Bush II Fighting Cold War
During a campaign stop in Delaware County, PA, Bush accused Kerry of "living in the past" by opposing Bush's Star Wars: Episode 2004. If you haven't heard, the Bush Administration is still fighting the Cold War while fighting a War on Terror while fighting a war in Iraq while "reorganizing" troop deployments while...
On any given day, Bush will tell the American people that we "are facing a new threat and fighting a new enemy" in a "new era of warfare" which calls for a new era of both foreign policy (see below) and domestic policy. But then Bush comes back with his support of our country's most embarassing, failure-ridden, and questionable military programs which was designed for Cold War threats not backpack bombs.
Next headline: DoD Advocates Trench Warfare.
But, it's Kerry that is "living in the past."
Rove NOT Political
By way of WashingtonMonthly, we get a pointer to the below photo (which it seems will appear in Newsweek. The photo accompanies a story which seeks to establish the premise that the terrorist warnings released during at immediately following the Democratic National Convention were NOT POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.
CAPTION: Politics or prudence? Deputy National Security Advisor Fran Townsend and senior White House staff in the Roosevelt room.
What is our good friend Karl Rove doing in a non-political meeting of this nature. Somehow, "senior White House staff" seems to understate reality. Glad that Newsweek didn't let the photos get in the way of researching their story.
Best Comment on this picture: "Oh, Karl? He just came in to borrow their stapler."
An interesting article from Slate today. It seems that several law schools (read: interested student organizations and professors at said law schools) are suing military recruiters who seek to recruit JAG (USMC, Navy, Army, Air Force) officers. The author's take on the subject is provocative and is worth a read. Check it out.
Gil Smart, a columnist for Lancaster Newspapers, seems to agree with my confusion with the pacificist Amish's support for this president.
This past Sunday, we had the pleasure of hosting my sister for a few hours as she traveled home from her summer "job". We enjoyed breakfast at one of our absolutely favorite spots. As I was paying and preparing to leave, I noticed a sticker/magnet on the cash register from SlowFoodUSA. "One of our favorite spots" just became our favorite spot. If you aren't already aware the SlowFood movement, it's a "back to basics" concept for food, hoping to turn-around the prevelance of fast food (see Super Size Me).
If you're going to be in or near Central PA this weekend, check out Mount Gretna's incredible arts festival.
Yesterday, I was reminded of a time long long ago. A friend of mine, Nate/Nathan Emeritz, introduced me to a new kind of music; we would sit in his family's home in D.C. and just listen to music. U.N.I.T.Y. for one. But, there was one album in particular which I just couldn't stop listening to. Yesterday, I heard some of that album again...and it instantaneously transported me back: the album.
Allegations vs. Truth
At work today, coworkers debriefed us on a recent conference that they attended. My coworkers decided to specifically mention the statements made by a few keynote speakers. Although it was early on a Friday, I was particularly fiesty but I internalized my reaction (I'm still a probationary employee)...until I got back to my computer. Below I have posted some of the thoughts which came to me as I thought more and more about what was said (apparently) at the conference by very well-known public figures (who, for not at least, will remain unnamed). I welcome any response, addition, or correction you may have to either my statements or those to which I am responding. Enjoy the Olympics.
ALLEGATION No. 1: Modern-day segregation is caused by students choosing to attend a school that is geographically more convenient – which, as a result of residential segregation, is predominantly attended by students of the same race – rather than travel a greater distance to attend a more diverse or more representative school.
Implication: Blame the victim
Segregation is self-imposed and, therefore, is not the fault nor the responsibility of lawmakers, suburbanites, or anyone else for that matter
Students simply are too lazy and/or under-ambitious and, by refusing to travel and leave their comfort zone, they are resigning themselves to the fate that they claim is forced upon them.
If the students themselves do not care enough about themselves to travel a little further (especially in an urban environment where it only means an additional transfer on the subway or getting out of bed a little earlier), why should the taxpayers make sacrifices for them?
TRUTH
Residential segregation determines the quality of education our children receive. The student body of a school is likely dictated by the makeup of the community of the surrounding neighborhood. If the community is racially, socially, or economically segregated, the school will follow suit. Teachers who have been conditioned to believe that the students at a segregated school will be less receptive, more trouble, and, therefore, less desirable are more likely to accept an offer in another school district. The quality of the education drops which, in turn, drives out what few students who have the option to go elsewhere.
Therefore, if we are to be serious about our children’s and our nation’s future and if we are going to address that issue via correcting the quality of our education, we must first address the role of residential segregation. Residential segregation’s impact and influence is broad and deep. It is much more pervasive and dangerous than most acknowledge. Finally, it is of utmost importance and must be a priority for advocates, lawmakers, families, and all citizens.
ALLEGATION No. 2: Most of the members of the Armed Forces enlisted for the financial incentives and in the hope of a college education. Most of these enlistees are lower-income, without connections or family wealth, and are disproportionately non-white. Therefore, when our government sends the military into danger and soldiers are killed, it is tragic. It is tragic because the soldier is killed because (s)he did not have other options to generate income or opportunity to attend college. It is tragic because the soldier, who enlisted as a means toward the end of an education, will never have the chance to make a claim on the very promise which drove him/her to enlist. In other words, the soldier is killed before s/he has a chance to live and this is attributable to the lack of legitimate options for those of lower-income, without connections or family wealth, and those who are non-white.
Implication: The government takes advantage of soldiers
The government markets to and draws in vulnerable youths with the promise of money and money-earning potential (investment toward education) but knows that there is a likelihood that the soldier will be killed in action and, thus, will not be able to collect on the investment. This manipulates the needs of low-income youths whose futures are not lined with the same opportunities of their wealthy peers. The manipulation is compounded by the “fact” that those youths are so situated because of government policies or, at the very least, past government policies (e.g. slavery, Jim Crow, de facto segregation).
In short, the government is responsible for the limited options before the low-income youth and offers the youth a way out yet the escape is fraught with the potential for a sudden “dead end” in the road toward success.
TRUTH
I could write about this one for a long time. Suffice (for now) to say that this ignores the element of glorious sacrifice and patriotism of all men and women in uniform. Actually, I'm just going to drop this one (for now) because I'm too tired to articulate a very important yet sensitive point.
ALLEGATION No. 3: There must be only one foreign policy. Currently, the U.S. has a foreign policy for Israel, a foreign policy for Great Britain, a foreign policy for China, etc. What is needed is the development of a single, universal foreign policy to be implemented by the U.S. government regardless of who the recipient of aid or offending nation may be.
Implication No. 1: All countries are the same and are similarly situated in the world
in terms of their economic contribution, stability, and role;
in terms of their military policy, strength, and tendencies;
in terms of their internal politics and stability; and,
in terms of their historical and trend-line of interaction with the United States.
Implication No. 2: No problems
A one-size-fits-all approach to foreign policy would eliminate the difficulties of diplomacy and deciding when and how to intervene (economically and militarily); such an approach to foreign policy would establish a procedural element to any scenario thereby absolving world leaders from justifying or defending any action (the policy determines the outcome, not the person).
Implication No. 3: Utopia
A one-size-fits-all approach to foreign policy would create a utopian world free of conflict, war, or misunderstanding.
TRUTH
The speaker of this ALLEGATION demonstrates his/her lack of knowledge of international relations, diplomacy, theories of power. The prime characteristic of a strong foreign policy is its customized fit for the always-changing world. Power shifts in a second. Nations crumble in minutes and are reconstituted even faster. The distinguishing characteristic of anything “one-size-fits-all” is its static, inflexible nature which, by definition, imposes uniformity on its subject.
The speaker of this ALLEGATION conflates “foreign policy” and the principles which under-gird it. Great presidents are defined not by their policies but by the principles which drive them to develop said policies. The Marshall Plan was not a foreign policy: it was a collection of principles upon which policymakers built a nation’s involvement in the world (one involvement at a time, I might add). Policies are evaluated in the light of the broader principle(s), not the other way around. Policies are necessary adaptations of the principle to fit the current clime, problem, or nation at issue. The sad truth of a power-driven, multi-state world is that fluidity and adaptability are signs of strength and great hope; while monotone inflexibility is a signal of vulnerability to what tomorrow brings.
ALLEGATION No. 4: The United States only exercises its military might when the affected country is easily overcome. The U.S. refuses to intervene in nations such as North Korea or China but, instead, will invade nations like Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq on a whim. We do this because these are nations that cannot fight back; if the nation could present a competitive response, we leave them alone.
Implication No. 1: The U.S. military is weak
It would invade all nations if it could succeed;
It does not invade all nations, therefore,
It must not be strong.
Implication No. 2: The U.S. military is overbearing and a bully
The military will not “pick on someone its own size”; instead, we seek out easily-conquered targets to establish (faux) dominance which acts as a deterrent (see No. 3, below).
Implication No. 3: The U.S. military is inconsistent
What the U.S. lacks in strength (see No. 1, above), it compensates with indiscriminate application of force thereby unsettling would-be foes.
TRUTH
We did not invade Bosnia
We did not invade Afghanistan.
Music
Lately I become more and more aware just how much has changed since a few short years ago when music was everything to me. I swam day in and night out on the ripples of melody which carried me through life. Things, however, have changed in many ways. I am no longer all-consumed by this band or that band.
Music, however, can still move me. Just this morning, Erika and I were watching our favorite TV channel and were driven to smile by the background music in a series of commercials for Haagen Dazs. The maker of premium ice cream and sorbet, it turns out, also has a very business/customer-saavy website complete with downloadable versions of the TV commercials themselves AND the song behind them. Check it out at the bottom of the front page.
There are still several bands that I can enjoy although now I find that the music moves me based on my mood rather than my mood moved by the music. Perhaps I will dedicate a post to the bands, songs, etc. that I enjoy.
For now, I invite you to check out (free downloads) a small band out of Harrisonburg, Virginia (home to James Madison University) that is pure delight: Muelle.
Amish pray; GOP prey
One of the Lancaster, PA newspapers featured a cover story on the semi-covert strategy of the local Republican party to register and Get-Out-The Amish as Election Day looms. This is nothing new. It came to my attention in 2000 but it's taken this long for the press to catch it.
(NOTE: the website for Lancaster Newspapers, Inc., has yet to post the story; I had to find the AP story via CBSNews and other news outlets across the nation...turns out it's not just the Amish in Lancaster that have an objection to the use of technology)
For the most part, I will skip the moral and/or ethical questions that this strategy raises; I mainly skip it because it will be pointless to discuss the ethics of Republicans (who beat their opponents over the head with MORALS, MORALS, MORALS while running the dirtiest political campaigns in history) (see Willie Horton, treatment of REPUBLICAN Sen. John McCain in South Carolina (clear-cut cannibalism, folks), and the ongoing attacks on Sen. John Kerry's military service record).
Instead, I focus on the article's mention of (1) the paradox/hypocrisy of Amish support of Bush and, (2) a wonderful line from Kerry's campaign. As told in the article:
(Point 1) "As pacifists, most Amish avoid political activity that they believe would link them even indirectly with government-sponsored violence. But hot-button social issues, coupled with gentle prompting from people like Beiler, are galvanizing some Amish to register to vote."
So, let me get this straight: the Amish historically have not voted because simply the act of voting would "indirectly" link them with any violence that the the U.S. government may undertake during the ensuing presidency. BUT....... they are planning on supporting THIS THIS THIS and THIS President?
(Point 2) "'If I know Republicans and their grass-roots operations, they'll spend most of their time trying to phone bank the Amish,' said Kerry spokesman Mark Nevins." [emphasis added]
If you don't get this, read up on the Amish. [HINT: most Amish don't have phones.]
Revelations
I'm going to simply skip all the explanantions, excuses, and interludes about why it's been so long since I've posted. It's sad, pitiful...blah blah blah.
Instead, I'm going to just dive right in. Two "news" items in particular caught my eye this week.
First...
My/your president stumbled over his tongue...again. This time, however, something even more disturbing occurred. I've posted the entire article courtesy of USA Today (a.k.a. "McNewspaper") [please note that this is not from a "liberal" paper or (ahem!) radio station]:
New 'Bushism' born at bill signing
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush offered up a new entry for his catalog of "Bushisms" on Thursday, declaring that his administration will "never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people."
By Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP
Bush misspoke as he delivered a speech at the signing ceremony for a $417 billion defense spending bill.
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Bush said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
No one in Bush's audience of military brass or Pentagon chiefs reacted.
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Find this article here.
The most disturbing aspect of this article is not the fact that Bush made a mistake (glaring, yes) but rather can be found in the last line of the article: "No one in Bush's audience of military brass or Pentagon chiefs reacted."
My friends, without passing into the hyperbole stratosphere, I argue that this is a great moment for the American public. We are able to look back in time, behind the curtain and the closed doors. We have now seen what has happened inside the Administration for the past 3.5 years. For all those who think that I (and many others) are simply "Bush-haters" you are flat wrong. For those who think that my concern and frustration-bred anger is with George W. himself, you are flat wrong. My (and I believe I am not alone) concern is what this says about the current state of American government and -- per "We the People" -- our republic as a whole. Because, my friends, our Fathers constructed a SYSTEM replete with checks and balances to counteract misguided leaders and/or tyranny. This system of government, novel at its birth, was meant to solve the problem of the King's Court, a collection of "yes-men" who simply follow(ed).
This term of the American Presidency has raised two issues to new heights of visibility and solemnity: (1) the role of dissent in our nation and (2) the solemn decisions surrounding military action. The value (yes, value) of dissent could not have been more important to our nation's Founders; dissent within and without the government. This Administration has made it very clear what is tolerated and what is not when it comes to dissent, protest, and suggestions of alternatives (see The PATRIOT ACT, Richard Clarke, Imperial Hubris). At a time when dissent and a frank discussion of options has never been more needed, more valuable, and [sigh] more Missing In Action, it is cause for frustration, concern, and even more dissent even if the dissent is limited to circles outside the King's Court (see above).
The issue of military action has plagued this administration since the days of the 2000 campaign. One glimmer of hope has always been the hope that those with military experience (ouch!) would prevail in these discussions. [NOTE: yes, I do understand the primacy of "chain of command" in the Armed Forces (see Pfc. Lynndie England) and, yes, I understand the Code et al.; but, at some point, the military advisors must become ADVISORS and not military listeners, especially when they are the (only?) experts on the matter of military action in the room.]
I will close with simply stating that I think I now know what happened in the days, weeks, months, and now years of the planning (or lack thereof) of military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. I thank the reporters -- the bureaucrats of the Fourth Branch of Government -- for at least mentioning the following fact no matter how disturbing its implications may be:
No one in Bush's audience of military brass or Pentagon chiefs reacted.
