George F. Will piece or peace? (6-2-08)

The topic of Empire has surfaced. [George F Will and a waste of history let alone 9/11]
(Sent but not printed by Seattle PI, Sept. 10th, 2002)

The George F. Will piece, "What we’ve learned from 9/11 and from 12/7" is a waste of words and a waste of lives, if that is all we’ve learned. I make light of neither, but what I have learned from both is to speak up in the face of these wastes. This will honor the lives both military and civilian that were lost on these tragic historical occasions.

If his point is that we have a destiny and that we are in an ever-present danger for it, then we have not learned enough. He surmises that "For all Americans, being a focus of furies - which a muscular nation, extending almost 5,000 miles from the cavity in Southern Manhattan to the Arizona’s hull, will be - is a dangerous destiny." He concludes simply: "A powerful nation embodying a powerful idea spanning six time zones is permanently exposed to dangers from all the other 18." Aside from being obvious, he fails to clarify that powerful idea, unless it is his immediate reference to the USS Baltimore as "the course of empire takes its way".

It is not the 5,000 miles or the six time zones that presumes this destiny, if that is the "idea". It is the, "how we got there" and "where are we going" that pose the risk to our history. It is the how and why of that idea that needs clarity if we want to distinguish ourselves with a destiny different from others. If we fail to learn much more from these events, we will fail to even clarify our destiny let alone honor our dead. If we investigate further we may not only change our history but the world’s future.

(6-2-08: only the title has been added with some editing of the quotations marks)

[NOTE: TWO PIECES IN THIS POST]

Revised Sent to Eastside Journal Dec. 7th.
IDEOLOGY AND PROCESS

A letter to the editor by Wilbur Mann, Dec. 3rd, "Electoral System Works" typically misinterpreted Donald Kaul's (EJ Nov. 24th) piece, "Anti-war rallies don't have the power to change politicians' hearts". Kaul also focused on the difficulties caused by being too tied to ideology, resulting in those too extreme or dissatisfied leaving the confines of a party, and how this impacts our governmental process. Third party spoilers end up muting voices rather than give them representation.

While Kaul lamented the failures of both the voices and the system in its last two cycles, the letter actually supported the piece by Kaul. It suggested "The electors themselves can be eliminated: they don't even appear on the ballot anymore, and there is nothing to stop them from changing their votes once elected. But let's keep the process." Contradictions aside, this seems to support a system without a voice.

Oddly I concur that we keep the process, but giving the electors a voice is one of the points in its favor. Mann would seem to concur with the Supreme Court, where it similarly had so many contradictions it could not set precedence, yet managed to eliminate some voices (Florida’s voters, legislature, judiciary, and electors).

The frequent disdain for moderate "politicians" who might be using their own judgment or will compromise for the sake of progress over ideology, leaves us all between a rock and a hard place or rather between partisanship and politics (neither of which need vilification) squashing the voices of reason.


Sent to Dori Monson and Dave Ross on KIRO 710 radio.
[December 6th, 2002]

Dear Dori: (Copy to Dave)
To be honest, I must say that I am coming to deeply despise your inflammatory choice of words. In particular your reference to the "no Iraq war" crowd as the "hate America crowd" with "their heads in the sand". First I feel that if one hates America one could simply leave as they used to say and not take the risks of speaking out, but in reality it is those that would shut them up that have other options than to remain in America. Since there is the element of choice here don’t accuse me of actually suggesting this. I simply mean that if one hated America they have the choice of leaving, but those who love their country still have the choice of both speaking out as well as breaking laws and going to jail as a point of principle. What a great country!

As far as having heads in the sand, no matter how many terrible points that you feel are being ignored, they do not make up for others like you having their head in the sand in other directions. Some tout responsibility, but want to forget the past. Indeed I agree with a kernel of what you say, where any regime that chooses to ignore international law should be changed. Did you know that the Bush administration has made that choice a policy? Well I won’t provide the details since if your head is not in the sand you should know them, nor do I want to play a lawyer since they get no more respect than laws or legislators.

It’s hard to rap this up with something more inflammatory when I’ve already made my points. However, since you said conditionally that relief from such evil was not necessarily the goal of the administration. But would just be somewhat of an "accidental" outcome of war with Iraq. I must say that it may be a long time before your head will be safe in the sand again. Bush said recently, "You cannot wage war defensively." I say, you cannot wage peace offensively. Nor, as a guest on Dave Ross’ show before yours said, by demonizing others. That would sure leave some talk shows cold. In fact the guest would gladly go to jail to get the "principles" of the administration out of the sand and into a court of law.

Sent to Eastside Journal Dec. 3rd.
IDEOLOGY AND PROCESS

Wilbur Mann (EJ Dec. 3rd) in his letter to the editor, "Electoral System Works" typically misinterpreted Donald Kaul's (EJ Nov. 24th) piece, "Anti-war rallies don't have the power to change politicians' hearts". Beyond the system Kaul also focused on the difficulties caused by being too tied to ideology. These difficulties arise from those too extreme or dissatisfied leaving the confines of a party, and how this works in our political system which gives us the House, Senate and electoral process. This system and its winner take all nature, allows spoilers to mute voices rather than give them representation.

While Kaul lamented the failures of both the voices and the system in it's last two cycles, Mann typically chose to focus on a point so poorly supported it actually supported the piece by Kaul. Mann concludes, "The electors themselves can be eliminated: they don't even appear on the ballot anymore, and there is nothing to stop them from changing their votes once elected. But let's keep the process." Sorting the contradictions contained in these sentences seems needless, since whether we eliminate the electors themselves or keep the process, Mann prefers a system without a voice.

Oddly I concur that we keep the process, but giving the electors a voice is one of the points in its favor. Mann would seem to concur with the Supreme Court, where it similarly had so many contradictions it could not set precedence, yet managed to eliminate some voices (Florida voters, Florida legislature, Florida judiciary, and Florida electors).

The Kaul piece did not so much indict the electoral process, but the voters who were too impatient with more moderate voices that tend to legislate or campaign, for whatever reasons, less ideologically. There is frequent disdain for politicians who may use their judgment or simply compromise for the sake of progress over partisan agendas. It seems to me there are those across the spectrum who would rather see the process not work than to work it. That leaves us all between a rock and a hard place or rather between partisanship and politics squashing the voice of reason.

PROGRESS is also exceedingly susceptible to this same prism of interpretation.

A short segment I caught of Dave Ross on KIRO710 this morning provides a very appropriate example. He and a caller agreed that President Bush would go down as one of the most successful presidents in history if he could disarm a rogue nation without firing a shot.

One could be quick to agree but would likely already be wrong. Last point first, a few shots have been fired. Actually there are no other real points only speculations or questions. We must define a rogue nation and see if the definition works outside of “the winner makes the rules and can ignore” them scenario. In other words, how will this apply to the behavior of our own and other nations?

TODAY'S THOUGHT CONTINUED:

WAR is a topic most susceptible to the prism of interpretation. One example is the prognostication of whether we will have war in Iraq. A root question is; why are we involved in Iraq? Is it terrorist threats, nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, oil or just regime change? Without a clear answer to the root questions, opposing views can agree that war will be inevitable but for different reasons. Unclear reasons leave opposition to war most obvious.

THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE?

[open letter to the Seattle area media: Aug. 29th 2002]
[LINKS UPDATED 9-28-11 Original only had UW link.]
It may look like making sausage, but we don’t want America ground meat.

What’s the story on the press releases for the Rolling Thunder event on August 24th, as well as the Moveon.org event on August 28th? When did they go out and where were they sent?

Moveon.org members delivered letters of support and courage to our senators to ask the questions of the administration that would put the brakes on its rush to war. While nearly 150 concerned citizens circled the Federal Building in Seattle while 40 representatives took the message and questions inside to both of our Senators’ policy advisors and staff members. A larger group later filled the Plymouth Congregational Church in Seattle with further discourse with them.

Correct me if I am wrong, but like Rolling Thunder on August 24th, billed as "This is what Democracy looks like" which was a related but different issue, there was close to no major news coverage. There, over 7000 people gathered in the name of Democracy. The major reason for lack of coverage may be their successes. They were peaceful, non-violent and in fact caused little disturbance other than the parking violators for the latter.

UW researchers provide reason for a more skeptical or sinister view of this lack of coverage, "Newsmagazines downplayed opposition voices after Sept. 11, researchers find."

This is an important finding but three points were not raised. First, how difficult the message of peace is compared to the simplistic answer of war. Simple but wrong reasons for war are hard to fight with the myriad of reasons and needs for peace. Second, the methods of peace and progress do not provide the money generating headlines or focus on crisis and tragedy. If the voices of democracy are not carried by the mainstream media it, appears they reward those that would be more disturbing and disruptive.

Contrary to the goal of journalism promoting the free exchange of ideas and thereby a free people, they would, in attempting to unite, instead polarize the country. The media is more, as H.L. Mencken said of the newspaper…"a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier." It should not be hard to see that a likely result would be greater support for the extremes of totalitarianism and anarchy. I’m sure the conflict would then get great revenue generating coverage, but moderate reasoned voices would be the losers.

[9-28-11: More updates and links needed.]

MY APOLOGIES for not maintaining the log. I will resume my original intent of posting previous writings that were sent but not necessarily printed anywhere.
A COMMENT: on the silence, digesting the election.
A THOUGHT: When Republicans win an election we may get a chance to be proven right, but should hope we are proven wrong.
Interpretation is the key, or the prism through which we view the actions and words of others. To be clear is a risk for both sides of the political spectrum, but being unclear is the tactic chosen by those who may prevail. If this seems hard to digest, it may at least be understood as an excuse for the gap in my log.

President Bush recently stated. "You cannot wage war defensively."

My reply (if I have not borrowed it from somewhere) is: You cannot wage peace offensively.

I would gladly end it there but more comes to mind. It is frequently said, "the best defense is a good offense." This refers to the game of football where there are rules. In war where the rules are declared by the victor and ignored by the participants it would seem that this would not apply. The game of football has referees that impose the penalties without bearing arms. If we do not get agreement on following rules it's hard to see where we can expect them to be followed by others. If the more fortunate among us have difficulty following rules, how can we expect those under pressure to maintain self control, let alone hope? We must work on both the rule book and the game plans.

Dubious is the word...

NOT PRINTED [a reply to Ari Fleisher's letter to the editor in the Washington Post]
Dubious is the word of all words.
Or Facts needs quotation marks.

At first it was hard to believe that "Solid Facts From the President" on Oct.24th was really Ari Fleisher and that his reply to the Oct. 22nd front-page story "For Bush, Facts are Malleable" emanated from The White House. But then again, it further demonstrated the shallow if not dubious and wrong thinking there.

In his charge that it "was both substantially flawed and a distortion of what the president said", he attempted rebuttal on two issues. The first on Iraq’s "growing fleet" of unmanned aircraft "targeting the United States", Fleisher focused on the targeting aspect to sidestep the "fact" that other intelligence called the "fleet" an "attempt" or "experiment". The article went much further than the reply in explaining this confusion. The second attempted rebuttal was where the "the president stated that the International Atomic Energy Commission said Iraq could possess weapons in as few as six months" which was actually from a different source; the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The article did give the administration's excuses but the reply sidestepped the "fact" that the quoted source reached a contrary conclusion in 1998.

Now granted that the sources and time frames do complicate the distinctions. But not enough to excuse the president for quoting an Iraqi "nuclear" defector speaking in 1998, who had retired in 1991 and not been in Iraq since 1995, as a source on Iraq’s nuclear threat. Nor for drawing other conclusions regarding Iraqi or terrorist use of chemical or biological weapons "at odds with congressional testimony by the CIA.'

In the Press Secretary’s case these two rebuttals do nothing to support his claim that the front-page article was "substantially flawed and a distortion of what the president said." Nor does it excuse him from reading and addressing the many other "malleable" issues in the piece, not to mention the only "In fact" statement in the article, on education.

On education the article claims the president took credit for "the biggest increase in education spending in a long, long time" when it was (1) not even bigger than the previous increase under Clinton. It also claimed (2) that the smaller "Bush" increase was Congress’ and (3) larger than Bush had wanted. Then when moderate Republicans complained to the administration that even that was not even being spent, the same contact in the administration "decried" the (4)"explosively large education bill." Left unrebutted these not only prove dubiousness but in fact three wrongs, and one dubious and wrong.

In the case of this writer(me), leaving aside what was left unrebutted still allows me to demonstrate that his conclusions that "Each point in The Post’s story is refuted by the facts" and "It is The Post’s reporting that is dubious, if not wrong", is pure “expletive deleted *". Hence, confirmed to be emanating from the Dubious administration.

[*] 9-13-08 unknown if this is my "expletive deleted" or actually from the article, note that McCain actually uses his fingers when he says the word quote, I sometimes uses the marks to indicate borrowing or replacement (italics added for emphasis).

NO JOKE

Last night, David Letterman made fun of the Democrats for not articulating a message or rather having lost to the Bush efforts of articulation. I won’t attempt to retell the joke, but it is sad, if the opinion prevails that the Democrats could not out-articulate Bush.

Looking at the definition of articulate I will probably come up with a joke of my own. There is irony in the definition of articulate. Bush has claimed to be somewhat of a simple man-of-the-people possibly explaining being a man of simple words. Not wanting to re-articulate what the Republican message was, since it was articulate, particularly as in "expressed clearly", I simply counter that the Democrats message was articulated as in "jointed". Some would say disjointed.

Transportation being a big issue locally the metaphor of a bus came to mind. The Republicans may be on a big bus, but the Democrats are on an articulated bus. I really want to be a partisan and suggest a right and wrong but assigning issues to a bus is the problem. The Republican bus may have only one stop so we better want to go there. The Democrat’s bus may have several stops so few want to ride it all the way. Not to forget that even fewer people want to ride a bus. Let alone those that have issues and problems or candidates that differ from state to state. One or two elections that go one way or another do not a mandate or articulate make. Will we make progress in either bus? Maybe sometimes an uphill battle is better than down hill with no brakes.

[Trivium = grammar, logic and rhetoric : 2-10-07]

A Plan to B-Team

[A Plan to B-Team]
Mike Webb and Bryan Suits on KIRO710 radio last night discussed the comments by Walter Cronkite, that war with Iraq without U.N. approval will be the start of World War III. Bryan made the analogy that if Mr. Cronkite said the sky were green some people would believe him. I may have slightly rearranged the premise but the screener for the phone calls to the show tried to distance the analogy from his point anyway so there is no point in explaining what his point is now.

While waiting to make my comment, that if Walter Cronkite said the sky were green some should give him more credence than the person who puts those words into his mouth presuming to know that the truth is contrary. I guess that is his point, which is a point that can’t be argued. That is easy when one knows the truth. The sky is blue----- or black or gray or white or pink or orange, well that is one way to lose the analogy. My original point being that if Walter Cronkite said something people would give him more credence than to others and at least want to hear more details. While complete credence is something that should maybe never be given to anyone let alone media or politicians.

As the show moved on to other topics I missed the opportunity to use a better analogy I developed while on hold. That is, that if experts said the sky were whatever color several experts could agree, it would not get the attention it deserved until someone of prominence deserved or not (in this case deserved but it works for not) brings it to the attention of the public. Then there would still be skeptics.

There is an interesting parallel here to a story on Slate titled "The Rumsfeld Intelligence Agency" by Fred Kaplan. Apparently the CIA is not deserving of credence, since the Secretary of Defense has a B-Team (article says Team B) sifting through the raw intelligence data on Iraq. So "as his top team member, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, put it to the Tim...see certain facts that others won't, and not see other facts that others will." This is a quote I segmented for simplicity, where the challenge may be to see whether it is out of context, but it maybe demonstrates the hazards of looking at "facts" through a prism. My premise is that this quote sums up the administration’s intentions or intelligence as in mentality from leaders of the B-Team. But to put it more plainly (well just another way) it is hard for the administration to assign intentions to others when hiding their own. Now to put it more plainly they are looking for the "facts" that will show Iraq is linked to al-Qaida terrorists while ignoring both contrary "facts" as well as our own history of cooperating with, or aiding and abetting dangerous people or regimes. The questions for the media as well as the rest of us leaves a lot of digging, through the who, what, when, where and how, to get to what anyone can figure are the intentions and those are far from facts.

[4-13-09 UPDATE: heading adjusted, format reparagraphed and link edits] It should also be noted that someone listened to Cronkite, as apparently WWIII was avoided (if not exactly) by the acquiescence of the U.N, if not approval.]

The U. S. Senate, the nation and the world lost a great leader yesterday in Senator Paul Wellstone, but for liberals or progressives he was a leader amongst persons worth following.

Will France be a new leader or will laws?

Well I must consider now that the whole world is not following exactly. Though following as in paying attention is still valid. There is something disturbing about the label of follower or leader but not so much as there is with the statement "either you are with us or against us". Cooperation requires being able to play both positions, follower and leader. If we are nation or world of laws not men then those laws should be what are followed and cooperation is needed to write them.

Either you are for following laws or you are against them. The ONLY exception should be self-defense, which applies to the individuals and groups when engaged in otherwise legal actions. Violations of law by individuals or groups should not let governing bodies off the hook from following laws. Foreign policy must keep this in mind or risk leading to war. War should only result from a failure in foreign policy not as an extension of it. And one should not be a leader if unwilling to follow laws.

Subject of last post as it was faxed to selected representatives: WE ACT IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM?
retitled: "the whole world is following".

With the recent revelation about North Korea's nuke program being known to the administration the last 12 days my metaphor of a Pandora's box is maybe outdated. A more appropriate metaphor may be the little Dutch boy and the dike.

My fax and some earlier work may seem precognitive, but a look back may be more useful. i.e. 1947 National Security Act, and other foreign policy actions, treaty violations or secret diplomatic or military slight of hands that "the whole world is following".

After reading the War Resolution and several passages on why representatives voted the way they did, I still believe strongly that the arguments for the resolution were weak and the arguments against the resolution are many.

One issue not really highlighted is that of leadership. America is unquestionably in a leadership position. But what does a leader do but create followers? Are we prepared to live in a world where other countries will follow our examples? We are going after an international criminal but refuse to acknowledge the international criminal court. This seems to be a most blatant travesty of justice, and we act in the name of justice?

When laws are ignored, by any individual or group, it increase the likelihood of totalitarianism or anarchy as well as blurring the distinction between war and terrorism. When leaders lead poorly it would make sense that followers will act poorly. It would seem to increase the level of vigilantism as well as senseless crimes.

We are fortunate in this country that there are not more followers. But that does not mean we will be lucky enough to avoid an increase in poor followers.

The presidents speech was nothing new EXCEPT the following: "I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military,
if it proves necessary, to enforce UN Security Council demands."

YOU MUST VOTE NO, if it is anything more than that. Also VOTE NO, if it is anything less than with U.N. Security Council approval.

The administration said the speech was: "Comprehensive proof that military action may be necessary." The words "comprehensive proof" and "may be" seem to be mutually exclusive. My representative, Congresswoman Dunn said that there are 40 countries behind us on this. It is not clear yet if this authorizes unilateral action or not and if they would be behind us then.

CONGRESSIONAL COVER?

CONGRESSIONAL COVER?
At the Eastside Democratic Dinner, Senator Cantwell spoke of the war being a
shell game hiding the issue of the economy. The reverse can be true if the
economy is used to disregard concern for war and other foreign policy
issues. Both would be a case of running for political cover rather than
face what is right or wrong.
(Much thanks to Congressman McDermott!,and Senator Cantwell,
and Congressman Inslee---
SEE PREVIOUS POST of a two-page fax sent or emailed to others.)
TO THOSE IT MAY CONCERN: 10-8-02

WAR? NO! DEBATE? YES!

[faxed and e-mailed before the Presidents Speech]
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
[COWBOY MANIFESTO (NSS)? NO! ANSWERS TO RHETORIC? YES!]
Below is a short compendium of the argument.
It cuts through the scholarly to almost the common sense.
We need more than common sense,
but even it says... NO TO WAR!
NO TO THREATS!
YES TO INTERNATIONAL LAW AND CO-OPERATION.

PLEASE READ!
Debate Iraq Resolution!
Debate Cowboy Manifesto!
Further debate must be held on the Iraq Resolution indeed on the Cowboy Manifesto (National Security Strategy of the United States).

I am very concerned about the new preemptive policy in defense of the nation. Congress must not lose the power to declare war. The president still has the duty to inform congress of his actions in defense of the nation. Congress should review authorization for the National Security Act of 1947 and be informed of all covert actions taken in the name of defense. Congress should make sure all treaties and international laws are complied with or amend their actions and consent on the basis of any violations.

In regards to Iraq, enforcement of UN resolutions should be made in cooperation with the UN Security Council or there is no authority but that of congresses to go to war. Since Iraq’s transgression was mainly the invasion of Kuwait, regime change other than for purposes of enforcing UN resolutions is an act of war. Inspections and disarmament must be done under clear guidelines that prevent war preparations prior to violations being found and corrected.

If the United States chooses to take this responsibility on their own, what will the U. N. or any other nations that disagree hold us responsible for? Indeed which of our actions will other nations or groups take as an example?

The rhetoric must be cut through. There is a fine line between a bluff and a lie. Both should be difficult to do in a democracy. Questions must be answered or we must insist actions remain rhetorical!

Please keep war powers in the hands of Congress. Do your jobs and do not give the President a free hand.
He should have all the power he needs from the Constitution. Extensive changes show a lack of courage to do what is needed without political cover or more likely THAT IT IS WRONG! Please consider what has been done in our name with the power administrations already use or have abused.

RESOLUTION ON IRAQ [From the Washington State Democratic Party]
Never has a document so fully received my support. Patriotism is a word that could easily be misused, but the principles contained in the Resolution on Iraq from the Washington State Democratic Party, approved 120-0 have my strongest support. These principles are more important than partisanship and more deeply represent patriotism than anything before.

WSDCC Sept. 28th 2002
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the Washington State Democratic Party strongly believes that the United States must not strike out unilaterally to force regime change in Iraq or any other nation, and such unilateral action would call into question the legitimacy of the United States as the chief proponent of the rule of law and as a leader of nations.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any course of military action by the Bush administration must follow the Constitutional requirement of congressional approval, as well as consultation with the United Nations Security Council.

In addition to all the WHEREAS that are not included, here are my further comments:

There must be a full debate on foreign policy as well as war powers. If we are concerned about Iraq’s Saddam Hussein supporting terrorism, and terrorist states are the same as terrorist individuals, we must be certain we do not support any terrorist states or ruthless dictators. International law is the primary distinction between war and terrorism and this line is very blurred.

We must be certain we follow international law in our foreign policy. It is not enough to decide that someone has capabilities for terror or weapons of mass destruction, but to be convinced they intend to use them preemptively. Iraq dictator has mostly contained radicals and it is unclear that he would empower them beyond his control. Even if Iraq’s dictator were threatened in a last stand effort to survive he would probably use any means at his disposal rather than give them to others.

Since we have established a preemptive stand and given or allowed others to use weapons beyond our control, we are the ones that have to worry about enforcement of international law. War is certainly an answer to not having to worry over distinctions in law or methods of violence.

I am sorry that where Congressman Jim McDermott made his statements, has overshadowed his message. Maybe he did overstate his beliefs, but hopefully the President is overstating his, but congress should be more certain in authorizing war.