Ablogistan

« October 2005 | Main | December 2005 »

November 30, 2005

Free press in Iraq

As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by U.S. troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq.
The articles, written by U.S. military "information operations" troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a defense contractor, according to U.S. military officials and documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents, and tout U.S.-led rebuilding efforts.

While the articles are basically truthful, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said. Records and interviews indicate that the U.S. has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles — with headlines such as "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism" — since the effort began this year.

The operation is designed to mask any connection with the U.S. military. The Pentagon has a contract with a small Washington, D.C., firm called Lincoln Group, which helps translate and place the stories.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 3:24 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Sewanee

Things change. You can either change with them or get left behind. Case in point: ~~The University of the South~~, ~~Sewanee~~ Sewanee: The University of the South. The New York Times ran a feature today about a growing controversy for this small, liberal arts college.

According to the Times, the heart of the Sewanee controversy is an identity crisis, a struggle to cling to deep Southern roots. It's really just a name change, but in a small town and at a small college, that can pass for controversial. The former official name was The University of the South, and it was located in the small town of Sewanee (the town and college are essentially one and the same). I grew up in Sewanee, and no one called it The University of the South; everyone called the town and the school Sewanee. The new name Sewanee: The University of the South is supposed to make the school seem less regionally limited and more modern. University officials think it's time to distance itself from a past that includes ties to the Confederacy and may play a part in the low minority attendance (4% African-American, 2% Hispanic, 2% Asian-American).

But Sewanee "traditionalists" aren't happy. They think the name change, along with removing references to the Confederacy, are a denial of Sewanee's prestigious Southern heritage. "They are trying to bury the founding fathers and the founding men who taught there and who had a definite part to play in the Civil War, having been generals and engineers," said Prescott N. Dunbar, an alumnus from New Orleans. "It's a silly sort of reverse thing to attract students, to keep this quiet now."

Sewanee traditionalists aren't just interested in history. They're stuck in the past. Professors still wear academic gowns to class, and prospective new subject-areas are denied if they are too practical and do not accurately reflect Sewanee's prestigious liberal arts past.

I lived in Sewanee and loved it. It is one of the most beautiful places you will ever find. But I would never go to school or teach there. There was a time when Sewanee was the elite college in the region. They considered themselves the "Harvard of the South." Times have changed, but rather than changing with the times, many in Sewanee are clinging to a lost past.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 10:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 29, 2005

Tuesday Numbers

On the one hand:

70% of people say criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale
55% of Democrats say criticism hurts morale
30% of Americans say Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe it will help U.S. efforts in Iraq (the majority view it as a partisan power move)

On the other hand:

Democrats should be careful. Bush's poor performance over the past few months is slowly turning the nation Blue. But many are viewing their calls to pull out of Iraq as nothing more than a political ploy. However, the question of pulling out is no longer a question asked only by activists like Sheehan. The mainstream American public is examining, perhaps for the first time, whether it is time to leave the Mess-O-Potamia.

I don't think we're ready to pull out yet. As the aggressors in this war, we have an obligation to stay until Iraq is at least as stable and prosperous as it was before we went in. But, that doesn't mean the question shouldn't be asked. Just before the war started, people dismissed questions about the rationale for war with calls to "Support the troops" and "Support our leader". Now, with no WMDs and no Al Qaeda connection, we wish we pursued those questions further.

Hat tips: Donklephant, Ambivablog

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 11:07 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 22, 2005

More White Phosphorus

Previous discussions (here and here) about the use of white phosphorus by the U.S. in Fallujah have come to the conclusion that although the weapon may be immoral, white phosphorus is not technically a banned "chemical weapon." This has been the defense pitched by the Pentagon, that WP is a perfectly legal weapon and is in no way similar to the chemical weapons Saddam Hussein used against his own people.

But a declassified Pentagon document from 1995 titled "Possible Use of Phosphorus Chemical" refers to Hussein's use of WP as a chemical weapon:

IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. […]

IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES’ OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ.

Was this part of the evidence used against Saddam by the Bush administration to justify the war? When the original WP article ran, most people were skeptical about it, assuming it was simply a conspiracy theory by the far left. But as more information comes out, it appears that we indeed have used chemical weapons in Iraq, and against civillians at times. This debate should not hinge on the technical definition of a chemical weapon. It should focus on the morality of using this weapon in a civillian population and the thinning line that seperates us from that which we claim to oppose.

RELATED: The Moderate Voice, Think Progress,

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 9:53 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 21, 2005

Dulce et Decorum Est

When Kurt Vonnegut said, "It is sweet and noble - sweet and honourable I guess it is - to die for what you believe in," in a recent interview, he appears to be refering to Dulce et Decorum Est, a famous poem from the First World War about a soldier dying from a gas attack. Vonnegut's meaning was over the heads of many people, myself included, and his words are being taken out of context. Here is the poem:

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace

Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.

The last line: "The old Lie: It is sweet and honorable to die for your country." I'm sorry for having doubted you, Mr. Vonnegut.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 10:20 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

So it goes

Kurt Vonnegut is without a doubt my all-time favorite novelist. His observations on human nature and the depravity of society are typically dead on. But a recent interview makes me wonder if Vonnegut is losing his edge in his old age. Or maybe observations of the human condition are better made after long hours in front of a typewriter rather than during an on-the-spot interview.

Vonnegut, 83, has been a strong opponent of Mr Bush and the US-led war in Iraq, but until now has stopped short of defending terrorism.
But in discussing his views with The Weekend Australian, Vonnegut said it was "sweet and honourable" to die for what you believe in, and rejected the idea that terrorists were motivated by twisted religious beliefs.

"They are dying for their own self-respect," he said. "It's a terrible thing to deprive someone of their self-respect. It's like your culture is nothing, your race is nothing, you're nothing."

Asked if he thought of terrorists as soldiers, Vonnegut, a decorated World War II veteran, said: "I regard them as very brave people, yes."

He equated the actions of suicide bombers with US president Harry Truman's 1945 decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

On the Iraq war, he said: "What George Bush and his gang did not realise was that people fight back."

Vonnegut suggested suicide bombers must feel an "amazing high". He said: "You would know death is going to be painless, so the anticipation - it must be an amazing high."

I would prefer to read the original transcript of the interview before jumping to any conclusions, because the article appears to have arranged snippets to portray Vonnegut's comments negativley. Accusing Vonnegut of "defending terrorism" because he attempted to delve into the psyche of a suicide bomber makes me question the entire report. Perhaps he would have been better received if he had regurgitated moronic platitudes about them "hating us for our freedom" or blowing themselves up just to "get 72 virgins in heaven."

It's not that he is entirely wrong; but what bothers me is what he leaves out (which is why I would like to see the full transcript). Surely Vonnegut recognizes the barbarity of targeting innocent civillians. As one who has written about war and lived through the bombing of Dresden, Vonnegut of all people should consider the murder of innocent civilians, whether by a super-power army or suicide bomber, as one of the most despicable acts imaginable.

UPDATE: Here is the author's account of the original interview. The interview was not centered around terrorism. Vonnegut gave honest answers to a few leading questions. The author seems intellectually lazy and predisposed to a certain response, but read the entire article and judge for yourself.

Next I ask him about terrorism. It's not for any particular reason. It just seems a relevant thing to ask a writer who has seen war, who has written of war and who lives in New York City, where terrorism's horror is understood so well.
"What about terrorists? Do you understand where they're coming from? Do you regard them as soldiers too?" I ask.

Vonnegut's reply is startling. "I regard them as very brave people, yes," he says without a moment's hesitation.

"You don't think that they're mad, that, you know, anyone who would strap a bomb to himself must be mad?"

"Well, we had a guy [president Harry Truman] who dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, didn't we?" he says.

"What George Bush and his gang did not realise was that people fight back. Peace wasn't restored in Vietnam until we got kicked out. Everything's quiet there now."

There's a long pause before Vonnegut speaks again: "It is sweet and noble - sweet and honourable I guess it is - to die for what you believe in."

This borders on the outrageous. Is the author of one of the great anti-war books of the 20th century seriously saying that terrorists who kill civilians are "sweet and honourable"?

I ask one more question: "But terrorists believe in twisted religious things, don't they? So surely that can't be right?"

"Well, they're dying for their own self-respect," Vonnegut fires back. "It's a terrible thing to deprive someone of their self-respect. It's [like] your culture is nothing, your race is nothing, you're nothing."

There's another long pause and Vonnegut's eyes suggest his mind has wandered off somewhere. Then, suddenly, he turns back to me and says: "It must be an amazing high."

"What?" I ask. "Strapping a bomb to yourself," he says. "You would know death is going to be painless, so the anticipation ... must be an amazing high."

At this point, I give up. I can't be bothered asking him about any of the things I'd thought about: his mother's suicide, how he raised his sister's kids, the great writers he knew and partied with, how he looks back on Dresden.

UPDATE II: For what it's worth, The Australian newspaper is published by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.

UPDATE III: From some reader comments it seems clear that when Vonnegut said it was "sweet and honorable" to die for a cause he was refering to Duce et Decorem Est, a poem from the First World War. It's last line translates: "The old Lie: It is sweet and honorable to die for your country." So it would seem Vonnegut's meaning was very different from what most people are assuming.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 3:33 PM | Comments (66) | TrackBack

Rumsfeld

Rumsfeld talking about Iraq's pre-war connection to Al-Qaeda:

BLITZER: That was a mistake?
RUMSFELD: No. Zarqawi was in there.

It was clearly -- there clearly were Al Qaida in and around Iraq.

BLITZER: You believe that to this day?

RUMSFELD: Zarqawi was physically in Baghdad.

BLITZER: But...

RUMSFELD: They were operating...

BLITZER: Was he then -- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- associated directly with Al Qaida?

RUMSFELD: No, probably not.

Read the whole transcript here.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 1:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Monday numbers: Hearts and Minds

82% of Iraqis are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops
45% of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified
67% of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation
45% of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened
72% of Iraqis do not have confidence in the multi-national forces

These numbers come from a secret poll conducted by the British military. There's no mention of methodology, but I would imagine that it would be hard to conduct an accurate representative poll in a war-torn country. Nevertheless, this is a marked difference from a similar poll in March 2004 in which an overwhelming majority of Iraqis said life was good and supported the war.

RELATED: Mike the Mad Biologist, Dadahead

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 10:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 18, 2005

The black vote

Earlier this year Georgia passed a law requiring residents to present ID at polling places before they vote. If you don't have a driver's license, you have to pay $10 to get a state ID card. The purpose of the bill was to "protect the integrity of the voting process" and prevent voter fraud. Sociologically, this will obviously affect the elderly, the poor, and minorities dispraportionally. But it looks like the authors of the bill already knew that:

The chief sponsor of Georgia's voter identification law told the Justice Department that if black people in her district "are not paid to vote, they don't go to the polls," and that if fewer blacks vote as a result of the new law, it is only because it would end such voting fraud.

The newly released Justice Department memo quoting state Rep. Sue Burmeister (R-Augusta) was prepared by department lawyers as the federal government considered whether to approve the new law. […]

Burmeister said Thursday that the memo's record of what she said "was more accurate than not," but added: "That sounds pretty harsh. I don't remember saying those exact words."

And they wonder why African-Americans don't vote for Republicans.

RELATED: CarpetBagger, Kevin Drum, ASJ

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 2:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Cheney finally gets his nickname

Former CIA chief calls Cheney the "Vice President for Torture". It's kind of catchy.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 12:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Basketball and politics

Law and Politics offers the “Duke vs. Maryland theory” of politics. And although I hate to mix something as beautiful and pure as basketball with something as vile and detestable as politics, it's an excellent read.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 12:07 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

November 17, 2005

Chitika

I'm trying out a new ad service called Chitika. I know it sounds like a brand of bananas (thanks to Gwen Stefani I didn't need to look up how to spell banana), but it looks like it will be 10-times better than Google Adsense for bloggers not yet ready for Blogads. Like Adsense, Chitikia runs on a pay-per-click basis, but the format is a little more eye-catching and it doesn't misinterpret your content.

The biggest problem with Adsense for a political blog is that when it scans your rant about how you think the Bush administration should be kicked out of office, it picks certain keywords and displays an ad for a "Vote for Bush" bumper sticker. With Chitika, you enter your own set of keywords when before you paste the code into your site, and it brings up a list of products randomly.

The product list is a little short right now, so some keywords won't have any products and most will just have one associated with it. But for blogs without enough traffic to convince an advertiser to lay down money a week or a month at a time, it's better than seeing a Shell Oil credit card ad on your post about lying oil executives. If you think you might sign up, click on the banner below. They also have a referral program.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 10:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 16, 2005

Swear words

Last week CEOs from five major oil companies testified before Congress about their recent record quarterly profits. Unlike the Enron execs and major league baseball players before them, the oil execs were never officially sworn in because Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) was against it. Several members objected. One senator called for a vote to have them sworn in and that motion was seconded, but Stevens deemed that out of order and refused to swear them in.

One of the questions the CEOs were asked was whether they met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001, which they denied. However, a document obtained this week by The Washington Post, "shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco, Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated."

Ted Stevens may have just saved some of the most powerful men in America from perjury charges. However, a person can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years for making "any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation" to Congress.

The oil execs should definitely be asked about their connections to Cheney's task force and why the lied (this time under oath). But Senator Stevens should also be questioned about why he was so adamant about not swearing them in.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 1:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Do as we say, not as we do

U.S. troops discovered nearly 200 detainees in the basement of an Interior Ministry building in a Baghdad suburb that had been tortured by their Iraqi captors. According to the NY Times, a joint statement by the American Embassy and the United States military command called the situation "totally unacceptable" and said American officials "agree with Iraq's leaders that mistreatment of detainees will not be tolerated."

What kind of country is Iraq turning in to? Bush proclaimed to the world that Iraq would be better off in a Democracy. That proclamation was based on an understood moral authority. Saddam Hussein gassed his people. Saddam Hussein tortured his people. That wouldn't happen in a democratic Iraq, we told the world. But it is happening in democratic governments, and not just Iraq's.

As Andrew Sullivan notes, our own acts of torture have diminished our moral authority around the world. How seriously will the Iraqis take our condemnation of their torture after Abu Ghraib, after the recently uncovered secret CIA detention facilities, after Bush and Cheney have fought to seek exemptions for an anti-torture bill passed by the Senate?

What kind of country are we turning in to?

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 12:59 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 14, 2005

Hollywood Republicans

Why does McCain get a free pass from the media and public in general? Oxblog seems to think the media loves having a moderate Republican to contradict the president, somehow spinning favorable coverage of a Republican into a liberal media bias. But McCain is more than the media's favorite poster boy for (sometimes) rational Republicanism. He is a politician with celebrity status, a rare position that he shares only with fellow moderate Republican Rudy Giuliani.

But why? Why are McCain and Giuliani given cameos in Hollywood movies and asked to appear on SNL? The reason for Giuliani's fame is obvious: 9/11. America was desperate for a hero after 9/11, and while Bush's status as hero diminished over the years as questionable policies and wars tainted his image, Giuliani is still associated with the tragedy. McCain, on the other hand, has become a celebrity by being a genuine, non-partisan politician and having the guts to tackle tough initiatives like torture.

Does the say something about America's preference for moderates? For all the talk about the Republican party belonging to the far right, the centrists McCain and Giuliani are much more popular than Bush right now. Perhaps, but more importantly McCain and Giuliani have so far been experts at projecting a successful image in the media. Giuliani has shyed away from the public, knowing that the more he associates himself with a particular campaign or agenda the less he will be associated with 9/11. McCain has done just the opposite and made himself a talking head for many important issues facing the Senate. In a time of bitter partisanship, McCain has had the courage to occasionally criticize the president, which makes him seem like a rogue who doesn't play the Washington game.

The problem is, when a politician assumes the status of celebrity, their public image may be misleading and hard to change. Not that I dislike McCain, in fact I like him a lot at times, but his faults are often overlooked by the media and his adoring public. Lately he has endorsed a gay marriage amendment in his state, supported the teaching of intelligent design, and turned to Jerry Falwell for support. That doesn't sound so moderate, but it does sound like he's considering a run at the presidency.

As the 2008 election approaches, it will be interesting not only to see if McCain and Giuliani shift to the right in order to secure the "base", but it will be also interesting to watch how the media and the public handles these two. Will people be able to set aside a boyish admiration for Giuliani and really look at his policies and stances when judging whether he will make a good president? I think McCain will defeat Giuliani in the primaries because he has more substance once you get past Giuliani's hero facade. But with much of McCain's image resting on his centrist tenacity, will he be able to maintain his celebrity status while shifting rightward?

Or maybe the constitution will be amended and the only politician with more star power than McCain and Giuliani will make a run for the Oval Office. I dare not type the name for fear that it may come true, but you girlie-men know who I'm talking about.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 2:22 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

An international Internet?

Delegates from some 170 countries have gathered in Tunis to discuss the Internet and online governance, according to Forbes. Apparently a dispute has been brewing over whether the U.S. should retain control of the technical and administrative infrastructure at the root of the Internet. Currently, the Internet is administered mainly by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a California-based body that is awarded the task by the US government.

Moving control of the Internet to an international body would be more in keeping with the open-information spirit of the Internet. But the article poses some disturbing, though speculative, consequences of such a move:

"Some officials fear the dispute could degenerate and eventually lead to the 'balkanization' of the Internet, breaking it up into a series of unconnected rival networks." ... "The idea that the Internet is an unregulated haven, these days are finished,' a source close to the talks said."

The argument for internationalizing the Internet mirrors a familiar dispute in international politics. Developing nations want power spread out internationally, while the U.S. main argument is that changing the system now would compromise the stability of the Internet. Normally, I would say internationalize it, and I still would had it not been for one line in the article hinting at regulation if Internet administration is moved abroad.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 11:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 11, 2005

Media mentions

Ablogistan was recently mentioned in the Chicago Sun-Times and linked to by MSNBC.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 11:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The anti-marriage amendment

The wording of the Proposition 2 constitutional amendment as passed in Texas:

"The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

Although the amendment A) defines marriage as between a man and a woman, it B) prevents the state from recognizing any legal status identical to marriage, but it doesn't specify that as same sex. An e-mail circulated before the election claiming that the wording of the amendment would nullify all marriages because it eliminates anything identical to marriage, which could be marriage itself.

Of course, that was just a political ploy by a group seeking to rouse opposition to the amendment, but it would be quite amusing if a disgruntled lawyer decided to test how strictly Texas interprets its constitution.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 10:35 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Friday numbers: A look ahead

Democratic Presidential Contenders
Hillary Clinton: 41%
John Edwards: 14%
John Kerry: 10%
Joe Biden: 5%
Wesley Clark: 4%

Republican Presidential Contenders
Rudy Giuliani: 34%
John McCain: 31%
Bill Frist: < 5%
Mitt Romney: < 5%
George Allen: < 5%

Possible Races
John McCain: 53%
John Kerry: 35%

John McCain: 44%
Hillary Clinton: 42%

These numbers come from a WSJ poll (via RawStory). I am suprised by two things: 1) I didn't expect Hillary to receive such broad support from the Democratic party. Although she is a reminder of Democrats' prominence in the 90's, she is also a very controversial figure that many Republicans hate as fervently as Democrats detest Bush. 2) The frontrunners among Republicans are moderate compared to the current administration, which suggests mainstream Republicans are tired of their party being pushed to the extreme right.

It will be interesting to see if McCain and Giuliani become more conservative as the election approaches in order to appeal to the socially conservative "base" of the party. McCain has already begun the metamorphasis, meeting with the likes of Jerry Falwell recently, backing an anti-gay-marriage amendment in Arizona, and supporting the teaching of intelligent design.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 12:25 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

November 10, 2005

Moral relativism

Moral relativism is another catch phrase used by the Republican political machine to deface and delegitimize liberals. A moral relativist, we are told, is someone with no principals and no judgment of right or wrong.

But moral relativism takes two forms, a philosophical one and a practical one. A philosophical moral relativist (with which I identify) recognizes intellectually that good and evil are not absolute. They are defined by society, by history, and by the victors of a conquest. Yes, there are certain categories that border on absolute (murder, lying, stealing), but even these seemingly clear-cut cases are good or evil depending on the situation and the actors (as in the death penalty or warfare, when murder loses its evil taint for some).

A philosophical moral relativist may not be moved by political rhetoric about evildoers, but that does not mean he or she is a practical moral relativist. Sometimes, those who most fiercely denounce philosophical moral relativism are the biggest proponents of practical moral relativism. The moralist who believes in absolute right and absolute wrong often associates those absolutes with an 'us' and a 'them', or a particular cause. Because an righteous 'us' or a righteous 'cause' (i.e. war) is not subject to a relative redefining, any action taken by 'us' is by default good.

Philosophical moral relativism is often a healthy worldview and plays a part in preventing moral relativism on a practical level. The practical moral relativist who perceives the United States and its cause as an absolute force of good fighting against an evil force may dismiss torture of the enemy because he is blinded by absolutes. It is not the act of torture that is evil or good, it is the actor, the force. If the United States is an absolute force of good, the reasoning on Fox News goes, and they want us dead, how can our actions be evil?

It is disturbing how often I encounter the practical moral relativist who justifies our torture and killing of civilians by pointing to the enemy. The beauty of philosophical moral relativism is that it teaches us that we, as a society, define the nature of good and evil. So no matter what the enemy does, we can hold ourselves to a higher standard of morality.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 1:21 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

White Phosphorus followup

From what I've gathered from other news sources and blogs, it appears white phosphorous was used in Fallujah. Rawstory says Infantry Magazine confirms the story, and the NYTimes has a piece that it hasn't published yet.

BUT, although WP is a weapon of chemicals, it is not technically a "chemical weapon". That is, it is not banned by international treaty.

BUT, the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or in areas that have high civilian populations.

BUT, the U.S. did not sign that convention.

BUT, that doesn't mean WP isn't a horrible way to die. "Detonating a WP shell in a confined area (like firing into a building) will indeed cause an effect comparable to the use of lung agent poison gases for those inside who do not or can not flee, with the additional consequence of setting the room(s) alight. Death will occur from lung edema, phosphoric acid poisoning or the resulting shock, or burns."

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 10:42 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 8, 2005

A thin line

Until this is jumped on by other news outlets, particularly mainstream American ones, I will view it with a skeptical eye. The Independent is reporting that evidence has emerged suggesting that the U.S. dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus, a chemical weapon, on Fallujah in November of 2004, reportedly "killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon."

Leading up to the war, Bush painted a picture of Saddam Hussein as a murderous madman so evil that he used chemical weapons on innocent civilians. Now, we begin to resemble the enemy. Of course, apologists will say, the civilians Saddam killed and our "collateral damage" died for different reasons. Ours, they tell us, is a noble cause. But in war a noble cause is often lost to heinous means. The line that separates good from evil, right from wrong, becomes thinner and thinner until it exists only in the mind.

This report may turn out to be false, considering the attack has not been mentioned until one year after the battle. But the article claims to be based on new evidence "including hideous photographs and videos and interviews with American soldiers who took part in the Fallujah attack."

Regardless, this is merely a symptom of a much larger degredation of moral values in this war on terror. I read a comment on a blog recently from someone who said (paraphrased), "If you had told me in 1985 that in 20 years the U.S. government would be condoning torture and setting up CIA torture camps across Europe, I would have thought the Soviets had won."

I am not so naive as to think torture has not occurred in previous wars or that civillian casualties aren't commonplace in battle. But it is disheartening to see these things reach such a heightened level in this war and be condoned so openly by a segment of politicians, pundits, and citizens.

From George Orwell's Animal Farm:

Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

Hat tip: Donklephant

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 1:12 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

November 7, 2005

An unholy union

It is not uncommon for churches to mix religion and politics, particularly on issues like abortion, gay marriage, and the war in Iraq. George Bush might not be president today if he did not enjoy the support of political religious leaders (or religious political leaders) like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

Which makes it all the more hypocritical and mind-boggling when the IRS threatens to revoke to tax-exempt status of a liberal church in California because of an anti-war rally it held before last year's election. From the LA Times:

In his sermon, Regas, who from the pulpit opposed both the Vietnam War and 1991's Gulf War, imagined Jesus participating in a political debate with then-candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry. Regas said that "good people of profound faith" could vote for either man, and did not tell parishioners whom to support.
But he criticized the war in Iraq, saying that Jesus would have told Bush, "Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster."

On June 9, the church received a letter from the IRS stating that "a reasonable belief exists that you may not be tax-exempt as a church … " The federal tax code prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from intervening in political campaigns and elections.

The letter went on to say that "our concerns are based on a Nov. 1, 2004, newspaper article in the Los Angeles Times and a sermon presented at the All Saints Church discussed in the article."

The IRS cited The Times story's description of the sermon as a "searing indictment of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq" and noted that the sermon described "tax cuts as inimical to the values of Jesus."

Technically, the church did nothing of a political nature. The pastor criticized the war but did not tell the congregation who to vote for. I'm not necessarily against keeping religion and politics in seperate spheres, but if the rule is to be applied, it should be applied equally to both sides.

From AmericaBlog via The Moderate Voice, Pandagon

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 3:03 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

The (avoidable) Clash of Civilizations

A professor in Middle Eastern History once warned against embracing theories like Samuel Huntington's "clash of civilizations". He said the clash of civilizations did not yet exist, but it was a potential self-fulfilling prophecy: By thinking in those terms, both sides were increasingly making the theory a reality. Extremists want nothing more than to ensare an entire civilization in their struggle, and one of the best ways to prevent that is to marginalize their efforts.

I think of this as I read about the riots in France (Phronesisaical and Donklephant have good analyses). I am reminded of the Rodney King riots in the U.S. a little over a decade ago. A minority population that was frustrated by perceived racism and economic hardships has been set off by an publicized instance of police brutality. Yes, a portion of the population is Muslim, but these riots are a combination of national, racial, religious, and economic problems. This is not the great clash of civilizations that pundits fear.

Yet in virtually every media report, we are reminded that France has 5 million Muslims, that France has the largest Muslim population in Western Europe. Pundits and journalists hint that the embers of these riots are being stoked by Islamist extremists.

What started out as the United States versus a clandestine organization of extremists is morphing into a clash between the West and Islam. People all over the world are being engulphed in this demented worldview and are forced to pick sides. Every crime and every global event is critiqued through the clash-of-civilizations lens.

This has been Bin Laden's goal from the start, and terrorists have actively pushed this worldview in the Muslim world. But the U.S. has played its part in making this clash a reality by taking the war to Iraq. If the fight is between extremists and the U.S., the world asked, then why is it being fought in Iraq, which had no definite connections to either? Even if Iraq had WMDs, it was obvious that the war had expanded beyond Al Qaeda. The war in Iraq did more to convince Muslims that this was a clash of civilizations than Bin Laden ever could.

Bush has painted this as a global War on Terror to appease hawks who would not be satisfied the less grandiose (and less patriotic) "police action" or "military operation". It is those same hawks who trumpet the clash of civilizations theory and compare the war to World War II. Their polarized worldview is slowly being embraced by larger and larger populations. We should be careful about comparing the present to one of the darkest periods in human history, because the more we say it is true, the closer we come to making it so.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 11:22 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 4, 2005

DeLay's $14K Fox hunt

Tom DeLay (R-TX) recently "filed a report with the Clerk of the House of Representatives indicating he received free travel valued at $13,998.55 from Fox News Sunday for 'officially connected travel' on October 1-2, 2005, from Sugarland, TX to Washington, D.C. and back to Sugarland, TX. Rep. DeLay appeared on Fox News Sunday on October 2, 2005, the weekend after his indictment on September 28, 2005."

Almost $14,000 for one day's travel? Am I missing something here? Even if you book the flight the day before, the most expensive airline ticket from Houston to D.C. is $500 each way. Even if he took a private jet and stayed in the swankiest hotel imaginable, I can't even fathom that much money for one trip.

Is it normal for networks to pay for travel expenses anyway? And if so.... $14,000?!?

Something ain't right.

RELATED: Political Wire, Atrios

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 11:38 AM | Comments (30) | TrackBack

November 3, 2005

For the nerd in all of us..

The Darth Side

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 9:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thursday Numbers

Bush, Now
Approve - 35%
Disapprove - 57%

Clinton, 11/1997
Approve - 57%
Disapprove - 31%

Reagan, 11/1985
Approve - 65%
Disapprove - 26%

Nixon, Gallup Poll, 11/1973
Approve - 27%
Disapprove - 63%

Eisenhower, Gallup Poll, 11/1957
Approve - 58%
Disapprove - 27%

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 1:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The real activist judges

Politicians are constantly infusing meaningless words and phrases with political symbolism meant to invoke certain emotions. Republicans have certainly had better success at this than Democrats, particularly in elections. Last year, one of these hackneyed phrases that helped Bush win reelection was "judicial activism", which the public came to associate with liberal "activist judges" who "legislated from the bench" and were determined to force legalized gay marriage upon America.

But what exactly does judicial activism mean? The New York Times recently took up that question, and defined judicial activism as a vote that runs counter to or strikes down a law passed by Congress. While there is certainly room for debate over whether or not that is a completely accurate measurement, ruling to change legislation is a pretty good measurement of "legislating from the bench." The tally for justices is below:

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

The Times concluded that "those justices often considered more "liberal" - Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens - vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist."

The accuracy of the results is debatable, as it is with any simplistic statistical survey. But this study does shine a little light on the nature of politics and the strengths of the Republican party. Republicans are so good at bashing certain phrases into the heads of the public that they can take one of their negative attributes - activist judges - and associate it with Democrats. Suddenly, Americans are worried about liberal judges from Massachusetts forcing men to marry each other and requiring mandatory abortions, when in reality, conservative judges are more likely to legislate from the bench.

For quite a while Democrats have had reality on their side. But that matters little when Republicans are so adept at selling an illusionary reality. It is a skill that comes in handy in election years, or when you're looking to start a war.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 12:20 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

November 2, 2005

Scooter Libby: Politician, Inmate, Erotic Novelist

Scooter Libby has been one of the more mysterious figures of the Bush administration. Before the indictments, not a lot was known about his personal life. What did he do before he got into politics. Just who is Scooter Libby?

Well, for one, he's an erotic novelist. In 1996 Libby published The Apprentice, which he worked on for 20 years of his life. The book is set in a remote Japanese province in the winter of 1903, and as The New Yorker put it, "homoeroticism and incest figure as themes."

The main female character, Yukiko, draws hair on the “mound” of a little girl. The brothers of a dead samurai have sex with his daughter. Many things glisten (mouths, hair, evergreens), quiver (a “pink underlip,” arm muscles, legs), and are sniffed (floorboards, sheets, fingers).

And those are just the scenese involving humans. There are also several not-so-subtle references to bestiality in the novel:

At age ten the madam put the child in a cage with a bear trained to couple with young girls so the girls would be frigid and not fall in love with their patrons. They fed her through the bars and aroused the bear with a stick when it seemed to lose interest.

Later, a character "asked if they should fuck the deer", and although I have not read the novel, according to the New Yorker, the answer was yes.

Now, I could spend time talking about social conservatives who have denounced literature that was time in comparison. But honestly, this book is just too damn funny to ruin with serious politics. And with as many as 30 years in prison to work on his writing, I'm sure the sequel will be even better.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 9:22 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 1, 2005

The irrational fear of seatbelts

There is a point when those doing the most damage to a cause are its most fervent supporters. When an ideology becomes associated with its most fanatical believers, the entire movement loses credibility. It happens on the left when Greenpeace damages a coral reef in the process of protesting environmental damage. And it happens on the right when anything related to sex, even a cervical cancer vaccine, becomes the subject of protest.

Health advocates want a new vaccine that protects against cervical cancer to become a part of the standard roster of shots that children receive just before puberty. But some conservatives object because, "immunizing teenagers could encourage sexual activity." Because, you know, when on the verge of having sex most teenagers stop and say to themselves, "Wait, I haven't been properly immunized against the human papilloma virus responsible for cervical cancer. I guess I shouldn't do this afterall."

More about the virus from PZ Myers:

Here's a disease that kills about a third of the women who get it. It turns their reproductive tract into a nest of tumors that can spread and shut down the kidneys, metastasize to the lungs, the gut, everywhere, that sterilizes them and can cause horrible agony. The treatment involves radical hysterectomy, bilateral adnexectomy and lymphadenectomy, words I'd rather my family never even have to learn.

Roughly 10,000 women each year are diagnosed with cervical cancer, and the vaccine is said to be almost 100-percent effective. Alan Kaye, executive director of the National Cervical Cancer Coalition, perhaps had the best response to the right-wing protests:

"Just because you wear a seat belt doesn't mean you're seeking out an accident."

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 10:58 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack