i'm spending new year's in the midwest. it's always strange when this happens. we see them drop that ball in times square at 11 p.m. then we jump and dance. hurray! only one more hour to new year!
for years i've wondered why the whole country has to watch times square. doesn't it make more sense to do something different for each time zone? it would be even better if they made it reflect the local culture. TVs in the midwest would all tune in to watch mobsters throw a guy off the sears tower. in colorado, a cowboy would chase an indian down a mountain on skis. and in L.A., precisely at midnight, charo would have plastic surgery in front of cheering crowds. then the crowds could throw her off the top of the hollywood sign. i'm pretty sure something has to drop for it to be a legitimate new years celebration.
anyway, it's just an idea. the times square ball drop thing always seemed a little pointless to me. but i'll probably be in a room with it on in the background tonight. won't we all.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Saturday, December 30, 2006
too much gush
as i watch the various retrospectives about gerald ford, i keep hoping, just once, that someone will say "i didn't think he was a very good president" or "i don't think the pardon was a good idea." i'll even settle for a "president ford made a mistake with [anything he did in office]."
i realize that no one wants to speak ill of the dead, but does every presidential death have to be a canonization?
i realize that no one wants to speak ill of the dead, but does every presidential death have to be a canonization?
riverbend
i took riverbend off the blogroll the last time i fiddled with it. i love her site, but with months going by between posts i wasn't sure if her blog was still active.
well, she's posted again today. it's actually quite heartbreaking to read. i don't agree that the wholesale destruction of iraq was the plan all along, as she suggests in her post. but i understand how an iraqi might begin to believe that it was.
i am struck by the backhanded confidence riverbend has in the intelligence of the members of the bush administration. yes, the reasons for the war and many of the decisions in the aftermath of the invasion were clearly wrong right from the start. but i think she misunderstands the depth of ignorance the bush administration has always displayed about iraq. riverbend writes "There were too many blunders for them to actually have been, simply, blunders." but the tragic thing is, that's exactly what i think they were. it's hard to get your mind around the sheer volume of bad decisions that have added up to the current situation. but that doesn't mean that they weren't mistakes to begin with.
well, she's posted again today. it's actually quite heartbreaking to read. i don't agree that the wholesale destruction of iraq was the plan all along, as she suggests in her post. but i understand how an iraqi might begin to believe that it was.
i am struck by the backhanded confidence riverbend has in the intelligence of the members of the bush administration. yes, the reasons for the war and many of the decisions in the aftermath of the invasion were clearly wrong right from the start. but i think she misunderstands the depth of ignorance the bush administration has always displayed about iraq. riverbend writes "There were too many blunders for them to actually have been, simply, blunders." but the tragic thing is, that's exactly what i think they were. it's hard to get your mind around the sheer volume of bad decisions that have added up to the current situation. but that doesn't mean that they weren't mistakes to begin with.
Friday, December 29, 2006
pointless
surprise! i'm in minnesota! i'm visiting the inlaws, and the inlaws have wifi, so the people out there in blog-land probably won't notice a difference
we arrived a few hours ago, and ended up watching about an hour of CNN as they waited and waited for the execution of saddam. i don't watch TV news that often, so it was strange and a bit ghoulish to watch newscasters stalling until they could announce someone had been killed. in the meantime they interviewed various experts. each one they asked whether the death of saddam would improve the situation in iraq. and each one said the same thing: that it will make no difference at all.
which begged the question what the whole point was for the execution. at one time the trial and execution on "the butcher of baghdad" was supposed to showcase the new iraqi judicial system and to help achieve national reconciliation by exposing and adjudicating saddam hussein's crimes. the iraqi government issued an indictment charging saddam with crimes stemming from seven separate incidents, and the iraqi government promised that more were forthcoming. thereafter, it was decided (by who is unclear) that saddam would be tried separately for each incident in succession, rather than handling them all at once in one big trial. the dujail massacre was the first incident to go to trial, an odd choice because it involved the death of about 150 people, small potatoes compared to, say the anfal campaign which killed between 50,000 and 200,000, involved the use of chemical weapons, and probably fit the definition of genocide. but if he was going to be tried for each offense in the indictment, the order didn't really matter.
somewhere along the line, prevailing wisdom changed. as i mentioned in a prior post, iraqi and american officials began just viewing the trial as a way to kill saddam, rather than a way to showcase the iraqi judicial system or achieve national reconciliation. maybe that's because the televised dujail trial was a total disaster, showcasing the chaos and ineptitude of the iraqi judiciary more than anything else. the last straw for me was when the chief judge was replaced because the iraqi government said he was "he is biased towards the former Iraqi leader." apparently they only had a passing familiarity with the presumption of innocence allegedly enshrined in the iraqi constitution. and by no means was the removal of the chief judge the only irregularity with the trial.
in any event, along the way the powers that be decided they just wanted saddam dead. after the death sentence was handed down in the dujail case, they started the anfal trial which included the charges of genocide. because saddam was executed tonight (or rather, tomorrow morning iraqi time), the anfal charges and all other charges against saddam will now be dropped. because saddam is innocent until proven guilty, he will now remain legally innocent of all of the worst accusations against him.
there's another aspect to this too. the dujail incident was about the massacre of shia. the anfal incident was about genocide directed against the kurds. the decision to execute saddam right away for dujail and have the charges dropped for anfal is not going to help sectarian tensions in the country.
in their rush to kill saddam, iraqi and american officials have managed to both of the original reasons to put saddam on trial. rather than showcasing the new iraqi judicial system, the dujail trial exposed its lack of independence and how far it fell short of both international norms and the requirements of the iraqi constitution. and by foreclosing trials on the more serious charges, iraqi and american officials have created a barrier to national reconciliation rather than fostering it.
so can anyone tell me what was the point of that trial?
we arrived a few hours ago, and ended up watching about an hour of CNN as they waited and waited for the execution of saddam. i don't watch TV news that often, so it was strange and a bit ghoulish to watch newscasters stalling until they could announce someone had been killed. in the meantime they interviewed various experts. each one they asked whether the death of saddam would improve the situation in iraq. and each one said the same thing: that it will make no difference at all.
which begged the question what the whole point was for the execution. at one time the trial and execution on "the butcher of baghdad" was supposed to showcase the new iraqi judicial system and to help achieve national reconciliation by exposing and adjudicating saddam hussein's crimes. the iraqi government issued an indictment charging saddam with crimes stemming from seven separate incidents, and the iraqi government promised that more were forthcoming. thereafter, it was decided (by who is unclear) that saddam would be tried separately for each incident in succession, rather than handling them all at once in one big trial. the dujail massacre was the first incident to go to trial, an odd choice because it involved the death of about 150 people, small potatoes compared to, say the anfal campaign which killed between 50,000 and 200,000, involved the use of chemical weapons, and probably fit the definition of genocide. but if he was going to be tried for each offense in the indictment, the order didn't really matter.
somewhere along the line, prevailing wisdom changed. as i mentioned in a prior post, iraqi and american officials began just viewing the trial as a way to kill saddam, rather than a way to showcase the iraqi judicial system or achieve national reconciliation. maybe that's because the televised dujail trial was a total disaster, showcasing the chaos and ineptitude of the iraqi judiciary more than anything else. the last straw for me was when the chief judge was replaced because the iraqi government said he was "he is biased towards the former Iraqi leader." apparently they only had a passing familiarity with the presumption of innocence allegedly enshrined in the iraqi constitution. and by no means was the removal of the chief judge the only irregularity with the trial.
in any event, along the way the powers that be decided they just wanted saddam dead. after the death sentence was handed down in the dujail case, they started the anfal trial which included the charges of genocide. because saddam was executed tonight (or rather, tomorrow morning iraqi time), the anfal charges and all other charges against saddam will now be dropped. because saddam is innocent until proven guilty, he will now remain legally innocent of all of the worst accusations against him.
there's another aspect to this too. the dujail incident was about the massacre of shia. the anfal incident was about genocide directed against the kurds. the decision to execute saddam right away for dujail and have the charges dropped for anfal is not going to help sectarian tensions in the country.
in their rush to kill saddam, iraqi and american officials have managed to both of the original reasons to put saddam on trial. rather than showcasing the new iraqi judicial system, the dujail trial exposed its lack of independence and how far it fell short of both international norms and the requirements of the iraqi constitution. and by foreclosing trials on the more serious charges, iraqi and american officials have created a barrier to national reconciliation rather than fostering it.
so can anyone tell me what was the point of that trial?
Thursday, December 28, 2006
mission improbable
sorry for the brief hiatus. josh is visiting for the MLA. plus, i got a bad case of the flu which meant that i ended up sleeping much of the day away. i'm a little better now, not great. but that didn't stop me and mrs. noz from undertaking a daring hamster rescue operation just now.
we're back, and i'm feeling a little feverish and dizzy again. but hamster-lovers out there can rejoice: mission accomplished.
we're back, and i'm feeling a little feverish and dizzy again. but hamster-lovers out there can rejoice: mission accomplished.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
as expected
surprise! holiday shopping failed to meet retailer's expectations. as i mentioned two years ago, this happens every fracking year. when are they just gonna wise up and lower their expectations?
ford
my first presidential memory is nixon resigning. i remember the TV on in the background and my mother telling me that the president wasn't allowed to be president anymore because he lied. so, my mother warned, if i lied i might be forced to resign from the presidency in disgrace. or something like that.
my next presidential memory was carter speaking about something or other. which means i really have no memory of president ford. and, aside from the retrospectives that are sure to follow soon, that's probably roughly reflects how most people think of his presidency these days. most of what i know about his presidency can be summed up in three simple points:
we'll see how well those impressions hold out as the gushy retrospectiving begins. i just hope they resist the urge to canonize the man like they did with reagan.
UPDATE: hey, i just noticed that all of the things i knew about the ford administration involved its domestic policies. i really knew nothing about it's foreign policy. a fascinating run-down is here; not just because it gives a glimpse of a very different foreign policy philosophy than what we see today, but because it reveals a snapshot of the state of the world in the mid-70s.
my next presidential memory was carter speaking about something or other. which means i really have no memory of president ford. and, aside from the retrospectives that are sure to follow soon, that's probably roughly reflects how most people think of his presidency these days. most of what i know about his presidency can be summed up in three simple points:
(1) he pardoned nixon.as far as i'm concerned number 2 is a clear positive, number 3 is a clear negative, and i generally lean negative on number 1 as well (though i also feel that i really needed to experience the watergate era to really understand how important it was for the country to get past the scandal)
(2) he appointed justice stevens to the supreme court.
(3) some of the worst members of the bush administration (e.g. rumsfeld and cheney) came out of the ford administration.
we'll see how well those impressions hold out as the gushy retrospectiving begins. i just hope they resist the urge to canonize the man like they did with reagan.
UPDATE: hey, i just noticed that all of the things i knew about the ford administration involved its domestic policies. i really knew nothing about it's foreign policy. a fascinating run-down is here; not just because it gives a glimpse of a very different foreign policy philosophy than what we see today, but because it reveals a snapshot of the state of the world in the mid-70s.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
crassy
personally, i doubt they will do it. but it will be interesting to see if the saddam's execution will be scheduled for the eve of the state of the union address.
i mean, they scheduled saddam's sentencing so that it hit the papers in the u.s. the day before the midterm elections. the gambit didn't help bush's party at all, so it doesn't seem likely that they would try something so crass again. also, unlike a congressional election, what do they have to gain this time around? at best, a small temporary bump in the presidential approval ratings. a bump which would soon be followed by a predictable drop when it becomes clear, that despite the elimination of saddam, iraq still smells more like shit than roses.
on the other hand, it's not like the administration hasn't out-crassed themselves before.
i mean, they scheduled saddam's sentencing so that it hit the papers in the u.s. the day before the midterm elections. the gambit didn't help bush's party at all, so it doesn't seem likely that they would try something so crass again. also, unlike a congressional election, what do they have to gain this time around? at best, a small temporary bump in the presidential approval ratings. a bump which would soon be followed by a predictable drop when it becomes clear, that despite the elimination of saddam, iraq still smells more like shit than roses.
on the other hand, it's not like the administration hasn't out-crassed themselves before.
berdymukhammedov
for now, at least, gurbanguly berdymukhammedov leads turkmenistan. the only thing anyone seems to know about him is that he's a dentist.
i wonder if he'll end the ban on gold fillings.
i wonder if he'll end the ban on gold fillings.
victory defined
guess who said this:
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.and
I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.(via)
getting my thoughts together
a couple of early thoughts about the ethiopia-somalia war:
(1) it's going to be very very bloody.
(2) we'll never know the full extent of how bloody it is.
(3) the early gains by ethiopia are meaningless unless the country figures out how to get out
(4) the odds of somalia emerging from anarchy anytime soon are now a lot smaller.
(5) i expect there will be a barrage of cartoonish portrayals of this war as a struggle of light against darkness by certain people on the american right.
(6) to some extent this is an american proxy war. earlier in the year, it came out that the u.s. was secretly funding the somali warlords who were battling the somali islamists. the remnants of those warlards are now the "transitional government" that is now being backed by the ethiopians. everyone involved is going to see an american hand it this, and they are almost certainly right to. we really dismiss this conflict as something unrelated to american foreign policy
(1) it's going to be very very bloody.
(2) we'll never know the full extent of how bloody it is.
(3) the early gains by ethiopia are meaningless unless the country figures out how to get out
(4) the odds of somalia emerging from anarchy anytime soon are now a lot smaller.
(5) i expect there will be a barrage of cartoonish portrayals of this war as a struggle of light against darkness by certain people on the american right.
(6) to some extent this is an american proxy war. earlier in the year, it came out that the u.s. was secretly funding the somali warlords who were battling the somali islamists. the remnants of those warlards are now the "transitional government" that is now being backed by the ethiopians. everyone involved is going to see an american hand it this, and they are almost certainly right to. we really dismiss this conflict as something unrelated to american foreign policy
Sunday, December 24, 2006
scared of santa
click through them all. (and make sure to check out the santa in number 8)
yeah, i'm sneaking online at chez inlaws. they're all at church now. i whipped out my jew-exemption card and so i get to goof off on the internet instead.
(via dagger aleph)
yeah, i'm sneaking online at chez inlaws. they're all at church now. i whipped out my jew-exemption card and so i get to goof off on the internet instead.
(via dagger aleph)
Friday, December 22, 2006
normal posting ahead, check back often
one thing i've learned in the blogging biz is that whenever i mention that i'm going away and that i might not get much chance to post, my hit numbers plummet. i know, it's weird. i can't explain it. but it just seems to be a fact of life.
so i usually avoid telling you, my readers (yeah, both of you), when i won't be able to post for a short period of time. i mean, can't you figure it out yourself when you drop by here and don't see posting? telling you there won't be any posts and then going right ahead and not posting almost seems redundant. if you think about it i'm really just saving you time by not telling you stuff like that. and this is all about you, both of my readers, not me.
anyway, i realize that the high hit count sites out there sometimes warn of slow posting ahead. their counts are so high they probably don't even notice any dips. but a little place like this really can't afford a hit drop. also when the rubber hose stats fall baby jesus cries. you wouldn't want to do that to baby jesus? especially not on his birthday weekend.
which finally brings me to the point of this post, such as it is. there's absolutely no reason to believe that i might not be posting as much this holiday weekend. both of my readers should check back here, preferably every 21 minutes to give time for the sitemeter to refresh, just in case some new nugget of rubber hose wisdom should appear and spread merriment throughout the land. this period of absolutely normal posting should continue through monday, christmas day.
happy kwanzaa.
so i usually avoid telling you, my readers (yeah, both of you), when i won't be able to post for a short period of time. i mean, can't you figure it out yourself when you drop by here and don't see posting? telling you there won't be any posts and then going right ahead and not posting almost seems redundant. if you think about it i'm really just saving you time by not telling you stuff like that. and this is all about you, both of my readers, not me.
anyway, i realize that the high hit count sites out there sometimes warn of slow posting ahead. their counts are so high they probably don't even notice any dips. but a little place like this really can't afford a hit drop. also when the rubber hose stats fall baby jesus cries. you wouldn't want to do that to baby jesus? especially not on his birthday weekend.
which finally brings me to the point of this post, such as it is. there's absolutely no reason to believe that i might not be posting as much this holiday weekend. both of my readers should check back here, preferably every 21 minutes to give time for the sitemeter to refresh, just in case some new nugget of rubber hose wisdom should appear and spread merriment throughout the land. this period of absolutely normal posting should continue through monday, christmas day.
happy kwanzaa.
worth it
condi rice says all the lives lost in iraq are "worth it."
maybe that's the going rate, but i know a guy who can get you a failed state for a lot less.
(yeah, i know this post is in bad taste.but frankly, i think condi's remarks were too)
UPDATE: Golden Boy points out that rice's full statement are not what i would call bad taste. in fact, i think the BBC summarizing her remarks as "worth it" wasn't really fair to her. she really seems to be saying that iraq will eventually pay off (in the future) and the "worth" she was talking about seems to be more about the $100 billion just appropriated to fund iraq, not the loss of life. i ultimately don't agree with rice, but that doesn't mean what she said was in bad taste either.
thus leaving me the only tasteless one. crap.
maybe that's the going rate, but i know a guy who can get you a failed state for a lot less.
(yeah, i know this post is in bad taste.
UPDATE: Golden Boy points out that rice's full statement are not what i would call bad taste. in fact, i think the BBC summarizing her remarks as "worth it" wasn't really fair to her. she really seems to be saying that iraq will eventually pay off (in the future) and the "worth" she was talking about seems to be more about the $100 billion just appropriated to fund iraq, not the loss of life. i ultimately don't agree with rice, but that doesn't mean what she said was in bad taste either.
thus leaving me the only tasteless one. crap.
the smallest easiest step
a couple of weeks ago when the iraq study group report came out everyone seemed to assume that bush would cherry pick a handful of its recommendations, ignore the rest and pretend that he was taking their advice. at least that's what i thought he would do. but i guess i under-estimated bush's ability to stall and over-estimated the public's attention span.
one of those recommendations was a public declaration that the u.s. has no intention of maintaining a permanent military presence in iraq. of the recommendations it's probably the easiest one to do. a declaration costs nothing and would take less than a minute. it could diffuse some (though probably only a very little bit) of the hostility against u.s. forces and would not actually bind the hands of american forces at all. promising not to stay permanently is non-falsifiable. there's always tomorrow; you can claim that circumstances are making you stay right now, but you still plan to eventually leave. plus, making a declaration would simply be good PR for the administration. they could spin it into some kind of demonstration that he was taking the ISG's advice seriously.
but instead of doing enacting the easiest ISG recommendation there is, bush's new secretary of defense is saying stuff like this. not that a "no permanent base" declaration is any kind of miracle cure for the iraq problem. at best, it would be a tiny step. but it seems bush won't even do that.
one of those recommendations was a public declaration that the u.s. has no intention of maintaining a permanent military presence in iraq. of the recommendations it's probably the easiest one to do. a declaration costs nothing and would take less than a minute. it could diffuse some (though probably only a very little bit) of the hostility against u.s. forces and would not actually bind the hands of american forces at all. promising not to stay permanently is non-falsifiable. there's always tomorrow; you can claim that circumstances are making you stay right now, but you still plan to eventually leave. plus, making a declaration would simply be good PR for the administration. they could spin it into some kind of demonstration that he was taking the ISG's advice seriously.
but instead of doing enacting the easiest ISG recommendation there is, bush's new secretary of defense is saying stuff like this. not that a "no permanent base" declaration is any kind of miracle cure for the iraq problem. at best, it would be a tiny step. but it seems bush won't even do that.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
taunt
you know, i thought that kicking sarah's ass in kill doctor lucky last night would have gotten her posting again. but i guess she's too embarassed to show her face in the blogosphere again.
uncertainty about the future of turkmenistan
and i'm not just talking about power struggles over control of the country. there are other pressing issues at hand.
like what will they call next month?
will there be a melon day in 2007?
and if there is, can anyone in turkmenistan live up to turkmenbashi's eloquent melon tribute?
like what will they call next month?
will there be a melon day in 2007?
and if there is, can anyone in turkmenistan live up to turkmenbashi's eloquent melon tribute?
the pool of world leaders just got a little less crazy
turkmenbashi is dead.
'bashi was a neverending source of bizarre antics. he did things like changing his name to "turkmenbashi" ("father of all turkmen"), renaming the month of january "turkmenbashi", writing a holy book, having the parliament declare him to be "god's prophet on earth," forbidding newscasters from wearing makeup because he was having trouble telling if they were male or female, erecting a gold statue of himself in the capital city that turned so that it always face the sun and claiming that the sun was actually guided by the statue, banning the use of gold fillings, and many many others. turkmenbashi was always fun to write about, except when you reflect on how horrible it must be for the turkmen people to live under a nut-job like that.
i have no idea what will happen to turkmenistan now. but almost anything is better than 'bashi.
registan.net is always the place to turn for all things central asian.
'bashi was a neverending source of bizarre antics. he did things like changing his name to "turkmenbashi" ("father of all turkmen"), renaming the month of january "turkmenbashi", writing a holy book, having the parliament declare him to be "god's prophet on earth," forbidding newscasters from wearing makeup because he was having trouble telling if they were male or female, erecting a gold statue of himself in the capital city that turned so that it always face the sun and claiming that the sun was actually guided by the statue, banning the use of gold fillings, and many many others. turkmenbashi was always fun to write about, except when you reflect on how horrible it must be for the turkmen people to live under a nut-job like that.
i have no idea what will happen to turkmenistan now. but almost anything is better than 'bashi.
registan.net is always the place to turn for all things central asian.
so far so good
i upgraded to new blogger tonight. everything seems okay. the posting interface is not all that different. i wonder what all the fuss was about. at least this should stop that annoying "doncha wanna upgrade?" message i got every time i logged on.
i think i have to change to one of the new blogger custom-made templates to have take advantage of all the allegedly exciting new features. incorporating all the little tinkering i've done to this template into a new one seems like a lot of work.
i think i have to change to one of the new blogger custom-made templates to have take advantage of all the allegedly exciting new features. incorporating all the little tinkering i've done to this template into a new one seems like a lot of work.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
endgame
bush admitted for the first time yesterday that we are not winning the war in iraq. this morning he adopted a proposal he previously said would make the country less safe when john kerry proposed it during the 2004 presidential campaign.
it seems that bush is willing to do and say anything other than pull u.s. forces in iraq. no flip is too flop for him, so long as his glorious iraqi adventure doesn't end.
i used to think differently, but it's pretty clear that bush will not willingly order the troops home. in fact, the only scenario where i can still admit he might is if the big-wigs in the republican party conclude that iraq will ruin their chances to keep the presidency in 2008. it's not enough for bush when the generals object, when there is a broad public consensus that the troops must come home, or when he's told that the iraq war is endangering the country. it's already clear that none of that stuff moves him. but if he's told that iraq is hurting republican electoral chances, maybe then he'll finally see that withdrawal is really the only remaining viable solution.
it seems that bush is willing to do and say anything other than pull u.s. forces in iraq. no flip is too flop for him, so long as his glorious iraqi adventure doesn't end.
i used to think differently, but it's pretty clear that bush will not willingly order the troops home. in fact, the only scenario where i can still admit he might is if the big-wigs in the republican party conclude that iraq will ruin their chances to keep the presidency in 2008. it's not enough for bush when the generals object, when there is a broad public consensus that the troops must come home, or when he's told that the iraq war is endangering the country. it's already clear that none of that stuff moves him. but if he's told that iraq is hurting republican electoral chances, maybe then he'll finally see that withdrawal is really the only remaining viable solution.
aye robots
it is nice to know that foreign governments sometimes issue even stupider reports than the ones that get funded by our taxpayer dollars.
but while we're talking about robot rights, we already have a legal mechanism for making them people. if you want a robot to be a person, all you have to do is incorporate.
but while we're talking about robot rights, we already have a legal mechanism for making them people. if you want a robot to be a person, all you have to do is incorporate.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
context
thirty-seven percent of americans believe the u.s. government has been secretly contacted by aliens
sixteen percent of americans believe that the u.s. government planted explosives that brought down the world trade center.
twelve percent of americans think the u.s. should have a british-style royal family.
in 2003 eleven percent of americans would have liked to have "dr. quinn, medicine woman" as their personal physician
ten percent of americans would eat a rat or insect if it meant they could be on tv.
and eleven percent of americans support sending more troops to iraq.
sixteen percent of americans believe that the u.s. government planted explosives that brought down the world trade center.
twelve percent of americans think the u.s. should have a british-style royal family.
in 2003 eleven percent of americans would have liked to have "dr. quinn, medicine woman" as their personal physician
ten percent of americans would eat a rat or insect if it meant they could be on tv.
and eleven percent of americans support sending more troops to iraq.
drinking polyanna
just doing my usual plug for the philly drinking liberally: tangier, 18th and lombard, 6 p.m. until sometime later.
this week is the second annual polyanna. everyone's supposed to bring some kind of gift (nothing costing more than $3) to give to a random person. if you're sick of shopping think of it as a way to get rid of some crappy thing you have lying around the house. last year i give an eye patch to cabin girl. i'm still not sure what i will bring tonight. gift or no-gift, everyone is welcome.
this week is the second annual polyanna. everyone's supposed to bring some kind of gift (nothing costing more than $3) to give to a random person. if you're sick of shopping think of it as a way to get rid of some crappy thing you have lying around the house. last year i give an eye patch to cabin girl. i'm still not sure what i will bring tonight. gift or no-gift, everyone is welcome.
Monday, December 18, 2006
how will i break this to mrs. noz?
apparently i am single and "likely gay."
but, in all fairness, who hasn't woken up in the middle of the night screaming "no! no! not the ECHR!!!"
but, in all fairness, who hasn't woken up in the middle of the night screaming "no! no! not the ECHR!!!"
the schools! the schools!
once upon a time conservatives would complain about how the mainstream media wasn't paying enough attention to the good news in iraq, like all those schools u.s. soldiers or contractors were rebuilding.1
well, the MSM is finally looking at the schools, and. well... i guess we know why conservatives haven't been making the school argument lately.
_________________________________________
1-i always thought the school argument was kind of funny because it begs the question of why the schools had to be rebuilt. was implying that the u.s. may have bombed iraqi schools really the best they could come up with?
well, the MSM is finally looking at the schools, and. well... i guess we know why conservatives haven't been making the school argument lately.
_________________________________________
1-i always thought the school argument was kind of funny because it begs the question of why the schools had to be rebuilt. was implying that the u.s. may have bombed iraqi schools really the best they could come up with?
Sunday, December 17, 2006
better under saddam
over 90% of iraqis think they are worse off now than they were before the 2003 u.s. invasion.
yes, the u.s. has failed to clear what is perhaps the lowest imaginable bar for success in iraq.
(via susie)
yes, the u.s. has failed to clear what is perhaps the lowest imaginable bar for success in iraq.
(via susie)
see-saw
fatah calls for early elections for the palestinian authority, hoping to get its rival hamas out of power. the move is cheered by the bush administration, but hamas condemns the demand as "tantamount to a coup."
hezbollah calls for early elections for lebanon, hoping to get the saniora government out of power. the move is condemned by the bush administration, who says the protest "amounts to a coup d'etat."
hezbollah calls for early elections for lebanon, hoping to get the saniora government out of power. the move is condemned by the bush administration, who says the protest "amounts to a coup d'etat."
Friday, December 15, 2006
asylum
from my friend kirk (you might recognize him from his occasional comments here as KwJ), who wrote an editorial for the LA times:
I RECENTLY HEARD FROM an Iraqi friend of mine, whose identity I am compelled to conceal. Until a month ago, Y was working for the U.S. Agency for International Development, helping in its multibillion-dollar effort to rebuild Iraq. After two years of sneaking into the Green Zone to work for the United States, his identity was exposed.whatever you might think about the iraq war, we should help the people who are forced to flee iraq because they stuck their neck out to work for americans. we took in hmong and vietnamese boat people, we should help Y and others like him.
He was spotted leaving a checkpoint by someone from his neighborhood. The next day he found a note on his front steps that said, "We are going to cut off your heads and throw them in the trash." Beside it was the severed head of a small dog, writhing with maggots and flies.
Sadly, it wasn't the first time I'd heard of such threats. A year ago, when I was working for the USAID on the reconstruction in Fallouja, the first of many Iraqi employees was forced to flee the country. Insurgents raked her house with bullets after discovering that she was working for the Americans.
Despite the bubble we built around our "Emerald City" in Baghdad, any Iraqi (or LES --locally engaged staff-- in State Department parlance) works for the Americans at great risk. In a November 2005 cable leaked to the Washington Post, the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad reported that "two of our LES employees have been gunned down in execution-style murders, and two others barely escaped a similar fate in August. Our LES employees live in fear of being identified with the Embassy of the U.S."
Months later, in June 2006, embassy officials wrote of an increasingly bleak situation for their Iraqi staff: "Employees began reporting a change in demeanor of guards at the Green Zone checkpoints. They seemed to be more militia-like, in some cases seemingly taunting. One employee asked us to explore getting her press credentials because the guards had held her embassy badge up and proclaimed loudly... 'Embassy' as she entered. Such information is a death sentence if overheard by the wrong people." The message continues: "A few staff members approached us to ask what provisions would we make for them if we evacuate." The answer, shamefully, is none.
And there are also no formal policies or mechanisms to help Iraqis such as Y. Though the USAID might have wanted to do more, the best it could offer Y was a short-term stay within its Green Zone compound, a non-solution that would likely exacerbate his situation.
The U.S. Embassy might have granted him a visa, had it ever opened a visa processing center. But probably not. Though Congress passed legislation last year to grant special visas to those who serve as translators for the military, there are no provisions made for Iraqis who have worked with distinction on the civilian side.
So, with little more than a "good luck" from us, Y and his wife packed what they could carry, hugged their loved ones goodbye and fled the country.
According to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, more than 1.6 million people have fled Iraq since the invasion, and recent estimates show their numbers increasing by about 100,000 each month. More than 1.5 million Iraqis have been displaced by violence within their country, a number growing at the staggering rate of 50,000 per month.
President Bush and Congress bear a moral responsibility to those Iraqis whose lives are imperiled because of their willingness to help us. We need to move swiftly to expand the special immigrant status beyond the military translators to permit these Iraqis asylum in our country. The U.S. Embassy should be equipped to issue such visas to Iraqis who already have obtained security clearances to work for our government. I am not advocating absorbing every Iraqi displaced by violence, but rather, offering a life preserver to Iraqis who believed in the U.S. enough to help us when we needed them most. Let us not lengthen the shadow cast by our abandonment of those Iraqis who rebelled against tyranny in 1991 and 1996.
Beyond any moral considerations, there is a strategic imperative. Behind Afghanistan, Iraq is the greatest producer of refugees in the world. Though most head to Syria or Jordan, the latter of which has begun deporting Iraqi refugees, the entire region is warily eyeing the influx of the needy. Where large numbers of refugees go, instability has a nasty tendency to follow. Protests broke out in Cairo this month when Iraqis demanded that their children be allowed to attend Egyptian schools.
Meanwhile, the budget for the UNHCR's Iraq program — which could help ease the strain on governments in the region — was halved for the coming year. Its current budget of $29 million is only 60% funded. (By comparison, the U.S. military spends more than $29 million in Iraq every three hours.) The president needs to lead the international donor community by dramatically increasing our financial support to the UNHCR's program for the coming year, enabling it to properly identify and assist refugees. Our policy of indifference will further strain our relations with Iraq's neighbors, who are already apprehensive about the swelling ranks of unemployed and hopeless Iraqis.
In the U.S., a great number of services exist for refugees, but they have to first reach American soil. In fiscal year 2005, the most recent figures available, there were 198 visas issued to Iraqis — nearly all of whom had applied before the war. Some reports indicate a similar number resettled in fiscal year 2006. The Bush administration has authorized only 500 visas for 2007. Though he has the legal authority to admit 20,000 more, Bush has avoided the resettlement of Iraqi refugees because of "the psychological message it would send, that [Iraq] is a losing cause," according to Arthur Dewey, his former assistant secretary of State for refugee affairs. This is an immigration policy that careens toward moral cowardice.
I am trying to help Y obtain asylum here. This seems to me the least the U.S. can do to repay his commitment. He is now on a short-term visa in a Persian Gulf country, frantically searching for any job, and for help. In closing a despairing message to me last week, he wrote, "Maybe I will be forced to go back to Iraq to lose my life." He has only a few weeks left before he and his wife will likely be made to return to Iraq, to the death threat that awaits them.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
paste
do kids today use paste?
when i was young "glue" and "paste" were two different things that had roughly the same purpose. if you wanted to stick stuff together, you could go with glue, or with paste. they both did the same thing, it just depended what the art teacher handed out. then i got older. i still occasionally have to stick things together but glue seems to be the only option. at some point paste (the adhesive) went away. now all i encounter is glue. sure, there's still "paste" in my life. but these days it's for things like "toothpaste." the word "paste" doesn't necessarily refer to something for sticking anymore, it's more of a generic term to refer to the consistency of a substance.
so i've been wondering whether paste, the stuff i used to use to stick together colorful pieces of paper, still exists. was it just something that was around in the mid-to-late 70s and has since been replaced by glue? or is paste only for people between the ages of 5 and 10?
when i was young "glue" and "paste" were two different things that had roughly the same purpose. if you wanted to stick stuff together, you could go with glue, or with paste. they both did the same thing, it just depended what the art teacher handed out. then i got older. i still occasionally have to stick things together but glue seems to be the only option. at some point paste (the adhesive) went away. now all i encounter is glue. sure, there's still "paste" in my life. but these days it's for things like "toothpaste." the word "paste" doesn't necessarily refer to something for sticking anymore, it's more of a generic term to refer to the consistency of a substance.
so i've been wondering whether paste, the stuff i used to use to stick together colorful pieces of paper, still exists. was it just something that was around in the mid-to-late 70s and has since been replaced by glue? or is paste only for people between the ages of 5 and 10?
count
holy crap! the bush administration is going to revive the discredited vietnam-era practice of releasing body counts for the people u.s. forces kill.
because nothing will make iraqis stop their attacks on american forces than letting them know exactly how many iraqis we're killing. you know, it's like that annoying guy in your office. you probably want to slug him sometimes. but imagine if he periodically announced how many of your neighbors he's shot. then you'd be best friends forever!
and someone should tell the white house that the problem is not that anyone thinks "our people aren't doing anything," but rather that what they're doing is not stabilizing iraq. giving body counts will only make things worse.
because nothing will make iraqis stop their attacks on american forces than letting them know exactly how many iraqis we're killing. you know, it's like that annoying guy in your office. you probably want to slug him sometimes. but imagine if he periodically announced how many of your neighbors he's shot. then you'd be best friends forever!
and someone should tell the white house that the problem is not that anyone thinks "our people aren't doing anything," but rather that what they're doing is not stabilizing iraq. giving body counts will only make things worse.
looking into the crystal noz
i predict that bush's 2007 brand-spankin'-bold-new-direction all-american low-carb iraq strategytm will:
(a) include a modest increase in u.s. forces, and
(b) include talk about a lot of other changes, but won't amount to any other practical differences from the current policy.
i also think that by the end of 2007, things won't be any better in iraq than they are now.
in fact, one year from now the only major effect bush's "new" policy will have is it will get mccain to change what he says a little bit as he runs for president. mccain will either have to say bush did the troop increase all wrong ("he didn't increase them enough!" or "he increased them too much!" or "he sent too many right-handed people!" or something), or he will flip-flop and come up with some completely new position on iraq.
so there they are. if i'm wrong, feel free to call me on it next year.
(a) include a modest increase in u.s. forces, and
(b) include talk about a lot of other changes, but won't amount to any other practical differences from the current policy.
i also think that by the end of 2007, things won't be any better in iraq than they are now.
in fact, one year from now the only major effect bush's "new" policy will have is it will get mccain to change what he says a little bit as he runs for president. mccain will either have to say bush did the troop increase all wrong ("he didn't increase them enough!" or "he increased them too much!" or "he sent too many right-handed people!" or something), or he will flip-flop and come up with some completely new position on iraq.
so there they are. if i'm wrong, feel free to call me on it next year.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
ready or not
recently i've seen a few discussions about whether americans are willing to accept a black president.
i think one factor that isn't much considered is the widespread desire of many americans to not be labeled as "racist." the u.s. still has deep-seated racial problems. but one major success of the civil rights movement is that it completely discredited overt racism in mainstream political discourse. while there are still a lot of racists, these days only the real fringe wears the label proudly. instead racism lurks in the background of other issues that are used as a proxy for race; issues like urban development, crime, poverty, etc. a lot of people who have serious racial biases nevertheless deny that they are racist because the idea of racism is now definitively and almost universally accepted to be bad.
what that means in terms of the presidential question is that there are people who may harbor biases against black people, but who will nevertheless be attracted to individual black candidates. i think this contributed to the appeal of colin powell as a hypothetical candidate ten years ago. as a non-threatening black political figure people who would be otherwise uncomfortable with black culture--people who may be frightened when they see a person who looks "too ghetto" walking down the street or roll up their windows when they hear rap music coming from a nearby car--wanted to like powell to reassure themselves that they are not, in fact, racist. in other words, a lot of people have a desire to support a black candidate, at least in the abstract, because they can use it as evidence to silence the doubts about their own biases.
this phenomenon is really just a form of tokenism. you raise a token black person up on a pedestal and that excuses you from examining some of your other views that might be tainted with some form of bigotry.
anyway, i keep going back and forth about whether a black presidential candidate just might just pull it off because of this tokenism phenomenon. although this kind of tokenism may be rooted in racism and discomfort about race, could it paradoxically make a black president more likely?
ultimately, i don't think it would. initially a black candidate who counters the usual urban black stereotype might have an advantage by being black because he could draw on the support of people who are looking for a "good black" person to support. but i don't think any such advantage would hold up during a campaign. the problem with being a token is that the public will have even less tolerance for the candidate's flaws. no one is a saint and no one could stand up to the kind of scrutiny a black candidate would have to endure, especially a person whose appeal lies in an idealization
if the candidate gets some support for being the antithesis of the stereotype of the "bad black" person, then anything the candidate has in common with the elements of "scary black culture" would become a major liability. it would undermine the anti-black black candidate ideal. and when the presidential campaign inevitably descends into the muck, the opposition (or its proxies) are sure to resort to all kinds of coded racial messages designed to undermine the ideal minority image.
in the end, i'm not sure if this country is ready for a black president. but i think a lot of people in this country want to believe that we are ready.
i think one factor that isn't much considered is the widespread desire of many americans to not be labeled as "racist." the u.s. still has deep-seated racial problems. but one major success of the civil rights movement is that it completely discredited overt racism in mainstream political discourse. while there are still a lot of racists, these days only the real fringe wears the label proudly. instead racism lurks in the background of other issues that are used as a proxy for race; issues like urban development, crime, poverty, etc. a lot of people who have serious racial biases nevertheless deny that they are racist because the idea of racism is now definitively and almost universally accepted to be bad.
what that means in terms of the presidential question is that there are people who may harbor biases against black people, but who will nevertheless be attracted to individual black candidates. i think this contributed to the appeal of colin powell as a hypothetical candidate ten years ago. as a non-threatening black political figure people who would be otherwise uncomfortable with black culture--people who may be frightened when they see a person who looks "too ghetto" walking down the street or roll up their windows when they hear rap music coming from a nearby car--wanted to like powell to reassure themselves that they are not, in fact, racist. in other words, a lot of people have a desire to support a black candidate, at least in the abstract, because they can use it as evidence to silence the doubts about their own biases.
this phenomenon is really just a form of tokenism. you raise a token black person up on a pedestal and that excuses you from examining some of your other views that might be tainted with some form of bigotry.
anyway, i keep going back and forth about whether a black presidential candidate just might just pull it off because of this tokenism phenomenon. although this kind of tokenism may be rooted in racism and discomfort about race, could it paradoxically make a black president more likely?
ultimately, i don't think it would. initially a black candidate who counters the usual urban black stereotype might have an advantage by being black because he could draw on the support of people who are looking for a "good black" person to support. but i don't think any such advantage would hold up during a campaign. the problem with being a token is that the public will have even less tolerance for the candidate's flaws. no one is a saint and no one could stand up to the kind of scrutiny a black candidate would have to endure, especially a person whose appeal lies in an idealization
if the candidate gets some support for being the antithesis of the stereotype of the "bad black" person, then anything the candidate has in common with the elements of "scary black culture" would become a major liability. it would undermine the anti-black black candidate ideal. and when the presidential campaign inevitably descends into the muck, the opposition (or its proxies) are sure to resort to all kinds of coded racial messages designed to undermine the ideal minority image.
in the end, i'm not sure if this country is ready for a black president. but i think a lot of people in this country want to believe that we are ready.
butt print spike
i'm guessing that this AP story is the reason for my small, but noticeable, increase in the number of visitors arriving at this post after googling: butt print art
i think i'm starting to overdoing it with these "look at my strange google hits" posts. i promise after this one i'll give it a rest for a little while.
i think i'm starting to overdoing it with these "look at my strange google hits" posts. i promise after this one i'll give it a rest for a little while.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
eddie and matt
tonight i discovered that two of the three writers of this film are sort of friends of mine from college. in fact, i was in a couple of their student films. (including both the original and remake of that science fiction classic: "martin and the overlord")
very weird. especially since i've read quite a lot about "this film is not yet rated" and almost saw it when the philly film festival was in town.
very weird. especially since i've read quite a lot about "this film is not yet rated" and almost saw it when the philly film festival was in town.
mm, edible games
my old friend cthulhia made a gingerbread carcasonne game.
(ht: CaTHY)
UPDATE (12/16/06): boing boing picked this up. congratulations julia!
(ht: CaTHY)
UPDATE (12/16/06): boing boing picked this up. congratulations julia!
announcing an announcement
Bush to announce new Iraq strategy in new year
why delay it until next year? i mean, if the current strategy isn't working (and bush must think so if he's really going to announce a change) then why not change it now? why have another 3+ weeks of people dying needlessly for the old strategy?
it really bothers me that the bush administration treats the iraq war as a campaign event, to be rolled out at the time calculated to get the most impact (i.e. post-holidays). they don't act like this is an immediate serious problem.
why delay it until next year? i mean, if the current strategy isn't working (and bush must think so if he's really going to announce a change) then why not change it now? why have another 3+ weeks of people dying needlessly for the old strategy?
it really bothers me that the bush administration treats the iraq war as a campaign event, to be rolled out at the time calculated to get the most impact (i.e. post-holidays). they don't act like this is an immediate serious problem.
drinking liberally
i know my fame has reached new heights when the official philadelphia drinking liberally mass email includes a plea to give me a ride home. (thanks brendan!)
ride or no ride, i'll be there tonight: tangier, 18th and lombard, 6 p.m. until later. everyone who reads this site is invited. so are all those people who don't.
...and dammit, for the second week in a row i forgot the paint. sorry susie.
ride or no ride, i'll be there tonight: tangier, 18th and lombard, 6 p.m. until later. everyone who reads this site is invited. so are all those people who don't.
...and dammit, for the second week in a row i forgot the paint. sorry susie.
Monday, December 11, 2006
maybe those iraniacs are psychic
bush thinks iraq's neighbors need to help stabilize iraq, but rules out telling them.
the gift that keeps on giving
a consistent source of amusement in my life is seeing hits from porn-seeking googlers visiting this post.
hey and speaking of not-porn on the internet, horatio is posting again. if you don't visit his site i will hate you forever.
hey and speaking of not-porn on the internet, horatio is posting again. if you don't visit his site i will hate you forever.
lebanon in the u.s. media
yesterday, the angry arab remarked about how different the coverage of the current pro-hezbollah demonstrations in beirut is from the coverage of the march 2005 anti-syrian demonstrations. it really is a good point. in early 2005, we had daily front page stories about "the cedar revolution." these days, it would be very easy for a fairly well-informed american to be unaware that demonstrations that are just as big (perhaps even bigger) have been paralyzing the lebanese capital for more than a week.
both the washington post and the new york times have articles about the demonstrations today. neither are on the front page (the times' article is on page A3 and the wapo's is on page A13). both articles have pictures, but neither show the throngs of demonstrators as we often saw in 2005. in the times photo you can see about 20 people standing on a ruined church with a caption noting that the people on the church were looking down on "hundreds of thousands" of protesters. in a country of 4 million people, even a single hundred thousand people is huge demonstration, but there just aren't that many images of the endless sea of people in martyr's square as we saw on a daily basis in march of 2005.
the u.s. government has a long history of classifying mass political movements and demonstrations around the world as good or bad. sometimes the throngs of people are labeled footsoldiers in the march of democracy, and sometimes they are labeled anti-democratic hoodlums. the current demonstrations are directed against the bush-backed government of lebanon and so it is not surprising that the administration considers this one to be a bad demonstration. the white house has even referred to it as a coup attempt. despite its rhetoric, the bush administration isn't really about promoting democracy (by that i mean a government that expresses the will of the people) as much as supporting regimes it views as friendly.
but it is interesting that the media itself is following along and not giving the demonstrations the gushing coverage that it did before. in 2005 the bush administration cited the march 14th movement as evidence that iraq was causing a wave of democracy to sweep the middle east. given the administration's own citation of that movement as evidence to support its own iraqi policy, it was natural for the american media to look at the movement more closely. by raising lebanon in its discussions of iraq, the administration was making it part of the domestic political discussion about the war.
this year it is different. the bush administration is not talking much about the current demonstrations. and when they do, i don't hear them relate it to the war in iraq. so, to some extent it makes sense that the media is paying less attention this time around.
then again, i don't think the u.s. media is asking the administration much about the demonstrations either. the relationship is supposed to go both ways. the media naturally should examine what the president says, but it should also question the administration about what it doesn't say. instead of the idealized two-way relationship, the american media tends to follow the agenda set by the white house. if the white house wants to ignore an event in another country, it often is ignored by the press as well. and that is what we are seeing, or rather not seeing, today.
both the washington post and the new york times have articles about the demonstrations today. neither are on the front page (the times' article is on page A3 and the wapo's is on page A13). both articles have pictures, but neither show the throngs of demonstrators as we often saw in 2005. in the times photo you can see about 20 people standing on a ruined church with a caption noting that the people on the church were looking down on "hundreds of thousands" of protesters. in a country of 4 million people, even a single hundred thousand people is huge demonstration, but there just aren't that many images of the endless sea of people in martyr's square as we saw on a daily basis in march of 2005.
the u.s. government has a long history of classifying mass political movements and demonstrations around the world as good or bad. sometimes the throngs of people are labeled footsoldiers in the march of democracy, and sometimes they are labeled anti-democratic hoodlums. the current demonstrations are directed against the bush-backed government of lebanon and so it is not surprising that the administration considers this one to be a bad demonstration. the white house has even referred to it as a coup attempt. despite its rhetoric, the bush administration isn't really about promoting democracy (by that i mean a government that expresses the will of the people) as much as supporting regimes it views as friendly.
but it is interesting that the media itself is following along and not giving the demonstrations the gushing coverage that it did before. in 2005 the bush administration cited the march 14th movement as evidence that iraq was causing a wave of democracy to sweep the middle east. given the administration's own citation of that movement as evidence to support its own iraqi policy, it was natural for the american media to look at the movement more closely. by raising lebanon in its discussions of iraq, the administration was making it part of the domestic political discussion about the war.
this year it is different. the bush administration is not talking much about the current demonstrations. and when they do, i don't hear them relate it to the war in iraq. so, to some extent it makes sense that the media is paying less attention this time around.
then again, i don't think the u.s. media is asking the administration much about the demonstrations either. the relationship is supposed to go both ways. the media naturally should examine what the president says, but it should also question the administration about what it doesn't say. instead of the idealized two-way relationship, the american media tends to follow the agenda set by the white house. if the white house wants to ignore an event in another country, it often is ignored by the press as well. and that is what we are seeing, or rather not seeing, today.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
pop quiz
after congressman reyes' embarrassing performance in his interview with jeff stein, hilzoy proposes a pop quiz for all members of congress.
blahroll rant
some minor blogroll mucking happened just now. the more i look over it, the more i'm unhappy with just about everything about those links to the right. the way i've divided up the blogroll into categories is a mess for several different reasons: having a separate "friends blog" category doesn't really make sense anymore considering that i'm friends with a bunch of bloggers. the fact that my main blogroll is classified as "other" bugs me. and the liberal coalition only barely exists these days--i am constantly wondering whether i should even bother to keep the separate "liberal coalition" list around, or whether i can just combine it with my regular blogroll.
it also bugs me that the names i use to refer to the sites on my blogroll are inconsistent. for example, the whiskey bar by billmon is listed as "Whiskey Bar" and not "Billmon" even though eschaton by atrios is listed as "atrios" and not "eschaton." i still list hullabaloo as "digby" even though at least half of the posts at hullabaloo these days are written by someone else other than digby.
these annoyances are not new. i've been occasionally thinking about changing stuff around for a while now. at least two or three times i've started writing posts about this very topic, but never bothered to hit the publish button when i was done. this stuff alternates between driving me crazy and seeming to be completely unimportant. maybe i'll just wait until it seems unimportant again so i can kick this can down the road once more.
it also bugs me that the names i use to refer to the sites on my blogroll are inconsistent. for example, the whiskey bar by billmon is listed as "Whiskey Bar" and not "Billmon" even though eschaton by atrios is listed as "atrios" and not "eschaton." i still list hullabaloo as "digby" even though at least half of the posts at hullabaloo these days are written by someone else other than digby.
these annoyances are not new. i've been occasionally thinking about changing stuff around for a while now. at least two or three times i've started writing posts about this very topic, but never bothered to hit the publish button when i was done. this stuff alternates between driving me crazy and seeming to be completely unimportant. maybe i'll just wait until it seems unimportant again so i can kick this can down the road once more.
Friday, December 08, 2006
firefly MMORPG
personally, i'd rather have the tv series back. i doubt if i'll play the online game (the last thing i need is yet another way to waste time). but i guess it's still better than nothing.
alternative dictionaries
the dagger aleph drew my attention to the alternative dictionaries site. whenever i get to my grand blogroll tinkering project, i'll probably add it to the links. maybe i'll even create a special "language" section too. wouldn't that be spiffy?
i am also aware that the grander this project gets, the less likely it is that i will ever get around to doing it.
i am also aware that the grander this project gets, the less likely it is that i will ever get around to doing it.
the horror
apparently my blog is too big to switch. dammit. i wasn't even sure if i wanted to switch, but now that it won't let me i'm enraged by the injustice of it all.
on top of that: chocolate?!?! say it aint so! the other stuff i could live without (and another reason to hate my cell phone is always welcome), but adding an additional layer of guilt to chocolate is simply inhuman.
on top of that: chocolate?!?! say it aint so! the other stuff i could live without (and another reason to hate my cell phone is always welcome), but adding an additional layer of guilt to chocolate is simply inhuman.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
immpunity
kyrgyzstan is considering revoking the immunity from criminal prosecution that u.s. soldiers have in the country. this issue pops up every now and then.
every time it does i try to imagine what would happen if a bunch of nepalese soldiers were based in the u.s. one day one of them shoots and kills a u.s. citizen as who's going about his or her normal business. how would we react if we were told that the soldier can't be prosecuted for the crime? what would we do if we learned that our own government had agreed to give foreigners absolute immunity for any crime committed against americans?
every time it does i try to imagine what would happen if a bunch of nepalese soldiers were based in the u.s. one day one of them shoots and kills a u.s. citizen as who's going about his or her normal business. how would we react if we were told that the soldier can't be prosecuted for the crime? what would we do if we learned that our own government had agreed to give foreigners absolute immunity for any crime committed against americans?
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
my impression
so i made my way through the whole damn thing.
i'm glad that it's assessment of the situation is relatively straightforward. the picture it paints of iraq is similar to the grim impression i had in following the news there. while it probably doesn't completely capture the full horrible reality, the descriptive section at the beginning can't simply be dismissed as a whitewash.
the prescriptive part, however, just seems a little pollyanna-ish. there's recommendations that i agree with (e.g. no permanent bases in iraq, opening a dialogue with iraq's neighbors, re-engagement in the israeli-palestinian peace process), i just don't think they necessarily add up to a "victory" in iraq.
and i think the report dismisses the withdrawal option in a rather cursory fashion. in fact, the following paragraph is pretty much all that it says about the option favored by most americans and iraqis:
and that's really the problem with the report. the authors are looking for a happy ending and there is none. just raising the spector of a bad outcome doesn't necessarily mean the course of action is not still the best one available. as i've mention many times before, it's not a matter of finding a good option, it's about finding the least bad option. listing the problems with the withdrawal option isn't enough. the authors have to argue that the other options aren't worse. they never do that. and by leaving it out, they never give withdrawal any serious consideration.
i mentioned below that i think the report could change the terms of the debate over iraq in this country. i still think that's true even though i don't believe that the report adds up to a realistic solution to the problem of iraq.
i'm glad that it's assessment of the situation is relatively straightforward. the picture it paints of iraq is similar to the grim impression i had in following the news there. while it probably doesn't completely capture the full horrible reality, the descriptive section at the beginning can't simply be dismissed as a whitewash.
the prescriptive part, however, just seems a little pollyanna-ish. there's recommendations that i agree with (e.g. no permanent bases in iraq, opening a dialogue with iraq's neighbors, re-engagement in the israeli-palestinian peace process), i just don't think they necessarily add up to a "victory" in iraq.
and i think the report dismisses the withdrawal option in a rather cursory fashion. in fact, the following paragraph is pretty much all that it says about the option favored by most americans and iraqis:
Because of the importance of Iraq, the potential for catastrophe, and the role and commitments of the United States in initiating events that have led to the current situation, we believe it would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitate withdrawal of troops and support. A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions, leading to a number of the adverse consequences outlined above. The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return.five sentences. that's it. the first one just states the ISG's conclusion and the last one really just states it again. the middle three sentences i actually agree with (at least in the short-term). yet i still think a withdrawal is the best option.
and that's really the problem with the report. the authors are looking for a happy ending and there is none. just raising the spector of a bad outcome doesn't necessarily mean the course of action is not still the best one available. as i've mention many times before, it's not a matter of finding a good option, it's about finding the least bad option. listing the problems with the withdrawal option isn't enough. the authors have to argue that the other options aren't worse. they never do that. and by leaving it out, they never give withdrawal any serious consideration.
i mentioned below that i think the report could change the terms of the debate over iraq in this country. i still think that's true even though i don't believe that the report adds up to a realistic solution to the problem of iraq.
silver linings
the iraq study group report is here.
i gotta disagree with atrios on this. the potential good that could come from this report has nothing to do with whether its recommendations are fully implemented, it's about changing the terms of the debate. as of yesterday, the official iraq debate was over whether to shift u.s. forces around within iraq, or whether we should send even more forces there. alternative proposals that involve a drawdown of u.s. forces, have generally been presented as the ravings of a wild-eyed lunatic (even though that would make most americans wild-eyed lunatics). the entire idea gets dismissed out of hand, not worthy of consideration by the serious guardians of our political discourse.
by having a blue-ribbon commission come up with things like talking to the relevant parties in the region, avoiding open-ended commitment of troops, pledging not to establish any permanent military bases, and including the costs of the war in iraq in the normal budgetary process, lends those ideas some mainstream legitimacy. sure, some of us have been saying stuff like that forever, but because the ISG is saying it, it brings the matters out of smelly-hippy land and makes it part of the "reasonable center."
and that is a good thing. not because it increases the chances that bush will implement anything other than the bits he likes, but because it will help hold him into account for all the stuff that he doesn't do. up until now those perfectly obvious things like a "no permanent bases" pledge have been on the margins. no one is going to raise bush's refusal to make that pledge until it becomes part of the mainstream. because the ISG has been deemed "centrist" and "bipartisan" by the powers that be, that means its recommendations will be deemed to be the mainstream.
so the report is probably not perfect (from the summaries i've seen it's far from it), and bush would not implement it even if it were. but it could get people to ask the president more hard questions about iraq, it could move the terms of the debate a little closer to where it should be, and bring issues that have been ignored so far into that debate. if the terms of the debate shift, it will also affect the way that the 2008 presidential hopefuls approach the whole iraq issue. and they, not bush, are the ones who might actually get us out of this mess.
i gotta disagree with atrios on this. the potential good that could come from this report has nothing to do with whether its recommendations are fully implemented, it's about changing the terms of the debate. as of yesterday, the official iraq debate was over whether to shift u.s. forces around within iraq, or whether we should send even more forces there. alternative proposals that involve a drawdown of u.s. forces, have generally been presented as the ravings of a wild-eyed lunatic (even though that would make most americans wild-eyed lunatics). the entire idea gets dismissed out of hand, not worthy of consideration by the serious guardians of our political discourse.
by having a blue-ribbon commission come up with things like talking to the relevant parties in the region, avoiding open-ended commitment of troops, pledging not to establish any permanent military bases, and including the costs of the war in iraq in the normal budgetary process, lends those ideas some mainstream legitimacy. sure, some of us have been saying stuff like that forever, but because the ISG is saying it, it brings the matters out of smelly-hippy land and makes it part of the "reasonable center."
and that is a good thing. not because it increases the chances that bush will implement anything other than the bits he likes, but because it will help hold him into account for all the stuff that he doesn't do. up until now those perfectly obvious things like a "no permanent bases" pledge have been on the margins. no one is going to raise bush's refusal to make that pledge until it becomes part of the mainstream. because the ISG has been deemed "centrist" and "bipartisan" by the powers that be, that means its recommendations will be deemed to be the mainstream.
so the report is probably not perfect (from the summaries i've seen it's far from it), and bush would not implement it even if it were. but it could get people to ask the president more hard questions about iraq, it could move the terms of the debate a little closer to where it should be, and bring issues that have been ignored so far into that debate. if the terms of the debate shift, it will also affect the way that the 2008 presidential hopefuls approach the whole iraq issue. and they, not bush, are the ones who might actually get us out of this mess.
help me obiwan...
eventually i'll get the chance to read this iraq study group report, at least whatever version is made public. but considering how the group met with bush privately last month i think the group has already ruined any illusions that it will offer a truly independent assessment. and because it seems like virtually all of its recommendations have leaked out over the past few weeks, i don't think the report will turn out to be all that revolutionary as it's been hyped to be either.
iraq has become such a disaster that the public, or at least the wonky class, is grasping desperately for a solution, any solution, to the crisis. in anticipation of its report the ISG has been turned into some kind of magic life raft that will carry us out of failed-policyland and on to that new middle eastern paradise that we've been promised all along. the problem is that there is really is no such thing as a magic life raft. there's no santa claus either. growing up can be hard.
iraq has become such a disaster that the public, or at least the wonky class, is grasping desperately for a solution, any solution, to the crisis. in anticipation of its report the ISG has been turned into some kind of magic life raft that will carry us out of failed-policyland and on to that new middle eastern paradise that we've been promised all along. the problem is that there is really is no such thing as a magic life raft. there's no santa claus either. growing up can be hard.
perfect score!
Your 'Do You Want the Terrorists to Win' Score: 100%
You are a terrorist-loving, Bush-bashing, "blame America first"-crowd traitor. You are in league with evil-doers who hate our freedoms. By all counts you are a liberal, and as such cleary desire the terrorists to succeed and impose their harsh theocratic restrictions on us all. You are fit to be hung for treason! Luckily George Bush is tapping your internet connection and is now aware of your thought-crime. Have a nice day.... in Guantanamo!
Do You Want the Terrorists to Win?
Quiz Created on GoToQuiz
the funny thing is i answered all the questions honestly. i wasn't just trying to out-terrorist that infidel sir oolius.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
i (heart) CLE
day-long continuing legal education seminars: more fun than gnawing off your own arm. well, barely.
hey, at least i might finally manage to avoid my usual new year's eve tradition this year.
in any case, i'll be at the philly drinking liberally tonight if you're in the mood for additional CLE-related bitching.
hey, at least i might finally manage to avoid my usual new year's eve tradition this year.
in any case, i'll be at the philly drinking liberally tonight if you're in the mood for additional CLE-related bitching.
Monday, December 04, 2006
mmm, terrorists snacks
since this story came out last week, i've been wondering what my terrorism score might be. i've been to some places that might look suspicious. and some of my itineraries might have raised some flags. i bought the two legs of my syria trip separately (i used frequent flier miles to get a round trip ticket to europe, then separately bought an amsterdam-damascus ticket through a european web site because it had the cheapest rate).
then in 2001 i had a philadelphia to uzbekistan itinerary which was suddenly rerouted to mali (another muslim country) in the weeks immediately following 9-11. months before i had purchased the philly to london to tashkent ticket all at once. but then i let the london to tashkent flight go to waste and bought a last minute london to paris to bamako ticket that i tacked to the end of my philly to london flight from the original uzbekistan itinerary. without anyone asking me why i did it, i suppose it probably could have looked a little suspicious.
then i saw archy ask "what constitutes a terrorist meal?" and it made me wonder even more.
whenever i book a plane ticket online and they give me a pulldown menu to choose a special meal, i always choose the hindu meal. why? the same reason that i chose "prince" instead of "mr" as my title when i registered online for amtrak's guest rewards program 5 years ago; because it was an option. the hindu meals aren't particularly good. then again, the non-hindu meals aren't that good either. but i have had some entertaining moments where i'm sitting next to a darker skinned person and the flight attendant cannot believe that the pale faced guy is the one with the hindu meal.
so now i wonder how my repeated choice of the hindu option will effect my terrorism score. is the oddity of the choice in conjunction with my the rest of my itinerary gonna get me a higher score? or will the choice of something other than "halal" throw the profiling program off?
another random thought: if the meal choice is a predictor of terrorist tendencies, then are airlines jeopardizing national security when they cut back on their inflight meal service?
then in 2001 i had a philadelphia to uzbekistan itinerary which was suddenly rerouted to mali (another muslim country) in the weeks immediately following 9-11. months before i had purchased the philly to london to tashkent ticket all at once. but then i let the london to tashkent flight go to waste and bought a last minute london to paris to bamako ticket that i tacked to the end of my philly to london flight from the original uzbekistan itinerary. without anyone asking me why i did it, i suppose it probably could have looked a little suspicious.
then i saw archy ask "what constitutes a terrorist meal?" and it made me wonder even more.
whenever i book a plane ticket online and they give me a pulldown menu to choose a special meal, i always choose the hindu meal. why? the same reason that i chose "prince" instead of "mr" as my title when i registered online for amtrak's guest rewards program 5 years ago; because it was an option. the hindu meals aren't particularly good. then again, the non-hindu meals aren't that good either. but i have had some entertaining moments where i'm sitting next to a darker skinned person and the flight attendant cannot believe that the pale faced guy is the one with the hindu meal.
so now i wonder how my repeated choice of the hindu option will effect my terrorism score. is the oddity of the choice in conjunction with my the rest of my itinerary gonna get me a higher score? or will the choice of something other than "halal" throw the profiling program off?
another random thought: if the meal choice is a predictor of terrorist tendencies, then are airlines jeopardizing national security when they cut back on their inflight meal service?
definitely banned
over the past month, i've been having a bit of fun commenting at atlas shrugs. last month pamela banned me from commenting. but then after i made a fuss about it, she denied that she ever did. as i mentioned previously, just after pam posted her denial, the restrictions on my posting magically disappeared. and so i continued commenting, mostly on this, this and this thread.
yesterday i started having trouble leaving comments again and this morning i got the message that i was prohibited from commenting. before pam denies it, here's a screen shot of what happens when i hit the publish button on one of my comments:
(click on picture for bigger image)
you can judge for yourself whether i crossed the line on any of those threads (they are quite long. the argument in the first one lasted for over 3 weeks). i don't think i did. i tried to stay polite even when everyone was calling me names and engaging almost entirely in personal attacks.
besides, i only tried to comment this morning because i was worried about her. perhaps my only crime was caring too much.
yesterday i started having trouble leaving comments again and this morning i got the message that i was prohibited from commenting. before pam denies it, here's a screen shot of what happens when i hit the publish button on one of my comments:
(click on picture for bigger image)
you can judge for yourself whether i crossed the line on any of those threads (they are quite long. the argument in the first one lasted for over 3 weeks). i don't think i did. i tried to stay polite even when everyone was calling me names and engaging almost entirely in personal attacks.
besides, i only tried to comment this morning because i was worried about her. perhaps my only crime was caring too much.
among the top
in case you're worried that the american-led invasion didn't accomplished anything in iraq:
The debate over the term raged last week in the United States, after NBC and other major news organizations said they were ready to apply it to Iraq. The discussion is highly political because backers of the war fear that calling the conflict in Iraq a civil war would erode support among Americans. Scholars say that the widening sectarian conflict meets the common definition of a civil war and that when measured by deaths per year, Iraq is among the top civil wars of the past half-century. The civilian death toll is believed to be at least 50,000.considering how bloody the second half of the 20th century was, that's really saying something.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
rude
i simply do not understand how jim webb saying "I’d like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President" in response to president bush's question "how's your son doing?" could reasonably be called "rude." the fact that merely bringing up a topic that the president doesn't want to talk about can be seen by the arbiters of washington etiquette to be rude itself offends me.
last week i had to teach a half day seminar on how to be a union representative. my students were a bunch of shiny new union stewards, who were just elected by their coworkers to help resolve grievances with management. one thing i told them again and again is that they should always be polite when they deal with their employers, but to be assertive is not rude. you can say "i think you are wrong" and explain why you think so without being impolite. in fact, if they really want to do their job as steward they have an obligation to be assertive. that's the only way to represent the constituents that elected them.
jim webb was elected as a senator to represent his constituents. that means he has an obligation to be assertive about what he believes. it's not rude for him to be assertive. when the president asks how his son is and his son is in iraq, it's not out of bounds for webb to address the iraq issue in his response.
webb certainly could have been rude. he didn't have to say "mr. president" at the end of the sentence. he could have said "how's my son? you fucking retard, my son is now in mortal peril because of your ridiculous ill informed adventure. if you really want to pretend to give a shit about my son, then don't ask me how's he doing, let him and his fellow solders come home, asshole. and maybe next time read a fucking book about the middle east before you decide to send someone else's kid to die there."
that would be rude. see the difference?
last week i had to teach a half day seminar on how to be a union representative. my students were a bunch of shiny new union stewards, who were just elected by their coworkers to help resolve grievances with management. one thing i told them again and again is that they should always be polite when they deal with their employers, but to be assertive is not rude. you can say "i think you are wrong" and explain why you think so without being impolite. in fact, if they really want to do their job as steward they have an obligation to be assertive. that's the only way to represent the constituents that elected them.
jim webb was elected as a senator to represent his constituents. that means he has an obligation to be assertive about what he believes. it's not rude for him to be assertive. when the president asks how his son is and his son is in iraq, it's not out of bounds for webb to address the iraq issue in his response.
webb certainly could have been rude. he didn't have to say "mr. president" at the end of the sentence. he could have said "how's my son? you fucking retard, my son is now in mortal peril because of your ridiculous ill informed adventure. if you really want to pretend to give a shit about my son, then don't ask me how's he doing, let him and his fellow solders come home, asshole. and maybe next time read a fucking book about the middle east before you decide to send someone else's kid to die there."
that would be rude. see the difference?
Saturday, December 02, 2006
noz's first law of blogging
whenever i post something asking a specific question (e.g. what are some good sites that aren't already on my blogroll?"), i probably will get some comments. but no one will actually answer the question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)