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!

"Below the Belt"

I don't know if I should find this funny or not, but check out what NOW president Kim Gandy has to say about New Orleans:

I'm from Louisiana, as you may know. I lived and worked for 14 years in New Orleans, and spent all of those years as a NOW activist. The flood pictures that have been, well, flooding my TV and newspapers the past few days are almost more than I can bear.

And this:

Seeing tens of thousands of hungry and desperate people jammed into the Superdome days after the hurricane, without even a semblance of an organized federal relief effort made me want to scream. It's just such a classic case of needing nine stitches to make up for the one that wasn't in time.

Her column is titled "Below The Belt." The Planner doesn't quite know what to do with this.

Spinmaster Windbags

Bush Surveys a "near catastrophic" scene in New Orleans

The Smoking Gun has posted this document. I, for one, am extremely relieved to know that Katrina was not completely catastrophic, but only nearly so.

France Vs:

Four Teenage Girls
Part 2 in an ongoing "France Vs:" Series

The four French girls who started a fire in southern Paris on September 4, killing 18 people, have now expressed regret, but are "incapable of explaining" their motivations. Having started the fire in the Hay en Roses, a low-income housing project, the young ladies admit that they "didn't like" their target, dubbed "Jessica" by the authorities for her own safety. For her part, "Jessica" had no idea the arsonists felt any animosity towards her.

America is typically known for its violent teenagers, given the rash of school shootings around the country from 1997 to 2001, most notably at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO in April of 1999. It seems possible that France's continually escalating social tension and crisis over its own national identity may have something to do with the recent increase in violence--there have been two other fires in immigrant communities in recent weeks.

At any rate, the French media have inscribed typical class markers into the story, pointing out that Jessica "does not know her biological father," and that the four arsonists, though "of French nationality," are of Portuguese and Malian "origine."

Whether or not this attack was motivated explicitly by class or race conflict, it underscores the officially unspoken racial and cultural tensions burgeoning in France today. Le Monde links to a Society forum where this debate rages: contributors write about the "France qui me revolte," and the need for the French government--who doesn't officially recognize minorities--to finally address the issue of race. While America deals with its own reheated racial tensions in the wake of Katrina, France continues to grapple with a cultural division it barely even recognizes.

Preliminary Verdict: France, having taken the four girls into custody, has won this small battle, but still confronts a looming threat that may prove much more difficult to handle than a group of upstart adolescents. The Planner recommends tighter play earlier in the game.

France's Standing Record: 1-1

Ted Kennedy: Ass Clown

The Roberts confirmation hearings start today. A Washington Post article reports today that, for some reason, Ted Kennedy uses Hurricane Katrina as background for an interesting line of inquiry:

"What the American people have seen is this incredible disparity in which those people who had cars and money got out, and those people who were impoverished died," Kennedy said. The question for Roberts, he said, is whether he stands for "a fairer, more just nation" or will he use "narrow, stingy interpretations of the law to frustrate progress."

Can anything be more irritating than lopsided questions with built-in partisan bias? The New Republic has a great opinion piece about why John Roberts should be confirmed.

The Verdict: "Ted Kennedy" (along with the name of just about any Senate Democrat) is now appropriate shorthand for the term "No-Talent Ass Clown."

How Our Heroes Fall

Rolling Stone published Hunter S. Thompson's suicide note. The missive pretty much falls in line with Kurt Cobain and Arthur Rimbaud's final writings in that it fails to do justice to the liveliness and rebellious fury that made its author famous. It's no secret that Thompson's mental and physical health was rapidly deteriorating at the time of his death. The Planner posts this much with a heavy heart, so if the reader desires more editorializing and even some snide (perhaps inappropriate) commentary on the note and the suicide, he or she is welcome to go here.

More On "Google Bombing"

"Google Bombing" is nothing new, apparently. Friend and inspiration to the Planner Leon Neyfakh wrote about this storied act of nerd retribution back in the day. Computer geeks wreak passive-aggressive havoc once more!

What Might Have Happened?

Today's Times gives us an interesting insight into why Katrina went from national disaster to national shitshow:

According to the administration's senior domestic security officials, the plan failed to recognize that local police, fire and medical personnel might be incapacitated.

This might seem like a flimsy enough excuse for some people, but lameness continues unabated; White House officials are now blaming Federalism for much of the debacle, citing the political heat a President might take for unnecessarily seizing control of National Guard troops.

It sounds as though Kathleen Blanco had a recourse to military action, had she been willing to set up a joint command of Guard Troops. Nevertheless, the Active Duty response was five days late. This is an unacceptable administrative failure, particularly when the politics of perception seem to be the primary motivation behind the inaction. An anonymous administration official explains to the Times:

"Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had preemptively taken from the female governor of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?" asked one senior administration official, who spoke anonymously because the talks were confidential.

The Bush administration has yet to come through with a compelling explanation for this needless loss of life. It seems crass politics may have gotten in the way of what should have been a purely humanitarian undertaking.

Bush Does Something

The Bush response to Katrina: take a couple minutes out of your vacation schedule to pay the living victims good, honest lip service. When those victims die, make sure to pray for their departed souls. At least now they're getting some attention. What a dick.

Addendum: A tonally biased and incomplete--but compelling--take on Katrina's unfolding.

France Vs:

Lance Armstrong

Part One in an Ongoing "France Vs:" Series

Today, France takes on the world's all time greatest cyclist, Lance Armstrong. L'Equipe, one of France's premiere sports news providers, is engaged in an ongoing allegation of impropriety on the part of the cancer-fighting Texan. Apparently, somebody got suspicious that a guy with hostile cells in his testicles, brain, and lungs could win seven Tour de Frances; under particular scrutiny is Armstrong's 1999 victory. The French publication quotes numerous cycling officials, including: former president of the French Cylcing Federation, Daniel Baal; French team Cofidis manager Eric Boyer; and even Jean-Marie Leblanc, director of the Tour de France.

Leblanc is extremely vocal about the impact of the scandal on the Tour:

Le Tour est choqué. On ne pouvait s'y attendre même si la personnalité de Lance Armstrong était controversée, sujette à une certaine suspicion à côté de l'admiration qu'il suscitait. J'oscillais pour ma part entre l'admiration et la prudence à cause des articles, des procès en cours. On peut dire qu'il n'a pas fait sept ans de vélo sur le cours d'un fleuve tranquille... Dès la première année, en 1999, il y a eu suspicion.

What this means for you freedom lovers out there is that Lance has been under French suspicion since '99, but even Leblanc found himself "occilating" between the the power of Lance's legend and incredulity at its improbability.

Armstrong's defenders have nevertheless mustered an indignant response. Eurosport dismisses the charges as a series of ad hominem attacks on Lance's "lack of emotion."

At any rate, the eurosport article lazily conflates recent political animosities between the U.S. and France with L'Equipe's overall anti-Armstrong sentiment. The Iraq war seems to have little to do with whether or not Lance cheated in '99. Meanwhile, L'Equipe does look pretty bent on tearing down America's yellow-jerseyed Horatio Alger story, so who wins?

Preliminary Verdict: The Planner loves American heroes, no matter how ridiculous their rags to riches stories happen to be. We even endorse a little fudging of the rules when times are tough. Lance had cancer. Then he won seven Tours. A few visits to the blood doctor just don't seem to matter.

France's standing record: 0-1.

Addendum:Funny, though pretty much irrelevant to the actual doping charges, is drug company Merck's sponsorship of Lance. He had cancer! And he's suspected of employing medical science to enhance his performance! Now buy some Propecia!

John Roberts: Dork?

So, John Roberts is going to be the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Which is, apparently, kind of a big deal. So enough waffling, already; in the interest of secondhanded, up-to-the-week journalism, the Kindly Planner is boldly taking a stance on John Roberts now. But, in typical evenhanded style, we'll take a look at the relevant facts.

People who always sound a little hysterical to the Planner have vehemently opposed John Roberts' nomination. NARAL thinks John Roberts is a more avid pro-lifer than Eric Rudolph, and NOW thinks Roberts should burn in hell.
Still, Roberts has gone on record saying he kinda might sorta be a little bit pro-choice. So what's the deal?

Probably the most compelling evidence against Roberts' nomination can be found on Slate, where they discuss the steaming pile of Roberts dossiers in serious detail, combing over instances of sexism and concluding:

The problem isn't with [Roberts'] desperate housewives (or hideous lawyers) crack, but with his relentless "Gidget sucks" tone. Roberts honestly seemed to think that humor or disdain were the only appropriate ways to think about gender. It's not that feminists can't take a joke. It's that Roberts can't seem to take feminists seriously.

The record seems to make it quite clear that Roberts—with his "perceived/purported/alleged" discrimination trope—simply didn't believe that gender problems were worthy of his serious consideration or scrutiny.

So, in the 1980s, John Roberts, like a lot of men, was skeptical of--and maybe slightly perturbed by--the newfound power of the feminists. So he was dismissive of their claims. Still, a sexist jerk of the 80's does not a sexist jerk of the 00's make. Is John Roberts kind of a conservative stick-in-the-mud? Definitely. Does he make the Kindly Planner's All Time Top Supreme Court Justices? No!

Preliminary Verdict: John Roberts is about as smarmy and smart-alecky a dork as any of his photos make him seem. He is a sort of evil genius, but our political processes will get him confirmed. To avoid sounding hysterical, the Planner thinks it wise to accept his nomination, and to mercilessly and immaturely ridicule him at every available opportunity.

Time To Get Reckless

Alright, folks, it's time to kick off another adventure on the 'net, a little looser, a little freer, a little bit of an effort to keep abreast of all that is happening in our world. The focus is the news and relevant pop culture developments around the world. You'll find no verse here, only prose, unless it's the lyrics to the latest and hottest track on the floor. I've tried to open this thing up to anyone who wants in, and hopefully it'll spawn a great deal of punditry and zing.

The floor is open, but in the interest of keeping things somewhat legit, I ask that postings either reference one article from another site, or pertain to a subject already discussed.

Following are a few posts that will set the tone and pace of this thing. Welcome aboard.