The true politics of terrorism

We’ve heard the arguments: “support the Democrats and you support terrorists.”

Has it occurred to no one that support of Republican positions on war-making, foreign policy, religious (in)tolerance, immigration, free trade, globalization, and ‘democracy-building’ are the precipitating cause of Al-Qaeda’s use of terrorism? Combine xenophobia with economic colonialism, and the United States appears to be a monster that actually hates democracy.

It may seem troubling, but next to George Bush’s fascist totalitarian tendencies, Al-Qaeda looks like a group of freedom-fighters.

George long ago lost the battle for the ‘hearts and minds’ of the people through his devotion to running a dictatorship while waving the flag of ‘freedom’. He also lost any chance at winning over the hearts and minds of those in the Middle East, desperate for change in their own cultures. Instead, George’s divisiveness, hatred of compromise and conflict management, opposition to communication, and rejection of consensus-building (except the first, all of these the true hallmarks of leadership), have led to rampant recruitment of opposition to United States policy.

The problem is the administration’s stances. It isn’t George as a person (who is offensive in his own way), or the citizens as people. It isn’t even our military. It is how and why we use our might, influence, and wealth to force our way on others, to the detriment of others. This means that it is an issue of mindset. It is our use of resources, our view of interacting with other nations, our view of economics, and our view of war.

The Democratic Party is very likely to make some big mistakes, especially when it often seems to overly pursue consensus. But the Republican positions foster consumerism, which is the biggest reason people of other states begin to despise us. When we have “a consumer society” as Pres. Bush has so often declared and supported, we create a society that is selfish, isolationist, and exploitive. Consumerism isn’t about freedom, choice, or economic success/security; it represents the worst version of us.

So here’s the test, Democratic presidential candidates: can you stand up and call on the end of consumerism? Can you say that our supposed national trait of ‘unity’ is more important than tax cuts for wealthy corporations? Can you support the health of our nation and make inroads to strengthening our global position?

Probably not, but at least a return to the center is better than a culture of divisiveness we have come to expect from the self-proclaimed ‘compassionate conservative,’ also known as ‘the decider’ who sold himself in 2000 as “a uniter, not a divider”. If that’s his self-image, then how awful it will be for him when he realizes that no one has divided the country, and the world, as thoroughly as George W. Bush.

Is your spell-check broken?

Here is my question: what is wrong with spellchecking? I mean really; who doesn’t use it? If you are talking about an e-mail to a friend, that is one thing, but if you are publishing something? Well, then you better use it.

In my (many) years of video game playing, the advent of the website GameFAQs has revolutionized gaming and made it so much easier to find out what games really have to offer. At the same time, it has been a boom to budding game aficionados that are seeking a little public notoriety. This is all great and I have taken advantage of a great deal of work that others have done. So for that, thank you!

There is a dark side to all of this, however. The people writing these FAQs and guides hate proper grammar, spelling, punctuation, or anything resembling traditional communication. It never appears to be out of spite or malice (besides the occasional ‘thru’), but simple carelessness. I’m not talking common grammatical issues, like two or to instead of too, but simply sloppy writing.

They also aren’t playing with grammar in any interesting way—I would accept Hemingway writing over Faulkner’s love of punctuation and additional clauses—but it just seems like they don’t know how to use it. But there is also an issue of consistency, so they can’t ever claim ignorance. It is possible that for many writers, English is a second language, as the site is obviously international and there is plenty of anonymity, but they are playing the American version of the game, not a European or Japanese version. They are likely in the U.S. writing for Americans.

The truth is that these people are writing 100-200 page documents that are riddled with errors; lots and lots of them. These documents are too long to be written directly online; they are clearly documents from a word processor. They just don’t use a spellchecking feature. Of course they like to draw pictures as if it were ASCII, which would make Word’s Spellchecker go crazy, but still! Why don’t they use it? It isn’t that hard—I use it to compose this blog. When I’m done, I read it over. And then I look for those angry red lines and I spell-check. Am I a dying breed?

The ultimate irony

The irony seems to be lost on everyone.

Let me start at the beginning:

The Legislative Branch (Congress) decides what the federal budget is. For years, this has meant that they allow the Executive Branch (White House) to write the budget and then the Legislators will look at it and decide whether or not to approve it. If they don’t, they will rewrite it and make something new. In either case, the budget is then sent to the President to sign into law.

Bush has made it his principle to boost the budget of the Pentagon and for warmaking in the budget but request funds for Iraq and Afghanistan separately. This has meant that instead of posting a nearly $600 billion defense budget, they can claim $500 (still record proportions). This has also served the president as implying continued authorization of his wars of choice.

As I’ve said before, Congress has more power than simply “the power of the purse,” but for argument’s sake, in separating these provisions, Bush is allowing Congress to exercise that right.

The wrinkle came in the last couple of weeks and is being finalized as we ‘speak’. The Legislative Branch has authorized over $120 billion in funding for the war this year with a required timetable for withdrawal. Bush has pledged to veto the bill.

Did you catch it? The media hasn’t. Bush asks for something, gets it, and then rejects it. And calls the Democrats names for ‘obstructing’ the war. The media has moved on as if Bush has already vetoed, suggesting that the new talk is how does Bush get the money anyway.

Here’s how it is. If Bush vetoes, he is rejecting his own war-funding. He is putting the troops in danger. He is putting U.S. chances for success in danger. He is making it more likely that the bogeyman will hate us. It isn’t the Democrats. It is President George W. Bush who is doing this with the power of the pen. A lonely man sitting in a giant room, far, far away from combat, let alone Congress, is putting his own military in danger because he doesn’t want to play well with others.

None of this is new, of course. It is Bush, with a big help from Rumsfeld and Cheney, that underfunded the soldiers on the ground, spending their money on high-tech weaponry that is useless to the occupation. It is Bush that didn’t give the body armor to every soldier and armor on Hummers. The Legislative Branch gave him unprecedented clearance and wealth to perform this war of choice. No president in history has gotten such an opportunity, and Bush couldn’t make sure that the military was properly prepared. Considering the decision to invade Iraq was being made in 2000 (before the election), one would think that three years would have been enough to properly prepare, but not this president. It is Bush that has cut funding for military hospitals, withheld military pensions, stretched the military so thin that it may be on the verge of the breaking point. He has made patriotism unpopular at a time when people were so desperate to love their country. Bush has single-handedly decimated our military. So no, I don’t buy that a war-funding bill with a timetable will ruin the world. In fact, it was what Bush asked for, what Congress needed to do, and what the people wanted. A veto of that kind of true win-win-win proposition and George will become the biggest heel in history (if he isn’t already).

Bush, it is time to start playing well with others. The war is over; its time to go home.

All wars are wars of choice.

Even self-defense is a choice. And aggression…that’s certainly a choice.

In the U.S., we really have to sell it, too. The people don’t choose to go to war easily, and Congress doesn’t either. War is a big deal.

That’s why 2003 was so shocking. There was no real debate. Democrats let Bush’s party have their way, even signing on to an open-ended authorization that could be twisted into meaning indefinite, perpetual war with anyone.

So, Mr. President, your war was a choice.

And since God doesn’t call people to go to war, to make war, to start war, you weren’t ordained to go to war.

You chose to go to war. And it is time you dealt with your choice. What are the repercussions to choosing to go to war? The war itself.

Mr. President, you aren’t a soldier. Neither was your former top man at the Pentagon. Or your second in command. At the same time, you show no compassion, mercy, or dignity as a man that has made such a choice. You are not a military strategist, so as “commander-in-chief”, your qualifications appear to be lacking. You have no sociology, psychology, cultural studies, political science, anthropology, or religious training, so you don’t seem qualified to deal with the ramifications of war. What you are, is a business man. One with a history of failure. Those are your qualifications. As the puppet president, you have failed the American people in every conceivable way: you created more bureaucracy in Washington (Homeland Security), consolidated more power (New Intelligence Czar), you made prescription drugs, health care coverage, and education more alienating, your tax cuts hurt the economy and disproportionately benefit the wealthy, you compromised the struggle to protect the environment (the first bill you signed protected arsenic producers!), you have shown virtually no skill in diplomacy, you have made the entire planet more dangerous, and I haven’t even touched on your wars of choice or your addiction to killing people.

But perhaps your worst crime is being a weasel [no, I don’t mean literally—I recognize that you are a human being—it’s what we English majors call a metaphor; ask Laura]. You only see strength in abstinence, rude behavior, equivocation, disinformation, secrecy, deceit, compromising your opponents and the playing field, lying, blind allegiance, authoritarian control, and in titles and stereotypes. The world is not black and white, Mr. President. Your political opponents are not your enemies and they don’t aid terrorists when they suggest your economic policies suck. Your tenure in office has done more damage to the United States than any in the 20^th Century (and that includes Reagan’s S&L bailout—but that has nothing to do with you, right Mr. Bush?). All of these things were your choice. You chose to be the bully in both elections. You chose to respond to a criminal act with all of the fury of the American military in the bloodiest and most violent overreaction in recent memory. In doing so, your choice has exposed the flaws in our military might. Where would Iran’s nuclear program had we not invaded Iraq? Might we actually be able to threaten them?

Mr. President, you cooked the books. Own up to it. You lied to us. Admit the truth. Admit that you made a choice. No one believes it was the right choice anymore, so stop trying to convince us. I ask you to respect the office enough to show some guts as the leader—stop hiding behind the office. Maybe you looked at Pres. Clinton and said “if people think he desecrated the office, I can one-up him!” If so, congratulations, Mr. President, you have single-handedly made a world-wide mockery of the most visible symbol of democracy and undermined its credibility with your personal devotion to fascist-style leadership. But then again, that was your choice to make.*

*Make sure to thank Katherine Harris again; you sure have a lot to thank her for.

Brady Quinn: not a bad option after all!

We’re a little over a month from draft day. The Lions shored up their offensive line with George Foster and running game with Tatum Bell in their trade with Denver, making these two positions unlikely to be addressed with that tantalizing #2 pick. All of a sudden, QB Brady Quinn looks like a very real possibility. Especially since a draft of LT Joe Thomas would now look like a snub to Jeff Backus. I like these moves (Matt, you aren't that stupid!), plus the addition of TJ Duckett, a perennial disappointment that has Michigan roots will suddenly make the Lions a stouter team up front, on offense at least. But a drafting of Quinn doesn’t address the more pressing needs: OL, DL, and ILB.

In a perfect world, the Lions draft and trade, taking Quinn and trading him for one of the top linemen: preferably DE Gaines Adams or the top DTs, either Alan Branch or Amobi Okoye. Any of these three will likely have as high a ceiling as Quinn and will make as much of a contribution immediately, to boot. And they don’t have to pay QB (or 2nd pick) salary.

Another scenario that is worth the Lions’ time is a trade down, getting another veteran player or high second round pick with a mid first round pick. Landing ILB Patrick Willis would be a real coup for this team, considering he seems to have the leadership intangibles necessary to become a real defensive leader. His presence between Sims and Bailey on the outside would make the Lions defense suddenly impressive.

As for the rest of the top 10? The question of the moment is will they or won’t they with the Raiders. As any team picking first, Oakland is in the bind of needing to determine which player really needs to be the top pick in the draft. There isn’t a consensus top pick, but the closest thing is QB Jamarcus Russel. This seems like a good fit for Oakland, both in flavor and in obvious need, but I like Calvin Johnson instead. He’s flashier (a must for the Raiders), he could have a real immediate impact, and I’m not convinced that they’re ready to give up on QB Andrew Walter.

Other interesting questions:

Are the Browns going to stick by Frye or take a QB if available? Or are they more interested in Adrian Peterson?

Aren’t the Bucs in the same boat at #4? Their ground game is fine, but should they look for another skill position, or go for defense?

Can the Cardinals afford not to take an Offensive Lineman?

What trade that makes so much sense but nobody saw coming will happen before the tenth pick? What team will be willing to make the gamble?

What will Mike Shanahan’s Broncos do to maximize the draft? And which RB will they draft in the fifth or sixth round that will lead the team in rushing next year?

More speculation to come!

And don’t forget: the safest bets are never that safe, so you may as well take a chance. And please, Matt Millen, for the love of all that is holy, if you even look at a wide receiver, it can only be Calvin Johnson.

War Powers: whose got 'em?

Funny thing, strict constructionalists on the Supreme Court refuse to take one part of the constitution literally: Article II, section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

This statement is the only authority granted to the president in war and the making of war. If a person is to take this literally, doesn’t it sound more like the president suits up and literally goes to war? Doesn’t it sound more like he gets to devise the strategy of the advancing armies than total determination of the plans for war?

In Article I, section 8, we have the role Congress is to play in war and war-making:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as my be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

This is it. This is what our Constitution has to say about War Powers.

In shear volume, Congress looks like it plays a bigger role, doesn’t it? They define and punish, they declare War and raise and support Armies, they provide and maintain a Navy, and they compose the terms of regulation for the forces.

Does a picture start to emerge from all of this? Isn’t it obvious that the president doesn’t have extensive War Powers, nor does he get to decide the scope and terms of war?

What I thought of as I was reading this was of a prince or some such isolated and uninformed person of privilege who knocks on the big wooden door and is immediately granted an audience with the powerful ruling king. So he runs the length of a great hall and out of breath kneels before the sovereign power and asks: “My Lord, I have received word that there is a powerful army building in Iraq, and your territories are surely in jeopardy. If you would but grant me service to go forth and quell the insurrection, I shall forever be in your debt.” And after careful consideration, the king sends the whelp on his way with a division of the army. Perhaps the Constitution was written with this in mind, with the king replaced with Congress.

Another aspect that is dangerous for us is the current talk of distribution of power within the mainstream media. They have no doubt bought the suggestion that Commander in Chief really means king or Overlord of War. In this model, Bush is able to demand that he be authorized to do whatever the hell he wants outside our borders for an indefinite duration. Not only does that go against the principles of the Constitution, but it goes against the principles of a democratic republic. What is the purpose of such a Congress, then?

They also like to suggest that the only power that Congress possess is “the power of the purse” [this, of course is extracanonical and appears nowhere in the Constitution]. In this paradigm that they have forced on us is that the president runs and says whatever he wants to about the military and the only say Congress has is through budgets and funding. Why are they taking that so literally, but not “Commander in Chief”? If the role of Congress is to make war, fund the war, and maintain the faculties of war, then what power should the president really have? The role of Commander in Chief is actually a role of military strategist (which explains our historic love for generals and war heroes).

According to the above line of reasoning (and the language of the Constitution itself), I can come to no conclusion but that the president reserves no right to go to war or maintain a war. Congress leads us into war and the president leads us into battle. In Iraq, Congress took all of their power and granted it to the president. This cannot be overstated. It is as arrogant and irresponsible as it sounds. The president has claimed powers that he does not possess and has not been brought to heel by Congress. There is really no option left for the American people but to call for impeachment. The president, unregulated, has become a tyrant whose constant attempts to bring more power under the executive branch cannot be left alone, but addressed for what they are: an attempt to weaken democracy and replace it with fascist principles of government that centralize authority, eliminate checks and balances, and mitigate a type of individualistic rule. This, of course is made through fear of invasion both militarily (terrorists/Iraq/Iran) and socially (immigration/affirmative action), causing a xenophobia and racist division of people within the country. This gives the leader greater opportunity to determine the discourse.

This can all be resolved rather quickly: Congress need only remove the initial war authorization. This would properly rebuke the president in place of impeachment and would certainly bring the power of military action back under the deliberating and more democratic institution of the Legislative Branch. Now if only the war-hawking media would allow this to happen…

Republican Strategy of Avoidance #136

Deflecting the conversation away from its intensions.

The Republican playbook has an overt strategy of distraction, misrepresentation, and inappropriate disrespect for the rules of civilized debate. Not only do they not stick to the discussion areas, they are more than willing to shift the agreed-upon terrain midstream, pretending like that was the plan the whole time (Iraq was going to kill us, no, we wanted to free them, no, we want to democratize the Middle East, no, we need to root out the terrorists and smoke ‘em out of their holes).

But the true test comes in any of our debates.

Debate example 1:

Democrat: The president has not only deceived the American people, but he has broken the law by illegally wiretapping phones inside the country. There are provisions that must be followed that are reasonable, and the president didn’t follow them. He blatantly broke the law of the United States.

Of course there are many responses that can be made to this, and I’m not suggesting that defensiveness isn’t one of them. Of course I expect the president and his “handlers” to defend those actions. The problem is what comes next.

Bush: I needed to wiretap to get the terrorists. You don’t want to die, do you? The law is silly. It’s a bad law. I don’t like it. It restricts my ability to get the terrorists, see, so we need to get rid of it. Let’s write a new law. Make it legal.

The issue isn’t that he defended himself, but he deflected the talk from the issue (Bush broke the law) to a tangential issue (the merits of the law). This isn’t how proper debate is handled, nor is this how civil matters are resolved. Let’s play an example for the example: if I were charged with murder, the court examines the evidence against me as it relates to the law of the land. If I admit that I killed the other person, it would be up to the court to determine the tenacity of the crime and the severity of the punishment. Yes, debate would no doubt go into self-defense territory or accidental death (really anything to keep me out of jail). But the point of the convening court was to try me for the crime I committed. Merits of the law happen after the sentencing.

So in my first debate example, the issue on the table isn’t the merits of the FISA courts, it’s the severity of Bush’s crime and what an appropriate punishment should be. After the president is reprimanded for his crime, then we can decide the appropriateness of the law.

Debate example 2:

Democrat: First, the civilian leadership in the Pentagon is inept and poorly planned and executed the invasion and occupation of Iraq AND the occupation of Iraq is a disaster AND we were lied into war, therefore we must change course and extract our forces from Iraq as soon as possible.

There are many defenses thrown up for this one, but I should pick the most common and least helpful one.

Republicans: If you’re so smart, where’s your plan?

Aside flashback (Bush): “I’m the decider. I decide what we do.”

The issue on the table is not about future plans, per se, but about what has gone on up until now. The above argument clearly states that things must be changed and that the way YOU handled it is bad. The implication from the statement is, that since Bush is “the decider,” the Administration falsified intelligence brought before Congress, and the Republicans ramrodded a war authorization through Congress, the minority never expected a say. You made the mess, how are you going to clean it up?

In deflecting the issue from the foundation of the war—the very roots that not only made it happen but gird it and keep it intact—and onto a weak minority that has little say in the execution of the war, Bush and the Republicans not only sidestep their own persecution, but use that weakness to further persecute the Democrats in Congress.

This technique that I have shown you is not only bad argumentation, but it distracts the process from getting done what needs to be done. Right now, instead of helping people find good work and building up our economy, Congress has to debate whether or not to rebuke the president for being a jackass. This means that the work is being tied up for a week, just so a public statement can be made that nobody supports the president’s agenda in Iraq. Instead of having honest and proper debate over the last five years, we have had tyranny and irrational deflection.

Be on the lookout for this dangerous technique! It is as seamless and shifting as the sands of the desert!