Cooler heads might have prevailed

In 1945, President Truman appointed Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson as the chief prosecutor for the planned tribunals to try accused Nazi war criminals:

The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.

This Tribunal, while it is novel and experimental, is not the product of abstract speculations nor is it created to vindicate legalistic theories. This inquest represents the practical effort of four of the most mighty of nations, with the support of 17 more, to utilize international law to meet the greatest menace of our times-aggressive war. The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power and make deliberate and concerted use of it to set in motion evils which. leave no home in the world untouched. It is a cause of that magnitude that the United Nations will lay before Your Honors.

In the prisoners' dock sit twenty-odd broken men. Reproached by the humiliation of those they have led almost as bitterly as by the desolation of those they have attacked, their personal capacity for evil is forever past. It is hard now to perceive in these men as captives the power by which as Nazi leaders they once dominated much of the world and terrified most of it. Merely as individuals their fate is of little consequence to the world.

What makes this inquest significant is that these prisoners represent sinister influences that will lurk in the world long after their bodies have returned to dust. We will show them to be living symbols of racial hatreds, of terrorism and violence, and of the arrogance and cruelty of power. They are symbols of fierce nationalisms and of militarism, of intrigue and war-making which have embroiled Europe generation after generation, crushing its manhood, destroying its homes, and impoverishing its life. They have so identified themselves with the philosophies they conceived and with the forces they directed that any tenderness to them is a victory and an encouragement to all the evils which are attached to their names. Civilization can afford no compromise with the social forces which would gain renewed strength if we deal ambiguously or indecisively with the men in whom those forces now precariously survive.

***

No charity can disguise the fact that the forces which these defendants represent, the forces that would advantage and delight in their acquittal, are the darkest and most sinister forces in society-dictatorship and oppression, malevolence and passion, militarism and lawlessness. By their fruits we best know them. Their acts have bathed the world in blood and set civilization back a century. They have subjected their European neighbors to every outrage and torture, every spoliation and deprivation that insolence, cruelty, and greed could inflict. They have brought the German people to the lowest pitch of wretchedness, from which they can entertain no hope of early deliverance. They have stirred hatreds and incited domestic violence on every continent. These are the things that stand in the dock shoulder to shoulder with these prisoners.

The real complaining party at your bar is Civilization. In all our countries it is still a struggling and imperfect thing. It does not plead that the United States, or any other country, has been blameless of the conditions which made the German people easy victims to the blandishments and intimidations of the Nazi conspirators.

But it points to the dreadful sequence of aggressions and crimes I have recited, it points to the weariness of flesh, the exhaustion of resources, and the destruction of all that was beautiful or useful in so much of the world, and to greater potentialities for destruction in the days to come. It is not necessary among the ruins of this ancient and beautiful city with untold members of its civilian inhabitants still buried in its rubble, to argue the proposition that to start or wage an aggressive war has the moral qualities of the worst of crimes. The refuge of the defendants can be only their hope that international law will lag so far behind the moral sense of mankind that conduct which is crime in the moral sense must be regarded as innocent in law.

Civilization asks whether law is so laggard as to be utterly helpless to deal with crimes of this magnitude by criminals of this order of importance. It does not expect that you can make war impossible. It does expect that your juridical action will put the forces of international law, its precepts, its prohibitions and, most of all, its sanctions, on the side of peace, so that men and women of good will, in all countries, may have "leave to live by no man's leave, underneath the law."

Robert H. Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States, Nuremberg, Germany, November 21, 1945

To compare al-Qaeda directly to the Nazis is of course to give al-Qaeda far too much credit, but there is an obvious analogy to be made. Of all the reasons that the torture and other depredations of the Bush years should be investigated and prosecuted, perhaps one of the greatest and least-mentioned is this: in addition to losing our moral standing in the world, consider what the world has lost in terms of opportunities to bring organizations like al-Qaeda to light, to expose them for the cowards and liars that they are, and to begin the process of redressing the conditions so as to make such acts as the 9/11 attacks inconceivable to all humanity. I am not naive enough to think that war and terror can be stamped out solely through honesty, but the fundamental laws of human dignity and decency did not cease to function in September 2001. It is precisely the calm and measured tone of Justice Jackson that has been sorely missing for the past 7+ years. What if the knowledge gleaned from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's (pre-torture) interrogation had been made known to the world in 2003 or 2004? What more could have been accomplished in stemming the tide of hatred and violence fomented by the bin Ladens of the world if we had kept our sights on them the whole time? We will never know, and that is a loss that should not go unredressed.

America either tortures people or it doesn't (updated)

Remember the debate over the torture issue? It was back before the fears of swine flu surfaced, so it's pretty ancient now...I think it was last Friday. Near as I can tell, the position of the old Bush guard (pun intended) is that we do not torture, but it doesn't matter anyway because it's not illegal to torture, which is not something we do, anyway. I'm pretty much sick and tired of the debate, but it is a debate that apparently must be had, because there are seemingly honest, intelligent people in this country who will say with a straight face that simulating drowning by covering a person's face and repeatedly dowsing them with water until they think they are on the verge of death is not torture, but "enhanced interrogation techniques," and that we shouldn't bother with any sort of investigations into the legality of such actions because...well, I guess it's because we have better things to do. Of course, Republicans are always complaining that government is too big, so perhaps we can just use some of the extra weight to conduct investigations and prosecutions, while the important and necessary parts of the government carry on. If the alleged wrongdoers didn't do anything wrong, then they've got nothing to hide, and what would be the harm in investigating, right? Right?

I can throw the quotes of Bushies back in their faces all day, and I'd love to do so, but here's the thing: to say that investigations and prosecutions of torture would "tear this country apart" is bullshit, plain and simple. This is not an issue of right vs. left, conservative vs. liberal, or whatever. It's a question of basic human dignity. It doesn't matter what our opponents do, or what they plan to do, or what they'd like to do to us. We (and by that I mean America) hold ourselves out as the "shining city on a hill" to inspire the peoples of the world. We have squandered every last bit of goodwill that we spent the first 200+ years of our history earning from the rest of the world in the supposed name of keeping ourselves safe from...something. The Bushies never would tell us exactly what...

Investigations and prosecutions are not just necessary, they are essential...not just to regain the world's respect, but to regain respect for ourselves. If this truly is a partisan issue, if there really is an argument to be made for legally sanctioned and clandestine torture, then let that argument be made out in the open, within the hearing of all Americans and the world, open to discussion and debate. If having such a debate would be damaging to our republic, if it would somehow damage our ability to "move forward," it does not matter. If we cannot address our own wrongdoing without ripping ourselves apart, then we are just prolonging the inevitable. America is more than a nation, and at the risk of sounding trite, it is an idea that has endured longer than most states ever have. America is a dream of freedom and liberty under law. Let those laws work, and if it tears us apart in the process, what was it that we were really holding together in the first place?

UPDATE: Gene Lyons at Salon has two excellent pieces on the genesis of this whole debacle here and here.

UPDATE II: Ditto for Gary Kamiya:

Those opposed to reopening the book on the Bush years argue that doing so would tear the country apart. They're right -- but they forget that the country is already torn apart. The gulf between Democrats and Republicans has never been wider. The Republican Party, the home of those who still defend the Bush years, has become a reactionary and increasingly marginal movement that is in fealty to crude demagogues like Rush Limbaugh and whose hysterical denunciations of Obama sound more and more unhinged.

What this means is that those Americans who would be truly outraged by an investigation are already outraged. It could not make them any angrier or more bitter than they already are. And even if it did, how much difference would that make? The GOP base already regards Democrats as terrorist-coddling communists. Are they going to all join militias?

I kind of suspect that Mr. Kamiya has not been to Texas recently, or he might not be so sanguine about the idea of Republicans joining militias. I still prefer that to everyone hiding their true colors.

I suppose it's possible that for some the battle lines have not yet been drawn. I certainly hope not, though.

Question re: pirate standoff

OK, I understand the importance of safeguarding the captain held hostage aboard the pirates' lifeboat, as well as the 200-odd other hostages held by Somali pirates elsewhere. This isn't something where we (and by that I mean the U.S. military) should charge in guns blazing--those times are quite rare, if they exist at all. Keeping the hostages safe is the most important factor, although I think "never negotiating with terrorists" is strongly vying for the top spot among priorities. And yes, just because your motives are pecuniary and not ideological doesn't mean you are not a terrorist--just my $0.02.

Here's what I don't get, though: the U.S.S. Bainbridge, an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer, is "keeping its distance, in part to stay out of the pirates' range of fire."

I am no expert in naval strategy and tactics, nor do I have any proficiency in hostage negotiations (particularly where there are potentially multiple hostages in play in multiple locations). But really, unless they are carrying suitcase nukes, what could the pirates possibly have on board the lifeboat that could seriously threaten the Bainbridge? The only shots fired so far appear to have been fired by the pirates during an escape attempt by the hostage. Does the Bainbridge have any Marine snipers on board or anything? Maybe I've just seen too many movies, but when the most powerful Navy the world has ever known is held at bay by a lifeboat, something just seems a bit wrong.

Discuss.

Adventures in police statism

A while back, I extended a challenge to Bill O'Reilley to allow himself to be tasered to prove his claim that it's no big deal. I didn't actually expect a response. I am glad, though, to see that another torture apologist, Christopher Hitchens, has put his money where his mouth is and subjected himself to waterboarding. His conclusion? Uh, okay, it is torture after all, sorry. And BillO remains everyone's bitch.

Has it been worth it?

I wonder:

Thomas Insel — director of the National Institute of Mental Health and the U.S. government’s top psychiatric researcher — said today that “the number of suicides among veterans of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may exceed the combat death toll because of inadequate mental health care.”

(h/t ThinkProgress)

Arlington Cemetery will keep funerals private, even when the family doesn't want them to

Think of it as the Iraq ostrich syndrome (h/t HuffPo): out of sight, out of mind:

Lt. Col. Billy Hall, one of the most senior officers to be killed in the Iraq war, was laid to rest yesterday at Arlington National Cemetery. It's hard to escape the conclusion that the Pentagon doesn't want you to know that.

The family of 38-year-old Hall, who leaves behind two young daughters and two stepsons, gave their permission for the media to cover his Arlington burial -- a decision many grieving families make so that the nation will learn about their loved ones' sacrifice. But the military had other ideas, and they arranged the Marine's burial yesterday so that no sound, and few images, would make it into the public domain.

That's a shame, because Hall's story is a moving reminder that the war in Iraq, forgotten by much of the nation, remains real and present for some. Among those unlikely to forget the war: 6-year-old Gladys and 3-year-old Tatianna. The rest of the nation, if it remembers Hall at all, will remember him as the 4,011th American service member to die in Iraq, give or take, and the 419th to be buried at Arlington. Gladys and Tatianna will remember him as Dad.

The two girls were there in Section 60 yesterday beside grave 8,672 -- or at least it appeared that they were from a distance. Journalists were held 50 yards from the service, separated from the mourning party by six or seven rows of graves, and staring into the sun and penned in by a yellow rope. Photographers and reporters pleaded with Arlington officials.

"There will be a yellow rope in the face of the next of kin," protested one photographer with a large telephoto lens.

"This is the best shot you're going to get," a man from the cemetery replied.

"We're not going to be able to hear a thing," a reporter argued.

"Mm-hmm," an Arlington official answered.

The distance made it impossible to hear the words of Chaplain Ron Nordan, who, an official news release said, was leading the service. Even a reporter who stood surreptitiously just behind the mourners could make out only the familiar strains of the Lord's Prayer. Whatever Chaplain Nordan had to say about Hall's valor and sacrifice were lost to the drone of airplanes leaving National Airport.

This makes me mad.

Life imitates art: The Onion scoops the AP, sort of

New in world news: Al Qaeda has criticized Iran for spreading various 9/11 conspiracy theories involving Israel (h/t VC):

Osama bin Laden's chief deputy in an audiotape Tuesday accused Shiite Iran of trying to discredit the Sunni al-Qaida terror network by spreading the conspiracy theory that Israel was behind the Sept. 11 attacks.

In this instance, the al Qaeda guy is at least partly right--as anyone with half a brain knows, 9/11 was an inside job; however, to paraphrase Gary Larson, people with whole brains tend to disagree, and are generally more articulate in expressing their views.

An astute commenter to the Volokh post that set me off on this little tirade made the all-important connection: that it was in fact "America's Finest News Source" that first broke this story:


9/11 Conspiracy Theories 'Ridiculous,' Al Qaeda Says

To be fair, al Qaeda worked really hard to come up with something that diabolically horrendous. They even managed to outdo Hollywood in most ways; to my knowledge, only Stephen King ever came up with a scheme similar to 9/11 (cf The Running Man, spoiler alert!) and that didn't even make it into the movie. Let's not take this away from them, really. Besides, there's still whoop-ass to dish out to them.

Explosive nipple rings???

Will someone please explain how this furthers the interests of national security and/or airline safety?:

A Texas woman who said she was forced to remove a nipple ring with pliers in order to board an airplane called Thursday for an apology by federal security agents and a civil rights investigation.

"I wouldn't wish this experience upon anyone," Mandi Hamlin said at a news conference. "My experience with TSA was a nightmare I had to endure. No one deserves to be treated this way."

Hamlin, 37, said she was trying to board a flight from Lubbock to Dallas on Feb. 24 when she was scanned by a Transportation Security Administration agent after passing through a larger metal detector without problems.

The female TSA agent used a handheld detector that beeped when it passed in front of Hamlin's chest, the Dallas-area resident said.

Hamlin said she told the woman she was wearing nipple piercings. The agent then called over her male colleagues, one of whom said she would have to remove the jewelry, Hamlin said.

Hamlin said she could not remove them and asked whether she could instead display her pierced breasts in private to the female agent. But several other male officers told her she could not board her flight until the jewelry was out, she said.

She was taken behind a curtain and managed to remove one bar-shaped piercing but had trouble with the second, a ring.

***

She said she heard male TSA agents snickering as she took out the ring. She was scanned again and was allowed to board even though she still was wearing a belly button ring.

Any ideas??? Anyone??? Am I going to be denied entry to an airport because I have braces? Either the TSA has too much power and too little of a mandate, or we are all just waaaaaaay too paranoid.

While the thought of having my own nipples pierced causes me to collapse shuddering into the fetal position, I will defend to the death other peoples' right to do as they will to their own nipples.

Besides, this isn't national security, it's (O, for a less-cliched phrase) sexual harassment.

Modern American miltary history, as told by food

Too strange to be missed--"Food Fight". I'm still trying to figure out what food represents Russia (without consulting the cheat sheet). (h/t Brad Plumer).



Obviously, the USA = hamburgers.

My favorite is the use of kimchee to represent Korea.

Here come the anthropologists!!!!!

We are sending anthropologists into Iraq. Seriously. The satire writes itself.

9/11 conspiracy nuts sometimes actually make right-wing nuts sound reasonable by comparison

There was apparently much hubbub about this video that was removed from Google and then rejected by YouTube. Take a moment if you'd like to view it yourself. Now then, setting aside any political motives that may have been behind its removal, the video is just plain bad. I have many thoughts on the poor argumentative style of the video's author, at least based on one viewing about five minutes ago, in between phone calls at work. The video contains three clips from news reports that apparently aired on 9/11/2001:

1. Some schmuck off the street, shortly after the towers collapsed, gave a lucid explanation of how he witnessed the buildings collapse due to the intense heat of the fires.
2. Some schmuck on TV (in voiceover) offers his opinion that it is possible that the towers' collapse could have resulted solely from the force of the impact of the airplanes and the heat of the resulting fires.
3. Some other schmuck on TV, also in voiceover, explains how Osama Bin Laden, from his safehaven in Afghanistan, has been poised to launch attacks on the U.S. with as many as 3,000 fighters, etc., etc.

The video offers these three clips, again and again, as proof of...something, but I'm not sure what. Clip 1 is shown to demonstrate, presumably, that no ordinary shmuck off the street on a morning as insane as 9/11/01 could possibly offer such a lucid explanation of things unless he was planted there by the true architects of the attacks. I think Clip 2 is offered to make the same points. Clip 3 is apparently offered to show how quickly the puppetmaster of 9/11 introduced the meme that it was all the doing of the evil jihadis. The final conclusion of the video--its exhortation to its viewers? "Think about it."

OK, I've thought about it, and whoever edited this video is either full of shit or so determined to accuse the Bush administration (or whoever else is intended to fill the puppetmaster role, since it is never made explicitly clear--I'm sticking with Puppetmasters, I think) of even more mass murder and mayhem that s/he can so easily ignore the basic rules of logic and argument structure. This is actually no different than the simplistic good vs. evil meme that is behind every thought, word, and deed of the Bush administration, just focused differently. The Bush administration, in this view, is Evil, and anything that helps them in their Evil quest must have been their doing. Or something like that.

Clip 1: The schmuck with the unusual clarity of thought and voice in the midst of such a tragedy. Was he stating an opinion of what he saw, mustering up as much gravitas as he could for what would likely be his only appearance on telelvision ever? Was he in fact a plant put in place by the Puppetmasters to introduce the "myth" that the towers were brought down by airplanes? How the hell should I know?

Clip 2: The schmuck on TV with the opinions re: the cause of the collapses. Was he a readily available public official who could offer the public something, anything, other than the news anchors' voices on a day when almost everyone sat glued to the TV? Was he purposefully placed in the studio by the Puppetmasters to further introduce Schmuck #1's elaborate hoax about the airplanes? How the hell should I know?

Clip 3: The question here seems to be how did this schmuck have such a detailed and comprehensive report prepared by 9:30 a.m. on 9/11/01? Could it be that Osama bin Laden was already a subject of much concern after the bombings in Nairobi, Dar es Salaam, and on the U.S.S. Cole in Aden harbor, and therefore news agencies likely had information on him and his operation(s) at hand and needed something, anything, other than the news anchors' voices on a day when almost everyone sat glued to the TV? Didn't America already have a tendency (whether justified or not) to think of Arabs whenever something blew up? Could it be that this was yet another part of the Puppetmasters' plot to...uh...bring up some Arab guy to distract the public from the fact that...okay, I really don't know where the Puppetmaster argument would go from here.

Just a few points (keep in mind, of course, that I am limiting myself to the clip in question and what I guess could be called "conventional wisdom" about the 9/11 attacks; i.e. I have not taken the time to do background research on the specific clips in the video, beyond the commentary offered in the video and the contents of the clips themselves):

- Schmuck #1, to my knowledge, has never publicly opined on the crisis outside of his fifteen seconds of fame on that terrible morning. The conclusion that fires from the jet fuel weakened the steel supports, blah blah blah, came from other people later on. I don't know who Schmuck #1 is, but I assume that if he was actually quoted in, say, the 9/11 Commission Report as an expert whose opinions and testimony prove the "fire hypothesis," then the author of this video would have mentioned something about that. So either Schmuck #1 is just an unexpectedly cool customer with detailed opinions offered in a crisis situation, or he is part of a conspiracy so large that it must include both engineering experts and shmuck-on-the-street testimony.

- Regarding Schmuck #2, insert the entire above paragraph, but change "schmuck-on-the-street" to "schmuck-in-the-studio."

- As for Schmuck #3, I didn't hear him say anything about bin Laden that I hadn't already learned, prior to September 2001 from other news sources.

From what I have been able to read or watch (and stomach) regarding the whole 9/11 conspiracy movement, just about all of the "evidence" is based on strange turns of phrase on the day of the attacks or from officials during and after that day and from video evidence that can only be seen if your TV color and contrast is adjusted correctly. There is no (or very very little) positive evidence of any actual event, statement, or deed--rather, it is all based on bizarre inconsistencies in individual officials' statements and the misapplication of various logical concepts, such as Occam's Razor (e.g. here). It reminds me a bit of those videos people have of their dogs, where they alone are convinced that the dog is speaking when it's really just dog noises. Schmuck # 1 and 2, by themselves, prove nothing except that the opinion of the "fire hypothesis" might have been quite common on the morning of 9/11/2001. Schmuck #3 doesn't tell us anything we don't already know, and he only proves that we have a knee-jerk reaction to suspect Arab terrorists when something blows up.

I do not know the author of his video, I do not know where he stands on the broader issues, and I do not know exactly where he stands on who is ultimately responsible for 9/11 (because he certainly doesn't say so in this video). I can only assume that he is saying that it could not possibly have been just the work of Arabs and burning jet fuel. Beyond that, we might as well say the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it.

Let me tell you where I stand: I think a bunch of crazed religious zealots carried out a plan to do as much damage as they could to the U.S. as they could, and they happened to succeed (from their point of view, they got lucky). I think a president and his administration, who were well on their way to permanent mediocrity in early fall 2001, seized upon the event in the most craven, cynical way imaginable in order to solidify their hold on power. I think that any involvement the administration might have had with the terror plot prior to 9/11 was limited to ignorance and negligence. I think the administration's obsession with secrecy, an issue long before the morning of 9/11/2001, added to some people's natural suspicion that those who are in power will do anything to keep and/or increase it, and that this same obsession with secrecy has only encouraged stranger and stranger conspiracy theories, until it is difficult to distinguish between those who contend the Bush administration allowed 9/11 to happen through neglect and those who say that the jet airliners that crashed into the WTC were drone aircraft piloted remotely by someone else.

I also think that Dick Cheney probably masturbates to the stories about how he is the Puppetmaster orchestrating this whole thing from the very beginning, only wishing that it were truly so.

Here's a "common sense" question for the conspiracy theorists--one that I have not yet seen answered at all: Considering how wrong the administration has been about pretty much eveything else they've ever done, how did they manage to get this one, albeit enormous, plot to go so incredibly right?

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

Karl Rove is either (a) a somewhat-high-functioning psychotic, or (b) so accustomed to lying that it comes as naturally to him as a morning whizz. For those not in the know, he is now claiming that the Bush Administration did not want the Iraq war vote to happen in the fall of 2002 because it would be "too political" or some such crap. Watch the clip in the above link. It's unintentional hilarity.

Why aren't you more frightened, dammit???

Just in case you forgot about the mortal threat to our precious bodily fluids, David Horowitz, Ann Coulter, Rick Santorum (who has some free time these days, it would seem), et al are presenting "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week" this week.

Do I even need to make a joke here?

Dixie-Chicking

Truthdig has a great piece on the modern-day equivalent of blacklisting, now known in some circles as "Dixie-Chicking":

[A]ll hell broke loose after Maines’ on-stage comment made the media rounds. The Chicks lost most of their airtime on right-leaning country western radio; CD and concert ticket sales plummeted. Egged on by reactionary FreeRepublic.com bloggers and DJs, ex-fans destroyed Chicks CDs en masse during the ensuing “Dixie Chicks Destruction” campaign. Concerts were picketed by red-baiters who called the Chicks “traitors” and “communists,” although the group’s fans were divided, and some remained loyal. Worst of all, bomb-sniffing dogs and metal detectors were deployed at Dixie Chicks concerts. Under heavy security, the Texas trio confronted a 2003 death threat at a Dallas performance, after a letter threatened to shoot Maines in the same city where JFK had been gunned down 40 years earlier. For his part, President Bush appeared to egg on the Chicks’ persecutors, saying: “They shouldn’t have their feelings hurt just because some people don’t want to buy their records.”

As best I can recall, most of the backlash against the Dixie Chicks was juvenile at best ("chicken toss" parties??? Grow up, folks.) A now-amusing comment from April 2003:

Apparently Maines didn't learn much after the September 11 attacks. The American people have become much more patriotic, and while there are many opinions about the war in Iraq, there are also many casualties for those that speak out on subjects that are considered by many as un-American.

Seeing as how America was founded through the ultimate act of protest (not that I'm advocating armed rebellion per se), it can hardly hurt to have a trio of singers state an opinion (one that has been rather, uh, vindicated by the ensuing 4 1/2 years of events, I dare say). Most of the complaints against the Dixie Chicks, judging from the documentary "Shut Up & Sing," centered on their lack of patriotism and/or their stupidity.

Well, as for their patriotism, as we all learned during the Clinton impeachment, this is a nation of laws, not men, so criticism of any sitting president is not the same as criticism of America. And criticism of America is not always a bad thing. As for the stupidity comments, I'll just say that (a) the Dixie Chicks are hella-good songwriters and performers, and (b) George W. Bush once said this:

My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions.

History will decide.



BTW, Ted Nugent is still a pussy.

A nation of pants-piddlers

Great article by Rick Perlstein on America's inability to confront anything scary.

Soldiers make better right-wing props when they don't speak

I wonder (rhetorical question alert) if it occurred to Rush Limbaugh, in the midst of his bizarre rant involving Iraq veteran Brian McGough and VoteVets.org, that McGough might actually, you know, respond? Not that it changes anything about how these douchebags bloviate. Here's what McGough said (h/t War Room):

I stood in the sand, snow, dirt, mud and dust of both Afghanistan and Iraq. I spent over a week on a side of a mountain in Afghanistan during Operation Anaconda. I received The Bronze Star medal for my actions during that battle. I crossed the border into Iraq with the first wave of the 101st Airborne. I sustained an open head injury on the streets of Mosul after a vehicle borne IED exploded next to the vehicle I was riding in. I have seen the aftermath of a real suicide bomber. I had loved ones who died in the 9/11 attacks. I have friends and colleagues who returned from the war in body bags. How dare you call someone like me a phony soldier and a suicide bomber?

Only someone truly, deeply evil can continue to smear someone like this. Apparently Rush will be on Bill O'Reilly's show soon.

They're trying to make our country better, dammit

Spouses of servicemembers are being deported. It seems like a no-brainer to me that people serving overseas shouldn't have to also be fighting immigration battles here. The counter-argument-that-wasn't that CNN offers from Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies is less than convincing--he pretty much just calls the idea another amnesty that's "ridiculous" or some equally unhelpful word. The soldier in question states it so bluntly that all immigration critics should be ashamed: "I'm trying to make this country--my country--better."

So let's lay this situation out. An individual volunteers for military service and goes overseas, most likely to Iraq or Afghanistan, to take part in "the defining struggle of our time." Back home, that person's spouse is facing deportation for one or more administrative reasons (note that the woman in the CNN report linked above came here "illegally" when she was five years old. Her children are most likely U.S. citizens, assuming they were born here.) These deportations are supported mostly by people who are not taking part in "the greatest force for liberation that humankind has ever known," and who do not stand to lose anything personally by supporting such proceedings.

This is, to put it as mildly as I am capable, bullshit.

To judge from his ever-so-brief Wikipedia biography, Mark Krikorian has never served a day in uniform (if I'm wrong, I'll take it back, just let me know). He argues here that there are no jobs that Americans "won't do," so there's no need to import foreign labor (i.e. for the shit jobs like scrubbing toilets that pay so little no American will do it). Again, I doubt he has ever scrubbed a toilet in his life. And lest this seem like an irrelevant ad hominem attack, keep in mind that this guy's whole argument boils down to knowledge of human behavior and human nature (i.e. "Sure, Americans will be happy to mow lawns and wash dishes for pennies an hour! How do I know? Uh, because I'm an American!") While there is a certain populist appeal to the idea that no work should be "beneath" Americans, it is the messenger I doubt more than the message. Show me that you are willing to do the heavy lifting, Mr. Krikorian, and maybe I'll start to believe you.

In the meantime, for fuck's sake stop deporting soldiers' spouses!!! Give them something to fight for, dammit!

Those neocons and their tiny peckers...

I have this theory about the hubbub surrounding Iranian president Ahmadinejad's visit to the Big Apple--I think the neocons who are chanting the loudest for war with Iran are pants-wettingly terrified of actually facing the man, mano a mano, and having to say directly, out loud, what they think, as well as face the fact that many Iranians had the gall to support us after 9/11 (which undercuts the neocon view of all Iranians as Evil Brown People). It's so much easier to keep him at arm's length and portray him as a cartoon villain, isn't it?

The unsung hero of the Larry Craig case

I know Larry Craig is probably old news by now, and I've certainly beat the dead horse off...uh...too many puns... Anyway, I hadn't given the matter any further thought, even despite my recent trip through several airports. Today, however, Barbara Ehrenreich raised a point that had not yet occurred to me:

Short of some undisclosed evidence that the 9/11 killers were closeted Wahabist gays, you may wonder, as I do, why - with the "threat level" at an ominous orange - agents of the law are being deployed to detect people of alternative sexualities. Larry Craig was apprehended by a man apparently consigned to spend his entire day on the can, watching for errant fingers. Possibly this fellow has some intestinal issues which made this a necessary posting. But, sphincter control permitting, could he not have been more usefully employed, say, interviewing passengers as to their willingness to blow themselves up to score some theological point?

How long, exactly, did this vice cop spend on that particular can, just waiting for somebody to tap their feet and do something with their fingers? How many superiors did this cop have to piss off to get this duty? And what happens if, say, he spends an entire eight-hour shift sitting in a stall...waiting...waiting...and no one taps their feet or does anything to invite attention--what kind of impact will that have on that officer's self-esteem? I mean, eight hours and nobody wanted to give him a bathroom hummer??? That has to be hurtful on some level, be it professional or personal.

There actually is a more serious point to make here. The "threat level" does seem to still be hovering around orange, meaning that we should all be generically afraid and thank Bush for the safety we have--but given that "high" risk, can we afford to lose even a single law enforcement officer to "stall duty"? Unless, of course, the next terrorist plot is to unleash a mass public fellating in men's rooms everywhere.

There is no country to hold together, really

Out of the ashes of World War I, the victorious Allies threw together an entirely new country, composed of disparate ethnic and national groups, perhaps somewhat linked by language or religion, but lacking any long-standing historical ties to one another. This "country," as it were, had never existed before, nor had these people been expected to live together under a single flag. A strongman dictator held it all together, often through violence and repression and often through sheer force of personality. Eventually, however, the strongman fell, and all the pieces came apart in an explosion of violence that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives while the world looked on.

I'm talking, of course, about the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, which later came to be known simply as Yugoslavia. The "country" was cobbled together out of pieces of defeated Austria-Hungary and added to Serbia and Montenegro. The strongman I refer to is Josip Broz Tito, who led a partisan rebellion against the Nazis during World War II and then unified the "country" under a communist regime. The only thing "Yugoslavs" had in common was that they all belonged to "Slavic" ethnic groups and occupied a southern area of Europe ("yug" is a common Slavic root meaning "south").

Tito was Yugoslavia's president from 1953 until his death in 1980. He probably was the only force holding the country together, but his belief in a unified Yugoslavia seemed unflappable. Among his famous quotes is the following: "None of our republics would be anything if we weren't all together; but we have to create our own history - history of United Yugoslavia, also in the future."

It would be another 11 years before everything really hit the fan, but a lot happened in preparation for the breakdown. In my humble opinion, blame lies almost exclusively with Slobodan Milošević, who exploited Serb nationalism in his rise to power. Beginning in 1987, when he first played on the fears of the Serb minority in Kosovo, he set the stage for much of the chaos that followed.

The rest of the story is pretty well-known. Beginning in 1991, the pieces began to break off: within a year, Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, and Bosnia and Herzgovina declared independence. Serbia and Montenegro stuck together for a while, keeping the name Yugoslavia until 2003, and then finally separating in 2006. The process was painful and nasty, to say the least, and it added new phrases to the global lexicon like "ethnic cleansing." In the end, the world sees that "Yugoslavia" was an artificial construct of Serbs, Croatians, Bosnians, Macedonians, Albanians (in Kosovo and Macedonia), Montenegrins, Slovenians, and Hungarians (in Vojvodina, northern Serbia).

Why do I bring all of this up? Well, after World War I, there was another defeated empire to dissect: the Ottoman Empire. Although it once extended to the outskirts of Vienna and deep into Africa, the Ottoman Empire was pretty much used up by 1918. France and Britain carved up the remnants--one of Britain's spoils was the Mandate of Iraq, which combined three Ottoman provinces (Baghdad, Basra, and Mosul) into a single state. "Iraq" became independent of Britain in 1932 under a British-installed monarchy that lasted until 1958. Then there was a military coup, followed by Saddam Hussein's rise to power and assumption of the presidency in 1979.

I have commented before on the vast array of ethnic identities present in Iraq: Sunni Arab, Shia Arab, predominately Sunni Kurd, Turkomen, Assyrian, Yazidi, and so forth. We have seen what can happen when a haphazard pastiche of ethnic groups are thrown together in a single state, held together by a dictator, and then that dictator leaves the scene one way or another (usually by death, let's face it). Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty and integrity will agree that Iraq is now in a civil war, one in which "ethnic cleansing" is once again an appropriate term to use. Iraq may still be a state appearing on a map, but it is not a nation.

There may be hope (although I feel like I am only including this final paragraph in order to not be totally depressed): another entirely new country was created after World War I, whose history and ultimate divorce was much less of a blot on history. That country was Czechoslovakia, which peacefully split into its two constituent parts in 1993, in what was called the "Velvet Divorce," named after the country's comparatively peaceful "Velvet Revolution" of 1989.

Iraq already looks a hell of a lot like Yugoslavia. Is there a chance for it to become more like Czechoslovakia? One can hope, but I doubt it. The ultimate breakup of Yugoslavia threatened wider conflagrations, as does the possible breakup of Iraq. Since neither country really existed as a nation to begin with, perhaps there is some sort of inevitability to it. The question then becomes whether we want or need to be in the middle of the mess.