Adios a Pinochet

Christoper Hitchens is also glad to say goodbye:

There were those who used to argue that, say what you like, Pinochet unfettered the Chilean economy and let the Friedmanite breezes blow. (This is why Mrs. Thatcher was forever encouraging him to take his holidays and shopping trips in London; a piece of advice that he may well have regretted taking.) Yet free-marketeers presumably do not believe that you need torture and murder and dictatorship to implement their policies.

Historically, the moderate left has not been given much of a chance to try new things out in South America. In the long run, there is nothing wrong with letting leftist populists either (a) prove that their policies work, or (b) discredit leftist populism when they don't.

(Venezuela might be an exception, since the government has lots of oil money to spare.)

The same principle should apply to the right-wing policies too. Just as long as it's not "one man, one vote, one time."

Life imitates Onion

Two days ago, Nancy pointed out to me one of the best headlines in The Onion in a long while:
Rebels Immediately Regret Seizing Power In Zambia. (Apologies to the real Zambia, by the way.)

Today, I see this real headline: Fiji coup chief runs ads to fill Cabinet.

Movie-related Quote of the Day

From the Washington Post:

"What if you showed the ancient Maya 'The Passion of the Christ'? They'd freak out."

- Stephen Houston, professor of anthropology at Brown University.

The Borat Memo

Continuing with the New Yorker crutch (it's easier to link than to write original posts!), this short bit of satire summarizes what for me were some of the more disquieting things about the Borat movie.

Lessons of Vietnam

I was going to write a post about President Bush's remarks in Vietnam a couple of weeks ago, but The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg has done a pretty good job already:

In Hanoi, which under its nominally Communist rulers is more vibrantly capitalist than Ho Chi Minh City ever was when it was called Saigon, he [President Bush] was asked if the American experience in Vietnam offered any guidance about Iraq. “One lesson is that we tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take a while,” he replied, and added, “We’ll succeed unless we quit.” What did he mean? That the peaceable, bustling, unthreatening (if unfree) Vietnam of today represents an American success, made possible by the fact that we didn’t quit until fifty-eight thousand Americans and three million Vietnamese were dead? Or that it represents an American failure, which would have been averted by another decade of war, another fifty-eight thousand, another three million? Who knows? And who knows, really, what this President has been taught by this month’s election? The present President Bush, after all, is a decider of decisions, not a learner of lessons. And he likes to decide that he was right all along.

The Baker-Hamilton Report

I skimmed the report this morning on the train, and I must say that it is much better than I expected.

It is a breath of fresh air, a welcome dose of reality. Even if that reality is not pretty and, as the report states, there are no flawless options to pursue. I think it can also serve as a good primer for the American public to understand the complex forces at work in Iraq - infinitely more nuanced than just repeating "Iraq is a central front in the War on Terror".

A good sample paragraph:

Iraq is a centerpiece of American foreign policy, influencing how the United States is viewed in the region and around the world. Because of the gravity of Iraq’s condition and the country’s vital importance, the United States is facing one of its most difficult and significant international challenges in decades. Because events in Iraq have been set in motion by American decisions and actions, the United States has both a national and a moral interest in doing what it can to give Iraqis an opportunity to avert anarchy.

Read: it was a war of choice, and the US must get it right. But is it too late now?

Rumsfeld's memo

Juan Cole has a good analysis of Rumsfeld's memo. This stood out:

Rumsfeld spends more time plotting out how to manipulate the American public than how to win the war. Everything is about spin, about giving the image of progress even in the face of a rapid downward spiral into the abyss.

It's the FOX-news, Michael "how do I look on TV during Katrina" Brown, Big Lie style of Government.

The Big Lie

In previous posts, I've compared the Bush Administration's policies in the "War on Terror", and the mentality of its defenders, to those of Third World dictators. This provocative, and thought-provoking, article on Slate goes one further than that.

The article has helped me cristalize why Fox News, and the likes of O'Reilly, bothers me so much: it's the culture of the Big Lie, very dangerous indeed. Sure, there are left-wing fundamentalists as well, spouting much nonsense. But they don't get away with stating blatantly false and illogical "memes" repeatedly, as Fox News does. And call themselves "Fair and Balanced," after that.

(Case in point, the "War on Christmas." Silly, yes, but symptomatic.)

Only bad options in Iraq?

This post by James Fallows explains how there's mostly only bad choices left in Iraq.

But one thing is clear: no matter how it happens, if things end badly, they will be blamed on the "liberal" media, the Democrats, the fickle American public, and the Iraqis themselves.

On a related note, NPR just ran an interview with two Iraqi exiles in Jordan this morning. Both well-educated, with excellent English, had to leave the country due to very serious threats on their lives and those of their families. One worked for the US occupation authorities; the other had the ability to borrow and pay $25,000 after being kidnapped, thus becoming a marked man.

Again, one would think that the self-proclaimed "law-and-order" Republicans would be the ones to understand how you cannot have a successful country, much less a "Democracy", without some law and order.

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.