Short Shots from an Ugly Un-American: Week 3
Posted by Ray Church on 04.12.2007
Democratic policies, Wal-Mart, international news from Ethiopia and Indonesia, "Politics in Poetry" starring Rage Against the Machine, "Word of the Week" starring Bill O'Reilly, "I Wish I Said That" starring Jason Alexander and, of course, this week's Shut the Hell Up Award.
A day late and a dollar short, welcome to this week's Short Shots from an Ugly Un-American…and this is my promise to you: no talk about Sanjaya, no talk about Imus, no talk about Anna Nicoles baby; just issues that matter.
Wasting My Breath
You know, for all the talk about Alberto Gonzales in previous weeks, and don't get me wrong it is no doubt an issue deserving of a massive investigation, I can't help but think there is a massive wasted opportunity.
Okay, we know there is potentially a massive crime at play here, if indeed the firings were intended to interfere with ongoing criminal investigations. However, there is a bigger issue which is in no way illegal. Why are the Attorneys (and the Attorney General, for that matter) political positions in the first place?
Surely, along with the investigation, this could be a great opportunity to reform a broken system. As the right wing pundits have pointed out again and again, Clinton fired all of the Attorneys General and replaced them with his own, which is actually a good point made for the wrong purpose. The pundits and hacks use it to defend Bush, where as I see it as an indictment of the entire system.
If the purpose of the Attorneys General is to prosecute, then surely their political allegiance is immaterial. Much like the Supreme Court, who get chosen because of their adherence to certain views (be it Roe v Wade or Privacy Rights) rather than their actual performance and competence. How many times do we hear that Alito and Roberts were a big win for the religious right rather than that they were the most competent judges available? How many times does this get held up as a success for the Bush Administration, rather than the best people available for the job?
So, the question I have… why isn't the Democratic Party using its power to reform the system and enforce some sort of competency? The answer is that they're as likely to abuse the same rules when they're in power, just as campaign financing reform is suddenly not an issue once Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama are the big winners of the money battle. To be fair, Obama would probably not be affected by any reform, as his donations primarily come from a mass of small donations, just as Mitt Romney would be unaffected. (Clinton would be toast).
Okay, so this is my chance to finally blast the democrats about something, but to me it's a shame that this isn't being used as a shot at true reform.
Wal-Mart Gets Busted
If you thought the Bush Administration's breaking of privacy laws was bad enough, it was revealed this week that Wal-Mart has been responsible for massive scale monitoring of employees, stock holders and opposition. This goes far beyond the usual monitoring of email and Internet use, which, it can be argued, is required by law after the collapse of Enron.
OK, to give you an idea of how far this went. Nu Wexler, a member of opposition group "Wal-Mart Watch" found that security was given a picture of him so they could keep an eye on him. Where did the picture come from? From private holiday photos he kept on his personal webpage. And no, I'm not making his name up.
Granted that's pretty open source, so how about the "long haired employee" they sent to infiltrate the opposition group "Up Against the Wall", complete with wireless microphone.
And then there is Jim Bill Lynn, who was fired for "fraternization" with a subordinate. So far, not necessarily a crime until you find out that the information used to fire him was based on undercover surveillance of Lynn during one of his jobs. It becomes even more convoluted when you take into account that Lynn's job was to appraise the working environment of the factories that Wal-Mart procures its goods, and that the previous inspection Lynn had made had been particularly scathing of the employment practices of Gory Garments in Honduras and even more scathing of the inspection policies of Wal-Mart, that allowed the factory notice to clean up any potential violations before visiting and restricted his access to employees for interviews.
The whole mess was uncovered after Bruce Gabbard was fired for "recording phone calls to and from a New York Times reporter and intercepting pager messages" (my emphasis added). OK, recording an incoming phone message is a fairly easy process, but intercepting pager messages.
You can't buy that type of equipment at your average Wal-Mart people!
(Look for that equipment to go on sale in the next few weeks with the sales-pitch "as seen in our recent scandal").
So, if you thought the CIA watching over you was bad enough, now in the free-market of bad ideas apparently the conveyors of cheap and breakable goods have the same rights to invade your privacy.
By the way, isn't it funny how Wal-Mart doesn't have the margins to pay their staff a decent wage, but do make enough to conduct a spying operation like this?
International News
North Korea, Ethiopia and Somalia
OK, so this one isn't strictly a non-American affair.
It has been revealed that in January Ethiopia received a shipment of arms from North Korea to help fight Islamic militants from Somalia. This shipment was in clear violations of the UN Security Council sanctions against North Korea.
So guess what… the United States not only knew about it but tacitly allowed the transaction to happen. In true doublespeak the official response from the State Department was "(it is) deeply committed to upholding and enforcing U.N. Security Council resolutions."
It's not often you find myself and John Bolton on the same page… "I know they have been helpful in Somalia, but there is a nuclear weapons program in North Korea that is unhelpful for everybody worldwide".
And the US wonders why people put no trust in their foreign policy. Here's a hint, gonzo… stop changing the rules to fit your purposes. If North Korea is a rogue state, treat it like a rogue state.
This also comes with news that Ethiopia has admitted that it has detained 41 suspected Somali terror suspects. Somalia has stated that the suspects are being given a fair trial and their human rights have not been violated in any way.
So, if you're fighting the war on terror, it's okay to buy arms from another member of the Axis of Evil, just so long as you don't negotiate with Iran. Iran, afterall, has oil, and North Korea has... well, nothing America wants.
Indonesia
Erwin Arnada, editor in chief of the Indonesian edition of Playboy magazine, was clared of charges of distributing indecent pictures on Thursday. The high profile case began after Playboy started publishing a toned down version of its magazine in Indonesia last year and a number of Muslim groups launched a campaign to have the magazine banned.
The first thing that should be noted is that Indonesia's version of Playboy is much tamer than the version most of us (not me, of course, I'm a happily married man who respects his wife) are accustomed to. It features no nudity, although it does feature women in swimsuits or with breasts partially exposed, but is not significantly worse than other magazines currently available in Indonesia. The judge ruled that Playboy could not be catagorised as pornography by the standards of Indonesian law.
An interesting side note to this was to see Playboy supported by the feminist groups opposed to a controversial pornography bill which has been proposed. Kamala Chandrakirana, who came out in support of Playboy, stated early last year "the bill is not just about women not wanting to be controlled in the way they dress, it's about the kind of nation that we are building because that bill actually envisions the state as being the main controller of the way women should be."
Indonesia is the world's most populace Muslim nation, and a democracy, and while there are certainly many pushing for the introduction of Sharia'h rule in the country, this can been seen as evidence that Islam and Democracy are not mutually exclusive.
Politics and Poetry
Godzilla, pure motherf---ing filler, keeps your eyes off the real killer
Rage Against the Machine, No Shelter
The GOP is under fire for basically screwing up the USA (and selective parts of the rest of the world) for the past 7 years. It could take the time to reassess what it means to be conservative in America. It could reevaluate its policies come up with a truly "new way forward", instead of the phrase being just another media campaign.
Instead, the GOP (and I mean the GOP this time, not just the Bush Administration) decided to post this on their website
Dems 'Rosie' view on the war on terror. Cut-and-run Defeatocrats across the country take their cues from Hollywood friends and advisors.
In other words, Rosie O'Donnell represents the Democratic view on the War on Terror. Instead of finding an answer to the question, the Republican Party has singled out someone to represent the Democratic Party as a whole.
I know, some of you are thinking that the left do this with people like Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter, which is fair enough, but the big difference is that O'Donnell doesn't get invited to speak at Democratic Conventions.
So, while most of us are worried about the very real dangers of Iraq and the Middle East, the GOP is pointing at Hollywood and the fake dangers presented by nutjobs.
I Wish I Said That
A few weeks ago Jason Alexander was on Real Time with Bill Maher. Previously seen as George on the show "Seinfeld", Jason Alexander had this to say about Peter Pace's controversial statements about gays in the military.
I think we should take the general at his word. This I believe firmly. And I think we should turn to every person serving in the military right now. The guys who have been over there 5, 6, 7, 8 times and say "here's the deal. If you are homosexual, if you've ever been homosexual, If you're going to be homosexual, if you've thought about it, if you've rejected a homosexual advance, if you like Liza Minnelli, admit it now and we will let you out of the military, your whole obligation is washed, because we want a moral, ethical army. And I know if I were over there fighting and they gave me that chance I would suddenly become the biggest drag queen since Anne Coulter.
Got to love that not only did he totally deflate the Peter Pace comment and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy at the same time, he gets in a shot at Anne Coulter on the way out. Great set up, great punch line and a great idea to boot.
Word(s) for the Week: Plurium Interrogationum
I went about this one backwards this week. I went looking for a new word to do with logical fallacies and lo and behold I found this definition.
Plurium Interrogationum / Many Questions:
This fallacy occurs when a questioner demands a simple answer to a complex question.
"Zounds, that sounds familiar" I thought to myself in perfect mid 60's Batman dialogue, "Where have I heard that before?"
And who should I hear talking this week… Bill O'Reilly interviewing Colonel Ann Wright about the British soldiers captured (and recently released) from Iran.
O'Reilly: And according to the UN, this is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, holding these people, and it is an unprovoked act or aggression. Do you agree?
Wright: Well I think we have to be very careful and I think that the jury is still out on exactly where the ships were and all, whether it was Iraqi waters…
OK, so I'll skip ahead a bit, but let's just say her answer was nuanced. She tried to explain the potential issues involved regarding not just the legal issues but the diplomatic issues as well. Bill O'Reilly's response?
But you didn't answer my question so I'll pose it again. The UN says that this was a violation of the Geneva conventions which you taught, and they say this was an unprovoked act of aggression by Iran. Do you concur?
Got to love how he slips from agree to concur there.
I've given you very specific questions, which you generalize the answers.
Bill O'Reilly: simple answers to complex questions, or, to use our words for the day, Plurium Interrogationum.
I Got Mail
After several weeks of feeling unloved, when I start getting my columns in on time I start getting mail again. (Yeah Jase, you were right)
First up, Brian takes offense at my giving Newt Gingrich the Shut the Hell Up Award last week.
This is the quote that you gave Gingrich the shut the hell up award. I simply do not believe this is a racist comment. This is an example of someone taking offense to something that is not meant to be offensive. Let's face it, the chances of someone who doesn't speak English advancing in this country are slim to none. You will not succeed without speaking English and it is that simple. And if you can't speak English, you will be in a ghetto. Yes, you can be there with it too but that is what I see as the meaning of Gingrich's words. Could he have worded it better? Of course he could have but everyone is so focused on being politically correct that things have gotten simply ridiculous and everything politicians say is overanalyzed and skewed. Don't be so quick to interpret things in the racist way. Limbaugh deserves this award, Gingrich doesn't.
Brian and I talked about this more, and maybe I wasn't clear enough when I explained the award last week. I'm certainly not implying that expecting immigrants to speak English makes you a racist. My problem, instead, is that the wording implicates a cultural mindset. Imagine if you went to another country and you were told your language is the "language of the ghetto", it's not that it wouldn't be helpful to learn the language of the nation, but they have already made a decision that only is their language more helpful for your language, it is superior to your language.
Shut the Hell Up Award
George Bush gets his first award for 2007. This was Bush in front of the American Legion on April the 10th.
What's interesting and different about this war is that the enemy would follow us here, and that's why it's important we succeed in Iraq.
Now how the hell does he know that? Have they got evidence that terrorist cells in Iraq have flights to the US booked for "the day the US pulls out"? No? Then shut up about it. It's not like your other predictions have come true.
OK, so I'm being a partisan hack here, a bit. After Bill Maher made this same point about 4 weeks ago it seems like the point everyone makes about the administration, so let's check what else Bush had to say.
I made a decision to remove a dictator, a tyrant, who was a threat to the United States, a threat to the free world and a threat to the Iraqi people and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power
Isn't it funny how he thinks that if he puts enough other statements in the sentence we'll forget the big fallacy that the sentence is based on? In this case, it's this phrase…
a threat to the United States, a threat to the free world and a threat to the Iraqi people
I thought we had finished with this talk. A threat to the Iraqi people, I will grant you, but we have since discovered that everything that Bush said was a threat was Bushshit (and no, Microsoft word, that is not a typo). No weapons of mass destructions, no build up of conventional military force, no connection to Al-Qaeda, no ability to threaten their immediate neighbours, let alone a country on the other side of the world.
In a letter to congress, the army chief of staff Pete Schumacher recently warned "without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures which will impact army readiness and impose hardships on our soldiers and their families." The bottom line is this: Congresses failure to fund our troops will mean some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front line.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a non-sequitor. You see, Congress has already approved the supplemental funds. It's Bush who is about to veto it because he didn't like their conditions for granting the funds.
Now, I'm not the biggest fan on the bill they sent, partly for the pork attached and partly because it isn't a real answer to the problems in Iraq. But you can't then turn around and say they didn't agree to fund the troops just because you don't like the conditions they made on the funding.
Imagine: you go to your father to borrow the car for the night. He says fine, so long as you fill it up with gas and return it by midnight. You don't have the right to then cry to your mother that your Dad won't let you use the car.
Or maybe this is the better analogy for Bush's logic.
Two columns in a row using youtube to make my point... I'm sure I'm stealing someone's gimmick.
The Section Formerly Known as Pimping
OK, I slammed Josh in a chat before he released his article, so I won't send him the long email telling him why he's wrong he is asking for, so I happily recommend that you, my loyal reader (by God, is that conceited) tell him why he's wrong.
Andy Bracken comes over from talking about Cricket to pick up on Mugabe and the link to South Africa. Good column.
And Dan Martin talks about carbon offsets here. See Josh, this is what someone who hasn't been brainwashed by Fox News looks like.
STAY CURRENT