|
|
 |
|
|
Friday, September 27, 2002
One more thing  This is a fake, okay? It may reinforce our most deeply held prejudices--the President is so stupid he reads children's books upside down--but it is, nonetheless, a goddamn fake. Snopes has the rundown (click on "Photo Gallery" and then on "This is America"--I'm sure there's an easier way to get there, but don't bother emailing, because I just don't care that much), but come on--look at the photo on the back cover of the book. I understand that not everyone is a Certified Graphics Professional, but explain to me why that little dark shape that looks like someone waving faces the spine in the version George W. holds, and yet faces the outer edge of the book in the version the kid is holding. It's because of a little something we call "Photoshop." What have I told you people about keeping the batteries fresh in your bullshit detectors? Okay, that's it for Mr. Cranky. I have to get up at four a.m. to catch a plane to California. (Oh, yeah--if you're in the Sonoma State area, I'm giving a presentation at the Project Censored awards tomorrow night.)
One quick note Sporadic posting is likely to continue for awhile, but I've been asked to pass along word that there will be national antiwar demonstrations on Sunday, October 6. More information here.
It has been a busy week I'll try to do better next week. But no promises. Never, never any promises. Some weeks, this blog will simply sit in the corner, unused and gathering cobwebs, until it happens to catch my eye one day and I pick it up, and think to myself, Oh yeah! That old blog! I should plug this thing in and see if it still works! Okay, maybe it won't come to that. But sometimes, this incredibly unique new twenty-first century artform known as "blogging," or, if you prefer, "jotting down brief thoughts and posting them online"--oh brave new world, that has such people in it--well, sometimes it has to take a back seat. -------------------- Tuesday, September 24, 2002
FYI I have a piece in the current New Yorker. It's kind of about blogging, or at least the wonderful world of online commentary in general. -------------------- Monday, September 23, 2002
Justice in Nigeria Katsina, Nigeria--Last year, a 30 year old woman, Amina Lawal, was found guilty of adultery under newly introduced Islamic holy laws. As punishment for the affair and the child it produced, Amina Lawal was given the death penalty. When her time to die comes, she will be buried up to her neck in sand. When only her head remains exposed, those watching will be invited to throw stones until the 30-year-old single mother is dead. Summary from Michael Moore's site--but no matter where you fall on the political spectrum, I think we can all agree that this is seriously fucked up. Michael's webmaster has some email addresses posted if you want to want to register your disgust with this insanity.
Your safety is job one You probably heard about that flight where the air marshalls pulled out their guns and ordered the terrified passengers to remain in their seats until the plane landed. If you didn't hear about what happened afterwards to a former U.S. military physician who was guilty of nothing more than flying-while-dark-skinned, you'll definitely want to read Bob Herbert this morning: Dr. Rajcoomar was seated in first class on a Delta Airlines flight from Atlanta to Philadelphia on Aug. 31 when a passenger in the coach section began behaving erratically. The passenger, Steven Feuer, had nothing to do with Dr. Rajcoomar… There were no terrorists on board. There was no threat of any kind. When the plane landed about half an hour later, Mr. Feuer was taken into custody. And then, shockingly, so was Dr. Rajcoomar. The air marshals grabbed the doctor from behind, handcuffed him and, for no good reason that anyone has been able to give, hauled him to an airport police station where he was thrown into a filthy cell. Complete column here.
What he said Josh Marshall reluctantly favors some sort of intervention in Iraq, a stance with which you may take issue. But he also hits the nail on the head when it comes to the nagging sense of unease many of us feel about this whole thing: There's also an issue people don't like to talk about, but which is an undeniable reality for many. Military action is easier to contemplate if it's being planned by political leaders who you support and whose values you share. One might say this is mere partisanship, agreeing with what politician X wants to do because he's a member of your party or vice versa. And there's always some of that. But it runs deeper. Following political leaders into war requires a deep measure of trust on a variety of levels: trust in their judgment, trust in their analysis of factual information that can never be shared with the public, and so forth. If your general sense of an administration is that they're not trustworthy or that they don't share your values it's difficult not let that color your opinions. Of course, to some degree it should color your opinions. But it's important to evaluate these questions as much as possible simply on the merits. And I've tried to do that to the best of my ability in my writing about Iraq on this site over the last several months. But let me discuss with you for a moment what I find the most difficult about this debate. The more ardent supporters of regime change lie a lot. I really don't know how else to put it. I'm not talking about disagreements over interpretation. I mean people saying things they either know to be false or have no reason to believe are true. Perhaps the word 'lie' is a very slight exaggeration. Perhaps it's better to say they have a marked propensity to assert as fact points for which there is virtually or absolutely no evidence. How's that?
Beacons of consistency in troubled times From Dana Milbank in the Washington Post, via Cursor: Accidental or not, the hallmark of Bush's style is an ability to shift justifications for a set policy. On the subject of deposing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the administration at first sought, after Sept. 11, 2001, to link Iraq to al Qaeda and the attacks. Later, Bush's rationale shifted to a policy of "preempting" those who would use weapons of mass destruction. But two weeks ago, the White House decided to downplay the preemption argument. Just days before Bush made his U.N. speech on Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld wrote a defense of preemption in a commentary submitted to The Washington Post. The administration withdrew Rumsfeld's article prior to publication, and Bush came out six days later with an additional argument that confronting Hussein was necessary to preserve U.N. integrity… The pattern was familiar. In the 2000 campaign, Bush spoke of the need for a tax cut as an "insurance policy" against an economic downturn. Once the downturn came, he continued to argue for the same tax cut as the best way to stimulate an ailing economy -- even though it would be years before most of the cuts took effect. He also argued for the tax cut philosophically, as a way to keep government from growing and morally, as a way to return money to those who earned it. The cartoon with which this space is closely affiliated has also made note of this tendency on occasion. And speaking of this space's deeply valuable contributions to public discourse, Atrios's readers have taken the "Bomb Iraq" song and run with it. --------------------
 |
|
|
 |