Fight Bad Policy

Where's the check on corporate and political corruption?

2010-01-21T20:24:00.001-06:00

Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck are Total Idiots

2010-01-16T12:36:00.002-06:00

My Own Answers to My Own Questions to Rachel Maddow

2009-01-03T14:22:00.001-06:00

Michael Smirkonish recently argued on Hardball that it is acceptable to torture someone to prevent an attack if the threat of attack is imminent. The argument, however, is inherently contradictory. That a threat is imminent necessarily implies that one is aware of an oncoming attack; and one can only be sure that a threat is imminent if and only if there is clear and direct evidence that an attack is pending. Hamas launching missiles into Israel on a frequent basis is clear and direct evidence that further attacks from Hamas are not only probably but are likely. Hamas, therefore, poses an imminent threat. On the other hand, North Korea a couple years ago launched a Taepodong II missile that, in theory, was capable of reaching California. There was significant evidence that North Korea fully intended to launch the missile, but there was no clear or direct evidence suggesting that they intended to use it against the U.S. or its allies. What, then, amounts to clear and direct evidence that an attack is imminent? First, if one cannot answer that, one cannot determine precisely under what circumstance it is acceptable to torture another human being. Also, speculating that an attack is possible, or even probable, does not amount to clear and direct evidence that an attack is likely. Speculation or circumstantial evidence, therefore, are not adequate means by which to measure the likelihood of an attack. Finally, that there is evidence that is clear and direct must mean that the agencies whose task it is to gather such evidence already know who is going to attack, what those people intend to do, when they will do it, how they will do it, and why they will do it. Clearly, then, it is an absurd contradiction to say that there is both an imminent threat of attack and a need to torture someone to prevent such an attack, since the need to torture necessarily implies that there is a critical intelligence gap that cannot possibly allow for one to determine that a threat is imminent.

Osama bin Laden's Plan

2009-01-02T04:14:00.003-06:00

In this August 24, 2007 article (click on above link), Abdul Bari Atwan, one of the few Western journalists to interview Osama bin Laden, discusses with ABC network television's Tony Jones bin Laden's strategy to lure the United States into war. Bin Laden failed to fight significantly against the United States in Somalia and in Afghanistan, but Donald Rumsfeld and other neo-conservatives in the Bush 43 administration fell for bin Laden's scheme by needlessly invading Iraq.

So Long, B—43

2008-12-31T05:03:00.002-06:00

Send off the lame duck; bid him farewell.
His tragic luck beckons his parting knell.
We lament he graced our sacred house.
We rue his policies that gutted us.
Send off the lame duck; bid him farewell.

The total damage done no one can say.
Let’s bid the parting duck 'chow' anyway.
His churlish mind no time will comprehend.
Thankfully his term has reached its end.
Send off the lame duck; bid him farewell.

Letter to Rachel Maddow on Michael Smirkonish and Torture

2008-12-21T16:51:00.001-06:00

Rachel:

I have been thinking about Mr. Smirkonish's argument on Hardball that he would torture a person if there were "a ticking time bomb" and the person to be tortured allegedly knew where the bomb was. Rachel, I would love to see you address that ridiculous argument. Mr. Smirkonish suggests that any action is acceptable to glean information about an imminent threat. However, at what point is a threat imminent and what actions are acceptable to stop an imminent threat? How exactly does one define a ticking time bomb? Also, if one cannot define it exactly, how does one know what is best to diffuse it? How much information and what kind of information proves that a threat is imminent? If one cannot physically identify a threat, how can one determine that a threat is imminent; and if one can identify a threat enough to determine that it is imminent, would not torture be merely a cruel excess? Does circumstantial evidence adequately confirm that a threat is imminent? Short of catching a person placing a bomb, is not all other information circumstantial? Should there not first be adequate protection to keep Americans safe before there ever is a ticking time bomb? If the agencies tasked with protecting Americans are vigilant enough to guard America against attack, why would those agencies ever need to torture anyone? Rachel, I know you have addressed the point recently when your guest was the Special Forces interrogator who used rapport successfully to glean intelligence from prisoners instead of torture. However, I think this is a subject that goes to the heart of who we are as Americans, and I really hope that maybe on your show you can get Mr. Smirkonish to argue the point with experts and perhaps even with people like Senator McCain, who have been tortured. Thank you so much.

President Barack Obama

2008-11-05T00:00:00.000-06:00

This is our time--perhaps one of the greatest times in our history. God bless the Unites States of America, and God bless the 44th president of the United States, President Barack Obama.

Louisiana on November 4, 2008

2008-10-27T15:52:00.004-05:00

I have no idea why the national news keeps Louisiana in dark red for McCain. Maybe it is because we voted for Bobby Jindal. I have to say that this state voted for Jindal because the Blanco administration was atrocious. We in Louisiana would be just as inclined to vote into office a Democrat if we knew there were one who would do a better job than Jindal. As for primary voting, Louisiana voted for Huckabee and Clinton in the primaries, and it is reasonable to assume that more former Clinton supporters now back Obama than former Huckabee supporters back McCain, for the same reason why Jindal is now in office and not another Democrat, which is to say that McCain's campaign has been atrocious. A McCain administration looks as if it would be as mismanaged, as disorganized, and as lackadaisical as a Blanco administration under hurricanes Katrina and Rita circumstances. Obama's campaign does not radiate such a negative vibe. Given the commonalities between Blanco and McCain, it is also reasonable to assume that more former Huckabee supporters now support Obama than former Clinton supporters back McCain. Based on these assumptions, I am predicting that Louisiana will turn dark blue on November 4, 2008.

Fighting All Extremism Except Her Own

2008-09-04T07:42:00.002-05:00

Clicking on the link above, one will find a news article by Associated Press writer, Gene Johnson, concerning Sarah Palin's beliefs, which she articulated only a year ago, concerning God and the U. S. involvement in Iraq. Palin said, "Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." There is nothing unusual about including God in one's plan. However, it probably is not so prudent to follow someone into war who suggests that God has devised her strategy. Such a person is either delusional, presumptuous to think that she and God are thinking alike, or so entirely ignorant of foreign affairs that she has to trust that God will make her decisions for her.

Sarah Palin Does Not Know What the V. P. Does? Really? No, Wait... Really?

2008-09-03T19:04:00.003-05:00

Who vetted Sarah Palin, and what person who has any genuine concern for the United States will, in good conscience, vote for a national presidential ticket that includes her?

Tony Snow

2008-07-12T09:02:00.002-05:00

So long, Tony.

War With Iran

2008-07-09T18:30:00.002-05:00

A full-fledged war with Iran will bankrupt us the way the cold war bankrupted the Soviet Union. We already spend $5.00 for a gallon of milk. An America in which a gallon of milk costs $15.00, where bread costs $7.00 -- where wages cannot possibly keep up with inflation -- would be an America in its death throws. We must not, MUST NOT, go to war with Iran.

Oh, McCain!

2008-06-21T17:46:00.003-05:00

America cannot afford the George W. Bush recklessness of a John McCain presidency.

So Happy Together

2008-06-19T20:33:00.003-05:00

Michelle Obama Said It... Oh Wait, So Did John McCain

2008-06-19T20:18:00.003-05:00

“I fell in love with America when I was deprived of her company.”
John McCain (Feb 2007)

Clink on the title of this post to read the entire article.

In Memory of Tim Russert

2008-06-13T16:00:00.001-05:00

So long, great one.

The McCain Disjunction

2008-04-08T20:03:00.004-05:00

The best thing to happen to the American people in a while is, possibly, one of the worst things to happen to McCain. It is, in a word, Obama. Really, Senator McCain? Bomb Iran?

Bush and McCain Tell Americans that the Economy and Iraq are Okay

2008-03-27T15:15:00.002-05:00

To quote John Stewart, "In order for the Jedi mind trick to work, you have to be a Jedi."

Dick, you're such a dick!

2008-03-25T22:05:00.007-05:00

It is one thing to do what is best for the American people, especially when a majority of the American people do not realize what is best for themselves. It is another thing altogether to disregard the American people when most of them know what is, in fact, best for themselves and are right.

McCain's Credibility on the Iraq Surge

2008-03-25T21:02:00.002-05:00

What happens to McCain's credibility about the Iraq surge's success when the ceasefire the U.S. has with al-Sadr collapses and massive violence erupts?

This Sucks

2008-03-23T21:59:00.002-05:00

Now, CNN reports that 4000 of our young American soldiers have given their lives in Iraq.

George W. Bush Thinks War is Romantic

2008-03-21T21:53:00.003-05:00

Wilfred Owen disagrees. See post below.

Wilfred Owen

2008-03-21T21:43:00.005-05:00

DULCE ET DECORUM EST

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.

Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.

8 October 1917 - March, 1918

Unconventional Reason

2008-03-19T22:18:00.000-05:00

There is much talk these days about what would happen were we to withdraw from Iraq. What is especially clear to me is that pundits and McCain tend to exaggerate. From all the information that I have gathered from 2005 to the present, it appears that when we withdraw, the Iranian-backed Mahdi militia and Bader Brigade will mobilize against al-Qaeda. The current U.S.-backed regime will kowtow to the Iranians even more, and the eventuality facing that regime will be a slow shift toward an Islamic theocracy. This, I believe, is not something that we can or even should prevent. Stability is more important to the Iraqis than democracy, but we are most likely preventing the very people that can eliminate al-Qaeda from doing just that. Our presence in Iraq, therefore, is most likely perpetuating instability. All the evidence that I have gathered seems to point to the fact that the Iranians and their surrogates are poised to fill in the vacuum when we depart. McCain and others seem to think that that is an untenable situation for the U.S., and maybe it is in some ways, but our invasion was supposed to somehow benefit the Iraqis. If we can do just that by leaving, then we will have actually accomplished more than we have since March 19, 2003.

The McCain Quandary

2008-03-18T11:46:00.002-05:00

McCain wants to bomb Iran. I thought he was the foreign-policy genius. Admiral Fallon was right to tell Esquire that the only tenable relationship the U.S. can have with Iran is a diplomatic relationship. How does McCain propose to fight a war with Iran that would alienate more of the Islamic world, essentially encouraging young Muslims to embrace terrorism, all while he proposes to stay the course in Iraq? He talks about Democrats' desire to raise taxes while he has no economic plan to sustain the status quo much less more ambitious military endeavors. He would bankrupt us the way the former Soviet Union bankrupted itself. America cannot afford another egotist.