New Quote

New quote for the weekend. Your Weekly Rush is coming, and it will be very long this week. And historical. So get ready. Clear your schedule.

For those interested in Mogadishu

Just realized something. I am getting a lot of hits lately. A lot of people looking up information on Nicholas De Genova's comments last week are spelling Mogadishu as Mogodishu. Coincidentally, I misspelled Mogadishu at this website as well, typing it in as Mogodishu. So if you punch in Mogodishu into Google, my site pops right up.

So I'm a dope, but it is helping out my hits. I wonder what other stupid things I could do to get more readers.

Good Commentary

I know today I'm sort of being more of a praiser than a ripper, but there is an interesting commentary at the Daily Kos, that brought something to my attention that hadn't been there before.

I've been watching, increasingly disturbingly, how Donald Rumsfeld keeps making foreign policy pronouncements: Syria's next, Iran better watch it, we'll only accept an unconditional surrender.

Excuse me, but isn't that the President's job? Rumsfeld is detested outside of the US. Even the Brits can't stand him, but every day he's making decisions I had foolishly been taught was the President's domain. Now, I'm not a political scientist, I studied history in college, but I can't for the life of me remember any Secretary of War or Defense who ever made such statements while the President was, oh, alive.

I didn't know that all treatymaking and warmaking authority was in the hands of the Secretary of Defense.

Well worth checking out.

Debate in a Time of War

Interesting article from Joan Walsh at Salon today, about the balance between wishing for an early victory and wishing that the "Cakewalk Conservatives" get their comeuppance. Of course any comeuppance would actually cost the lives of American Soldiers, so you can't wish for that. But the democrats could start fulfilling their role as the opposition party again.

"Yes, Rep. Dennis Kucinich has called for an end to the bombing, and hundreds of thousands of Americans have demonstrated against the war. But most leading Democrats have muzzled themselves. When Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle noted, accurately, on the eve of the war that the conflict was a result of President Bush having "failed so miserably at diplomacy," Republicans savaged him. Attack dog Tom DeLay told him to shut up in French (labeling war critics "French" is the slur du jour), and Daschle basically did. The day after the first attacks on Baghdad, House Democratic leader and war critic Nancy Pelosi shocked her San Francisco district by voting in favor of a resolution that expressed "unequivocal support and appreciation" for the way Bush handled the war and its buildup."

There is a spirit of triumphalism in conservatism that isn't going to go away by ignoring it. After the war and even now, Conservatives are trying to ensure that America remembers Democratic opposition to the war (largely rhetorical, in fact), and forgets that when it comes to voting, Democrats supported this war. Hence you see David Horowitz writing an article entitled, "The War Has Refuted The Opposition." Mainstream Liberals aren't gaining much by being quiet. Instead they are allowing fringe elements (such as Nicholas De Genova) to define liberalism. I don't expect that they will; it seems pretty clear that they've settled on a tactic of not responding to the war. Which is unfortunate.

Sedition

Sedition - \Se*di"tion\, n. [OE. sedicioun, OF. sedition, F. s['e]dition, fr. L. seditio, originally, a going aside; hence, an insurrectionary separation; pref. se-, sed-, aside + itio a going, fr. ire, itum, to go. Cf. Issue.] 1. The raising of commotion in a state, not amounting to insurrection; conduct tending to treason, but without an overt act; excitement of discontent against the government, or of resistance to lawful authority.
- Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

Ann Coulter's latest article uses the term Sedition pretty easily. Now, we all know that Ms. Coulter is a propagandist not a reporter. She isn't naturally going to be held to the same standards that one might hold others too. Most of her column focused on Peter Arnett, a dream come true for Conservative columnists. What he did by appearing on Iraqi TV and saying what he said was clearly wrong and possibly treasonous. But of course, to Ann and other Conservative Columnists, Arnett is not an aberration. He's part of an organization of like minded people that Ann has dubbed "The Sedition Lobby."

I suppose that as this website has presented information questioning the wisdom of entering into this war, I must be considered part of this sedition lobby. I never get invited to the meetings though.

Sedition also has a legal meaning, one that Ms. Coulter is no doubt aware. Although not often enforced, sedition laws have been passed and enforced in our past. The most notable use of the Sedition Laws was in early days of the Republic when the Federalists used the Sedition acts against their political enemies. Does Ms. Coulter favor a new sedition law to take care of us pesky liberals?

I suppose I should be pleased that she has softened her view a little--Sedition is marginally better than Treason. Still makes it clear, though, that she'd rather be rid of liberals rather than engage them in debate.

Helpful Legal Advice

Been watching Who Framed Roger Rabbit, which was just rereleased on DVD, and I was struck by something today. You know the scene, right when Eddie Valiant meets Judge Doom, and the Judge shows off his special toon-killing Dip? Well what crime did that shoe commit? It was looking amorously at Dooms shows.

So the lesson here is, if you have any feelings of love or attraction towards a shoe or, to be on the safe side, any piece of footwear--you'd better keep those feelings private. Remember, it's not just common sense, it's the law.

Sorry for two humorous posts in a row, but don't worry we'll get back to depressing posts about politics soon.

Red Dragon

As you know this movie is coming out on DVD soon. The television campaign promises that the DVD will take you into the mind of Hannibal Lector.

I don't know about you, but I'm not sure I want to go into the mind of Hannibal Lector. I think I'll stay here in my own mind.

Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here

Got some commentary by Caleb on a new article by George Monbiot, all the way from Merrie Olde England. Although merry is hardly a good word to describe Mr. Manbiot. He's not very happy, as the title of his new article reflects. "It will all End in Disaster."

He states " . . . it seems to me that the American and British governments have dragged us into a mess from which we might not emerge for many years. They have unlocked the spirit of war, and it could be unwilling to return to its casket until it has traversed the world." He is particularly pessimistic about what a postwar Iraq might look like.

Caleb responds by saying, "Monbiot suggests that brute force is the only way to keep the country together and that the US military will likely have to resort to measures similar to Saddams to preserve the nation.

Who says that we have to preserve Iraq? It would not be any more difficult to create 3 or 4 smaller countries based not upon western convenience but upon the will of their inhabitants. This would do two things. Fix the problems that occur in enforcing artificial boundaries set up after we broke up the middle east, and give places for mistrusted, and persecuted minorities from neighboring countries to settle in relative peace."

Caleb's idea is interesting, but one does wonder what sort of nations would emerge from the rubble, and if those nations would be willing to settle peacefully. There is also the problem of the Kurds. We've already largely promised Turkey not to create a Kurdish homeland--as it would inspire the Kurds in Turkey to rebel against the Government there. But it is an interesting rejection of colonialism.

Constitutionality and Libertarianism

Interesting article today by Walter Williams about a recent report put out by the magazine Human Events. It lists the top ten most outrageous Government Programs, including the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency Standards, Amtrak, Endangered Species Act, and so on. Obviously several of these programs are those that might take away some corporate profits. But that's not William.s point.

Williams presents himself as a Constitutional scholar, arguing that the mandate to enact any of those laws does not exist. The government has no right mandate more fuel efficient cars or protection of wildlife. It's clear that if Williams had his way the government would be like Chief Wiggum in Springfield.

Wiggum: Fine, let me tell you what I tell everybody who comes in here: the law is powerless to help you.
Marge: Do I have to be dead before you'll help me?
Wiggum: Well, not dead -- dying. [Marge gets up to leave] No, no, no, no. Don't walk away. How about this: just show me the knife ... in your back.

The truth is that we do have the general welfare clause which states that the legislature has the power to pass those laws which it deems necessary to protect the American people. Perhaps that clause has been stretched further than it was intended. And certainly the Congress has passed foolish laws. But I can't believe that the alternative would be much better. A government powerless to aid the people would eventually be rejected by the people.

For Those Interested

Today is International Make Fun of Dick Cheney day. Apparently a couple of weeks ago, the parody site Whitehouse.org, got threatened with a law suit for using Lynn Cheney as a figure in some of their humor. So one thing leading to another, the internet comedian community must mock the Cheneys now.

I'm not good at making fun of people cold like this. I mean if Cheney would just say something foolish like, "The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but that they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that." See I could make fun of that all day, particularly now with clear evidence that they are not going to welcome us as liberators or as any other kind of rators. Oh well.

"The Devil, the proud spirit, cannot endure to be mocked." - St. Thomas More, 16th Century

How to Win the War--Tax Cuts!

I have a lot of respect for Jack Kemp. He was an interesting Vice Presidential candidate who looked like he was awake part of the time (a trick his running mate, Bob Dole, never figured out). He has also been heavily involved in community service in the inner cities.

Unfortunately, Kemp also wrote an article this week that I consider pretty wrongheaded. It's easy to forget, but while we are fighting a war in Iraq, the domestic business of congress continues apace. The President proposed an enormous tax cut program, including about $3 billion to go to a plan to eliminate the "double taxation" on dividends that would largely go to the wealthiest. (Check out this cartoon by Ruben Bollings on the horrors of "Double Taxation.")

Now we are at war, and the strain on our budget is growing. According to "Empty Wallet Economics," perhaps this is a time the Government should be conserving it's money, but Jack Kemp has a different idea. He proposes that the war makes the tax cut even more necessary. "Now is no time to go wobbly on the economy. The Senate should restore the president's full tax cuts to the budget so we can get about the business of making America economically strong enough to bear the burdens that will soon be upon us."

I guess if I believed that tax cuts automatically lead to a stronger economy or increased tax revenue, I'd be in favor of them. But they don't automatically bring in more revenue. So perhaps the Government would be better off saving its pennies for the rainy day that we all know is coming.

Added a New Link

Added a new link to the Links section. Daily Kos looks like a pretty cool and informative website to me. So go check it out.

The Role of the United Nations

Article today by Rob Herbert at the New York Times talking about what role the UN should play. He disagrees with the administrations plan to use the Military to disburse aid, and their excessive control over relief organizations. Perhaps President Bush and his administration would like to ensure that the United States receives credit for their compassion on the Iraqi people, this program could have disastrous unintended consequences.

Herbert quotes Charles MacCormack, president of Save the Children, as saying, "The single most important issue here is let the humanitarian side of the government and nongovernmental world handle the humanitarian response, and let the military handle the military response. If it's seen as one joined-at-the-hip operation, military and humanitarian, then humanitarian workers all over the world will be at risk of their lives because they'll be seen as partisan." Hopefully the administration will avoid this particular pitfall as the weeks unfold. It may require a thawing of relations between the United States and the United Nations, as the UN is the most logical group to administer the relief efforts.

Communism and Paranoia

Are you as afraid of Communists as you should be? Communists have infiltrated our peace movements, and are working to bring about an end to this war, a defeat for the United States. This explains Professor Nicholas De Genova's comments at a recent teach-in at Columbia State University, where he stated, “The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military. I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus.” Mogodishu, for those who don't know, was the location of a rather harrowing defeat for American Soldiers on a peace mission. It was immortalized in the movie "Black Hawk Down."

Now first of all let me get this out of the way. I don't care what side of the political fence you happen to be on, if you are an American Citizen such comments are reprehensible. Our soldiers fight to protect their fellow citizens, and they are required to follow the orders of their leaders. To wish them death, as Professor Nicholas De. Genova does, is terrible.

However, the question one has to ask is how do De Genova's reprehensible comments reflect on the peace movement as a whole? Well, David Horowitz has an answer. Drawing on his own experience as a 1960's radical agitator, he believes that the peace movement hates America and wants America to be defeated. De Genova's words were an inadvertent revelation of how the movement really felt about this war and about America.

Professor Eric Foner, who had organized the event, spoke to the New York Times the next day, saying "I personally found it quite reprehensible. The antiwar movement does not desire the death of American soldiers. We do not accept his view of what it means to be a patriot." But, never fear, Horowitz has an answer to that. First of all, he asks why didn't Foner condemn De Genova immediately? It should be noted that Foner apparently believes he did. "I began my talk, which came later, by repudiating his definition of patriotism, saying the teach-in was a patriotic act, that I believe patriots are those who seek to improve their country." Then Horowitz takes a moment to ensure that all his readers know that Foner's parents were Communists.

Horowitz writes, "The war in America’s streets is not about “peace” or “more time for inspections.” It is about which side should lose the war we are now in. The left has made crystal clear its desire that the loser should be us. Even if the left had not made this explicit, a “peace” movement directed at one side makes sense only as an effort to force that side to retreat from the battle and lose the war." Of course we are talking about American Peace protestors, protesting in America. We are also talking about, whether you support it or not, a war of aggression. Protesting Iraq in America makes little to no sense, and if the Peace movement did it, than all Horowitz would say is "Well why protest at all. If you don't like Saddam just let us get rid of us." Horowitz, and others like him on the right, are going to be consistent. No matter what the peace movement does or says, they will be opposed to it even existing. Just the way it is, I guess.

Do It Yourself Cartoon

Here's the second in our series of do it yourself cartoons. Remember if you don't find this funny, it's your own fault.



"Sweetie Pie, Just like (Our Love/Social Security/America's Military Might/Large Tax Cuts/Industrial Plumbing), this box of chocolates will be around forever. But wait, what is your brother the (Democrat/Republican/Green party member/Libertarian/Reform Party Member/Raelian) doing?"

And for those Martians stranded here since 1952, heres a version of the cartoon for you.



"Sweetie pie, just like (Our Love/Cheap Robot Labor/Sunfire Seed Wine/Mutating Cosmic Rays/Flangers), this box of chocolates will be around forever. But wait, what is your brother the (Cosmocrat/Fingerlican/Smashmouth Fan/Quantem Presbetyrian/Raelian) doing?"