Iraq will not be pacified.

How do you stop a crime wave?
That, in a nutshell, is the problem facing the army in Iraq.
There is no organized army opposing them. No tanks to destroy, no foreign soil to occupy. The soil has already been occupied.
What they are facing are gangs going around kidnapping, shooting, and smashing things. The military has been thrown into the role of policemen - and they can't enforce the law.
No one enforces the law 100%, anywhere in the world. In New York, premiere city of the most advanced civilization of all time, the murder rate hits double digits before the New Years decorations come down. Hundreds of crimes are committed, and despite what the Law and Order franchise might lead you to believe, most go unsolved.
Why would Iraq be any different?
And why would the Bush government think that they might be able to end this crime wave?
If the troops are not going to come home until peace is achieved, then they'd better send for their wives. The kind of peace they're talking about has never been achieved. Anywhere.

Anti-Christian, Anti-American, Anti-Peace.

It amazes me sometimes how anti-Christian the vocally pro-Christian Right can be - and how anti-American the presumably pro-American Right can be.

Two stories.
No doubt you have heard about the peace activists/hostages rescued this week. Well, both Little Green Footballs and Blogs for Bush have jumped on them for their "peace activism". Apparently, Turn the Other Cheek and Blessed are the Peacemakers are not in their vocabulary. In the case of BFB, the only solution to the war is kill all the Muslim leaders and convert all the arabs to Christianity. Only this way, he claims, will there ever be peace.
Well, what did Christ know, anyway. Right?

Second story.
The anti-homosexual pastor, the Reverend Fred Phelps , has just been attacked by the Right. Why? Has the right finally started reading the Constitution allowing freedom even for the gay?
Nope. They are down on Phelps because he has been attacking America's soldiers.
Around here, you have the right to freedom of expression only if you express the right things. The Right things.
Phelps gave up that right when he attacked the Pride of the Right.
The bloggers don't seem to get it, any more than the anti-ACLU group. In a free country, EVERYBODY gets a chance to speak, even - especially - if they are saying things you don't want to hear.
Thay's why the ACLU is always getting into trouble for defending the indefensible - because in a free country, even the indefensible gets a fair defense.
The right doesn't understand this. BFB even said "Using this example, I hope that all the lefty readers here will understand the similarity between Phelps' group and organizations like ANSWER and Code Pink." What, they're supposed to cheer because the right is attacking a target of the left? It's the attitude the left attacks, not the people.

But, when you believe that only war brings peace, then your only defense is to attack people.

What is a civil war, if not Iraq?

The President of the United States, his VP, and his Secretary of Defense, all stated today that there is no civil war in Iraq. The President (?) of Iraq begged to differ.
"If this isn't a civil war, then what is?" he stated.

So what is a civil war?
Better yet, what is it not?

It is not necessarily a war where everybody is either on one side or the other, like the Korean War was. There have been many civil wars where the majority were neutrals trying to dodge bullets.
It is not necessarily limited to two sides. The war in The Congo had at least 17 armies struggling to take control of the country.
Most importantly, it is not tactics. A civil war doesn't have to be about tank battles, or ranks of riflemen. It can be a terrorist war, a shadow war.

I think Iraq is currently experiencing a civil war, no matter what the Bush government decide to call it.

Canada's Republican!

Well, it looks like the Republicans have finally gotten a Canadian Prime Minister they can find likable.
A few days ago, Steven Harper visited Afghanistan and gave a speech to the troops about "staying the course".
Today, Stephen Harper imposed central control over all information and comments to the public issued by government officials, and even cabinet ministers, telling them to have everything cleared by the Prime Minister's Office.

Sound like anybody we know?

The US Budget - $2.8 trillion!

Fact - Conservatives are people who, among other things, stand for fiscal prudence and small government.
Fact - The Senate has just passed the Administration's 2.8 trillion dollar budget.
Hypothesis - The Bush Administration is about as conservative as I am Hindu.

Saddam using George's excuse?

Saddam Hussein continues to try to turn his trial into a circus. He insists that the court has to authority to try him.
His major argument is hauntingly familiar.
"Where's the crime?" he says. He was leader of his country. Therefore all his actions were, by definition lawful.
This argument was used in Nuremburg.

And in Washington.

It is the core of President Bush's arguments concerning the warrantless wiretaps. He had the authority to circumvent the Constitution because he is the President.
I wonder if the same argument will come up when it is time to defend his policies on torture, renditions, and war.

The War of Ideas

The reaction of the Right to the Feingold proposal is typical of them.
He is a traitor to America. He is helping the terrorists. He is posturing for votes.

Poor, poor Right.
Don't they know how much they are helping AlQaida with their attacks?

Terrorism is primarily a war of ideas.
Think about it. Territory is not captured, armies do not clash. Instead, two ways of thought collide in battle, vying for the support of the general populace.
And, yes, America is losing. Why? Because we are discrediting all our ideas, all our values, all our talking points.
How do you win a war when you smash your own guns?

The battle: Democracy vs. Tyranny.
On the face of it, America should win hands down. They tell everyone that in a democracy, people have rights, while in a dictatorship, only the leaders have rights. In a democracy, dissenting voices are heard, while in a dictatorship, only the voice of the government is allowed. In a democracy, leaders are accountable, while in a dictatorship, leaders get away with murder. America trumpets these ideas to try to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis.
And then?
And then protesters at official functions are made to stay in fenced off areas, away from everyone else. And then laws are passed that let private property be seized by the State under Eminent Domain. And then right wing bloggers announce that the President doesn't have to answer for his actions, because we are at war. And then the vice-president shoots someone in the face, but doesn't get arrested. And then a movement starts to remove a senator from office because he requested a motion to censure the president.
And then the average Iraqi watches these things, and thinks "They say one thing, but that is not what they really believe." And the battle is lost.

The Battle: Christianity vs. Islam.
A harder battle to win, this, because Islam has the home advantage. Still, you would think that America and Christianity have several talking points. Christians believe in love over hate, friendship over fear. They beat their swords into plowshares, forgive their enemies. The parables of the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, and the Widow's Mite, all paint an inviting picture.
And it's the same God.
Where mullahs call for endless war and hate, ministers call for endless help for the poor and suffering. All and all, it looks like a slam dunk for Christianity.
And then?
And then Pat Robertson calls for an assassination. And then right wing bloggers start using words like "Islamofascist", "raghead", and "wiping out the false religion". And then Christians start excusing torture, denying science, and demanding obedience to their strict lifestyle.
And then the average Iraqi, seeing this, thinks "They are not what they say they are. They do not believe what they say they believe. By their own standards, they are damned."
And the terrorists win.

And it goes on and on. The latest battle, Senator Feingold, is a good example.
It doesn't matter whether the motion is right, whether it is traitorous, whether it is intelligent.
In a democracy, he has a right to say it, and others have a right to listen.
Mind control is the mark of the tyrant. A tyrant allows only one opinion - the one that favors him. Only in a democracy are you allowed to say crazy or unpopular things.
Look at the Cartoon scandal. Someone drew something that offended the powers that be in the Middle East, and the result was riot. America proudly places itself above such things - and then? The government expresses outrage over a Tom Toles cartoon. Newspapers regularly suppress comic strips that carry controversial content, even when they appear in family comics like For Better Or For Worse, or ultrapopular comics like Doonesbury.

The technical term for someone who preaches one thing and practices another is hypocrisy.
The title of hypocrite is not bestowed lightly. It doesn't apply to a backslider - sinner, or weakling is the usual term in those cases. No, hypocrite is reserved for those who knowingly, deliberately, and willingly ignore the ethics they demand from those around them.
Once gained, it is difficult to live down.
As the Right is about to learn. Again.

Dealing with Influenza

I've missed a few posts, it seems. Sorry, but I've been busy.
In my other identity as a nurse in a retirement home, I've been dealing with a flu outbreak - a variant of the Norwalk virus.
For this of you who still think that the flu is something like those commercials you see on TV, where Mom gives her sad little tot a spoonful of whatever product is being touted, here's a synopsis of my day.

- 83 year old woman, diabetic, hasn't kept anything down for over a day. Blood sugar now around 2. Semi-conscious, tongue lolling, struggling weakly while we rub her face with a cold towel and yell at her to wake up and take some of the liquid glucose we're trying to get into her before she bottoms out and dies.
- I give meds to 60 people. I then check blood sugars and take temperatures. Then I give out more medications. Then I start all over. I give out lots of Imodium and Gatorade, the first to stop the flow, and the second to replace the fluids and electrolytes.
- 77 year old woman, too tired from her last three trips to the bathroom, lies in a pool of her own diarrhea. She is mortified as a man strips off her nightgown, but the worker needs help, and we still have to strip the bed before we can go on.
- I also have to check the dressings on the five or six people who fell on the way to the bathroom. When you're 80, your skin tears like tissue paper. I smile my way through a five-minute-per-person procedure, hoping to get done in time for the next round.
- The nursing staff is down to four, to cover three 8 hour shifts per day, every day. I swig gatorade to keep going, and tell anyone who'll listen that when this is over I'm coming to work in my Superman jersey. Cape and all.
- More people coming down with it. Vomiting and diarrhea - it flows from both ends. We have to wear gowns and gloves. Ever try doing something wearing plastic gloves? The fingers are just a little too long, so there's a bubble of air at the end - just enough to throw off your dexterity.
- I have very little sense of smell. I try not to mention it to people - around here, it generates too much envy. However, even I can smell this place now. I pity the others.

When the bird flu gets here, it will be like this, only people will likely die, too.
I go back tomorrow. Have a nice day.

Bush never wrong?

In recent days, my perusal of the right wing blogs has pressed home an important point.
To them, Bush can do no wrong.
From Blogs for Bush, on the Dubai decision:
"Some of our liberal and leftwing friends here on Blogs for Bush have absurdly claimed that it was all President Bush's fault. The idea here is that since President Bush has been running on anti-Arab hatred for five years, he has no one but himself to blame for the American people turning against the DPW deal. This is silly - indeed, one complaint that many conservatives have with President Bush is that he's been too solicitous of Arab sensibilities since 9/11."
- on the Abramoff scandal:
"Lost in all of the rhetoric about Abramoff is the fact that his lobbying and donation activities were all perfectly legal - where he broke the law was in his dealings with his clients. Unfortunately, in the Democrats desire to campaign on anything other than what they believe, we get attempted smears of GOPers who have done nothing wrong."
- on stopping leaks from within the administration:
"We must stop un-elected bureaucrats selectively leaking information to undermine Administration policy. The honorable thing for any disgrunted bureaucrat to do is to resign and go public with their dissent from Administration policy - but they don't want to give up their jobs. They want to stop things, but they don't want to put themselves at risk...so, they leak it to the press, who then shield them from the prosecution they deserve for illegally releasing information. Time to add the element of risk - secretly leak information that you shouldn't, go to jail. "
- on the Katrina video:
"Ah, well - I guess it doesn't matter. The primary failure was Nagin, the secondary failure was Blanco - and the one government official who acted correctly upon the information at any given time was President Bush. "

So, no matter what he does, it's either a plot by the MSM/Democrats, or someone else's fault, or no big deal.
I swear, the man could nuke Atlanta, and the Right would make it sound like Atlanta had it coming!
Is it that difficult to see, to admit, that he's occasionally wrong?

Father and Daughter

This came off the internet.

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college.
Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, A feeling she openly expressed.
Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to highertaxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’treally have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?”
She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easyclasses, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus, college for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.”
Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s Office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, “That wouldn’t be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently,
“Welcome to the Republican Party.”

Almost right.
If they included the fact that the daughter got a lot of her GPA from her father, then maybe . . .

The Alamo

Today is the anniversary of the fall of The Alamo.
Remember it?
A bunch of Texans defied everybody - The US, the Mexicans, everybody - and died trying to live the way they wanted.

I wonder how many would do the same today?

Home schooling and the Travis Frey Example

I was having a little discussion over at Blogs for Bush about home schooling vs. public schooling. I urged them not to give up on the public system, because it allows our children to socialize and learn proper behavior.
I was trying to come up with an example to use, when up popped Travis Frey. He is a man currently under arrest for rape and abuse of his wife. The thing that sets this case apart from all the others is the contract that he drew up for his wife - apparently the rape and abuse was a non-compliance penalty. Read the contract he drew up for his wife, over at thesmokinggun.com.

Then think. The man has sons. If they are home-schooled, will they not learn how to act in their marriages from their father?

Dealing with what the Patriot Act reveals

Well, the Patriot Act has passed.
So what?

I mean it. So what?
Suppose the next wiretap contains the message "We send the first suicide bombers over the Mexican border tonight."
Do you think the government would be able to stop those bombers? Hundreds flood over that border every year. Even the Minutemen are overwhelmed.
What good is it to know what the enemy is going to do, if you can't do anything about it?
It's like an old Get Smart episode. "OK, Chief, I can see him now. He's at the window. He loading a rocket launcher. He's moving to his window. He's leaning out. He's aiming at . . . my . . . window . . .

Then there's the Katrina tape. Move past all the accusations and justifications, and you get a government that's far too blase about things. "Just overlapping, not breaching? OK, I guess we can sleep easy." What, Mr. President, you didn't think you should monitor the situation until it was over? You didn't think to have someone do it for you, and keep you posted?
It's called asleep at the switch, Mr. President, and as you keep telling us in your speeches, we must remain vigilant.
What happens if someone calls in the middle of the night, saying they've just intercepted a suspicious call that named Chicago? Do you swing into action, alert the city and FEMA and anyone else you think might help?
Or do you roll over and go back to sleep?

Again, I say, so what?
What good is a Patriot Act if you can't use it?

Dubai and Iraq - the Double Standard

I think that the real cause of all the controversy over the Dubai deal can be summed up in two words.
Double Standard.

Suppose you had evidence that another country gave direct aid to the 9/11 hijackers.
Would you invade the country, and depose the villains responsible for the aid?
Or would you honor long-standing treaties and alliances, continue to work with them towards an end to terrorism, and allow one of its companies to run some of your seaports?

How many of you said both? Uh-huh.

Suppose you had two countries, one of which had been an ally for pretty much a century, was the source of most of your early colonists, your law, culture, and ethics,
and another who has only financial ties to your country, whose people almost certainly want your country and its culture eradicated, and whose leaders see you more as a fat purse than as a friend.

How many of you would consider them to be exactly alike? Uh-huh.

The Bush government has been pushing the 9/11 button for years. They have issued colored warnings, used it in rally after rally, justified illegal wiretaps and torture with it.
The whole 9/11 message consists of "There are nations out there that want to destroy us. We must do whatever we must to survive."
The ports deal message consists of "Being a nation that wants to destroy us is no big deal. We can still do business, even business that affects the security of our borders."

Double Standard.

Well, I gave them a few extra hours, just to let the latecomers log in.
Here’s the right-wing poop on the Katrina video.
Blogs for Bush –
“Huh? The White House calls and specifically asks about the levees, Governor Blanco says no problem as of yet...and President Bush is at fault for a slow response? What was he supposed to do? Tell the governor that he's going to act as if the levees were broken even though the governor - who presumably had better on-the-ground info than the President - just told him that they didn't have knowledge of broken levees at that point?”
Right Wing News –
“The article doesn't really inquire too deeply about why Katheleen Blanco refused federal help, or why she didn't order a mandatory evacuation. Or why Mayor Nagin didn't have his police round up stragglers and put them on to all those buses waiting in New Orleans parking lots.
FEMA is an emergency management organization, which generally comes in after a disaster. Pre-disaster work is still supposed to be done by local authorities.
Who didn't.
But of course it's Bush's fault. After all-- he was warned the levees might be breached!
Power Line –
“The AP says the transcripts show that Bush was "worried" about the levees failing. But the quote they cite is after Katrina hit, and after levee failures had been reported. This obviously has nothing to do with what was anticipated before the fact. What, then, is the AP's basis for saying that "federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees..."? Here is the only support for that claim in the article:
The National Hurricane Center's Mayfield told the final briefing before Katrina struck that storm models predicted minimal flooding inside New Orleans during the hurricane but he expressed concerns that counterclockwise winds and storm surges afterward could cause the levees at Lake Pontchartrain to be overrun.
"I don't think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not but that is obviously a very, very grave concern," Mayfield told the briefing.
But this has nothing to do with the levees breaching; it has to do with them being overtopped--a much less dangerous threat. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, there has been endless discussion about the difference between breaching and overtopping. If these AP reporters, Margaret Ebrahim and John Solomon, really don't know the difference, they have no business reporting on Katrina.
The real question, it seems to me, is one on which the AP article (and, as far as we know, the documents and video footage it is based on) sheds no light: how well prepared were the various local, state and federal agencies, and what was the quality of their response?
The AP article is fatally compromised by its factual errors, and adds nothing to our understanding of the issues surrounding Hurricane Katrina. It also raises an important point about the leaks that form the basis for many news stories these days. The AP took what appears to have been a substantial quantity of leaked material, and turned it into a brief against the Bush administration. Whether the documents themselves contain anything noteworthy, and whether, on balance, they support the AP's tendentious interpretation, is impossible to tell. In view of the fact that no one trusts the AP, the New York Times and other news outlets who make use of leaked documents and other materials to report on them objectively, here is a modest proposal: let us see them. If the AP will release the leaked materials, the rest of us will quickly figure out what significance, if any, they have.”
Captain’s Quarters –
“The media got it wrong yet again on Katrina. The notion that the experts warned of levee breaches is nothing more than a hack job initiated by the AP and continued by the rest of the Exempt Media even after the source material has proven it false.”
Little Green Footballs –
“The Amazing President Bush Katrina Tapes are the latest here-today, gone-tomorrow controversy du jour cooked up by mainstream media, and Wizbang notes the Rathergate connection.”

Nothing from Andrew Sullivan, Hugh Hewett, or Michelle Malkin.

So? Judge for yourself.

The Katrina Video Excuses Award - part 1

Tomorrow, I shall have fun.
Tomorrow, I shall go to all the right-wing blogs I know, and check out all the explanations and excuses for the Katrina video.
There won't be many, of course. I have noticed the right tends to concentrate on crowing about their victories and ignoring their problems. But there will be some.
I will copy the best for your perusal.
I expect to see the following:
"Bush was misinformed by Brownie. He thought Brownie was doing a heck of a job, when really Brownie was dropping the ball!" If they can also somehow dodge the fact that the Bush administration appointed Brownie to a post he didn't know how to handle, then the defense might work. Which leads us to wonder - how many other incompetents have the Bush government appointed, waiting for their mistakes to catch up with them?
"The video was faked. Isn't it amazing how it took all this time to come to light! That proves that the liberals created it to discredit the president." Too bad the guys who rob liquor stores don't have these guys as attorneys - a video of them pointing a gun turns up, and suddenly it's plea-bargain time. Not for the right, though. I can just see them going up to a judge and saying "The store owner has it in for my client, your honor! He faked this video in order to rob his own store and smear my client, whom the owner hates, and whom the police also hate."

I'll wait and see what other excuses come out. Tune in tomorrow.

The Patriot Act is renewed

"Civil liberties do not mean much when you are dead," said Senator Jim Bunning, R-Kentucky, today.
Best declaration of tyranny in the country to date.
Civil liberties are the things you give your life for, Senator.
Civil liberties are why hundreds of US troops are dead, in a country halfway around the world, surrounded by hidden enemies and pseudo-allies, none of whom he or she ever understood.
Civil liberties are the things my father's generation fought and died for, in Europe and the Pacific.

We are, of course, talking about the renewal of the Patriot Act, that hideously spin-doctor named piece of legislation that essentially says that a career bureaucrat can do whatever he wants, so long as he can justify it as a part of the war on . . . sorry, The Long War.
Jim Bunning, naturally, does not fear the Patriot Act - not because he is a patriot, but because he is a Bush supporter. I'm sure that, should a Democrat government be elected, he will vigorously campaign for the repeal of the Act, accusing the government of using the powers granted by the Act for partisan purposes. But for now, he and his colleagues have a home field advantage.
I am a libertarian leaning conservative, and I don't need the government looking over my shoulder. The system of law allows for warrants given probable cause. We don't need more than that.

Civil liberties may not mean much when you're dead, Senator, . . . but they mean everything when you're alive.