It Looks Like This (sorry, no ice cream) 

Just more of my rantings

It seems to me that one of the things that is preventing we as a nation from having a meaningful dialogue about Iraq, about the initial phase of the war there, the justification for the war and the continuing problems in establishing some kind of civil order, is the continuing refusal of the administration and its apologists in the press to admit that the prime justifications advanced for the war last fall and winter just weren't true, that the initial estimates for how we would be greeted by the Iraqis themselves were far from accurate, and that the pacification of those remaining belligerents and the reconstruction of the infrastructure and Iraqi society is also messier, slower, bloodier, and more expensive than was anticipated. Leaving aside for the moment that those who "planned" this war and occupation were either spectacularly incompetent or dishonest (or some combination of the two) in the manner in which they sold this adventure to Congress and the American people and tried to sell it to the world, it is absolutely stunning, and in a perverse way impressive, how they continually manage to ignore or, at best twist (and this is wierd too, how twisting the truth comes out as a better alternative than outright ignoring it) the truth so as to continue with the fantasy that everyting has worked and is continuing to work exactly as we planned it. So, we find our President proclaiming Iraq as the central battle in the "war on terror," which through his own machinations it has in fact become. The administration has outright failed to establish that any recent or relevant connection existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda or 9/11 before the war was launched. The proclamations coming from the administration last fall that there was evidence going back ten years to link Iraq and Al Qaeda are perhaps the best illustration of just how these people work to twist the truth. The implication from these statements and the way they were framed was that starting ten years ago and continuing to the present there were connections between the two. In fact, the evidence they had was that there were meetings ten years ago, and none since.

Anyway, with this continuing disconnect between what the administration says is true and what is in fact clearly true, and different from what they say is true, it is impossible for any body outside of the administration, or at least outside of its mindset, to engage them in debate or dialog. If they continue to insist that a cloudy sky is a blue sky then we can't discuss the implications of the cloudy sky.

Blank Title

It was mentioned in a newspaper article I read this morning that President Bush opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in danger. This is not a rare position on abortion, at least not among politicians, yet it is one that I have never understood. If the moral objection to abortion is that the fetus is human and is entitled to life because of that, it makes no sense to make an exception if that human life was conceived through incest or rape. That fetus, that child, if you will, is no less human, with no fewer rights, god-given or conceived by man, because of the circumstances of his or her conception. To deny life to a fetus because his father was a rapist or because he is the spawn of an incestuous union is the extreme example of visiting the sins of the father upon the child. In the case of conception by rape, it is morally no better, it is worse, in fact, than ostrasizing the victim of the rape. It has always struck me that people who hold to this position haven't thought through the meaning of it. They are weaseling out of facing the consequences. To hold this position is to stand on shaky ground indeed. If you will allow abortion under these circumstances, it is a short logical path to allowing it in cases where the fetus is defective. I suspect that people who hold this position do so because they haven't really reached a rational or moral decision on the issue, but take this one because it seems to be a moderate one and they believe they have to have made up their minds. But to take this position is to really take a position in favor of abortion.

Were they lying or just wrong?

I have come to the realization that it really isn't important if what the Bush Administration told the American people and rest of the world last fall and winter to justify the coming war with Iraq were lies. The important thing is that they weren't true. The difference is, to call them lies implies that the people telling us these things knew that they weren't true. It is not entirely clear that this is the case. And it is becoming increasingly clear that it is irrelevant. A group of people, with that much power, who so consistently say things that are just not true, whether because the people saying them are mendacious or dangerously ignorant or misinformed, HAS to be unseated. That's where the focus has to be. Let's not quibble about whether the President knew what he was saying was false and when he knew that. Isn't it enough just to demonstrate that things he and his senior advisors told us, with an earnestness that left no room to doubt their sincerity, were patently false? Isn't spectacular incompetence just as good a reason to reject this gang of bumblers as mendacity?

Debating the Patriot Act...Coming Soon to Your Town (Not)

In her column in this morning's San Francisco Chronicle, Debra Saunders takes some liberal organizations, such as the ACLU (why do conservatives have such a hard time supporting the ACLU? The organization's mission, which it sadly sometimes strays from, is to defend the Bill of Rights against abuses from the government, at all levels, yet more often than not, conservatives, particularly advocates of "smaller government," line up on the side of the government against individual civil liberties. Perhaps if conservatives had a stronger commitment to the principals embodied in the Bill of Rights and would involve themselves in this organization, there would be less of a tendency to stray to the left. But I stray from my topic.)to task for opposing John Ashcroft's proposed nationwide tour in defense of the grotesquely misnamed "Patriot Act." I've not had a chance to check the accuracy of Ms. Saunders' claims, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and concede that if the actions of these organizations are as she says they are, that they are trying to silence Mr. Ashcroft, they are acting in a manner that is inconsistent with a commitment to freedom of speech for all.

Curiously, though, Ms. Saunders' column seems to be dedicated only to exposing this hypocrisy and is really unconcerned with freedom of speech at all. She makes no note of the "other side of the story." She doesn't mention that the AG refuses to release his itinerary for this speaking tour. It appears that the AG is trying to duck a free and open debate on the pros (if there are any) and cons of the Patriot Act. Lord knows, such a debate is long overdue. This Act was passed in undue haste within two months of the 9/11 attacks; aids in the Justice Department have said that even Ashcroft neither read the whole thing nor understood the consequences of much of what he had read. There was no meaningful debate in Congress before both parties passed it overwhelmingly (in a vote foreshadowing the Democratic cave-in authorizing force against Iraq a year later). Now comes what appears to be an opportunity to have that debate. One of Ashcroft's complaints that motivated this speaking tour was that his dear bill has been unfairly maligned in the press for nearly two years now and he wants to set the record straight. I'm all for that, let's go. But rather than having Ashcroft talk past the opposition arguments or knock down straw men, what is wrong with announcing his agenda in advance and allowing an open debate on Patriot Act? Doesn't even have to be organized as such; we could just have Patriot Act opponents following Ashcroft around, speaking after him. Kind of like the beginning of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates. But even there, Douglas eventually consented to sharing the podium with Lincoln. Is that asking too much from Ashcroft? Does he fear that the act can't stand up to a free and open debate? Perhaps, for a man who lost an election to a dead man, that is a legitimate fear.

War on Terror

Since Bush, Rumsfeld, and Rice continue to insist that the war in Iraq is part of the "war on terror," would it be inappropriate for the American people and Congress to continue to insist that they provide some credible evidence that, prior to the invasion, there was any connection between Iraq and terrorist acts? (I've lowered my standards...at one point I would have asked for credible evidence for an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, but that is just way too much to ask for.)

Can they stoop lower?

Now we get word that in the days following 9/11 the White House Council on Environmental Quality successfully pressured the Environmental Protection Agency to downplay the dangers posed by airborne dust and debris following the collapse of the twin towers. It is not clear from the accounts I have read what motivated this pressure, but we can reasonably infer, based on everything we know about this band of thieves in the White House, that it was intended to enrich some member of the power elite.

What is it with these people? Whenever Bush and and the other crooks surrounding him are confronted by a choice between doing something that will benefit the privileged few or benefitting any other group, including the whole rest of humanity, they line up on the side of those who will give them a kickback. Whenever they get to choose between doing something to materially enrich themselves or their friends or doing the right thing, the right thing doesn't even merit consideration. This bible thumping band of right wing wackos is the most morally corrupt cohort to ever befoul the halls of the White House. Spiro Agnew would have been too righteous to make the cut with these folks.

Shocking...just shocking!

Did you see the picture in this Week's Newsweek, the one with "Blackout of 2003" on the cover? You know the picture I'm talking about, the one that suggests that I'm living in an alternate universe. In Detroit. Cars lined up at a gas station. Cars lined up way out into the street. Drivers looking resigned to their fate. And the gas, the regular unleaded, is $1.59 9/10 a gallon. Sweet mother of god!!!! At the Arco down the street from me, one of the cheapest stations in town, it was $2.05 9/10 last night. Hey, I'll take a couple of nights reading by candlelight (oh, the horror...those poor poor people) for gas 46 cents a gallon cheaper.

Sorry...I feel much better now.

Where's the beef?

So Arnold apparently feels that Californian voters don't care about "the numbers" (meaning what he would actually do if elected), they just want to be convinced that he will do something. He seems to believe that he can convince them of that by repeatedly telling him that he will do something. Taxes are too high and we spend too much, he says, but he is studiously avoiding saying which taxes or services he will cut. So far, he is giving us no reason to vote for him. He is, of course, not much different from the other candidates, which leaves us in the uncomfortable position of wondering why we are going through this at all. Davis is just horrible, that's true. But we all knew that back in November, when most Californians who were eligible to vote once again did not. Now we are faced with the prospect of replacing him with somebody (not just Arnold, that "somebody" refers to all the candidates who won't tell us what they will do when elected) who is an unknown, has no allegiance to or from a party, and has no experience to prepare him or her to run one of the largest governments in the world. Although some see all of those factors as pluses and doubt that we could do any worse, I disagree. Whoever is our governor after this election has to be able to make changes. Somehow the deficit has to be narrowed, spending probably needs to be cut in some areas, and some taxes probably should be cut. How can we as voters decide if any candidate has a reasonable plan if they won't tell us what their plans are? Do any of the candidates actually have a plan? Or did they just have $3500 and a handful of signatures?

More thoughts on the press

The press coverage of the California Recall election is just a preview for what we can expect for next year's presidential elections. So much attention is being paid to the wackiness of it all, particularly as it surrounds "Arnold" that there is little time or room left to focus on issues. They must exist, right? Am I wrong in supposing that maybe rather than focusing on the personality quirks that led these people to run for governor the press could better serve the public by finding out what they have to offer the state if elected? I don't really care if Arnold passed on his father's funeral. I would like to know what his plan is to fix the state's budget problems, though. And let's face it, that's the only issue that matters in this election. So let's find out, how are all of these people going to approach that one problem? If they don't have a plan, right now, we don't have to pay any more attention to them. They simply are not relevant to us. That alone ought to whittle the field down to just one or two dozen candidates. Is it asking too much for the "serious" press to go to work on this?

It won't happen, though. It's too hard. It would require more educated reporters than the networks and print press have on hand. They would actually have to think, to use reason and logic. Much more fun, and easier, too, to focus on personalities. That's how elections have been covered and that's the only way the press corps knows how to cover them.

And then there's the press

In a sense, you have to admire how the Bush Administration has come out of this whole flap about the sixteen words in the State of the Union address. Admittedly, they look bad; they appear to the public as less than trustworthy, at best. But they managed to string that controversy along for so long that the press, and maybe the public, lost interest in the bigger picture. Those sixteen words were just part of a whole campaign of misinformation, stretching back to last summer and continuing past the State of the Union address. During this campaign, it wasn't just Bush, but Rice and Rumsfeld and Cheney and Powell spreading the manure. We were told there was a connection between Al Qaida and Saddam. We were told there was no doubt that Iraq had a current chemical weapons program, that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons development program. We were told, in fact, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and could deploy them against the United States. We were told that we didn't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. We were told all of this things to justify going to war with Iraq, yet whenever the administration produced evidence, the evidence fell apart. This is the story, and the press, by and large, has missed it. You can read about these things in the Nation, at alternet, at any number of alternative news sources. But the major news sources in this country, The Times and the Post, Newsweek, Time, and US News and World Report, to say nothing of the TV networks, lack either the brains, the guts, or the sense of professionalism to stick with these stories. They'll ask a question maybe once, rarely twice, and when they get tired (which is rather quickly) of receiving no response, they move on. They rarely bother to point out that the question wasn't answered, almost never to they bother to explain why the question was asked in the first place.