Category: Politics

No, I don’t normally watch “South Park”. I’m not sure why – we used to have an awesome “South Park” pinball machine here in the Labs. Anyway, the buzz was that yesterday’s “South Park” was going to be a very special one – and it was. Andrew Leonard tells all over at Salon: “But wait! Kenny isn’t dead! Doctors manage to resuscitate him! With a feeding tube! He’s in a ‘persistent vegetative state.’ Heaven is doomed!… The feeding tube is pulled. ‘They killed Kenny,’ the angels cheer! Heaven is saved, as Kenny, using a gold-plated PSP given to him by Peter, defeats the forces of Satan.”

Brilliant. Tasteless? Sure, but it’s a breath of fresh air after the recent media circus.

And coincidentally Kenny popped up again today, over at Boing Boing: trench art from Iraq. (See thumbnail.) Full size pic at Flickr.

This evening I emerged from my philosophy class and turned on my cell phone to call back in to a meeting in California. Instead, I saw an unfamiliar message: No service: SOS only. What to do? I decided to join Dan Dennett and others in attending a talk and book-signing by Irshad Manji, the author of The Trouble with Islam Today : A Muslim’s Call for Reform in Her Faith. And I’m really glad I did. She’s an excellent speaker: energetic, passionate, witty, uncompromising. Dennett asked her how she dealt with critics who saw her open discussion of Islam with “infidels” as a betrayal; how she negotiated that “fine line”. She rejected the premise: she’s not interesting in balance, in compromising with bigotry. She’s not trying to convince those who disagree with her: she’s seeking to empower and encourage those who share her beliefs but are afraid of speaking out.

No, I don’t share her faith, nor do I agree with her qualified support for the invasion of Iraq, but I applaud her commitment to universal human rights, her integrity, and her courage. A wonderful event. Do hear her if you get the chance.

In a series of pieces in Balkinization, Professor Jack Balkin of Yale Law School goes into detail on the constitutional aspects of the Schiavo case. But his closing words on one particular entry were particularly acute:

“Finally, the Congressional Republicans’ moves also suggest that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, the matter would not be left to the states, as so many pro-life politicians have advocated in the past, but would quickly become a fight over federal legislation outlawing abortion nationwide. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.”

Indeed. This is more than just Tom DeLay and his henchmen grandstanding to please their base: it’s a real test of the US Constitution.

Don’t miss this fascinating piece by Juan Cole: “The cynical use by the US Republican Party of the Terri Schiavo case repeats, whether deliberately or accidentally, the tactics of Muslim fundamentalists and theocrats in places like Egypt and Pakistan. These tactics involve a disturbing tendency to make private, intimate decisions matters of public interest and then to bring the courts and the legislature to bear on them.”

The similarities are remarkable.

From a Reuters piece on threats against progressive women: “Pharmacist Zeena Qushtiny was dressed in the latest Western fashion and wearing a sparkling diamond necklace when she was taken at gunpoint from her pharmacy in Baghdad by insurgents. Her body was found 10 days later with two bullet holes close to her eyes. She was covered in a traditional abaya veil preferred by Islamic conservatives…. During Saddam Hussein’s regime, women could dress less conservatively in the big cities and would not be punished, according to female activists. But now women say they are no longer safe and decapitated female corpses have begun turning up in recent weeks with notes bearing the word ‘collaborator’ pinned to their chests”

Was this what America Bush and Blair went to war for?

(Via Juan Cole.)

Salon.com Politics: “As Republicans plotted congressional intervention last week to extend the life of Terri Schiavo, a Texas woman named Wanda Hudson watched her six-month-old baby die in her arms after doctors removed the breathing tube that kept him alive. Hudson didn’t want the tube removed, but the baby’s doctors decided for her. A judge signed off on the decision under the Texas futile care law — a provision first signed into law in 1999 by then-Gov. George W. Bush. Under the 1999 law, doctors in Texas can, with the support of a hospital ethics committee, overrule the wishes of family members and terminate life-support measures if they believe further care would be futile”

From today’s Houston Chronicle.com: “Iraq needed fuel. Halliburton Co. was ordered to get it there — quick. So the Houston-based contractor charged the Pentagon $27.5 million to ship $82,100 worth of cooking and heating fuel. In the latest revelation about the company’s oft-criticized performance in Iraq, a Pentagon audit report disclosed Monday showed Halliburton subsidiary KBR spent $82,100 to buy liquefied petroleum gas, better-known as LPG, in Kuwait and then 335 times that number to transport the fuel into violence-ridden Iraq.”

(Via TomDispatch.)

(And Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #162 is Even in the worst of times, someone turns a profit.)

Back in January, Andrew Sullivan announced that he was taking a break from blogging, and so I stopped visiting his site. (A degree of “political burn-out” may also be responsible.) But today, I popped over to see what was new, and I came across an email that he’s received that captured my feelings exactly. I have no idea who sent it – I wish I knew – but I hope it’s OK to quote the entire thing here:
Respectfully, Andrew, I beg to differ on the alleged churlishness of Democrats on progress in the Middle East.
Let me explain what’s maddening to Democrats: no matter what happens that is progressive in the Middle East, Republicans and the Bush regime not only claims credit for it, but also claim that the war in Iraq is the reason for the progress. Libya doing a deal on weapons and Lockerbie so it can back into the international oil market? Must be because Bush invaded Iraq! Lebanese reacting with revulsion to Hariri’s assassination, probably by Syrian agents, and demanding Syria’s exit from their country? Must be because Bush invaded Iraq! Progress in the Palestinian-Israeli peace effort as a result of Arafat’s death? Must be because Bush invaded Iraq! Who’s really peddling nonsequitors here?
In short, what drives Democrats batty [is] the tendency to take partisan political credit for anything progressive, and to blame anything retrograde on political enemies (both foreign and domestic) who “just don’t get it.” Never is there any recognition that Bush’s international strategy even MIGHT be responsible for the negative radicalization we’re seeing in places like Iran, North Korea, and maybe even Venezuela — not to mention alienating essential partners in nation-building.
And what really kills Democrats is the way that Bush not only takes credit for everything that is going well, and denies any responsibility for things that are going badly (and, when we’re honest, how many people really feel that the world is, on balance, headed in the right direction?) — it’s that he then claims these false credit as the basis for “political capital” to spend on what Democrats feel are retrograde domestic policies.
The result is that the first reaction any Democrat has to good news in the Middle East (or anywhere else) is to think, “How can Bush be denied political credit for this, since you know he’s going to claim it.” And the important thing to emphasize is that it is Bush’s own political habits that have created this dynamic, and it started right after 9-11.
Exactly.

This seems to be an accurate transcript of Bush’s recent town-hall meeting in Florida where he went to sell his “fix” for the nonexistent Social Security crisis. Please read it carefully. Don’t just glance at it, roll your eyes, and go on to the next blog. If you pay taxes in the US, this guy works for you:

WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: I don’t really understand. How is it the new [Social Security] plan is going to fix that problem?

BUSH: Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There’s a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It’s kind of muddled. Look, there’s a series of things that cause the — like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate — the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those — if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.

— President G. W. Bush, Tampa, Florida, Feb. 4, 2005

Imagine if Bush was blessed with a modicum of foresight, and had told the truth about a war against Iraq back in 2002. In The Speech Bush Should have Given, Juan Cole describes what such a speech might have said – about the costs in dollars and lives, about the geopolitical issues, about the reasons. Money (ouch!) quote: “A war against Iraq will be expensive. It will cost you, the taxpayer, about $300 billion over five years. I know Wolfowitz is telling you Iraq’s oil revenues will pay for it all, but that’s ridiculous. Iraq only pumps about $10 billion a year worth of oil, and it’s going to need that just to run the new government we’re putting in. No, we’re going to have to pay for it, ourselves. I’m going to ask you for $25 billion, then $80 billion, then another $80 billion. And so on. I’m going to be back to you for money more often than that unemployed relative that you don’t like. The cost of the war is going to drive up my already massive budget deficits from about $370 billion to more like $450 billion a year. Just so you understand, I’m going to cut taxes on rich people at the same time that I fight this war. Then I’m going to borrow the money to fight it, and to pay for much of what the government does. And you and your children will be paying off that debt for decades.”