Tuesday, March 18, 2003

Cowboys and angels.

On March 16th's "Meet the Press", Tim Russert asked Cheney: "Why is it acceptable for the United States to lead a military attack against a nation that has not attacked the United States?" Cheney, in all seriousness, laid out the new US foreign policy approach:

Tim, we have, I think, admittedly, a new and unique set of circumstances we're trying to deal with here.

If you think back to the way we were organized in the last century, the 20th century, to deal with threats to the United States or to our friends and allies, we had to deal with large states, significant military forces, intercontinental ballistic missiles, the kinds of threats we dealt with throughout the period of the Cold War. All of that changed on September 11th of a year and a half ago.

Since that time, we've had to deal with the proposition that truly deadly weapons could be delivered to the United States by a handful of terrorists. We saw on 9/11 19 men hijack aircraft with airline tickets and box-cutters, kill 3,000 Americans in a couple of hours.

That attack would pale into insignificance compared to what would happen, for example, if they'd had a nuclear weapon and detonated it in the middle of one of our cities, or if they had unleashed weapons of mass destruction, biological weapons of some kind, smallpox or anthrax, in a major attack on the United States. That's a whole different proposition for us to think about, how we deal with that.

And at the front of our concerns, as we try to deal with these issues, is the proposition that the Al Qaida organization is absolutely determined to do everything they can to acquire chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

We found ample evidence of that in the camps and the tunnels and the caves in Afghanistan. We see evidence of it in the interrogations that we've been able to do now on many of the Al Qaida members that have been captured. We know that they have done everything they could to acquire those capabilities over the years.

And we also are confident that, if they ever do acquire that kind of capability, there's no doubt they'll use it. There's absolutely nothing to restrain them from doing that.

And if you look back at our strategies that we used in the 20th century, specifically, say, vis-a-vis the Soviet Union during the Cold War, we had a policy of containment, alliances, NATO in particular very successful at containing the Soviet Union, a policy of deterrence we could hold at risk those things that they valued with our ballistic missiles, and we were able to forestall a conflict throughout that whole period of time. Enormously successful policy.

But then you look at the proposition of a handful of terrorists operating in a part of the world where they find sanctuary and safe haven, in a rogue state or in an area that's not even really governed by anybody, developing these capabilities to use against the United States. And how do you apply containment to that situation? How do you deter a terrorist when there's nothing they value that they're prepared to defend, when they're prepared even to sacrifice their own lives in the effort to kill Americans, and there's no piece of real estate that they value highly enough so that a concept of deterrence works? We have to think new thoughts about how we deal with that threat.

And so, when we look at the kind of strategy we want to pursue, we do a number of things. We obviously, we want to defend the homeland, so we spend an enormous amount of time and effort trying to make it a tougher target. But we know defense isn't enough, you've got to have good offense. And we've gone aggressively after the terrorists wherever we can find them. We've worked the financial circuits and the intelligence and law-enforcement efforts. We've had great success there recently, with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and others.

But we also have to address the question of, where might these terrorists acquire weapons of mass destruction--chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons? And Saddam Hussein becomes a prime suspect in that regard, because of his past track record, because we know he has in fact developed these kinds of capabilities, chemical and biological weapons.

We know he's used chemical weapons. We know he's reconstituted these programs since the Gulf War. We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons. And we know that he has a longstanding relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaida organization.

Now, if we simply sit back and operate by 20th-century standards, with respect to national security strategy, in terms of how we're going to deal with this, we say wait until we're hit by an identifiable attack from Iraq, the consequences could be devastating for the United States. We have to be prepared to prevent that from happening.

I've argued in the past, and would again, if we had been able to preempt the attacks of 9/11, would we have done it? And I think absolutely, I think the American people would have supported that.

We have to be prepared now to take the kind of bold action that's being contemplated with respect to Iraq, in order to ensure that we don't get hit with a devastating attack when the terrorist organization gets married up with a rogue state that's willing to provide it with the kinds of deadly capabilities that Saddam Hussein has developed and used over the years.

All of this sounds to me like a good reason to get serious about North Korea, but, then again, I lack Cheney's business and foreign policy expertise. Russert later asked Cheney if a military operation in Iraq could be considered "successful without the apprehension or death of Saddam Hussein". Cheney's reply:

Our objective will be, if we go in, to defeat whatever forces oppose us, to take down the government of Saddam Hussein, and then to follow on with a series of actions, such as eliminating all the weapons of mass destruction, finding where they are and destroying them, preserving the territorial integrity of Turkey, as I say, standing up a broadly representative government of--preserving the territorial integrity of Iraq and standing up a broadly representative government of the Iraqi people. Those will be our objectives.

Now, what happens to Saddam Hussein obviously is of great interest. My guess is, under those circumstances, he's likely to be captured if he's not first killed perhaps by his own people.

But that the objective isn't necessarily him per se, but it clearly is to get rid of his government and to put a new one in its place. And that's what we think is required in order to achieve the objectives of eliminating his WMD, et cetera.

But I don't want to say, you know, and I can't predict what's going to happen to Saddam Hussein in particular. It's conceivable he could be captured and ultimately held for trial by the Iraqi government. Maybe treated as war criminal. There are lots of possibilities. He might flee, which obviously would be an improvement over the current situation.

The most interesting part of the Russert-Cheney dialogue, however, concerned the costs of reconstructing Iraq and how this might be compared to the case of Afghanistan.

RUSSERT: Every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion. Recovery of Baghdad, perhaps, of Iraq about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement.

CHENEY: I can't say that, Tim. There are estimates out there.

It's important to recognize that we got a different set of circumstances than we have had in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan you have got a nation without significant resources. In Iraq you have got a nation that's got the second largest oil reserves in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. It will generate billions of dollars a year in cash flow if they get back to their production of roughly 3 million barrels of oil a day in the relatively near future.

And that flow of resources obviously belongs to the Iraqi people, needs to be put to use by the Iraqi people, for the Iraqi people. And that will be one of our major objectives.

But the point is, this is not a nation without resources. And when it comes time to rebuild and to make the kinds of investments that are going to be required to give them a shot at achieving a truly representative government, a successful government, a government that can defend itself and protect its territorial integrity and look to the interest of its people, Iraq starts with significant advantages.

No kidding, Cheney? Thank our secular, war-hungry gods for American businesses who specialize in oil extraction infrastructure.

Tuesday, March 18, 2003

Worth dying for?

I think Kevin is right about the extent to which we must be sensitive to the many Americans who have friends or relatives serving abroad. Opposition to US government policy does not neccessitate hostility towards American servicemen. That said, thanks to Kevin for the Ernest Hemingway quote from "Notes For the Next War".

"They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war there there is nothing sweet or fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason."

Monday, March 17, 2003

New patriotism.

The nerve of the gents penning the Nerve news release this week. Or should I say, the patriotism?

Call us jaded, but we thought that the fellatio story coming from Kennedy Middle School in Michigan was old news. (A girl went down on a boy in science class, kids these days, tsk tsk, etc.) Apparently we were unaware of the staggering international implications of this particular blowjob. After the incident, the school district sent a letter to parents which read, "Just like our country was shocked into awareness when, never-before acts of terrorism occurred in New York City, our district was shocked into awareness when middle-school students engaged in indecent acts in the classroom." While TWIS believes that the letter's inexcusable comma splicing and unconventional syntax (“never-before acts”?) are the real crimes here, we can't help thinking that if hordes of terrorists descended on the United States with nothing but oral sex on their minds, that wouldn't be such a bad thing, now would it? Further proof that Michigan is an alternate universe: the letter came to light when the fellated boy's parents filed a lawsuit against the school district, claiming their son had been victimized.

Monday, March 17, 2003

The lotus is mine.

Ali G. talks to the fashionistas in L.A. about what has been the "coolest religion" this fashion season. Apparently, Buddhism wins. If this needs verification, download Ali G's genius here.

I'm going to take this (Ali G.'s undercover truth-seeking operation) as settling an old debate between a friend and I on the meaning of REM's lyric, "Well, haven't you noticed? I ate the lotus..."

Sunday, March 16, 2003

A movie you should see.

Polanski's latest, The Pianist, should amaze even the most Holocaust-weary moviegover. More than beguiled by Adrien Brody, I am now prepared to declare him the greatest young actor of my generation. He acts as I imagine he plays-- fretlessly. And yes, Brody is impeccably sexy-- straight by my book.

Sunday, March 16, 2003

Arianna, current corporate hell, and a little humor from the CFA.

Watching Real Time with Bill Maher right now, I am thrilled to see one of my favorite opinionated ladies, Ms. Arianna Huffington, blowing both Dennis Miller and the blond Bush-appointed CFA toadie right out of the water. Unfortunately, the dim blond bulb is so unremarkable that I did not even catch her name; logical consistency must have gotten blown out with her hair this morning, as there is absolutely NO point to any of our comments except to remind viewers that Bush and company pay her salary.

A disabled Gulf War veteran just called the show to say that Saddam is not a viable enemy. Even though his family members are stationed in the Gulf right now, this gentleman still felt it necessary to call Maher say, "The Iraq war is the wrong war. We shouldn't be fighting it."

Which is exactly what Arianna manages to say in her mangled accent. As Ms. Huffington pointed out, the real axis of evil is the American government, its lawyers, and the corporate slavemasters who make politics as usual such a farce. I throw down the gauntlet to any self-respecting Demican/Democrat right now-- walk up to a mirror, stare yourself in the eye, and repeat the following:

"I am a tool of corporations. The rise in administrative law, as assisted and encouraged by the obsequious special-interest-catering of my political party, has led us to a point where the ONLY citizens worth counting are corporate ones. All those little precious laws I helped concoct for "the better of humanity" have made it impossible for any except the richest, most capital-heavy companies to wield political power. My government is the slave of corporations. And I am just a pitiful, opportunistic tag-along with mini-Napoleonic pretensions."

If you splash a little cold water on your face and then quit the Democratic Party hypocrisy, then I might be inclined to forgive you. Or send some of you to those Headstart programs you seem to worship...

Thursday, March 13, 2003

A new gas tax in the works?

According to developing news from today's Drudge Report, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee leaders said Wednesday they may push for as much as a 20-cent-a-gallon increase in the federal gasoline tax over the next six years. That is more than double the proposed 8.1-cent increase included in a plan they circulated just last week, CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY reports.

Chairman Don Young said "the tax increase will probably be included when the committee drafts a surface transportation bill later this spring. That would push the current 18.4-cent federal gas tax to more than 30 cents a gallon by 2009.

Thursday, March 13, 2003

Couple of Lovers on a Red Background by Marc Chagall.

John Milton once said that experience is not what happens to the mind but what the mind does with experience. How the mind absorbs experience-- what it does with this information-- is the building block of character or the stepping-stone to neuroticism.

Thursday, March 13, 2003

Whatever happened to domestic reform of defunct behemoths?

The government can't be trusted to keep the security in Social Security, at least when it comes to numbers, the agency's inspector general says. A CNN report tells all.

Thursday, March 13, 2003

Odds and ends.

John Berlau writes about "puppet-master" Hillary Clinton for Razor. Concerned about the aftermath of the Iraq war, Nicholas Kristoff looks at the potential ethnic fallout-- one the main sources of my personal skepticism about the ability to "liberate" Iraq.

Also, an excerpt from John Ashcroft's ghost speech, acquired verbatim from the Federal Document Clearing House that does transcription services for congressional hearings.

ASHCROFT: Senator, with your permission, I'd like to respond to the suggestion that there is a PATRIOT Act II. When individuals indicate to you that if there is a proposal, we'll confer with you, I believe they are right. There is not a proposed Terrorist Act II from the Justice Department. No final discussion has been made with the attorney general about proposals. No final discussion has been made with the administration about proposals. Now, let me just say that we constantly are thinking of things that ought to be considered. And we believe that it's in the interest of the country that we think expansively and that we have a thorough and clear debate about them considering the pluses and the minuses. And we don't believe that it's appropriate to never mention anything unless it's already been decided that it's totally OK. You can't do that; consideration requires that. So if someone leaks the fact that there are items under consideration, that does not mean -- or that there is a matter of discussion -- that doesn't mean anything out of the ordinary. I hope that characterizes the fact that we are constantly considering how to improve. I want to assure you that there has been no bill, no proposal decided on. I am keenly aware that the administration cannot pass legislation. Only members of the Congress can pass legislation. It would be the height of absurdity for me to have a secret matter that I hope to make a law without telling Congress. I mean, I simply don't understand that. So we will confer. But I will prefer, if I can, to weed out things that I believe are inappropriate before I come to the Congress with an idea.

FEINGOLD: General, I really urge you to do that. And let me just say that you know my view that the last time we had a USA PATRIOT Act that the kind of discussion and airing of the issues certainly did not happen. It's a debate about whether it could have happened. I appreciate your commitment to it happening in this case. And the fact is, there are some specific proposals or possible proposals out there. I don't think it's too early for people, like you and me and others, to start discussion whether they're a good idea. And I'm wondering if you could respond to my specific question, in the seconds I have, which is can you cite an example of a terrorist plot that went undetected because local police had their hands tied by consent decree of placing limits on their domestic spying capabilities? ASHCROFT: I cannot.

FEINGOLD: Thank you, General. And of course, I look forward to discussing these provisions and, perhaps, we could follow up with a conversation about the items that we saw, at least in this draft, whatever this draft is. There's enough items there that people are raising concerns about that the conversations and consultations should begin now, in my view.

ASHCROFT: Well, I don't believe that I should start to consult and defend things which I believe are indefensible or not a part of something that I would seek to propose. I guess that's my view.

Until I have something that I think is appropriate, I don't know that I should engage in some discussion about something that we don't believe is appropriate. We could agree on a lot of these things that, hey, those don't belong in our discussion.

Thursday, March 13, 2003

Franco-fun.

Making fun of the French has always been popular American past-time, but when jokes about the French exceed jokes about rednecks, we must begin to wonder if we've lost our ability to mock ourselves. Granted, I am biased. I went to school in France during 7th grade and enjoyed every minute of it. Needless to say, French-style Catholicism was much more exciting than the Catholicism of my Alabama-located Catholic school.

I am still close to my French friends. And I would do anything right now for an all-paid vacation to Menton or Nancy or pretty much anywhere in France. Do I think the French government is hypocritical? Absolutely. Do I enjoy the rise Chiraq gets out of Bush? Yup. To me, neither government is better-- in other words, both Chiraq and Bush deserve endless mockery. Bill Maher and Ali G. are my top choices when it comes to good, old-fashioned fun at the expense of the hypocrites on the Hill and abroad.

Wednesday, March 12, 2003

Serious bets.

For all you gamblers and sports-wagerers out there, you can now put your skills to the test by betting on the likelihood of Saddam's survival.

Wednesday, March 12, 2003

Revisiting Freud and the virtues of stoicism.

Freud introduced the concept of the ego, thereby revolutionizing the study of psychology and the mind. In his discussions of the ego, for which I prefer the term "character", Freud revealed how the ego/character organized our experiences and mental life in such a way as to institute delay in our instinctual behavior. In other words, the ego gives us pause; it forces us to compare our past and present in order to form some coherent organized whole from our lives.

We all have a tale to tell. What matters in the sense of mental health is our ability to tell it coherently, truthfully, and genuinely without resorting to censorship or selective attenuation. There is, however, a world of difference between being self-centered (or egotistical) and being centered in the self (or having strength of character). Unlike the latter, the former prevents us from discovering this coherent tale of our lives; it prevents us from evolving from projection to empathy. Oftentimes, those least able to feel empathy for others remain mired in the self-infatuated practice of projecting their faults, insecurities, or feelings on the more important people or events in their lives.

Although I do not consider myself a "Freudian", I cannot help acknowledging the constructive role his research played in the development of psychoanalytic practice. However, Freud missed a few beats. Partly, this might be blamed on the time and place of his existence. I will hold him to task nonetheless. Good analysis shows no mercy.

Freud mistook the first five years of a human's life for psychic destiny. Unfortunately, the therapeutic value of psychoanalysis nears nil if we cannot change what happened in these oh-so-crucial first five. Mental health and adaptive mechanisms are not static categories, and neither are they pre-determined by social class, gender, or education. The fact that people on certain social circles share delusions means only that they fail to expand their cognitive and emotional horizons-- not that they could not do so if willed.

As humans, most of us want to become better people. The search for comfort via religion, communities of friends, and family provides a backbone for self-improvement. To suggest that any attempt at self-improvement beyond the age of 5 is fated to failure smacks of sorry excuses. The whole notion of individual agency upon which the US legal system relies should be scrapped given such assumptions.

Freud also made the mistake of focusing on the psychology of drives at the expense of attempting to comprehend the psychology of relationships. Human drives alone do not matter much for understanding mental health. What counts is the ability to fit such drives into a social whole-- to adapt or evolve as needed for survival. Clearly, men and women who live by their drives alone tend to live shorter, reckless lives. And they die as they lived-- alone. Not quite the best recipe for sanity.

Lest I conclude on a negative note, I'll add one more thing that Freud was right about. He once said that the ability to postpone gratification is the hallmark of maturity. Any female who has been pregnant can attest to this fact.

Tuesday, March 11, 2003

Interesting links for terrorism-watchers.

Terrorism expert Dr. Bruce Hoffman was online Monday, March 3 at Noon ET, to discuss the capture of al-Quaeda mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed's recent capture, and how this might affect the war on terrorism. Hoffman is also vice president for External Affairs with the RAND Corporation.

Paula Zahn spoke with terrorism expert Brian Jenkins on CNN's American Morning about possible Al Qaeda cells operating in U.S. cities. Also on CNN, national security expert Greg Treverton appeared on Lou Dobbs Moneyline to talk about U.S. plans to topple the Iraqi leadership.

Tuesday, March 11, 2003

Letter written to Declan McCullagh by a Politech member who is leaving for basic training.

Tomorrow morning I leave for Army Basic Training. My MOS (Military Occupation Specialty) will be Airborne Infantry. Up until now I've always utilized my Right to Freedom of Speech, I've always been very interested in, and constructively critical of, U.S. domestic and foreign policy. I will no longer be in the position to excercise those rights liberally as a dissenting citizen. I am now an instrument of war. My duty to my country is now to "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the Officers appointed over me according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

I am no longer in a position to question, that is why I want every Politech reader to take very seriously the freedoms they hold, and the control they exert over the political process.

If you send me to war, send me with decisive force. If you oppose the war I am fighting, please do not oppose me. I might oppose the war too, but I am willing to give my life that you might live in freedom.

I am joining up with a healthy realization of what is about to take place in the Middle East (and possibly N. Korea), but I have great hope. I heard an author on C-SPAN Book TV once say (and I'm paraphrasing): A hundred years ago the state of relations between states in Europe was war, fifty years ago the world was fighting a genocidal megalomanic, twenty years ago there was still great question as to whether free markets or planned economies would become the economic foundation of Europe. Let's give them [the Middle East] some time.

Long before the idea gained popularity in the media, I was preaching the positive impact that institutions of democracy and a western-friendly gov't in Iraq could have on that entire region. The encouragement it would provide to Iran, the de-throning of Saudi Arabia, the positive impact on Syria, Jordan, and others. I have great hope that one day humanity will look upon turmoil in the Middle East with the same respectful nostalgia we have for WWII, and will finally turn it's attention towards Africa.

I have not added the name of the individual who wrote this letter because I am not sure of the extent to which he wishes to maintain his privacy. If I recieve information to the contrary, I will include his name.

Tuesday, March 11, 2003

Belles Lettres by Terese Svoboda.

Slowly, slowly, so as not to awaken
himself, he scratches his ear.

The sun is out—that is, not.
Sheets and her rucked-up slip

line his back in canals (a misunderstood
Martian) where sprout and curl hairs

he grows as easily as he shrugs off
the phone-call assault,

the covers coming over in waves.
Does he growl, Nice night

in bed, or, sniffing, It could rain?
He's reading her instead.

Tuesday, March 11, 2003

Get yer freedom fried.

For those who thought I was joking, "freedom fries" are real.

The cafeteria menus in the three House office buildings will change the name of "french fries" to "freedom fries," a culinary rebuke of France, stemming from anger over the country's refusal to support the U.S. position on Iraq. Ditto for "french toast," which will be known as "freedom toast."

The name changes were spearheaded by two Republican lawmakers who held a news conference Tuesday to make the name changes official on the menus. Across the country, some private restaurants have done the same.

Tuesday, March 11, 2003

EU hypocrisy.

Mere entry into the EU provides no guarantee of a sound human rights policy, notes a Romany woman from the Czech Republic whose grandmother was forcibly sterilized after the birth of her first child in 1951. Indeed, the EU states' morally-sound anti-war position is severely damaged by the horrible record of human rights violations (especially in cases of Romany) of the past decade. You cannot have your moral justification and eat it too. The time has come for the EU to take human rights seriously at home, not just abroad.

Tuesday, March 11, 2003

"Let us spring out of our sober shells and soar like drunken eagles".

Or so Modern Drunkard translates the sign language depicted below. You never know when such sign language might come in handy. Plus, the whole motion is kind of catchy. It would make a great variation on the moonwalk or the electric slide.

Tuesday, March 11, 2003

Torture anyone?

Two suspected terrorists captured in Afghanistan last December died during a US interrogation session a few days ago. American military officials acknowledged that the suspects had been killed while under interrogation at Bagram air base north of Kabul. Andrew Gumbel reports:

A spokesman for the air base confirmed that the official cause of death of the two men was "homicide", contradicting earlier accounts that one had died of a heart attack and the other from a pulmonary embolism.

The men's death certificates, made public earlier this week, showed that one captive, known only as Dilawar, 22, from the Khost region, died from "blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease" while another captive, Mullah Habibullah, 30, suffered from blood clot in the lung that was exacerbated by a "blunt force injury".

I'll be amazed if there is any judicial follow-up in these "homicide" cases. It would be, ahem, "un-American".

Tuesday, March 11, 2003

New views on Zelman.

Cornell's Gary J. Simson has a noteworthy article in the Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy entitled "School Vouchers and the Constitution - Permissible, Impermissible, or Required?". Simson looks at two cases in particular: Pierce v. Society of Sisters in 1925, which held on due process grounds that the state cannot compel parents to send their children to public school; and Zelman v. Simmons-Harris in 2002, which held that vouchers for parochial school education do not violate the Establishment Clause.

Among Simson's more interesting arguments is his contention that, despite the Supreme Court's various reaffirmations of Pierce as a "privacy" case, Pierce does not implicate a right of fundamental constitutional stature and deserves no greater respect than the many discredited substantive due process cases of the Lochner era in which it was decided.

Disagreeing with the more recent Zelman decision, which upheld vouchers for parochial schools, Simson believes the opinion incorrectly answers the Establishment Clause inquiry that the Court claims the case presents. According to Simson, by framing the relevant inquiry in terms of endorsement of religion, the Court in Zelman takes much too narrow a view of the possible constitutional difficulties presented by laws providing state financial support to religion.

Tuesday, March 11, 2003

Morning web-dalliances.

After reading a piece about how the White House harks whenever the Weekly Standard speaks, I felt slightly nauseated. So I looked up the words "war" and "nausea" in the visual thesaurus linked at Ghost in the Machine. Interesting, but nothing beats the absurdity of some of the sex laws out there. Turned my CD player on to the first song off Beck's "Midnight Vultures" and cackled as I perused.

CASTIGAT RIDENDO MORES.

SEARCH TOTALITARIANISM TODAY SEARCH THE WEB