If memory serves me correctly...

[ebonlock]

This damn near broke me this morning:
The Iron Chef : Lembas Battle

And many thanks to windrose for the Total Information Awareness project, a pair of those thongs are looking mighty good to me right now *G* Remember, be a good American, Big Brother is watching you!

Bad news from my sisters, their flight got delayed so they won't be getting in until after 8 pm tonight. Plans may have to be shuffled a bit regarding dinner, so if you were planning to go to Garden Fresh this evening I'm going to try to get in touch with you this afternoon to discuss options. *sigh* Airlines.

Also, this is the last day I will be posting or checking emails until next Wednesday. If you need to get in touch with me, either email today or call me, ok?



I've spent the last couple of evenings at home watching coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom and wondering what the hell has happened to the once fine art of journalism. Swear to god, at least a half an hour was spent showing a pixelated, blurry image of troops zooming over the desert with nothing but sand and sky in sight. Nothing. Nada. Zip. The journalist (and I use the term loosely) responsible for this riveting coverage actually got excited when they spotted some goat herders amidst the big, blank, stretch of nothing. Wee! Goats, wow, thanks CNN!

So basically right now we've got our choice of network or cable coverage from reporters "embedded" in different military units and carefully watched over by the Pentagon. Does this make me at all comfortable with taking for granted that what we're hearing from said reporters is going to be at all unbiased, hard hitting, honest journalism? Uh, no.

In an effort to balance this coverage out, I've been listening to KPFA radio which swings about as far Left as humanly possible. I figure between the two sources and what I can dig up on the internet I might just have a shot at figuring out for myself what the hell is going on in the world these days.

I continue to be strongly impressed by Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), whose speech, Today, I Weep for My Country..., really resonated.

Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.

We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split.


"...we demand obedience or threaten recrimination..." Not just abroad, mind you, but with our own citizens as well. Either you're for us or against us. I admit it's a pretty simple, black and white concept, easily grasped by the masses and perpetuated. I'd also say it's pretty simplistic, turning discourse and disagreement into dangerous and subversive actions.

But we Americans are a contentious lot, we like to disagree, we like to argue, we like to take a stand on issues. We're not always the best informed people in the world, but we are curious and opinionated, and we'll ask questions...or at least we'll let our favorite journalists do that for us.

I think many of us want to know what's going on, and more importantly, have a say in the direction our country's policies take. That's not always feasible, of course, but we are a Democracy and there are means of expressing our support or discontent, for getting our voices heard.

Dissent, however, is becoming a kind of scary thing right now. If you support the war, you probably haven't noticed it...or perhaps you feel the opposition should be silent. But to disagree strongly with our government just now is becoming an increasingly risky proposition, whether you're a public representative or a private citizen.

On the other hand, not speaking up carries even higher, if more insidious dangers.

Ultimately I guess it becomes a question of "how much are your values worth to you"? What precisely are you willing to risk to voice your beliefs? And what will be the lasting damage to your conscience if you don't?

Now if only a few more members of the Democratic party would ask themselves these questions...

Comments

[tersa.livejournal.com]

If memory serves me correctly...
The Iron Chef : Lembas Battle

Bwahahahahaha. :)

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

Byrd, former grand poobah of the KKK and the most profoundly evil appropriator in the entire Senate, appears to be losing his already tenuous grip on reality.

Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination.

Refresh my memory; wasn't it the French who promised to veto any Security Council resolution that authorized the use of force, regardless of the content of the resolution or the merits of the argument? Wasn't it Chirac who told the nations of Eastern Europe, who support the United States, that they ought to just shut up, and that by speaking out, they had risked their membership in the EU?

Of course, I'm just a simpilisme American, but it would seem that, if we have been unreasonable in this matter, we have no monopoly on intransigence.

Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves.

Which is why we have the support of 40 other countries, and counting. One suspects Senator Byrd's definition of "unilateralism" is similar to Monsieur Chirac's and Herr Schroeder's.

We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism.

Yep.

We assert that right without the sanction of any international body.

Memo to Senator Byrd: according to that pocket copy of the Constitution you keep in your shirt, we don't need the sanction of any international body.

As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.

I must get my hands on a crystal ball like the one he's using.

We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates

Well, if the shoe fits...

Valuable alliances are split.

One labors to imagine which alliances Byrd is speaking of. Ours with France? Germany? Russia? Pardon me while I clean the Diet Coke off my computer screen.

I am no great fan of Senator John McCain, but he made mincemeat of Byrd on the Senate floor, for all that it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Re:

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

Byrd, former grand poobah of the KKK and the most profoundly evil appropriator in the entire Senate, appears to be losing his already tenuous grip on reality.

Uh, "grand poobah" is overstating things a bit. He was a member, and yeah a fundraiser back in the 1940's and cut his ties with the organization during that time. He may still have racist tendencies, he is after all a product of his background. I'm not apologizing for him, I'm saying he's one of the few people willing to stand up and say something critical of the current US policy rather than simply parroting the "We support the troops." spiele.


Refresh my memory; wasn't it the French who promised to veto any Security Council resolution that authorized the use of force, regardless of the content of the resolution or the merits of the argument?

Did they ever get the chance to do so? *G* Regardless, I can produce a similar list of vetoes the US actually did enact regarding Israel's failure to comply with UN resolutions as well. Indeed the US has vetoed more actions against resolution offenders than any other nation, hasn't it?

Wasn't it Chirac who told the nations of Eastern Europe, who support the United States, that they ought to just shut up, and that by speaking out, they had risked their membership in the EU?

And do I think he was wrong to do so? You betcha'. But last I recall his wasn't the only oppositional voice, just the most vehement.

BTW, I think the exact wording used by the French ambassador to the UN was:
"France will not allow a resolution to pass that authorizes the automatic use of military force," he said.

Of course, I'm just a simpilisme American, but it would seem that, if we have been unreasonable in this matter, we have no monopoly on intransigence.

Not saying we do, am I?

We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism.

Yep.

And I'm delighted you agree, that you don't feel that a preponderance of evidence (or hell, any evidence) is necessary before we go in and kick some ass and take some names. I disagree with this policy resoundingly, so an agree to disagree position.

We assert that right without the sanction of any international body.

Memo to Senator Byrd: according to that pocket copy of the Constitution you keep in your shirt, we don't need the sanction of any international body.

So you'd say the UN "was a good idea at the time, but we're the only superpower now so fuck 'em" basically?


We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates

Well, if the shoe fits...

Valuable alliances are split.

One labors to imagine which alliances Byrd is speaking of. Ours with France? Germany? Russia? Pardon me while I clean the Diet Coke off my computer screen.

Ah, what a proud coalition we have too:

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Britain, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey and Uzbekistan.

Hey, Afghanistan's on our side, imagine that. I'm sure it's because their leadership is deeply convinced that we're 100% right about Iraq....couldn't possibly be because we've set up a puppet leader there who'll dance to our tune. And hey, soon we'll have one in Iraq too, betcha' the next time we choose to invade a country that's a "threat to our national security" Iraq will be on that list too. Now that would be a real mind-fuck, wouldn't it?

And speaking of Afghanistan, exactly what is going on over there at the present? I mean have we put that occupied nation back together again? Has it become a land of bread and honey? Funny that it's all but fallen off the radar screen since the whole Iraq thing started.

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

Did they ever get the chance to do so?

Does it matter? I have no reason to believe they wouldn't have followed through on the threat; do you?

Regardless, I can produce a similar list of vetoes the US actually did enact regarding Israel's failure to comply with UN resolutions as well. Indeed the US has vetoed more actions against resolution offenders than any other nation, hasn't it?

I have made some recent remarks in my own journal about moral relativism that I suggest you review. Today I will make some additional remarks about the difference between Chapter VI Security Council resolutions pertaining to Israel, and Chapter VII Security Council resolutions pertaining to Iraq. You might do well to review those, also.

And I'm delighted you agree, that you don't feel that a preponderance of evidence (or hell, any evidence) is necessary before we go in and kick some ass and take some names.

That's not remotely what I said. It's not even how Byrd mischaracterized the policy of pre-emption.

So you'd say the UN "was a good idea at the time, but we're the only superpower now so fuck 'em" basically?

I'd never characterize the UN as a good idea, at any time. I have an essay brewing about this, too.

Beyond that, I'd say what I have said before: the United States has not, and cannot, cede its warmaking (or, more generally, foreign policy) discretion or authority to an extra-governmental agency, regardless of our relative power level in the global arena.

The consent and approval of the United Nations is not necessary, and it is only relevant insofar as it's a useful PR coup.

Re:

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

I have made some recent remarks in my own journal about moral relativism that I suggest you review. Today I will make some additional remarks about the difference between Chapter VI Security Council resolutions pertaining to Israel, and Chapter VII Security Council resolutions pertaining to Iraq. You might do well to review those, also.

I am so not getting into the moral relativism debate here, nope not going to do it. I'm also not going to start discussing the nature of reality as either subjective or objective. When people fundamentally disagree on such a topic there is generally little to no sense in discussing it.

"Stay on target, stay on target."

Right, much better now.

I'd never characterize the UN as a good idea, at any time. I have an essay brewing about this, too.

Beyond that, I'd say what I have said before: the United States has not, and cannot, cede its warmaking (or, more generally, foreign policy) discretion or authority to an extra-governmental agency, regardless of our relative power level in the global arena.

The consent and approval of the United Nations is not necessary, and it is only relevant insofar as it's a useful PR coup.

And as long as we continue to treat the organization as a useful tool for accomplishing our own national interests, or an obstruction to be ignored or dismissed as we see fit then that is precisely what it will continue to be.

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

And as long as we continue to treat the organization as a useful tool for accomplishing our own national interests, or an obstruction to be ignored or dismissed as we see fit then that is precisely what it will continue to be.

Okay. In spite of the fact that this is the best tautological argument I think I've ever seen, I'll bite.

We should subordinate our own national interests to the interests of the so-called "international community" as expressed through the U.N. ... why, exactly? What's in it for us?

Why is it to our advantage, either principally or pragmatically, to give an extra-governmental authority, unaccountable to American citizens and composed primarily of representatives of nations which do not share Western democratic values, supremacy over United States foreign policy?

Re:

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

Okay. In spite of the fact that this is the best tautological argument I think I've ever seen, I'll bite.

We should subordinate our own national interests to the interests of the so-called "international community" as expressed through the U.N. ... why, exactly? What's in it for us?

Why is it to our advantage, either principally or pragmatically, to give an extra-governmental authority, unaccountable to American citizens and composed primarily of representatives of nations which do not share Western democratic values, supremacy over United States foreign policy?

I hate to answer a question with a question, but here goes. Why should a country like Iraq be subject to the will of an organization like the UN? Why should it feel compelled to bow down to its resolutions? Is it in Iraq's best interests to follow the edicts of the UN? Hell no. Still we expect them to, why? Because there are certain rules that the vast majority of countries in this world are willing to play by, and overall they're pretty good rules.

One of our basic reasons for this attack is that Iraq has been stalling, misleading, and otherwise thumbing his nose at resolutions agreed upon by the international community as a whole, via the UN. I mean unless I'm totally misunderstanding here, this is one of our big contentions, yes?

So we're at once saying, "Yes, the UN has resolutions and they're good and we support them." and "The UN isn't willing to give us the thumb's up so we're going to go ahead anyway, without their support." As I see it we're trying to have it both ways. It's like saying, "They should play by the rules, but we don't have to."

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

Why should a country like Iraq be subject to the will of an organization like the UN? Why should it feel compelled to bow down to its resolutions? Is it in Iraq's best interests to follow the edicts of the UN? Hell no. Still we expect them to, why?

We expect them to follow UNSC resolutions because they agreed to do so as a condition of the 1991 ceasefire agreement that ended the first Gulf War.

If the circumstances had been otherwise, the UNSC would have been pissing into the wind, as it frequently does with Israel.

[tyee.livejournal.com]

To me, I care less about what is to our advantage and more about what is the morally correct thing to do.

And while I am a citizen of this country first, that does not make me any less a citizen of this world. There's certainly a difference between giving an external body authority over our foreign policy and choosing of our own accord to consider the opinion of that external body. I'm an adult; my mom no longer has any say in what I do. I still ask her opinion about a lot of things, and I generally have to have a damn good reason to disregard her advice because she's right so damn often.

Also, if we're so hell-bent on bringing democracy to the world, shouldn't that start with listening to what the rest of the world is saying?

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

Let me rephrase the question, then:

In what way is it morally correct for us to give an extra-governmental agency, unaccountable to American citizens and dominated by member-states which do not share Western democratic values, supremacy over United States foreign policy?

To put it another way, do you honestly believe that suborning United States foreign policy to an international parliament dominated by third-world thugocracies and kleptocracies would result in a more moral geopolitical order?

These are the questions that U.N. voluptuaries never seem to satisfactorily answer. Foreign policy disagreements between nations never have, aren't now, and never will be good-faith differences of opinion; they were, are, and will always be motivated by the national self-interest of the interlocutors. Heeding the will of the "international community" means bending knee to the national self-interest of other nations, possibly against principle and the interests of our own citizens.

The current situation is instructive: more nations want us to leave Saddam Hussein alone, and support an ineffectual inspections regime, than topple him. Why? Well, the Russians have lucrative oil contracts that they're afraid they might lose. The German government is pandering to its anti-American left in order to stay in power. The French have the same motivations as the Russians, plus they're playing petty power games to both increase their influence within the EU and try to check the influence of the United States. The Saudis aren't on board because they've got plenty of skeletons in their closet, and they're afraid a democratic Iraq will diminish their own clout in the region. The Turks we had to bribe to get on board; they were opposed because a liberated Iraq potentially means an independent Kurdistan, which the Turks are deathly afraid of. The Chinese share the French motivation: opposing America to diminish American influence while increasing its own. And various other Muslim states oppose the war because Saddam is a Muslim, the fact that he's widely viewed, even in the Muslim world, as a murderous tyrant notwithstanding.

So kowtowing to the UN means: letting the Russians and the French traffic in oil at the expense of Iraqi lives; pandering to anti-American Germans and racist Turks; permitting the French and the Chinese to increase their geopolitical influence at the expense of our own; and permitting the Saudis to continue to hide their own barbarism. And, oh, by the way, letting a murderous tyrant with prohibited weapons continue to stay in power.

This would be the democratic result. Nobody should confuse it with a moral result. This is an example why the United States is not a pure democracy, because there are some far more important hills (i.e. free speech, gun rights, the rights of criminal defendants, federalism, property rights, et cetera) to die on.

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

By the way, Ellie, and I do not intend this as a slam, I think it's pretty sad that you're "balancing" your media diet by watching CNN -- with its well-documented liberal bias -- and listening to KPFA.

That's like a conservative seeking a balanced media diet by watching Fox News and listening to KSFO.

Re:

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

By the way, Ellie, and I do not intend this as a slam, I think it's pretty sad that you're "balancing" your media diet by watching CNN -- with its well-documented liberal bias -- and listening to KPFA.

That's like a conservative seeking a balanced media diet by watching Fox News and listening to KSFO.

Uh, CNN is one of the stations I'm watching, along with local news broadcasts, FOX (on occasion), MSNBC, etc., etc. I tune in for Hardball when I can, and occasionally The O'Reilly Factor when I need a giggle. I mentioned CNN in particular regarding its fascinating goat expose last evening.

Speaking of the O'Reilly Factor I'm *so* tempted right now to write him. I was flipping through his "No Spin Zone" the other day and read the piece on Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson and their boycotting campaigns on American businesses. He said, and I quote, "I think boycotting is un-American", and yet on the front page of Mr. O'Reilly's page is "Boycott France!"

I just had to laugh.

New and Exciting! (not necessarily better)

[murdoch.livejournal.com]

Iron Chef Hobbit

Elven wine! How luxurious!


Media rant
CNN has also changed the way it outfits reporters. They've gone from satellite TV crews to lone reporters with laptops, webcams, and satellite internet connections. This is a lot cheaper and results in either more reporters gathering more information or cheaper operating costs for the network. I think that other networks have followed suit, as a $10,000 satellite laptop setup is way cheaper than the $100'000's for a good satellite truck system, plus crew.

This gives more immediate news, but results in a lot more useless news because it's Immediate Breaking Information Now, rather than something traditionally newsworthy.

Thongs

[murdoch.livejournal.com]

a pair of those thongs are looking mighty good to me right now *G* Remember, be a good American, Big Brother is watching you!

Hey, if Big Brother was watching my "premises", I'd want a commission from it...


On the other hand, if you want to bundle up under several layers of clothes, you could try going to school in Israel

[mallen.livejournal.com]

Dissent, however, is becoming a kind of scary thing right now. If you support the war, you probably haven't noticed it...or perhaps you feel the opposition should be silent. But to disagree strongly with our government just now is becoming an increasingly risky proposition, whether you're a public representative or a private citizen.

Since Brett already fisk'ed your Byrd excerpt, I'll just comment by saying this:

When you have asshats like these on your "side," doesn't it make you a little embarrassed?

Re:

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

When you have asshats like these on your "side," doesn't it make you a little embarrassed?

Trade you those for every dipshit in an SUV with an American Flag sticker plastered on it...

[mallen.livejournal.com]

Bzzzt.

When said SUV owner starts chaining himself to gas stations, obstructing ambulances and fire engines, it's a deal though.

Re:

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

Since Brett already fisk'ed your Byrd excerpt

He what'd me?

Oh wait:
Hence many pro-war blogs -- most famously, InstaPundit -- often use the term "Fisking" figuratively to mean a thorough and forceful verbal beating of an anti-war, possibly anti-American, commentator who has richly earned this figurative beating through his words. Good Fisking tends to be (or at least aim to be) quite logical, and often quotes the other article in detail, interspersing criticisms with the original article's text."


The aim of a fisk is to bring ridicule on the person being fisked and logic is the most potent weapon for indulging in such ridicule.

Oh...I see, so I've been ridiculed because I agreed with a Senator who had once been a member of the KKK. I guess I hadn't thought of it that way, rather that we were disagree respectfully. But thank you for pointing that out to me, I hadn't realized I was an object of ridicule until now. That's good to know.

[mallen.livejournal.com]

Ridiculed is maybe a bit beyond the sentiment I personally read. I'd call it "challenging the implicit assumptions" of your post.

Re:

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

Ridiculed is maybe a bit beyond the sentiment I personally read. I'd call it "challenging the implicit assumptions" of your post.

Allow me to repeat the definition of "fisking" I found online:

The aim of a fisk is to bring ridicule on the person being fisked...

I mean that is the point, right? And that was the term you used, was it not?

Sometimes I wonder just how much you respect me and my thoughts...today is definitely one of those days.

[mallen.livejournal.com]

The aim of a fisk is to bring ridicule on the person being fisked...

I mean that is the point, right? And that was the term you used, was it not?

Sometimes I wonder just how much you respect me and my thoughts...today is definitely one of those days.

I apologize for being imprecise with my terminology. Out of abject laziness, I used "fisk'ed" (only 7 characters!!) when I should have written, more precisely, "challenged the bulk of your assertions line by line." To me, the term "fisking" has a less caustic definition than the one you found.

I didn't know that you'd be tetchy about a single word, but disrespect was not my intent.

Re:

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

I apologize for being imprecise with my terminology. Out of abject laziness, I used "fisk'ed" (only 7 characters!!) when I should have written, more precisely, "challenged the bulk of your assertions line by line." To me, the term "fisking" has a less caustic definition than the one you found.

I didn't know that you'd be tetchy about a single word, but disrespect was not my intent.

Not entirely the word, but you gotta' admit there was a definite tone of condescension there, kind of a "He sure showed *you*!" And never having heard that term before I went out to read up on it. The "fisks" I read were...well, I believe that windrose put it best when she referred to them as more appropriately called "fisting, only without the benefit of lube".