Cold War tactics? Of course, the Bush administration has a cold war mentality.

This New York Times piece on United States' strategy toward Iran invokes the Cold War. I suspect we're seeing this strategy because Mr. Bush would like to take this country back to the 1950s.

More later,
Russ

Detainee abuse: Is the U.S. Government hypocritical or delusional?

How U.S. officials can feed this stuff to the media with a straight face is beyond me. Apparently, even the Bush administration says many (100s) of the detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility should be released. The U.S. Government wants to release them and send them back to their home countries. The U.S. won't release the detainees, however, because the governments in their home countries might torture them!

It's all right for the United States to torture the detainees, and it's all right to use extraordinary rendition to send people that the United States wants tortured to those same countries specifically so they will be tortured for any information they might have, but any torture not approved by the United States is not cool.

Interestingly, many of the detainees the United States wants to release are citizens of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (more than 100 from each country according to the NYTimes article linked above) -- U.S. allies. Also, the article reports that 267 detainees have already been sent home. These items leave me with some questions:

1) How have the 267 released detainees been treated at home? If the U.S. Government doesn't know what happened to them, does that mean this concern over detainee abuse is new? Can you say "mid-term elections"?

2) Why is the United States the only country that can decide when torture is acceptable? Moot point. Torture is never acceptable.

3) Why is the U.S. allied with countries that practice torture? I guess this one doesn't matter because we are the "good guys" which makes everything we do OK.

More later,
Russ

P.S. - The extraordinary rendition link above goes to a CBS News item on the practice. I thought about linking to the Wikipedia entry on the topic, but if you look at my last post, you'll see why I didn't.

Political dirty tricks invade Wikipedia

The Washington Times reports that political campaigns are using Wikipedia, the online, user-produced encyclopedia, to hype their own candidates and discredit their opponents. But of course, being the Washington Times, the story features mostly Democrats as evil doers, doing evil to each other, and it reprints the lies spread by the evil campaign staffers about Democratic candidates. Maybe there aren't any Republican candidates' campaigns fiddling with Wikipedia.

Does that seem as unlikely to you as it does to me?

More later,
Russ

Support the spirit of our national anthem, not the language

President Bush says "The Star-Spangled Banner" should only be sung in English. I don't get it. Our national anthem is about the spirit of the country. What difference does the language make? I guess he's playing to his political base.

The most interesting part of the story to me was the different ways the New York Times and Washington Times covered the story. Both paper's quoted Mr. Bush directly, and mentioned a proposed resolution by Senator Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., supporting the English version of the national anthem, but that's where the similarities end. The NY Times version quotes the song's producer and his reasons for producing a Spanish-language version of the anthem. The Washington Times story quotes no one in support of singing the anthem in Spanish and relies heavily on sources who actively support English as the national language. In fact, some of the Washington Times' sources make their living by promoting English. Can you say "conflict of interest"?

While I think the NY Times story isn't as strong as it could be (Why didn't they talk to more sources?), it presents the issue in a much more balanced way than the Washington Times. I know that shouldn't surprise me, but it does. I still think of journalists at purveyors of truth. My mistake.

More later,
Russ

Bush Says Lower Gas Prices By Destroying Environment

George W. Bush has to be the most transparent person who has ever been president of the United States. Every move he makes is obviously based on preserving his political agenda rather than on good policy. In today's Lansing State Journal, an article from the Gannett News Service tells us that Mr. Bush intends to lower gas prices by relaxing environmental regulations to free up gasoline supplies.

Mr. Bush's record on the environment has not been good. His announcement is nothing more than a political ploy to reduce gas prices in time for the midterm elections. The sad thing is that it will probably work.

More later,
Russ

Iranian General Says "Bring It On, Bush"

A line from "Limbo Rock" comes to mind: "How low can you go?"

How low has the world's opinion of the United States gone if an Iranian military official feels free to mock our ability to invade his country.

Of course, he's probably right, and that's why the Bush administration is allegedly considering a tactical nuclear strike instead of using conventional forces.

Today's Washington Times carried the story today. I didn't see it in email headlines from the New York Times, the Washington Post, or my local paper. The Washington Times seems to be supporting its reputation as a conservative newspaper. You could argue that by giving this story a lot of play, the paper is hyping military action against Iran. Hawks in and out of the government will take the taunts as a challenge and push for war to prove the general wrong.

Of course, papers with an allegedly liberal slant could use the story to show how much the Bush administration has hurt America's reputation in the world.

More later,
Russ

Walruses and Sea Ice From 2004

Today's Washington Post includes a story with the headline:

"Warming Arctic Is Taking a Toll: Peril to Walrus Young Seen as Result of Melting Ice Shelf"

The story is interesting, but it comes from an article in Aquatic Mammals that is based on a two-month cruise by a Coast Guard icebreaker -- with scientists on board -- in 2004. The scientists also measured that the water temperature in the area was six degrees warmer than the water temperature in the same spot two years earlier. That would be 2002.

Reading a newspaper should be enlightening, rather than leaving readers with questions. This article leaves questions. Although the Post article does mention other possible reasons for abandoned walrus calves, it presumes that Arctic warming and melting sea ice are the culprits.

People I talk to, even some smart ones, don't want to believe that global warming is real. One suggests this is just part of a general weather pattern that has been going on for centuries. Sometimes it gets warmer, he says, sometimes it gets colder. He's no expert on meteorology or climate, but reads the anti-global warming rhetoric.

I don't know if global warming is real. I suspect it is. But articles like this one from the Post don't provide answers because the reporter didn't follow up with good questions. That leaves the readers with questions of their own.

More later,
Russ

Georgia Student Suing for the Right to Verbally Bash Gays

***** READ THIS FIRST *****

DON'T MISINTERPRET MY MENTION OF NEO-NAZIS IN THIS POST. I AM NOT EQUATING CHRISTIANS WHO OBJECT TO HOMOSEXUALITY WITH NAZIS.

IN MY MIND, THE ONLY THINGS THE TWO GROUPS HAVE IN COMMON ARE THE DESIRE TO RECRUIT NEW "MEMBERS" (THE MOTIVATIONS TO RECRUIT ARE VERY DIFFERENT) AND THAT I DISAGREE WITH WHAT THEY SAY.

ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT MY ULTIMATE CONCLUSION IS TO SUPPORT RUTH MALHOTRA'S RIGHT TO SPEAK HER MIND.

I'm all for tolerance, but I also am a strong, even radical, supporter of free speech, which leaves me somewhat ambivalent about what can be considered a free speech story in the April 10 Los Angeles Times. Here are the first few sentences:

ATLANTA -- Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant. Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she's a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation. Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she's demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy.

I don't see this as a religious freedom issue. Someone might want to speak out against homosexuality (and plenty of other things that some people don't approve of) for other than religious reasons. Speech is the issue for me, and it's an issue that is receiving plenty of recent discussion here in Lansing, Mich.

Some members of the community are up in arms over a neo-Nazi rally scheduled here for April 22. There are plans for counter rallies and other demonstrations. My take is to just let them have their rally. Don't ignore it, but don't get all worked up about it either.

Arguing with people who spout hate speech or intolerant speech merely lends credibility to the speakers. Let them speak, and then evaluate their ideas calmly. You'll find that the ideas are easy to poke holes in, even if some of them are cleverly disguised as logical. Get to know the ideas you oppose. Get to know the underlying values of the people that spread these ideas. You can't refute what you don't know.

I can hear the objections now: "But what about the stupid people who will accept hateful ideas? We shouldn't let stupid people be exposed to hateful ideas." To this I say: GET OVER YOURSELF! I know that I have beliefs that don't square with my own values (I'm working on that.), and so do you. But the more we know, the more our beliefs will come into line with our values. At least that's what I believe. (And I'm pretty sure that squares with my values.)

Besides, espousing hateful or intolerant ideas doesn't require stupidity. Plenty of smart people believe hateful and intolerant things about their neighbors, but hate and intolerance generally can't stand up to scrutiny when we get to know each other. That's why the tolerant among us need to encourage discussion and take a few insults, or even hateful statements, and keep the discussion going.

More later,
Russ

U.S. and European Union Disrespect Democracy

It's official. the United States and European Union are cutting off aid to the duly elected Palestinian government because the Hamas party is in power. This action is the worst kind of hypocrisy. Specifically, President George W. Bush has said on many occasions that the United States supports democracy and democratically elected governments. What he apparently left out was that only U.S.-friendy and Israel-friendly governments are considered legitimate.

I guess it's only genocide when you do it in your own country

Saddam Hussein was charged April 4 with genocide in the deaths of 50,000 Iraqis. Hussein's soldiers did the dirty work; Hussein just gave the orders.

Estimates of the deaths of Iraqi civilians in Operation Iraqi Freedom, or whatever it's being called these days, run from 33,000 to 100,000, depending on who's doing the counting.

George W. Bush gave the orders that killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, so why isn't he being charged with genocide? Oh yeah, Americans are the good guys.

Too good to be true?

Massatchusetts has a plan for universal health care. That's great, I think. The New York Times story leaves some of my questions unanswered.

For example, the story says that businesses with more than 10 employees that don't offer insurance to their workers will be charged $295 per employee. I'd say that's a great deal for the employers. Insurance for my family through a former employer's COBRA plan was more than $850 a month and only lasted 18 months. A current employer offers insurance at more than $1,100 a month.

But as I read the story, employers don't have to pay for the insurance, they just have to offer it. I'm sure there's a cost associated with offering the insurance even without paying for it, but $295 per employee per year may be the lesser of the two costs.

The proposed employer fee may not matter much, Governor Mitt Romney says in the story that he will use his line-item-veto to get rid of it.

In any event, this isn't really universal health insurance coverage. The Massachusetts legislature is merely forcing insurance companies and employers to offer the insurance and forcing the citizens of the state to buy it. Goverment subsidies to help the working poor pay for insurance will be available, but in my experience, the working poor don't have anything to spare. The article doesn't answer my questions about how much people will be forced to pay. Seems like the same logic involved in Heath Care Savings Accounts -- the government will give you a tax break to self-insure by setting money aside for an emergency. If I had the money to set aside, I'd use it to buy insurance.

Evidence, schmevidence!

An article under the Opinion tab on TomPaine.com by John Prados tells us that Bush's Paper Trail Grows regarding the Downing Street memo. Wasted cyberspace!

If we know anything about the Bush administration, we know that factual evidence provides no deterrent. The whole point of the memo is to show that facts aren't a consideration for the Bushies.

Condi Rice embarrassed by protesters? What makes you think so?

The New York Times ran an article this morning headlined Rice Finds British Muslims Want to Give Her an Earful that says U.S. Secretary of State Rice faced "public embarrassment" from protesters. Perhaps the writer, Joel Brinkley, thinks Ms. Rice should be embarrassed, and maybe she should, but nothing in the article suggests that she is embarrassed. In fact, a quote lifted from another newspaper and included in Mr. Brinkley's article suggests that she isn't embarrassed at all, or at least doesn't want anyone to believe she is embarrassed.

"People can say whatever they wish," she told The Lancashire Evening Telegraph. "I know where I stand. We made the right decision" in Iraq. "I was fully supportive of the decision."

One of the things I learned early on in journalism school was that you can't report on what people think or feel. Reporters don't know what sources think or feel. Reporters only know what sources said. Mr. Brinkley made a mistake here, and his editors didn't catch it. The New York Times should be embarrassed -- again.

The Best April Fool's Day Pranks Fool People, but Don't Make Fools of Them

April Fool's Day should be more fun.

A NY Times Op-Ed suggests that what April Fool's Day needs is a "patron saint," and that may help, but I think targeting our creativity is the answer.

Most of the best April Fool's Day events have been imaginative hoaxes. "Fooling" others in a light-hearted way is the soul of April 1.

To really work, the hoax needs to be fairly widespread, not mean-spirited, and the hoaxer must let everyone know it's a hoax relatively quickly. The prank should also be the type of thing that lets the people taken in by the hoax laugh at themselves for being so gullible. It needs to spark a response without starting a fire.

April Fool's Day 2006 is over, but a good hoax takes considerable thought, so you'd better start planning your 2007 prank now.