Carpe Diem!
I have produced a first draft of a book, called "Carpe Diem! - The 2003 California Recall Election and the Candidates' Forum" (Across an Oz-like California, aspiring amateur politicos band together on an elusive search for support).
Today, I E-Mailed the first draft to five of the other gubernatorial candidates (Renz, Foss, Weir, Badiozamani, and Gorman), to get their reactions and criticisms. In two weeks, I hope to have their feedback. After an extensive update, I hope to find a publisher.
Friday, May 28, 2004
Perle Begins to Backpedal
Interesting article! Perhaps correct! Wish he had said something a year ago, when he still had some credibility left!
Interesting article! Perhaps correct! Wish he had said something a year ago, when he still had some credibility left!
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
They Have That Sixth Sense, You Know
When times got bad for Jimmy Carter in 1980, a killer rabbit led the charge. This year, it's a cicada.
When times got bad for Jimmy Carter in 1980, a killer rabbit led the charge. This year, it's a cicada.
Sunday, May 23, 2004
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
Abu Ghraib
The Abu Ghraib scandal could have been easily avoided by proper staffing and by assiduous adherence to the Geneva Convention's rules regarding prisoners of war. The Administration has repeatedly chosen to assert its dominance over international institutions like the U.N., not only in regards to authority, where the Administration's arguments have great merit (the U.N. has repeatedly made really stupid decisions in the Middle East and elsewhere), but also in the matters of standards, where the merit of the Administration's arguments are much less obvious.
Rumsfeld has not asserted that the Geneva Convention might have been out-of-date and needed to be improved (since it dates to WW I) so much as he's asserted that the U.S. doesn't need to be bound by the Geneva Convention at all, presumably because Americans are purer than other peoples and despite the temptations to torture that wartime always presents. Rumsfeld's disdain strikes me as radical in spirit - a true conservative knows that all people, including Americans, tend to succumb to their worst natures in wartime. If Rumsfeld had argued that the Administration would abide by the spirit of the Geneva Convention, even if not necessarily by the letter, it would still have been helpful to protect the prisoners and jailers alike in the event of a scandal: instead, he cast scorn on the Geneva Convention, as he does with anything else that impedes his will. Rumsfeld did not adequately appreciate that poor handling of prisoners could cast doubts on the legitimacy of the entire U.S. enterprise in Iraq.
Still, just by adequately staffing the prisons, trouble might have been avoided. The trouble was that Rumsfeld has also been conducting a campaign against most of the generals in the Pentagon, asserting that they overstaff their forces. Rumsfeld's position is that modern battlefield technology allows for smaller, more effective battlefield forces. Rumsfeld is probably correct with regards to battle forces, but certainly incorrect for an occupation force - peacekeeping technology is essentially unchanged since WW II.
Having invaded Iraq, Rumsfeld and his allies have never really come to grips, first, with the necessity of an occupation (they never planned for an extended occupation, and it shows), and second, with the demands of an occupation (it needs to be adequately sustained). The U.S. forces are desperately undermanned and underequipped in Iraq, prepared as they are for hi-tech battle and not low-tech (but demanding) patrolling, but the Administration, and Rumsfeld in particular, pridefully refuse to admit it. Reservists' stays have been extended longer than promised. So, as a consquence, there aren't enough guards in the prison, leading to big gaps in oversight of the guards.
Then, of course, there is the anomalous example of Guantanamo. Many of the Al Qaeda prisoners are battle-hardened and thus could arguably merit different or harsher treatment, but there are many civilians among the Abu Ghraib prisoners, picked up in neighborhood sweeps, sometimes for carrying arms (many Iraqi civilians these days carry arms for self-protection). The situations are much different, but there is the constant temptation to Gitmo-ize Abu Ghraib and thereby make everything uniform. Plus, who knows exactly what Military Intelligence's orders were with respect to getting intelligence from Abu Ghraib? Hopefully, we'll find out soon! The overall effect is unquestioned, however: DISASTER!
In regards to Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma, and his remarks to the effect that he was outraged by the outrage over Abu Ghraib, I think he brought dishonor on the Republican Party, by belittling the moral outrage of the world. On the other hand, Senator Lindsay Graham from South Carolina has done a wonderful job at maintaining whatever honor is left in the Republican Party. Backed by his experience as a JAG, he can confidently assert that "if you are the good guy, you have to act like the good guy." Good for him! Graham gets it: Inhofe doesn't.
Conservatives are having trouble with Iraq partly because they tend to think in memes, pre-programmed bit of thought, employed particularly when confronted by opposition, or when trying to rally the faithful. You hear these little (what in isolation sound like rather meaningless) thought blobettes a lot on Rush Limbaugh's radio show. They are like an emotional code: like John "French" Kerry. Or how liberals are haters. Howard Dean, in particular, is a hater. Has Howard Dean ever expressed hatred? No, but according to the conservatives, he expresses nothing but hatred. He is incapable of any other emotion. Makes you wonder how anybody could stand him. Or when the Republican's Mark Racicot yammers on and on about how John Kerry is playing politics with people's lives in Iraq when he expresses even mild opposition to Bush's Iraq policy. Hello? How about George W. Bush is playing politics with people's lives in his speeches?
I suspect that the photos from Abu Ghraib are having a bigger impact in the U.S. than in the Arab world. Rumors from Abu Ghraib have been rife for a year, so the Arabs were somewhat prepared for the pictures. The U.S. public was not prepared at all, however. We've been spewing out an endless series of lies, which are entangling us in a web of deceit so thick it's affecting other matters as well (here's a good example). I also thought it strange that one of the initial reactions to Abu Ghraib was to assert that the sexual deviance was somehow un-American, when, in fact, it was simply translating 100% All-American porn into a new environment.
Whatever the differences between locales and exact situations, this war is having a very similar impact in the U.S. as the Vietnam War did. We're back in Vietnam land again. One major difference is that there's no conscription, but two weeks ago, I heard Rush Limbaugh sending up a trial balloon on his radio show, saying how a draft would be good for the country. Watch out! Come December, provided Bush gets re-elected, the draft talk will get serious! Then watch the campuses!
Also, since the Middle East is such a devious, conspiracy-prone place, we get the added schadenfreude of watching the back-stabbing too. Ahmad Chalabi has apparently betrayed his U.S. neoconservative backers in order to further his own interests. Possible absurdities may exist, like U.S. authorities paying prisoners off to deny having been beaten. Then, further scandals may be in wait too, that may lead right to the top.
May we live in interesting times!
The Abu Ghraib scandal could have been easily avoided by proper staffing and by assiduous adherence to the Geneva Convention's rules regarding prisoners of war. The Administration has repeatedly chosen to assert its dominance over international institutions like the U.N., not only in regards to authority, where the Administration's arguments have great merit (the U.N. has repeatedly made really stupid decisions in the Middle East and elsewhere), but also in the matters of standards, where the merit of the Administration's arguments are much less obvious.
Rumsfeld has not asserted that the Geneva Convention might have been out-of-date and needed to be improved (since it dates to WW I) so much as he's asserted that the U.S. doesn't need to be bound by the Geneva Convention at all, presumably because Americans are purer than other peoples and despite the temptations to torture that wartime always presents. Rumsfeld's disdain strikes me as radical in spirit - a true conservative knows that all people, including Americans, tend to succumb to their worst natures in wartime. If Rumsfeld had argued that the Administration would abide by the spirit of the Geneva Convention, even if not necessarily by the letter, it would still have been helpful to protect the prisoners and jailers alike in the event of a scandal: instead, he cast scorn on the Geneva Convention, as he does with anything else that impedes his will. Rumsfeld did not adequately appreciate that poor handling of prisoners could cast doubts on the legitimacy of the entire U.S. enterprise in Iraq.
Still, just by adequately staffing the prisons, trouble might have been avoided. The trouble was that Rumsfeld has also been conducting a campaign against most of the generals in the Pentagon, asserting that they overstaff their forces. Rumsfeld's position is that modern battlefield technology allows for smaller, more effective battlefield forces. Rumsfeld is probably correct with regards to battle forces, but certainly incorrect for an occupation force - peacekeeping technology is essentially unchanged since WW II.
Having invaded Iraq, Rumsfeld and his allies have never really come to grips, first, with the necessity of an occupation (they never planned for an extended occupation, and it shows), and second, with the demands of an occupation (it needs to be adequately sustained). The U.S. forces are desperately undermanned and underequipped in Iraq, prepared as they are for hi-tech battle and not low-tech (but demanding) patrolling, but the Administration, and Rumsfeld in particular, pridefully refuse to admit it. Reservists' stays have been extended longer than promised. So, as a consquence, there aren't enough guards in the prison, leading to big gaps in oversight of the guards.
Then, of course, there is the anomalous example of Guantanamo. Many of the Al Qaeda prisoners are battle-hardened and thus could arguably merit different or harsher treatment, but there are many civilians among the Abu Ghraib prisoners, picked up in neighborhood sweeps, sometimes for carrying arms (many Iraqi civilians these days carry arms for self-protection). The situations are much different, but there is the constant temptation to Gitmo-ize Abu Ghraib and thereby make everything uniform. Plus, who knows exactly what Military Intelligence's orders were with respect to getting intelligence from Abu Ghraib? Hopefully, we'll find out soon! The overall effect is unquestioned, however: DISASTER!
In regards to Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma, and his remarks to the effect that he was outraged by the outrage over Abu Ghraib, I think he brought dishonor on the Republican Party, by belittling the moral outrage of the world. On the other hand, Senator Lindsay Graham from South Carolina has done a wonderful job at maintaining whatever honor is left in the Republican Party. Backed by his experience as a JAG, he can confidently assert that "if you are the good guy, you have to act like the good guy." Good for him! Graham gets it: Inhofe doesn't.
Conservatives are having trouble with Iraq partly because they tend to think in memes, pre-programmed bit of thought, employed particularly when confronted by opposition, or when trying to rally the faithful. You hear these little (what in isolation sound like rather meaningless) thought blobettes a lot on Rush Limbaugh's radio show. They are like an emotional code: like John "French" Kerry. Or how liberals are haters. Howard Dean, in particular, is a hater. Has Howard Dean ever expressed hatred? No, but according to the conservatives, he expresses nothing but hatred. He is incapable of any other emotion. Makes you wonder how anybody could stand him. Or when the Republican's Mark Racicot yammers on and on about how John Kerry is playing politics with people's lives in Iraq when he expresses even mild opposition to Bush's Iraq policy. Hello? How about George W. Bush is playing politics with people's lives in his speeches?
I suspect that the photos from Abu Ghraib are having a bigger impact in the U.S. than in the Arab world. Rumors from Abu Ghraib have been rife for a year, so the Arabs were somewhat prepared for the pictures. The U.S. public was not prepared at all, however. We've been spewing out an endless series of lies, which are entangling us in a web of deceit so thick it's affecting other matters as well (here's a good example). I also thought it strange that one of the initial reactions to Abu Ghraib was to assert that the sexual deviance was somehow un-American, when, in fact, it was simply translating 100% All-American porn into a new environment.
Whatever the differences between locales and exact situations, this war is having a very similar impact in the U.S. as the Vietnam War did. We're back in Vietnam land again. One major difference is that there's no conscription, but two weeks ago, I heard Rush Limbaugh sending up a trial balloon on his radio show, saying how a draft would be good for the country. Watch out! Come December, provided Bush gets re-elected, the draft talk will get serious! Then watch the campuses!
Also, since the Middle East is such a devious, conspiracy-prone place, we get the added schadenfreude of watching the back-stabbing too. Ahmad Chalabi has apparently betrayed his U.S. neoconservative backers in order to further his own interests. Possible absurdities may exist, like U.S. authorities paying prisoners off to deny having been beaten. Then, further scandals may be in wait too, that may lead right to the top.
May we live in interesting times!
Two Days in Anaheim
Last week, I went to Anaheim, to learn how to use an air quality dispersion modeling software package produced by Lakes Environmental. The class was taught by Dr. The and Russell Lee. Lee has written much of the ISCST3 and AERMOD source code, and it was nice to see him again (last I saw him was January 1998, at the AMS Phoenix convention).
The class was held in a glass box office building called New Horizons that appears dedicated solely to providing short classes for business applications computer instruction. I thought it strange that the class was not held at a college or university, since these institutions have been very pro-active in trying to attract exactly this kind of high-profit business-oriented business. I guess the computing business evolved too rapidly for sclerotic universities to keep up. Or maybe there are other reasons. In any event, I thought New Horizons had excellent groundskeeping.
I wanted to take a bit of time to look up Reva Renee Renz when I was in Anaheim. Renz was one of the gubernatorial candidates who ran in the 2003 California Recall election, and she runs a bar called Deva's in Tustin. When I flew in on Wednesday evening, May 12th, to John Wayne Airport, I passed by the bar just to establish where the place was. We had arranged to meet at 9:00 p.m. on Thursday.
On Thursday night, I got to Deva's early, about 8:30 p.m., or maybe even earlier. The bar was small, but busy: I inadvertently walked in front of a dartboard when I entered through the door, which could have been a real problem had the dart patrons been less careful. I had a beer, but I wandered off to do some exploring and perhaps some shopping. I thought it was after 9:00 p.m., but since I didn't have a watch with me, I was likely wrong. Apparently Renz arrived at the bar minutes after I left.
Instead of staying at Deva's, I wandered a few doors down into Elizabeth Howard's Curtain Call Dinner Theater. I was very curious about this new place I had never heard of before. Even though their box office had just closed, I more or less pushed my way in (I learned to be pushier in general during the recall campaign), had a few strawberry daiquiris, and saw Acts 2 & 3 of "The Sound of Music." The half-full Thursday-night dinner theater was about the size of Sacramento's 24th Street Theater. It was all very congenial, and right up my alley, given my association with DMTC. Even though I'd never wandered around Tustin before, I had somehow quickly located my proper niche.
I had wondered whether LA-area semi-professional theater might be of pretty-high quality, given the surfeit of high-quality talent in the area. Captain von Trapp Kurt Howard) looked like (Sacramento-area actors) John Coin but sounded like Roger McDonald. Elsa Schraeder (Mary Murphy Nelson) was very professional. Both were excellent. Maria (Stephanie Baldwin), Max Detweiler (Mark Rydzynski) and the Mother Superior (Karen Joy Smith) were fine as well. The woman who played Liesl (Jill Morrison) was a phenomenal dancer and singer, and therefore a good choice, but noticeably older than 16. When she tells Maria "when I said I no longer needed a governess, I was wrong," I thought to myself, 'no, you're exactly right!' A minor quibble: Brigitta (Madison Mitchell) had just a bit of a California accent that clashed with the Austrian theme. Overall, an excellent show that succeeded on many levels!
After the show, I went back to Deva's around 11 p.m. and learned that Renz had indeed come and waited. How embarrassing! I left Anaheim on Friday evening, but I wasn't able to get back to Deva's: class interfered.
Here are several photos from the trip:
The Spectrum Health and Fitness Club, near where I stayed at the Marriott Townehouse in Anaheim. I just liked the look: not at all like gym chic, and more like a vision of Timeless LA.
The Metroliner, flying like a proverbial bat out of hell.
An excellent-looking tree at New Horizons.
Last week, I went to Anaheim, to learn how to use an air quality dispersion modeling software package produced by Lakes Environmental. The class was taught by Dr. The and Russell Lee. Lee has written much of the ISCST3 and AERMOD source code, and it was nice to see him again (last I saw him was January 1998, at the AMS Phoenix convention).
The class was held in a glass box office building called New Horizons that appears dedicated solely to providing short classes for business applications computer instruction. I thought it strange that the class was not held at a college or university, since these institutions have been very pro-active in trying to attract exactly this kind of high-profit business-oriented business. I guess the computing business evolved too rapidly for sclerotic universities to keep up. Or maybe there are other reasons. In any event, I thought New Horizons had excellent groundskeeping.
I wanted to take a bit of time to look up Reva Renee Renz when I was in Anaheim. Renz was one of the gubernatorial candidates who ran in the 2003 California Recall election, and she runs a bar called Deva's in Tustin. When I flew in on Wednesday evening, May 12th, to John Wayne Airport, I passed by the bar just to establish where the place was. We had arranged to meet at 9:00 p.m. on Thursday.
On Thursday night, I got to Deva's early, about 8:30 p.m., or maybe even earlier. The bar was small, but busy: I inadvertently walked in front of a dartboard when I entered through the door, which could have been a real problem had the dart patrons been less careful. I had a beer, but I wandered off to do some exploring and perhaps some shopping. I thought it was after 9:00 p.m., but since I didn't have a watch with me, I was likely wrong. Apparently Renz arrived at the bar minutes after I left.
Instead of staying at Deva's, I wandered a few doors down into Elizabeth Howard's Curtain Call Dinner Theater. I was very curious about this new place I had never heard of before. Even though their box office had just closed, I more or less pushed my way in (I learned to be pushier in general during the recall campaign), had a few strawberry daiquiris, and saw Acts 2 & 3 of "The Sound of Music." The half-full Thursday-night dinner theater was about the size of Sacramento's 24th Street Theater. It was all very congenial, and right up my alley, given my association with DMTC. Even though I'd never wandered around Tustin before, I had somehow quickly located my proper niche.
I had wondered whether LA-area semi-professional theater might be of pretty-high quality, given the surfeit of high-quality talent in the area. Captain von Trapp Kurt Howard) looked like (Sacramento-area actors) John Coin but sounded like Roger McDonald. Elsa Schraeder (Mary Murphy Nelson) was very professional. Both were excellent. Maria (Stephanie Baldwin), Max Detweiler (Mark Rydzynski) and the Mother Superior (Karen Joy Smith) were fine as well. The woman who played Liesl (Jill Morrison) was a phenomenal dancer and singer, and therefore a good choice, but noticeably older than 16. When she tells Maria "when I said I no longer needed a governess, I was wrong," I thought to myself, 'no, you're exactly right!' A minor quibble: Brigitta (Madison Mitchell) had just a bit of a California accent that clashed with the Austrian theme. Overall, an excellent show that succeeded on many levels!
After the show, I went back to Deva's around 11 p.m. and learned that Renz had indeed come and waited. How embarrassing! I left Anaheim on Friday evening, but I wasn't able to get back to Deva's: class interfered.
Here are several photos from the trip:
The Spectrum Health and Fitness Club, near where I stayed at the Marriott Townehouse in Anaheim. I just liked the look: not at all like gym chic, and more like a vision of Timeless LA.
The Metroliner, flying like a proverbial bat out of hell.
An excellent-looking tree at New Horizons.
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
Friday, April 16, 2004
Conservatives and their Problem with Treason
Morton Kondracke tries to stifle Democrats from comparing Iraq to Vietnam by saying it demoralizes the troops. Kondracke anticipates criticism by claiming he's not questioning Democratic loyalty, just timing, discretion, and judgment. To Kondracke, criticism of U.S. policy and actions gives succor to the enemy, at least as long as troops are in combat.
Other conservatives, I'm sure, would not be as delicate with Democratic sensibilities. Kondracke leaves to others the obvious inference that Democrats are treasonous. Since combat hasn't ended, criticism can't possibly start. Endless combat therefore means endless suspension of debate. Mission Accomplished, indeed!
I don't buy Kondracke's Nixonian (Ciceronian actually) evasions. I, for one, will not stop criticizing U.S. policy or actions, whether troops are in combat or not. The troops themselves can't fulfill that civic duty as long as they are in uniform: it's up to people like me.
John McCain does make some points that Iraq is not like Vietnam, in the sense that there aren't off-limit sanctuaries and there isn't a sponsoring superpower. On the other hand, there may be no need for a distant superpower if a neighboring regional power (e.g., Iran) is available, and there are plenty of human shields around for a variety of ad hoc off-limits sanctuaries in Iraqi cities.
As far as I care, Kondracke can take his jackboots and play Fuhrer in Nasiriya. I will state my opinions as I please.
Morton Kondracke tries to stifle Democrats from comparing Iraq to Vietnam by saying it demoralizes the troops. Kondracke anticipates criticism by claiming he's not questioning Democratic loyalty, just timing, discretion, and judgment. To Kondracke, criticism of U.S. policy and actions gives succor to the enemy, at least as long as troops are in combat.
Other conservatives, I'm sure, would not be as delicate with Democratic sensibilities. Kondracke leaves to others the obvious inference that Democrats are treasonous. Since combat hasn't ended, criticism can't possibly start. Endless combat therefore means endless suspension of debate. Mission Accomplished, indeed!
I don't buy Kondracke's Nixonian (Ciceronian actually) evasions. I, for one, will not stop criticizing U.S. policy or actions, whether troops are in combat or not. The troops themselves can't fulfill that civic duty as long as they are in uniform: it's up to people like me.
John McCain does make some points that Iraq is not like Vietnam, in the sense that there aren't off-limit sanctuaries and there isn't a sponsoring superpower. On the other hand, there may be no need for a distant superpower if a neighboring regional power (e.g., Iran) is available, and there are plenty of human shields around for a variety of ad hoc off-limits sanctuaries in Iraqi cities.
As far as I care, Kondracke can take his jackboots and play Fuhrer in Nasiriya. I will state my opinions as I please.
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Monday, April 12, 2004
Runaway Stage and Joseph
With the DMTC crew, I saw Runaway Stage Production's version of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat on Friday night. Fine show. Nice acting, singing, lights, etc. There were lots of parallels with DMTC's version that we did in 2002. I mentioned that to Steve Isaacson, who pointed out that all local versions of Joseph since the 1980's relied heavily on Bob Baxter direction and Ron Cisneros choreography, in spirit if not necessarily in fact, and that accounts for the parallels.
With the DMTC crew, I saw Runaway Stage Production's version of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat on Friday night. Fine show. Nice acting, singing, lights, etc. There were lots of parallels with DMTC's version that we did in 2002. I mentioned that to Steve Isaacson, who pointed out that all local versions of Joseph since the 1980's relied heavily on Bob Baxter direction and Ron Cisneros choreography, in spirit if not necessarily in fact, and that accounts for the parallels.
Easter
Met Sandra and Juan for the first time on Easter. Arrival was inauspicious, though. When we arrived, there was a blonde teenage girl in a tube top writhing on the lawn in pain and tears and shouting obscenities at the top of her lungs. Sandra leaned over her and cooed "Come on dear, let me help you. I am not your enemy." Someone else might be her enemy, though (apparently the teenagers were living in a squalid parallel universe quite different from the adults). Nevertheless, it was an excellent time, with endless foosball and discussions about growing up superstitious in Cuba.
Loss at Thunder Valley: ~$1550.00
Met Sandra and Juan for the first time on Easter. Arrival was inauspicious, though. When we arrived, there was a blonde teenage girl in a tube top writhing on the lawn in pain and tears and shouting obscenities at the top of her lungs. Sandra leaned over her and cooed "Come on dear, let me help you. I am not your enemy." Someone else might be her enemy, though (apparently the teenagers were living in a squalid parallel universe quite different from the adults). Nevertheless, it was an excellent time, with endless foosball and discussions about growing up superstitious in Cuba.
Loss at Thunder Valley: ~$1550.00
Friday, April 09, 2004
Magical CD
I had a dream last night that I had a magical CD that would burn its way through a laptop computer to pick the information contained within it (hence another meaning for the term CD-burning), and that I was going to use the CD in John Kerry's laptop computer from 1971 to find out his REAL position on the War on Terror. Sounds like a plan!
I had a dream last night that I had a magical CD that would burn its way through a laptop computer to pick the information contained within it (hence another meaning for the term CD-burning), and that I was going to use the CD in John Kerry's laptop computer from 1971 to find out his REAL position on the War on Terror. Sounds like a plan!
Bravery in the Mexican Outback
Still, this story makes me wonder if this is where we're heading, with rising health insurance premiums....
Still, this story makes me wonder if this is where we're heading, with rising health insurance premiums....
Condoleeza Rice's Testimony
I saw a portion of her testimony last night on CSPAN. What struck me most, beyond her general passivity, was the eerie lack of response by the Bush Administration to Al Qaeda's bombing of the USS Cole. The bombing occurred shortly before the Clinton Administration left power, and the question of retaliation was left for the Bush Administration, which apparently felt that another rather ineffective response (for example, a cruise-missile standoff attack) would simply gratify and reward the terrorists. Still, doesn't the complete absence of a response gratify and reward the terrorists even more?
It was almost as if the Bushies saw the Cole attack as an attack on Bill Clinton, and not the USA (even though the Cole was a US warship and the attack certainly qualified as an act of war), and therefore didn't merit a response. September 11th required a response only because it might be seen as an attack on Bush (the USA be damned). It's that weird hyperloyal autocratic personality cult Bush has developed that seemed to stand in the way.
I saw a portion of her testimony last night on CSPAN. What struck me most, beyond her general passivity, was the eerie lack of response by the Bush Administration to Al Qaeda's bombing of the USS Cole. The bombing occurred shortly before the Clinton Administration left power, and the question of retaliation was left for the Bush Administration, which apparently felt that another rather ineffective response (for example, a cruise-missile standoff attack) would simply gratify and reward the terrorists. Still, doesn't the complete absence of a response gratify and reward the terrorists even more?
It was almost as if the Bushies saw the Cole attack as an attack on Bill Clinton, and not the USA (even though the Cole was a US warship and the attack certainly qualified as an act of war), and therefore didn't merit a response. September 11th required a response only because it might be seen as an attack on Bush (the USA be damned). It's that weird hyperloyal autocratic personality cult Bush has developed that seemed to stand in the way.
Thursday, April 08, 2004
Kenneth Feinberg, Special Master
This morning, I turned on CSPAN-2, looking for Condoleeza Rice's Sept. 11th commission testimony. I missed that spectacle, but instead found a much more interesting talk by Kenneth Feinberg, Special Master of the September 11th Fund, which Congress established to compensate victims of September 11th. Feinberg is an immensely engaging person, and he talked at length about the novelty of his position.
Feinberg was solely responsible for calculating the economic value of people's prospective lives and compensating the survivors, but only after accounting for insurance proceeds (a novel mix of tort law and social welfare safety net concepts), and together with his staff, devising his own administrative regulations. The position was fraught with potential disasters, but he was aided by the almost complete absence of fraudulent claims (!!!!) and widespread public and Congressional support.
Feinberg concluded by dwelling on two points:
How is it possible to compensate certain people more than others for premature deaths? It sounds terribly unjust, yet juries do exactly the same thing every day, and;
How is it just to compensate Sept. 11th victims, but then not compensate Daniel Pearl's widow, or Oklahoma City survivors, or anyone else who doesn't qualify for this particular fund?
Feinberg's talk was truly wonderful, a real gem of a speech, which touched on immutable principles of justice as applied to a single horrible disaster. I remember when I first heard of the September 11th Fund, I thought it was a disaster on wheels, a big rolling advertisement for fraud. Thanks in large measure to Feinberg's solid character, though, the Fund appears to be a success. May we never have need for such a fund in the future, but if we do, let us pray we have more such people to administer it.
This morning, I turned on CSPAN-2, looking for Condoleeza Rice's Sept. 11th commission testimony. I missed that spectacle, but instead found a much more interesting talk by Kenneth Feinberg, Special Master of the September 11th Fund, which Congress established to compensate victims of September 11th. Feinberg is an immensely engaging person, and he talked at length about the novelty of his position.
Feinberg was solely responsible for calculating the economic value of people's prospective lives and compensating the survivors, but only after accounting for insurance proceeds (a novel mix of tort law and social welfare safety net concepts), and together with his staff, devising his own administrative regulations. The position was fraught with potential disasters, but he was aided by the almost complete absence of fraudulent claims (!!!!) and widespread public and Congressional support.
Feinberg concluded by dwelling on two points:
How is it possible to compensate certain people more than others for premature deaths? It sounds terribly unjust, yet juries do exactly the same thing every day, and;
How is it just to compensate Sept. 11th victims, but then not compensate Daniel Pearl's widow, or Oklahoma City survivors, or anyone else who doesn't qualify for this particular fund?
Feinberg's talk was truly wonderful, a real gem of a speech, which touched on immutable principles of justice as applied to a single horrible disaster. I remember when I first heard of the September 11th Fund, I thought it was a disaster on wheels, a big rolling advertisement for fraud. Thanks in large measure to Feinberg's solid character, though, the Fund appears to be a success. May we never have need for such a fund in the future, but if we do, let us pray we have more such people to administer it.
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Schadenfreude
As horrible as it is, I can't help but feel a bit of schadenfreude (pleasure at the suffering of others) for all the recent U.S. difficulties in Iraq. Even though I supported the intervention at the time, it was always with considerable reservations. We were opening the world's biggest can of worms, and only an urgent reason (unknown and unshared positive intelligence regarding WMD) would suffice for undertaking that dangerous endeavor. When WMD weren't found - poof! - there went the urgent reason! It's a horrible mess, and getting worse. Andrew Sullivan clearly senses that the whole project could unravel, and his apprehension is almost amusing.
"What we do know is that failure in Iraq is unthinkable." Well, Andrew Sullivan (he of settled mind) had better start thinking!
We wouldn't abandon Iraq, would we? We wouldn't make him and many of his colleagues look like total idiots for urging on the chariots of war - would we? Well, we may very well do so! Just like Vietnam, all over again! My hopes are that the Iraqi chaos may injure Dubya's reelection campaign enough to doom his prospects for a second term, and that we may still be able to salvage something good and noble from this Mesopotamian misadventure - under a Kerry administration!
As horrible as it is, I can't help but feel a bit of schadenfreude (pleasure at the suffering of others) for all the recent U.S. difficulties in Iraq. Even though I supported the intervention at the time, it was always with considerable reservations. We were opening the world's biggest can of worms, and only an urgent reason (unknown and unshared positive intelligence regarding WMD) would suffice for undertaking that dangerous endeavor. When WMD weren't found - poof! - there went the urgent reason! It's a horrible mess, and getting worse. Andrew Sullivan clearly senses that the whole project could unravel, and his apprehension is almost amusing.
"What we do know is that failure in Iraq is unthinkable." Well, Andrew Sullivan (he of settled mind) had better start thinking!
We wouldn't abandon Iraq, would we? We wouldn't make him and many of his colleagues look like total idiots for urging on the chariots of war - would we? Well, we may very well do so! Just like Vietnam, all over again! My hopes are that the Iraqi chaos may injure Dubya's reelection campaign enough to doom his prospects for a second term, and that we may still be able to salvage something good and noble from this Mesopotamian misadventure - under a Kerry administration!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)