers working to quell sectarian violence?
Are We a police force suppressing opportunist criminals?
Are We liberators there to cast off Sunni fascists?
Are We a scapegoat for Shi'ite bitterness after the 1991 uprising?
Are We in the middle of a pan-national conflagration of Anti-American Arabs upset about the situation in Palestine?
What We are doing in Iraq?
When Our Government fails to give Us clear answers, We often turn to the free Press. Yet We must be wary that, if the fallout from the recent Walter Reed scandal is to serve as an indication of a free Press's power, it must also serve to warn Us of the power of a manipulated Press.
As so many of Us watch in horror and dismay while the Administration discusses open war with Iran, We, as Citizens, must take it upon ourselves to write Our Press, Our Senators, and Our Congressional Representatives; it is not enough to vote periodically. We must clearly express Our feelings about the current state of affairs, demand forthright governance, and prompt action. And as We find Ourselves in the midst of a psychological war waged against Us by the Administration, We must seek out alternative sources of information with which to arm Ourselves against that most potent weapon, ignorance.
While the Executive refuses to relinquish its ideological crusade, and the Legislature squabbles over the political ramifications of sparing thousands upon thousands of soldiers and civilians unnecessary suffering, We Citizens, strong-armed into funding this war, are deprived by Our Federal Government of all but the most basic figures regarding the true human and economic costs of this man-made disaster.
The Administration and its Neocon allies have played the Press like a fiddle, and the Press has obediently followed along.
Who really benefits from this war? Is it really right to view the Iraq conflict as "a war" in the singular sense of the word?
Are We an occupying force confronting a nationalist insurgency?
Are We fighting terrorists in the Global War on Terror?
Are We fighting a proxy war in an ideological standoff with Iraq's neighbors?
Are We peacekeepers working to quell sectarian violence?
Are We a police force suppressing opportunist criminals?
Are We liberators there to cast off Sunni fascists?
Are We a scapegoat for Shi'ite bitterness after the 1991 uprising?
Are We in the middle of a pan-national conflagration of Anti-American Arabs upset about the situation in Palestine?
What We are doing in Iraq?
When Our Government fails to give Us clear answers, We often turn to the free Press. Yet We must be wary that, if the fallout from the recent Walter Reed scandal is to serve as an indication of a free Press's power, it must also serve to warn Us of the power of a manipulated Press.
As so many of Us watch in horror and dismay while the Administration discusses open war with Iran, We, as Citizens, must take it upon ourselves to write Our Press, Our Senators, and Our Congressional Representatives; it is not enough to vote periodically. We must clearly express Our feelings about the current state of affairs, demand forthright governance, and prompt action. And as We find Ourselves in the midst of a psychological war waged against Us by the Administration, We must seek out alternative sources of information with which to arm Ourselves against that most potent weapon, ignorance.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Hidden Costs of the Iraq War
Advancements in battlefield medical care have reduced the number of deaths suffered by wounded U.S. soldiers relative to previous military conflicts. As a result, large numbers of soldiers are returning home with debilitating medical conditions.
Official U.S. Government figures list the number of severe battlefield injuries at 10,535 soldiers. This number, however, does not reflect the full extent of severe injuries suffered by soldiers. Some 18,704 soldiers suffering from infectious disease have thus far required evacuation by air transport. This is in keeping with figures from past wars, which often see greater numbers of soldiers succumb to disease than combat injuries.
Furthermore, these figures do not reflect the casualties suffered by the 100,000 civilian contractors currently serving in Iraq. Some 800 contractors have been killed in Iraq and 3,300 wounded. It is probably safe to assume that a large number of contractors have also suffered from infectious disease.
We are often asked to support our troops in Iraq, an assertion that plays off the good nature of citizens, who don't want to see fellow citizens hurt or killed. This assertion, which really equates to a plea to support our continued military presence, is dishonest: the same politicians who ask us to support our troops have themselves failed to do so in their vainglorious pursuit of a war predicated on a lie. This war demands an enormous investment in future medical care, and if we are to consider our troops to be fellow citizens and human beings, we must carefully consider what it means to support them.
It has become quite clear to me that the best way to support our troops is to ensure they have access to adequate medical care, and for our politicians seek a diplomatic victory in this conflict.
Official U.S. Government figures list the number of severe battlefield injuries at 10,535 soldiers. This number, however, does not reflect the full extent of severe injuries suffered by soldiers. Some 18,704 soldiers suffering from infectious disease have thus far required evacuation by air transport. This is in keeping with figures from past wars, which often see greater numbers of soldiers succumb to disease than combat injuries.
Furthermore, these figures do not reflect the casualties suffered by the 100,000 civilian contractors currently serving in Iraq. Some 800 contractors have been killed in Iraq and 3,300 wounded. It is probably safe to assume that a large number of contractors have also suffered from infectious disease.
We are often asked to support our troops in Iraq, an assertion that plays off the good nature of citizens, who don't want to see fellow citizens hurt or killed. This assertion, which really equates to a plea to support our continued military presence, is dishonest: the same politicians who ask us to support our troops have themselves failed to do so in their vainglorious pursuit of a war predicated on a lie. This war demands an enormous investment in future medical care, and if we are to consider our troops to be fellow citizens and human beings, we must carefully consider what it means to support them.
It has become quite clear to me that the best way to support our troops is to ensure they have access to adequate medical care, and for our politicians seek a diplomatic victory in this conflict.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Rationale for the Iraq War
One reason President Bush gave as justification for an invasion of Iraq was the imminent threat that Saddam Hussein would give weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda.
Our inability to locate these weapons is often attributed to a failure of intelligence. However, the threat of Saddam Hussein giving WMDs to terrorists represents a deliberate effort to mislead the American public.
The most obvious problem with the Administration's rationale is that Al Qaeda viewed Saddam Hussein as an enemy. Saddam Hussein was the head of a secular regime, which did not require women to wear a burka and which allowed women to go to college.
Furthermore, Saddam Hussein was a dictator, and a dictatorship is about control. Why would a dictator in possession of a WMD yield control of such a device by giving it to an enemy?
Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before we invaded, and we are now deploying the same types of weapons on the battlefield which we, as grounds for our invasion, accused Iraq of attempting to acquire. This is untenable. Our colonial occupying force is actively breeding the very sentiment we ostensibly sought to confront.
While we worry about the rise of Fascism abroad, we omit the threat of Fascism in our Homeland (Fatherland, Motherland). We must be vigilant against Fascism both here and abroad.
Our inability to locate these weapons is often attributed to a failure of intelligence. However, the threat of Saddam Hussein giving WMDs to terrorists represents a deliberate effort to mislead the American public.
The most obvious problem with the Administration's rationale is that Al Qaeda viewed Saddam Hussein as an enemy. Saddam Hussein was the head of a secular regime, which did not require women to wear a burka and which allowed women to go to college.
Furthermore, Saddam Hussein was a dictator, and a dictatorship is about control. Why would a dictator in possession of a WMD yield control of such a device by giving it to an enemy?
Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before we invaded, and we are now deploying the same types of weapons on the battlefield which we, as grounds for our invasion, accused Iraq of attempting to acquire. This is untenable. Our colonial occupying force is actively breeding the very sentiment we ostensibly sought to confront.
While we worry about the rise of Fascism abroad, we omit the threat of Fascism in our Homeland (Fatherland, Motherland). We must be vigilant against Fascism both here and abroad.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Diplomacy for the War at Home
If we are to fight a War at Home - waged by the NSA, the FBI, the Pentagon, the DIA - against terrorist threats to our Homeland, are we to do so in such a manner as to deliberately rule out any possible diplomatic solution?
If we are to trust our Government's assertion that a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would increase the risk of terror attacks on our Homeland, and if it is the goal of our Government to remove our troops expediently and expidiciously, then it follows that a non-military approach to solving our National Quagmire is essential. Distasteful though it may seem, the search for a diplomatic victory may require the formal recognition of Al Qaeda, and a diplomatic relationship with this formal body.
I think it can be taken as obvious by now that Al Qaeda is not some loose band of thugs and theives hiding out in mountain caves, but is a group of individuals who are organized and resourceful, who confess a group identity, and who associate with various similar groups of individuals.
In terms of the phenomenology of the movement, it may be worthwhile to consider nationalism as a mechanism to account for Al Qaeda. If it seems odd to think of Al Qaeda in nationalistic terms - we are, after all, told Al Qaeda is a "network" - it is worth noting that we speak of "the Palestinians" as we speak of nationalities. We hear the President speak of "Palestine," although no such State has yet been established.
Any number of causes can be used to account for the motivations of individual members of Al Qaeda. Some individuals, certainly, are motivated by ideology; some, certainly, are so lost as human beings they hate our Country enough to die just to prove it. Others, likely, are motivated by what they've seen America do in Iraq, Panama, Angola, or the disputed Israeli territories - these latter persons motivated by desperation and the fear they will be assimilated next.
Were America to publicly recognize Al Qaeda as we recognize Nations, and open formal diplomatic negotiations, we could meaningfully ask the question, "How can we help make the Middle East more stable, prosperous, and egalitarian?" The asking of the question in such a context - backed by the demonstrable Will and ability to help carry out positive initiatives - means violence would no longer be a necessary first and last resort.
We must eliminate the need for terror as a political approach by separating terror as a tactic from the ideologies terrorists represent. In the absence of desperation, a radical approach is not necessary. Diplomacy as an outstretched hand gives reason to doubt the need for desperate measures.
Our Government must acknowledge the problematic nature of its present Middle East policy in order to demonstrate our leadership is not so rigid as to be unmoved even in the face of its own citizenry. We must demonstrate that our military presence in the Middle East does not represent a Colonial occupying force. We must demonstrate that our relationship with regional leaders is sufficiently developed as to facilitate regional cooperation.
Because cultural familiarity will be vital to successful diplomacy, we must build enduring ties with regional institutions, such as universities, art and natural history museums, humanitarian and civil liberties organizations, and entreprenurial or trade associations. We must help motivate Europe and China to engage in similar iniatives. We should help facilitate trade between the Middle East, South America, and Africa, possibly by subsidizing transportation or by providing training in management strategies. Al Qaeda must be granted the status of Nation; identified as such, these people will most likely seek to establish a State, and the interest of this people will require legitimate advocacy.
We must bring a truly global body of allies (and the whole array of their interlocked interests) to the negotiation table to produce a consensus regarding the appropriate steps for US troop withdrawal from the Middle East. As the United States Government contemplates new fronts in the War on Terror - from the Middle East to Asia to Africa - truly global negotiations with a formal body representing Al Qaeda are becoming increasingly necessary if we are to avert a global economic and humanitarian disaster.
If we are to trust our Government's assertion that a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would increase the risk of terror attacks on our Homeland, and if it is the goal of our Government to remove our troops expediently and expidiciously, then it follows that a non-military approach to solving our National Quagmire is essential. Distasteful though it may seem, the search for a diplomatic victory may require the formal recognition of Al Qaeda, and a diplomatic relationship with this formal body.
I think it can be taken as obvious by now that Al Qaeda is not some loose band of thugs and theives hiding out in mountain caves, but is a group of individuals who are organized and resourceful, who confess a group identity, and who associate with various similar groups of individuals.
In terms of the phenomenology of the movement, it may be worthwhile to consider nationalism as a mechanism to account for Al Qaeda. If it seems odd to think of Al Qaeda in nationalistic terms - we are, after all, told Al Qaeda is a "network" - it is worth noting that we speak of "the Palestinians" as we speak of nationalities. We hear the President speak of "Palestine," although no such State has yet been established.
Any number of causes can be used to account for the motivations of individual members of Al Qaeda. Some individuals, certainly, are motivated by ideology; some, certainly, are so lost as human beings they hate our Country enough to die just to prove it. Others, likely, are motivated by what they've seen America do in Iraq, Panama, Angola, or the disputed Israeli territories - these latter persons motivated by desperation and the fear they will be assimilated next.
Were America to publicly recognize Al Qaeda as we recognize Nations, and open formal diplomatic negotiations, we could meaningfully ask the question, "How can we help make the Middle East more stable, prosperous, and egalitarian?" The asking of the question in such a context - backed by the demonstrable Will and ability to help carry out positive initiatives - means violence would no longer be a necessary first and last resort.
We must eliminate the need for terror as a political approach by separating terror as a tactic from the ideologies terrorists represent. In the absence of desperation, a radical approach is not necessary. Diplomacy as an outstretched hand gives reason to doubt the need for desperate measures.
Our Government must acknowledge the problematic nature of its present Middle East policy in order to demonstrate our leadership is not so rigid as to be unmoved even in the face of its own citizenry. We must demonstrate that our military presence in the Middle East does not represent a Colonial occupying force. We must demonstrate that our relationship with regional leaders is sufficiently developed as to facilitate regional cooperation.
Because cultural familiarity will be vital to successful diplomacy, we must build enduring ties with regional institutions, such as universities, art and natural history museums, humanitarian and civil liberties organizations, and entreprenurial or trade associations. We must help motivate Europe and China to engage in similar iniatives. We should help facilitate trade between the Middle East, South America, and Africa, possibly by subsidizing transportation or by providing training in management strategies. Al Qaeda must be granted the status of Nation; identified as such, these people will most likely seek to establish a State, and the interest of this people will require legitimate advocacy.
We must bring a truly global body of allies (and the whole array of their interlocked interests) to the negotiation table to produce a consensus regarding the appropriate steps for US troop withdrawal from the Middle East. As the United States Government contemplates new fronts in the War on Terror - from the Middle East to Asia to Africa - truly global negotiations with a formal body representing Al Qaeda are becoming increasingly necessary if we are to avert a global economic and humanitarian disaster.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Ethics and Legislation of Stem Cell Research
Indiana Representative Mike Pence, contesting new House Legislation to authorize Federal funding for stem cell research, remarked, "Proponents of this legislation don't just want to be able to do embryonic stem-cell research...they want me to pay for it and, like 43 percent of Americans who believe that life begins at conception, I've got a problem with that."
Rep. Pence's remarks, which echo a Bush Administration statement on the matter, reveal a dangerous double-standard and a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means for our Federal government to collect and spend tax money. Considering that some 70 percent of Americans are obligated to fund a war in Iraq with which they disagree, I imagine there are relatively few Americans who would find no objection whatsoever to the use of their tax dollars.
Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist No. 31, asserts that, "A government ought to contain in itself every power requisite to the full accomplishment of the objects committed to its care, and to the complete execution of the trusts for which it is responsible, free from every other control but a regard to the public good and to the sense of the people."
Stem cell research represents an opportunity to provide effective cures and treatments for life-threatening diseases, to preserve liberty in various forms for those who suffer ailments that impinge upon the exercise of liberty (such as through the impairment of mobility, dexterity, or cognitive function), and to secure the pursuit of happiness on the part of those citizens constrained by such diseases as the Federal government is in a position to help cure.
Beyond the hypocrisy implied by pro-life Representatives who apportion funds to war over schools, art, and life-saving medical research, there is the blatant and concerted effort to obscure the fact that existing and accepted medical procedures (such as in vitro fertilization) create and discard precisely those types of cells required for stem cell research.
The position of Rep. Pence - that human life begins at conception - if not political (insofar as current purveyors of medical treatments have an economic interest in selling perpetual remediation, rather than a singular cure) is bound to be religious or arbitrary. By arbitrary I do not mean ridiculous or unfounded, but subject to the same qualifications as any definite demarcation between entities whose boundaries are porous or gradated. The Representative's criterion does not appear to be founded in the standards of our courts, which hold permissible those procedures that, given pressing medical concerns, affect the viability of an embryo only until that time when the embryo might support its own life independent of the mother and the womb. It is worth noting that this court standard is upheld by the thinkers of Greek Antiquity.
There remains the matter of personal conviction, which may be religious in character, or related to a secular ethic. Religious traditions, which in our Nation ought to be restricted in the degree to which they influence or direct political processes, are by no means unanimous as to whether human life begins at conception or at some later time. Within the Judeo-Christian Tradition, one finds in the Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 69b, the assertion that "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Exodus 21:22, in discerning punishments for causing a miscarriage or the death of a pregnant woman, seems to assign to the fetus a value that is somewhat less than that of a fully-developed human.
Should the personal convictions the Representative and his like-minded companions be a matter of secular ethics, he and his companions have some explaining to do. How is it that one man with a few allies should withhold the Constitutional entitlements of so many?
Rep. Pence's remarks, which echo a Bush Administration statement on the matter, reveal a dangerous double-standard and a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means for our Federal government to collect and spend tax money. Considering that some 70 percent of Americans are obligated to fund a war in Iraq with which they disagree, I imagine there are relatively few Americans who would find no objection whatsoever to the use of their tax dollars.
Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist No. 31, asserts that, "A government ought to contain in itself every power requisite to the full accomplishment of the objects committed to its care, and to the complete execution of the trusts for which it is responsible, free from every other control but a regard to the public good and to the sense of the people."
Stem cell research represents an opportunity to provide effective cures and treatments for life-threatening diseases, to preserve liberty in various forms for those who suffer ailments that impinge upon the exercise of liberty (such as through the impairment of mobility, dexterity, or cognitive function), and to secure the pursuit of happiness on the part of those citizens constrained by such diseases as the Federal government is in a position to help cure.
Beyond the hypocrisy implied by pro-life Representatives who apportion funds to war over schools, art, and life-saving medical research, there is the blatant and concerted effort to obscure the fact that existing and accepted medical procedures (such as in vitro fertilization) create and discard precisely those types of cells required for stem cell research.
The position of Rep. Pence - that human life begins at conception - if not political (insofar as current purveyors of medical treatments have an economic interest in selling perpetual remediation, rather than a singular cure) is bound to be religious or arbitrary. By arbitrary I do not mean ridiculous or unfounded, but subject to the same qualifications as any definite demarcation between entities whose boundaries are porous or gradated. The Representative's criterion does not appear to be founded in the standards of our courts, which hold permissible those procedures that, given pressing medical concerns, affect the viability of an embryo only until that time when the embryo might support its own life independent of the mother and the womb. It is worth noting that this court standard is upheld by the thinkers of Greek Antiquity.
There remains the matter of personal conviction, which may be religious in character, or related to a secular ethic. Religious traditions, which in our Nation ought to be restricted in the degree to which they influence or direct political processes, are by no means unanimous as to whether human life begins at conception or at some later time. Within the Judeo-Christian Tradition, one finds in the Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 69b, the assertion that "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Exodus 21:22, in discerning punishments for causing a miscarriage or the death of a pregnant woman, seems to assign to the fetus a value that is somewhat less than that of a fully-developed human.
Should the personal convictions the Representative and his like-minded companions be a matter of secular ethics, he and his companions have some explaining to do. How is it that one man with a few allies should withhold the Constitutional entitlements of so many?
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
progressives for progress in iraq
assuming a diplomatic solution to the war in iraq involves:
1. cooperation with iraq's neighbors
2. synchronization with the interests of iraq's neighbors
3. fullfillment of our promise to bring greater stability to the region
then the countries most likely to be directly involved include:
kuwait
turkey
saudi arabia
jordan
pakistan
egypt
syria
lebanon
israel
afghanistan
iran
of these countries, we should probably:
1. rule out (at least in the short term) cooperation with iran.
2. secure public political support from saudi arabia, israel, and pakistan.
3. strengthen support with egypt (egypt is home to the league of arab states, and has recently sent boutros boutros-ghali to head the united nations. although egypt has been sited for human rights abuses, there is a growing reform movement, "kifaya").
3. build support with turkey (perhaps leveraging their desire to join the eu by softening up key european states)
4. redeploy troops from iraq to afghanistan (such a redeployment should involve close cooperation with international bodies such as the un and the red crescent)
5. encourage internal political reforms in kuwait.
6. encourage regional efforts with syria (i.e., host a summit)
7. to get the ball rolling, greatly increase direct assistance (both political and economic) to jordan and lebanon (especially jordan)
jordan:
borders syria, iraq, saudi arabia, and israel. shares gulf of acaba with egypt.
jordanians are generally well-educated and pro-western; jordan supported united nations sanctions against iraq. this would seem to be a good groundwork for a constructive relationship.
jordan should be financially compensated for our roles (direct and indirect) in iraq and the arab-israeli war. a support agreement may supplement or resemble the eu-jordan association agreement.
the egypt connection is politically important: jordan shares many tourists with egypt, and egypt has a generally progressive attitude towards us and key allies (such as israel and japan). egypt is also the home of the arab league of
direct assistance could also be an incentive to improve jordanian relations with israel (such as the ending of certain official discriminations against jews).
a stronger jordan may be very good for the region, but may threaten syria. hosting a summit involving jordan and syria may help dissipate this perceived threat.
lebanon:
borders syria and israel. lebanese are generally entreprenurial; lebanon has a demand for tourism, and was once known as the banking capitol of the arab world.
lebanon should be financially compensated (perhaps through trade agreements) for our (indirect) role in the arab-israeli war; the 2006 israeli conflict was especially painful to lebanon because they are still recovering from a civil war. moreover, the redirection of funds to rebuilding efforts puts lebanon in a difficult situation because lebanon has few natural resources and depends heavily on regional commerce. the growing popular reform movements should be encouraged.
we should foster support for a un peacekeeping and rebuilding operation in southern lebanon (israel shouldn't object to this).
hopefully genuine good will in the region will be perceived as indirect good will towards iran. diplomacy in iraq will require a broad, coordinated effort and a serious financial committment, but in the long run, peace should be cheaper than war. right?
1. cooperation with iraq's neighbors
2. synchronization with the interests of iraq's neighbors
3. fullfillment of our promise to bring greater stability to the region
then the countries most likely to be directly involved include:
kuwait
turkey
saudi arabia
jordan
pakistan
egypt
syria
lebanon
israel
afghanistan
iran
of these countries, we should probably:
1. rule out (at least in the short term) cooperation with iran.
2. secure public political support from saudi arabia, israel, and pakistan.
3. strengthen support with egypt (egypt is home to the league of arab states, and has recently sent boutros boutros-ghali to head the united nations. although egypt has been sited for human rights abuses, there is a growing reform movement, "kifaya").
3. build support with turkey (perhaps leveraging their desire to join the eu by softening up key european states)
4. redeploy troops from iraq to afghanistan (such a redeployment should involve close cooperation with international bodies such as the un and the red crescent)
5. encourage internal political reforms in kuwait.
6. encourage regional efforts with syria (i.e., host a summit)
7. to get the ball rolling, greatly increase direct assistance (both political and economic) to jordan and lebanon (especially jordan)
jordan:
borders syria, iraq, saudi arabia, and israel. shares gulf of acaba with egypt.
jordanians are generally well-educated and pro-western; jordan supported united nations sanctions against iraq. this would seem to be a good groundwork for a constructive relationship.
jordan should be financially compensated for our roles (direct and indirect) in iraq and the arab-israeli war. a support agreement may supplement or resemble the eu-jordan association agreement.
the egypt connection is politically important: jordan shares many tourists with egypt, and egypt has a generally progressive attitude towards us and key allies (such as israel and japan). egypt is also the home of the arab league of
direct assistance could also be an incentive to improve jordanian relations with israel (such as the ending of certain official discriminations against jews).
a stronger jordan may be very good for the region, but may threaten syria. hosting a summit involving jordan and syria may help dissipate this perceived threat.
lebanon:
borders syria and israel. lebanese are generally entreprenurial; lebanon has a demand for tourism, and was once known as the banking capitol of the arab world.
lebanon should be financially compensated (perhaps through trade agreements) for our (indirect) role in the arab-israeli war; the 2006 israeli conflict was especially painful to lebanon because they are still recovering from a civil war. moreover, the redirection of funds to rebuilding efforts puts lebanon in a difficult situation because lebanon has few natural resources and depends heavily on regional commerce. the growing popular reform movements should be encouraged.
we should foster support for a un peacekeeping and rebuilding operation in southern lebanon (israel shouldn't object to this).
hopefully genuine good will in the region will be perceived as indirect good will towards iran. diplomacy in iraq will require a broad, coordinated effort and a serious financial committment, but in the long run, peace should be cheaper than war. right?
Friday, October 27, 2006
diplomacy in iraq
despite military victories in iraq,
it may soon become painfully evident
that unilateralism - as a premise
and as a strategy - and the impact
of the war on neighboring states
must be addressed directly.
if the bush administration means
to prevent this conflict from
shifting in nature from national
to regional, it would seem a viable
course of action would be to include
neighboring states in diplomatic
talks facilitated by the united nations.
nations in the middle east with
existing entrepreneurial and democratic
tendencies, such as lebanon and jordan,
may find their fledgling democratic
ideals bolstered by the opportunity
to meaningfully participate in such a
diplomatic process.
it may soon become painfully evident
that unilateralism - as a premise
and as a strategy - and the impact
of the war on neighboring states
must be addressed directly.
if the bush administration means
to prevent this conflict from
shifting in nature from national
to regional, it would seem a viable
course of action would be to include
neighboring states in diplomatic
talks facilitated by the united nations.
nations in the middle east with
existing entrepreneurial and democratic
tendencies, such as lebanon and jordan,
may find their fledgling democratic
ideals bolstered by the opportunity
to meaningfully participate in such a
diplomatic process.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
(censored) senior administration officials
|
2.0 The Political Pit Bull link0 en Copyright 2006 Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:10:04 -0500 link1 link2 Nightcap Claudia Rossett was on Laura Ingraham's show today to talk about, what else, the UN and, more specifically, North Korea. There's a lot of good stuff in the interview but one of the more enjoyable moments is when Rossett puts a bullet through the myth that Clinton administration's deal with North Korea was some great diplomatic achievement. As Rossett says: "that deal combined the integrity of Bill Clinton and the political savvy of Jimmy Carter." Ouch. Anyway, if you have the time, check it out. It runs about 13 minutes so it's on the longer side. ]]> link3 link4 General Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:10:04 -0500 The Most Inaccurate Headline Ever? link5 Probably not, but it's up there . abcbushviet.jpg link6 500 80 In fact, President Bush only agreed that Thomas Friedman's comparison of the current level of violence in Iraq to the Tet offensive "could be right." That's hardly the same as him accepting the Iraq-Vietnam comparison. But who cares right? Liberals wouldn't ignore what Bush actually said, take this headline literally, and imply that he's now admitting we've lost in Iraq. Oh yeah, link7 they would . And by the way, is this not the perfect example of why pro-Iraq politicians in this country dare not veer away from their scripts? Any little concession or foray into an actual contemplation of an idea, however insignificant, is used as amunition by the opposition. It's truly depressing. Update : John Hawkins link8 makes a really good point about the Tet comparison: What was the Tet Offensive? It was a massive offensive by the Vietcong that was, from a military standpoint, a complete and utter disaster. To say that we decimated their forces during the Tet offensive is an understatement. Yet, what happened? The mainstream media in the United States portrayed an incredible American victory as an enormous American defeat. Saying that what's going on in Iraq is like Tet isn't an admission that it's a failure, it's a way of saying that the terrorists are losing, we're winning, and the media is botching the coverage. Of course, since portraying American victories as defeats is the standard operating procedure of the American media, it's not surprising that they weren't self-aware enough to understand the reference. ]]> link9 link10 General Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:03:07 -0500 LOST Open Thread Talk amongst yourselves. ]]> link11 link12 General Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:41:50 -0500 A Star Is Born! Well, MK's already a star. Albeit in that geeky blogosphere kind of way, but a star nonetheless. I just liked that title. Anyway, she's got her own vlog show now called Ham Nation. The premiere is about October surprises, scandals, and, er, bar napkins. You'll see. 425 350 movie link13 wmode transparent link14 application/x-shockwave-flash transparent 425 350 More link15 here . ]]> link16 link17 General Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:42:53 -0500 Lamont Has Really Bad Timing Not to mention a crappy grasp on the laws of supply and demand. link18 He's just now decided to blame Joe Lieberman and President Bush for high gas prices . A political genius, I tell you. Meanwhile, Harold Ford Jr., who's currently neck-and-neck with Republican Bob Corker for Frist's Senate seat, is one of few Dems that's link19 throwing his support behind Liebs . Kudos. Via link20 Ace and link21 Glenn Reynolds . ]]> link22 link23 General Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:54:28 -0500 Report: 7 NFL Stadiums Will Be Hit With Dirty Bombs This Weekend | Update: Debunked link24 This is breaking right now . I'll say right from the start that Homeland Security has already said that there is "no credible evidence" of such a threat. I'll have video from FOX in a couple of minutes. Update : A couple highly alarmist points. Catherine Herridge of FOX noted that this threat is connected to Adnan Shukrijumah and, link25 as I noted yesterday , The Sun link26 reported that he was planning attacks against 7 US cities. Again, all the rumors of nuclear attacks against the US have claimed that they would happen during Ramadan. This weekend would pretty much be the deadline for such an attack since Ramadan ends on Monday. Update : As promised, here's the video: Update : Jim Hoft has link27 a good refresher if you're not familiar with Shukrijumah. Update : Allah calls this a "moronic story." Click link28 here and you'll see why. Update : Rusty link29 reports that the original threat comes from...a 9/11 Truther. ]]> link30 link31 General Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:40:25 -0500 Space Weapons death-star-2.jpg link32 413 326 There's link33 a pretty cool article in today's Washington Post about a recent change by the Bush administration in US's National Space Policy. Basically, this shift leaves open the possibility for the use of space weapons by the US and also allow the US to block anyone hostile to our interests from entering space. Here's a taste: The administration said the policy revisions are not a prelude to introducing weapons systems into Earth orbit. "This policy is not about developing or deploying weapons in space. Period," said a senior administration official who was not authorized to speak on the record. Nevertheless, Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a nonpartisan think tank that follows the space-weaponry issue, said the policy changes will reinforce international suspicions that the United States may seek to develop, test and deploy space weapons. The concerns are amplified, he said, by the administration's refusal to enter negotiations or even less formal discussions on the subject. "The Clinton policy opened the door to developing space weapons, but that administration never did anything about it," Krepon said. "The Bush policy now goes further." Theresa Hitchens, director of the nonpartisan Center for Defense Information in Washington, said that the new policy "kicks the door a little more open to a space-war fighting strategy" and has a "very unilateral tone to it." The administration official strongly disagreed with that characterization, saying the policy encourages international diplomacy and cooperation. But he said the document also makes clear the U.S. position: that no new arms-control agreements are needed because there is no space arms race. I wonder what political persuasion Ms. Hitchens is. You think she's a lib? Even in space, the Bush administration is too unilateral. Well, I'll put myself on the record right now and say that I hope the US government is developing space weapons. Some Death Starish thing that can take out target on the ground or a launched ballistic missile with precision. Then maybe countries like North Korea would have a little more incentive to stop screwing around. ]]> link34 link35 General Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:02:43 -0500 VIDEO: O'Reilly On The View I know what you're wondering: were there major fireworks between O'Reilly and O'Donnell? No, not really. But that's doesn't mean it's not worth watching. By far the most rewarding moment of the entire clip is when O'Reilly nails Rosie on Iraq; he asks her--three times--if she wants the US to win the war and Rosie refuses to answer. Rosie doesn't think it's possible. Rosie wants America to be what "the founding fathers wanted it to be." But Rosie won't say that she wants the US to win in Iraq. Wanting the US to win in Iraq is "antiquated thinking." Also amusing, Rosie says that she thinks that Lamont's going to beat Lieberman--probably wishful thinking since she's contributed the max to Lamont's campaign. Apparently she doesn't follow link36 the polls . Update : I meant to mention link37 this , but I forgot to. Here's Kirsten Powers on poor Elisabeth: "Why does Elizabeth Hasselbeck even show up for work? Every time I see a clip of this insipid show, Hasselbeck tries to say something and she is drowned out by the shrieks of Rosie." ]]> link38 link39 General Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:23:39 -0500 Hoyer's Race-Based Insults Against Michael Steele I link40 mentioned yesterday how the #2 Democrat in the House Rep. Steny Hoyer joked that Maryland Senate candidate Michael Steele "slavishly" supports the GOP. Well, apparently, this wasn't the first time that Hoyer has used a race-based insult against Steele. Michelle Malkin has the details link41 here . And again, imagine that the #2 Republican in the House Rep. John Boehner made a similar comment about, say, Rep. Harold Ford Jr. who's running for Senate in Tennessee. "Ford "slavishly" support the Democratic Party." Would that be appropriate? Absolutely not. The only difference is that the MSM would be all over it like white on rice. Fortunately for Hoyer, racially tinged attacks by Demcrats are ignored by the media. ]]> link42 link43 General Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:02:29 -0500 DNC Goes Into Debt For DSCC According to link44 The Hotline , the DNC is going into the red to the tune of $5-10 million to help the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. While the money is not designated for any particular race, The Hotline speculates that it's likely going to be used in expensive media markets such as New Jersey and Virginia. The Hotline dubs this "contagious optimism," which, I agree, seems to fit. The dynamic has changed, the Senate is now in play, and this seems like a good strategic move on the part of the Democrats. They're going to try--hard--and I hope the GOP is prepared. Still, based on what I see now, I don't think the Republicans will lose control of the Senate. Others : link45 Dan Riehl and link46 BCB . ]]> link47 link48 General Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:24:30 -0500 Dow Crosses 12,000 Mark link49 Behold ! The nightmare that is our economy under President Bush and a Republican Congress. dow12.jpg link50 501 202 ]]> link51 link52 General Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:03:06 -0500 Nightcap I saw this earlier today. It's called "Why Vote Republican" and it was created by Larry Elder and Braden Barty of WireWerks.net. I don't know how convincing you'll find it, but it's at least amusing. 425 350 movie link53 wmode transparent link54 application/x-shockwave-flash transparent 425 350 ]]> link55 link56 General Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:23:32 -0500 VIDEO: "These So-Called Terrorists" I'm totally with Ace link57 on this one . The following clip should be all the inspiration you need to go out and vote Republican this November. According to Rangel, the "so-called" terrorists deserve habeas corpus rights and we can't use coercive interrogation to get them to spill their plans. The brilliant strategies just keep rolling out, don't they? Bottom line: Democrats just don't get it. ]]> link58 link59 General Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:40:37 -0500 President Bush And Talk Radio Hosts joekuty.jpg link60 510 245 From left to right: Mike Gallagher, Neal Boortz, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Michael Medved Looking at the above picture, Sully's link61 taken his typically restrained tone and has labeled the conservative radio hosts pictured above as "toadies" for being invited to the White House to talk to President Bush about his administration's policies. It's a low blow and, of course, Sullivan provides nothing to support his questioning of the objectivity of these individuals. But if you've been following Sullivan lately, you'll know this really isn't anything out of the ordinary; he's not all that keen on supporting any of his arguments with facts anymore--just hysterics. Anyway, does Sullivan expect President Bush to invite Al Franken to the White House? Or how about Randi Rhodes who has link62 fantasized about having him killed ? The fact is is that almost every liberal talk radio personality that I can think of is a rabid Bush-hater. More : Sister Toldjah takes Sully link63 behind the woodshed . ]]> link64 link65 General Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:11:06 -0500 Sanitizergate! Move over Foleygate, there's link66 a new kid on the block . ]]> link67 link68 General Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:22:15 -0500
Friday, April 14, 2006
public service
it bothers me to hear how defensive administration officials become when confronted wih criticism of the wars in iraq and afghanistan. public servants should serve the public, not the other way around.
i would like to see a prewar cost-benefit analysis that considers the effects of proactive programs to strengthen governments in moderate and progressive middle eastern states like lebanon and jordan.
i would like to see footage from multiple angles of the plane that hit the pentagon.
i would like to know why the world has seen over and over the world trade center collapse, but why nobody has seen even a single clear image of the attack on the pentagon.
i would like to know why effective inter-city and inter-state mass transit is not a national security priority: 40,000 people die every year on highways.
i would like to know why those who rely on mass transit pay a larger percentage of their transportation costs compared to those who commute by car.
i would like to know why mass transit is viewed as something subsidized by the weathy for the poor, but roads that are subsidized by the poor for the wealthy are viewed as an entitlement.
i would like to know what sacrifices the president has made for the wars.
i would like to know why there is a bounty on osama in the tens of millions, but we've spent hundreds of billions to get saddam, who never did anything to us.
i would like to see a prewar cost-benefit analysis that considers the effects of proactive programs to strengthen governments in moderate and progressive middle eastern states like lebanon and jordan.
i would like to see footage from multiple angles of the plane that hit the pentagon.
i would like to know why the world has seen over and over the world trade center collapse, but why nobody has seen even a single clear image of the attack on the pentagon.
i would like to know why effective inter-city and inter-state mass transit is not a national security priority: 40,000 people die every year on highways.
i would like to know why those who rely on mass transit pay a larger percentage of their transportation costs compared to those who commute by car.
i would like to know why mass transit is viewed as something subsidized by the weathy for the poor, but roads that are subsidized by the poor for the wealthy are viewed as an entitlement.
i would like to know what sacrifices the president has made for the wars.
i would like to know why there is a bounty on osama in the tens of millions, but we've spent hundreds of billions to get saddam, who never did anything to us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
