With all the emphasis Bush has put on convincing Americans of the righteousness of the Iraqi crusade, he must have somehow neglected getting the Iraqis - ya know, the ones supposedly benefiting from our benevolent occupation - on his side. Miraculously, this nation which does not check its inbox for Bush Admin emails found time to bring disparate parties in the Middle East to the table to work out a statement of principles - parties whom we never thought would coexist in the same room:
The conference delegates "called for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national programme to rebuild the armed forces...control the borders and the security situation" and end terror attacks.
It was unclear how the "timetable" might reconcile what until now has been US and Iraqi government policy - that the withdrawal of foreign forces be dictated by the readiness of Iraq's own security forces to handle the insurgency - and that of Sunni Arabs who want a more definite schedule for the pull-out.
It makes perfect sense to me how that position reconciles with the U.S. plans: Iraqis want to solve these problems, but they realize that the U.S. is part of the problem, not the solution. Notice that quote calling for the withdrawal of U.S. forces as a means to the ends in peace and security which they seek in common with us (ostensibly). In other words, we're in the way. Refusing to withdraw until we believe order is established creates the very situation that requires our armed forces to stay. It's almost as if we don't want to leave, and it's perfectly understandable why it must look like that to the Iraqis.
Read more...
For the past year or three, I've been trying to convey an idea to my friends who are in favor of the Administration's agenda and, more generally, favor a relationship with the trappings of our democracy bordering on religious fervor (I won't name names, but you know who you are, and if you're unsure whether you know that you're one of them, you probably are). I've just read an essay by a Mr. Charles Featherstone at LewRockwell.com that finally crystalized the incoherent feelings and frustrations that I could never clearly articulate as a legitimate argument. He's written this essay about the experience of totalitarian regimes, in what ways they are different, and in what ways those difference REALLY matter. Here's an excerpt, but please read the whole thing.
But more to the point, we say to ourselves: "no one would ever choose tyranny, would they? Impossible!" We are convinced all tyrannies are impositions of which people yearn to be relieved. How could anyone ever support or endorse a dictator? How could anyone ever vote for a tyrant? No, tyranny is an imposition from either the outside or the inside, a parasite that grasps hold of the state and society and sucks it dry. We think of Nazi-occupied Europe, or the satellite nations of the Warsaw Pact, or even of much of the world (especially the Arab bits of it), bereft of American democracy and DC-style managerial and administrative government.
We have reduced liberty to a matter of "what kind of government a people has" and freedom to "can they vote for their leaders?" It is as if being free has no other meaning than casting a secret ballot in a "contested" election every now and again for people who claim to represent you (and probably do, legally or constitutionally, though probably not ideologically or in any other meaningful way). "Are you free?" is really "who's your leader?"
Read more...
This is pretty cool. My posts are being co-opted by LibertyFilter, a site that aggregates pro-liberty blog feeds. Very interesting - I'm really starting to appreciate this whole RSS/Atom thingy.
Thanks for the heads-up, Freeman!.
An interesting conversation about software engineering over at Weapon of Choice. Me (a Windows oriented systems engineer working with web technologies such as .NET) and R (embedded systems programmer for a defense contractor) duke it out about who's more cutting edge.
Congress raises pay of its members
Congress cuts food stamps program
Now, I'm no defender of welfare programs, but there's something profane about this.
I'm impressed with Rough Ol' Boy, a blogger whom I will start following regularly now. This is a wonderfully concise and perceptive analysis of the whole Iraq withdrawal resolution foisted on the House by the GOP leadership. While there are some points to be made about the honesty of the resolution's wording (it deliberately misrepresented Mr. Murtha's proposal), the Democrats refuse to stand on principle and instead obfuscated the issue at hand:
I personally applaud Representative Murtha for his brave and principled stance, but I scorn most of the Democratic leadership in Congress for attempting to appropriate this man's virtues as their own by association.
...
If the Democrats objected to the forced vote, they could have better shown their disgust by abstaining from it en masse, but I don't think they actually wanted to debate the war. The Democrats wanted to make the debate about the character of John Murtha, a place where they are at least seemingly strong, so statements like this were heard:
Read more...
Listen to the show, or read the article. I attended on Tuesday with my friend Bill (Happy Birthday, man!). It's pretty good, and I had a lot of fun chatting with infrequently seen friends. Second set ruled my face, to appropriate a heady expression. And hanging out backstage is not overrated, after all (didn't even know that chick was taking notes).
Read more...
Via Kevin Carson, this post by Joe Carpenter is absolutely, positively inspiring - and at the same time a wake-up smack in the face for those of us for whom positivity is more of a political fallback than a political motivation:
I've never understood the idea of speaking truth to power. The truth, surely, is that in almost all countries of the world, political and economic systems are designed to benefit only the rich and powerful, at the expense of those with less money and power. This is how the world works, and I see no reason to think that the powerful don't already understand that. After all, they designed it; they maintain it.
...
Well, the government and their pals are not going to stop using and abusing us. They're not going to stop preying on us. They cannot stop! Republican or Democrat, they are rich and powerful precisely because they prey on us. They are rich because they rob us. They're robbing us right this minute. They are powerful because they dominate every aspect of our lives, because they've taken control of all the major social, political, economic, and communication systems in the world. These systems were designed to increase their wealth and power by taking both from all the rest of us.
Read more...
Looks like the GOP is trying to force a vote on pulling out of Iraq. At least, that's what it says in big red flashing letters on Drudge Report (officially the ugliest site ever that I visit every hour on the hour):
The GOP leadership decided to act little more than 24 hours after Rep. Jack Murtha, a hawkish Democrat with close ties to the military, said the time had come to pull out the troops. By forcing the issue to a vote, Republicans placed many Democrats in a politically unappealing position - whether to side with Murtha and expose themselves to attacks from the White House and congressional Republicans, or whether to oppose him and risk angering the voters that polls show want an end to the conflict.
I gotta say... at this point, if Democrats are still scared of Bush, they need to just have their dicks cut off. Seriously, how can they lose now?
Of course, I'm looking at the issue as somebody who wants to do what he thinks is best for this country, not somebody who wants to preserve his party's power to wage elective war. But still. C'mon. Can we not even trust the major parties to work in their own petty, short-sighted, political self-interest?
Read more...
Just saw this cult classic last night, and I definately enjoyed it. However, I expected it to be... I dunno, a little deeper? I like the way it's done (the innocent kitchiness of the dialogue and characters), and the time travel concept is pretty cool, but the whole movie's point - i.e. how it ends, which I won't give away, just seems a little shallow. Maybe I need to watch it again, though.
This is a poor tribute to the memories of those killed and oppressed by totalitarianism.
1. Call your patrons asses.
Just thought this was a very short and clear statement of the problems with the Bush administration's use of intelligence to justify the Iraq war:
I've said this before, but it's worth re-emphasizing in light of Bush's speech. The argument of critics is not that Bush mistakenly thought that Iraq had WMDs. A lot of people thought that - and that was a reasonable assumption. The argument is that the administration made specific exaggerations about specific pieces of intelligence. In doing so, it misled the American people. That's the real issue and what Bush said today is irrelevant to it.
So let's stop obfuscating the issue and setting up straw men and get to the bottom of what happened, instead of focusing on how hypocritical Democratic politicians are - gee, thanks for the news flash, Bush.
(Just as an aside, I should add that even if the administration was not deceptive in their claims, I would still hold them accountable for making an error. The stakes in war are too high for errors - even honest ones - to go unpunished. However, Democrats don't want that standard applied to them when the tables are turned, so I can see why they avoid that argument.)
So, is it the assertion of the neocons and their allies that there are over 80k terrorists in the world? Just wondering... otherwise this is ridiculous and shocking.
