Hunting The Muse

Peter Arnett

Peter Arnett is a famous reporter who won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting in Vietnam, and won awards for his reporting in the 1991 Gulf War. Over the weekend, he told Iraqi television that America's first war plan had failed. Today he was fired.

It's really curious to me - yesterday I read an article where NBC is defending them. But then on Monday, they fired him. Plus, it was widely supported that Arnett apologized. Well, he's been rehired by the British media and it's clear that his "apology", as explained by an exclusive written by him, was merely apologizing for leaving himself so open for commercial pressure to convince his employers to fire him.

To me, I what is more interesting than the events: that he talked to Iraqi television, that he was defended, that he was fired; is what happened that led to him being fired. Who got called? Who complained? What led to the decision being made? Why the turnaround from Sunday to Monday?

Not everyone thinks the firing was unwarranted. Check out what Walter Cronkite has to say.

Rules Of Life

One thing that is interesting about my weblogging is that since my words are public, I find myself coming back to them more often... and also making sure that I feel like my words are at least somewhat defensible. What's really interesting is that I'm noticing that if I protest against something enough in this manner, it does start to eventually suggest something that I am in favor of. Something about the distilling it all goes through.

Anyway, I think I will periodically come up with Rules Of Life for myself that I also frankly think everyone else should follow as well. ;-) And should be present in legislation as well. Here's one.

Rule #1: Continually or periodically re-evaluate in-place systems to make sure they reflect their intent. If the intent no longer applies, remove or otherwise invalidate the system. If the intent has changed, revise the system.

Rule #1 is, of course, subject to Rule #1.

PNAC And Iran

Warblogging.com: The Post-Iraq Plan

More stuff about PNAC in this article. Plus, McGovern saying he believes Iran is next on the agenda.

Fox Hawks

Fox News is being idiotic again.

IE CSS Column Fix

For those of you who were reporting that the content column wasn't extending down below my links column in IE, I think I've got that fixed. Let me know if I don't.

Bill Moyers' Flag

Bill Moyers on Patriotism and the Flag - BuzzFlash Guest Contribution

This is great. I'd love to see a peace protest that is about reclaiming the flag rather than burning it.

Defective Dolphin

Times Online

One of those dolphins I mentioned a few entries ago has evidently defected.

Power Manipulation In CA

Delusions of Power

This is one of those things I was sure was happening when it was happening, but felt like a big conspiracy theory at the time. I hate it when you're in an age when ridiculous conspiracy theories are more likely to be true than ever before.

Protesting Is Bad For Business!

For Broadcast Media, Patriotism Pays (washingtonpost.com)

I'm tried to count on how many levels this is fucked up, and I just couldn't do it.

Time Traveling!!

'TIME-TRAVELER' BUSTED FOR INSIDER TRADING

I haven't laughed hard in about a week, so I'm thankful for this coming along. Wouldn't it be great if it were true though!

Trust And CF

Mental note: At some point I have to do enough research about both Collaborative Filtering and Trust Metrics to come up with a strong opinion of how they work together (or are in opposition to each other).

PNAC 1998 Letter

Warblogging.com: Where Does "Liberation Theology" End?

Here's more about that letter I mentioned in my entry about PNAC, that was sent to Clinton in 1998, that shows that the current Bush administration was planning the Iraq invasion at that time.

Gary Hart's Blog

Blog :: Gary Hart :: Restoring the American Republic

Gary Hart has a blog. And it's powered by movable type! I imagine my blog will become more about voting rights and the candidates as election season comes closer. Right now I'm keeping up with Howard Dean most of all, but I'll read more about Hart and I'm also curious about Edwards. For some reason I feel complicated about Kerry.

Spearhead And War

AlterNet: Soldiers at the Door

Harder to avoid war subjects than I thought.

Deception Escalation

"Practice to Deceive" by Joshua Micah Marshall

Well, this is enough to alarm me for one day. I'm not going to read any more about the war today.

Synchronicity And Vaclav Havel

I have this guideline that if I hear something distinct and new in several random places within a short period of time, I should pay attention and follow up.

Well, today I was reading Jonathan Alter's weblog over on msnbc.com, and he was talking about Patrick Moynahan giving the second best speech he ever heard, in opposition to the 1991 gulf war. He parenthetically noted that first place was a speech by Vaclav Havel. I'd never heard of Vaclav Havel, but you know, distinct name.

Then about twenty minutes later I was catching up on some Buffy The Vampire Slayer news, which had the shooting script for when Amber Benson was supposed to appear as The First/Tara, rather than that other actress appearing as The First/Carrie when Benson refused. I'm not usually into shooting scripts, but since this was an earlier revision, I decided to page through it. And about 1/3 of the way in, a vampire is attempting to reminisce with Buffy by reminding her that he let her crib off of his Vaclav Havel essay in European History, back before the vampire was dead.

Well, in this case I thought two was enough. You don't hear that name every day, much less twice and in such entirely unrelated contexts.

So I looked him up, and here's a speech he gave in 1994. It's a very interesting speech, with parts of it relevant to what I enjoyed about the Paul Berman article I blogged about a few days ago, and some of what I drive at in my war position. I think it skips some possibilities in its conclusion, however. I don't think that the excellent first 2/3 of his speech really lead into his basic conclusion (which I'm really dumbing down here) that we all need to rediscover God.

Plus, to bring it full circle, he even has a throw-away comment about comforting/frightening ourselves with thrillers about vampires.

I'm not sure what to follow up on beyond this, but it was a fun little hunt.

Bully Bush

Bush's Strong Arm Can Club Allies Too (washingtonpost.com)

Bush's distinctive strength has been his willingness to break traditions that were only protected by taboo.

SCOTUS And Gays

The Supreme Court Tries Sodomy - and discovers that Texas is confused about it too. By Dahlia Lithwick

This is a scathing, entertaining essay about the arguments protesting the Texas law that allowed cops to arrest and charge two men having anal sex in their home.

Missing Muslims

angiej: Where Have All The Muslims Gone?

Yikes.

U.S.U.N.

The Onion | U.S. Forms Own U.N.

Nothing like some good satire. Ahhhh.

Update: Also check out Dead Iraqi Would Have Loved Democracy.

War Dolphins

Dolphins go to front lines in Iraq war

 If the intruders happen to climb onto the shore, the trained sea lions could run after them as fast as a human could.

What??

My Position On The War

Here's my best attempt at my position on the war. Warning, deep waters. Give yourself some room to read.

I believe in Joe Average. I still believe in a basic goodness of human nature. I believe that on average, if someone is given the opportunity to do a good thing that doesn't cost them anything, they'll want to do it. I believe that most people want to move towards understanding and towards healing and want to feel like they are helping to make the world a better place.

I also believe there are a lot of forces that get in the way of that. Some of those forces are inside ourselves. We'll avoid doing good out of fear or indignance. We have judgements against "negative" emotions which can then lead to us avoiding conflict. We are also receptive to external forces that ridicule our emotions, reinforcing our doubts, and shut us down from taking action. And because modern life and human nature can be inherently at odds sometimes, the demands of modern life can make our human nature feel tiring and overwhelming, which leads us to rely upon structure and systems as replacements for human emotion and conscious intent.

I've written before about structure and systems replacing intent. This is a complicated subject because it isn't wise to be against the practice. When we find ourselves going through a redundant emotional process, it is common for us to want to represent it in a system. This can be through creating a moral code for oneself, or designing a system of laws for a population. The process involves agreeing that a structure or system approximates an emotional intent strongly enough to then be able to rely on that structure, rather than having to go through the emotional process every single time. Writing this essay is an example of me trying to create structure from my own views about the war.

However, my views are that these structures - moral codes, laws, positions - are only valid if the essence of the emotional processes are still present. As soon as the essence disappears, the structure is invalid.

This is a problem because structures can remain standing when their original intent no longer applies. We sometimes rely on structures that are devoid of their original intent.

There are those that believe the answer to this is to destroy all structure. I believe this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I believe that structures (laws, moral codes, positions) should continually be in a process of review to see if they still reflect their original intent. This does not happen with our laws, government, or policies. And, due to contagiousness and convention, I believe that too many people do not go through this process with themselves.

I believe that Joe Average, while being of good intent, is also overwhelmed due to the inherent contradiction of human nature and modern life. I believe that due to being overwhelmed, Joe Average relies too much on structure to replace emotional processing. I believe that in many, many cases, these structures are invalid due to being divorced from the original intent that brought these structures into being. I believe that in other cases, these structures are perverted due to Joe Average judging against "negative" emotions. This basically means that while I do not believe that Joe Average is consciousless, I believe that Joe Average may very well be leading a life that is mostly consciousless. I believe that as a result, a lot of action is taken that comes from consciouslessness.

This is why it is impossible to responsibly judge the merits of this war, because I believe the premises upon which I'd even judge the war are based on these false structures. No matter what position I try and stake out on just the war itself, I feel as if I'm accepting a premise that, at its root, is offensive to me.

It's easy for me to react to the surface - Bush's doublespeak. Drilling down from there gets complicated, however. And negotiating the path is where people start to cave in. Here's one example:

Question: Are you in favor of Saddam Hussein remaining in power and doing all these unspeakable things?

Answer: Duh, of course not, I think he should stop, and if he can't stop voluntarily, I think he shouldn't be in a position to do it.

Question: Well, he's shown that he won't stop, and we're removing him. How could you not be in favor of that?

When drilling down from the surface ("war bad!"), this interplay is a real stumper. Because on a word level, it's a good point. But when I put myself in the position of saying that I support the U.S. removing Hussein because I believe Hussein needs to not be in power, I feel like I am coaching myself into that point of view, and it just doesn't feel like the truth.

This is where we feel overwhelmed by the emotional processing these questions require, and this is where we seek to rely on structures rather than challenge things further. Here I would be relying on something that sounds logical, sounds like a good point, and I would cave in, ignore my feeling, and agree that that's right, that it makes sense.

But this is also where I would be duped. Because if you think about, adopting that point of view means I have accepted an implication:

You're either in favor of invading Iraq, or you're in favor of Saddam Hussein remaining in power.

It's especially tricky because this is rarely said out loud as often as it is implied. It's a premise that we are bullied into accepting. Well, I don't have to accept it.

I'm not in favor of invading Iraq, and I'm not in favor of Saddam Hussein remaining in power.

Who says they can't both be true? They both are, end of story. But I read the articles and see the messages. The forces right now bully me into accepting that that's inconsistent, that the two statements can't be reconciled. And they do this by challenging me to prove myself: How can you be in favor of neither? PROVE to me that this makes sense.

Again it's danger of caving in due to feeling overwhelmed. But again, it's bullying. The correct answer is, Prove to me that it doesn't.

I believe that, through this pattern or through others, most people that support this war only support it from being overwhelmed by messages and bullying forces, and replace their own true beliefs with false structures.

We're losing because we are being bullied by forces that know how to pressure us into accepting their premises without us realizing it. We then get set against each other, quibbling about the various levels of denial we are in, while the forces are free to move ahead with their plans. These forces are more upsetting to me than Saddam Hussein being in power, because I believe these are the same forces that allow a man like Saddam Hussein to attain power, to wield power, and to remain in power.

As dissatisfaction and anguish and pain increase through this war, I am seeing a marked increase in people struggling with their relationship with their emotions. I see people comment about rage and how they equate it with violence. I hear people talk about how emotional displays are getting in the way of us figuring out how to deal with this war problem. I see other people express concern about how war could escalate due to dangerous emotions and feelings getting away from people. I believe this increased struggling is extraordinarily relevant. It's the other war, the war between us insisting on our emotional beliefs, and the forces that demand us to abandon them.

I personally think the root conflict between the U.S. and the Middle East is reflected in these emotional struggles, and until we develop a healthier relationship with our own emotions - which may very well be incompatible with "modern life" - we are not going to get very far in learning how to coexist with the Middle East (assuming coexistence is even the goal of those in power), and we are not going to be able to effectively challenge those who overwhelm us into accepting their premises.

To summarize, while this war is extraordinarily important and upsetting, it is also sort of irrelevant because I believe it won't ultimately help. The forces that overwhelm us to accepting the premises for war still exist. The forces that allow a man like Saddam to attain and retain power still exist. There is not yet enough critical-mass tolerance for emotion to recognize and point out the tricks that are played on us, much less keep them from happening. If we can reconcile emotional liberty with modern life, then we have a chance for healing, but if we can't, then even if we win the war, we'll still be losing.

Update: Taking Action

New American Century

Project for the New American Century

The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership.

Check out their Statement Of Principles - signatories include Bush, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz.

These are the guys that were planning the road map to invade Iraq since the Clinton years.

Attention Oregon Readers

kuro5hin.org || Attend a Protest, Go to Jail

Read the article and discussion for a law that an Oregon state senator is trying to pass that would imprison anyone convicted of "terrorism" for 25 years to life.

Qualifying crimes evidently include "receipt of stolen mail", "second degree theft", "unlawful labeling of a videotape recording", "prostitution", and even strikes.

Note that my interpretation of this is uninformed and should not be taken as what's really going on, and it's quite possible that Minnis is just being a complete blowhard and using this as an attempt to look tough on the Portland protests that weren't anywhere near as violent as the press seems to have described them to be.

Update: Here's local coverage. Note how the bill's author is also the moderator of the discussion and threatens to clear the room.

The Laws Of War

Salon.com News | Pentagon complains about fake surrenders

The administration is shocked, just shocked that the Iraqi forces aren't doing what they expect them to do.

Geneva And Filming POWs

U.S. names 2 pilots said to be POWs

     Al-Sahhaf said the POWs would be treated according to the Geneva Conventions and rejected accusations that Iraq violated the accords by allowing Iraqi television to film the prisoners and question them.

       U.S. forces allowed journalists with them to do the same with Iraqi POWs, he noted. "Is no one supposed to tell them they acted inappropriately?" he asked. "These hypocrites!"

Wow. I didn't even think of that. I had earlier read:

The International Committee of the Red Cross said the showing of the prisoners on television violates Article 13 of the Geneva Conventions, which says prisoners should be protected from public curiosity.

in another article in the context of the U.S. protesting their treatment, but not in the context of us doing the same thing.

Non-Embedded Iraqi Journalism

[ t e c h n o \ c u l t u r e ] : [ t e c h n o \ c u l t u r e ]

Excerpts from a radio interview with a well-respected independent journalist alleging that the media messages from Iraq are not accurate.

Dangerous Emotions

Joi Ito's Web: Christiaan on mutual respect and the Arab world

I am pretty sure most people in the Arab world have not been sensitized to signal and deal with such dangerous emotions -- in many cases rather the opposite.

Emotions are not dangerous. Compression is. Compression of emotion that leads to harmful action is dangerous. But emotions are not; not rage, not fear, not grief, not joy. All these emotions need love by those who hold them and tolerance by people outside of them.

It's our basic misunderstanding that rage in the middle east is dangerous that is partly fueling this whole war. We're trying to attack something that is already acting out from feeling attacked.

We - everyone - need to distinguish physically expressed rage from violence. They are not the same thing. When we judge they are and react accordingly, it leads to behaviour that is ultimately destructive to everyone.

(Not to slam Christiaan's post too thoroughly; he has good intent. He recognizes that this part of his thinking is "primitive", which in his thinking probably means he wants to understand it more. But he's caught in that same ugly devolving belief pattern that the way to deal with emotions is to reason through them, and that emotions that resist that are "dangerous".)

Philosophical Battling

The Philosopher of Islamic Terror

This has been well-linked elsewhere, but if you can grab a half hour, please read it. It seems dense at first, but it is approachable, and it's very fascinating. It reinforces to me the need to ask ourselves questions, and whenever one of our answers yields more questions, keep answering them until you are done.

War Meme

You know, I'm noticing a new war meme all over the place. That of, "I support the war but not Bush's reasons for waging it." I haven't thought this through yet. I'm posting this thought now as self-motivation to think it through later. Basically, I think that even while that might be a valid POV for some folks to adopt, my gut feeling is that for most people that are adopting it, it's because it just sounds good and they're being fucking lazy. Like, they recognize that Bush is being simple, and that Saddam is a Bad Man, and they don't put effort in to further reconcile the two realities so they say, "ok, ok, Bush sucks, Saddam's bad - so... I support the war but not Bush's reasons. All right, next?" (Picture them waving off a gnat.)

My emotions lately are progressing faster than my analytical skills. I'm owing myself three very long entries (response to Blair's speech, my thoughts on protest, and this subject) and haven't yet found the time to go through the process...

Buffy And Iraq

For a change of pace I went and caught up on some Buffy The Vampire Slayer articles, and found some good thoughts about Season Six - thoughtful analysis, conjectures, conclusions. Someone else posted a comment that was a long essay analyzing all these points and counterpoints and sharing their own opinions about Buffy. They closed:

In conclusion, BTVS good, Iraqi war bad.

hee.

War Links

Three points on the war in this article: Jordan's protection from Iraqi refugees, predictions of future foreign policy and how it could supposedly lead to Israeli-Palestinian Peace, and reports of Iraqis begging the U.S. to invade, including threatening to commit suicide if he didn't. But then, there are other reports of Iraqis being quite suspicious and dismissive of Bush's motives, leading to my stunning theory that maybe, just maybe all the Iraqis don't have a unanimous opinion? Iraq Body Count has a counter that tracks the minimum and maximum estimated number of Iraqi civilian casualties. Despite wide reports to the contrary, no Scud missiles (nor any other WMD) have yet been launched or found. The American Serviceman who rolled grenades into command tents of the 101st Airborne is allegedly Muslim - note how the article mentions a Scud launch, which is unsubstantiated. GOP Donors invited to bid on Iraq Reconstruction contracts. Russia is quite open about their oil-based concerns regarding the U.S. invasion. (And I wonder how the Nigerian Oil Crisis impacts this whole thing?) Britain is having a bad war. Finally, some American coverage on the perception gap between American and European media coverage on the war. The conclusion is that it's because American media is "balanced". And for homework, research the meaning of the following two phrases: "embedded journalism" and "neoconservatives".

MusicBrainz Not Selling Out

O'Reilly Network: Open Projects Escrow [March 22, 2003]

Robert Kaye is one cool dude. This is the guy that is leading musicbrainz, which I've been following for a while. Turns out his interests are interacting with several of mine again - music, emergent democracy, open source, metadata... here are some of his thoughts on an open source escrow service.

Defending The Streets

I experienced two interpretations of Portland's Thursday-night protests, the one that Tamara wrote about - an experience of empowerment and rediscovered optimism through finding new faith in the strength of the masses - and the one reported in the local media focusing on vandalism and arrests. My personal stance on protests so far is that I haven't yet attended one, out of several concerns I have, but I might attend one soon... guardedly.

Update: Tamara has a follow-up with a long thought-out entry.

Update: Here's the comment I had left in response to what Tamara responded to.

Hrm. Personally, I'd agree that vandalism is counterproductive. I wouldn't lump rage in with that, though. This is a hugely complicated subject anyway. Like, would the press report it all the people that were at the protest simply wrote their congresscritters. Even the way the protests are reported messes things up a bit. "Massive protests in San Francisco; 1400 people arrested". Which focuses on the violent aspects and the 1.4% of the protesters that got out of hand, at the expense of the passion of the 98.6% of other protesters who feel their views are being ignored.

I think protests can affect public opinion for better or for worse. If they get larger or attract more people who wouldn't originally have protested, it has a viral societal impact, which can ultimately impact how we are governed. Or if they are presented as too far out of the mainstream, then it just reduces everyone else's credibility. Yet the public opinion is managed by how those two groups are presented by others (media). Really the protesters need good P.R. managers to control distribution of their footage. ;-)

Corporate Media

I've Been Asked...

pfft. That's what I think about this. pfft. This disgusts me. Kevin Sites is a correspondent for CNN that also has a personal blog where he uploads photos. He's been asked to stop doing it. This is a microcosm of all the points I've been making. Corporate media getting in the way of the spread of information. This is blatant proof. This absolutely disgusts me. You don't have access unless you're part of the corporate media, and if you have corporate media access you're restricted from spreading the information.

Welcome to being part of the problem, Kevin.

Reconciling Other Views

I'm actually very uncomfortable having strong opinions. As soon as you put yourself out on the limb, you're more likely to be alone if you then realize you've missed something. And I don't like being "alone" in that sense; I believe new ideas don't have much worth if it's impossible for you to convince others of them as well. So when I have a strong opinion, I find myself wanting to tear it down to make sure it's really solid. Not all the time and not at the exclusion of everything else, but it's definitely a part of me.

So I try to reconcile views in my head. How can I keep the strong, intelligent, opposing views in my head while also believing what I believe? Isn't it important to reconcile opposing viewpoints? (This is probably related to why I'm a programmer.)

So, I try and find strong pro-war arguments. Or I stumble across them. First, a funny one that scripts out a pretend conversation between a warmonger and a peacenik. I've read that one, I think it's pretty hilarious. Although it does of course cut the warmonger off at the knees. But for something that is more serious, read Tony Blair's Speech. I haven't actually gotten all the way through this one.

But I do know there are some complicated things to reconcile. Protesting how Bush has handled this is of course pretty easy. He's treated the nation like we're a bunch of schoolchildren. Contrast his speeches with Blair's. And clumsy diplomacy is a threat to our national interests, I firmly believe that. But it gets more complicated after that point. Bush's stated reasons for war are often idiotic, but does that mean there are none? I'm not saying there are, but even that question is enough to fracture the anti-Bush crowd just a little bit. And then you start arguing each of the reasons themselves. Saddam a murdering torturous evil thug? Well, sure, but... other world leaders have tortured people? Yes, but how many have a history of using chemical weapons on their own people? I don't actually know the answer to that but I think it throws a kink in the anti-war argument of "Well why aren't we invading all these OTHER countries with torture history?" I think that argument is stupid anyway because it points out an inconsistency that the anti-war folks would be against if it didn't exist. Do we really mean, "Well, if you also invade Saudi Arabia and North Korea and Columbia, then okay, I'm in favor of you invading Iraq"? I mean, duh. It's not an argument of integrity.

So, this is all incredibly hard to reconcile. When I think about what I'm not in favor of, I'm definitely not supportive of Hussein's regime existing over the last 12 years. How do I reconcile that with not invading? Of all the anger floating around, why do I not hear loud, widely marketed views about what we actually could have done to peacefully remove him from power? Do you believe those methods don't exist? As soon as I start to grudgingly think that someone's got to do something, I feel myself on a slippery slope. And when you're on a slippery slope it's because you've internally accepted something that you disagree with, it feels like a self-compromise. There's just got to be something we've missed here.

Another Bush As Dictator Spin

Unauthorized Entry - The Bush Doctrine: War without anyone's permission. By Michael Kinsley

In some ways reading these articles is entertaining. I read them, and I get this almost illicit thrill as I feel my perspective shift and see the situation through slightly different lenses.

These lenses show a world where it's not just an administration halfway down a slippery slope, but approaching a murderous cliff of invasions and conquerings driven by lazy rationalizations and flag-draped justifications.

So I get this slight thrill, the kind halfway between a roller coaster and nausea... and reflect... and then shake it off and distract myself with something else.

Glimmer Of Hope

We've had a day of surprisingly strong protest - not just from the masses, but from heads of state. Putin calling the attack "a big political mistake" without saying any other words to soften the blow. Gorbachev coming forward. Several articles explaining how the war can be seen as illegal under international law.

And then there's this thing about the forces having talks with the Republican Guard about surrendering from within. Now, anything could happen from here. But at this point, I can't help but wonder, after all this outcry... maybe it's something of an exit strategy that the administration is trying to manufacture. Not that it wouldn't have made sense anyway. I just like imagining that the outcry has motivated them a bit more to find a non-bombing way to resolve things than they would have otherwise. Maybe they're thinking they seriously miscalculated the world's reaction after bombing started.

In The News

I got an email from a reporter from the Oregonian today. He wants to quote the paragraph in this entry where I talk about blogging and free press. It'll be in an article about what Oregon bloggers are writing about the war.

I was initially concerned about context. Blogging encourages emotional venting and freewriting, neither of which hold up well when an excerpt is quoted out of context. For instance, that particular passage could make it look like I don't believe there's any free press anywhere in America, or don't respect the work that honest journalists do.

But, I decided to trust - I chose a license for this weblog to allow quotes, given proper attribution, and if the attribution includes the link to this weblog, then I feel like context is protected. I wouldn't necessary stand by a couple of sentences off of this web log by themselves, but I stand by the entire weblog as a collection.

So look for an article in the Oregonian where I'll be quoted and my weblog will be mentioned. And let me know what edition it's in.

At The Protest

At The Protest

Tamara has a great write-up of what it was like to be at the Portland protest tonight. Really evocative, really descriptive. I'm really glad she's blogging regularly now.

About Me

I made an About Me section, viewable on the right, that is dreadfully pretentious and littered with unnecessary third-person references. Enjoy.

War Blogging

After the long streak of war-related weblog entries, I'm having a very hard time motivating myself to blog any war-related news today. After it's all started, I just feel depressed. There was a protest downtown that I didn't go to. All the other bloggers are posting the same articles to each other and it's a bit boring right now. It's like I can only just sit and wait for something different to happen now. There was such a buildup to all this - and this suspense of whether something could happen that would prevent it - but now that it's happening, I feel a bit punched in the gut and low on energy.

In hindsight, I'm not sure there was anything that could have kept this war from starting, given who is in power. Saddam wasn't built to step aside, and Bush wasn't built to believe disarmament was possible without regime change. Two very flawed men, both built for violence, taking a whole lot of unwilling people with them.

There are a lot of things, however, that could keep Bush from meeting his full objective. One thing I was thinking of today was what if Saddam staged a coup? Or his death? I mean, if Iraq convinced the world that the US had a lucky strike and killed all the leaders and that they surrendered and the war was over, it would be really tough for Bush to justify further bombing. There wouldn't be need to rebuild, and the Iraqis, given that there wouldn't yet be an occupation, would have the high ground in telling the US that it wasn't necessary for them to come in, they could rebuild their democracy by themselves. That would be really politically tough for the U.S. Then months later, surprise, Saddam is alive.

Meanwhile, we're days away from the US dropping ten times the amount of bombs on Iraq in a day than the heaviest day in the '91 war. I just can't get over the reality that lots of good people are going to die.

War Begins

So it started tonight. I found myself briefly hopeful that maybe the one strike would have been enough to meet all objectives; like our Army had outperformed itself or something and then given all of our American contractors no reason to rebuild anything at all. But in a way hoping for that is like chipping away at my own resistance to having there be any violence at all. Our government is powerful, it exhausts me.

It's odd to be able to go to all the other websites that have nothing to do with war and forget about the war. Different than 10 years ago when you could only watch TV and every channel was about the war.

The guy over at Dear Raed is still blogging.

There were some rumors about a CNN reporter being shot live on camera but I haven't heard anything other than rumor. No attribution even.

There was also a plane hijacked but it got no news coverage. It was just Cuban defectors.

And a major operation in SE Afghanistan.

More later I'm sure.

Stopping Bush With Love

Observing The Oblique

It looks like Tamara is blogging again. I haven't seen the email that she's referring to, but she's got some really insightful things to say about rage and the survival instinct. Check it out.

Bush's Letter To Congress

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

Bush was required by law to send this letter spelling out his rationale for going to war. Note how he links Iraq to 9/11. Can't help but wonder if this was a blunder. There's no proven link from Iraq to 9/11.

Kottke On War

The war (kottke.org)

Weblogs are supposedly the antidote to this. With some very notable exceptions (journo Kevin Sites blogging live from Iraq and this Iraqi's personal weblog), this just isn't true. Most webloggers "covering" the current situation are either peace advocates unwilling to enter into a debate (see above) or too busy whipping each other into a hawkish frenzy in the pursuit of getting linked, being seen, driving up page views, and trying oh-so-hard to scale Mt. Instapundit.

It's a good piece, but this paragraph is just stupid. Just because participating webloggers aren't covering "on the scene" doesn't mean they aren't part of an antidote. Geez, Kottke wouldn't even have heard about Kevin Sites or "Dear Rael" if not for other bloggers. The spread of information unlimited by corporate control is the antidote.

Big Oil

What Oil Wants

I don't understand how half of this stuff works, but it shows to me that from a business perspective, it's reasonable to believe that the war can very much be about oil.

Kiesling's Resignation

Salon.com News | Odd man out

A fascinating interview with the diplomat John Brady Kiesling, who resigned in protest over Iraq. He also is pleasantly surprised at how the internet increased support of his views.

Side note for after you read it. Was I the only one left uncomfortable about his word choice regarding Colin Powell?

No Alaska Drilling

Salon.com News | Senate rejects drilling in Alaska refuge

Son of a gun. Remember Norm Coleman, the Republican who succeeded Paul Wellstone and defeated Walter Mondale? Evidently he voted against drilling in Alaska in the 52-48 vote.

Update: It was a campaign promise. And Oregon Senator Gordon Smith (R) voted against it too. More details here.

Howard Dean Statement

Howard Dean has a weblog. It's not him writing but it's his staff. Their archives aren't working quite right yet, but here's his recent statement about the war.

“Tonight, for better or worse, America is at war. Tonight, every American, regardless of party, devoutly supports the safety and success of our men and women in the field. Those of us who, over the past 6 months, have expressed deep concerns about this President’s management of the crisis, mistreatment of our allies and misconstruction of international law, have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction. Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq, who wanted the United Nations to remove those weapons without war, need not apologize for giving voice to their conscience, last year, this year or next year. In a country devoted to the freedom of debate and dissent, it is every citizen’s patriotic duty to speak out, even as we wish our troops well and pray for their safe return. Congressman Abraham Lincoln did this in criticizing the Mexican War of 1846, as did Senator Robert F. Kennedy in calling the war in Vietnam 'unsuitable, immoral and intolerable.' This is not Iraq, where doubters and dissenters are punished or silenced --this is the United States of America. We need to support our young people as they are sent to war by the President, and I have no doubt that American military power will prevail. But to ensure that our post-war policies are constructive and humane, based on enduring principles of peace and justice, concerned Americans should continue to speak out; and I intend to do so.”

So far, he's my first choice for 2004. Slim pickings, but Dean looks good so far.

War, War, War

Despite everything else, I don't feel very alarmed at the horrible things that could happen to us as a result of the war. I just don't think anything horrible will happen inside the states. I think fear is being whipped up to build more war support. What I am is stunned at all the doublespeak and inconsistencies that have happened as a result of this, and how they aren't being just slammed in the press. I'll name a couple... I might come back and edit this entry to name more as I find them.

1. We are reassured that our military is mighty and that the war will be over quickly, in weeks if not days, because Iraq's army is less than half as powerful as it was in 1991. Yet the might of Iraq's WMD program is the rationale for invading. (reference: Robin Cook's speech)
2. We are told that if we don't act, then terrorist attacks will be more likely in the future. Then we are told that since we are attacking, the terror alert is raised to Orange and that terrorist attacks are more likely. (By "Iraqi operatives"?!?!)
3. We are told that Iraq has WMD. Blix says today that he found no evidence of WMD, just materials unaccounted for.
4. We are told that Iraq has sponsored the training of al qaeda. This had never actually been officially alleged before Bush's speech as far as I know.
5. Bush reassures Iraq's army that just because they're in an Army doesn't mean they actually have to follow orders. Couldn't help but imagine leaders of other countries saying that to our Army.
6. Bush over and over again refers to 9/11 in reference to Iraq when there is no link. 46% of the nation (reference, poll cited from salon.com) believes that Iraq was behind the hijackings. The administration is deliberately encouraging that impression, when the truth is that none of the hijackers were Iraqi.
7. Bush has told the U.N. he would accept disarmament in lieu of regime change, when in his speeches he equates disarmament with regime change.
8. Bush has alleged Iraq has WMD without offering proof, and threatened invasion from day one from Iraq's inability to prove the unproven allegation wrong.

It is so hard to see past all that crap. So hard that I don't feel like I've even solidified my view of whether invading Iraq at some point is warranted. I also feel cynical about the U.N. though - I think the principles of the various nations are much much murkier than they are presenting them to be. I can't overlook that it is convenient for them to act indigant of the U.S., as much as it is correct.

In all this, the nation I feel like I can respect the most (of the ones I know much about) is Canada. Canada isn't making a big dramatic display out of either their patriotism or their indignance. They merely offered a compromise measure that made the most sense out of anyone's, and when it failed, they released a brief statement simply saying they would not participate in the war and never intended to without a full U.N. mandate. It just feels genuine to me, and without posturing. O Canada. Are you the only civilized nation with integrity?

I have been blogging so much about War, as has everyone else. I'm glued to the "Where Is Raed?" weblog of the Iraqi citizen. But I do have so many other thoughts about other subjects as well. I hope to be able to delve down to them soon.

The one thing I am excited about is that I am firmly convinced now that blogging is so, so, so important. I think it's the only thing that can lead to us being saved from the lack of free press. Our corporate press is not free press anymore, not even close. But through blogging and good linking technologies, I believe we really can actually have a fully free press. And... I think the administration is underestimating it. They got a hint of it with Trent Lott (for those who don't know, that would have been overlooked if not for bloggers). Maybe they'll get a huge slap in the face due to something that gets out, unreported through normal media but brought to light through blogging. Look out.

Estrada Re-Re-Vote

Salon.com News | GOP fails to break Estrada filibuster

This is the third time the GOP has tried to get Estrada to pass. They just keep holding the votes. They keep failing the votes and they just keep trying, usually stopping just short of calling the Democrats a bunch of racists.

War Summary

USS Clueless - Pulling the trigger

A lot of people are going to die in the next week.

Also check out Playing Old Maid, a fascinating explanation of the diplomacy war which appears about over. I thought French was the language of diplomacy, and they're losing? Do they have something up their sleeve?

3/15 Top Ten

Eventually I'll figure out how to automatically get this on an About Me page.

Of course, each time I upload it, I overwrite the previous image so previous entries will be out of date as well. Oh well.

Investigating Fake Documents

Salon.com News | Senator wants FBI to investigate fake Iraq documents

This is a good step. The article also contains details about what nuclear evidence is forged or in question (all of it).

Psychological Damage and Context Shifts

I was reading about little Ms. Smart and the theories that she might have been a bit psychologically influenced in her time away from her family. The theories aren't anything extraordinarily far-reaching, just a bit of that thought of the hostage bonding with their captors. There were a bunch of quotes from Patty Hearst about how when you're in a situation like that that rules your life, it's like all other truth gets stripped away and in order to survive, you can only operate within the truth that you are living.

It just got me thinking that it sounds very familiar to what real life is like in general, especially in the struggles we have to evolve and move forward in our lives. I obviously am removing "scale" from the equation here, as a kidnapping is clearly more traumatic than missing a New Year's resolution. But the abstract similarity remains: Just as how Ms. Smart's lost time with her family is a tragedy, it's also easy for us to look back on our lives at our missed opportunities or the ways we sabotage our choices and free will and view those as tragedies.

But then once in a while you have these clear breaks, like Ms. Smart being returned to her family. Traumatic, but a freeing up of energy, a release, a rebirth of potential. But how do you get there?

I guess first it requires the recognition of a problem, or something that needs to change. But second maybe what it really requires is a context shift. Something to shake up routine perhaps, but even deeper than that.

What are the ways we can invite context shifts upon ourselves without inviting trauma at the same time? I heard an excerpt from Tony Robbins once where he described a technique where you imagine your bad habits continuing indefinitely, and also imagine your discontent with it growing indefinitely, until it just gets intolerable and you break (and finally get motivated to change). I really hated hearing that approach because it's too negatively oriented to me and to me it sounded like it was about simulating trauma and inviting self-hatred. Not everybody gets motivated to change from self-hatred, not everyone's self-hatred patterns end in an "Enough is Enough" statement.

I think this is simply where environment matters. I'm not convinced about travel because you always have to come home. I think there is more to be said for investing heavily in controlling and improving your living environment, from your living space to your social patterns to your network of mentors - everything you physically interact with.

People tend to measure their evolution in terms of what they can physically manifest. So it makes sense, really, that it is things on the physical plane that affect our ability to manifest.

I'm personally trying to become a bit more physically oriented. I've started redoing some of my apartment. I might be gearing up for my house search. I need to commit to spending more time investing in my social network, and I'd like to find a couple of mentors. What other main ingredients would there be along these lines?

Current Top Five

Just playing around with my iTunes Top 20.

What If Bush Wins?

AlterNet: 'Bush Wins': The Left's Nightmare Scenario

Excellent points.

60 Year Summary

s/commun/terror/g;

More Al Qaeda Curiousness

Remember my little conspiracy theory a few entries back? I expanded it here... basically that Al Qaeda guy #3 might not be all that he's cracked up to be.

Well, it seems that story is building momentum. Here's an article from Reuters questioning Pakistan's motivations. A referring article mentions how Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was months ago considered a low ranking member and was reported to be dead.

Still doesn't seem worth a lot yet, but it has me more curious.

MacOSXHints article

I released my iTunes Playlist article to macosxhints.com and it got published today. Welcome to the new readers, hopefully some of you will stick around. If you do a search for iTunes off of my main page, you'll find some of my other playlist ideas.

Pentagon Allegations

GuluFuture.com 4Dimensional News eZine

Allegations that the Pentagon has threatened to fire upon media outlets of independent broadcasters in Iraq.

Not Even The British?

United Press International: Rumsfeld remarks hint at differences

Now there are hints that the U.S. might be fighting entirely alone, even without the British.

Emergent Democracy 1.3

Emergent Democracy

Joi Ito has released the latest revision of his paper. Important reading.

The War

Listening to

War Plumb Jonatha Brooke

right now... prescient.

Every morning I get up
and I watch the war
...
It's the American Way
A New World Order
We hold these truths to be self-evident
...

lyrics

Depressing Stat Of The Day

From this Salon article:

According to a January poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates, 46 percent of Americans thought most of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqis. (Only 17 percent knew the correct answer: none were from Iraq.)

Iraq Blogger

Where is Raed ?

Evidently this is an Iraqi citizen's weblog.

Bad Son! (II)

Salon.com News | Bush vs. Bush

A more detailed analysis with historical perspective.

Esquire World Map

Esquire has an article about forcing globalization on places that don't want it. I can't really write intelligently about this article right now, it just has me too upset. Just look at how his graph of world "problem areas" spreads out to cover the entire continent of Africa.

Pre-Emptive... Surrender?

Sunday_Mirror.co.uk - SADDAM'S SOLDIERS SURRENDER - This is just so, so sad. (I'm not joking.)

GM Foods, EU, WTO

AlterNet: Uncle Sam's Other War: Biotech vs. the European Union

America is trying to bully (bully? loaded word? I honestly can't think of another way to conceptualize it) its way into the EU importing our GM food. It gives a good illustration of how the WTO works, as well.

Uninformed Opinions

Deborah (link removed on request) remarks about uninformed war opinion holders and I'm not sure if she was in part referring to me.

Bush did it the UN's way and now certain members want to veto him and make us take this stand without the UN's backing. There is something wrong about that. <