Bush Must Negotiate to Make America Safer, Say Former Generals

by Aaron Glantz

SAN FRANCISCO - Twenty-one former generals and high ranking national security officials have called on United States President George W. Bush to reverse course and embrace a new area of negotiation with Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. In a letter released Thursday, the group told reporters Bush's 'hard line' policies have undermined national security and made America less safe.

Of particular concern for the generals was increased saber rattling between Washington and Tehran over the development of an Iranian nuclear program.

"We call on the administration to engage immediately in direct talks with the government of Iran without preconditions to help resolve the current crisis in the Middle East and to settle differences over an Iranian nuclear program," their letter read.

"An attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences for security in the region and U.S. forces in Iraq," they argued. "It would inflame hatred and violence in the Middle East and among Muslims everywhere."

In a telephone news conference Thursday morning, the former security officials took particular aim at the Bush Administration's policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists or with states that support them.

"That seems strange since Ronald Reagan was willing to negotiate with the Soviets even though they were the 'Evil Empire," said retired Lt. General Robert Guard, who served as special assistant to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara during the Vietnam War and now works at the non-profit Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. "One wonders why George Bush can't negotiate with the Axis of Evil."

The generals further argued that the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq is at least partially responsible for Iran's drive to develop a nuclear program.

"When you announce an axis of evil of three countries and invade one and then say that Iran should take that as a lesson, it does seem that it may give them an incentive to do precisely what they don't want them to do," Guard said, "develop a nuclear weapon."

Former director of Policy Planning for the State Department, Morton Halperin, said the same goes for North Korea. The more belligerent the Bush Administration behaves, he said, the faster North Korea will work to develop nuclear weapons.

"The North Koreans want to talk to us directly," said Halperin, who now works for the Washington, DC-based Center for American Progress. "Their concern is about getting security assurances from us and about getting diplomatic recognition. We should not be afraid to talk to our opponents."

At the White House, Bush's spokesperson Tony Snow dismissed the letter.

"In a political year people are going to make political statements, including retired generals, and they're perfectly welcome to," Snow told reporters at his daily briefing. "It's an important addition to the public debate. But we're also--the president is a guy who has got real responsibility here. Now, I've got to tell you, just given to what I said...in response to the sort of ongoing cost of promoting freedom around the globe, do you not think a president will do everything in his power to succeed? And the answer is, yes. He's not sitting around saying, boy, I'm stubborn, I'm going to stick with it.

"That's not the way the president is," Snow said, insisting the Bush administration is planning policy changes while declining to offer specifics.

But the generals who signed the letter say Bush has been stubborn, and a poor student of history.

General Joseph Hoar, the Commander in Chief of U.S. Military Central Command under presidents Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush, said the George W. Bush administration would be advised to remember the French occupation of Algeria, which lasted 134 years.

Nationalist rebels launched an insurgency against the French in 1954. After eight years of insurgent bombings and counter-terrorism operations, France was finally forced to quit Algeria in 1962.

Hoar says like the Battle of Algiers the current war on terror is a war of ideas.

"Until we get away from the idea that we can solve these problems through the use of military force and begin to change the political problems causing discontent by providing security and services, we're not going to win this war," he said.

Lists, Lists, Lists ...

"... what really matters is what you like, not what you are like..." -- John Cusack as Rob Gordon in High Fidelity

What's thrown out there as a tongue-in-cheek comment to impress the Lisa Bonet character in High Fidelity may have more truth than you think. I had just re-watched the movie (great movie!) a week or so ago and then our book memes came up. Cusack's character spends a good part of his life making lists that define his tastes in music, women, etc. And those lists probably say more about him than anything he does. And maybe our own lists do the same. Taking a not very in-depth look at some of the books in our lists gives a scarily accurate portrait of what each of us are about. So as to not offend too much, I'll take a stab at myself first. And just remember, I kid because I love.

dbackdad

• All the President's Men, Rush Limbaugh ... -- has an unhealthy like for politics
• Lord of the Rings, Dune -- probably grew up a nerd and read sci-fi instead of dating
• Walden, Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Bury My Heart ... -- typical godless liberal -- lol

jewish atheist

• He's all over the place. I can't draw anything from his except that he's smart and well-read ... but we already knew that.

sadie

• Mere Christianity, Bible -- devout Christian
• Dark Tower -- just a little bit of nerd there, but I'm pretty sure Sadie dated in high school unlike me
• Broken Prey -- but she has a dark side ... cool!

cyberkitten

• 1984, Selfish Gene, Che Guevera book -- he's got definite liberal street cred
• His Dark Materials trilogy, The Magic Goes Away Collection, book on network security -- oh yeah. Definitely nerdy. But he has a British accent, so he probably dated in high school.

scott

• No Compromise -- Christian
• Devil in the White City, Fountainhead -- with a taste for architecture
• Fountainhead, Adventures of Jonathan Gullible, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis -- Couldn't be more obvious unless he had libertarian tattooed on his forehead. Or perhaps a Scarlet Letter? You don't, do you? lol

Book Meme

Jewish Atheist tagged me with this book meme. Enjoy:

1. One book that changed your life? All the President's Men by Woodward and Berstein. -- read as a junior in high school. I think my mistrust of government and my interest in politics began with this book.

2. One book you have read more than once? Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien

3. One book you would want on a desert island? Dune by Frank Herbert, 1984 by George Orwell

4. One book that made you laugh? Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot by Al Franken. I think even conservatives would find this one funny. Doesn't take itself too seriously.

5. One book that made you cry? Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee Brown

6. One book you wish had been written? My own, from any of the false starts and scraps of the last 20 years.

7. One book you wish had never been written? Atlas Shrugged -- Ayn Rand fascinates me but she is unbelievably overwrought and full of crap. An amazing book in that it was so popular while simultaneously pissing off some conservatives (for being atheistic and having controversial views on sex) and liberals (for promoting no government intervention in anything and for the godlike adulation of the free market). Individually, some of the concepts might have some merit, but as a whole, it reads like a pompous, poorly written manifesto for neo-cons and libertarians.

8. One book you are currently reading? Walden by Henry David Thoreau -- my reading this is long overdue.

9. One book you have been meaning to read? The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Stephen Jay Gould -- Have you seen this book? It's freakin' huge! I could use it as a leg for my table. I don't know if I'll ever have enough ambition to read it.

10. Now tag five people: Eric, Great White Bear, Sadie, Josh and Scott

The Better Way of Fighting Terrorists

"Nothing is as terrible to see as ignorance in action." -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

From Cenk Uygur on Huffington Post:

There are two schools of thought in the country right now. One is the Republican idea that we are fighting against Islamic fascism (whatever that is) and that we need to go on the offense against Muslim states that support the Islamofascist terrorists. It's hard not to laugh as you say it.

Islamofascists?

The second school of thought is that we can fight terrorism better by isolating the terrorists from the rest of the Muslim population, finding them and neutralizing them. The idea here is that instead of fanning the flames of hate and helping the Muslim fundamentalists spread their ideology to others, we work with the majority of Muslims in rooting out the extremists in their midst.

I can see Republicans reflexively getting ready to shout now - you can't work with Muslims, they're all Islamofascists looking to destroy our way of life. Other than being painfully stupid, that is incomprehensibly wrong. A great majority of Muslims have nothing against our way of life. They have no desire to take over Kentucky or to make sure the people of Alaska don't have freedom.

The idea that Muslims are looking to take over the world and are on the precipice of dominating militarily as the Nazis did is so laughable that I can't quite believe they're saying it out loud. Nazi Germany took France in five days. Are Islamic fundamentalists about to roll their tanks in to Paris and Prague?

These conservatives want to pick a fight - not just with the Muslim terrorists - but with all of Islam. Hardly has there been a more dangerous idea. A majority of Muslim countries have absolutely no intention of taking over the West, even if it was remotely possible. But they will fight to the death if you needlessly invade them.

But there is a better way. And ironically, we are implementing the better way right now in Pakistan. Pakistan is a country that probably has more Muslim fundamentalists than any other nation on earth. They don't just have a WMD program, they have nuclear weapons. And they have spread their nuclear weapon technology to other countries. And to top it all off, Osama bin Laden is sitting comfortably in northern Pakistan.

If the Republicans were honest and they actually believed in their own so-called principles, the most ideal country on earth to attack would be Pakistan. They have a thousand times more WMD than Iraq and Iran combined (which is pretty simple, since that number is just about zero). And they shelter the biggest terrorists in the world. On the other hand, they don't have much oil and they are not a direct threat to Israel.

But the reality is our strategy in Pakistan, while lacking in intensity and focus, is roughly the correct one. We are trying to isolate the Taliban and Al Qaeda sympathizers in northern Pakistan while working with the Pakistani government. If we invaded, we would have nuclear war with a country that has hundreds of millions of Muslims. Instead, we cooperate with them and they help us to foil the bombings in the London airport.

If we had chosen the route of "going on the offense" against Pakistan, there is an excellent chance we would have lost ten airplanes full of passengers this week.

This strategy has its clear downsides. We have to put more pressure on Pakistan to find and turn over Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. We have to have tighter controls over their nuclear technology. But at least, this path is smart and doable.

And ironically, it is being pulled off by the very administration that is touting this nonsense war against Islamic fascists. It is clear that the administration doesn't even believe its own talking points. Otherwise, the 101st Airborne would be in Waziristan right now. So, why don't they apply this smarter strategy with the rest of the Muslim world?

I'm afraid it's because there are hardliners inside the administration that want to invade Iran - no matter what. So, they paint them as Islamic fascists and try to stir up more war fever. Just look at this ridiculous clip from Hannity and Colmes. It appears that Sean Hannity believes there is only one strategy for fighting against a couple of thousand terrorists spread out throughout the world - start a war with a couple of hundred million Muslims in select countries.

But, of course, there is a better way. The Democrats need to explain to Americans that war is not the only answer. The smarter strategy is to isolate the extremists and build up our relationship with moderate Muslims. Enlist the moderates to help us locate the terrorists and neutralize them - just like we did in the London plot we just foiled.

The American people are sick of war, just as the conservatives plot for even more wars. Democrats have to realize that pursuing the "isolate and neutralize" strategy against terrorists is not only sound policy but, at this point, also sound politics. People are eager for a better, smarter way of fighting terrorism. This is the time to finally offer it as an alternative to the endless wars the Republicans promise instead.

"A people who's primary aims are driving, shopping, and television are subject to terrorism at any time." -- Stephen Dietz

Arizona Cardinals

The Arizona Cardinals opened their new stadium today with an impressive pre-season victory over the World Champ Pittsburgh Steelers. Alex and I walked over to check out the festivities:



We'd have loved to have actually gone to the game but all games (including pre-season) sold out fairly quickly. Hopefully we'll be able to pick up some tickets here or there during the season.

The Westgate retail/entertainment/residential area adjacent to the stadium and the Glendale Arena is well on it's way. Hopefully, the movie theaters, book store and restaurants will be open by Christmas. It will be nice when everything is done as just about everything we do normally will be within walking distance of home.

1% Doctrine

From Campus Progress:

Virtuous Circles and Fragile States

"Democracy don't rule the world, You'd better get that in your head; This world is ruled by violence, But I guess that's better left unsaid." -- Bob Dylan

From Jeffrey Sachs in the latest issue of Scientific American:

If U.S. leaders better understood the politics of impoverished and crisis-ridden countries, they would more effectively protect American national security by advancing the causes of economic development and democracy. Although the administration of George W. Bush has often stated its commitment to the spread of democracy, partly to combat the risks of terror, it relies excessively on military approaches and threats rather than strategic aid. Timely development assistance to places hovering between democracy and disarray can yield enormous benefits.

For nations in a deep crisis, the greatest danger is a self-fulfilling prophecy of disaster. Consider Liberia, just emerging from a prolonged civil war, and Haiti, which has suffered decades of intense political instability. Both nations have recently elected new democratic governments, but both face continuing possibilities of internal violence and disorder.

When the public thinks that a newly elected national government will succeed, local leaders throw their support behind it. Expectations of the government's longevity rise. Individuals and companies become much more likely to pay their taxes, because they assume that the government will have the police power to enforce the tax laws.
A virtuous circle is created. Rising tax revenues strengthen not only the budget but also political authority and enable key investments--in police, teachers, roads, electricity--that promote public order and economic development. They also bolster confidence in the currency. Money flows into the commercial banks, easing the specter of banking crises.

When the public believes that a government will fail, the same process runs in reverse. Pessimism splinters political forces. Tax payments and budget revenues wane. The police and other public officials go unpaid. The currency weakens. Banks face a withdrawal of deposits and the risk of banking panics. Disaster feeds more pessimism.

By attending to the most urgent needs of these fragile states, U.S. foreign policy can tilt the scales to favor the consolidation of democracy and economic improvement. To an informed and empathetic observer, the necessary actions will usually be clear. Both Liberia and Haiti lack electricity service, even in their capital cities. Both countries face massive crises of hunger and insufficient food production. Both suffer from pervasive infectious diseases that are controllable but largely uncontrolled.

But if each impoverished farm family is given a bag of fertilizer and a tin of high-yield seeds, a good harvest with ample food output can be promoted within a single growing season. A nationwide campaign to spread immunizations, antimalaria bed nets and medicines, vitamin supplements and deworming agents can improve the health of the population even without longer-term fixes of the public health system. Electric power can be restored quickly in key regions. And safe water outlets, including boreholes and protected natural springs, can be constructed by the thousands within a year.

All these initiatives require financial aid, but the costs are small. Far too often, however, the U.S. response is neglect. Rather than giving practical help, the rich countries and international agencies send an endless stream of consultants to design projects that arrive too late, if ever. They ignore emergency appeals for food aid. After a few months, the hungry, divided, disease-burdened public begins to murmur that "nothing has changed," and the downward spiral recommences. Pessimism breeds pessimism. Eventually the government falls, and the nascent democracy is often extinguished.

By thinking through the underlying ecological challenges facing a country--drought, poor crops, disease, physical isolation--and raising the lot of the average household through quick-disbursing and well-targeted assistance, U.S. foreign policy makers would provide an invaluable investment in democracy, development and U.S. national security. Liberia and Haiti are two important places to begin to make good on the Bush administration's pledge to spread democracy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeffrey D. Sachs is director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and of the U.N.’s Millennium Project.

If you discount for a moment that the Iraq war is an unjust war (which it is), then you would think that those who planned it would at least foresee the aftermath. Some plan that would encompass re-building the infrastructure, employing people, taking care of basic needs, etc. would be your first step. This was a step that was forgotten or ignored and we are seeing the results now. Why do we keep making the same mistakes? Because we don't learn from the past and always think we are smarter than those who came before us.

"The true democrat is he who with purely nonviolent means defends his liberty and, therefore, his country's and ultimately that of the whole of mankind" -- Mahatma Gandhi

Friday Wrap-up

Not by any plan, I found myself listening to Paul Harvey on the radio the other day. Because of a rain-out the previous day, the D-backs and Cubs were playing a doubleheader. Between the games, the local affiliate of the D-backs put on Paul Harvey's sindicated program. Growing up in the midwest and having two parents that had liked Paul Harvey, I was well-acquainted with his program from my youth. Either through my not being politically active then or by Paul Harvey being different then, I was greatly surprised by how out-of-touch he is. I would feel better if it was just senility that taints his views. But a little research indicates that he has always been like this. From listening to his show for only 5 minutes (sad, I know ... kinda like watching a car crash scene), I learned the following:

- the economy is doing great
- patience in Iraq is important (comparing our fight there to the Cold War)
- Donald Rumsfeld is a great man and doing a stand up job
- global warming is not important because the government says it isn't

He caught his breath long enough to break for a commercial and to shill for Wal-Mart and a pharmaceutical company. It's scary how many millions of people listen to him. But then again, they listen to James Dobson and Sean Hannity also. It does not give you a lot of faith in the sanity or judgement of some of us.

GWB has documented some of Harvey's nuttier statements in the past: SO WHAT DO THESE GUYS HAVE IN COMMON?

I'm not sure which is weirder: the fact that I don't agree with a single thing that Paul Harvey says or that I agree with something that Pat Robertson says:

Heat makes Pat Robertson a global warming "convert"



So, I'm faced with the unenviable position of criticizing someone my parents considered iconic or being on the same side of an issue with someone that I consider to be one of the most unhinged public figures of the last 20 years. It's a weird world we live in.

That Robertson has come to this conclusion (of which I'm not completely convinced he will hold to) is not as surprising as you may think. A large percentage of evangelicals have been leaning this way for awhile:

The Greening of Evangelicals

Many see the stewardship of the Earth as a sacred responsibility. Unfortunately, too many others will ignore the issue because they cannot stomach being on the same side of any issue with left-leaning environmentalists. For a nice refutation of the evangelical global warming doubters, see Calling a Bluff.

That is the problem for both sides. On these issues that affect all of us, we need to get away from the politics as much as we can.

Then you have the following brain surgeons leading our country:

The current energy panel chairman, Texas Republican Joe Barton -- "I cannot imagine any objective finding that CO2 is a pollutant," he said. "If that's true, God is a polluter." -- Congress and global warming

God's a polluter alright. He polluted this Earth with the likes of Barton and Roy Blunt:

Today in Energy and Environment Daily (sub. req’d), House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) said that if he remains in power after the November elections, there will be no action on global warming for the entire 110th Congress:

Continued Republican House and Senate majorities would likely mean more of the same on climate. House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said he would oppose global warming mandates if Republicans control the 110th Congress. “I think the information is not adequate yet for us to do anything meaningful,” he said.

Or that bastion of accuracy and open-mindedness, FOX News:

Summary: On Fox News' The Beltway Boys, Fred Barnes again denied the broad scientific consensus that human activity is contributing to global warming.

=========================================================


One of Mr. Harvey's heroes, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, was in the limelight this week. It's hard to decide whether he is just an incredible idiot or the most pompous ass ever. Donald Rumsfeld's performance at the Senate hearings on Iraq this week showed incredible gall. From Think Progress:

Testifying before the Senate today, Donald Rumsfeld told Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) that he has “never painted a rosy picture” about Iraq. Rumsfeld insisted that he has been “very measured” and told Clinton “you would have a dickens of a time trying to find instances where I have been overly optimistic.”

Here’s just a few of the “overly optimistic” comments made by Rumsfeld (and no, we did not have a “dickens of a time” finding them):

Dec. 18, 2002: KING: What’s the current situation in Afghanistan? RUMSFELD: It is encouraging. They have elected a government through the Loya Jirga process. The Taliban are gone. The al Qaeda are gone.

Feb. 7, 2003: “It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”

Feb. 20 2003: “‘Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?’ Jim Lehrer asked the defense secretary on PBS’ The News Hour. ‘There is no question but that they would be welcomed,’ Rumsfeld replied, referring to American forces.”

Mar. 30, 2003: “It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”

=========================================================

And finally, a recent law in Arizona, House Bill 2583, requires that every room in every community college display an American flag:

Maricopa Community Colleges has to come up with as many as 1,220 American flags made in the United States to comply with a new state law by next July.

The cost would be $18,300 if early cost estimates of $15 are accurate, the district's spokeswoman, Nicole Greason, said.
... The Bill of Rights and the Constitution also must be posted alongside the flag in every classroom, according to House Bill 2583, recently passed by the Legislature.

With more than 280,000 students, 10 colleges and two skill centers, the district is one of the largest in the nation and makes up about half of the community college classrooms in the state ..."

If the goal is education, it would be an admirable goal. But from the history of our local legislature who feels it's an inalienable right to carry a concealed weapon whereever you want, one gets the feeling it's more about indoctrination. And from many of the legislators' stances on current issues, you could probably assume that they have never actually read the Constitution or Bill of Rights. If people really loved their country, they would fight for the rights that are inherent in those documents instead of making bullshit token gestures that look good on the frontpage of their local papers.

It's the End of the World ...

Pug Bowling

I don't normally post links to videos (or pass ones on in e-mail) but I couldn't resist with this one because we have a pug:

Pug Bowling

The Spanish rendition of Hotel California is a nice added touch.

Abandonment of Reason

Our country's increase in partisanship has led to an abandonment of reason. Entire networks have been created to encourage shortcuts to thinking. Don't form an opinion .... we'll form it for you. They tell you that "fair and balanced" means giving a voice to unpopular but valid opinions not heard elsewhere. What it actually means -- giving a disproportionate amount of time to an ideological slant and fake science (creationism, intelligent design) ... to the exclusion of proven science.

Giving equal time to two opposing viewpoints is neither "fair" nor "balanced". Doing that assumes that both viewpoints have equal merits. It would be like having 5 experts come on FOX and say that the sky is blue and 5 other experts saying that is was pink. No one would mistake that for being a "fair and balanced" look. You would be unfairly weighing in favor of the nutjobs that said the sky was pink. This is what happens when you have shows that will have one expert saying that global warming is happening and one that doesn't. It would only be accurate if the show had 999 global warming experts and 1 dissenting expert. And that one dissenter shouldn't be a talented novelist (but not a scientist).

I've seen the abandonment of reason. People will discount facts because of bias. I don't think they are stupid. But they do allow themselves to be influenced by religious or political bias. I've read people on these very blog pages discount global warming merely because they hate Al Gore. I've seen embarrassingly specious arguments to counter valid scientific ones. One such one that I have read is the ice cube in a glass argument. It goes that the water level does not rise if the ice cube melts. So, the polar ice caps melting won't have an influence on sea levels. That people will use an argument that could be disproven by a middle school science student is sad. And that they do it with a straight face is beyond explanation. I could go into a long-winded explanation but simply put, a good deal of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are above sea level (because of land). An ice cube in a glass does not take this into account.

Global Warming Is Rapidly Raising Sea Levels

Another argument used is that ice is increasing in the interior of Greenland. These "earth-is-flat" doubters will be so proud of themselves when they say this one. Though they hate science, they'll gladly trot it out if they think it reinforces their opinion. Ice is increasing in the interior of Greenland because a warming climate increase snowfall. It is at the edges of the ice shelves that show the true story.



Another easy way to determine who is telling the truth is by following the money. Who stands to benefit monetarily for the opinions they are projecting? It is not surprising that Bush, Rove, Cheney use every opportunity to diminish the importance of global warming. They have made their money from big oil. A world that uses less fossil fuels potentially hurts their bottom line and those of their major contributors. That future generations will pay the cost of this shortsightedness does not concern them. The thing is ... they know they are wrong and it doesn't matter. People like Karl Rove are not looking to change people's opinions. They are looking to cast enough doubt in order to influence an election. This is because they are not so much bound by ideology but rather by money. They do not want to believe in global warming because they have an economic interest in not doing so.

Scientists and others that speak to the dangers of global warming have no other self-interest than for the survival of our race. If anything, people like Al Gore have paid a political cost by so enthusiastically talking about global warming for 30 years.

If you don't like the messenger, then find sources that do not have an economic or political axe to grind. Tom Brokaw has a great special on the Discovery Channel:

Global Warming: What you Need to Know with Tom Brokaw

Don't just believe things because you get them in a chain e-mail, or because your church told you to believe them. That doesn't mean don't believe anything that you hear. It just means that you should ask yourself why people are giving you a certain opinion. Do they have a genuine concern or are they pushing an agenda? Also, are your reasons for believing or disbelieving something based on financial, political or religious considerations?

Lame

I should preface this post by stressing how lame it is that I'm even taking the time to show this to you guys. How far has my life sunk when I need to revel in such fleeting and trivial moments of nonexistent celebrity? These moments aren't even in the same ballpark (pun intended) as Andy Warhol's 15 minutes of fame. These are more like 1.5 seconds of fame. I'm so pathetic.

The first moment came during the previously mentioned ballgame that Alex and I went to. They were great seats and we were frequently in the line of the on-field cameras. I had DVR'd the game hoping that we might have shown up on TV. After hunting through an hour of footage, this is the best I could come up with:



Todd Helton had just gotten tossed and the cameras had panned to the right of where they normally did. So, an hour of footage ... frame-by-frame, and that's the best I got. Sad, so sad.

The second moment is my wife's. She just began a job at a huge sporting goods store that is opening only it's 15th store of the country here in Glendale tomorrow. They've been having special nights: family night, VIP night (with the governor), etc. this week and one of the local newschannels were on hand tonight. I'm not saying the name of the place because I don't want to jeopardize her job just because her husband is a wacked-out liberal. I'm probably being too anal-retentive about it all, but you never know.

Her going to work for a company that one could probably assume has a conservative bent seems odd. But the fact that it is a half-mile from home and Michelle can walk to work and that we get a sweet employee discount on camping and fishing gear outweighs the oddness of it. So, that's one less car that we are going to have on the roads polluting. Michelle will put about 15K less miles a year on her car.

Anyway, Michelle's moment was a lot longer (about 5 seconds) and you could clearly see her. It blew my moment away. Sorry, I don't have any video posted, just a shot from my TV:



Pretty uninteresting moments, I know. But it was interesting that they occurred within days of each other. There has only been one other time that I can recall that either of us has appeared on TV. A few years back, Michelle was interviewed by a local newscaster as we were walking to our car from a ballgame. Do any of you have any interesting TV experiences? I'm sure they have to be better than these.

Sweet seats

Courtesy of a dear and longtime friend, Alex and I took in tonight's D-back game against the Rockies in the best seats that I have ever had for a sporting event. We were 4 rows back of the visitor dugout.



We were close enough to spit a sunflower seed and hit 'em in the back of the head ... not that we would do such a thing.

Of course, Alex is usually more interested in the peripheral things at a game, like touching the dugout:



While he's taking in all the extra stuff, I actually watch the game. And this was a good one to watch as the D-back won 6-2, Luis Gonzales tied Dave Parker for 30th on the all-time doubles list with his 526th double:



and Shawn Green knocked in his 1000th career RBI:



Plus, Todd Helton got tossed after arguing balls and strikes:



Add a beer and a footlong Cincinatti chili dog into the mix and you have a stellar evening.

Valerie for Vendetta

Saw this on Huffington Post:


Click to see full image

Helping (or hurting) Your Cause

I saw two movies in the last week or so that are great illustrations of the ways in which people seek to make change or further their cause. Those movies were Good Night and Good Luck and Grizzly Man.

The first of these, Good Night and Good Luck, was given to me as a gift a few months ago. I had postponed watching what I felt was an immensely important film to watch because I wanted to watch it with my wife. Our work schedules clash and we don't often get a chance to watch a movie together. When there is a movie of particular cultural importance, I will force her to watch it ... whether she likes it or not. :-)

With that much of a build-up, great reviews, and my own deep respect for George Clooney and his work, I was bound to end up disappointed. I am thankful to say, that I was not at all. It exceed my expectations. It was shot in black-and-white, probably to accentuate the black-and-white perspective of Senator Joseph McCarthy.

This film is an example of someone, Edward Murrow, using his position as a newscaster, in a restrained and responsible manner to focus America's attention on the anti-communist witch hunting of McCarthy and his ilk. Obviously meant to reflect a parallel with the black-and-white, us-or-them worldview of the Bush Administration, it does so obliquely, making it more effective.

Murrow did not detract from his cause because he never overstated something or resorted to name-calling. By giving McCarthy a forum to express his views and, ultimately, defeat his own cause, Murrow was the very model of responsibility and integrity. And Clooney, in the way he directed the film, did not make McCarthy into a caricature. He refrained from mocking McCarthy's well-known alcoholism or his dealings with Roy Cohn. Actual footage of McCarthy is used.

In his own way, McCarthy helped his cause early because of the methods he used. He used fear and bombast. People were afraid to disagree with him because they believed they would be labeled as traitors. For example, from Wikipedia:

The criticisms of McCarthyism and McCarthy in particular were three-fold:

• That he was ruining the reputations and lives of many people by accusing them without credible evidence.


• That he used accusations of Communist sympathies as a counter attack against anyone who criticized his methods.


• That he argued against freedom of speech; much of his rhetoric assumed that any discussion of the ideas of Communism was a dangerous and un-American activity.

Sound familiar? Ultimately, the power of the truth won out. But if there hadn't been people like Murrow, Joseph Welch, Arthur Miller, etc. questioning authority, who knows how long it would have gone. People will eventually catch on to the fact that they are being duped.


The second film, Grizzly Man, chronicles Timothy Treadwell, who for 13 summers lived among the grizzly bears of Kodiak Island in Alaska. He did this seeking to understand the bears and pass on that wisdom to others. But he also seemed to do it because he wanted to get away from the "human" world.

By using Treadwell's self-shot footage, director Werner Herzog provide an interesting insight into someone who was walking a very thin line between sanity and insanity. It's hard to question Treadwell's genuine affection for the bears and for their plight. But it's easy to question whether he was actually helping them. He didn't seem to approach his time there in a scholarly or scientific manner, recording little data. He was overly concerned with his appearance, to the point of vanity. And his outbursts against just about anybody alienated some that actually believe in his cause.

The movie is entertaining but is not meant so much as a scientific study of bears and their habitat, but rather as a character study of a man. A sad, angry, sometimes funny, but predictably doomed man who died because of his cause. But that is probably the way he would have wanted it.

Two movies. Two interesting men. Two wildly different methods. I'm not trying to advocate one method over the other. I may be very Ghandi and MLK one day, but feel Guevera and Malcolm X the next. I think what I may be trying to say more is, "Don't get in the way of your message." If a stunt, a movie, a book, etc. is more about you than it is about what you are trying to get across, then you have failed. Maybe Treadwell thought his antics would open a wider audience to the plight of the bears ... maybe it did. But when too many discussions are about his background or how unhinged he was, it's the bears that suffer. Murrow was successful because he was right but also because he sounded reasonable and was not prone to hyperbole.

So, go fight for what you believe in. But don't forget that it's not about you.

Gone Fishing ...

The wife and kid abandoned me this week to visit her family in Iowa:



So, I pretty much just slaved away at work but did get a chance to slip away for the weekend to Kaibab Lake near Williams, AZ with my folks. This is the same place that we went camping a few times last year (Aug. '05):



We had a good time, caught a few fish, grilled steak and corn, and I got to catch up on a lot of reading that I don't allow myself when I'm surgically attached to this stinking computer. Some of the more interesting articles: Three Days in Rome -- about how our current Iran policy is being driven by the same people who were involved with Iran/Contra, and Every Breath You Take -- about the hidden costs of air pollution and how fixing the pollution is actually cheaper than letting it go.

I'm working on a post that will talk about the different way people work for their causes or beliefs and how unintentionally they can hurt their cause. I'll do that through contrasting two recent movies that I've seen, Good Night and Good Luck and Grizzly Man.

Sheep

"The function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers." -- Ralph Nader

Republicans like to tout as virtue the fact that their party seems to speak with one voice. Whether it's anti-flag burning, marriage amendment, the war, etc., they are, with very few exceptions, lock step. But is it really moral strength? One person who should know is John Dean, former White House lawyer during Watergate. Citing information from a 50 year academic study, he took exception with that conclusion. In a recent discussion with Keith Olbermann on his show, Countdown, he had the following observations:

The data shows that conservatives are much more likely to follow authoritarian leaders

" ... Both those who are inclined to follow leaders and those who jump in front and want to be the leaders. It was not the opinion of social scientists. It was information they drew by questioning large numbers of people -- hundreds of thousands of people -- in anonymous testing where [the subjects] conceded their innermost feelings and reactions to things. And it came out that most of these people were pre-qualified to be conservatives and this, did indeed, fit with the authoritarian personality..."

" ... have found, really, maybe a small, 1%, of the left who will follow authoritarianism. Probably the far left. As far as widespread testing, it's just overwhelmingly conservative orientation."

" ... the followers -- a few of them will change their ways when the realize that they are doing -- not even aware of what they are doing. The leaders, those inclined to dominate, they're not going to change for a second. They're going to be what they are."

" It is one of the things, believe it or not, that still holds conservatism together. There is many factions in conservatism and their dislike or hatred of those they betray as liberal, who will basically be anybody who disagrees with them, is one of the cohesive factors ... they're very aggressive in their effort to pursue and help their authority figure out or authority beliefs out. They will do what ever needs to be done in many regards. They will blindly follow. They stay loyal too long and this is the frightening part of it."

"... there has been fear mongering, the likes of which we have not seen in a long time in this country. It happened early in the cold war. We got accustomed to it. We learned to live with it. We learned to understand what it was about and get it in proportion. We haven't done that yet with terrorism. And this administration is really capitalizing on it and using it for its' political advantage. ... when people are frightened, they tend to go to these authority figures. They tend to become more conservative. So, it's paid off for them politically to do this. "

"The lead researcher in this field told me, he said, "I look at the numbers of the United States and I see about 23% of the population who are pure right-wing authoritarian followers." They're not going to change. They're going to march over the cliff. The best thing to deal with them -- and they're growing, and they have a tremendous influence on Republican politics -- The best defense is understanding them, to realize what they are doing, how they're doing it and how they operate. Then it can be kept in perspective and they can be seen for what they are. "

Obviously the study and Dean's opinions don't constitute a definitive appraisal, but I do think that they do indicate the trend. Those that are prone to follow look for an authoritarian figure and a cause to unite around. And that cause can be a moving target. It's not idealism that drives them but rather a need to be part of the crowd. And cognitive dissonance allows them to justify it to themselves.

"What? You search? You would multiply yourself by ten, by a hundred? You seek followers? Seek zeros!" -- Friedrich Nietzsche

Books

"Beware of the man of one book." -- Thomas Aquinas

Some scary stats on reading posted by Josh at Schulzone(courtesy of parapublishing.com:

One-third of high school graduates never read another book for the rest of their lives. Many do not even graduate from high school.
58% of the US adult population never reads another book after high school.
42% of college graduates never read another book.
80% of US families did not buy or read a book last year.
70% of US adults have not been in a bookstore in the last five years.
57% of new books are not read to completion.

Unbelievable stuff. Laziness? Stupidity? Lack of access? Too many other things distracting us (TV, computers)? Probably a little bit of each. Exacerbated by a society of anti-intellectual pride where people of learning are viewed as effete snobs.

"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture.
Just get people to stop reading them. -- Ray Bradbury

Superman

Courtesy of the Center for American Progress:

July 4th

"... What? the land of the free?
Whoever told you that is your enemy?" -- Rage Against the Machine

July 4th reminds us of what was going on in the heads of our founders when they established this country. Like an independent judiciary:

Did Bush Commit War Crimes?

Those that love this country would respect the checks and balances supposedly inherent in our system. Not the Republicans. Senator Lindsey Graham feels the need to "rein it in" (Supreme Court). They feel that the Geneva Convention should not apply to the U.S.:

Gonzales, top Republicans anticipate law authorizing Gitmo military commissions

But it doesn't end with just crippling our judiciary and ignoring international law. It extends to the President consciously and openly ignoring our own laws:

Signing Away the Constitution

" ... more than 100 signing statements containing over 500 constitutional challenges President Bush has added to new laws passed by the Congress -- many times more than any of his predecessors.

While he has never vetoed a law, many constitutional scholars say the president is, in effect, exercising a "line item veto" by giving himself authority to waive parts of laws he doesn't like.

The practice has infuriated members of Congress in both parties because it threatens to diminish their power. They consider it an assault on the notion that the constitution establishes the United States' three branches of government -- legislative, judicial, and executive -- as co-equal ..."

Chris Durang has a great column on Huffington Post about how the right has hijacked July 4th and patriotism through history:

July 4th -- Now and in the '50's

"... Starting around the time of the Vietnam war, and the protests against that war, the flag was claimed by the conservative, pro-Vietnam war people as Their Flag. They hijacked that symbol so it represented their point of view. If you loved America and loved the flag, you supported your country whenever they said it was time to go to war. Criticizing the war was seen as disloyal ..."

Abraham Lincoln once said:

"I like to see a man proud of the place in which he lives. I like to see a man live so that his place will be proud of him."

Bush and this administration may be proud of America but America should not be proud of them. History will mark the true patriots of this generation as Jack Murtha, Cindy Sheehan, etc. and those that weren't afraid to speak up when they saw our flag being trampled on by those who don't respect the rights that this country were established on. These Mayberry Machiavellians in the administration are so worried about desecration of the flag that they forget what it actually represents.

What does it matter that we have these documents and these institutions if the government will just bypass them? We have a government that has mistaken nationionalism for patriotism, suppresion of rights for security. I'll fly my flag again when this country is not hijacked by the Right. When "one nation" has meaning again.