I just posted the following on The Agonist's bulliten boards. Thought I'd share it here too.
Collaborative websites are examples of what I call 'Tribal Journalism'. In Internet speak, tribes are virtual communities of users who share common cultural viewpoints (usually because they share the same information sources). The core body of participants in each web site make up the tribe and together they filter the truth from a variety of sources.
Tribes are porous bodies and there is often a lot of overlap with neighboring tribes. What becomes shared knowledge in one tribe evnetually spreads to other tribes where it goes through the same filtering process before it becomes accepted knowledge. All knowledge is questionable always. Hard facts are rare and are usually 'proven' scientifically somehow.
The Agonist is unique in that all knowledge is filtered through one person at some point. But there is still a wide tribe of users who supply sources and debate its accuracy. I think this allows for a slightly wider spectrum of viewpoints being held within the tribe. But that remains to be proven (as does all knowledge).
Tuesday, April 01, 2003
French 'Spiderman' Makes Anti-War Climb. FYI, the building he climbed is the HQ of the oil giant TotalFina Elf. The Bush family is heavily invested in ELF and Bush I servered on its board before he was president.
Monday, March 31, 2003
Ampersand, over at Alas, a blog, poses an interesting question. What would happen if the Democrats in the US Senate fillabuster all future Bush judicial nominees, including Supreme Court ones.
Charlie writes on the Electrolite comments:
... the common belief in the US media that the incident in Mogadishu involved a grand total of eighteen deaths.
Don't the five hundred dead and roughly a thousand injured natives, most of them civilian by-standers, count? ...
...
Or the tendency to count Gulf War One as an overwhelmingly bloodless war, with under 200 casualties (and somewhere in the 50-250,000 range on the other side, but they're wogs so they don't matter).
Modern warfare is not bloodless, but these right-wing pundits would like us to think that it was because it serves their murderous agenda. There's a revolting racist undertone to the deliberate discounting of foreign death tolls, and it's been adopted uncritically across all the US media, as far as I can see, including such relatively mainsteam outlets like the New York Times and CNN.
Important points to keep in mind as we hear about "The War Plan."
... the common belief in the US media that the incident in Mogadishu involved a grand total of eighteen deaths.
Don't the five hundred dead and roughly a thousand injured natives, most of them civilian by-standers, count? ...
...
Or the tendency to count Gulf War One as an overwhelmingly bloodless war, with under 200 casualties (and somewhere in the 50-250,000 range on the other side, but they're wogs so they don't matter).
Modern warfare is not bloodless, but these right-wing pundits would like us to think that it was because it serves their murderous agenda. There's a revolting racist undertone to the deliberate discounting of foreign death tolls, and it's been adopted uncritically across all the US media, as far as I can see, including such relatively mainsteam outlets like the New York Times and CNN.
Important points to keep in mind as we hear about "The War Plan."
Sunday, March 30, 2003
Another quote from the Newsweek article quoted before, [the adminstration] "developed a language and diplomatic style that seemed calculated to offend the world. (President Bush has placed a portrait of Theodore Roosevelt in the White House. TR’s most famous words of advice are worth recalling: “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”) Key figures in the administration rarely traveled, foreign visitors were treated to perfunctory office visits, and state dinners were unheard of. On an annual basis, George W. Bush has visited fewer foreign countries than any president in 40 years."
Just becareful where you poke that stick or you might find a hornet's nest. N'est ce pas?
Just becareful where you poke that stick or you might find a hornet's nest. N'est ce pas?
Interesting column in the Dallas Fort Worth areaStar Telegram. The author quotes a Newsweek article "I've been all over the world in the last year, and almost every country I've visited has felt humiliated by this administration." Upon reading this a little light went off in the dark recesses of what passes for my brain. The lack of support for this war are the chickens coming home to roost for the U.S. gov't, and specifically for this administration.
Bush is running this company like a private corporation, he's the CEO, and the cabinet is the board of trustees. In the world of business if someone is not a team player there are a dozen people lined up to take their corner office. In the world of business if a vendor cuts a better deal with a competitor, you renegotiate or you find a new vendor. On the other hand, if you are a large enough company, then you can treat a vendor horribly, but they'll keep coming back because they can't afford to lose your business. Bush's oft quoted saying, "If you're not with us, you're against us" comes from the belief that if you're not affecting the bottom line in a positive way, then you're dead meat to be cut away before you rot out the rest of the profits.
In the world of foreign affairs the rules of the business world do not apply (It's more like a playground, as I'll get to later). You can only treat a trading parter like a vendor for so long before it begins to chafe. And if you treat them horribly, refusing to play by the rules (Kyoto, World Court, Steel tariffs, etc), eventually they're going to cut you out of the deal.
Bush's administration isn't the only U.S. regime to play this way. I think we're reaping what we've sown since the Nixon administration. All our attempts at "nation building" through supporting despots, anti-communist thugs, death squads, muslim extremists, etc... are coming back to haunt us. The world has finally decided they don't like the rules of our game and they refuse to play anymore. Blair is like the bully's sidekick who holds the playground victim while the bully pulverizes them and steals their lunch. He sticks by the bully because he knows that in the past, that has always been the safest place to be. But in the new playground, where the rules have changed and the rest of the kids have banded together against the bully, even the sidekick can't last for long before changing sides.
The ol' U.S. of A. will soon be alone on the playground, ignored by the other kids (even worse than a fight, where we at least have a chance to pass out some black eyes), and isolated from the only system that might assist us (in this case the UN and the World Trade Organization, both of which the Bush administration has chosen to piss off).
Bush is running this company like a private corporation, he's the CEO, and the cabinet is the board of trustees. In the world of business if someone is not a team player there are a dozen people lined up to take their corner office. In the world of business if a vendor cuts a better deal with a competitor, you renegotiate or you find a new vendor. On the other hand, if you are a large enough company, then you can treat a vendor horribly, but they'll keep coming back because they can't afford to lose your business. Bush's oft quoted saying, "If you're not with us, you're against us" comes from the belief that if you're not affecting the bottom line in a positive way, then you're dead meat to be cut away before you rot out the rest of the profits.
In the world of foreign affairs the rules of the business world do not apply (It's more like a playground, as I'll get to later). You can only treat a trading parter like a vendor for so long before it begins to chafe. And if you treat them horribly, refusing to play by the rules (Kyoto, World Court, Steel tariffs, etc), eventually they're going to cut you out of the deal.
Bush's administration isn't the only U.S. regime to play this way. I think we're reaping what we've sown since the Nixon administration. All our attempts at "nation building" through supporting despots, anti-communist thugs, death squads, muslim extremists, etc... are coming back to haunt us. The world has finally decided they don't like the rules of our game and they refuse to play anymore. Blair is like the bully's sidekick who holds the playground victim while the bully pulverizes them and steals their lunch. He sticks by the bully because he knows that in the past, that has always been the safest place to be. But in the new playground, where the rules have changed and the rest of the kids have banded together against the bully, even the sidekick can't last for long before changing sides.
The ol' U.S. of A. will soon be alone on the playground, ignored by the other kids (even worse than a fight, where we at least have a chance to pass out some black eyes), and isolated from the only system that might assist us (in this case the UN and the World Trade Organization, both of which the Bush administration has chosen to piss off).
It's a slow news day today. But it gives me a chance to reflect on how lucky I think the U.S. and its military has been. First of all, it has been 12 days since Bush's ultimatum to Hussein and so far we've escaped any terrorism on our shores or against our holdings overseas. I'm sure some of this can be attributed to the skill of our anti-terrorism forces (FBI, CIA, etc), but the complete lack of any attack makes me think we’ve been over estimating Hussein’s ability to strike out either through their supposed friends Al-Queda or other agents. If so, then we’ve lost some of the justification for this war. I hope I’m not proven wrong on this point.
Second, I think the U.S. and U.K. forces have been tremendously lucky so far. Iraq has had 12 years to prepare for this invasion and we’ve provided him juicy targets by stringing out our supply lines over 300 plus miles. Although the news may be suppressed, I haven’t heard of a single gas tanker being blown up (they’re not armored at all). So far, only one car bomb. But this tactic will be much more effective once foot patrols enter cities that have supposedly been pacified. Hussein should have been building tunnels and bomb shelters throughout the region where his troops could pop out and ambush allied forces supply lines. Instead, they are sending ‘technical’ vehicles in suicide missions against tanks.
Quotes from the brave men of the U.S. and U.K. forces indicate that it is a totally one sided battle out there. In interviews on CNN and MSNBC commanders recount dozens of men rushing them with small arms and grenades (both useless against our armor) only to be cut down instantly. To me these are very sad instances. I’m reminded of the movie Zulu where tens of thousands of Zulu warriors throw themselves at a small group of British soldiers time and again only to be slaughtered on each approach. In that movie, the Zulus eventually retreated leaving thousands dead on the battle field, but most lived to fight again another day. I hope the Iraqi forces will soon do the same thing.
But I doubt they ever will retreat. Most of those behind the fighting belong to the Baath party or other leadership groups. They are the ones who will be tried for war crimes and who will suffer the most in the rebuilt Iraq. They have little to lose by fighting. I ask you to put yourself in their shoes. Imagine a Red Dawn scenario. Would you not want to pick up arms and revolt somehow. You wouldn’t just capitulate and start to study Russian or Chinese (as the case might be), no you’d find someway to fight. The reports of people returning to Iraq from across the region to pick up arms are truly frightening. If for some reason Bush decides we need to go into Syria or Iran then this becomes a whole different story (see my earlier post).
Lately, the word from the Pentagon is that they are expecting Baghdad, meaning the leadership, to crumble from the inside. They must have some sort of intel that leads them to believe that. But I hope it is stronger intel then that which made them believe the regime would crumble after a little operation called ‘Shock and Awe’. The worst thing, casualty wise, for the U.S. and U.K. forces would be a door to door street fight in Baghdad and Tikrit, but it might take that for real regime change to occur. But if the regime fails to crumble we have little choice than to lay siege to the Hussein strongholds or to surround them, interdict all food and water, and wait them out. Either way we suffer greatly in world opinion. Sieges are bloody things on both sides, and starvation campaigns will hurt the very people we are trying to help the most first. Militarily we might be winning this war, but politically, we might already be in a quagmire many times larger than Vietnam ever was.
My greatest wish is for this war to be resolved quickly and the slaughter be over. As I read around the net (the sites to read are: TPM, The Agonist, DailyKos, Counterspin, Tacitus, and Body and Soul) I see very little hope that the end is near. If the Pentagon has a plan to end this war, I hope they implement it soon, and prove us all wrong.
Second, I think the U.S. and U.K. forces have been tremendously lucky so far. Iraq has had 12 years to prepare for this invasion and we’ve provided him juicy targets by stringing out our supply lines over 300 plus miles. Although the news may be suppressed, I haven’t heard of a single gas tanker being blown up (they’re not armored at all). So far, only one car bomb. But this tactic will be much more effective once foot patrols enter cities that have supposedly been pacified. Hussein should have been building tunnels and bomb shelters throughout the region where his troops could pop out and ambush allied forces supply lines. Instead, they are sending ‘technical’ vehicles in suicide missions against tanks.
Quotes from the brave men of the U.S. and U.K. forces indicate that it is a totally one sided battle out there. In interviews on CNN and MSNBC commanders recount dozens of men rushing them with small arms and grenades (both useless against our armor) only to be cut down instantly. To me these are very sad instances. I’m reminded of the movie Zulu where tens of thousands of Zulu warriors throw themselves at a small group of British soldiers time and again only to be slaughtered on each approach. In that movie, the Zulus eventually retreated leaving thousands dead on the battle field, but most lived to fight again another day. I hope the Iraqi forces will soon do the same thing.
But I doubt they ever will retreat. Most of those behind the fighting belong to the Baath party or other leadership groups. They are the ones who will be tried for war crimes and who will suffer the most in the rebuilt Iraq. They have little to lose by fighting. I ask you to put yourself in their shoes. Imagine a Red Dawn scenario. Would you not want to pick up arms and revolt somehow. You wouldn’t just capitulate and start to study Russian or Chinese (as the case might be), no you’d find someway to fight. The reports of people returning to Iraq from across the region to pick up arms are truly frightening. If for some reason Bush decides we need to go into Syria or Iran then this becomes a whole different story (see my earlier post).
Lately, the word from the Pentagon is that they are expecting Baghdad, meaning the leadership, to crumble from the inside. They must have some sort of intel that leads them to believe that. But I hope it is stronger intel then that which made them believe the regime would crumble after a little operation called ‘Shock and Awe’. The worst thing, casualty wise, for the U.S. and U.K. forces would be a door to door street fight in Baghdad and Tikrit, but it might take that for real regime change to occur. But if the regime fails to crumble we have little choice than to lay siege to the Hussein strongholds or to surround them, interdict all food and water, and wait them out. Either way we suffer greatly in world opinion. Sieges are bloody things on both sides, and starvation campaigns will hurt the very people we are trying to help the most first. Militarily we might be winning this war, but politically, we might already be in a quagmire many times larger than Vietnam ever was.
My greatest wish is for this war to be resolved quickly and the slaughter be over. As I read around the net (the sites to read are: TPM, The Agonist, DailyKos, Counterspin, Tacitus, and Body and Soul) I see very little hope that the end is near. If the Pentagon has a plan to end this war, I hope they implement it soon, and prove us all wrong.
Saturday, March 29, 2003
Cold Fury is afraid that the Christian groups who will enter Iraq to provide aid to the Iraqi people might do more harm than good.
Don't forget, Iraq is home to a large christian group. Tariq Aziz, Deputy Prime Minister (ex-foreign minister) is the highest ranking christian in Iraq. So, I'm sure there will be groups of christians welcoming aid from people with a like religion. That said, 'persuading people', should it happen, is very last century and should be avoided.
Don't forget, Iraq is home to a large christian group. Tariq Aziz, Deputy Prime Minister (ex-foreign minister) is the highest ranking christian in Iraq. So, I'm sure there will be groups of christians welcoming aid from people with a like religion. That said, 'persuading people', should it happen, is very last century and should be avoided.
The inclination towards tyranny, the wielding of absolute power by the few over the many, knows no ideological boundaries and is not confined to one time or space. I never trust anyone who says: "It can't happen here." Otherwise ethical people will commit the most serious injuries as long as they believe they are doing their "duty" - committing these injuries in a good cause. Lenin was not alone in believing that the end justifies the means: lots of people believe it, or act as if they do. It takes bravery of a different sort to maintain that the means defines the end: risk it during a time of high group stress and you're likely to be called naive, or a traitor.
- Margaret Atwood writing about her book The Handmaid's Tale, recently made into an Opera.
- Margaret Atwood writing about her book The Handmaid's Tale, recently made into an Opera.
If one of the goals is to win the hearts and minds of the Arab Street, then according to this story we've already lost the war.
Reports of Booing in the France section of Disneyland's it's a small world. Will the madness ever stop?
Friday, March 28, 2003
Quote to remember:
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." -- Daniel Webster
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." -- Daniel Webster
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)