Sunday, January 06, 2008

Israel - setting the example for Guantanamo and the US military commissions.


History will judge us by how we treat the Arabs.
Attributed to
Chiam Weizmann
First president of modern Israel

Yesh Din, an Israeli human rights organization is providing the raw material for that judgment.
Israel's military court system for Palestinian suspects in the West Bank produces almost automatic convictions, an Israeli human rights group charged Sunday.

The group, Yesh Din, said in a new report that in 2006 more than 99.7 percent of those accused were convicted, 95 percent in plea bargains.

Yesh Din said its inquiry, which included attending more than 800 hearings and conducting extensive interviews with lawyers and court staff, concluded that suspects were often unable to present a full defense with effective counsel.

Yesh Din is funded in part by the British and Dutch governments and its board includes former Israeli Attorney General Michael Ben Yair, retired Gen. Shlomo Lahat and former Cabinet minister Shulamit Aloni.

The Israeli military, quite expectedly, disagreed with the report but did not address this:

The Yesh Din report said, however, that military court proceedings can be startlingly brief, citing a study of 38 hearings where prosecutors sought to extend suspects' detention in custody until the end of case, which generally means remand for a year or more.

Of those 38 hearings, Yesh Din says, seven lasted between two and four minutes, 19 lasted between one and two minutes and 12 were over in less than a minute.

And then something even more familiar starts to show up.

"Most are detained in Israel and their attorneys are not able to meet them," said Michael Sfard, Yesh Din's legal counsel. In addition, minors were often tried as adults and detained at length before being charged.
I wonder who learned from whom?
Sfard said the 0.29 percent acquittal rating in 2006, or 23 cases out of 9,123, was most jarring.

"We think that this is an outrageous number which clouds the presumption of innocence," he said. "It is unreasonable that a justice system will have such a low figure of victory of the defense."

The jurisdiction of the military courts extends to the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank over Palestinians charged with security related and criminal offences. Israeli citizens, living in those territories occupied since the 1967 war, are tried by civilian courts.

Yesh Din's website describing the Military Courts Project is here. A summary of the report, entitled Backyard Proceedings, is here along with access to the entire report in PDF.

Hat tip This Old Brit.

The more things change, the more they remain the same


Back in the day there was no such thing as a military ombudsman. We had to state a complaint, "at the table", as a Captain's Requestman. (The procedure for the Royal Navy and Canadian Navy are identical).

When the military ombudsman became a fact of life there were two things we all hoped:

1. That the pressure of complaints and the means to provide redress would be somewhat relieved; and,

2. That some of the ongoing irritants which so regularly and consistently pissed-off sailors, soldiers and air-force personnel would be addressed.

It would appear, however, that such is not the case. In fact, given that we now have fairly regular casualties occurring in Afghanistan, "things" may have gotten worse.
The outgoing military ombudsman is criticizing Ottawa for failing to provide adequate support to families of fallen and injured soldiers, especially those with post-traumatic stress disorder.

In an exclusive interview with CBC News, Yves Côté said his office has dealt with many families who complain of too few answers after a death in Afghanistan or little help after loved ones return home with mental health problems.

Here's the point: PTSD is still treated as something embarrassing by the Canadian Forces and there is still a stigma attached to those who visit the "shrink".

The ombudsman was supposed to have provided a fast-track in the resolution of problems. From all accounts, that has occurred, but there are great gaping holes, one of them being the difficulties encountered by families and the ability of families to speak directly to the CF bureaucracy in the absence of the military member.

The article continues with something even more revealing than most people think. Do you know how difficult it is to get a special forces member to speak about anything?

A former member of Canada's elite special operations force told CBC News that while he was serving in Afghanistan, his wife haggled with the military in a dispute over $30,000 in moving expenses.

Brian, who did not want to give his last name, said he returned from his mission and witnessed the toll it took on his wife.

"She had lost a bunch of weight; her skin was grey. She looked sick," he said. "I was making my wife sick because of my job and their lack of support."

He quit the military last July, citing family stress.

"It was the greatest job I've ever had," he said. "It was fantastic, but I love my wife more, and I'm not going to let them treat her like that."

Cote gave it a good shot, but he was fighting a system that provides a lot of lip service to problems involving families. The bureaucracy would rather not hear from families or spouses at all, much less acknowledge their existence.

Côté said Ottawa should make sure families are not ignored or lost in the system, as they are "paying a huge price as a result of their dear ones having served Canada in Afghanistan."

He said he is presenting recommendations on how to address such issues in two reports his office is preparing, to be released this spring.

No one from the department of national defence was available for comment.

Taken in order, Cote is absolutely correct, the two reports will find themselves a place on the famous "shelf of dust" and, I'm not surprized.

Supporting the troops has nothing to do with being a cheer leader for a dubious mission.

H/T CC.

Smak 'em Down . . . .

H/T "The Olde Goat":





(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)


Saturday, January 05, 2008

Shri Vilas Muttemwar has more guts than John Baird


OK. I did not know that India actually has a ministry of new and renewable energy. I mean, a whole ministry dedicated to finding new and renewable sources of energy.

And what does this kind of ministry do? Well, some pretty interesting stuff.
India will subsidize the running of solar power plants to help develop a renewable energy infrastructure, where high costs can be prohibitive, the minister for renewable energy said on Wednesday.

Renewable energy accounts for about 7.5 percent of India's installed generation capacity of 127,673 MW, a rate that compares favorably with much of the rest of the world.

Renewable energy infrastructure?

You can look for those words on the Canadian Environment Ministry website but you'll be wasting your time. They aren't there.

You may also want to know that Canada already has a higher percentage of renewable energy resources than most countries at 17 percent, most of it from hydroelectric power. India at 7.5 percent is already above the world average.

It's called doing something.


Is this a training problem?


This type of incident will give any soldier or marine conducting operations with Iraqi security forces the "willies".
An Iraqi soldier has opened fire on American troops, killing two and wounding three others, US and Iraqi officials have said.

The incident happened during a joint patrol in the north on 26 December, but fuller details have only now emerged.

An Iraqi general said the patrol had come under fire from gunmen in the city of Mosul, but his soldier had "abused" the situation and shot the Americans.

It is thought to be the first such case since the US-led invasion of 2003.
It is just plain bad on a thousand different planes. That is psychological warfare.

I expect someone will eventually add the word desperate to the official report and have this episode relegated to the annals of Desperation Watch.

What would Walt say?!


Walt Disney, one of the world's great cartoon animators, might not be too happy with this. After all, Disney was the diviner of great happiness and joy among children the world over.
The home of Mickey Mouse, Tigger and Tinkerbell has banned kids from its fanciest restaurant.

Beginning this week, children under 10 are no longer welcome at Victoria & Albert's in the Grand Floridian Resort & Spa. Victoria & Albert's is Walt Disney World's only restaurant with an AAA five-diamond rating.

"We want to be the restaurant that's available for that adult experience," said general manager Israel Perez.

Wow. This is the legacy of the outfit that created the Mouseketeers!

Can you imagine the creator of the Mickey Mouse Club being so anti... well, anything?

Oh. I had forgotten about this.

Honestly. It was an election promise. I meant nothing.

From the Globe and Mail today:
The Harper government broke its election promise yesterday to require ministers to record their contacts with lobbyists, instead ordering lobbyists to file monthly reports on their oral communication with federal officials.

Draft regulations published yesterday to accompany the government's Lobbying Act create a new public registry of contacts between lobbyists and senior government officials.

The registry will go further than the current system, under which lobbyists have to publicly disclose only who is paying them, which federal agencies they are targeting, and on which general files.

But the new registry will not require reports on e-mails or letters between senior government officials and lobbyists. It will keep tabs on only "oral and arranged communication."

From page 8 of the 2006 Conservative election platform document:

A Conservative government will: .... *Require ministers and senior government officials to record their contacts with lobbyists.
All of them.

Presumably there was a lobbyist who managed to lobby enough members of cabinet to go easy on the regulations being designed to curtail the lobbyists.

And the new regulations are only "one way".

The new regulations would not require lobbyists to report oral communications initiated by federal officials dealing with the development of policy, programs or legislation.
Then there's this little nugget.

In the last general election, the Conservative Party vowed to stop the back-and-forth between politics and lobbying, which it said was corrupting government.
That's right. And some of the politicians dealing with some lobbyists hadn't even moved out of 24 Sussex Drive when the "questionable activity" started.

As impolitical suggests, throw another promise on the barbie.

Friday, January 04, 2008

Are you a Canadian male?


If you are, you live in a statistical group which is leading the world... in the field of body mass. Too much body mass.

A recent study of men and women in 63 countries found between half and two-thirds of men were overweight or obese in 2006.

The populations of Canada and South Africa currently lead the way, with an average Body Mass Index (BMI) of 29 - a calculation that takes into account both height and weight.
In fairness, the U.S. was not included in the report. The report also focused on which nationalities appeared most addicted to fast foods.

People in the UK and the US were the most likely to nominate "no self discipline" as the leading factor in obesity.

These two nations also had the most respondents who said they would be unable to give up fast food.

Some 45% in the UK agreed with the statement "I like the taste of fast food too much to give it up", while 44% of Americans said they would be unable to give up their burgers, pizzas and chicken wings.
Umm... ok. I wonder. Does this qualify as "fast food"?

Before you shrug it off as no big deal, you should really read this.

I am well aware of the difficulty of keeping one's weight down. I have to work at it and when it gets too high, it's murder getting it off.

This New Year's Resolution reminder is brought to you by the month of February.

Broadsides


I do like the name of that blog. Broadsides.

What that means, in case you don't already know, is that Antonia Zerbisias is has returned to Blogtopia! (Yes, a term coined by Skippy).

She explains the name of her new blog in her own way, but I'll stick with the naval application.

Welcome back Antonia! We've missed you.


Image: Courtesy US DoD. USS Iowa firing a 15 gun broadside by PH1 Hilton.

Heading in the Wrong Direction . . . .

The US really sucks, but Canada is slipping, too. Check last year vs. this year to see the trend in the wrong direction.

From Privacy International: Read the whole article here.

(Click Map to Enlarge)

Each year since 1997, the US-based Electronic Privacy Information Center and the UK-based Privacy International have undertaken what has now become the most comprehensive survey of global privacy ever published. The Privacy & Human Rights Report surveys developments in 70 countries, assessing the state of surveillance and privacy protection.

Grading

Countries have been graded according to a mean score across fourteen criteria. These are divided into
Score rangeDescription

4.1-5.0

Consistently upholds human right standards

3.6-4.0

Significant protections and safeguards

3.1-3.5

Adequate safeguards against abuse

2.6-3.0

Some safeguards but weakened protections (Canada)

2.1-2.5

Systemic failure to uphold safeguards

1.6-2.0

Extensive surveillance societies

1.1-1.5

Endemic surveillance societies (United States)


CANADA (Score: 2.9)

  • Privacy not mentioned in Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but courts have recognised the right to a reasonable expectation of privacy
  • Statutory rules at the federal level (public and private sectors) and provincial laws apply to sectors and governments
  • Federal commission is widely recognised as lacking in powers such as order-marking powers, and ability to regulate trans-border data flows
  • Variety of provincial privacy commissioners have made privacy-enhancing decisions and taken cases through the courts over the past year (particularly Ontario)
  • Court orders required for interception and there is no reasonable alternative method of investigation
  • Video surveillance is spreading despite guidelines from privacy commissioners
  • Highly controversial no-fly list, lacking legal mandate
  • Continues to threaten new policy on online surveillance
  • Increased calls for biometric documents to cater for U.S. pressure, while plans are still unclear for biometric passports

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Score: 1.5)

  • No right to privacy in constitution, though search and seizure protections exist in 4th Amendment; case law on government searches has considered new technology
  • No comprehensive privacy law, many sectoral laws; though tort of privacy
  • FTC continues to give inadequate attention to privacy issues, though issued self-regulating privacy guidelines on advertising in 2007
  • State-level data breach legislation has proven to be useful in identifying faults in security
  • REAL-ID and biometric identification programs continue to spread without adequate oversight, research, and funding structures
  • Extensive data-sharing programs across federal government and with private sector
  • Spreading use of CCTV
  • Congress approved presidential program of spying on foreign communications over U.S. networks, e.g. Gmail, Hotmail, etc.; and now considering immunity for telephone companies, while government claims secrecy, thus barring any legal action
  • No data retention law as yet, but equally no data protection law
  • World leading in border surveillance, mandating trans-border data flows
  • Weak protections of financial and medical privacy; plans spread for 'rings of steel' around cities to monitor movements of individuals
  • Democratic safeguards tend to be strong but new Congress and political dynamics show that immigration and terrorism continue to leave politicians scared and without principle
  • Lack of action on data breach legislation on the federal level while REAL-ID is still compelled upon states has shown that states can make informed decisions
  • Recent news regarding FBI biometric database raises particular concerns as this could lead to the largest database of biometrics around the world that is not protected by strong privacy law



Perhaps upcoming elections in both countries will reverse the trend.


I'm not holding my breath . . . .

(Cross-posted from
Moving to Vancouver)


Thursday, January 03, 2008

Busted!!

It would appear The Canadian is not all it appears to be.

Fire in the hole!


Yes, there are details surrounding military operations which should not be released into the public domain. They are known as Essential Elements of Friendly Information (EEFI). The primary consideration, particularly in the Afghanistan situation, is the security of the troops operating in that country.

Prisoners and the treatment of prisoners does not fall under that category in any way, shape or form. In fact, there is a requirement to transmit information through a third party identifying exactly who has been captured.

But then, it is contingent upon the Canadian Forces and the Minister of National Defence to brief this country specifying exactly what type of information is now being withheld and under what authority. And, when information would become available.

Nothing more or less works.

Because if you refuse to tell us anything, we can make up anything we want to and you can't call us wrong.

I'm can see there is at least one brigadier-general who remembers that little lesson from Staff College. I certainly do. It was the double-edged sword that was mentioned when you put a clamp on information.

Example. This was in the Globe and Mail article:
In early June of last year, Ms. Jansen voiced her concerns to Brigadier-General A.J. Howard about fully severing two items that were the subject of an information request. “We can't just apply a blanket exemption based on speculations,” she wrote.

Brig.-Gen. Howard replied: “I will not address this any further by e-mail… If you would like to drop by my office so I can explain all of this to your satisfaction I would be happy for you to do so.

“My advice – tread carefully on both of these matters – there are very serious diplomatic and allied issues at stake here.”

It is unclear what the two items are – in the documents obtained by The Globe, they are fully severed.

You see? Now we are allowed to speculate and neither the CF nor DND can fight back. We won't know with absolute certainty that we're correct, but neither can the CF deny anything speculative because they sever too much.

So, what the G&M should be looking at is whether they asked anything about actions involving Canadian troops and Afghan National Army units which resulted in an exchange of fire with each other.

Has that happened? According to the rumour mill, it has.

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Michael Moore's Dem Choice . . . .


Michael Moore expresses his choice in the Democratic field today. Like myself, he preferred Dennis Kucinich on the issues, but chances of him getting the nomination are . . . .

From AlterNet:

Michael Moore: Who Is the Best Dem Candidate on the Issues?

By Michael Moore, MichaelMoore.com

Do you feel the same as me? That the Democratic front-runners are a less-than-stellar group of candidates, and that none of them are the "slam dunk" we wish they were? Of course, there are wonderful things about each of them. Any one of them would be infinitely better than what we have now. Personally, Congressman Kucinich, more than any other candidate, shares the same positions that I have on the issues (although the UFO that picked me up would only take me as far as Kalamazoo). But let's not waste time talking about Dennis. Even he is resigned to losing, with statements like the one he made yesterday to his supporters in Iowa to throw their support to Senator Obama as their "second choice."

So, it's Hillary, Obama, Edwards -- now what do we do?

_______________


And yet, I am sad to say, nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I'm not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his "authorization" to invade -- I'm talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush's illegal war, and doing so with verve. She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn't like. Unlike the Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for authorization but later came to realize the folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued to cast numerous votes for the war until last March -- four long years of pro-war votes, even after 70% of the American public had turned against the war. She has steadfastly refused to say that she was wrong about any of this, and she will not apologize for her culpability in America's worst-ever foreign policy disaster. All she can bring herself to say is that she was "misled" by "faulty intelligence."

_______________

Barack Obama is a good and inspiring man. What a breath of fresh air! There's no doubting his sincerity or his commitment to trying to straighten things out in this country. But who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the Senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he's for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy. In fact, Obama doesn't think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan -- the same companies who have created the mess in the first place. He's such a feel-good kinda guy, I get the sense that, if elected, the Republicans will eat him for breakfast. He won't even have time to make a good speech about it.

_______________


(John) Edwards is the only one of the three front-runners who has a universal health care plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all other civilized countries have. His plan doesn't go as fast as I would like, but he is the only one who has correctly pointed out that the health insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a seat at the table.

I am not endorsing anyone at this point. This is simply how I feel in the first week of the process to replace George W. Bush. For months I've been wanting to ask the question, "Where are you, Al Gore?" You can only polish that Oscar for so long. And the Nobel was decided by Scandinavians! I don't blame you for not wanting to enter the viper pit again after you already won. But getting us to change out our incandescent light bulbs for some irritating fluorescent ones isn't going to save the world. All it's going to do is make us more agitated and jumpy and feeling like once we get home we haven't really left the office.

On second thought, would you even be willing to utter the words, "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy?" Because the candidate who understands that, and who sees it as the root of all evil -- including the root of global warming -- is the President who may lead us to a place of sanity, justice and peace.

Tomorrow night's Iowa caucuses will be media-hyped to death, but perhaps an indication of where the US is heading will be revealed.

One can only hope it is back towards personal liberties and the rule of law after the last seven years of neither . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

Feminism is not responsible for (insert complaint here)


This has already had some of the more egregious inaccuracies and fallacies addressed. Most notably by Amanda and JJ.

At issue was the discordant assertion that the rise of feminism is somehow the direct cause of the destruction of the nuclear family. The arguments put forward are weak, to say the least, and are reminiscent of those spewed out by Mark Steyn and other such odious characters.

I urge you to read both Amanda's and JJ's take while I hit upon something else which has not yet been addressed. The conclusion of the initially linked rambling diatribe.
The rise in feminism has allowed liberties and prosperity for women which could never be understood or realized in nations in the Middle East, which labour under the delusion that a juggernaut economy can be manufactured out of the diligence of the male work force [oil-rich nations like United Emirates notwithstanding]. At the same time, it is interesting to note that extreme social conservatism in the Middle East has staved off all of the ills which come with women's liberation, like higher crime, poverty rates based on income gaps between families, divorce and psychological dysfunction, and a host of other problems. One might say that feminism has been a "necessary evil", but insofar as that it has addressed the inequities of women, the ideology has fallen far short in addressing the socio-economic inequalities it has created, and erroneously blames it on white male-European entrenchment.
What absolute rubbish.

I used to live in the Middle East. Clearly the author of the above passage has never even been there. Presumably the author is talking about Arab states with a dominant Islamic culture since Israel's reliance on its relatively liberated female population to sustain that nation is greater than that of many western cultures.

The only thing restraining women in the Middle East is men. They do it using a grossly misinterpreted religious text and punitive laws intended to subjugate women. There is a women's movement throughout the region and they take great risks in an effort to break down the barriers imposed by a brutal patriarchy. They rely heavily on association with western women's equality movements to sustain themselves since, as exemplified by the last link, exposure often results in savage punishment.

... nations in the Middle East, which labour under the delusion that a juggernaut economy can be manufactured out of the diligence of the male work force [oil-rich nations like United Emirates notwithstanding].
Where are we talking about here? That is a dangerous generalization.

In the "oil-rich" Mid-East the bulk of the labour force is not native but imported foreign labourers. In other Mid-East countries a large number of women work. And the only juggernaut economies are the oil states. A few are even starting to recognize that women need to be included at all levels of society. Bahrain, for example, when no woman was elected to parliament during the last national vote, appointed six women to the Shura council.

Kuwait has had universal suffrage, including women, since 2005 and was the third of the Persian Gulf states to appoint a female cabinet minister.

Oman, a country I am very familiar with, has had universal suffrage since 2003 and has three female cabinet ministers. Women occupy all levels of the civil service and (oh geez, brace yourself) are not permitted to cover their faces in public office. (Yes, the country is has an Islamic canon of laws; No, the law is not being broken).

What is it that is not understood or realized in those states?

At the same time, it is interesting to note that extreme social conservatism in the Middle East has staved off all of the ills which come with women's liberation, like higher crime, poverty rates based on income gaps between families, divorce and psychological dysfunction, and a host of other problems.
Really?! With no elaboration or source there is very little to support that belief. In fact, I'd go so far as to call that false. Again, a generalization

Would you like to see income gaps between families? Go to Saudi Arabia where the princes are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer as the per capita GDP is shrinking.

Do you really believe that comment on "higher crime"? Let me show you Syria.

Divorce? Do you think you have the answer to that? Let me take you for a trip through Yemen.
Under Shari'a-based law and social custom as practiced in the country, men are permitted to take as many as four wives, although very few do so. Legally the minimum age of marriage is 15; however, the law largely is not enforced, and some girls marry as early as age 12. In 2001, the Women's National Committee proposed an amendment to increase the minimum age for marriage to 18.
Notice which group is trying to have law written to prevent female children being compelled to marry. Yeah, those damned feminists again.
Shari'a-based law also requires that the wife must obey the husband. She must live with him at the place stipulated in the contract, consummate the marriage, and not leave the home without his consent. Husbands may divorce wives without justifying their action in court; however, courts routinely mandate lengthy reconciliation periods prior to granting the husband's petition for divorce. A woman has the legal right to divorce; however, she must provide a justification, such as her husband's nonsupport, impotence, abrogation of the marriage contract (for example, violating guarantees regarding her education or employment options), or taking of a second wife without her consent. A woman seeking a divorce also must repay a portion of her bride price, which creates an additional hardship.
So, divorce doesn't happen all that much. I suppose the above is what you were referring to. Isn't that a pleasant state of affairs.

Of course, places like Jordan have solved the problem of divorce. Just kill the bitch.

Let's get into the psychological dysfunction that is apparently so high in the west because of feminism and which the author insists is lower in places where the feminists haven't had their way.
Self-immolation is the terrible choice of hundreds of Afghan women every year. Trapped in unhappy marriages or hemmed in by a conservative Islamic society, they take an appalling escape route: dousing themselves in household fuel, closing their eyes, and striking a match. Most are between 16 and 20 years old, say doctors.
Suicide. By fire. Think about that... just for a sickening minute. Then tell me how much the ills of women's liberation have been staved off.

Let's take the last line of the offending post.
One might say that feminism has been a "necessary evil", but insofar as that it has addressed the inequities of women, the ideology has fallen far short in addressing the socio-economic inequalities it has created, and erroneously blames it on white male-European entrenchment.
Necessary evil? Oh those goddamned feminist nazis! Let's chalk that turn of phrase up to a Freudian slip and then conclude this properly.

Feminism hasn't created socio-economic inequalities. Over the course of centuries, feminism, which didn't start with the end of WW2 or with the cancellation of Leave It To Beaver, has always benefited society. Feminism has the effect of highlighting the worst of social ills and correcting them for women, men, children and sometimes, animals. A British soldier of today would still be living the life of his 18th Century antecedent if it hadn't been for a feminist.

What the author of the offending post fails to recognize and admit is that it has always been male dominion which the men have sought to retain. Feminism threatens that and that alone. As Amanda so aptly pointed out:
Keeping women in familial servitude served a lot of men very well, and there’s no doubt that there’s going to be some moaning that this privilege is fast fading, but it’s a matter of priorities. Women’s rights trumps men’s comforts and pleasures, and all the hysterical language describing the latter as “broken families” doesn’t change that.
So, no, Raph, we don't agree with you... at all. You might want to look up the Dunning-Kruger effect while you're wiping yourself off.

Dare to be stupid

Via Roy Edroso at Alicublog with are treated to the utterly unironic call to arms for conservatives not to be intimidated by smarter, more educated people than themselves. This tendency toward Forrest Gumpism is hardly surprising given that the current crop of nativist conservatives are the direct intellectual descendants of the "Know-nothings" and the current administration's motto, despite Bush's intention to be the "edumacation president", is the most hostile to science, reason and fancy book-learning since, well...possibly Andrew Jackson, but at least Old Hickory, for all his faults, recognized the danger posed by corporations.

From Alicublog, first quoting then analyzing Lee Harris' original paean to thickheadedness:

In a world that absurdly overrates the advantage of sheer brain power, no one wants to be seen as a member in good standing of the stupid party. Yet stupidity has been and will always remain the best defense mechanism against the ordinary conman and the intellectual dreamer, just as Odysseus found that stuffing cotton in his ears was his best defense against beguiling but fatal song of the sirens.

That's the close; the rest doesn't illuminate it much. Smart people will attempt to "pull the wool over the eyes of the rest of us," and though "the intellectual conservative of our day excels in good arguments," he must not use them to defend propositions such as (to use Harris' own example) resistance to gay marriage, because he might get out-argued by the smart alecks.



When the leading candidates for the party's presidential nomination all publicly state that they don't believe in evolution, can there really be any doubt that John Stuart Mill was right in calling conservatives the Stupid Party?

Crossposted from the woodshed

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

I cannot bear Mitt Romney

And neither can the Mike Huckabee, who in typical Republican Mayberry Machivelli style held a press conference where he told the assembled stenographers that while the campaign was going to attack Mitt Romney with negative ads, Holy Roller Huckabee just felt he could not stoop that low. And to prove it he showed the negative ad he had decided not to use to press, who immediately broadcast the ad on every major news program as part of the "story" thus saving the Huckster's campaign the expense of paying to air it. This has all the subtlty and earmarks of success of the "hey, look behind you" gambit so often attempted by third graders hoping to escape the class bully.
This campaign ad, courtesy of Jesus' General, is definitely not safe for work, especially if you work at a bear sanctuary or zoo or even if you just really, really like bears. As someone who was there in that very French cafe on that fateful night, I can attest to the fact that the bear consented--in fact it asked Mitt to call the next day so the two could "do brunch and then maybe hang out down at the dump or push over a honeytree." And you thought Mitt's magic underpants and Mexican roots were shocking.

crossposted from the Woodshed

Pakistan People's Party feeding a democratic deficit


Tariq Ali, writing in the Independent lays out the problem that has become evident in the selection of a successor in the aftermath of Benazir Bhutto's assassination. As much as Bhutto was prepared to expose the rigging of Pakistani elections, her own Pakistani People's Party is no shining light of democratic process.
A triumvirate consisting of her husband, Asif Zardari (one of the most venal and discredited politicians in the country and still facing corruption charges in three European courts) and two ciphers will run the party till Benazir's 19-year-old son, Bilawal, comes of age. He will then become chairperson-for-life and, no doubt, pass it on to his children. The fact that this is now official does not make it any less grotesque. The Pakistan People's Party is being treated as a family heirloom, a property to be disposed of at the will of its leader.

Nothing more, nothing less. Poor Pakistan. Poor People's Party supporters. Both deserve better than this disgusting, medieval charade.

Benazir's last decision was in the same autocratic mode as its predecessors, an approach that would cost her – tragically – her own life. Had she heeded the advice of some party leaders and not agreed to the Washington-brokered deal with Pervez Musharraf or, even later, decided to boycott his parliamentary election she might still have been alive.
Tariq Ali's column goes on to describe the fetid corruption and rot in the inner workings of the PPP. The few principled politicians are outnumbered by shiftless sycophants.

Bhutto herself named her own successor in her Will. A 19-year old, not yet old enough to hold office, whose only qualification is that he is of her bloodline. The appointment of her widower and two others to govern in her name would be nothing short of scandalous anywhere else.

As it should be in Pakistan.

Lacking an inner-democracy, the PPP has put its own faith in an aristocracy on display. Name, not competence, decides who would lead a democratic Pakistan. Even less than two weeks before the scheduled election date, a political party that actually believed in democracy would have been able to draft a consensus candidate. Not a bloodline heir.

The US-brokered deal to create a power sharing arrangement between Benazir Bhutto and Pervez Musharraf had the appearance of a sham from the beginning. The Bush administration supported Musharraf and his military-led government. It was only the unraveling of Musharraf's hold on power that spurred the sudden call for elections and the inclusion of Bhutto.
The Bush administration has no real interest in a Pakistani democracy. They've dealt with the military with some marked success. Cheney has shutout any criticism of Musharraf within the adminstration and the actions of Musharraf over the past few months have attracted only mild criticism.

In early December US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher:
"It's not going to be a perfect election," he said. He was asked if Pakistan could have a free election if Musharraf lifted the state of emergency as promised.
Which is as much as telling Musharraf that it doesn't have to be a perfect election. In fact, since there is no qualification to what would constitute a "perfect" election, Musharraf now possesses incredible latitude to corrupt a vote, and he can hold out Boucher's statement as a permission slip directly issued by the Bush administration. Because what the Bush administration wants is the illusion of an election. Pretend democracy will do fine - it worked for them.

And now, even if there is an election and the Pakistan People's Party wins, Pakistan will end up with a titular prime minister named Biliwal Bhutto Zardari, and an unelected political triumvirate.

Shades of royal ascension. Except that Pakistan is in such a mess that it cannot afford an Edward VI nor what would naturally follow such a ridiculous idea.

The Strangelove effect


BBC Magazine Monitor publishes, as their first item of the new year, 100 things which we did not know last year. Extracted mostly from their own reporting it is a list of the things we learned which were either hidden from view or just forgotten about over time.

Think back for a minute. Do you recall that whenever James Bond, in whatever 007 movie you wish to refer, was dealing with the humanity-destroying weapon of whatever sinister master-mind formed the Bond antagonist?

You might recall that, in 007's world, the fictional weapon had various lock-outs and mechanisms preventing it from being armed by... well, anybody except the person with all the right codes. And, you probably thought it was pretty cool. A bit silly, but cool. The real thing would be far more difficult.

Maybe.

One of the things I had obviously missed was this little bit of information.
Newsnight has discovered that until early days of Blair government the RAF's nuclear bombs were armed by turning a bicycle lock.

There was no other security on the Bomb itself.

While American and Russian weapons were protected by tamper-proof combination locks which could only be released if the correct code was transmitted, Britain relied on a simpler technology.


It's not like there wasn't an effort to bring the nukes up to a safer standard.
The British military resisted Whitehall proposals to fit bombs with Permissive Action Links - or PALs - which would prevent them being armed unless the right code was sent.
You can watch the procedure here.

Blackwater too mercenary even for the mercenaries


Matt Stoller points out that Blackwater USA, is now out of the International Peace Operations Association.
Blackwater USA has ended an inquiry into the private security contractor's performance by withdrawing from an industry group that initiated the review after the company's guards were accused of killing 17 Iraqis in Baghdad last month.

The International Peace Operations Association said in a statement Friday that Blackwater withdrew its membership two days after the group decided to examine whether the contractor's "processes and procedures" complied with the group's code of conduct.

Why would Erik Prince pull his private armed forces out of the one group that is working to legitimize private military contractors? Could it be he's afraid of what they'll find?

J.J. Messner, the association's director of programs and operations, would not cite a specific episode that prompted the group's decision. Messner said Blackwater representatives initially agreed such a review was appropriate. He would not say why the company decided to sever the relationship.
You have to approach this with a certain amount of relativism. The IPOA membership list contains a variety of private military contractors from logistics suppliers to armed security operators. The effort is to provide legitimacy to mercenary armies and present themselves as a better option than state-provided armies to UN peacekeeping and security operations. The code of conduct issued by the IPOA is voluntary for member companies but, in the case of an association review, any report would include where a company under review did not meet those voluntary standards.

Given that Blackwater is under a cloud already and is being investigated by the US Congress, the last thing Erik Prince would want is a negative report from a mercenary trade association.

LadyBroadoak provides even more as people are starting to realize that Blackwater is run by little more than a Christian fundamentalist war lord.

And then there is Blackwater's 2007 Christmas card.


A Christmas wish that Christ’s great love,
His grace and goodness, too
May fill your heart and bless you now
and all the whole year through

May the Lord Jesus truly bless you during this wonderful season
as you rejoice with family and friends

Blackwater Worldwide

Yeah. I know. Don't let the incongruity ruin your day.

So how's that Surge working again?


Let's call this a New Year's tradition. Start off the year by pointing out the obvious to some wingnut and there is no one better to start off with than Rich Lowry.

Here's how the winning is going.
BAGHDAD — A suicide bomber detonated a vest loaded with explosives at a Shia funeral in Baghdad today, killing 28 people and wounding 33.

Police say the late afternoon explosion occurred in the capital's eastern Zayouna neighbourhood, a mixed Shia and Sunni district.

The funeral was being held for Nabil Hussein Jassim, a retired lieutenant-colonel killed in an earlier car bombing in downtown Baghdad's Tayaran Square.

That blast left at least 14 people dead.

It's going so well that bombers are killing people attending the funerals of people killed by bombers.

Meanwhile, in Jalula, a city about 130 kilometres north of Baghdad, the bodies of a Sunni policeman and four of his relatives were found hours after they were abducted from their home by gunmen.

The abductions occurred in Diyala province, where "al-Qaeda in Iraq" retains a presence and violence has persisted despite falling elsewhere.

The insurgents have long targeted police, and "al-Qaeda in Iraq" has repeatedly said it will aggressively target those who join security forces.

Hours later in the same province, a Shia man and his 16-year-old son where killed in a drive-by shooting, police said. The two were standing outside their home in Tahwelah, about 30 kilometres east of Baqouba.

I'm certain someone will be dumb enough to suggest that these are isolated incidents.

And, it would appear these isolated incidents have actually increased.

Late Monday, Iraq's government released statistics on the number of civilians and members of security forces it said were killed in 2007.

According to the health, defence and interior ministries, 16,232 civilians, 432 soldiers and about 1,300 policeman died in 2007. The year before, the ministries said that 12,371 civilians, 603 soldiers and 1,224 policeman were killed.

The government figures were roughly in line with a count by The Associated Press.

For 2007, The AP count found that 18,610 Iraqis were killed. In 2006, the only other full year an AP count has been tallied, 13,813 died.

The AP count — which includes civilians, government officials, and police and security forces — is compiled from hospital, police and military officials, as well as accounts from reporters and photographers. Insurgent deaths were not included. Other counts differ and some have given higher civilian death tolls.

It's time for some new art Lowry. The old stuff just isn't doing the job.