Project For A New Century Of Freedom

2006-09-28T19:51:00.000-07:00

More Responses To Today's Senate Interrogation Legislation

"This legislation turns our system of justice upside down, betrays basic American values of fairness and justice, and undermines the rule of law. It gives the Bush administration a blank check to detain whoever it sees fit, and to use whatever interrogation techniques it wants, without oversight. It deprives detainees of habeas corpus—their right to challenge their imprisonment in the courts—and it may make them vulnerable to the use of secret or coerced evidence. Adding insult to injury, this legislation includes a blanket waiver letting members of this administration off the hook for potential violations of the law. What a disgrace.

"Some senators probably supported this measure because they were worried about being perceived as soft on terrorism. But capitulation doesn’t make them look strong. If they want to win the votes of people who are worried about security, they had better show that they know how to stand up and fight. Unfortunately for our democracy, too many of them have failed to do so today."

The American Civil Liberties Union chimes in:

The American Civil Liberties Union expressed distress as the Senate adopted S.3930, the Military Commissions Act of 2006. That bill is identical to legislation adopted by the House yesterday, and removes important checks on the president by: failing to protect due process, eliminating habeas corpus for many detainees, undermining enforcement of the Geneva Conventions, and giving a "get out of jail free card" to senior officials who authorized or ordered illegal torture and abuse.

"This legislation gives the president new unchecked powers to detain, abuse, and try people at Guantanamo Bay and other government facilities around the world," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "Unfortunately for America, the Senate chose not to deliberate today. Instead, it joined the House and President Bush in jamming through a hastily written bill before running home to try to campaign."

(snip)

Additionally, the bill undermines the American value of due process by permitting convictions based on evidence literally beaten out of a witness or obtained through other abuse by either our government or other countries. Government officials who authorized or ordered illegal acts of torture and abuse would receive retroactive immunity for many of these acts, providing a "get out of jail free" card that is backdated nine years.

(snip)

"Nothing could be less American than a government that can indefinitely hold people in secret torture cells, take away their protections against horrific and cruel abuse, put them on trial based on evidence that they cannot see, sentence them to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and then slam shut the courthouse door for any habeas petition," said Christopher Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "But that’s exactly what Congress just approved."

Last, but certaintly not least, Amnesty International becries passage:

Amnesty International is deeply concerned that today's passage of legislation by the U.S. Senate calls into question the United States' commitment to fundamental principles of justice and fair trials. The "Military Commissions Act," first approved by the House on Wednesday, fails to provide clarification of basic standards for treatment of persons in detention. Instead the bill adds more confusion where illumination was sought.

"Many have looked to the United States, as the world's sole superpower, to set the standard for human rights," said Larry Cox, Amnesty International USA executive director. "However, today Congress has sent the wrong message by refusing to affirm basic, universal standards recognized under human rights and humanitarian law. Rather than steering a clear course to uphold established standards of U.S. and international law, the bill creates new standards that appear to fall short and raise questions about the U.S. government's commitment to American values of due process and integrity.

"Amnesty International commends the senators and members of Congress who voted against this legislation. They took a principled stand by casting an important vote in favor of human rights, the rule of law and our nation's standing in the international community," added Cox.

2006-09-28T19:31:00.000-07:00

Bill Gutting Habeas Corpus Unconstitutional

As bad as this bill being passed today by the US Senate is, the light at the end of the dark tunnel it constructs is the near-inevitability of it being struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. How could it not? It would take some truly remarkable language-twisting to fit the Constitution's instructions about habeas corpus to the intent of this bill. I'll go into more detail as I study the issue more deeply, so in the meantime I'll make a point to link to folks who already have that kind of in-depth insight. I'll start today with Nat Hentoff:

Last June, the Supreme Court (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld) ruled that our federal courts have the power to hear habeas-corpus petitions from detainees on the legal basis for their imprisonment - and the conditions of their treatment. Habeas corpus, the "Great Writ," which has roots at least as far back as the Magna Carta (the year 1215), is embedded in the Constitution as the most fundamental protection against loss of liberty. But in the both acclaimed and denounced bill put through the Senate Armed Services Committee by Republicans John Warner (Virginia), John McCain (Arizona) and Lindsey Graham (South Carolina), habeas-corpus rights have been removed.

(snip)

In the blizzard of expensive TV ads and scathing stump speeches as the midterm elections approach, I doubt if any of the candidates and their supporters will focus on, or even mention, this assault on habeas corpus. But nine retired federal judges have tried to awaken Congress to this constitutional crisis. Among them are such often-honored jurists as Shirley Hufstedler, Nathaniel Jones, Patricia Wald, H. Lee Sarokin and William Sessions (who was head of the CIA and the FBI).

They write, particularly with regard to Sen. McCain's concerns about torture, that without habeas petitions, how will the judiciary ensure that "Executive detentions are not grounded on torture"? The judges also remind Congress that the writ of habeas corpus has been suspended only four times in our history - and then, the Constitution states, only in "Cases of Rebellion or Invasion (when) the public Safety may require it.")

To be sure, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas during the horrors of the Civil War; but in 1866, the Supreme Court declared that action unconstitutional because the civilian courts were still open during the war - as they still are right now.

2006-09-27T13:51:00.000-07:00

Say No To Torture, Yes To Justice

America should never condone torture. Such brutality is contrary to our very being. We are founded on the inherent dignity of humanity, and our inherent fallibility as well. Due to this combination of dignity and fallibility, we have enshrined certain principles, and claimed certain rights, and secured certain protections against tyranny. Equal treatment under the law is one very important principle that cannot be violated. Habeas corpus ought not to be either. If we are truly desiring to spread our principles and way of life and governance to the world, why the hell are we flushing them down the toilet 5 years after 9-11, which has not been repeated here in the homeland? And doing so in a mad rush before a mid-term election? Shame on the president and the GOP.

It's clear to me this needs to be reined in. America must not condone torture. Ever. America must not condone enshrinement of seemingly arbitrary power in a strongman. Ever. We do things a certain way around here, and these are not among them. We are not weak people, and should not be led by cowards to be cowards.

As for suspending habeas corpus, any legislation that deviates from a very literal reading of the Constitution should be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and ideally before then by our elected representatives and never passed into law. One would hope our opposition party would step up to the plate on this. The Constitution is clear on "rebellion" or "invasion" in the case of suspending habeas corpus, and picking people up on foreign battlefields doesn't meet the standard. We cannot allow a liberal interpretation of "rebellion" or "invasion" to be accepted, just to meet the policy goal. We've been twisting our Constitution and language long enough, and if Bush and the GOP really want this, make them get an amendment, as our Founders would have demanded.

More and more it really is starting to look like we're in an enduring struggle for civilization, and freedom, but not from outside threats. If Bush and the GOP want to capitulate in fear to terrorism and suspend our civil liberties tradition, the strong among us should fight them tooth and nail the whole way. We will prevail. Al Qaeda is not an existential threat to us, and neither are any other terrorists and extremists around the world at this point. We can beat them by playing our game, not theirs, and not playing into their strategies. Sometimes, the best strategy is sticking to your guns, and principles, and integrity, no matter the provocation. This is also a show of strength.

2006-09-26T13:20:00.000-07:00

Bush's Double Standard

DeWayne Wickham over at the USA Today pens a thoughtful piece, juxtaposing the cases of Maher Arar and Luis Posada Carriles, on the double standards of the Bush Administration when it comes to terror:

While the flimsiest of evidence caused U.S. officials to hustle Arar off to Syria, a mountain of suspicion about Luis Posada Carriles' involvement in a long list of terrorist acts has not been enough to wrench him out of this country's grip.

Posada is on the lam from Venezuela, where he was awaiting a retrial of charges that he had a hand in the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner that killed 73 people. The Cuban exile denies involvement in that heinous crime, but former counterterrorism specialist Carter Cornick said Posada was "up to his eyeballs" in the bombing, The New York Times reported last year.

The newspaper also reported that Posada once bragged of masterminding a series of bombings of tourist hotels in Cuba in the 1990s, an admission he later recanted. An Italian tourist died in one of those blasts.

But instead of spiriting Posada off to Venezuela, the Bush administration is holding him in an immigration detention center. Rather than accuse him of being a terrorist, it simply has charged him with entering this country illegally.

One possible retort to this double standard charge, if you are so inclined to defend Bush's approach, is that maybe the United States had no idea that Aher would be tortured. Unfortunately, this position cannot be defended by the available evidence, which suggests the contrary.

In sending Arar — whom a Canadian government commission recently cleared of any terrorist ties — to Syria, the Bush administration had good reason to know he would be brutalized.

"Although torture occurs in prisons, torture is most likely to occur while detainees are being held at one of the many detention centers run by the various security services throughout the country, and particularly while the authorities are attempting to extract a confession or information regarding an alleged crime or alleged accomplices," the State Department said of Syria in its 2001 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

To me, these actions by our government are truly shameful, and sacrifice our values for questionable security (and I wouldn't condone sacrificing our values for even certain security, aside perhaps from an exceptionally dire and imminently known threat). One wonders what the Bush Administration has to say about these two cases, and, in his conclusion, Wickham leaves a taste of that, while pronouncing it quite bitter indeed:

Last year, an immigration judge ruled that Posada couldn't be deported to Venezuela or Cuba — countries the Bush administration considers rogue states — because he might be tortured. During an appearance on Telemundo, a Spanish-language TV station, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked whether this decision might affect the world's perception of the Bush administration's worldwide war on terrorism. "We try and intend to apply our standards uniformly, consistently," she said, "but these are issues that have to be decided in the right channels."

In fact, the Bush administration has contradictory standards — one for people who are thought to be enemies of this country, such as Arar, and another for Posada, an accused terrorist, who is the enemy of its enemies.

Why can't we get more refleshingly lucid and blunt op-eds in this country? We sure could use them.

2006-06-15T09:01:00.000-07:00

No Mulligans For Bush (On Iran and Iraq)

The past few days I've been mulling an idea which I'm going to share here, especially as more heat is being generated about and towards Iran. Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a disaster, I think most of us agree now. I've always believed this. As Bush tries to figure out a way out of historical infamy, it seems he's casting his eye towards Iran, and I can only see the arguments now: well, maybe Iraq didn't have what we thought, but we know Iran is going to. So we recycle essentially the same arguments for the Iraq War for justifying aggression against Iran. I know none of this is a new concept for most of us, but the essential idea is to frame this as a "mulligan", and, from there, to question the very notion of Iran being our "enemy" right now.

There's a larger essay in all of this, but I'm going to keep it short and sweet today. I'm not afraid of Iran. If you ask a random politician talking tough about Iran today, you'll probably get back something about American strategic influence being the reason we need to face down Iran. Sure, there are plenty of other reasons - Iran is aggressive and expansionary (laughable), Iran hates Israel and their president is a psycho, Iran is going to get nukes and use them on their neighbors, etc. - but none of these are convincing. Iran's history is not one of aggression, their president has little actual power, and Iran is not likely to develop nukes soon, or to use them once they have them, or to allow them into the hands of terrorists they cannot control.

Ultimately, when this argument to use aggression against Iran goes forward, if it goes forward, we will end up in a place amongst serious thinkers where it's about a power struggle with Iran that we must win because we're a liberal democracy on a hill and they're not. I don't believe that. I'd like Iran to be a liberal democracy as much as anyone, but I have few illusions about that. I'm more interested in helping encourage a unique strain of Islamic democracy that agrees to the most basic rights doctrines. This is not an impossible task, but it gets much more difficult if we treat Iran as an enemy, rather than a competitor.

And, if we look at this honestly, and at Iran as a competitor for influence, wealth and power, what are we worried about? Do you seriously know any American that believes that Iran, especially the way they're set up, is going to be able to out-compete us? Hell no. I'm not afraid of competing with Iran at all, and I'd be much more interested in reconciling with Iran along the lines of a Grand Bargain so that we can get to the important business of living together in the world peacefully, competing with each other in a lot of ways, while also leaving room and enough good will to be able to cooperate on our most pressing global challenges, like global warming, hunger, poverty, the commons, etc.

So Bush gets no mulligans, and his approach, his doctrine, the PNAC, and all that crap should be tossed out the window. The myopia is mind-boggling, and Sun Tzu is surely laughing in his grave at our lack of foresight and wisdom. We can compete with anyone on the global stage, and without being a bully who wants to break the legs of ambitious neighborhood upstarts who want to prove themselves to us. We don't need to be that insecure, or to be a bully. We just need to be America, and in the first place look out for our own, followed by looking out and seeking common ground with those around us to ensure our security (and deal with our common problems and global challenges), while also staking out ground and competing with these folks for whatever it is we're always competing for (God knows we have enough food, water, and shelter to feed Americans a million times over).

I don't want to take away anyone's toys, and at the same time I don't want to sacrifice lives, American or otherwise, for foolish schemes to protect privilege without having to honestly compete for it. Iran does not have to be our enemy, and we can out-compete them and anyone else who comes along, so I'm not worried about being desperate to hold on to what we have now by tilting all the rules and the playing field in our direction. We don't need to do that, and we shouldn't. Not only to save lives from being senselessly sacrificed, but to preserve our honor, and perhaps even our place on that glittering hill.

2006-06-13T18:15:00.000-07:00

Slowly Returning

I'm slowly going to kick this blog back in a bit, though probably not too much, but if anyone wants to get a flavor for it, then I'd start with this archive, which marks the last month of my posting regularly (September 2004), and is more partisan than most everything that came before.

Or, if you prefer unfiltered, non-partisan, anti-war smackdowns, just go back to the mission statement (March 2003), or the first "this war is a fraud" letter, and work your way up (and graciously ignore the few dumb posts that are sprinkled as you go forward), keeping in mind the first two posts really aren't the first, but were actually emails sent out to media organizations and major bloggers before this blog was ever created (I added them since they give the best context to the blog and where I'm coming from, and in the right chronological order).

2006-04-20T00:01:00.000-07:00

Iraq

We can't let things fall apart in and for Iraq. We need to energize. The people should not be manipulated through violence into giving up their own destiny, and surrendering to a strongman. America must withdraw by the end of the summer, so that Iraqis can explore the challenges of self-rule.

2005-11-16T12:15:00.000-08:00

White Phosphorous

If there was any question whether White Phosphorous is a banned chemical weapon under the Chemical Weapons Convention, "to which the U.S. is a party", this ought to clear it up:

The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague. Its spokesman Peter Kaiser was asked if WP was banned by the CWC and he had this to say:

"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.

"If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

Before I speak too soon, however, we have this caveat, which, though not noble by any measure, needs to be considered in determining whether the CAC has been violated:

The US can say therefore that this is not a chemical weapon and further, it argues that it is not the toxic properties but the heat from WP which causes the damage. And, this argument goes, since incendiary weapons are not covered by the CWC, therefore the use of WP against combatants is not prohibited...the United States has not signed up to a convention covering incendiary weapons which seeks to restrict their use.

This convention has the cumbersome title "Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons." Agreed in 1980, its Protocol III covers "Prohibitions or Restrictions on use of Incendiary Weapons."

This prohibits WP or other incendiaries (like flamethrowers) against civilians or civilian objects and its use by air strikes against military targets located in a concentration of civilians. It also limits WP use by other means (such as mortars or direct fire from tanks) against military targets in a civilian area. Such targets have to be separated from civilian concentrations and "all feasible precautions" taken to avoid civilian casualties.

One can imagine that the use of White Phosphorous was not random, and instead was strategized and ordered, and thus vetted by our ever-clever military legal advisors, with the understanding that it would be best if the use of WP was not to become generally known, but, if it did, there was a fallback legal position.

My take is that it is wrong (if not evil) to use a chemical weapon that indiscriminately melts the skin off anyone unfortunate enough to be in the ordinance zone. I'm not saying this in light of the history of war, which has employed much more savage efforts (including our own use of nuclear weapons), but in the language of right conduct and morality, whether true to Christian or other ideals.

2005-11-15T14:44:00.000-08:00

Daily News & Commentary

For the best grassroots review of the previous day's news and commentary on the blogosphere, none is better than Cursor.

Check 'em out.

2005-11-14T11:28:00.000-08:00

Rebuttal To Krauthammer Still To Come

Totally got sidetracked on the Krauthammer piece proclaiming the victory of neoconservatism, so I'll have to go back and review that and put it together, as promised. My recollection is that there really wasn't much to rebut in Krauthammer's piece, due mainly to its near-total triumphalism, full of pronouncements but with little substance to actually criticize. One can always criticize pronouncments as well, by undermining them with rival pronouncements, so that's what I'll probably do. We'll see...

2005-11-14T11:04:00.001-08:00

The Bush Pushback

The Bush Administration is now trying to save its reputation. Having realized that the American people have come to their senses, and concluded that our leadership has brought "shame to our nation", Bush is in damage control mode. His ratings are in the basement, a majority of Americans do not trust him or his leadership, the Democrats are making gains at GOP expense in local races, and his assistant and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, has been indicted for lying about his central role in the Plame leak. In a parliamentary system, Bush would have already been forced to step down or call for new elections. As is, we are not a parliamentary system, and don't want to be, so how best to proceed with a lame duck president who nobody trusts?

This is a tricky issue, because obviously one can look favorably at 2006 prospects for the opposition party to bring some balance to Washington, but ultimately we are conducting an occupation in Iraq and pursuing a campaign against terrorism, and the stakes are high. Are we really to pursue and conduct these activities with a stained, corrupt, and incompetent president unable to lead and govern effectively? To be short, that looks to be the case, but by changing Washington in 2006, and keeping the pressure on the Bush Administration, we can likely demand more accountability and hopefully influence a change of course in our pressing global challenges, which includes far more than neutralizing terrorism, especially in the case of urgent action needed in the global commons as regards climate change, dwindling rainforests, and other ecological crises.

I will be focusing on these issues in my latest return, which hopefully lasts longer than a few days.

2005-08-15T22:06:00.000-07:00

The Rival Project To PNAC Returns

This blog has always been my platform for criticism of the Project For A New American Century. Thus, I named it Project For A New Century of Freedom. The difference is that it's not reserved for Americans, or for American dominance. Rather, it reflects the very American idea that all human beings are born equal, with inalienable rights. Does that mean I'm going to start a crusade to ensure that for the whole world? No, at least not a military crusade. Not aggression, but persuasion. And, believe me, I'm skeptical, and am perfectly happy with a steady expansion of the circle of liberty and democracy.

The subname of the blog, "raising the twin towers of reason and compassion", is an allusion to constructing a world that is less dominated by instrumental reason and technocracy, and better balanced with emphasis on human compassion, decency, and justice. If that sounds postmodern to you, you're right. I'm well acquainted with all of the philosophical schools, including postmodernism, and though I still greatly value solid logic, reasoning, and rhetoric, that does not mean that the choice of frame through which to use our reason is neutral or equal.

Last, this all started because of the approaching war in Iraq, for otherwise I would have paid little attention to the PNAC'ers, assuming their grandiose ambitions were too radical for anybody to get behind. But, lo and behold, 9-11 happened, and hysteria hit the homeland. It was my patriotic duty to play whatever part I could in breaking the spell of the fearmongers, and getting us to focus on the real threats to civilization and humanity.

And, in perfectly synchronicitous timing, Charles Krauthammer is claiming victory for the neoconservatives (PNAC) today, which is simply absurd (I'd felt less compelled to write everyday comfortable that the neoconservatives were digging their own grave, after having proved unable to listen). All I need is motivation, and world events certainly provide them, not to mention easy targets like Krauthammer, which will be the substance of the next post.

2005-04-08T10:56:00.000-07:00

The Pope

He seemed to look out and care for the little guy more than most powerful leaders of powerful organizations, and he was a strong voice in dissent against elective wars. May he rest in peace.

God bless.

2005-04-08T10:31:00.000-07:00

IMF Says Get Ready For High Oil Prices...For Good

The world faces “a permanent oil shock” and will have to adjust to sustained high prices in the next two decades, the International Monetary Fund said on Thursday in the starkest official warning yet about the long-term outlook for energy supplies.

Predicting surging demand from emerging countries and limited new supplies from outside the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries after 2010, Raghuram Rajan, IMF chief economist, said: “We should expect to live with high oil prices.”

“Oil prices will continue to present a serious risk to the global economy,” he added.

Here is a classic example of our failure to act, from a combination of largely individual (citizen) inattention and entrenched special interests dominating social decision-making, on available information pointing to a more optimal (or satisficing) path for us in terms of energy policy and investment.

As it is, we are behind the Japanese and Europeans when it comes to relative investment in alternative energy sources and technologies aside from oil, and we further are conditioned (microeconomically at least), in our daily lives, to artificially low oil prices (for use in our cars and heating our homes).

The result could be disastrous for consumer spending and our economy, not to mention ominous for those who already struggle to pay rent and utilities each month. If we fairly suddenly start paying higher prices for oil-based products, like gas and heating, we are going to have less discretionary income for spending. The effects, if not managed effectively, could lead to a downward spiral for spending, investment, jobs, quality of life, and consumer confidence.

With this in mind, ask yourself how we've backed ourselves into this corner. Why have we not followed the eloquent suggestions of people like Paul Hawken or Amory Lovins?

First, we are not doing a good job at raising and educating citizens in our country. Instead, we seem more focused on producing consumers and specialist labor.

Second, special interests and the oil lobby dominate our politics. Oil, military, and other big industries are allowed to influence our political process and social decision-making in pathological ways. It's time we change.

How do we change though? Do enough of us care or are aware of the problem? That's one issue. And, even if we raise a critical mass, how can we make government more responsive to citizens?

We need to come up with some answers, and hopefully they will result in a new energy direction that honors both economics and ecology (not to mention ethics).

2005-04-06T20:24:00.000-07:00

Slowly But Surely Coming Back

I'm pretty amused about my last post in February, explaining how fired up I am about my imminent return to the blogosphere. Oh well. Here we are in April, and I'm slowly getting around to posting again. Yes, I've been very busy...

So, here are some notes to break the ice again, and I'll be around each day with a new post or two into the future.

punish destruction of documents to impede criminal investigation by 20 years, and offer $1 million award for whistleblowers who can prove document destruction occurred
that would fix the problem

"The EPA's own Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee wrote last year that the proposed EPA rule 'does not sufficiently protect our nation's children.'"

Susan West Marmagas (Physicians For Social Responsibility)

"This rule flies in the face of the best science, the best experts and the public."

Pentagon audit calls "illogical" Halliburton's billing of $27.5 million for delivery of $82,000 in petroleum - suggests bookkeeping error and recommends Halliburton review matter (Halliburton has already defended such billing by labeling as mission-critical in dangerous environment)

ANWAR - government estimates 6-16 million barrels of oil could be potentially tapped - America used 7 million barrels a year - all this controversy over a relatively small and insignifigant amount of oil - and environmentalists contend that far less than the annual oil usage can economically be extracted, not to mention while spoiling undeniable value of the wilderness, and endangering the wildlife therein)

2005-02-17T14:47:00.000-08:00

A Healthy Hiatus...Ends

It's been 5 months since I've left this blog on hiatus. Duty called elsewhere. Occasionally, I would still pop around elsewhere in the blogosphere, but for the most part I was idle. Idle in this environment, that is. I've still been following current events, the Bush victory, reading like mad, formulating plans, and synthesizing doctrines, along with just living and working, and it's good. The break has been refreshing, but now is the time to reengage.

This evening I'll start putting up posts again - on social security, on media issues (consolidation/control/propaganda), on the freedom of information, on ecological sanity and economics, on political and economic stewardship [i.e. presidential, congressional, and grassroots leadership] that puts people first - and I hope it will contribute something.

On a parallel track, I'll be rolling out the new format for this blog, which will allow for greater organization and search capability of past posts, and will incorporate a few new sections, like book reviews, that fit better with a topical organization than the linear chronological diary format.

Peace.

2004-09-17T04:51:00.000-07:00

Former Republican Head of EPA Thrashes Bush On Environment

We all probably suspect by now that Bush will have the worst environmental record of any modern president. From Day One, he has set out to dismantle and undermine our environmental laws - endangering our children, and their children, and their children, and so on.

As an elite, super rich, out of touch, fortunate son, Bush probably doesn't think his children and their children will be effected. No, they'll build an ivory tower and a moat around Crawford and everything will be just dandy for the Bushies.

For the rest of us, however, the guy is a menace. Environmental consciousness is sanity, not lunacy or irrationality. We live in a complex ecology, built up for millenia. We have every reason to want to tread gently in our world - at least as gently as we can. Bush is like a drunken cowboy stomping through the tulips, when what we need is a persuasive leader who can lead the nation in the right direction, even if we're all not educated in the nuances of the particular policies.

With that in mind, this is a cogent statement, from a former head of the EPA and a Republican, who is shocked and appalled by Bush's (lack of) leadership and performance in regards to our environment.

One of the earliest heads of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and a lifelong Republican joined a group of Minnesota Republicans on Tuesday in a blistering attack against President Bush's environmental policies.

Russell Train, who headed the EPA under Presidents Nixon and Ford, called the Bush administration's environmental record over the past four years appalling and filled with paybacks to special interests.

In an interview and at a news conference at the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Train accused Bush of systematically weakening environmental laws, promoting reckless development on public lands and appointing people with conflicts of interests to key posts.

"He represents a turning back of the clock, environmentally,'' said Train, who, as national chairman of Conservationists for Bush in 1988, supported the environmental policies of Bush's father.

A turning back of the clock indeed. Like we're in a disturbing episode of the Twilight Zone. Kerry is right about Bush - our president lives in a fantasy world based upon John Wayne movies and Big Trouble In Little China, and meanwhile all our delicate ecological china is getting busted up.

We can't tolerate 4 more years of Bush, if only due to the lack of action that will take place on our environmental crises and challenges, not to mention the other global challenges we face, in regards to the global commons, that require urgent and cooperative action amongst individual, civil, state, and global actors.

Noone is less qualified to lead such an effort, or less likely to, than Bush.

"REP Minnesota exists to remind our party that if we are ever to find our way clear of a path toward further environmental degradation, Republicans must return our party to the conservative, conservationist tradition of Teddy Roosevelt and the bipartisan spirit of the 1960s and 1970s, which produced the majority of our modern environmental legislation,'' he said.

As the second EPA administrator, Train witnessed the creation of many of those laws. What he said he never witnessed was the widespread interference in regulatory decision-making that he said is being undertaken by the Bush administration.

"In my time, I do not ever recall ever having an instance of the White House telling me how to make a regulatory decision,'' said Train, who contends the public should be infuriated by the administration's willingness to use political muscle to make those scientific decisions.

The article ends with Train (who plans to vote for Kerry) puzzling over why the environment hasn't been a bigger issue and factor in the election so far, and why Kerry hasn't been highlighting "that to a greater advantage".

I'm wondering the same thing.

***

We don't necessarily need a big environmental agenda, per se, as its own issue. We just need to honor our environmental challenges, and integrate our ecological insights, into the other issues - embedded, interdependent, and synergistic - true to ecological form.

For instance, proposals for greatly stepping up public and private investment in alternative energy and renewables will strengthen the economy, by encouraging greater efficiency and productivity in energy and materials, not to mention being a big job growth engine.

Our security will be enhanced over the long run if we become more independent of energy imports from any particular world region, and better utilize the energy we do import in areas where local production is not feasible or economically viable.

Our health will be improved, and health care costs go down, if we assure ourselves cleaner air and water, protecting ourselves and our children from modern diseases like asthma, not to mention cancers, ADHD, and depression, among other ailments likely caused by the rampant and disregulated dumping of chemicals into our environment.

All of these operating together, in a positive synergy, aren't stifling our economy and vibrance as a society, they're making us fitter and more innovative. This isn't old-school "tree-hugging" we're talking about, but new school economics and natural capitalism. We need to be able to step up and compete in the global economy while at the same time being able to participate and cooperate in the challenges and crises of the global commons.

This is how we go forward and do that. By integrating ecological and scientific insights into our way of life, day to day and over the long term, instead of stifling and distorting science and information for ideological and political purposes, and in favor of special interests, like the Bush Administration.

2004-09-06T22:54:00.000-07:00

9/06 - Time To Have A Look At Bush's Leadership And Verifiable Performance

Today is 9/06, and you'll know what I mean shortly. Though 9/11 has often been described as something that ought not be used for political reasons (and ought not to be), Bush has violated this to the point where adhering to this would only be a handicap in determining who ought to be our president in 2005.

Many on the Right, and many Republicans, have over the months since 9/11 cast aspersions that it was Clinton's fault, for this and that reason (neglecting this, overemphasizing that) that 9/11 happened, and that Bush wasn't responsible, even though he was president when 9/11 happened, i.e. it occurred on his watch, and for over 10 months at that point (how long does it take to start doing your job?).

But that's not the point of little essay, just part of the motivation. What is 9/06? It's about who is more fit to be our commander-in-chief, and an examination of Bush claims that he is the heroic and decisive leader we need in this time of historical crisis.

9:06 AM

Bush is in a Booker Elementary School second-grader classroom. His chief of staff, Andrew Card, enters the room and whispers into his ear, "A second plane hit the other tower, and America's under attack."

Intelligence expert James Bamford describes Bush's reaction: "Immediately [after Card speaks to Bush] an expression of befuddlement passe[s] across the President's face. Then, having just been told that the country was under attack, the Commander in Chief appear[s] uninterested in further details. He never ask[s] if there had been any additional threats, where the attacks were coming from, how to best protect the country from further attacks.... Instead, in the middle of a modern-day Pearl Harbor, he simply turn[s] back to the matter at hand: the day's photo op."

At 9:06am, Bush knew we were under attack, that not just any plane crashed into the WTC, but a hijacked plane. Bush did nothing, and sat with children for over 10 minutes, even as another hijacked plane would soon after crash into the Pentagon, and another into the ground in Pennsylvania.

Is this leadership?

Bush and his team didn't need knowledge of the second plane crashing into the WTC to know America was under attack. It was already well known that Flight 11 had been hijacked, as the pilot had secretly turned on communications from the plane to ground control (allowing them to overhear the hijackers), and as two of the flight attendants had been on the phone with authorities describing dead passengers, stabbed flight attendants, bombs, and hijackers in the cockpit.

This all happened well before 9:06am, but something else occurred at 9:06am that leaves no doubt what was going on:

9:06 AM
All air traffic facilities nationwide are notified that the Flight 11 crash into the WTC was probably a hijacking. [House Committee 9/21/01; Newsday 9/23/01]

Indeed, at 8:43am it was known by NORAD that Flight 175 (2nd plane into WTC) was hijacked, and this information must have been transmitted to Bush, or everyone in a leadership position should have been fired.

So, how do we evaluate our commander-in-chief, on the day that "changed everything", on the day that Rudy Guilani thought to himself, "thank God that George W. Bush is president"?

We can only go by the available information. Our commander-in-chief sat in a classroom, continuing a photo op, and reading a children's story, while America was being attacked, while it was known that multiple planes were hijacked, while two of these planes had already crashed into the World Trade Center, and while confusion reigned in our real-time response!

Some leadership.

If anything, the timeline of Flight 77 (which crashed into the Pentagon at 9:38am) will tell us all we need to know about the performance of our commander-in-chief. He was not our commander-in-chief, at that moment, as he was not engaged. If someone ran into the room and told him muggers were assaulting his daughter in the next room, would he just sit there and continue to reading to children, or would he jump up and go help his daughter?

Is he really in charge? How could he not jump into action? If you had told me America was under attack, under my watch, as president, I would have instantly formed a war room. I couldn't imagine being president/commander-in-chief and not engaging with an attack on the country in favor of a photo op with kids reading a story about a goat - just as I couldn't imagine not coming to the defense of a family member being assaulted in the next room.

And the response after that, with the Secret Service flying him all over the country, is even more abominable. What's more important as a first priority: protecting the president, or having the commander-in-chief take action and lead in our defense!

George Washington, the great president, leader, and warrior, must be rolling in his grave, and nodding his head in agreement: George W. Bush must be fired, as he has already shown himself clearly to be unfit to be commander-in-chief!!!

Indeed, he makes one wonder if this is even true, that the president really is our commander-in-chief, and really in charge, or just some symbolic king that needs protection before the protection of our nation that he ought to be leading the defense.

9/06. Today is 9/06. Evaluate accordingly.

2004-09-03T01:42:00.000-07:00

More On Max Boot, and His Rhetoric

There is plenty of precedent for guerrillas trying to affect a U.S. election. In 1900, American troops were embroiled in another nasty counterinsurgency halfway around the world that was not going as well as planned. After the Democratic nominee, William Jennings Bryan, promised to pull out of the Phillippines, the insurrectos launched a fall offensive in order to secure his election.

Is there any evidence to back up Max's statements, or is he merely providing testimony riddled with assocation equals causation fallacies? As a reminder, association does not equal causation, so one would expect at least a sliver of evidence here to support the claim, rather than a timeline. As I mentioned in the last post, I went looking for evidence, and at least on Google, there doesn't seem any to be found.

And this seems to bespeak a problem we have with media, and specifically our editorial writers. In the old days, it wasn't really feasible to put all your evidence, or even footnotes, in the op/ed, because you're obviously limited in space, needing to keep your spiel within a certain number of words (not much unlike Fahrenheit 9-11, I might add, which is like a documentary op/ed, and clearly couldn't have balanced every argument and still provided as much information or remained as entertaining for moviegoers).

In these prior days, one would expect that editors would at least vet op/ed submissions for truth claims, and expect documentation to back them up. It's one thing to state an opinion on a matter, quite another to make the categorical statement (a truth claim) that "there is plenty of precedent for guerrillas trying to affect a U.S. election".

And keep in mind that I'm not saying Max is wrong, but only that I would expect the editor of a newspaper to be able to query Max on his truth claims, even if this is not available to the reader, before allowing it to be printed. In addition, now that we are in the Internet age, there is no reason that these footnotes ought not be provided in the web version of op/eds.

These thoughts are not only motivated by Max. I've noticed a disturbing trend of letters to the editor, in various newspapers, that make categorical and clearly false claims about the Berger affair involving the National Archives, directly lying and mischaracterizing the facts of this episode, which are that Berger was always working with copies, and not originals (not to mention noone 'on record' seemingly having yet confirmed the 'pants and sock stuffing' accusations).

The letters to the editors all share in common claims that Berger could have destroyed evidence and hindered the 9-11 investigation, even though the 9-11 Commission itself has issued a public statement that the Berger investigation had no impact on its activities, and that there was no risk that documents were kept from the commission due to this affair.

This seems an easy and obvious enough intervention for an editor to make, in determining whether an op/ed, either from a reader or paid contributor, is worthy of being published. If it's frankly false, based upon the available information, not in the opinion portion but in the truth claims supporting the opinion, then the submission should be rejected, or at least corrected for truth claims in an editor's note following the item.

***

I first noticed the Berger letters to the editor in the Orange County Register, sometime in the past month, which devoted an entire page of Berger-focused letters to the editor that were infested with obviously false truth claims (apparently not bothering the so-called reason loving editors of this rag, notorious for its overt libertarian character).

2004-09-02T15:49:00.000-07:00

Max Boot - Pacifying The Phillippines, English Language

Max Boot in today's LA Times:

There is plenty of precedent for guerrillas trying to affect a U.S. election. In 1900, American troops were embroiled in another nasty counterinsurgency halfway around the world that was not going as well as planned. After the Democratic nominee, William Jennings Bryan, promised to pull out of the Phillippines, the insurrectos launched a fall offensive in order to secure his election.

They failed. Republican William McKinley was reelected, and the U.S. went on to pacify the islands.

Before I get on to my criticism of Max Boot, and the abuse of the English language and history by referring to pacifying the Phillippines, an interesting observation arises from this. First, granting (for a moment) the Phillippine insurrection was motivated "to secure...election" of William Jennings Bryan, if Filipinos could have looked into a crystal ball at that time, it would be hard to fault them for resisting and hoping to influence a U.S. election, since they would have seen that over the course of their pacification, from 1899-1903, 200,000 Filipino civilians died, along with another 25,000 rebels (insurgents/resisters/local militia).

American occupation forces identified their objective as the capture of Aguinaldo. They initially perceived conquest and pacification as dependent on the fall of the Aguinaldo government. Because of their superiority in weapons, they also believed that the war would be short and swift in their favor. But the Americans were shocked at the courage and tenacity of the Filipinos who dragged the Americans into several years of battle.

The Filipinos waged a guerrilla warfare which was suitable for the country’s terrain and their limited firearms. Many of them were peasants by day and revolutionaries by night. They were sustained in their struggle by the unrelenting support of entire towns...receiv[ing] food, supplies, and shelter from the people. It was dangerous for an American to stray away from the U.S. garrison lest he be hacked to death by the guerrillas and their sympathizers.

Towards the end of 1900, the Americans declared martial law. To combat guerrilla warfare, they launched a scorched-earth "pacification" campaign. Every Filipino was viewed as an enemy regardless of whether he or she took up arms. Entire towns were held responsible for the actions of guerrillas. Mere objection to the Americans was termed treason. Villages sympathetic to the guerrillas were burned and people indiscriminately killed. Torture was systematically used to elicit information from suspected guerrillas or their sympathizers. One form of torture was the "water cure" treatment where the victim was forced to drink excessive amounts of water after which he was stomped on the stomach. One U.S. soldier bragged in a letter that Americans were shooting Filipinos "like rabbits."

Part of the strategy was the introduction of "reconcentration", a policy of hauling thousands of Filipinos (whom Americans referred to as their "little brown brothers") into concentration camps to flush out the guerrillas among them and to cut their material support to the resistance movement. In the process of reconcentration, whole towns suffered from starvation and disease. Villagers were taken from their sources of livelihood and were not decently fed. Worse, living conditions were less than adequate, with people confined in overcrowded camps without proper sanitation. Camps then became breeding grounds for the spread of deadly diseases such as cholera.

The guerrilla war for independence did not immediately end with Aguinaldo’s capture on March 23, 1901; the insurrection lasted until July 1902. In the end, it took over three years to “pacify” the Philippines. More than 120,000 American soldiers served in the Philippines, 4,200 of whom died. It was estimated that 25,000 Filipino rebels and 200,000 civilians also died.

Let's leave aside the imaginative scenarios, and the torture and murder of hundreds of thousands of Filipinos by a Republican hero and American president, and get to the point of this essay. Does pacification mean concentration camps, torture, murder, burning villages, declaring any dissent as treason, and systematic wiping out of locals and villages to secure an environment for American investment and markets? Methinks pacification is not the right word, or we should change our opinion of the "sense" of this word (i.e. negatively like 'cleansing').

Further, should we be bringing up this adventure in any way other than with profound sorrow and regret? Do we really consider the systematic rape, torture, murder, and repression of Filipinos (our "little brown brothers") as a success to be emulated?

Last, there are some very clear parallels from the passage quoted above, in terms of the assumptions and the consequences of those assumptions by the president and military planners, and the current situation in Iraq. So there is no excuse for President Bush to claim that he could not have been prepared for the events there.

In the Phillippines adventure, we had such superior firepower, we felt the war would be easy. Only after we made our initial advance, did we determine they had no intention of fighting us in a conventional way that would reflect our superiority, and instead melted into towns and the populace and engaged in guerrilla warfare.

When all was said and done, this shameful adventure should have taught us something, just as Vietnam should have taught us something. But, it seemingly hasn't. Not only that, but our leaders seem to want us to believe that they're not even aware of the mistakes made in these adventures, which seem to be largely the same as we've made in Iraq. We never should have invaded Iraq as we did, and when we did, and even having done so there is no excuse for our poor planning.

And, to my knowledge, there is no basis for Max Boot's claim that the Filipinos actively sought to influence the 1900 U.S. presidential campaign. I'm not saying it isn't true, but from a short, cursory search, I find no evidence for this claim, and Boot offers none in its defense.

***

(Postscript)

Today, the Right continues their campaign to rehabilitate military action in the wake of Vietnam, even by attempts to redefine and rewrite the history of Vietnam itself. Max Boot, unwittingly, has even brought up our epic failures and atrocities of the Phillippines, which have been largely ignored to date, as part of this effort. The clear lesson of history, of both of these campaigns, is that military invasions and brutalization of local peoples by foreigners (we being the foreigners in these cases) ought only be justified under the most stringent requirements, where our safety is imminently threatened, with full private and public review, and if we do take action every effort should be made to have every expert voice heard so that we do it right, and always act with an eye towards peace.

The world hasn't changed that much since the last century turned, as we can see. The battles that Mark Twain and William James, among others, were fighting against deviant political, corporate, and military elites, and for human decency, respect, and dignity, are still going on full bore. Don't fool yourself. That's why there is 500,000 people in the streets of New York, and millions more around the world before the Iraq invasion.

For a short synopis of the Anti-Imperialist League, and its initial platform, follow this link. For an update of what you can do today, start here.

2004-09-02T02:02:00.000-07:00

Our Brilliant Blog Hubs

It seems every one of the most populous and trafficked blogs on the Left has embraced and adopted Michael Baruba. They must feel this will really influence people, that Beruba comes up with mildly amusing allusions to surrealists.

This is exactly what's wrong with the blogosophere. The ones who have gained the most advantageous position, the most traffic hits, somehow feel a wannabe political surrealist writer is the next guy to plug, and they infect everyone else with his witty but irrelevant analysis, which has nothing to do with the real world.

Why do they all hit him at the same time? Collusion? It doesn't make sense. I've seen Beruba's name instantaneously all over the heavy hitter blogosphere, and his analysis is nothing to brag about. It's a bit witty, but I'm a surrealist zen poet, and I don't pretend to throw around Breton's name like people care, or even that's he is a great poet.

Now, Robert Desnos is a great poet.

The point of all this is that the blog leadership just have no clue at all what people want to hear, and especially everyday American people. I suspect they don't know these people. Do they ever hang out in bars in non-university towns? I doubt it. They're apparently all a bunch of intellectual wonks who don't know the pulse of American voters just living their lives.

On this site, the pulse is reflected, along with a fidelity to the values we learned as children growing up in our schools. Patriotic values. My arguments, and my little pithy essays, are the kind of communication that works across ideological boundaries. Do I feel special? Hell no. I just care about my country, my friends, my neighbors, and our freedom. But the gateways are too easily entranced by some pretender who drops Breton a few too many times for anyone who plans on voting Democrat to take seriously.

A few words of advice. If this election goes bad, the Democrats will have nowhere to hide, and they won't be able to find comfort in thinking that surrealists or situationalists ever cared about their propaganda or platform. That's just plain fact.

I'm a poet. A zen poet. A lover of surrealism. Read Baruba, he's kind of funny, but keep in mind he will have no impact on this election. I hope our lead bloggers get over their infatuation, and start pointing to everyday arguments that will actually mean something to potential voters.

***

I went a little overboard with the use of 'clown' and so on in this post last night. Mark it down as frustration at our continuing national dysfunctionality when it comes to dealing with political issues and challenges. I've edited it a bit, to smooth it out, while not losing the message. Let it be said that Baruba is pretty funny too, and I enjoyed his writing the first time I was steered to it. Later, I got annoyed, but it's no fault of Baruba's for people digging his material. Peace.

2004-08-31T15:24:00.000-07:00

Washington Post Bashes Bush Administration Secrecy

So some of you don't take this wrong, in a partisan way, it is quite obvious that the trends between the balance of openness and secrecy have dramatically shifted to secrecy during the Bush Administration. The Clinton Administration was remarkably open, and erred on the side of openness.

The Bush Administration, like its GOP predecessors George Bush (the elder), Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon, are about unparalleled levels of secrecy, back-room deals, and off-the-books military operations around the globe. The deals and operations that are going on in the dark wouldn't be going on in the light, and, for the most part, there's little defense for any of the scandals, from Nixon to Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal, to justify allowing these to happen without Congressional oversight and in denial of the balance of powers and the American way.

"It is no secret that government classifies too much information," Mr. Leonard [director of the National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office] said. "What I find most troubling . . . is that some individual agencies have no idea how much information they generate is classified, whether the overall quantity is increasing or decreasing, what the explanations are for such changes . . . and most importantly of all, whether the changes are appropriate."

Mr. Leonard, in response to questioning from Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), added that the amount of material "that shouldn't be classified in the first place . . . over the past year is disturbingly increasing" and that on discretionary calls he feels the government gets it wrong more than half the time.

Ms. Haave [undersecretary of defense for counterintelligence and security] also candidly acknowledged that "I do believe that we over-classify information" and she described the problem as "extensive," though "not for the purpose of wanting to hide anything." Pushed by Mr. Shays to quantify the over-classifica tion, she said, "How about if I say 50-50?"

Unnecessary secrecy erodes public confidence in government. It makes it impossible to take at face value government assertions that information is genuinely sensitive -- even when it is. And in a post-Sept. 11 world, needless secrecy is downright dangerous insofar as it prevents the open sharing of information that ought to have many different pairs of eyes examining and analyzing it.

There are a lot of problems with secrecy. An emphasis on transparency, and the absence of secrecy, encourages more accountability from our leadership, as they will not be able to hide embarrassing or criminal activities, or facts and results of their operations that are failures.

Transparency also removes the cover from which corruption and cronyism thrive. All over the world, we are infected with an epidemic of elite deviance and malfeasance, as authority figures mix between business and politics and enrich themselves at the expense of the people, their interests, and even in many cases their freedom. We are no different here in America, with cases popping up recurrently, from the BCCI episode to today's Enron and Halliburton, and though we remain open enough in America to uncover some of these things, the trend is disturbing, and, in the case of Enron, we only found out after total failure, with the complicity (absence of action) from the President (a good friend of the leader of Enron), that Enron gamed the energy crisis in California and screwed us in the immediate aftermath of Bush's election (this never would have happened on Gore's watch).

Further, our society is divided in an unprecedented, and unhealthy, way. Conspiracies and myths thrive amongst the people. A commitment to transparency and the freedom of information would go a long way to dispelling conspiracies and beginning to heal the hearts and minds of Americans, and encourage reconciliation and recognition of common beliefs, goals, and challenges again, rather than the wedge demagoguery that holds American politics hostage today, along with our hearts and minds.

From this corner, this site, this man, you will never, ever sense a hint of surrender. I am going to keep banging on the doors, and using my little axe, to free the flow of information so that it goes both ways, from the people to the state and from the state to the people, and to knock down the tall trees of corruption and cynicism that infect not only America, but the globe.

2004-08-30T11:50:00.000-07:00

Lao-Tzu Comments On Leadership

A leader is best
when people barely know
that he exists,
not so good
when people obey
and acclaim him,
worst when they despise him.
“Fail to honor people,
they fail to honor you”;
but of a good leader,
who talks little,
when his work is done,
his aim fulfilled,
they will say
“we did this ourselves.”

In other words, when 200,000 people are on the streets of New York wanting your removal, a leader does not dismiss them, or disparage them, or ignore them, but ought wonder how to engage them, why they scorn him, and mourn the failure to bring them together under more favorable circumstances, so they feel their will is being done, and not being trampled.

2004-08-30T11:04:00.000-07:00

On Bush's Leadership Style

The Washington Post has done some thorough (and balanced) background work and analysis on Bush's leadership style:

Many of Bush's admirers describe him as a leader who asks tough, probing questions of advisers but also say he is a person who, once he picks a goal, never looks back. Even strong supporters sometimes worry that his curiosity and patience seem limited, while detractors see him as intellectually lazy and dependent on ideology and sloganeering instead of realism and clear thinking. Because he has a relatively small set of advisers, dissenting voices are effectively muffled.

Dissenting voices are muffled? Not the stuff of true leadership. This article has a few little anecdotes from Christine Whitman, for instance, former head of the EPA, complaining of not being heard and essentially shunted aside. With Bush's lack of interest in the environment, and its value to us and our children, this may not be so surprising, but it is not limited to what Bush may perceive as core liberal, anti-business issues.

Fred I. Greenstein, a Princeton University political scientist and authority on presidential leadership styles, said Bush's clarity of purpose reduces the tendency in government to let matters drift, but too often "results in a vision that may be simplistic or insufficiently examined or something that undermines itself."

(snip)

In other cases, though, Bush has allowed crises to fester. Bush has never resolved deep disagreements within his war cabinet about how to deal with North Korea, with the result that the isolated nation, which had appeared close to a missile deal with the Clinton administration, has quadrupled its stockpile of nuclear weapons, from two to eight, during Bush's tenure.

On North Korea, Bush has been torn between the engagement recommended by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and the no-compromise stance taken by Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Often, insiders say, diplomatic initiatives are decided at the last minute, apparently on the basis of the position of the person who gets in the last word. The shifting script, foreign diplomats involved in the talks say, has often left other countries confused about the administration's approach -- and the crisis over North Korea's nuclear program unresolved.

It's this kind of myopia or narrow-sightedness on particular issues, like Iraq, while allowing other important crises and challenges to fester, like North Korea, Burma, and the environment, that seems to mark Bush's administration. As the leader of this administration, we have to judge him on it, and there seem to be many more failures than successes, and most of these might possibly be explained by his cavalier and ideologically restrained management and stifling of the free flow of information.

One of the most persistent criticisms of Bush is that he operates in a largely closed loop with little input from outside experts, relying on longtime confidants, many of whom came with him from Texas. Just as Bush has claimed to read mostly newspaper stories selected by his staff, he also relies on just a few people for most of his ideas about the world.

Again and again, people who know Bush refer to the filter around him. John M. Bridgeland, who was the first director of Bush's Domestic Policy Council and then ran USA Freedom Corps, the president's national-service initiative, said Bush "wants only the highly relevant information he needs to make an informed judgment."

The only problem with this is that when he is getting his information from known hysterics like Dick Cheney (sorry Dick, any credibility you may have had is now gone, with your Iraq WMD performance), and a packed truth squad of the likes of Douglas Feith, there's little wonder that Bush was not able to see the forest for the trees. Leadership demands that you ask the tough questions, from the pool of all available information, so that you are not blind-sided, and your efforts, which afterall represent the nation and the people you are leading, have the best chance of fitness and success, rather than catastrophic success and/or failure.

But critics say that Iraq illustrates the risks of an approach that narrows the definition of a problem and fails to look at the ramifications of a proposed solution. Accounts of Bush's decision-making about Saddam Hussein describe repeated and detailed briefings on plans for the military assault on Iraq. But no such attention appears to have been directed toward the ethnic and religious differences within that country or on plans for pacification after the hoped-for military victory. In recent interviews, Bush has acknowledged that he misjudged the political and social climate of Iraq and therefore was unprepared for the resistance that has cost so many American lives.

Some administration officials complained that one problem with Bush's reliance on his gut instincts is that often officials who have to sell or implement a policy are unsure how he arrived at it. The president told Woodward in "Bush at War": "I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel I owe anybody an explanation."

As for being unsure at how he arrives at his decisions, you can count the American people and world as well. For a while, half of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-11, among other fanciful and numerous theories of why we went to war in Iraq. As a particular reason has been shot down, like WMD, it is merely replaced with one of other half-dozen reasons chosen. This may be effective for Lincoln-Douglass debate, but it is hardly the measure of a good leader, and flexibility ought to be reserved for action, and not rationalizations and excuses if a stubborn policy that doesn't consider changing course (or it's too late the course is committed) needs new reasons to support it.

A variety of academic researchers have conducted in-depth studies of Bush's decision-making style, and several of them have found that greater curiosity about the nitty-gritty details of policy substance, and less hasty decision-making, could have saved him considerable grief.

Greenstein, for one, said: "People no longer think he's dumb or not capable, but he clearly does not consider downsides and alternatives. Decisiveness is a good thing, unless you're leaping to the gun."

Alexander L. George, a Stanford University professor emeritus of political science and author of a text about presidential decisions, said Bush "does not look for complexity."

"He doesn't appear to have second thoughts about anything, which is worrisome when things aren't going so well," George said.

2004-08-30T04:08:00.000-07:00

Senator Leahy Bashes Bush Administration On Secrecy, Defends Freedom of Information

Support just keeps coming in from all corners in the struggle for the freedom of information, transparency, and accountability. U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy lights up the Bush Administration for excessive secrecy and non-cooperation with Congress in a cogent editorial in the Detroit Free Press:

The public's right to know is one of the foundations of our freedoms and our democracy. Knowing what our government is doing promotes accountability and trust and lubricates the checks and balances that make our system work.

That is why Congress' oversight role, reporting by a free press and tools like the Freedom of Information Act are so vital.

But the pendulum has swung so far away from openness in recent years that it is silently and steadily eroding the public's right to know. And when structural protections like FOIA are weakened, the erosion can be rapid, and lasting.

Ironically, at the same time government agencies are quietly...[gathering] more information about each of us, it is becoming harder for Americans to learn what government agencies are up to...rightly becom[ing] a serious concern for Americans, [and] sparking calls for greater openness.

(snip)

[And]...when it comes to congressional oversight, cooperation from the current administration has been sparse and grudging...Oversight letters from Congress to the Justice Department have gone unanswered for months or even years...Attorney General John Ashcroft has been reluctant to appear before congressional oversight committees...and this, during a period when there is much to be accountable for.

(snip)

We can count on government agencies to issue press releases when they do things right. We need the Freedom of Information Act so we also know when they do things wrong.

(snip)

The free flow of information is a cornerstone of our democracy, and each generation of Americans must fiercely protect this right, for our own sake, and for the generations that will follow us.

Please go read the whole editorial. I've given about half of it here, and making edits was difficult to do, because the whole piece is nothing short of brilliantly stated, and deserves our full consideration.

God Bless Americans like Patrick Leahy.

2004-08-30T02:58:00.000-07:00

Bush, Catastrophic Success, and John Edwards Making Me Laugh Out Loud

In the middle of the night, checking up on the news, getting ready to go to sleep, the last thing I expect to do, while reading a Washington Post story, is start busting out laughing...

Bush...acknowledged...that the administration did not anticipate the nature of the resistance in Iraq, and he said that was his greatest mistake in office. "Had we had to do it over again," he said, "we would look at the consequences of catastrophic success, being so successful so fast that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in escaped and lived to fight another day."

Democrats tried Sunday to exploit that acknowledgment. "The president is now describing his Iraq policy as a catastrophic success," Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards said in Washington. "I, like most Americans, have no idea what that means, but it is long past time for this president to accept personal responsibility for his failures and for his performance." Edwards said the Iraq war "has clearly been a failure."

As funny as this is, in terms of Edwards' witty response, it also continues our discussion about leadership and accountability. Iraq has been, by and large, a terrible failure, or at least all or most of our main expectations and objectives have gone astray. That Bush finally seems to want to acknowledge this, on the eve of the Republican Convention, when people are really going to start paying attention, is not comforting. One only need look at all the failures and embarassment courtesy of the Defense Department to see where President Bush can put some proof in his leadership pudding and fire or accept the resignation of several top individuals.

2004-08-30T00:01:00.000-07:00

Leadership and Accountability

Rudy Guilani seems to have a distorted view of leadership, at least as far as his speech will communicate tonight at the Republican Party Convention:

"In choosing a President, we really don't choose a Republican or Democrat, a conservative or liberal. We choose a leader. And in times of danger, as we are now in, Americans should put leadership at the core of their decision. There are many qualities that make a great leader but having strong beliefs, being able to stick with them through popular and unpopular times, is the most important characteristic of a great leader.

Now, there is something to be said for sticking to your beliefs, in good times and bad, but this alone cannot prove a great, or even good, leader. For, if the ship is astray, a leader needs to be able to change course, to hold those (including himself) accountable for mistakes that hurt the cause for which he/she leads, to transmit confidence in those of us who are looking to our leadership to guide, adapt and adjust to the changing times and circumstances, and most of all to prevent variations or embarrassments in terms of our strongly held beliefs and values. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel editorializes along these lines:

Two reports emanating from the Defense Department last week constitute a powerful indictment of the failure by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his top aides to prevent the abuses that occurred at Abu Ghraib and other military prisons in Iraq and elsewhere. In fact, both reports assert that a failure of leadership helped to create the conditions that led to this scandal.

It is not enough that the atrocities should be documented, blame fixed, apologies offered and corrective action taken; those responsible for what happened at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere need to be held accountable for their actions or their failure to act, no matter their rank. Otherwise, the damage inflicted by this affair - on its victims and on this country's reputation and moral standing around the world - will not be fully healed.

I and many others don't point this out primarily for any partisan political reasons either. We are concerned with the fabric of our society, the increasing trend towards secrecy and plausible deniability, the accompanying decline in accountability and citizen faith in our leadership and governance, not to mention the overall success in our endeavors (as opposed to failures). In America, this is a great scandal right now, that so many of us don't trust our leaders or government, and seemingly as a result we barely manage to get over 50% of the populace to vote, while calling ourselves the greatest democracy and free nation in the world, and also while mucking up so many of our adventures and objectives.

American's trust in government and business continues to falter, often at 40 percent or less according to Brookings, Pew, and others. Similar studies show that distrust is tied to deceptive and dishonest leaders, leaders who rely on myths to create a mantle of leadership. According to Steve Carney of Power Of We Consulting, there are three important leadership myths that cause distrust:

1. It is often said that leadership is about delegation. Telling others what to do reflects a more authoritarian, power-based approach - leadership is not really defined by delegation.

2. Many espouse that leadership is "Bold and decisive action." Cutting in front of another car might seem bold and decisive - it is also reckless and shows poor judgment.

3. Executives and officials often claim, "I didn't know about it," posing as victims to avoid accountability. That is not leadership either.

These statements are common among government and business executives, says Carney. They reflect a cafeteria-style approach to leadership where they choose the things they like (power, glory, status), and ignore the qualities they don't (performance, responsibility, accountability).

According to Carney, management and workplace expert, a true leader is a team player who inspires excellence in achieving a mission or goal for their teams, customers, or citizens - the common good. True leaders use

persuasion rather than domination;
they plan strategically and exercise good judgment;
they empower others and recognize their teams' contributions;
they manage complexity and stay connected to what's going on; and
they rely on facts and information rather than beliefs.

"True leaders lead with honesty and integrity; they are responsible for their decisions and accountable for their actions; they encourage and motivate rather than devalue and demean; they lead by example and avoid deception, manipulation, and scapegoating because they are committed to high standards for leadership.

There's more to Carney's assessment of leadership if you follow the link. If we do anything this election season, beyond getting out the vote and debating the issues, let's try and clearly define the essence and ideal of leadership so that we can try and cut through the BS and point straight to the heart of the matter.

2004-08-29T20:35:00.000-07:00

Emphasis on Secrecy Out of Control...And Terribly Expensive!

As anyone who reads here will know, I am a fierce champion of the freedom of information, transparency, and accountability. To this cause, I marshall a number of arguments. Until recently, however, it's never occurred to me that an argument against secrecy could be made in regards to its operational costs. Read this, and then add operational costs of secrecy to the list (though, I would still not champion this as a primary argument, but it may be effective and worthy of reflection for those who aren't entirely convinced by the primary arguments):

The 9/11 Commission, leaders in Congress -- even the government’s top secret-keeper -- all agree that Washington’s penchant for keeping information under wraps has grown out of control. Now, a coalition of watchdog groups has documented just how much it’s costing to keep all those records away from the public eye.

During the 2003 fiscal year, the federal government spent more than $6.5 billion securing classified information, according to a new "Secrecy Report Card" from OpenTheGovernment.org, a coalition of government watchdog and civil liberties groups. That’s an increase of more than $800 million from the previous year, according to the group, and a nearly $2 billion jump since 2001. But it’s only a best guess, really; the report card’s accounting doesn’t include a penny from the Central Intelligence Agency, which keeps even its overall budget classified.

Some of the rise is understandable, with the government’s increased focus on security since 9/11. But even some of Washington’s leading authorities on government secrecy were caught off-guard by just how fast classification is increasing -- and just how much money it’s taking to keep all that information locked away.

"I thought the secrecy system would be in the $100 million range. Being in the billion-dollar range -- that’s astonishing," said Steven Aftergood, with the Federation of American Scientists. The group is one of more than 30 organizations that belong to OpenTheGovernment.org. "This documents in an empirical way what many people have been feeling intuitively: that the secrecy system is vast and growing."

2004-08-29T20:22:00.000-07:00

Open-Destination Teleportation

Somehow I just accidentally stumbled upon this, while News Googling around, and feel compelled to give it a quick mention (or, at least subquote and link):

An international team of physicists has entangled five photons for the first time in the world, reports Technology Research News in "Five photons linked". Why is this important? Because it's the minimum number of qubits needed for universal error correction in quantum computing. In other words, they found a way to check computational errors in future quantum computers.

The physicists also demonstrated what they call 'open-destination teleportation,' a way to teleport quantum information within and between computers." "They teleported the unknown quantum state of a single photon onto a superposition of three photons. They were then able to read out this teleported state at any one of the three photons by performing a measurement on the other two photons," adds PhysicsWeb in "Entanglement breaks new record". This will be used in about ten to twenty years to move information among quantum networks.

Seems we have little problem thinking out-of-the-box in terms of science and technology, why do we seemingly have so many problems, and so little success, if even actively engaged imagination, with novel reform of our political, social and economic arrangements and relations?

2004-08-29T19:58:00.000-07:00

The Prophetic Imagination and Criticism

I've been meaning to do this post for sometime now. A while back, at the book store, I stumbled across Walter Brueggemann's The Prophetic Imagination. Though this may not be for everybody, browsing through it spoke to me, and I made the purchase. For this I'm happy, for some of the insights of the book are stunning:

How can we have enough freedom to imagine and articulate a real historical newness in our situation? That is not to ask...if this freedom is realistic or politically practical or economically viable. To begin with such questions is to concede everything to the royal consciousness before we begin. We need to ask not whether it is realistic or practical or viable but whether it is imaginable. We need to ask if our consciousness and imagination have been so assaulted and coopted by the royal consciousness that we have been robbed of the courage or power to think an alternative thought.

To me, this really rang true while coincidentally and concurrently in political debates with Democrats and Republicans about how we can truly affect real change in America. How we can make our organization and systems more participatory, responsive, and accountable, and true to freedom, liberalism, and democracy.

As long as we buy into the 'way things are [done]', then there will be little power to transform them from the 'way things will always be'. If you win with the current tactics, if you rule the current system, if even squeezing your nose at the stench, what will inspire you to dare to change things, to do them differently, since this could threaten your superior position? Indeed, would only beauty or a desire for a clean olfactory environment encourage this change?

History would seem to suggest that it is only from courage and clarity from the underdog, from those not in a superior position as pertains the system, that coherent and appealing visions for change arise. Though I may be oversimplifying, I'm just trying to share some of the revelations that came to mind while reading the above passage.

*

For explanation of the Royal Consciousness, and a full review of the book, follow this link.

2004-08-28T20:49:00.000-07:00

Hey Big Media, Connect the Dots - Nine Impolite Questions for Big Media

Don Williams has some questions for our beloved (and objective) Big Media:

Yes you with the research assistants, cameras and sexy news-anchors there in Washington, New York and Atlanta. I know you try hard not to show liberal bias. In fact, I submit that you often bend over backwards. You betray your calling when you fail to connect the dots, or when you join in character assassination or shun your role as arbiter of what's true. You can do better. Here are nine questions from the heartland that might suggest how.

* First, when quoting those Swift-boat Veterans for Truth over and over about what Kerry did between 1969 and 1972, doesn't balance demand that you recall President Bush's sketchy service record? Isn't it just as pertinent that some Air National Guard commanders never saw Bush report for duty? That there's a gap in his pay stubs? Aren't you ethically bound to remind the public that Bush stopped flying fighter jets in the spring of 1972, according to USA Today, and failed to take a physical exam required of all pilots, and that his sole medical treatments in the Guard were for dental fillings?

* Second, if you're going to quote Bob Dole blasting Kerry's anti-war activities and Senate record isn't it pertinent to recount how Bush spent the same three decades?

* You've replayed those tapes over and over in which Kerry catalogued atrocities in Vietnam. Don't you owe it to the public to point out that, while most veterans served honorably, history shows atrocities DID OCCUR? Shouldn't you mention My Lai? Operation Phoenix? Some three million Southeast Asians died in the Vietnam War. Is it possible Kerry had a point?

Much more if you read the rest, it's Saturday night and I'm out of here.

2004-08-27T20:08:00.000-07:00

Two Environmental Heavyweights Spar Over Nuclear Power

There's a debate in the Independent today between Zac Goldsmith, editor of The Ecologist magazine, and James Lovelock, originator of the Gaia Hypothesis. I'll be the first to admit it seems odd, and challenging, that Mr. Lovelock is arguing for widespread adoption of nuclear power. And, as I read his case, strange statements like this can be found:

Try to imagine the social consequences of hundreds of millions of homeless refugees seeking dry land on which to live. In the turmoil, they may look back and wonder how humans could have been so foolish as to bring so much misery upon themselves by the thoughtless burning of carbon fuels. They may then reflect regretfully that they could have avoided their miseries by the safe use of nuclear energy.

Nuclear power, although potentially harmful to people, is a negligible danger to the planet. Natural ecosystems can stand levels of continuous radiation that would be intolerable in a city. The land around Chernobyl was evacuated because its high radiation intensity made it unsafe for people, but this radioactive land is now rich in wildlife, much more so than neighbouring areas.

So, Lovelock seems to be concerned with people in one paragraph, and then in the next paragraph seems to be marketing the benefits of radioactivity on the local ecology (though NOT for humans). For someone who believes in the Gaia hypothesis, maybe it's a good thing that nuclear accidents will clear people out, yet allow the natural fauna and flora to flourish, but, for someone like me (who puts people first), that's a non-starter.

I won't go into my views (in detail) in this post on nuclear power, just spotlight a few grafs from each of the debaters, but let it be known that I am 100% against conceiving of nuclear power as a positive development, and for many reasons, including security, non-proliferation, full-cost accounting, reliance on technocrats, human nature, history, warfare, democracy, human rights, a clean environment, and hypocrisy (can every nation freely develop nuclear power, or will some be hostage to those who are allowed?). Okay, on to Goldsmith's opposition:

And so in panic, a number of high-profile commentators are calling for the widespread adoption of nuclear power. Greens, they say, have to choose between climate change and their old enemy - nuclear power.

But it's a manufactured choice, peddled by an industry in the final spasm of a struggle to survive. Fundamentally, nuclear power is a problem, not a solution. And it's a problem on virtually every level.

(snip)

But with or without terrorists, the lives of countless British people dangle in the hands of the technocrats each and every day. And as we know, technocrats make mistakes. Last year, for instance, Sellafield came close to disaster when explosive gases were allowed to build up in tanks that store highly-radioactive nuclear waste. Amazingly, the BNFL staff on duty ignored warning alarms for nearly three hours. Even without potential disasters, routine radioactive emissions ensure cancer clusters around virtually every installation. Sellafield, for instance, boasts a cancer cluster 10 times the national average.

Two years ago, Vice-President Dick Cheney lamented that the US government hadn't approved a single application for a new nuclear power plant for 20 years. What he didn't say was that there had been no application. Nuclear power is a bad investment. Without massive government involvement and incalculable public subsidies, it simply wouldn't exist. According to The Economist, OECD governments poured $159bn (£89bn) into nuclear research between 1974 and 1998. BNFL, meanwhile, has admitted it faces a bill of £34bn to clean up waste, and it expects that waste to increase by a minimum of 500 per cent over the next decade.

On every level, nuclear is an unattractive option, unless you happen to belong to al-Qa'ida and want to close down an economy overnight. So for the industry to be granted a life-extension requires belief that it is the only solution to an even bigger problem - climate change.

But even there, nuclear power is a false hope. The instinctively pro-nuclear Mr Blair was told last year by his own energy advisors that nuclear is a "red herring". "You can achieve a low-carbon economy without nuclear," they told him.

I'll give Lovelock the last word (against Goldsmith at least...I'll have more to say):

The fear of nuclear energy is understandable through its association in the mind with the horrors of nuclear warfare, but it is unjustified; nuclear power plants are not bombs. They are, in fact, built solidly enough to withstand even a direct hit by a plane in a terrorist attack, according to industry experts.

What at first was a proper concern for safety has become a near-pathological anxiety. Much of the blame for this goes to the news media, the television and film industries, and fiction writers. All these have used the fear of things nuclear as a reliable prop to sell their wares. They, and the political disinformers who sought to discredit the nuclear industry as potential enemies, have been so successful at frightening the public that it is now impossible in many nations to propose a new nuclear power plant.

No source of power is entirely safe, even windmills are not free of fatal accidents, but compared to nuclear power, the dangers of continuing to burn fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) as our main energy source are far greater and they threaten not just individuals but civilisation itself. Much of the First World behaves like an addicted smoker: we are so used to burning fossil fuels for our needs that we ignore their long-term risks.

(snip)

I hope that it is not too late for the world to emulate France and make nuclear power our principal source of energy. At present we have no other viable alternative.

I ought to suggest to Mr. Lovelock that he not emphasize emulating France as part of his case, since his allies on this matter will be coming largely from the Right, and aren't high on the French. Perhaps the Japanese would be a better choice.

Also, I suggest all of you read the whole debate, as Goldsmith clearly makes the more relevant and cogent case, while Lovelock, aside from the coherence of the graf I subquoted, mainly veers off into a defense of nuclear radioactivity that, though harmful to humans, has been part of the history of the planet since primordial times. Honestly, all of that is a red herring, because this debate is about people, our lives, health, freedom, and security, and how we live together (in terms of how we structure our institutions and relations).

That said, my case is better than both of these men's, and I will be making it here in the next few days.

For starters, imagine how much support for nuclear energy there would be if the location for the plant was held by lottery (so, conceivably, it could be placed adjacent to a middle-class or wealthy neighborhood)...

2004-08-26T20:59:00.000-07:00

Hold Officals Accountable For Abu Ghraib

I'll be discussing this a bit more tomorrow or this weekend, as I'm still gathering my thoughts on this issue, of the extent we should expect and demand accountability, but here's James Ross of Human Rights Watch taking on the USA Today's editorial board:

The two recent reports on U.S. military abuses of prisoners show the limits of Pentagon-appointed investigations for such a controversial issue. Both the Schlesinger commission and the internal Army review contain important and disturbing information on the torture and mistreatment of prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Yet both reports shy away from the logical conclusion: High-level military and civilian officials must be fully investigated for their role in the crimes committed at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

Actually, from the looks of it Ross is just going where the USA editors dare not suggest (but seem to hint at indecisively):

Around the world, Abu Ghraib has become a symbol of an arrogant America that doesn't practice the respect for human rights that it preaches. The negative impression not only falsely portrays the U.S. as a nation that disregards international norms of behavior, but — more worrisome — it also helps al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups recruit.

Correcting that impression is essential. The task begins with establishing a clear chain of accountability. The case for firing the top brass or the civilian leadership is less clear but certainly a possibility.

2004-08-25T11:17:00.000-07:00

Politics As Boxing - Kerry Has Bush Up On The Ropes

If we were to characterize the presidential campaign as a boxing match, it seems certain we would have to describe Kerry on the offensive, hammering Bush, and backing him up against the ropes. For awhile there, it didn't look that way, but suddenly in the past few days I've noticed a clear change of momentum.

Bush came out cocky, throwing a lot of punches and playing his best dirty game. But John Kerry isn't your average fighter. He seems to have a plan, and a lot of resilience. Seemingly a bit lethargic in the beginning rounds, as Bush became more aggressive, suddenly Kerry has shifted gears, and is showing a lot more energy.

Just in the last few days we've had a few resignations from Bush's election team because of irregularities with their participation in the Swift Boat debacle, which Bush has firmly denied being connected with, even though everyone knows that he really is. But even his plausible deniability has been punctured a bit, Kerry having pierced his defenses, and now following up with some severe body blows.

For instance, now John Kerry is calling for Don Rumsfeld's resignation, enunciating and repeating a mantra of accountability for all to hear. Bush has no defense for this. Transparency and accountability are his achilles heels, where he is wide open to attack. His administration has been about unparalleled secrecy and back-room deals, and in almost every debacle that arises one after the next in terms of his administration there is always the appearance of a lack of accountability.

Bush talks loyalty, which is a great trait, but as a leader and president it cannot trump accountability. The only people in his administration who have been held accountable, and fired, are those who were held accountable for not parroting the party line on whatever particular matter. For not being loyal enough. This is abominable.

Kerry can hammer and hammer, since Bush cannot defend on accountability. He can talk loyalty all he wants, it's a great personal trait, but the bottom line is that we need some accountability from our leadership and organization, and we don't have that.

Kerry is making sure everyone knows.

2004-08-24T12:49:00.000-07:00

Human Fetuses At Risk? More Disturbing Evidence of Coal Burning Threat

The other day, as I was reading The Emergence of Everything (a great book), I jotted down some notes after having a revelation in regards to amphibians, water, pollution, and disappearing frogs.

frogs and amphibians are dying out possibly because of increasing water pollution, and the pollutive chemicals impact on amphibian embryos (which develop in water), since this is the most vulnerable period as we've seen even with humans. theories related to increased ozone radiation being the cause of killing amphibians may not make as much sense, and the failure to reproduce and/or for the embryos to survive and propagate may be the most reasonable...

That is a verbatim transcription of my spur-of-the-moment notes while reading about the evolution from fish to amphibians, and, with this latest press release by the Earth Policy Institute, really has me wondering if instead of a color-coded system for terror threats we need one for ecological threats.

Startling new research shows that one out of every six women of childbearing age in the United States may have blood mercury concentrations high enough to damage a developing fetus. This means that 630,000 of the 4 million babies born in the country each year are at risk of neurological damage because of exposure to dangerous mercury levels in the womb.

Fetuses, infants, and young children are most at risk for mercury damage to their nervous systems. New studies show that mercury exposure may also damage cardiovascular, immune, and reproductive systems. Chronic low-level exposure prenatally or in the early years of life can delay development and hamper performance in tests of attention, fine motor skills, language, visual spatial skills, and verbal memory. At high concentrations, mercury can cause mental retardation, cerebral palsy, deafness, blindness, and even death.

Humans are exposed to mercury primarily by eating contaminated fish. Forty-five of the 50 states have issued consumption advisories limiting the eating of fish caught locally because of their high mercury content. New analyses of fish samples collected by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from 500 lakes and reservoirs across the country found mercury in every single sample. In 55 percent of them, mercury levels exceeded the EPA’s “safe” limit for a woman of average weight eating fish twice a week, and 76 percent exceeded limits for children under the age of three. Four out of five predator fish—those higher on the food chain, such as tuna or swordfish—exceeded the limits.

Accuse me of being alarmist, but if we do not stand up for our own children, for our own progeny, let alone all children around the globe, then we have no right to call anyone evil, to declare ourselves good, or to smugly glow in saving civilization and our magnificent achievements and progress.

Be sure to check out the whole update from the Earth Policy Institute, but, if you're short on time, suggestions for action boil down to this:

Using coal, a hazardous nineteenth-century fuel, when we have twenty-first-century alternatives is hard to understand. Renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, do not require dangerous mining or mountaintop removal, nor do they pollute the air, land, and water with a slew of toxic chemicals. Full-cost pricing of coal to include the environmental damages and the enormous health care burden of using it, combined with removing antiquated subsidies on all fossil fuels, could go a long way toward encouraging more investment in renewables.

In addition, simple energy efficiency measures can reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and save money, too. Research from the Alliance to Save Energy indicates that improving efficiency standards for household appliances in the United States could allow 127 power plants to close. More stringent air conditioner efficiency standards could shut down 93 power plants. And raising the efficiency standards of both new and existing buildings through mechanisms like tax credits and energy codes could close 380 power plants. Using these methods to shut down the 600 most polluting coal-fired power plants in the country would be a boon for public health.

Several European countries have begun to lead the transition away from coal. (See data at www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update42_data.htm.) In Germany, coal use has been cut in half since 1990, while expanding wind electric generation is taking its place. Coal use in the United Kingdom has dropped by 46 percent over the same period, offset by efficiency gains and a shift toward natural gas. Plans are moving ahead for a huge expansion in wind energy in the U.K. and other European countries.

By moving beyond coal, the United States could avoid a legacy of smog-filled skies, acid rain, polluted waterways, contaminated fish, and scarred landscapes. This could each year save some 25,000 lives, reduce respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, avert potential neurological damage for 630,000 babies, and erase a health care bill of over $160 billion.

2004-08-24T08:37:00.000-07:00

Damn That Liberal Media - The Berger Hysteria Versus The Khan Leak Silence

Neil Hamilton over at the raw story points out the obvious. Only it's not that obvious to everyone. Especially not that liberal media.

It seemed to be earth-shaking and apocalyptic news that the media seized upon late this past July thanks to a suspiciously timed leak. Just before the release of the 9/11 Commission’s final report, we learned that former Clinton National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, was under investigation for spiriting away classified documents from the National Archives which dealt with that administration’s reaction to terror threats...

...The media went on its characteristic feeding frenzy and dutifully gave plenty of Republican politicians an opportunity to immediately ascribe the most nefarious motives to Mr. Berger’s actions on-air. All sorts of wild and unsubstantiated allegations made by Republicans about Berger having stuffed the documents in his socks were treated as fact by a press seemingly excited by the possibility of a another Clinton-related scandal.

Throughout the day the regular anchors on both stations gave updates about the case. Curiously, these debates and discussions stressed the more inflammatory and damning accusations made against Berger and downplayed some of the more exculpatory facts which would have mitigated the seriousness of the scandal. Republican Congressman like Saxby Chambliss were allowed to go on the air and make unproven assertions, and others like Dennis Hastert accused Berger of trying to “re-write history” by hiding some documents which would have reflected unkindly on the Clinton administrations efforts against terror.

Lost in all the stentorian harrumphing and disingenuous concern of some of these political figures was the fact that it was reported that Berger had taken copies of these documents and that the originals still remained in the possession of the National Archives. On shows like Chris Matthew’s “Hardball,” this fact was lost in the din of all the overheated hyperventilation about Berger’s possible motivations.

Thus, many different hypothetical scenarios were posited about why Berger did what he did. Some theorized ominously that he had been directed by Bill Clinton himself to eliminate all incriminating documents before the 9/11 Commission got their hands on them, while others thought that he might have been pilfering these documents so that he could surreptitiously give them to the Kerry Campaign. In all the commentary of the scandal it was rarely brought up how ridiculous both of these claims were.

Yes, the media did go into a feeding frenzy during the Berger episode, and noone ought to question why. The Republicans staged the whole event - planned and implemented a media strategy to draw attention away from more politically damaging (to them) revelations.

Meanwhile, when the Khan leak broke, aside from an initial comment from Howard Dean, we were met with near silence from the Democratic aisle when Reuters broke the story that U.S. insistence on the public release of Khan's arrest prematurely broke up a counter-terror sting being conducted by the Pakistanis and British, in cooperation with the CIA.

Eager to justify Tom Ridge’s recent terror warnings, unnamed officials in the Bush administration revealed in a background briefing to journalists that the source of the new information behind Ridge’s announcement was Khan.

Khan was an Al Qaeda computer expert who helped Osama bin Laden communicate with his terrorist network and had been “turned” by the Pakistanis after his arrest. He was being used by the Pakistanis in sting operations to break up terrorist cells in the U.S., Britain and around the world, but by blowing his cover the Bush administration effectively terminated his usefulness.

After his name was leaked, counterterrorism officials saw a steep drop off in intercepted communications between suspected terrorists.

In addition, the British MI5 were forced to hastily arrest 13 members of a London cell in the fear that they would flee after learning of Khan’s arrest. Another five who were targeted immediately went underground after hearing that Khan was in custody and have eluded arrest thanks in part to the administrations blunder. It has been exceedingly difficult to penetrate al Qaeda and finally there was a mole to help gather information that could lead to capture of more terrorists, and possibly bin Laden himself. The outing of this mole was an unmitigated disaster.

What was the media’s response after another display of rank incompetence by this administration? It certainly wasn’t nearly as heated and intense as it was during the Berger affair despite the fact that this was far more damaging to U.S. security interests and has much more dire implications for the War on Terror. Other than a handful of senators (Schumer and Allen) voicing concern and politely asking for an explanation from the administration on Blitzer’s show, there has been a very muted reaction expressed through the press. There certainly hasn’t been nearly the amount of accusatory and finger pointing discussions and debates as there were during the previous controversy, and the scandal seems to be fading away without any calls for accountability on the part of those in the Bush administration.

Conclusion? The Republicans play hardball, and the Democrats seem to play scared. I think it's a problem of Big Media, because where are our independent investigative journalists reporting on the Khan leak? Nowhere to be found. Big Media is led, not leading, and this is a continuing and disturbing trend that is likely the result of vertical and horizontal integration, mergers, and a desire to cut costs, combined with a lazy reliance on news releases and spin campaigns from self-interested, motivated actors with the wherewithal to assure the story gets out.

As far as the Khan leak, the Republicans seemed to be as good at damage control as at unsubstantiated smear and spin, as even many Democrats seemed afraid of the story and urging caution at every juncture, as if a few Democrats would push the story, keep it in the limelight, and then find out it was all a big psych warfare campaign or the result of rogue Pakistanis. Well, I'll have more on that later, but there is indeed a rogue Pakistani, by all accounts, or there is not real cooperation with Pakistan, and since the administration is touting the latter, and not claiming the former, something is amiss, and it's not our media's job to try and parse through realist scenarios, but to report on stories.

2004-08-10T01:42:00.000-07:00

Did The U.S. Blow An Al Qaeda Double Agent Working For Us?

There's been a lot of speculation in the past few days about this, ever since the story broke on Friday night, but now it seems to have gone establishment, as AP has released a full story and everyone is running with it.

The disclosure to reporters of the arrest of an al-Qaida computer expert jeopardized Pakistani efforts to capture more members of Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, government and security officials said Tuesday.

Two senior Pakistani officials said initial reports in "Western media" last week of the capture of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan had enabled other al-Qaida suspects to get away, but declined to say whether U.S. officials were to blame for the leak.

"Let me say that this intelligence leak jeopardized our plan and some al-Qaida suspects ran away," one of the officials said on condition of anonymity.

I've said in other forums that this news is an outright shock to me, especially if the worst explanations for this turn out to be true, and that the counter-intelligence operation was coopted by a combination of the recurring (and stupid) color-coded warnings and the personal political self-interest of the president and his administration. We'll still have to wait and see how this shakes out, but it would be a sad day if we've sunk to this level.

What's clear is that the administration, and specifically Condoleeza Rice, did not seem prepared for this, thus seeming to discount any super-psychological strategies we're ninjaesquely trying to apply to Al Qaeda that would explain our ruining this counterintelligence operation.

Indeed, this was reported earlier today:

The Daily Telegraph reports that US officials have "hit back" against the criticism that they bungled the terror alert and blew the cover of the Al Qaeda mole. They released to Time magazine and to Newsweek more information on the plans for attacks in the US that were discovered on Khan's computers. An unnamed military official told Time that spreading panic in terrorist ranks could also bear fruit.
"People get flushed out and when that happens other people get nervous. As they start to move, they talk and we hear them. It's like hunting birds: you scare 'em up, they run then you shoot them."

Wow, that sounds almost like a Western, with President Bush as the leading man (or a leisurely weekend outing with Justice Scalia). But, first indications, as reported by Juan Cole, are that "CNN is suggesting that the outing of Khan has led to greater caution in al-Qaeda and similar groups about using electronic communications, which may make it more difficult to monitor them."

The foregoing statement would seem to be backed up by the latest AP report:

But the Pakistani officials said that after Khan's arrest, other al-Qaida suspects had abruptly changed their hide-outs and moved to unknown places.

The first official described the initial publication of the news of Khan's arrest as "very disturbing."

"We have checked. No Pakistani official made this intelligence leak," he said.

Without naming any country, he said it was the responsibility of "coalition partners" to examine how a foreign journalist was able to have an access to the "classified information" about Khan's arrest.

So, I'm not so sure about any grand strategy, but the suggestion there is one takes even further, as usual, into either outright condemnation of despicable behavior or undeniable acknowledgement of incompetence. Neither of these are comfortable conclusions when considering one's leadership, especially in a war.

As for these color-coded terror warnings, can we stop already? It seems to be getting out-of-hand, as the children's story 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf' would seem to suggest. Even if we allow for the color-coded warnings, there's a right way and a wrong way:

Kevin Rosser, a security expert at the London-based consultancy Control Risks Group, said such a disclosure was "a risk that came with staging public alerts but that authorities were supposed to take special care not to ruin ongoing operations."
"When these public announcements are made, they have to be supported with some evidence, and in addition to creating public anxiety and fatigue, you can risk revealing sources and methods of sensitive operations," he said.

I don't want to go on and on, as I'm sure this story will develop further and we'll get more answers, like who told the NY Times what, when they told them, and if this was the 'background' that Rice was involved in.

Did the Bush Administration confirm all of this information after the NY Times published, or before? All signs seem to point to before, and actually to being the primary source. Only the NY Times can fill us in.

We'll be eagerly awaiting those answers, and, while we do, perhaps this all summed up best by this, and is worthy of reflection as far as evaluating our leadership:

"The whole thing smacks of either incompetence or worse," said Tim Ripley, a security expert who writes for Jane's Defence publications [who was interviewed by Reuters]. "You have to ask: what are they doing compromising a deep mole within Al Qaeda, when it's so difficult to get these guys in there in the first place? It goes against all the rules of counter-espionage, counter-terrorism, running agents and so forth. It's not exactly cloak and dagger undercover work if it's on the front pages every time there's a development, is it?"

Juan Cole also has a fresh late night update for your reading pleasure (or, in this case, pain), describing Jim Lobe's take on this dreadful situation.

2004-08-09T22:23:00.000-07:00

Who's Afraid Of Big Media? Not Jack Shafer.

I won't be taking any time (in this post) to evaluate or critique this rant by Jack Shafer in defense of Big Media (or in denial of it), but at first glance it seems to be a dissenting view from mine, and dissent is good and healthy, not to mention challenging.

In the long run, competition and the dynamism of markets keep any five media conglomerates from dictating "what most citizens will learn." But corporate ownership of media so rankles Bagdikian that I doubt the variations of who's on top and who's slid into corporate oblivion make much difference to him. I'm sure my testament that for all the news media's faults, its quality and variety have never been greater, sounds Panglossian to Bagdikian. But I challenge him to name a time in America's history when the news media did a better job than it does today. Who longs for the days of William Randolph Hearst? Of three broadcast networks? Of the days before the Internet?

As misguided as Bagdikian is about the perils of media conglomeration, he makes excellent sense when barking about the political games the corporate owners of radio and broadcast TV stations play. If only he'd continued that line of thought in the seventh edition. Nobody needs to apply to the government to buy paper and ink and print a publication or book. Nobody needs government approval to purchase computers and bandwidth to serve the public through the Internet. On the hunch that Bagdikian plans to write an eighth edition of The Media Monopoly, I invite him to read my next column about ending spectrum socialism and freeing the airwaves to true competition.

There's much more to this obviously, the excerpt essentially being the conclusion, so feel free to check it out. I'll be weighing in on it myself in the next few days.

For a dissenting view (though not directly) to Shafer, and you just can't wait, try Robert McChesney's Making Media Democratic.

Imagine a world in which scores, even hundreds, of media firms operate in markets competitive enough to permit new entrants. Imagine a world with large numbers of public, community, and public access radio and television stations and networks, with enough funding to produce high quality products. Imagine a world where the public airwaves provide compelling journalism, children's programming, and political candidate information, with control vested in people dedicated to public service. Imagine a world where creative government fiscal policies enable small nonprofit and noncommercial media to sprout and prosper, providing some semblance of a democratic public sphere.

Though imaginable, this world seems wholly implausible-and not only because of the political muscle of the corporate media and communications lobbies. Over the past generation, "free market" neoliberals have understood the importance of media as an instrument of social control far better than anyone else. The leading conservative foundations have devoted considerable resources to reducing journalistic autonomy and ideological diversity and pushing media in a more explicitly pro-business direction. The pro-market political right understood that if big business dominated the main fora for political education and debate, then public scrutiny of business would be markedly reduced. These same "free market" foundations fight any public interest component to media laws and regulations, oppose any form of noncommercial and nonprofit media, and lead the battle to ensure that public broadcasting stays within narrow ideological boundaries. In short, we had a major political battle over media for the past generation, but only one side showed up. The results are clear, and appalling.

2004-08-07T20:05:00.000-07:00

Ecogenomics - A New Approach

Well, 'you learn something new everyday' isn't just an old saying. I discovered ecogenomics today. Fascinating. Here's a short explanation:

Applications of genomics approaches have until now been restricted mostly to problems of medical science, pharmacology and plant breeding. We believe that environmental analysis and management can also strongly benefit from genomics approaches because environmental issues are often characterized by complex ecological interactions of diverse communities of organisms with the physical and chemical components of the environment.

So that's takes us part of the way to defining ecogenomics. I'll go find another one for comparison:

Microbes represent possibly the largest component of biodiversity, but lack of adequate tools for quantifying diversity, in either model or natural communities, has hindered progress in microbial ecology, especially microbial community ecology.

Genomics and modern molecular methods have dramatically altered this situation and will enable community ecology to address questions that are important scientifically and result in a better understanding of environmental issues. The integration of genomics with ecology will provide dramatic advances in all areas of microbial ecology...

...[and] will help us predict the effects of environmental perturbation on microbial communities. Such perturbations include the major features of global change, including modifications of biogeochemical processes (e.g., enhanced levels of CO2 and doubled rates of N deposition), land use change, acidification, desertification, ozone depletion, and climate change.

So, ecogenomics is pretty simply defined as "the intersection of ecology and genome science".

I suppose the name sort of hints at that...

:)

2004-08-05T15:40:00.000-07:00

The New Media Monopoly - Bagdikian Explains Why

I just stumbled across this interview with Ben Bagdikian in the Berkeley Daily Planet, and decided to pass this piece of it along:

“It wasn’t my idea. The publisher said I had to do a new edition because so much has changed. So the seventh edition is really 90 percent new. From 50 companies, ownership of media has shrunk to just five or six. But there’s an even bigger difference. In 1983 each company wanted a monopoly over just one medium—say magazines, or newspapers, or television. Now, these few companies try to control all media, so that the TV you watch, the radio, the newspaper, the magazines, the movies, the books — might all be owned and controlled by one corporation — Fox or Murdock or Disney. And these companies promote a far-right slant. What they have managed to do in 25 years is to shift what used to be called the ‘nutty right’ to the center. And the left has been pushed off the edge completely.”

Bagdikian also is asked about his thoughts regarding the Internet:

Is there hope in the Internet?

“Yes. There’s lots of junk on it, but it’s still an outlet for an independent with no money but plenty of ingenuity and skill, like MoveOn.org. It’s not controlled by the corporations. Not yet. But the FCC, which is supposed to protect independent media, is Bush-appointed, and not a bit friendly.”

2004-08-05T13:05:00.000-07:00

Shining A Light On Secrecy - The 9-11 Commission

Steven Aftergood (of the Federation of American Scientists) is meditating on the arcane (and some say insane) levels of secrecy we embrace, and whether it really shouldn't be just the opposite - with the presumption being on transparency and the freedom of information:

The 9/11 Commission put it simply: The U.S. intelligence community is becoming increasingly complex and secretive - which can cost lives. Transforming the intelligence community's culture of secrecy into a culture of sharing should begin with transparency in the overall intelligence budget.

Current security policies nurture over-classification and excessive compartmentalization of information among agencies. By highlighting this problem in its final report, the Commission has created a new opportunity to reverse the ever-expanding controls on public access to government information and to rethink the impediments to information sharing within government, helping to make this nation safer.

For example, the U.S. intelligence services learned in the 1990s that al Qaeda had plans to hijack airplanes, and reported those plans in the President's Daily Brief (PDB). However, this information was not shared widely with other government agencies, let alone Congress or the American public. Sharing the contents of this PDB with a wider group might have brought about permanent changes in domestic airport and airline security procedures.

Aftergood goes on to explain that secrecy can be justified in very specific situations, but in a disturbing number of cases is made secret for other reasons, either of political self-interest, ignorance or hubris. In a few cases, it even seems, as in the investigation of Abu Ghraib, that information was made classified seemingly for the purpose of hiding illegal activities - which is expressly forbidden under U.S. law regarding classification of information.

The consequences of this overemphasis on secrecy are many, including financial and operational, by one estimate costing $7.5 billion a year taking into account all costs.

The commission traced the root of the problem to an inappropriate reliance on the so-called "need to know" principle, which limits access to classified information to those who have a demonstrated "need to know" the information to perform their official duties.

This approach assumes it is possible to know, in advance, who will need to use the information. Such a system implicitly assumes that the risk of inadvertent disclosure outweighs the benefits of wider sharing. According to the commission, those Cold War assumptions are no longer appropriate: "The culture of agencies feeling they own the information they gathered at taxpayer expense must be replaced by a culture in which the agencies instead feel they have a duty to [share] the information - to repay the taxpayers' investment by making that information available."

To begin this cultural transformation, the commission proposed a very specific action, which will also serve as a test of policymakers' intentions: "To combat the secrecy and complexity we have described, the overall amounts of money being appropriated for national intelligence and to its component agencies should no longer be kept secret."

This is an astute recommendation, since the amounts of intelligence agency budgets are not only intrinsically important for public policy, they are also an icon of unchecked secrecy that the CIA has gone to great lengths to withhold from the public (even implausibly claiming that historical budget figures from 50 years ago are still sensitive today).

In light of this presumption of secrecy, the compelling evidence of cronyism and corruption, and the deteriorating fabric of American political discourse into competing conspiracy theories (fed by incomplete information), I go a step further than Aftergood, and for the past year have been advocating a constitutional amendment regarding the Freedom of Information, Transparency, and Accountability - to strengthen, expand and put explicitly into the Constitution the Freedom of Information Act, and to make a clear and compelling public statement of our values and desire to see America come together again.

For more on government secrecy, visit the Project on Government Secrecy.

2004-08-04T13:58:00.000-07:00

Ben Bagdikian Updates The Classic - The New Media Monopoly

I'll have more on this tomorrow, but here's an excerpt from a short review by DIYMedia:

Bagdikian asserts that much of the control over news content is implicit in nature. As a newspaper's advertising department becomes responsible for more and more pages, it's only natural that management makes news editors work with ad salesmen to insure 'proper' news is covered in 'proper' places within the paper.

By its very nature, this method of newspapering leads to a reduction in coverage of controversial stories - and while the Head Office doesn't send down a memo to reporters laying down the new law of the land, Bagdikian cites several examples of reporters who got burned when they tried to cover 'real news' in opposition to their papers' advertising departments; such examples stick in the minds of other reporters and are often more effective in promoting self-censorship than any memo could ever be.

Of course, some newspaper magnates have used their power to influence public opinion to their favor; Bagdikian cites the example of televangelist Billy Graham, whose post-World War Two rise to stature was completely funded and manufactured by two publishing magnates, William Randolph Hearst and Henry Luce (then chief of Time, Inc.). By mandating that their publications cover Graham extensively, they built him into a household name - a level of stature he continues to enjoy to this day.

The problem, concludes Bagdikian, is that any commercially-controlled media will become corrupted by the influence of money, even if aspiring media moguls begin their monopoly-building with the best of intentions.

That corruption works its way from the top down, ultimately determining the news given to the American public. Chock full of statistics and studies to back up this conclusion, The Media Monopoly serves as one of the clearest warnings ever issued about the media's role in the erosion of American democracy - it's a shame that Bagdikian wrote this nearly 20 years ago, and since then the problem's still only gotten worse.

Much, much more on the updated version of The New Media Monopoly in the days ahead.

2004-08-04T13:50:00.000-07:00

Ted Turner Has A Beef With Big Media

I've been on sabbatical for awhile, but I'm back, and, as usual, putting the onus on Big Media. The latest to join in is Ted Turner, and here he is:

Today, media companies are more concentrated than at any time over the past 40 years, thanks to a continual loosening of ownership rules by Washington. The media giants now own not only broadcast networks and local stations; they also own the cable companies that pipe in the signals of their competitors and the studios that produce most of the programming. To get a flavor of how consolidated the industry has become, consider this: In 1990, the major broadcast networks – ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox – fully or partially owned just 12.5 percent of the new series they aired. By 2000, it was 56.3 percent. Just two years later, it had surged to 77.5 percent.

(snip)

In the media, as in any industry, big corporations play a vital role, but so do small, emerging ones. When you lose small businesses, you lose big ideas. People who own their own businesses are their own bosses. They are independent thinkers. They know they can't compete by imitating the big guys – they have to innovate, so they're less obsessed with earnings than they are with ideas. They are quicker to seize on new technologies and new product ideas. They steal market share from the big companies, spurring them to adopt new approaches. This process promotes competition, which leads to higher product and service quality, more jobs, and greater wealth. It's called capitalism.

But without the proper rules, healthy capitalist markets turn into sluggish oligopolies, and that is what's happening in media today. Large corporations are more profit-focused and risk-averse. They often kill local programming because it's expensive, and they push national programming because it's cheap – even if their decisions run counter to local interests and community values. Their managers are more averse to innovation because they're afraid of being fired for an idea that fails. They prefer to sit on the sidelines, waiting to buy the businesses of the risk-takers who succeed.

Unless we have a climate that will allow more independent media companies to survive, a dangerously high percentage of what we see – and what we don't see – will be shaped by the profit motives and political interests of large, publicly traded conglomerates. The economy will suffer, and so will the quality of our public life. Let me be clear: As a business proposition, consolidation makes sense. The moguls behind the mergers are acting in their corporate interests and playing by the rules. We just shouldn't have those rules. They make sense for a corporation. But for a society, it's like over-fishing the oceans. When the independent businesses are gone, where will the new ideas come from? We have to do more than keep media giants from growing larger; they're already too big. We need a new set of rules that will break these huge companies to pieces.

Amen.

***

Feels good to be back...so get ready for the usual on Big Media, the freedom of information, transparency, accountability, electoral reform, human rights, reason and compassion.

Peace.

2004-06-24T12:41:00.000-07:00

Big Media Takes A Few Hits - Democracy On The Offensive

Today we get word of two great developments in the fight to take back our media.

First, the U.S. Senate passed a voice vote to return to the media rules prior to the controversial FCC changes last summer (documented on this blog). Co-sponsor Byron Dorgan has this to say:

"Last June, the FCC performed one of the most complete cave-ins to corporate interests against the public interest in the history of the country," he said. "When the number of people and corporations who control what 293 million Americans see and hear in the media shrinks to just a relative handful, democracy suffers."

The Senate took the action in case a pending court action found in favor of the new rules. No need to worry, however, as today the court tossed out the new rules:

The Federal Communications Commission was ordered by a U.S. appeals court to review its new rules that let companies such as News Corp. and Viacom Inc. buy more television stations and newspapers.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia also blocked implementation of the media ownership rules, approved a year ago by the FCC under Chairman Michael Powell, until the agency acts, a copy of the decision shows.

``The Commission falls short of its obligation to justify its decisions to retain, repeal or modify its media ownership regulations with reasoned analysis,'' the appeals court said in its 218-page decision.

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, who had dissented earlier in regards to the FCC action, sums it up:

``The rush to media consolidation approved by the FCC last June was wrong as a matter of law and policy,'' FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said in a statement. ``The Commission has a second chance to do the right thing.'' Copps voted against the new rules last year.

2004-06-22T22:21:00.000-07:00

Excess In Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Thought

I hope you get that here. Lawrence Lessig has the story of Microsoft suing a Brazilian government official for excessive freedom of speech and thought.

God forbid.

2004-05-31T14:07:00.000-07:00

Happy Memorial Day

We owe much to our fighting men and women throughout history. They have made great sacrifices for us that leave America as it is today - free. Even today, we have soldiers in the field doing their duty to our nation, and doing it valiantly. Whether we agree with the particular mission or not, whether we believe that all military missions are not created equal, bears no qualification upon our brave fellow citizens carrying these missions out.

God bless them, and give them this day.

2004-05-31T13:13:00.000-07:00

The Problem With Catholic Church Interference With Politics

The Catholic Church needs to back off from free democracy. By not outright condemning the actions of some bishops in refusing communion to American politicians, for political positions, the Catholic Church creates a wedge it should not create between those who share loyalties to both representative democracy and to the church.

First, John Kerry is a politician. He is a representative of the people. Whether or not his personal belief is aligned with the church position, this doesn't mean that he should let his personal belief override or control his duty as a democratic representative. It's not John Kerry's job or duty to command his constituents on what their position ought to be on a matter. His role is to gauge the feelings, thoughts, and beliefs of his constituents and serve and honor them.

This may go against the hierarchical command structure of the Catholic Church, but so be it. The Pope claims he is the most special representative of God and in a privileged position to interpret God's will and Word and dictate that to those less worthy and privileged to do so. That's fine (I guess). But free democratic peoples don't work that way, in this kind of organizational top-down manner, and the Catholic Church ought to respect and honor that.

Further, the Catholic Church really needs to be more consistent, and the Pope needs to take a strong stand to save his credibility amongst those of us who are more than worthy to evaluate these kinds of things. If the issue is life, why focus solely on abortion, and not the death penalty? I'm told the Pope has left open that some capital punishment may be necessary. This position is absurd and ridiculous. There is never any compelling reason to kill anyone. There is always another option. The lesson of Jesus' execution ought to be clear - we are fallible, and our communities and mobs are fallible, and therefore we ought not to pass judgement on who should live and who should die.

Free principles have a related rule and lesson - habeas corpus. This great principle is the bedrock of our system of justice, and allows for human fallibility, among other things. It does not mean habeas corpse. If new evidence were to emerge in a capital case, or another stepped forward to claim responsibility for the deed in question, and you already killed the man who had been convicted earlier, how can this man's family claim him? Move to have his case reviewed and exonerated? You can't, at least not for the benefit and freedom of this man, because you already killed him, and it's willful negligence to assert that no innocent party has not been executed by the free American republic, or that there is any excuse or justification for it. This also begs the question of responsibility, since how will God pass judgment on this murder - against the mob, or community, or against each one of the individuals who went along?

Still, I digress. The bottom line is that I am personally opposed to abortion, but respect the views of others, especially women, who may feel differently, and who have differing ultimate responsibilities on the matter. Should I not get communion (aside from my bashing of the Pope, which ought to at least merit the possiblity of excommunication)? Of course not. And this scenario of me being personally opposed, but respecting the views of others, is much further away then the case of a politician personally opposing abortion, but not imposing that belief on the free citizens he is in the service of and accountable to.

The Catholic Church ought only be concerned with the souls of its constituents, and not what kind of missionary fervor they choose to share this state with their fellows. It is the church's job to make the best case for its principled positions, and win over the hearts, minds, and souls of its constituents. If it does so well enough, then John Kerry will himself reject the act of abortion, and the church may be happy for his soul and salvation. But that is where the church stops, and politics begins, and John Kerry is under no obligation to dictate to others his beliefs or to refuse political participation with those he who most agrees with (overall), either by not participating in politics at all or being forced to vote Republican over a single issue when he disagrees with almost everything else.

If any of you have access, forward this to the Pope. I formally request an audience with him to make an appeal for reason and compassion, not to mention good sense. The church invites great danger with this issue, and it should act at the earliest possible moment to clarify its position on communion.

2004-05-29T22:53:00.000-07:00

I Haven't Completely Disappeared

I'm not retired. Just relaxing, in this medium, and going full tilt in another to complete a new software product. Pressure's on, and I have to respond.

Of course, I'm maintaining my connections, staying in tune with the news and memes, checking in occasionally at my regular haunts, and researching and studying every chance I get, honing the message, exploring new avenues of rhetoric and exposition.

Many say the blogosphere is a waste, just a bunch of self-absorption, but if you hit some of the right spots, maybe even this one, you get a little more than that. The expanded Freedom Century site is upcoming, and when it does we'll be expanding this message even further - into literary areas, and consciousness research.

Also, I'm reviewing all available literature right now in regards to propaganda, social influence, persuasion, (some) rhetoric, and memetics.

Why?

To put up a defenitive guide - for rhetorical and argumentative self-defense, and for expanding these elemental skills into a more common understanding around the blogosphere.

2004-05-17T19:53:00.000-07:00

Celebrating Freedom - Frederick Douglass and Thurgood Marshall

Much of our history is devastatingly shameful and ignorant, if not hateful, as regards the treatment of our brothers and sisters of African heritage (let alone other ethnicities and minorities). At one time, Frederick Douglass was motivated to state:

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July?

I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.

To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sound of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants brass fronted impudence; your shout of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanks-givings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy -- a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.

There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.

Indeed, Americans proudly and happily celebrated the 4th of July in those days, but it wasn't about the Declaration of Independence or universal enfranchisement, but a selfish independence borne of ignorance and malice.

To our credit, we've kept our eyes on the prize, and especially those black Americans denied the American Dream kept their eyes on the prize, so that today we may celebrate the anniversary of a great court ruling declaring that all Americans are equal members of our popular sovereignty and community. That separate is not equal. This only happened through perseverance and struggle, however, and in acknowledgement that our mission as a free nation is evolving, and not set in stone at our founding.

So, on this day, I defer to the great Thurgood Marshall, who argued Brown v. Board of Education before the Supreme Court, in his own words speaking on America's Bicentennial, both as a counterpoint to our common illusions and myths of our history, and to Frederick Douglass' criticism and dissent a century and a half earlier:

The men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 could not have envisioned these changes. They could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed by a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman and the descendent of an African slave. We the People no longer enslave, but the credit does not belong to the Framers. It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of "liberty," "justice," and "equality," and who strived to better them.

And so we must be careful, when focusing on the events which took place in Philadelphia two centuries ago, that we not overlook the momentous events which followed, and thereby lose our proper sense of perspective. Otherwise, the odds are that for many Americans the bicentennial celebration will be little more than a blind pilgrimage to the shrine of the original document now stored in a vault in the National Archives. If we seek, instead, a sensitive understanding of the Constitution's inherent defects, and its promising evolution through 200 years of history, the celebration of the "Miracle at Philadelphia" will, in my view, be a far more meaningful and humbling experience. We will see that the true miracle was not the birth of the Constitution, but its life, a life nurtured through two turbulent centuries of our own making, and a life embodying much good fortune that was not.

Thus, in this bicentennial year, we may not all participate in the festivities with flagwaving fervor. Some may more quietly commemorate the suffering, struggle, and sacrifice that has triumphed over much of what was wrong with the original document, and observe the anniversary with hopes not realized and promises not fulfilled. I plan to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution as a living document, including the Bill of Rights and the other amendments protecting individual freedoms and human rights.

God Bless and may all enjoy the fruits of freedom and equality before the law.

2004-05-17T00:44:00.000-07:00

Word To The Wise - Sex, Torture & Videotape

We shouldn't be distracted so much by the revelations of sex, torture and videotape in Iraq that we ignore or forget that prisoners were beaten and killed there. We also shouldn't be distracted enough to ignore or forget that these allegations of beatings, torture, and murder have arisen elsewhere - in Afghanistan and Guantanamo.

Though we shouldn't be distracted, we also ought not be too myopic when we do focus our view on the events in Iraq. If, as Seymour Hersh reports in the New Yorker, this kind of interrogation has been designed and approved for use against prisoners of the Islamic faith in Guantanamo and Afghanistan, by our own civilian leadership and military command, then we have to question whether poorly trained reservists with little knowledge of Arab or Islamic culture would independently come up with similarly "effective" tactics in Iraq.

As we begin to get answers for these questions, we have to wake up to a sobering reality. These are war crimes, and the perpetrators ought to be prosecuted. Since the buck starts at the top, start with Rumsfeld, and work your way down. Sooner or later, someone will rat out someone above them, whether Rumsfeld or someone below him, down to the actual perpetrators of the acts in question, in order to avoid a lengthy prison sentence.

We must not bury our heads or the truth in the sands of Iraq. If there were systematic abuses of human rights and dignity, acts of torture and war crimes, then the system needs to be held to account along with the human beings who furthered it.

Also, if it's not a crime for American personnel, military or civilian, to use torture and sexual humiliation against prisoners in Guantamano, there is hardly cause to charge American personnel in Iraq for the same offenses, if under orders. Especially in the vacuum of clear leadership or language by our leadership, as well as training, such a double standard serves to undermine the dignity, at least what's left, of our own men and women in uniform who stand accused, not to mention undermines the cause of justice, which must be equally applied or not at all.

We don't need fall guys (or gals) - we need stand up individuals. Our name and honor are at stake.

2004-05-06T16:44:00.000-07:00

World Press Freedom Day - Come And Gone

The Carroll County Star-Tribune reminds us of the importance of World Press Freedom Day in an inspiring editorial.

Today is World Press Freedom Day, a time to honor those nations that embrace one of democracys most essential rights.

Few in the United States are familiar with this important commemoration, which marks the May 3 anniversary of the 1991 signing of the Windhoek Declaration in Africa that calls for free, independent and pluralist media in every country.

Perhaps that is because we Americans take our First Amendment rights as a given. But sadly, these basic freedoms do not exist throughout much of the world, where media repression is the norm. Around the globe, in places like Cuba and China and parts of the Middle East, journalists routinely face censorship, imprisonment and assault. Many have given their lives - 36 in 2003, at least 17 more this year - in pursuit of truth. According to the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists, another 136 were jailed in each of the past two years as a direct result of their work.

(snip)

And, it can serve as a reminder for all Americans to vigorously oppose those including some in our own government whose policies and actions threaten our status as the most open nation in history.

Recently, that climate of openness has been threatened as national security concerns have been used as a pretense to close the door on the people's right to know.

Certainly, there is justification for classifying information that could clearly endanger our fellow citizens.

But increasingly, champions of open government - Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals - are warning that national security is being used by government officials and clever corporations as a pretense to withhold information that might prove embarrassing or reveal illegalities.

As literally tens of millions of previously public documents have been stamped secret, it has become more difficult for the press to perform its historic watchdog role. And, average citizens cannot acquire information essential for their own well-being. In the past, that information has been used to expose hazardous waste dumps, rogue police officers, dangerous chemical accidents, aviation safety records, or even whether your next door neighbor has been injured in a train or plane crash.

(snip)

Freedom of information is healthy for society. It encourages public debate, reveals wrongdoing and holds government officials accountable. It has made us the great nation we are.

But when public information slips from sunlight into darkness, ignorance and tyranny quickly follow. And the United States ceases to be the model to which repressive nations should aspire.

Hear, hear.

2004-05-05T05:48:00.000-07:00

Hearts And Minds Lost?

In regards to our use of torture, shame on us. And I mean US. At least we Americans. Just because images finally come out that cannot be denied doesn't mean that we've seen everything. There have been hints of this kind of thing for months with rumours and strange deaths happening from Guantamano to Afghanistan, as well as just mass imprisonment with little preparation of Iraqis.

I had a haunting and urgent sense before this war started in Iraq that it would bring us great shame. I had hoped that enough of us would spread the word, and gather in the streets, in order to give a reality check to our leaders and representatives before we'd passed the point of no return. To do so, in my mind, would bring "shame to our nation". But I was referring more to our shoddy and horrible case for the war, and the presence of plagiarized, forged, and greatly exaggerated evidence to support it.

Never did I think we would be shamed before the whole world not only for our decadent and self-righteous pretensions but for torture, in who knows how many cases murderously ending in death.

We cannot allow those who have dodged and evaded accountability and responsibility all this time, for the events surrounding this mission in Iraq, when events turn negative, while hoping to bask in the accolades when things seemingly go well, or positive, to pull their latest maneouver and pin this on "6 morons who lost the war".

Though they truly may be described as morons, from the view of the Pentagon, for taking pictures, and somehow letting them be released when they are so incriminating, both to themselves, to the Pentagon, and to us as a nation, we shouldn't lose sight that if they weren't such morons we wouldn't know with certainty and be able to put a stop to institutional torture and murder in our name.

Have we tortured and murdered innocent family men, after having torn them away from their families, these families fearing day and night of the well-being of their loved one? Thank God for these pictures, because this cannot go on in our name, or as a condition of our military endeavors throughout the world. And sooner or later the survivors of these prisons would have been released, and told their stories to their families, friends, and neighbors, where it would spread like wildfire amongst those whom we intend to "win hearts and minds", all the while at home a majority continue to wonder why they resent and hate us.

People at the top need to take ownership. Take responsibility. There better damn well be some resignations among the civilian leadership. President Bush, it's time to break out the big stick. This mission in Iraq has indeed brought "great shame to our nation". Drop the hammer on those responsible, and assure the world we take this to be serious, serious business.

***

Let us also not forget that though a life is priceless, we inevitably will be paying a heavy price to reimburse the victims of torture and murder in Iraq by our hands.

2004-04-28T14:24:00.000-07:00

Ethics And The Bush Administration - The Environment

Environmental Media Services and The Unified Forest Defense Campaign have released a media tip sheet on the ethical lapses of the Bush Administration in regards to environmental policy.

There is growing concern that the current Administration has become comfortable operating within a pattern of deception and spin to circumvent laws and environmental protections and exploit the natural resources found on public lands. From keeping confidential files on public meetings, misleading the public through misnamed programs, ignoring scientific and economic facts, to granting sweetheart out-of-court settlements to friends in industry, Administration officials have become increasingly brazen in their intentions toward public lands.

Collectively, these examples illustrate a pattern that—at best—skirts ethics, and—at worst—demonstrates contempt for public involvement and maintaining a healthy balance between economic growth and environmental protection.

They list a number of areas along with supporting information for each. I won't go into detail here, but there are a number of examples for each charge.

1. Withholding Information From The Public

2. Misleading The Public

3. Out of Court Settlements That Favor Industry

4. Ignoring Scientific Information

In other words...deception, double dealing, lying, cheating, profiteering, corruption, cynicism, and fundamentalist irrationalism.

2004-04-27T03:06:00.000-07:00

Bush Administration Attempts To Gag FBI Interpreter And Critic Of 9/11 Preparedness

The Bush administration will today seek to prevent a former FBI translator from providing evidence about 11 September intelligence failures to a group of relatives and survivors who have accused international banks and officials of aiding al-Qa'ida.

Sibel Edmonds was subpoenaed by a law firm representing more than 500 family members and survivors of the attacks to testify that she had seen information proving there was considerable evidence before September 2001 that al-Qa'ida was planning to strike the US with aircraft. The lawyers made their demand after reading comments Mrs Edmonds had made to The Independent.

But the US Justice Department is seeking to stop her from testifying, citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege". Today in a federal court in Washington, senior government lawyers will try to gag Mrs Edmonds, claiming that disclosure of her evidence "would cause serious damage to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States".

(snip)

Her lawyer, Mark Zaid, said last night: "The FBI wants to shut her up completely." He said it was ridiculous to claim that everything Mrs Edmonds knew had national security implications. Rather, he said, the FBI wanted to silence his client to save its embarrassment.

The Bush administration has been put on the back foot by allegations that senior officials - perhaps even Mr Bush himself - were provided with considerable information warning of an imminent attack by al-Qa'ida and that they failed to act. Mrs Edmonds said yesterday: "What are they are afraid of? If I am not allowed to give evidence, the families will not get the information I have; that will be that."

She said it was wrong for the Bush administration to claim it wanted a full investigation. "If there is transparency, there is going to be accountability and that is what they don't want."

That's a day old actually. The judge agreed to hear the case next month.

2004-04-27T02:43:00.000-07:00

National Rifle Association Seeks Not Just To Influence, But Become, Big Media

In the spring of 1990, Philip Morris circulated a top-secret proposal suggesting that the nation's biggest cigarette manufacturer acquire a news company such as Knight Ridder in order to "improve the climate for the marketing and use of tobacco products."

Luckily, Big Tobacco never acquired Big Media, and the nation was saved from the prospect of newspapers run by the Marlboro Man. Since then, the threat of special interests' owning news outlets hasn't gone away. In fact, it has come closer to reality.

Earlier this month, at its annual meeting in Pittsburgh, the National Rifle Association (NRA) launched NRANews.com, a private news company that offers a daily Internet talk show and plans to acquire TV and radio stations.

NRA President Wayne LaPierre was candid about the goal: to give the NRA's media arm the same legal recognition as a mainstream news organization, so that it can push pro-gun views and candidates without the pesky constraints of the campaign-finance law's ban on certain donations.

In the U.S., there are few legal restrictions on who can own news outlets. After all, defense contractor General Electric owns NBC. So who's to say Wal-Mart or ExxonMobil — or Philip Morris, for that matter — shouldn't own a national television network or newspaper chain? There's little stopping political advocacy groups, either.

In regards to General Electric, I can see all kinds of conflicts with a defense contractor owning a major network, and most especially because we have such a concentration of media ownership at the moment, so that owners with similar agendas or interests could steer emphasis and coverage a particular direction without worry of competition showing them up.

That's why I'm for strict limits on media ownership, in the sense of shaping laws and regulations in this area to encourage ownership and production diversification, so as to assure a healthy and competitive market that assures that all stories are created equal, in the sense of the owners of the news not having a financial interest in their own content. The mission of news media and organizations, and profit model, ought to be on how well they break stories and report on compelling issues to their customers, and ought not to be muddied by having signifigant financial interests and profit motives elsewhere that would benefit by increased coverage with a particular slant (say coverage of an impending war, while downplaying opposition sentiment, if you are a defense contractor who will profit spectacularly should such a war happen).

The difference would be news, on the one hand, and public relations and marketing, on the other. I'm not saying that this is happening today, but I'm suggesting it could. Since it could, we should assure it won't. The measure of our liberty and democracy is inevitably mediated and communicated through the freedom and integrity of our press. Since it's much easier for a possible conspiracy against our liberty and democracy to occur amongst a handful of conspirators, if even as innocent in motive as financial self-interest, so it is in our best interests, in the grassroots, to advocate that our media be much less concentrated.

Then, rather than ruminating on or debating the existence of conspiracies and elite deviance, we remove the elite from the structure of the equation and also the possibility of a conspiracy at all. Real solutions anticipate problems before they occur. Big Media is a structural problem, in the sense of the inherent potential for deviance and harm that could conceivably result. We should address the structural anomalies that put our democratic and (classical) liberal values at risk by restructuring our media laws and regulations to encourage a diversity of views and healthy competition in the news media marketplace.

***

It's late at night and I'm rambling, so if this doesn't make total sense, bear with me, leave a comment, and I'll fix it up in a more rested condition.

2004-04-26T19:44:00.000-07:00

Venture Capital Embraces Eco-Economy

Across the country, venture capitalists are opening their wallets to upstarts that, like Nanosolar, develop "clean" technologies in anticipation of a growing market for products that generate revenue without harming the environment.

In 2003, investment in clean technology ventures rose 8 percent to $1.2 billion while overall venture capital investment fell 14 percent to $18.2 billion, according to the Cleantech Investor Network. The Howell, Mich.-based group defines clean technologies as technologies that allow for more efficient use of natural resources and greatly reduce ecological impact.

Venture capital firms are pouring money into clean technologies related to water purification, agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, recycling, air quality and alternative energy such as solar, wind and hydrogen.

the times,
they are
a'changen

2004-04-26T19:36:00.000-07:00

How Far Does The Freedom Of Information Act Currently Go?

I found this piece in The Hill to be an interesting perspective in regards to the freedom of information.

Under the 1966 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Congress also left a hefty chunk of the government off-limits — yet another reason why the sun doesn’t shine on much of what goes on. The lawmakers exempted the White House staff and “others whose sole function is to advise and assist the president,” the federal courts and themselves.

But the Pentagon didn’t get a blanket pass. The brass can withhold records only when, if disclosed, they “reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security.” That exemption has been widely seen as covering military plans, weaponry and certain scientific and technical data.

(snip)

In an hour-long talk before several hundred publishers and editors last week, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said that while “government information ultimately belongs to the people … we have been moving in a different direction. The period after Sept. 11 saw the single biggest rollback of FOIA ever.”

His companion on the dais, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), used the session to defend the USA Patriot Act. The Judiciary Committee chairman wants the law to be extended and broadened. But Leahy, the panel’s ranking member, charged the Bush administration with hiding behind the statute to thumb its nose at demands for more openness, not only from the public but also from lawmakers.

In serving here over a span of six presidencies, Leahy charged, “I’ve never seen such a lack of cooperation.”

“In a period when there is so much to be accountable for,” the senator added, “it is the things we don’t want you to know about that you need FOIA for.”

Indeed.

2004-04-25T13:49:00.000-07:00

News Flash: Cheney In Bed With Special Interests

Okay, I know that's not really a news flash, since we all know this already, but more disturbing news is coming out about corporate influence on policy, the nexus of special interests lobbyists and government bureaucracy, and Dick Cheney's infamous and very secretive Energy Task Force.

The executive director of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, whose closed-door meetings with industry executives enraged environmentalists and prompted a Supreme Court showdown this week, became an energy lobbyist just months after leaving the White House, records show.

Andrew Lundquist, a native Alaskan who worked on Capitol Hill for both his state's senators, shepherded the development of the administration's energy policy as executive director of the National Energy Policy Development Group, a Cabinet-level task force chosen by President Bush and headed by Cheney.

When the task force completed its work, Lundquist stayed on at the White House as Cheney's energy policy director, leading the vice president's effort to turn the task force's work into law.

Then, a day after leaving government service, he opened a consulting business. Nine months later, Lundquist was a registered lobbyist for companies that stood to benefit from the energy policy he helped craft, according to 2003 lobby disclosure records reviewed by the Globe.

This guy is a classic case of what has gone wrong with our democratic system. Hopefully, some court rulings to come will help clear this up for us and rally public support for reforms.

Lundquist's behind-the-scenes role as policy coordinator, vice presidential aide, and ultimately as a lobbyist for energy companies highlights some of the concerns that have led consumer groups to seek the opening of the task force's records.

Environmental groups contend the task force met with companies seeking benefits under the bill but did not grant equal access to people challenging those positions.

Cheney has refused to release the records. When a federal judge agreed to allow some records to be reviewed in the discovery process, Cheney did not comply, pushing the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear it on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, another environmental group, the Natural Resources Defense Council, drew on the fact that Lundquist was paid by the Department of Energy to seek his task force records under the Freedom of Information Act, which covers the department. When a court ordered the records released, the administration again refused, putting Lundquist in the middle of the administration's battle over the secrecy of its energy dealings.

Thank God for the Freedom of Information Act. It's time we expand it to a full constitutional amendment. I'd love to see, for once, some of our most popular bloggers champion this issue. Everyone loves the complaints and spotlight on malfeasance and corruption that our leading bloggers frequently issue. But once in awhile we need to hear about institutional and legal remedies we can take to stop this from happening before it occurs, or have greater remedy to act against it in a speedier fashion once underway. In other words, reform.

2004-04-24T13:21:00.000-07:00

Freedom Century On Its Way

The software project I've been working on is finally going production next week, so get ready to see the brand new Project For A New Century of Freedom sometime in the month of May. It will have a whole new design, and some cool new features, including greater indexing and searching (in other words, organization of content).

2004-04-24T12:57:00.000-07:00

An Excellent "New" Blog - World Changing

The Internet, and Google, really are a beautiful thing. Just a second ago, while googling for a link to Lester Brown's book, Plan B (posted below), I found this awesome "new" blog. I put new in quotation marks because they've been around for awhile, from the looks of their archives, but there's so many blogs exploding around the globe that it's hard to keep up with even one-half of one percent of the ones that share political and social commentary (which themselves are probably one-half of one percent of new blogs).

Once found, however, never hesitate to include. To integrate. So, with that in mind, I highly encourage everyone to link in to World Changing. It's a group blog, with contributors from around the globe, Trinidad and Tobago to Toronto, Stockholm to Seattle, and places inbetween, and my first impression of the content has been progressive "thinking out of the box". Here's a sample of "why they're here":

WorldChanging.com works from a simple premise: that the tools, models and ideas for building a better future lie all around us. That plenty of people are working on tools for change, but the fields in which they work remain unconnected. That the motive, means and opportunity for profound positive change are already present. That another world is not just possible, it's here. We only need to put the pieces together.

I won't argue with that. That's why I'm here.

2004-04-24T12:48:00.000-07:00

Care To Learn More About Eco-Economy?

Feel free to go visit the Earth Policy Institute, led by Lester Brown. Also, The World Watch Institute is a great resource for keeping up-to-date on the latest environmental indicators.

Did I say feel free? Well, I won't dispute that notion, but perhaps some urgency is in order as well. Why? Brown explains in Plan B.

Go!

2004-04-22T01:21:00.000-07:00

Happy Earth Day - Making Global Warming Personal

In the decade after the first Earth Day 34 years ago, people planted trees to fight smog, picketed toxic dumps, slogged through mud to clean up grungy river banks. Being Earth-friendly meant giving $25 to save the whales - or choosing unleaded gas at the pump.

But in the new millennium, using a trash can to "keep America beautiful" is not enough. One of the planet's most pressing problems - global warming - looks to be one of its most intractable. And that is proving frustrating to would-be activists.

Their challenge: How to get individuals to change their behavior for a problem that looms so large and is unlikely to be solved for generations.

"Environment took off as an issue in the 1970s because you could do something personal about recycling and pollution in neighborhoods," says Dale Jamieson, president of the International Society for Environmental Ethics. "One of the dangers of thinking about the global warming issue today is that it can be extremely impersonal, disempowering for people."

My friends, we need to get way beyond recycling. In order to "deal with the real", we have to acknowledge our overuse of automobiles, and emphasis on energy use for global commerce and transportation. While we use the art and science of economics to make convincing cases for global trade flows, we fail to address externalities and costs associated with the energy use required to sustain these flows. These externalities and costs include war and conflict in the Middle East and Asia.

Are we too spoiled, stubborn, or stupid to see the simple changes we can make to help alleviate the situation? Are we too greedy to care for the common good? Why do we have so many SUV's? Isn't anyone thinking beyond tonight and tomorrow? Why do we have to import so much food from thousands upon thousands of miles away, when we have the ability to grow it closer to home? Why are we forced to buy so much bottled water because everyone acknowledges that the tap water is "at your own risk" (too dangerous for most), but so few of us are willing to invest in water filtration systems?

It's time economists graduate from the naive and childish economic measurement system we currently use and start becoming a force of enlightened change. It's time we citizens do the same in our own forecasting and actions. Nothing in life comes for free, and when we destroy natural resources, we destroy value. Judging by the resilience of the Clean Air Act against steady attacks by special and corporate interests, it's clear there is a demand for the services of nature that isn't being appropriately measured in economic analysis or output calculations (like GNP).

Dare I say it's a structural problem? I will, in part, but there is very clearly a personal element here, and one that begs the question of the nature and extent of our attention. If we do something now, while there is still time, we just might avoid a natural catastrophe that could make 9/11 fade into irrelevance. Are we paying attention?

We can't wait until we are certain that our activities will doom us, or doom others along seacoasts, or radically change our environment and/or perspective on life - this kind of certainty only comes in hindsight after the dreaded potential has already materialized, and has little adaptive fitness.

Intelligence, wisdom, and courage counsel us to act while there is still uncertainty, but where the available information is too compelling to discount and, in that light, exposes potential risks that are too great to ignore.

2004-04-21T13:26:00.000-07:00

European Parliament Ministers Overcome Resistance To Put Spotlight On Media Concentration

Silvio Berlusconi’s media empire will come under fire on Thursday despite efforts by the EP’s centre right to sideline the issue.

A report by Dutch MEP Johanna Boogerd-Quaak on media freedom singled out the Italian premier’s grip on the public and private media as a cause for concern

Although it has no legal weight, the report threatens political embarassment for the Italian centre-right in the run-up to the June European elections.

(snip)

Leader of the European Liberals Graham Watson said the report reflected legitimate public concern about freedom of information.

“Freedom of information is not possible without a free media and neither is a functioning democracy,” he said.

“Concentration of ownership is reflected in a narrowing of views.”

But speaking earlier in plenary, Watson stressed that the report was not just about Berlusconi.

Spain is also held to account for “goverment pressure” on public service broadcaster TVE which resulted in “blatant distortion” and “ignoring of the facts” following the Madrid March 11 terrorist attacks.

2004-04-12T22:36:00.000-07:00

The First Truly Postmodern War

The war in Iraq was based on the conventional premise that no great power can afford to have its will flouted – flagrantly, abusively, and indefinitely – by a small power. To do so invites further challenges from other small powers, challenges that together combine to form a big challenge.

Before this war in Iraq started, I sent some emails around describing the rise of the first truly postmodern war, in the sense that there was no clear and compelling reason for the war, and, depending on who you asked, you could get any number of different rationales (whatever the particular ideological encampment seemingly wanted to believe - for or against the war).

Even now, there is very little clarity anywhere about exactly why we went to war with Iraq, whether it was due to their being a threat of some sort or the launching pad for a democratic transformation in the Middle East.

During this time before the war, however, and since it's begun, I've yet to hear the rationale for the war in Iraq as stated above - "no great power can afford to have its will flouted...". That it should be stated so matter-of-factly, as if not even a question that has been debated ad nauseum absurdum, just struck me as strange, and almost Twilight Zone-ish.

I don't think Americans would have been, or would be now, supportive of the war as premised by the rationale given above. To my knowledge, not even PNAC dares suggest such a thing.

As a student of propaganda, therefore, and also a denizen of the blogosphere and Internet news, I'm realizing that there's still some information I may be missing, that's being reported, and I definitely need to start paying more attention to the major newspapers around the world that are not in the West.

I'm going to start by keeping closer tabs on the Jerusalem Post.

2004-04-07T20:04:00.000-07:00

Tonight And Tomorrow On Islamic Lands' TV, Radio, And Newspapers

As people in Islamic lands rise this morning, and catch some TV, read the newspaper, or head to the local shop to gossip, they will be seeing, reading, and hearing that United States forces bombed a mosque in Iraq and killed 40 people (the rebels seem to have escaped).

There is some dispute and uncertainty in the matter, but this is how it is being reported in the Daily Times of Pakistan, Al-Jazeera, and other outlets. The BBC originally reported this news as well, and that will give the Islamic media all the license it doesn't really need to report the events as it chooses.

The bottom line seems to be that our guys were pinned down, and there may have been no other way to avoid a disaster for our side, but this tactical situation didn't happen by accident, and the impact could be devastating to our larger efforts and strategy.

This will not win hearts and minds - it will lose them, enrage them, and transform them into our sworn enemies.

2004-04-07T12:32:00.000-07:00

Deeds Mean Much More Than Words

The owner of a jewelry kiosk at a mall in Tampa, who wears an Islamic head scarf, said she was physically and verbally assaulted by three people who told her to "get out of (America)" and said her religion is "hateful and violent."

And these three individuals presumably practice a religion of love and peace.

2004-04-04T00:07:00.000-08:00

John Kerry And Kos

Until and when John Kerry's web site reinserts its link to the Daily Kos, John Kerry will be viewed as suspect, as will the Democratic Party.

Up to today, some of the spinelessness by the liberal mainstream has been deemed acceptable (considering their desperateness to get back in power), and, for the most part, I'm in total assent with this mission.

But censoring and ostracizing Markos for a single comment of his goes beyond any moral understanding I can uphold.

The line is in the sand...

2004-04-01T10:58:00.000-08:00

Thanking Mr. Clarke

This space would be highly remiss not to extend a warm and gracious thank you to Richard Clarke. He has courageously stepped forward to warn us of dangers regarding our leadership, and committed himself to great service on behalf of our security over the past decade or more. Perhaps if the Bush Administration had given him and his views more credence, we would have been able to prioritize risks and strategies more effectively.

Also, his heartfelt apology to the families of those who suffered personal losses on 9/11 was the stuff of real integrity, compassion, and personal responsibility.

The Bush Administration ought to stop trying to destroy Clarke and instead emulate him.

2004-04-01T10:53:00.000-08:00

Credit Where Due

President Bush,

Thanks for the doing the right thing. Though it's mysterious why you and Dick would testify together, rather than individually like everyone else, what's most important is that the two of you will testify before all the commission members, and that Condoleeza Rice will testify publicly and under oath (this is the least she could do since essentially calling Richard Clarke a liar).

As a further thought, you may want to consider changing your relationship to the truth. How many people have resigned from your administration? How many have been stymied because of views that differed from your own?

Best,

Jimm Donnelly

2004-03-25T13:52:00.000-08:00

Memo To The President...Do Your Job...Testify To The American People Before Congress

President Bush,

I expect the unprecedented and the extraordinary, when it comes to participation in determining what went wrong for 9/11, from you and your staff, including Mrs. Rice.

The spectacular failure happened on your watch.

You better bust your a@# and show us what you're doing about it, and how that compares to what you did before, or you're fired!

Don't patronize us Mr. Bush. We are the American people, and you serve at our discretion (i.e. you work for us). It's your butt on the line, because you're the one supposed to be keeping our butts from becoming victims of our enemies.

So, here is what you should do. Testify before Congress and explain how you did everything possible to keep us secure and safe from our enemies, or, where you failed, explain who's been held accountable and what's changed.

Yours,

Jimm Donnelly

2004-03-25T13:49:00.000-08:00

Bush Testifying Wouldn't Be Nearly As Unprecedented As 9/11 Occurring On His Watch

So far, Bush has lamely tried to spin his participation in Congressional investigations of 9/11 as "unprecedented", in the sense of sharing information between branches.

To that, I would only ask, "Mr. Bush, hasn't the world changed since 9/11?"

What is more unprecedented, Congress investigating failures of the executive branch, and demanding full access to information, or several hijacked planes crashing into buildings and killing several thousand Americans?

These times are unprecedented, and, if we the people have our way, they are going to become even more so, at least in terms of transparency and accountability.

Because, no matter the adjective Bush comes up with - unprecedented, extraordinary, etc. - it will pale in comparison to the shock and events of 9/11.

2004-03-25T13:46:00.000-08:00

On The Merits Of Bush And Rice Testifying Before Congress

No matter how you view it, on President Bush's watch, 9/11 occurred.

This is a spectacular failure.

In any failure, especially one as grave and disastrous as this one, responsibility must be determined, and the vulnerability exposed and taken advantage of at least explained.

This can only be done by knowing the state of what was known (the information), and what was being done about it (the operations), following from the information, including strategy development and further risk analysis to expand on "the known".

What we do know, and have begun to learn more about, is that this attack was not as novel or unanticipated as was thought or asserted (by Rice), and the more this is the case, the less it is an excuse of any kind.

That leaves us with the information that was known, in terms of the strategy being built upon its foundation, the risk management that was going on, cost/benefit analyses, in order to determine how such a shocking attack could have occurred under the current administration's watch.

If Bush wants the conspiracies to end, and the fingers to stop pointing, and he and all of us should, he needs to share all he knows, as does Rice, so that we all can move forward past 9/11 and why we were unable to prevent it, in order to focus on today, and tomorrow, and preventing further 9/11's, not to mention better managing our information, risk portfolios, resources, and image/brand.

2004-03-25T13:43:00.000-08:00

Were We Truly Ignorant To The Methods Of The 9/11 Terrorists?

The Bush Administration can't be excused for ignorance of the threat, or of its novel nature.

Or can they?

This is the job of Congress. To find out. What did they know, and, going forward from that analysis, how did operations fail in regards to what indeed "was known"?

It's becoming increasingly troublesome to conclude that the Administration knew nothing of suicidal airliner attacks. Too many warnings were coming through from various intelligence agencies worldwide, and the potential for such an attack had to at least have been known. If not, this should merit its own investigation.

And, since the failure was so spectacular, it's hard to argue that it should be left "in house" as an executive managerial matter. Clearly, part of the problem could be ideological blinders or prejudice that hinders a proper risk analysis and strategy implementation.

So the need for an outside party. The Congress.

Bush should testify for as long as it takes in order to assure that we can fully appraise our state of vulnerability pre-9/11, in terms of information and operations, and going forward beyond 9/11.

Anything less threatens the existence and well-being of Americans against terrorism.

2004-03-25T13:35:00.000-08:00

Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented?

Lost in all of the debate is the very sensitive matter of whether something could have been done prior to 9/11.

If not, why or what will have changed so that something could be done today (hopefully, is being done)?

From this frame, we notice that common sense tells us that things could have been done prior to 9/11, but weren't.

For the most part, almost everyone has forgiven or explained away this lack of preventive action by agreeing that the risk involved and the act itself were so novel and surprising.

For the man and woman on the street, this is true. But for those with access to warnings of terrorist intentions to hijack airliners and use them as missiles (they sure look like big missiles), this excuse is not as plain as to "the street". Indeed, perception on "the street" is irrelevant, because we don't have access to the same information as our intelligence and security professionals. It's not our job, it's theirs. For them to appeal to our sensibility and perception of the threat is absurd.

Richard Clarke goes part of the way in explaining how 9/11 could have been prevented by contrasting the efforts by Sandy Berger to coordinate agencies and information in the face of domestic terrorist threats during the Clinton Administration with the efforts by Condoleeza Rice during her tenure prior to 9/11.

In all honesty, it's this very coordination that might have got the head of the FBI to somehow notice that special agents in two different locations and offices had reported suspicions concerning flight schools. It also may have ramped up efforts to locate known terrorists, and to upgrade security on that tip at airports.

All speculation, but certainly plausible in view of the facts.

And, though the risk analysis and cost/benefit calculations may still have justified (by current standards before 9/11) the Bush Administration approach, in how they and Rice handled threat assessment, response, and counter-strategy, this ought to be proven as such, and no leeway ought to be given to them for not being aware of novel attack strategies, because these suicidal airline strategies were known to intelligence and security professionals.

That's why finding out how much they knew before 9/11 is so important.

The fact they are so remiss to share what they know hints at the answer.

***

Though, I should add, Donald Rumsfeld is correct to assert that we more than likely couldn't have prevented 9/11 by military means. Bin Laden did not commit this act. The failure and responsibility rests exclusively on the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Advisor, the President, and any other agencies coordinating counterterrorist information involving the homeland.

2004-03-21T19:15:00.000-08:00

1 Year Anniversary

To come, the complete site redesign. Until then, hiatus.

2004-03-17T08:44:00.000-08:00

Freedom Of Information Day (Yesterday) At The Miami Herald

Alasdair Roberts from foi.net brings readers up to date on the struggle between populists and realists in regards to the freedom of information, transparency, and accountability.

Undoubtedly, the Bush administration has introduced unduly broad restrictions on openness since 9/11. But we shouldn't think that the fight over openness is simply driven by security fears. There's a deeper conflict, in Washington and abroad, about the way government works. It's a battle between two camps: populists and realists.

Populists ruled the 1990s. Their power is rooted in the long-term decline in trust in government and other institutions. Populists assume that elites will exploit secrecy to shortchange the American public. They're optimistic about the public's capacity to use information intelligently. And they want to exploit the internet's ability to distribute information quickly.

(snip)

Realists watch these trends and cringe. Thirty years ago, the Trilateral Commission produced a famous report that said western democracies faced a ''crisis of governability'' caused by an adversary culture and the "debility of elected leaders.''

For realists, these problems have intensified. Interest groups seem more powerful, causing a gridlock that Jonathan Rauch calls ''hyperpluralism.'' The media environment is crowded with more outlets competing in a 24-hour news cycle.

(snip)

Which side is right? For now, the populists. There's plenty of evidence that secrecy can cloak abuses of power. The realists' complaints about governability are often just an attempt to preserve the power of a narrow elite. And it's too early to tell how far the populists' push for radical transparency can go, or assess the implications of this trend.

Eventually, however, openness advocates will have to deal with realists' concern about the decline of governability. The issue will persist long after today's debate over secrecy and 9/11 has faded into history.

As I will articulate in the weeks ahead, there is no true conflict here with transparency and governability. Deliberative democracy and the freedom of information can go hand-in-hand - it's just going to take a new breed of politicians with the right mix of bargaining and strategic skills to make it work, not to mention a more engaged citizenry willing to uphold grassroots accountability.

2004-03-17T06:14:00.000-08:00

After Impeaching Roh, South Korea Cracks Down On Bloggers And Dissent

Stirling Newberry has all the details over at the Blogging of the President.

Also, Nyco, over at Daily Kos, reminds us that President Roh, currently under impeachment proceedings, was greatly aided in the last elections by bloggers.

Is something ominous going on over in South Korea?

2004-03-15T14:33:00.000-08:00

From Clarity To A Blur - The Wars Against Afghanistan, Iraq, And Terror

this originally posted yesterday as a comment over at Daily Kos

The real intrigue involving the terrorist attacks is why Spain would be targeted because of Iraq, and by Al Qaeda.

Since there is no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, perhaps the intended response is to take advantage of the weakness that Spain and the US showed by insisting on their participation when only 10% of the people were in favor.

First, this makes arguments about defending democracy seem more hollow.

Second, it blurs the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in a way that, at least in this case, causes great psychological dissonance.

For, what we really have is one war in Afghanistan, and another in Iraq, but the two are inextricably intermingled.

So, support for the war in Afghanistan, which was generally accepted by free peoples worldwide, gets blurred because we forced another war in Iraq that almost noone was in favor of.

And it's the war in Afghanistan, much more than Iraq, that Al Qaeda and Islamicist terrorists would be truly motivated by.

In the end, we have psychologically left great weaknesses in the hearts and minds of people in our fight against terrorism by going to war with Iraq.

From clarity, we've created a blur.

2004-03-14T17:58:00.000-08:00

Imagine A Family Member Killed In Iraq

Yesterday, I was imagining myself in the place of an American who lost a family member in the latest war with Iraq. Knowing as I do the various shenanigans in how we justified that war, and even how we've cavalierly conducted it in many ways, I was overwhelmed with a feeling of rage dashed with sorrow.

We need to hold our leaders accountable. For freedom, for democracy, and for the lives of our family members. It's not just about ideals...it's personal.

To anyone who has lost a loved one in Iraq, I want to extend my deepest condolescences and an apology. Such a thing happening to someone in my family would be an irreplacable loss, and, though I can never truly do so, I will do my best to put myself in your shoes.

2004-03-14T17:45:00.000-08:00

Two Images - Snapshots Of Spain

Two images.

The latest developments in Madrid, in terms of the millions pouring onto the streets to show solidarity in grief and against terrorism, is compelling to view in the light of the demonstrations in Madrid, prior to the war in Iraq, involving millions of Spaniards opposing their government's decision to ally unilaterally with the Americans.

Beyond the fact that the Spanish government (at least nominally) dragged them into the war in Iraq when 90% of the Spanish people were opposed (obviously, this kind of war support will only be token, in the face of such resistance by the people, with an understanding that Spanish forces would not be making vital sacrifices), what strikes me is the millions pouring out together on the streets.

Terrorism, and cronyism, cannot defeat this show of solidarity. Of mutual aid and support. Rather than our elites making rhetorical claims that the terrorists are trying to destroy democracy, they ought to be beginning to realize that true democracy is in order. The hearts and minds of the Spanish people are out there in the streets, and they are not defeated.

In a democracy, if 90% of the people are opposed to spilling blood on a foreign land, especially one which does not directly threaten, than the government does not make a public show of support for that spilling of blood.

Likewise, now or later, absent a weapon of mass destruction, terrorism cannot defeat a people who will refuse to cower in fear, and will instead stand together and show that they are united.

Today, Spanish hearts and minds chose democracy, and held their leaders and representatives accountable for their actions taken on their behalf.

Two images.

2004-03-07T23:59:00.000-08:00

Haiti - Updated

I know I'm on hiatus, but there is an issue that begs attention, and is not being given it. Haiti. There is an unprecedented propaganda effort underway, with Carol Williams of the LA Times seemingly one of the players, to justify our removal of President Aristide, after the fact.

This is not a healthy sign of democracy, either for us or the Haitians. Every man and woman complicit in this operation should be held to account, and face the consequences. I read a whole article saying bad things about Aristide supporters sometime on Saturday only to learn that, when the still acting Prime Minister goes on state-run radio to declare that Aristide's government is still in charge, the rebels and students opposed to Aristide invade the broadcasting station and loot and destroy it.

That doesn't sound like freedom fighters. If you're in the right, why destroy the media? Where's our Marines? Aren't they defending key people and infrastructure? Don't we need the media to be operational in order to communicate to the people?

And now, today, I hear that pro-Aristide supporters fire on unarmed demonstrators who are championing a known war criminal and terrorist. It sounds unbelievable. These rebels are terrorists, and we are to believe they are the champions of the people? Of democracy? This won't go for American policy, and the fruits of that will bear out soon.

Haiti is just another indignity in a long line. It's time for to hold our president, vice president, and all their men and women, where appropriate, to account, and to insist they justify and explain their policy.

Where has President Bush been in regards to commenting on Haiti? Is he a real leader? Does he even know what's going on?

We could have prevented Aristide's ouster, and didn't, and this is no accident, but rather a policy. This ought to be acknowledged, and explained, and, since it hasn't, it's time to stand up and demand accountability from our leaders.

And, on that note, President Bush has been nowhere to be found, when he ought to be explaining to us why the removal of Aristide needed to occur, and how it fits into our overall strategy. Who's running the show? I want to know, and I'm not going to stand idle while our American values and reputation are trampled in the meantime.

Though, I should acknowledge, I am on hiatus.

Peace.

2004-03-07T16:11:00.000-08:00

On Hiatus For Awhile...Until Site Redesign Rolled Out

I'm writing a book, not to mention finishing up a software rollout, so I will be scarce from the blogosphere for awhile.

As a warning to all bloggers and blog readers, beware of the echo chamber. Seek varying opinions, and make sure you expose yourself to information outside of your immediate circle.

(text excised)

Also, something I've learned is that personal communication can be invaluable, especially in regards to conflict resolution, as a tonic for online communication. To make a long story short, I took a particularly smug and arrogant tone to Brad DeLong's blog, he removed me, I reacted, we discussed it, and the matter is resolved. Lesson learned on my part, and vice-versa.

For the record, Brad DeLong is one of our finest bloggers, his economic analysis brings an invaluable perspective to the blogosphere, and I encourage everyone to visit him and his insights regularly. In the meantime, I need to find a niche of my own.

2004-02-26T18:11:00.000-08:00

Do We Need A Constitutional Amendment To Ensure Our Privacy?

I'm beginning to wonder if we should push a privacy amendment to the Constitution. Perhaps along with an open government/freedom of information amendment. Not that the two need to be bundled. But it would be a joyous day if we were celebrating the passage of these two great measures.

Let's focus on the privacy amendment in this post. I've been poking around the Internet, and am finding surprisingly little on any past history of proposed amendments of privacy. This seems odd to me because our right to privacy is largely an interpretation of existing amendments, aside from protection from unlawful search and seizure, and is clearly a popular issue. Who wouldn't want a right to privacy from government (except for those who want to regulate personal behavior that results in no harm to another, but even they probably want their own privacy)?

I'm committing myself to this issue. Here in California, we have a right to privacy enshrined in our state Constitution. I'd like to see a similar development on the federal level, and enshrined in an amendment to our great Constitution. So, with privacy on our minds, I encourage you to go visit Privacy International and the Electronic Privacy Information Center as a way of getting up to speed with the world of privacy advocacy, activism, and watchdogging.

And, if you want to pursue open government, transparency, and the freedom of information a little further, then Transparency International, Open Government Information Awareness, Access Reports, freedominfo.org, and Open Society Justice Initiative can bring you up to speed.

2004-02-26T13:49:00.000-08:00

Tony Blair Claims British Intelligence Never Breaks The Law...And Another Absurdity

Now, people say a lot of good and bad things about secret services and intelligence agencies, but I'm not sure anyone has ever said that "they never break the law". These are clandestine spy agencies - does Tony Blair honestly want me to believe that his spies never break the law? Does he think I'm a total fool? Does he thing the whole world are fools?

Probably not. Chances are this is just more legal posturing from Tony. And there's a lot of that going on over in the UK. Take that case against Katharine Gun, the translator who leaked the email request from American intelligence to spy on UN deliberations regarding the war. She regularly confesses to the deed, and yet the government drops the case against her for a "lack of evidence". Of course. Pure logic at its finest.

Though, had they pursued the case in court against her, the veracity of the email itself would have had to been established, and this very well could have led to disclosures that showed the government, and its precious secret services, committing illegal acts.

So, let's sum up. Two developments have arose in the past 24 hours. One, a prime minister claims that his spies never break the law. Two, a woman who regularly confesses to a crime is freed for lack of evidence by the initiation of the prosecutor.

My response to that is, one, I'm not stupid, and two, somebody's hiding something (beyond the obvious being this involves spies and politicians).

2004-02-24T11:49:00.000-08:00

Why Is Big Government, Or Liberal Democracy If You Prefer, Necessary To Protect Marriage?

As expected, President Bush has weighed in on an amendment to the Constitution to declare it solely between man and woman. This will be a crux of his presidential campaign, and is a sign of his weakness. In reality, weakness is what I'm examining in this post. For many, we see strength in our traditions that have gone back for millenia, long before the establishment of our limited free government. President Bush is convinced otherwise:

"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."

Now, far be it from me to say that marriage is stronger than it's ever been, since anyone can look around and see that marriages aren't lasting as long, on average, than other periods of history. But, as President Bush himself has noted on occasion, this trend has occurred in a world that we lead, and that has come largely to embrace the inalienable - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the root foundation (however well we are in the process of implementing and enabling this vision).

What am I saying? We live in the greatest days of the world, the days with the most freedom, for the most people, with the best health care, and the most incredible expansion of human innovation and ingenuity ever. This happened because we are free - we freed ourselves. In the process of attaining this freedom, we inevitably noticed the oppressions of the past, of man over woman, of master over slave, and have had to deal with their realities, lingering effects where largely eliminated, and our relative and varying complicity in these evils.

In the past, for millenia, men and women were often married against their will, or, in the case of polygamy, many women were monopolized by a few men. Because of the church, and the lack of freedom and personal autonomy, people trapped in ugly and moribund marriages were unable to exit them. With freedom, this situation has changed. Humanity is growing up, and in the process of choosing for ourselves our destinies. This has been enabled most of all by the aforementioned historical novelty - the right of exit. If you're in a bad marriage, you can leave. Today. In the past, often you could not.

In our culture today, people are free to come and go - to enter into a marriage contract as they please. America did not invent marriages, and our government is not needed to sustain them. Even today, in a growing scientific age, most people get married before a pastor, priest, or religious leader of some sort. As a reflection of our freedom of religion, and separation of church and state, this is also one of the great blessings of our system of government here in America. The government is not needed to protect what ought to be protected in marriage - the force of our traditions, morals, religions, and spiritual traditions will do that, as they have, for millenia.

Our government is embroiled in the legalities relating to marriage, however, and these can best be seen, and are by many, as necessary evils. People don't (or shouldn't) get married in order to take on so many new and unenviable legal responsibilities. That just comes with the territory, and marriage partners weight it as part of their decision, but not usually as a primary. No, people get married because they fall in love. Marriage is romantic. It's about romance. About uniting in a bond forever. This is the essence of marriage, and, if anything, what ought to be protected about it. And, judging by the force of our culture, and the vulnerability of our hearts, we have nothing to worry about here.

For millenia, people got married for various reasons, and so be it. In America, we don't really look favorably on most of history. It involved coercion and slavery, and as far as marriage goes, often much less romance than domination. Today, we are a romantic people, in love with liberty and romance, seeking to realize ourselves in work and play, and to find our life partner and soulmate. Sometimes we succeed. Sometimes we fail.

That's reality. Marriage has not always meant the same thing, other than being the focus of family. And we don't need the state, or Big Government, to be the strength behind our families. To tell us who to include in our families. As free and sovereign individuals we form and give legitimacy to our families and to the state. The government should never forget that. We don't need the government telling us how to collect together and form groups - as human beings, we've been doing that for millenia, our families (extended) are much older than America, or democracy, and ultimately we formed our government as a voluntary and willing association just as we do our other groups. The government needs to do our will - not try to become our will.

Which brings me to gay Americans. It's coming to consensus now that homosexuals do not choose to be so. For whatever reason, genetic or conditional, this is their endowment. Through this prism, they are sexually and romantically driven. If we didn't tie up sex and romance, which we do, we wouldn't be having this particular debate. We could all agree that in the particular sphere of sexual activity, we should just mind our own business.

But this amendment of President Bush's seems to miss all the insight I've mentioned, not to mention any sense of heart or compassion. People don't choose to be gay. Are they to be denied the right to realize their love, when they fall in love, to make that permanent union of heart and body, mind and soul, as do the rest of us? Are we to make the terrible mistake that marriage is about all the legalities and not what we know it to be - about love, and families, and a happy hearth?

Think about it. Marriage doesn't need government. Why does the government, and President Bush, need marriage?

2004-02-23T20:08:00.000-08:00

Pentagon Opens Criminal Investigation Of Halliburton

Is it possible that Halliburton will finally be held to account? This site has documented numerous instances of despicable behavior and activities by Halliburton and/or its subsidiary Kellogg, Brown, and Root. Now it seems that KB&R has pulled a fast one on the American government and military, and, unlike with foreign governments in the past, didn't have the influence to evade accountability and the rule of law (i.e. the ability to bribe public officials to look the other way or to be their partners in crime).

The Pentagon said on Monday its criminal investigators were examining allegations of fraud against Halliburton Co. unit Kellogg Brown and Root, including potential overpricing of fuel delivered to Iraq.

"The Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the criminal investigative arm of the Inspector General's office, is investigating allegations on the part of KBR of fraud, including the potential overpricing of fuel delivered to Baghdad by a KBR subcontractor," said a Pentagon spokeswoman.

2004-02-10T11:51:00.000-08:00

John Kerry In The Arms Of Big Media

Well, I must say I'm a little taken aback this morning. Though I'm a fan of John Kerry, I'm disturbed by this latest article out of the Guardian.

Fresh from his latest win in Maine, the favourite to challenge George Bush for the US presidency has secured the financial support of some of the most powerful media moguls in the world.

As John Kerry's campaign to secure the Democrat nomination - and with it a crack at the White House - continues to gather pace, it has emerged that it is being bankrolled by key executives from News Corporation, MTV-owner Viacom and Sony.

Wow. Before rushing to judgement on this, it would be wise to see the history of these kinds of things, and John Kerry's backing by these companies, but it sure seems to fit into our ongoing theories about Big Media going all out to prevent Howard Dean from getting the nomination.

Unsurprisingly, the donation from News Corp's boardroom came not from chairman Rupert Murdoch, a committed Republican, but from the company's chief operating officer, Peter Chernin.

Mr Chernin, one of Mr Murdoch's most trusted lieutenants, is among several media chiefs who have pledged to raise between $50,000 and $100,000 to support the Vietnam war veteran's campaign for the White House.

Others who have pledged to raise more than $50,000 include the Viacom chief executive, Sumner Redstone, and Sony chairman Howard Stringer, whose name has recently been linked with the vacant chairmanships at ITV and the BBC.

Most of the money raised from these contributors will have to be raised through business associates, relatives and friends as individuals can only give a total of $4,000 each to presidential candidates - $2,000 during the primaries and another $2,000 during a general election.

This certainly deserves more scrutiny. Howard Dean declared that he was going to break up media conglomerates, and swiftly became characterized in the media as a "loose cannon", "angry", and "unelectable". This should have been occasion for the Democratic Party to stand up for its own, and for the benefit of all its candidates, since to condone this behavior is to ignore how it has played negatively against you, and may again in the near future. If not speaking out against this treatment now, please don't bother me with any complaints should it come to you, or to your candidate.

Instead, it seems John Kerry is collecting big money from Big Media, a special interest, yet Kerry claims to be the worst enemy of "special interests", even though he's collected more money than any other senator from special interest lobbyists in the past several years. Odd.

2004-02-05T21:09:00.000-08:00

Health Care Thoughts - Stream Of Consciousness

rising health care costs - integrative vision

need to emphasize preventive care and access to emergency care

population is aging, and requires more health care

with this in mind, what are people treated for?

how many of these ailments are related to pollution, poor nutrition, i.e. the result of activities that the government subsidizes or does not regulate appropriately?

obesity, asthma, adhd, cancer, etc.

profits for petroleum companies (and others) while we pay the health care cost difference in people's health

environmental health

overall vision that sees way to expand access to care, both preventive and emergency, thus saving money by having less intrusive care needs along with better prior accounting and market pricing of emergency care rather than the inevitable waste of bureaucratic "shifting".

no vision with business interests (like business roundtable, walmart)

they want less stringent environmental regulations AND a lower burden on health care costs, and it's not certain whether they advocate that the costs for these be passed on to other interests (not business), or just not acknowledged as long as they are not effected.

empirical: any evidence showing that states with tighter environmental standards pay less for health care? probably not, since most chemicals being dumped would seem to be a federal issue.

***

imagine we implement a better system. what will be demographic result if everyone eats a balanced diet? what will they then die of? what will be the costs of people as a rule living much longer than today? especially if we were to do away with highway and auto accident deaths too?

2004-02-02T13:10:00.000-08:00

The Letter That Preceded This Blog

When the war in Iraq seemed almost inevitable, I fired off this letter to every news outlet, commentator, and blogger I could find an email address for. Since we've seemingly come full circle now, with admissions that the war was not justified, I'm reposting it for the purposes of reflection.

It's a crucial time in American history. The incompetent, scandalous and crooked are becoming the norm. The latest incident involving the forgery of the Niger nuclear documents is a telling case-in-point. Confronted with this development, a key component of our case for war against Iraq, all we get from our leaders and these documents' former champions is a shrug. Oh well, we passed it along in "good faith". We are not incompetent, or criminal, it just managed to "slip through". Forget about it. And we couldn't have been responsible for it, because our people are competent, talented professionals who surely would have done a better job of forging these documents. And so on...

Only this information is, and was, unforgettably important. We expressed it at the highest levels of our power apparatus, as a justification for a very expensive, in both human lives and material cost, war against Iraq. A war in which we've articulated our possible use of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear and chemical, as a "defensive" measure "should it come to that". A war which has divided the world, invited enemies and derision, and which we have initiated. The people of Iraq, and Saddam Hussein himself, have not asked us to go to war with them. Mysteriously, it's not a priority for them.

Even more mysteriously, it's seemingly become our overriding purpose as a nation. You can't go anywhere and not hear about it. On TV, on the radio, in the newspaper, the non-stop onslaught of coverage of this possible war against a weakened tyrant and people is constantly in play. Forced to give an opinion by the pollsters, fastly becoming more tiresome and meddling in popular culture than the tax collector, Americans indicate a preference for action. An illusion. Most people don't know the facts, don't really care one way or the other, and would surely rather quit hearing about it. You'd think the mind-numbing coverage and escalating gas prices would have assured overwhelming support for war by now, just so we can "get on with our lives", but it hasn't. Most mysteriously of all, masses are gathering in the streets, not answering the call of obedience, irrationality and war, but demanding peace, rationality and sanity. The herd! Acting with compassion and reason, demanding information before consent! The elites must be trembling in their slippers...

Meanwhile, our young American men and women are strapping on their combat boots and chem-warfare suits, preparing to engage in a war of which they can't possibly be passionate about. Why do I say this? There's a difference in what you hear, and what you know. And only the most clueless of the clueless would believe we're sacrificing human lives for the cause of the common Iraqi. For his freedom. Or hers. So anyone who's looking for reasons, to engage their reason, to determine the right thing to do, the moral course of action, will find nothing but ideology and fiction, speculation and threats, forgeries and plagiarism emanating from our most competent war orators. The mere presence of a plagiarized, decade-old student thesis, and the aforementioned Niger document forgery, as key references for our case is more telling than anything else. The plagiarized student claiming to have been able to give more updated information if he had been consulted only adds insult to injury.

This war is a fraud. Essential questions have not been answered. Who is going to die, and why? Will our fighting men and women kill with certainty, or with doubts? When does being a patriot mean defending freedom, and when does it mean being a fool? We don't know. So to the perpetrators of this absurdity the American people should issue one last ultimatum. Stand down, or face the shame of a nation.

A patriot,

Jimm

2004-02-02T13:08:00.000-08:00

I Love America, And This Is What We Should Do

I love America. I love our values. They are mine. Ours. Freedom and liberal democracy. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or, better stated, prosperity).

I believe Bush and company lied and/or deceived us (and themselves). I seek to hold them accountable. I'm ashamed that they have trumped shoddy and plagiarized evidence before the world as a justification for WAR, the most dastardly thing any human group could do.

War is hell, and so has been my life, in some ways, since Bush implicated me in an unjust war.

They've degraded our name and brand, and, after then going to war, proceeded to screw that up too and make us look worse, not to mention make one wonder about the future of Iraq, and whether those people will be any better off (and them being so is no justification for a WAR).

It's time America becomes more about America, the dream and symbol, and less the domineering power and arms merchant that we've become.

It's time we throw the weight of our power and prestige (what's left) behind international law and the enforcement of universal and minimal standards of human rights (globally negotiated) - i.e. the inalienable.

We need to assure, in the face of suicidal illiberal terrorism, that our liberal and classical vision of democracy is so well distributed and balanced that no attack could portend to weaken it. This takes away the motive, for the most part. Why bother blowing up Washington D.C. if it won't sap America or the free world, because we've distributed and lateralized, and made the inalienable protected in a system of liberal democracy fault-tolerant against any attack short of global destruction?

This is not only a security strategy that deemphasizes vertical power structures and in the process reduces system vulnerabilities, it also implements the American dream and vision more thoroughly around the world, which is really a vision that goes beyond America.

This vision is freedom, dignity, and respect for a human being as a human being, and equal before the eyes of God, creation, and the cosmos.

We can strive to make this a reality because we have the power to do so. People already want it, and, as the greatest power, we can enable and grease the wheels. We can help rather than hinder or hurt. We can make freedom and democracy viable globally and enshrined in protections in the United Nations or an expanded system (with enforcement mechanisms in place).

None of this means loss of sovereignty, but the actual strengthening of it, since ultimately driven by the principles that sustain us as a free nation.

2004-01-30T22:48:00.000-08:00

Chickens Coming Home To Roost - WMD And The Justification For War With Iraq

(spontaneous observations on learning the Bush Administration is open to an independent inquiry into Iraqi WMD)

I said before the war, in the early days of the war when passions were high, throughout the war up until today, that the Bush Administration was rushing to this war and exaggerating the reasons for doing so (my most generous interpretation).

Are the chickens coming home to roost?

***

A further problem seems to be one of operational negligence. Why were plans to avoid post-war Iraq chaos ignored and flushed? Why weren't they implemented if we were going to war for reasons of WMD, but that if we didn't proceed in a way that would assure orderliness we wouldn't be able to secure the WMD?

What does this tell us? Wanton exaggeration of war aims or severe negligence and/or incompetence? For, if there were WMD, and this was the causus belli for the war, then this would have had to been our first priority in building the war plan, and not getting Saddam, or liberating the Iraqi people, if the result ends up being further uncertainty about the WMD, whether it really existed or not, and/or whether it was spirited out to other countries or terrorist agents in the post-war chaos and aftermath.

For a war effort to secure WMD, and America, to not implement a strategy that takes these into primary account seems very odd, especially when there are known instances of wanton disregard for plans that accurately anticipated the aftermath and conditions on the ground after the initial ground war.

Was this just a variety of incompetence, with efforts to sway the perception of the war aims in order to mask this? Or was there something more rotten going on, as I suggested before the war?

2004-01-25T15:00:00.000-08:00

The Timing Of The State Of The Union And Video Coverage Of A Dean Campaign Event

Musing today on the association of Matt Drudge's hub connector spreading of passionate Howard Dean campaign speech images, and the timing of the State of the Union address. Was this dreamed up in advance? That Karl Rove, fearing the rise of Dean, wanted to juxtapose less-than-flattering images of one of Dean's fiery speeches, which probably never look good on video, against President Bush being "somber" and "presidential" during the State of the Union?

It's titillating, and, if this were the case, they must have been both greatly disappointed and pleased. Disappointed because Dean got trounced by John Kerry and John Edwards, who definitely come across less "nuts" than Dean during a campaign speech, and thus the timing of the State of the Union doesn't mean much in contrast to the Democratic front-runner, who is now John Kerry, who can easily compete with Bush on the "somber" platform.

Still, they must have been pleased with the effect on Dean regardless of the Iowa result, since he unexpectedly gave them a bonus with the "rebel yell" (or "shriek"). Has Dean ever done the rebel yell before at a campaign rally? Probably not, so that must be seen as a bonus, and Drudge didn't expect to have that too, but he was definitely ready with his doctored photo of Dean reading something and looking like Chucky (what is the source of that picture I wonder...is it real?).

But, with the rebel yell, and the whole thing becoming a national obsession, even with the mainstream media, the State of the Union pretty much disappeared from the national radar, for the most part, and Bush hardly gained any contrast points in relation to John Kerry for looking "presidential" (whatever the hell that really means).

So, in the aftermath of Iowa and the State of the Union, everyone is talking about Howard Dean, John Kerry, and John Edwards in that order, and President Bush is increasingly becoming irrelevant in the eyes of the mainstream media.

That's one take on the events of the past week, and the timing of the State of the Union. One never knows the truth of these matters until years later, if ever, and I don't have any more access to the Bush Administration inner sanctum than anyone else.

Just something that came to mind this morning.

2004-01-25T14:44:00.000-08:00

Kevin Drum Puts The Smackdown On President Bush, War, And Elections

Kevin Drum is on fire today. His take on the Bush Administration and their electoral posturing as regards to Iraq is gold. Pure gold.

After 9/11 George Bush had a chance to build a bipartisan consensus about terrorism and how to respond to it. But he didn't just fail to do that, he deliberately tried to prevent it, and by transparently treating terrorism as little more than a chance to boost the prospects of his own party he has convinced everyone who's not a Republican that it's not really a serious threat. After all, if he quite obviously treats it as simply a political opportunity, it's hardly reasonable to expect anyone else to take it seriously either.

Treating Medicare or abortion as a partisan issue is one thing, but treating war the same way is quite another, and in the end it's George Bush who is largely responsible for convincing half the United States and most of the world that terrorism is little more than a GOP talking point. It's likely that someday we will pay a heavy price for this.

By the way, his rant today isn't related to my prior posts today, so noone get any funny ideas about that.

2004-01-25T14:37:00.000-08:00

WMD, Cognitive Dissonance, Rationalism, And Serious Analysis - Part IV

Back over at Kevin Drum's place (blog) yesterday, I was musing on his discussion of pre-war Iraqi WMD beliefs, and, even more, his dismissal of Noam Chomsky as not a "serious" critic. Now, I have all the respect in the world for Kevin, but I have as much or more for a challenging critic like Noam Chomsky. As always, keep in mind these comments are on-the-fly, and not vetted, proofed, or multi-drafted.

***

Another must-read is "The Sorrows of Empire" by Chalmers Johnson. Remember, he is the one whose earlier book "Blowback" accurately forcasted that the world was not at all happy with the proliferation of US bases around the world, and that one day it would come back to bite us.

Sweet reference Mimikatz. What every American should understand is the well-known international concept of "Islamicist blowback".

No serious analyst would ever dare to mention in the mainstream media that we practically reinvented Jihad ourselves in our attempts to enmesh the Soviets in Afghanistan [in their own Vietnam].

Or that the CIA sponsored the terror camps (to a signifigant degree) that we later spoke out so vehemently against, one of which Clinton bombed.

No, that's absurd analysis (not because it's based on faulty facts or information, the information is sound, but because it goes against the conventional wisdom and belief in our righteousness).

Serious analysis is that these terrorists are enemies of freedom and not patriotic defenders of their territory and culture, and that whether we encouraged this cocktail of territorialism and religious fanatacism is not relevant, if even acknowledged, since that was eons ago in the Cold War, and now they should know better that we are no threat when we build military bases on their "lands", and especially because everything has changed now since 9/11, and you can go back to Kansas, and the stars do revolve around the earth (oops...mixing my eras and dogmas).

2004-01-25T14:34:00.000-08:00

WMD, Cognitive Dissonance, Rationalism, And Serious Analysis - Part III

Back over at Kevin Drum's place (blog) yesterday, I was musing on his discussion of pre-war Iraqi WMD beliefs, and, even more, his dismissal of Noam Chomsky as not a "serious" critic. Now, I have all the respect in the world for Kevin, but I have as much or more for a challenging critic like Noam Chomsky. As always, keep in mind these comments are on-the-fly, and not vetted, proofed, or multi-drafted.

***

lest us all not forget that BushCo insisted throughout the run-up that they had oodles of evidence that they could not reveal because of security reasons.

Bush and Co didn't need evidence. All they needed was the conventional wisdom and existing belief that Saddam had weapons.

With their dogmatic emphasis, they cherry picked evidence and convinced themselves the case for war was undeniable. 80% of the free world disagreed.

As mentioned earlier, the rationalist Chomsky also believed there were WMD in Iraq, based upon the evidence that he had seen (admittedly not much).

The difference is that Bush and Co turned the evidence they could find into, for them, an undeniable claim that was widely denied. The claim was not that there was WMD, which almost everyone suspected there to be to some degree.

It was that this was a reason for a war. A just war. That there were no WMD only makes the claims that this was a just war, based upon WMD, that much more a crock.

Because, even with some WMD, the vast majority of the free world was against the war (an immediate war), because they did not consider Saddam Hussein, a weakened despot, an imminent threat.

Without WMD, this becomes so obvious as to not need to mention, though this apparently escapes our mainstream media, also caught up in the fiction of conventional wisdom and ratifying "official" belief systems.

2004-01-25T14:22:00.000-08:00

WMD, Cognitive Dissonance, Rationalism, And Serious Analysis - Part II

Back over at Kevin Drum's place (blog) yesterday, I was musing on his discussion of pre-war Iraqi WMD beliefs, and, even more, his dismissal of Noam Chomsky as not a "serious" critic. Now, I have all the respect in the world for Kevin, but I have as much or more for a challenging critic like Noam Chomsky. As always, keep in mind these comments are on-the-fly, and not vetted, proofed, or multi-drafted.

***

Everyone acknowledges we live in a dangerous world. But most everyone does not know why. They don't know, or have even really examined, why their enemies hate them.

Our leaders just lie about it. Plain and simple. So they are no help.

And it's not just our enemies that make the world dangerous. We make it so for ourselves. Conventional wisdom doesn't pay attention to nonlinear disruptions caused by our environmental impact.

Noam Chomsky's latest book is a good place to start shattering illusions and start examining the world and challenges we face rationally.

Howard Zinn's book, Artists In A Time Of War, is also a great place to get a dose of cognitive dissonance, and commit yourself to engaging and absorbing it, rather than ignoring and rejecting it.

There are two ways to deal with cognitive dissonance. It is not a new concept. Mainly, it's the difference between deductive and inductive thinking (well, not exactly).

If information does not support your conclusions, i.e. belief and conventional wisdom, do you reject or ignore it for this reason? If so, welcome back to the Middle Ages.

Or, in the face of conflicting information, do your examine and adjust your conclusions? This is the scientific process, and thankfully because of it we have become a more rational creature and have won our freedom.

Don't give it away. And don't ever believe that Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn are not serious analysts or commentators.

2004-01-25T14:14:00.000-08:00

WMD, Cognitive Dissonance, Rationalism, And Serious Analysis - Part I

Back over at Kevin Drum's place (blog) yesterday, I was musing on his discussion of pre-war Iraqi WMD beliefs, and, even more, his dismissal of Noam Chomsky as not a "serious" critic. Now, I have all the respect in the world for Kevin, but I have as much or more for a challenging critic like Noam Chomsky. As always, keep in mind these comments are on-the-fly, and not vetted, proofed, or multi-drafted.

***

If you look into it Kevin, you'll find that reliance on ideology and fiction is what allows these things to happen (mixed in with some genuine fear).

To be honest, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn [Kevin did not mention Zinn, but I'm using him as another example] are two of the more serious analysts around, and just because they seem so radical in their visions doesn't mean otherwise, just that the measure of useful illusions and fiction we live on may be the more radical in nature.

9/11 should have caused people to look up and start asking questions about the conventional wisdom, and its insistence on how to correctly interpret the available information, and, along with this, what information ought to be ignored or downplayed.

The answer is that important information should not be ignored when it contrasts with the belief system and conventional wisdom (i.e. cognitive dissonance). Instead, the rational thinker will examine the available information and look for patterns of consistency in order to gain some understanding and hopefully predictive insight.

This is called the rationalism - the scientific process.

There has never been a compelling argument that Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn aren't rational or scientific in their thinking - only that either they are too much so, or not suitably emotional enough to understand the importance of information being consistent to belief and conventional wisdom.

In other words, have you already formed your beliefs and understanding of the world, your knowledge, and only supporting information is needed, as you are rigid and certain in this belief?

Or, are you more fluid, adaptable, and able to change, by realizing that your beliefs and conventional wisdom are only working hypotheses, and that in the face of conflicting information more sensible wisdom and beliefs may be appropriate?

Which one do you think will be more successful in a changing and fluid world?

2004-01-24T17:16:00.000-08:00

George Bush Threatens First Veto On Behalf Of Big Media

It's time to start focusing on Big Media again. Congress has just passed a bill to expand the reach of Big Media, by raising the number of outlets they can own from 35% to 39%, and this after we successfully put down similar efforts by the FCC to raise the limit to 45%.

Yes, "we". The blogosphere was primarily responsible in airing these issues when the FCC ruling came out. Big Media ignored it. No surprise there, and the most compelling argument on our behalf (will the media report on important issues not in its financial self-interest?).

Apparently, this thing got put into the Frankenstein omnibus spending bill because Bush threatened a veto if they didn't put it in. So now we know...George W. Bush is bought off by Big Media (well, many of us already knew that). The vast majority of the American people are not in favor of this action, and stated so in the last go-around. What is George W. Bush thinking, that he'd rather be on the ranch than be reelected?

A veto threat also led GOP leaders to allow media companies to become larger than many lawmakers wanted. House and Senate majorities earlier had voted to oppose a Federal Communications Commission decision permitting a media company to own TV stations reaching 45 percent of the U.S. viewers, up from 35 percent. But GOP leaders, fearing a veto, raised the cap to 39 percent.

Like I said, it's time we start raising the roof on this again (not raising the ownership limit). Paging Lisa English...

2004-01-24T15:09:00.000-08:00

What Happened To The Democratic Negativity (Part III)?

Yesterday, I was hanging out over at Kevin Drum's place (blog). I had some on-the-fly reactions to one of his posts ("The New New Conventional Wisdom"), discussing the media wonderment that Democrats are suddenly such positive creatures.

***

Very short version: If you can't defend your own, even while competing against them, against unfair and distorted treatment from the media, which could happen to any of the candidates, then the media gets a pass for it, and when it gets turned against you, you deserve what you get, no matter how much you complain, because you gave the pass earlier saying it was alright, even though you clearly knew what was going on and seemed to have considered it wrong.

Just like the resolution in Iraq in some ways.

You can't have it both ways. The Democrats could have strengthened themselves as a party, and made a surge against negative reporting against them in general (and media bias), by uniting against negative coverage of them as a whole, and at least specifically in this case with Dean, which is the most egregious case of it so far.

They didn't. The Democrats aren't concerned with media bias - at least not today. Yet, they'll make it a big issue later, and I'll be reminding everyone who didn't mind, looked away, and in fact took advantage of, media bias just a months earlier.

Media bias sucks no matter who it benefits. We really need to move away from the corporate slush fund dominated two-party system.

2004-01-24T15:08:00.000-08:00

What Happened To The Democratic Negativity (Part II)?

Yesterday, I was hanging out over at Kevin Drum's place (blog). I had some on-the-fly reactions to one of his posts ("The New New Conventional Wisdom"), discussing the media wonderment that Democrats are suddenly such positive creatures.

***

If Dean somehow surges again, get ready for more negativity. This is a joke, and clever commentators ought to pick up on it.

In other words, the negativity was pointed at Dean, since he was winning, and he responded with negativity. Now, he's not on top, and miraculously the negativity is gone. Since when does the obvious become compelling news? Big Media wants this to be about Dean spinning all the negativity, Kerry being a positive nice guy, and everyone taking notice now. That's not what really happened, at least in reality and not image.

The absence of Democrats speaking out against Big Media's portrayal of Dean (not the Internet, or Drudge, but mainstream media television and newspapers)...

...has been noted by independents everywhere. Apparently, the Democrats don't need to rally around their own, or defend reality, when image and the "politics of personal destruction" is underway, and not by other politicians, but by mainstream media coverage and misreporting.

What I'd like to emphasize is that a real party who really cared about politics in America would band together, despite self-interest of the individual players, and loudly proclaim that this "assassination" coverage is unacceptable and will be identified as such in public at every turn.

This isn't altruistic in its face. It works for the self-interest of all the candidates. If Kerry needs the mainstream media to assassinate Dean's character to win, he doesn't deserve to win. But if he pulls out the nomination, after saying nothing in defense of Dean (in terms of clearly unfair media coverage), and then suddenly faces it himself, and expects people to rally behind him because of it, he can forget it.

Hypocrisy doesn't sell.