CNN.com - Politics

Monday, August 28, 2006

Back to Business

Well, Karr isn't being charged with killing JonBenet. Hopefully that means that the media circus over the issue can die back down within a week and we can get back to the real issues threatening the nation today: corruption, war, media consolidation, and the devestation of the Gulf Region from last year's Hurricane Katrina. When the media is so focused on the lurid circus of their own self-perpetuation, ignoring all else, then it does little service to democracy, to the need for the public to be well-informed so that they may make decisions. Why couldn't one of the major media outlets focused on important local, national, and world issues during the Karr circus, and leave the for-profit insanity to every other station, newspaper, and newsmagazine across the nation. The American media are serial-sensationalists, focused on the murder cases and fluff of the globe. Campaign coverage is practically issueless, the way the mainstream media portrays it, and only soundbites and photo ops matter: Dean's "Scream", Kerry snowboarding, Bush on an aircraft carrier. The "Scream" is the perfect example, a repetitive attack on a Democratic frontrunner by the media which culminated the end days of the most powerful Internet mobilization of peole power -- democracy -- in this nation as of 2004. An Internet movement that once again made myself, and others of my generation, proud to be not only Americans, but Democrats. Progressives. Even... liberals.

This nation is so ruled by for-profit media, with few exceptions to the rule (Christian Science Monitor comes to mind). Everything is about entertaining to increase viewership; all at the expense of information. "Info-tainment" they call it, but have you taken a close look at it lately? More "tainment" than "info", that's for sure, and it's progressively decaying to an even worse standard. There are your bright lights among the murk still, but they come infrequently. Democracy is being held at gunpoint, and the gun is in the hands of the Murdochs of the world. Media is no longer an independent voice to inform the people so that they may make educated decisions: it is a massive entertainment machine operated to maximize circulation and effeciency at the lowest possible cost to the owners. Operating at the least common denominator is not news, not when you've eliminated your own actual national and international reporting and depend on someone else -- AP, Reuters, the Monitor -- to do it for you. And when you do ship one of your guys out there, it's for a media circus: O.J. Simpson Trial, Michael Jackson Trial(s), et cetera.

This is by-far one of the biggest threats to our electorate, lagging only slightly behind partisan redistricting, restricting ability to vote in states like Ohio and Florida, and outright "buying" of the vote through high-paying corporate donors and their "bundling" policies which buys them access to the pols once elected. Why the hell do "we the people" stand for it? This is our democracy, God damn it, and we're going to take it back. And when we do, the news media won't know what the hell hit them. Infotainment is reaching it's limits, all the while the people are striking back: blogging and organizing where they're blind. On the Internet.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

The Anti-Democrat / Green Coalition of America

I used to respect the Greeg Party, I even considered switching my official affiliation over to them between 2000 and 2004, but something made me hesitate. While I agree with many Green positions, something gave me pause. I was disgusted with Nader in 2004 for running the way he did, but he was also running independent of the Greens that election cycle, so I gave it little thought. Now, however, I'm pissed off.

A Green is running for the Senate in Pennsylvania for Santorum's seat, which is annoying enough in its typical spoiler scenario for the Democrats. But, like Nader in 2004, Carl Romanelli has accepted G.O.P. funds and the G.O.P. worked with him in order to secure the signatures for his candidacy petition. How could the Greens debase themselves so? This isn't just running to prove a point, or running to offer a third option; this is purposefully trying to spoil the election of a Democratic challenger to a seat held by a Republican incumbant. The Green Party has lost its credibility in my eyes, and in the eyes of many others. This move is down right infuriating and sickening.

Clinton Talks About Lieberman

DailyKos and Atrios have it covered, I can't think of anything else to add.

Monday, August 14, 2006

Iran and Energy

What most disappoints me most about the international attempts to deal with Iran on the nuclear issue is the apprehension over Iran's control of so much oil. Nations are seemingly really loathe to declare sanctions against a country with such a large oil exporting capacity, and they fear that Iran itself might try to restrict oil exports to most of the world, thus driving up prices for its enemies and potentially lowering them for its allies. If we were doing more to wean ourselves off of oil, the potential threat Iran poses would be lessened, at least economically.

The other thing, possibly the most ignorant argument I've ever heard, is that why does Iran need nuclear energy when they have so much oil at their disposal. Well let's see, perhaps they too are considering the creation of alternative energy sources in preparation for a time when using oil can become prohibitively expensive. Or perhaps they're doing it to free up more oil to export and profit off of, instead of burning it all up at home. The only ones who really know are the Iranians. If you're going to accuse Iran of doing something wrong, don't make it out to be about nuclear energy, focus on the real issue: nuclear weapons.

I don't disagree that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. They exist in an increasingly -- sadly enough -- nuclear world, and an increasingly nuclear Middle East. Though not officially, some claim -- one could even say have proven -- Israel to have at least 300-to-400 nuclear devices through the help and assistance of France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Iraq, then Iran's enemy when Saddam was dictator, also was pushing for nuclear weapons prior to his nation being crippled during the 1991 Gulf War. Also, one must consider that both Pakistan and India are nuclear, and Iran is separated from Pakistan only by Afghanistan, where U.S. forces are centered in that region.

On the other side, Iran has the occupied nation of Iraq, which is currently controlled (mostly) by U.S. troops. Indeed, if I were Iran, I would be worried about my neighbors using their nuclear stockpiles in negotiations, as well as fearing my neighbors could become U.S. invasion corridors. So Iran's position on nuclear energy and -- although not widely spoken -- nuclear weapons is a dangerous, unfortunate, and destructive policy, in a way I can almost see why they would go such a way.

Is there a solution? Not an easy one, I'm afraid. The United States seems to have designs for Iran, and Iran has designs for Israel. The entire region hangs on the constant brink of annihilation so long as nuclear weapons are an option worldwide. The thinking generally goes, "If my enemies can have huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons, why can't I?" The United States, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom are setting a poor example in the world by maintaining their nuclear stockpiles as a "deterrent" against nuclear war. But other, smaller nations -- seen as less responsible -- are questioning "why not us, too?"

Can't we start downplaying nuclear weapons as a deterrent before that deterrent is so widely spread that eventually it will fail to be so? Couldn't we start to willingly give up our nuclear arsenal, much like South Africa did with its six warheads in the early 1990s? I doubt much progress would be made with such moves in today's world, not easily. But then again, what's wrong with trying?


Sunday, August 13, 2006

Axis Moste Evile

The New York Times printed, unopposed, accusations against Iran that it was inciting and organizing attacks in Iraq. The only source for this is Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. After the Times reported his accusations, they had this to add in the sixth paragraph:
But he acknowledged that there was no proof that Iran was directing any particular operations by militias here.

I know my readership of one, maybe two people isn't much, but the more publicity attempts to further demonize -- falsely -- Iran get, the better. Iran has its definate faults, but there's no need to add false ones to the list, it just serves to further degrade American integrity later on. There's no need for the mainstream media to continue parroting administration propaganda, you would have thought they would have learned their lesson in the first five years of the Bush Administration.

Remember, Republican talking points never die; they just become political headlines.

Failed Approach?

David Sanger's piece in today's New York Times, Does Calling It Jihad Make It So?, brings up some interesting analysis, although, as always, much is left out. My main issue is with something I read at the end of the piece, the last two paragraphs:
For Mr. Bush, however, dropping the talk of a “long war” would be to send a message that America can go back to sleep. Thus, each terrorist attack or threat is woven into the bigger picture of a global struggle.

It helps explain the recent redeployment of American troops to the streets of Baghdad: to pull out early would be a return to the failed approach of the 1990’s. It would be another Somalia, another Beirut. The problem is whether staying may give the jihadists something else: A narrative of never-ending conflict, in a war to be fought in Baghdad, in Lebanon and in economy class over the wing of a 747.

Now, let's look back at the situations in Somolia and Beirut. Between 1993 and 1995, the U.N. force in Somolia suffered significant casualties and was involved with various military disasters, such as the crashed Black Hawk helicopter in 1993. The withdrawl from Somolia didn't make the nation any more of a breeding ground now than it was before, during, and after the withdrawl.

Lebanon is much the same: the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings forced U.S. troops first offshore, and then completely out of Lebanon in 1984. Not only did Lebanon not collapse into a "failed state", but they came out of their civil war five years after American withdrawl and have been rebuilding ever since. In fact, Lebanon is less of a breeding ground for extremism now than it was before, during, and after the barracks bombings. Hezbollah is the only armed militant group remaining from the civil war, with the others having been disarmed.

So in fact, a withdrawl from Iraq would not necessarily result in a failed state, but only if the withdrawl was properly planned and timed. A mid-2007 withdrawl would give enough time to complete the training of Iraqi security forces and transitioning them into being the public face of the counter-insurgancy in Iraq. Then we could mostly withdrawl and stay on in a supportative role, providing assistance when needed, and otherwise letting the Iraqis handle their own affairs.

What bothers me is Republicans trying to paint the Democratic Party as being "anti-war" and in favor of a "cut-and-run" policy in Iraq. Sure, some of us are anti-war, but don't lump everyone who wants to end the military catastrophe in Iraq in with the anti-war movement. Likewise, I don't know of a single conscientious Democrat who wants to abandon the Iraqi fate to civil war and a failed state. We need to fight back against the Republican propaganda machine, and the mainstream media which is complacent in helping spread it.

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Administration Cut Anti-Terrorism Funding

Apparently the Bush administration wants to cut $6 million from programs directed at developing new explosive detection technology. This after the Department of Homeland Security failed to spend $200 million earmarked for the same purposes of research and development. Just more proof that this administration's focus on the War on Terror goes no further than Iraq.

Comcast's Lobby Stinks

I wasn't really fond of Comcast before today -- I've dealt with since as long as I could remember, they were the only cable service provider in the Detroit Metropolitan Area, my place of origin -- but now I've been given even more reason to dislike them. I present to you: lobbyist lies about network neutrality.

Warm Fuzzies

I love the good people over at Daily Kos. The kind of snarky humor they use is right up my alley, and I highly appreciate it.

Also, apparently the threat of someone using liquid bombs on planes has been known and ignored by the administration for year, and they did nothing to act on it. I'm impressive by this administration's record on national security. Not.

Democratic Revolution?

Matt Bai of the New York Times has written a piece about Lamont supporters within the Democratic Party which I have found over at the Times' website. In it, he compares the current situation within the Democratic Party, the rejection of triangulation and blind bipartisanship, to "Reagan's Revolution" in 1976, when the right-wing of the Republican Party rose up against the same political strategies which now define the DLC-wing of the Democrats, and therefore dominate our parties politics. This passage in particular caught my eye:
There are, in fact, some compelling parallels between this moment in Democratic politics and the one that saw the ideological cleansing of the Republican ranks three decades ago. In ''Reagan's Revolution,'' an inside account of Reagan's failed 1976 campaign, Craig Shirley notes that aides to President Gerald Ford warned that they were ''in real danger of being outorganized by a small number of highly motivated right-wing nuts.'' Those so-called nuts, meanwhile, waged war on the then widely held belief that ''if they were to succeed, Republicans had to be 'pragmatic,' they had to 'broaden the base' and they had to 'compromise.' Otherwise, they would always be in the minority.'' The very same things might be written now, substituting the words ''left'' and ''Democratic'' for ''right'' and ''Republican.'' And like those bygone Republican leaders, establishment Democrats exhibit a surprisingly shallow understanding of the uprising that now threatens to engulf them.

While Bai makes some interesting points on the comparisons between the two movements, he also upholds the view that the Democrats, and even more so the liberal "revolutionaries" within the party, don't have a governing agenda, that we're not "for" anything. Yes, while many of us believe that it's easier to formulate a governing strategy after you've won the elections, we are still for things, it's just the media doesn't want to look at it that way. They just like attaching a view to us as revolutionaries without values.

Health care: roughly 16% of Americans are uninsured, more are under-insured. The American health care infrastructure has the highest administrative costs in the industrialized world. We wish to make health care available and affordable to all, by reducing the overall administrative costs of health care, streamlining the system, and providing subsidies and incentives to ensure everyone is insured. A publicly-funded healthcare system would be nice too, but let's not push it yet. In fact, Ned Lamont has stated a pretty solid health care proposal in his bid for the Senate. It's not as much as some would like, but it's a start.

National security: Democrats support increasing security in our nation's ports and vital infrastructure, and have made proposals aimed at furthering those goals which have been rejected by the Republican-controlled Congress because we can't afford them, because of the deficit. Yet we can afford a repeal of the estate tax, which would cost over $250 billion over ten years in tax revenue on the top 1% of the population. The Republican Party's heart just really isn't behind real national security, and the Democrats have advocated actual port security, reducing the causes of extremism by reducing poverty and furthering education worldwide. Our party, especially the liberal wing, has also advocated an end to "Cowboy Diplomacy" which makes us hated worldwide.

The economy: we have proposed removing the disastrous tax cuts for the wealthy, rebuilding the public sector, creating jobs through the reconstruction of our public infrastructure in the wake of several national disasters, including the Blackout of 2003 and Hurricane Katrina. We liberals also support keeping American jobs at home, and American-made products in our stores. International trade is nice, great, awesome; but it shouldn't come at the expense of the middle-class.

Those are just three key issues in which we have advocated. Of course the community have its differences, and everyone has their own ideas and own versions of what to do, but we are united in our desire to see this country done right. We tire of "Cowboy Diplomacy", of the mishandled War on Terror, the floundering economy and the destruction of the middle-class. We also tire of the Culture Wars; the portrayal as the Democratic Party as a party without values, who are against family values. Not only do we have values, but we have great ones: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The protection and survival of the citizens of the United States. The education and well-being of our children and families.

So I say to Matt Bai, before you accuse us of not standing for something, why not try asking one of us what we do stand for. You might just find yourself surprised at what you didn't know already existed.

Friday, August 11, 2006

Links of the Week

News Links of the Week:

Daily Kos: Two Great Democrats: Bill Clinton and Jim McDermott
- Clinton gave a frank, up front speech on the big picture of the conservative movement within the Republican Party at a campaign fundraiser for Jim McDermott.

The Columbus Dispatch - Local/State - Bob Ney is stepping down as the candidate for Congress in Ohio's 18th District and Joy Padgett steps up. But is her replacement of Ney legal? A Republican-passed state "Sore Loser" law, often called the Strickland Amendment, which was designed to prevent Strickland from running both for Senator and Governor may preclude her involvement in the race for Ohio's 18th. Republican's say it applies only to the same ballot, while Democrats say it means the same year. State Attorney General says it's legal, but Democrats plan to challenge. Padgett ran as Petro's Lt. Governor in the Republican Primary for Gubernatorial candidate.

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall August 11, 2006 06:48 PM - A Pro-Social Security phase out Democrat, ex-Sen. Bob Kerrey, has thrown his support behind Lieberman, a fellow Social Security hater. Will evil prevail? :-P

Media Matters - NBC's Today, New York Times repeated GOP claim that arrests benefit Republicans in elections, when polling shows Democrats have erased GOP advantage on the issue - And Democrat's have apparently removed the Republican's national security advantage.

And finally...
Eschaton - Aasif Mandvi - The Daily Show has a new Middle Eastern correspondent. Funny stuff.

Also, as a quick comment... apparently Democrats want to appease our enemies aboard and domestic. Really, this comes as a surprise to me. I'd love to see how this idea is justified among conservatives. Explain it to me, someone. I'd love to debate the issue.

To All You "Christian Fascists" Out There, Listen Up!

...You're hurting America. :-P

Bush made the wise decision recently, when commenting on the foiled terror plot announced by the U.K. yesterday, to call the terrorists "Islamic Fascists". U.S. Muslim groups are criticizing, rightfully, the President on this move. Daily Kos, I believe, has provided a solid post exploring the issue. My favorite is the following passage, taken from a Gallup Poll last month:
While Americans tend to disagree with the notion that Muslims living in the United States are sympathetic to al-Qaeda, a significant 34% believe they do back al-Qaeda. And fewer than half -- 49% -- believe U.S. Muslims are loyal to the United States. Almost four in ten, 39%, advocate that Muslims here should carry special I.D. That same number admit that they do hold some "prejudice" against Muslims. Forty-four percent say their religious views are too "extreme."
My roommate, Amber, I believe put it best when we noticed the President's use of language: she observed that the "enemy" has been slowly evolving. We've gone from calling them "terrorists" to "Islamic Fascists", which is such a loaded term. You're combining Islam, a religion which many U.S. citizens seem to percieve as being in opposition to Judeo-Christian western society, and Fascism, an extreme-right nationalist social movement in several nations worldwide which has resulted in the deaths of millions, the persecution of peoples for various reasons, and warmongering across the globe for nationalist interests.

In fact, I know a government which fits many of the qualities of a budding fascist regime: this one. If we don't start changing our culture and our politics soon, we could spiral down the path of fascism. I'm not saying Bush is the next Hitler, but his policies have tended towards that of more benign (relative to Nazi Germany) form of fascism. We need to shy away from the ideological trap as defining an entire group of people as "enemies" just for a vague set of criteria. Because at this rate, the "enemy" will become Islam. We cannot let that occur if we ever want to see peace again.

Also, the G.O.P. political machine pissed me off with the "presponse" to the foiled terror plot. Knowing about the plot before its official announcement, they started attacking Democrats on national security earlier in the week.

Terrorism

Ever since the U.S. Embassy bombings in 1998, and the Clinton Administration's response to them (Operation Infinite Reach, which consisted of cruise missile strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan), I've wondered why we didn't start consulting more with other security and counter-terrorism experts worldwide.  It would have been better to consult with people in other countries who have had a history of dealing with terrorist threats. Israel and Egypt have much experience with the types of Islamic extremists which were targetting the United States. The United Kingdom and Spain have dealt with home grown "terrorist" militias advocating independence of certain provinces dominated by specific ethnicities. So many nations have the experiences and training we lacked, and we could have learned much instead of trying to blunder our way through it.

September 11th, 2001 was not the first time I had ever heard of Osama Bin Laden. I remember the 1993 World Trade Center bombings from when I was young, and remember in subsequent years of hearing about possible connections between those attacks and Osama Bin Laden. I heard more about this man following the embassy bombings in 1998. I came to know and understand more about Osama Bin Laden, but until 2001 he was not a figure whose motives I knew very well, nor did my young mind understand them as well as I now understand them. Still, I always knew that if people were trying to attack us, particularly targeting our transportation infrastructure, that we should consult with the experts who have dealt with such things in the past, and still deal with them day to day.

That fateful day back in 2001, however, strengthened my belief that we needed to consult with international security experts immediately. My thoughts automatically focused on Israel, whom I admire for their transportation security and most of their counter-terrorism policies (although not all, especially the way they've treated Lebanon and the Occupied Territories). Since then, I haven't really aired my beliefs on the matter to many people, because of one reason or another: I was shy, no adult would listen to the ideas of a teenager, the system was too big and too corrupt for me to attempt to penetrate, et cetera. Eventually it faded from the forefront of my mind as other issues occupied it: the economy, the War on Afghanistan, the illegal War on Iraq, the dismantling of our civil liberties, et cetera. Still, deep down, I've always been disappointed with the blunder that our attempts to solo our "increased" homeland security has been.

Then the foiled terror plot announced yesterday began to bring it back to the surface, as my disappointment with homeland security and the fearmongering of the U.S. Department of the same name (only capitalized!) roiled. But I didn't really remember it until I spotted a quote in an article on CNN.com from an Israeli named Rafi Ron, the former head of security at Tel Aviv's Den Gurion Airport:
Rafi Ron, former head of security at Tel Aviv, Israel's Ben Gurion
Airport, said screeners should focus more on finding suspicious people
than on hunting for potential terrorist tools.
"It is extremely
difficult for people to disguise the fact they are under tremendous
amount of stress, that they are going to kill themselves and a lot of
people around them in a short amount of time, and all the other factors
that effect their behavior," Ron said.

And it hit me again: we should have Israeli security consultants training transportation security around the country. In the airports, the train and bus stations, the ports. In power plants and water purifying facilities. This is what we need: expert advice and training from countries who already have established counter-terrorism training and expertise. Maybe not all of Israel's programs are right for us, but maybe those that aren't can be replaced by European programs, or homegrown programs, or something else entirely. Why do we always have to go it alone? As a country, we're different from other countries... but not that different. I mean, what could it hurt? Maybe it could save the lives of more civilians.


Thursday, August 10, 2006

My blog has sat idle for the past two months due to life stress and just a general apathy which I've been working to overcome. I'm reengaging with the outside world and meeting wonderful new people. Hopefully this, combined with my close scrutiny of the news becoming once again active, I will be posting more often. Who knows, maybe someone will even read them this time.

Also, ninjas versuses pirates, who wins?