http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:38:14 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/20/223814.php Chip SpearI get up everyday and read the New York Times. Occasionally I finish reading the front page, editorials and op-eds and feel sick. I think how horrible the country is or how disgusted I am with the government. I get discouraged by the thought that we have to endure almost three more years of this administration. Congressional Republicans support a President who allows torture and misled the country into a war costing hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars. Thousands of American soldiers are killed and injured while VA funding, especially medical services, is cut. Rendition, torture, deception, wiretaps, secret prisons, prisoners dying from torture, wars based on lies, threatening the courts, interpreting laws to suit personal needs, appointing friends and supporters to high positions of power, acting outside the law, suspending habeas corpus, tax cuts for the wealthy and the largest budget deficits in history all occur and yet there are millions of supporters who think this is more than fine. I read today that Bush's Budget proposal cuts cancer prevention programs. The upper 2% in our country get richer while the lower 98% get comparatively poorer. Internationally, our war inflames anti-American passions around the world. We systematically break international agreements. Global warming might as well be a Disney fantasy film. We accuse three countries of being the "Axis of Evil", invade one of them and then are outraged when the other two refuse to give up their nuclear ambitions. One wonders if they might want to protect themselves. For the most part we have completely ignored Darfur, where thousands die at the hand of government backed genocidal militias. Last week on a TV show called Boston Legal James Spader's character ran down a litany of occurrences, some of which I mentioned above, the lying about war, the torture, the threat to civil rights, etc. and asked, "Where was the outrage? Where were the protests?" Yes, there are a few small ones, and some of us care; we read blogs, post comments (many of which are rather inflammatory) and support organizations like MoveOn.org, which is a good start and certainly better than nothing. Some of us work for candidates or participate in our communities. But for the most part the country does little. Bush's poll numbers drop, but folks generally go to work and spend their nights watching television or playing with the latest tech toys.Too many of us blindly follow our teams; Republicans, Democrats, Green Party, Christians, Jews, Muslims, environmentalists, oil industry, whatever. We suspend our analytical thinking and refuse to question our own decisions. We see too much of the "my team, right or wrong" attitude. How else to explain the thinking of 50,000 people turning out to mourn someone like Slobodan Milosevic, a known torturer and political, murderous thug? The same thing happens here. We are not who we say we are. We do not respect other points of view. We act arrogantly. We do not respect civil or human rights. We are not honest with ourselves, let alone others. We have allowed Bush to become a leader who does not embody long standing American values. And the fault is ours, as individuals. We must do more, even those who have always opposed the administration. To those who write here, or act in other ways, get more friends involved. Today, do a little more than yesterday. It is our job to continue to seek better means of communication in the hope that somehow we will find a way to get people to listen. We cannot stop trying to find the key, for as James Spader says at the end of Boston Legal, "We have become a very mean country." Politics45287@blogcritics.org Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:38:14 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/13/071258.php Chip SpearMany media pundits deride the current state of the Democratic Party as being disorganized and lacking a clear message for voters. And without that message, they won't capitalize on Republican scandals and ineptitude. I suggest that they are creating a "problem" that does not exist. In the normal process of democracy, parties go through periods of change. They try out new ideas, fight with each other, and select new leaders. This naturally occurs during the period between elections -- Duh! We are now in such a timeframe. It is perfectly natural that the Democrats don't have a single leader to state their message. The leaders, and potential leaders, are busy playing King of the Mountain, struggling for that top spot. Without a chief, everyone plays chief. A clearly defined hierarchy does not exist -- no President, no Speaker of the House, no Senate Majority Leader. And because of the nature of politics, no one who is contending for leadership of the top jobs, whatever their title, is willing to cede any authority to a potential rival. If I were thinking of running for President, for example, I would not abdicate the stage to Hillary Clinton to deliver my party's message. I would only be hurting myself by doing so. I want to be the person delivering the message, not her, or anyone else. Right now we have a situation where many Democrats want that position and are unwilling to walk off the stage.From a strategic standpoint it makes sense for the opposition to make fun of the Democrats' lack of cohesion, painting it as incompetence. It is smart political strategy. The implication? If the Dems are disorganized as a party, how can they effectively run the country? We are eight months from a mid-term election. Why do these people think that everything is supposed to be decided now? It seems to me like a normal part of the process. The perception of the election cycles has gotten so ridiculous that the mainstream media (MSM) worries about who is running for the next presidential election a couple of hours after the polls close from the last one. If no one is a clear favorite, they assume there must be something wrong. I find it simultaneously amusing and disgusting.I think two issues are at work with the MSM. First, many political analysts on TV these days seem to lean right. I suppose I should confirm this by make a list of all the analysts and commentators on the three major networks, plus CNN, MSNBC and Fox News. I would bet that there are many more right-wingers than left, especially on cable. If all of them repeat that Democrats are disorganized and have no idea what they are doing or where we should go, they plant a seed. Say something enough times and people start to believe it. If commentators and analysts report the normal political pre-midterm free-for-all as extremely negative, then viewers buy it. This only helps Republicans. The other issue is that the MSM fights to keep ratings and readers. They do this by reporting "Big, Important" stories. If they don't have an important story, they make one. To get viewers and readers, they keep the excitement level high and create a crisis right then. In this case, they've turned the normal pre-election process into a disaster. "The Democrats Crash and Burn," "They can't take advantage of the Republican scandals," "The Democrats have no message," "They can't lead themselves, how can they lead the country?" and "The Rudderless Democrats"; take your pick. This arouses interest, gets viewers and solidifies their jobs.Anytime one starts a project, a period exists when you pull together lots of thoughts, ideas, pictures, and information, whatever. Stacks of papers cover desks and tables. You have a general idea where you are headed, but the final pieces are not yet in place. You are working on it; you have no fear. You will get it done. You have been through this before and you will again. The election is eight months away. There is still time. Politics44867@blogcritics.org Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:12:58 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/08/151145.php Chip SpearForget about the WMD, it was a smokescreen. The President knew it, the VP knew it, the Republicans knew it, and the Democrats knew it. It was a sales tool to get the world to accept the invasion of Iraq. WMD was one of several reasons for the attack. The others were complicated, difficult to sell to the American public and 'unmentionable in public. Iraq was the second stage of a long range plan to transform the Middle East and destroy Al Qaeda in the process.We often think of foreign affairs in a simplistic terms. Someone hits us, we hit back. I don't think we, as Americans, are well known for subtle diplomacy. However in this case it might help to take a longer view. It is not hard to think of the Middle East as a social and political sewer, where dictators and extremists control almost all aspects of society. Yes, there are some exceptions, but not many. Most countries are breeding grounds for Muslims extremists. Iran is a growing problem. Saudi Arabia was the home of most of the hijackers and is the center of Wahabi Islam, the most extreme of the extremists. Syria supports terrorists and, at the time of 9/11, completely dominated Lebanon. Egypt practices a dictatorial "democracy" with a growing militant populace. Libya was developing nuclear weapons and supporting supporting terrorism, and Pakistan was a strong supporter of the Taliban. There is more, but you get the idea. After deposing the Taliban, the U.S. faced a next-move problem, what to do? Bush and the neocons were not blind to history in Afghanistan. They had no intention of making the same mistake the British and Russians made. The U.S. wanted a friendlier government in Afghanistan, not necessarily a Western style democracy. Capturing bin Laden was less important than destroying the foundation of his support. Looking at the long term, the government, led by the White House, saw Iraq as the next logical step. They would eliminate Saddam, a truly bad guy, begin the transformation of the region by installing a democracy, assuming they were successful. By invading Iraq, eliminating Saddam, and setting up a democratic government, they would achieve a number of goals. One, a developing democracy and the military presence of the U.S. would force the Saudis to make some substantial internal changes. They would clamp down on extremist groups and stop the transfer of money to terrorist groups. There was also the hope that they would implement some more personal freedoms, especially for women. Two, Iran might throttle back its support of terrorism with the U.S. right on its border. Three, Syria, Libya and other problem states would change policies if they thought the U.S. might target them next. Fourth, countries in the region could institute political reform. This is a very broad brush stroke view, but it does provide a wider perspective of the invasion. The result is obviously tainted by the disastrous implementation of the war. However, there have been some successes. Libya definitely changed its policies very quickly. Syria moved out of Lebanon, and has been cooperating with the U.S. in several ways. The Saudis made a couple of gestures to political freedom and are cracking down more on extremists. Pakistan is now our ally, as is Afghanistan. Palestine had democratic elections. We certainly don't like the result, but they were fair according to official observers. Who knows how the long term might work out? The situation with Iran is a mess, but that seems more a case of our ineptitude than their genius. If we had managed the invasion properly, the situation with Iran could be vastly different.I don't want to minimize the problems with this war, as Iraq totters on the brink of chaos. I think we all know the nature of the Bush Administration's management skills by now. Say what you will about Our Illustrious Leader (OIL), I don't like him, but if you think in the longer term, 20-30 years, and as something exceedingly complex, covering a whole region, with numerous players, and the U.S. having many shifting alliances with not so perfect partners, the invasion makes sense. The American electorate would never have bought this involved reasoning for war. The policy didn't fit 5-word sound bites they can understand. One only has to read the various surveys indicating things like 20% of America still think Saddam had direct involvement with bin Laden and 9/11, or that only 40% of Americans believe in evolution, 13% do not know what a molecule is, 1/5 of Americans still think the Sun circles the Earth, and only about half know that humans did not live during the time of dinosaurs (NYT) to understand why some of our leaders have little respect for the intelligence of the public. They have good reason. Congress agreed to the smokescreen because they understood the issues. We face a truly dangerous foe, requiring new tactics. This war is one move in a high stakes chess game, destined to last many years. Bush told us this would be a long war, fought on many fronts, across more than his administration. He knows it, so does Congress. Many of us, including the media, forgot his words. The Democrats and Republicans are now using the WMD issue for their own political purposes with the upcoming Congressional elections. They still cannot tell us why they voted to support the President after 9/11, but they can use the smokescreen against G.W. for his mismanagement, which is substantial. We should keep this long term view in mind before we uncategorically demand a withdrawal of troops. We are trying to do more than install one democracy in the Middle East. The longer goal is right, though our methods are faulty. That is what needs to change. Politics44627@blogcritics.org Wed, 8 Mar 2006 15:11:45 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/03/152217.php Chip SpearWhy do we continue to insist we are engaged in a "War on Terror"? Terror is a psychological state, it is not a political entity, it is not group or a movement. Terrorism is a means, an offensive tool of war. It is a strategy designed to further political goals of a group or state. We are not waging a war on terror. That would be like saying that The New England Patriots are waging a war on the forward pass, or the Yankees are waging war on fast balls. What we are waging is a war against Islamic fundamentalists. So the better question might be why does the adminitration insist on calling it a War on Terror? Is it because the President does not want to alienate so-called "moderate Muslims"? And perhaps we should change our definition of Islam from a religion to a political organization, or at least create a new category of political religion, since Islam does not respect individual rights, still advocates dhimma and is intent on conquering the world. In the West it uses the label of religion to protect itself from reactions to its political policies. Mosques, protected as religious sites, can easily be a center for what we in the West would consider political activity. Islam uses civil rights as a defense to further goals which would ultimately destroy our system of civil rights. It is a clever tactic, using the very thing defining who we are against us. It reminds me of Judo, defined by Wikipedia as "the principle of using one's opponent's strength against him and adapting well to changing circumstances". Muslims use whatever definition will help them further their intent, which is the expansion of Islam. The Koran does not differentiate religion and politics, that distinction exists in the West. There is no separation of church and state. It is more a case of c/s/h/t/u/a/r/t/c/e/h instead of church/state where the two are integrated and inseparable. I don't want to oversimplify what is a complex issue. One could easily write a dissertation on Islam and politics or the distinctions between religion and politics. What I do suggest is that Islam does not define itself the way the West defines religious and political entities. Islam contends that they are part of the same thing. One would be blind not to see how religious leaders control governments, militias and armies throughout the Middle East. Osama's war is based on religion, not politics. The House of Saud is definitely not secular. The riots over the cartoons were religious in nature. Muslim rioters wanted the West to restrict free speech. Muslims wanted to ban any speech deemed anti-Islam by Muslims.If the West is serious about winning this so-called War on Terror it should probably clarify its goals and define them for the players, meaning the people who believe in the foundation of Western Civilization, like civil rights, sexual equality, freedom of thought and especially freedom of religion without persecution or any sort. Politics44422@blogcritics.org Fri, 3 Mar 2006 15:22:17 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/02/20/155309.php Chip SpearThe Muslim world is on the attack, and from all accounts is doing exceedingly well. With election victories in Palestine and Iran, growing influence in Egypt and riots and demonstrations all over the world to list, the West finds itself questioning its actions, motives and policies seeking to mollify any and all that are inciting Muslim anger. The response of many westerners is to call for calm, to reach out to Islamic moderates, engage in dialogue, to ask westerners to be more considerate when they joke or criticize the Muslim religion or mores. Basically they are asking that people in the west practice self-censorship.Self-censorship is not necessarily bad; we do it all the time. We don't insult people at work, we don't tell wives or girlfriends they are overweight. We don't tell our best friends that something they did or are planning to do is not a good idea. We don't tell people that many of their opinions are stupid, whites don't use the word nigger, when many blacks do, and we usually practice a certain amount of restraint rather than make some dumb sexist, cultural remark or joke. I am sure you do this all the time. I know that many times when I work out at my pool I see many ways that other swimmers can improve their strokes. Do I criticize them, or even make a suggestion that they something? Almost never, I keep my mouth shut.So one might ask how this is different? I think it clearly is. We are engaged in a war, both physically in Iraq and Afghanistan and culturally against Islam. You might think that this is harsh and extreme, but events would suggest otherwise. The publisher of the cartoons that started the latest row says they are his response to self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fear and intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam. He was trying to "push back". Jyllands-Posten said that it would show -- not tell -- how Islam reacts. "The cartoons do not in any way demonize or stereotype Muslims. In fact, they differ from one another both in the way they depict the prophet and in whom they target. One cartoon makes fun of Jyllands-Posten, portraying its cultural editors as a bunch of reactionary provocateurs. Another suggests that the children's writer who could not find an illustrator for his book went public just to get cheap publicity. A third puts the head of the anti-immigration Danish People's Party in a lineup, as if she is a suspected criminal.... You can read the complete article in yesterday's Washington Post.One must remember that Mohammed was a warrior, leading armies, conquering and killing other tribes and cultures. He demanded subservience. Many times his opponents were killed. His religion was a means of control. Jesus did not lead armies, rule an empire or advocate killing, neither did Buddha. We are dealing with a different beast here. If you want to read some interesting analysis of Islam you might try "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" by Robert Spencer. Islam is not a religion of tolerance as we see by the reactions to the cartoons and the pressure more and more European communities feel. Modern Islam must condemn the calls for violence of any sort when anyone writes, speaks or acts in a way which "insults" the Muslim faith. That type of intolerance is completely unacceptable in a democratic society. Unless truly moderate, modern Muslims accept secular societies where each individual is able to practice his own religion, we are in for a very bad time, we will truly have a clash of cultures. If you think this is overblown, think again. The Daily Telegraph reports that 40% of British Muslims want sharia introduced into parts of Britain. Any religion that advocates killing someone for what they say, draw, paint, or write needs to disappear. Any religion that does not respect an individual's basic human rights needs to disappear. Any religion that does not treat other races, or sexes as equals needs to disappear. Any religion that desires to subjugate or eliminate other religions needs to disappear. Any religion that forbids people from practicing any other religion needs to disappear. We do not need hate, anger, arrogance or power to be the controlling "drug" of any religious institution, whether it is Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, or whatever. From a strategic perspective the West is on the defensive. If it is to survive this religious onslaught it will have to stand up and say no. No to intolerance, no to all the things that begin to restrict the things that make the West what it is, with all its dirty, messy, insulting, empowering, silly, wonderful acts of freedom. It should never, ever apologize, considering the nature of the opposition, where religion is way too often a tool of domination and war, where sexism reigns, and freedom of speech is severely restricted. Politics43874@blogcritics.org Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:53:09 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/02/19/113722.php Chip SpearBy Chip Spear Politics43806@blogcritics.org Sun, 19 Feb 2006 11:37:22 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/02/15/175509.php Chip SpearWhy did Cheney not call his boss about the shooting? Why was it left to Andrew Card to call George and not Dick on Saturday night? Why did George not take control of the situation immediately? Why did he not tell Dick to hold a press conference immediately? Why did he let the VP handle this on his own when it would clearly affect the entire White House? Why does he not tell him to talk to the press today, even a few days later? Why does Bush not hold a press conference to address the issue himself? What is he doing anyway? Whose team is this anyway? Who is the QB? Is Bush actually a hologram?As Captain, Road Prison 36, says to Paul Newman in the movie Cool Hand Luke, "What we have here, is a failure to communicate." That is certainly true, but what is most evident is the complete failure of leadership by our President, who might be out riding his bike for all we know. The fact that he has not taken control of this disaster is a complete abdication of responsibility. We have certainly listened to more than one critic of the White House strongly suggest that the V.P. is actually the one in charge. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to know how to run the government either. Politics43670@blogcritics.org Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:55:09 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/02/10/161146.php Chip SpearMake no mistake, we are involved in a war, sometimes it manifests itself in terrorist violence and sometimes it manifests itself in cultural confrontation. On the one side is a messy, unfocused, moving in a million different direction democratic society that purports to respect people's opinions to the point where one can do and say just about anything. That anything includes making slanderous statements, making fun of racial groups, ethnic groups and religions. That is what makes us who we are. On the other side is a culture that is theocratic, dictatorial, sexist, uncompromising, racist and in its more extreme manifestations more than willing to kill those it disagrees with. That culture is currently on the war path. It is attacking us in every way it can, using our own diversity and openness against us whenever it has an opportunity. If a person or newspaper publishes something controversial, no matter how small or insignificant, Muslim fundamentalists use it to inflame the passions of their team. It is a simple tactic solidifying an "us versus them" mentality. They want the people of the region to see themselves under attack. In addition, the extremists are trying to get Western cultures to submit to their value systems. It is hypocritical for Westerners to apologize for the very thing that makes our culture what it is, with all its warts. We value diversity, and as hard as it is, we also value the right of people to say and do outrageous and insulting things. For us to condemn and/or begin to morally restrict it begins a process of turning us into that which we truly do not respect, which is that fundamentalist attitude. We are certainly aware of the physical threat that Muslim fundamentalists pose to the West. I am not so sure that we are aware of how they intend to expand the playing field to include a cultural assault as well. I certainly hope that we are more prepared for that one than the other. As fundamentalist political movements in Muslim countries gain strength, e.g. Iran, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt, we should be aware that they will use their influence and power to move beyond their own borders and into the west. The growing immigrant communities throughout Western Europe provide a fertile breeding ground. As more Muslims move into Europe it will be even easier for clerics to push disgruntled immigrants to pressure their governments into making concessions to Islamic mores, including the restriction of freedoms of the press and speech. In such a scenario they definitely win. Politics43448@blogcritics.org Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:11:46 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/02/09/162107.php Chip SpearImagine for a moment that you believed the only true role of the Federal government was to protect the country, everything was subservient to that one mission. The government was not a parent, did not exist to help you at all, that role was to be filled by your friends, family and maybe some local charities. It had no other responsibilities, none, not the environment, not your children's education, not labor laws, or health services, not urban development or energy policy and not transportation. Now extend that belief a bit and further imagine that you ran a government that provided all those services that you would absolutely love to make disappear. For various reasons you are unable to just close the departments dealing with all those things and send all the employees home. How would you accomplish that goal? One strategy would be to spend the government to death, starving the programs to the point where you eliminated all but the most vital services, like national defense. You would force the government to use every other dollar of revenue to pay off the deficit that you "built." In addition you could pack departments with friends of big business, who were not only campaign contributors, but advocates of open markets, free enterprise, and no government regulations. They would act to undercut whatever rules and regulations existed.If for example they didn't like the results of a particular study, they might cut funding, as they did with research into logging recently burnt forests in Oregon. If one of your programs was blocked in Congress you would surreptitiously put the program in the next year's budget anyway, thinking that you could force it on an unsuspecting country, like Social Security and private accounts. Farfetched you say? I think not. Just take a look at this year's White House budget of $2.77 trillion. It increases the deficit by $423 billion and cuts or eliminates 141 programs. (NYT) Bush additionally proposes cutting $15 billion in cancer research, community policing and other areas while increasing the Pentagon budget 4.8%, or $439.3 billion, and that does not include new financing for Iraq and Afghanistan. There is more, but I think you get the idea.In ten or fifteen years when folks complain about their taxes wondering where the money goes, make sure you remind them about how much is paying off the debt thanks to policies of our president. When the government says it has no money for the environment, or cancer research, or education, or training, or even body armor, think about this budget, this year. Politics43401@blogcritics.org Thu, 9 Feb 2006 16:21:07 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/02/06/184159.php Chip SpearPresident George wins this week's Political Sports Player of the Week Award, not for his astute play, but because he clearly dominated the news with his State of the Union Speech and its aftermath. It certainly wasn't inspired and isn't going to rally the team, either the Republicans or the country, to any particular victory. At this point in his presidency it is probably too much to ask for an epiphany, some change in direction that actually reflects competency, strength and leadership. I think the reason so much attention focused on the speech was that we as a country truly wanted him to fix the problems of his administration. We wanted him to honestly confront the issues with Iraq, wiretaps, torture, civil rights, religion, Katrina incompetence, tax breaks for the rich, increasing discrepancy between rich and poor, health care, and all the things that Americans worry about other than terror.When that did not happen, and so many facts were wrong, like calling for more money for energy research when he is cutting the research budget, Americans become even more disappointed in an opportunity missed. He wins this week's award, but not for very positive reasons. Politics43275@blogcritics.org Mon, 6 Feb 2006 18:41:59 EST