The Blame Game, continued

A good blog post from Marshall on the deflection of blame...

Blame the Victim

Last night's Talking Points by Bill O'Reilly had some classic quotes. As with Ann Coulter, this is commentary that might perhaps be best ignored, in the hope that it would just go away - but it is representative of what a large segment of the US population is being fed.

The appetizer:

The Iraq War has morphed into a number of conflicts, much like the chaotic Baltic situation under President Clinton.

He then argues that it should not be called a "Civil War". Perhaps: it might be worse than that. Baltics? Did he mean Balkans? But why bring it up, other than to mention Clinton? But that was clearly a civil war, by anyone's definition. (Of course, he ignores the obvious fact that Clinton did not exactly trigger the civil war by invading the Balkans - or Baltics, at that, but was one of the few Western leaders to do something to stop the Balkan conflict.)

And then:

The problem in Iraq is not American. The problem is the Iraqis themselves. They're not fighting for their freedom in a way that puts the bad keys [sic] on the defensive.

There is only so much the USA can do. If the Iraqi people are unwilling to challenge the bad guys, the bad guys will win — period.

Hmm, I thought that the Iraqi people had corageously challenged the bad guys when they voted in the elections, with a turnout much larger than in the US. Also, when they rose up against Saddam in '91? And what about the Kurds?

The conclusion:

If the Bush administration will not consider dividing the country into three autonomous regions, then it must consider allowing the Iraqi military to run the place, much like Musharraf runs Pakistan. Yes, that would be brutal, but clearly, the Iraqi people are not embracing freedom. So imposing order through a military strong man might be the only way.

Of course, the American media is not helping anyone by oversimplifying the situation and rooting for the USA to lose in Iraq. And that is what some media people are doing.

Hmm... Wasn't the original intention to spread Democracy in the Middle East? If we end up with a dictator, wouldn't that be akin to losing? Bill, it looks like you want the US to lose!

As for not embracing freedom, some 2003 quotes by Donald Rumsfeld come to mind:

"Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things... Stuff happens."

Banana Republic Watch: Ed Meese

GQ's interview with Ed Meese, a member of the Baker Iraq Study Group, summarizes many of the problems with the Bush administration's thinking about military tribunals and "illegal combatants". What these folks don't seem to understand is that this path leads directly to dictatorship, or, at least, a Banana Republic. Here it is:

-----

Q: Let's move to the Geneva Conventions. A lot of people are concerned that terrorism suspects don't have any kind of habeas corpus.
A: In order to be covered by the Geneva Convention, you have to fulfill certain requirements. Number one, you have to be in uniform. Number two, you have to be part of a military unit subject to military discipline. Number three, you have to be engaged in combat with other military units and not primarily striking at civilians. So there are a number of criteria in the Geneva Convention that are not met by everyone on the battlefield. Then there's another category of people going back to the Revolutionary War—people who were in those days called spies. If they were not in uniform, they were subject to being summarily executed.

Q: You mean they were executed without even a military tribunal?
A: I think there were some. Also, a "tribunal" could be a military commander ordering the hanging. I think that's what happened to some of them.

Q: You're advocating summary execution.
A: Well, yeah, that happens in the military. Illegal combatants are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

Q: So we call them "illegal combatants," without using any legal basis to determine whether they're illegal or not.
A: Well, we do. We have military tribunals.

Q: But not always, apparently.
A: My understanding is that illegal combatants are subject to military tribunals. But in any event, they have been captured on the field of battle, and anyone captured on the field of battle is either one of these two categories. And both categories can be detained until the end of hostilities.

Q: When we talk about being detained until the war is over, we're talking about a war that could go on for half a century.
A: Absolutely.

Q: Doesn't detaining someone that long compete with some of the values in the Constitution?
A: No, it doesn't.

Q: We value a speedy trial, as a culture. That's why we put it in the Constitution.
A: We value a speedy trial for criminals. But a person who's been apprehended and captured on the field of battle, that status itself identifies them as either a prisoner of war or an illegal combatant.

Q: Unless they live there.
A: Well, how many people do you have standing around the field of battle?

Q: It depends the battle. Certainly it's possible.
A: And of course, that's why the president has applied the military tribunals. So that people have the ability, if they claim their innocence, to demonstrate it. But the reason why you detain the people is that you don't want them going back and taking up arms against our soldiers.

Q: Shouldn't we extend them the right to a public trial for that purpose?
A: Why would we? Why would you do that to somebody who's not entitled to it under any law? Why would [we] extend the laws to people who are trying to kill Americans?

------

As the interviewer points out later, many criminals in the US are trying to kill Americans as well, yet they have the right to a fair trial. And without a fair trial, how is one to know if that's really who they are?

These are the same arguments that tin-pot dictators all over the third world have made over the last 50 years: "our enemies don't respect human rights, why should we?" "You have no human rights when you're dead." And so on. Resistance to these arguments, even in the face of terror, is what distinguishes truly civilized, democratic societies. You can respect human rights and still be strong and ruthless your pursuit of the bad guys; in fact, violating them is a sign of weakness.

Andrew Sullivan also points out Meesese's disingenuousness with respect to torture, in the same interview. Sullivan also links to this great speech, worth quoting again:

This week, again, the Government of the United States, a land founded on a commitment of justice for all - my country - tells us that detainees in its campaign against terror have "no rights." ... The act abolishes the writ of habeas corpus, which Thomas Jefferson called one of the essential pillars of the American Republic. It gives the president the potentially despotic power to remove anyone from the protection of the law simply by carving upon his body a label � the words "unlawful enemy combatant."

.... Once more, the model that is adhered to is not the rich criminal or military justice system of the United States, but the model of Franz Kafka's Penal Colony. What attitude towards justice does this reveal?

I am not here to argue for release or freedom for those detained in the campaign against terror. I am arguing for justice. That is something quite different. It may well be that Majid Khan is a serious criminal responsible for crimes against humanity. It may well be that he used or promoted the use of terror as a device. If that is so, he should be charged and given a fair chance to defend himself. This trial, fairly run, will vindicate my nation's counterterrorism efforts. It will show those who are held for heinous criminals, if they are heinous criminals. It would promote the view in the world that my nation has and pursues a just cause, and treats those in its power with justice, though the justice be severe.

Finally, as pointed out in TPM:

Meese is not a has-been from the Reagan years. He has been a key advisor to the current White House on the nominations and confirmations of Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. This is a man who is widely considered to be at the pinnacle of the powerful conservative legal movement. This is what we have come to.

The Baker Comission/Study Group

As pointed out here, the "Iraq Study Group" has a lot of studying to do, since it does not have any Iraq experts, or even Middle East ones. Here's a good article by Michael Kinsley at Slate, about why such groups are really formed.

There are many reasons to be cautious about this team (the presence of Ed Meese being only one of them). The New Yorker's George Packer writes:

The Republicans had their neoconservative spree and emerged this month from its smoking wreckage, in Iraq and at the polls, with nothing to steady them except the hope that two aging condottieri from the first Bush Presidency, James A. Baker III and Robert Gates, can lead the way out. These are the same men who, fifteen years ago, abandoned Afghanistan to civil war and Al Qaeda, allowed Saddam to massacre his own people, and concluded that genocide in the Balkans was none of America’s business

Christopher Hitchens also makes a good argument for why Baker might not be the best man for the job. And also recalls:

For millions of Iraqis, the betrayal of their uprising against Saddam in 1991 is something that they can never forget. They tend to bring it up, too, and to fear a repetition of it.

In all of this, one must feel truly sorry for the Iraqi people, who suffered through Saddam Hussein, the absurd Iran-Iraq war (back when Saddam was on the US side), the Gulf War, the supressed insurrection at its end, the UN sanctions, the 2003 invasion, and then this bungled occupation, which might lead to even worse to come. And sorry for the Iranian, Kuwaiti, and American victims of the entire thing too.

Finally, here's one of those "what-if" questions: Would Saddam have been dissuaded from invading Kuwait, back in 1990, if the Bush I administration had been really clear about the consequences? Instead, we had these quotes from the US embassador, meeting with Saddam shortly before the invasion:

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

How many lives might have been saved?

Fun with Electronic Voting Machines

Salon has an update on the Florida 18,000 missing-votes-mess.

How appropriate that it was Kathleen Harris' old district. And no paper trail. They had 6 years to get it right, but didn't.

Simpson and The Simpsons

So it turns out that Rupert Murdoch got the killer's interview killed. (Somehow, Fox News still does not have anything to do with Fox TV, and claims credit for the cancellation too.)

But only when it was clear that this was not going to be good for the bottom line, let alone whatever reputation they might still have.

Simpson and "The Simpsons" teach some interesting lessons about the Free Market (Milton Friedman, RIP):

Sometimes it leads to good results: Bart, Lisa, Homer and Marge, in a witty and subversive extended run on FOX TV.

Sometimes it gives us OJ interviews. Or at least, it tries.

"What God wants, God gets, God help us all". - R. Waters.

Robert Altman, RIP

Never got to be a big fan, but enjoyed his unique approach to moviemaking, especially in "The Player" and "Short Cuts".

Just yesterday, saw his last movie, "A Prairie Home Companion" again on a plane (a "minor work"), and it is made rather explicit that death is hovering over all the participants, which Altman conveys with a sense of nostalgia, acceptance and peace.

Banana Republic Watch

From the Washington Post:

Former attorney general Janet Reno has taken the unusual step of openly criticizing the Bush administration's anti-terrorism strategy -- joining seven other former Justice Department officials in warning that the indefinite detention of U.S. terrorism suspects could become commonplace unless the courts intervene.

....

In their brief, Reno and the other former Justice Department officials said: "The government is essentially asserting the right to hold putative enemy combatants arrested in the United States indefinitely whenever it decides not to prosecute those people criminally -- perhaps because it would be too difficult to obtain a conviction, perhaps because a motion to suppress evidence would raise embarrassing facts about the government's conduct, or perhaps for other reasons."

David Lynch campaigns

Much of the news, even the so-called "entertainment news," is depressing these days. One must ask: where is the joy? Must be out there somewhere.

So some much needed levity here: David Lynch's campaign for a best-actress Oscar for Laura Dern. I look forwards to seeing his latest, "Inland Empire".

Quick scoring of Lynch's ouvre I've seen:

- Mullholland Drive: A. Great performance by N. Watts.

- The Straight Story: A+. Produced by Disney, G-rated, excellent.

- Lost Highway: The first half of the movie gets an A+; the second, a B- or worse.

- Wild at Heart: C+. Don't know why this got top prizes at Cannes. Almost a self-parody.

- Blue Velvet: A. A revelation, when I saw it in the theaters in 1986.

- Dune: B+. Not so bad, watched on a decent home theater. Much better than the rather boring mini-series that was made a few years ago.

- Elephant Man: A+

- Eraser: B-. Points for atmospherics, being a "cult movie". But didn't get it, I guess.

"Twin Peaks" deserves special mention: the first season gets an A+; the second season gets a B- except for the A+ first episode and the Lynch-directed one that reveals the killer; the movie, "Fire Walk with Me", gets an F.

Politics and the English Language

This New Yorker's comment on Bush's use of "Democrat" vs. "Democratic" reminded me of the famous "Language Memo", allegedly written by Newt Gingrich, which circulated among Congressional Republicans in the 90's. (Aside: from the Web, it is hard to tell what year this memo was written, when it was circulated, and who actually wrote it. I'd also like to know if the title came with the original: Language: A Key Mechanism of Control.)

Both, of course, remind one of Orwell. Click here for his famous essay of the same name.
(Update: a better-formatted version is available from Russia.)

This is one of the things that the GOP has done better than the competition: It's not the "estate tax," it's the "death tax". (I myself prefer to call it the "Paris Hilton tax".) Not logging, but "healthy forests". And so on; not just with names or words, but, in general, "talking points" and "framing the debate". If you get to frame the debate in your own terms, your chances of winning are greatly improved.

In the spirit of bipartisanship, another classic case: "pro-choice" and "pro-life". Of course, it is less attractive to be "anti-choice" or "anti-life"...

FOX and OJ: O'Reilly should boycott FOX

I started this posting with this: hope that the self-proclaimed "culture warriors" at FOX News call the upcoming FOX-OJ Simpson production for what it is.

It turns out that Bill O'Reilly is suitably outraged: but he's not calling for a boycott on FOX, and actually said:

For the record, Fox Broadcasting has nothing to do with the Fox News Channel.

What a coincidence, then, that they share a name! One of them should sue the other.

I just hope that whatever money is made from this, it all goes to the victims' families. Not just OJ's, but also the money that FOX makes. Fat chance...

A recent New Yorker profile of Rupert Murdoch appears to confirm that he cares more about power and money than ideology, and is now starting to hedge his bets with the Democratic candidates for 2008. As with most of the media in most of the world (and, especially, in the US), he certainly cares more about money than good taste, common decency, or justice. The OJ thing is just the latest proof of this.

El Cucuy

From an interesting New Yorker article on El Cucuy de la Mañana,
the radio host of a very popular Spanish-language morning show:

The Hispanic locutores of today—like immigrant radio hosts from the past—both strengthen the culture of origin and help to hasten assimilation. “This kind of thing—I hate to use the words ‘multi-cultural diversity’—in broadcasting is unique to the United States,” Henry Sapoznik, an American cultural historian, said. “There is no corollary, even in Canada or England or other countries with big immigrant populations. In every other country, to get access to radio, you needed political power. Here all you needed was money.”

I'm not sure that they translated "Cucuy" properly, though...

Botero and Abu Ghraib

Slate has a slide show on Fernando Botero's Abu Ghraib paintings. (Warning: disturbing images.)

These are the (unintended?) consequences of authorizing torture. We will see if the secret White House and Justice Department memos that authorized it are ever made public.

Fair and Balanced

A very interesting Fox News Memo, from the Vice President of News:

The elections and Rumsfeld's resignation were a major event, but not the end of the world. The war on terror goes on without interruption. Jennifer Griffin sent in info on Hamas' call for attacks on American interests. And let's be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress.

Actually, if I were an insurgent, I would be thrilled at how divided, blind, and ill-informed the American public might be, with this kind of media in charge. Could it be any easier to manipulate? (Just issue some threat, and you'll get coverage 24 hours a day.)

The Fox story about that Hamas threat is here. One would think the bigger story, at that point in time, would be Israel's tragic mistake, which killed 18 civilians, including children. (In the US media, it was drowned by the elections.) Just the steady toll of a conflict for which that US has all but abandoned peacemaking efforts in the last 6 years.

Bad AP writing, and uninformed readers

When the 2006 conflict between Israel and Lebanon ended, the AP put out this story, which was posted at Yahoo, among many other places. Here's how it starts:

"Truce will be Israel's last, Lebanon envoy declares"

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Lebanon's UN ambassador bitterly slammed Israel's month-long bombardment of his country ahead of a hard-won truce, and vowed that the treaty would be Israel's last with any Middle East country.

"Lebanon will be, I think, the last state to sign a peace treaty with Israel," UN ambassador Nouhad Mahmoud told CNN television's "Late Edition" program, without explaining the remark.

He called the agreement a "crucial" test for all the parties involved.

Without yet venturing any opinions on the Middle East conflict, let me just say that this is a classic case of very, very bad writing on the part of the AP, bordering on the irresponsible.

The AP writer cannot tell the difference between a truce and a peace treaty, which is crucial in the Middle East. There have been lots of truces, but fewer peace treaties. Israel has signed two peace treaties with its neighbors so far, each of which was a considerable achievement: with Egypt in 1979 (with Carter's help), and with Jordan, in 1994 (with Clinton's help). Still pending: Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon.

The ambassador was simply saying that Lebanon would be the last to sign. He might have been echoing a column by Tom Friedman, which, if I remember correctly, argued that while many people expect Israel to sign a peace treaty with Lebanon before it does the same with Syria, the reverse would be more likely.

As it turns out, the first time I visited a well-known right-wing blog, I happened upon a discussion of this piece. The blogger, and most of the readers, took the AP report to mean that the Lebanese ambassador had threatened to destroy Israel!

How terrorism works, and what Al-Qaeda wants

Stating the obvious:

How does Al-Qaeda, or any other terrorist organization, measure success? Their "metric" is not necessarily the number of people that they kill. They do want to achieve the maximum "effect," and spectacular attacks that kill lots of people are a part of this. But what, really, are their ultimate goals?

This, of course, depends on the particular group; but it seems that, in general, one of these goals is to get their enemies to do stupid things in reaction to the terrorist threat. The cliche, "when we give up our civil rights, the terrorists have won", can be quite true.

And it seems clearer every day, that in invading Iraq, the US walked into a trap, especially, given the mismanagent of the post-war invasion.

We can argue endlessly about the rationale for the invasion - the WMD stories, the cherry-picking of intelligence, the shifting justifications, etc. Among the confusion, we can find good reasons for wanting to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and good intentions for the future of Iraq.

What is really inexplicable, and unforgivable, is the bungling of the occupation once the decision to invade was made. (Reports of Donald Rumsfeld threatening to fire the next person who brought-up the need for a post-invasion plan are quite disturbing.)

It was as if, having decided to jump into the deep end of a swimming pool, one neglected learning how to swim.

As a good blogger analysis of what Al-Qaeda points out:

The sad irony of the last five years is that al Qaeda gambled and lost. Their attack offended more Muslims than expected and their military position in Afghanistan folded like a house of cards. Then, unbelievably, with bin Laden’s outfit on the ropes Bush gave them exactly what they wanted.

Namely, the chaos in Iraq. There's also a provocative prediction, which could also explain why there have been no attacks in the US since 9/11:

What happens next? In my understanding, nothing as far as America is concerned. Notwithstanding mutations like Zarqawi’s former organization, which view killing (Americans, Shiites, whatever) as an end in itself, the terrorists got what they needed from us. Assuming that the old Al Qaeda has any influence relative to strategy-blind mutations, the folks who probably should worry are US-backed regimes like the al-Sauds and Murbarak who will turn to us in the face of a growing insurgency and find no help forthcoming. And, ultimately, Israel.

Those Electronic Voting Machines

Nice: a Florida Congressional House seat is contested by a margin of 386 votes, and there are 18,000 voters whose House candidate was not recorded. Apparently, the machines had a touch-screen interface that did not always offer the proper choice of candidates.

Paper trail? There doesn't seem to be any. Hey, just ask the computers to count the votes again.

Update: see here for more details, and comments from CS profs. Dill and Jones.

Coffee rant no. 1: Starbucks sizes

My friend Kristen has asked me to write a rant about Starbucks coffee sizes, which apparently annoy her as much as they annoy me. Not surprisingly, a little web research shows that the complaint is widespread.

First, the facts: The coffee sizes at Starbucks are called: "Short," "Tall," "Grande," and "Venti". Now, how the hell are you supposed to remember which is bigger, the "Tall", or the "Grande"? Especially if you speak enough Spanish to know that "Grande" means "big". Which is larger, "tall", or "big"?

My research has just informed me that "Venti" is "20" in Italian ("veinte", En Español). At least this conveys some useful information: size is 20 ounces. But still, who's to say that "Venti" has to be bigger than "Grande"? In mathematical terms, this is an attempt to specify a total order using three different types of units. That is, it makes no sense, except for the "Short" vs. "Tall" comparison.

One of the underlying reasons for this silliness is that Starbucks (along with every other food and beverage company in the US, it seems) does not want to use the word "small". The solution, as pointed out in many web pages, is for us customers to rebel and use the words "small", "medium," and "large". Dave Barry puts it best:

Just say you want a large coffee, people. Because if we let the coffee people get away with this, they're not going to stop, and some day, just to get a lousy cup of coffee, you'll hear yourself saying, "I'll have a Mega Grandissimaximo Giganto de Humongo-Rama-Lama-Ding-Dong decaf." And then you will ask for the key to the AquaSwooshie.

And when that happens, people, the terrorists will have won.

(A correction to Barry's column: Seattle's Best is actually owned by Starbucks, since 2003.)

Finally: This article at Slate explains why the smallest sizes at Starbucks are not advertised - and how the smaller capuccino is better:

The difficulty is that if some of your products are cheap, you may lose money from customers who would willingly have paid more. So, businesses try to discourage their more lavish customers from trading down by making their cheap products look or sound unattractive, or, in the case of Starbucks, making the cheap product invisible.

Note like the "small" capuccino is that cheap - "$2.35 instead of $2.65." I'll expand on how the smaller coffee drink is usually the better one in a future post!

More about Spain

See here for more more debunking the right-wing meme that the Spanish voters did the terrorist's bidding in 2004; you can also find more heated discussion here.

It is easy to see how the Spanish case can be certain people's worst nightmare: a well-informed voting public, punishing an incompetent government that cynically exploits the terrorist problem. For a sample of the distortions, see this column by Charles Krauthammer, before the 2004 elections. As I have pointed out before, most of this is nonsense:

1. The most important fact behind the Spanish case is ignored (the Government's lies about who perpetrated the attack).
2. Just because terrorists are perceived to favor one result does not mean that the elections should be canceled and victory handed to the other side.
3. How easy for an embattled government to say, "Vote for me, or the terrorists win."
4. Whether Bin Laden wanted Bush to win or lose in 2004 is, actually, in doubt. There are good arguments as to why he might have wanted Bush to win, and the timing of a video he released a few days before the elections has been offered as evidence. The mismanagement of the Iraq invasion was a gift to al-Qaeda. See, for example, Richard Clarke's book.
5. Withdrawing Spanish troops from Iraq might actually hurt the interests of Islamic terrorists in Spain.
   

Consider this quote from Krauthammer:

A second direct attack on the United States would backfire. As Sept. 11 showed, attacking the U.S. homeland would prompt a rallying around the president, whoever he is. America is not Spain. Such an attack would probably result in a Bush landslide.

Gimme a break. "America is not Spain"??? I hope that in America, the result would not be a landslide if the President lied about the attack for political advantage and people found out.

In short, these arguments are insulting to the Spanish people. If the Conservative Prime Minister, instead of blaming ETA, had come out with a strong statement against terrorists in general, faced honestly the possibility that it could have been Islamic terror, and promised never to yield to it, he would have had a very good chance of winning the elections. And, who knows? That might have been the result that the terrorists intended.

Borat saved by House

Indeed, truth can be stranger than fiction:

BORAT star Sacha Baron Cohen was beaten up by a passer-by after he tried to play a prank as his alter ego....
He was rescued by actor pal Hugh Laurie who had been on his way to a New York bar with Cohen.

Of course, it could just be tabloid fodder. But a good story nonetheless.