It's a drinking sort of night.

My head was already spinning, and now it's even worse. But I don't want to feel better. I don't want to forget; I want to revel in my anger and hatred. I'm drunk on rage and booze tonight.

I tried reading the Arabic text from the video tonight. I swear it would make no sense even if I were sober.

we tell you to know that the coffins will arrive to you one coffin after another, as your people are slaughtered in this way.........

Oh yeah? Bring it, asshole. My husband and his M1A1 disagree.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.

I watched the video this morning.

At first I couldn't decide if I wanted to see it. I had butterflies in my stomach and my heart was pounding throughout the whole seven minutes. It happened exactly as Charles described, and it was very difficult to watch.

Another wife asked me why on earth I had watched the video. I struggled to find the right words to explain to her why I wanted to -- needed to -- see it. The right word came to me later.

Laser beam.

I watched the video so I wouldn't forget what we're fighting for. I watched it so I wouldn't get distracted by Abu Ghraib or 9/11 hearings or anything else that is preventing the American public from seeing the simple dichotomy between good guys and bad guys. I watched it so I could put a face on my enemy, so I could watch his heinous deeds firsthand, and so I would not forget what my husband is risking his life to prevent.

I watched it so I could stoke my anger. It worked.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:47 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.

Den Beste has a post today on how we're engaged in a three-way war. Lord knows I don't have anything to add to his assessment, but there was one sentence that jumped out at me:

The Philadelphia Constitutional Convention included one of the most amazing concentrations of fine minds to ever collect in one place, names like Franklin and Jefferson and Hamilton and Madison. They changed history.

What on earth would we do if we needed to have a Constitutional Convention today?

I know you can't really make what-ifs like that, but seriously, who do we have? Is there any politician we trust the way we trust the Founding Fathers? Who would you want to write the document that will govern us for over 300 years? My vote is on Den Beste, CavX, and VDH...but honestly, who's heard of them? The general public would react to them the way the Clevlanders reacted in Major League ("who are these f-in' guys?")

If we had a Constitutional Convention today, it would have to be properly multicultural and include representatives from all walks of life. Nothing would get done. There would be no Constitution.

Grim.

MORE TO GROK:

To the newcomers, thanks for coming over and trying to grok. I dashed this crap off right before work, not knowing that a denbestelanche was around the corner. Oh well. If I'd known, I would've talked at greater length about the junk that would've gone into a convention today (e.g. an affirmative-action staffing of the delegates, a nanny attitude, and, as commenters have pointed out, a document the size of the EU Constitution). That's what I would've said; instead you got a reference to Major League. Sheesh.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:38 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Couldn't do it. In this case, our very modernity works against us. Anyone with a keyboard or a voice in front of a camera could make noise about such a convention...whereas the Constitution was "imposed", so to speak, only by those who could afford to travel to Philly. And yeah, our concepts of inclusiveness and diversity would no doubt be wedged in there somehow. Despite what is uttered by many, that the Constitution was written for the benefit of rich white landowner males, I defy anyone to show a portion of t he Constitution and the first 10 amendments any phrase which suggests that is so. (It's laws and culture which put said calss of men on top, not the Constitution). Because of that "flaw", where specific grievances are not addressed, would doom any moden convention to utter failure. The original convention produced a document and sent it to the states to ratify. This took weeks. Today, a draft proposal would appear minutes after discussion, and a thousand blogs would all have an opinion, a thousand newspapers would scream with political spin, and you could not change to any news channel without some talking head bleating about some passage that, in his opinion, slights some minority group or special interest. This is why I always thought the circumstances in the formation of this government were utterly unique...men, who could have just said to hell with everything, didn't do that. They fought and supported the revolution, then got together afterwards because nobody else was doing it, essentially seized unified control of a proto-government, wielded enormous power, and then gave it up to the people in an organized fashion, and viola, a democratic republic. I doubt very much you will find many people like that today. Control isn't given up easily. Then again, it never has been, so why can't we follow our historical examples to the contrary?

Posted by: Jason at May 05, 2004 02:55 AM (wfp+E)

2 Jason, You wrote: "This is why I always thought the circumstances in the formation of this government were utterly unique..." The thought of America being sui generis is chilling but quite possible. This is why I get skeptical about how Iraq is going to be turned into America Jr. Offhand, many countries are either institutionalized tribes or a bunch of tribes pasted together by the flimsy tape of laws. America, OTOH, was forged from ideas, not blood. Ideas that have survived almost two and a half centuries. It couldn't be based on ancestry because America rebelled against the "homeland." As for a modern Constitution, it would be put together by a bunch of aca-dumbics (they MUST be smart, right?) teamed with celebrities that the people want to see on TV. It would be a celiberal dream, which is to say not liberal in the good sense at all. Better yet, the UN could write the Constitution for us. Hopefully Sudan will be put in charge of the articles on humyn (sic) rights.

Posted by: Amritas at May 05, 2004 04:32 AM (Vbt+u)

3 "Ideas that have survived almost two and a half centuries." Of course, slavery and monarchy are ideas that have lasted for *millennia*. Another thing that scares me is the youth of freedom. 99.99% of human history consists of variations on domination. The chief/king/Fuehrer gives orders, and you OBEY!! Sometimes I worry that America is a blip in the big picture, and that a century from now our descendants will be mindless drones for a local version of Kim Jong Il. Oh wait, we're already mindless drones for Bush. Future historians may not even be able to conceive of this thing called "freedom." In their eyes, Bush would have had to be just another emperor, because no other form of leadership would be conceivable. That is why the Left equates Bush with Hitler. They cannot imagine leaders being anything other than dictators. The trouble with Bush is not that he's an alleged dictator; it's that he's not on their side. He won't give them the statist power they crave. With the media backing them up, the LLLunatics would be able to convince most Americans that they really did know best, and that all power should be held forever in their red gloves. Why not, if so many kewl actors on their side? When the cult of the state and the celebrity become one, we're doomed.

Posted by: Amritas at May 05, 2004 04:43 AM (Vbt+u)

4 Depressing.....

Posted by: John at May 05, 2004 07:17 AM (crTpS)

5 No mention by SDB or yourself of the man that made America possible- George Washinton- President of the constitutional convention.

Posted by: Bob Stermer at May 05, 2004 08:30 AM (R8J7n)

6 The Iraqis have one advantage that the Founding Fathers didn't have. They have an example of a country that has flourished under freedom. If I was on the Iraqi council, I'd translate the US Constitution to Arabic, throw in a few Allahs, and break for lunch.

Posted by: John Davies at May 05, 2004 09:04 AM (RSkcP)

7 "If I was on the Iraqi council, I'd translate the US Constitution to Arabic, throw in a few Allahs, and break for lunch." Who says we don't still have great minds?

Posted by: Cowboy is a compliment at May 05, 2004 09:47 AM (n9YZh)

8 Actually, I think SDB did mention President Washington as the number one reason why the Constitution has lasted for so long... not for anything he did while in office, but for the fact that he retired after his second term, when he could easily have gone on to become the President-for-life of the US. His was the greatest service to America, and I wonder if anyone today would have the strength to walk away from the power Washington could have had. (Of course, at the time America wasn't much of a power, more like an apparently doomed former colony beset by enemies on all sides... so Washington's refusal to run for a third term might not have been as noble as most people think. Still, it did set a hell of a fine precedent.)

Posted by: Tatterdemalian at May 05, 2004 10:10 AM (wJmJ6)

9 All that said, we *do* have other examples of America turning imperialist nations into democracies. One of those democracies seems to be backsliding, but neither of them are anything like they were under their imperialist leaders. Being a democracy doesn't mean you have to agree with everything the US does, it just means the government must be a servant of the people, rather than the people serving the government. That definition gives a lot of leeway, and some people might consider it too much freedom (heck, look what America did to natives and Africans as a democracy), but it puts nations on the right track, and produces much better results than demanding instant perfection only to be disappointed again and again.

Posted by: Tatterdemalian at May 05, 2004 10:20 AM (wJmJ6)

10 The greatest mark of genius of our Founding Fathers is the process for CHANGE that they incorporated into the Constitution. "... a more perfect union..." This is the goal always and each generation has redefined that goal.

Posted by: rabidfox at May 05, 2004 10:31 AM (CAVPy)

11 Two examples of a Constitutional Convention today: (1) Following up on John Davies' comment (2:04pm), check out the text of the CPA/IGC proposed interim constitution for Iraq. It's short, readable, and even elegant (er, in its English translation). It is a distillation of our 1787. Whether it will come to be seen as a founding document, or as a scrap of well-meant tissue is a question for another day. (2) For a sense of what a modern-day American Convention would probably produce, read some of the skeptical commentary on the currently-pending EU Constitution. Lengthy, with turgid, impenetrable prose, it does not follow the American experiment's focus on negative rights (e.g. the right to not have the government interfere with your freedom of speech). Instead, it enumerates positive rights (e.g. to education, healthcare, pension), and enshrines the bureaucratic apparatus that will regulate the conduct of individuals and instututions within Society. Depressing, that our European friends may see the announced destination, 'Serfdom,' but are getting on the bus anyway.

Posted by: AMac at May 05, 2004 11:34 AM (tH09J)

12 Amritas: "That is why the Left equates Bush with Hitler. They cannot imagine leaders being anything other than dictators. The trouble with Bush is not that he's an alleged dictator; it's that he's not on their side. He won't give them the statist power they crave." Close. But I think the closer truth is that they can't imagine how THEY would be the dictator. Everybody who I know who leans left always has How Things Should Be Done And People Should Be Made To Do Them This Way And It's How It Should Be Done that they're quite willing to tell me about, and how to make that effective policy, or make it such that people wouldn't game the system, since they won't buy into it, etc.. well, that's just Wrong To Discuss. (In other words "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!"). It's more that THEY want to be the dictator, and of course, everybody must think like them... Addison

Posted by: Addison at May 05, 2004 11:41 AM (8FAPm)

13 Addison, After reading your post, I see everything clearly now. All that's needed is one word: ENVY Bush has power. They don't. They want it. Case closed.

Posted by: Amritas at May 05, 2004 11:48 AM (GUIbU)

14 If you want to see what would come out of a modern Constitutional convention, look at the new EU "Constitution". http://european-convention.eu.int/bienvenue.asp?lang=EN It is an enormous document that includes every fad known to humankind, and is very arguably unworkable. It also looks like no one will accept it, because it doesn't have enough stuff to make enough people happy about it.

Posted by: Ralph at May 05, 2004 11:55 AM (to9Q0)

15 If there were a CC today, I think it would be dominated by Big Business, who would buy all of the representatives. (As mentioned, most of what was written was by - and favored - white land owners.) But I think the result of a CC today would be a country controlled by Big Business, kinda like what the RoboCop movie predicted for the future of Detroit.

Posted by: _Jon at May 05, 2004 11:59 AM (ewFgD)

16 As DenBeste would put it (or perhaps he already has) the difference between the EU Constitution and our own is the notion of where government is derived. In our system, the building blocks are indeed a series of statements that say "Congress shall make no law" and enumerates what the government can and cannot do, and provides a conduit to change things if it becomes necessary to do so. In the EU, there's no concept of limited government. What, you want to restrict the powers of government? To what purpose? Government may need to change itself in a hurry, without the considerations of the governed, should it become necessary to do so. That's the big difference. One system allows for change via the electorate, the other changes itself. The former is far slower, to be sure, but at least those that are governed will have a say in the process. The latter is much faster, surer, but there are no checks to ensure that the government doesn't change to suit itself. The result? Our Constitution can fit on two pages. It's a measure of trustworthiness. The EU constitution will have to be pressed on double sided DVD, as each and every article spells out what government must provide...because if they did not, the government may decide someday not to provide it, and nobody will have any say but those currently in office.

Posted by: Jason at May 05, 2004 12:09 PM (rfgVv)

17 You said "What on earth would we do if we needed to have a Constitutional Convention today?" If I remember rightly Den Beste had an article discussing this, and I took away the impression that the single largest driving force in their "getting it right", was the necessity of convincing a variety of different states to agree to one set of laws, with the knowledge that that states (with all of their lawyers, accountants etc) are not fooled by even the densest legal jargon or feel-good prose when they are considering their bottom line (survival and future viability as a member of the nation). In modern terms I would compare that lucidity with the sense of cohesion we experienced immediately after 9/11. It has faded considerably since and we are now back to the usual BS, but for a little while there I think America was jolted into a wakefulness that would have at least been in the same ballpark as what it took to form our constitution way back when. Beyond that I would say that the general in-your-face harshness of the world back then explained the rest of the gap. I do agree that the Founding Fathers were pretty amazing individuals but I think alot can be explained by the local circumstances.

Posted by: Scott at May 05, 2004 01:44 PM (f8958)

18 I think that a modern constitutional convention could achieve a lot. Not to write a new constitution, but called to pass, say, 5-10 amendments. An ammendment keeping the government off the internet, balanced budget, maybe line item veto or federal control of the environment. The debate would be a good thing, if it was organized right. Then we could get back to strict constitutionalism. Oh, a note on the insane EU constitution, it has more pages than ours has words.

Posted by: MIchael at May 05, 2004 01:45 PM (I7JMz)

19 I hate to be a schnitzelhead, but Jefferson was in Paris during the constitutional convention of 1787, otherwise, your analysis is on the mark.

Posted by: John Cheeseman at May 05, 2004 02:44 PM (Ae7Ou)

20 Washington stepped down. So did Adams. His was as significant because another party, under Jefferson, took control of the government. And it was done without bloodshed. When did something like that happen anywhere else in the world previously? I've tried to encourage Iraqis like Zeyad and Ali to get out governmental documents translated into Arabic and spread around their country. The Federalist has digital copies of all ours, and many other historical documents pertinent to the situation. If any Arabic translators are out there willing to do such a task, it would be invaluable to the Iraqis. And I doubt our government is doeing anything like this out of concern we would be seen as trying to force our system on Iraq.

Posted by: Mike at May 05, 2004 03:37 PM (rqnO7)

21 There are a few things in this world that give me chills every time that I think of them, that make me give thanks that I'm living in this good world, and not some other. One of them is that the United States of America is the most powerful country in the world today. What if it were China, or Russia, or even France or Germany, or even the UK? To me, it puts a different perspective on America's faults.

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at May 05, 2004 05:32 PM (ARTDu)

22 "What on earth would we do if we needed to have a Constitutional Convention today?" Although I certainly have no talent for being a member of such a convention, I would want to have trust in the people that I would choose to represent me. After reading his book, I believe Randy E. Barnett has gained my trust. I would also trust SDB because of the content of his character, which is not without flaws as are we all. Whomever was to represent my interests would have to know that I will fight to retain all liberties that do not infringe on the rights of others. Also, that some liberties (life, speech, not having to ask permission to blow my nose) are more important that others (wearing a hat indoors, riding a bicycle on the sidewalk.) But I still retain the right to ride my bicycle on the sidewalk as long as the rights of others is not infringed. Not endorsing the subject matter, here's an example of Randy E. Barnett's thinking.

Posted by: ken anthony at May 05, 2004 06:11 PM (6ZsyF)

23 One day a few years ago, I told my doctor the joke, "What do you call a med student who graduates last in his class? Answer: Doctor. My doctor laughed, and then seriously commented about the qualifications of doctors. He said any doctor who graduates med school must have a minimum understanding of the field of medicine. Beyond that, doctors do vary in their skill and in their knowledge. But from a patient's point of view, it was not so important what a doctor knew, but his willingness to admit ignorance when he doesn't know the answer. My doctor said no one can know it all, so it is important to be cognizant of your limitations and seek help when it was appropriate. He suggested that a patient was better served by a doctor who relied on various resources, rather than by a super smart doctor who refused to acknowledge his limitations. Taken into the context of a Constitutional Convention, the important thing the founders did was that they acknowledged their own limitations. They did not presume to see into the future, and therefore did not try to construct a document for the ages. Ironically, by eschewing the arrogant attempt a la the EU to create the perfect government, they did create a document for the ages - a document that allowed for and has incorporated change. Today's political climate in not conducive to acknowledging limitations. So I am glad that there has been no Constitutional Convention in our time.

Posted by: Scott Harris at May 06, 2004 01:50 AM (E1M88)

24 I would have to include Bill Whittle in the list of necessary people to a modern Consitutional Convention. Of course Den Beste, also. "What would the world do without engineers? Nothing, absolutely nothing."

Posted by: Ron - WI at May 06, 2004 07:37 AM (CwrQg)

25 Congratulations on the "denbestelanche!"

Posted by: annika at May 06, 2004 01:46 PM (zAOEU)

26 TO: Sarah RE: Funny, Isn't It... ...how God works. Regards, Chuck(le) [There are no coincidences. -- Ambassador Sinclair, Babylon 5]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at May 07, 2004 06:53 PM (UT6pn)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I've been awake nine minutes and I'm already depressed.

I woke up when my alarm went off at 0615 and said forget it. Still tired, I went back to bed until 0730 and dreamt that I was blogging. Somehow I made my links into little jack-o-lanterns. Whatever.

I sat down here and within nine minutes read more about that Micah Wright moron, this rag from Ted Rall, and this pessimistic piece from Den Beste.

What a way to start off the morning. I'm afraid to head over to LGF.

MORE TO GROK:

My fears were confirmed. Sudan gets a seat on the UN Human Rights Commission.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:52 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

A storm's a-brewin' over at RWN where Hawkins is discussing women vs men bloggers. The background is too complex to summarize here -- you can read it on RWN -- but Hawkins goes on to ask an interesting question:

So let me branch out: Why are comparatively so few female bloggers of note in the political blogosphere?

Personally, I have come to suspect it's just a numbers game. On the whole, women aren't as interested as men in politics, so therefore there are a lot less women than men writing about politics, and hence there is a much smaller pool of female bloggers with the talent to move up the ranks.

Some people probably won't like that answer, but hey, why aren't there as many women who are sports fans as men? Why are there a lot more women than guys who enjoy romance novels? Maybe it's nature, maybe it's nurture, maybe it's some combination thereof, but men and women on the whole don't have the same level of interest in politics.

As an aside, I see nothing sexist in that quote at all. I'm reminded of a heated argument that erupted a few years ago when one of my female friends took extreme offense when my brother made an offhanded comment that his college basketball team could whoop any WNBA team. Cries of Sexist! insued, but there's nothing sexist about saying something that's probably true. But I digress.

Maybe that's why I'm having a hard time finding wives who want to talk about this stuff with me. Maybe that's why I was so disappointed to find out Kim du Toit is a man. But you know what -- it doesn't really matter. I started to write "it's too bad women don't want to blog about politics" and then I erased it because it doesn't matter. Who cares if you're a man or a woman; in the blogosphere, it's ideas that count. Reynolds and Green do a lot of recipe blogging, which should be a "woman's" topic. Who cares? They say important things on the majority of their posts, so they can write the occasional post about chicken, or whatever. I don't care if I'm writing back and forth with a man or woman, as long as we have common ground and we a trying to help each other grok.

I sometimes write about girly things like knitting or how I think Stephen Green is cute. But I most certainly will never give up trying to grok politics and current events so I can, as Hawkins joked, "have more time to blog about make-up and house plants." I can't even do make-up -- I've never bothered to learn how to apply it properly, and it shows -- and I have one houseplant that I just remembered to water after reading Hawkin's post. Make-up and plants ain't never gon happen on my blog.

MORE:

By the way, I just got introduced to Cassandra and Debbye through Hawkins' post. So far I like what I see. I need to check back in with them often.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:01 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 515 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Well DANG, Sarah... And here I was getting all ready to write up a snarky post announcing my retirement from poliblogging and going on and on about makeup and houseplants. Except I have abso-fricking-lutely NO idea what I would say on either of those topics, so I was going to email you for ideas. Are you telling me I'm SOL? sigh...

Posted by: Cassandra at April 29, 2004 11:08 AM (ee4ft)

2 I was going to offer to divide the labour with you, one of us taking make-up and the other taking house plants ...

Posted by: Debbye at April 29, 2004 11:08 AM (iMG32)

3 All three of you - PLEASE keep up what you're doing! I've really enjoyed your perspectives - it's great to hear insights from thoughtful women who are interested in what's going on in the world at large.

Posted by: Lyana at April 29, 2004 02:29 PM (ps81A)

4 Sarah: I enjoyed your post a while back about being at the party with that woman who went off about hoping Kerry would be elected so her husband would come home. I don't have enough time to read other blogs, but will definitely make time to read yours. Military wives should stick together. If you ever get discouraged, shoot me an email and we'll trade "war" stories - I've got 23 years worth You sound like a gutsy and intelligent lady.

Posted by: Cass at April 29, 2004 10:33 PM (ee4ft)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

From Mohammad:

I wasnÂ’t like this before. I was afraid most of the time. I have always looked for safety above all. I lost faith in the whole world and I wasnÂ’t ready at all to make the slightest sacrifice for the sake of others. I was trying to leave my country and find a better job in a safe place, BUT, The brave solders (who donÂ’t hold shares at Halliburton or Bechtel) who crossed seas and oceans and came to my country to fight for our freedom -and donÂ’t anyone dare say the opposite, as I met so many of these soldiers and had hundreds of letters from them and there families and I know their motives; they fight for their countryÂ’s safety and for our freedom and they are proud of what they are doing- gave me the faith and showed me that man should not care only about himself, his family or his country, these are not enough to make a human being. These guys are MUCH better than me because I have to fight for my issue and they fight for me. They deserve the respect of the world and so do the people who support them. They always give me hope to go on no matter how difficult it seems.

A couple of my soldiers wrote yesterday that they don't think the military belongs at our elite universities because somebody smart enough to go to Harvard should do bigger and better things than the military. They're going to get yelled at today.

Yes, there are smart folks at Harvard. But so much of elite academia is self-perpetuating horse manure. I've never been to Harvard, but I did go to a fairly rigorous university, and many aspects of it were a joke. The students weren't that motivated, most of them simply wanted to regurgitate on the test and then go to their frat party, and a great number of them are now America-bashing MA students, cycling back through the system. In contrast, my students work their tails off to attend classes in addition to their more important job of PROVIDING FREEDOM!

I'm extremely disappointed to hear my student soldiers denigrate themselves like that. At Iraq the Model a soldier's inherent worth is obvious; why isn't it obvious to them? Maybe I should smoke them at the start of class...

MORE TO GROK:

Well, I tried to smoke them, but I got choked up. They were looking at me with the most interesting look on their faces; I realized that most of them consider their job to be nothing special. They don't think they're heroes, so for me to get choked up when I praise them is probably a hoot.

But they're all heroes to me.

Posted by: Sarah at 01:59 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 461 words, total size 3 kb.

I saw via Amritas that James Hudnall wrote an analogy using The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

The thugs and criminals of the Middle East have had a free ride for far too long. The only way to civilize a place that has known only oppression and terror is bring the rule of law. A good John Wayne movie really illustrates that point. It's called THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALLANCE. The story illustrates the same thing that's going on in the Middle East. The place is the Wild West. It needs to be tamed if there is ever going to be peace there.

The husband bought the movie right before he left, and since we owned it but I'd never seen it, I watched it today. I see what Hudnall was saying, but I also saw another parallel to the Middle East.

Stoddard tried to bring law and order to Shinbone, but law and order only work when they're respected. To a man like Valance, a man with no regard for the law, threats of incarceration and jurisdiction meant nothing. The only thing that kept Valance in line was the threat of force. Personified by the extremely cool John Wayne.

The EU and the UN would have us negotiate with terrorists, but you can't negotiate with people who have no respect for law and order. The only thing that terrorists respond to is force. Only when those who have no respect for the law are removed -- only when Liberty Valance was shot -- can law and order start to rule a land.

All the law books in the world won't help when the other guy is holding a pistol.

MORE TO GROK:

An Amazon reviewer of the movie was thinking along the same lines, and phrased them in a much nicer way than I did:

The liberal left has viewed the war on terror as a legal issue to be resolved through the court system. Preemptive strikes against terrorism are considered by the left as brutish Republican behavior. Evidence must be gathered, the terrorist rights must be protected, and courts of law must adjudicate the issues. But, terrorist, like Liberty Valance are evil. They feed off of the fear of others. Until we put the law books down, and pick up our .45s, terror will reign. Civilization was brought to Shinbone only after Liberty Valance lay dead in the street, his body riddled with bullets. The war of terror will only be won by the West when those who perpetrate it are killed. It is not a nice thought, but a necessary one.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:51 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.

Beth points out a good article called Did I Get the War Wrong?

But what are the facts? The Human Rights Center in Kadhimiya has been set up by Iraqis themselves from the ashes of Baathism. They have been going methodically through the massive -- and previously unexplored -- archives left by the regime, which document every killing in cold bureaucracy-speak. The HRC has found that if the invasion had not happened, Saddam would have killed 70,000 people in the past year. Not sanctions: Saddam's tyranny alone.

Those who lament the deaths of the 880 Iraqis this month are right to be sad that life has been taken. But perhaps we should step back for a moment and remember how many lives have been saved since Saddam was removed.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

Last week I explored the Left-leaning tendencies of the textbook I'm using in teaching my ENGL 101 class. Today I started studying Chapter 9: Example.

The sample topic:

Write and essay that uses at least three extended examples to support the thesis that poverty exists in your neighborhood, town, or state.

Poverty is all relative; slums in the US are affluent neighborhoods in many places in the world. Wanna see what Iraqis live in near my husband?

But OK, fine. Some people are poor in the US by US standards. It's just the unquestioning assertion that "poverty is everywhere" that bugs me somehow.

Because the topic is already specified in the wording of the assignment, the aim of your prewriting efforts should be to find the area of poverty in your neighborhood, town, or state you wish to cover and to amass specific details that you can include in your examples. If you are like most of us, you will find poverty just around the corner. As a prewriting activity, we suggest you take a drive to the affected area and look it over for yourself. [emphasis mine]

That's not an objective sentence for an instructional textbook.

I also laughed when I saw that one of the essays in this chapter, given as a model of good example writing, is by Maureen Dowd. If you don't think my textbook leans Left, you're smoking crack.

The real kicker was at the very end of the chapter. There's ususally a photo writing assignment, where there's some photo that's supposed to make you think. This writing assignment makes me ashamed to be using this book:

The photo of a young girl peering from among a group of burka-clad Afghan women is an example of how a garment can represent a strong tradition. Write an essay in which you use two or three other examples of clothing that represents a tradition among some group.

In my world, the burka is not equal to lederhosen or a grass skirt.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:23 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.

In Albany, Ga., barber Marty Ford keeps the television in his shop tuned to Fox news so customers can get the latest from Iraq.

"Time," is a word he emphasizes.

"It's only been a year. We got rid of that government and things are on the mend. It just takes time," said Ford, 46.

I spoke Friday out of frustration. I'm still frustrated. I read all the reactions here about what we should do, and I feel every one of those reactions every day. My emotions are on a cycle, but my resolve is stalwart; we will see this through and we will succeed.

Florian quotes Riverbend, not one of the Iraqi blogs I read. No common ground. In response, I quote Healing Iraq:

It is the most foolish and selfish thing to say "pull the troops out", or "replace them with the UN or NATO". Someone has to see us through this mess to the end. Only a deluded utopian (or an idiot peace activist) would believe that Iraqis would all cosily sit down and settle down their endless disputes without AK-47's, RPG's, or mortars in the event of coalition troops abandoning Iraq. Please please don't get me wrong, I am not in the least saying that I enjoy being occupied by a foreign force, I am not a dreamer who believes that the USA is here for altruistic reasons, I am not saying that I am happy with what my bleeding country is going through, believe me when I say it tears my heart every day to witness all the bloodshed, it pains me immensely to see that we have no leaders whomsoever with the interest and well-being of Iraq as their primary goal, it kills me to see how blind and ignorant we have all become. Iraqis are dying inside every day, and we are committing suicide over and over and over. Some people call me a traitor or a collaborator for all the above and for speaking the truth as opposed to rhetorical, fiery speeches which have been our downfall.

Zeyad too is going through the cycle of reactions. No one wants to see people dead, but war is sometimes the only avenue to peace.

My instincts tell me that.

MORE TO GROK:

Re-reading what I wrote back in November helps too.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:53 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 3 kb.

This photo made me start crying.

The caption at AP:

On the anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, an American soldier removes posters of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr that were hanging Friday April 9 2004 on a statue on Firdos Square in Baghdad, Iraq. One year ago, U.S. soldiers pulled down Saddam Hussein's statue from this very place. (AP Photo/Jerome Delay)

One year ago today, I was so happy for the Iraqis. I sat on the sofa at Fort Knox and cheered wildly as they tore that statue down. I wept for the Iraqis and their newfound freedom; now I weep for their newfound vengeance.

If you remember, the statue of Saddam wasn't the only thing to come down from that pedestal last year. The American flag an overzealous soldier hung up there was quickly taken down, lest the world think we came as conquerors. We were there to give Iraq to the Iraqis, and they've repaid us by burning our dead and hanging them from a bridge.

I just finished reading Nine Parts of Desire: The Hidden World of Islamic Women. It was written by an Australian woman who spent years studying Muslim women throughout the Middle East. The last chapter was the most interesting, where she recounted her frustration in dealing with women who accepted the status quo. No matter how many times she tried to point out that the oppression of women is a distortion of Muhammad's words in the Koran, the Muslim women refused to believe that the way they were living was not in accordance with Allah's will. You open the Koran and point to a specific passage, and it still doesn't help.

We can point to all the good things we've brought to Iraq -- removal of Saddam, strengthened economy, freedom of speech -- but it doesn't seem to do any good. They hate us. They chose to hate us even before we showed up, and nothing we point at will make them change their minds.

You know how Plato said that stuff about the ideal chair and the real chair? One year ago my mental Iraqi was the ideal Iraqi. I imagined that they cowered under Saddam and longed for freedom in the way I would long for it if I were oppressed. I imagined that they would be grateful to be rid of such a foul leader and ready to start anew in Iraq. The majority of Iraqis, in my mind, were the ideal. Turns out there are a lot more real Iraqis and less ideal Iraqis than I had guessed.

I look at that soldier and wonder what he must be thinking. Damn, are we here again? Full circle, with just another hateful man's face atop this pedestal? Have we made any progress at all in this past year?

This week it feels like we haven't. This week I want to say, "Give the Iraqis their al-Sadr and let's go home." This week I've lost sight of the reason all of this matters. My laser beam has burned out, my ideal chair turns out to be some junky armchair at the side of the road, and my tears are flowing for that soldier who has to climb to the top of that pedestal again one year later and tear down the image of another dangerous leader.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:36 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 557 words, total size 3 kb.

David from Photon Courier asked for more details about the textbook items I discussed this weekend.

These examples came from an exercise on sentence generating in Chapter 3 The Sentence: Combining, Generating, Judging, which had nothing to do with persuasion, argumentation, or anything other than grammar. In fact, on the first page of the chapter where it introduces independent and dependent clauses, the sole example given is:

The level of poverty and squalor in large cities is appalling when one considers our country's wealth.

Can you pick out the dependent clause? Ha. The directions for the sentence generating exercise were to add a clause or phrase to each sentence provided (to practice working with dependent clauses and description). Thus these three sentences:

a. One of the odd things foreigners notice about Americans is their intolerance.
b. This intolerance frequently extends to race, creeds, and role expectations.
c. It often baffles foreigners, many of whom regard the United States Constitution as enshrining just the opposite principles of tolerance and understanding.

were fleshed out into this example given at the end of the chapter:

One of the odd things foreigners notice about Americans--whether Republicans or Democrats, urban dwellers or country folks--is their intolerance. This intolerance frequently extends to race, creeds, and role expectations, carrying with it a willingness to shun and physically punish the ones perceived as different. It often baffles foreigners, many of whom regard the United States Constitution, with its emphasis on respect for individual freedoms, as enshrining just the opposite principles of tolerance and understanding.

And the other sentences didn't lean Right by any stretch. My quick version of their topics:

1. A new real admiral takes over a fleet and waits for the enemy.
2. Baby boomers worry about infation and interest rates.
3. We must worry about nuclear holocaust.
4. Americans are intolerant.
5. Tennis is a sport for the millions.
6. We all struggle over physical traits that make us feel different.
7. The government should provide jobs for everyone.
8. Imagination is more important than knowledge.
9. Geoffrey was far from his goal of climbing the hill.
10.My anthropology teacher loved teaching.

The other seven are blandly non-controversial. Why the examples about intolerance and socialism?

How about another example from the chapter?

The pure individualist is an unhappy person whose memories of selfish behavior haunt her.

Compare that to the non-controversial example that follows it:

Newton's analysis of the light in a rainbow was a brilliant achievement that few people have matched.

There was one example of sentence combining that was not really biased either way:

a. The trouble between the Israelis and Palestinians is a clash between two cultures.
b. These cultures are fighting for supremacy in the Middle East.

(That one could have been a lot worse! Or a lot better...)

The only Right-leaning sentence example I could find was way down in Chapter 14 Causal Analysis:

Admissions quotas based on sex, ethnic background, or age are bad because they discriminate against the capable student.

No Right-leaning sentences in Chapter 3, though one of Joanne Jacob's readers says that we can find the same number of Right-leaning examples as we can Left-leaning, so this doesn't mean anything. On the contrary, I think there are more Left-leaning examples in Chapter 3 than I'd consider balanced.

Posted by: Sarah at 12:01 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 553 words, total size 4 kb.

Two of my students already seem to have figured out that I like to have fun in class. Their homework last week was to add their own clauses to the sentences in the exercise that included the Lefty examples. Their responses:

"Too many jobless people with nothing to do are beginning to overpopulate Starbucks; that is why our government must provide a job for everyone who is willing and able to work."

"One of the many odd things foreigners notice when they come to the United States about American people is their intolerance, but most of them are the same way when Americans come to their country."

Good to see they have a sense of humor.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:25 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.

Is there any doubt that academia leans to the Left? Check out these examples on independent/dependent clauses from the textbook I'm using in my English class:

3. It may seem profitless to worry about a nuclear holocaust--a third world war in which entire continents could be wiped out. However, after we study the historical trends of world powers and realize how simple it is to create nuclear power, common sense dictates that the possibility must be confronted honestly.

4. One of the odd things foreigners notice about Americans--whether Republicans or Democrats, urban dwellers or country folks--is their intolerance. This intolerance frequently extends to race, creeds, and role expectations, carrying with it a willingness to shun and physically punish the ones perceived as different. It often baffles foreigners, many of whom regard the United States Constitution, with its emphasis on respect for individual freedoms, as enshrining just the opposite principles of tolerance and understanding.

7. When a poor, unemployed woman, struggling to keep her children clothed and fed on a paltry welfare check, sees her neighbor working as a waitress even though the neighbor's husband has a steady job as a mechanic at the local Chevrolet dealer, she may become resentful. The waitress, of course, may feel guilty, knowing that she has a job whereas her neighbor has not been able to find one. That is why our government must create an economy that is healthy enough to provide a job for everyone who is able and willing to work.

So no matter what I say in my classroom, I'm unwillingly supporting this textbook whose blatant Leftist agenda makes me cringe. Americans feel guilty about their wealth, are going to cause a nuclear holocaust, and are so intolerant that other countries look down on them.

Tell that to Sweden, North Korea, and France, respectively.

MORE TO GROK:

Yes, I was indeed a last-minute hire (hired exactly eleven days before the class started), but it wouldn't have mattered anyway. The school I work for has campuses all over the world, nearly everywhere that servicemembers are stationed. They encourage uniformity of text and syllabus so that someone who takes this class in Germany is getting just about the same thing as someone taking the class in Bosnia or Okinawa. The decision on the texts is made at a much higher level than little ol' me.

And one of the students did comment on these sentences when he turned in his homework. He said, "What's with all the depressing examples?"

MORE:

Check out my students' examples from their homework.

MORE:

See a detailed look at Chapter 3 here.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:00 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Why did you list Sweden and France together with North Korea? In my eyes, they are on different planes of vileness. There are Leftists, and then there are LEFTISTS. I am not excusing Sweden and France. On the contrary, this kind of conflation can trivialize the evil of North Korea by giving it an implicit veneer of civilization that it does not deserve. Anyway, that book is sick, and I shall attack the passages on my site shortly. Thanks for sharing.

Posted by: Amritas at April 03, 2004 10:40 AM (ohc9/)

2 It used to be that teachers had some say in what text books they were going to use...is that no longer the case?

Posted by: Susie at April 03, 2004 11:07 AM (dD4I4)

3 Marc - I think Sarah is saying that Swedes feel guilty about their wealth, the North Koreans are likely to cause a nuclear holocaust, and the French are intolerant.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at April 03, 2004 11:37 AM (+S1Ft)

4 Thanks, Pixy. The parallelism went right past me because the order of points in the passage is slightly different - I would have expected North Korea first, France second, and Sweden last. But now I see she was referring back to her penultimate sentence.

Posted by: Amritas at April 03, 2004 11:43 AM (ohc9/)

5 Susie, I don't know about Sarah's situation, but as a last minute hire I can tell you that if one gets a job at the last moment one has to use books ordered months in advance by someone else. It is, of course, possible to have those books returned and have students order new books through Amazon.com, but that's a hassle.

Posted by: Amritas at April 03, 2004 11:45 AM (ohc9/)

6 That's a textbook? For what course? "Leftists Lies About America"? "The French Point of View"? Wow... how on Earth are you going to survive this class?

Posted by: CavalierX at April 03, 2004 11:58 AM (sA6XT)

7 Sarah, Sorry for the misunderstanding. Susie, I was hired as a professor at the last minute. Sorry I didn't make that clear. Cavalier, It's a textbook to speak English the French way. Talk like a Frenchman without learning French! OK, that was really low ...

Posted by: Amritas at April 03, 2004 12:45 PM (ohc9/)

8 And you were worried about bringing your writing in to the class as an example! it would be interesting to see the comparative reaction of students to your work and the ideas in this text.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at April 03, 2004 05:13 PM (CSxVi)

9 Stephen's right. See if your students agree or disagree with the text. Have them discuss or, better yet, write their reactions to it.

Posted by: Amritas at April 03, 2004 05:34 PM (ikrbX)

10 Sarah, When I was going to school in Minnesota (U of M, Twin Cities), I always dismissed the textbook issue as one of professors spweing thier party lines and hidden agendas. Here in Korea, when students complain about the text the profs always say that's what Troy State, UMUC, or CTC "makes" them use, and if they want to complain about it, use the course critique sheet and it might change next term or the acedemic next year. Do you have any say, or is Amritas correct about the short fuse of just getting hired?

Posted by: KimcheeGI at April 03, 2004 07:11 PM (/h9nV)

11 No wonder everyone hates Americans! But they sure don't turn down our foreign aid money and protection, do they?

Posted by: Madfish Willie at April 04, 2004 02:12 AM (JxHpA)

12 Yup, all the other people of the world look down on us. They all hate us. All of them. All except the people in the rafts and overloaded boats who are dying to get here.

Posted by: homebru at April 04, 2004 02:26 AM (1DyE4)

13 And us Australians, who kind of like you. But why do you keep pulling all the good shows off TV? Futurama, Buffy, Angel, Firefly... Sob.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at April 04, 2004 09:35 AM (+S1Ft)

14 homebru, True, but the sad thing is that the kids and grandkids of "the people in the rafts and overloaded boats who are dying to get here" sometimes end up hating the country that saved their families. The first generation groks freedom, but later generations may take it for granted.

Posted by: Amritas at April 04, 2004 10:32 AM (T8ud7)

15 I just remembered one class in international relations I took in college. The text was written by the professor teaching the course. Even needing the grade and the credits I wasn't able to keep my mouth shut. I will give him credit for grading me based on my understanding of the material and not on my disagreement with his politics. And I secretly hope it hurt just a little to give me that A.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at April 04, 2004 11:16 AM (CSxVi)

16 Sarah..nice blog. I want to write about this, and want to be sure I have the reference right. The book is "From Idea to Essay," published by Pearson Education...is that right? What is the context around these preposterous paragraphs? Is it stuff about writing, or more stuff about politics?

Posted by: David Foster at April 04, 2004 09:26 PM (XUtCY)

17 Give me a break... (1) Gee, why is your first example considered a "liberal" example??? Wasn't Condi Rice supposed to give a speech on 9/11 about the immediate threat of nuclear missile attack from unstable regimes, and how necessary it is for us to create a "Star Wars" missile defense??? (2) I don't doubt one can find a few "liberal" examples in grammar texts... but your few anecdotes don't prove anything... I'm sure I could find a few "conservative" examples... Trying to prove a point by reliance on anecdotes is futile, because those who disagree could easily find competing anecdotes... So unless you have an objective study of some sort, then this is pointless...

Posted by: jab at April 04, 2004 09:28 PM (pMjZc)

18 >Talk like a Frenchman without learning French! Shoot, I can teach you THAT. Light up a Gauloise, take a drag, hold it between thumb and forefinger, stare down your nose, and say, "Life? Life ees merde."

Posted by: CavalierX at April 04, 2004 09:41 PM (sA6XT)

19 "Wasn't Condi Rice supposed to give a speech on 9/11 about the immediate threat of nuclear missile attack from unstable regimes"...so..you think there *isn't* a danger of a nuclear missile attack (on us, or on Japan) from North Korea? Do you feel absolutely certain that there is no danger of such attack from any of the countries acquiring Chinese missile technology, or building their own? How many lives are you willing to bet on that conclusion? The fact that "a" is a threat in no way proves that "b" is not also a threat.

Posted by: David Foster at April 04, 2004 10:09 PM (XUtCY)

20 I think most of the military personnel would understand the difference between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. One does not necessarily lead to the other.

Posted by: D. Woolwine at April 05, 2004 01:50 AM (ZZ+/m)

21 Mr. Foster, The host gave the following as an example of LIBERAL bias in a grammar text: "It may seem profitless to worry about a nuclear holocaust--a third world war in which entire continents could be wiped out. However, after we study the historical trends of world powers and realize how simple it is to create nuclear power, common sense dictates that the possibility must be confronted honestly." The host claimed this is proof of "liberal bias"? How is worrying about the possibility of nuclear war "liberal bias"? I pointed out that conservatives such as Dr. Condi Rice also worry about the possibility of nuclear war... so much in fact that she was supposed to give a speech on the need for missile defense shield... So again, how is this exaample from a grammar text an instance of liberal bias? If you reread my post, I never said nuclear war was not a threat, I merely pointed out that Condi Rice thought it was a threat... so this example cannot be proof of liberal bias.

Posted by: jab at April 05, 2004 03:28 AM (pMjZc)

22 Perhaps I was hasty in assuming that this first example was biased, but a comment about "world powers" seems directed to the US to me and not to, say, Pakistan or North Korea, two countries we should be worried about but that aren't considered "world powers". Condi Rice used "unstable regimes" and not "world powers", which is not saying the same thing as this sentence in the textbook, in my opinion. Even if I admit that #3 was a weak example, that's still two shockingly Left-leaning sentences in an exercise of only ten sentences. That's a strong bias, when none of the others leaned Right. (I can provide the other seven if you're really interested.) David: there was no context at all. This was a grammar exercise where the students were supposed to add dependent clauses to sentences to flesh out the ideas. These were the possible examples given at the end of the exercise. If they had been in the chapter on argumentative writing instead, that would have made some sense to me. But in the grammar review?

Posted by: Sarah at April 05, 2004 11:20 AM (ctmsL)

23 Sarah, As for my second point... I'm sure I could go to the library, dig up some grammar books, find examples of supposed conservative bias, and post them... Would that change your mind? No, I didn't think so... because I hope you're smart enough to realize that argument by anecdote is POINTLESS... you post your examples, I post mind... gets us nowhere... On the other hand, if you can point to an objective study showing bias, that would be different... but I'm not going to get worked up by a couple of anecdotes... some weak at that.

Posted by: jab at April 05, 2004 01:37 PM (pMjZc)

24 Well, jab, you seem to be pretty "worked up" to me...

Posted by: Sarah at April 05, 2004 04:40 PM (ctmsL)

25 They are ALL weak examples of so-called liberal bias. Yes, provide all ten examples, so we can judge for ourselves and not through your right-wing blinders.

Posted by: florian at April 05, 2004 04:53 PM (ekKvC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Just keep scrolling through LGF today.
Everyone's there: Hitchens, Simon, Hanson, etc.

The short version for my mama: Daily Kos is the biggest left-wing blog out there. When the contractors were killed in Fallujah, he wrote this:

I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They arenÂ’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.

Then he deleted it (but not before lots of people saw it) and put a longer more nuanced post up instead. I read it and dove into the comments section until I felt like choking and had to look away.

Here's what I don't like:

Back to Iraq, our men and women in uniform are there under orders, trying to make the best of an impossible situation. The war is not their fault, and I will always defend their honor and bravery to the end of my days. But the mercenary is a whole different deal. They willingly enter a war zone, and do so because of the paycheck. They're not there for humanitarian reasons (I doubt they'd donate half their paycheck to the Red Cross or whatever). They're there because the money is DAMN good.

Kos, if I may use your own words, Screw you.

I don't want someone like Kos even thinking of my husband. I don't want him commenting on his bravery or defending his honor or talking about him or even thinking about him. The thought makes me sick, to be honest. The idea that someone who doesn't care one bit about the death of Americans who are working in Iraq to try to bring infrastructure and economic growth gets all sappy and noble when talking about soldiers makes me sick. I don't care for Kos' empty Support Our Troops claims, and I'm fairly certain my husband doesn't either. My husband is not there to "make the best of an impossible situation"; he's there to clean up the Middle East so that people like Kos never have to face a terrorist.

A commenter:

It doesn't matter what the Falluja attackers saw in these 4 men. I see in them war profiteers who's interest in Iraq is soley pecuniary. I am not obliged to consider them my representatives nor to feel any sympathy for them. As a member of the human race, I am obliged, and I do, feel sympathy for their families; no one should have to see the bodies of their loved ones desecrated in such a way. These guys should've thought of that possibility before signing up.

What is conspicuously absent from Kos' comments section is a condemnation of the f-ing Arabs who burned these bodies and beat them with sticks. Instead, these four deserved what they got because they were out to make a profit.

I'm so nauseated right now I can't think straight.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:42 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 490 words, total size 3 kb.

Today was supposed to be the calm day after three hectic days of class registration and beginning a new job. I've already worked 42 hours this week and I still have to work Friday and Saturday. But today was a normal 8-hour shift with nothing going on in the evening.

It was supposed to be calm.

Instead I turned on the computer this morning to this LGF post:

IÂ’m just going to ask one simple question.

Why hasnÂ’t the United States already launched an overwhelmingly armed operation to recover the remains of our citizens murdered today in Fallujah, and punish those responsible?

Their body parts are still hanging from that goddamned bridge.

What the hell is wrong with us?

Uh oh. What happened? Scrolling, scrolling. Oh my god. The photos. The disgust. I don't care if Satan himself were killed on Times Square, American adults would shield children from seeing the carnage. We'd cover their eyes, distract them somehow, pick them up and carry them away. We wouldn't give them f-ing sticks to poke at burned bodies.

Not calm.

Then at the end of my work day, I got an email from my little brother: Mom's in the hospital because of her blood pressure. Told myself that someone would have written a more pressing email if something were really wrong, and came home to call Dad. She's OK now, just her blood pressure was 202. I blame it on blogs; I knew the stuff posted on LGF was bad for your health.

Not so calm.

And then I sit down to Lileks, finally...he kept me waiting all day, you know. But it was well worth the wait. Lileks is not calm today either. He's switched on. He's on fire. He's ticked. It was worth the wait to read his take on how Kerry should have answered the questions on MTV, to feel his outrage at Kerry's distortions and selective memory, and to nod my head as he works himself into a frenzy.

Is the world angry at North Korea for killings its people? Angry at Iran for smothering that vibrant nation with corrupt and thuggish mullocracy? Angry at Syria for occupying Lebanon? Angry at Saudi Arabia for its denial of womenÂ’s rights? Angry at Russia for corrupt elections? Is the world angry at China for threatening Taiwan, or angry at France for joining the Chinese in joint military exercises that threatened the island on the eve of an election? Is the world angry at Zimbabwe for stealing land and starving people? Is the world angry at Pakistan for selling nuclear secrets? Is the world angry at Libya for having an NBC program?

Is the world angry at the thugs of Fallujah?

Is the world angry at anyone besides America and Israel?

Not calm today. But then no one ever said knowledge of how the world works was the best thing for your blood pressure.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:32 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 488 words, total size 3 kb.

OK, time to step back for a minute. After a husband-inspired dinner of lil smokies and rum & coke and a rousing episode of Smallville, I'm ready to tackle the Arab-Israeli conflict growing on my blog.

I always thought the comments section of places like LGF or LT Smash was really fun: discussions growing on their own independent from the original post and blogger. I'm excited that my own readers are jumping into the game. But there are a few things I'd like to say.

I appreciate the fact that Joshua has been civil. He and I may disagree, but he politely asked me to re-grok, and I don't take that as a sign of trolldom. I also appreciate the fact that most of my readers seem to side with Israel, and I only encourage them to continue to be civil in their discussion.

That said, there are some other resources I'd like to point to, all taken from Charles Johnson's sidebar.

Myths & Facts Online: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Palestine Facts
Statistical Analysis of Casualties in the Palestinian - Israeli Conflict

I am the first to admit that I do not grok the entire conflict. I have read most of the information in the aforementioned articles, but I cannot say that I have completely understood everything. I am no expert. I tried to follow Joshua's advice and read the suggested works by Chomsky and Said, but they're both books, and I must honestly say that I don't feel comfortable purchasing their books. I would read an article online, but I don't particularly want to contribute money to their way of thinking.

I will say that I support the idea of the US being Israel's ally. They need all the allies they can get, and so do we. Seeing as we're both considered the biggest threats to world peace, we'd better stick together. Since we give plenty of money to craptastic countries like Egypt, I say why not give aid to a country that's a democracy and an ally?

I think Carla hit the nail on the head with the crux of this conflict though: "Palestinian leaders refused peaceable, 2-state solutions in 1917, 1937, 1948, and 2000. They do not want a right of self-determination, they want the elimination of the Jews." That's the main reason I can't support Palestine. They've been offered a compromise and have refused, opting for death over sharing. I can't support that under any circumstances.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:10 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 414 words, total size 3 kb.

Like I've said before, I'm no good at fisking. I don't really like to do it; it goes back to my post about being rude. But I also said that the published are fair game, so when I found this old article from Sept 2003 called The Terrible Truth About Iraq and started inwardly grumbling, I decided a fisk was in order. I won't copy the whole article here -- it's really long -- but I'll pull out some things that made me grumble. And swear. Sorry. The more I read, the more angry I felt.

According to polls last week, some 60 to 70% of Americans still think we were justified in invading Iraq. Apparently, the majority of Americans still agree with Paul Bremer, who recently referred to the invasion and occupation of Iraq as a "great and noble thing."

Can you feel the contempt for the majority of Americans? This is indicative of how the "educated" on the Left feel about us. We're dumb and need their guidance to understand how peace is the answer. If 70% of us see something as "great and noble", it's because we've been duped, hoodwinked, or lied to. Really we just need smart people like Freeman instead of morons like Bremer to show us the way.

The terrible truth that America cannot face is that the whole thing was never justified in the first place and is thus certainly not a "great and noble thing." If the invasion of Iraq was not justified, then our continued occupation of Iraq can only make things worse. Of course it is a terrible, terrible thing to subject the Iraqi people to the horror they have been subjected to if the war was never justified to begin with. Of course it is a truly terrible thing (and thus a mockery of the slogan--"support the troops") to send our troops into this nightmare if the war was never justified to begin with. Certainly the majority of Americans can recognize what a terrible thing this war and occupation are if the whole thing was never justified to begin with.

Is it just me, or does this paragraph say nothing at all? Seriously. I'm planning my syllabus for teaching ENGL 101, and I swear I'd mark Freeman down for wordiness. Freeman's trying to prove his point in a circular way, using something that 70% of Americans don't see as truth at all. If people don't accept that the war was unjustified, then none of this other junk in this paragraph matters.

Despite ample evidence that the Administration's whole case for war proved to be based on lies and distortions and never amounted in the first place to anything more than a fig leaf for the neo-con agenda, Americans have not been able to face the terrible truth. America can never hope to even begin to try to set things right until she faces the terrible truth. As a nation we can never begin to really confront the problem of terrorism until we face the truth about America and this war and occupation of Iraq.

Minus five points: using the phrase "face the truth" WAY TOO MANY TIMES. And, by the way, does this guy know anything about, to quote Ace Ventura, a little something we like to call evidence? Please point out to me how we "never adequately examined the case for war." I was under the impression that I had to watch a billion speeches in front of the UN last winter.

What is it that would justify war, if indeed anything ever justifies it?

Ah, there we go. That's what he's really saying. The "terrible truth" is that nothing ever justifies war.

If there really was any evidence at all that Saddam Hussein had indeed masterminded or provided assistance to the hijackers there would have been an obvious case for self defense and there is little doubt the United States would have gotten UN authorization for a military response. Only the most dedicated pacifist would have not found just cause to attack Iraq.

Oh please. I'm gonna have to call bullshit on that one. I seem to remember France saying they'd vote no on the resolution no matter what we said. Freeman is just making things up to advance his point, fabricating a what-if scenario that he can't possibly prove would have happened. I maintain the UN still would've wussed out and there still would've been protestors. And I'll back it up with the same evidence Freeman provides: because I say so.

The other major deception the Administration used to provide a just cause was the idea that Iraq was indeed an imminent threat to the United States.

No no no no no. Haven't we been over this a million times? I'm skipping this paragraph because it's worthless.

But now we know that it is all a moot point anyway, for as Hans Blix, the former UN disarmament chief in Iraq, has recently commented: "I'm inclined to think that the Iraqi statement that they destroyed all the biological and chemical weapons, which they had in the summer of 1991 may well be the truth." It turns out that Iraq may well have been in compliance with the UN resolution all along.

If Hans Blix says so, it's truth; if George Bush says so, it's lies. I don't give one good goddam what Blix is "inclined to think."

Freedman goes on to say that the last justification the Administration provided was latecoming and grounds for Bush to be "hauled off right then and there to the nearest insane asylum":

...we need to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, at a cost of billions and billions of taxpayer dollars, not to mention the lives of many good young Americans, all just to--get this--bring democracy to the Middle East...

I personally don't care one flip about WMDs or yellowcake or imminent anything because I saw the big picture long ago. The Arab world is a freaking mess, and some of that mess has now started interfering with our lives i.e. the WTC. The big picture is that we most certainly do need to bring democracy to the Middle East to protect us all down the line. The fact that Freeman ridicules this notion proves to me that he doesn't grok and that we have no common ground whatsoever.

However, I will say that I personally wish the President would've addressed this before the war. I saw the big picture because I read USS Clueless and LGF and I already knew how important this antediluvian idea of jihad is to certain wackos. I wish the President had laid out the big picture for everyone to see. That's my one complaint.

Nevertheless, as so many Americans think the war was justified just to get rid of the evil Saddam Hussein, it might perhaps be worthwhile to pause and consider for a moment, purely as a philosophical question, whether it would make sense to extend the notion of just cause for war to include the idea of removing a brutal dictator in order to install a democracy.

Yep, I'm fer it. What's that, Freedman? You were just being rhetorical? You didn't really mean for me to answer yes. Oh.

In the case of Saddam Hussein, there is no question that he was a brutal dictator. However, most of that brutality, which the American people have been constantly reminded of over the last few years--that he gassed his own people for example--happened while he was supported by our government. Without that support, and with the presence of the UN and the focus of international attention, it was becoming increasingly difficult for Saddam Hussein to act as he pleased.

I'm sorry, I seem to remember jails full of children being opened during the war, a man who lived underground hiding from Saddam for like 30 years, and a poor Iraqi named Adnan Abdul Karim Enad who tried to reach freedom by climbing into Hans Blix's car only to be drug out and never heard from again. "Increasingly difficult" my ass.

Two years after 911, billions of dollars later, thousands of lives lost, and Americans are not really any safer--but we do now have a pipeline across Afghanistan and control of that vast resource beneath the sands of Iraq.

Not worth my time.

Let's not forget the military establishment. One thing this war proves is that the nation with the most powerful military in the world cannot be trusted with that power. What has to be questioned now is the whole military culture that has had such a pervasive influence in shaping American culture. The military knows plenty about the value of courage in war but apparently nothing about moral courage. One simply has to follow orders--the call of conscience, the voice of dissent is just forbidden. This undoubtedly has had a powerful impact on the shallow patriotism that blinded America to the terrible truth about this war. Support the troops? I feel so badly for those brave young men and women who had no idea what they were signing up for, who never imagined their country would send them into an unjust war and force them to kill innocent men, women and children. Those that don't come back in body bags, horribly wounded, or sick from depleted uranium, will still be scarred for life when they find out the terrible truth about the war. This war will turn out to be some recruitment poster. For the military establishment and culture it may turn out to be worse than Vietnam.

To quote James Lileks: Fuck you.

What do you know about moral courage, Freeman? Have you watched your battle buddy explode next to you? Have you gotten letters saying that what you do for a living is wrong, as LT Smash did? Have you talked to one single servicemember since 9/11 and heard the determination in his voice and seen the pride in his eyes? Moral courage is an 19-year-old Marine volunteering for his second tour in Iraq so he can make a difference in this world. Moral courage is going back into the WTC to help other out like Rick Rescorla did. You know nothing about courage, Freeman.

That so many Americans were so easily misled by lies and distortions is surely an indictment of our entire educational system. It has long been recognized that education is the key to democracy, but rarely if ever has it dawned upon Americans just what sort of education is that key. ... It's only an education that stresses the development of philosophical questioning and critical thinking skills that can be the best hope of saving democracy from the dustbin of history.

The key to our future is therefore not my husband's job, but Freeman's job. Ah, I see now. The Adjunct Professor of Philosophy thinks he's the one to lead us all to salvation. And how? By educating a generation of moral relativists who discuss the zen of multilateralism while sequining NO WAR onto their baby t's.

It seems to me there is no solution to the problem of Iraq without first facing the terrible truth that we should never have initiated this war of aggression in the first place.

Read: Now that I've wasted two hours of Sarah's time setting up what we should have done, I offer no solution for the present or future other than we never should've done it in the first place. Oh, and "at the very least, no American company should be allowed to profit from Iraq, especially one with close ties to the Bush Administration." I don't know how to fix Iraq, but I sure don't want American corporations to try. I just want to pontificate; someone else can deal with the pesky details.

See I'm a philosophy teacher. My job is to think about deep stuff while drinking a latte or smoking a pipe or something. I just write about what should have been or what could have been if another latte-drinker had been in the White House. The hard stuff, like pulling bodies out of the wreckage at the WTC or charging into the 6 of Diamond's house, can be done by people who aren't "educated" enough to be insulated by a university's walls. I'll prophesy about "moral courage" and "terrible truths", but I'll never grasp the philosophy of making the split-second decision to waste a terrorist who comes running at me with an RPG.

Thanks for that article from your ivory tower, Professor Freeman. Now I'm going to post this and go back to wondering when my husband will have water and electricity to make his 14 months a little more comfortable while he risks his life to protect your way of living.

Freeman. What an oxymoron of a name.

Posted by: Sarah at 09:28 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 2136 words, total size 13 kb.

1 Yep...you need a place like The Dinner Table to just chill out and have fun. Welcome aboard.

Posted by: Tim at March 21, 2004 10:59 AM (R1GA8)

2 I read your blog daily and enjoy it so much! Thanks for such a wonderful blog. I actually got a boost from this entry. My dream is to be a professional writer one day. I tend to be too verbose and ramble though. Compared to this guy's thoughts, my writing has promise lol! If he used "terrible" one more time I was going to fall out of my chair. And he's a professor? Maybe he should take your class for a refresher!! When even a novice like myself can pick out the problems in his writing - he has serious issues . And did anyone notice this: "Those that don't come back in body bags, horribly wounded, or sick from depleted uranium,..." What is he referring to in regards to the uranium? Certainly there are no WMDs. Hans Blix says so. How would our soldiers be sick from something that is not there? When Israel bombed their nuke plant (provided by France no less), it was before it was ever opened, to ensure the safety of innocent civilians. What am I missing? Admittedly I did not read the entire thing. The few quotes you shared were enough for me. Perhaps I missed that the crooks and liars in Washington were going to contaminate our OWN troops?? Sheesh.

Posted by: Shannon at March 21, 2004 12:16 PM (p9h+4)

3 Outstanding fisking of a total moron!

Posted by: Madfish Willie at March 21, 2004 12:50 PM (tnftl)

4 You Rock! Outstanding! My blood pressure went up just reading the quotes your brought out. To say that jerk is clueless doesn't begin to cover it.

Posted by: Tammi at March 21, 2004 01:15 PM (qg4Lf)

5 Freeman, how about Fartman? As in Gasbagman. What a joke, and the taxpayers are supporting this moral furball.

Posted by: Infidel at March 21, 2004 02:22 PM (WUNym)

6 uuuhmm...all i can say is...wow!

Posted by: annika at March 21, 2004 06:58 PM (zAOEU)

7 Whoa Sarah - I'm just glad you didn't watch Tim Russert or Fox News Sunday this morning or errr whatever time it would be for you. You should hear me mumbling and grumbling to myself as I put myself through torture listening to Teddy Kennedy and John McCain and Joe Lieberman - I think they call it sadomasochistic tendencies. LOL Toni

Posted by: Toni at March 21, 2004 07:36 PM (NXf1N)

8 Thank you for exposing Freeman. There are a whole clique of his type organized as the "Global hope Club" at UH-Hilo. Here are some quotes from them: “There is probable cause to investigate just what connection the Israeli spying operation had with 9-11…. US Government classified the evidence that links the arrested Israeli spies to 9-11.” -- Previously posted on Global Hope’s website "The attacks on New York and Washington were an Israeli-engineered attempt at a coup against the government of the United States*" -- currently posted on website of longtime Global Hope member, BZ Evans. “There is no way any group could have carried out such a complex incursion without assistance from US agencies. It’s likely a terrorist cell could hijack a plane and crash it, yes, but a second plane, a third and fourth plane, and then crash one into the Pentagon? No way. Can’t happen without a go-ahead from shadowy US sectors.” -- “Longtime Global Hope member” B Z Evans’ website 9/11 a big Conspiracy of the FBI, CIA & U.S. Government? Kathy Dorn reports a new book that she says is compelling. The thesis of the book is that "... our intelligence agencies were reined in, air interceptors grounded - and the attacks exploited to launch a devastating war on Afghanistan. -- Global Hope website Was there really a plane crash at the Pentagon on 9/11? Pentagon Plane Crash a hoax? Here's an excerpt with photos of a best-selling book in France that has NOT hit the mainline media in this country but is widely discussed all over Europe. -- Currently posted on Global Hope website “It (9-11) ties into the root causes of terrorism about people in poverty that don’t have any hope. (An airplane) is the poor man’s bomb. As I watched the pictures of the airplane crashing into the building, I thought those people (al-Qaeda) must have felt so powerless to do that.... If Osama had as much money as the United States military...it would probably be a whole different world.” -- Global Hope community supporter Cory Hardin “The American population is ignorant. They (al-Qaeda) have a passion to develop their culture.” -- Global Hope supporter, Dr. Manulani Meyer

Posted by: Andrew Walden at March 22, 2004 07:51 AM (mrIlD)

9 And here's a piece I did for the UH Hilo student paper attacking the ARROGANT left: American Intelligence By Andrew Walden Bitterness and brittle conceit are on display when opponents of Iraqi liberation question the intelligence of the American people. Insults such as “the American public is ignorant” or “America is a nation of sheep” are so commonplace in anti-liberation rhetoric they pass almost without notice. Democrat Presidential candidate, Howard Dean, urged Wisconsin voters not to be “a rubber stamp”--implying that voters who oppose him are but tools. A common anti-liberation bumper sticker, “Think--it’s patriotic”, implies we are not thinking. In the previous issue of Ke Kalahea there are examples both subtle and gross. One writer makes an unfavorable comparison between the intelligence of a US Navy sailor and that of whales. Another, who ascribes intelligence to trees, promises to dedicate herself to, “enhance the minds of the uninspired.” A third wonders, “Where a nation worth of minds have been dumped.” Finally, my debate opponent opines, “…since the American people seem to be more concerned about whether Janet and Justin planned ‘breastgate,’ I think it is…doubtful that they will hold the government accountable….” America is the product of nearly 300 million people from the four corners of the globe assembled together under conditions of democracy, individual and political liberty, and free enterprise. America is not the representation of a race or nationality--we are the avant-garde of a revolution, based on these ideals, started with the European renaissance. Americans are the most prosperous people on Earth because we are most productive workers on Earth. By their millions, people emigrate from their homes; travel thousands of miles, risking their lives to become Americans. We are not an ignorant people. Opponents of Iraqi liberation, who have trouble making it to their own demonstrations, routinely attack the intellect of George Bush, a man who makes it all the way to the Presidency. They see evidence of ignorance in that we don’t buy their accusation that Bush “lied” about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD). They are wrong about us. Americans remember that President Clinton and the first President Bush also warned of the dangers of Iraqi WMD. We know life is more complex than the simplistic equation: “no WMD” equals “lie”. Anti-liberation activists bemoan many Americans’ belief in a connection between Iraq and 9-11. Did it occur that the connection Americans make is: terrorists in caves on the far side of the globe can attack us therefore we can no longer consider ourselves safe from an anti-American dictator who gasses his own people? Do those who call us “ignorant” think this kind of connection too difficult for us? Where they see apathy, I see people who are confident things are on track. “Breastgate” was a minor media frenzy no one in the real world cared about. Television is less a reflection of the American people than of the Hollywood elite, many of whom are…opposed to the liberation of Iraq. Ascribing ignorance to your political opponents is a sign of terminal paradigmatic collapse. Opponents of the liberation of Iraq are not “ignorant”, they are just responding to different real or perceived interests and values than Americans. For instance, Saddam’s erstwhile protectors, France, Germany, and Russia made billions of dollars from oil and munitions deals in Iraq. Anti-liberation spokesman and former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, interviewed on September 13, 2002, by CNN’s Paula Zahn, admitted receiving $400,000 from an Iraqi businessman with connections to Saddam Hussein. The April 22, 2003, Daily Telegraph, reports British Member of Parliament and anti-liberation spokesman, “Gorgeous” George Galloway, “received money from Saddam Hussein's regime, taking a slice of oil earnings worth at least £375,000 a year….” MSNBC reporter, Peter Arnett, on March 31, 2003, explained network Iraq coverage policy, “…reports about civilian casualties here, about the resistance of the Iraqi forces, are going back to the United States. It helps those who oppose the war, when you challenge the policy, to develop their arguments.” Apparently he hoped by explaining this, to land an exclusive, and profitable, interview with Saddam Hussein. And finally, according to the findings of Britain’s Hutton Inquiry, BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan lied about “sexed up WMD intelligence.” When he invented those lies, I’m sure he too thought he was making a profitable career move. These folks are not ignorant; they just value money and career advancement over the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. This November, American voters will select between President Bush and liberal Massachusetts Senator John Kerry in large part based on accountability for their respective records in the war on terror. I expect American voters, in our wisdom, will vote to reelect Bush. Kerry, who voted against just about every weapons system used in liberating Iraq, is not “ignorant”--just wrong. “Intelligence” is an artificial conceit useful to those who cannot make much claim of actual accomplishments. We Americans have many great accomplishments to be proud of--the liberation of Iraq is one of them.

Posted by: Andrew Walden at March 22, 2004 08:01 AM (mrIlD)

10 Here's my favorite from Timid Unfreeman: "That so many Americans were so easily misled by lies and distortions is surely an indictment of our entire educational system. It has long been recognized that education is the key to democracy, but rarely if ever has it dawned upon Americans just what sort of education is that key. When the politicians and pundits go on and on about education it's clear that they think the underlying purpose of education is simply to gain some scientific or technical knowledge and the skills to find a job and make money. That's all fine and good, but it's not the key to democracy. All the success in business and scientific and technological advancement cannot save democracy when its crumbling from within. "Perhaps democracy is a foolish idea to begin with. Certainly there have been great philosophers, beginning with Plato, who thought so. "Plato thought it no better than mob rule to trust the ignorant masses. "That Bush is even President—that the Republicans have had such power and influence at all—seems to be a confirmation of Plato's indictment. "The only defense of democracy against Plato's indictment has always only rested upon the hope that the people can become in some measure wise. "It's only an education that stresses the development of philosophical questioning and critical thinking skills that can be the best hope of saving democracy from the dustbin of history." Yep...sign up for A Junk Professor Freeeman's Philo 101 class or democracy is doomed!!!

Posted by: A UH Hilo Student at March 24, 2004 03:20 AM (mrIlD)

11 Like all cheap propaganda, Freeman's piece may be transformed into its opposite simply by changing a few words. (Poor syntax in the original.) The Terrible Truth About Anti-Americans It seems most anti-Americans are still having a hard time facing the truth about the liberation of Iraq. The situation in Iraq today is clearly a far cry from that portrayed by the chief anti-American mouthpieces, CNN and BBC. Instead of a resented occupation, it’s now looking more like Iraqi civilians are fed up with the activities of Saddam’s unemployed torturers and al-Qaeda. Nevertheless, the anti-Americans insist that this is a “war for oil” and we have to “get the troops out now.” Perhaps it would be worth considering some relevant details about their proposed course of action. With the deadly toll from this last weekend, some 376 of our troops have now given the ultimate sacrifice, 238 since the end of major combat operations was declared. More have come home wounded. The number of Iraqi casualties is, of course, far harder to determine, though anti-Americans regularly play propaganda games with this figure. Though CNN hypes the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found, David Kay’s report shows clear evidence of Saddam’s effort to sustain both chemical and biological weapons programs—a clear violation of several UN resolutions. Recent reports of up to 300,000 mass graves show it’s clear now that Saddam’s regime was a continuing threat to the Iraqi people. Keep in mind also that Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaeda group, was fighting against Saddam’s Kurdish enemies in Northern Iraq. As part of the anti-Americans continuing campaign to depict the American people as ignorant sheep, liberal pollsters with deceptively worded questionnaires have worked diligently to pretend that we cannot tell the difference between the secular terrorists typified by the Baathist regime in Iraq and “Islamic” terrorists such as al-Qaeda, Hamas, or Islamic Jihad. It might still be a surprise to many anti-Americans, but the truth is that we can see right through your con game. We know that you want to replace American democracy with a totalitarian dictatorship—with you as Dictator! We know now that the anti-Americans ignored the conclusions of the Iraqi people and greatly downplayed the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. We now know that in many cases the anti-Americans spread lies such as the claim that 9-11 was an Israeli conspiracy, a CIA conspiracy, or our government had foreknowledge. They have also lied about Presidential statements to make it seem that Bush blamed Saddam for the 9-11 attacks. The Bush Administration has correctly pointed out that the liberation of the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein is a “great and noble thing”. It is hard to imagine the anti-Americans ever supporting any war to overthrow Saddam Hussein, since his regime was their paradigm. It is painfully obvious by now that our troops are not there to “occupy” Iraq, but rather to liberate the Iraqi people. Our troops are clearly perceived by Iraqis who were not part of the old regime, as liberators. The terrorists are showing their hand by attacks on targets like the UN Iraq Headquarters, Red Cross/Red Crescent, the Jordanian Embassy, the Tomb of Ali, and Arab residences in Saudi Arabia. Where are the anti-Americans when these civilian casualties are counted? Their real reasons for opposition to the war are spelled out in numerous conspiracy-oriented websites. The left wing conspiracy “theorists” call 9-11 a CIA operation. The right wing conspiracy theorists call it an Israeli one. The anti-Americans drug-addled brains are satisfied with both claims. If one really wants to know the course the anti-Americans ask us to follow, one really should read these articles. These articles chart a reckless course toward surrender to al-Qaeda that promises many more wars to come. The truth about the anti-Americans is that they hate us so much that that eagerly embrace anyone who stands against America. Anti-Americans use the tragic events of 9-11 to push a plan that would lead to America’s destruction and usher in a new dark age for humanity. After years and years of failed UN sanctions, undercut by greedy French, German, and Russian arms merchants and oil profiteers, war was the absolute last resort. It is now quite clear that there was no more time; there remained no peaceful means of dealing with Saddam. The anti-Americans would lead this country into war by misleading the people about the source of the threat posed by terrorism. The terrible truth is that they blame us for the terrorists’ atrocities. A typical claim is that the war on Iraq has only poured gasoline on the fire that is the problem of terrorism and thus made the world a much more dangerous place. Obviously the reverse is the truth—the Iraq war has eliminated one of the world’s great terrorist sponsor states and our troops have killed hundreds if not thousands of terrorists who foolishly entered Iraq to fight us. Now that all their lies and distortions have been exposed, the only thing the anti-Americans have left to try and spin this liberation as a evil and imperialistic thing is simply an appeal to the blind anti-American hatred. The terrible truth about the anti-war “movement” is that anti-Americans have been manipulated by a shallow and mindless hatred and a constant message of fear, and basically conned into opposing a war that was really an act of liberation. It was, all along, a war to end Saddam’s genocide, and genocide is the supreme crime condemned at Nuremberg. This liberation of Iraq is thus certainly a great and noble thing. It is certainly not supporting our troops to call them criminals and killers as anti-Americans have. To oppose the war on such false pretenses has to be the very worst thing to do to those who have so bravely put their lives on the line in the service of their country. The truth about the liberation of Iraq is that we should have finished the job the first time. Those who protested against the war, who sat in vigils for peace, were wrong. The Iraqis slaughtered after the end of Gulf War I paid the price for other peoples’ pacifism.

Posted by: A UH Hilo Student at March 27, 2004 03:10 PM (mrIlD)

12 Sarah, You'd make the point better if you were less angry. Pulling out quotes and saying you disagree with them doesn't advance the argument, and as for the "f*** you" comment, how does this compare to the bad mannered comments you've recently complained about? "he's the one to lead us all to salvation. And how? By educating a generation of moral relativists who discuss the zen of multilateralism while sequining NO WAR onto their baby t's." He never says anything like this. If you have to invent ridiculous things like this for him to say, you must be short on arguments against what he actually does say, no?

Posted by: Martin Poulter at June 19, 2004 03:25 PM (fO3mc)

13 Extreme-Right Republicans' "Global Endangerment Project": Bush Regime MUST Join International Criminal Court (On the Docket!) Editorial via Metamagic Media Network 10-10-2004 B.Z.B. Burning Bush "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." --George Orwell The world approaches what is arguably the most crucial "election" in the history of humankind, one which will decide the direction of America's immense military and nuclear arsenal, as well as the ideals of the European colonial (ie. Roman) "Republican" political agenda. Some find in the Bush regime a frightening premonition of Hitler's Third Reich, but being brutally honest-- the Bush regime is more dangerous in the extreme. While the Third Reich perfected political propaganda, their ends always justifying horrific means, keep in mind they didn't have a global television network, 24 hour right-wing smear-mongers, or billionaires like Rupert Murdoch pounding their message into millions of minds-- they had newsreels and posters. While Hitler had at his disposal a vast military force, with ruthless special forces and death camps, he didn't have a global satellite survelliance network, a nuclear arsenal capable of incinerating entire countries, stealth bombers, aircraft carriers, or Trident submarines. If he had, we would all be living in a much more ruthless world, pledging allegiance to the superior white race. George W. Bush and Richard Cheney have taken us halfway around the world once again into Hitler's nightmare. This time, however, they are playing a global game of corporate Monopoly¨. The millions of citizens are but pawns in struggle between two factions of extremely wealthy and powerful elite for control of the last resources on the planet. The far-right ideologues known as "Project for a New American Century" are the reactionary revolutionaries whose motto was carved by Karl Rove into the oily political landscape: "Win at any cost." This "Cabal" has a secret army of operatives at its disposal, deploying "destabilization" around the world and hatred at home, keeping pace with another of their mottos "Order out of Chaos." Meanwhile, the Republican extremists' appeal to American "democratic" ideals is a monstrously ludicrous exercise in cognitive dissonance. Their seizing power through a corrupted election in 2000, with a biased Supreme Court appointing the son of their benefactors, was as far from a democratic process as having a King declare himself ruler. Though they lost the popular vote, at every step the Bush regime has deployed an expoitative agenda, shredding our hard-won civil rights, environmental protections, and economic prosperity. Make no mistake, the fate of the Earth is in the balance here, and these far-right "chickenhawks" have extended the American warfront to the point where nuclear launching is on the table as an inevitable option. Dr. Strangelove is chuckling with George Jr. in a secure underground missile base while Dick Cheney counts his Swiss accounts... Wise up, America! The media has been squashed beneath the boots of these criminals! We aren't being told the truth about the most critical evidence of the time-- regarding the 9-11 attacks, the Saudi-corporate connections, the Bush-CIA history of drugs and corruption, or even the FACT that a former attorney general of the country (Ramsey Clark) has launched impeachment proceedings as well as war crimes indictments against the Bush regime. He can't get even 60 seconds of recognition by the corporate media! How can a society have any chance of "election" when the citizens are overwhelmingly ignorant of the most crucial factors at stake, terrorized by a political spin-masters and corporate criminals, and decieved to an extent that can only be considered tyrannical? Meanwhile, fellow Earthlings, the planet is reminding us that greater issues of survival are pressing on us. Our immune systems, our atmosphere, our oceans, what's left of our wildlands and forests, are all caught up in the most rapid and radical extinction since the fall of the dinosaurs. Is it possible that the Bush regime's far-right reactionary revolution is all a carefully-scripted distraction from the needs of a suffering planet? If so, they've succeeded beyond their most arrogant ambitions. "Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." --H. G. Wells B.Z.B. Burning Bush

Posted by: B.Z.B. at October 10, 2004 09:05 PM (FVcxu)

14 Sara you're up: http://www.counterpunch.org/freeman10122004.html

Posted by: Bob bobson at October 12, 2004 01:36 PM (vVsL3)

15 To Shannon, who wondered about depleted uranium: Washington's secret nuclear war By Shaheen Chughtai Tuesday 14 September 2004, 22:17 Makka Time, 19:17 GMT The US has dropped tonnes of depleted uranium on Iraq Related: US secretly removed Iraqi uranium The ABC of WMD Iraq's real WMD crime Tools: Email Article Print Article Send Your Feedback Illegal weapons of mass destruction have not only been found in Iraq but have been used against Iraqis and have even killed US troops. But Washington and its allies have tried to cover up this outrage because the chief culprit is the US itself, argue American and other experts trying to expose what they say is a war crime. The WMD in question is depleted uranium (DU). A radioactive by-product of uranium enrichment, DU is used to coat ammunition such as tank shells and "bunker busting" missiles because its density makes it ideal for piercing armour. Thousands of DU shells and bombs have been used in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and - both during the 1990-91 Gulf war and the ongoing conflict - in Iraq. "They're using it in Falluja, Baghdad is chock-a-block with DU - it's all over the place" Major Doug Rokke, ex-head of US army DU project "They're using it now, they're using it in Falluja, Baghdad is chock-a-block with DU - it's all over the place," says Major Doug Rokke, director of the US army's DU project in 1994-95. Scientists say even a tiny particle can have disastrous results once ingested, including various cancers and degenerative diseases, paralysis, birth deformities and death. And as tiny DU particles are blown across the Middle East and beyond like a radioactive poison gas, the long-term implications for the world are deeply disturbing. DU has a "half-life" of 4.5 billion years, meaning it takes that long for just half of its atoms to decay. Sick soldiers Only 467 US soldiers were officially wounded during the 1990-91 Gulf war. But according to Terry Jemison at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), of the more than 592,560 discharged personnel who served there, at least 179,310 - one third - are receiving disability compensation and over 24,760 cases were pending by in September 2004. A sixth of the Iraq war veterans have already sought treatment This does not include personnel still active and receiving care from the military, or those who have died. And among 168,528 veterans of the current conflict in Iraq who have left active duty, 16% (27,571) had already sought treatment from the VA by July 2004. "That's astronomical," says Rokke, whose team studied how to provide medical care for victims, how to clean contaminated sites, and how to train those using DU weapons. Rokke admits the exact cause for these casualties cannot be confirmed. But he insists the evidence pointing to DU is compelling. "There were no chemical or biological weapons there, no big oil well fires," he says. "So what's left?" Cradle to grave Dr Jenan Ali, a senior Iraqi doctor at Basra hospital's College of Medicine, says her studies show a 100% rise in child leukaemia in the region in the decade after the first Gulf war, with a 242% increase in all types of malignancies. The director of the Afghan DU and Recovery Fund, Dr Daud Miraki, says his field researchers found evidence of DU's effect on civilians in eastern and southeastern Afghanistan in 2003 although local conditions make rigorous statistical analysis difficult. Iraqi and Afghan doctors have seen a rise in deformed foetuses "Many children are born with no eyes, no limbs, or tumours protruding from their mouths and eyes," Miraki told Aljazeera.net. Some newborns are barely recognisable as human, he says. Many do not survive. Afghan and Iraqi children continue to play amid radioactive debris. But the US army will not even label contaminated equipment or sites because doing so would be an admission that DU is hazardous. This "deceitful failure", says Rokke, contradicts the US army's own rules, such as regulation AR 700-48, which stipulates its responsibilities to isolate, label and decontaminate radioactive equipment and sites as well as to render prompt and effective medical care for all exposed individuals. "This is a war crime," Rokke says. "The president is obliged to ensure the army complies with these regulations but they're deliberately violating the law. It's that simple." No remedy But these blatant violations are practically irrelevant because Rokke's Iraq mission found that DU cannot be cleaned up and there is no known medical remedy. US President George Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair used Saddam Hussein's alleged possession of illegal weapons to justify invading Iraq. But several prominent jurists hold Bush and Blair guilty of war crimes for waging DU warfare. The vice-president of the Indian Lawyers Association, Niloufer Bhagwat, sat on an international panel of judges for the unofficial International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan. Bhagwat and her fellow judges ruled that the US had used "weapons of extermination of present and future generations, genocidal in properties". Friendly fire And not just against defenceless Afghan civilians. Critics say George Bush (R) and Tony Blair are 'war criminals' "Bush was guilty of knowingly using DU weaponry against his own troops," Bhagwat told Aljazeera.net, "because the president knew the effects of DU could not be controlled". A prominent US international human-rights lawyer, Karen Parker, says there are four rules derived from humanitarian laws and conventions regarding weapons: weapons may only be used against legal enemy military targets and must not have an adverse effect elsewhere (the territorial rule) weapons can only be used for the duration of an armed conflict and must not be used or continue to act afterwards (the temporal rule) weapons may not be unduly inhumane (the "humaneness" rule). The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 speak of "unnecessary suffering" and "superfluous injury" in this regard weapons may not have an unduly negative effect on the natural environment (the "environmental" rule). Illegal weapons "DU weaponry fails all four tests," Parker told Aljazeera.net. First, DU cannot be limited to legal military targets. Second, it cannot be "turned off" when the war is over but keeps killing. Third, DU can kill through painful conditions such as cancers and organ damage and can also cause birth defects such as facial deformities and missing limbs. "Use of DU weaponry violates the grave breach provisions of the Geneva Conventions" Karen Parker, human rights lawyer Lastly, DU cannot be used without unduly damaging the natural environment. "In my view, use of DU weaponry violates the grave breach provisions of the Geneva Conventions," says Parker. "And so its use constitutes a war crime, or crime against humanity." Parker and others took the DU issue before the UN in 1995, and in 1996, the UN Human Rights Commission described DU munitions as weapons of mass destruction that should be banned. Deceit Despite the evidence, Rokke says Pentagon and Energy Department officials have campaigned against him and others trying to expose the horrors of DU. That charge is echoed by Leuren Moret, a geoscientist who has worked at the Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore nuclear weapons research laboratories in California. White House denials are part of a long-standing cover-up policy that has been exposed before, she says. President Bush insists warnings about DU are merely propaganda "For example, the US denied using DU bombs and missiles against Yugoslavia in 1999," she told Aljazeera.net. "But scientists in Yugoslavia, Greece and Bulgaria measured elevated levels of gamma radiation in the first three days of grid and carpet bombing by the US." Moret said: "A missile landed in Bulgaria that didn't explode and scientists identified a DU warhead. Then, Lord [George] Robertson, the head of NATO, admitted in public that DU had been used." Even the US army expressed concern about the use of DU in July 1990, some six months before the outbreak of the first Gulf war. Those concerns were later echoed by Iraqi officials. Denial But brushing his own army's report aside - now said to be "outdated" - US President George Bush has dismissed such warnings as "propaganda". "In recent years, the Iraqi regime made false claim that the depleted uranium rounds fired by coalition forces have caused cancers and birth defects in Iraq," says Bush on his White House website. "But scientists working for the World Health Organisation, the UN Environmental Programme and the European Union could find no health effects linked to exposure to depleted uranium," he said. Bush can point to a World Health Organisation (WHO) report in 2001 that said there was no significant risk of inhaling radioactive particles where DU weapons had been used. It said the level of radiation associated with DU debris was not particularly hazardous, but it accepted that high exposure could pose a health risk. Scientific studies WHO also commissioned a scientific study shortly before the 2003 invasion of Iraq that warned of the dangers of US and British use of DU - but refused to publish its findings. The study's main author, Dr Keith Baverstock, told Aljazeera.net that "the report was deliberately suppressed" because WHO was pressed by a more powerful, pro-nuclear UN body - the International Atomic Energy Agency. WHO has rejected his claims as "totally unfounded". "[WHO's] report was deliberately suppressed" Dr Keith Baverstock, co-author of WHO report on DU The study found DU particles were likely to be blown around and inhaled by Iraqi civilians for years to come. Once inside a human body, the radioactive particles can trigger the growth of malignant tumours. Bush's claim that the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) gives DU pollution a clean bill of health is also disingenuous. UNEP experts have yet to be allowed into Iraq, its spokesman in Geneva Michael Williams told Aljazeera.net, citing security concerns. And a scientific body set up in 1997 by Green EU parliamentarians - the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) - found that DU posed serious health risks. An eminent Canadian scientist involved with the ECRR, Dr Rosalie Bertell, says the deadliness of DU derived not just from its radioactivity but from the durability of particles formed in the 3000-6000C heat produced when a DU weapon is fired. "The particles produced are like ceramic: not soluble in body fluid, non-biodegradable and highly toxic," she told Aljazeera.net. "They tend to concentrate in the lymph nodes, which is the source of lymphomas and leukaemia". Known killer The US military and political establishment cannot plead ignorance. As early as October 1943, Manhattan Project scientists Arthur Compton, James Connant and Harold Urey sent a memo to their director, General Leslie Groves, saying DU could be used to create a "radioactive gas". DU targets human DNA and may thus affect future generations In 1961, two nuclear experts, Briton HE Huxley and American Geoffrey Zubay, informed the scientific community that DU targeted human DNA and "the Master Code, which controls the expression of DNA", Moret said. In September 2000, Dr Asaf Durakovic, professor of nuclear medicine at Washington's Georgetown University, told a Paris conference of prominent scientists that "tens of thousands" of US and UK troops were dying of DU. Death sentence "There has to be a moratorium on the manufacture, sales, use and storage of DU," geoscientist Moret says, warning that this will not happen unless more Americans realise what is happening. The Middle East has been severely contaminated, warns Moret. "That region is radioactive forever," she says, but worse is yet to come. Moret says the air carrying DU particles takes about a year to mix with the rest of the earth's atmosphere. Radioactive sites continue to kill and contaminate Iraqi children The radiation released by DU nuclear warfare is believed to be more than 10 times the amount dispersed by atmospheric testing. As a result, DU particles have engulfed the world in a radioactive poison gas that promises illness and death for millions. Rokke went to Iraq a fit and healthy soldier, but the major is now beset with a variety of illnesses and each day is a struggle. He suffers from respiratory problems and cataracts while his teeth - weakened by DU radiation - are crumbling. At least 20 of the 100 primary personnel he worked with on the US army's DU project have died. Most of the rest are ill. Meanwhile, WHO says cancer rates worldwide are set to rise by 50% by 2020, although it does not link this publicly to DU. "They would never say that - they offered various strange explanations," said Moret. "But DU is the key factor. People will slowly die."

Posted by: J.J. King at October 12, 2004 02:58 PM (YOTzl)

16 By WALTER A. DAVIS The US CODE, TITLE 50,CHAPTER 40 Sec. 2302 defines a Weapon of Mass Destruction as follows: "The term 'weapon of mass destruction" means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors, (B) a disease organism, or (C) radiation or radioactivity." Depleted uranium (DU) is a waste product of the uranium enrichment process that fuels both our nuclear weapons and civilian nuclear power programs. In fact, over 99% of the uranium enrichment process results in this waste product, which has a half life of 4.5 billion years. DU is both a toxic heavy metal and a radiological poison. The U.S. currently has over 10 million tons of DU. As we all know, the disposal of nuclear waste is one of the unintended consequences or blowback of the development of nuclear power. A solution to the problem of DU has, however, been found. DU is now used in virtually every weapon employed by the U.S. in Iraq (and in Afghanistan and in Kosovo). To cite the most conspicuous example: every penetrator rod in the shell shot from an Abrams tank contains 10 pounds of DU. DU is selected for weapons for three reasons: it's cheap (was made available to arms manufacturers free of charge and is easy to develop); it's heavy, 1.7 times the density of lead and thus most effective at killing because it penetrates anything it hits; it's pyrophoric, igniting and burning on contact with air and breaking up on contact with its target into extremely small particles of radioactive dust dispersed into the atmosphere. The result: permanent contamination of air, water, and soil. [1] DU was first used by the U.S. in Desert Storm. The amount used was between 315-350 tons. Five times as much was used during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Over a third of the U.S. soldiers who served in the first Gulf War are now permanently disabled. VA reports indicate 27,571 U.S. soldiers already disabled from the current war and occupation.. The Department of Energy and the Department of Defense of course continue to deny that DU has any harmful effects. A U.N. sub-commission on Human Rights has ruled that DU, which fits the definition of a "dirty bomb," is an illegal weapon. [2] Huge chunks of radioactive debris full of DU now litter the cities and countryside of Iraq. Fine radioactive dust permeates the entire country. The problem of clean-up is insoluble. The entire ecosystem of Iraq is permanently contaminated. The Iraq people are the new hibakusha. Their fate, like that of the "survivors" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is a condition of death-in-life. The long term health effects of DU on the Iraqui people (and on our own troops) are incalculable. There is no mask or protective clothing that can be devised to prevent radioactive dust from entering the lungs or penetrating the skin. Moreover, DU targets the DNA and the Master Code (histone), altering the genetic future of exposed populations. Because it is the perfect weapon for delivering nanoparticles of poison, radiation, and nano-pollution directly into living cells, DU is the perfect weapon for extinguishing entire populations. The Iraqi's are not alone. Vast regions of the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Balkans have been permanently contaminated with radioactive dust and debris [3] These facts are worth bearing in mind the next time we are told what has now become a bipartisan article of faith: the Iraqi people are better off with Saddam Hussein gone. Or as Bill Maher put it on his show of Sept. 24th "Eventually they're better off." ******** ALSO Signing up to be a soldier has different motivations for different people as does not signing up. Courage from the latin for heart(fulness) is expressed in different ways. It is not courageous in my book to denigrate those who are lacking in heart.

Posted by: j Grub at October 12, 2004 05:42 PM (feRUm)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Chaplain Yee is going back to work. If I understand correctly, the charges against him couldn't be proven because of the "national security concerns that would arise from the release of the evidence" and not because they didn't have the proof. So this bastard is heading back to work instead of to 14 years in jail. Please excuse me while I smash something.

A quote from the AP article: "Some Asian-American activists supporters of Yee, a 35-year-old Chinese-American, have accused the government of racial and religious profiling." Religious profiling I'll give you. I think the military needs to do even more religious profiling because we seem to have had a string of shady Muslims getting into trouble in the past year. Profile away, I say. But racial profiling? Not in this case, bud. I hardly think anyone said, "Keep an eye on that Chinese fellow; they're known for passing secrets to the brown guys." Doubt it. But in our world, if you're non-white, you've got an excuse for everything.

Feeling bitter today, Sarah? Just a tad.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:52 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

I know a German girl here whose parents are Syrian; she's friends with some of the wives I know. One of them last night said that this girl was offered $500,000 to go work as a contracter in Iraq "because she speaks...whatever language it is that they speak there."

Big neon reminder:
Very few people have a freaking clue what goes on in the world.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.