The Kobayashi Maru

Saavik: "Sir, may I ask you a question?"

Kirk: "What's on your mind, Lieutenant?"

Saavik: "The Kobayashi Maru, sir."

Kirk: "Are you asking me if we're playing out that scenario now?"

Saavik: "On the test, sir. Will you tell me what you did? I would really like to know."

Kirk: "I reprogrammed the simulation so it was possible to rescue the ship."

Saavik: "What?"

David: "He cheated."

Kirk: "I changed the conditions of the test ..."

From Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

Q. Are you saying you want him dead or alive, sir? Can I interpret --

THE PRESIDENT: I just remember, all I'm doing is remembering when I was a kid I remember that they used to put out there in the old west, a wanted poster. It said: "Wanted, Dead or Alive." All I want and America wants him brought to justice. That's what we want.

President Bush, September 17, 2001. Meanwhile, today in Iraq:

General Peter Pace, vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at U.S. military headquarters just north of Kabul on Friday that the 11,500-strong U.S.-led force hunting al Qaeda and Taliban militants was not focusing on individuals.

"He (bin Laden) has taken himself out of the picture," Pace told reporters after visiting U.S. troops serving in Afghanistan.

"It is not an individual that is as important as is the ongoing campaign of the coalition against terrorists," he said.

That Massachusetts Decision

There will be a lot of discussion about the decision (you know, this one). As it is discussed, whether in terms of politics, morality, religious faith or economics, it would be a good thing to keep in mind the following, from Justice Greaney's concurrence:

I am hopeful that our decision will be accepted by those thoughtful citizens who believe that same-sex unions should not be approved by the State. I am not referring here to acceptance in the sense of grudging acknowledgment of the court's authority to adjudicate the matter. My hope is more liberating. The plaintiffs are members of our community, our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends. As pointed out by the court, their professions include investment advisor, computer engineer, teacher, therapist, and lawyer. The plaintiffs volunteer in our schools, worship beside us in our religious houses, and have children who play with our children, to mention just a few ordinary daily contacts. We share a common humanity and participate together in the social contract that is the foundation of our Commonwealth. Simple principles of decency dictate that we extend to the plaintiffs, and to their new status, full acceptance, tolerance, and respect. We should do so because it is the right thing to do.

Reasonable people will differ, but in doing so will have to confront the simple truth that this issue does not affect strangers, but "members of our community, our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends".

Just Another Roll of the Dice

It's ba-ack …

Remember the Terrorism Futures Market? Sorry, the "Policy Analysis Market" ("PAM"). That's the one which, as described by CNN, would "allow traders to buy and sell contracts on political and economic events in the Middle East, including assassinations, the overthrow of regimes and terrorist attacks. " As Government Computer News noted, "The market, which is intended to be an analysis tool to track and predict events in the Middle East, was developed for DARPA by Net Exchange of San Diego. The storm of congressional and public protest when the program was revealed resulted in its being shut down within 24 hours " It's now been reconstituted as a purely private venture. So, no problem, right?

Well, wrong, IMHO.

The "Policy Analysis Market" is based on the theory that this mechanism would develop better "guesses" as to likely terrorist activities. "It originally was developed and funded with the assistance of the Defense Department, where officials cited the uncanny ability of other futures markets to predict election results, weather patterns and other complex events." Let me suggest that you don't need any background in statistics or other mathematics to spot the flaw in this theory. Prediction is basically an attempt to discern patterns within a system, or to put it another way, to "model" that system. An electorate or the weather are two examples of systems which can be modeled, with the hope of finding such patterns. The financial markets are another example of such a system.

The key concept, though, is that these are "systems". As such, it is possible for some action to take place within the system, and have an effect. With weather, well, we can try but we can't do much about what will happen; it's classic "chaos theory", with uncountable inputs making up the system. Elections may be more easily manipulated, but in the larger picture it would take a concerted effort to overcome all of the other inputs in the system.

What about terror? Well, first off, it is a system with fewer inputs than the weather or a national election. Suppose one of the intrepid prognosticators does see a pattern developing, such that there is a possibility of a terrorist action? Although in weather there is nothing that can be done, and in an election there is little (if anything) which can be done with any certainty, this is not the case with the PAM. The whole idea is to find a way to determine where a terrorist activity will take place, and prevent it. Thus, action is taken, based on the modeling, and such action then, itself, becomes an input into that modeling.

To put it another way, if PAM is showing that a particular event is becoming possible, then action will presumably be taken to prevent that event. The fact of such action may, itself, influence the potential events which might be imminent. So, where does that leave us? "The observer becomes part of the observed system." It is an inexact analogy, but this is the same dynamic encapsulated in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: The outcome of an experiment depends on the view of the observer. The observer has an effect on the actions of the observed.

Or, to put it another way, unlike the weather or elections, the developers of PAM want to predict actions in a system on which they, themselves have a major effect. Would you take that bet? Another way to say this is, PAM may provide a false sense of security, not because anybody will bet on his own terrorist actions (and clean up), but because the purpose of PAM is to change the inputs, in the very areas it is trying to develop predictions. That may make PAM more like Laplace's Demon, a very theoretical creature. But, that also means that maybe we can't know what is going to happen.

The Worst Sort of Conversation

There are some signs that political discourse is going to take an even nastier turn in the next year. As an example:

Ted Rall wrote this piece, in the "voice" of an Iraqi attacking Americans, but really as a critique of how the Administration has approached and conducted the war. It's pretty close to the line in terms of taste, but it raises an important issue: Perception is a big deal, if the people decide to attack and kill our people based on how they view us.

Naturally, there are some people who will use this as a chance to "A Ha!". For example, James Lileks:

I suppose it's intended to help us understand the mindset of the enemy. Eh. The French have a saying: his head, it is filled with urine. Or they should have such a saying; I'm sure it would sound elegant and dismissive. These people aren't the loyal opposition anymore; they're just the opposition. They may say they love America, but they love some idealized nonexistent America that can never exist as long as there's individuality and free will. They're like people who say they love women and beat their wife because she doesn't look like the Playboy centerfold. I'm sick of the lot of them. As for Rall, who cares about him? He'll get his reward: the great yawning indifference of history. If people barely remember Kelly and Capp nowadays, what are the chances that they'll remember someone who appeared to draw with his thumb?

I wonder if Gnat knows he uses that kind of language? A different perspective comes from a lesser-known individual, whose weblog was pointed out by Bill Cork on Ut Unum Sint. Jason Van Steenwyk, on IraqNow, describes himself as a U.S. Army Officer corresponding from Iraq. He wrote an entry on the same Rall piece, in which he noted:

Ok, Rall's got a tin ear. Especially publishing something like that on Veteran's Day. He's a big boy. He's got no right to complain.

But, folks, there's also this thing called "irony." The classic, literary theory definition of "irony" is not quite the same as the sense in which the word has come into common usage. The literary theory definition of irony is this: irony is a construction whereby the ostensible meaning of the text is the opposite of the point the author wishes to convey.

(See, I knew that useless degree in literature would come in handy someday.)

Now, in this case, it can't be said that Rall wants to convey is the opposite of the meaning of the surface text. But the same is true of Jonathan Swift's classic of literary irony, A Modest Proposal.

I don't think Andrew Sullivan or any of the rest of the conservative pack of blogs currently chewing on Rall would suggest that Swift was a bowler-hat-wearing, crown-worshipping, Leprechaun-molesting, Ireland-hating Prod because he penned an essay proposing the killing and eating of Irish children.

So why is it necessary that Ted Rall must be a sniveling, terrorist-sympathizing America-hater because he pens his own essay encouraging the killing of American soldiers in Iraq?

I guess I liked that take on it, because I had also thought of Swift's Modest Proposal when I read some of the fulminating about Rall's piece. But, the above said it better than I could.

This is only one skirmish in what may be a longer, nastier dispute. As Jonathan Swift also wrote: Argument, as usually managed, is the worst sort of conversation, as in books it is generally the worst sort of reading.

Hail, Freedonia!

I'd be unworthy of the high trust that's been placed in me if I didn't do everything in my power to keep our beloved Freedonia in peace with the world. I'd be only too happy to meet with Ambassador Trentino, and offer him on behalf of my country the right hand of good fellowship. And I feel sure he will accept this gesture in the spirit of which it is offered. But suppose he doesn't. A fine thing that'll be. I hold out my hand and he refuses to accept. That'll add a lot to my prestige, won't it? Me, the head of a country, snubbed by a foreign ambassador. Who does he think he is, that he can come here, and make a sap of me in front of all my people? Think of it - I hold out my hand and that hyena refuses to accept. Why, the cheap ball-pushing swine, he'll never get away with it I tell you, he'll never get away with it!

President Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho Marx), in Duck Soup

And so the war began …

Recently, we heard something very similar from Richard Perle, concerning the reported peace overtures from Iraq:

Perle told ABC television's ''This Week With George Stephanopoulos'' that the offer by former chief of intelligence, Gen. Tahir Habbush made through Imad Hage, a prominent Lebanese-American businessman, was one of many approaches for a last-minute peace deal.

''There were a number of governments that were trying to broker something with the Iraqis,'' Perle said. ''So this was not credible, this offline approach, indirect as it was.''

The Bush administration has been accused by Democrats of being overeager to go to war with Iraq, ignoring possible diplomatic avenues to peace including that conveyed through Perle and exaggerating the threat from Iraq.

...

Perle said it also included oil concessions and he thought it was part of an effort to use that offer to discredit U.S. intentions. ''This was a trap,'' Perle said. ''I think it was clearly a trap. It was intended to discredit the administration's policy, it was intended to discredit our effort to liberate Iraq.''

"A fine thing that would have been", to paraphrase President Firefly.

These meetings and other communications all took place just days before the start of military operations on March 19, 2003. According to the news stories confirmed by Mr. Perle, a Lebanese-American businessman, Imad Hage, met with Richard Perle. The meetings had been set up through Michael Maloof, who was working in the Pentagon as an analyst in an intelligence unit set up to look for ties between terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and countries like Iraq. Hage, in turn, had met in Beirut with Hassan al-Obeidi, chief of foreign operations of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, and later in Baghdad with Tahir Jalil Habbush, the director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (and No. 16 on the United States list of most wanted Iraqi leaders). The key part of the story, and of the chronology, is this:

Working through Mr. Maloof, Mr. Hage finally arranged to meet with Mr. Perle in London in early March. The two met in an office in Knightsbridge for about two hours to discuss the Iraqi proposals, the men said. Mr. Hage told Mr. Perle that the Iraqis wanted to meet with him or someone from the administration.

Mr. Perle said he subsequently contacted a C.I.A. official to ask if he should meet with the Iraqis. "The answer came back that they weren't interested in pursuing it," Mr. Perle said in an interview, "and I was given the impression that there had already been contacts."

Mr. Perle now plays down the importance of his contact with Mr. Hage. He said he found it difficult to believe that Saddam Hussein would make serious proposals through that kind of channel. "There were so many other ways to communicate," he said. "There were any number of governments involved in the end game, the Russians, French, Saudis."

Nonetheless, Mr. Hage continued to deliver messages from the Iraqis to Mr. Maloof.

In one note to Mr. Perle in mid-March, Mr. Maloof relayed a message from Mr. Hage that Mr. Obeidi and Mr. Habbush "were prepared to meet with you in Beirut, and as soon as possible, concerning `unconditional terms.' " The message from Mr. Hage said, "Such a meeting has Saddam Hussein's clearance."

No meetings took place, and the invasion began on March 20. Mr. Hage, speaking in Beirut, wonders what might have happened if the Americans had pursued the back channel to Baghdad.

What's especially bizarre about this story is the fact that, at exactly the same time, the Administration was making a great show of giving the Iraq regime a "last chance", a "get out of Dodge City now" type of warning. The President spoke on March 17, 2003, saying:

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.
In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals -- including journalists and inspectors -- should leave Iraq immediately.

So, the President told Iraq they had one last chance. A Presidential advisor, Mr. Perle, has indicated that he had communications from Iraq with an offer to avoid the war. But, that was "a trap". As President Firefly would say: "Who does he think he is, that he can come here, and make a sap of me in front of all my people?"

Education Pundit

Anybody who's tried blogging has looked at Instapundit, either to "emulate the master" or to find topics to torque one off. Being in the latter category, this item just seemed to jump out. Specifically, it was Professor Reynolds' pithy entry today: THE GOOSE CREEK INCIDENT -- a commercial for homeschooling and vouchers? The referenced story is one you may have read, concerning a school in South Carolina where a drug bust was attempted. The police came in, searching for drugs. There were videos of the police with guns drawn, and students on the floor while searches were being conducted:

Graham Boyd of the American Civil Liberties Union says police officers should never have come into the school with guns drawn. Instead, the students suspected of having drugs should have been brought to the principal's office to have their bags checked.

The school's principal says the raid sends a clear message to the students that those who bring drugs to school could wind up in jail. Principal George McCrackin stands behind the decision, "The high school has always had a reputation for being a safe, clean school. And I'll utilize whatever forces I deem necessary to keep this campus safe and clean."

McCrackin says several students were cuffed when they refused to get on the floor, "I don't think it was an overreaction on our part. I'm sure it was an inconvenience to those individuals who were in the hallway, but there is a valuable experience there."

School officials say there have been at least four cases of students bringing drugs to school. Officers also say they're sure drugs and a large amount of cash was floating around the school. Police say the school alerted them to suspicious behavior observed on surveillance cameras. Officers looked at tapes and watched live surveillance before they decided there was enough cause to enter the campus.

Obviously, not something which should have happened. The people involved should be held responsible, nobody could argue with that. Even the state is investigating the use of force.

Nevertheless, Professor Reynolds writes today that it's an advertisement for vouchers and home schooling:

Sadly, this sort of behavior is far from uncommon in government-run schools. But more and more parents are looking at private schools, vouchers, charter schools, and home schooling as alternatives. To a lot who haven’t made up their minds, I think that Principal McCrackin’s behavior may provide an incentive to move their kids out of public schools that are looking increasingly like prisons, and into more congenial environments.

One has to ask: Where the heck did that come from? It's a bit of a leap of logic to extrapolate that thought from the incident described. It seems to be the type of argument that would be made by someone who starts with the proposition that there is something "wrong" with the concept of a public school serving the community (which is just another way of saying "government-run", isn't it?). If the Professor believes that private schools are immune from the type of drug traffickers who were sought in he school in South Carolina, that's another leap of logic.

One could just as easily point to an extreme example, such as the recent case of adoptive parents starving their children in Collingswood, New Jersey:

In downtown Collingswood yesterday, Mayor Jim Maley said he has had conversations with school district officials making tentative plans to revamp the district's home-schooling policy.
The Jackson's sons were home-schooled, Maley said, which required little contact between the school system and the family.

Given that single incident, what sort of grade would the Professor give a student who declared: " Sadly, this sort of behavior is far from uncommon among the home-schooled. To a lot who haven’t made up their minds, I think that the Jackson’s behavior may provide an incentive to move their kids out of home-schools that are looking increasingly like prisons, and into more congenial environments." That's a ridiculous argument. But, it is the exact same type of argument as the first example.

Maybe it is the case that people with a preconceived notion, will happily spin any incident as providing an example reinforcing their worldview.

Indeed.

(Update on 11/11: The Professor had a follow-up today on this, noting that "there was hardly anyone who was prepared to defend the tactics involved there, though the lessons that people took from the event varied." Maybe other people couldn't figure out how he drew his conclusions, although it doesn't seem that the Professor often revisits his targets in this manner.)

Politicizing a War

There's a lot of fuming going on this week about a memo from somewhere within the Democratic side of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The memo was excerpted on "NewsMax" (at this link), which describes it as follows: :

A memo circulated among Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence shows the committee's minority plotting to use classified information against the White House in next year's presidential campaign.

The excerpt from the memo concludes as follows:

"SUMMARY: Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war.
"The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives."

The reactions to this will run the gamut, from those who view this as unpatriotic attacks on the Commander-in-Chief during wartime, to those who would like to see the loyal opposition do a lot more digging to find out how we got into this situation.

Hopefully, though, we can at least agree that issues of war and peace should not be used for partisan political advantage. For example, last year when the President wanted authority to go to war:

Democrats waiting for the U.N. to act? I can't imagine an elected United States -- elected member of the United States Senate or House of Representatives saying, I think I'm going to wait for the United Nations to make a decision. It seems like to me that if you're representing the United States, you ought to be making a decision on what's best for the United States. If I were running for office, I'm not sure how I'd explain to the American people -- say, vote for me, and, oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I think I'm going to wait for somebody else to act.
And so I -- we'll see. My answer to the Congress is, they need to debate this issue and consult with us, and get the issue done as quickly as possible. It's in our national interests that we do so. I don't imagine Saddam Hussein sitting around, saying, gosh, I think I'm going to wait for some resolution. He's a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible.

I don't think that memo can hold a candle to statements like that.

Peace Stuff

You may be, or may know someone who is, a person who always thought that there had to be a better course of action than a full-blown invasion of Iraq. Therefore, you may or may not be interested in how this story develops:

As American soldiers massed on the Iraqi border in March and diplomats argued about war, an influential adviser to the Pentagon received a secret message from a Lebanese-American businessman: Saddam Hussein wanted to make a deal.

Iraqi officials, including the chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, had told the businessman that they wanted Washington to know that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction, and they offered to allow American troops and experts to conduct an independent search. The businessman said in an interview that the Iraqis also offered to hand over a man accused of being involved in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 who was being held in Baghdad. At one point, he said, the Iraqis pledged to hold elections.

The mention of the "man accused of being involved in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 who was being held in Baghdad", may refer to this guy, whom we have previously discussed as being the most famous suspect "in plain sight" in Baghdad.

The whole story may or may not be true. But, somewhere in all of the distortions and obvious rush to war, is it so outrageous to think that there could have been another way?

The Compassionate One

Driving home this evening, I heard the President's remarks in California, when asked about the recent, tragic loss of life in Iraq:

Q: Mr. President, as you know, Sunday was the deadliest day in Iraq since the end of major combat. What was your reaction to the downing of the Chinook and the 16 soldiers who were killed on board? And, also, should Americans be prepared for more such deadly days ahead?

THE PRESIDENT: I am saddened any time that there's a loss of life. I'm saddened, because I know a family hurts. And there's a deep pain in somebody's heart. But I do want to remind the loved ones that their sons and daughters -- or the sons, in this case -- died for a cause greater than themselves, and a noble -- and a noble cause, which is the security of the United States. A free and secure Iraq is in our national security interests. We are at war.

There is a reason I highlighted the phrase, "But I do want to remind the loved ones that their sons and daughters -- or the sons, in this case". That is because both men and women died in that attack on Sunday. That is a fact which anyone who read the news this morning would have known. That is a fact which greeted me in my morning paper, sitting with my cup of coffee after I walked back from voting this morning. That is a fact which, I would think, the President could have at his fingertips if he wanted to.

But, our President has admitted that it's not important to him to follow the news.

It's not important to him to actually find out what's going on in the world, if his advisors don't want to tell him about something.

It's not important to him to know anything at all about the people who die every day fighting this war.

So, even though he was speaking in California, the home state of one of our female soldiers who perished on Sunday in a terrible attack, our President didn't even care enough to know that, and he essentially denied she ever existed.

And in related news, the government is now taking steps to fully staff the draft boards.

(Update on 11/11: The web page mentioned just above is now gone. It had been a notice inviting applications to serve on local draft boards. Does its absence mean the boards are now fully staffed, or just that a decision was made that the whole "re-start the draft" planning was getting too public?)

(Newer Update on 11/11: The always-reliable Memory Hole has the old version of that web page here.)

What a Rush ...

As Paul Krugman notes in his column for Friday:

Stimulating the economy in the short run is supposed to be easy, as long as you don't worry about how much debt you run up in the process. As William Gale of the Brookings Institution puts it, "Almost any tax cut or spending increase would succeed in boosting a sluggish economy if the Federal Reserve Board follows an accommodative monetary policy. . . . The key question is, therefore, not whether the proposals provide any short-term stimulus, but whether they are the most effective way to provide stimulus." Mr. Gale doesn't think the Bush tax cuts meet that criterion, and neither do I.

In short, it's the "Oxycontin" recovery.

No, really, think about it. When used properly, Oxycontin is a time-release remedy which relieves pain in the long term. Sort of like a balanced budget in which we meet our current needs, while at the same time we realistically pay our own way. But this remedy can be abused. Crush a few of them up, end-around the time release aspect, and one can feel really really, like, good after a hit. Of course, at the time you may not consider what will happen with the inevitable crash.

So I'm the Cat in the Hat ...

... or at least that's what this quiz tells me (thanks to Sursum Corda for the link):


Which Dr. Seuss character are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

"The Blood Cost of the War"

There is a reason some people say war should be the last, and not the first choice. There is a reason some people say that all other options should be explored, before turning to war as a last resort. There is a reason some people say that Just War Principles should be followed, including the use of force "only after all peaceful alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted" and that "efforts must be made to attain military objectives with no more force than is militarily necessary and to avoid disproportionate collateral damage to civilian life and property".

In a report recently issued by the Project on Defense Alternatives, "The Wages of War: Iraqi Combatant and Noncombatant Fatalities in the 2003 Conflict", it is currently estimated that "between 10,800 and 15,100 Iraqis were killed in the war. Of these, between 3,200 and 4,300 were noncombatants -- that is: civilians who did not take up arms." For those who may be untroubled by the thought of thousands of casualties, the report provides a conclusion which could touch the heart of any proponent of "preemptive war":

Among the costs that must be taken into account when assessing the Iraq war is the probable death of approximately 11,000 to 15,000 Iraqis, including approximately 3,200 to 4,300 civilian noncombatants. These costs weigh on the relationship between the United States and other nations -- especially those in the region -- and they affect the postwar challenge that the United States faces in Iraq. The blood cost of the war influences international public opinion regarding the United States -- especially opinion in the Arab and Muslim worlds -- which presently hovers at a 25-year nadir. And this pertains to America's efforts to stem extremism and build cooperation in fighting terrorism.

"His Lips Are Moving"

Just feeling a little ornery this morning, from things like this:

President Bush, yesterday at his press conference:

The "Mission Accomplished" sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished. I know it was attributed some how to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way.

According to Army Times:

Navy officials and the White House yesterday said that while the crew of the Lincoln came up with the banner’s message, the White House printed it.

“The Navy asked for help in the production of the banner for the president’s visit. So we helped,” said White House spokesman Allen Abney.

The crew felt the banner reflected their recent operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq, according to Navy officials and the White House.

The Navy’s spokesman, Rear Adm. T McCreary, said, “The White House communications office did print it at the ship’s request.”

The White House communications office, well known for the care it takes with the backdrops at Bush speeches, created the “Mission Accomplished” banner in the same style as banners the president uses in other appearances, including one just a week before the carrier appearance in Canton, Ohio. That banner, with the same soft, brush-stroked American flag in the background and the identical typeface, read: “Jobs and Growth.”

The link has a nice picture comparison, showing how the "Mission Accomplished" banner had the same background design as other White House event banners.

In light of the fact that the trust of the American people, not to mention of allies around the world, is sorely needed in order to get us out of this mess, making stuff up has to stop.

Thank you.

[Edited to add the following]

I read this Oliver Willis piece on this subject after I entitled this entry. Honest!

[Edited to also add the following]
Steve Gilliard noted something about this late yesterday, which is an interesting insight:

I just wanted to say how this is a typical alcoholic's lie. Instead of accepting responsibility, he shifts blame to the crew of the Lincoln, who have previously shown no evidence of using mylar banners to celebrate other events. ... Of course, since this is a specialized kind of printing, one not commonly needed on a carrier, and one the president uses frequently, well, it's obvious that the story is a lie.

But why lie? Because he's a dry drunk and he lies about anything when pressed. His life is a series of lies. He cannot accept responsibility for anything. Any problem is someone else's fault. Never his. So instead of accepting that he did something which didn't work, he'll blame the innocent and expect them to remain silent.

What's the real reason? I don't know, but this is starting to get disturbing.

Fun With The Bush Blog

A few weeks ago I mentioned how the new Bush Campaign Blog was certain to provide lots of material for comments. Well, in addition to the essays, they also have this "just regular folks" feature inviting people to send in their answers to the question: "Why Do You Support President Bush?" Today's installment features one Todd Goberville of Parkland, Florida, who e-mailed his comments:

I support President Bush because, as working parents of two young girls, we must not only be great role models for our kids, but we must also save for their futures. President Bush's Child Credits have allowed us to put an extra $800.00 to their college funds and he is a President who our girls can look up to and say, "someday, I want to be just like him!" Thanks for being a great leader and role model during the most difficult time in our nation's history President Bush!

His message, accompanied by his picture, can be viewed here. Mr. Goberville doesn't identify himself any further, but through the magic of Google we find him (with the same picture) as President of the Broward County Young Republicans on their website. We can also find a picture of him gettin' down on the dance floor (scroll to bottom of page) at the 2003 Florida Young Republican Convention.

So, nice spontaneous support there on the Bush Blog.

Scalia vs. Scalia

In the news this morning, a story about Justice Antonin Scalia "mocking" the Supreme Court's majority decision in Lawrence vs. Texas, which struck down a Texas law criminalizing certain sexual activity if engaged in by homosexuals. The decision was based upon the recognized constitutional right to privacy. The Court found with respect to that law:

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.

Although he dissented, Justice Thomas wrote concerning this law: "I write separately to note that the law before the Court today 'is ... uncommonly silly.' ... If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources."

Justice Scalia, of course, had a different view. Interestingly enough, he expresses that different view in different ways, depending on where he is. Among his colleagues, in his dissenting opinion, he took exception to extending the right of privacy in the case, noting:

Though there is discussion of "fundamental proposition[s]," (ante, at 4) and "fundamental decisions," (ibid.) nowhere does the Court's opinion declare that homosexual sodomy is a "fundamental right" under the Due Process Clause; nor does it subject the Texas law to the standard of review that would be appropriate (strict scrutiny) if homosexual sodomy were a "fundamental right."
…

Not once does it describe homosexual sodomy as a "fundamental right" or a "fundamental liberty interest," nor does it subject the Texas statute to strict scrutiny. Instead, having failed to establish that the right to homosexual sodomy is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," the Court concludes that the application of Texas's statute to petitioners' conduct fails the rational-basis test …

In contrast, in his speech before a conservative group:

The ruling, Scalia said, "held to be a constitutional right what had been a criminal offense at the time of the founding and for nearly 200 years thereafter."

Scalia adopted a mocking tone to read from the court's June ruling that struck down state antisodomy laws in Texas and elsewhere.

As mentioned above, the majority found that the Texas law violated a recognized constitutional right, namely, the right to privacy. Justice Scalia knows full well that is what the court did. Nevertheless, in front of a political group, he claimed that the Court had declared "a constitutional right to sodomy". That's a distortion of the basis of the court's ruling (as the Justice knows, since as quoted above he wrote "Not once does [the majority] describe homosexual sodomy as a 'fundamental right' "). The language chosen by Justice Scalia was clearly intended to "stir up the troops", using some tried-and-true (albeit inaccurate) "culture war" language. The Justice basically gave a political speech, and cloaked it in a veneer of legal argument.

The General and the Book

There are other commentaries on this particular news story, so I'll keep mine brief.

From CBN News, Oct. 17:

Referring to a battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia, [General] Boykin told another audience, "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."

From the Koran, Sura 39, verses 17-18:

And (as for) those who keep off from the worship of the idols and turn to Allah, they shall have good news, therefore give good news to My servants,

Those who listen to the word, then follow the best of it; those are they whom Allah has guided, and those it is who are the men of understanding.

That is all.

Today's Quick Quiz

Mel Gibson, the man behind the upcoming film, The Passion, has built his own church in Malibu (one unconnected to the local diocese). Mel's church caters to those who reject the legitimacy of the current Catholic hierarchy, from the Pope on down. As noted by a canon lawyer, in a brief piece But is Mel Gibson Catholic?: "So, according to Church law, it’s schismatic, not a Catholic church at all."

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has issued a statement in honor of the 25th Anniversary of the papacy of John Paul II:

Jews throughout the world are deeply grateful to the Pope. He has defended the Jewish people at all times, as a priest in his native Poland and during his pontificate. John Paul has denounced anti-Semitism as a "sin against God and humanity," called upon all Christians to avoid any anti-Jewish interpretation of scriptures, and recommended caution in preaching and teaching.
...

We pray that he remains healthy for many years to come, that he achieves much success in his holy work and that Catholic-Jewish relations continue to flourish.

Now, whose side is the "Catholic League" on? (No fair peeking at the answer).

"In the Streets of Our Own Cities"

This is related to the entry just below. In addition to the revisionist views of why we went to war, another popular theme is that the war was brought to Iraq, so that it would not be brought home to us in America. As the President said in a recent radio address: "[W]e are fighting terrorists in Iraq so that we will not have to face them and fight them in the streets of our own cities. " When will someone say to the President, and anybody else who makes that argument, that their claim is just not right? The war is in the streets of our own cities, at least in the places which have sent sons and daughters to serve in the military. Just last week, I read of a soldier from a town adjacent to mine. An African-American husband and father, a son and a grandson. As described in the local paper (link):

Army Spec. Simeon Hunte, five months in Iraq, was wearing down. Friends had been injured and killed in guerrilla attacks, he wrote. The country's withering heat sapped energy and morale. Most importantly, the letter said, he missed his wife and daughter and the newborn son, Simeon Jr., he hadn't yet seen.
"He was getting depressed," Shirley Vigilance, Hunte's grandmother, said yesterday. "He said he didn't know how much more he could take. He wanted to come home so badly.
"And now he's coming home in a body bag."
...

Shirley and Andrew Vigilance said their grandson grew up on South 14th Street in Newark, graduated from public high school and attended Montclair State University, though he did not graduate.

He joined the army in 2001, hopeful the service could help him earn enough financial assistance to fund his ultimate goal.

"Since he was this high," Shirley Vigilance said, holding her hand at her waist, "he always wanted to be a doctor. He said it didn't matter how many years it took him."

On South 14th Street, neighbors recalled Hunte as an intelligent, polite teen, one of three siblings. Hunte has an older sister and an 11-year-old brother, Danny ...

So, when someone says that we are fighting there, to keep the war away from here, tell them that the war is here. It is here for each and every family with a loved one put in harm's way. It is here for each and every person with a friend, a colleague, or a neighbor now assigned to duty in Iraq. The war is most assuredly here for the grandparents, parents, and spouses who have to bury someone such as Specialist Simeon Hunte, who just wanted to make a better life for himself.

"Truth Will Out"

You've been hearing a new, revisionist spin on the reasons for war. "The President never said there was an imminent threat", is basically how it goes. The corollary is that anybody who now points out the lack of WMD is accused of disregarding the real reason we went to war. Basically, it's an interesting approach to shifting the burden on to the critics of the war. However, it is based entirely on finely parsing all of the President's statements, to interpret them to mean something very different from the clear intent, at the time they were uttered.

This is what the President said, in an address to the nation, on March 17, 2003:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

"The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

"The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."

Later on in the speech, he said the following:

"Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq."

This was the vote which was sold, at the time, as a vote which would not lead to "imminent" war. The President added as follows:

"Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed."

And, finally:

"We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities. "

All of this was in the President's speech describing the need for Hussein to get out immediately.

But today, we're told that nobody claimed there was an "imminent" threat. Well, I guess if you want to argue the meaning of each and every word, and show that they could be read to indicate a less-than-imminent threat, that's possible. But, at the time, and given the context and the clear intent, it is deceptive to claim that the American people were not told that war, immediate war, was the only way to safeguard our country. This would all be amusing, if it wasn't for the fact that these people are trying to deceive us about how they led the country into a war, a war that had to be initiated immediately, without any recourse to other options or approaches ("Up yours, France"; "Get lost, Pope").

I would say that it's like arguing over what the meaning of "is" is, but back in the Clinton years that was an argument about sex. This is one about death. So this is serious, and the folks who are trying fool people about what they did last spring should be ashamed of themselves.

I think Mr. Springsteen has said it best, during his concerts this past summer:

"The question of whether we were misled in the war with Iraq is neither a liberal or conservative question or Democratic or Republican question. It's an American question. And protecting the democracy we ask our sons and daughters to die for is our responsibility and it's our trust. And demanding accountability is our job as citizens. That's the American way so that truth will out."

The Lord Works in Mysterious Ways (Nobel Department)

This morning we are reading about the winner of this year's Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded to Iranian activist Shirin Ebadi "for her efforts for democracy and human rights". As described by the Nobel Committee: "Her principal arena is the struggle for basic human rights, and no society deserves to be labelled civilized unless the rights of women and children are respected." However, what really stands out about her, and what makes her an inspired choice, is the following:

"Ebadi is a conscious Moslem. She sees no conflict between Islam and fundamental human rights. It is important to her that the dialogue between the different cultures and religions of the world should take as its point of departure their shared values. It is a pleasure for the Norwegian Nobel Committee to award the Peace Prize to a woman who is part of the Moslem world, and of whom that world can be proud - along with all who fight for human rights wherever they live. "

With all of the fear and mistrust in the world today, not just in the Middle East but within our own country, someone such as Ms. Ebadi can be an inspiration to we in the (predominantly Christian) west, as well as in the Arab world.

For some reason, there are news reports of "disappointment" among Catholics that Pope John Paul II was not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize this year. For example, a Reuters article states: "Supporters felt that this should have been his year because he marks his 25th anniversary next week, he was instrumental in the fall of communism in 1989, opposed the Iraq war and recently his health has appeared to go into steep decline. The pope was runaway favourite to win the award before the announcement on Friday, according to Australian bookmaker Centrebet." (Side note: There's something about gambling and Catholics that always goes together in the minds of some people.) As a Catholic, I don't see why using the Peace Prize to honor the Pope for past accomplishments is essential, when there is so much work yet to be done. I should think that the Pope would prefer to see the Nobel Peace Prize help to advance understanding and peace among different peoples and faiths of the world.

The oddsmakers may have been limited by their own self-centeredness, because Ms. Ebadi is hardly an unknown in the human rights community, especially in Norway, where the prize is awarded. She previously won the 2001 Rafto Human Rights Prize in Norway. She has participated in symposia there, such as a Conference in 2000 in Norway on Gender, Religion and Change in the Middle East. In the abstract from that conference, she shows all of us that the image we may have of Islam, of being inherently backwards and hostile to our ideals of human rights, is due not to theology but to non-religious tradition:

"Traditionally, Arabs were nomadic tribal people who roamed the deserts as herders or traders. In this harsh environment, patriarchal and paternal family system dominated all human and social relationships in which the role of women was believed to be subservient to men. Their primary role was to serve men and to give birth to children, especially boys, who would the lineage and strength of the family and tribe. At this time, it was a shame to give birth to a daughter, and some even went far as to kill their daughters when they were born. These cultural belief and practice were challenged with the arrival of Prophet Muhammad and the adoption of Islam. He told his people to stop these unjust practices and to respect women. He had one only one daughter, and he would show his affection by publicly kissing her hand. He would say that only people who are ignorant would dishonor women. Islam was thus a liberating force, especially for women in the Middle East. After Muhammad’s death, Islam went through significant transformations largely dependent upon the local culture. The current Islamic laws are diverse all the way from Indonesia, to Saudi Arabia, to Pakistan, and to Iran. Although the basic tenets of Islam are laid out in the holy book of Koran, Islam prescribed that these laws should be interpreted and implemented according to each culture and they should be flexible to changing times. Koran ordered Muslim men to treat their wives according to their own customs. Thus, Islam is not a rigid, authoritarian and chauvinistic religion as have been depicted in the West."

That was the message Ms. Ebadi was trying to get out, even before September 11. She was doing so in order to help her own people, but I think that if we hear it, we will be helping ourselves. If we can understand that Islam is not congenitally against us, but instead (in her words), "Islam itself challenges these discriminatory beliefs and practices and provides the necessary philosophical and ethical basis for treating women with dignity and equality", we can help ourselves to work towards peace.

So that sounds like a good use of a Peace Prize.

Chaplain Yee Update

Back on 9/22, I had noted the story of the detaining of the Muslim Chaplain at Guantanamo. I felt that it was too easy to jump to conclusions. Apparently, the military is backing off the initial allegations:

NO SPY CHARGES FOR CHAPLAIN - A Muslim chaplain being held and investigated for possibly spying at the Guantanamo detainee camp will face only minor charges, a newspaper said Thursday.

The "handful" of minor charges against Capt. Yousef Yee could be leveled by next week and are not expected to include more serious allegations such as spying, sedition or aiding the enemy, sources told the New York Daily News.

The full story is at this link. As I had also noted, the usual suspects were leading the charge (raising all sorts of suspicions because he had studied in Syria, for example) to read more into the original reports. I hope that they are as quick to note this new information.

My Only Comment on What California Voters Could Possibly Have Been Thinking

"Of all the would-be fathers who came and went over the years, this thing, this machine, was the only one who measured up. In an insane world, it was the sanest choice."

Don't Believe Everything You Read on the Web

Sorry, I can't help myself. This promises to provide lots of material:

The Bush-Cheney Blog.

One True Thing

There has been a lot of backtracking, re-hashing, and re-defining of positions about the war in Iraq. Just this evening, I was treated to Brit Hume on Fox, explaining that President Bush never claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat. But also this evening, I got the chance to read today's letters in the New York Times. One Ilya Shlyakhter of Cambridge, Massachusetts, encapsulated the issues better than anyone I have read so far:

"President Bush is right that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, the failure to find weapons of mass destruction notwithstanding.

"But without pre-emptive strikes based on flawed intelligence, it would be an even better place."

"Culture War Profiteers"

That's my working title for an idea that came to me while driving home from work. Sometimes, I do something which my spouse would never let me do if we were together - I listen to right-wing radio. Anyway, Mr. Hannity had David Limbaugh on, who apparently is the brother of the radio entertainer named Limbaugh. David Limbaugh has a new book about the war that liberals are raging against Christianity.

I know, I should have put that last phrase in quotes.

So later in the evening, after I pick my son up from Youth Symphony practice, I flop onto the couch and turn the television on. Since I was alone in the room, I (yes, you guessed it) turned to the right-wing news channel. There was Mr. Hannity (with his sidekick, Mr. Colmes) speaking with the same David Limbaugh, who was repeating his charges.

God bless him, but Mr. Colmes actually turned to Mr. D. Limbaugh and asked, "So are you saying that there are no liberal christians?" Mr. D. Limbaugh fumbled around, denying that he would say such a thing, then he implied that liberals who claim they are christian might be deceiving themselves.

Okay, so leaving aside the issues of the death penalty, aid to the poor, the wisdom of pre-emptive war and tolerance of others' religious beliefs (on which some Christians might find themselves on the wrong side of D. Limbaugh's line), I realized that the whole book is, well, a crock. Mr. Limbaugh has apparently collected a bunch of anecdotes about times when some people have believed that "anti-Christian" actions were taking place. Sure, there are some people who act poorly when faced with a situation involving religion - but to translate that into a general "Liberals hate Christians" mantra is a little much. That's not to mention the examples which are, frankly, exaggerated. I know for a fact that one of the examples touted tonight is a distortion of the actual facts (since it involves my own community).

But, more on that another time. I just felt the need to write down my realization that this is a classic example of someone who wants to promote the idea of a "culture war", so they can make money. In order to popularize the concept of a "culture war", these guys (and gals) have to encourage intolerance, xenophobia, and basically fear of anybody who is "different" from their target audience. And that is how these people earn their living.

It's not so different from those newspaper publishers or armaments makers, who are rumored to have been instrumental in encouraging wars in years past ("Remember the Maine" and all that). If every war has its profiteers, then the Culture War Profiteers are part of a grand tradition.