Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 March
2007 February
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
My Links
Canadawide
Juan Cole
TPM
Daily Dish
CanucksCathie
E-Group
vanramblings
peace order and good government
Calgary Grit
True North
Gwynn Dyer
Public eye
declan
Sean
Progressive Blogs
Voice in the Wilderness
Tilting at windmills
sec 15
tyee
one damn thing after another
Antonia Zerbisias
Buckets of Grewal
Blank out Times
Accidental Deliberations
Heartlands
Rick Mercer
buckets too
Amazing wonderdog
The Maple Three
The Hive
Cindy Silver 7
Cindy Silver 6
Cindy Silver 5
Cindy Silver 4
Cindy Silver 3
Cindy Silver 2
Cindy Silver
Cindy Silver Sum
Cindy Silver 9
Cindy Silver PR
Cindy Silver (blogs Canada)
Cindy Silver (Blogs Canada 2)
Liberal Blogs
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Remember Stockwell Day? |
| 05.29.04 (11:47 pm) [edit] |
|
Here is just a little reminder of who lead the Alliance Party before Stephen Harper. From http://www.flora.org/mai/foru... On whether his moral views should play a role in governing, part one: ".we often hear that 'moral' questions have no place in modern politics. But political discourse itself is essentially a series of moral questions." Speech to Civitas Conference, April 28, 2000 On whether his moral views should play a role in governing, part two: "[It is not] possible to demand that the convictions I express on Sunday should have nothing to do with the way I live my life the other six days of the week." Speech to Civitas Conference, April 28, 2000 On urging an Alberta cabinet colleague to cancel a museum grant to study gay history: "We all make mistakes, and they make a mistake in pursuing a project which purports to reflect choices of one per cent of the population." Red Deer Advocate, August 15, 1997 On using governmental powers to curtail a woman's access to abortion, part one: "Women who become pregnant through rape or incest should not qualify for government-funded abortions unless their pregnancy is life-threatening." Edmonton Journal, June 9, 1995 On using governmental powers to curtail a woman's access to abortion, part two: "We need to analyze the legal and medical aspects of it.also the moral implications." Stockwell Day - His life and politics, Claire Hoy, Stoddart, 2000, p.54 On why he opposed, while in cabinet, offering gays some human rights protection: "[It] legitimizes a lifestyle choice that doesn't deserve this kind of attention." Edmonton Journal, August 20, 1997 On his attempts, as a cabinet minister, to drop abortion from medically-insured services: "The medical evidence is clear that abortions are not medically required, and therefore this is worth looking at." Calgary Herald, February 15, 1995 On supporting a call to use the law to ban books, or edit out "profane" language: "When you're talking about school children, you have to respect the fact that most Canadians profess to be of the Christian faith and they're sending their kids to school.They don't need to be exposed to the name of Jesus Christ being taken in a blasphemous sense." Calgary Herald, March 3, 1994 On opposing measures to prevent discrimination against gays and lesbians: "The freedom for homosexuals to choose their lifestyle is there. But when I'm asked to legislate, in some way, approval of their choice, then I have a problem.How can I do this without a mandate to alter in public policy a centuries-old definition of what a natural family is?" Calgary Herald, April 9, 1998 On the introduction of the leaders of gay groups to the Alberta Legislature: "[It was an] offence to the Lord." Calgary Herald, July 5, 1986 On how AIDS is God's punishment for gays: "I believe that everybody has the freedom to make their own choices on how they're going to live.My personal belief in scripture leads me to believe there are negative consequences incurred when we engage in activities the Bible warns us of our engaging in." Calgary Herald, July 5, 1986 On the links between abortion and child abuse: "The thinking is, if you can cut a child to pieces or burn them alive with salt solution while they're still in the womb, what's wrong with knocking them around a little when they're outside the womb?" Edmonton Journal, March 10, 2000 On bars that feature nude dancers: "It wouldn't bother me at all to see them closed down." Stockwell Day - His life and politics, Claire Hoy, Stoddart, 2000, p.54 On living common law: "Clearly, something has gone awry in our culture to have caused these escalating social problems. More and more children are being brought up in common law unions." Speech to Civitas Conference, April 28, 2000 On whether gays and lesbians are even discriminated against: "You know what? People miss this, but people are not being fired because they are homosexual." Calgary Herald, April 9, 1998 On official bilingualism:"[We] frankly are bothered that hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on a policy over the last number of years that has, among other things, increased the number of people who claim on their census forms to be bilingual." Transcript, Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on a Renewed Canada, January 22, 1992 On the Playboy Channel being "fine for Canadian airwaves:"The path we have been pursuing over the past thirty years has not been to promote or respect.institutions, but to undermine them at every turn.It is policies like these that have helped lead to this weakening of our social fabric." Speech to Civitas Conference, April 8, 2000 On single parents and their children, part one "[T]he percentage of single parent households with children between the ages of 12 and 20 is significantly associated with rates of both violent crime and burglary." Alberta Legislature Hansard, May 3, 1991 On single parents and their children, part two "Kids who have.been raised by single parents are statistically more susceptible to social problems, emotional problems, behavioural problems.That can lead, in some cases, to juvenile crime. It can also lead to drug and substance abuse. That's the statistical reality." Calgary Herald, June 1, 1992 On his father, who calls gays "sodomites" and opposes immigrants who do not "look like us:" "He's got whatever right to say whatever he likes." Globe and Mail, February 25, 1999 On the mental stability of gays "Homosexuality is a mental disorder that can be cured through counselling." Alberta Report, February 3, 1992 On what his 1982 campaign literature says about his motivations: "[My life] is based on the supremacy of God and strong biblical principles." Edmonton Journal, April 2, 2000 On his bid to use the law to restrict sex education: "We've all heard the figures that say sex education leads to fewer teenage births. That is quite true, but it's also misleading. There are fewer births because, in fact, there are more abortions." Edmonton Journal, April 2, 2000 On using his ministerial powers to restrict sex education: "I am pleased the Premier has agreed we should have fences around certain types of legislation so that certain things are protected. I think people need the right to say 'no' to sex education programs that would include homosexual material." Edmonton Journal, April 10, 1998 On homosexuality generally: "[It is] not condoned by God." Edmonton Journal, April 2, 2000 On where adopted children belong: "I feel that's what's best for children, to be placed in natural families." Alberta Report, August 11, 1997 On what to call children born outside of marriage: "Our social policies have not adequately supported marriage and have led to an increase in illegitimacy." Speech to Civitas Conference, April 28, 2000 On the threat posed by sex education: "The bottom line is there is a growing body of literature suggesting that, as sex education becomes more comprehensive, there is a corresponding increase in sexual activity." Stockwell Day - His life and politics, Claire Hoy, Stoddart, 2000, p.60 On a Bentley Christian school teaching that democracy was "totally alien to God's word," evolution was "depravity and sinfulness" and francophone settlers were "immoral:" "God's law is clear.[s]tandards of education are not set by the government, but by God, the Bible, the home and the school. If we ask for [the education minister's] approval, we are recognizing his authority." Edmonton Journal, April 2, 2000 On whether, in the year 2000, he regrets his 1984 statement about the Bentley school: "I was working with that school, that was their position, and I certainly did believe that." Edmonton Journal, April 2, 2000 On what he believed in 1984 about the education of children: "We can't allow them [government] to be the ones in authority when it comes to educating children." Edmonton Journal, April 2, 2000 "Yes I am pro-life, yes I believe that life begins at conception, yes I believe that these are issues that citizens want to talk about. They can bring forward those issues ... and I will never say to any group of citizens or to any individual that I don't want to bring that forward because it could hurt us politically." Said he would "undertake measures that will allow MPs and private citizens to bring forward legislative measures [on abortion] through free votes and citizens' initiated referenda." (Ottawa Citizen, June 10, 2000) |
| 1 Comments |
| Alliance/Conservative party Homophobic?: You Decide |
| 05.28.04 (2:10 pm) [edit] |
|
[u]Stephen Harper [/u]MP: "When Mr. Harper rose to blast the Liberal government for "shameful" conduct and alluded to newspaper "mug shots" of four Liberal ministers. He remarked that the pictures could be posted "in most of the police stations in the country." When Mr. Robinson rose to complain about the unparliamentary language, Mr. Harper retorted: "Mr. Speaker, I am sure the picture of the honourable member of the NDP is posted in much more wonderful places than just police stations." [u]Stockwell Day[/u], MP: “God, as a God of love, warns us about things that can be detrimental to us. One of those things is sodomy.” [u]Myron Thompson[/u], MP: “I want the whole world to know that I do not condone homosexuals. I hate homosexuality.” [u]Garry Breitkreuz[/u], MP: "If this Bill passes, the institution of marriage will be the next casualty of gay and lesbian lobby groups and weak-kneed politicians. In the 1950s, buggery was a criminal offence, now it’s a requirement to receive benefits from the federal government.” [u]John Williams[/u], MP:“Going back to the dawn of history and even before, society has organized its way in solid, committed unions between men and women. That is the way in which every society in the world has organized itself. There must be something in it.” [u]Lee Morrison[/u], MP: “I frankly do not care how homosexuals choose to organize their lives, but to treat their unions as de facto marriages is downright silly. Not too many years ago, if anyone had suggested that homosexual couples living together under the same roof should be awarded the same social benefits as married people, they would have been laughed out of town. It would have been considered hilarious. Yet here we are. Is this progress? I doubt it.” [u]Reed Elley[/u], MP:“By the mid-1960s we were in the midst of a sexual revolution. The feminist movement started a strident campaign to bring women into the 20th century. They wanted vengeance and retribution. A gradual blurring of the sexes occurred that gave young men growing up in many female dominated, single parent homes an identity crisis. This led to a rise in militant homosexuality The things that had been considered improper went looking for a desperate legitimacy. In my view, no government can make legitimate any behaviour that has for centuries by tradition, custom, faith and the social contract been seen as destructive to family life If this bill passes without the amendments we have suggested, it will be a sad day for Canada and I, for one, would never want to be a part of that kind of country.” [u]Robert Ringma [/u]MP: Said in May, 1996, he would fire a black or gay person or move them "to the back of the shop" if their presence offended bigoted customers. Mr. Ringma quit as Reform party whip. [u]David Chatters [/u]MP: Echoed Mr. Ringma's remarks about gays and said a private religious college would be justified in firing an openly gay teacher. The Alberta MP was temporarily suspended from caucus. [u]Grant Hill [/u]MP: Alberta doctor described homosexuality as an "unhealthy lifestyle" in making references to certain illnesses more common among gays. He has repeated the remarks, even while running for party leader five years after first making them in 1996. [u]Cheryl Gallant [/u]MP: In April, 2002, the Ontario MP shouted "ask your boyfriend" at Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham in Question Period. Ms. Gallant denied making the comment, telling local reporters she was a victim of a "smear campaign" by the national media. She later apologized. [u]Larry Spencer [/u]MP: Said homosexuality should be illegal and alleged that a conspiracy to promote it includes the infiltration of North America's judiciary, schools and governments. The Saskatchewan MP was suspended from caucus. Spencer's apology: "I wish to apologize completely and without reservation for the personal comments I made in an interview yesterday with Peter O'Neil of the Vancouver Sun. "I retract the statement I made indicating I would support a bill to criminalize homosexuality. I do not believe that homosexual behaviour should be criminalized or that homosexuals should be persecuted. "I apologize for linking the homosexual community with pedophilia. I was wrong to draw such an inference. "I apologize to my colleague Svend Robinson. I have the utmost respect for Mr. Robinson as both an individual and as a parliamentarian. "Lastly, I apologize to Stephen Harper, the Canadian Alliance Caucus and supporters of the soon-to-be formed Conservative Party of Canada. "I take full responsibility for my comments. "They do not, in any way, reflect the views of my leader nor my party. "This is why I volunteered to withdraw from the Canadian Alliance Caucus. "I will not be making any further public comments on this issue." |
| 0 Comments |
| Stephen Harper and North Vancouver's Ted White |
| 05.28.04 (1:54 am) [edit] |
|
Harper stated goal has been to lower Canadian taxes to such an extent that they lower than what they are in the US and according to Jack Granatstein increase military spending by 3 billion. At the same time, he promises to balance the budget. Under his “legislated taxpayer protection plan” he plans to make deficits illegal! I will let you figure out where that leaves Canada's social programs. This all seems to be part of the plan though. For Harper taxes cuts are a means of rolling back social programs. Indeed for 5 years Harper help head the National Citizens Coalition, three years as president and 2 years as VP. Founded in 1967 to fight public healthcare, the NCC raison d’ etat was succinctly put up in 1996 by then president David Somerville. “The fact of the matter is, we have stood since 1967 for more freedom through less government and we have promoted that philosophy in a number of different ways, through (public advocacy of) privatization, tax cuts, spending cuts and opposing gag laws. We’ve been consistent for almost 30 years.” If all this sounds familiar, it is because Americans for Tax Reform in the States is devoted to exactly the same end. Grover Norquist expressed the same idea in slightly different terms. He said that he wanted to so weaken the State by starving it of its life blood (i.e., tax revenue), that he could take it into a washroom and drown it in the bathtub. There is more. In a 1994 speech to the NCC, Harper addressed possibility of Quebec separation. “Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion,” said Harper, who was at the time constitutional affairs critic for Reform. “What matters and should matter to politicians and people who believe in the kind of values that I believe the National Citizens’ Coalition share and the Reform Party share is not whether the Canadian state prospers, but whether the Canadian people and the land we call Canada prosper. “Whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or 10 governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be.” In other words, for Harper cutting the government down to size is more important then that the country survives While I am at it, I might mention what a gem Conservative MP Ted White is and how puzzling it was that some people, in the lead up to the 1997 election did not like Kinsella digging up White's past. Why is this irksome? Kinsella pointed out that Ted White had a past relationship with Doug Christie. Doug Christie is not exactly a fine upstanding citizen and Kinsella was right to bring up that Ted White once belonged to the Western separatist party that Christie heads, viz., the Western Canada Concept. For those who do not know, Doug Christie is a Victoria lawyer who has made a name for himself by defending Canada’s most notorious Neo Nazis and Holocaust deniers. Among others, Christie has defended Ernst Zundel, Terry Long, former leader of the Aryan Nations of Canada and James Keegstra. It not that he defends these people; it is that he sympathizes with them. In 1985, Vancouver broadcaster Gary Bannerman said "Doug Christie has aligned himself so many times with these perverted monsters that he has to be viewed as one himself." Christie sued Bannerman for libel and lost. He appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, and lost again. Quotes like the following did not paint a pretty picture and the fact that he was frequently spotted with these guys at various meetings did not help either. "Spiritual revitalization (requires) the manifestation of a heroic role model for the European male. The leader is always the source of such a model. The leader must always epitomize the ideal of the nation." There is a whole lot more that should be pointed out about Ted White. His outrageous claim he made in the house March 31 of last year comes to mind. “"My riding has the largest Iranian population in the country. At least 40% of all the Iranians living there are refugee claimants. Most of them are bogus. I just mentioned the lawyer who sent me an e-mail last Wednesday or Thursday. He actually put in his email that people in the Iranian community had told him the guy was a criminal in Iran and he is a criminal in Canada and they wanted to know why we had let him in. I cannot say how many times that comment has been made to me by the decent Iranian immigrants in my riding who came in using the proper system. They see all these, and I am sorry to use the word, scumbags who come in using our refugee laws and claiming refugee status just so they can be criminals here.” Equally disturbing is that he one of two Alliance MPs that refused to condemn ex Alliance family issues critic Larry Spencer homophobic comments. Spencer said that homosexuality should be illegal and that there is a secret homosexual conspiracy to bring children into their ranks. Oh well, what can you expect from a candidate whose leader said back in 2001 that "west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society.” If there is positive thing about prospect of a government with both Harper and White in it, it is that they do not see eye to eye on various subjects. White’s big thing is direct democracy. White says that the way he votes depends upon what his constituents tell him. Harper on the other had rejects White’s approach out of hand. “This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of pubic opinion…” An interesting aside to White’s whole approach is that his polling methods he uses have been called into question. For example, Ted White's 1994 "Referendum 94" poll on the Young Offenders Act asked people to pay a phone toll to vote. Needless to say, such an approach does not yield reliable results, but then again consider the source. White once claimed that the “Research into such fields as [fine arts, classical studies, philosophy, anthropology, modern languages and literature, and medieval studies] as far as my constituents are concerned constitutes a personal past time and has no benefit to Canadian taxpayers.” 52% of people in his riding have some sort of University degree. |
| 0 Comments |
| Tax cuts and a lack of Law and Order |
| 05.24.04 (4:53 pm) [edit] |
| During the summer, the Bushies were trying to play down the violence there. In order to convince people that things were not that bad, some staffer had the bright idea to point out that given the data they had, probably incomplete, Baghdad's murder rate was lower than New York city's. The underlying message was that things in Baghdad were just peachy. After all, as everyone knows New York's murder rate is low. Looking back on this I do not know whether to laugh or cry. Sure New York's murder rate (last I heard 7.5 per 100000 but I have heard it as low as 6) is low relative to other American cities, but it is double that of the most violent Western cities outside of the States. As for the US cities with the highest murder rates, there no other western cities that come even close to having the murder rate of say Detroit (47 per 100000) and Washington DC (48 per 100000). Murder rates in those cities are similar to crime ridden Rio and Bogot. The main reason for such a discrepancy between the murder rate in the States and the rest of the Western world is as most criminologists will tell you differences between rich and poor are so much greater in the States than they are in other Western countries. This is why Stephen Harpers law and order approach rings so hollow. Any tax regime that is similar to the States, Harpers stated goal, will produce, by increasing the inequalities of wealth, far more criminals than Harper could ever dream of locking up. |
| 2 Comments |
| Ex CIA Boss James Woolsey has egg on his Face |
| 05.24.04 (2:01 pm) [edit] |
|
While on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, former CIA director and Neo Con thinker James Woolsey, who calls the war on terrorism World War 4, the Third World War being the Cold War, blamed the CIA and The Statement Department for the lack of troops in Iraq. Come again you say? Was it not Rummy and crew that insisted on a small force. Woolsey said that the CIA and the State Department refused to back a plan that would have provided the Department of Defence Plan with the millions needed to form an army of thousands of Iraqi ex pats, akin to De Gaulles Free French, led by Ahmed Chalabi. Wipe the egg from your face Mr. Woolsey. While the recent arrest of Chalabi proves that the Free French comparison was never a good one, it was however apt in one respect. Like De Gaulle, Chalabi has turned out to be a royal pain in the ass. |
| 1 Comments |
| Canada needs Krugman |
| 05.23.04 (4:03 pm) [edit] |
|
If I was to write a letter to Krugman telling him of about the scourge that is Stephen Harper, it would go something like this. I am concerned that what happened in the States with George Bush will happen in Canada. A Federal Election will be held on June 28th and the person that is trying to pass himself off as a compassionate conservative is the Conservative Party's Stephen Harper. Although currently behind in the polls, the governing Liberal party is mired in Scandal and there is an outside chance that Harper could head the next government. Harper like Bush is a committed tax cutter. Fine you say. Canadian taxes are too high to begin with. This may be true, but Harper stated goal has been to lower Canadian taxes to such an extent that they lower than what they are in the US. Such action would gut Canadas social programs and would surely end a string of 7 straight balanced budgets. What is more, like some Republicans for Harper taxes cuts are a means of rolling back social programs. Indeed for 5 years Harper help head the National Citizens Coalition, three years as president and 2 years as VP. Founded in 1967 to fight public healthcare, the NCC raison d etat was succinctly put up in 1996 by then president David Somerville. The fact of the matter is, we have stood since 1967 for more freedom through less government and we have promoted that philosophy in a number of different ways, through (public advocacy of) privatization, tax cuts, spending cuts and opposing gag laws. Weve been consistent for almost 30 years. Harper has from time to time has let down his guard and shown his true colours. [u]1994[/u]: With the spectra of the 1995 referendum Harper looming over the country Harper said the following. Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion, said Harper, who was at the time constitutional affairs critic for Reform. What matters and should matter to politicians and people who believe in the kind of values that I believe the National Citizens Coalition share and the Reform Party share is not whether the Canadian state prospers, but whether the Canadian people and the land we call Canada prosper. Whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or 10 governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be. [u]2000[/u]: Alberta and much of the rest of Canada have embarked on divergent and potentially hostile paths to defining their country. Alberta has opted for the best of Canada's heritage -- a combination of American enterprise and individualism with the British traditions of order and co-operation. We have created an open, dynamic and prosperous society in spite of a continuously hostile federal government. Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status, led by a second-world strongman appropriately suited for the task. Albertans would be fatally ill-advised to view this situation as amusing or benign. Any country with Canada's insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous. It can revel in calling its American neighbours names because they are too big and powerful to care. [u]2001[/u]: west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from Eastern Canada: People who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western society [u]2002[/u]: Theres unfortunately a view of too many people in Atlantic Canada that its only through government favours that theres going to be economic progress, or thats what you look to. The kind of cant do attitude is a problem in this country but its obviously more serious in regions that have had have-not status for a long time. [u]2004[/u]: On joining the coalition of the willing. Harper told fox news the following: Outside of Quebec, I believe very strongly the silent majority of Canadians is strongly supportive. This is a patently false statement. Not even in Alberta did a majority of people favor going to war. Not surprisingly, the Liberals and to a lesser extent the NDP have made a lot of these quotes. However, excluding the CBC, out west they have not gotten the attention they deserve. The Canadian press is dominated by conservative Can West and out west they own every major paper. The current editor of the Vancouver Sun, Vancouvers dominant paper, is a former member of one of Canadas most right wing think tanks, the Fraser Institute. The extent of their biases should be evident to all, but it is not. This is a paper that once led with an editorial calling for an end to the Federal Liberal's supposed anti-Americanism. To put this into perspective, Bush's approval rating nationwide is 15% and is much lower still in Vancouver. It is good to have a paper that speaks for the people. " |
| 0 Comments |
| Stephen Harper: A Money Quote |
| 05.23.04 (11:26 am) [edit] |
|
"Alberta and much of the rest of Canada have embarked on divergent and potentially hostile paths to defining their country. Alberta has opted for the best of Canada's heritage -- a combination of American enterprise and individualism with the British traditions of order and co-operation. We have created an open, dynamic and prosperous society in spite of a continuously hostile federal government. Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status, led by a second-world strongman appropriately suited for the task. Albertans would be fatally ill-advised to view this situation as amusing or benign. Any country with Canada's insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous. It can revel in calling its American neighbours names because they are too big and powerful to care." |
| 0 Comments |
| Powell Far From Finished |
| 05.22.04 (10:00 pm) [edit] |
|
Admittedly, I am little late commenting on Powells interview with Tim Russert last Sunday. However, better late than never. This is how the Washington Post described the incident, which happened towards the end of interview. Toward the end of a "Meet the Press" interview with Secretary of State Colin Powell in Jordan, the camera suddenly moved off Powell to a shot of trees in front of the water. "You're off," State Department press aide Emily Miller was heard saying. "I am not off," Powell insisted. "No, they can't use it, they're editing it," Miller said. "He's still asking the questions," Powell said. Miller, a onetime NBC staffer who recently worked for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, also told Powell: "He was going to go for another five minutes." Undeterred, Russert complained from Washington: "I would hope they would put you back on camera. I don't know who did that." He later said, "I think that was one of your staff, Mr. Secretary. I don't think that's appropriate." As the delay dragged on, Powell ordered: "Emily, get out of the way. Bring the camera back please." Powell's image returned to the screen, and Russert asked his last question. What happened was that both NBC and Fox News were using Jordanian television facilities for back-to-back Powell interviews. Russert was allotted 10 minutes and was asked to wrap when he went over by about two minutes. He said "Finally, Mr. Secretary," but abruptly lost his guest. Russert was still puzzled afterward. "A taxpayer-paid employee interrupted an interview," he said. "Not in the United States of America, that's not supposed to go on. This is attempted news management gone berserk. Secretary Powell was really stand-up. He was a general and took charge." Powell later called the NBC anchor from his plane to apologize for the glitch. State Department spokeswoman Julie Reside disputed Russert's characterization, saying that NBC "went considerably beyond the agreed end time. Other networks were waiting for their interviews and had satellite time booked, and we didn't want to keep them waiting." Asked why he simply didn't edit out the awkward interlude from the taped interview, Russert said: "It's part of the story." I am no conspiracy theorist, but I have to agree with Russerts meek characterization of what happened as news management gone berserk. Not only did Emily try muzzle/censor the Sectary of Defense she was obviously watching over Powell on the behest of someone quite powerful. Guppies do not attack sharks without the protection of another shark (most likely from the Pentagon, but more on that below.) Whoever it was, they had reason to want Powell muzzled. Picking up on an earlier quote indicating that Powell thought that the information he presented before UN was false, Russert asked Powell about the his earlier statement. This is what Powell said. When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. And so I'm deeply disappointed. But I'm also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it. Now, some members of the press have speculated that the reason that Powell did this was to sure up his legacy that was dearly damaged by the UN speech. Perhaps. However, I do not think that Powell is so selfish as to put his own legacy ahead of the interests of the country. I think Powells original comments and the last sentence quoted above is just one more saga in the continuing war between the Pentagon and State Department and the CIA over the reliability of the INC. Powell essentially called INC a bunch of liars. As for that long running war, pace those people who have all but written Powell off, the arrest of some of INC people, the leaked stories about the INC being suspect for some time and decision to no longer fund them is a sure sign that the INC battle is at last over and surprise State Department and the CIA have won. |
| 1 Comments |
| Cole and Sullivan Spat |
| 05.22.04 (6:39 pm) [edit] |
|
Sullivan and Cole got into quite the spat a few days back. It all started when Sullivan, rightly, singled out the following quote for derision. "Paul Wolfowitz kept crowing last summer about how the US saved the Marsh Arabs from Saddam, but now that many of them have joined the Sadrists in Kut and Amara, Wolfowitz is having the Marsh Arabs killed just as Saddam did, and for the same reasons." Cole then took a piece that Sullivan had written a while back about Howard Raines and went to town. Not having read either Sullivans piece on Rains, I am not sure just how on target Cole was. From what I could gleam it was a mixed bag. For example, Cole was right to come to Scowcrofts defense. Scowcroft motives might not have been pure, but so what. As Cole pointed out, he was right about a good deal. This is something that Sullivan still does not seem to have grasped. In answering Coles criticisms, he again impinged Scowcroft motives, albeit for entirely different reasons. It is perfectly fair to notice that Brent Scowcroft might be seeking to defend his past in opposing a new Iraq war. When your policy of keeping Saddam in power led to the massacre of hundreds of thousands, you have a good reason to make the case that you were nonetheless right. Conversely, Cole was out to lunch in thinking that in calling Powell gun shy Sullivan was calling him a coward. "Powell had actually fought in a war. I suspect Sullivan has not, nor has he in all likelihood even lived in a war zone for any extended period of time. He had no standing to launch a vicious attack on the officer corps of the United States Army and Marines, accusing them of cowardice (I take it that is the meaning of "gun-shy." With justification, Sullivan jumped all over him for this. Cole then says my description of some military brass as "gun-shy" implies I am impugning their courage. Please. I'm merely describing the U.S. military's long-held aversion to difficult conflicts. That said, Sullivan should have taken it further. I do not ever recall one needing standing to make any sort of claim. Comments like these and the often repeated claim that supporters of the war are a bunch of Chicken Hawks are perfect examples an ad hominine attack Cole accused Sullivan of having made. |
| 0 Comments |
| Legal Reform: Why we should not care about whether a person has a Guilty Mind |
| 05.12.04 (4:31 pm) [edit] |
|
In order to be found guilty in our system of Law one has to have a guilty mind. It is for this reason that young offenders, children, people with mental defects and the criminally insane are given lesser sentences or no sentences at all. They are deemed not as capable of understanding all or some of the consequences of their actions. It is also for this reason that people found guilty of manslaughter receive a lesser sentence than people guilty of first degree murder. And finally, it is for this reason that people of Native decent are to be treated more leniently by the courts. In the eyes of the law makers, the social environment is a mediating factor and must be taken into account when sentencing Native Canadians. One problem with all this is roughly as follows. Rather than being able to marshal the full weight of the sciences in its efforts to curb future criminal acts, our legal system is undermined by some of them. Indeed, the social sciences, in so far as they are, as any first year professors will tell you, deterministic, are like little factories producing ready made mitigating factors. Now, when defense attorneys use one of these ready made mitigating factors, the response of many people is to jump up and to do what amounts to denying the validity of these areas of study. His childhood had nothing to do with it. He knew exactly what he was doing and he chose to do wrong. This response is neither legally sound nor rationally convincing. Worse still, it takes the focus away from the true source of the problem, i.e., our notion of culpability. There is no better demonstration of the absurdity our adherence to the notion that one must have a guilty mind inorder to be guilty of a crime than the XYY chromosome defense and the aforementioned decision to have the courts treat Native Canadians more leniently. Used in the 1970s the XYY argument is in its most basic form this. Males with an extra Y chromosome are inherently violent and thus are not criminally responsible for their actions. The defense failed, but only because the defense was based on bad science. (Although, they are overrepresented in the prison system, they do not commit a disproportionate number of violent offenses. According to one somewhat assuming theory, they are over represented because their above average height and some distinct physical appearance make them stand out, thus making them poor thieves.) In our legal system, it is possible that someone could be found not guilty because they are inherently violent. As for Native Canadians, the powers that be looked at the crime figures and saw that Native peoples commit an unusually large number of crimes and have a higher rate of recidivism. They, rightly, concluded that their social environment had something to do with it and in a highly controversial decision decreed that Judges must consider the social environment when sentencing Native peoples. Put differently, their reasoning was this. The social environment predisposes Native Canadians to commit a greater number of crimes, hence high crime rate, and because they are so predisposed Native offenders are not as culpable and therefore should be sentenced more leniently. This is, indeed, consistent with our current understanding of culpability, but needless to say it seems just, well, ass backwards. If someone is more likely to re-offend, or commit some other crime, than it only seems reasonable to give them a stiffer sentence and not a lighter one. |
| 0 Comments |
| Conservative Backers of the War No Longer in Bad Faith over Bushies mishandling of the War |
| 05.10.04 (12:04 am) [edit] |
|
[u]Andrew Sullivan:[/u] "THE INEXCUSABLE: The one anti-war argument that, in retrospect, I did not take seriously enough was a simple one. It was that this war was noble and defensible but that this administration was simply too incompetent and arrogant to carry it out effectively. I dismissed this as facile Bush-bashing at the time. I was wrong. I sensed the hubris of this administration after the fall of Baghdad, but I didn't sense how they would grotesquely under-man the post-war occupation, bungle the maintenance of security, short-change an absolutely vital mission, dismiss constructive criticism, ignore even their allies (like the Brits), and fail to shift swiftly enough when events span out of control. This was never going to be an easy venture; and we shouldn't expect perfection. There were bound to be revolts and terrorist infractions. The job is immense; and many of us have rallied to the administration's defense in difficult times, aware of the immense difficulties involved. But to have allowed the situation to slide into where we now are, to have a military so poorly managed and under-staffed that what we have seen out of Abu Ghraib was either the result of a) chaos, b) policy or c) some awful combination of the two, is inexcusable. It is a betrayal of all those soldiers who have done amazing work, who are genuine heroes, of all those Iraqis who have risked their lives for our and their future, of ordinary Americans who trusted their president and defense secretary to get this right. To have humiliated the United States by presenting false and misleading intelligence and then to have allowed something like Abu Ghraib to happen - after a year of other, compounded errors - is unforgivable. By refusing to hold anyone accountable, the president has also shown he is not really in control. We are at war; and our war leaders have given the enemy their biggest propaganda coup imaginable, while refusing to acknowledge their own palpable errors and misjudgments. They have, alas, scant credibility left and must be called to account. Shock has now led - and should lead - to anger. And those of us who support the war should, in many ways, be angrier than those who opposed it." [u]Fareed Zakaria: [/u] "On almost every issue involving postwar Iraqtroop strength, international support, the credibility of exiles, de-Baathification, handling Ayatollah Ali SistaniWashington's assumptions and policies have been wrong. By now most have been reversed, often too late to have much effect. This strange combination of arrogance and incompetence has not only destroyed the hopes for a new Iraq. It has had the much broader effect of turning the United States into an international outlaw in the eyes of much of the world." [u]David Brooks:[/u] "We still face a world of threats, but we're much less confident about our own power. We still know we can roll over hostile armies, but we cannot roll over problems. We get dragged down into them. We can topple tyrants, but we don't seem to be very good at administering nations. Our intelligence agencies have made horrible mistakes. Our diplomacy vis--vis Western Europe has been inept. We have a military filled with heroes, but the atrocities of a few have eclipsed the nobility of the many. In short, we are on the verge of a crisis of confidence. .... It's hard not to be appalled by the Pentagon's blindness to the psychological catastrophe these photos were bound to create. Even yesterday, months after the atrocities were first known, Rumsfeld and company were incapable of answering the most elemental questions from John McCain, Lindsey Graham and others about who was in charge of the prison, and why the photos weren't immediately seen as weapons of mass morale destruction. If Rumsfeld had held a conference and pre-emptively presented these photos to the world, with his response already set, things would not look nearly as bad as they do now." [u]George Will [/u] " Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue. Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice." [u]Robert Kagan and William Kristol [/u] "The shortage of troops in Iraq is the product of a string of bad calculations and a hefty dose of wishful thinking. Above all, it is the product of Rumsfeld's fixation on high-tech military "transformation," his hostility to manpower-intensive nation-building in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, and his refusal to increase the overall size of the military in the first place." |
| 0 Comments |
| Powell's Forgotten Audio Tapes: Unanswered questions |
| 05.04.04 (3:34 pm) [edit] |
|
Iraq had no stock piles of chemical or biological weapons. That being the case why have journalists not taken another look at the most convincing evidence of their supposed existence, viz., the three audio tapes played by Colin Powell on February 5th. Let us recall what was said in those tapes. http://www.cbsnews.com/storie... 1) A day before the weapons inspectors were set to reenter Iraq, what we are led to believe is an Iraqi colonel asks an Iraqi general the following question We have this modified vehicle. What do we say if one of them sees it?" The general responds by saying You didn't get a modified. You don't have one of those, do you?" Yes, I have one of those. From where asks the general. From the workshop, from the al-Kindi company responds the colonel. The general then decides that he will come to see you in the morning. I'm worried. You all have something left." Seemingly protesting the generals decision the colonel proclaims that We evacuated everything. We don't have anything left." 2) A supposed Iraqi confirms for another that there is no forbidden ammo at an ammo dump. 3) In by far the most intriguing of the three tapes, one supposed Republican Guard commander tells another sometime in mid January to write this down remove the expression nerve agent wherever it comes up in the wireless instructions. If one is authentic, then it is telling. The problem is it does not tell us enough. We do not know just what is evacuated and we are not provided with enough background material about the suspected site to speculate as to what it might be. Once more, because the tape was made on November 26th, it does not necessarily call in question the Iraqi weapons declaration for the simple reason that it had not been released yet. What the message does tell us is that in addition to the evacuated material there is a modified vehicle and this modified vehicle from the Al-Kindi (a missile company) is problematic; it is for this reason that the colonel who knows, after all, what the modified vehicle is asks his superior for advice about how to lie to the inspectors if asked about the vehicle. Two is a little less damming. As Powell said in introducing the tape, just days before the UN found 12 empty chemical war heads. The problem for Powell is that it is not clear is whether these warheads were remnants of past chemical weapons programs or whether they were a sign of an active chemical weapons program. Powell suggests that latter interpretation is correct and that the audio tape is further proof that what the UN found on the January 16th was just the tip of the ice berg. Let me remind you that, of the 122 millimeter chemical warheads, that the U.N. inspectors found recently, this discovery could very well be, as has been noted, the tip of the submerged iceberg. That said, even if the former interpretation is correct the tape does prove something, viz., that the Iraqis weapons declaration could hardly be called a definite account of what weapons Iraq actually had and that far from being willing to admit that something was missing from the declaration, the Iraqis preferred to cover it up. We sent you a message yesterday to clean out all of the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas. Make sure there is nothing there. After you have carried out what is contained in this message, destroy the message because I don't want anyone to see this message." Three, it is first important to note that the Iraqis were not talking about nerve agents, but rather about the expression nerve agents. However as was pointed out by the UN and by various antiwar forces, what nerve agents the Iraqis had admitted to having back in 1991 would have long since degraded. That being the case, even if one is generous and conceives of them talking about past instructions and not of future ones, why was the expression nerve agents still appearing in any wireless instruction? |
| 0 Comments |
| Reducto: comments on Joe Wilson |
| 05.04.04 (1:53 am) [edit] |
|
Joe says Iraqi did not try to buy weapons for Niger. George believes him, but George says that Iraq did try to buy weapons. When called upon it, George says he did not say that. What he said was Tony said Iraq tried to buy the weapons, but we know this defense is stupid. (More on the defense below) Now, Joe lied about Iraq trying to buy weapons. Does this mean that George was not lying and hence did not need to invoke I was just pointing out what Tony said defense? No of course not. George lied. Lying is intentionally trying to deceive not getting things right. Both Rice and Rumsfeld argued that the president was technically correct in what he said. The British had publicly said that There is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa" and in uttering those 16 words the president was just echoed what they had said. Why so few challenged Rumsfeld and Rice on this point is beyond me. The technical defense simply does not work and was in reality a ploy by the Whitehouse to obscure the fact that technically contained in Bushs statement was the following truth claim: Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Granted, although most people do not attribute something to an author by saying so and so learned that x, it happens from time to time. In discussing the results of a scientific study, for example, people have attributed something to the author by saying they learned that x. It certainly appears that this is just such a case. However, that it is neither here nor there. After all, minus any quotation or specific citation "technically" what Bush's statement amounts to is this: Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa and the British have come to know this. |
| 2 Comments |
| France's Head Scarf Ban: French Motives |
| 05.03.04 (6:41 pm) [edit] |
|
The battle over the hijab is only superficially a battle between religion and secularism. What is happening in France is by no means unique. It is but one example of European governments on both sides of the political spectrum rethinking their approach to religious and ethnic minorities. Lost in the kafuffle about religious head gear in France, for example, is plan by Belgium to enact a similar ban and a German plan to make arranged marriages illegal. What spurs European governments to act is this. According to some estimates, if Europe continues on as it is, the median age in Europe will go from 37.7 today to 52.3 by 2050. By comparison, because of the high number of immigrants let into the country each year and because of its relatively high birth rate, the median age in American will go up only slightly to 35.4. What this means is that while the US will eventually recover from the impact of all those baby bombers retiring, things in Europe look progressively bleak. As Professor Charles Kupchan notes, today there are 35 pensioners for every 100 workers within the European Union. By 2050, current demographic trends would leave Europe with 75 pensioners for every 100 workers and in countries like Italy and Spain the ratio would be 1 to 1. Not only will there be a long and sustained pension crisis, but since the European population is on track to shrink quite rapidly, for that reason alone, prospects for economic growth do not look good. Despite a having a high immigration rate by European standards (Germany has highest percentage of foreign born residents in Europe), according to a UN report at its current pace the German population will drop by 10 million. Italy, which has a much lower immigration rate, will loose 15 million. Needless to say, there is recognition amongst the powers that be that Europe must open its borders to more immigrants. The problem is that Europe has done a poor job interrogating religious and ethnic minorities into mainstream society. There is no better example of this Germanys Turkish minority. Up until 1973, Germany recruited guest workers to help fill jobs that were going wanting during the post war economic boom. Most of these workers turned out to be Turks. However, Germany never intended for these workers to stay in Germany, let alone become part of German society. For this reason, German citizenship laws are based on blood, not on birth. Children of refugees, guest workers and other immigrants born in Germany are not guaranteed citizenship. Today roughly 30 percent of welfare recipients in Germany are foreigners -- three times the national average. Many of those on the dole are Turks. While German politicians tread lightly around the subject of race, not everyone follows those taboos. Barbara John, a Bundestag member for the Christian Democratic Union, has claimed that 42 percent of the 127,000 Turks living in Berlin are unemployed, and that only a few speak adequate German. The situation in France is also troubling. Although composing almost 8 percent of the population, conservative politician and civil rights activist Zar Kedadouche notes that "There isn't a single Muslim in Parliament to vote on this law and not a single Arab among all the country's mayors." A disproportionate number of Muslims live in Frances banlieue, the gritty urban suburbs/ghettos that house the poor outside French cities. As noted in the New Republic recently The unemployment rate in the banlieue hovers above 25 percent, and reaches as high as 40 percent in some areas. Only four percent of the beur--French slang for "Arab"--boys who grow up there reach university. The failure to ingrate its minorities, particularly its Muslim minorities, into society has helped spawn a European wide anti-immigration backlash in the 1990s that has led to rise of the likes of Jean-Marie Le Pen and Jorge Haider. The anti immigration sentiment blocks politicians from acting in two ways. The first is obvious. Like any key election issue, politicians must hone their message so that it is tune with public opinion. Going against the tide of public opinion will only get them thrown from office. The second is less obvious. Since many European countries have proportional representation, the 15% to 25% of the popular vote these anti-immigration parties garner in many European countries means that they inevitably from to time form part of a governing coalition. 911 and a corresponding spike in religious strife, particularly in France, have made resolving this issue even more urgent. Indeed, not only is there no political will to let in more immigrants, there is suddenly a push to fully assimilate existing ethnic minorities into European society. To this end, many countries are finally getting at the root economic and social causes of the problem. In France the National Agency for Urban Renovation intends to refurbish or build new housing for nearly 6 million banlieue residents by the end of 2008. Some of the program will involve the relocation of partial neighborhoods to more affluent city centers, and the project could initially create around 100,000 new jobs for residents. And in Germany, the government has continued the process of remaking Germanys archaic citizenship laws. This is not seen as enough though. Mainstream parties have felt pressured into appearing to beat the anti-immigration parties at their own game. This is one reason why Chirac has banned religious wear in France. 70% of the French population supports the ban. Appear to be forcing immigrants to assimilate and calls to have the boarders closed or worse will quiet down. Under a Swiss plan some immigrants that are in the country legally will be forced out. Hope of something similar happening in France seems to be one of the reasons Le Pen opposes the ban. As Jeremy Harding in the London Review of Books notes, Le Pen's needs to appeal to his base no pun intended. When it comes to veil-politics he hasn't much room for manoeuvre - on the grounds that by wearing the hijab, Muslim women distinguish themselves from 'les Franais de souche', i.e. people of bona fide Gallic stock, and that this is fine: it will make things easier, the implication is, when it comes to throwing them out. Another reason is that although the number of students actually donning head scarves is very small and getting smaller, recent events have convinced educators that should this number ever increase things could get out of hand. Again Jeremy Harding: Teachers are ... clear that the wearing of religious symbols tends to exacerbate the divisions over heated issues such as Palestine. As such, Harding is right to note that this is a management issue as much as a matter of principle, and a very urgent one, because of the frightening rise of anti-Semitic harassment in French schools. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, during one school term alone, more than four hundred anti-Semitic incidents were reported, which is why, on the eve of the war, the minister of education, Luc Ferry, suggested the time had come for students to 'drop crosses, veils, skullcaps' and 'play by the Republic's rules'." If nothing else the ban obscures the embarrassing fact that a de facto ban on skullcaps is already in place in many French schools and that this has been the case for a few years now. Lastly the ban seems designed to create various fissures within the Muslim community itself and between the Muslim community and the French New Left. With regard to the former Chirac hopes that creating such a fissure he might be able to speed up the rate of assimilation. This is debatable, but the hijab is certainly natural point of attack. Not only has there been more than 80 years of debate about Turkeys banning of hijab, 49% of French Muslim women support the ban. (It is worth juxtaposing Europe and Turkey on the issue of traditional Islam. The father of Turkey is of course the arch secularist Ataturk. It was his vision to turn Turkey into secular European State free from the trappings of Islamic traditionalism. The guardians of this vision are the Turkish military and the hijab, as it was in Ataturks day, is still banned in offices and schools. However, in recent years the military has slackened its grip on power. In 1994, for example, the former mayor of Istanbul was jailed for reciting a poem containing the following verse. ''The mosques are our barracks, the minarets are our bayonets. That same man, Erdogan, is now the countrys Prime Minister. One of the reasons for the softened stance of the secular elite is that they need to loosen their grip on power if Turkey is to have any hope of meeting the Copenhagen Criteria for entrance into the European Union. "Membership requires that the candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and, protection of minorities. Plus, Erdogan has toned down the rhetoric and promised to take Turkey into Europe. It is thus ironic that while, the Turkish elite has grudgedly held back their Kemalist tendencies and given the democratically elected Islamists more freedom in the hope getting into Europe, Europe has begun to bow to democratic pressures and has seemingly become Kemalist.) With regard to a latter, Chirac seems to be hoping to break apart the alliance between the New Left that is the source of what French Education Minister calls a spectacular rise in racism and anti-Semitism in the last three years. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/29/magazine/2 9ANTISEMITISM.html?ex=1078635600&en=9d1 417a44ee51579&ei=5062&par tner=GOOGLE" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/29/magazine/2 9ANTISEMITISM.html?ex=1078635600&en=9d1 417a44ee51579&ei=5062&par tner=GOOGLE" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... The Atlantic Monthly summarizes the findings of controversial EU report on the spike of anti-Semitism in early 2002 thus: The authors argue that the confluence of the Palestinian intifada and the passionate debates over 9/11 led to a spike in public expressions of anti-Semitism, and also in violence against Jews and Jewish property. The report goes on to point out that although this violencephysical attacks, the desecration of synagogueswas primarily the work of young Muslim men, anti-Semitic rhetoric was increasingly heard from the far left, where vicious attacks on Israel and the United States often relied on traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes. The report singles out pro-Palestinian demonstrations at which Arab-Muslim and leftist groups stood shoulder to shoulder, and anti-Semitic slogans and placards were prominent. It suggests that among many European leftists, legitimate opposition to Israeli and American policies has metamorphosed into a belief in that hoariest of anti-Semitic clichs, a "Jewish world conspiracy" that is pulling the levers of power around the globe. A leaflet from a German anti-globalization organization neatly captures the idea: drawn in the style of Nazi propaganda, it depicts Uncle Sam with a "Jewish" hooked nose, dangling the world from his finger. In a recent poll 59% of Europeans named Israel as the biggest threat to world peace. By pitting the secular minded lefts, who preach gender equality, against the most militantly minded Muslims, who tend to be fundamentalist and traditionalist in outlook, Chirac is aiming at destroying alliances that have developed between these two groups over the last decade. |
| 0 Comments |
| Chomskys Errors Are Becoming More Frequent. |
| 05.02.04 (11:29 pm) [edit] |
|
I can not help but think that the muddled thinking of many young activists can be traced back to Chomsky. Although Chomsky has done some decent work and there is certainly a place for him, he is as dogmatic as they come and this dogmatism leads him to say and do some stupid things. The one documented example that comes to mind is the support he gave to holocaust denier Robert Faurisson. Chomsky, in classic civil libertarian fashion, threw his support behind Faurisson when a number of people tried to prevent his work from being disseminated. The problem was Chomsky had never bothered to read a thing Faurisson had put to pen and so was embarrassed when the debate turned to what is hate literature and whether Faurissons work could be described as such. The upshot of all this was Chomsky admitted that he should have familiarized himself with Faurissons writings before publicly saying that he should have the right to disseminate his work. This though is, in the greater scheme of things, a forgivable mistake and besides he willingly ate crow for it. There are other more dubious causes for which he has been questioned about in the past (e.g. his selective reading of Pol Pots litany of crimes). However, it is only in recent times that people on the both the Left and Right have really started to openly question the accuracy of his moral compass. For example, he was, rightly, taken to task by Hitchens for saying that the bombing of the pharmaceutical factor in Sudan was on the same level as the 911 attack. http://www.thenation.com/doc.... What is just is bad is that some of predications and analysis of late have been so horribly wrong. Consider, for example, the following monumental gaffe about what he thought might happen in Afghanistan. The US has already demanded that Pakistan terminate the food and other supplies that are keeping at least some of the starving and suffering people of Afghanistan alive. If that demand is implemented, unknown numbers of people who have not the remotest connection to terrorism will die, possibly millions. Let me repeat: the US has demanded that Pakistan kill possibly millions of people who are themselves victims of the Taliban. This has nothing to do with revenge. It is at a far lower moral level even than that. The significance is heightened by the fact that this is mentioned in passing, with no comment, and probably will hardly be noticed. We can learn a great deal about the moral level of the reigning intellectual culture of the West by observing the reaction to this demand. Then there was his willingness to defend France, Germany and his old whipping boy Turkey from those who would question their motives for opposing the US lead war in Iraq. There is now a whole literature trying to explain why France, Germany, the so-called "old Europe", and Turkey and others are trying to undermine the United States. It is inconceivable to the pundits that they are doing so because they take democracy seriously and they think that when the overwhelming majority of a population has an opinion, a government ought to follow it. To say the least, Chomsky is being a tad hypocritical here. Could anyone imagine Chomsky ever saying that the American government is doing X because it takes democracy seriously? Did he forget that the majority of the Americans supported the war and by the same logic the American government did the right thing? At any rate, what he said was flat wrong. France did not snuggle up to the thugs in Zimbabwe because they wanted to ensure the will of the French people prevailed and the war was stopped. (Three members of the UN Security Council are small African nations. Both France and the US both tried to curry favor with them. One of the things France did was invite, as Guinea, Cameron and Angola wanted, Zimbabwean leader Mugabe to EU conference dealing with EU sanctions against Zimbabwe for its poor human rights record. One of the impositions placed on the Zimbabwean leader had been a European wide travel ban. Now, the travel ban had ended the day before the conference. So, by inviting Mugabe, France technically played by the rules. However, the other council members viewed the invitation as a direct challenge to the authority of the council and the decision to invite Mugabe was highly unpopular with the French people.) Finally there is the following. This should be seen as a trial run. Iraq is seen as an extremely easy and totally defenceless target. It is assumed, probably correctly, that the society will collapse, that the soldiers will go in and that the U.S. will be in control, and will establish the regime of its choice and military bases. They will then go on to the harder cases that will follow. The next case could be the Andean region, it could be Iran, it could be others. The trial run is to try and establish what the U.S. calls a "new norm" in international relations. The new norm is "preventive war" (notice that new norms are established only by the United States). So, for example, when India invaded East Pakistan to terminate horrendous massacres, it did not establish a new norm of humanitarian intervention, because India is the wrong country, and besides, the U.S. was strenuously opposed to that action. This is not pre-emptive war; there is a crucial difference. Pre-emptive war has a meaning, it means that, for example, if planes are flying across the Atlantic to bomb the United States, the United States is permitted to shoot them down even before they bomb and may be permitted to attack the air bases from which they came. Pre-emptive war is a response to ongoing or imminent attack. The doctrine of preventive war is totally different; it holds that the United States - alone, since nobody else has this right - has the right to attack any country that it claims to be a potential challenge to it. So if the United States claims, on whatever grounds, that someone may sometime threaten it, then it can attack them. The doctrine of preventive war was announced explicitly in the National Strategy Report last September. It sent shudders around the world, including through the U.S. establishment, where, I might say, opposition to the war is unusually high. The National Strategy Report said, in effect, that the U.S. will rule the world by force, which is the dimension - the only dimension - in which it is supreme. Furthermore, it will do so for the indefinite future, because if any potential challenge arises to U.S. domination, the U.S. will destroy it before it becomes a challenge. This is the first exercise of that doctrine. If it succeeds on these terms, as it presumably will, because the target is so defenceless, then international lawyers and Western intellectuals and others will begin to talk about a new norm in international affairs. It is important to establish such a norm if you expect to rule the world by force for the foreseeable future. Where should I start? Well, first of all, it was a lot more strategically important to oust Saddam than take out the leadership in either say Syria or the Sudan. They are not of a piece. As Ken Pollack has pointed out, Saddam loved to upset the apple cart, frequently miscalculated, was extremely risk tolerant, and the information his yes man provided him meant he lived in a kind of Never Never Land. No one and mean no one wanted Saddam to get his hands on a nuke. Two, Chomsky has this annoying habit of using international law to buttress his arguments and ignoring it when it harms them. This is particularly true in this case. Technically speaking the US did not launch a unilateral War back in March. They were already at with war with Iraq and so technically was the UN. For this reason alone, Chomskys likening (not quoted above) of what the US did to what Japan did back in 1941 is way off base. Three, the Iraq situation was different from, say, Iran. Attacking Iraq did not have the backing of the world public opinion, but at least it had certain degree of legitimacy. UN resolution 1441 passed and it is possible to argue that the US was doing what the UN itself lacked the political will to do. Plus, let us not forget that everyone believed that Saddam possessed WMD. Indeed, German intelligence believed that he would have a bomb in 2 to 3 years time. Four, far from proving that America will strike preventatively whenever it sees fit, the Iraq case has revealed that the doctrine of preventive war is a dead letter and that the likelihood of any adventures in the near future is close to zero. Despite what Bushies have to say about Libya, the doctrine of preventative war now scares no one. (The negotiations with Libya were under way well before Iraq. By all accounts, it was not the Libyans who were softened their position, but desperate for some good news, the Bushies who softened theirs.) This administration lacks the economic, political, and diplomatic wherewithal to carry the battle to, say, Syria. What is more, although the supremacy of the American military goes without saying, every available soldier the US has in Iraq. Now, the failure to find any WMD was not foreseeable and a result neither was the amount of political and diplomatic fallout. However the simple fact of the matter is that many inside and outside government foresaw the costs of the Iraq campaign and how this would tie the administrations hands (see, for example, James Fallows 51st state in the Atlantic Monthly). What is more, the General staff thought Wolfowitzs suggestion that only 75,000 troops would be needed to take Iraq was completely absurd. They thought his rider that the US would be able to draw down their troop strength after three months to 30,000 too stupid to comment on. Then head of the US military, General Eric Shinseki was quite clear on March 19th of last year that at least 200,000 would be needed to secure the peace and that a least a good chunk of those would be needed for the foreseeable future. As the US only had about 130,000 non-committed troops with which to work with, without re-imposing the draft, something that just is not going to happen, just where did Chomsky think the US was going to get the troop strength to occupy, say, Iran which has more than 2 times as many people as Iraq and territorially is much larger? The only one it would seem that bought into the rosy post war scenario being painted by the Pentagon was Chomsky. The ironic thing about the doctrine of preventive war and the surrounding intellectual infrastructure is that far from laying down the scary precedent in terms of American will do. It reveals that there is a large gap between what American says it wants to and what it can do. |
| 5 Comments |
| Preventative War Red Herring |
| 05.02.04 (10:43 pm) [edit] |
|
Contrary to what many people seem to believe, the Iraq War was not the first of many preventative wars that neo-cons in Washington are set to embark on. The events of the last few months have proven once and for all that depending on what side of the ideological fence one sits, the idea of Washington embarking on a series of preventive wars is either a wet dream, or paranoid delusion. Once more, the fact of the matter was that the Iraq war was not a preventative war at all. The 1991 cease-fire agreement between the Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait was still in affect and thus the US and Britain where technically at war with Iraq already. The issues at hand were, in reality, as follows. One, if some of the member nations determined that Iraq had violated the terms of 1991 cease-fire, did those nations have the legal authority to enforce those resolutions by themselves, or was the agreement of the security council needed for such an action? Two, what lengths could a party go to reinforce the relevant resolutions. France et al argued that only the Security Council as a whole had the right to decide whether Iraq had met its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and that only the Security Council as a whole had the right to act and to decide what was needed to enforce various UN resolutions. The US et al disagreed on both counts. Disagreements of this kind predated the buildup to the current crisis. The biggest bone of contention was what to make of paragraphs 21 and 22 of UN resolution 687. Whereas, the French and Russians focused on paragraph 22 which seems to allow the lifting of sanctions once Iraq has rid itself of its WMD weapons and programs, the US and British focused on paragraph 21, which required the Iraqis to comply with all relevant UN resolutions, including, the US and Britain argued, UN resolution 688. The impetus for the creation of Iraqi Kurdistan and the two no fly zones, 688 condemned the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq. Where this relates back to the matter at hand is that all sides tacitly allowed Britain and the US to enforce an interpretation of the cease-fire that not everyone agreed was correct. This led support to the US and British contention that they were free to act unilaterally back in March. Ironically, the Bush administration had been very reluctant to pass 688 in the first place, but was pressured into it by the weight of public opinion. |
| 0 Comments |
| BC "Liberal" party goes too far by empossing a Retroactive wage Cut |
| 05.02.04 (3:30 pm) [edit] |
|
For some time now the BC Liberal party has wanted to undermine the public sector unions. Since coming to power they have imposed contracts on the teachers, doctors, nurses and transit workers. They are now going after hospital support staff. Now, whatever side of the issue you come down on, I think it safe to say that they really bungled this most recent battle. Not only did they impose a 15% wage roll back and pave the way to privatization, they, get this, made the wage roll back retroactive. What this means is just as these employees have submitted their income tax returns, the government has demanded that these support staff pay a de facto tax on past earnings. When asked why the government imposed the retroactive roll back finance minister Colin Hanson said because I felt like it. The response of some other MLAs was equally stupefying. A few even admitted that if they had they known about the retroactive clause they would never have voted for the Bill. In other words, they admitted to not reading all or part of the bill. In response, to Premier Campbells ham fisted tactics teachers are planning to defy an order designating them essential service employees, hospital workers are going to defy back to work legislation and transit workers are walking off the job. Three years ago, Campbell was given an overwhelming mandate, taking 77 of 79 seats. Through deeds like these he finds himself behind to the polls and the pendulum that is BC politics threatens to swing the other way yet again. In BC we do not actually vote for a party, we vote against them. Last time there around there was a huge protest vote against the NDP. Next time there will be a large protest vote against the Liberals. Although I am not exactly what you call an avid supporter of the provincial NDP, I am going be part of the backlash. I am going to vote for the NDP. Retroactive roll backs, introducing a training wage read a reduction in the minimum wage, neutering the workers compensation board, lowering the age at which children can start working to 12!, all of this is just going to far. |
| 1 Comments |
| The Fallujah Pull out |
| 05.02.04 (3:07 am) [edit] |
|
Personally, I think the US has made a huge mistake by pulling out of Fallujah. Sure, a case can be made that this type of model can work in certain instances. However, now is not the time. First crush the rebellion and then you can go ahead with such an arrangement. By pulling out the way they did, they not only crushed the moral of their own troops, they gave the defenders of Fallujah a moral victory. In the days leading up to the pull out, the press droned on ad nauseam about how they would only stir up more resistance by going in and the defenders of Fallujah would be celebrated as martyrs in respect. I think this mantra was not closely examined. The insurgents at Fallujah were not lauded for standing by to the Americans they were lauded because Arab street was still holding on to the prospect that they could get the Americans to back down. The Americans should look what happened in the war itself. Believing the rhetoric of comical Ali, the Arab street was up in Arms. However, when their dreams of American defeat were shown to be nothing but an illusion things quickly quieted down. Another thing they US should have looked at is what happened in Somali. I do not blame Clinton one bit for leaving the country, but the optics of an American pull out without dealing a blow to Aidid was terrible. Somali helped Bin Laden gain a great deal of street credibility. All the tough talk coming out of Washington the week before, only served to magnify insurgents perceived victory. Republican bravado politicking might work well at home, but there is nothing worse in Foreign policy than talking loudly and carrying a small stick. All and all, I think the timing of the pictures coming out might have had something to do with pull back. Speaking of which, they have handled the issue particularly poorly. If there ever was time for spin, it is now. What I would say is this: it was not Al Jazzera that broke the story, nor was it any other Arab network. It was CBS, one of the major US networks. This is what a free press does. It calls attention to the misdeeds of those in the employ of the government and demands that the state do something about it. I only hope that Al Jazzera will hold the governments of the Arab world to the same standards that CBS does ours. As for the mistreatment, we condemn it and those that committed these acts will be brought to justice. That said, I hope the Iraq people and the Arab world generally does not tar all Americans with the same brush. The American people have the good sense to see that Bin Laden is not representative Arabs or Muslims and they also have the good sense to see that the Fallujahian thugs, who mutilated the bodies of civilian contractors, are not typical Iraqis. I hope the Iraqi people will have the good sense to put their emotions aside and see that these criminals are not representative of the 150,000 Americans in Iraq. Moving on, the question I want to know is what self righteous whistler blower or egotistic profiteer would sell these pictures to a major news network? Whoever he is should be taken out back on shot. American blood and now British will flow because of this. |
| 0 Comments |
| Tuition Hikes |
| 05.01.04 (3:54 pm) [edit] |
|
I am puzzled as to why I keep coming across the following rather stupid argument for hiking tuition fees in Canada. The argument goes something like this. There is a wide income gap between people with university degrees and those without degrees. Clearly, obtaining a university degree leads to better things and given that gap seems to be ever widening, having a degree will probably be even more valuable in the future than it is now. That being the case, it is only right that those that who benefit from obtaining a degree pay more towards what it costs to educate them. Now, leaving aside the problems associated with drawing a causal relation from a correlation, problems associated with projecting data well into the future and whole host of other missing caveats, let us just assume that they have hit the nail on the head. Obtaining a university degree is well worth it. Does it follow from this that the only way of having students give back to society is by having them pay higher tuition fees? Of course, it does not. As a population, those with degrees earn more than the rest of the population and so pay more taxes. Once more, the way the system is currently set up the more you benefit from your degree the more you pay. I dare say, the tax route is a much more attractive option for other reasons too. People are not burdened with the expense of having to pay for their education at a time when they can least afford it (when they first step into the working world), but will instead be able to pay for it at a time that they can most afford it. What is more, this way the person that benefits from the having a degree is more likely to assume more of the financial burden. After all, in many cases a students family fits all or part of the cost associated with obtaining a degree. The real beauty of this argument, though, is that it can be employed against those who object to tax option on the grounds that a degree holder pays the same tax rate as a non degree holder in the same tax bracket. Tongue firmly in cheek, simply agree that, alas, this is true. Despite the fact past graduates had their education supplemented by tax payers to a much larger degree then is the case now, university graduates pay no more than non degree holders in the same tax bracket. Having said so, ask the following question: If current students, who have yet to benefit from their education, should be made to pay for a larger chunk of what it costs to educate them, should those who are currently benefiting from having a degree also be made to pay retroactively for a greater chunk of what it cost to educate them? |
| 1 Comments |
| Is "Survival of the Fittest" a Tautology?: A Wittgensteinian Take |
| 05.01.04 (2:46 pm) [edit] |
|
One of the best documented examples of natural selection in modern times is the English Peppered Moth. Typically, this moth is whitish with black speckles and spots all over its wings. During the daytime, Peppered moths are well-camouflaged as they rest on the speckled lichens on tree trunks. Occasionally a very few moths have a genetic mutation which causes them to be all black, so they are said to be melanistic. Black moths resting on light-colored, speckled lichens are not very well camouflaged, and so are easy prey for any moth-eating birds that happen by. Thus, these melanistic moths never get to reproduce and pass on their genes for black color. However, an interesting thing happened to these moths in the 1800s. With the Industrial Revolution, many factories and homes in British cities started burning coal, both for heat and to power all those newly-invented machines. Coal does not burn cleanly, and creates a lot of black soot and pollution. Since lichens are extremely sensitive to air pollution, this caused all the lichens on city trees to die. Also, as the soot settled out everywhere, this turned the tree trunks (and everything else) black. This enabled the occasional black moths to be well-camouflaged so they could live long enough to reproduce, while the normal speckled moths were gobbled up. Studies done in the earlier 1900s showed that while in the country, the speckled moths were still the predominant form, in the cities, they were almost non-existant. Nearly all the moths in the cities were the black form. It was evident to the researchers studying these moths that the black city moths were breeding primarily with other black city moths while speckled country moths were breeding primarily with other speckled country moths. Because of this, any new genetic mutations in one or the other of those populations would only be passed on within that population and not throughout the whole moth population. Additionally, because the city and country environments were different, there were different selective pressures on city vs. country moths that could potentially drive the evolution of these two populations of moths in different directions. The researchers pointed out that if this were to continue for a long enough time, the city and country moths could become so genetically different that they could no longer interbreed with each other, and thus would be considered distinct species. In this case, what actually happened is that the people of England decided they didnt like breathing and living in all that coal pollution, thus found ways to clean things up. As the air became cleaner, lichens started growing on city trees again, thus the direction of the selective pressure (birds) was once again in favor of the speckled moths. By now, English cities, as well as countrysides, all have speckled moths, and all are interbreeding at random, thus were not separated for long enough to develop into separate species. Let us suppose that contrary to all expectations after the trees of Northern England were no longer covered in soot the black coloured moths continued to thrive at the expensive of the speckled coloured moths. Some have implied that this would be a strike against Darwinian Theory; the theory would have predicted a falsehood, viz., only the fittest survive. I think they are mistaken. Only the fittest survive is not proposition and as such true or false. Rather, survivability is a built in criterion of fitness. Back tracking a bit, I think we can agree that the reason the speckled coloured moth was expected to assume its original predominance was that it was presumed to be better suited to its environment. In other words, it was presumed to be fitter. Here in lies the problem for opponents of my view. By holding that only the fittest survive is like any old proposition they unwittingly run two empirical propositions together, viz., the notion that only the fittest survive and the notion that speckled colouring confers fitness. As a result, they render both unfalsifiable. Indeed, faced with such contradictory evidence one can always insolate one proposition by rejecting the other. Either, the speckled coloured months colouring did confer fitness and Darwinian maximum is wrong, or the moths colouring did not confer fitness and the Darwinian maximum still holds. Conversely, in accordance with what I said above about only the fittest survive being a criterion of fitness, I would say that the hypothesis that the speckled coloured moths colouring gave it a selective advantage is false. This is also the conclusion I think scientists would draw. By holding out survival as a criterion of fitness we are able to test our predications as to who we think is fit in present day populations (e.g. a population of moths). I suppose we could do something similar using complex computer programs for past populations. Feeding all the information we have about old environments into computer simulation program, we could test various adaptationist explanations. Before I am dismissed as an adherent of the view that the Darwinian maximum reduces to completely vacuous only survivors survive, let me say this. Populations change from generation to generation and often in a particular direction. This is denied by no sane person. The rub for scientists has always been how to account for these changes. There have been many ill fated attempts. Lamarcks theory of acquired characteristics being passed down to the next generation being the most well known. Darwinians say that natural selection can explain at least some of these changes in populations and most people, even creationists, have no trouble conceding that it can (e.g., as in the moth example quoted at the beginning). Darwinian Theory fits with our understanding of genetics and there are powerful mathematical models that explain how selective pressures can change the distribution of any one gene in a given population and at can explain at what rate that change occur. (Of course, these models also explain why artificial selection works) All in all, Darwin has offered up the most coherent and popular theory to date. Where they part ways with many lay people, at least in the States, is that Darwinians believe, as any believer in evolution does, that these changes can eventually lead to speciation. All that being said, it seems outrageous to say that the success of Darwinian Theory rests on some slight of hand. There is good reason for this. When you really get down to it what Darwinians do is to come up with just so adaptationist stories for why this or that trait or behavior evolved and make predications about survival rates based upon what who they think is fit. As noted, there is nothing suspicious about the latter. As for the former, many are admittedly speculative. However, they are no more mysterious, or on a less academically sure footing than many other historically based fields of endeavor. Moreover, many of the best known evolutionary theorists (e.g., Stephen Jay Gould) reputations rest or rested on their willingness to rein in those who went beyond the available evidence. Another fundamental misunderstanding concerns the nature of the maximum itself. As I have already said, survival is a criterion for fitness. Does it follow from this that every survivor (that is any segment of any population that sees a differential increase) is by that fact alone one of the fittest? Pace those who assert that the maximum is nothing more than tautology, of course, it does not. It only makes sense to talk about fitness in terms of populations that have undergone or are undergoing selective pressures. A segment of the population is fit relative only to another segment of the population that is unfit. If one invokes another mechanism to explain some traits dominance, then strictly speaking there is no segment of the parent population that is fitter than any other and consequently it would be inappropriate to describe the offspring (i.e., survivors) of that population undergoing, for example, genetic drift as being fit or not. To think it otherwise leads to the strange conclusion that any Darwinian who wanted to stay true to the maximum would have to avoid ever adopting another evolutionary mechanism. In coming to this conclusion about the nature of Darwinian maximum, I did not draw my inspiration, Popper, who at one time thought the Darwinian maximum to be a tautology, but rather Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein rejected the Logical Positivist mantra that some propositions are true by definition (e.g. All bachelors are unmarried men is true by virtue of the meaning of bachelor and unmarried men). However, Wittgenstein thought the positivists like so many before them were right to think so called analytic statements were special. He thought, though, they were wrong to think them propositions. According to Wittgenstein such statements are, rather, explicit rules for how to use words (e.g., All bachelors are unmarried men rules out the use of word bachelor in the following sentence. She was a lifelong bachelor.) Wittgenstein likens these explicit rules to the hum drum rules of grammar. Indeed, he deems them as being part of grammar proper. Like the everyday rules of grammar, they help constitute the bounds of what is sensible and unlike propositions are neither true nor false. Wittgenstein thought that not all grammatical statements were so easy to pick out. In fact he held that people frequently mistake some grammatical rules as normal propositions (e.g., Sensations are private) When that happens he said, language goes on a holiday and the only way to shew the fly the way out of the fly-bottle is to investigate, hence the title Philosophical Investigations, the relationships between the offending rule and others parts of language. In Wittgensteins case, what such a typical investigation involved was Wittgenstein showing how treating a particular grammatical rule as a proposition leads to absurd conclusions. If successful a cloud of philosophy would be condensed into a droplet of grammar. If I had to classify only the fittest survive, I would say it was a grammatical statement and the absurd conclusion that is avoided by treating it as such is the possibility that sometimes the weakest survive. |
| 4 Comments |