<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Sunday, April 30, 2006

A Convenient Polemic 

The Al Gore political comeback continues chugging along, thanks to Gore's nationwide speaking tour on global warming, and the tour's official documentary An Inconvenient Truth. Yet last week's South Park lampooned Gore as a forgotten has-been who has been exploiting an issue that is just as absurd as the "Manbearpig."

It's unreasonable for us to deny Al Gore's fundamental point, that human activity (the burning of hydrocarbons) is increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and affecting the climate. Yet Gore should be dismissed as a nut once he starts identifying climate change as the biggest threat facing the world. The last time I checked, terrorists killed 3,000 Americans in the course of one day; the greenhouse effect has killed none.

Greenhouse gases are worthy of further scientific observation; yet science has yet to quantify exactly where the greenhouse effect fits into the larger pattern of climate change. The slowly-rising global temperature can just as easily be traced to the solar cycle, or to blackbody radiation from manmade structures on the earth. In the end, the greenhouse effect may play just a miniscule role in global climate changes.

Climate change and its scientific underpinnings are the subject of heated scientific debate (to the point where climatologists are making highly-publicized bets regarding its causes.) Americans are being done a disservice by a media that gives a disproportionate amount of time to the scientists who promote manmade greenhouse gases as the biggest component of global warming. The last thing Americans need on top of that is a manipulative ex-VP who wants to demagogue his way into the White House on fears of global warming.

Saturday, April 29, 2006

Speak for yourself! 

The Center for American Progress, the left-wing activist group funded by George Soros, thinks it has scored a major coup by reprinting critical articles of President Bush written by his new press secretary Tony Snow. Does CAP have a valid point? Do they expose a weakness on the part of George W. Bush, Tony Snow, or both?

If anything, Tony Snow's criticisms speak to the ethical dilemmas that face all people who are involved in public relations. A PR person has to explain his or her boss's position to the public, especially the critics. The PR people aren't paid to interject their own opinions or to question the boss. PR people will never agree with the bosses on 100% of the issues. Unless the people in power can constantly speak for themselves and address critics on a nonstop basis, the moral dilemma of the PR man will endure.

This might all be shocking, except that Tony Snow has walked this line before. He wrote speeches for Bush 41, even if he didn't always agree with what Bush 41 wanted to say. Tony Snow has certainly had his disagreements with the president, but I'm sure he agrees with a majority of what the president has accomplished in office, and Tony feels that his interests are secured best if he defends the president.

I often find myself in a similar position to that of Tony Snow. There are plenty of times that I disagree with the president; yet I feel that my interests are best served by defending the president on the times when we agree, rather than by tearing the president down at every opportunity.

It will be hard to watch Tony quit his job as an honest broker to become a spin doctor. I will miss his conscientious, non-partisan, compassionate and broad-ranging analysis of the news. Yet Tony's rhetorical skills are best served in stopping the president's free-fall in the hearts of the general public.

Saturday, April 22, 2006

An army of national unity 

As Iraq's parliament is beginning to take shape, there is a lot of rhetoric from Iraqi leaders about disbanding the sectarian militias and forging an army that reflects Iraq's diversity. Let's hope they can make it happen, and that there is substance behind today's rhetoric.

Friday, April 21, 2006

What you do for the money, honey 

The Russian government is explaining its soft stance on sanctioning Iran: it wants to see firm evidence that the Iranians are building nuclear weapons. It's a strong argument in light of our inability to show similarly strong evidence that the Iraqis were building Weapons of Mass Destruction.

At the same time, there are plenty of good reasons for sanctioning Iran that are not related to Weapons of Mass Destruction. Iran has been exporting terrorism for far longer than the US has been fearing al Qaeda. Iran founded Hezbollah and continues its support to this day. Iran is funding the Hamas Palestinian government. Iran has aided the Shiite death squads in Iraq, and provided IED's that have killed countless Americans. Iran is a sanctuary for al Qaeda leaders like Saad bin Laden, and allowed the safe passage of 9/11 hijackers who had trained in Afghanistan on their way to the US.

The cynic in me believes that Russia's soft stance on Iran has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with financial gain. Russia stands to gain under the status quo by selling nuclear reactors and military equipment (particularly anti-aircraft missiles) to the Iranians. Post-Soviet Russia has become a totally depraved state that is willing to suppress any morals it may have in favor of desperately-needed cash. Iran is one of Russia's major trading partners, and sanctions would hurt Russia almost as much as they would hurt Iran.

In the run up to invading Iraq, I acknowledged that Iraq had bought French and Russian support with lucrative oil contracts. I believed that it was critical we buy off French and Russian support by pledging to honor those contracts after deposing Saddam Hussein. This time around, we should choose the buyout option over unilateralism. The Russians will have to be given a favorable offer to offset the ill effects of desperately-needed sanctions on Iran. Perhaps the Russians could build new nuclear plants in the US (something we sorely need,) or contribute significant elements to efforts to return humans to the moon. The buyout will be costly, but Iran's destructive potential cannot be expressed in dollars--only the lives that can be lost.

Thursday, April 20, 2006

All's Fair in War & Politics 

It appears that the biggest roadblock to forming a unity government in Iraq is stepping aside. Embattled Prime Minister Ibrahim al Jafaari is willing to step down if his United Iraqi Alliance is willing to endorse a new candidate.

The "United Iraqi Alliance" is about as disingenuous as the Holy Roman Emperor. It's not united, it doesn't represent all Iraqi ethnic & religious groups, and the alliance is falling apart. A more apt description is "A bunch of Shiite parties who occasionally tolerate each other."

Two main parties are tearing the "Alliance" in opposite directions. al-Jafaari's Dawa Party was founded by Moqtada al Sadr's father and believes in Sharia law administered by the common people. Its rival, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (led by Abdul Aziz al Hakim) has traditionally believed in Sharia law administered by senior clerics. Both parties maintain their own militias, control sizable numbers of Iraqi police, and maintain sectarian death squads. Neither party serves the interests of the US for establishing a secular government, and neither has any hope of uniting Sunni Arabs, Kurds, and other minorities.

Despite calls from 30% of the country to resign (the Kurds & Sunnis,) al Jafaari refused to quit, up until now, out of fear that the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq would nominate the new PM and dominate the United Iraqi Alliance. With a good fraction of the Shiite community opposed to al Jafaari, there was no way he could win the support of a majority of Iraqis. However, his resignation is apparently dependent upon being replaced by another Dawa Party member.

The danger of sectarian war in Iraq will remain high indefinitely, until the political parties evolve from being sectarian parties to being parties based on shared ideology. The only analog in America would be if we were to have a White Party & a Black Party, or a Catholic Party & a Jewish Party. Such sectarian divides cannot produce a sustainable democracy. They ensure that elections will merely be sectarian war by other means.

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Broken Mouthpiece 

When Scott McClellan became President Bush's press secretary in June 2003, it became clear relatively quickly that he couldn't fill the big shoes left by his predecessor, Ari Fleischer. Fleischer was confident and assertive. He seemingly made the D.C. press corps fear him. Scott McClellan could only offer hokey and incredulous comebacks when reporters grilled him. Ari Fleischer was an armor suit of strength for the White House, while Scott McClellan was a veil of weakness.

The Bush Administration has been battered and bloodied during the public relations war, and its inability to justify its actions only made things worse. Dropping Scott McClellan like a hot brick is the only way to start the rebuilding process, now that the president's approval ratings are below 40% and his party is in grave danger of losing Congress.

Tony Snow's name has been kicked around, and he's probably the best of the possible choices (although Victoria Clarke or Dan Senor wouldn't be bad.) Snow would bring intelligence and articulation back to the White House press briefings. He also has experience in the field, having written speeches for Bush 41. Still, it will be hard to watch Tony Snow quit speaking from the heart on the Fox News Channel and start parroting the party line.

It's only fair that the president get somebody competent to tell his side of the story. There isn't nary a reporter who's willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[UPDATE] Here's a funny take on the McClellan story that you can't miss. I'd like to see the outgoing press secretary give one last press conference to extoll the virtues of Bennigan's.

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

So much for hoping 

For a while, there was a shred of hope that the Hamas government in Palestine could moderate its stance and work towards peaceful coexistance with Israel. After Monday's restaurant bombing in Tel Aviv that killed nine Israelis, that hope can no longer be taken seriously.

Why would anybody trust Hamas in the first place? Perhaps it was because of Hamas's recent cease-fire with the Israelis, which has held for several months. It's now clear that there was no benevolence on the part of Hamas in declaring that cease-fire. Instead, Hamas has been focusing its energies on the political leadership of Palestine, while condoning other Palestinian groups (like Palestinian Islamic Jihad, who took credit for today's bombing) who carry out the dirty work that Hamas is too busy for.

The US and Europe are correct in ending their support for the Palestinian government (although there was little moral high ground for supporting the previous Fatah government, either.) One must wonder if Monday's attack is linked to Iran's recent decision to become the prime ally and sponsor of the new Palestinian government.

Sunday, April 16, 2006

The Generals' Revolt 

With six prominent, retired generals pressing for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the commander-in-chief is being placed in a tough spot. President Bush has maintained his unyielding support for the beleaguered defense secretary, even during the dark depths of Abu Ghuraib. Nevertheless, the judgements of retired generals are always worth taking to heart.

In taking a look at recent history, it's clear that Rumsfeld made a lot of mistakes in regards to Iraq. I think Rumsfeld had the right idea of avoiding a prolonged nation-building effort, but he had no realistic plan that would quickly restore Iraq sovereignty (such as a benevolent dictator to act as a caretaker for a nascent Iraqi democracy.) Rumsfeld's approval of radical de-Baathification only took the US further down the path of nation-building, because it dissolved the most pervasive elements of Iraq's former regime: the army and the civil servants.

The policies of "force transformation" promoted by Rumsfeld (i.e., do more with less forces) naturally ignored the massive force requirements established during Clinton-era planning for Iraq (which has been General Zinni's gripe for the past three years.) History has vindicated General Zinni and others who called for a heavy-handed, force-heavy occupation.

Could the nation benefit from the departure of Donald Rumsfeld? While it might be politically popular, it will not appreciably improve the situation in Iraq. Rumsfeld's biggest mistakes have already been made, and have manifested themselves as the quasi-anarchy that Iraq is today. Iraq's future is largely in Iraqi hands now, and the American military can only do so much to sustain the embryonic Iraqi government in the face of brutal insurgency.

There's also the question of what impact will be felt by the troops if their Defense Secretary is sacked. With a major offensive anticipated for the insurgent strongholds in Baghdad, it might be best to retain Rumsfeld, at least through this major offensive. Successful completion of the offensive might be a good segue for Secretary Rumsfeld to resign with a degree of dignity, while maintaining the morale of the armed forces and building momentum for Iraqi government forces in securing their own country.

Thursday, April 13, 2006

Man with no Iran plan 

In the past few months, American and Allied rhetoric on Iran has escalated by a few notches. From all appearances, this is being motivated by recent breakthroughs in Iran's nuclear program. Whether it be removing seals from nuclear materials or using 164 centrifuges to produce enriched Uranium, the Iranians certainly enjoy sticking their thumb in the world community's eye.

Listening to the tough talk from the President, Secretary of State, and other administration officials has convinced me that the Bush Administration still lacks a coherent strategy for dealing with Iran. American condemnations of Iranian nuclear activities only serve to embolden Iran's deranged president and to drive up crude oil prices (which works to Iran's benefit, to the detriment of ordinary Americans.)

President Bush needs to shut his monkey mouth and start taking advice from Teddy Roosevelt: speak softly and carry a big stick. Right now, Iran is getting off on American and international outrage. We need to deny them this motivation.

We also need to take a rational look at the Iranian nuclear program. The 164 centrifuges currently enriching Uranium for their civilian reactor are a far cry from the tens of thousands that will be needed to build nuclear weapons. It will be at least 5 to 10 years before Iran has a nuclear weapon. That's plenty of time for diplomacy to work, and plenty of time for covertly undermining the current Iranian president. There is no need for rash military strikes at this juncture.

Even if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, we have to keep in mind that Israel, and not the US, would be the primary target. If Israel gets nuked, we have to ask ourselves whether America's one-way relationship with Israel is worth fighting for. The Iranians also know that a nuclear exchange with the US would bring about the destruction of Iran and all its people, due to the massive US nuclear arsenal.

The best course of action is to stay mum, continue low-key negotiations on the nuclear issue, and offer covert aid to anti-government forces in Iran (much like how the Iranians are covertly aiding our enemies in Iraq.) Displays of overwhelming outrage will not soulve our problems with Iran.

Sunday, April 09, 2006

Cardinal Sin 

Just when I thought it might be safe for me to come back to the Catholic church in which I was raised, I am confronted by high-level idiocy on the part of church leadership. Cardinal Roger Mahoney is enough to keep me away, due to his highly-politicized and extra-Biblical stance on immigration.

Cardinal Mahoney opposes crackdowns on illegal immigrants, and urges Catholics to aid illegals. I don't particularly recall Jesus telling the disciples to help outsiders enter Judaea while violating Roman law. I am uncertain whether Mahoney genuinely believes that immigration is a God-given right, or if he's just pandering to the Hispanics of the Los Angeles archdiocese.

There is nothing immoral or un-Christian about having a reasonable process that immigrants must follow before entering this country. As Jesus said, Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's--comply with your government so long as it does not conflict with our duty to God.

I think that the guest worker program is a compassionate means for allowing more immigrants to share in the American dream. But I don't think we should show much compassion in the future to people who knowingly circumvent the guest worker program (assuming that we get an immigration bill passed soon.) I also think that it's unwise to deport approximately 11 million people who are currently here illegally--fine them, make them admit wrongdoing, and let them apply for citizen or guest worker status. For American businesses who knowingly hire illegals--well, they have not paid unto Caesar; let them face Caesar's wrath.

The underpinning of a democratic society is that we are all compelled to obey the law of the land, regardless of our individual religious convictions. If Cardinal Mahoney chooses to aid illegal immigrants, then punish him as a common criminal. Toss him in prison. Yes, I definitely appreciate the irony of a priest on the receiving end of a butt-raping.

Saturday, April 08, 2006

Holey Crap 

Dan Brown, author of the phenominally-popular The DaVinci Code, has been spared by a judge from a plagiarism lawsuit. It was brought by two authors of the 1982 nonfiction book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln.

While the ideas presented in the Leigh book are clearly the basis for Dan Brown's work of fiction, they are not new, and the ideas themselves cannot be copyrighted. Unfortunately, the ideas presented by Dan Brown, Richard Leigh and others are utter crap that should die a silent death. At best, they are a deceptive spin on ancient history; at worst, they are a malicious attempt to revise history.

The most enduring achievement of Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Da Vinci Code are their vindication of Mary Magdalene. Instead of the false reputation of being a prostitute, Brown, Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln bring to light the historical evidence suggesting that Mary Magdalene was a trusted confidante of Jesus, perhaps enjoying a trust greater than that enjoyed by Jesus's disciples.

Unfortunately, Brown and others make a lot of logical leaps that just can't be justified. Brown interprets the bond between Jesus and Mary Magdalene as being one of marriage rather than Platonic friendship, despite a lack of direct evidence. The Gnostic gospel of Mary Magdelene offers tantalyzing clues, but the only existing copy is too tattered to be read in its entirety; further, the historical accuracy of the Gnostic gospels is much in doubt, and like all religion should be regarded as an article of faith.

Similarly, the legend that the "holy grail" (Jesus's bloodline) was brought to France is in direct conflict with the Arthurian legend that Joseph of Arimathea brought the grail (a physical cup) to England. Which legend is correct? Brown and others side with the French one, because it is the older of the two legends. While most of mankind's enduring legends have roots in the truth (King Arthur, Robin Hood, the Trojan War, etc,) the adage doesn't always hold true.

It's also disturbing how Brown twists history to fit his storyline. He misrepresents the Knights Templar and paints a mystic account of the end of the Merovingian Dynasty. My fear is that people will read Brown's book and believe the tripe he sows about the history of medieval Europe.

While The Da Vinci Code may be an entertaining work of fiction, it should not be read without a knowledge of the real history that inspired it. If any good is to come from The Da Vinci Code, it is that people may be inspired to learn more about the histories of ancient Judaea and medieval Europe.

Thursday, April 06, 2006

When a leak isn't a leak 

The media doublespeak continues, with a recent report claiming that President Bush authorized Scooter Libby to "leak" classified information to reporter Judith Miller. Note that the info in question was the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, and not the identity of Valerie Plame. Don't expect Democrats to clear up this confusion.

Except that the "leak" wasn't a leak. By definition, a leak is an unauthorized release of sensitive information to people who aren't cleared to learn of it. But in the case of an NIE, the president is what we would call a "declassification authority" who has the power to reduce the classification level of a document; he may even declassify it entirely.

To claim that the president authorized the "leak" of the NIE is just as asinine as saying that he authorized "leaking" the Saddam Hussein tapes to the media. The president declassified them. There is nothing untoward or illegal about that. Not that Howard Dean would care about something as inconvenient as the truth.

Monday, April 03, 2006

Conservatives & "Office Space" 

I don't know what it is about Office Space, but many conservatives list this movie among their all-time favorites. One of my friends even called this movie "a life changing experience." I am certainly no exception among the conservative fans of Office Space.

Part of my wonder about this fact is the perceptions about conservatives and corporatism. Office Space hardly paints a flattering portait of life in a large corporation. Noble and hard-working people are forced to the bottom of the food chain before they get laid off, slackers get promoted, and the bosses are inept and indecisive. In short, Office Space is frighteningly realistic, and yet funny at the same time.

I think that the perception of conservatives as "pro-corporate" has been unfairly slanted, and there is no reason why conservatives shouldn't laugh at this movie. Conservatives aren't necessarily pro-corporation. What they do believe is that people should be rewarded proportionally for their effort and ingenuity. They believe there is virtue in hard work. To that end, Office Space is perfect. It parodies the way that, in the real world, people are rewarded disproportionately for hard work and ingenuity. In the end, the antagonists receive their just desserts, and a valuable lesson is learned about chasing after passions instead of holding ourselves back or taking an easy way out.

Office Space is a comedy that transcends partisan politics and looks at the human experience. We only regret the things we never try, and we let ourselves be captive to social norms when we should be following out hearts. Office Space is about breaking free of our prisons--the ones created by society, and the ones we make for ourselves. In the end, we can all release the inner Milton from his supply closet.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?