Add to Technorati Favorites

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

It's the Little Things in Life

I'm happy today, but not because anything really great has happened. Today, it's all about the little things.

The workers on my street are busily making homes for my future neighbors, and today they are farther up the street from my house, which means they're quieter. In return, I'm trying not to think too much about their legal status as immigrants.

I remembered to buy greeting cards AND send them, which is remarkable for me.

Warren Jeffs, the Big Bad Polygamist, is in custody-- not that I care, but the little bit of happy here is that I will never again have to listen to Anderson Cooper drone on and on about him! Especially in that Voice, dripping with emotion, which I totally bought during Katrina, but when it was applied to Jeffs, I realized how hollow it was.

Tim Grieve over at Salon's War Room posted this today:

CQ Politics has just moved the November outlook for the district once represented by Tom DeLay from "no clear favorite" to "leans Democratic."

Ah yes, I have no complaints today...

Well, you know that's not true. On the topic of little things, we don't know who killed JonBenet after all. I know, we're all supposed to be ashamed at the way we've been fascinated by her like there wasn't anything else going on in the world. But I am fascinated! I had always thought that we would never find out whodunit, that it would go the way of Bob Crane, Kennedy, and the Black Dahlia. Those stories have always fascinated me because of their unsolved nature (I am so psyched for this upcoming Black Dahlia movie!) I was aghast at the idea that we had actually caught JonBenet's killer-- no so much for justice, I admit, but just for knowing... And while I'm glad that they didn't go ahead and prosecute an innocent (and clearly bonkers) man, I'm a little grimmer today that the mystery remains on my list of Things To Ask God When I Die.

There are many real and important things to worry about, but I'm banishing those thoughts and instead worrying about how I'm going to fit all these new shows* on my TiVo. Because sometimes, there is Katrina, and sometimes, it's just August.

* :)
:(
(In order to get to the Salon links above, you will probably have to watch a short commercial, sorry!)

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Stranger than Fiction

Did you see that thing about Bush reading Camus' The Stranger on his vacation? Can you believe he admitted that? How dumb are his handlers?

For those of you not familiar, Camus' existentialist masterwork is about, as Jon Stewart so eloquently put it the other night, "a Westerner who kills an Arab on a beach for no reason and dies with no remorse." I love this book. It's an intense look at the inside of an existentialist's mind-- not just asking, "What is the point for all of us?" but more specifically, "If you've ever wondered how some people can just kill and not care, here's a peek at that kind of mind." Or at least, that's how I felt reading it. His description of shooting the stranger because the sun is glaring in his eyes is chilling. And for the perfect soundtrack, the Cure's first single, "Killing an Arab", is based on the book.

Apparently, especially for the Cure, there was some backlash because it was an Arab man that dies, but to me the significance was that he was a stranger, an immigrant, and instead of welcoming or being kind to someone far from home, Meursault kills him. It's the opposite of the Good Samaritan story. The vast cross-cultural aspect, a European and an Arab, makes for a more stark contrast (as opposed to a Frenchman and a Spaniard, for example). But I digress.

Why would they think that telling the world that he read The Stranger improves Bush's image? Was Karl Rove hit on the head? Or was it meant to make him look like some crazy maverick? Maybe they don't want the Bad Guys to see him as a lame duck so they are making him into Kim Jong Il, "He's craaaazy, so watch out! He kills Arabs and then for fun, he reads books about killing Arabs! He's one bad mother--" "watch your mouth!" "just talkin' 'bout W..."

When will these insane people give us back our country?

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Where your tax $$$ go...

I saw this sentence in a Salon article (which was actually about something else entirely, so no point in linking to it) that made me want to-- I don't know, something drastic that would somehow miraculously make these politicians fund school lunch programs and after school programs and yank this crap off the table:

The Silver Ring Thing, or SRT -- a Christian outreach organization that, with the help of more than $1 million in government money from the federal faith-based initiatives program, threw concerts[*] and gave silver rings to youths who vowed chastity and/or abstinence until marriage.
*concerts with highly paid pop stars like Christina Aguilera, which is what the article was about

Still think that faith-based initiatives are a good way to spend tax-payer dollars? Because personally I think this proves that the "faith" is a blind faith that ridiculous ideas like this would work on kids. At least with reality-based initiatives, they have been scientifically developed.

And this brings me to a post on Broadsheet, Salon's women's blog. Apparently, after 1 school year of their abstinence-only sex ed program in Canton, Ohio, 65 girls out of 490 got pregnant, so they are cancelling the program and re-introducing safe-sex teachings.

Too much faith, not enough reality.

Sunday, August 13, 2006

LMP in Packing Hell

Just a reminder for those of you looking for new posts, we're closing on the new house this week and moving, plus my son just had his second birthday, so I've got my hands full and haven't had time to write. This war would be hard to write about anyway, and frankly, I don't care as much about the whole Joe Lieberman thing as I probably should as a card-carrying Democrat.

Actually I'm not one, but I did go to Hillary Clinton's web site and signed up to be a Hill's Angel, and got a wallet card, for which my mother would certainly decry I was going to hell.

I used to work in political fundraising, as you know, and all that stuff is so silly. They just wanted my email address. There was a great Dave Barry piece back in the 1980s about how his wife accidentally got on some list and the Republicans sent her a whole packet of crap, including a 1-800 line to "The US Senate" (what line is that?) and a lapel pin "that symbolized her special relationship with the President". I wish I could remember the whole thing, my favorite part was, "Since that time I had a possum trapped in my garage, I can't think of a time that I needed a special emergency number to the US Senate."

People often ask me if I would vote for Hillary. I can't think of anyone I'd like to vote for more, other than Barack Obama. I think she's really great, and I think she's done a great job as Senator.

The problem is, there are a lot of people who hate her on a weird visceral level, whether because they hated her as First Lady/Clinton's wife, or because they hated Bill and that's enough to hate her. I personally don't get it, but you know, there are still lots of people who "want to have a beer with" Bush and personally, I would run screaming in the other direction, after having stopped to spit on him. No, in this dry heat, I wouldn't spare the spit.

My parents fall into this category. For numerous reasons, these two centrists moved right over the years. There's a great saying, I don't know by whom, that if you're not a liberal when you're young you're hard-hearted, but if you're not a conservative when you're older you're an idiot. But I digress. These two great people moved right, and Mom even got to the point where she was really crowing about it, in those heady days of 1994 and the Contract with America.

Now, after all the hell this administration has put us through, they have had enough and are starting to swing back to the left again. I don't know how far they would really swing, (my parents as swingers, sorry, that makes me laugh!) but they are certainly as ready to give the Left a shot as I was to give the Right a shot.

However, they still hate Hillary right down to their toes, as far as I can tell, and would never vote for her even if the other ticket was Cheney/Rumsfeld. And if I can't get these two votes, so ripe for picking, to go to Clinton, then she'll never make it to the White House.

Like I told my mom, I can't vote for her because you won't vote for her.

Well, I'll leave you with that as I go back to packing. Remember, there might not be any more new posts until after we're settled in next week. Till then, watch the skies!

Friday, August 04, 2006

Winners

The interesting thing about following a war that your country isn't in is that for once you can see it, if not dispassionately, at least more objectively than one might if it's your country. Our involvement (what a euphemism!) in Iraq is so politically laden, and each American watches it through the prism of his own domestic politics. In the current war, especially for people like me who are neither Arab-American, Muslim, nor Jewish, one can take a step back. What do we see?

War sucks. War is bad. War is messy. War is death. No one can say how many Hezbollah fighters have died, the Israelis have lost something like less than 50, but civilians die by the hundreds. Civilians, civilians, I just keep hearing that word and seeing small feet poke out from dusty blankets, from a pile of blankets all alike.

All the things man has created, strong bridges and sleek buildings and gleaming airports, gone. A world made up of ideas and designs and construction and effort and pride reduced to meaningless rubble. And even if we find a way to stop the fighting, if the sun came out tomorrow, the mess left behind is worse than 10 Katrinas. The life's work of so many people, building homes and careers and families, torn apart and blown into the wind like dandelion seeds.

And as Israel moves farther into Lebanon, and the rockets keep hitting Israel, it seems somehow like the Israelis are "worse" (this is what we've been talking about in the past couple of posts) because they are causing more damage and death-- but today it dawned on me, this is just what it looks like when one side is winning. When one side in a war is more successful, it means they are doing more damage. Hitting critical routes, airports, buildings. Trapping people in their villages. And Israel is really winning on that score, although the rockets keep hitting Israel in record numbers so this may in fact be the old adage you've used a thousand times-- winning the battle but losing the war (or at least keeping it at a draw). The horror of war means that whoever is better, who is succeeding, who is riding a rocket trail of glory, they are in fact the Huns, the Mongols, the Spartans, the Thing To Be Feared, The Bad Dudes. And of course nice people like us don't like The Bad Dudes, so the tide of public opinion turns away from Israel.

I asked myself, "What is Israel supposed to do?" and I still don't have an answer that satisfies me, but I do have one word: win. (I mean, I don't want Hezbollah to win and "eliminate the Zionists from the earth", so I guess I do want Israel or at least the wider world to prevail.) They're supposed to win, and that's what they're doing. This is what winning looks like. We're not used to seeing this in the US because when we are winning, we don't show the damage we leave in our wake on our media. But take a good look kids, before you shout your jingoistic slogans and yell "Sic 'em" to our military and send them out to win. This is what it looks like.

Thursday, August 03, 2006

Good Guys and Bad Guys

[Please go to my last real post, and see Caribou's comments.]


"In my opinion, both sides are equally wrong in this war."


I agree with your assessment of pretty much everyone being jerks in this conflict. I guess I'm pretty spoiled. I'm used to there being Good Guys (sometimes us) and Bad Guys (sadly, often us) and being able to root for someone (like the people caught in the middle, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Israel) or condemn someone (like us, for say, coming over to "help", destroying their country, and floundering around in our Big Mess, all for the benefit of Halliburton, as far as I can tell).

In this conflict, you're right, everyone's to blame. Maya Angelou said about 9/11, "Now is the time for thinkers to think," and I guess I fault Israel-- a modern, educated, democratic people with a history of vast loss of life in war-- for not being somehow above this, above the death and destruction and willing to find alternative solutions. I have no idea where I got this silly notion. Clearly, if the bombs are falling on them, being smart either doesn't help or isn't working. Or maybe their past didn't make them as creative as I would have hoped.

And of course, the other side, while having nicer sides to it-- remember the IRA and Sein Finn-- has sworn to destroy Israel, and I mean destroy it. For them there seems to be no end game, there is no two-state solution or Nice Happy Middle East with Camel Rides and Swaying Palm Trees and a Mid-E-Pass where you can ride the trains from country to country on your vacation. They want a big smoking hole where Israel used to be, and how do you negotiate with that?

"In my opinion, this is a proxy war. This is payback time for the 1993 Hezbollah suicide bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut."

I agree that this is a proxy war, although I tend to think of it as one of Iran vs. Israel. (Perhaps Iran & Syria vs. Israel.) Do you think that Israel cares that much that we got bombed 23 years ago (unless you were thinking of something else, that was 1983)? Or are you suggesting that we got Israel to fight in proxy of us? Because I gotta say, we're just not that with it down here south of your border. Other administrations, maybe-- and certainly, this one is the only one recently that's quite evil-genius enough to try it-- but this one really has its hands completely full and is floundering in its own incompetence. So evil yes, genius no. Basically, if it involves getting off their collective ass but doesn't involve anything with direct votes attached to it (like whipping up the base over gay marriage or flag burning), they really don't want to bother.

This reminds me, actually, of a joke I like-- After the intelligence failures that led to 9/11 and the Iraq War, all the crazy people took off their tinfoil hats, realizing that the CIA didn't actually have it together enough to be beaming thought control at them. (There's probably a way to jazz that up so it's funnier, but I'm on my first cup of coffee and my second day on this post, so, well, go find yourself real comedians.)

I'm always rooting for the underdog-- that's a Shakespearean* thing, I think-- and I have always (and I mean since the 1970s when I was a kid and the last era I recall with this much radical Islamic terrorism) respected the Jewish need for a real nation of their own but also the plight of the Palestinians. And maybe I'm just swaying with the breeze here (although I prefer to think of it as a "window into my thought process", haha) but the more I think about this, the more I keep hearing my friend asking, "But what is Israel supposed to do?" And somehow I keep coming around to the idea that this awful tragedy might have been the only way forward. That, to my little peacenik brain, is an anathema, but...

Oh, for God's sake. (Literally.) No wonder no one can work this out. But thanks for reading and writing comments and maybe we'll find some clarity together. Sadly, I have to stop trying to save the world and go back to trying to save my garage from the forces of chaos.



*Shakespeare's plays are often written on the side of the underdog, the outsider, who may get trampled a lot but always at least has their shining moment-- Othello, Shylock, there are more, but remember, first cup of coffee. OK, I can't really use that anymore since it's taken me hours of a line here and a line there in between packing and showing the house, so I'll use that chaos as my Official New Excuse.

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

OK, Smarty Girl, What is Israel Supposed to Do?

I just had an interesting conversation with my roommate. He had read my post about human shields. We moved beyond the "Is it true?" (in which he said that there was a rocket launched from right near that building in Qana and that's what they hit, the building fell because it was too close), and on to, "Say it is true. Then who has the lesser moral ground, those who use human shields or those who shoot at them anyway?" This was the basic argument:

Him: "I believe that Israel has the right to defend itself if bombs are landing in their country."

Me: "OK. Me too."

Him: "But if you say that they can't attack areas where the bombs are coming from because there are civilians there being used as human shields, then you're essentially saying that they can't defend themselves, because all of the bombs are coming from civilian areas. So what are they supposed to do?"

OK, I have to confess he had me beat. (I think he tried to post a comment but it didn't post.) I need to think on that some more, but I felt a certain moral obligation to tell My Dear Readers that I have in fact been (temporarily) logically bested and that I may not have thought this through enough.

There, I feel better.

What was I just saying?

Well, I went and looked up the transcript from AC360 last night, which teased before the break with, "Are they, as many Israeli officials -- as Israel's ambassador to the U.N. just said to us moments ago, using human beings as shields for their operations in South Lebanon? We'll take a look at that."

And what was the "look"? He interviewed Gary Berntsen, a "former CIA officer" who "led their Hezbollah unit" and is "president of the Berntsen Group, crisis management and global security group." Here's how it went, I did chop it down for space (just follow my link above to read the whole thing, I didn't cut out anything relevant, I swear):

COOPER: Let's talk about Hezbollah and their tactics. Israel's ambassador to the United Nations saying just a short time ago on this program that Hezbollah effectively is using civilians in South Lebanon as human shields...Do you think that's true? Does Hezbollah use humans as human shields?

BERNTSEN: Well, they'll be firing from civilian areas. They may not be throwing them right in front of them in combat operations. What they will be doing is using tactics of asymmetrical warfare.

I think the Israelis can expect that as they come into towns there will be anti-tank mines, there will be explosives set up and improvised explosive devices with command detonation. And then, of course, Hezbollah will follow up with snipers, you know trying to go after those that try to save Israelis that may get injured, you know, by those initial explosions. This is the tactics that Hezbollah will use...They don't want to go power on power with the Israelis.

They want to use small units, disperse, that can constantly redeploy to different positions and then as places get destroyed they can reinhabit some of them and fight from the rubble.

COOPER: Is it possible for Hezbollah to be disarmed, or even for them to voluntarily disarm?

BERNTSEN: I think that Hezbollah will be ultimately pushed back from the southern area. But they're not going to be completely disarmed in Lebanon. They're part of the fabric of Lebanon. 35 percent to 40 percent of the population are Shi'as, and there is some support, significant support among that population for Hezbollah.

And that was it! Having had his question completely evaded, AC never asked again or pushed on that. They went on to chat about Hezbollah vx. Al Quaeda, how the Iranians are acting more like terrorists while Hezbollah had moved into the political arena-- but never again was the question of human shields brought up. And for all their teasers about this story through the previous hour, it was pared down to one evaded question. I'm thoroughly disgusted.

Human Shields?

I've been loathe to do a "war watch", partly because I think Israel is going overboard and being big jerks, and no one on this side of the pond really wants to hear that. I would say I have some complicated views on this one-- and really, what other kind could one have about such a complicated tangle of international politics? I think for now, as unlikely as it may seem, I should keep my general opinions to myself. No doubt you'll guess them as we go.

Of course the other reason to avoid a "war watch": I could comment on each day's tactics and events, but really, these things are typically only understood in hindsight rather than in "the fog of war" and things that seem worth writing about one day are wholly irrelevant the next day -- and since I often don't get my blog post finished in one sitting, that means I'd be chasing my tail.

But I think that if there is a salient point to be made that seems to apply to more than one day, or one phase of war, then I shall make it. "You can't stop the voice of the radio," my college radio promo used to say, and in this case, there is bound to be something that I feel compelled to talk about, and you can't stop me, so there!

In this case, I was reading an article on Salon.com called "The hiding among civilians myth". Israel is bombing the f&%* out of southern Lebanon and has killed hundreds of civilians, even 4 UN observers and the tragedy in Qana-- but this isn't reckless, they say, it's because Hezbollah has buried themselves in the civilian population and are using it as a "human shield". (Not reckless, right, but somehow it's OK to fire at the human shield and worry about placing the blame afterwards... hmm...)

As usual, the reporters you see on CNN consider it "news" if they "report" on press statements issued by Someone Important-- so when they "report" on this, the sentence usually goes like this: "Lebanon is taking heavy civilian casualties, however Israel says that it's because Hezbollah is hiding in the civilian population." No mention if this is, say, true. Equally effective reporting might be, "Lebanon is taking heavy civilian casualties, however Israel says that TomKat's baby is 'funny-looking.'" The reporters are there, is it so hard to report on what you're actually seeing rather than just reporting on official statements? Well, Mitch Prothero has done this in this article.

His main statement is this: "My own reporting and that of other journalists reveals that in fact Hezbollah fighters -- as opposed to the much more numerous Hezbollah political members, and the vastly more numerous Hezbollah sympathizers -- avoid civilians."

Among many real-world examples of this, rich in detail, he makes the following main points:

--"[Hezbollah] has a clear policy of keeping its fighters away from civilians as much as possible. This is not for humanitarian reasons -- they did, after all, take over an apartment building against the protests of the landlord, knowing full well it would be bombed -- but for military ones."

--"Much smarter and better trained than the PLO and Hamas fighters, they know that if they mingle with civilians, they will sooner or later be betrayed by collaborators -- as so many Palestinian militants have been."

--"...one of the political operatives explains that the fighters never come near the town, reinforcing what other Hezbollah people have told me over the years."

--"...a Lebanese military intelligence official, now retired, once told me, "They do not come out with their masks off and never operate around people if they can avoid it. They're completely afraid of collaborators. They know this is what breaks the Palestinians -- no discipline and too much showing off."

--"The Hezbollah guys, on the other hand, know that letting their fighters near outsiders of any kind -- journalists or Lebanese, even Hezbollah supporters -- is stupid... No fighters on corners, no invitations to watch them shoot rockets at the Zionist enemy, nothing that can be used to track them."

--"Every other journalist I know who has covered Hezbollah has had the same experience. A fellow journalist, a Lebanese who has covered them for two decades, knows only one military guy who will admit it, and he never talks or grants interviews."

--"Hezbollah's political members say they have little or no access to the workings of the fighters. This seems to be largely true: While they obviously hear and know more than the outside world, the firewall is strong."

--"Israel, however, has chosen to treat the political members of Hezbollah as if they were fighters. And by targeting the civilian wing of the group, which supplies much of the humanitarian aid and social protection for the poorest people in the south, they are targeting civilians."

--"Lighthouses, grain elevators, milk factories, bridges in the north used by refugees, apartment buildings partially occupied by members of Hezbollah's political wing -- all have been reduced to rubble."

He wraps up by saying,

So the analysts talking on cable news about Hezbollah "hiding within the civilian population" clearly have spent little time if any in the south Lebanon war zone and don't know what they're talking about. Hezbollah doesn't trust the civilian population and has worked very hard to evacuate as much of it as possible from the battlefield. And this is why they fight so well -- with no one to spy on them, they have lots of chances to take the Israel Defense Forces by surprise, as they have by continuing to fire rockets and punish every Israeli ground incursion.

I haven't heard any of this on the MSM. As I said, it's enough for them if they can just quote someone's statement. The last time I saw this was the run-up to the Iraq war-- the WH would say, "There are WMDs," for example, but the MSM would never investigate, but rather would wait until Someone released an opposing statement ("...but Senator Kerry says..."). If no one did, and of course at that time many were afraid to, then the MSM had nothing in opposition to report. There was never any assessment as to what the facts actually were. We're getting the same action here. As I said earlier, all they will say is that the civilian deaths in Lebanon are 10 times those in Israel, "But Israel says..."

Last night AC360 promised to look into this, but I had to go to bed before it came on. I TiVo'd it, and I hope to have an update when I get to watch it, to report whether Anderson Cooper got any closer to the truth of this story. I also emailed Jack Cafferty and Lou Dobbs, two muckrakers if I ever saw one, asking that they look into this or at the very least, ask this poll/email question:

Who has the lower moral ground here, the Hezbollah who (if it's true) are using the Lebanese as human shields, or the Israelis who say, "Yeah, we don't care," and bomb the crap out of them anyway?

In another Salon article by Julie Flint called "The fallout from Qana", she quotes Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon as saying, "Everyone who is still in south Lebanon is linked to Hezbollah," Ramon said, suggesting that "maximum firepower has to be used."

It reminds me of an Onion article from just after 9/11: "God angrily clarifies 'Don't Kill' rule".

Stay tuned and let's see if the second attempt to calm the fight and get the civilians out works this time.