i love labor day weekend, as all labor lawyers should. it means the end of summer. i hate summer, and by the end of august i have usually had more than enough. also i often travel in early fall when i can get off-peak season tickets. but best of all, i love labor day because it is the only day of the year when i get off work and my wife does not.
living with an academic is generally a good thing. i get to live on a college campus with all of its facilities (it's like living in a country club), with heavily subsidized rent, and surrounded by intellectuals from all different disciplines. i also get the satisfaction in knowing that while this college once rejected me, i am now living here. they tried to keep me out in the late 80s, but i found a back door in a decade later. bwah ha ha! (actually, if they wanted to be rid of me, they should have just let me in. i would have stayed for only 4 years, never met my wife, and never lived here again. instead, i went elsewhere, married my wife and (assuming she gets tenure and does not dump me) i will be here forever. take that, nasty admissions people!!!) (no, i'm not bitter)
on the other hand. if you have a real job (i.e. a non-academic job) it can sometimes also be annoying, mostly because of all of the time they get off. while my neighbors complain that their 3 week christmas break is not that long this year, i have to remind them that my "christmas break" is exactly one day--december 25th. don't even talk to me about the summer, or spring break, or october break, or my wife's YEAR LONG SABBATICAL (at full pay, of course).
now, if my wife and/or neighbors ever read this, i know what they will do. they will fill up the comments with things like this:
"we do too work when class is not in session. we do our research. it's publish or perish, dude."
fine. i understand. save your comments. but they know as well as i do that when classes end, things definitely get a lot more leisurely around here. research or no, their schedule is many times more flexible during breaks than most non-academic jobs ever are. plus, they can always decide they need to research topics as the social structure of beach bums in french polynesia. then they will get a grant to fly to the south pacific and get paid to hang out on the beach. even with research taken into account, academia is a very good racket.
which brings me back to labor day--a holiday to celebrate the working class folks, not the ivory tower over-achievers who live around here, but those who toil in oppression all year under the cruel yoke of THE MAN. it so happens that the college where my wife teaches does not recognize labor day. indeed, the first day of classes is always on that date. on top of that, the saturday and sunday of labor day weekend is always freshman orientation, which means professors here have to do all kinds of work-related crap for the entire 3-day weekend. labor day weekend is the only time all year when i get to sleep in and goof around but my wife and neighbors have to work. it doesn't make up for the entire summer, those other breaks scattered throughout the year, or sabbaticals, but it sure does make me feel a little better right now.
Saturday, August 30, 2003
afghanistan
remember our first "victory" in the war on terror? well, if it was a victory, why has there been heavy fighting against the taliban in the last 10 days. in fact, 3 americans soldiers died there recently with nary a peep in most domestic news sources:
(full article here)
by my count that means two active guerrilla wars, no missions accomplished.
Dozens of Taliban were killed in fighting as Afghan troops pushed into a deep gorge and along a mountain stream after a night of heavy U.S. bombing in the Chinaran and Larzab mountains of Dai Chupan district, an Afghan official said.
The U.S. military said one of its special operations soldiers died in a fall during a nighttime assault in the rugged mountains of southern Zabul province. His name was not immediately released. No casualties were reported among the Afghan soldiers.
From late Thursday until nearly dawn, U.S. warplanes pounded two suspected Taliban positions in the area, provincial intelligence chief Khalil Hotak told The Associated Press.
Then 500 Afghan soldiers moved in on the Taliban fighters, who had taken up fortified positions. Four Afghan soldiers were wounded in the fighting Thursday.
Hotak described the area as a Taliban stronghold, from which the insurgents direct their operations into the neighboring provinces of Kandahar, Ghazni and Uruzgan.
"The fighting was intense and we have inflicted heavy damage on the Taliban," Hotak said at a command center set up in Qalat, about 45 miles south of the fighting. "Our forces counted 35 Taliban bodies."
It was impossible to verify Hotak's account of the casualties and description of the area as a Taliban stronghold.
The U.S. military, meanwhile, announced the second fatality of a coalition soldier within 10 days in Afghanistan. Some 11,500 U.S.-led forces are helping Afghan troops in hunting down Taliban and al-Qaida fighters in the south and east of the country.
"The injuries were sustained during an accidental fall and were not the result of hostile action," the military said in a statement from Bagram Air Base, north of the capital Kabul.
On Aug. 20, a U.S. special operations soldier was killed in action in eastern Paktika province.
This week's fighting follows a surge in military action by the Taliban in recent weeks. Taliban fighters have been staging deadly attacks on Afghan forces, officials and aid workers, in an apparent bid to undermine the government of President Hamid Karzai, who took power soon after the Taliban's ouster by U.S.-led forces in 2001.
(full article here)
by my count that means two active guerrilla wars, no missions accomplished.
cheney lied to congress
remember in the 1990s when pro-impeachment types said "its not about sex, its about perjury"? so now we can find out for sure. we can all expect to see an independent counsel appointed and impeachment hearings in a few months, right?
(via atrios)
(via atrios)
Thursday, August 28, 2003
8 days, not 9
i occurred to me today that i am 8 days away from uzbekistan and i that have never been here before. the magic day was yesterday.
i have waited 2 years to cross the divide from 9 days before to 8. in 2001, i was already to go. i had my plane tickets, visa, and guidebook. i was scheduled to leave on october 5, 2001. on 9/11, concerned friends and family kept asking me if i was still going to uzbekistan. despite their implied suggestion that i stay home, i told them i was going. in fact, when the planes hit the trade center towers, it seemed to have nothing to do with the far-flung country in central asia.
but within a few days focus shifted to afghanistan, a country that borders uzbekistan to the south. the u.s. demanded the taliban hand over bin laden "or else." at first, i thought they would. but bin laden was not produced right away and i began to have my doubts.
every morning when i arrived at work, i checked the state department travelers advisory web site. no warning about uzbekistan appeared as the taliban debated what to do; they seemed to be stalling. i told my wife if the state department issued a warning that said uzbekistan was off-limits to tourists, i would not go.
meanwhile, the news was filled with experts who explained that in central asia (and in many other muslim societies) there is a strong cultural ethic of hospitality. in those countries it is expected that a guests be treated with the utmost hospitality, and protected from danger if necessary. the experts were talking about why the taliban were hesitating to turn over bin laden. but i used their comments to reassure family members. after all, i would be a guest in uzbekistan, so i would be protected. i had no idea if that was true, but i really wanted to go and i needed something to tell them in response to their concerns.
then the taliban decided. they would not give up bin laden. there were still hints that some compromise was possible, but bush and the american public was not in the mood for compromises. the taliban got more belligerent announcing that it would not only fight off the americans, but also attack anyone who aided the americans. within 24 hours uzbekistan offered its airbases to the u.s. military, despite the threat. a series of state department warnings went up the next day telling americans to stay out of pakistan, tajikistan, turkmenistan, and iran--i.e. every country bordering afghanistan except china and uzbekistan. the state department did post a warning about uzbekistan, but it merely "strongly advised" against going. it did not rule out travel there altogether. i took that to be a good sign. my friends and relatives did not.
meanwhile, i had been corresponding with a few people living in uzbekistan. one was a friend of a friend of this woman who my brother met at a party in san francisco and whose email address was passed down the line to me. when you tell people you are going to an usual place, distant contacts like that come out of the woodwork.
anyway, the day after the state department warning, my resolve was starting to crumble. it was becoming obvious that my wife would spend the whole time i was away worrying that i would be killed there. as my departure date got closer and closer, it got harder and harder to imagine putting her through that. the straw that broke the camel's back was an email i got from the friend of a friend of the woman my brother met. in the weeks after 9/11. when everyone else was trying to get me not to go, he had encouraging me to come, reassuring me that it was okay there. he was the uzbek, so i figured he knew the situation better than friends and family who couldn't find the country on a map.
then suddenly one day, he wrote me and told me not to come. he wasn't that specific, but he said that military check points had gone up on some of the roads and so traveling between cities would be difficult. because of these road blocks, it wasn't a good time to come if i travel around the country.
i read his message the morning of september 26, 2001, 9 days before my departure date. it also was the anniversary of my first date with my wife. i decided not to go to uzbekistan.
by september 28th, i had a new plane ticket and a new visa in my passport for mali, a country in west africa which was my second choice before i decided to go to uz. i left on october 5th on the same flight to london that was supposed to be the first leg of my uzbekistan trip. i got on a different plane in heathrow--going south rather than east. i had a great time in mali and barely thought about uzbekistan the whole time i was there.
it was only in retrospect that i regretted not going to uzbekistan. the stories of military checkpoints turned out to be somewhat misleading--it turned out to be more of a fear that they might block the roads of the country than reality. it was safe in central asia. it just was hard to see through the uncertain fearful lense of our just-post-9/11 world.
i have waited 2 years to cross the divide from 9 days before to 8. in 2001, i was already to go. i had my plane tickets, visa, and guidebook. i was scheduled to leave on october 5, 2001. on 9/11, concerned friends and family kept asking me if i was still going to uzbekistan. despite their implied suggestion that i stay home, i told them i was going. in fact, when the planes hit the trade center towers, it seemed to have nothing to do with the far-flung country in central asia.
but within a few days focus shifted to afghanistan, a country that borders uzbekistan to the south. the u.s. demanded the taliban hand over bin laden "or else." at first, i thought they would. but bin laden was not produced right away and i began to have my doubts.
every morning when i arrived at work, i checked the state department travelers advisory web site. no warning about uzbekistan appeared as the taliban debated what to do; they seemed to be stalling. i told my wife if the state department issued a warning that said uzbekistan was off-limits to tourists, i would not go.
meanwhile, the news was filled with experts who explained that in central asia (and in many other muslim societies) there is a strong cultural ethic of hospitality. in those countries it is expected that a guests be treated with the utmost hospitality, and protected from danger if necessary. the experts were talking about why the taliban were hesitating to turn over bin laden. but i used their comments to reassure family members. after all, i would be a guest in uzbekistan, so i would be protected. i had no idea if that was true, but i really wanted to go and i needed something to tell them in response to their concerns.
then the taliban decided. they would not give up bin laden. there were still hints that some compromise was possible, but bush and the american public was not in the mood for compromises. the taliban got more belligerent announcing that it would not only fight off the americans, but also attack anyone who aided the americans. within 24 hours uzbekistan offered its airbases to the u.s. military, despite the threat. a series of state department warnings went up the next day telling americans to stay out of pakistan, tajikistan, turkmenistan, and iran--i.e. every country bordering afghanistan except china and uzbekistan. the state department did post a warning about uzbekistan, but it merely "strongly advised" against going. it did not rule out travel there altogether. i took that to be a good sign. my friends and relatives did not.
meanwhile, i had been corresponding with a few people living in uzbekistan. one was a friend of a friend of this woman who my brother met at a party in san francisco and whose email address was passed down the line to me. when you tell people you are going to an usual place, distant contacts like that come out of the woodwork.
anyway, the day after the state department warning, my resolve was starting to crumble. it was becoming obvious that my wife would spend the whole time i was away worrying that i would be killed there. as my departure date got closer and closer, it got harder and harder to imagine putting her through that. the straw that broke the camel's back was an email i got from the friend of a friend of the woman my brother met. in the weeks after 9/11. when everyone else was trying to get me not to go, he had encouraging me to come, reassuring me that it was okay there. he was the uzbek, so i figured he knew the situation better than friends and family who couldn't find the country on a map.
then suddenly one day, he wrote me and told me not to come. he wasn't that specific, but he said that military check points had gone up on some of the roads and so traveling between cities would be difficult. because of these road blocks, it wasn't a good time to come if i travel around the country.
i read his message the morning of september 26, 2001, 9 days before my departure date. it also was the anniversary of my first date with my wife. i decided not to go to uzbekistan.
by september 28th, i had a new plane ticket and a new visa in my passport for mali, a country in west africa which was my second choice before i decided to go to uz. i left on october 5th on the same flight to london that was supposed to be the first leg of my uzbekistan trip. i got on a different plane in heathrow--going south rather than east. i had a great time in mali and barely thought about uzbekistan the whole time i was there.
it was only in retrospect that i regretted not going to uzbekistan. the stories of military checkpoints turned out to be somewhat misleading--it turned out to be more of a fear that they might block the roads of the country than reality. it was safe in central asia. it just was hard to see through the uncertain fearful lense of our just-post-9/11 world.
its worse than we thought
from the wapo (via the hamster)
"won" is kind of the wrong word in that first sentence. after all, there were no competitive bids. if there is no contest, no one can "win." considering that dick cheney continues to draw a six-figure annual salary from halliburton even while he serves in as vice president, a better verb would be "bought."
the administration's giveaway to halliburton and its subsidiaries is not only corrupt, its incredibly wasteful and possibly contributes to some of the other problems american troops face in iraq. as riverbend pointed out in today's post, a lot of the work being done by american companies in iraq can be done a lot cheaper if they used iraqis companies. in riverbend's example, an unnamed iraqi company and an unnamed american company each gave an estimate for repairing a bridge in baghdad. the american company's estimate was more than 166 times greater than the iraqi company's ($50,000,000 vs. $300,000), but the americans, not the iraqis got the contract.
some doubt the veracity of what riverbend writes (on some blogs i have seen people question whether she is really an iraqi as she claims). but even if you don't believe her, it seems pretty clear to me that a big factor in both the violence and anti-american sentiment is the huge unemployment rate in this "post-war" period. iraq has long been known in the arab world for its highly educated professional class. there are people there who can do these jobs. to give them the work would be an effective way to help raise ordinate iraqis out of poverty, make them feel like they had a stake in the future of iraq, and generally undermine the widespread suspicion that the whole iraqi invasion is just a scheme to enrich americans at iraq's expense.
although we have no idea who is responsible for the continuing attacks on american soldiers (there is really no evidence that they're all "baathists" as some claim) i suspect that all three of these factors--poverty, the lack of a feeling of ownership, and suspicion about american's intentions--each contribute to the violence.
you would think using iraqi companies to rebuild iraq would appeal to the neo-cons' ethic of improving one's own society through work rather than handouts. perhaps it would; if they weren't so addicted to paying off their corporate sponsors.
Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Cheney, has won contracts worth more than $1.7 billion under Operation Iraqi Freedom and stands to make hundreds of millions more dollars under a no-bid contract awarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, according to newly available documents.
The size and scope of the government contracts awarded to Halliburton in connection with the war in Iraq are significantly greater than was previously disclosed and demonstrate the U.S. military's increasing reliance on for-profit corporations to run its logistical operations. Independent experts estimate that as much as one-third of the monthly $3.9 billion cost of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq is going to independent contractors.
"won" is kind of the wrong word in that first sentence. after all, there were no competitive bids. if there is no contest, no one can "win." considering that dick cheney continues to draw a six-figure annual salary from halliburton even while he serves in as vice president, a better verb would be "bought."
the administration's giveaway to halliburton and its subsidiaries is not only corrupt, its incredibly wasteful and possibly contributes to some of the other problems american troops face in iraq. as riverbend pointed out in today's post, a lot of the work being done by american companies in iraq can be done a lot cheaper if they used iraqis companies. in riverbend's example, an unnamed iraqi company and an unnamed american company each gave an estimate for repairing a bridge in baghdad. the american company's estimate was more than 166 times greater than the iraqi company's ($50,000,000 vs. $300,000), but the americans, not the iraqis got the contract.
some doubt the veracity of what riverbend writes (on some blogs i have seen people question whether she is really an iraqi as she claims). but even if you don't believe her, it seems pretty clear to me that a big factor in both the violence and anti-american sentiment is the huge unemployment rate in this "post-war" period. iraq has long been known in the arab world for its highly educated professional class. there are people there who can do these jobs. to give them the work would be an effective way to help raise ordinate iraqis out of poverty, make them feel like they had a stake in the future of iraq, and generally undermine the widespread suspicion that the whole iraqi invasion is just a scheme to enrich americans at iraq's expense.
although we have no idea who is responsible for the continuing attacks on american soldiers (there is really no evidence that they're all "baathists" as some claim) i suspect that all three of these factors--poverty, the lack of a feeling of ownership, and suspicion about american's intentions--each contribute to the violence.
you would think using iraqi companies to rebuild iraq would appeal to the neo-cons' ethic of improving one's own society through work rather than handouts. perhaps it would; if they weren't so addicted to paying off their corporate sponsors.
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
but wait, they told us that iraq reconstruction would pay for itself through oil revenue
bremer says iraq needs an infusion of tens of billions of dollars from sources outside iraq.
it happened again
my hits spiked. cursor linked to me today. the thing is, i think they meant to link to my flypaper rant, but instead they linked to my maddest saddest thing apology post from a few days ago. at least this time it should be clear who said what.
someone should have a talk with arnold
3 minutes 45 seconds into this radio interview with sean hannity arnold schwarzenegger states "I think gay marriage should be between a man and a woman."
(via defective yeti)
(via defective yeti)
democracy in iraq
in this morning's new york times, thomas friedman argued that the u.s. must put much more of an "iraqi face" on government there. as demosthenes points out, that's almost right, but also misses the real point.
for this reason, i do not think that the bush administration has any interest in having a truly democratic iraq, at least not in the sense that demosthenes is describing. when bush advocated democracy in iraq he assumed that a democratic iraq would be a pro-american iraq. or more specifically, a pro-bush administration iraq. this is certainly wrong. most democracies in the world have deep disagreements with the bush administration. the best example, ironically, is iraq itself. most democracies were against the invasion. the few that were part of the "coalition of the willing" (e.g. britain, spain, italy, etc.) joined despite the fact that a majority of their public was against the invasion. a truly democratic iraq is likely to have its own differences with whoever is in washington. it might, for example, award oil contracts to non-american oil companies, or award construction contracts to companies that are not subsidiaries of halliburton.
There's a fundamental problem here, though. It's not about Iraqi faces, but Iraqi choices- not about the appearance of sovereignty, but the reality of it. What needs to happen is that the Americans must give the Iraqis the choice to do what they see fit, not just to do what the Americans say they "need to learn to do".
Yes, this isn't absolute. There should be allowances for the possibility of a relatively small or extremist group taking control of a more popular process (as happened when the theocrats took over after the Iranian revolution), and the United States should act to prevent that to the extent that Iraqi sovereignty allows.
The important thing here, however, is that Iraqi must find its own path There is absolutely no doubt that said path will not be the path America took or that Americans would take in their place. That doesn't matter. It is not a question of turning the Iraqis into Americans; that would be disastrous. It's about Iraq becoming that rarest of creatures: a state with a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Not for Americans. For Iraqis.
for this reason, i do not think that the bush administration has any interest in having a truly democratic iraq, at least not in the sense that demosthenes is describing. when bush advocated democracy in iraq he assumed that a democratic iraq would be a pro-american iraq. or more specifically, a pro-bush administration iraq. this is certainly wrong. most democracies in the world have deep disagreements with the bush administration. the best example, ironically, is iraq itself. most democracies were against the invasion. the few that were part of the "coalition of the willing" (e.g. britain, spain, italy, etc.) joined despite the fact that a majority of their public was against the invasion. a truly democratic iraq is likely to have its own differences with whoever is in washington. it might, for example, award oil contracts to non-american oil companies, or award construction contracts to companies that are not subsidiaries of halliburton.
uzbek blogging
i'm mulling over whether i will even attempt to blog from uzbekistan. i always keep a diary when i travel alone. rewriting each entry, or even just entering the bigger ones into blogger while trying to navigate a foreign keyboard just seems like too much of a drag. on the other hand, it would be fun to post my immediate reaction to things. any thoughts?
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
my growin' blogroll
added suburban guerrilla and defective yeti to my blog list. both i've been meaning to add for a little while now.
another recall
since this california recall thing has become such a total unqualified success--it certainly hasn't made the state a joke or anything--republicans in other states now also want to get into the act. in nevada, they have started a recall effort. but at least that state has a recall procedure in its constitution. pennsylvania does not. but that has not stopped a group of pennsylvania republicans who announced they will draft legislation to create a recall procedure to recall governor rendell. why let california hog the nations mockery?
unlike in california, where davis is not liked by many, rendell is genuinely popular in this state, or at least parts of it (mostly the philadelphia region). he used to be the mayor of philadelphia and is largely considered to be one of the best mayors of that city ever had (though it did not hurt that he followed two of the worst mayors in the city's history). but the california recall vote has lowered the bar considerably for what justifies a recall. my understanding is that the recall procedure was originally conceived to be a sort of "people's impeachment." in other words, if the governor does some crime that deserves removal, the people themselves can do so in a referendum. in california right now i have not heard anyone identify any impeachable offense that justifies davis' recall. the pro-recall people seem to be pro-recall just because they don't like the guy. the recall provisions in that state set the bar so low for triggering a recall election that no one really had to resort to anything like that. it doesn't say he has to be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, they just need a bunch of signatures. they are attempting to recall davis because they hate him. it's just that simple.
this pennsylvania effort, it seems, would lower the bar even further. stephen miskin, a spokesperson for the pennsylvania republicans who are pushing for the creation of a recall procedure here explained why governor rendell deserves to be recalled as follows:
" The problem with Governor Rendell is his efforts to advance his agenda."
obviously rendell should be advancing the republican's agenda instead.
the pennsylvania effort is particularly stupid because governor rendell is almost certain to veto any recall-establishing procedure that reaches his desk. but maybe proponents have not thought of that. apparently it has also never occurred to them that if they create a recall procedure, that same procedure could be used to knock out a republican governor some day. i mean, presumably these guys think that they might actually get the governorship at some point, right?
this whole thing reminds me of the "line item veto." remember that? it was a darling of the republican party for much of the reagan-bush (the first) era, i.e. when the republican party believed it would control the presidency forever. the pro-line item veto position survived the first two years of the clinton era--it made it into the "contract for america." in fact, it was the only part of the "contract for america" that clinton warmly embraced. it was only then that it dawned on the dim-witted proponents that a line item veto will give more power to the president whoever it is, even (gasp) their political opponents if they happen to hold the office. after that, it was quietly dropped. no one talks about the line item veto much anymore, even now that the republican party has regained control of the white house. eventually perhaps, it will occur to miskin and his ilk that a recall procedure can be used against their people too.
(the links to the nevada and pennsylvania recall efforts via atrios)
unlike in california, where davis is not liked by many, rendell is genuinely popular in this state, or at least parts of it (mostly the philadelphia region). he used to be the mayor of philadelphia and is largely considered to be one of the best mayors of that city ever had (though it did not hurt that he followed two of the worst mayors in the city's history). but the california recall vote has lowered the bar considerably for what justifies a recall. my understanding is that the recall procedure was originally conceived to be a sort of "people's impeachment." in other words, if the governor does some crime that deserves removal, the people themselves can do so in a referendum. in california right now i have not heard anyone identify any impeachable offense that justifies davis' recall. the pro-recall people seem to be pro-recall just because they don't like the guy. the recall provisions in that state set the bar so low for triggering a recall election that no one really had to resort to anything like that. it doesn't say he has to be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, they just need a bunch of signatures. they are attempting to recall davis because they hate him. it's just that simple.
this pennsylvania effort, it seems, would lower the bar even further. stephen miskin, a spokesperson for the pennsylvania republicans who are pushing for the creation of a recall procedure here explained why governor rendell deserves to be recalled as follows:
" The problem with Governor Rendell is his efforts to advance his agenda."
obviously rendell should be advancing the republican's agenda instead.
the pennsylvania effort is particularly stupid because governor rendell is almost certain to veto any recall-establishing procedure that reaches his desk. but maybe proponents have not thought of that. apparently it has also never occurred to them that if they create a recall procedure, that same procedure could be used to knock out a republican governor some day. i mean, presumably these guys think that they might actually get the governorship at some point, right?
this whole thing reminds me of the "line item veto." remember that? it was a darling of the republican party for much of the reagan-bush (the first) era, i.e. when the republican party believed it would control the presidency forever. the pro-line item veto position survived the first two years of the clinton era--it made it into the "contract for america." in fact, it was the only part of the "contract for america" that clinton warmly embraced. it was only then that it dawned on the dim-witted proponents that a line item veto will give more power to the president whoever it is, even (gasp) their political opponents if they happen to hold the office. after that, it was quietly dropped. no one talks about the line item veto much anymore, even now that the republican party has regained control of the white house. eventually perhaps, it will occur to miskin and his ilk that a recall procedure can be used against their people too.
(the links to the nevada and pennsylvania recall efforts via atrios)
i'm back
i ended up taking more of a hiatus than i thought i would. i should start posting again later today.
meanwhile, in my absence, the court denied fox's motion to enjoin publication of al franken's book calling the motion "wholly without merit both factually and legally." the case has not been dismissed yet, but this is basically its death-knell, as far as i am concerned (the only fun part left in the case would be if franken or penguin (his publisher) go after fox for sanctions under FRCP 11(c)). not surprisingly, fox's coverage of the decision was, well, pretty paltry.
anyway, all i'm trying to get at before i start posting about other things is that now that good has triumphed over evil (at least in one particular courtroom), i am no longer either fair or balanced
UPDATE: i spoke too soon. fox has dropped the lawsuit. although there is still time for a franken and/or penguin to file a certain motion...
meanwhile, in my absence, the court denied fox's motion to enjoin publication of al franken's book calling the motion "wholly without merit both factually and legally." the case has not been dismissed yet, but this is basically its death-knell, as far as i am concerned (the only fun part left in the case would be if franken or penguin (his publisher) go after fox for sanctions under FRCP 11(c)). not surprisingly, fox's coverage of the decision was, well, pretty paltry.
anyway, all i'm trying to get at before i start posting about other things is that now that good has triumphed over evil (at least in one particular courtroom), i am no longer either fair or balanced
UPDATE: i spoke too soon. fox has dropped the lawsuit. although there is still time for a franken and/or penguin to file a certain motion...
Friday, August 22, 2003
going away
i'm going away again this weekend. i'm getting a little tired of it. at least next weekend i will be around (on the other hand, the three weekends after that i will be in central asia) anyway, all i'm trying to say is that blogging opportunities will be fairly limited over the next few days. maybe i can sneak something in, or maybe not.
meanwhile, you must read josh marshall's interview with peter bergen, al qaeda expert and author of holy war, inc.: inside the secret world of osama bin laden. part one of the interview is here and part two is here.
that should keep you busy for a while
meanwhile, you must read josh marshall's interview with peter bergen, al qaeda expert and author of holy war, inc.: inside the secret world of osama bin laden. part one of the interview is here and part two is here.
that should keep you busy for a while
Thursday, August 21, 2003
the maddest saddest thing
tonight when i checked my sitemeter i was surprised to see a big spike in my number of hits. i usually get about 30 a day. i probably know about half of those 30 people. today, however, i got a couple hundred, all in the past few hours.
it turns out i was linked to media whores online (as of this posting it's about 1/4 of the way down the page). there's a block quote attributed to me there along with a link. the problem is, i didn't write the quote.
on july 30th, i wrote a long rant about the so-called flypaper theory, specifically why the whole idea is so stupid. while writing the thing, i found the following quote in a comment to this essay at billmon's whiskey bar:
"The maddest, saddest thing about the neocons is that they believe that 'terrorism'
is an ontological category, not a tactic. So they reckon there is a fixed number of
terrorists, and, once they are all dead, there won't be any more. But it doesn't work
like that. For every civilian you kill, you make another two terrorists. And the more you
kill, the more there will be. The British know this. the French learned it in Algeria.
Even the Israelis know it now. But Bush and his voters are going to have to learn
it all over again, very slowly, very painfully; and the whole damn world will pay
the price this time."
the comment was written by andrew brown, not me. i tried to attribute it in my july 30, 2003 post, but apparently i wasn't clear enough. i just sent MWO an email informing them of the mistake. while i am happy for all of the attention, i don't want to take credit for something that i did not, in fact, write. sorry for the confusion.
it turns out i was linked to media whores online (as of this posting it's about 1/4 of the way down the page). there's a block quote attributed to me there along with a link. the problem is, i didn't write the quote.
on july 30th, i wrote a long rant about the so-called flypaper theory, specifically why the whole idea is so stupid. while writing the thing, i found the following quote in a comment to this essay at billmon's whiskey bar:
"The maddest, saddest thing about the neocons is that they believe that 'terrorism'
is an ontological category, not a tactic. So they reckon there is a fixed number of
terrorists, and, once they are all dead, there won't be any more. But it doesn't work
like that. For every civilian you kill, you make another two terrorists. And the more you
kill, the more there will be. The British know this. the French learned it in Algeria.
Even the Israelis know it now. But Bush and his voters are going to have to learn
it all over again, very slowly, very painfully; and the whole damn world will pay
the price this time."
the comment was written by andrew brown, not me. i tried to attribute it in my july 30, 2003 post, but apparently i wasn't clear enough. i just sent MWO an email informing them of the mistake. while i am happy for all of the attention, i don't want to take credit for something that i did not, in fact, write. sorry for the confusion.
fair and balanced: the revenge
i'm at work. actually, i guess you could say that i am frantically busy right now. i worked through lunch so i haven't left this place all day. part of the problem is that i am covering for another attorney in the office. she has a brief due tomorrow, but is at an arbitration today. because i have been semi-involved with the case that must be briefed, i am writing the brief for her. unfortunately, it came at a time that i had a lot of my own work to do.
so i'm writing this brief, reading various deposition transcripts, and downloading cases hoping to finish up the brief so i can get to my other work. but its hard to work because its so freakin' loud here. the arbitration is being held in the conference room in our office down the hall. the arbitration hearing apparently never started, instead the parties are trying to settle the case. that means that instead of all gathering together in one conference room, they keep spreading out across our law office to huddle in small groups to talk about settlement negotiation strategy. the groups probably should be whispering to each other when they discuss such things, but instead they're really loud. unfortunately, there is an empty desk just outside my office, and it seems to be a favorite place for various factions to gather and argue about what they should do in their settlement discussions. meanwhile, i have read the same page of this deposition transcript 17 times and i still don't know what it says.
i'm starving, so at one point, i get up and wander over to the food they have ordered for the participants in the arbitration. as i'm loading up my plate with illicit sandwiches, i start chatting with these other two guys who are also loitering in the kitchen. i don't recognize them so they're not from our firm or with our union client, they're obviously people from the other side. i realize i have no idea who the other side even is, so i ask.
the other side is fox news. these guys are in-house counsel for fox. they're all around me now. and they're loud. and they're pissing me off.
so i'm writing this brief, reading various deposition transcripts, and downloading cases hoping to finish up the brief so i can get to my other work. but its hard to work because its so freakin' loud here. the arbitration is being held in the conference room in our office down the hall. the arbitration hearing apparently never started, instead the parties are trying to settle the case. that means that instead of all gathering together in one conference room, they keep spreading out across our law office to huddle in small groups to talk about settlement negotiation strategy. the groups probably should be whispering to each other when they discuss such things, but instead they're really loud. unfortunately, there is an empty desk just outside my office, and it seems to be a favorite place for various factions to gather and argue about what they should do in their settlement discussions. meanwhile, i have read the same page of this deposition transcript 17 times and i still don't know what it says.
i'm starving, so at one point, i get up and wander over to the food they have ordered for the participants in the arbitration. as i'm loading up my plate with illicit sandwiches, i start chatting with these other two guys who are also loitering in the kitchen. i don't recognize them so they're not from our firm or with our union client, they're obviously people from the other side. i realize i have no idea who the other side even is, so i ask.
the other side is fox news. these guys are in-house counsel for fox. they're all around me now. and they're loud. and they're pissing me off.
Wednesday, August 20, 2003
gender genie
check this out. an anonymous friend of mine has created a site that guesses the gender of the author of whatever text you feed into it based on an algorithm created by moshe koppel, bar-ilan university in israel, and shlomo argamon, illinois institute of technology.
i fed various bits of legal writing that were sitting on my computer at work into the site. half were written by me, and half by a female co-worker. the gender genie said they were all male. then i fed several letters from the new york times into it, and it did much better--guessing correctly on all but one of the 8 or so letters i entered. the genie supposily works best with fiction, which i haven't tried yet.
i'm actually curious if formal writing from fields other than law will also come up as male (i.e. if the algorithm reads all formal writing as male) or if each discipline's writing style will appear to be one gender or another.
i fed various bits of legal writing that were sitting on my computer at work into the site. half were written by me, and half by a female co-worker. the gender genie said they were all male. then i fed several letters from the new york times into it, and it did much better--guessing correctly on all but one of the 8 or so letters i entered. the genie supposily works best with fiction, which i haven't tried yet.
i'm actually curious if formal writing from fields other than law will also come up as male (i.e. if the algorithm reads all formal writing as male) or if each discipline's writing style will appear to be one gender or another.
morass
from this morning's new york times:
Despite the steady loss of American life in Iraq, the continued search for Mr. Hussein and the administration's failure so far to uncover any caches of banned weapons, analysts said the bombing by itself was unlikely to reshape public opinion or the administration's approach.
"I'm not sure this is of a sufficient magnitude to make Americans stop and say, `What are we doing there?' " said Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a research organization in Washington.
"But if this kind of thing continues, if it seems to be becoming a morass, that could become a problem for the president."
(emphasis added)
i love that first paragraph. sure, every day someone new dies in iraq, saddam and his alleged weapons (the reason we invaded) are no where to be found, but this bombing by itself won't effect public opinion. but wait... doesn't the whole first half of that sentence show that this bombing is not "by itself." in fact, it is yet another of a list of reasons to believe iraq is turning into a major disaster.
if this, combined with all of the other things is not of "sufficient magnitude" to make people wonder why we are there, is there anything that ever will?
"becoming a morass"?!?!? i wonder what mr. alterman thinks a morass is. i submit that a "morass" is something we feel we cannot escape from. how exactly are american troops ever supposed to escape iraq without leaving chaos and hostility in their wake?
on a related noted, i've added baghdad burning to my link list. it's a blog by "riverbend," a 24 year old iraqi woman living in baghdad whose observations salam pax occasionally posted on his blog. well, now she has her own site. check it out.
Despite the steady loss of American life in Iraq, the continued search for Mr. Hussein and the administration's failure so far to uncover any caches of banned weapons, analysts said the bombing by itself was unlikely to reshape public opinion or the administration's approach.
"I'm not sure this is of a sufficient magnitude to make Americans stop and say, `What are we doing there?' " said Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a research organization in Washington.
"But if this kind of thing continues, if it seems to be becoming a morass, that could become a problem for the president."
(emphasis added)
i love that first paragraph. sure, every day someone new dies in iraq, saddam and his alleged weapons (the reason we invaded) are no where to be found, but this bombing by itself won't effect public opinion. but wait... doesn't the whole first half of that sentence show that this bombing is not "by itself." in fact, it is yet another of a list of reasons to believe iraq is turning into a major disaster.
if this, combined with all of the other things is not of "sufficient magnitude" to make people wonder why we are there, is there anything that ever will?
"becoming a morass"?!?!? i wonder what mr. alterman thinks a morass is. i submit that a "morass" is something we feel we cannot escape from. how exactly are american troops ever supposed to escape iraq without leaving chaos and hostility in their wake?
on a related noted, i've added baghdad burning to my link list. it's a blog by "riverbend," a 24 year old iraqi woman living in baghdad whose observations salam pax occasionally posted on his blog. well, now she has her own site. check it out.
Tuesday, August 19, 2003
Monday, August 18, 2003
a quick timeline
june 2001: a bill is introduced to provide funding to improve the nation's power grid. president bush opposed it, and the republican dominated house voted it down 3 times (once in the appropriations committee, once in the rules committee and once on the house floor). see this press release by u.s. representative farr. (via altercation)
august 14, 2003: as the power grid fails across several states in the u.s. and canada, president bush makes the following statement:
“We’ll have time to look at it and determine whether or not our grid needs to be modernized. I happen to think it does, and have said so all along.”
august 17, 2003: the bush administration tries to block a plan to strengthen the nation's power grid
around and around it goes. now does everyone have fresh batteries in their flashlight?
august 14, 2003: as the power grid fails across several states in the u.s. and canada, president bush makes the following statement:
“We’ll have time to look at it and determine whether or not our grid needs to be modernized. I happen to think it does, and have said so all along.”
august 17, 2003: the bush administration tries to block a plan to strengthen the nation's power grid
around and around it goes. now does everyone have fresh batteries in their flashlight?
Sunday, August 17, 2003
back from the secret lives of dentists and from reston, virginia. and bear, delaware, and a bike ride around the general area of the east coast, usa where i live.
in 3 weeks i will be in uzbekistan, but right now, all i want to do is sit on my ass and read at home. it was a good weekend though
in 3 weeks i will be in uzbekistan, but right now, all i want to do is sit on my ass and read at home. it was a good weekend though
Saturday, August 16, 2003
Friday, August 15, 2003
i have been remiss, 2 days ago salam pax's fair and balanced column in "the guardian" came out and i didn't link to it. so now i have.
um, i guess that's it.
um, i guess that's it.
a fairly busy weekend, on balance . we are going to a wedding tomorrow in virginia. its not really a wedding. the couple already ran off to the dominican republic for the ceremony some time last month. this is just the party that follows. when we got the invitation, i arranged for my wife and i to spend saturday night after the party at a friend's place in washington d.c., or at least i think i mentioned it to her. then i forgot to follow up and now its suddenly tomorrow night. i hope she remembers..
i have a question (i'll try to be fair and balanced): how can the authorities both conclude no terrorists were involved in the blackouts that struck much of the northeast, and not know the cause of the blackouts?
i realize they are trying to reassure the public, and maybe they just mean that no one bombed any power stations, but that's not the only thing that fits the definition of "terrorism." sometimes i wonder if our current regime even knows what the word means
i realize they are trying to reassure the public, and maybe they just mean that no one bombed any power stations, but that's not the only thing that fits the definition of "terrorism." sometimes i wonder if our current regime even knows what the word means
happy fair and balanced friday! (t-shirts available here and make sure to check out thomasmc.com which is really taking fair and balanced friday to heart.)
Thursday, August 14, 2003
the blackout that hit much of the northeastern corner of this country missed me entirely, so i got to stay at work all day. the funny thing is, it never even occurred to me when i first heard about it that the outage would be a terrorist attack. i didn't consider the possibility until i read an article ruling it out.
the "great blackout of 2003," as i've already heard it called, will probably trump this story: the taliban takes control of an afghan provence. on the other hand, since this happened a few days ago without a peep in the papers, so it probably wouldn't have gotten any attention anyway. calpundit has a discussion and map. now many of us may have been under the impression that the taliban were no more, but actually, they have been attacking both u.s. forces and various afghan militias for the last few months. yesterday, in fact, was particularly bloody. no wonder the u.s. seems to be trying to buy its way out of afghanistan.
on that other front, the bush administration won't let the u.n. have a bigger role in iraq. the administration explained that doesn't want to give up control because it is afraid that, if let into iraq, other countries will "try to get more contracts and economic benefits for themselves." after all, the economic benefits of iraq should only go to america, or at least halliburton. tom tomorrow does an excellent job taking apart the times article i linked to at the beginning of this paragraph.
as a follow-up to one of the stories i posted about yesterday, the u.s. military is apologizing for that banner incident. however, they still insist they did not intentionally take down the islamic banner, no matter that it look like on the videotape.
all these stories together are bad news for the bush administration. his popularity is largely based on the perception of his foreign policy successes--meaning afghanistan and iraq. if the taliban resurgence ever makes the headlines or iraq continues to be unstable, the american public may finally realize that the u.s. may not been victorious in either war, as the administration has led us to believe. personally, i think the decision not to use the u.n. is extremely stupid, even from a purely tactical standpoint. by involving the u.n, the u.s. could begin to win back all those allies it has alienated in the past year. also if the u.n. took over and things continued to deteriorate, the administration could just blame the u.n. for the chaos (like many did with somalia). bush is burning one of his few remaining bridges out of baghdad. which just goes to show that he may actually believe the wishful fantasies the administration is trying to sell the american public.
the "great blackout of 2003," as i've already heard it called, will probably trump this story: the taliban takes control of an afghan provence. on the other hand, since this happened a few days ago without a peep in the papers, so it probably wouldn't have gotten any attention anyway. calpundit has a discussion and map. now many of us may have been under the impression that the taliban were no more, but actually, they have been attacking both u.s. forces and various afghan militias for the last few months. yesterday, in fact, was particularly bloody. no wonder the u.s. seems to be trying to buy its way out of afghanistan.
on that other front, the bush administration won't let the u.n. have a bigger role in iraq. the administration explained that doesn't want to give up control because it is afraid that, if let into iraq, other countries will "try to get more contracts and economic benefits for themselves." after all, the economic benefits of iraq should only go to america, or at least halliburton. tom tomorrow does an excellent job taking apart the times article i linked to at the beginning of this paragraph.
as a follow-up to one of the stories i posted about yesterday, the u.s. military is apologizing for that banner incident. however, they still insist they did not intentionally take down the islamic banner, no matter that it look like on the videotape.
all these stories together are bad news for the bush administration. his popularity is largely based on the perception of his foreign policy successes--meaning afghanistan and iraq. if the taliban resurgence ever makes the headlines or iraq continues to be unstable, the american public may finally realize that the u.s. may not been victorious in either war, as the administration has led us to believe. personally, i think the decision not to use the u.n. is extremely stupid, even from a purely tactical standpoint. by involving the u.n, the u.s. could begin to win back all those allies it has alienated in the past year. also if the u.n. took over and things continued to deteriorate, the administration could just blame the u.n. for the chaos (like many did with somalia). bush is burning one of his few remaining bridges out of baghdad. which just goes to show that he may actually believe the wishful fantasies the administration is trying to sell the american public.
Wednesday, August 13, 2003
salam pax's friend was beaten up by u.s. forces. the friend works for the new york times, but he had a beard and was iraqi, so obviously he deserved to have the shit beaten out of him.
meanwhile u.s. forces deny pulling down an islamic banner at a demonstration but the whole thing is caught on tape, which shows them pulling it down
another bush action figure for sale at ebay (this one the AWOL bush aviator, referring to bush's disappearance for the last year of his service with the texas national guard). apparently, not everyone is getting the joke. go see if you do
and finally, brace yourself for fair and balanced friday
meanwhile u.s. forces deny pulling down an islamic banner at a demonstration but the whole thing is caught on tape, which shows them pulling it down
another bush action figure for sale at ebay (this one the AWOL bush aviator, referring to bush's disappearance for the last year of his service with the texas national guard). apparently, not everyone is getting the joke. go see if you do
and finally, brace yourself for fair and balanced friday
i haven't written much here related to my job as a labor lawyer (aside from occasional complaints about deadlines, etc.) in part, its because nathan newman does a better job than i could ever hope to. also, when i am not working, i tend to want to write about other interests that are not related to my work. the work stuff i mull over all day, when i have a chance to blog i am usually trying to get something off my chest that i haven't had the chance to yet. thus, i often write about foreign issues because that's one of my major interests that does not at all relate to the labor issues i deal with at work.
at least most of the time. here's one of the rare stories where foreign policy and labor rights intersect (this is a press release relating to a story that the press is apparently not bothering with):
u.s. arrests iraqi labor leaders
On Saturday, August 2, at 11:30 p.m., Baghdad local time, U.S. occupation forces arrested Qasim Hadi and fifty-four other Iraqi leaders and members of the Union of the Unemployed in Iraq who had been engaged in a five-day sit-in protest of the treatment of unemployed Iraqi workers by occupation forces and U.S. corporations granted contracts for work in Iraq. We are informed that the detained workers were released only after the intervention of representatives of the United Nations.
These were not armed combatants. They were not terrorists. These were unemployed workers peacefully protesting, exercising their democratic right to seek redress for their grievances.
U.S. Labor Against War joins with the International Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples and the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions to unequivocally condemn these arrests. The U.S. cannot claim to be acting in the interests of the Iraqi people with the objective of establishing a democratic government in Iraq while violating internationally recognized labor and human rights of Iraqi workers who seek to exercise their democratic rights to peacefully protest and seek redress for their grievances.
The bedrock of any democracy is the right of dissent and the right to seek redress for grievances against the ruling order. One of the principal building blocks of a democratic government and society is the existence and operation of an independent labor movement. Iraq is signatory to more than fifty of the International Labor Organization Conventions on labor rights, at the center of which is the right to organize and to protest treatment and conditions. U.S. and other occupation forces are obligated to respect and honor those Conventions.
We call upon the U.S. and other occupation forces to immediately and fully respect all of the rights guaranteed by the ILO Conventions. Further, we call for the immediate withdrawal from Iraq of all U.S., British and other combatant forces. The U.S. and other Coalitionpartners in the invasion of Iraq are morally and legally obligated instead to provide whatever resources are required to meet that country's humanitarian needs and for reconstruction and repair of damages caused by their military actions.
In pursuit of these objectives, we have launched an International Campaign for Iraqi Labor Rights. We are committed to support Iraqi workers as they organize their own independent, democratic labor movement free of interference by employers and all external interests. Accordingly, we intend to send an international delegation of labor leaders to Iraq to monitor the observance of labor rights there. Details about this delegation will be forthcoming.
(via the bittershack of resentment)
thanks to bush's executive order giving blanket immunity to american oil companies in iraq, it would seem that the labor leaders are facing a major uphill battle, at least in iraq's largest industry. (and that's assuming there is a legal system to speak of that they can resort to)
at least most of the time. here's one of the rare stories where foreign policy and labor rights intersect (this is a press release relating to a story that the press is apparently not bothering with):
u.s. arrests iraqi labor leaders
On Saturday, August 2, at 11:30 p.m., Baghdad local time, U.S. occupation forces arrested Qasim Hadi and fifty-four other Iraqi leaders and members of the Union of the Unemployed in Iraq who had been engaged in a five-day sit-in protest of the treatment of unemployed Iraqi workers by occupation forces and U.S. corporations granted contracts for work in Iraq. We are informed that the detained workers were released only after the intervention of representatives of the United Nations.
These were not armed combatants. They were not terrorists. These were unemployed workers peacefully protesting, exercising their democratic right to seek redress for their grievances.
U.S. Labor Against War joins with the International Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples and the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions to unequivocally condemn these arrests. The U.S. cannot claim to be acting in the interests of the Iraqi people with the objective of establishing a democratic government in Iraq while violating internationally recognized labor and human rights of Iraqi workers who seek to exercise their democratic rights to peacefully protest and seek redress for their grievances.
The bedrock of any democracy is the right of dissent and the right to seek redress for grievances against the ruling order. One of the principal building blocks of a democratic government and society is the existence and operation of an independent labor movement. Iraq is signatory to more than fifty of the International Labor Organization Conventions on labor rights, at the center of which is the right to organize and to protest treatment and conditions. U.S. and other occupation forces are obligated to respect and honor those Conventions.
We call upon the U.S. and other occupation forces to immediately and fully respect all of the rights guaranteed by the ILO Conventions. Further, we call for the immediate withdrawal from Iraq of all U.S., British and other combatant forces. The U.S. and other Coalitionpartners in the invasion of Iraq are morally and legally obligated instead to provide whatever resources are required to meet that country's humanitarian needs and for reconstruction and repair of damages caused by their military actions.
In pursuit of these objectives, we have launched an International Campaign for Iraqi Labor Rights. We are committed to support Iraqi workers as they organize their own independent, democratic labor movement free of interference by employers and all external interests. Accordingly, we intend to send an international delegation of labor leaders to Iraq to monitor the observance of labor rights there. Details about this delegation will be forthcoming.
(via the bittershack of resentment)
thanks to bush's executive order giving blanket immunity to american oil companies in iraq, it would seem that the labor leaders are facing a major uphill battle, at least in iraq's largest industry. (and that's assuming there is a legal system to speak of that they can resort to)
finally visited the travel clinic today about my uzbekistan trip and boy are my arms tired. it turns out my tetanus was out of date, as was my typhoid. neither were required but both recommended. at least i got my cipro prescription. that stuff just piles up. whenever i go to the developing world, i get cipro in case i develop travelers diarrhea. i never have, so i just bring it home with me and throw it in the medicine cabinet. when that anthrax-by-mail thing happened a few years back and the general public was trying to get cipro whenever they had a slight cough, i glanced at that shelf in my medicine cabinet and wondered what the street value of that stuff was. alas, i missed my chance. plus all of it is expired by now. so now i got a prescription for a new dose, which i will just join its brethren at the end of september when i come home. you know if i ever skip it on one of these trips, that's when i’ll need it.
Tuesday, August 12, 2003
cnn has a new poll at its web site about gay marriages. the question is: should marriage be legally defined as only a union between a man and a woman? the poll is currently running 50-50.
in the spirit of manipulating unscientific polls go stuff the ballot box. the beauty is, you can vote as many times as you want. (ahh, reminds me of my days in chicago...)
in the spirit of manipulating unscientific polls go stuff the ballot box. the beauty is, you can vote as many times as you want. (ahh, reminds me of my days in chicago...)
a few days ago i read about this presidential action figure. i wanted one to swap heads with a barbie doll (but i can't stomach giving whoever is profiting off of that thing any of my money). but the bottom one here and these here are the ones i really want
i finished queen city jazz. it wasn't that great. so much for my geeky roots.
so now i'm reading jihad: the rise of militant islam in central asia, the next in a long series of books i've been reading about central asian politics/culture/problems/etc. i'm actually a big fan of ahmed rashid, the author.
i just gotta remember to not have the book lying around the house for my wife to find when i am wandering alone in uzbekistan
so now i'm reading jihad: the rise of militant islam in central asia, the next in a long series of books i've been reading about central asian politics/culture/problems/etc. i'm actually a big fan of ahmed rashid, the author.
i just gotta remember to not have the book lying around the house for my wife to find when i am wandering alone in uzbekistan
so al franken's new book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them has the tag line "A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" on the cover. the tag line is a parody of the fox news slogan. a slogan which, to me at least, has a sort of orwellian air to it given fox's jingoistic broadcasts.
well fox, or rather its parent company, is suing franken and his publisher for using the phrase.
to protest this lawsuit, atrios added "fair and balanced" to its tag line yesterday, several blogs followed and now we have an online protest. so count me in.
on the off chance some fox lawyer were to slink by here, please note: WE ARE DOING THIS TO MAKE FUN OF YOU (i.e. this is a parody. just like franken's is. see campbell v. acuff rose music, 510 u.s. 569 (1994) if you're not clear what i am referring to)
UPDATE: blah3 is now the place to go to see the full list of fair and balanced sites.
well fox, or rather its parent company, is suing franken and his publisher for using the phrase.
to protest this lawsuit, atrios added "fair and balanced" to its tag line yesterday, several blogs followed and now we have an online protest. so count me in.
on the off chance some fox lawyer were to slink by here, please note: WE ARE DOING THIS TO MAKE FUN OF YOU (i.e. this is a parody. just like franken's is. see campbell v. acuff rose music, 510 u.s. 569 (1994) if you're not clear what i am referring to)
UPDATE: blah3 is now the place to go to see the full list of fair and balanced sites.
Monday, August 11, 2003
hey, i just noticed ishtar is talking again!!!
check it out for a real perspective from southern iraq
check it out for a real perspective from southern iraq
well, at least one thing in this country is going in the right direction. for the full story, go here
anyway, i am back from chicago. saw several friends two of which have blogs (that i know of. i suspect that henry morof has a secret blog, but he's not talking). the details are funny and yet deeply meaningful. perhaps in a way that none of us can really ever fully understand. i would describe the visit in detail, but i don't want to right now. maybe some of those with blogs already have. who knows? i really have no idea how one could find that out
i really miss living in that city. while i think i have more of a life here now, some of my closest and dearest friends are out yonder. the only obvious solution is for all of them to move here.
i am tired and scatter-brained after a day of the office plus my arabic group (have you noticed yet?). i actually forgot to go to a doctor's appointment this morning. i was supposed to go get evaluated for whatever shots and prescriptions i need for uzbekistan. i made the appointment when i was at work last week and i only wrote it on calendar that sits at my desk rather than my palm. during my fun-filled chicago weekend, the appointment conveniently erased from my mind, until i came into work this morning, glanced at the calendar and realized that i had missed it.
i blame society.
more later when i feel more up to it
anyway, i am back from chicago. saw several friends two of which have blogs (that i know of. i suspect that henry morof has a secret blog, but he's not talking). the details are funny and yet deeply meaningful. perhaps in a way that none of us can really ever fully understand. i would describe the visit in detail, but i don't want to right now. maybe some of those with blogs already have. who knows? i really have no idea how one could find that out
i really miss living in that city. while i think i have more of a life here now, some of my closest and dearest friends are out yonder. the only obvious solution is for all of them to move here.
i am tired and scatter-brained after a day of the office plus my arabic group (have you noticed yet?). i actually forgot to go to a doctor's appointment this morning. i was supposed to go get evaluated for whatever shots and prescriptions i need for uzbekistan. i made the appointment when i was at work last week and i only wrote it on calendar that sits at my desk rather than my palm. during my fun-filled chicago weekend, the appointment conveniently erased from my mind, until i came into work this morning, glanced at the calendar and realized that i had missed it.
i blame society.
more later when i feel more up to it
Thursday, August 07, 2003
i had some time to fiddle with my template tonight as the laundry brewed downstairs. i made the links more visible and also added tashkent diaryland to my links. the latter is a blog by an american living and working in central asia (currently, turkmenistan)
i'm off tomorrow on a whirlwind concert victory tour. the schedule is as follows:
8/8 to 8/10 chicago
if you miss me when i'm gone, go send this t-shirt to this congressman. he had a bad day today, so why not send him a gift? the links make it nice and easy for you too.
(once again via atrios)
8/8 to 8/10 chicago
if you miss me when i'm gone, go send this t-shirt to this congressman. he had a bad day today, so why not send him a gift? the links make it nice and easy for you too.
(once again via atrios)
Wednesday, August 06, 2003
as i've mentioned here before, i have been following sean-paul kelley's silk road journal with interest, even though he left uzbekistan several weeks ago (he's now in india). while passing through china he had several bad experiences. his posts about those experiences have started a small online debate about whether he (or at least his use of the word "chink") is racist. this article "where does racism begin" examines the matter from the perspective of an ex pat living in china and also has a good discussion of the broader issue faced by all travelers: where is the line between disapproval of a something you encounter in a different culture and racism
why isn't the full casualty count being given for iraq? the news media only reports when an american dies in something that is confirmed to be hostile fire.
so that means that this civilian contractor's death made it onto n.p.r. this morning. but there was no mention of:
an american soldier wounded when a police station was attacked by an angry mob in fallujah (a reference to it is buried in this article)
the u.s. soldier who fell to his death in mosul
the u.s. soldier who died of an "apparent heart attack" while riding on a convoy
the turkish convoy that was attacked in iraq
(thanks to yankee doodle for keeping track of these things for us on his site and making the above list a LOT easier)
i'm not saying that the morning news should mention all of these things, but these kinds of unreported incidents happen every day (actually, yesterday was a light day compared to the average for the last week). the decision not to report the wounding of soldiers or any deaths that are not confirmed to be from hostile fire is seriously misleading about the ongoing costs of this war. as this story from "the guardian" notes that the total number of deaths is more than double what is generally reported. and by not mentioning the wounded unless someone dies in the same attack, the public is largely unaware of just how common these attacks are. due to modern body armor most attacks produce only wounded soldiers on the american side. under these unofficial media ground rules that means that most attacks effectively go unreported.
ADDENDUM: check out this post from the daily kos that also takes up this issue. (via SOB)
so that means that this civilian contractor's death made it onto n.p.r. this morning. but there was no mention of:
an american soldier wounded when a police station was attacked by an angry mob in fallujah (a reference to it is buried in this article)
the u.s. soldier who fell to his death in mosul
the u.s. soldier who died of an "apparent heart attack" while riding on a convoy
the turkish convoy that was attacked in iraq
(thanks to yankee doodle for keeping track of these things for us on his site and making the above list a LOT easier)
i'm not saying that the morning news should mention all of these things, but these kinds of unreported incidents happen every day (actually, yesterday was a light day compared to the average for the last week). the decision not to report the wounding of soldiers or any deaths that are not confirmed to be from hostile fire is seriously misleading about the ongoing costs of this war. as this story from "the guardian" notes that the total number of deaths is more than double what is generally reported. and by not mentioning the wounded unless someone dies in the same attack, the public is largely unaware of just how common these attacks are. due to modern body armor most attacks produce only wounded soldiers on the american side. under these unofficial media ground rules that means that most attacks effectively go unreported.
ADDENDUM: check out this post from the daily kos that also takes up this issue. (via SOB)
what ever happened to mahdi obeidi? he's that iraqi scientist who turned himself in last june and showed where various equipment from iraq's pre-1991 nuclear program was bured in his garden.
josh marshall tells the story of what happened since then. yet another reason to be ashamed of my country.
josh marshall tells the story of what happened since then. yet another reason to be ashamed of my country.
its been a weird day.
i guess it started last night. i was reading and my wife was on the computer. she called me over and showed me the story of mine an ener. i didn't recognize the name, but i recognized the picture of her. she and her husband are friends of our neighbor. about two years ago the neighbor had my wife and i, mine, and her husband over to dinner at the same time. mine teaches (taught?) at villanova, a college down the road from where we live. i remember talking to her about her native turkey (where my wife and i went for our honeymoon) and about arabic (a language i had studied before i moved here and wanted to get back to again) since mine not only spoke the language but was part of the center of arab and islamic studies at villanova. we seemed to get along well; both her and her husband tried to convince us to join an ultimate frisbee group.
i don't know why the news of mine's crimes shook me and my wife so much. i guess we "know" her, but only in the barest sense of the word. and we have not seen her in at least two years (or whenever the hell that dinner party was). maybe its because the graphic details of her crime seem disconnected from the intelligent friendly woman we met that night. she and her husband also seemed like so many other people we regularly hang around with. my wife is a professor at a small college and we regularly socialize with young academics like mine. we may be seeing too much of ourselves in her, which makes the facts of her actions all the more horrifying.
mine's story was on the front page of the papers that stared out at me from the vending machines at the train station this morning. i am dreading this turning into another media-circus. perhaps only will be locally. the philadelphia inquirer article makes sure to mention that mine speaks arabic and turkish and "often traveled to the middle east." i wonder what that will mean to most people? the article pointedly failed to mention that her husband is an israeli.
so with this on mind this morning, we heard on the radio that a residential building in downtown philly caught fire last night and was completely gutted. they gave the cross streets that make the corner where this building sits and it so happens that three of our friends live right around there. it turns out, none of them were in that particular building. one, however, is a lawyer in my office and this morning she described how she stood outside last night watching people scream for the attention of firefighters from windows of the burning apartment.
not a normal day.
i guess it started last night. i was reading and my wife was on the computer. she called me over and showed me the story of mine an ener. i didn't recognize the name, but i recognized the picture of her. she and her husband are friends of our neighbor. about two years ago the neighbor had my wife and i, mine, and her husband over to dinner at the same time. mine teaches (taught?) at villanova, a college down the road from where we live. i remember talking to her about her native turkey (where my wife and i went for our honeymoon) and about arabic (a language i had studied before i moved here and wanted to get back to again) since mine not only spoke the language but was part of the center of arab and islamic studies at villanova. we seemed to get along well; both her and her husband tried to convince us to join an ultimate frisbee group.
i don't know why the news of mine's crimes shook me and my wife so much. i guess we "know" her, but only in the barest sense of the word. and we have not seen her in at least two years (or whenever the hell that dinner party was). maybe its because the graphic details of her crime seem disconnected from the intelligent friendly woman we met that night. she and her husband also seemed like so many other people we regularly hang around with. my wife is a professor at a small college and we regularly socialize with young academics like mine. we may be seeing too much of ourselves in her, which makes the facts of her actions all the more horrifying.
mine's story was on the front page of the papers that stared out at me from the vending machines at the train station this morning. i am dreading this turning into another media-circus. perhaps only will be locally. the philadelphia inquirer article makes sure to mention that mine speaks arabic and turkish and "often traveled to the middle east." i wonder what that will mean to most people? the article pointedly failed to mention that her husband is an israeli.
so with this on mind this morning, we heard on the radio that a residential building in downtown philly caught fire last night and was completely gutted. they gave the cross streets that make the corner where this building sits and it so happens that three of our friends live right around there. it turns out, none of them were in that particular building. one, however, is a lawyer in my office and this morning she described how she stood outside last night watching people scream for the attention of firefighters from windows of the burning apartment.
not a normal day.
Tuesday, August 05, 2003
i'm not a californian, but if i were, this guy would be my man if governor davis is recalled. what really got me was his platform.
(via atrios)
(via atrios)
Monday, August 04, 2003
i'm just back from arabic and its hot and stuffy in this room, so this will be short.
i spent most of today working on a brief while checking the internet obsessively for an indication that the folks at the nlrb approved my request for an extension so i could immediately stop working on it. if they don't grant it, this week will be shitty. it was that kind of day. it was also my last day with chocolate for the next month. working furiously on a brief on the last day to eat chocolate is a bad combination.
politically, lots of posts in lots of blogs over there on the-hand column right are writing about outrageous things. they may be right to be outraged, but i wonder how most of them find the time. meanwhile tom tomorrow got a picture of my favorite bridge i see out the window every time i go to new york. here's his take on what it all means.
i spent most of today working on a brief while checking the internet obsessively for an indication that the folks at the nlrb approved my request for an extension so i could immediately stop working on it. if they don't grant it, this week will be shitty. it was that kind of day. it was also my last day with chocolate for the next month. working furiously on a brief on the last day to eat chocolate is a bad combination.
politically, lots of posts in lots of blogs over there on the-hand column right are writing about outrageous things. they may be right to be outraged, but i wonder how most of them find the time. meanwhile tom tomorrow got a picture of my favorite bridge i see out the window every time i go to new york. here's his take on what it all means.
Sunday, August 03, 2003
i seem to do this almost every time he posts, but go check out salam pax's latest. once again, this should be required reading for anyone before they start to lecture me about how grateful the iraqis are about the american occupation.
next time you talk to someone who's utters the "it's only 16 words" line, send them over to the bush administration's top 40 lies about war and terrorism
friday night we saw dirty pretty things. i really liked it, although it was a pretty depressing view of the immigrant experience in london. audrey tautou is supposed to be a turkish immigrant. it didn't quite sound like a turkish accent to me, but at least it wasn't french either. oddly, tautou's character spent the whole time trying to escape the hell of london and get to new york. but the hellish part of london that she sought to escape--immigration authorities, low wage jobs at sweat shops, sexual exploitation by bosses, etc.--are not much different in nyc when you're an illegal immigrant. in any case, the film is definitely worth seeing.
it's gonna be a busy day today. i am helping to organize an event for the philadelphia vassar club. plus, i gotta do all the stuff i have avoided doing all weekend (including memorizing this passage in arabic. i feel like i'm always dragging my feet on those).
m'a salaama
friday night we saw dirty pretty things. i really liked it, although it was a pretty depressing view of the immigrant experience in london. audrey tautou is supposed to be a turkish immigrant. it didn't quite sound like a turkish accent to me, but at least it wasn't french either. oddly, tautou's character spent the whole time trying to escape the hell of london and get to new york. but the hellish part of london that she sought to escape--immigration authorities, low wage jobs at sweat shops, sexual exploitation by bosses, etc.--are not much different in nyc when you're an illegal immigrant. in any case, the film is definitely worth seeing.
it's gonna be a busy day today. i am helping to organize an event for the philadelphia vassar club. plus, i gotta do all the stuff i have avoided doing all weekend (including memorizing this passage in arabic. i feel like i'm always dragging my feet on those).
m'a salaama
Saturday, August 02, 2003
i've added adam felber's blog fanatical apathy to my link list. his save my marriage post hooked me.
my no-caffeine month begins tuesday. i do this every year, i stop having any caffeine for an entire month. people always ask me why, and i never have a good answer. or maybe i just have too many answers and the truth is a jumble of all of them.
this started some time in the mid-90s. i can't remember what year exactly. i have always been particularly sensitive to caffeine. before i was in high school i noticed a coke at dinner would mean a sleepless night. in law school as starbucks was first spreading across the country and virtually all of my friends turned to the stuff, i resisted. i was determined never to become addicted to anything, and caffeine seemed to be the easiest one for me to fall into.
there was also this childhood memory. one of my father's clients let us borrow his house in park city, utah when i was around 14. we spent a week there skiing. aside from the horrible sun burn i got (i was treated in the hospital for 2nd degree burns), what i most remember from that trip was my parents waking up the first morning and realizing there was no coffee in the place (my father's client was a mormon). my parents flipped out. i'll spare you the details, but they eventually found some instant at a local convenience store and they calmed down after a quick dose. the whole time, i was thinking that i would not ever allow myself to be addicted to anything
that all changed after i moved to chicago in 1995. i would walk 4 blocks from my bus to my office, passing numerous coffee places along even that short way, three were starbucks. in the winter, i would walk past these places in sub-zero temperatures and watch steam curl up from the lids of the cups in the hands of exiting customers. by the time i arrived at the office, the first thing that greeted me as i walked in the door was the smell of coffee wafting over from the kitchen. eventually, the smell was associated with the warmth that hit me as i entered into the office. coffee=warm. although i am love sub-zero temperatures, this still appealed to me. it wasn't long before i would drink a cup, justifying it as something to help me adjust to the temperature inside. it was free, after all. the coffee maker was open to everyone in the office.
by the time the thaw came, i still had my morning cup. by then it had been incorporated into my morning ritual. i liked the stimulant in the morning. plus i had acquired the taste, even to the extent of noticing that the coffee at work wasn't that good.
so at some time around 1997, i decided to stop caffeine cold turkey. i would stop not only coffee, but tea, cola, chocolate, etc. i was going to be absolute about it. the idea was to prove that i wasn't addicted, but it really proved just the opposite. i had a day or two of pounding headaches and sluggishness, but then it passed. for the next month i felt absolutely great. i briefly considered making it permanent, but the no chocolate rule was impossible to sustain. when exactly a month passed, i decided to call it off. my first cup of coffee afterwards hit me really hard. i was buzzing all day. still, i was proud of the fact that i went an entire month with absolutely no caffeine. i'm not sure why this appealed to me, but it did. i guess its just a way to prove i can be disciplined when i want. knowing that, i can feel free to sluff off the rest of the year.
i think in 1999 was when i decided to tie the no-caffeine month to my travels. i went to vietnam that year--a 12 hour time difference when you figure in their lack of daylights saving time--and i realized if i arrived with no caffeine tolerance, i could use caffeine to help me adjust to the local time. it also helps to get me excited about my travels. as i count down to my next cup of coffee or piece of chocolate, i am simultaneously counting down to the day i leave. the hardship of a month without caffeine is made easier knowing i get to go somewhere exotic at the other end.
so every year, i leave the country. and every year, one month before, i am irritable. it has become something that i just do. it's a part of my personality now. i do it in two phases. first one week before the month starts, i switch my morning coffee from regular to decaf. after a week of that i go cold-turkey with everything (i won't even have decaf. because it has some caffeine in it). i'm in the transition week now, but it ends tuesday. i've noticed getting off caffeine has been getting easier in the past few years. i never have major headaches anymore. hopefully, this tuesday won't suck too badly.
this started some time in the mid-90s. i can't remember what year exactly. i have always been particularly sensitive to caffeine. before i was in high school i noticed a coke at dinner would mean a sleepless night. in law school as starbucks was first spreading across the country and virtually all of my friends turned to the stuff, i resisted. i was determined never to become addicted to anything, and caffeine seemed to be the easiest one for me to fall into.
there was also this childhood memory. one of my father's clients let us borrow his house in park city, utah when i was around 14. we spent a week there skiing. aside from the horrible sun burn i got (i was treated in the hospital for 2nd degree burns), what i most remember from that trip was my parents waking up the first morning and realizing there was no coffee in the place (my father's client was a mormon). my parents flipped out. i'll spare you the details, but they eventually found some instant at a local convenience store and they calmed down after a quick dose. the whole time, i was thinking that i would not ever allow myself to be addicted to anything
that all changed after i moved to chicago in 1995. i would walk 4 blocks from my bus to my office, passing numerous coffee places along even that short way, three were starbucks. in the winter, i would walk past these places in sub-zero temperatures and watch steam curl up from the lids of the cups in the hands of exiting customers. by the time i arrived at the office, the first thing that greeted me as i walked in the door was the smell of coffee wafting over from the kitchen. eventually, the smell was associated with the warmth that hit me as i entered into the office. coffee=warm. although i am love sub-zero temperatures, this still appealed to me. it wasn't long before i would drink a cup, justifying it as something to help me adjust to the temperature inside. it was free, after all. the coffee maker was open to everyone in the office.
by the time the thaw came, i still had my morning cup. by then it had been incorporated into my morning ritual. i liked the stimulant in the morning. plus i had acquired the taste, even to the extent of noticing that the coffee at work wasn't that good.
so at some time around 1997, i decided to stop caffeine cold turkey. i would stop not only coffee, but tea, cola, chocolate, etc. i was going to be absolute about it. the idea was to prove that i wasn't addicted, but it really proved just the opposite. i had a day or two of pounding headaches and sluggishness, but then it passed. for the next month i felt absolutely great. i briefly considered making it permanent, but the no chocolate rule was impossible to sustain. when exactly a month passed, i decided to call it off. my first cup of coffee afterwards hit me really hard. i was buzzing all day. still, i was proud of the fact that i went an entire month with absolutely no caffeine. i'm not sure why this appealed to me, but it did. i guess its just a way to prove i can be disciplined when i want. knowing that, i can feel free to sluff off the rest of the year.
i think in 1999 was when i decided to tie the no-caffeine month to my travels. i went to vietnam that year--a 12 hour time difference when you figure in their lack of daylights saving time--and i realized if i arrived with no caffeine tolerance, i could use caffeine to help me adjust to the local time. it also helps to get me excited about my travels. as i count down to my next cup of coffee or piece of chocolate, i am simultaneously counting down to the day i leave. the hardship of a month without caffeine is made easier knowing i get to go somewhere exotic at the other end.
so every year, i leave the country. and every year, one month before, i am irritable. it has become something that i just do. it's a part of my personality now. i do it in two phases. first one week before the month starts, i switch my morning coffee from regular to decaf. after a week of that i go cold-turkey with everything (i won't even have decaf. because it has some caffeine in it). i'm in the transition week now, but it ends tuesday. i've noticed getting off caffeine has been getting easier in the past few years. i never have major headaches anymore. hopefully, this tuesday won't suck too badly.
george akerlof, nobel prize-winner in economics calls the bush administration the "worst ever" in american history.
i have no idea whether bush really is the worst ever. obviously, i'm no fan, there's just a lot of competition. still, its nice to see someone with akerlof's economics credentials point out how disasterous this administration is.
i have no idea whether bush really is the worst ever. obviously, i'm no fan, there's just a lot of competition. still, its nice to see someone with akerlof's economics credentials point out how disasterous this administration is.
Friday, August 01, 2003
another day, another template. i've mostly done all the work i need to do to switch over everything. i just can't figure out how to mess with the font size for the headings on the right ("LINKS," "FRIENDS' BLOGS," etc)
i just wrote a longer post bitching about what i spent my day doing at work. but then i deleted it. it occurs to me that legal ethics are not totally compatible with blogging diary-style about my day. this means that you probably won't read much about my work here. let's just say it was a frustrating day and leave it at that
i just wrote a longer post bitching about what i spent my day doing at work. but then i deleted it. it occurs to me that legal ethics are not totally compatible with blogging diary-style about my day. this means that you probably won't read much about my work here. let's just say it was a frustrating day and leave it at that
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)