The question Buckley didn’t ask

Impeccably credentialed Conservative William F. Buckley has now joined the growing number of Conservatives disenchanted with George W. Bush and his conduct of the war in Iraq. To them I say welcome and it’s about time. [ As a tangent I can’t help going off on, I wonder if the rightwing hate mongers --- Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, et al --- will now vehemently turn on him with accusations of being unpatriotic, of offering aid and comfort to the enemy, and suggesting he be deported to Afghanistan to join his al-Qaeda loving pals, blah, blah, blah…? But that’s a different discussion. ]

In his essay on why America has, in fact, lost the war in Iraq, he argues that Bush’s invasion of that country was based on two “postulates.”

“One of these postulates,” he wrote, “from the beginning, was that the Iraqi people, whatever their tribal differences, would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom. The accompanying postulate was that the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymakers to cope with insurgents bent on violence.”

Buckley then goes on to argue that while in Iraq neither of these postulates has proven out, they were not necessarily flawed in the first place, which I think was his way of trying to help Bush get off the hook --- the President’s goals were noble, Buckley seems to argue, it’s just that the Iraqi people weren’t really ready.

The question Buckley so carefully danced around, the question Buckley didn’t ask is: Should George Bush have known this would likely happen?

I would argue that “yes,” he should have, for two crucial reasons:

First, even a most rudimentary understanding of the history of the Middle East suggests that for several thousand years the region’s politics have been to say the least complicated. There is even a word in English, Byzantine, that is used to describe incredibly complex and usually devious political maneuverings. The word is derived from Byzantium, which is the ancient name for the region we now call the Middle East. In other words, the Middle East is virtually synonymous with power machinations. So to assume that “the Iraqi people, whatever their tribal differences, would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom” is at best idealistic naiveté, and at worst just plain ignorance.

Second, but even if naiveté (if not necessarily ignorance) on the part of the President could be forgiven, the fact is he had plenty of opportunity to understand that what has unfolded in Iraq was indeed a possible and perhaps even likely outcome. Army Gen. Eric Shinseki tried to warn him. Perhaps it is not coincidental that he is now Gen. Shinseki (Ret.). Former Secretary of State Colin Powell tried to warn him. Perhaps it is not coincidental that he is the “former” Secretary of State. The CIA tried to warn him. Perhaps it is not coincidental that the CIA is now being purged of those who do not reflect the President’s priorities. [ Another tangent I can’t help going off on… Perhaps those in the CIA being “purged” should count their blessings that they are being “purged” by being sent off to early retirement, as there are other, more extreme forms of being “purged” that might have been considered. ]

I’m very much aware that Bush supporters will dismiss me as a second-guessing Monday morning quarterback (or worse). Be that as it may, the reality is the President had knowledgeable sources within his administration that could have offered him a more realistic assessment of the outcome of his actions. He chose not to listen to them, and the result of his --- what? The word “arrogance” comes to mind --- is costing us dearly in lives and money and goodwill. Indeed, he still seems not to be listening…

Let's see now...

... Scooter Libby wants to get the case against him dismissed on the grounds that the special prosecutor is acting contrary to the U.S. Constitution, but President Bush and his cronies in the Justice Department think the Constitution can be ignored when it comes to spying on Americans in the name of national security.

...President Bush thinks that Congress asking questions about the Dubai seaports deal is insulting to the Arab world, but invading an Arab country and the Abu Gharib and Guantanamo prison abuses are OK because they involve "enemy combantants," not Arabs.

...President Bush's mission-of-the-month in the Middle East is supposedly to bring the benefits of democracy to that region, but when a Middle Eastern nation democratically elects to parliament --- well, I know Palestine technically isn't a nation yet, but it does have a parliament --- a political party he doesn't like he refuses to recognize them and even works to destabilize them.

And they thought John Kerry was a flip-flopper.

Anger!!!

I try to be a reasonable person. I try to see all sides of issues. I try not to let emotions get in the way. But, my God it is hard not to be livid! Here is a quote today as reported by the Associated Press:

"President Bush on Thursday sought to calm an uproar over an Arab company taking over operations at six major American ports, saying 'people don't need to worry about security.'"

People "don't need to worry about security" that involves an Arab country with known ties to terrorists... But YOU, Mr. President. NEED TO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SPY ON ME AND MY NEIGHBORS BECAUSE I MIGHT BE A TERRORIST THREAT.

I just hope that I'm not alone. That there are more and more people like me --- I have to think there are, because otherwise I would really despair --- who are mad as hell at this man's utter arrogance and total hypocrisy.

What’s wrong with a little healthy anger? II

Here are some excerpts from U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in a talk he gave last week to the Council on Foreign Relations as reported by Reuters:

“The Pentagon chief said today's weapons of war included e-mail, Blackberries, instant messaging, digital cameras and Web logs, or blogs.

“’Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today's media age, but ... our country has not adapted,’ Rumsfeld said.

"’For the most part, the U.S. government still functions as a 'five and dime' store in an eBay world,’ Rumsfeld said, referring to old-fashioned U.S. retail stores and the online auction house respectively.

“U.S. military public affairs officers must learn to anticipate news and respond faster, and good public affairs officers should be rewarded with promotions, he said.

“The Pentagon's propaganda machine still operates mostly eight hours a day, five or six days a week while the challenges it faces occur 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Rumsfeld called that a ‘dangerous deficiency.’"

A “DANGEROUS DEFICIENCY” HE CALLS IT!

Well, who the hell has been in charge of the U.S. “propaganda machine” for the last six years? George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, that’s who.

I recently saw a bumper sticker that expresses my feelings exactly: “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Warped Logic

Below is a verbatim transcript of an e-mail I received recently from a relative no less; actually I’ve received it several times, but the last time was the straw that broke the camel’s back. It was asking me to add my name to some 1,800 names at the bottom as a petition to President Bush to, I gather, protect the Pledge of Allegiance presumably from those nasty liberals like me (which of course, raises the question of why I got it in the first place, but that’s another discussion). Although sorely tempted to “attack” this for its utterly atrocious grammar and punctuation (I am a former English teacher after all), I’m going to resist that temptation and simply offer some thoughts on the wholly warped logic involved in this so-called petition:

“When I was in grade school and Jr. High school, and even high school, I use to recite the pledge. Back then it was just something to say to start your day, Now that I'm older, and some what wiser, I feel that My children and yours are being cheated out of something that our country stands for, By taking this away, this is a slap in the face to everyone one of the men and women that over seas protecting us. Even if you agree or disagree for the reason they are over there. None of these people jumped up and down and yelled "I'll go, I'll go". They are over there protecting us, so we can PROUDLY say, ''ONE NATION UNDER GOD IN DIVENSABLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL" If you feel that you can not say this, then don't, but don't make me stop saying it, because I may hurt your feelings, WHAT ABOUT MINE?”

First, what exactly is it that you are “being cheated out of”? You can still say the Pledge of Allegiance just like you did in grade school and junior high school and even high school. None of us nasty liberals that I am aware of has ever said that you can’t say the Pledge, although that is clearly what you’ve implied. In other words, you are making the issue black and white when it really isn't.

Second, what exactly is it that “our country stands for” and that “my children and yours are being cheated out of”? This is one of those wonderfully vague but high-sounding generalities that can mean anything you want it to mean and, therefore, really means nothing at all. For example, I believe that what “our country stands for” IS my right to object to “under God” being mandated by Congress. So, as far as I'm concerned, your logic equally supported my position.

Third, (and this is my favorite), how is my objecting to “under God” being required in the Pledge “a slap in the face to every one of the men and women that are overseas protecting us”? If I understand your logic correctly, the right that you seem to be suggesting they are “protecting” is really only the right to agree with you and (presumably) them. Which is no "right" at all.

I’m sure it is no surprise that I deleted the so-called petition.

The Tipping Point

More than 200 years ago Benjamin Franklin, writing as Poor Richard, penned this epigram:

“A little neglect may breed mischief; for want of a nail the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe the horse was lost; for want of a horse the rider was lost; for want of the rider the battle was lost.”

It is the most lucid example I know of of the basic principle of Chaos Theory, which holds that very often seemingly small causes can lead to significant and unpredictable consequences. Later, with the perspective that only hindsight can give, we look back and say, “Ah, that apparently insignificant incident seems to have been the turning point that led to this surprisingly large result.”

What’s more, since whatever we are talking about --- the weather, the stock market, the play-out of a political endeavor --- is always made up of a myriad of ostensibly small and unrelated incidents and decisions, we cannot recognize at the time that any given occurrence will in fact turnout to be the tipping point.

The betrayal of Paul Hackett by the Democratic Party leadership in Ohio was the tipping point for my disaffection from the Democratic Party. I use the word “betrayal” advisedly, because that is how I perceive it. Paul Hackett was saying the things I believe needed to be said, indeed he was pretty much the only Democrat who was. The spin that the other candidate has more name recognition, has more money, blah, blah., is, as far as I’m concerned just that, spin. {An aside to the Democratic leadership: Quit trying to play the spin game, the Republicans are much better at it than you are!}

Will political historians 10, 20, 30 years from now be looking back and say, “Aha, the Paul Hackett candidacy was the beginning of the end for the Democratic Party. That was the turning point when thousands of Democrats deserted the party and…”? And what? Formed a new party? Went to another existing party?
Probably not… But then again, the blacksmith who didn’t fix the nail in the horse’s shoe because he was too busy, too lazy, too whatever, probably didn’t think one small missing nail was any big deal either.

Epic Republican hypocrisy II

As much as I wish it wouldn’t, I’m afraid that this header --- Epic Republic hypocrisy --- is going to become a regular of my blog.

The Associated Press is running a story today reporting on an interview with Laura Bush in Turin, the site of the Winter Olympics. In the article, among several topics she decries the ongoing violet protests by Muslims over an unflattering charicature of Muhammad published in a Danish magazine. Mrs. Bush is quoted as having said about the protestors: "If we resort to violence, it's very, very difficult to have any sort of dialogue."

So, in the best Mike Malloy tradition of utter outage at the colossal epic hypocrisy of your remarks, I remind you that:

IT WAS YOUR HUSBAND, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WHO HAUGHTILY DISMISSED THE PLEAS FOR DIALOG BY WORLD LEADERS AND UNILATERALLY INVADED IRAQ!

IT WAS YOUR HUSBAND, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WHO HAS SENT HIS MINIONS TO CONGRESS TO ARGUE FOR THE RIGHT TO TORTURE PEOPLE IN THE NAME OF NATIONAL SECURITY!

Major topic switch…

I used to kind of wonder who this blog was for. And the conclusion I came to was this:

- First, it is mostly for me. It is a way to get things off my chest. It is like my daily letter to the editor only addressed to the world. I get said what I need to get said.
- Then, secondarily, it would be nice if through the ideas in this blog I was able to make a difference with a few people.

Well now I have a third reason for this blog. The Christian Science Monitor --- by the way, hardly a bastion of liberal thought --- recently ran a story about plans by the I believe Dept. of Homeland Security for a program called ADVISE, a techno-babble acronym for a program that would essentially watch the Internet and sweep up huge amounts of information in an effort to supposedly thwart terrorists.

[The fact that this is a massive over-reaction akin to swatting flies with howitzers is the subject of another blog entry. The fact that this is yet another example of how the Bushies want to spy on Americans is the subject of another blog entry.]

The article went on to say that while the entire program was not yet operational, some parts of it were in place, although it didn’t specify exactly what parts. However, I have no doubt that the part that’s in place is software that is already trolling blogs like this one to see what’s being said, since that kind of software is easily and legally available on the open market --- ordinary companies can hire other ordinary companies to find out what is being said about them on the Internet.
So, my third reason for writing this blog is that I suspect the Bushies and perhaps even the RNC are listening. And just maybe they’ll get the message that yet another citizen is now voicing his deep concern about the direction this country is going and who just may be the tip of an iceberg of many more folks who.

Epic Republican hypocrisy

It never ceases to amaze me, the blatant and utterly shameless hypocrisy of the Republicans. In today’s online New York Times, Porter Goss, the Bush-appointed head of the CIA, has a guest editorial called “Loose lips sink spies.” In this op/ed piece he piously chastises the media for leaking ostensibly classified information about how we are keeping track of Osama bin Laden that he says has damaged America’s fight against terrorism. Yet there is NO MENTION WHATSOEVER in his piece of the illegal leak of the name of a CIA agent by a member of the Bush Administration, apparently at the specific behest, so recent news articles allege, of his “superiors” at the White House. Hmmm, perhaps this is just another example of the Bushies standard trick of changing the subject when the critics get too close to the mark.

What’s wrong with a little healthy anger?

Here’s a quote from today’s online New York Times attributed to Ken Mehlman, Chair of the Republican National Committee, talking about the potential candidacy of Hillary Clinton:

"I don't think the American people, if you look historically, elect angry candidates," he said on the ABC news program "This Week."

You wish, Mr. Mehlman. History is full of angry candidates who won on a ”throw the bums out” campaign theme.

As each day passes and the evidence of Republican arrogance and hypocrisy mounts, I find I get madder and madder --- and, at the same time, get tireder and tiereder of the milquetoast Democrats who seem to be afraid of their own shadows.

I’m waiting for the candidate who is not afraid to say what needs to be said. Am I just a crackpot on the fringe? You better hope so, Mr. Mehlman.

What’s wrong with a little healthy anger?

Here’s a quote from today’s online New York Times attributed to Ken Mehlman, Chair of the Republican National Committee, talking about the potential candidacy of Hillary Clinton:

"I don't think the American people, if you look historically, elect angry candidates," he said on the ABC news program "This Week."

You wish, Mr. Mehlman. History is full of angry candidates who won on a ”throw the bums out” campaign theme.

As each day passes and the evidence of Republican arrogance and hypocrisy mounts, I find I get madder and madder --- and, at the same time, get tireder and tiereder of the milquetoast Democrats who seem to be afraid of their own shadows.

I’m waiting for the candidate who is not afraid to say what needs to be said. Am I just a crackpot on the fringe? You better hope so, Mr. Mehlman.

Evolution as a theory

An article in today’s online edition of the New York Times reporting on a controversy in the Utah legislature over how evolution should be taught mentions that there is pending legislation in Missouri which would require “critical thinking’ in the teaching of evolution. Two thoughts to share on this:

- First, the irony of this twisted logic is truly funny, that is, if it weren’t so tragic. The creationists --- oh, excuse me, they want to be called intelligent design folks these days --- like to argue that the Theory of Evolution is not fact. Right, sure, OK, tell me something I didn’t already know. The THEORY of Evolution is just that, a theory. A theory is a hypothesis, is a speculation, is a proposition put forth to try to explain or to make sense out of the things we see around us. A “theory” is never “proven,” it is only supported by evidence. If new evidence supports a theory, then the credibility the theory is enhanced and we continue to use it to understand our world. If new evidence contradicts (does not support) an existing theory, then perhaps the theory needs to be reevaluated. This process I am describing is, of course, the Scientific Method that was articulated by Newton some four centuries ago and has been the foundation for Western education ever since. The Scientific Method and critical thinking are virtually synonymous. So, for the Missouri Legislature to require critical thinking in the teaching of evolution is essentially to require what most science teachers have been doing all along.

- Second, so if “critical thinking” is good enough for the Theory of Evolution, then wouldn’t it also be good enough for the Theory of Intelligent Design? Except that no creationist that I know of --- or rather, no intelligent design proponent --- is willing to admit that it is a theory in the first place, since they hold that it is an incontrovertible fact established by the Bible (i.e., God). Which then makes it a religious proposition, not a scientific one.

So, here’s my suggestion to the Creationists / Intelligent Design folks. Be careful what you wish for or you just might get it. Go ahead and pass your legislation requiring the Theory of Evolution to be taught not as fact, but as a theory. If I were a science teacher I’d be happy to teach that, since it is essentially what I’ve been teaching anyway. But what if I then take that mandate and also apply it to your Creation / Intelligent Design theory in my classes? What if I were to ask my students to apply the same mandated critical thinking to Creation / Intelligent Design that you’ve required me to apply to evolution? Can you imagine the brouhaha that would ensue…

Here’s an assignment for you folks you think you can legislate thought: Do some research on the Law of Unintended Consequences.

George Bush is either…

…a fool or a provocateur.

Earlier this week in a speech in New Mexico Bush said (this is my verbatim transcript of the sound clip after several listenings):

“Part of my foreign policy is this… I believe there is an Almighty and I believe that the Almighty’s gift to everybody on the face of the earth, regardless of where they live and regardless of their religion, is freedom.”

Now, to Americans that’s clearly a patriotic call. How can we not be for freedom?

But what about non-Americans and more especially non-Christians? How might they see that remark, particularly in the context of Bush’s other actions, for example, the "invasion" of Iraq? And yes, I use the word "invasion" on purpose. For us here in the U.S. our venture into Iraq has been spun as a "liberation," but I would suggest that many in the rest of the world, and particularly those in Muslim Arabic countries, indeed see it as an "invasion" by an imperialist regime who’s real goal is to push their brand of religion --- they remember the Crusades, even if we don’t.

While I’m sure Bush’s remark played well with his conservative constituency in the U.S. --- that God is on the side of America is music to their ears --- I would suggest it plays even better with the recruiters for anti-American terrorists, who will use it as yet further evidence that Bush and Americans are anti-Muslim.

Which then brings me to my fool or provocateur dilemma. He is merely a fool, albeit an arrogant and dangerous one, if he made the remarks strictly for home consumption and didn’t ever stop to think about how that might “play” elsewhere. But he is even more dangerous as a provocateur who knew exactly how they would “play” with those he wants us to believe are our enemies, because he needs those “enemies” to justify his naked power grab here at home.

Let's suppose Al Gore...

...by some strange quick of fate (LOL) had actually won the election and was now President Al Gore. Let's suppose further (I know this is getting to be a real stretch of the imagination) that President Gore was espousing the positions that Bush is espousing, that is that in the name of national security he had the right to spy on whomever he wanted and whenever he wanted to. Do you think for one second that the Republicans would be dutifully lining up to support President Al Gore the way they do W?

Now why would I pose this seemingly ridiculous rhetorical question? Because I recently saw a bumper sticker that said, "W STILL The President," which I underdstand to mean that we're supposed to support Bush no matter what, simply because he IS the President.

Which then made me wonder what if the President was a Democrat named Al Gore instead of a Republican named George Bush? In the name of national security, wouldn't he deserve the same support?

Greetings from Nancy Ramacitti. I read this blog from DailyKos.com, the largest and most prominent blog on the internet. Those Pesky "old laws" that define this great nation, should be changed, if you feel like it, because the world is changing. I don't think so!


From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...
Those pesky "old laws..."
"The FISA law was written in 1978. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world. ... I said, look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law? And people said, it doesn't work in order to be able to do the job we expect us to do."
---President Bush on January 27, 2006

C&J agrees wholeheartedly. What this country needs is a good scrubbing behind the ears. It's time to jettison any law that's not laser-etched on 21st Century titanium. If it's over 10 years old, toss it. And we can start with these old laws, since they're just gumming up the works:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"Abracadabra! The fourth amendment was written in 1789. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world."

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
"Shazam! The seventeenth amendment was written in 1912. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world."

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once.
"Bada-boom Bada-bing! The twenty second amendment was written in 1951. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world.

Wheee, that was fun! Go ahead and try it. Pick an old law (any old law will do), say the magic words, and watch it---Zzzzzzzing!!!---disappear! And don't forget---there are probably a bunch of city and state laws that are pretty old, too. I said the magic words and now I can shake down old ladies on the street for gas money. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna see what kind of "laws" govern open liquor containers---they must be gettin' pretty old by now too, right?

The definition of groupthink

I teach critical thinking to my college classes. One of the critical thinking concepts we talk about is the danger of groupthink, which is defined as:

- An illusion of invulnerability by the group
- An unquestioned belief in the morality of the group
- Collective efforts by the group members to rationalize faulty decisions
- Stereotypical views of enemy leaders as evil, weak or ineffective
- Self-censorship of alternatives viewpoints
- Shared illusion that all group members think the same thing
- Direct pressure on group members expressing divergent views
- The emergence of “mind guards” to screen the group from information contradictory to the prevailing opinion

Does this sound at all familiar?

It describes IBM when personal computers were just coming into their own. IBM, then the king of the big mainframe, convinced itself that there was no market for PCs and decided not to pursue that market until Mac and Compag and Dell nearly ate their lunch. It describes the U.S. Big Three automakers and their attitude about small, fuel efficient Japanese cars vs. their big and showy American models. Between them GM and Ford recently announced they will downsize some 60,000 jobs out of existence.

And it describes to a T the Bush administration and Republican Party --- a "you're either with me or against me" position on key issues (what W told the world when he decided unilaterally to invade Iraq); efforts to rationalize faulty decisions (the constantly changing rationales for why we invaded Iraq in the first place); zero tolerance for divergent views (why do you think Colin Powell was forced out); an illustion of invulnerability (the President can interpret the Constitution any way he sees fit); and an unquestioned belief in the morality of the group (W is acting according to messages he's received from God).

Groupthink did not serve IBM and the Big Three automakers well; as currently practiced in the White House and Congress it is not serving the American people well.