Our Allies

So what about our allies in the War on Terror? Surely they are negligible given the massive military might of the United States. Or are they?

Nicholas Kristof suggests that perhaps they are not.

"Mr. Bush is now recognizing what critics of the Iraq war pointed out from the beginning: We could win the initial invasion on our own, but to win the peace we need allies. The administration's ham-handed diplomacy has left the American troops in Falluja dangerously alone and exposed.

Spain's incoming prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, will almost certainly be pulling the 1,300 Spanish troops out of Iraq over the next few months. Ninety percent of Spaniards are against the Iraq war, and U.S. pronouncements about progress in Iraq have the same credibility as the cheery bombast of Saddam's last information minister."

The article covers the situation on the ground in Spain, that country we are all due to hate this summer. 90% of Spaniards are against the Iraq war, so you'd think in a democracy that'd be enough. But what you forget is that while America is fine here in the US, other nations should basically do what we say.

Wal-Mart and the Road to Serfdom

Rich Lowry writes an article defending Wal-Mart and suggesting that the Market will eventually take care of any miniscule problems Wal-Mart might cause.

He defends Wal-Mart the same way he defends President Bush; by suggesting that any disdain for Wal-Mart springs from irrational hatred, rather than from anything specific Wal-Mart has done. When he finally gets around to one of the biggest complaints about Wal-Mart (the effect it has on small businesses), he disposes of it with a comparison to FAO Schwarz and this line. "Yes, the killer store snuffs out charming local retailers, but most consumers simply value convenience and low prices more than charm."

Funny how often American jobs can be written off as negligible, but then all the people who don't have jobs are lazy and immoral.

It also highlights another interesting paradox in Conservative Ideology. Conservatives argue quite passionately that smaller government and local government is better. In other words, the political decisions for your community are best made in your community, by people who know your community and live in your community.

On the other hand, economic decisions in your community (a word I apparently never tire of) are best made by people who do not live in your community but live wherever the headquarters of a large corporation is. Corporations make the call as to how much people make in your community, whether or not people have health care and so on and so forth. Conservatives, like Rush Limbaugh, are maniacally pro-corporation, and lukewarm at best towards small business.

Of course I'm not calling for any form of socialism; but it is an interesting contrast in attitudes. Of course one need hardly point out that your local mayor or city council has little to no power to take on Wal-Mart or any other corporation.

Just something to think about.

Your Weekly Rush; Maybe I Spoke too Soon

Last week I wrote an article on the unique world view of the Limbaugh Conservative, in which I commented that, among other things, Limbaugh Conservatives have total disdain for the moderate or centrist. I then foolishly commented something to the effect that Rush would obviously downplay his attacks on moderates in an election year.

You know sometimes we bloggers don't get everything right, and I just want to take a moment to apologize for incorrectly assessing Rush Limbaugh's temperament. As it turns out, yesterday he did take the opportunity to slam into moderates.

"This confirms what I've always said. You independents and moderates are a bunch of frauds. You're probably the ones buying Clarke's book."

So you see, anybody who is not already in the conservative camp, you might as well join us Democrats and Liberals. I mean Rush doesn't want you. Certainly anybody interested in what Richard Clarke, a man who was Terrorism Czar for many years, has to say is not welcome in the party of Rush Limbaugh. How I wish President Bush would invite Rush to express this unique viewpoint at the Republican Convention.

But I suppose that's not very likely.

Round the Horn

Corrente has two interesting pieces. One covers another of President Bush's flip-flops, the other involves the 9/11 Widows and Condoleeza Rice.

Kick the Leftist has a truly surreal tale from President Bush's time on the fundraising trail.

Mercury X23 discusses a recent article by Robert Reich on what a second term for President Bush is going to go.

Musing's Musings is covering another President Bush flip-flop, this one concerning our attitude towards that most hated of nations; France. Didn't Richard Perle and David Frum suggest we treat France as functional enemies?

Trish Wilson (of Trish Wilson's Blog fame) has a reaction to the news that increasing worker productivity may be great for management, but might not translate so well down to the workers.

The Fulcrum has an analysis of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's grasp of reality. It's not really that comforting.

Collective Sigh does a brief, but seemingly complete, overview of our plans in Iraq. Hard to believe it hasn't worked out.

The Invisible Library has a very interesting comparison between 1904 and our current year (which, in case you hadn't known, is 2004). I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but it's worth checking out.

Rick's Cafe Americaine has a great little bit on everybody's favorite Supreme Court Justice, Atonin Scalia.

Enjoy.

Earlier this week, I referenced an article by Thomas Friedman to make some comments on NAFTA and our relationship with Mexico.

We now have some additional comments on this subject by Conrad for your reading pleasure.

"Hmm.

You know, I'm not sure that Mexico actually belongs in a "North American community" that includes only it, the US, and Canada. It would be like one of those "which one doesn't fit" puzzles.

I'll admit freely that I'm not basing this on a deep, educated understanding of economics or foreign policy... just sort of a notion, and I'd be interested in seeing someone else logically defeat my argument here. Or to back me up using actual facts as opposed to broad generalizations.

But, Mexico has very little in common with the US and Canada, while the latter two have much in common with each other.

1. Culture. Although Canada and the US are very diverse countries, the mainstream culture is Anglo. That's why in geography we call them Anglo America as differentiated from Latin Aerica. I'm not saying that Canada and the US are culturally identical; just that when compared to each other they are much more similar than when compared to Mexico.

2. Economics. Canada and the US are rich. Mexico is poor. Easy one.

3. Political Stability. The US and Canada are, and they have been consistently for a long time. Mexico is less so.

I'm sure there are other reasons. I just can't imagine any kind of "community" involving just those three countries that involves an equal relationship of any kind. On the other hand, I can imagine many kinds of "communities" in which Mexico gets exploited.

This whole thing seems like a jealous, keep-up-with-the-joneses kind of reaction to the EU. HYowever, it seems to me like European countries, their individual senses of national and cultural identity notwithstanding, really are mostly very similar to each other, or at least taken together they form some kind of continuous cultural/political/economic spectrum.

Mexico is just so jarringly different from the US and Canada and so much more like the rest of Latin America. It seems like all we really have in common with Mexico is that we're on the same continent and we border each
other.

In Case You are Wondering

You're not paranoid. Pretty much everybody is out to screw you.

For those interested in the Truth

We Salute you.

Dr. Rice gave testimony today before the 9/11 committee. Presumably some of you watched it on TV. The Center for American Progress has provided a fact check on some of Dr. Rice's statements.

Thanks to This Modern World.

Arianna Huffington Writes the Most Linked To Column Ever

Well maybe not, but she does write an article about how great bloggers are. She doesn't reference this site specifically, but it's implied that we are great.

"I also love the open nature of the form -- the links, the research made visible, the democratic back and forth, the open archives, the big professorial messiness of it all. It reminds me of my schoolgirl days when providing the right answer wasn't enough for our teachers -- they demanded that we "show our work." Bloggers definitely show their work. It's why you don't just read blogs -- you experience them.

All of which has made the blogosphere such a vital news source in our country -- and has made me besotted with blogs. It's a crush that I'm betting will quickly progress to going steady."

Anyway these are good days to blog around.

Ann Coulter tackles the tough subjects

In her ongoing quest to personally make every Liberal get down on their knees and cry, Ann Coulter goes after some very relevant figures in today's article; Neville Chamberlain and James Earl Carter.

Thank goodness someone finally exposed the flaws of Neville Chamberlain's appeasement process.

But, of course, we are meant to believe that modern Democrats would appease the Terrorists, just like Chamberlain when he kept allowing Hitler to claim larger and larger portions of land to appease him. I'm not sure what is meant by appease the terrorists; what exactly are we supposed to give them to appease them?

If it's a pullout of Iraq, frankly I think it more likely that President Bush will give them that, for domestic political reasons (He's got to be able to pretend like Iraq was a success before the election. I'm not saying it won't end up as a success, President Kerry could make it happen. But I don't think it will become a success based on an arbitrary timeline imposed by an election).

This is a deception being practiced by those on the Right. There is President Bush's plan or there is capitulation to the Terrorists. Those are you choices in November. You can vote for President Bush's plan to fight the terrorists or President Kerry's plan to capitulate to the terrorists. Given that choice, it seems easy doesn't it?

But of course it's based on lies. Senator Kerry also plans to fight terrorists and defend America. He does not plan on surrendering to the terrorists; he plans on defeating them. Read on down to the next article to get a sense of what he's actually saying.

Anyway all of this is based on Sean Hannity's latest book "Deliver us from Evil." Here's an interesting review / commentary on the book and Sean Hannity himself.

A Few Words from John F. Kerry

As the spring and summer wear on, look for more quotes from John F. Kerry, in a new continuing series sort of thingy.

The right wing is furiously trying to turn Kerry into a pacifist, but, as we all know, it's somewhat of a distortion. Here's a sample of how he actually looks at the War on Terror.

"As we speak, night has settled on the mountains of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. If Osama bin Laden is sleeping, it is the restless slumber of someone who knows his days are numbered. I don’t know if the latest reports – saying that he is surrounded – are true or not. We’ve heard this news before.

We had him in our grasp more than two years ago at Tora Bora but George Bush held U.S. forces back and instead, called on Afghan warlords with no loyalty to our cause to finish the job. We all hope the outcome will be different this time and we all know America cannot rest until Osama bin Laden is captured or killed.

And when that day comes, it will be a great step forward but we will still have far more to do. It will be a victory in the War on Terror, but it will not be the end of the War on Terror.

This war isn’t just a manhunt – a checklist of names from a deck of cards. In it, we do not face just one man or one terrorist group. We face a global jihadist movement of many groups, from different sources, with separate agendas, but all committed to assaulting the United States and free and open societies around the globe.

As CIA Director George Tenet recently testified: “They are not all creatures of bin Laden, and so their fate is not tied to his. They have autonomous leadership, they pick their own targets, they plan their own attacks.”

At the core of this conflict is a fundamental struggle of ideas. Of democracy and tolerance against those who would use any means and attack any target to impose their narrow views.

The War on Terror is not a clash of civilizations. It is a clash of civilization against chaos; of the best hopes of humanity against dogmatic fears of progress and the future."

Yeah, that sounds like Kerry is ready to surrender at the drop of a hat.

Maybe invading Iraq wasn't such a great idea after all.

Good article by Jessica Stern over at Salon (you may have to watch a brief ad to read the article). She concludes with these chilling sentences.

"The war in Iraq has split the allies, not the terrorists. It has turned Iraq into a Mecca for international terrorists, and mobilized local Shiite and Salafi jihadist groups that had previously posed a minimal threat. It has facilitated connections between terrorists and those with formal military experience in Saddam's army, the lethal nightmare that the invasion was supposed to have thwarted. Antipathy toward the United States, not only in Iraq and throughout the entire Islamic world, but in Europe as well, has become a dangerous trend exploited by terrorists. Even as we tout our successes in rounding up al-Qaida terrorists, the broader movement inspired by bin Laden and ignited by the invasion of Iraq is recruiting new nihilist minions throughout the world. The war in Iraq has not only been a distraction from the war on terrorism; it has strengthened our enemies in ways that continue to surprise and horrify us."

It need hardly be mentioned that the Bush administration cannot and will not admit any error in invading Iraq and their future foreign policy, should they win a second term, will presumably involve invading Syria and Iran.

Tax Info

As Tax Season is fast upon us, I thought I'd share another tidbit from the Charitable Contributions Booklet referenced below.

On the list of items not decuctible as a charitable contribution is listed the "Value of blood given to a blood bank."

Which means, you know, somebody tried it.

Ben Shapiro, Boy Prognosticator

In his latest foray into the unknown, Shapiro takes on the wacky study of Scientology. First of all he assures us that Scientology isn't a real religion the way Christianity or Judaism are, in the traditional way; he makes fun of their beliefs.

He then reveals the shocking truth; Scientoligists, despite being a weird religion, get to deduct their donations. Of course he's careful to obsuficate this matter so he can get to his real beef; Christians and Jews do not get to deduct contributions to religious schools. You see Scientoligists get to deduct their religious contributions, which are often payments for spiritual services they believe they require. On the other hand, Christians and Jews who want to send their kids to a private school do not get to deduct their tuition.

He references a secret deal in 1993 (which is so secret he knows all about it, but fails to provide any link to or information on), but this strikes me as open and shut. Looking at this Charitable Contributions booklet the IRS puts out, Scientology donations are covered as donations to a religion (defined in the booklet as Money or property you give to Churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, and other religious organizations).

On the other hand, schools fail in two areas. First of all, as most schools are run to make a profit, they are, in the words of the IRS, groups that are run for personal profit. Also the IRS specifically forbids counting Tuition as a charitable contribution.

One might also point out that the Donations made to the Scientologists are necessary in order to achieve their version of enlightenment / salvation (in the same sense that the tithes and offerings many Christians give are a part of their religious experience). I don't know of any Christian or Jewish Sect that teaches one must go to a specific version of grade school in order to be saved. But if one existed, that might strengthen Shapiro's case.

Much of Shapiro's case rests on comparing these religious donations to tuition, and saying that Christians get a bum deal because they have to pay tuition. He states that liberals will oppose this on the basis of Church and State; but simple fairness might be a stronger argument. After all, tuition given to non religions primary and secondary private schools will continue to be non-deductible, won't it? So that might be a better argument to make.

Remember Afghanistan? CGEORC does.

It was the country we invaded before Iraq, but we've stopped caring about it because, frankly, Iraq is a lot easier to spell. But it turns out our policy of not really caring about Afghanistan may have a downside, according to an article in the New Yorker.

"A year and a half later, the Taliban are still a force in many parts of Afghanistan, and the country continues to provide safe haven for members of Al Qaeda. American troops, more than ten thousand of whom remain, are heavily deployed in the mountainous areas near Pakistan, still hunting for Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader. Hamid Karzai, the U.S.-backed President, exercises little political control outside Kabul and is struggling to undercut the authority of local warlords, who effectively control the provinces. Heroin production is soaring, and, outside of Kabul and a few other cities, people are terrorized by violence and crime. A new report by the United Nations Development Program, made public on the eve of last week’s international conference, in Berlin, on aid to Afghanistan, stated that the nation is in danger of once again becoming a “terrorist breeding ground” unless there is a significant increase in development aid."

The article is about how the invasion of Afghanistan was compromised by the Bush Administrations determination to shift the focus over to Iraq, and makes several references to Richard Clark and his book. It's worth reading.

Behind the Scenes

Just to give you an idea of what happens around here behind the scenes, here's a selection of stories I am looking at to post on.

- Got an e-mail from Caleb referencing an AP story that commented on the popularity of the Passion in the Middle East. Nice to see there is one thing that Muslims and Conservative Christians agree on.

- Also an article by Dennis Prager on why Christians don't become Suicide Bombers. He ducks the issue of Domestic Terrorism, much of which is pursued in the name of Christianity; to be fair, most domestic terrorists choose not to kill themselves along with their victims.

There's this quote from the Prager Article, that I could probably do something with, "There is Palestinian terror for the same reasons there is Muslim terror elsewhere. A significant part of the Muslim world wishes to destroy those non-Muslims -- Americans, Israelis, Filipinos, Nigerians, Sudanese blacks -- who prevent Islam from violently attaining power."

- Joel Mowbray takes on CAIR in his latest article. Apparently CAIR regrets the mistreatment of the bodies of those mercenaries, but not the deaths themselves, which, I have to admit, is a questionable position. On the other hand, Mowbray continues to obsuficate the actual nature of what these mercenaries were doing, describing them simply as Americans.

- There must be some way to tie these stories together; but they are all potential landmines (well, except Dennis Prager's which is clearly down on Muslims, despite his crocodile tears over how "good Muslims" must look. Certainly, it would be odd to go from defending Muslims against Prager in one paragraph, and in the next using them to comment on the possible anti-Semitism of "The Passion."

- Joel Mowbray's article is also problematic because it hinges on one factual question; are we at war with Iraqi resistance groups or not? Or are they simple terrorists? It's a tricky question, although I could probably do something with the idea that Conservative Commentators want it both ways. They want to remind us we are at war so we'll vote for President Bush on Monday and then they want us to see the war as over so they can portray our enemies as terrorists instead of soldiers on Tuesday.

- I'm note sure all these threads can fit together cleanly; maybe some sort of gimmicky technique to tie them all together? I know I'll pretend to write a behind the scenes column showing how I put my ideas together. That will save me the time of having to actually put them together.

Super NAFTA

I'm generally in favor of Free Trade, while hoping that we can address some of the problems it causes, both here and abroad, (instead of the conservative strategy of ignoring them or denying them). Thomas Friedman who is also in favor of Free Trade, but who favors the denial strategy for dealing with problems, talked about Mexico in a recent article for the New York Times. He has some suggestions on how we should help Mexico.

"Which is why it's time to start thinking out of the box - or maybe into a bigger box. "This situation doesn't have to end in crisis, but it will if Mexico, the U.S. and Canada fail to act," says Robert Pastor, director of the Center for North American Studies at American University and author of "Toward a North American Community."

Mr. Pastor has proposed a way out - deeper integration. Canada, Mexico and America have to go beyond Nafta and start building "a North American Community" - which addresses continental issues, from transportation to terrorism, in a wider framework. Among other things, Mr. Pastor proposes that the U.S., Canada and Mexico establish a North America investment fund, which, over 10 years, will invest in roads, telecommunications and post-secondary education in Mexico. (Amazingly, there is no highway today that runs directly from resource-rich southern Mexico to the U.S. border. You have to go through clogged Mexico City.) When the European Union brought in the poorer countries of Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland, it didn't just tell them, "O.K., now you're in our free-trade zone, let the market rip." The E.U. invested big, big money in roads and education in the four new states and narrowed their income gap with the rest of Europe, giving their workers an incentive to stay home."

To be fair there is a lot of positives in this statement. The problem, however, is that Mr. Friedman is not really talking about a partnership relationship. The relationship between the United States and Mexico would probably be a bit a bit more like Teacher / Pupil. The United States, particularly under President Bush's Administration, has little to no desire to treat Mexico like an equal partner (A big part of President Bush's world view is that other nations do what we tell them, not we listen to other nations).

So while there are elements to this idea I like (certainly Mexico could use some investments in "roads, telecommunications and post-secondary education"), I'm not sure it would really work in the long run, unless we had a change in how the United States dealt with other nations.

I Can't Remember What Happened Five Minutes Ago

Oh wait I can remember what has happened in the past. Remembering what happened in the past is a key skill when you're an unpaid internet commentator (like me). It helps me detect the flaw in this argument from Paul Crespo in his latest article. "As Kirk Victor of the National Journal magazine noted, "Kerry's Democratic rivals never seriously attacked him, allowing him to emerge virtually unscathed with the nomination."

One way to present a thoroughly ridiculous argument is to put it in the mouth of a third party, as Crespo does here. Another key point is that most people, apparently, didn't pay any attention to the Democratic Primary, so they won't realize that in fact Kerry was attacked pretty repeatedly. Now granted, Dean got more of the brunt of attacks, but that doesn't mean that Kerry was ignored.

The rest of the article is the standard Conservative story of Kerry. He's not really a war hero, he protested the war and shook hands with Jane Fonda, he cussed out his secret security agent for tripping him. Same old, same old. I really don't think replaying the sixties automatically leads to victory for the Conservatives as they seem to. And I've dealt with the incident on the slopes before.

And in conclusion let me just say this; Daylight Savings Sucks.

Daily Kos Scandal

I haven't much commented on this, because I came to the table late, but for those who are interested, here is a very good rundown.

A briefer rundown is this; A poster at the Daily Kos posted the following in the comments section of a post reacting to the tragic deaths in Fallujah.

"That said, I feel nothing over the death of mercenaries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them."

Right wing bloggers went predictably nuts, left wing bloggers condemned The Daily Kos, John Kerry delinked the website from his website (delink is a very inelegant term, I have to say). The author of the post quoted above explained it (very eloquently, I might add). Atrios has stated that this incident has forced some changes at his website.

Two comments. I posted something not entirely dissimilar at my website, although I used much softer language. It is more of a tragedy that we have lost so many troops than that we lost these four. If they had been aid workers that would be different; and I'm not saying that negates the tragedy.

It also bears noting that the reason the right wing feels comfy getting all aggressive on us is that we feel shame.

Liberals feel shame when we screw up, and the right wing knows that.

So the right wing loves the opportunity to ask us to defend or attack a fellow liberal. In that sense they isolate us. "Well you are an ok guy; I just wish other liberals were more like you instead of the hateful evil deceitful cementheads they are." And because sometimes our fellow liberals do say things or do things that we don't approve of, and because we feel shame, the technique works.

In other words, Limbaugh Republicans feel comfortable suggesting that the "Daily Kos" is representative of all liberals and Ann Coulter is just one person who does not reflect on all Conservatives. Which is funny when you think about it, because those who are on the Liberal side of the fence are far more ideologically diverse compared to those on the Conservative side.

At any rate I don't intend to Delink from the Daily Kos, in case anybody is wondering.

New Quotes

And a new Quotes Page.