Category: Political

Categories
People Political

Bali/Australian help

In addition to donations to help Chris’ friend, Rick, you can also help the Australian victims of the Bali explosions by donating to the Australian Red Cross. This same money will also be used to help with recovery efforts in Bali itself.

I know there was an issue with the Red Cross in regards to their handling of monies for the WTC victims in this country, primarily because the Red Cross uses whatever money isn’t needed for the aid of the victims for future disasters. This isn’t stealing from those in need and giving to the rich — this is smart fiscal management. And as you can see in the Australian Red Cross page, they very carefully note that any unused monies go to help in future disasters.

And, unfortunately, the money will most likely be needed in the future. Our world is changing.

Categories
Political

Iraq and goals

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I listened to the President’s speech on Iraq last night. I’m not surprised at the familiar refrain of Saddam Hussein being an evil man, nor was I surprised about the tie-in with September 11th.

There was a strongly inconsistent message in the President’s speech that I’m a bit surprised no one seems to have noted. President Bush emphasized the need for Iraq to disarm, but also brought into the message questions about terrorism, treatment of its people, and other factors outside of the original UN security resolution:

And that is why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously. Those resolutions are very clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. And it must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

The confusion about the focus of our goals was further enhanced by direct attacks on Saddam Hussein:

The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control within his own cabinet, and within his own army, and even within his own family.

What are our goals? Do we want to disarm Iraq? Or do we want to depose Saddam Hussein? The former is within the charter of UN security resolutions, the latter is not. Sending arms inspectors back and allowing them unfettered access will, hopefully, result in disarmament, but won’t remove Hussein from office.

Which does the President want? Disarmament? Or Hussein? There’s a world of difference between these two. A word of difference.

In the meantime, if you want your views known, contact your Congressional representatives. I would also recommend that you contact your local politicians (mayor, governor, and so on). And you might want to consider joining whatever demonstrations are happening in your area that support your viewpoint.

Categories
Political

Already feeling the effects

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Today, President Bush will address the nation with his rationale for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. I would say that if the increase in noise of this issue is anything to go by, I expect to see a strike sooner rather than later. And I still don’t understand the frenzy associated with Iraq, and with our having to strike now.

The likely invasion of Iraq is polarizing this country as it hasn’t been since the Vietnam war. And along with the moral, civil, and legal implications of our launching a first strike against Hussein, we can now add an economic impact: in my area at least, several major employers have halted hiring at this time, awaiting ‘further developments’.

For someone who opposes a hasty first strike against Iraq without UN support, careful thought and pre-planning, and a very real consideration of the lives that will be lost, this situation is disturbing. Being unemployed only makes the situation even more frustrating. If that makes me selfish, I guess there are others who are also selfish — or is worried the better word?

Categories
Political Weather

What’s the weather in Iraq

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Hurricane Lili sputtered to a category 1 when it rolled into the US — enough to inflict damage, but not to the extent of first speculations, when Lili was a category 4 hurricane.

Unfortunately, as much as I wish that Congress would have stood strong, forcing President Bush’s category 4 bluster down to category 1, or even tropical storm status, yesterday’s news conference with Bush and several congressional leaders show this isn’t going to happen. As the Boston Globe (and other publications) reported, all the little political ducks in congress — including Senator Gephardt from Missouri I’m ashamed to say — have lined up behind our little soldier.

There is really nothing, now, to stop Bush — a man who’s justification for war is suspect when one reads Saddam “tried to kill my dad” — from invading Iraq.

Certainly not a Congress who would push through a resolution stating that Bush only need inform them of an attack within 48 hours after it’s occurred. Hell, I can inform them within 24 hours of an attack and I don’t have the CIA and the military in my pocket. And to give the President a blank check to invade Iraq if he, he mind you, determines that diplomatic efforts have failed, is nothing more than a washing of Congressional hands; absolving themselves from any responsibility of the actions while reaping whatever pale benefits they might be able to scavage from their acts of inaction.

Both the Congress and the Presidency of this country are fast becoming nothing more than characterizations of our worst fears: a paranoid, megalomaniacal president with delusions of grandeur, only held in check by a weak and ineffectual Congress.

Too bad Lili didn’t hit Washington DC, instead — that area could have used the fresh air.

Update Mark Fiore sums this whole thing up for me. (Thanks Michael)

Second Update:This also fits this occasion: Norm Jenson’s Asshole of Evil. Norm also pointed out Flight of the Chickenhawks.

Categories
Government People

In Defense of Few Words

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Michael Barrish wrote:

I’ve long believed that we each have a story, often unknown to us, that we try all our lives to prove true. As I see it, this is the key to understanding a lot of otherwise inexplicable behavior.

If I’m correct, what would your story be?

Note: It can usually be summarized in five words or less.

Note: This can be a scary question.

There is nothing new or magical about seeking truth within ourselves, or our interest in discovering why we do the things we do; self-help gurus have made towers of money understanding this drive for self awareness and capitalizing on it.

What does capture the interest and engage the mind with Michael’s posed question is trying to find a phrase of five words or less that can adequately describe something so complex. How can we sum up our lives in five words or less?

Easy. The answer is, we don’t.

Our lives are too rich and too varied to be easily summed up with so few words. However, we can seek to better understand what makes each of us “tick”, our underlying story as Michael describes it, and brevity strips away the non-essential verbage and forces us into a more honest assessment.

There is power in brevity.

Asked to tell a truth about ourselves we immediately seek to describe the causes of the truth and the core of the truth and we wrap it in apologies and explanations and regressions into our childhood, with many asides into events that have had impact on this truth. But we’re not describing the truth, only its environment. Stripping away the environment will either reveal the truth or…nothing.

Ultimately, if we can’t describe something of such profound importance in five words or less, perhaps we don’t truly understand what it is we’re describing.

We ask the thief: why do you steal?

The thief answers: I steal because in this society there are the rich and there are the poor, and the rich stay rich by keeping the poor, poor. I steal because I have basic human needs that aren’t met by a society that perpetuates a gap between those who have, and those who have not. I steal because I learned from watching my mother and watching my father that you have to steal and cheat and lie to make it in the world. I steal as a way of demanding my fair share in a society that prides itself on being rich.

We change our question but not our intent, and ask the thief: Why do you steal, in five words or less?

Thief: I steal to survive.

We ask the President, why should we invade Iraq?

The President answers: Because Saddam Hussein is an evil man who is an enemy of this country. He has weapons of mass destruction he’ll use against us direcctly, or give to terrorists to use against us. He terrorizes his own people and leads based on fear. He provides a haven and training camps for terrorits. He is a repressive dictator who must be stopped before he’s allowed to do more damage. We must stop him now before he has a chance to act against us in the future.

We then ask the President, why should we invade Iraq, in five words or less?

And the President answers: Because I can.