Have you heard about Tom Tancredo? I'd never heard of him until he said this:

A Colorado congressman told a radio show host that the U.S. could "take out" Islamic holy sites if Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked the country with nuclear weapons.

Rep. Tom Tancredo made his remarks Friday on WFLA-AM in Orlando, Florida. His spokesman stressed he was only speaking hypothetically.

Talk show host Pat Campbell asked the Littleton Republican how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons.

"Well, what if you said something like -- if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.

"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.

"Yeah," Tancredo responded.

The congressman later said he was "just throwing out some ideas" and that an "ultimate threat" might have to be met with an "ultimate response."{...}

So, the guy's obviously an idiot, right? You'd think all sane people would agree that he's an idiot. Well, apparently not. LaShawn Barber thinks he's right on the money.

{...}Congressman Tom Tancredo, the only true conservative in Congress and the only politician on Capitol Hill who takes a hard line against illegal aliens, said that if Islamofascists upgraded to nuclear attacks, we could threaten to bomb Muslim holy sites.

Republicans and Democrats are jumping all over him, mischaracterizing his remarks. They believe Tancredo should apologize. He said he wonÂ’t, and I hope he doesnÂ’t. I stand behind him 100 percent, even as Republicans and so-called conservatives demand an apology. We need tough talk and tough action on global terrorism, and what Tancredo said was actually mild compared to what Islamofascists have in mind for us.{...}

As Doug says:

LaShawn thinks the billion plus Muslims witnessing such an attack would kick their feet and convert to some more convenient religion once Mecca was nuked? Please. The only certainty is that they'd know who NOT to turn to for security. And that would be the nation that nuked Mecca on the basis of simple religious affiliation. The same religious affiliation they personally hold.

As I noted yesterday, LaShawn's position is morally, tactically, and strategically wrong. She cannot explain the benefit, and she conveniently doesn't even try. Her post is barren of substance. She admires the fact that it "talks tough" to terrorists.

Hey LaShawn - then why not threaten them with blowing up the whole planet, you freakin' pantywaist?! That's even tougher!{...}

I'm with Doug. Ignoring the political and social ramifications of such an action---or even threatening such an action---it's pretty clear that LaShawn doesn't have the props to claim she's a hawk as she's lacking in the few simple notions that govern the strategy associated with nuclear weapons, which is if you have them, you generally don't have to shoot them off. The knowledge of said weapons is, indeed, a weapon in itself. It ups the ante.

This strategy is called MAD---Mutually Assured Destruction and any undergraduate political science student knows what it's about. Two countries have nuclear weapons. Does one country fire their nukes on the other, knowing full well that if they do, they'll be blown up as well? No, they don't. The only option to use a nuke successfully is to use it on an enemy that does not have such weapons with which to retailiate, and that is only going to work if said country has not allied itself with a country which will retaliate for it. This is why we invaded Iraq, but not North Korea. This is why it's crucial that Iran not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. This is why it's a cause for worry every time Pakistan and India start going round after round on Kashmir. But mostly this is why it's not a good idea to ratchet up the rhetoric in regards to what you will bomb with your nukes. With MAD you have a built-in balance; you shoot yours off? Well, the other guy's going to shoot his off at you and you're going to get it just as bad as they did. It's pretty simple stuff, on the whole. But to make sure MAD works, you have to---ahem---keep your mouth shut for the most part. Nuclear weapons are most effective as a weapon when they serve the purpose of deterrance, ya dig?

One could, theoretically, argue that MAD is not going to work with non-nation state aligned Islamofascists. Continuing that argument, one could say that it was a good thing that Tancredo shot his mouth off about Mecca, to let the Islamofascists know just what was at stake. I disagree: first off, we are a nation-state: we will not bomb a target in a country that is our ally because said target has great meaning for the Islamofascists. Leaving aside the question of whether we can really consider Saudi Arabia to be our ally in the first place, it's nonetheless just plain stupid. We will not bomb a target that has meaning for more people---a billion people---than just our would-be attackers. It's not a proportional or rational response. And the last thing anyone wants in such a situation is an irrational response. Second, according to the principles of MAD, if you shoot your mouth off about targeting a certain city which holds great meaning for your enemy, perhaps, just perhaps, you would be encouraging them in their nuclear activities, so that we would think twice about targeting Mecca. Because, you see, MAD swings both ways: they would want to protect their holy city and they could do that if they had their own nukes and let us know about it.

Have no doubts about it, we are not in the cat bird seat when it comes to a rogue nuclear strike. During the Cold War, we did not shoot our weapons off at the USSR, and they did not shoot their back at us because our capabilities were, roughly, the same. On either side of the equation, the end product would be the same: not only the annihilation of our enemy, but of ourselves. There is much to be made of SAC and our capability to strike back in the event of a nuclear attack, but any way you slice it, the end result was the same. In this situation, we would only be able to retaliate: it's one thing to invade Afghanistan using conventional warfare because they are harboring terrorists; it is entirely another to claim that we would use nuclear weapons on Mecca if we were attacked by rogue, non-nation-state aligned terrorists. It ups the ante, which we've already established is not a good thing when it comes to nuclear capabilities. Leaving aside the rogue Islamofascists for a moment, think about Tancredo's remarks in terms of relations with one particular nation-state we consider to be an ally: do we really want Saudi Arabia, of all nations, to think they need to start acquring nukes to protect Mecca? Is that action going to stop the spread of Wahhabism? Would that bring about the changes we would like to see in the way the House of Saud governs that country? Sheesh. Think about it for a minute. Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words, when employed to throw nuclear threats around, really can hurt you. That's not a "weak" response; it's a sensible one.

So, when it comes right down to it, Tancredo is an idiot who knows absolutely nothing about nuclear strategy. He is playing a dangerous game that has serious ramifications to it. And anyone, LaShawn included, who thinks that "talking tough" to the terrorists on a nuclear level is going to get them to back down, or to mend their ways, is not exactly thinking things through. It's a whole different ballgame. It's simply ramping it up to another level---another level which could mean plenty of people would be killed, and not just Muslims. Furthermore, to make the claim that anyone who's "really conservative" should be advocating such an action is ignoring the example set down by Ronald Wilson Reagan, the man who---ahem--won the freakin' war without blowing ourselves up in the meantime. He did not win the war by using inflamed, Krushchev-like rhetoric (Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? Remember dear old Nikita slamming his shoe on the podium at the UN? Remember the words, "We will bury you"? Did that cool things down? Hmmmm?); he won it by using MAD to its utmost capability: he bankrupted the Soviet Union. If that's not "conservative" enough for you, well, jeez, I don't know what will or could ever be.

Tancredo should apologize for his ignorant remarks and he should do it on the floor of the House of Representatives. That needs to be in the record, lest someone get the wrong idea about what, precisely, the United States' response would be in regards to a rogue Islamofascist nuclear attack on our soil.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1501 words, total size 9 kb.

I'm not the only one who's ticked off by the "health impact fee."

Pawlenty was on Hewitt last night (Not like I listened. Good thing, too, otherwise I would have called in and reamed them both.) and Hewitt backed up Pawlenty and said:

{...}You know, I actually have no problem with that. I don't care what the anti-tax hard core says, I believe in taxing the heck out of cigarettes because of externalities and [unintelligible]. It's good economics.

Good economics? GOOD economics? What the hell is the matter with you, Hugh? You're advocating taxing the hell out of tobacco products to cover up a budgetary shortfall. How, precisely, do you plan on doing that when people will either quit or will buy their cigarettes online, thereby shortcircuiting your tax. How, exactly, is that action going to bring revenue in? And, do remember, Hugh you're trying to balance a budget here. You have to bring in income because you didn't cut or reduce spending and this is your chosen method of balancing the books. You might want to make sure it's guaranteed before you call it "Good Economics." Because it most assuredly ain't good economics to let the State of Minnesota's checks bounce.

Pawlenty then went on to confirm the reasoning I laid out in this post:

{...}Well, you know, I don't, I'm not a big fan of growing revenues through new mechanisms like this as I hope I've proven as governor but the bottom line was we had a historic government shutdown we had to find common ground and compared to the alternatives of the Democrats wanting to tax everything including income and business taxes and a variety of other things. This was the least offensive. And the good news is other states have done it and smoking has decreased dramatically, and so this has a health benefit as well.{...}

Yep. Let's not piss off big business or raise income taxes or even---GASP!---cut or reduce spending. Let's go with the path of least resistance, shall we? Let's raise taxes on nasty people who do things that disagree with our delicate noses---and yes, Tim, it's a tax. Smoking may be voluntary, but the paying of said "health impact fee" most assuredly isn't---because that's the easy way out. Furthermore, let's claim that we didn't raise taxes when we did! It's PERFECT!

As far as the "health benefit" is concerned, well, geez, Tim, I helped to elect you Governor. I didn't elect you to be my freakin' nanny. If I want to pollute my lungs that's my choice. Not yours. Furthermore I shouldn't be taxed to hell and back to make up for your shortcomings as a negotiator.

King Banian of SCSU Scholars has a fantastic post on this. Money quote:

{...}Last, if the budget deficit was as small as Hugh figures out -- and he's right -- why do both of these smart conservatives go right past the other solution, the one the tax pledge was supposed to produce: REDUCE SPENDING. In a $31 billion budget, you couldn't find $400 million of cuts? Why accept the level of spending as fixed??? And they're not cuts, they are simply reductions in the rate of increase in spending. This budget is for $30.5 billion (to be precise); the 2004-05 budget was for $28.2.{...}

Go read King's entire post. It's well worth your time.

Oh, and Lileks, you're on my shitlist, too, for agreeing with Hewitt.

{...}JL: As much as I like the anti-tax pledgers there are some times when you have to bend and if you want to stomp your feet and run away and read your Ayn Rand again, I mean that's fine, but politics is not about purity sometimes it's about getting things done.{...}

Oh, yes, where's my copy of Atlas Shrugged? It must be around here somewhere. Perhaps there's a chapter in there that I missed about "getting things done" rather than letting the state tax me further up the wazoo when the wazoo is pretty darn deep as it is.

Chad knocks some sense into Hewitt, who seems to believe "I mean...it's normal. You have to tax something, tax smoke"

{...}Not only is raising taxes "normal", we really have no choice because, according to Hugh, "you got to tax something." We do? Why exactly is raising taxes the only possible solution? God forbid if we could possibly have gotten by without increasing spending as much as we did. What would happen to the schools if we didn't pour an additional $800 some million dollars into them? A cynic might ask exactly what this additional educational largesse is really going to get us, but it's all "about the children" so it would be rude and unseemly to demand to see reforms or results, wouldn't it?

I'm trying to think of what other things it would be "normal" to tax at higher rates. You know, things that are voluntary and may have negative externalities. Things like, well I don't know, maybe snack foods. How about a Cheeto tax Hugh? Or a Diet Coke tax? A Docker's tax? The burden would fall chiefly on white, middle-aged men, so why not? How about a tax on crappy folk music? Talk about negative externalities.{...}

Negative externalities, indeed. It's a "fee" when it doesn't affect you. When it does affect you, it's a "tax" and geez, THEN, by golly, they've crossed the line.

The Republic of Kathyland---where I, Kathy, would serve as benevolent dictator for life---is sounding better and better every damn day I live in this state.

Oh, and we've already decided that the ciggies will be duty free in Kathyland.

Posted by: Kathy at 04:23 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 944 words, total size 6 kb.

For me, when I read a brilliant piece of summation, it feels like I've slipped into a warm bubble bath after a day of mucking about in the mire. All the dirt and the confusion just slips from my body and my brain is much eased because of it.

Thanks to Martini Boy, I just had that experience. He gently hands Sully a brown paper bag to hyperventilate into:

I read earlier this week that, at 42, Andrew has now spent exactly half of his life in America. Maybe by the time he's 63, he'll get it. What I mean is, this is how America once was, and how America is, and how - I hope - America will always be. Let me quote from Walter Russell Mead's "The Jacksonian Tradition":

Indeed, of all the major currents in American society, Jacksonians have the least regard for international law and international institutions. They prefer the rule of custom to the written law, and that is as true in the international sphere as it is in personal relations at home. Jacksonians believe that there is an honor code in international life — as there was in clan warfare in the borderlands of England — and those who live by the code will be treated under it. But those who violate the code — who commit terrorist acts in peacetime, for example — forfeit its protection and deserve no consideration.

You don't have to be a native-born American of Scots-Irish descent to be a Jacksonian American - although it probably helps. However, being a Cambridge-educated Briton living on the East Coast is almost certainly a hindrance. Sully just doesn't get it.

I don't begrudge Sullivan his opinion. It's his, and I've watched him ably create and defend it. However, when he claims that our rough treatment of rough characters "is not the America it once was," he's displaying an almost-willful misunderstanding of America's wartime mores. In WWII, German POWs were accorded proper respect. Those few Japanese who surrendered were largely not.

Why the difference? Germany declared war on us before attacking; Japan didn't. When a German soldier showed the white flag, he usually meant it; a Japanese solider usually didn't. Germany treated American POWs according to the Geneva Conventions. Japan treated American POWs to the Bataan Death March.

Today we're faced with an enemy who never signed onto the Geneva Conventions. An enemy who hides in plain clothes among civilians, who wages war against civilians, and who began this war with a surprise attack. {...}

Martini Boy's right: Sully just doesn't get it. I've often thought that dear Andrew was a bit wrapped up in the romantic notion that is America and is often afraid to look at the hard reality which allows the romantic notions of America to exist: that we are not afraid to defend what is ours when attacked, and we'll do it by any means necessary. Play fair with us, and you'll likely receive the same. Don't play fair, and we won't either. Sully doesn't get that. He just seems to assume, for some strange reason, that America and her soldiers have some obligation to take what's dished out because we're bigger and better than everyone else. It's like we're the rich taxpayer who keeps getting nailed by the IRS: we're expected to pay up and to hand over the cash with a smile on our face. Problem is, this time the IRS isn't just coming to audit us, he's coming to kill us and, if he has his way, our entire way of life, which Sully holds dear, will go the way of the Dodo. Sully, while well-meaning, seems to think that by holding fast to the principles this nation was founded on will alone ensure our victory.

Ummm, no.

That's a nice romantic notion, and I would like to believe it's possible, but it wasn't the thought of "All Men Are Created Equal" that got the besieged 101st Airborne through the Battle of the Bulge. That lovely notion didn't give those men sustenance while they were having the shit shelled out of them in the Ardenne forest. It was the thought that once the weather cleared and they got supplies in, they could go and get the guys who were shelling the shit out of them. See the difference? It's a big difference. Sully would not have us dirty our hands in defense of our nation. He would have us be the bigger, nobler man each and every time and it's not going to work. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire and, when you do, you can't spend the majority of your time worrying about if you're going to get burned. It's like the enemy is some abstract concept for him, while the concrete is America's principles.

Go read the whole thing. Twice.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:31 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 810 words, total size 5 kb.

The shutdown is over. The legislation has been signed.

And Tim Pawlenty is going down.

Because he's a liar.

No new taxes---oops, it's a "Health Impact Fee." My bad---my ass. What's even better is that he admits he's a liar. Of course, though, it's in the fine print.

Pawlenty also proclaimed the budget package that was completed Wednesday a balanced, bipartisan compromise, saying that "the process was ugly, but the product is good."

He claimed victory in a dozen areas, handing out a checklist of achievements led by "Don't raise taxes" and a status box that listed it as "Done." It also had a footnote in which Pawlenty noted the controversy surrounding the health impact fee.

"Some people call it a tax, some call it a fee, I call it a solution," he told reporters.

{my emphasis}

So, here's what I'd like to know Monsieur Pawlenty---who I consider to be so bad he's practically French---if smokers can't, you know, smoke anywhere in the Twin Cities metropolitan area because smoking's been banned in bars and restaurants, how exactly are you going to fund all these WONDERFUL programs with tobacco taxes?

Hmmmm?

Don't you think that you and your cronies---and yes, I include you in their company because you lobbied to take the entire state smoke-free---sort of pulled the rug out from under yourselves on this one? Because, if you want us to buy cigarettes, we have to have places to smoke. You have to keep us hooked, otherwise, geez, you won't have any state funding.

Whoops! That thar's one heck of a "solution," Tim.

I cannot stand politicians who lie and then try to get away with it. I know this includes pretty much all of them, but you'd think the guy would at least have some shame about fibbing so blatantly. But he doesn't. Not one ounce of burning, red shame for lying. He's covering himself with semantics and he's completely unrepentant about it. He didn't have the guts to cut spending, or even to whip the legislature into the least modicum of shape, and the smokers---because we're bad, bad people---are the ones who have to pay for his laziness and inefficiency. He couldn't get a deal and keep everyone happy, so he opted for the "safe" people to tax. The people he didn't think he'd lose with by taxing them. He didn't want to lose support from big taxpayers, like corporations or people with fat wallets, so he taxed the people he just assumed wouldn't vote for him anyway, if they voted at all. Because, let's face it, most smokers are living on the poverty line: they probably vote a straight DFL ticket anyway.

Interesting how one gets pegged because of one's activities, isn't it?

I hate to say this, but at this stage of the game, I want Jesse back. At least he cared.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:12 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 482 words, total size 3 kb.

Tim Pawlenty just lost my vote.

I remember his 2002 campaign for Governor. I remember promises about cutting government spending. I remember promises about no new taxes. I remember these things. I voted for the man. These things were attractive to me then, just as much as they are now.

So, you know, when he can't get the damn DFL'ers (and the Republicans are to blame here, too) in the legislature to stop spending because he's too much of a pussy to strongarm them into cutting spending, what's, apparently, his only course of action?

To raise taxes. Not on corporations. Not on individual income. No, he chooses to raise taxes by raising the cigarette tax by $0.75.

He's calling it a "health impact fee." So it's not a "tax" in his book. It's a "fee."

Despite the fact that the State of Minnesota and Blue Cross Blue Shield settled a lawsuit against the tobacco companies for SIX BILLION---WITH A 'B'---DOLLARS. They sued because of "increased health care costs due to smokers." The problem with this scenario? The legislature can't touch that cash. Why? Because, after they paid off Blue Cross Blue Shield and these guys, the remaining cash is earmarked for SMOKING PREVENTION PROGRAMS. Meaning the legislature can't spend dime one of the settlement. That's gotta sting, don't you think? All that money and they can't spend it. Sheesh. Talk about hell for legislators, eh? Sort of like Paul Simon being stuck in an elevator for all of eternity being forced to listen to Mrs. Robinson on Muzak.

So, there's a budget shortfall. They need cash to make up the difference. And, let's face it, kids, where do you think they're going to go? Why, to the smokers! Tally-freakin-ho! Smoking is eeeevil. People who smoke are pariahs. Why shouldn't they pick up the tab? After all, they're perfectly willing to pay x amount of dollars now...they'll keep paying it. They're addicted. Of course they will. So, you see, we smokers are easy targets. We're---apparently---asking to take it up the ass. And, boy, when state government CAN'T GET ITS SHIT TOGETHER, we're the ones who, of course, have to pay for it all.

So, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, despite the fact I'm a registered Republican, you will perhaps understand why I am henceforth declaring war on Tim Pawlenty. You will understand why I will do everything in my power to mock, ridicule and, in general, screw the man over as much as he's screwing me over because he hasn't the balls to keep the promises he made when he ran for election.

UPDATE: And Pawlenty, reportedly, likes Bloggers so much he invited a bunch of MOB'ers to the Governor's Mansion. I wonder if I'll get invited sometime in the near future. One can only hope!

Posted by: Kathy at 12:22 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 479 words, total size 3 kb.

Go read. Really and truly. It's required.

Posted by: Kathy at 08:32 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

Courtesy o' the Llamas

Posted by: Kathy at 11:05 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

I simply cannot make my mind up about Live 8. I really can't.

I remember watching Live Aid during the summer of 1985. I remember actually having permission to watch MTV all day long, and that was unusual because MTV and VH1 were VERBOTEN in my parents' household. (According to my parents, they only showed "smut," in case you were wondering.) Not like that usually stopped me, but at least, for one day, I didn't have to be covert about it. Don't ask me why I remember this bit, but I also remember my mother having purchased a boatload of peaches that weekend. She was going to can something like fifteen flats of peaches (there had been a bumper crop that summer) and she needed my help to slip them of their skins while she filled the jars and manned the canning equipment. This wasn't a job you had to be there the entire time to do: she'd pour the hot water on the peaches, she'd call me in from the family room where I was watching Live Aid, I'd run and do my deal, scalding my fingers in the process, then I'd run back to the family room, three rooms down to see what else was happening.

Because a lot happened that day and it was pretty cool for an impressionable fourteen-year-old. People were actually doing something about the pictures they saw on the news every night and that was cool. And it was new. History was being made and I, who was busy running back and forth between the tee vee and the kitchen in my house in Omaha, Nebraska, was a part of it because I was watching. I didn't have any money to give, but they had my support. My fourteen-year-old self supported their efforts wholeheartedly.

But I'm not fourteen anymore.

And that's precisely why I'm leery of this whole thing. Here's the official website of The One Campaign. I'm sure you've seen the ads in recent days, like I have. And while I'm wholeheartedly for the overall goal they're advocating, it's this "One Voice" business that's bothering me. Because if we're all to speak with "one voice," well, if I sign my name to this, doesn't that, in a way, make me responsible for stupid statements on the part of the celebrities who are a part of this along with the good things they're advocating? Because they've made it plain and clear that they don't want my money: they want my voice instead.

And I value my voice more than I value my money. Even if neither of them means all that much in the real world.

Here's their declaration:

“WE BELIEVE that in the best American tradition of helping others help themselves, now is the time to join with other countries in a historic pact for compassion and justice to help the poorest people of the world overcome AIDS and extreme poverty. WE RECOGNIZE that a pact including such measures as fair trade, debt relief, fighting corruption and directing additional resources for basic needs – education, health, clean water, food, and care for orphans – would transform the futures and hopes of an entire generation in the poorest countries, at a cost equal to just one percent more of the US budget. WE COMMIT ourselves - one person, one voice, one vote at a time - to make a better, safer world for all.”

I agree with most of that. Debt relief is good, provided it's not going to countries ruled by kleptocrats and dictators, like Zimbabwe. Corruption is, of course, reprehensible and should be fought against vigorously. Same goes with the living conditions of much of the developing world. I disagree, however, with the notion that there is such a thing as "fair trade"---nothing in life is fair, particularly economics. These people, I believe, would advocate more WTO and IMF intervention in these matters and I don't believe that would help anything. A free market is what is needed to level the playing field. A free market where countries could get a fair price for the goods and services they produce without protectionist tariffs and subsidies screwing things up for the little guy. These people, I believe, would advocate a legal solution that would ensure that first world economies would suffer and that the see-saw would swing toward developing nations. I think that if first world countries ended subsidies and tarriffs, the market would open up to developing countries' goods and services and the market---not some IGO---would decide who would be successful and who wouldn't. But that's just me.

And my voice isn't worth as much as say, some rock star's voice.

{...}"I think in some ways that's the key thing -- the actual money on the table," said Richard Curtis, the writer of hit films such as Four Weddings and A Funeral who is one of the leading members of the anti-poverty campaign.

"None of the pop stars would tell you that they understand these issues in depth, but the politicians do and what politicians have to understand is that actually the pop stars do represent normal people."{...}

{emphasis mine}

Ummm, no they don't. Chris Martin---Mr. "All Shareholders Are Evil, Yet I'm Very Happy To Cash The Multimillon Dollar Checks My Record Label Sends Me"---doesn't represent me. I have absolutely NOTHING in common with Chris Martin. He's not a "normal" person. Or Richard Curtis, other than we both call ourselves writers. He's not a "normal" person, either. I have nothing in common with Brad Pitt or Emma Thomspon or Jamie Foxx or Tom Hanks, either. These are not common people. They're all loaded to the gills with money. They live in big houses that cost millions of dollars, and they don't have to struggle to come up with the mortgage payment. They drive fancy cars that they purchase with cash. They are famous, well-paid people, who are probably, in part, motivated to help because they feel guilty about all the money they have. My voice means absolutely squat in the real world. I can yell all I want, but all I'm ever really doing here with the blog or in real life is adding it to the cacophany of people who still won't be listened to no matter how loudly we all yell. We're easily blocked out by those in charge. But my voice still means something to me. I value it highly, even if other people don't. These celebrities' voices, however, are worth something. When they speak, the world listens.

So, you can understand why I would be a bit leery to sign this thing, can't you? I mean, in essence, I would be advocating an international shadow government made up celebrities, who want to wield their power to do good, but whose methods I would perhaps disagree with. Is the end worth the means? And that's only provided their ends actually work and do some good. If I add my voice to theirs, well, it would finally be worth something, wouldn't it? But is that what I want? To signal politicians that the only time they have to pay attention to the masses, me included, other than on election day, is when celebrities get involved and push hard for something?

I don't know. Good intentions do indeed pave the road to hell. I believe the Ethiopians who were supposed to be helped by Live Aid might have some opinions about that, provided they're still alive today to give them. Yet if this whole thing could mean even a partial end to poverty; that it could potentially give relief to people who need it, how could I deny them that? After all, my voice isn't worth much by itself or even with a million others added to it; my voice is cheap; why should I hesitate to add mine to theirs?

Hmmmmm.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:18 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1315 words, total size 8 kb.

Courtesy of the Llamas, we have an individual who's going to stick it to A Supreme for their Kelo vote.

{Insert evil cackling here}

Posted by: Kathy at 03:56 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

...for once again telling me what I can and cannot do with MY money.

WASHINGTON - With the acquiescence of their leaders, key House Republicans are drafting Social Security legislation stripped of President Bush's proposed personal accounts financed with payroll taxes and lacking provisions aimed at assuring long-term solvency.

Instead, according to officials familiar with the details, the measure showcases a promise, designed to reassure seniors, that Social Security surplus funds will be held inviolate, available only to create individual accounts that differ sharply from Bush's approach.

Under current law, any Social Security payroll tax money not used to finance monthly benefits is in effect lent by Social Security to the Treasury, which uses it to finance other government programs. Government actuaries say the surplus is expected to vanish in 2017 when benefit payments exceed payroll taxes collected.

In addition, the GOP bill "doesn't deal with solvency," according to another official, indicating it would avoid the difficult choices of curbs on benefits, higher taxes or changes in the retirement age needed to implement the president's call for long-term financial stability.{...}

{empahsis mine}

Grrrrrr.

Yes, let's suck up to the AARP once again. Never mind the millions of younger people who have to foot the bill for this bit of stupidity. They don't count because our polling numbers tell us they don't vote. And the people who vote are the ones we need to be paying attention to. Because they're the ones who keep sending us back to Congress, and our cushy jobs with our cushy paychecks, every two or six years. By all means, they're the ones who matter. Not the people who foot the bill.

One of the secondary reasons I voted for Bush was that he promised to do something about Social Security. He promised to give me control of a part of my money, to invest as I saw fit. While I never thought the solution he was plugging would be the one that made it through Congress, this proposal is too little, too late. I sincerely hope that he vetoes this pig if it actually makes it through Congress. If he chooses not to, well, that's YET another sign to me that he really wanted my vote, but now that he's got it, he doesn't really care all that much.

Perhaps, the next time an election comes around, I won't vote Republican. Perhaps I won't vote at all. I am sick and tired of playing by the rules. I always vote. Because I believe that if you don't, you don't have a reason to bitch. You didn't take part and you have effectively disenfranchised yourself. Well, you know what? It doesn't do me a fat lot of good to vote when the disenfranchisement happens anyway, does it?

I can understand Congress being a bunch of wishy-washy idiots. That, apparently, is their purpose in life. But if the President accepts this "compromise," and, at some point in the future---after millions of dollars in pork have been attached to the stupid thing---signs it into law, well, that's it. That will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

Posted by: Kathy at 10:24 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 546 words, total size 3 kb.

For they shall have their own ring of hell to live in.

That thar link shoots you to a windy Financial Times piece from Saturday's edition on the International Red Cross and the difficult decisions they're facing due to modern warfare. You see, the ICRC's mandate, traditionally, has been to send out monitors to POW camps and prisons to ensure that nation-states are living up to their obligations under the Geneva Conventions. To gain access to these camps, they promise that they will not publicize their findings, but will rather work on the inside to make sure things are done to help the prisoners with their living conditions. This has been the case since WWI. It's a quid pro quo arrangement. But, lately, it seems as if some people within the ICRC have been having issues with this quid pro quo. They want the quid, but now they're having second thoughts about giving the quo. And you want to know what events have brought about this remarkable potential change in mission?

Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

Yes, that's right. This is the organization who did not think twice about what the SS was doing in Theriesenstadt. They bought the SS's story about that town, hook, line and sinker. But wait, it gets worse. From the article:

{...}But on the Nazi extermination and concentration camps, their courage and imagination failed. At a meeting held in Geneva on October 14 1942, the 25 people who presided over the organisation voted not to go public with the knowledge they had about Auschwitz and the systematic murder of civilians, Jews, gypsies, political dissidents and intellectuals, on the grounds that Hitler might retaliate by denying them access to the allied prisoners in German hands. It was not actually in their mandate to protect civilians - a revision of the Geneva Conventions to include protection for civilians had only reached draft stage by the outbreak of war - so that, technically, they were not at fault. But at the end of the war, when this decision to stay silent became known, it provoked widespread criticism including talk of anti-Semitism, and even threatened the future of the organisation.{...}

So, here you have an organization that has, for the most part, stuck to its original mission: to observe and work for better conditions for prisoners of war from the inside. Except for a few rare instances over the past sixty years, they have not publicized their findings. But the one time they should have diverged from their mission and publicized that millions of people were being systematically exterminated, they didn't do it. They were worried about the potential of Hitler retaliating and denying them access to POW's. They kept quiet, instead. Because protecting civilians wasn't a part of their mandate. And the mass murders continued. The smoke kept pumping out of the smokestacks at Auschwitz, in part, because of their silence.

It beggars belief that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo should be the straws that are reportedly breaking the ICRC's back nowadays, when they had the opportunity to play a major part in stopping a genocide and they didn't do it. But, I'll fully admit, that could just be me and my skewed sense of right and wrong.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 546 words, total size 3 kb.

Good.

Kuwait appointed a woman to its cabinet for the first time in its history on Sunday, marking another victory for women's rights activists just a month after they won the right to suffrage.

Prime Minister Sheik Sabah al-Ahmed al-Sabah appointed Massouma al-Mubarak as minister of planning and as minister of state for administrative development affairs, Kuwait's state news agency, KUNA, reported Sunday.

Ms. Mubarak, 54, a political science professor at Kuwait University, has been a leading advocate for women's rights in the country. {...}

Hurrah!

Posted by: Kathy at 11:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

...who died at The World Trade Center on 9/11.

{...}The World Trade Center Memorial Cultural Complex will be an imposing edifice wedged in the place where the Twin Towers once stood. It will serve as the primary "gateway" to the underground area where the names of the lost are chiseled into concrete. The organizers of its principal tenant, the International Freedom Center (IFC), have stated that they intend to take us on "a journey through the history of freedom"--but do not be fooled into thinking that their idea of freedom is the same as that of those Marines. To the IFC's organizers, it is not only history's triumphs that illuminate, but also its failures. The public will have come to see 9/11 but will be given a high-tech, multimedia tutorial about man's inhumanity to man, from Native American genocide to the lynchings and cross-burnings of the Jim Crow South, from the Third Reich's Final Solution to the Soviet gulags and beyond. This is a history all should know and learn, but dispensing it over the ashes of Ground Zero is like creating a Museum of Tolerance over the sunken graves of the USS Arizona.

The public will be confused at first, and then feel hoodwinked and betrayed. Where, they will ask, do we go to see the September 11 Memorial? The World Trade Center Memorial Foundation will have erected a building whose only connection to September 11 is a strained, intellectual one. While the IFC is getting 300,000 square feet of space to teach us how to think about liberty, the actual Memorial Center on the opposite corner of the site will get a meager 50,000 square feet to exhibit its 9/11 artifacts, all out of sight and underground. Most of the cherished objects which were salvaged from Ground Zero in those first traumatic months will never return to the site. There is simply no room. But the International Freedom Center will have ample space to present us with exhibits about Chinese dissidents and Chilean refugees. These are important subjects, but for somewhere--anywhere--else, not the site of the worst attack on American soil in the history of the republic.{...}

Wait for it.

{...}In fact, the IFC's list of those who are shaping or influencing the content and programming for their Ground Zero exhibit includes a Who's Who of the human rights, Guantanamo-obsessed world:

• Michael Posner, executive director at Human Rights First who is leading the worldwide "Stop Torture Now" campaign focused entirely on the U.S. military. He has stated that Mr. Rumsfeld's refusal to resign in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal is "irresponsible and dishonorable."

• Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, who is pushing IFC organizers for exhibits that showcase how civil liberties in this country have been curtailed since September 11.

• Eric Foner, radical-left history professor at Columbia University who, even as the bodies were being pulled out of a smoldering Ground Zero, wrote, "I'm not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House." This is the same man who participated in a "teach-in" at Columbia to protest the Iraq war, during which a colleague exhorted students with, "The only true heroes are those who find ways to defeat the U.S. military," and called for "a million Mogadishus." The IFC website has posted Mr. Foner's statement warning that future discussions should not be "overwhelmed" by the IFC's location at the World Trade Center site itself.

• George Soros, billionaire founder of Open Society Institute, the nonprofit foundation that helps fund Human Rights First and is an early contributor to the IFC. Mr. Soros has stated that the pictures of Abu Ghraib "hit us the same way as the terrorist attack itself."{...}

{my emphasis}

Nice, huh?

Martini Boy says it best:

{...}But the IFC exhibit is treason to the memory of the nearly 3,000 people who were murdered for the crime of going to work on 9/11/2001. Whatever our nation's faults, whatever injustices have been committed in our names, no matter what someone might ever have suffered at our hands...

...those are not the stories to tell at the site where the World Trade Center towers once stood. At the site where 3,000 people were burned or crushed or leapt to their deaths. Not at the site where we suffered one of the worst surprise attacks in modern history, and against a civilian target.

We don't memorialize our war dead by including pictures of them picking their noses. We shouldn't remember our losses by blaming its victims - or even their great-great-grandfathers. The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier isn't inscribed with, "What a Fuck-Up, Huh?" {...}

If these people can't even do that without trying to politicize it---or even realize that some people would think that they're politicizing it---well, they've got their heads shoved so far up their bums that they should be able to save their health insurers the cost of a colonoscopy.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:40 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 903 words, total size 6 kb.

I don't think I'll ever forget this man.

No one knows who he is. No one knows if they should really be using the word "was" instead of "is" when they write about him. No one has any idea about anything in regards to him.

Yet everyone remembers him.

He was the one who screamed through his actions that you will have to get around me if you want to do this. The world will be watching. Just go ahead and try it on for size and see what happens.

I wonder about him. I know this is hardly new stuff. Half the world has seemingly speculated on what this man was about when he stepped in front of a row of tanks, tightly grasping what looks to be the fruits of his Saturday morning shopping. But I can't really help myself from wondering about him. Who he was. Why he did what he did. What happened to him. What his name is. All of it fascinates me.

I would like to think that this man is the one who gave a massive boulder a good hard shove and started it moving down a hill. Even if his own country didn't benefit from his actions, I think he's the one who led people to say, just like he did, that enough is enough. He showed them they could be brave. He showed them you didn't need to have a party membership or a position of power to make a memorable effect. All you really needed was the will to make that statement. To say, in effect, "no, you're not going to do this because I am here. I will try and stop this. Because I believe your actions to be wrong. I am going to make a stand, right here, right now, because this is what I believe is needed."

I have imagined what led him to step up in front of those tanks. The story that I have concocted for myself is one of a random, sunny, early summer Saturday morning. I believe he was just your average Schmo Joe. I think he was probably married and had a child. Maybe his wife had sent him out to do the usual Saturday morning errands. But maybe he wasn't, and was just a single guy, out taking care of things he couldn't get done on a weekday. Either way, I like to think he lingered over his errands. That he took his time completing them, enjoying the nice weather, before he had to go home and deal with other domestic duties. But head home he did, and on his way, he couldn't have helped but notice that things were different. The air has changed quite noticeably. Things are quiet now, when they haven't been for weeks. Something is afoot and it most likely has to do with those students who have been protesting for weeks now.

The protests, in Schmo Joe's eyes, were probably something he had become accustomed to, as any resident of any large city would have become accustomed to any sort of large, prolonged demonstration. As we all know, it's one thing to watch something on CNN; it's entirely another to live through something. Maybe he had been caught up in the spirit of the demonstrations. Or perhaps he was following the action, but had learned to live with it and wasn't too excited about it. The demonstrations probably meant he took a different path to work, to avoid the traffic. We will never know if he was excited that the students were protesting, that he hoped this might lead to a tangible change in his life, or if he thought the students were simply full of shit and that these protests, in his eyes, were as good an excuse for blowing off studying for final exams as any other. We don't know and we probably never will. We just know that somewhere, somehow, along that path home, he saw those tanks rolling up the ironically titled "Avenue of Eternal Peace" toward Tiananmen Square. We know that he felt he had to do something to stop them. That he felt this was wrong because he was compelled to act against it.

So he stepped in front of the tanks and halted their progress.

I cannot imagine how scary that moment would have been. Tanks are massive things and there are big, scary guns hanging off the turrets. But that big gun on the front end isn't the only gun on a tank, as everyone knows. And they don't have to fire the big gun to kill you, either: there are plenty of the small ones which will do the trick just as well and will be more efficient at it. You can see in the photograph how small he looked in comparison to them. Yet, he didn't let fear stop him. He had to have been afraid that they would roll right over him, not having seen him, or, even worse, that they had seen him and would start shooting. That it would begin--and, to a certain degree, end---with him. Because this was the proverbial "put your money where your mouth is" moment. And not only because the Chinese armored cavalry was staring him down, but with the protestors as well. Remember that this hadn't ever happened before in China. There was no proven level of commitment on the part of these students. Would the demonstrators, those students who had been protesting for weeks on end, actually back him up? Would they turn tail and run? But maybe he didn't doubt their sincerity. Maybe he really thought they had a chance to change things and that this action was just him doing his bit? Maybe the only thought that was racing through his brain was that I have to stand up and stop these things. This is the threat, not the students. I must do what I consider to be right, so here I will stay.

Then the tank tried to get around him. And he moved in concert with it, shifting to stay directly in its path. I remember being stunned when this happened. I remember saying, "Holy Shit!" to no one in particular in the family room of the house I grew up in as I watched. I remember that his body language gave off an air of agitation and annoyance, like he was long-suffering father after a long day of work who'd simply had enough of his kids roughhousing and was going to put an end to it so he could have some peace and quiet. He looked like he was chewing the tank out.

The tank dodged again, and again he dodged with it. Then he did the most breathtaking thing that completely outdid everything else he'd done that day: he climbed up on the tank and started chatting with the driver. After a few long moments, he climbed down, and onlookers pulled him to safety.

This whole incident has stayed with me for sixteen years, and I'm not likely ever to forget it. But there's always one thing above and beyond all the rest that I wonder about: why didn't he drop his shopping bags? Why did he get in front of the row of tanks with them still in his hands, and why did he leave with them still in his hands? One would think that when one is about to risk one's life and limb by stepping out in front of a column of approaching tanks that one would forget all about the everyday path that had brought him to that moment. Oh, fuck the groceries, I've got bigger fish to fry. But he didn't forget about them. I would like to think that he, quite simply, had a life to lead and that the Saturday marketing was just as much a part of that life as was stepping out in front of those tanks. That this is who he was: Schmo Joe, average citizen of Beijing. That may not be the case: he may have been as surprised as everyone else that he still had the bags in his hands when all was said and done. In his haste, he may have completely forgotten about them, which is probably the more likely reason, but still...

For more go and visit Sheila.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:20 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1396 words, total size 8 kb.

1 Oh Kathy. I can't even take it.

Posted by: red at June 04, 2005 03:30 PM (Bc2GE)

2 You know, Sheila, before I saw the trackback, I was thinking you couldn't take this post...in a bad way. I'm glad that's not the case

Posted by: Kathy at June 04, 2005 05:45 PM (cgZvM)

3 A noble man, I hope he's still alive. Nobility is not a virtue, It is defined by ones actions.

Posted by: The Wizard at June 07, 2005 07:17 AM (N7YGA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Katherine Kersten wrote this column for the Strib yesterday. In it she states what she believes to be the Conservative conventional wisdom is in regards to same sex marriage: we're not about oppressing gays and lesbians, we're not bigots, but rather believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman and should be defined accordingly.

Craig Westover takes issue with her premise and does an excellent job fisking her column.

His summation:

{...}In final analysis, KerstenÂ’s argument is really an inverse liberal argument -- we have the power, our values rule. Even accepting the worst case viewpoint that homosexuals are evil people and gay marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God, the true conservative political argument, if one is not going to exterminate gays and/or take their children, is that it is more beneficial to extend the protections and stability of marriage to gays -- not all at once but in increments -- than it is to marginalize gay families and their children and consequently promote the pathologies that marriage is praised for preventing.

Gays -- conservative gays -- do not want to redefine marriage. The want to participate in it. And even if they didnÂ’t, conservatives ought to be encouraging them to do so with the same vigor and for the same reasons we encourage our own children "to settle down and raise a family."

Go read the whole thing. It's well worth your time.

{Hat Tip: Doug}

Posted by: Kathy at 10:18 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.

Have you heard about this one?

Hundreds of Egyptians, many of them women dressed in black, rallied in central Cairo on Wednesday to demand the resignation of Habib al-Adly, the interior minister.

Activists said they held the minister responsible for the fact that police stood by last week while supporters of the ruling National Democratic party assaulted women demonstrators, sexually harassed them and stripped them naked in the street.

The attacks took place on the day Egyptians voted on a constitutional amendment to allow the country to hold contested presidential elections for the first time.

Activists from Kefaya, a movement which has been campaigning against a fifth term for Hosni Mubarak, Egypt's president, had congregated in front of the Journalists' Union to protest against the change, which they dismiss as a meaningless ploy to deflect American pressure for reform.

But they were set upon when police lines surrounding them parted to allow in several dozen thugs, some of them carrying sticks. Men and women were assaulted, but the women were singled out for sexual humiliation.{...}

{my emphasis}

Did you get that? The police in Cairo parted like the Red Sea during a protest last week and let in thugs who then sexually assaulted the women protesters, stripping them naked in public and then beating them.

Isn't that wonderful?

/sarcasm

While the assault is bad enough, it's the motive behind it that just disgusts me. Because we all know what will happen to some of these women. They will be beaten to within an inch of their life, if not killed altogether, by the male members of their families because the men need to regain their "honor." These women, through no fault of their own, have supposedly shamed their male family members. They are the ones who will be held responsible for the crimes of others. And it's all just an attempt to keep the women quiet. Because this will shut them up. In a society where the rape victim is held responsible for the rape, what other effect could this action have?

I believe we're seeing just what lengths the reportedly "harmless" Mubarak will go to to keep himself in power. And it's just going to get uglier from here on in.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:01 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 380 words, total size 2 kb.

Inspired by the "non" and "nee" votes in France and the Netherlands respectively, Martini Boy has some interesting thoughts. A small sampling to tempt your palate:

{...}Look: Europe has got to integrate, even though a Single Europe goes against a century of American policy (and more than two centuries of British). Left to their own devices, European nations get into all sorts of mischief, like starting world wars, cleansing their ethnics, or colonizing entire subcontinents. Left alone, modern European states are too prone to protectionism and welfare statism to compete to global markets. Left alone, there's not a Continental nation with markets or muscle enough to matter on the world stage.

But didn't we fight a couple world wars, just to keep Europe safely fragmented? Didn't Britain play all the angles against Napoleon for the same reason? Well, yes – and whether we admit it to ourselves or not, any thinking person must be of two minds on the European integration. Without a Union of some sort, Europe's nation-states can cause – and have caused – grief all around the world. But united, Europe could prove bigger, richer, and meaner than even we are.

Reminds me of my third-favorite Cold War joke. Goes like this: "France wants a West Germany strong enough to keep the Soviets at bay, but weak enough to be held in check by Luxembourg."

Ironically enough, today we find ourselves in the same situation as de Gaulle's France: We'd like a Europe strong enough to keep things quiet over there, but weak enough not to threaten our interests.{...}

Go read the whole thing.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

Heh.

Posted by: Kathy at 04:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

Now, go away before I taunt you for a second time!

I'm loving this.

VIVE LA FRANCE!

Posted by: Kathy at 10:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.