Saturday, August 25, 2007

What We All Want

I was watching the Packers on Fox Thursday Night. Believe it or not.

Anyway, the fadein/fadeout song that they played was "What We All Want" by Gang of Four.

It seems a bit odd for a violent sports broadcast on a right wing, violent, war promoting network to play a song by a punk band with uncompromising leftist lyrics.

This one ranks up there with CBS using Green Day's Boulevard of Broken Dreams during the NCAA tournament, or CBS using Queens of the Stone Age's Little Sister on football broadcasts.

Are these songs put on there by hipster techies trying to slip one by the bosses, by sophisticated media wizards, or I am underestimating joe six pack sports fans, and they really do appreciate this music?

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Burden of Shame

I was watching America's Got Talent. Cas Haley was joined by UB40 to perform Red Red Wine.

I was thinking that given the current political climate, the UB40 song "Burden of Shame" would have been quite appropriate. Can't see NBC letting it on the air, though. Anyway, here are the lyrics.
----
There are murders that we must account for
Bloody deeds have been done in my name
Criminal acts we must pay for
And our children will shoulder the blame

(chorus)

I`m a british subject, not proud of it
While I carry the burden of shame (repeat)

As a nation we`re following blindly
No-one stops to question why
Our money`s supporting an army
And a boy in soweto dies

(chorus)

I`m a british subject, not proud of it
While I carry the burden of shame (repeat)

Must we go on ignoring forever
The cries of an african son
There`s a soldier`s hand on the trigger
But it`s we who are pointing the gun

(chorus)

I`m a british subject, not proud of it
While I carry the burden of shame (repeat)

Monday, August 20, 2007

Would it be worse?

One of the arguments that congressmen give for supporting the war, despite the fact that the reasons given for going to war were false, is that things would be worse if we left.

This argument is not as silly as the argument that if you do not support the war then you do not support the troops, and of course we have to support the troops. The problem with that argument is that there are plenty of troops in Iraq who will tell you that they would consider a plane ticket home to be a fine form of support. It is a little harder to determine what would happen if we left, without us actually leaving. But the argument does not appear to be any more persuasive on the surface than the argument that things will be worse if we stay.

I presume that the main way in which war supporters believe things will be worse if we leave is that Iraqis will fight other Iraqis even more than they are fighting now.

The first flaw in this argument is that it presumes that no organization would step up to prevent violence between Iraqi factions. While arranging such an action would be quite difficult, it is possible, and it should be an important part of U.S. diplomatic efforts concerning Iraq.

The second flaw in this argument is that it assumes that U.S. efforts to prevent violence between Iraqis are effective. There is substantial evidence that reductions of violence in one area of Iraq are accompanied by increases in other areas of Iraq.

The third flaw is that it assumes that U.S. intends to prevent or reduce violence between Iraqis. The U.S. is currently supporting Sunni militias who promise to fight Al-Qaeda. We are also supporting the Iraq govenment, run by Shiites, even though we are rattling sabers against their Iranian allies. But, we are fighting the Shiite Sadrists, who are not allied with Iran. And we are supporting the Kurds. Thus we are supporting most of the separate factions that one would expect to be the major actors in a civil war, but we are not doing anything to bring them together.

The fourth flaw is that it ignores that things are pretty damn bad as they are. Millions of Iraqis have left the country, millions more are displaced within Iraq, and living conditions in most of the country are very bad. Granted, one can imagine worse things happening. But these events are pretty strong evidence that what we are doing is not working. If the reason for staying is concern for conditions in Iraq, some alternative policy to the status quo ought to be under consideration. The situation is bad enough that a claim that things would be worse if we left ought to be supported by some substantial evidence.

The fifth flaw is that nearly 80% of Iraqis do not want us there. Our presence stirs up resistence, and organization of militias, armies, and factions. Some of these groups will lay down their weapons when we leave, some will not, but this shows that to say we have to stay because there will be chaos if we leave is a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy.

Finally, although the greatest moral obligation is to Iraqis, considering our role in creating the misery in Iraq today, American policymakers ought to consider the effect of the war on the U.S. It is hard to see any positives in that regard, whether it is the cost of the war in dollars, the reduction in the ability of the armed forces to defend the country, the reduced economic strength of the country, the utter trashing of any respect we might have had in the international community, the loss of life and health for thousands of Americans, the trashing of civil liberties, etc.

Would it be worse, or not? Let's find out.

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Ramirez Watch

Ramirez had another idiotic cartoon in the newspaper; or was it warmed over Rice?

The cartoon had the capitol on top of a big mushroom cloud, with voices asking why we need domestic spying.

Now terrorists do not have the vast industrial base to make their own nuclear materials. (Even if they did, discovering that would not requiring repealing the fourth amendment.) So they could only acquire nuclear materials by getting them from someone who does have a vast industrial base to produce such materials. That is a small number of governmental organizations, and we know who they are. It is not necessary to spy on ordinary citizens to track the organizations in posession of nuclear materials.

Monday, August 13, 2007

Support the Mercenaries

Another excellent piece by Jeremy Scahill on mercenaries in Iraq. This shows that redeployment, phased withdrawl, or whatever other cover might be given to the war is no good. All war funding must be eliminated.

While we are at it, cut the DoD budget big time. Make sure there are no ratholes left from which money can by scurried over to the mercenaries.

This story really shows what a lie the phrase "Support the Troops" is. "Support the Mercenaries" is a more accurate description of the pro war policy.

Saturday, August 11, 2007

Buchanan on Kucinich

McLaughlin's Group was in full flower last night, with at least two speaking at most times and often three. My little ones enjoy listening to pompous adults unintentionally sounding like a pack of barking dogs, though it drives my wife up the walls.

Buchanan the populist was showing some admiration for Kucinich, particularly his comment about "if you dig a hole deep enough you will get to China. We are there." I don't know if I can give the exact quote, but I think he called him a fine little debater. I don't think he is angling for the vice presidential nomination.

Friday, August 10, 2007

Dear Reader

I am back after three weeks neglecting my blogging duties. What do you know, Voldemort is out pumping up war with Iran again. (Say, does "W" stand for Wormtail?)

I have been over how insanely stupid this is before, but a few things have changed. We are now buying off our Sunni insurgent enemies, as reported by Sudarsan Raghavan in the 04 August, 2007 Washington Post. We are also going after the Shiites, so apparently we have decided to trade enemies from 20% of Iraq to 60% of Iraq. (This is ignoring the polls that say that 80% of Iraqis want us to leave, essentially all the non-Kurds.)

Is this to make things really hard in Iraq before we go after Iran; is it just acknowledging the fact the even though our policies in Iraq has apparently been to prefer Shiite control, they still hate us? Or is it to taunt Iran into providing support to their fellow Shiites, providing an excuse for Cheney's folly?

Look, the majority of the U.S. wants to get the hell out of Iraq, they don't like having got suckered by Bush, Cheney, & Rice last time around, so I hope the country goes apeshit if they try to pull this stunt. You know the rest of the world will. Maybe that will be the end of congressmen weaseling about their support for funding the war, " If we leave there will be chaos." Well, we stayed, we let the BCR run loose, and they want to give us a dose of chaos 10 times as big.