Global Crises Merging?

Glenn Greenwald is scaring me, I fear that he may be correct that Syria may get invovled. 

Israel continues to go, using the words of Robert McNamara (about Vietnam)up the escalating chain. 

Kissinger points out the man behind the curtain in all of this is Iran.  Iran’s fingerprints are on Hezbollah, the hindering of Iraq reconstruction, and of course, their own nuclear program. 

On Tax Cuts

Two interesting reads on tax cuts today.  The first is a Slate piece on how the Treasury Department acknowledged that tax cuts do not create economic growth enough to pay for themselves.  The other piece is a New York Times article (via The Democracy Movement) on a deliberative survey on how to deal with the budget deficit.  The result seems to be that people could agree much more easily on raising taxes than on cutting programs, including and especially defense spending. 

Latest Attacks in Lebanon

Israel’s latest attacks on Lebanon seem to have killed short-term hope for a ceasefire.  I have to wonder whether or not to some extent, that was the point of the attack.  Israel seems to have no interest in a ceasefire and the latest attacks have gotten Israel out of a situation where the Lebanese can put pressure on them to work through dimplomatic channels. 

“The Eraser” on NPR’s “All Songs Considered”

Listen to Will Hermes’ "letter" to Thom Yokre on "All Songs Considered".  He gets it. 

Worst Case Scenario?

   Again, I’m talking way out of my field on this one, and am simply asking this as John Q. Citizen.  How exactly is the minimum wage increase – estate tax decrease bill contributing to the public good?   The minimum wage issue has never been something that has convinced is a good thing.  The idea of a "living wage" is always going to be puzzling if it forces down job demand.  I think that Michael Walzer’s idea that necessities should just be provided by non-market supports might make more sense (think foodstamps).  Taken in combination with a bill that depresses incentives for those people who stand to inherit money, it is hard to see this as anything other than bipartisan pandering to their respected bases.  There are various distribution schemes that accomplish various goals, but it seems difficult to me to think how doing both of these things at the same time accomplishes any type of coherent distributive goals.  Obviously the bill is a political prop for the elections for both sides, I get that.  I just feel the need to state the obvious: we do not intelligently talk about resource distribution in this country, pretty much ever. 

A Torture Policy of Madness…

On absolutely ZERO levels is the course that this administration is setting on its torture policies not sheer and uncompromising lunacy.  Today brings news that White House is pushing Congress to pave over its own party’s legislation on War Crimes to shield military and administration officials from potential prosecution. 

With a veritable cornucopia of insanity before me, let me make a few select points:

• We should not allow people who might be potentially prosecuted to lobby politically to be absolved from prosecution.  Since not all of us work in agencies where this is possible, this is the very definition of allowing conflict of interest make certain rules apply more for some citizens rather than others. 

• By the way, even if the law is changed now, how does that shield anyone from prosecution?  Wouldn’t they have broken a law that was on the books at the time the crimes were perpetrated? 

• Also, given the existence of this law, all of the complaints that the Supreme Court drew upon foreign agreements in Hamdan proves to be even more incorrect of an argument than it already was. 

• Does anyone remember when the Justice Department was the one who gave Congress its legislative marching orders? 

• If a prosecutor brings "unwarranted charges", to use the Attorney General’s words (and I’d say given the current investigations at Justice, "unwarranted" is indeed a very poor word choice) shouldn’t a public trial only serve to clear the good name of those falsley accused by such malicious prosecutors?  Of course, if we start using the word "malicious" in front of the word prosecutor, we can effectively negatively color any trial along these lines anyway.  Who wants fair and impartial trials when you can cheat to win?

• Anybody want to show me that coerced confessions actually provide reliable information? 

• Which is, of ocurse, sadly the point of all of this.  The obvious question must be raised, why are we so opposed to preserving the Geneva Conventions?  Because this administration believes in the 2,000 plus year old adage that "the strong do what they must and the weak suffer what they must."  This motto has been adopted, in its own way, by many different civilizations of many different ideologies and faiths over the course of Western History.  Thucydides tells us that it was uttered first in words by the Athens, human history’s first known democracy, during the dialogue with the Melians.  The tragedy is that this policy towards their neighbors ended very badly for the Athenians.  It always ends badly, and we know that it always ends badly.  Governments are always held together by laws, and laws are followed because of the connections between people and the world that they make.  Mere strength is not enough to hold such ties together in any meaningful way and this constant discovery of power through the ages is almost unfailingly followed by catastrophic demise.  It is sometimes crushing to consider what we know and yet do not learn. 

• This law was originally written with the idea in mind of protecting American troops from inhumane treatment of the likes that many American military veterans suffered at the hands of the Vietnamese, Chinese, and Japanese in previous conflicts.  The idea behind the law is to protect those who have been abused simply because they could be.  That, no matter how long it takes and how far one has to go, the United States will seek justice in the face of such cruelty.  If this law is amended, we will send as clear a message to the world as Napolean’s junta did when they changed the law on the barn at Animal farm from "All animals are equal" to "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."   I guess that makes the American citizen poor Boxer, worked to death, saying "Napolean is always right, I will work harder" all the way until the final betrayal… when it’s too late.

ad homonym?

As you may have noticed, I do not regularly bother to edit my posts for grammar and spelling.  This is probably an awful habit for my professional writing, and I am trying to crack down more and more on its casual occurrence.  When I have an idea that I am trying to get out on paper as fast as possible, one thing I often do as a mistake is write (to illustrate the point, I actually jotted "right" here the first time!) down the wrong homonym, and fairly obvious ones at that (like "write", and "right").  This is certainly a mistake that cannot be chalked up to typographic error, so I am wondering: does anyone else catch this mistake in their writing frequently?  Or do I just have some sort of bizarre mental problem on this front? 

A Quote on Totalitarianism…

This is a quote from Arendt’s Origins of Totalitarianism, which I found while reading through Seyla Benhabib’s The Reluctant Modernism of Hannah Arendt. 

No matter what the specifically national tradition or the particular spiritual source of its ideology, totalitarian government always transformed classes into masses, supplanted the party system, not by one-party dictatorship, but by a mass movement, shifted the center of power from the army to the police, and established a foreign policy openly directed toward world domination.

Joss Whedon: Awesome or INDESCRIBABLY Awesome?

The answer’s obvious, and doesn’t really require thought.  Watch this video of Joss talking about gender equality anyway. 

Oh Cool! Principles!

  I was saddened to see the story that Floyd Landis tested positive for doping.  Not surprised, but saddened.  The unfortunate truth is that I joked with Skates at an Orioles game a week ago that winning the Tour de France practically is failing a drug test, because the competition is so sitff and such a large number of cyclists dope that it  would seem unlikely that the non-dopers can make up in talent what everyone else gains from cheating.  Like I said, I meant it just as a bit of humor via hyperbole (and one confirming case does not a predictive statement make), but the truth is that the sport is notriously dirty in this way and its hard to take the event seriously.  What was really sad about the story was the fact that I had seen so many stories about his proud parents, who are practicing Mennonites.  My first thought, as I saw this headline was of them, and about how crushed they must be.

    Landis’ mother, however, is in no mood to shelve her sense of fair play, telling reporters on what must be a very difficult and emotional day for her: 

Arlene Landis, his mother, said Thursday that she wouldn’t blame her
son if he was taking medication to treat the pain in his injured hip,
but "if it’s something worse than that, then he doesn’t deserve to win."

  Mrs. Landis said a few days before that she was proud of her son for the example he set for others.  The truth may very well be that Mrs. Landis is the example for everyone.  With her son surrounded in scandal, she has very calmly stated what should be obvious in these situations: not "someone’s out to get my son", or "I know my son would never do a thing like that", or "everyone’s jealous", but instead, "if it’s something worse than that, then he doesn’t deserve to win."  Mrs. Landis has publicly exhibited a sense of standards that no one is above, not even her own son.  She is not abandoning him, she is not finding him guilty before the results are checked, she is not saying that she doesn’t support him anymore, she is just saying that no one who is caught cheating should win the Tour de France.   If only everyone could have such simple grace.