Letters to the Editor
-
@WT (& OT)
Oh, indeed. In fact in my fantasyland, there's a Matrix-level simulator where we plug in the various variables, down to the butterfly wings creating typhoons halfway around the world, and see how various courses of action or attitudes might possibly play out for the world's future. Wouldn't THAT be nice.
I believe the next-gen "Life" simulator is slated for release in '08...it's called "Spore", and it looks hella interesting from what I've seen of it. File that as another thing to check out for your amusement
-
Jim White on the Bob Graham mystery
Now the timeline gets very interesting. Graham pushed for an NIE in September, 2002 and then after the 2002 election, he was replaced on the Senate Intelligence Committee in January, 2003 by Rockefeller.
Nice digging into Graham's brief career as Intelligence chair in the Senate. It's good to know what the Democrats were actually up to. However, it's worth pointing out one small missing detail — between 2002 and 2003 the Democrats also lost control of the Senate. Describing Rockefeller as Graham's successor isn't quite correct — in terms of who was in charge of the committee, Graham was replaced by a Republican (Pat Roberts), not by Jay Rockefeller.
-
Kindly imagine
A period where it should have been at the end of my last post. Jeez I hate it when that happens.
-
(re: update) Jonah Goldberg, "lucky" Iraqis, and a non-friendly question
In 2002 before the Iraq War, Jonah Goldberg wrote an article detailing all the benefits of war titled, “War: What Is It Good For? Quite a lot, actually.”
According to Jonah, all kinds of good things come from war including “material progress” and the number of medical breakthroughs attributable to war is “literally incalculable.”
He also writes: “Women's suffrage would not have been possible without war.”
Wow, women must love war.
Now if I were to attend Jonah’s talk today, I'd list some of numerous disasters that have happened in Iraq since we invaded and ask him to expand on this quote from before the war:
"The biggest favor the United States ever did to militaristic Japan was to crush it militarily. Our victory ushered in prosperity, democracy, and a productive peace. The Iraqi people would be lucky if we did them the same favor."
Do most Iraqis really feel “lucky” that we did them the “favor” of occupying their country? Do you really believe that, Jonah?
No wonder he’s nervous about “non-friendlies” attending his speech - they could ask some very awkward questions.
http://tinyurl.com/2dozrp
-
Concision
Interesting word counts on the torture issue:
Convention Against Torture (in it's entirety): 5025
Stripped of signing language, and procedural articles on the opperation of the Commission (but including Article 31 that says a year's notice is required to "denounce" and that denouncing doesn't absolve standing obligations): 1812
Just the articles defining torture and requiring it to be a crime: 306
Other concise or less so items:
Gettysburg Address: 278
Declaration of Independence: 1323
Declaration minus the "He has" laundry list: 667
It would appear that both Jeff Greenfield and Noam Chomsky are incorrect: concision is no excuse for not representing a leading intellectual, and concision is not capable of vacating speech of profound content all by itself.
-
Ron Pol Pot is running for President?
We've already seen Chomsky's perfect president
Pol Pot. My passport is current, thank god.
--Anonymous
When Profs. Herman and Chomsky criticized the media coverage of Cambodia they were labeled apologists for Pol Pot.
Pol Pot And Kissinger
On war criminality and impunity
By Edward S. Herman
(...)
Another feature of the U.S. propaganda system is that contesting propaganda campaigns is not permissible, and results in a blackout and/or gross misrepresentation and vilification. As soon as Chomsky and I criticized media coverage of Cambodia, in 1977, we, and especially Chomsky, were accused of being apologists for Pol Pot. William Shawcross eventually (and ludicrously) blamed Chomsky for having paralyzed Western policy responses to genocide by his (and my) single review article in the Nation...
Similar to what Shooter does here.
-
O tempora, O mores
Matty D, it doesn't take the Matrix, I think, just progressively sharper tools. And such speculations are only off-topic if you're resigned to solving your problems among the trees without even occasional reference to the forest.
Yes, bethincary, I don't think anyone doubts that we ourselves are part of an evolutionary process. Being who we are, though, we're rightfully sensitive about the possibility that we may someday be declared an evolutionary dead end by some agency whose identity we haven't yet discovered.
Since we've clearly been gifted with some of that agency's powers, it would seem a bit foolish not to make such use of them as we can. Our mortality makes this difficult, but not, I think, impossible.
-
@Jim White
Thanks for your excellent digging. This quote from your NYT link reinforces my point that Graham should be interviewed to help build a position on why Rockefeller should not lead an investigation.
“Mr. Graham is a friend of Mr. Rockefeller's, and the two Democrats have already met to discuss the changes in committee leadership. Mr. Rockefeller has kept a low profile on the panel and aides said the senator, known mainly on health issues, is working hard to gain expertise in intelligence.”
We should be encouraging as many senators as possible to back Biden’s recommendation for a special counsel. There is a clear conflict of interest on the part of senator’s who were briefed and went along with torture and other horrors.
-
Helmut?
Why, it's almost like Jonah is about to go on a mission to defend Fallujah and he's strapping on a helmut and calling in his comrades to come provide back-up.
I assume you mean "strapping on a helmet" as "strapping on a Helmut" has a whole different connotation.
-
@ jqheywood
But isn't that precisely what darling Jonah does? He's allergic to helmets, but he's never without his helmut, especially when he's giving war a chance.
-
@ "Wow, women must love war."
It depends on the women and on the war in question. I don't think too many people of either gender love war. Many will support just and necessary wars and some will support unjust and unnecessary wars.
Women of the Far Right: The Mothers' Movement and World War II
From Library Journal
The mother's movement in opposition to U.S. policies and participation in World War II was not a single, unified movement, according to Jeansonne (history, Univ. of Wisconsin, Milwaukee) but a "decentralized confederation of some fifty to one hundred groups," with overall membership estimates ranging from five to ten million. The leaders of the various groups were neither mainstream conservatives nor feminists but fanatic radicals whose common denominator was anticommunism animated by intense bigotry and racism. Jeansonne devotes chapters to Elizabeth Dilling, Catherine Curtis, Lyrl Clark Van Hyning, Agnes Water, and many others. At first reading, the degree of bigotry and hate espoused by these women seems, from a 1990s moderate or liberal perspective, ridiculous almost to the point of comedic. However, their ability to command and influence an audience then, and the endurance to this day of similar bigotry in contemporary far-right radicalism, make Jeansonne's book sobering and important indeed. Extensively documented, it is useful not only as a narrative history of women and an expose of bigotry but also as a stimulus for further research. A worthwhile addition for most academic libraries.
http://www.amazon.com/Women-Far-Right-Mothers-Movement/dp/0226395898