Dan Rather update
Blackfive and Dean are talking about the not-very-patriotic behavior of Dan Rather and CBS on Abu Ghraib, discussed here a few days ago. Kaus is also talking about this issue--specifically the decision to publish the photos of the abuse.
Journalists are political actors-- they need to understand this, and we need to understand this. American reporters who slant their stories to make American soldiers look weak and the occupation seem cruel need to know that they share in the guilt when things go badly for American soldiers and contractors in Iraq.
--SUNSHINE DAVE RAHIMI
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Saturday, May 08, 2004
Iron Bloggers
It often seems to me that right- and left-leaning blogs are like two ships passing in the night. Half write about the stupid things said by George Bush, Jerry Fallwell, Linda Chavez, Rush Limbaugh, etc. The other half writes about the stupid things said by John Kerry, Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, Ted Rall, etc. It's kind of disappointing that there is so little actual clash between the two sides. And when there is, it's usually a battle of the trolls, not intelligent (and civil) debate.
Perhaps this will fill that gap:
If memory serves me right, it has long been a dream of mine to see the best of the blogosphere come together and stand tall in political combat, and now we are at the dawn of that dream becoming reality. Four Iron Bloggers have been chosen, answering the call to represent their parties and ideals against all challengers. Those with open minds have begun to step forward to offer their services as Judges of these brave combatants, and now the stage is being set.
It is time to throw open the doors to those who would aspire to best my Iron Bloggers, but their task will not be an easy one. While there may be bigger names in the blogosphere, I have searched long and hard to find the highest quality of blogging, and have selected those that truly shine as examples of what blogging can be. These Iron Bloggers will soon be known by many for what I have already seen in them - strong writing, provocative commentary and a fearless belief in their ideals.
So step forward and challenge my Iron Bloggers if you dare. Show us if you have what it takes to stand triumphant on the battlefield of thought. Who will be victorious? Who will be humbled?
Whose spleen will vent supreme?
Cool. Can't wait to see how this turns out.
(Hat tip: Rosemary, QOAE.)
--REDBEARD
It often seems to me that right- and left-leaning blogs are like two ships passing in the night. Half write about the stupid things said by George Bush, Jerry Fallwell, Linda Chavez, Rush Limbaugh, etc. The other half writes about the stupid things said by John Kerry, Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, Ted Rall, etc. It's kind of disappointing that there is so little actual clash between the two sides. And when there is, it's usually a battle of the trolls, not intelligent (and civil) debate.
Perhaps this will fill that gap:
If memory serves me right, it has long been a dream of mine to see the best of the blogosphere come together and stand tall in political combat, and now we are at the dawn of that dream becoming reality. Four Iron Bloggers have been chosen, answering the call to represent their parties and ideals against all challengers. Those with open minds have begun to step forward to offer their services as Judges of these brave combatants, and now the stage is being set.
It is time to throw open the doors to those who would aspire to best my Iron Bloggers, but their task will not be an easy one. While there may be bigger names in the blogosphere, I have searched long and hard to find the highest quality of blogging, and have selected those that truly shine as examples of what blogging can be. These Iron Bloggers will soon be known by many for what I have already seen in them - strong writing, provocative commentary and a fearless belief in their ideals.
So step forward and challenge my Iron Bloggers if you dare. Show us if you have what it takes to stand triumphant on the battlefield of thought. Who will be victorious? Who will be humbled?
Whose spleen will vent supreme?
Cool. Can't wait to see how this turns out.
(Hat tip: Rosemary, QOAE.)
--REDBEARD
Economics for Paul Krugman and other dummies
Another great reaction to a NYT columnist comes from Tim Worstall, who discusses several likely ways that we will adapt to rising oil prices. Flouting conventional wisdom, he does not predict the end of the world.
Here's a little of what he has to say:
Let's start by assuming that shortages are inevitable, that oil really will go up to, say, $ 100 a barrel and stay there. What will happen ? There will be substitution. At least three different types of it. We'll leave aside all the extra exploration that will come from such high prices, the new technologies that will be created to extract more from the same field ( you know that the majority of oil in a field is never recovered ? ) and all those sorts of things. We'll just address that concept of substitution in the manner in which an economist should. And we'll limit ourselves to transport, for as Quiggin notes, that's the one area where we don't appear to have an alternative straight out of the box.
1) We'll extract oil substitutes from other sources. From the Athabasca tar sands for example. Profitable at today's prices, at $ 100 a barrel this is a no brainer. According to the US Geological Survey there's half a millenium's worth of oil up there for the whole planet. Or ethanol, or bio diesel. No great change in society, infrastructure or technology.
So no worries. We already have lots of alternatives (some of which are totally, totally awesome), which will become more economically attractive as the price of oil goes up. Sorry, hippies-- western civilization is not going to collapse because we run out of oil. But, hey, maybe that whole "Global Warming-induced Ice Age" thing will work out for you.
(Hat tip: InDC Journal.)
--YAHYA AL-RIIFI AL-SAUDI
Another great reaction to a NYT columnist comes from Tim Worstall, who discusses several likely ways that we will adapt to rising oil prices. Flouting conventional wisdom, he does not predict the end of the world.
Here's a little of what he has to say:
Let's start by assuming that shortages are inevitable, that oil really will go up to, say, $ 100 a barrel and stay there. What will happen ? There will be substitution. At least three different types of it. We'll leave aside all the extra exploration that will come from such high prices, the new technologies that will be created to extract more from the same field ( you know that the majority of oil in a field is never recovered ? ) and all those sorts of things. We'll just address that concept of substitution in the manner in which an economist should. And we'll limit ourselves to transport, for as Quiggin notes, that's the one area where we don't appear to have an alternative straight out of the box.
1) We'll extract oil substitutes from other sources. From the Athabasca tar sands for example. Profitable at today's prices, at $ 100 a barrel this is a no brainer. According to the US Geological Survey there's half a millenium's worth of oil up there for the whole planet. Or ethanol, or bio diesel. No great change in society, infrastructure or technology.
So no worries. We already have lots of alternatives (some of which are totally, totally awesome), which will become more economically attractive as the price of oil goes up. Sorry, hippies-- western civilization is not going to collapse because we run out of oil. But, hey, maybe that whole "Global Warming-induced Ice Age" thing will work out for you.
(Hat tip: InDC Journal.)
--YAHYA AL-RIIFI AL-SAUDI
Time to reboot?
Captain Ed has a very thoughtful response to the most recent David Brooks editorial. (I find this particularly important because, according to the all-knowing internet, I am David Brooks.) Here's a sample:
Brooks is correct; it's time to look to new solutions, such as the G-20 plan floated earlier this year. In order to bring freedom to the world, we cannot allow ourselves to be deliberately slowed down or halted by being yoked to dictatorships through the UN. We do have to reboot. We need to clear our assumptions from the screen and take a fresh look around us and at our priorities. If we are serious about spreading freedom and democracy as a way to ensure our national security -- and I strongly believe that to be the best strategy -- then we need new partnerships and new institutions based on those ideals.
There's lots more. Read it all. (And read more about the G-20 plan here.)
--JACQUES LE PEN
Captain Ed has a very thoughtful response to the most recent David Brooks editorial. (I find this particularly important because, according to the all-knowing internet, I am David Brooks.) Here's a sample:
Brooks is correct; it's time to look to new solutions, such as the G-20 plan floated earlier this year. In order to bring freedom to the world, we cannot allow ourselves to be deliberately slowed down or halted by being yoked to dictatorships through the UN. We do have to reboot. We need to clear our assumptions from the screen and take a fresh look around us and at our priorities. If we are serious about spreading freedom and democracy as a way to ensure our national security -- and I strongly believe that to be the best strategy -- then we need new partnerships and new institutions based on those ideals.
There's lots more. Read it all. (And read more about the G-20 plan here.)
--JACQUES LE PEN
Friday, May 07, 2004
The flaming tire of patriotism
In 1999, while at the National Press Club speaking about the US-led intervention in Kosovo, Dan Rather was questioned by an Arab-American journalist on his use of the word "we" when speaking of American soldiers.
Question [Sam Husseini]: Thank you. I was struck by your comments just now about when you say "we" took out the lights. ... And it troubles me when you say "we" when your talking about the U.S. government when you're, presumably, a journalist and an independent journalist.
Rather responded:
Dan Rather: Fair question. ... I understand what you're saying, and I may be wrong about this. I've asked myself any number of times. But, you know I'd like to think I didn't just tumble off the turnip truck. I've been around the world a few times. I've been in a few places. I've had to think through this business of "we." I think, if I may guess from the nature of the way you asked the question, you have a different view, and I respect it. But I'm an American reporter. Yes I'm a reporter and I want to be accurate. I want to be fair. But I'm an American. I consider the U.S. government my government. So yes I do?when U.S. pilots in U.S. aircrafts turn off the lights, for me, it's "we." And about that I have no apology. I think you and I are maybe on different sides of the street about that and it doesn't do any good for me to try and kid you. I'm an American, and I'm an American reporter. And yes, when there's combat involving Americans, you can criticize me if you must, damn me if you must, but I'm always pulling for us to win.
Figuring out the appropriate way to balance love for your country and the desire to report facts objectively must be tough; I don't envy Rather his job. But I think his answer was admirable. He loves his country. He's an American. He's a patriot. Good!
Not only do I like it because I also love America, I like this answer because I think the best way to deal with the problem of biases interfering with objectivity is to simply be explicit about your own biases and let other people judge how these biases might skew you towards the subjective.
Three years later, Rather was interviewed by the BBC and had a few different things to say about patriotism:
"It's an obscene comparison but there was a time in South Africa when people would put flaming tyres around people's necks if they dissented. In some ways, the fear is that you will be neck-laced here, you will have a flaming tyre of lack of patriotism put around your neck. It's that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions and to continue to bore-in on the tough questions so often. Again, I'm humbled to say I do not except myself from this criticism. "
He's right. It is an obscene comparison. But let's look carefully at the argument. If I understand him correctly, Rather is worried that reporters might refrain from saying something critical of US policy because it might reflect badly on the country. In other words, faced with a choice between being a good journalist and being a good American, Rather fears that many journalists will choose patriotism. (Rather's quote makes it sound like they would do in order to look like good Americans, to avoid being blackballed, rather than for love of country, but I think the argument works the same either way.)
Well, let's examine that proposition. It's hard to say if he's right, because he predicts media silence, which makes it difficult to point to cases where he is right. ("Did you hear what he didn't say? Did you see what they didn't write?") But we can certainly point to instances of the media saying things that made things more difficult for American efforts abroad to succeed.
A notable recent example is the American coverage of the Abu Ghraib prisoner mistreatment scandal. In particular, let's look at CBS, Dan Rather's network. As Chuck Allen points out in an email printed on Instapundit:
It was the DoD that started investigating this before anyone else knew about it. CBS didn't break this story, the DoD did, and they started conducting a proper investigation that could lead to criminal charges under the UCMJ, which is exactly what was called for.
Glenn Reynolds agrees:
CBS wants you to think that they broke this story, but actually they came around pretty late.
This is confirmed by the timeline up at the Mudville Gazette. And reading the story at the CBS website, it certainly seems to me that they want me to think that the investigation happened because of the news story, instead of the other way around.
How does this fit into Rather's flaming-tire-of-patriotism hypothesis? Well, CBS could have presented this story in two ways. Option one: Defense Department is prosecuting bad prison guards. Option two: CBS has learned of bad prison guards. The former makes America look good, the latter makes CBS look good. They chose the latter. I guess Dan Rather, even though he is " always pulling for us to win," managed to convince his colleagues to imply a falsehood that is damaging to American efforts to rebuild Iraq. Way to go, Dan.
I don't think this is exceptional, though. The more I watch the news, the less worried I am that reporters are held back by their patriotism. In fact, most reporters seem pretty eager to prove what objective guys they are by sticking it to America.
Why is this? Is it a generational thing? It makes sense that reporters whose defining moment is Watergate would strike a different balance than the old World War II correspondents did. But I can't think that's all the story. I think George W. Bush, and in particular his prosecution of the war in Iraq, has changed things. After all, the reason Dan Rather was being asked what he meant by "we" was that his questioner thought Dan was refusing to report on American war crimes committed in Kosovo.
There are people in this country who would accept American defeat as an acceptable price to see George W. Bush defeated. Are mainstream journalists among them? I sure hope not.
--ABDUL ALEM
In 1999, while at the National Press Club speaking about the US-led intervention in Kosovo, Dan Rather was questioned by an Arab-American journalist on his use of the word "we" when speaking of American soldiers.
Question [Sam Husseini]: Thank you. I was struck by your comments just now about when you say "we" took out the lights. ... And it troubles me when you say "we" when your talking about the U.S. government when you're, presumably, a journalist and an independent journalist.
Rather responded:
Dan Rather: Fair question. ... I understand what you're saying, and I may be wrong about this. I've asked myself any number of times. But, you know I'd like to think I didn't just tumble off the turnip truck. I've been around the world a few times. I've been in a few places. I've had to think through this business of "we." I think, if I may guess from the nature of the way you asked the question, you have a different view, and I respect it. But I'm an American reporter. Yes I'm a reporter and I want to be accurate. I want to be fair. But I'm an American. I consider the U.S. government my government. So yes I do?when U.S. pilots in U.S. aircrafts turn off the lights, for me, it's "we." And about that I have no apology. I think you and I are maybe on different sides of the street about that and it doesn't do any good for me to try and kid you. I'm an American, and I'm an American reporter. And yes, when there's combat involving Americans, you can criticize me if you must, damn me if you must, but I'm always pulling for us to win.
Figuring out the appropriate way to balance love for your country and the desire to report facts objectively must be tough; I don't envy Rather his job. But I think his answer was admirable. He loves his country. He's an American. He's a patriot. Good!
Not only do I like it because I also love America, I like this answer because I think the best way to deal with the problem of biases interfering with objectivity is to simply be explicit about your own biases and let other people judge how these biases might skew you towards the subjective.
Three years later, Rather was interviewed by the BBC and had a few different things to say about patriotism:
"It's an obscene comparison but there was a time in South Africa when people would put flaming tyres around people's necks if they dissented. In some ways, the fear is that you will be neck-laced here, you will have a flaming tyre of lack of patriotism put around your neck. It's that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions and to continue to bore-in on the tough questions so often. Again, I'm humbled to say I do not except myself from this criticism. "
He's right. It is an obscene comparison. But let's look carefully at the argument. If I understand him correctly, Rather is worried that reporters might refrain from saying something critical of US policy because it might reflect badly on the country. In other words, faced with a choice between being a good journalist and being a good American, Rather fears that many journalists will choose patriotism. (Rather's quote makes it sound like they would do in order to look like good Americans, to avoid being blackballed, rather than for love of country, but I think the argument works the same either way.)
Well, let's examine that proposition. It's hard to say if he's right, because he predicts media silence, which makes it difficult to point to cases where he is right. ("Did you hear what he didn't say? Did you see what they didn't write?") But we can certainly point to instances of the media saying things that made things more difficult for American efforts abroad to succeed.
A notable recent example is the American coverage of the Abu Ghraib prisoner mistreatment scandal. In particular, let's look at CBS, Dan Rather's network. As Chuck Allen points out in an email printed on Instapundit:
It was the DoD that started investigating this before anyone else knew about it. CBS didn't break this story, the DoD did, and they started conducting a proper investigation that could lead to criminal charges under the UCMJ, which is exactly what was called for.
Glenn Reynolds agrees:
CBS wants you to think that they broke this story, but actually they came around pretty late.
This is confirmed by the timeline up at the Mudville Gazette. And reading the story at the CBS website, it certainly seems to me that they want me to think that the investigation happened because of the news story, instead of the other way around.
How does this fit into Rather's flaming-tire-of-patriotism hypothesis? Well, CBS could have presented this story in two ways. Option one: Defense Department is prosecuting bad prison guards. Option two: CBS has learned of bad prison guards. The former makes America look good, the latter makes CBS look good. They chose the latter. I guess Dan Rather, even though he is " always pulling for us to win," managed to convince his colleagues to imply a falsehood that is damaging to American efforts to rebuild Iraq. Way to go, Dan.
I don't think this is exceptional, though. The more I watch the news, the less worried I am that reporters are held back by their patriotism. In fact, most reporters seem pretty eager to prove what objective guys they are by sticking it to America.
Why is this? Is it a generational thing? It makes sense that reporters whose defining moment is Watergate would strike a different balance than the old World War II correspondents did. But I can't think that's all the story. I think George W. Bush, and in particular his prosecution of the war in Iraq, has changed things. After all, the reason Dan Rather was being asked what he meant by "we" was that his questioner thought Dan was refusing to report on American war crimes committed in Kosovo.
There are people in this country who would accept American defeat as an acceptable price to see George W. Bush defeated. Are mainstream journalists among them? I sure hope not.
--ABDUL ALEM
Thursday, May 06, 2004
Amnesty immigrant-national
The Queen of All Evil has this to say about the proposed amnesty for illegal aliens:
As the daughter of legal immigrants, the kind that worked hard -- followed the rules and became citizens only recently, this proposal pissed me off when Bush first suggested it. It's a positive reinforcement of illegal behavior and it's fundamentally unfair to the immigrants that are here legally and to the ones that want to come here.
It's a thorny subject. I have friends who are illegal aliens (students who overstay visas as well as laborers from south of the border). I think they're good folks, and I would be sad to see them go. All the same, I have a big problem with rewarding disobedience to the law.
These friends, as Ted Kennedy said, "live in fear and live in danger of deportation." Why? Because they chose to break the law. When you break the law, you live in fear and danger of being caught and punished. That's good. That's why we have penalties-- to inspire fear in those who might break the law. That's one of the ways we discourage people from committing crimes.
There are obviously people who are so determined to break particular laws that the risk of incurring punishment does not deter them. Skilled and determined felons get past car locks and alarms, but we have them anyway because not everyone is a skilled and determined felon. Eliminating the punishment for any law means that more people have an incentive to break it. If we think that we have a lot of illegal immigrants now, just wait until we stop deporting them.
Clearly, we have a greater demand for immigrants right now than the current quotas supply. So let's change the laws, up the quotas, and let more in. (Of course, the incredible number of illegal immigrants also demonstrates the economic inefficiencies of minimum wage laws, but that's a subject for another post. Maybe I can talk my buddy the economist into tackling that subject.)
Our immigration system is busted and we should fix it. But let's do this by changing the law, not by forgiving those who have broken it. That's a slap in the face to all who refused to sneak in the back door.
--JUAN PENA
The Queen of All Evil has this to say about the proposed amnesty for illegal aliens:
As the daughter of legal immigrants, the kind that worked hard -- followed the rules and became citizens only recently, this proposal pissed me off when Bush first suggested it. It's a positive reinforcement of illegal behavior and it's fundamentally unfair to the immigrants that are here legally and to the ones that want to come here.
It's a thorny subject. I have friends who are illegal aliens (students who overstay visas as well as laborers from south of the border). I think they're good folks, and I would be sad to see them go. All the same, I have a big problem with rewarding disobedience to the law.
These friends, as Ted Kennedy said, "live in fear and live in danger of deportation." Why? Because they chose to break the law. When you break the law, you live in fear and danger of being caught and punished. That's good. That's why we have penalties-- to inspire fear in those who might break the law. That's one of the ways we discourage people from committing crimes.
There are obviously people who are so determined to break particular laws that the risk of incurring punishment does not deter them. Skilled and determined felons get past car locks and alarms, but we have them anyway because not everyone is a skilled and determined felon. Eliminating the punishment for any law means that more people have an incentive to break it. If we think that we have a lot of illegal immigrants now, just wait until we stop deporting them.
Clearly, we have a greater demand for immigrants right now than the current quotas supply. So let's change the laws, up the quotas, and let more in. (Of course, the incredible number of illegal immigrants also demonstrates the economic inefficiencies of minimum wage laws, but that's a subject for another post. Maybe I can talk my buddy the economist into tackling that subject.)
Our immigration system is busted and we should fix it. But let's do this by changing the law, not by forgiving those who have broken it. That's a slap in the face to all who refused to sneak in the back door.
--JUAN PENA
Redemption?
Shawshank Redemption was on again last night. As I watched the last half hour, I commented to my roommate's fiancee that the reason I like this movie is because it ends well. Everyone gets what they deserve. The bad guys get punished and the good guys end up on a beach in Mexico. But even as I said it, I couldn't help but think that it wasn't exactly true. At the end of the movie, Brooks is still dead and so is Tommy. And Andy will carry the scars of his wrongful imprisonment for the rest of his life. Real restitution is impossible for him. But at least he has the satisfaction of knowing that those who mistreated him suffered for their crimes.
That's what I hope to see come out of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. But you can sure punish the guilty. If justice is served, as the Iraqi people rightfully demand, then perhaps we can redeem ourselves of this mistake. Perhaps we can turn this disaster into an opportunity to demonstrate to the world the virtues of the (oft-maligned) American justice system.
The way I read the scriptures, the devil seeks to destroy God's plan and immiserate humanity, but God in his wisdom repeatedly turns diabolical catastrophe into a divine miracle. For instance, the devil leads Adam and Eve into partaking of the forbidden fruit, and they are expelled from the Garden of Eden. But from this seeming disaster springs all of humanity, all of us. Similarly, the Old Testament shows that the royal line of Christ depends on several couplings that were adulterous (Judah and Tamar, David and Bathsheba, etc.). When something bad happens in the scriptures, it often redounds to good because God will not suffer the devil to destroy his handiwork.
Something bad has happened in Iraq, something that could destroy the good work that is going on there. We must not let it. We must turn this to the good and redeem ourselves.
We have fallen off the horse for a moment. Let's cowboy up.
--JAN DEPAUW
Shawshank Redemption was on again last night. As I watched the last half hour, I commented to my roommate's fiancee that the reason I like this movie is because it ends well. Everyone gets what they deserve. The bad guys get punished and the good guys end up on a beach in Mexico. But even as I said it, I couldn't help but think that it wasn't exactly true. At the end of the movie, Brooks is still dead and so is Tommy. And Andy will carry the scars of his wrongful imprisonment for the rest of his life. Real restitution is impossible for him. But at least he has the satisfaction of knowing that those who mistreated him suffered for their crimes.
That's what I hope to see come out of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. But you can sure punish the guilty. If justice is served, as the Iraqi people rightfully demand, then perhaps we can redeem ourselves of this mistake. Perhaps we can turn this disaster into an opportunity to demonstrate to the world the virtues of the (oft-maligned) American justice system.
The way I read the scriptures, the devil seeks to destroy God's plan and immiserate humanity, but God in his wisdom repeatedly turns diabolical catastrophe into a divine miracle. For instance, the devil leads Adam and Eve into partaking of the forbidden fruit, and they are expelled from the Garden of Eden. But from this seeming disaster springs all of humanity, all of us. Similarly, the Old Testament shows that the royal line of Christ depends on several couplings that were adulterous (Judah and Tamar, David and Bathsheba, etc.). When something bad happens in the scriptures, it often redounds to good because God will not suffer the devil to destroy his handiwork.
Something bad has happened in Iraq, something that could destroy the good work that is going on there. We must not let it. We must turn this to the good and redeem ourselves.
We have fallen off the horse for a moment. Let's cowboy up.
--JAN DEPAUW
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Abu Ghraib
I hope the morons who did this end up going to prison for a long time. Not just because they mistreated prisoners. Not just because their disgusting actions defiled the uniforms they wore. Not just because it served as supporting evidence to all those who say, "the liberators are worse than the dictators." For all those reasons, yes. But most of all because they have made it more difficult for us to prevail and more likely that we will go home without having fixed what we broke.
Some have said (or implied) this is no worse than fraternity hazing. Although I was never involved in a fraternity, I think that anyone who takes an serious look at the list of depraved acts which the accused are alleged to have committed can conclude with me that we are not talking about mere harmless pranks. If a fraternity were to act like this, they wouldn't get a pass from the university or the law. They would get kicked off campus and the guilty parties would go to jail. (And I don't just mean them who actually did it.)
This kind of behavior is abhorrent. It is disgusting, reprehensible, and unworthy of an American soldier. That said, most of these actions could not be called torture, although there are plenty of people who have done so. Most, I said. Raping a prisoner (as one soldier is alleged to have done) we can safely call torture. But posing prisoners with dog collars for photographs is not torture. Making male prisoners wear women's underwear is not torture. It is cruel and demeaning, but it is not torture. It is mistreatment. Calling it torture dilutes the meaning of the word and belittles the suffering of those who have in truth been tortured.
By whatever name, though, it's a crime and those responsible need to be punished. Again, not just because of what they did to those prisoners, but because of what they did to America and to Iraq. More on this later.
--JAN DEPAUW
I hope the morons who did this end up going to prison for a long time. Not just because they mistreated prisoners. Not just because their disgusting actions defiled the uniforms they wore. Not just because it served as supporting evidence to all those who say, "the liberators are worse than the dictators." For all those reasons, yes. But most of all because they have made it more difficult for us to prevail and more likely that we will go home without having fixed what we broke.
Some have said (or implied) this is no worse than fraternity hazing. Although I was never involved in a fraternity, I think that anyone who takes an serious look at the list of depraved acts which the accused are alleged to have committed can conclude with me that we are not talking about mere harmless pranks. If a fraternity were to act like this, they wouldn't get a pass from the university or the law. They would get kicked off campus and the guilty parties would go to jail. (And I don't just mean them who actually did it.)
This kind of behavior is abhorrent. It is disgusting, reprehensible, and unworthy of an American soldier. That said, most of these actions could not be called torture, although there are plenty of people who have done so. Most, I said. Raping a prisoner (as one soldier is alleged to have done) we can safely call torture. But posing prisoners with dog collars for photographs is not torture. Making male prisoners wear women's underwear is not torture. It is cruel and demeaning, but it is not torture. It is mistreatment. Calling it torture dilutes the meaning of the word and belittles the suffering of those who have in truth been tortured.
By whatever name, though, it's a crime and those responsible need to be punished. Again, not just because of what they did to those prisoners, but because of what they did to America and to Iraq. More on this later.
--JAN DEPAUW
A stupid question
The blogosphere can be divided in infinite ways, but there are several identifiable and self-identifying groupings. For instance, the Catholic section is St. Blog's, the Jewish section is jBlog, and the Mormon section is the bloggernacle.
This phenomenon is not just limited to religious blog groupings. Bloggers affiliated with the US military are Milbloggers. (Actually, I don't know that this is limited to Americans, but it seems that way to me, ignoramus that I am. Maybe it's just that most bloggers period are American. Anyone who wishes to better inform me is more than welcome.) There are probably other examples that my imaginary readers can point to.
So what do I call the Middle Eastern bloggers? Is there a name? I note that Soundfury has recently started doing a roundup called the carnival of the liberated, but that name was specifically chosen for the Iraqi blogs.
Even defining the boundaries of this hypothetical blog grouping is tough. Most are Arabs, but there are also surely Persians, Kurds, Turks, etc. So the Arab Blogosphere is out. Similarly, I do not know that they are all Muslim, although I suppose that most are. So I don't want to refer to the Blog Umma and leave out Zoroastrians, Druzes, Christians, Sufists, Baha'i, etc. And then of course there is the question of including Israeli Jews in the list.
Leaving aside these problems for the moment, let us consider only the Arab Muslim blogs. What should we call them? Anyone have an idea? Has a name been chosen already?
--REDBEARD
The blogosphere can be divided in infinite ways, but there are several identifiable and self-identifying groupings. For instance, the Catholic section is St. Blog's, the Jewish section is jBlog, and the Mormon section is the bloggernacle.
This phenomenon is not just limited to religious blog groupings. Bloggers affiliated with the US military are Milbloggers. (Actually, I don't know that this is limited to Americans, but it seems that way to me, ignoramus that I am. Maybe it's just that most bloggers period are American. Anyone who wishes to better inform me is more than welcome.) There are probably other examples that my imaginary readers can point to.
So what do I call the Middle Eastern bloggers? Is there a name? I note that Soundfury has recently started doing a roundup called the carnival of the liberated, but that name was specifically chosen for the Iraqi blogs.
Even defining the boundaries of this hypothetical blog grouping is tough. Most are Arabs, but there are also surely Persians, Kurds, Turks, etc. So the Arab Blogosphere is out. Similarly, I do not know that they are all Muslim, although I suppose that most are. So I don't want to refer to the Blog Umma and leave out Zoroastrians, Druzes, Christians, Sufists, Baha'i, etc. And then of course there is the question of including Israeli Jews in the list.
Leaving aside these problems for the moment, let us consider only the Arab Muslim blogs. What should we call them? Anyone have an idea? Has a name been chosen already?
--REDBEARD
Saturday, May 01, 2004
Strategery
Yet another reason the September 11th congressional inquiry panel is a waste of time: They're not interested in what the Bush administration has done since September 11th, 2001 to make sure it never happens again. And we should be talking about the strategy they've pursued since then, because it seems to be working:
The State Department's annual report on terrorism notes that terrorism was at a 30-year low in 2003.
Oh, and what was the second lowest year in the last three decades? 2002.
What does that tell us about the idea that attacking terrorists ends up actually creating terrorists? Well, it's wrong, for starters. It's never made a lot of sense to me. (Is Bin Laden like Ben Kenobi? "Strike me down and I shall become even more powerful than before.") Osama is a very unique guy; similarly his various lieutenants are also pretty unique. Lots of people in their neck of the woods hate America and want to hurt the Zionist Imperialist Crusaders etc. But most of these goombahs don't end up doing anything more than burning flags and chanting slogans. The guys who lead Al Qaeda can not be easily replaced. Killing them or at least keeping them off balance and on the run should help reduce the terror problem.
The same with the fight in Fallujah. Cornering a big bunch of bad guys into one town and then methodically killing them all seems to have been a good idea. The mufsidoon have been so busy getting their brains blown out by Marines that they don't have the time to make improvised explosive devices and use them against troops or regular average Iraqis. Makes sense, doesn't it? Why is this so hard for some people to grasp?
--EL DOLOR
Yet another reason the September 11th congressional inquiry panel is a waste of time: They're not interested in what the Bush administration has done since September 11th, 2001 to make sure it never happens again. And we should be talking about the strategy they've pursued since then, because it seems to be working:
The State Department's annual report on terrorism notes that terrorism was at a 30-year low in 2003.
Oh, and what was the second lowest year in the last three decades? 2002.
What does that tell us about the idea that attacking terrorists ends up actually creating terrorists? Well, it's wrong, for starters. It's never made a lot of sense to me. (Is Bin Laden like Ben Kenobi? "Strike me down and I shall become even more powerful than before.") Osama is a very unique guy; similarly his various lieutenants are also pretty unique. Lots of people in their neck of the woods hate America and want to hurt the Zionist Imperialist Crusaders etc. But most of these goombahs don't end up doing anything more than burning flags and chanting slogans. The guys who lead Al Qaeda can not be easily replaced. Killing them or at least keeping them off balance and on the run should help reduce the terror problem.
The same with the fight in Fallujah. Cornering a big bunch of bad guys into one town and then methodically killing them all seems to have been a good idea. The mufsidoon have been so busy getting their brains blown out by Marines that they don't have the time to make improvised explosive devices and use them against troops or regular average Iraqis. Makes sense, doesn't it? Why is this so hard for some people to grasp?
--EL DOLOR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
