Foreign Affairs

A couple replies to the Foreign Affairs article posted yesterday, September 22. Ken Pollack seems to make several logically iffy assertions in this essay. Here are a few.

After the more immediate danger posed by Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network has been dealt with, the Bush administration should indeed turn its attention to Baghdad. What it should do at that point, however, is pursue the one strategy that offers a way out of the impasse. The United States should invade Iraq, eliminate the present regime, and pave the way for a successor prepared to abide by its international commitments and live in peace with its neighbors. [Emphasis mine]

Al Qaeda has been dealt with?! Whoo, that's a releif! Make sure we tell the people of Tunisia, Indonesia, Kenya, Morocco, Turkey, Spain, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, and England that we've completely eradicated Al Qaeda's terrorist threat, because I'm sure they'd be glad to hear it. For those of you without the time to peruse each article, here is a concise timeline of events that prove Pollack wrong on this count. Further, there is a direct link between the motivation of the 7/7 London bombings and the Iraq war. Once again, this does not mean that the war should end tomorrow, but rather that a more prudent plan may have been advisable. Pollack himself seems to acknowledge this:

Hawks are wrong to think the problem is desperately urgent or connected to terrorism, but right to see the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein as so worrisome that it requires drastic action. [Emphasis mine]

At any rate, the war in Iraq has done nothing to reduce the risk of terrorism to the U.S. (if anything, it serves as a breeding/training ground for new terrorist acts), and has compromised the nation's ability to defend itself from other crises as well (Hurricane Katrina comes to mind). Perhaps unilateral action was a bit too hasty, hmm?

At any rate, I can't afford the $5.95 to get through the rest of Pollack's defense of the Iraq war. But in the first five hundred words, he fails to assuage my concerns.

Bush on Iraq: A Brief, Somewhat Relevant Rebuttal

The Times says:

Mr. Bush said that "to leave Iraq now would be to repeat the costly mistakes of the past that led to the attacks of September the 11th, 2001."

This, this, and this all suggest that to go to war in Iraq (again) in the first place "would be to repeat the costly mistakes of the past that led to the attacks of September the 11th, 2001."

Bush has backed the U.S. into a must-win situation in Iraq, so Cindy Sheehan's demands of complete and immediate withdrawals are probably still premature. But to claim that the war in Iraq helped prevent terrorism is to ignore historical fact, not to mention current events.

And the Modest Shall Inherit...The Bench?

The Judiciary Committee totally nominated John Roberts today. Way to go, guys! Somewhat interesting, though, was some of the reasoning behind the robo-nominee's confirmation. The Times reports:

Committee Republicans heaped praise on the nominee, for his undisputed intellectual acumen and for what they see as the proper role of a jurist. "He emphasizes the importance of modesty and humility in the role of a justice," said Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa.

Modesty and humility?! Since when does one's temperament have anything to do with one's judicial abilities. It feels as though Roberts has hypnotized the senate with these vacuous platitudes. Though the Planner isn't as afraid of Roberts as many others, one would hope the Senate could come up with something better than "well, at least he isn't arrogant..." But, honestly, who cares? There's a war and a hurricane on. Roberts won't pose a problem until he hits the bench. Plus, Russ Feingold voted for him, so he can't be THAT evil...

War on Terror: Victorious

In today's Washington Post, Barton Gellman reports that the FBI is seeking recruits for a new focus in the Bureau: cracking down on adult pornography. The article notes that this directive, which is deemed one of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' "top priorities," will deal specifically with that which is marketed to consenting adults.

Isn't it nice knowing that with domestic and international terrorism simmering gently on the backburner (no pun?), the FBI can now direct more attention to cooking-up a nice porno stew to sate the appetites of Christian conservaties, who deem the elimination of adult pornography a top priority on their political agenda?

Gellman also notes the priorities that the FBI lists as less important than said initiative, which include (among others) organized crime, civil rights and "significant violent crime." Wonderful to see that we, as a nation, are starting to understand the gravity of what it means to live in a society that is so deeply in love with freedom.

More Senseless Death, This Time Even More Senseless Than Usual

A BBC report shows that Uganda's amazing AIDS performance over the years has begun to decline, thanks largely to U.S. intervention. A trend of reducing the rate of AIDS cases in the country from 15% to 5% in recent years is beginning to reverse, because the Ugandan government now gives greater weight to the Abstinence component of its Abstinence, Be faithful and Condoms campaign.

Many blame the Bush administration for this. Advert.org puts it this way:

Uganda receives significant amounts of funding from America, and much of the PEPFAR money is being channelled through pro-abstinence and even anti-condom organisations which are faith-based, and which would like sexual abstinence to be a central pillar of the fight against HIV. This money is making a difference - some Ugandan teachers report being instructed by US contractors not to discuss condoms in schools because the new policy is "abstinence only".

Our President's religious faith is well known, as was obvious in his numerous allusions to religion in his New Orleans speech last night.

It is already unacceptable that America fails to donate more resources to fighting AIDS, an epidemic which may be the most threatening global health crisis of our era. That any American institution would actually help prevent a hugely successful anti-AIDS policy from taking hold is maddeningly wrong. To do this in the name of religious moral obligation is purely hypocritical.

What kind of person who does the following moral calculus: "I know that millions of people are dying and trapped in poverty as a result of a disease that can be prevented at miniscule cost if we provide people with condoms. However, this is outweighed by the fact that sex outside of marriage is a sin. A pro-abstinence, anti-condom message must be broadcast around the world, no matter how many bodies pile up as a result."

It's unbelievable.

Addendum: Harper's published an article recently on America's brand of Christian faith and how it sizes up against Biblical scholarship and the beliefs of the rest of Christendom.

Third World Majority

Jeff Chang, author of comprehensive, profound, intellectual hip-hop historical text Can't Stop Won't Stop, is participating in a fascinating and worthy media project called Third World Majority. Check...it...OUT!

Iraq

Lots of people are dying right now. It's tough to be funny or flip about that. Here are some questions, though:

Why don't we know very much about the insurgency? Several sites, of varying levels of credibility, have tried to break it down. Still, it's all fairly unconvincing.

Is there any such thing as ties to al Qaeda? Isn't al Qaeda more of an ideology than a structured group? As such, is there really any point in identifying al-Qaeda members? A fairly well-written article on the subject can be found here, and you can find a comically ignorant interactive report on al Qaeda's 'structure' by going here, clicking on Interactive: Bin Laden & Al Qaeda, then clicking "Catching Al Qaeda: The Top Members." Notice how all the unknowns have a kaffiyeh on, while only half of the photographed members are wearing head adornment at all. If you want to stop terrorism, make sure you look out wearing striped scarves on their heads. ugh.

Regardless to whether the leaders of al Qaeda terror cells wear hats, shouldn't the national media be a little more careful in its classification of acts of terror? All al Qaeda means is "the foundation," and any old group can come along and adopt its scary title, giving Americans nightmare visions of a giant network of well-trained operatives who carry out covert paramilitary activity. Today's Post article on the most recent bombings mentions Al Qaeda twice, though this was the best they could do to actually attribute the attacks to anyone:

The group did not immediately assert direct responsibility for the attacks, but an Internet statement issued in its name welcomed the start of "revenge battles throughout the land of Mesopotamia."

That, and a tape recording "attributed to Zarqawi, which was posted on the Internet," are the only connections the Post can report between the current insurgency and al Qaeda.

The point really isn't whether it's al Qaeda behind these attacks or not. The point is that this country is so far away from understanding its 'enemies' that progress will be extremely fitful and hard-won, lest some alterations in strategy are made. Because if we don't know whom to smoke out and exterminate one by one, where does that really leave us, you know, from like a moral standpoint, or something?

Today's Young Uns Munching Rug, Gobbing Knob in Record Numbers

A Washington Post piece today featured new survey results from the National Center for Health Statistics that indicate over 50% of kids age 15 to 19 have been taken to the candy shop, and that girls have finally caught up with guys in reported levels of experience. To which the Kindly Planner says: Awesome.

A greater-scale study can be found here.

The Pledge of Allegiance Sucks

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton banned the Pledge of Allegiance today in San Francisco. As usual, the "under God" bit had a few Atheists antsy in their pantsy. One in particular, Michael Newdow, who's filed anti-Pledge suits in the past, finally succeded in defeating recitation of the oath in public schools.

This is interesting because the original Pledge was neither an ode of devotion cooked up by our founding fathers, nor did it contain the offending phrase. Created in 1892 to help a magazine called Youth's Companion sell flags to schools, it only became a prayer in 1954, when the Knights of Columbus petitioned some Michigan senator to sneak one little preposition and another little Supreme Being into the poem. Congress adopted the idea, and Bob's your uncle.

The real issue at stake here seems to be less that atheist kids (raised, no doubt, by stuffy intellectuals) have to mention God's name in vain, but that they stand in mindless unison reciting a glorified advertising jingle in the name of patriotism. The Kindly Planner reccommends that children be forced to recite and enact instances of free speech upheld by the Constitution, rather than a lame, conformist poem that doesn't even rhyme.

Understanding al Qaeda, or, More Intimate Friendships Through Headlines

A Copy-Paste Job, and...They're Best Friends!

This morning, news cameras cut away from John Roberts' dorky, reassuringly caucasian face, jumping right back to Baghdad, where hundreds of people died before the work day even started. A Times article reports:

Terrorists loyal to al Qaeda claimed responsibility for a wave of deadly attacks across Iraq that left more than 100 people dead today, saying they were retaliating for a military offensive against insurgents in the northern city of Tal Afar.

The Washington Post, meanwhile, says:

Insurgents killed at least 141 people Wednesday in at least 10 separate bombings and rocket attacks that made for one of Baghdad's deadliest days.

So, who did it? Al Qaeda? The "insurgency?"

It seems unfair to the reader to just drop in the ol' "loyal to al Qaeda" modifier these days. A bit more explanation of that tidbit seems to be in order. Are all 'terrorists' 'loyal to al Qaeda,' at least in the sense that they agree that blowing people up is a good idea? Is al Qaeda simply shorthand for people who oppose the U.S. occupation and the new constitution? Or are these terrorists really loyal to Iraq?

It seems reasonable to be suspicious of any mention of Iraq and al Qaeda in the same sentence, given how the U.S. has had a few "oops!" moments with that kind of thing. The Planner would love any legitimate articles exploring different factions of the Iraqi insurgency and their loyalties. Not that there is no connection between Zarkawi and bin Laden, but news sources need to practice extreme caution when giving a tangible face to a nebulous concept like 'al Qaeda.'

The Fair Labor Association: Fair or Foul?

Georgetown Solidarity is planning a protest against the Fair Labor Association later this week. In the interest of not blowing up their spot (even though no one reads this blog), you'll have to contact Solidarity for time and place info. The long and short of it is that Solidarity claims the misleadingly titled Fair Labor Association should probably be called the Unfair Bunch of Dicks. The email says:

In one of the most egregious cases I've ever seen, workers at the PT Victoria factory in Indonesia were forced to work a 24 hour shift to finish an order for Eddie Bauer. When they returned to the factory the next day they found the gates locked and their livelihood taken away. Even worse, the workers were denied their pay and legal severance. An Indonesian court ruled that the workers are owed the equivalent of one million US dollars. Eddie Bauer refuses to pay the workers the money they are owed.

The FLA says of itself:

The growth of the global economy has outstripped the mechanisms for regulating labor rights around the world. In principle, governments should adopt ILO Conventions and incorporate them into national labor laws enforced by labor inspectors. Trade unions and employers should negotiate collective agreements to fix wages and working conditions at sectoral or firm level and workers should have recourse to internal grievance procedures or external labor tribunals. In practice however, many of these protections have broken down. The FLA initiative is designed to complement international and national efforts to promote respect for labor rights.

Corpwatch.org says the FLA isn't doing a good enough job. Which is interesting, because all these groups are .orgs, which used to inspire the Kindly Planner's immediate confidence! Nonprofits fighting each other? Calling each other evil? Who knew? The debate will rage on at the appointed time and place, which is fine; the Kindly Planner didn't even know these things existed before!

In an interesting sidenote, Georgetown University isn't a listed FLA affiliate to begin with. The Solidarity Committee might want to investigate why their university doesn't even put up the PR effort to affiliate with a window-dressing organization such as that.

Roberts: Evil?

A lot of the discourse surrounding John Roberts' nomination as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has to do with his unknown views, particularly with regard to abortion. What fewer people have touched on so far, however, is what Roberts might do for executive power. The New Republic touches on this in an opinion piece that opposes Roberts' nomination. It's difficult to believe that a strict constructionist like Roberts would make great moves to expand the executive's power. Of course, it's hard to tell what this big ol' bag of mystery will do once he's on the bench, so who knows?

Meanwhile, you can watch Roberts' impressive Manchurian Candidate routine here. The guy is unnervingly composed--an excellent witness. This is probably because he is a lawyer.

Clarification:

The Importance of Balance

For the record:

That anyone as focused, unbiased, and honest as a U.S. politician ("Ted Kennedy" and "trusworthy" sound so good together in the same sentence, don't they?) would introduce his own partisan agenda into the confirmation of a candidate who, by all known measures, is eminently qualified did come as quite a shock.

The Kindly Planner's hope--however fluffy-minded it may sound--is to ridicule any politician for his/her pomposity and/or uncritical towing of the party line. In this sense, the Rapture is fully welcome and encouraged to ridicule and rail against any public figure (political or otherwise) who sounds like a dumbass. Yesterday, it happened to be Ted Kennedy. On most days, it's Rick Santorum. The future of our particular corner of the blogosphere will be rife with profiles of no-talent ass clowns; the inclusion of one particular person is not meant to be read as an endorsement of others--far from it. The Planner is surly and ridiculous, but above all aspires to even-handedness.

In this vein, the Rapture (hell of biblical, by the way!) it would be wise to note that both Republicans and Democrats have labeled decisions they disagree with as "judicial activism." What seems more important than whether or not we abide by strict constructionism is the safeguarding of every American's basic civil liberties. Sometimes the Court needs to be active in order to do so (Roe), but sometimes an active court is counterproductive (Dred Scott). This is exactly why it's important to roast politicians for cluttering up legitimate arguments with absolute nonsense, like (as Rapture points out) politicians' labeling of any Supreme Court decision they disagree with as "judicial activism" (said with that annoying, whiny sneer).

Regardless to that debate, please continue to post sarcastic, poignant, rigorous, and thoughtful paragraphs. The Planner wags its cute little tail every time you do!