Partisan? Non-partisan? Slip-up? Deliberate?

The Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by James E. Baker (of Bush I fame), is back in the news via an article in the New York Times today. A reminder, this Group was formed last spring, as a bipartisan group, to reassess "strategy" for Mr. Bush. The group, in order not to influence the election debate, will release its report in early 2007, and members are attempting to come up with a consensus report.

That's good, on the face of it. However, the NYT story contains a troubling comment from Mr. Baker: "I think it's fair to say our commission believes that there are alternatives between the stated alternatives, the ones that are out there in the political debate, of 'stay the course' and 'cut and run.'"

That's also good, except there is a teensy partisan problem in this "bipartisan" effort's co-chairman's point.

The problem is the use of cut and run as an "alternative" in the "political debate."

Mr. Baker has fallen into the easy use of the Republican National Committee's talking points. "Stay the course" and "cut and run" are both phrases thrown around by political operatives in the media who are interested in furthering Republican causes. "Stay the course" has the advantageous characteristic of the old "Damn the torpedoes" school of warfare, and somehow stirs the soul. "Cut and run" seems cowardly.

Of course, the perniciousness of the phrase is that those who are urging the President and the Administration to pay attention to the failure of the current course of waging this war do not advocate "cut and run." That is totally a fiction of the Republican media hacks.

There is not a single Democrat of responsibility who urges anything like "cut and run."

One has to trust one's leaders. Mr. Bush and Co. have made that difficult to do. Mr. Baker, who has some modicum of integrity, if somewhat tarnished by his participation in the villainy of "Florida 2000," might have not meant anything by his casual use of the phrase, but he did use it, and Republican functionaries will seize on it and and repeat it to further their justification for continued power.

Independents and marginal party voters will once again have the "cut and run" implanted into their subconscious thinking, and the bipartisan nature of the Iraq Study Group is called into question--especially since the group's report, as stated above, is being withheld until after November 7.

The perfidy of the current Administration and its apparatchiks is pervasive, and even traps one of its "elder" statesmen.
James E Baker
Iraq Study Group
Republicans

Sphere: Related Content

(un)Glad Tidings

OK. That title might be a little too arcane. Here's my thinking: As a proud liberal Democrat, I take some solace in anything which weakens the possibility of a continued Republican control of congress--the "Glad Tidings." As a concerned citizen of the United States who believes in openness, honesty, the democratic process, fair-play, and giving needed support to friends and colleagues, these tidings are somewhat not very happy for the body politic, ergo, un-glad.

The House page scandal is almost a textbook example of selfishness and cowardice and, and, and...

Joe Scarborough, who arrived in Congress with the 1994 Republican take over, says he knew all along that Foley is a gay man. At least three Republican congressmen knew Foley is gay and they had an inkling of his, um, follies. Foley's then-aide is gay; the recently resigned man in charge of the page program is gay. You would think, and for the most part be correct, that having a gay sexual orientation is a non-issue in the Republican party. Foley raised a lot of money; he voted with the party. He was an asset.

Since he was a valuable asset, why didn't those who knew of his eye for teens give him whatever support he needed to refrain from putting himself into compromising positions?

Instead of giving him the equivalent of a trip to the woodshed , they dithered; and Foley kept fooling himself as he fooled with others.

The Republicans who knew of this brewing trouble came close to perfidy to their party and to their colleague.

Friends don't let friends drive drunk, nor do they let friends be inappropriate with teenagers.

Republicans
Page Scandal

Sphere: Related Content

Why the folderol over a common folly?

Control. Discretion. Or lack thereof, for Mark Foley and for many others.

People are dying in Baghdad and Mark Foley resigns from Congress. Guess which one makes the front pages and segments on news broadcasts and talk shows.

Three bits of information as of today, Sunday, we need to keep in the forefront of any discussion of Mr. Foley: 1) the age consent in D.C. is 16; 2) there is no indication of anything approaching physical contact; 3)the page didn't work for Foley.

Think of the possibilities. On the one hand you have a single, relatively attractive middle aged man who is a respected member of congress. On the other hand, you have a 16 year old boy who is a member of the Congressional pages.

At some point these two individuals began an email and instant message exchange. Eventually the boy's parents learned of the exchanges and demanded that their congressman take steps to see to it the communication ended.

One wonders how it started. Surely the pages in the Capitol gossiped about Foley's sexual orientation. Have you ever known a group of teens who didn't "share" whatever knowledge or speculation they might have about the sexuality of their teachers or bosses or neighbors or relatives? The kid sent Foley a note thanking him for some bit of assistance, and Foley, according to today's information, responded to the note, and they were off to the races.

A couple of bloggers (here's one, as a for instance) have postings about this which include a mention of Foley's efforts to "protect" young people from internet predators. Isn't that where the fuzziness of it all comes from? Just how "young" is young? What is the difference between an "ephebophile" and a "pedophile?" Is there one? As a suggestion, the recipient of Mr. Foley's internet musings was not a "young" person in the sense of what many people imagine when reading about internet predatory behavior. There is an example of the ambiguities of language.

The most senseless area of discussion deals with what turns someone "on." Think for a minute. How many 70 year old "booties" does one see in a music video? How many 70 year olds model for Playgirl? In other words how many human beings you know who is "turned on" by someone over, say, 50? (I know of at least one, but he is an anomaly among our friends. And the people he finds attractive are very seldom turned on by each other.)

Discretion and control turned out to be Foley's greatest weaknesses. He could have saved himself a deal of grief if he'd had either. As for the remainder of his "news story," we should be far more concerned with Baghdad.

Mark Foley
Republican Hypocrisy
MSN Focus

Sphere: Related Content

A quickie about Christian Enablers

Yesterday's post dealt with the very appropriate comments from the Vatican's foreign minister to the U.N.

Moderate Muslims must loudly and consistently condemn the trashing of their religion by extremists.

So, too, though, must the Vatican and, say, the Archbishop of Canterbury condemn, in clear terms, the sectarian strife which inflicts "Christian" countries. For example, both the Pope and the Archbishop should condemn, in no uncertain terms, the Catholic-Protestant "troubles" in Northern Ireland. Name Paisley specifically, Arch; by name condemn Sinn Fein, Da B-16.

If you don't, then you're equally as culpable of enabling terrorists who are acting in the name of your religion as those Muslims who do not loudly condemn the murderous practices of their fellow congregants.

Peace everywhere, but no peace for religious war mongers.
Benedict XVI
Archbishop of Canterbury
Religion
Muslims

Sphere: Related Content

Da B-16 Is Getting Something Correct

A Vatican spokesperson at the U.N. had these words: It falls to all interested parties - to civil society as well as to states - to promote religious freedom and a sane, social tolerance that will disarm extremists even before they can begin to corrupt others with their hatred of life and liberty.

Truer words seldom spoken. Now that Giovanni Lajolo, the Vatican's foreign minister, has put these words out for all to hear and see, it is time for moderate Muslims to rise to the challenge. They must "promote religious freedom and a sane, social tolerance" by condemning the actions of the Islamist extremists, and by emphasizing the metaphorical elements of the Koranic verses. Just as the pearly gates are metaphors designed to appeal to peasants in the Dark Ages, so are the after-life promises of the Koran metaphors designed for a specific people at a specific time in history.

The truth will disarm the terrorists more completely than any other weapon. It is the responsibility of moderate Muslims to brandish the truths about their holy writings.
The Vatican
Moderate Muslims
Religious Metaphor
War on Terror

Sphere: Related Content

Appeasement by any other name?

Remember David Frum, of the "axis of evil" fame (his wife, it is told, gives him credit with coming up with the phrase)? Well, he seems to have had a bit of a conversion since the heady days of 2002 as a speechwriter for 43.

Today he takes on Mr. Bush's speech to the U.N., and makes note of the facts of Mr. Bush's stances on the Iranian nuclear weapon issue. In brief, Frum doesn't think much of the president's speech nor his position on Iran. He says as much in a piece available here.

My favorite part is his final comment: America's dwindling list of Iran options has dwindled further to just two: unilateral military action without any semblance of international approval to pre-empt the Iranian bomb program - or acquiescence in that program.
And I'm guessing that the option to emerge will be: acquiescence.

Now, tell me, what, exactly is the difference between acquiescence and appeasement, which is the favorite noun du jour of the Republicans these days as they try to tag Democrats.

It's amusing to see erstwhile supporters of the neo-cons gamely try to salvage some dignity.

David Frum
Iran
Republicans
Mr. Bush

Sphere: Related Content

Biology, Brooks, and Sex (Oh, My!)

Somewhere there exists a "free" copy of David Brooks' piece printed 9/17/06. (It's a Times Select article, available with on-line subscription.)

"Is Chemistry Destiny?" is a fascinating read. In it Brooks explores a book by Louann Brizendine The Female Brain. In it, Brizendine delineates various stages of life in the female brain as well as the level of certain chemicals at those stages. Briefly, a case is made that brain chemistry might very well be destiny.

As usual, one might find a quibble with Mr. Brooks' thinking lodged where he goes a bit too far in his opining. Today it's what he doesn't explicitly say at the end of this quote: This new understanding both validates ancient stereotypes about the sexes, and fuzzes up moral judgments about human responsibility (biology inclines individuals toward certain virtues and vices).

Yes, but remember, oh faithful reader(s?), virtues and vices are both subjective, while the level of brain chemicals is beyond the power of the individual. That is a significant point in the discussion of behavior.

Is your virtue my vice? If so, on what legitimate basis? And what makes it not my legitimate virtue instead of your legitimate vice?

Have fun.
David Brooks
Brain
Biology/Destiny

Sphere: Related Content

Benedict Deserves Support

In his call for the modernization, or at least the clarification (to use W's favorite word these days) of Islamic conversion principles, Benedict XVI has hit upon a necessary topic for the immediate future: Islamic modernization. Islamists should keep what is universally good and rid their religion of what was specific to the context of the time of Mohammed.

Communal aspects of religion are valuable, writings which can be interpreted by thugs to justify unspeakable treatment of others are not valuable.

Benedict XVI
Islamic Reform

Sphere: Related Content

Um...Get a Grip?

The Sierra Club is unhappy about including Hummer toys in fast food orders.

At the risk of sounding like a pooh-pooher, one is tempted to suggest the eminent organization get a grip on reality. Toys do not a purchaser make. Besides, by the time tots and kids are old enough to plunk down a fistful of sheckels for a Hummer, they'll be old enough and smart enough, by then, and beyond the wisdom of their forefathers, not to buy one of those gas guzzlers.

Not every kid will grow up to suffer from Hummer-envy.

The Sierra Club does important work. This should fall way down on their priorities list.

Sierra Club
Hummer Envy

Sphere: Related Content

FYAmusement

Here's a link to a blog which contains a wonderful phrase: White House Whore du Jour.

Wish I'd thought of that one.

The Heretik

Sphere: Related Content

SF Muslim Americans

The News Hour on September 4 aired a segment entitled "Muslim Americans in San Francisco Reflect on Impact of 9/11." In this segment there were two views reflected, both of which need some comment.

First, several of the congregants seemed defensive about being tainted with an association with terrorists who are acting out their thuggery using the Koran as justification. While their consternation is certainly understandable, they are well integrated into the American system, they seem not to be willing to address the problem of the Koranic sutra which allow interpretations which the jihadi claim.

These San Franciscans do not address the fact that the Koran was developed as an alternative to the very harsh social conditions in the Middle East during the time of the Prophet Mohammed. Just as with fundamentalist Jews and Christians, the early writings of monotheists are filled with acts of violence which were "sanctioned," if not demanded by the deity in order to achieve, at some human cost, social stability. Of course, those sanctions and demands were filtered through human beings and human perceptions about the needs and wants of the deity.

The congregants do not seem to be willing to address the need to cull the Koran of the political necessities of the 7th century in the Middle East. Until they do, they will continue to feel the caution and possible distrust of their San Francisco neighbors.

Second, an imam in the segment freely admits to making anti-American statements in weekly speeches in his mosque. He almost cheerily passes his past behavior off because he is now more "mature." The implication is that he doesn't say those things any more. What he did not do in the segment is make note of any steps he takes today to withdraw those sentiments, nor does he take any steps to deny the validity of any such statements being made by other speakers today.

The other two monotheistic religions have very strong progressive sects, and the fundamentalists have pretty well been marginalized. No such progressiveism is observable in Islan as of yet. Until there is, there will be more bloodshed.

It's time for the San Francisco Muslims to take action. It's time for them to strip the terrorists, who are using Islam for their butchery, of their philosophical basis.

American Muslims
Religion
The News Hour

Sphere: Related Content

Brooks Gets It Right...

...but he's still fudging. David Brooks, writing in the New York Times, discusses cultural differences (sorry, you'll need registration to read it in the Times), and he makes a lot of sense.

Unfortunately, he doesn't go far enough in his discussion of America's problems facing these differences.

The Islamic extremists pose a serious problem for the entire world, and so far our response to that danger has been, um, ineffective.

What to do? How about something like this, a response to David:

This (The hard lesson of the last five years — that we live in a jagged world filled with starkly different and contesting groups — makes democracy promotion more difficult but more necessary) is an excellent ending to your column today.

Now, while you are correct with the idea behind "And yet I can’t seem to renounce my own group, which is America," there is a slight fault with the syntax you chose--no one is suggesting you renounce America. The suggestion is that you stop enabling the current administration with your half-hearted defenses of its policies.

Arrogance and heavy handedness have no place in diplomacy. Foolishly, the Republican Party in 2000 nominated a movie cowboy, for the second time, to the top job of the nation. It worked well enough the first time, but this time the challenges were more real than those of the 1980's. At that time, the Soviet Union was teetering on the brink of collapse, and Reagan's blusterings worked well enough. This time the threat has been more dire, younger, fueled by extremism and a religion of "honor." And our "group's" blusterings are exposed as the cinematic ephemera they have always been in the reign of the cinematic.

Our part in the culture struggle must be informed by the realities of other cultures, not by our mythological assurances that the cowboy shoot-em-up wins the day.

David Brooks
Cultural Conflict
Republicans
Mr Bush
Mr. Reagan

Sphere: Related Content

Third Time's the Charm?

Now the Pentagon is calling up some Marines for a third tour in Iraq.

Isn't it time we began to take this war on terror seriously and went onto a war footing?

Isn't it time for a draft? For gas rationing? For meatless Tuesdays? Scrap metal drives? War bonds?

We are either in a fight for the survival of Western democracies or we aren't.

Fighting "on the cheap" so far has proven to be, um, less than successful.

We need some decidership here, Mr. President.

Our volunteer service men and women deserve no less than our 100% support.

We need to produce or get off the pot.

War on Terror
Military Draft
Bush Administration

Sphere: Related Content

Alas, Poor John. We Know Him Too Well

Take the case of John Yoo. You remember, he's the erstwhile Bush administration lawyer who came up with the rationale which gave the Bush administration cover in establishing torture as an acceptable tool in the war on terror.

Now, in the Los Angeles Times, Yoo is at something again (It doesn't fit--this topic is a new wrinkle for John). Now he wants to revive the debate on data mining, and establish something like the deserted Total Information Awareness program of a couple of years back.

Yoo argues that criticism of the TIA was overreaction. He could be correct. TIA could be a good weapon in our surveillance arsenal.

A problem for Yoo is that since he made such a mess of the torture argument, and his attempt at logic flew in the face of opposing "experts," that it's almost foolish to believe anything he offers today.

Yoo argues "Data mining could be controlled and developed so that it protects us from terror and maintains our privacy." He goes on to offer "A warrant could still be required to investigate the content of communications or the purpose of purchases." The key words there are "warrant could still be required." That, in itself, might be a step in the right direction for Yoo.

Unfortunately, this administration's disdain for warrants has been established. Yoo has a lot of work to do to convince us this president and this administration can be trusted to follow the rules of law. Several hundred "signing statements" don't exactly instill confidence.

If Yoo is correct, and TIA/data mining are essential, it behooves him to assume a mantle of humility. That would be a rare moment for him and this president, but if he truly believes the program is for the good of the country, maybe he'll take a step for the good of the whole.
John Yoo
Data Mining
Surveillance

Sphere: Related Content

Adam and Eve Name Game

One has to love the Los Angeles Times. The paper's op-ed page is often a source of inspiration, most of the time positive, occasionally--especially with Boot and Goldberg--irritating. Today, August 17, 2006, is no exception.

The thought of the day is what sound-bite to assign to the enemy in the current War on Terror. Geoffrey Nunberg takes issue with Mr. Bush's Islamo-fascism. He prefers creep in one of its various forms. (Mildly interesting point: the print headline reads "Who are you calling a fascist?" and the on-line headline reads "'Islamo-Creeps' Would Be More Accurate.")

Personal preference here is for both.

Aside: In an article on the same page, Jonah Goldberg feels "fascism" is most appropriate. A "money quote:" President Bush undoubtedly didn't have any of this in mind this week when he dubbed our enemies in the war on terror "Islamic fascists." But his comments — analytically flawed as they may be — added some much-needed moral clarity to our current struggle.

And therein lies a chuckle. "much-needed moral clarity." Does one suppose Jonah wrote that with a straight face? (Is there the possibility of "moral clarity" in this situation? Is Jonah suggesting that the Bush administration so far has failed to establish "moral clarity?" Answers: Probably not; Definitely!)

Nunberg argues that use of words such as fascism are really reductive: Of course, it's the point of symbolic words such as "fascist" to ease the burden of thought — as Walter Lippmann observed, they "assemble emotions after they've been detached from their ideas." And it may be that Americans are particularly vulnerable to using "fascism" sloppily, never having experienced the real thing close up.

The phrase "ease the burden of thought" is a catchy one. And that reminds of Goldberg's "moral clarity."

Funny how language can come back to bite the posterior.

I like the forms of fascism as indicative of the enemy we face. Actually, the only problem with using them is that Nunberg relies on the state element as being necessary for fascism to be appropriate. If one remembers that the Islamic fundaments (look that one up!) are working for a world-wide domination of their religion and imposition of that religion's laws, then the state becomes religious state, and that sure allows fascism to be appropriate.

Hmmm. Theo-fascism has a nice sound bite, bumper sticker ring, doesn't ite?

Anti-theo-fascists, Unite!!! You have nothing to lose but your humanity.
Islamo-fascism
War on Terror
Language

Sphere: Related Content

Sometimes It's Just Too Easy (The Devil Made Me Do It)

On August 12, 2006, The Dallas Morning News published a column by Mary A. Jacobs, in which she discussed "Christian to Christian" urban legends.

There's a wonderful quote by one Kevin Lewis; the context is: "...Lewis, an assistant professor of theology and law at Biola University, a Christian school near Los Angeles, uses urban legends as fodder in classes on legal evidence, apologetics and epistemology. He reminds students that if Christians are to "witness" to others, they must be credible witnesses.

"Urban legends offer a great lesson on why people accept things that don't have any factual basis," he said. "And, unfortunately, there are a lot of reasons why Christians believe baloney."

Modern churches aren't catechizing believers as thoroughly as in the past, he says, leaving many Christians with a superficial understanding of church history and theology. And many tend to accept beliefs from an authority, such as a pastor, without understanding the basis of those beliefs.

Urban legends, Mr. Lewis said, can serve as object lessons for discussion of questions like, "How do you know anything is true?" and, "Why should I believe Billy Graham rather than Jim Jones?"

And those questions have serious implications.
"You're cult bait if you don't use your mind," he said.

Two great quotes "...there are a lot of reasons why Christians believe baloney." Hmmm. Well, one reason is that they are taught to believe metaphor, if not baloney. Pearly gates? Streets of gold? Angels with harps? Not to mention virgin birth and resurrection. Lewis, doubtless, knows better; but preachers are constantly talking about the fact of the resurrection rather than the metaphor. And so on.

Finally, here's a great howler: "You're cult bait if you don't use your mind."

Oh, indeed. Pictures of these mega churches with 16,000 in attendance are redolent of Jonestown.

Ayatollahs on one hand and Christian fundamentalists on the other.

We're in deep doo-doo.

Urban Legends
Religion
Fundamentalists

Sphere: Related Content

The Language Keeps On Bitin'

A very strange complaint has been made by some Muslims in the Los Angeles area. For the full story, see "Muslims Upset by Bush's Remarks" in The Los Angeles Times, August 11, 2006.

Attributed to Edina Lekovic, identified as communications director the the Muslim Public Affairs council in Los Angeles, the money quote: Suggesting there is [something Islamic about fascism] only over-politicizes things in a way that does not accurately describe the criminal adversaries we face at the moment." She added: "It would have been far more accurate had he linked the situation to a segment of people rather than an entire faith, along the lines of, say, radical Muslim fascists.'"

Could we take a moment and look at the difference between "Islamic fascists" (Bush's phrasing) and "radical Muslim fascists?"

It isn't clear just why Ms Lekovic feels adding radical and changing Islamic to Muslim would be less upsetting. Isn't the noun fascist? Isn't the key word fascist? The adjectives merely color the noun.

Is Ms Lekovic stipulating there is an element of fascism in Muslims? Oughtn't she have issued a statement which did not use any form of fascism at all?

Later in the article this is attributed to Paravez Ahmet, board chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, "The use of ill-defined hot-button terms such as 'Islamic fascists,' 'militant jihadism,' 'Islamic radicalism' or 'totalitarian Islamic empire' harms our nation's image and interests worldwide, particularly in the Islamic world."

If these phrases somehow upset, it behooves both parties to explain why they are upsetting and why they are in common use. Where in the Islamic religion are non-Muslims able to discern a danger? Where in the Islamic religion is there evidence the danger does not exist?

If American Muslims, or Muslims world-wide for that matter, are upset over the language used in discussions about the war on terror, they should engage in clarification and outreach. They should reassure their fellow non-Islamic citizens that the perception that Islamists are determined to convert the entire world to their religion is either an erroneous interpretation or has been superseded.

Moderate Christians and Jews have done this; moderate Muslims must do this.

Religious Language
American Muslims
Buzz Words

Sphere: Related Content

A quick stop during net surfing

A quick Google for "Baghdad Demonstration" brings up an AP and a Reuters story. The AP appeared in a Jerusalem paper as well as a paper in Canada, the Reuters appeared in a paper (of course, all three are on-line "papers") in Malaysia.

The AP mentioned a few burning American flags and chanting "Death to America," the Reuters story did not.

Malaysia is, of course, a predominately Muslim nation. Could it be the anti-American elements of the demonstration (held on August 4) were censored in the Malaysian coverage? Or did the incidents of anti-American demonstrations not occur?

Media Coverage

Sphere: Related Content

Spread This News

Here's another call for moderate Muslims to speak out and take control of their religion and their lives.

Now, if we could only get others who write about "book" religions to do some of the same encouraging, we might have a chance to end this on good terms sooner rather than later.

Islam
Monotheistic Religions

Sphere: Related Content

Newspeak is alive and well

The latest Republican attack on the middle class has a wonderful example of language manipulation/spin--at least in published reporting on the bill increasing the Federal minimum wage.

The story is available in many places, the Los Angeles Times story is here.

The bill passed by the House contains a provision which will actually result in a wage decrease for many workers who depend on tips to supplement their pay. According to the Times article, there is one sentence in the bill which would effect this decrease. The article goes on to state: "The provision was crafted by Republicans in response to complaints from restaurateurs, who said it was unfair to require them to pay the full minimum wage to employees who also receive tips."

Therein lies the Orwellian element. The restaurateurs conflate the contract between themselves and the servers with the contract between the customer and the server; however, that should not be done and it should not be allowed by our Legislative branch of government. The tip should be regarded as it should be intended: an expression of the degree of satisfaction for the service provided. The salary of the server is of no concern to the customer, nor should it be.

By Orwellian obfuscation, the House members who voted for this bill have joined the ongoing battle between owners and workers. They have determined the owners can keep more and that workers have to scramble more.

Servers should be able to plan their lives according to the salary paid by the employer. That salary should be enough to provide a life of dignity.

The tip should always be a bit of lagniappe, taxable, to be sure, but lagniappe all the same.

Minimum Wage
Orwellian Newspeak
Class Warfare
Republicans

Sphere: Related Content