Friday, May 07, 2004
Politics
This is a transcript of John Kerry discussing economics. Don't bother reading it. It's about as "deep" as a bowl of oatmeal. Why do politicians have to talk in vague platitudes? It's almost like they aim to make EVERYTHING THEY SAY usable as a soundbite. Of course, Kerry's soundbites would have enough words in them to choke a debate contestant.
Ack. Sometimes it's better not to know what's in the sausage.
This is a transcript of John Kerry discussing economics. Don't bother reading it. It's about as "deep" as a bowl of oatmeal. Why do politicians have to talk in vague platitudes? It's almost like they aim to make EVERYTHING THEY SAY usable as a soundbite. Of course, Kerry's soundbites would have enough words in them to choke a debate contestant.
Ack. Sometimes it's better not to know what's in the sausage.
Long term ramifications
Prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib prison will have long term ramifications, not just with Arab regimes who already disliked us, but with Europeans, who will be even less likely to go along with American visions of the future (not that Bush would have had any luck with that even before). A number of foreign policy objectives, chief among them our attempt to bring democracy to the Middle East, have been seriously jeopardized.
This statement does provide hope, though:
"It's terrible and it's made life difficult for awhile," Kristol said. "But if it becomes clear that this is the exception and [the troops involved] are held accountable, it could end up being an impressive demonstration to countries where torture is routine."
Time to start a SERIOUS investigation, and to consider whether Rumsfeld had any responsibility for these abuses, or the apparent 3-month coverup. I have trouble believing that he wasn't responsible, at least for the coverup. If so, he needs to be remove, whatever damage that might do to Bush's reelection prospects.
Prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib prison will have long term ramifications, not just with Arab regimes who already disliked us, but with Europeans, who will be even less likely to go along with American visions of the future (not that Bush would have had any luck with that even before). A number of foreign policy objectives, chief among them our attempt to bring democracy to the Middle East, have been seriously jeopardized.
This statement does provide hope, though:
"It's terrible and it's made life difficult for awhile," Kristol said. "But if it becomes clear that this is the exception and [the troops involved] are held accountable, it could end up being an impressive demonstration to countries where torture is routine."
Time to start a SERIOUS investigation, and to consider whether Rumsfeld had any responsibility for these abuses, or the apparent 3-month coverup. I have trouble believing that he wasn't responsible, at least for the coverup. If so, he needs to be remove, whatever damage that might do to Bush's reelection prospects.
Thursday, May 06, 2004
A point from BBC News
BBC News just showed a snippet of a torture video filmed by Saddam Hussein's prison guards. It involved something like 20-30 guards beating a prisoner as he ran around the grounds trying to escape them. Torture, beatings, mysterious deaths and even sexual humiliation are common occurrences in prisons THROUGHOUT the middle east. Yet, you never hear ANYONE in the Arab world protesting about that.
What those American prison guards did was despicable. The difference, though, is that those guards are going to get in a LOT of trouble, and heads might even roll in high places in the US government. Americans seems geniunely humiliated by the fact that their own citizens did something like this. Nothing like that would EVER occur in an Arab regime that practiced torture as state policy.
BBC News just showed a snippet of a torture video filmed by Saddam Hussein's prison guards. It involved something like 20-30 guards beating a prisoner as he ran around the grounds trying to escape them. Torture, beatings, mysterious deaths and even sexual humiliation are common occurrences in prisons THROUGHOUT the middle east. Yet, you never hear ANYONE in the Arab world protesting about that.
What those American prison guards did was despicable. The difference, though, is that those guards are going to get in a LOT of trouble, and heads might even roll in high places in the US government. Americans seems geniunely humiliated by the fact that their own citizens did something like this. Nothing like that would EVER occur in an Arab regime that practiced torture as state policy.
Bush SHOULD have apologized
I agree completely with the point made in this Slate article. Bush passed up a HUGE opportunity to reduce the damage from the ill-treatment of Iraqi prisoners. Unfortunately, Bush NEVER apologizes for ANYTHING.
Clinton apologized to China when the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was accidentally bombed. That was an ACCIDENT. The abuse of Iraqi prisoners was a conscious effort among certain people under George Bush's command. No, he didn't call up and tell them to lean on Iraqi prisoners in that way (at least, I HOPE not, though on that note, if evidence ever shows up that Rumsfeld gave the green light for such activity, let's hope that Bush has the good sense to fire him). The generals who DID apologize weren't directly responsible, either. However, the soldiers who committed these acts were under their command, so they did the right thing and apologized.
Bush should have apologized. It would have made a bad situation a bit better. Instead, Iraqis come away with the feeling that Americans are arrogant and don't feel the need to apologize to the people they conquered. Wonderful message.
I agree completely with the point made in this Slate article. Bush passed up a HUGE opportunity to reduce the damage from the ill-treatment of Iraqi prisoners. Unfortunately, Bush NEVER apologizes for ANYTHING.
Clinton apologized to China when the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was accidentally bombed. That was an ACCIDENT. The abuse of Iraqi prisoners was a conscious effort among certain people under George Bush's command. No, he didn't call up and tell them to lean on Iraqi prisoners in that way (at least, I HOPE not, though on that note, if evidence ever shows up that Rumsfeld gave the green light for such activity, let's hope that Bush has the good sense to fire him). The generals who DID apologize weren't directly responsible, either. However, the soldiers who committed these acts were under their command, so they did the right thing and apologized.
Bush should have apologized. It would have made a bad situation a bit better. Instead, Iraqis come away with the feeling that Americans are arrogant and don't feel the need to apologize to the people they conquered. Wonderful message.
Michael Moore
There's a lot of irony in a guy who spends a lot of time railing against the evils of big business complaining that one of those big businesses (Disney) won't distribute in an election year his highly controversial film linking Bin Laden and George Bush. Hey, I think he has EVERY right to make movies about anything he damn well pleases, but that doesn't mean companies are OBLIGATED to face the firestorm which would result from being the distributor behind an extremely controversial film.
Moore blames it on Disney's fears that it would lose tax breaks in Florida. Okay, let's pretend that is true. Why is it wrong for a company to think about things like it's ability to continue to benefit from something that affects it's profitability.
Find somebody else to distribute your bloody film, Mike. The "I'm constantly pissed off" act is getting a bit old, and I'm starting to wonder if your films are more about making money than making changes in American society.
As a side note, take a bit of time to think about what effect a skewed vision of American society has on the rest of the world. Americans have more context within which to view your movies (I thought Bowling for Columbine was a GREAT film, and made some very important points, even if I don't agree with everything you said). The rest of the world doesn't, and it just feeds into a bunch of anti-American stereotypes.
There's a lot of irony in a guy who spends a lot of time railing against the evils of big business complaining that one of those big businesses (Disney) won't distribute in an election year his highly controversial film linking Bin Laden and George Bush. Hey, I think he has EVERY right to make movies about anything he damn well pleases, but that doesn't mean companies are OBLIGATED to face the firestorm which would result from being the distributor behind an extremely controversial film.
Moore blames it on Disney's fears that it would lose tax breaks in Florida. Okay, let's pretend that is true. Why is it wrong for a company to think about things like it's ability to continue to benefit from something that affects it's profitability.
Find somebody else to distribute your bloody film, Mike. The "I'm constantly pissed off" act is getting a bit old, and I'm starting to wonder if your films are more about making money than making changes in American society.
As a side note, take a bit of time to think about what effect a skewed vision of American society has on the rest of the world. Americans have more context within which to view your movies (I thought Bowling for Columbine was a GREAT film, and made some very important points, even if I don't agree with everything you said). The rest of the world doesn't, and it just feeds into a bunch of anti-American stereotypes.
Why I'm no fan of unions
The Greek hotel workers union is threatening to strike during the Olympic games if their demands aren't met. Not only will their extortion cause problems for visitors, but it will affect every other company in Greece who has a vested interest in the success of the Olympic games.
The article notes that hotel workers are "low paid," as they take home a monthly salary of around $743. That sounds REALLY bad, until you realize that Greece's per capita GDP is around $11,000. Yes, they are below average (by about $2000 a year), but hotel workers AROUND THE WORLD get less than the average, and I bet the differential is MUCH higher in America.
Greece's real problem is its inability to do much to take advantage of membership in the EU. I would suggest that hyperactive unions devoted to extorting money when the situation enables it are NOT the way to pull Greece out of its economic backwater.
The Greek hotel workers union is threatening to strike during the Olympic games if their demands aren't met. Not only will their extortion cause problems for visitors, but it will affect every other company in Greece who has a vested interest in the success of the Olympic games.
The article notes that hotel workers are "low paid," as they take home a monthly salary of around $743. That sounds REALLY bad, until you realize that Greece's per capita GDP is around $11,000. Yes, they are below average (by about $2000 a year), but hotel workers AROUND THE WORLD get less than the average, and I bet the differential is MUCH higher in America.
Greece's real problem is its inability to do much to take advantage of membership in the EU. I would suggest that hyperactive unions devoted to extorting money when the situation enables it are NOT the way to pull Greece out of its economic backwater.
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Bush's international stature
Bush struck back the other day at Kerry campaign claims that certain world leaders hope Kerry wins in the next election. Just to set the record straight, as someone who has spent 4 years in Europe, I can say categorically that I've never met ANYBODY in Europe has anything but a rabid dislike for George Bush. So, on the question of whether world leaders root for Bush or Kerry in the next election, I should think the answer is obvious.
There's no reason to dance around the FACT that Bush has the lowest international stature of any American president in many years (even Reagan was more popular in Europe, making famous speeches in Berlin about pulling the wall down). What American voters need to consider is whether that matters. If rebuilding bridges to the international community are important, then Kerry should be their man. If not, well, Bush at least enters the running.
Don't fool yourself into thinking that world leaders want Bush to win. They don't, and in a future Bush administration, America will continue to go it mostly alone simply because Bush will have less personal influence with foreign leaders.
Bush struck back the other day at Kerry campaign claims that certain world leaders hope Kerry wins in the next election. Just to set the record straight, as someone who has spent 4 years in Europe, I can say categorically that I've never met ANYBODY in Europe has anything but a rabid dislike for George Bush. So, on the question of whether world leaders root for Bush or Kerry in the next election, I should think the answer is obvious.
There's no reason to dance around the FACT that Bush has the lowest international stature of any American president in many years (even Reagan was more popular in Europe, making famous speeches in Berlin about pulling the wall down). What American voters need to consider is whether that matters. If rebuilding bridges to the international community are important, then Kerry should be their man. If not, well, Bush at least enters the running.
Don't fool yourself into thinking that world leaders want Bush to win. They don't, and in a future Bush administration, America will continue to go it mostly alone simply because Bush will have less personal influence with foreign leaders.
Morality through the legal system
I've read a number of articles regarding the Bush administration's tendency to let political ideology trump hard science. From drug policy to issues relating to stem cell research, science takes a back seat to the political - and religious - dictates of the current administration. Now, the "morning after pill" (a mechanism for preventing pregnancy after unprotected sex which COULD constitute an "abortion" under certain circumstances) could be rejected for over the counter use even though the FDA's expert advisory panel voted 23 to 4 to approve it.
That should have been a slam dunk to approval, but conservative members of congress started to lobby the FDA to stop it. The chief arguments, as outlined by one of its opponents (Concerned Women for America, more on that later), were as follows:
In particular, she said, the panel ignored studies that indicate emergency contraception leads to reduced use of condoms and an increase in sexually transmitted diseases. She also said she believed there is insufficient information about the effects of repeated use of emergency contraception, and about the possibility of the drug being "slipped" to women without their knowledge.
Regarding the first, by that reasoning, alcohol should only be available with a prescription, because it might lead you to get knocked up in the first place. This is nanny-state reasoning, the kind of thing that Republicans are SUPPOSED to oppose, but don't when it comes to the moral dictates they seem to want to impose on the American people. People should have the CHOICE to use this drug. Even pro-lifers should have a hard time treating a handful of undifferentiated cells the same as a fetus three months hence. If you TRULY want people to value that "life," then convince individuals not to use the drug. Don't try to legislate morality by making it ILLEGAL to use it.
As for the final two, they are, quite simply, FUD. This drug has been studied EXTENSIVELY, and physicians across the country are widely supportive of its over the counter status. Opponents, however, can't appear to just be a bunch of federal nannies, so they have to provide the APPEARANCE of scientific doubt. Well, it's just that, appearance, and it should give one pause to consider that these "doubts" are only coming from people motivated with a pro-life stance. Check out the web site for Concerned Women for America (the group who was the source for my previously-cited objections). They are a christian pro-life advocacy group. Can they be scientific about this issue? Perhaps. But my experience of these groups is that science is last on their list, and besides, EVERY REPUTABLE SCIENCE ORGANIZATION IN AMERICA suports the over the counter status of this morning after pill.
Bottom line, I hate it when I see government trying to push the American people towards their vision of morality. Legislating morality is NOT the right approach. Spend time motivating individuals to make the RIGHT choice. But a morning after pill falls WELL into the reasonable middle ground between those that want to treat the instant of conception as the start of human life and those who don't want any protection until that baby pops out in the delivery room.
The bipolar nature of the abortion debate in America has reached epic proportions. "Dilation and extraction" abortions have been banned, and that seems entirely reasonable to me. Make a move in the other direction - a morning after pill that is available over the counter - as a reasonable compromise.
I've read a number of articles regarding the Bush administration's tendency to let political ideology trump hard science. From drug policy to issues relating to stem cell research, science takes a back seat to the political - and religious - dictates of the current administration. Now, the "morning after pill" (a mechanism for preventing pregnancy after unprotected sex which COULD constitute an "abortion" under certain circumstances) could be rejected for over the counter use even though the FDA's expert advisory panel voted 23 to 4 to approve it.
That should have been a slam dunk to approval, but conservative members of congress started to lobby the FDA to stop it. The chief arguments, as outlined by one of its opponents (Concerned Women for America, more on that later), were as follows:
In particular, she said, the panel ignored studies that indicate emergency contraception leads to reduced use of condoms and an increase in sexually transmitted diseases. She also said she believed there is insufficient information about the effects of repeated use of emergency contraception, and about the possibility of the drug being "slipped" to women without their knowledge.
Regarding the first, by that reasoning, alcohol should only be available with a prescription, because it might lead you to get knocked up in the first place. This is nanny-state reasoning, the kind of thing that Republicans are SUPPOSED to oppose, but don't when it comes to the moral dictates they seem to want to impose on the American people. People should have the CHOICE to use this drug. Even pro-lifers should have a hard time treating a handful of undifferentiated cells the same as a fetus three months hence. If you TRULY want people to value that "life," then convince individuals not to use the drug. Don't try to legislate morality by making it ILLEGAL to use it.
As for the final two, they are, quite simply, FUD. This drug has been studied EXTENSIVELY, and physicians across the country are widely supportive of its over the counter status. Opponents, however, can't appear to just be a bunch of federal nannies, so they have to provide the APPEARANCE of scientific doubt. Well, it's just that, appearance, and it should give one pause to consider that these "doubts" are only coming from people motivated with a pro-life stance. Check out the web site for Concerned Women for America (the group who was the source for my previously-cited objections). They are a christian pro-life advocacy group. Can they be scientific about this issue? Perhaps. But my experience of these groups is that science is last on their list, and besides, EVERY REPUTABLE SCIENCE ORGANIZATION IN AMERICA suports the over the counter status of this morning after pill.
Bottom line, I hate it when I see government trying to push the American people towards their vision of morality. Legislating morality is NOT the right approach. Spend time motivating individuals to make the RIGHT choice. But a morning after pill falls WELL into the reasonable middle ground between those that want to treat the instant of conception as the start of human life and those who don't want any protection until that baby pops out in the delivery room.
The bipolar nature of the abortion debate in America has reached epic proportions. "Dilation and extraction" abortions have been banned, and that seems entirely reasonable to me. Make a move in the other direction - a morning after pill that is available over the counter - as a reasonable compromise.
Monday, May 03, 2004
The British torture photos might be fakes
As this article discusses. I can see motivations among those who want to undermine the Iraq coalition for making such fakes. It's like attack ads that prove later to be false. Most never see the retraction, and one can be DAMN sure Al-Jazeera won't shout from the rooftops that the British photos were fakes.
I just wish the American photos were fakes, too, though clearly they aren't (soldiers at the prisons admitted as much). That is personally embarassing to me. I do a passable job of defending the Iraq war among Europeans who are almost universally against it. I don't argue it on typical grounds, and so they often don't have typical answers. I can't respond to the allegations of torture, though, because what was done was so clearly wrong.
I find it interesting that one of the accused works as a prison guard stateside (doesn't say good things about the state of American prisons, but heck, we already knew that was the case in our overcrowded prisons). Likewise, I find it UNCONSCIONABLE that some of them tried to defend themselves by claiming they never saw any Geneva convention text. Dammit, this isn't trying to screw some insurance company for a bunch of money after an accident. Why do you have to be told NOT to torture the prisoners in your care????
A lot of people in the Middle East hate America, and Americans. Now, they have photos that prove (at least in their minds) that we hate them, too.
I find also find worrisome allegations that the wing where these abuses occurred were managed by America's intelligence operations. That starts to make it sound like that kind of pressure was official policy.
As this article discusses. I can see motivations among those who want to undermine the Iraq coalition for making such fakes. It's like attack ads that prove later to be false. Most never see the retraction, and one can be DAMN sure Al-Jazeera won't shout from the rooftops that the British photos were fakes.
I just wish the American photos were fakes, too, though clearly they aren't (soldiers at the prisons admitted as much). That is personally embarassing to me. I do a passable job of defending the Iraq war among Europeans who are almost universally against it. I don't argue it on typical grounds, and so they often don't have typical answers. I can't respond to the allegations of torture, though, because what was done was so clearly wrong.
I find it interesting that one of the accused works as a prison guard stateside (doesn't say good things about the state of American prisons, but heck, we already knew that was the case in our overcrowded prisons). Likewise, I find it UNCONSCIONABLE that some of them tried to defend themselves by claiming they never saw any Geneva convention text. Dammit, this isn't trying to screw some insurance company for a bunch of money after an accident. Why do you have to be told NOT to torture the prisoners in your care????
A lot of people in the Middle East hate America, and Americans. Now, they have photos that prove (at least in their minds) that we hate them, too.
I find also find worrisome allegations that the wing where these abuses occurred were managed by America's intelligence operations. That starts to make it sound like that kind of pressure was official policy.
