Tristero
Friday, August 08, 2003
What a Surprise
Iraqi Trailers Said to Make Hydrogen, Not Biological Arms.Officials at the C.I.A. and the Defense Department said today that the two intelligence agencies still stood by the May 28 finding, which President Bush has cited as evidence that Iraq had a biological weapons program. The engineering teams' findings, which officials from the Defense Department and other agencies would discuss only on the condition of anonymity, add a new layer to disputes within the intelligence community about the trailers found by allied forces in Iraq in April and May.Not quite. In fact, George Bush himself said, regarding the two trailers specifically
The State Department's intelligence branch, which was not invited to take part in the initial review, disputed the findings in a memorandum on June 2. The fact that American and British intelligence analysts with direct access to the evidence were disputing the claims included in the C.I.A. white paper was first reported in June, along with the analysts' concern that the evaluation of the mobile units had been marred by a rush to judgment.
But it had not previously been known that a majority of the Defense Intelligence Agency's engineering team had come to disagree with the central finding of the white paper: that the trailers were used for making biological weapons...
The Bush administration has said the two trailers are evidence that Saddam Hussein was hiding a program for biological warfare.
... that U.S. forces in Iraq have "found the weapons of mass destruction" that were his administration's prime justification for going to war.One more non-lie lie.
In remarks Friday to Polish TV at a time of mounting criticism at home and abroad that the more than 2-month-old weapons hunt, is turning up nothing, Bush rejected assertions of failure.
"And we'll find more weapons as time goes on," Bush said. "But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
From The President of the United States
The elected president, that is, as he spoke to MoveOn members in New York.:...I mentioned the feeling many have that something basic has gone wrong. Whatever it is, I think it has a lot to do with the way we seek the truth and try in good faith to use facts as the basis for debates about our future -- allowing for the unavoidable tendency we all have to get swept up in our enthusiasms.Mr. President, please stand for re-election. If ever the country needed to hear language like this and intelligent analysis like this, it is now.
That last point is worth highlighting. Robust debate in a democracy will almost always involve occasional rhetorical excesses and leaps of faith, and we're all used to that. I've even been guilty of it myself on occasion. But there is a big difference between that and a systematic effort to manipulate facts in service to a totalistic ideology that is felt to be more important than the mandates of basic honesty.
Unfortunately, I think it is no longer possible to avoid the conclusion that what the country is dealing with in the Bush Presidency is the latter. That is really the nub of the problem -- the common source for most of the false impressions that have been frustrating the normal and healthy workings of our democracy.
Americans have always believed that we the people have a right to know the truth and that the truth will set us free. The very idea of self-government depends upon honest and open debate as the preferred method for pursuing the truth -- and a shared respect for the Rule of Reason as the best way to establish the truth.
The Bush Administration routinely shows disrespect for that whole basic process, and I think it's partly because they feel as if they already know the truth and aren't very curious to learn about any facts that might contradict it. They and the members of groups that belong to their ideological coalition are true believers in each other's agendas.
This Is Why I Worry Constantly About A Bush/Rice Ticket
NYT:The party is perilously out of touch with a large swath of black voters � those 18 to 35 years old who grew up after the groundbreaking years of the civil rights movement. It is a group too important and complex to ignore, many strategists caution, when analysts are predicting another close election.
Democrats have traditionally counted on more than 90 percent of the black vote. Blacks 18 to 35 make up about 40 percent of the black voting-age population, but turnout among young blacks was so low in the 2000 elections that they made up only 2 percent of the entire vote.
Democratic leaders are expressing concern about the disengagement. Young blacks are responding by warning the party not to take their votes for granted.
Thursday, August 07, 2003
Bob Hope, The Straight Gay Hero
Will wonders never cease? Listen to this witty repartee between Crosby and Hope from a radio show.Then, apparently, Hope made an "insensitive" remark about "fags" in 1988 on the Tonight Show. So he produced, at his own expense, this moving anti-gay violence PSA at the request of GLAAD.
On second thought, it makes perfect sense. Hope was a smart fellow. He was also an actor which means that a huge number of his friends and colleagues were gay.I think both his fag remark and this commercial were serious and sincere. I doubt he considered the former anything more than ribbing. Good for him, when someone objected, both not for apologizing for being "politically incorrect" - comedy withers when you can't offend those you love - AND for denouncing bigotry. Would that more conservatives were willing to do both.
Thanks to Atrios.
Bach And Scalia
An interesting discussion over at Matthew Yglesias' blog about Scalia and originalism: ie, the theory that contemporary legal decisions should be based exclusively on the "original intentions" of the composers of the law. A few comments by me (slightly revised) from the forum:Originalism, like fundamentalism, is a modern movement that selectively chooses which texts to honor over others or which portions of which texts to honor over others.
All reading, no matter how rigorous, requires interpretation.* One would have thought this was so obvious that it doesn't bear pointing out. But occasionally, some clown like Scalia claims a mystical access to The Truth and the point has to be made again.
*Certain scientific texts and theorems may be unambiguous in a way that precludes interpretation. Those texts, however, are written in a specialized language, ie math, and are not relevant to the exegesis of legal or theological texts.
"Please somebody give me an interpretation doctrine that has objective limits other than originalism and textualism. Scalia's defense of originalism is otherwise unrefuted. "No such thing as an "intepretation doctrine." No such thing as "objective limits." Again, speaking about non-scientific texts here.
Regarding interpretation: interps are useful only to the extent they are contingent (and yes, this assertion is self-contradictory: so what? It's still true.). Culture, society, consensus, dispute, etc. determine the correctness of an interp, which can, must, and will change as society changes. Very little in human discourse can be decided by fiat once and for all. Even Strauss (his best line: "If everything is relative, then cannibalism is a matter of taste") if you read him carefully, admits as much. Originalism is a doctrine that does indeed argue from a spurious intentionality and tries to reify language, which as Lewis Carroll convincingly demonstrates, is a pipe dream.
Objective limits: Much of the history and future of human society is inconceivable to folks at any given time. Who, watching the original Terminator, could predict Schwarzenegger running for Governor? Who, in the 15th century, could imagine female astronauts?
Again, the issue is reification, an attempt to set the meaning of human language and, by extension, human discourse, in stone. Just as there is no definitive interpretation of the Goldberg Variations, there can be no definitive interpretation of the law. There are many valid and invalid interpretations of both and the determination of the status of an interpretation is no more and no less than a contingent one, subject to infinite revision and refinement.
This fundamental difference of approach to discourse really seems to separate conservatives from others. A conservative seeks to perform the Goldbergs as Bach intended; anything else is a perversion.
Others seek a cornucopia of meanings and classify "originalist" performances, no matter how well-intentioned, as but one of many approaches, despite its pretense -easily debunked - towards historical "accuracy."
The common conservative riposte to criticism of their position, that anything goes, is mooted by the fact that both the interpretation of a Bach masterpiece and US law requires considerable training. Not everyone is qualified. Even so, no one, not even Bach or Ben Franklin, both geniuses, has a lien on The True Way.
Wednesday, August 06, 2003
Yeah, But Tell Us What You Really Think
In a statement attributed to a spokesman for the North Korean foreign ministry, Pyongyang said: "We know that there are several hawks within the present U.S. administration but have not yet found out such rude human scum as Bolton. What he uttered is no more than rubbish which can be let loose only by a beastly man bereft of reason."From WaPo and it looks like someone in the North Korean govt is a shrewd judge of character.
Monday, August 04, 2003
An Explanation For My Absence
I've been sloughing off the past few weeks in blogging, but last week was different. I was quite sick. Now I'm better and will start posting semi-regularly again.However, the main impetus for the blog, that few other than bloggers were taking Bush's horrors seriously, has changed considerably. Criticism of the administration is now much more widespread than it was. Therefore, I feel less compelled to post regularly about all the egregious lapses in competence and morality that Bush and his minions indulge in.
I'll be taking up my main tasks, composition, again, and happily so. Nevertheless, if the trend reverses, and criticism of Bush falters, I'll take up the cudgel with redoubled effort. I think, however, that these days there are people in the media who are far more qualified than I who have finally begun to focus on how disastrous this administration is. So, I feel less compelled to document what we all know to be so.
I also want to focus more on music matters on the blog. Hopefully, I'll find a way to do that interests both lay folks and musicians.
Now We're Talkin' Sense
By Rep. Jan Schakowsky of IllinoisIf we are serious about getting rid of George W. Bush in 17 months, then we have to make some decisions and some commitments. During the war, a couple of nuns came to see me in my Chicago office. They were on their way to jail to serve a three-month sentence for an aggravated misdemeanor for protesting the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia. They crossed a line in the road and now they were going to prison. Think of it. Anyway, on their way to jail, they had been arrested on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago in an antiwar protest. The police got a bit carried away even though the City Council had passed a strong antiwar resolution.via Jeanne d'Arc
The nuns wanted to know what could be done to change the state of affairs. I said I thought someone needed to take voter registration forms to every meeting and demonstration and get people fired up to vote. They said that would be hard. Why? Because people were fed up with the Democrats. I said, then they are going to have to get over it , and you are going to have to help them. Because like it or not, either George W. Bush or the Democratic nominee, whoever he may be, will be our next president.
All of you know who I�m talking about; I may be talking about you. We should, by all means, be working to promote a progressive agenda with each and every candidate and to make the nominee as progressive as possible.
But in the end, we are going to have to dedicate ourselves to electing the Democrat. To do otherwise is a luxury we cannot afford.
Idomeneo Of Iraq
Greek style tragedy should be left to Euripides, not restaged by real people.Two hours before the dawn call to prayer, in a village still shrouded in silence, Sabah Kerbul's executioners arrived. His father carried an AK-47 assault rifle, as did his brother. And with barely a word spoken, they led the man accused by the village of working as an informer for the Americans behind a house girded with fig trees, vineyards and orange groves.
His father raised his rifle and aimed it at his oldest son.
"Sabah didn't try to escape," said Abdullah Ali, a village resident. "He knew he was facing his fate."
The story of what followed is based on interviews with Kerbul's father, brother and five other villagers who said witnesses told them about the events. One shot tore through Kerbul's leg, another his torso, the villagers said. He fell to the ground still breathing, his blood soaking the parched land near the banks of the Tigris River, they said. His father could go no further, and according to some accounts, he collapsed. His other son then fired three times, the villagers said, at least once at his brother's head.
Kerbul, a tall, husky 28-year-old, died.
"It wasn't an easy thing to kill him," his brother Salah said...
[The villager's] threat was clear: Either he kill his son, or villagers would resort to tribal justice and kill the rest of his family in retaliation for Kerbul's role in a U.S. military operation in the village in June, in which four people were killed.
"I have the heart of a father, and he's my son," Salem said. "Even the prophet Abraham didn't have to kill his son."
