Gavin War Journal
[Most Recent Entries]
[Calendar View]
[Friends]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
gavin6942's LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
| Friday, July 3rd, 2009 | | 11:38 am |
| | Saturday, June 27th, 2009 | | 2:11 pm |
Empire Strikes First: Bad Religion
During the school year, Greg Graffin is a mild-mannered professor at UCLA, where he teaches biology. But once class goes into recess, Graffin dons his other hat as the co-lyricist and lead singer of near-legendary punk band Bad Religion. Having toured for over twenty-five years, Bad Religion has a staying power one does not often find in the ephemeral music scene littered with one hit wonders and pop tarts. They also have a message. Graffin tells me that one must always question authority's legitimacy. "The irony of a bad political administration is that they can feign authority by misleading the public through carefully thought-out public relations or propaganda. In an era of bad administration authority is maintained by deception of the public." So what does constitute legitimate authority? "The only kind of meaningful authority is that which is granted by the public," he says. Perhaps some irony or contradiction might be detected in the fact that Graffin himself is a professor -- an authority in science. How can his students take his words seriously? "The goal of an educator is to get the audience to believe in his/her authority." Unlike politics, scientific authority is based on something real rather than a mere social construction. "The great thing about science is that it is not totalitarian... All claims in science have to be falsifiable [or] they are considered useless as scientific claims... There is no room for a totalitarian style of authority in science." Contradiction averted. Surprisingly, I am informed that politics is not his "bag", and he is first and foremost a scientist. Any doubt I have on this is quashed once Graffin reveals his favorite reading material: the publications from the union of concerned scientists (UCSUSA.org). Recent articles cover such topics as climate change, genetically engineered food, nuclear weaponry and "clean jobs". Books he recommends include "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan and Nick Lane's "Oxygen, The Molecule That Made The World". Even his political passion is strongest when biology is involved. He claims the American way of life is "corporate profits at the expense of family welfare" and has been this way since the early 1980s. In particular, Graffin is concerned with agriculture. "Certainly a lot of American farms were failing in the 1980s due to numerous factors [including] the increase in corporate farming fueled by federal policies that benefited large corporations but did nothing for family farms." Family farms have been declining in general for decades. A century ago as much as eighty percent of the population worked on a farm in some capacity. Today, that number is a mere two percent. When one considers how many mouths must be fed by this two percent, it becomes clear that these are largely megafarms, with all the glorious side effects that come with them. The effect of federal policies on farming is clearly illustrated in the example of corn. "Today we are a nation of corn eaters. Corn is used for most sweeteners (not sugar), shortenings (not butter), feed for livestock (not alfalfa), and is subsidized by the government to the extent that to grow another crop could mean zero profits for a small-scale producer," he laments. "It never escapes my attention when I drive across this country and see mile after mile of monoculture fields without a single family residence in sight." The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations tracks crops in America and other countries. According to them, more corn is grown each year than the next twelve crops -- soybeans, wheat, sugar beets, potatoes, tomatoes, oranges, sorghum, rice, cotton, grapes, apples and lettuce -- combined. We need not even mention the connection between corn and ethanol. What can we do as citizens beyond pulling the lever every four years? "Write an essay, paint a picture, sing a song," but most importantly "talk to others about your beliefs." He suggests, "They are the best ways to raise awareness and hammer out the differences between people's ideologies." In the end, this is the path to political success -- finding common ground and building from there. But also, we must push harder for what we believe in to actualize the will of the people. While it is good that "our president is an intellectual with a background in liberal arts", Graffin stresses that this alone will not ensure the policies we want and need. Graffin leaves us with one final piece of Santayanaesque wisdom. "If we ignore past events then we can't understand the circumstances that led to our present and we are left feeling bewildered." Remember that we are always entering an event in the middle of its history, so we must appreciate its origins to fully understand where it is heading. Of course, depending on your perspective, this could open your eyes to a world on the edge of destruction, or the beginning of a new era of hope. On July 30, Bad Religion will take the stage at the Warped Tour on the Summerfest grounds in Milwaukee. They are currently touring in promotion of their most recent album, "New Maps of Hell". If you're interested in power-driven rock with a biting political commentary, do not wait until the last minute to purchase tickets. | | Wednesday, June 24th, 2009 | | 2:58 pm |
| | Friday, June 19th, 2009 | | 3:33 pm |
Empire Strikes First: Iran
Nothing new here if you've read my other Iran rants... *** June saw the Iranian people take part in a historic election, with massive turnouts from all segments of the population. What essentially started as a referendum on President Ahmadinejad quickly became a display to the world of what happens when the populace grows weary of their despotic, corrupt leadership. Millions marched in the streets of Tehran, protesting what was most likely a rigged election. On June 19, the Ayatollah publicly declared the elections fair and legitimate. Saying so does not make a thing true, but sadly in Iran, there is not much recourse. Regardless of how everything pans out, one thing is sure to remain constant: Iran will continue to be the primary perceived adversary of the United States, whether we call them part of the "axis of evil" or not. This has been the case for decades, and President Obama's calls for talks will not change this. The Bush Administration made Iran public enemy number one, at least since the fall of Saddam Hussein. And the American people listened -- the politicians, the media and the general public all knew there was no doubt that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler, and his primary goals were the destruction of the Jewish race and the threat of nuclear war with America. There was no mention of his loosening restrictions on women or his policies of distributing oil wealth to the poorest members of his country. How did we come to believe the worst? Where was the evidence? How can the average American be so convinced of something when they were never given a reason? Yes, Ahmadinejad is corrupt and Iran deserves a better government, but he is not the inhuman monster we have made him out to be. The most ubiquitous misinformation comes from a loose and reckless mistranslation. In 2005, Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map", and a simple news search will reveal this statement has been printed almost every day in one or more newspapers around the world since. Yet those familiar with Farsi, the language spoken in Iran, make it clear that no such statement was ever uttered. There was a call to replace the "Zionist regime" in Jerusalem, which produces an altogether different connotation. He has compared the future of Israel to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Hoping for a new Israeli leadership is not the same as calling for a country's annihilation. Alongside this is the claim that Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust. There is no record of him denying this horrible event. On the contrary, we must presume that he accepts it, as he has said that Europe has used the Holocaust to justify the creation of Israel. He asks, and I think rightly, how can the near destruction of a race by Europeans justify the displacement of the Palestinians? Two wrongs do not make a right. If we want to find an anti-Israel country, we need look no further than our ally Saudi Arabia, where Jews are referred to as "apes" in one of their school's textbooks. We have Iran allegedly feeding weaponry to Hamas and Hezbollah. Even if true, does this action have any less validity than America's own arms dealing worldwide? If we desire peace, why do we supply Egypt, Israel and countless other nations with killing devices? If Iran has influence in Iraq, what makes their sway any less legitimate than ours? Does America alone have the right to decide the fate of the Iraqi people, even if the Iraqi leadership favors Iran? Is Iran a nuclear threat? Not if we tune out the echo chamber of those in power here and listen to more informed voices. America's own National Intelligence Estimate of December 2007 declared that if Iran did have a nuclear weapons program, such a setup was disbanded by 2003, despite the talk of war-mongering neocons. No less a personage than Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa -- a religious decree -- against nuclear weapons in 2005, all but ruling out the possibility of a weapons program. When Ahmadinejad says the development of nuclear weapons "is illegal and against our religion", he's quite serious. Even with Bush gone, we're still reading the news that Iran is a "threat" -- while North Korea considers nuclear war, politicians such as Mitt Romney are still fixated on the idea that Iran is the real villain. Why would a country sitting on huge oil deposits want a peaceful nuclear program, he asks. Perhaps because Iran knows something the rest of the world has known for a long time: fossil fuels are not an unlimited resource. If allegations from decorated journalist Seymour Hersh are accurate, America has been sending spies and saboteurs into Iran for several years now, trying to destabilize the country. Allegedly, Vice President Cheney even considered dressing up Navy SEALs as Iranian PT boaters and having them fire upon American ships, in order to initiate a war. Who is the threat in that scenario? Surely the people of Iran have not forgotten Operation Ajax, the 1953 CIA-organized overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq. The coup included bribing Iranian government officials, reporters, and businessmen, probably not much different than what Hersh is claiming now. There is more than a little irony that America can feign concern about democracy in Iran while at the same time knowingly having opposed it, perhaps even today. The very idea of Iran being a threat is illogical nonsense. Basic geography shows us that no missile from the Middle East is capable of crossing thousands of miles of land and ocean to hit our shores. While attacking Israel is possible, it would be a foolish and destructive blunder. Israel's superior weaponry, along with their plethora of allies, guarantees that any direct attack on them would result in a retaliation of mass proportions. Iran would be crushed within days. Canadian political commentator Linda McQuaig says it best: "Why would Iran want to provoke a war with Israel and the U.S. — both heavily armed nuclear powers — when it has no nuclear weapons itself?” What will we see over the next three to seven years from Obama? Although Ahmadinejad's lack of legitimacy complicates things, we will no doubt continue some sort of dialogue. But the message to the American people from above will be the same; rather than focus on the real troubles in Iran -- the corruption and oppression made obvious this past month -- we will inevitably hear more about the threat to Israel and America, the country's nuclear ambitions and other fabrications. When a government thrives on propaganda, the truth is not important. Keeping the people submissive and in fear of something is job number one. | | Tuesday, June 2nd, 2009 | | 10:04 pm |
Reviews
I'm stuck at home for a while due to yet another grand eye injury -- this being my worst one yet (though, the plus side is that it's not contagious). It hurts to do a lot of anything because of the strain, but maybe I'll get a little typing done. Here are some reviews from a few days ago. More may be on the way. Reviews: Garbage Warrior, Sleep Hollow, They Live (revised), and Poltergeist. Coming soon?: Kiss the Girls, The Gift, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein | | Wednesday, May 20th, 2009 | | 8:21 pm |
| | Tuesday, May 19th, 2009 | | 2:18 am |
Empire Strikes First: Catholic Church
Once upon a time, the Protestant electorate feared that Kennedy would be torn between his country and his Roman Catholic religion. Today, that fear has died and may have reversed -- American nationalism has become a far greater force than the word of God for many people. I spoke at length with one priest who was very passionate about his faith and America's role in the world. In September 1960, Senator John F. Kennedy spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, an organization of Protestant ministers, to convince them that his allegiance was to American values and not to the Pope. "I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me." Looking back on his policy decisions and personal indiscretions, we can safely acknowledge that this is one campaign promise that Kennedy was able to honor. Protestant leaders, and other members of the status quo, had every reason to fear the American Catholics. The social and political policy of the Catholic Church has been what some might call "liberal" or "radical" for many years, despite being firmly rooted in the Gospels. In the 1950s, when segregation was accepted without question, the parochial schools began integrating before the public schools. During the civil rights movement, priests and nuns took center stage, despite the relatively low Catholic population of the South -- America is roughly one quarter Catholic, primarily in the Midwest and in pockets on the East Coast. Father Tom Pomeroy of Holy Cross Parish of Kimberly-Darboy claims that "the south was less than 1% Catholic." The protests against the Vietnam War are now remembered largely as student demonstrations, but the Catholic Church was firmly involved in this, as well. Two priests and brothers, Daniel and Philip Berrigan, were front and center during the protests. Their actions, which escalated to the point of vandalism towards government property -- the burning of hundreds of draft records. This disobedience landed them on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list. While vandalism may be going too far, speaking truth to power is something very Catholic at heart. "In the public square of ideas all voices are heard... Whether that voice is a bishop in the Catholic Church, a Buddhist, an Atheist or a Neo-Nazi... it is patriotic to speak your mind," says Father Tom. "I think that Catholics (and all Christians) should stand up for what is right and true." But the underdog, progressive nature of the Church, or at least its followers, seemed to die down by the early 1980s. Were members losing their religion? Was their adherence to blind nationalism growing? Or has the media simply portrayed the Catholic laity in a more complacent light? The answer is unclear, but we can be certain that something changed. President Ronald Reagan launched a series of proxy wars in Latin America during his time in office. This has led some, including activist Noam Chomsky, to claim that America was "virtually at war with the Catholic Church". How, you ask? When one examines the governments and political parties of Latin America that Reagan and others accused of being Communist allies, what becomes apparent is this: their political beliefs were resting firmly on the foundation of their Catholic heritage. The Gospels have a strong undercurrent of a "socialist" message; live simply, give aid to the poor, the pursuit of free enterprise will not gain you favor in Heaven. During this slaughter of Latin Americans, most of whom were Catholic, including one archbishop, where was the outcry from the North American Catholics? The Iraq War and the George W. Bush years seemed to be the icing on the cake for nationalism's triumph over religion. As much as the Church and even the Pope himself spoke out against the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the average American was ready to serve his country, whether for right or wrong. This was no less true for Catholics, though Father Tom tells us, "Catholics are called to follow divine law, especially if there is a conflict between divine law and civil law." If the Vatican's words are any indication, preemptive or preventive war is not supported by divine law. Before the outbreak, John Paul II told the world that “War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations” and must remain "the very last option”. On March 16, 2003, he pleaded, “There is still time to negotiate; there is still room for peace, it is never too late to come to an understanding and to continue discussions.” America invaded Iraq two days later. Even after the occupation, John Paul did not back down. Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, argued that “reasons sufficient for unleashing a war against Iraq did not exist” and that "it seems clear that the negative consequences will be greater than anything positive that might be obtained." This critically scathing attack was much more blunt than anything mainstream American liberals were saying. Father Tom seems to agree that the outcome has not been overly positive. "In fact," he says, "before the war began, the Chaldean bishops [of Iraq] said that the Church would come out the losers if there was war. They are correct. Under the secular government of Saddam, Christianity fared very well because there was religious freedom in Iraq. Now with the new constitution, Iraq is officially a Muslim country, and religious freedom has been curtailed and interreligious violence between Muslims and anti-Christian violence has skyrocketed... the USA has destroyed Iraq." An American priest defending Saddam Hussein's policies? The Pew Research Center conducted a poll in April that found that regular church attendees are more inclined to accept torture than non-affiliated people. Only 20% of American Catholics surveyed said that torture was "never" justified. They seemed to forget that Jesus was the Prince of Peace who asked them to turn the other cheek and love their enemies as themselves. "Catholics need to be taught that human dignity does not allow for torture," says Father Tom. "It would be very difficult to hook someone up to a battery for low grade electrical shocks and then say you love the person you are doing this to. Anyone who tortures another must see them as less than human, and that is wrong." Father Tom fears that "if we are using torture in our interrogations, then we are also probably using violence and coercion in other areas of our policy. Violence [in the form of terrorism] is the normal response to violence [in the form of American foreign policy]. We should not have a foreign policy of violence, and over time this could help solve the violent reaction against us." In short, if those same leaders who call America a "Christian nation" practiced Christian values, we wouldn't be dealing with Samuel Huntington's clash of civilizations as it is today. What about our escapades along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border? Does the Christian belief in providing for the needy make for a sound foreign policy? Father Tom thinks it might. "The Taliban is gaining strength. Why? Because the Taliban is giving them education, social support, food, etc... meeting the people in their needs and therefore getting the support of the people. In our foreign policy, we need to answer that human equation not with violence but with social regeneration of areas... then they would not rise up." For more information on how the Catholic Church applies its teachings to modern, real world issues, Father Tom recommends reading “Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church”, published by Veritas Books and available from any fine bookseller. Gavin Schmitt (gavin6942@yahoo.com) is a Kaukauna resident. He has the utmost respect for Catholic theology, but is a little wary on the cannibalism part. | | Thursday, May 14th, 2009 | | 8:26 pm |
I didn't read A&D, but "daVinci Code" was Crap
STOCKHOLM – Actor Stellan Skarsgard says he's no big fan of Dan Brown's writing and accepted a role in "Angels & Demons" only after reading the script based on Brown's book. "I think Dan Brown is a terribly bad writer, but he has cliffhangers after every chapter which makes you continue reading," Skarsgard told Swedish broadcaster SVT. "It's like eating peanuts at a bar. You don't like them, but you keep on eating them anyway," he said. The Swedish actor, who plays the head of the Pope's Swiss guard in the movie, said director Ron Howard's script was significantly different from the book. Tom Hanks returns in the lead role as Harvard professor Robert Langdon in "Angels & Demons," a sequel to the "The Da Vinci Code" — also based on Brown's novel with the same name. It will be shown around the world starting Friday. "Angels & Demons" is better than the first film, Skarsgard said in the interview aired late Wednesday, because "the story is more simple and straightforward but just as dramatic." | | Friday, May 1st, 2009 | | 1:16 pm |
The Next Big Judge
So, Mr. Matt Lueck gives Cass Sunstein the nod as most likely successor to retiring Judge Souter... I think that's plausible and a good choice. The top candidates are allegedly: 1. Sonia Sotomayor, a Clinton appointee to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Grew up poor in the South Bronx, graduated from Yale Law School. 2. Elena Kagan, a former dean of Harvard Law School who is now Obama’s solicitor general. 3. Kathleen M. Sullivan, a professor of constitutional law at Stanford University who previously taught at Harvard and has argued several cases before the Supreme Court and federal appeals courts. 4. Harold Koh, dean of the Yale Law School. Obama nominated Koh to be legal adviser to the State Department. 5. Cass Sunstein, an Obama friend from the University of Chicago Law School and his nominee to run the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. He once clerked for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. I'd say Sunstein has a good chance, but there's also a strong push for a female judge. I don't think a female judge should be preferred simply for being female, but I can see the appeal... | | Thursday, April 30th, 2009 | | 10:03 pm |
Fun With Words
Words from Tully's "A Discourse on Property": congeries: a sum total of many heterogenous things taken together voluntarism: a school of thought which regards the will as superior to the intellect and to emotion. This description has been applied to various points of view, from different cultural eras, in the areas of metaphysics, psychology, sociology, and theology. ectype: A copy, as contrasted with the archetype original. (Has a specialized sense when used by the philosopher George Berkeley) quinquina: a collective name for alcoholic bitters (aperitif) having quinine as one of their main ingredients. ague: successive stages of chills and fever that is a symptom of malaria murther: Obsolete spelling of murder pellucid: the material property of allowing light to pass through; transparently clear; easily understandable; crystalline; limpid insouciance: careless, heedless, indifferent, or casual unconcern; nonchalance; the cheerful feeling you have when nothing is troubling you prolepsis: anticipating and answering objections in advance; a literary device, particularly in prophecy, where the prophet treats an event as past when it is yet to occur. victuals: any substance that can be used as food; vittles raiment: clothing; garments; dress; material | | Tuesday, April 28th, 2009 | | 4:27 pm |
Letter to the P-C
I haven't sent a letter in a while... but this seemed like a good excuse. *** With the recent news regarding Wisconsin marriage statistics -- marriages declining and divorces near the peak levels of 2002 -- perhaps it is time to reconsider the value of marriage as an institution. Almost 17,000 people last year alone reconsidered, and maybe they're on to something. I find nothing wrong with marriage in a "spiritual union" sense. If two people wish to pledge fidelity to one another for an indefinite amount of time, that's an admirable choice, and even more remarkable if they are able to keep their vows. For raising children, there is likely no better way than to have one home rather than two. And one cannot deny the romance factor of soulmates who join their lives together to start anew. What I find incomprehensible is people's insistence in getting the state involved. With all due respect to the gay community, this is where they have it backwards: the answer isn't legalized marriage for homosexuals, it is the abolishment of marriage for all. If marriage is a personal bond between two people, why do we feel that this can only be legitimate with a court-approved contract? Why do we want marriages to be categorized the same as business arrangements? Certainly some circumstances occur where legal grounding may be necessary, such as child custody issues or for medical decisions. But these can be arranged without some form that essentially does nothing more than change how we file our taxes and ensures what could be a simple break-up becomes an expensive, drawn out affair. Keep the wedding, keep the romance, but leave the government out of it. | | Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009 | | 9:49 pm |
Empire Strikes First: NATO
Last month, the world witnessed a ceremony celebrating the 60th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Largely ignored by the media -- and not surprisingly given the ongoing economic crisis -- this spectacle brought with it a considerable share of protesters. But why protest the military alliance that kept us safe from Communists during the Cold War? Because this very same group may be leading us back into the conflict, albeit unintentionally. NATO started off as a post-World War II political alliance in 1949, but soon grew much stronger in the early 1950s, during the Korean War. As all Communist countries were viewed as closely interacting, Europe felt an opposing force would be necessary to counter the impending threat. The political alliance became a military alliance. As the first Secretary General of NATO, Lord Ismay, said, the organization's objective was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down". From the beginning, NATO was clearly an us-versus-them group of people. Unlike the United Nations, which -- in theory -- encourages cooperation and discussion, Article 5 of the NATO Charter says that an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all. If the inherent flaw of this rule is not immediately clear, I shall return to it shortly. Rather than linger on ancient history, though, we must look to the future. If there is no more Communist menace, what is the purpose of NATO? In January 2009, Richard Burt, former head of the State Department's Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs summed it up nicely. "NATO is at this point an organization either in search of a mission or an organization with too many missions [that] needs to kind of fundamentally go through a pretty deep review of what its core mission is." NATO's (mis)adventures in the Balkans and Afghanistan stray from the organization's ideals, and such "peace-keeping" missions would be better served through a UN coalition, rather than an American-led military alliance. As Russian-American relations continue to improve, NATO is becoming obsolete, if it ever had relevence at all. Its Article 5 is becoming dangerously close to igniting a massive conflict along the lines not seen since World War I. Almost a century ago, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, sparked a series of alliances that brought in global powers to a regional dispute and caused the deaths of over 15 million people. Not even one year ago, we almost saw another regional battle spiral out of control. Depending on your perspective, Russia either invaded Georgia or crossed the border to come to an ally's protection. Regardless, had Georgia been a member of NATO as it will soon be, America and Europe would have been required to come to its aid. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov understands this threat. "The Caucasus crisis showed how dangerous the automatic eastward expansion of NATO is... It is enough just to imagine what would have happened if Georgia had been a NATO member, as Russia would have still had no other option but to act as it did last August." Russia obviously has the obligation not to attack its neighbors, as does any nation. But Russia is rightfully skeptical of NATO's intentions. As Mikhail Gorbachev said, "the Americans promised that NATO wouldn't move beyond the boundaries of Germany after the Cold War but now half of central and eastern Europe are members, so what happened to their promises?" George H. W. Bush had agreed not to expand NATO in exchange for Russia's cooperation in the reunification of East and West Germany. Germany today stands as one nation, but Bill Clinton and his successors did nothing to stop the growth of the European alliance. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is also concerned about a NATO training exercise in Georgia which begins May 6. "This is the wrong decision, a dangerous decision... Such decisions are disappointing and do not facilitate the resumption of full-scale contacts between the Russian Federation and NATO." In NATO's defense, the exercise was planned long in advance and is not a response to the military activity last fall. However, Russia's call to cancel or postpone the meeting are reasonable -- is it a step towards long-lasting peace to stage troops mere miles from contested territory, particularly in a country which is not (yet) a member of the organization? One solution to the Euro-Russian tension would be to include Russia as a NATO member. But Lavrov says, "I don't think Russia could join NATO as it currently stands." This is true in multiple senses. Clearly Lavrov's intent was to make clear the anti-Russia bias of NATO -- if Russia is included, what are the aims of NATO?. But, also, the rules of the organization clearly state that "Parties may by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State", leaving open the question of whether Russia is a European or Asian state. The principled and pragmatic solution is simply to dismantle NATO -- disagreements should be worked out in a United Nations discussion, not on the battlefield, which is where expansion will inevitably lead. One unintended byproduct of NATO expansion could be the strengthening of the European Union. Currently, NATO is by and large an American-dominated unit and Europe "pushing back" against this power is not unthinkable. A stronger, more unified Europe would help to realign international power and humble America's hegemonic intentions. This would be a plausible outcome, but no guarantee, and as Europe could join together without such prodding if they desired, it is no incentive to feed the hungry monolithic beast that is NATO. Better to slay her now before we lose control. AFGHANISTAN (REPRISE) In the last column I raised some questions about the "new" strategy in Afghanistan. I remain skeptical of America's role in the region and our ability to create long-term stability under our present methods. But President Obama assures us that he is thinking beyond mere military solutions. "What we can't do is think that just a military approach in Afghanistan is going to be able to solve our problems... So what we're looking for is a comprehensive strategy. And there's got to be an exit strategy ... There's got to be a sense that this is not perpetual drift." Unfortunately, until this strategy becomes something besides pouring in more troops, all we can expect is "perpetual drift". Gavin Schmitt (gavin6942@yahoo.com) is a Kaukauna resident. His only alliance rests in the Guild of Calamitous Intent. | | Monday, April 13th, 2009 | | 8:13 pm |
Feingold Message to Obama on Somalia
"Just as you have personally become engaged in the problem of piracy off Somalia's coast, it is essential that you personally engage in US efforts to address its origins on land." "As a first step, I urge you to call President Sheik Sharif and indicate a clear commitment to work with his government not only on maritime insecurity issues, but also to help establish security and functional, inclusive governance within the country." "I urge you to seize this opportunity, and stand ready to support and work with you on a comprehensive strategy that can help bring stability to this region." "If we do not take this critical step, we will continue to see Somalia's historic instability manifest itself in piracy and growing extremism, both of which pose serious security threats in the region and around the globe." In other news, Marilyn Chambers is dead. | | Sunday, April 12th, 2009 | | 8:28 pm |
Sunshine
"President Barack Obama is ordering the release of nearly a quarter of a million pages of records from the Reagan White House that were kept from the public during a lengthy review by President George W. Bush." Good. Hope we learn something. | | 8:24 pm |
Evan Bayh, Zombie Jesus Day
Evan Bayh: "Some action in the crisis was called for, that's in the short run. In the long run though we've got to start unwinding some of these things. We don't want the government in the business of owning our banks. We don't want the government intruding any more than it has to in the private sector so we've got to start reversing some of this once the momentum is in the economy to grow the economy once again to stabilize situations and I do agree with Tom, when it comes to health care we don't want "socialized medicine," but there is an appropriate role for government to expand coverage, to make it more affordable for people who don't have the means and that actually enables to meet the challenges...." I was just saying a couple nights ago that Bayh is a douche. Here he's being a borderline douche. Not quite saying anything wrong, but pooh-poohing the government involvement in banks and health care... which, really, is precisely the answer. | | Saturday, April 11th, 2009 | | 12:35 pm |
17 Socialists?
You have to go all the way back to 1929 to find a member of the Socialist Party in the U.S. House of Representatives, but U.S. Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) says the "workers' party" is alive and kicking on Capitol Hill. While addressing elected officials yesterday in his Birmingham-area district, the conservative congressman told an audience at the Trussville Civic Center that socialists in Congress are pressuring President Obama to cater to the far left of the political spectrum, The Birmingham News reports. "Some of these guys I work with, the men and women in Congress, are socialists," the congressman said. When asked to name names following his remarks, Bachus could only cite one person – U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), a self-described "Democratic Socialist." But he demurred when pressed to name specific members of the House who subscribe to socialism. He had a number though. Bachus was able to say that 17 house members are socialists. If he's concerned about the rise of socialism, a new Rasmussen Reports polls shows that Bachus may have reason to worry. According to its findings, just 53 percent of those asked prefer capitalism to socialism. Twenty percent of respondents favored socialism to the free market system. | | Friday, April 10th, 2009 | | 2:52 pm |
| | Wednesday, April 8th, 2009 | | 3:39 pm |
| | Tuesday, April 7th, 2009 | | 3:59 pm |
Associated Propaganda
AP writer Matti Friedman says: "Israel has identified Iran as its biggest threat, citing the country's nuclear program and its development of long-range ballistic missiles. Those fears have been compounded by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's repeated calls for the destruction of the Jewish state." I've time and time again called out those who say Iran wants to "destroy" Israel... but now there's alleged "repeated calls"? I urge anyone who cares about media accuracy to e-mail info@ap.org and complain. | | 3:22 pm |
Chomsky v. Obama
I'm already familiar with Chomsky's views on Obama, as he sent me his 14-page opinion piece a while back. But he is now on WPR talking more specifically about Obama's Middle East policies. Wish someone had told me that he was going to be in Madison the last 3 days... I so would have gone. Want to read Obama's speech in Turkey? I don't agree with all of it, but DAMN is he a smooth talker... much better than Bush. Throwing in Turkish proverbs? Well played. |
[ << Previous 20 ]
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
gavin6942's journal