Bush Planning Fake Treaty For Permanent Occupation of Iraq

Jonathan Schwarz has an important piece up on the Bush Administration’s attempt to override the wishes of our own Legislative branch and the Iraqi Parliament and set up a permanent occupation (emphasis mine):

A majority of the Iraqi parliament wants the US to leave Iraq, and for several years has been trying to prevent the mandate from being renewed unless it includes a specific timeframe for us to depart.

The executive branch of the Iraqi government (ie, Prime Minister Maliki and friends) wants the US to stay indefinitely. That’s because we want to stay, and Maliki is our puppet. Maliki therefore successfully got the UN to renew the mandate at the end of 2007, even though the Iraqi parliament opposed it and, under the Iraqi constitution, must approve all treaties. Maliki is exactly like Bush in this way; the legislative branch tries to assert its constitutional rights, and Maliki tells them: fuck you.

[…]

Thus, Bush is attempting to create a bilateral “agreement” with Iraq via Maliki. It won’t be called a treaty, because as noted that would require the Iraqi parliament to approve it; even worse, under the US constitution, it would require the two-thirds approval of the US Senate.

So what the administration tried to do was quietly institute this accord between itself and Maliki (essentially between itself and itself), and write it so it was a treaty in all but name, giving the US the right to “protect” the Iraqi government from foreign and domestic threats.

President Bush wants to make us Iraq’s army.  He wants to make McCain’s 100 years a reality.

China Behind Tibet Violence?

If this is true, it is a bombshell(emphasis mine):

London, March 20 – Britain’s GCHQ, the government communications agency that electronically monitors half the world from space, has confirmed the claim by the Dalai Lama that agents of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, the PLA, posing as monks, triggered the riots that have left hundreds of Tibetans dead or injured.

GCHQ analysts believe the decision was deliberately calculated by the Beijing leadership to provide an excuse to stamp out the simmering unrest in the region, which is already attracting unwelcome world attention in the run-up to the Olympic Games this summer.

Violence mars the message of the most worthwhile protests.  There have been accounts of undercover police officers inciting violence in protests here in the states, so this wouldn’t be without precedent.

There’s still time to sign the petition for dialogue.

Why Anti-Choicers Pretend Theocracy Does Not Exist

The vast majority of the anti-choice movement is a fundamentally religious movement.  Backed by a religious conviction that abortion is murder, they are attempting to force their religion into our legal system.  So like Creationists hiding behind “Intelligent Design” and men who like to dress in lab coats, they hide behind secular arguments and sonograms to make believe their stance comes from reason rather than its polar opposite: faith.

A more novel strategy is to boldly pretend away the very existence of one’s opposition.  By way of example, smithadam’s post about the non-existence of atheism (literally, no joke, because the Bible says so):

Notice how I titled this thing “Why Atheism Does Not Exist,” and not “Why I Believe Atheism Does Not Exist.” I did this because it is not only what I believe, it is also because it is a fact.

The Bible does not acknowledge atheism in any form. The Bible says that all men know that there is a God.

4Simpsons linked to a really interesting post, wherein the author attempts to pull a stunt of a similar vein, but with a twist more applicable to the Minuteman Project claiming they are not at all racist.  The Evangelical Outpost as quoted by 4Simpsons (emphasis mine):

If you find these ideas absurd and repugnant, you are most likely a secularist. If you find them to be embarrassing truths, then you may be on the religious left. If you find them so obvious that they hardly need stating, then you are probably a member of the so-called “religious right.”

I embrace them whole-heartedly, which makes me a certified member of the religious right. Although I’ve often been uncomfortable with that term, I find it fits me more and more, as if I’m growing into it. So be it.

—

Whenever you hear someone say that the religious right is attempting to install a theocracy, simply say “You’re an idiot” and move on. We’ve wasted too much time on this nonsense already. It’s a desperate attempt to create a term that has the affect of “racist” or “sexist” so that when its applied, it automatically paints an opponent as beyond the pale of political discourse. Really, anyone who says that-no matter how much they may try to nuance the word-is an idiot.

The word “theocracy” already carries a very negative connotation, and with well-supported reason.  Full blown theocracies are never praised as exemplars of liberty or human rights.  Quite the opposite.  Its ironic that TEO claims those of us who oppose the religious right’s attempts to install a theocracy want to paint our opponents as “beyond the pale of political discourse”, while simultaneously advising when encountering us true believers ought to “simply say “You’re an idiot” and move on”.  One of the biggest problems with arguments based in faith instead of reason, is that by their nature they shut down political discourse by bringing the discussion into the realm of the unspeakable: criticism of religion.  A pro-choice politician may criticize the anti-reproductive rights stance of a born again Legislator, but to criticize the religion behind that stance risks severe criticism, whereas criticizing the logic behind a stance born of the same is perfectly acceptable.

I don’t know who this fellow thinks is trying to nuance the word theocracy in the slightest:

1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.

2. A state so governed.

Attempts to oppose gay rights, a woman’s right to choose, the teaching of evolution in schools, teaching sex education, are all examples of the religious right attempting to foist their religious authority onto all of us.  When the spin is removed and we see these actions as a whole, in their original frame, their decidedly negative cast shows through with a startling clarity.  That is why the religious right does not want to even acknowledge the word theocracy in political discourse.  It forces them to play a poker game where everyone knows their tell.

McCain’s Credibility With the Press

Via Majikthise, Kevin Drum body slams John McCain’s credibility:

Let’s recap. Foreign policy cred lets him get away with wild howlers on foreign policy. Fiscal integrity cred lets him get away with outlandishly irresponsible economic plans. Anti-lobbyist cred lets him get away with pandering to lobbyists. Campaign finance reform cred lets him get away with gaming the campaign finance system. Straight talking cred lets him get away with brutally slandering Mitt Romney in the closing days of the Republican primary. Maverick uprightness cred allows him to get away with begging for endorsements from extremist religious leaders like John Hagee. “Man of conviction” cred allows him to get away with transparent flip-flopping so egregious it would make any other politician a laughingstock. Anti-torture cred allows him to get away with supporting torture as long as only the CIA does it.

Any one of these issues would be a major headache for a Democratic candidate, or for any “non-blessed-by-the-media” Republican candidate.  We need to pop the karma-bubble around John McCain, or face watching a man wearing a full body media narrative stroll into the White House.

Florida, Michigan and the Primary Problem

Florida and Michigan tried to buck the system, which was unfair to the states that did not.  This was shitty, but I agree with riverdaughter, the idea that they need to apologize is ridiculous.  She quotes Matt Yglesias (emphasis mine):

Chris Bowers sketches out a plausible and appealing scenario in which Barack Obama wraps up the nomination on May 6. Among other things that would be good about such a scenario, it’s worth noting that at this point the main obstacle to a satisfactory resolution of the Florida/Michigan situation is that Clinton continues to be in the race. If she drops out and endorses Obama on May 7 or shortly thereafter, it’ll be easy for Michigan and Florida to be “forgiven” in late May and allowed to fully participate in a rubber stamp convention in exchange for promising to never do it again.

Our primary system leaves some states without a say in who becomes the party nominee.  It is disenfranchisement on a massive scale.  Also, certain states have an even heavier say in who the final field of candidates for the nomination will be.  This is a profoundly undemocratic process.  So while it was unfair to the states willing to sit in their cages and wait to be let out to vote, the real issue is how we go about picking a nominee.

What we have in place now is a sham.

When Will We Reach 5000?

We’ve lost 4,000 Americans.  Four thousand lives wasted.  When will we reach 5,000?  What are those thousand people doing right now?  Are some of them home on leave with their families, or on their third extended tour in Iraq?  Are they lying on their bunk trying to forget what happened to a friend and comrade, an unfortunate member of the 4,000 war dead?

And what happens when every single one of those next 1,000 people is killed in Iraq?  Will we be ready to stop the war then?

Shorter Elections + Instant Impeachment = Better Government

An interesting thought popped into my head, and I wanted to sketch it out here and see what folks think. It is a simple plan that can be expressed as an equation:

Shorter Elections + Instant Impeachment = Better Government

polotek99 wrote a bit about why he hates politics. He goes on to discuss the problems with holding job interviews for the office of the Presidency. The thing is, in any business this is a huge problem. You don’t want to hire someone who turns out to be completely ignorant and unskilled in their area of supposed expertise. Sometimes you just have to fire someone (ideally quickly once determining they essentially lied during their interview). Why can’t we do the same thing with our Presidential elections?

The first obstacle is how long election cycles are. If we did away with state-by-state primaries based on delegates and replaced it with a month-long national popular vote primary, followed by a month long national popular vote driven general election, I think we’d be in business. Then if we could have some threshold for impeaching members of the Legislative and executive branch (say a certain percentage of the populace in every state for the executive, or within each state for their state and federal officials and representatives), we could allow for trial periods for new politicians.

The biggest bottleneck is the speed with which voting occurs, and this is a direct function of our ability to trust our votes. Right now, we don’t. Shift to a new, faster system and that cynicism will explode. We need a way to establish fast and verifiable voting systems.

From there we could build on even more innovations. We can hire consultants with contracts stipulating deliverables. Why not politicians? Why can’t we elect say, a Senator, and put in writing that they must pass a certain law or show demonstrable progress towards same? Or even just clauses that compel the elected official to refrain from undesirable activities like supporting the war, breaking party ranks too often, or any other criteria citizens for a particular state wish to impose?

We often lose site of this, be we, citizens, we are the boss. Our elected officials have been taking our pay and only working on what they want to work on. Its time to change that. This might be a start.

Theocracy and Sacrifice: Are Atheists Crunchy?

 

We love to forget the role of sacrifice and unbelievers in organized religion. The tale of Judaism begins with God testing Abraham by requiring him to be ready to sacrifice his son, and allowed him to switch out animals in his stead (a practice that continued on for quite some time before dying out ages ago). But sacrifice is not always the violent spectacle on an altar depicted in popular culture and reflected in history. A sacrifice, and its value to the community, is something that beats deep within the heart of the religious psyche and its connection to the social-political mosh-pit.

When it comes to straight up politics the value of an enemy, an other is unparalled. A person or group to hate and strive against unites those divided by petty and generations-long disputes. Orwell’s 1984 contained the infamous 2 minutes hate, wherein citizens would stare at a picture representing “the enemy” and express their hatred.

The sacrifice plays a few roles. One is to “appease” God. The other is, like all ritual, to create social and mental cohesion around a shared and expected set of behaviors. But one that is often overlooked is purification. The Judeo-Christian tradition is rife with purification rituals. Whether its a empathetic act like self-flagellation in Christianity or as simple as dipping hands in water during a Jewish Seder, purification plays a central role. Especially in a tradition that paints people as essentially sinful (although this is more a Christian concept than a universal to that whole Judaism-Islam line). (Now there is an interesting topic, how that view of people as innately sinful translates into the theory and practice of Democracy).

Rejecting the other affirms one’s own value. In a country where Religion and State are united, we’d see the religious and political versions of this ritual take new life and form. When political and religious extremism meet an obsession with purity arises. Whether its racial purity, gender purity, or religious purity. In all likelihood it would be a combination. Most religions are intensely patriarchal, and many have little tolerance for unbelievers. But above all the greatest sinners are atheists. After all, they reject even the most basic assumptions of faith! Thus they would likely be the first targets.

We have targets now. Our society finds salacious delight in watching women fall from power. Anyone connected to a non mainstream religion or belief system is watched like a hawk. America is in many ways firmly on the path towards theocracy. And if we want to avoid sacrifices we’ve got to stop walking into the past, turn around, and stride forward.

What was in Obama’s Passport File?

And what is in mine? (Bloomberg, emphasis mine, odd quoting theirs):

“Passport files do not contain travel information, such as visa and entry stamps, from previous passports,” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. “Almost all passport files contain only a passport application form as submitted by the applicant.”

Whose passport files would contain more information, and for what purpose?

Theocracy and the Religious Overton Window

We find ourselves at a perpetual crossroads with religious radicals bent on enforcing their one true belief through the apparatus of law and government.  There are many compelling arguments against the unification of Religion and State.  I’d like to explore the rhetorical angle.  How our movement towards a theocracy impacts how we percieve ourselves, religious organizations, our government and the world.

Perception is the key to action, and a well grooved path for people to follow can make the most innocuous act appear as bedrock.  Take swearing on the Christian Bible in court or during official swearing in ceremonies for example.  This is an overtly religious act and yet one perceived as a social norm.  Thus when Keith Ellison was sworn into office on a copy of the Quran, not only did it cause a stir, it was viewed as out of the ordinary.  His savvy approach entailed using a Quran that once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, but we can still see the frame that surrounded the act.  Using a holy text that was not in the approved set of religions (Christianity and Judaism (the latter is a more complex case)) immediately became an intensely unpatriotic thing to do.  All of this from one little act.  And act ingrained in law and tradition.

The more our laws and customs gravitate towards the religious (and towards favoring one religion over another), the more doors open.  The theory of the Overton Window essentially suggests that by entering a discussion to the extreme of one’s goals, it becomes possible to shift that discourse so that one’s goals become more and more likely.  Applying this theory to political discourse can be an illuminating exercise (and a very effective strategy).  Taking a step back and looking critically at our enshrined rules and behavio, then applying the overton window provides a very sobering picture of the Church vs State debate.  The battle over religious freedom in this country (including freedom from religion) is fought in the anti-fornication laws, dildo legalizations, gay rights, and reproductive rights legislation across this country.  This is the foundation of that conflict, where the rhetorical window shifts and determines what is possible.

This paints a far more volatile picture of religious politics in this country.  Take Gay Marriage.  A new state law to allow civil unions and grant some (but not all) benefits to domestic partners is not a conclusion.  It is not a stable law where anti-homosexual bigots and human rights activists meet in the middle with a compromise.  It is the pin of a needle, where that same law can either push gay marraige and equal rights into the discourse of the possible or leave the door open for deeper intrusions of Church into State.  Every piece of legislation and every public act is a rhetorical act.  Every rhetorical act shifts the overton window.

With each shift in that window we view the world differently.  Fighting for equal rights for non-straight couples becomes something we consider in decades rather than years in some states.  I know that’s the case in Virginia, which to my great shame passed a law aimed at restricting Gay rights even at the expense of reduced protection for victims of domestic violence.  I can’t imagine how it must feel to live in Virginia and know that a majority of the residents there would rather see women, children and men physically abused rather than allow gay people to have some of the benefits afforded married couples.

The impact of a shift in the Overton window goes beyond legislation to our ability to get motivated, organize, and affect change.  In the struggle to keep Church and State from dictating our laws and our rights, we therefore must attend to the intricacies and rhetorical repercussions of speech and actions.  This means pushing for ever bolder separation of Church and State, allowing ourselves to argue a fully secular government into the realm of the possible.  It also means working to make that ideal be seen as more concrete and reachable.  Doing everything from exploring the benefits of separating Church and State to tackling the smaller laws and habits that combine the two.   This will open up our possibilities for a truly secular society while closing the doors to a theocratic one.

America: 48% of Voters Don’t Matter

Commenting over at Ruins of Empire, I worried about the effects of a McCain Presidency on the War in Iraq.  That’s when I realized how infuriated I’d be if he one by a margin, and then went ahead with eternal war like he had some kind of fucking mandate.

Then I remembered 2004.  Bush:51%.  Kerry: 48%.  Rumors of another stolen election aside, look at those numbers.  Half the country clearly didn’t want us going in the direction we are going in.  And yet turning on a crucial 3% of voters, half the voting public was utterly ignored.  Its times like these I wonder about coalition governments and runoff elections to obtain a suitable margin.

We might have another close election in 2008.  Which half of the country won’t count?

Petition for Dialogue: Support Tibet

We need to start somewhere.  Honest, open dialogue is a great start.  Here’s the petition.

We Killed People, We Don’t Care

George Bush and Dick Cheney lied us into a war that killed thousands of our citizens, and murdered vast numbers of Iraqis.

Their response is essentially “Fuck Reality, Fuck the Voters and Fuck the Consequences” (Melissa (Shakespeare’s Sister)):

Five years in, Bush says, “No one would argue that this war has not come at a high cost in lives and treasure, but those costs are necessary when we consider the cost of a strategic victory for our enemies in Iraq,” and Cheney doesn’t care that two-thirds of the American public no longer supports the war: “So? …I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.”

What else is there to say? The warmongers have spoken.

And they don’t care what we think.

To which I reply: “Fuck Impeachment.  When 2009 comes you’re doing hard time.”.

They lied us into a war.  They are actively working against the will of the people.  And they are risking this country’s security by misfiring our military resources and they won’t even lift the self-imposed blind-fold long enough to take a real peek at how they’re doing.

The American people, our system of government, cannot afford to let them get away with these high crimes unpunished.

Anti-War Protests and Working in DC

This morning in my “General” folder in Outlook (that’s where all the company-wide email goes by default), I found this email from our “Office Manager” noting there will be protests, and concluding with:

Building management plans to operate the building on a normal business throughout the day on Wednesday, March 19, 2008. They will, however, be prepared to lock the building on a moment’s notice should events warrant. Please be advised that you will not receive notice immediately if they make a decision to lock the building based on activity outside the building. They will secure the building first and notify us after securing the property.

Of course nothing happened. But the attitude around the office prior to the protests was one of anxiety (“will they get in our way?”) to disdain (“what do they think they are accomplishing?”). The folks I work with tend to be a mix of liberal to conservative, with those who oppose the war strongly and those who support it.

During the protests there was a mix of interest “The police were there arresting protestors!” and disinterest, which by far ruled the day. In corporate America, the protests were a curiosity. Something to keep an eye on, but otherwise of no consequence. Later today at class (which was full of generally very well informed folks), only one fellow knew the protests even happened, and what they were for.

In my mind, a protest serves several purposes. It is a PR action, it can bolster morale within a movement (and be quite empowering), and it can effect direct action. With the media being the way it is, massive numbers and effective cleverness are necessary for a protest to make waves. It needs to be something new!

That said, I wonder what an anti-war rally with the express purpose of empowering people (to go back to their communities and take action, etc) might look like.

I wonder if anyone has the strength or sees the point of engaging in direct action. The folks at the IRS today were unable to block people from entering. Was it a symbolic victory to have people briefly block the front entrance, and have other protesters hauled off to prison?

What do you think?

UK: Orwell’s Home Becoming Surveillance Society

Between the police going after children’s DNA, to MI5 looking for travel data on citizens, the UK is descending into a state where privacy is a rare luxury indeed.  From across the pond I’m watching the country that created my own with a temperate mix of bemused and alarmed interest.

What will they do next?