freemode.net

Another press conference    [ Politics ]

So Mr Bush finally admits that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11:

BUSH: .... You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and, you know, kind of -- the "stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were --

QUESTION: What did Iraq: have to do with that?

BUSH: What did Iraq: have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq: was a -- Iraq: -- the lesson of September the 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken.

Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case. And one way to defeat that -- you know, defeat resentment, is with hope. And the best way to do hope is through a form of government.

Perry Metzger on NSA surveillance of US citizens    [ Politics ]

"As you may all be aware, the New York Times has reported, and the administration has admitted, that President of the United States apparently ordered the NSA to conduct surveillance operations against US citizens without prior permission of the secret court known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (the "FISC"). This is in clear contravention of 50 USC 1801 - 50 USC 1811, a portion of the US code that provides for clear criminal penalties for violations.
...
The President claims he has the prerogative to order such surveillance. The law unambiguously disagrees with him."

- from A Small Editorial About Recent Events by Perry Metzger.

The Security Threat of Unchecked Presidential Power    [ Politics ]

"This past Thursday, the New York Times exposed the most significant violation of federal surveillance law in the post-Watergate era. President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to engage in domestic spying, wiretapping thousands of Americans and bypassing the legal procedures regulating this activity.

This isn't about the spying, although that's a major issue in itself. This is about the Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search. This is about circumventing a teeny tiny check by the judicial branch, placed there by the legislative branch, placed there 27 years ago -- on the last occasion that the executive branch abused its power so broadly."

- from The Security Threat of Unchecked Presidential Power by Bruce Schneier.

Retail vs Wholesale Surveillance    [ Politics ]

Bruce Schneier has a good essay on the Bush administration's use of illegal NSA surveillance.

... and then they came for me    [ Politics ]

"Once the war began ... resistance, protest, criticism, complaint, all carried with them a multiplied likelihood of the greatest punishment. Mere lack of enthusiasm, or failure to show it in public, was ‘defeatism.’ You assumed that there were lists of those who would be ‘dealt with’ later, after the victory."

They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45

Authoritarian America?    [ Politics ]

Plastic has an interesting discussion on facism in the United States, not spurred by angry Bush-hating liberals, but from articles by conservative think-tank members, anti-war right-wingers, and former assistant Cabinet members.

The real problem here is not fascism, and calling it that does not necessarily help solve it.   Authoritarian government, whether it be fascism, communism, socialism with Chinese characteristics, dictatorship or a monarchy is the problem.   Any large, powerful, centralized government is prone to committing abuse if left unchecked.   When this is coupled with an ideological or religious calling that allows it to ignore rationality and moderation, those in power will inevitably cause great harm to the country's citizens and others.

The worst terrors of the 20th century came about because of centralized power and centralized belief in the State.   I don't believe that the current administration is deliberately seeking to overthrow the principles of American democracy, but I am truly and deeply worried that their policies lead in that direction and establish terribly disturbing precedents.   Perhaps it is because the United States survived the last century without fighting wars on its own soil, without losing millions of civilians to purges, genocide and the ravages of invasion brought on by authoritarian governments that many now are not immediately and profoundly concerned by these signs of centralized power.

This is what George Orwell warned about in 1984, not just communism, but the State as the arbiter of truth and reality and the human cost of ideologies.

Nukes and missile defense    [ Politics ]

It's official, North Korea has nukes and the Russians have an operational ICBM that our Star Wars missile defense program can't shoot down.   At least the Bush administration is proposing cuts in the $10 billion/year program.   Gee, backing out of the ABM treaty hasn't really helped matters.

The real problem here is that by spending so much international credibility on pursuing WMDs in Iraq, the Bush administration now will have a much tougher time convincing allies and other countries to cooperate with any response to North Korea.   Like I've said before, Iraq posed a very small threat compared to the one that North Korea presents.   The DPRK has already sold nuclear and missile technology to Libya, Pakistan and other rogue regimes, and it's not a terrible stretch of the imagination to think that al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups could buy or otherwise obtain these sorts of devices.

In short, I don't think the Bush administration's policy has made the U.S., our allies or the rest of the world much safer, despite their statements to the contrary.

Farm subsidies    [ Politics ]

The Heritage Foundation has an interesting article on farming subsidies in the United States - big surprise, they find that the money paid out goes overwhelmingly to the wealthiest farmers, who often have no relation to the "poor family farmers" that are trotted out to support the subsidies.

Framing the debate    [ Politics ]

[ written after reading a newsletter from Colorate State Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon ]

I'm glad to see at least some Democrats turn around and realize what's
going on with Republican "ownership" of issues. This is something we
would cover for varsity debaters, that you need to get your opponent
talking about the issues in the round using your language, and from
your point of view. At that point, even if they debate you to a draw
on the issues, most judges (or voters :) will still vote for you,
since the battle is framed on your terms.

This isn't something that happened overnight, either. Conservatives
have been making a concerted effort since Barry Goldwater got trounced
in '64 to carve out easily defendable positions on key issues, using
very specific language to frame the debate, and sometimes it seems
like the Democrats (generalizing at a national level) have ignored
this and let them do it. There's been some individual exceptions, but
by and large the Democrats have tacitly accepted this Republican
"ownership" and played along instead of framing any kind of national
debate on their terms.

Another second inaugural speech    [ Politics ]

Perhaps a more readable and more prescient address than the one just delivered by the 43rd President of the United States is the speech delivered by the 34th President, Dwight Eisenhower, on January 21 1957. Replace "communism" with "terrorism", "Russia" with "the Muslim world", and you've got an amazingly current and more thoughtful and pragmatic take on America's role in the world.

Inauguration    [ Politics ]

It's been a beautiful, expensive party, but there's some gate-crashers too.   Bush's inauguration speech is interesting, but does it herald any real change in American foreign policy?   Of course, there's plenty of things to worry about on that front.

Why I'm Not Voting For Bush    [ Politics ]

Top eight reasons why I'm not voting for Bush again in November:

(8) He's not a fiscal conservative.   Protectionist tariffs, huge government spending increases, reckless tax cut shenanigans and a ballooning federal deficit = economic irresponsibility.

(7) John Ashcroft scares the bejesus out of me.   I really didn't like Janet Reno as head of the DoJ, but the Ghost of Oliver Cromwell (State, meet Church.   Church, meet State.   Please, take away more of my liberties.) in that position is enough to make me want to toss #43 out of office.

(6) The whole they're-enemy-combatants-no-we-don't-have-to-follow-the-Geneva-convention bit for the prisoners held at Guantanamo is just wrong, plain wrong.   Regardless of how the US Supreme Court rules on this, the administration has botched their handling of "enemy combatants" and brought into question their willingness to defend basic rights and freedoms in other arenas.

(5) Abandoning any pretense of neutrality in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and coming in on the side of Israeli settlements is absolutely mind-bogglingly stupid, given what the US is (supposedly) trying to accomplish in Iraq.   Hard to make a Arab democracy work if you're on the side of those kicking Palestinians off of their land.   Both sides in that conflict have committed absolutely heinous acts, our policy goals in the region would be better served by maintaining the pretense of neutrality that we had before.   It may not happen this week, or this month, but this decision WILL come back to haunt this administration and subsequent ones.

(4) Kyoto, the Axis of Evil, "Old Europe" and the panoply of foreign-policy missteps that have wasted and burned the goodwill of the entire civilized planet that the US had following 9/11.   Yes, the French and Russians are annoying to deal with, but dear god, that's not new!   The US had an opportunity that it will likely never have again to forge a real international consensus, expand and strengthen its leadership role and work with our allies to deal with threats like terrorism, and tossed it all away because Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neo-cons wanted to burn bridges instead of mend them.

(3) Where's the WMD?   It's not just that there was an intelligence failure, those happen all the time.   It's not that there weren't plenty of reasons to go to war with Saddam's Iraq - killing and torturing millions of your own citizens, blatantly defying UN resolutions, hell, even repeated attacks on our military forces could have been sufficient.   It's that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the administration declared that Iraq posed a grave and immediate threat to the security of the US because of its weapons of mass destruction, and HAD to be attacked NOW before they used them.   And they've all been disseminating and backtracking like there's no tomorrow since, well, looks like there aren't any.   It wouldn't bug me so much except that it was the major justification they used - live by the sword, die by the sword.

(2) When the British Prime Minister delivers a stirring call-to-arms for the Western world to stand firm, hold fast and fight back against those who would destroy us in the days following 9/11, I had real hope for the future.   Unfortunately, the elected leader of my country came out sounding and acting not like FDR to match Blair-channelling-Churchill, but something more like Ronald Reagan in his last year of office, muddled and half-hearted.   It scared me, and I think it's scared the press too - don't want to point out that the emperor has no clothes.   Even compared to his father, who was never the most impressive orator, Bush Jr. comes off as a repetitive dullard.   No wonder his handlers don't like open questions and real news conferences.   Makes you wonder who's really calling the shots and making decisions within the administration.

(1) No plan for postwar Iraq.   Occupations are hard business, and running a country can be harder and is certainly a very different task than invading it.   The Romans had it easy, if a population resists or rebels, then they destroyed the resisters, their families, their homes, their towns and their farms.   We can't (and shouldn't) do that sort of thing, which admittedly makes dealing with internal dissent + terrorists + radical religious movements opposed to your presence somewhat difficult.   This is why you NEED A PLAN and NEED LEGITIMACY.   Creating effective, legitimate governments is not done overnight, and it's only asking for failure to go at it with the time constraints and resources that have been put towards it.   It's the middle of April, and the administration has no idea what sort of government or specific people power will be handed over to on June 30.   If I were an Iraqi citizen, I'd be mighty mad about the situation too.

Rumsfeld and the imminent threat    [ Politics ]

Old news, but I saw this video up at MoveOn.org showing Don Rumsfeld on Face The Nation talking about the "imminent threat" claim.   This is like Reagan's second term, the chicanery and backpedaling are coming fast and furious now.   And it's only March.

I did vote for Bush in 2000.   Last thing I wanted to see was another 4 years of Janet Reno, Al Gore and Clinton-era sleaze pervading the White House.   Well, they're out, but now we've got THIS administration lying, politicking and doing their damnedest to limit privacy, increase surveillance and government tracking, spend money like there's no tomorrow and keep huge tax cuts in place.   Quote from last week's Economist - "in terms of employment, this recession is the worst since the 1930s".   Grumble grumble grumble.

End of two-party politics?    [ Politics ]

Interesting article in the Post today about the effect of Howard Dean's election campaign on the two-party political system.   This is the first time I've seen a comparison of the successful organization and mobilization of the Christian right-wing of the Republican party to Dean's campaign - and I think I buy it.   Slashdot has a blurb on this article as well.

George W.    [ Politics ]

The Post ran a story on Thursday claiming that Steel Tariffs Appear to Have Backfired on Bush.   Wow, meddling with markets can create negative results... who woudda guessed?

Strange that our "conservative" president is for anti-competitive, protectionist policies when they may win him votes, for tax cuts when they may win him votes, and for larger government spending when they may (you guessed it) win him votes.   Not that vote-garnering doesn't have a long and proud tradition in American politics, but Bush's decisions seem to be driven as much by political expediency and whomever he picks to win the current argument among his advisors as by any kind of overall strategy or philosophy.

Hell, I'm a liberal, and I voted for Bush in '00 since I absolutely couldn't stand Gore.   Wish I could've tossed those two back into the pre-election pool and got new candidates back, but Bush looked like the lesser of the two weevils.   Since I wasn't going to throw my vote away, figured I'd go for a change in party to get Janet Reno and others out of power.

And now we get John Ashcroft instead... woohoo.   Time for a change.

These people scare me.    [ Politics ]

http://www.probush.com/traitor.htm.   Not the people on the list, but whoever runs that site.   Ye gods.   "We hate Bush haters!"   Ain't the 'net great?

What do I actually believe?    [ Politics ]

Just government can only come from the well-informed consent of a free people.

Actions have moral value in terms of right and wrong, which can be weighted based on circumstance, but stem from universal moral values.   Killing people is wrong (perhaps justified in self-defense or in times of war, but the moral value is still wrong), giving alms to the poor is good, cutting off someone in traffic is bad, smiling and saying hello to people is nice.

Religions and ethics systems may have different rules, but generally stem from the same set of universal moral values.   Christianity and Islam certainly differ (as do Sunni and Shiite Muslims, and Catholic and Baptist Christians), but one can abstract their rules of behavior out to common moral principles.

There exist basic natural rights which the state must have a clear and compelling justification to abrogate, and only limited power to do so.   Free speech, freedom of religion and conscience, the right to property and the right to privacy are intrinsic and not granted by the state, but are held in trust by citizens.   Other secondary freedoms are created by the formation of government by an informed citizenry, including the freedom to own weapons and the right to a speedy and fair trial.

An armed citizenry prevents abuse of government power.   John Locke ("Second Treatise on Civil Government"), Charlton Heston and Alexander Solzhenitzen ("The Gulag Archipelago") agree on this one.

Big governments do bad things.   Small local governments may also do bad things, but in general have less power to exert evil and impede freedom.   By creating a state of competition and an antagonistic relationship between not only different branches of government, but also different levels of government, the rights and freedoms of citizens are best maintained.

Hm.   Guess I'm a republican after all. :)   Or a 19th-century liberal in the 21st-century Pax Americana.

I am a member of no organized political party.    [ Politics ]

I am a Democrat.   Since they can't even agree on what American foreign policy should be, methinks it's gonna be a long road to the White House for 'em.

[ Apologies to Will Rogers. ]

Iraqi and North Korean missiles    [ Politics ]

Was listening to the reports about North Korea's missile program, the fact that they likely have 1-2 nuclear warheads, that the IAEA is escalating the Korean issue to the Security Council, and the rhetoric from Pyongyang that any economic sanctions will be viewed as an act of war - and then heard about the Iraqi-missiles-might-fly-further-than-93-miles story.

I may be crazy, but which one sounds like more of a threat?   The one who's hosting UN inspectors looking at its rediculously-short-range missiles which may or may not actually have non-conventional warheads, or the one who's kicked out UN inspectors, starting up its plutonium-producing reactors, and has missiles (not tested yet, but they have a history of testing them at touchy times) capable of actually reaching our country with a nuclear payload?