The Sin of Cynicism

Cynicism is killing honest debate and discussion in this country. Read the paper, watch the TV news, go to the movies or just watch a late-night comedy show and you will be bombarded by negative attitudes on almost every possible subject. Almost every current event topic seems to be much more interesting when spun in a negative light. Even human interest stories will frequently contain a negative reference to something. We seem to be very willing as a society to believe the worst in the motivation of people.

Both presidential candidates and their support groups have been slamming each other with negative ads and speeches. The cynicism that is running wild through campaign is staggering. Let’s look at some of the biggest examples:

1. It is very easy for people to believe that George W. Bush got special treatment during his National Guard service. It seems impossible for people to believe that Bush joined the Guard and completed his service as his records indicate. Every small detail of his service is scrutinized for evidence of favoritism. There has been no credible evidence refuting the president’s National Guard record.

2. John Kerry must have had a political agenda going into his Vietnam War service, what else can explain all the quirky little details of that service. It does not seem possible for people to believe that John Kerry served his time in the Navy and was genuinely changed by his experiences there. How could a highly decorated war hero come out against the war when he returned home? He wasn’t the only one to come home against the war, but he was one of the most outspoken.

3. The Iraq War was a war for oil and US Empire. This seems to be such an obvious point that when it comes up in a conversation what more is left to say? Why do the people who throw around the blood for oil garbage ask why we don’t just buy the oil without invading? It seems to me that if the US invades a country to steal the oil, logically, we should actually steal the oil, not help that nation rebuild its oil industry and then buy the oil anyway. Wouldn’t it have been cheaper to support France and Germany in lifting UN sanctions than it was to invade?

4. The president is a liar. This is so easy to throw around; it actually takes no thought at all. He said something that was not true, therefore he lied. Simple. Unfortunately, lies are defined as a deliberate misrepresentation and there is NO evidence that the president deliberately misrepresented anything.

The list could go on but I am trying to keep these posts a little shorter. Seriously, I must confess to a cynical streak myself. I think that Saddam moved his WMD stock piles to Syria before the US invasion; it is impossible for me to believe that he would destroy these weapons without getting something in return. Very cynical of me, I know. I also believe that the US government knows that these weapons were moved but for political reasons they cannot publicly accuse Syria of hiding the weapons. Ridiculously cynical on my part, next I will be telling you that bin Laden has already been captured!

I really believe that it is extremely important that we, as a country, not allow cynicism to consume us. It is a good thing to think critically and ask questions but we should allow ourselves to be just as willing to believe the good stories and not just the bad. Don’t let the comedians drag you down!

More Good Stuff on the Web

More stuff to read.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/articles/history04-lincoln.html This is a neat little article comparing Lincoln to modern presidential candidates.

http://www.conservativepunk.com/index.asp Read “Blair Makes the Case,” third article from the top. I think Tony Blair is one of the greatest, most courageous, leaders in the world today.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=151312 Great news for Australia, the United States and the world!

Stuff from the Web

Just a few interesting things on the web today.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134814,00.html A nice article about the environmental positions of the presidential candidates.

http://www.team4news.com/Global/story.asp?S=2408300 What are your kids being taught in school? This kind of stuff really makes me mad. Teacher need to quit indoctrinating students to their political point of view and teach people how to think for themselves.

I will add more as I find them.

Weekend Wrap-up

Another Monday is upon us. I had a pretty good weekend but as usual it was too short. My football picks were just terrible this week – so far I have lost 7! The Cardinals (Arizona not St. Louis) choked, plain and simple. The Chiefs and the Sun Devils were both off this weekend so no losses there.

I finally finished ‘The Pentagon’s New Map’ this weekend. That may be the most important book about what the US is doing and why. Everyone in the civilized world needs to read and understand this book. Once you do you will begin to see elements of this philosophy in the Bush Administrations actions and John Kerry’s speeches. I am not eloquent enough to adequately describe this world view but it just feels right. A must read if you have any interest in current events or the future (who doesn’t?).

Current reading, listening and watching list:

Today I started ‘The Life of Lenin,’ by Louis Fischer. This is an old book that I picked up at a thrift store. It was published in 1964, hopefully the info is not too out of date. We shall see…

As for listening, I am just listening to the radio. I do have a bunch of new CDs on order from Columbia House so this will be changing.

I have not watched a movie since the spotless mind last week. So far I haven’t found any new releases that really interest me.

Iraq War - Good Idea or Bad

The question of the validity, justification and motivation for the US invasion of Iraq has taken center stage in the current presidential race. It has also been front page news since the invasion as each new report is released covering everything from WMD to linking 9/11 with Iraq. The story from yesterday of the WMD report from the Iraq Survey Group is the latest ammo in this ongoing debate. Here is CNN’s coverage: http://www.cnn.com/.../iraq.wmd.report/index.html

Before we can answer the question of whether Iraq War was good or bad we need to review the facts leading up to the war. We need to go back in time before 9/11, before even Gulf War, back to the Iran-Iraq War. During this war the Iraqis first developed and used chemical weapons. Saddam became convinced after the successful use of these weapons against Iran that they were the key to his power in the region. In 1988 Saddam authorized a chemical attack against Iraqi Kurds. By the end of the Iran-Iraq War Saddam’s development and use of chemical weapons was a matter of historical record and not open to dispute.

One of the common points that repeatedly come up from the fringes is the notion that the US ‘supported’ Saddam. This is a very important point that needs to be clarified because the implication is that the US ‘created’ Saddam and we are somehow responsible for all the evil he has done. During the Iran-Iraq War the US provided very limited material support to the Iraqis and we provided ‘moral’ support. The Soviet Union and France provided much more material support to Iraq than did the United States. US support for Saddam was based almost solely on the fact that they were the enemy of Iran and we considered Iran to be our enemy. Remember the Iran Hostage Crisis that cost President Carter his job? In the early 1980s anyone who was killing Iranians was bound to get some support from the US. As the war progressed the US was more concerned with the growing Soviet influence in the region and it was believed that an Iraq loss in the war would be destabilizing for the region. During the latter period of the war both sides began unlimited attacks on oil tankers. This led to Kuwaiti tankers being re-flagged as US tankers. This marks the beginning of close US-Kuwaiti relations.

Fast forward to 1990 and the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. As mentioned above, Kuwait and the US had become very close during the latter part of the Iran-Iraq War and their invasion by Iraq was a big deal. An even bigger deal was Iraq’s intentions towards Saudi Arabia, another close US ally. The United States perused the proper course by going to the UN and obtaining a series of resolutions calling for the removal of Iraqi forces and the restoration of Kuwaiti sovereignty. Dozens of nations joined with the US in the liberation of Kuwait. The results of the war are well known, Iraq was driven from Kuwait and forced to sign a peace treaty. Part of the agreement to end the Gulf War was a requirement that Iraq destroys all WMD, end all development programs and submit to UN verification.

During the 1990s the Clinton administration maintained a relatively hands-off policy towards Iraq. The US and Britain enforced the UN sanctions and the no-fly zones. All during this period the Iraqis regularly violated the terms of the peace by firing on US/UK aircraft and no-fly zone violations. Iraq, during this period continued a cat and mouse game with UN weapons inspectors which would occasionally result in a US air strike or threats of increased sanctions. Basically, the Gulf War never ended because the Iraqis never completed their responsibilities. In 1998 Saddam decided that the weapons inspections no longer served his purposes and made a calculated decision that the world would not act if he expelled the inspectors. With the exception of a few days of missile strikes he was right.

During the same period that Saddam was playing games with the weapons inspection process the US was interested in spending the ‘peace dividend.’ The intelligence and military budgets were cut. The US ability to collect information on the state of the Iraqi weapons programs was severely hampered by these cuts. To the administration this did not matter because EVERYONE knew that Iraq had WMD and was trying to make more. Why else would they have failed to comply with the UN resolutions?

The 1990s were a period of increasing Iraqi support to terrorist groups. Many of these contacts have not been fully investigated bit it is clear that Saddam supported the families of suicide bombers in Israel and he supported terrorist groups fighting the Kurds in his own country. These efforts were a new development for Saddam who is very much a ‘conventional’ war thinker not an ‘asymmetrical’ warfare thinker. Frankly terrorism was not his normal mode of thought.

Along comes the attacks of 9/11 and the US is turned upside down. September 11 happened because the US had not fully appreciated how dangerous a terrorist organization could be to national security. If Osama bin Laden could cause so much damage without the material support of a country what could Saddam do with the resources of Iraq? An Iraq that every Western intelligence agency and the Russian intelligence believed still had stockpiles of chemical weapons. The threat was clear and undeniable – Saddam had to go before the unthinkable happened.

To sum this up, in the summer of 2002 the US government decided that Saddam was too dangerous to remain in power and here are a few of the reasons why:

* Iraq had a history of using chemical weapons
* Iraq had a history of attacking its neighbors, some of whom are our friends.
* Saddam had publicly supported terrorists attacking Israel and Kurds in his own country.
* The UN had never certified the destruction of weapons stockpiles or production facilities.
* Iraq was in violation of 17 UN resolutions and in violation of the peace treaty that ended the Gulf War.


These points really were not in dispute, what was in dispute was whether or not this was sufficient justification for an invasion. As far as the US government was concerned it was more than enough. Support was bipartisan and nearly unanimous. Wesley Clark testified before congress in support o he war: http://www.drudgereport.com/mattwc.htm
John Kerry voted in favor of the use of force against Iraq. George Tenet, director of the CIA, said the issue of Iraq’s WMD programs was a “slam dunk.” So began the nearly 8 month process of preparing for the Iraq invasion. During this 8 month period the US made it very clear to the Iraqi government that we were coming and nothing was going to stop use short of our state goal – regime change.

Once the invasion was over and the occupation and recovery effort was begun inspectors and intelligence agents were able to do a thorough inspection of Iraq, without interference, for the first time. What we found was a shock – some things we expected to find did not materialize and other things were more horrifying than we imagined. Here are some highlights:

* No stockpiles of chemical weapons were found, only a few old shells.
* No active production facilities, but several places that could be easily converted for production.
* Very few ballistic missiles were found but there was evidence that Iraq was actively developing new missile types during the period of the sanctions.
* Numerous mass graves and torture chambers were discovered.
* No strong evidence of connection to global terror groups but we found no evidence discounting these connections.
* Evidence of corruption in the UN oil for food program in which Saddam was able to divert billions of dollars to his personal use and for the purchase of banned military equipment from several different sources around the world.

You can also read the text of the president’s speech to the UN on this issue: http://www.cnn.com/.../bush.transcript/index.html

What happened to the stockpiles of chemical weapons that the UN required to be destroyed? If Saddam destroyed these weapons why did he not do it in front of the inspectors thereby ending the sanctions years ago? Did the leaders of his weapons programs lie to him about how much had been created and the inventory? Did Saddam transfer these weapons out of Iraq in the months leading up to the war? The issue of WMD in Iraq is more confused now than it was before the invasion, but the issue is still extremely important and it alone does not invalidate the invasion. These questions must be answered.

What we have discovered about Saddam’s treatment of his own people has greatly out paced our expectations. We knew he was a typical tyrant but we did not expect to find the level or torture and murder that we found. This puts Saddam ahead of Milosevic, kind of a mini-Stalin. Clearly an evil, dangerous man.

What about Saddam’s support for international terrorism? The evidence so far shows no strong ties to any international terrorist groups, but there is little documentation to work with. This issue actually ties in with the corruption in the UN Oil for Food program, namely what happened to all the money Saddam skimmed from this program. Much of it went to support his lifestyle but billions of dollars cannot be account for. Did this money get diverted to terrorist groups? We may never know but the possibility exists.

In the end, the question of whether the Iraq War was good or bad will have to be answered by history. Each person and nation will need to evaluate the reasons for the war and the results of the war. I think that Saddam was a bad guy and deserved to be removed from power. If some of the reasons turned out to be weak then that just means that the US needs to improve its intelligence capabilities. What we found in Iraq reaffirms that Saddam had to go. Now it is up to the US and the rest of the world to ensure that the Iraq War is good for Iraqis as well.

Terrorist, Militant, Insurgent

The unrest in Iraq has been front page news for months, as it should be. We have seen a series of horrific stories about bombing, beheadings and general mayhem. I have read many of these and I have noticed something interesting. Mainstream news organizations will use the terms militant and insurgent freely when talking about the violence in Iraq. They rarely use the term terrorist. This seems very strange to me and perhaps I do not understand the differences between these terms.

We should look at the definitions of these terms and figure out if the media is using them properly. Thanks to Dictionary.com for the definitions.

Terrorist
\Ter"ror*ist\, n. [F. terroriste.] One who governs by terrorism or intimidation; specifically, an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France. --Burke.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University


Militant
\Mil"i*tant\, a. [L. militans, -antis, p. pr. of militare to be soldier: cf. F. militant. See Militate.] Engaged in warfare; fighting; combating; serving as a soldier. -- Mil\"i*tant*ly, adv.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

adj 1: engaged in war; "belligerent (or warring) nations"; "a fighting war" [syn: belligerent, fighting, war-ridden, warring] 2: showing a fighting disposition without self-seeking; "highly competitive sales representative"; "militant in fighting for better wages for workers"; "his self-assertive and ubiquitous energy" [syn: competitive] n : a militant reformer [syn: activist]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University


Insurgent
\In*sur"gent\, a. [L. insurgens, p. pr. of insurgere to rise up; pref. in- in + surgere to rise. See Surge.] Rising in opposition to civil or political authority, or against an established government; insubordinate; rebellious.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


\In*sur"gent\, n. [Cf. F. insurgent.] A person who rises in revolt against civil authority or an established government; one who openly and actively resists the execution of laws; a rebel.

Syn: See Rebel.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

adj : in opposition to a civil authority or government [syn: seditious, subversive] n 1: a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions) [syn: insurrectionist, freedom fighter, rebel] 2: a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment [syn: guerrilla, guerilla, irregular]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University


Wow! That was a lot of information. So we have the dictionary definitions, what are the more common usages of these words – what type of mental image do they inspire? This is how I define these words:

Terrorist – A person or group of people who engages in criminal activity for the purpose of terrorizing a society or community. The activities are primarily, but not limited to, murder, arson, bombings, kidnapping and high-jacking. The purpose of these crimes is to inspire a political change rather than financial gain.

Militant – Militants are guerrilla fighters or military personnel engaged in combat primarily against other military forces. They typically lack the organization of a national military. They are not typically engaged in killing of civilians as their primary targets.

Insurgent – Insurgents are very closely related to militants but they are more specifically engaged in a rebellion. These are people of the same nationality engaged in combat against their government and its representatives.

Some of my definitions match OK with the “official” ones, so how do these match with their usage in news reports?

This story is a headline on CNN today:

http://www.cnn.com/.../06/iraq.main/index.html This story actually covers several events but the main event at the top of the story relates to a car-bombing of an Iraqi National Guard compound that killed 12 Guardsmen. This seems to be an attack by insurgents, but since we do not know who carried out the attack, only the target, we cannot say with certainty that it is in fact insurgents. I would not define this as a terrorist attack because the target was military in nature. In order for this to be an attack by insurgents it must be known if the attackers are Iraqis or foreign fighters.

The next story is an AP article from Fox News that covers the same attack: http://www.foxnews.com/.../0,2933,134598,00.html Again, the source of the attack is blamed on ‘insurgents” but it is not clear from the story exactly who is doing the attacking.

Both of these articles attempt to link this attack to “insurgents” by changing the focus of the store to the Iraqi Government’s battle against the forces of Al-Sadr, a true insurgent group. Unfortunately neither story can link the attack to Al-Sadr or any other group.

This article from the weekend talks about another beheading in Iraq: http://www.cnn.com/.../02/iraq.hostages/index.html In the article the author uses the term ‘terrorist’ to refer to the perpetrators of this crime. This seems to me to be the proper label for these people. Contrast the CNN story with this AP story from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/.../0,2933,134293,00.html The AP story never uses the term ‘terrorist’ and refers to the perpetrators as ‘militants.” I feel this is absolutely incorrect! People who kidnap and murder are not militants and should never be honored as soldiers. They are terrorists and criminals - and should be referred to as such.

This is a small sample and I could go on and on. So what is my point? The point of this is that terrorist, militant and insurgent are not synonyms. Each of these terms refers to a very specific thing and the use of these terms in news stories is very important to understanding what is going on in Iraq. It is not just an exercise in semantics, it has real meaning to the story. When you read a story pay attention to the terms that are used, then ask yourself if the facts in the story support the terms that are used. If the terms seem wrong then you may begin to see the bias of the reporting, or the ignorance of the writer.

Slow day

It has been a really slow day, not physically but mentally. I was going to comment on all kinds of news items but I just couldn't get things together.

I really enjoyed last nights MNF game. It helps that the Chiefs pulled out the win. There is still hope for a decent season, but if they had lost last night it would have been as good as done.

I made some minor adjustments to the template for the blog. I have added a links section on the bottom of the side bar. I will be adding in cool links from times to time. I added a link to a friend’s blog. Enjoy!

Celebrities and Politics

This is a growing issue in this year’s election. More and more stars and near-stars are throwing in their 2 cents towards the presidential race. This has led to a large backlash against some of these celebs. Who can forget the Dixie Chicks chic - Natalie Maines – Bush bashing comments? How about Sean Pean’s trip to Iraq and meeting with Saddam Hussein? What about the Bruce Springstein’s anti-Bush concert series? This could go on and it seems that this is so much more of an issue this year than ever before.I must admit that many of these stories annoyed me much more than the same political opinions expressed on a news talk program. Why is that? I have been thinking a great deal about this question. I hesitate to bash back at these people because I am a firm believer in free speech and it just didn’t seem right to say “those people should shut-up.” At the same time I was really offended by some of the things these people said and did. Why does this bug me so much? I don’t have this reaction to Rush Limbaugh (ok, I like Rush so that is not a good example) or even Bill Maher.

I think that problem I have with most “entertainers” making political statements is the context. They seem to be willing to use their position in front of the audience as a bully pulpit and ambush their fans. In this regard Natalie Maines made me much angrier than Sean Pean because Mr. Pean made is comments and his actions not in the context of an entertainer but rather as a citizen (I still don’t like what he did but so what). Natalie Maines ambushed her audience who came to the Dixie Chicks concert to hear music not political commentary. She did choose her location carefully to make her comments, people in London are much more open to this point of view than, say, Houston. Contrast Maines with Linda Ronstadt and her incident in Las Vegas. She chose the wrong audience to ambush.

People like Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh do not cause this kind of a reaction in me because, even though they are entertainers, they use there political views as the product. If you tune in one of these shows you are prepared, to a degree, for what you get. I know that Bill Maher will say a lot of things that I will not like and Rush will say stuff that I will like. This, to me, is in stark contrast to going to a concert and having a political speech break out. Now, if the Dixie Chicks recorded a series of political songs and expressed their views within the context of their product then more power to them. Bob Dylan made a career of this.

Another difference between political entertainers and other celebs is the understanding of the issues and the preparation. I believe that both Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher are much more versed on the issues than most, if not all, singers and movie stars. This is true regardless of if you agree with them or not.I guess if I put this in perspective with my own like it might make a little more sense. I get paid to answer the phone and help people with their computer problems. This is my job. If I were to corner one of my customers with a political conversation I have a 50-50 chance that the person might agree with me but it is still very unprofessional for me to talk about this with my customers. It is, however, entirely appropriate for me to write a blog expressing my views, but I probably shouldn’t be writing it at work…

The weekend is over

Another weekend has come to an end. I really love the weekend and not just for the obvious reasons. One of the main things that I like is that I almost never read anything related to politics and I don't watch the news. For me this is a real change from the work week routine. I spend a lot of time at work reading about politics and current events. Not as a part of my job but as a distraction from it. By Friday I am ready for a break!

It was a good weekend for Arizona football, both ASU and the Cardinals won! This is not surprising for the Sun Devils but for the Cardinals it is amazing. Actually the Cartdinals have been playing pretty good this year. Now, if the Chiefs can pull out a win tomorrow it will be a perfect weekend.

Maybe I will write something with teeth tomorrow...

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

This was my movie of the evening. My wife watched this the other day and I only saw small pieces but it looked interesting so I went back tonight and got it again. This is an incredible movie! This is just the type of movie I love - weird. This is the best Jim Carey movie since The Truman Show.

Avondale Bloggers and other things...

I spent a little time this evening checking out blogs from other Avondale residents - it didn't take long. There seems to be about 10 of us and I am the newest member of the club. None of them seems to be very prolific. I should go post some comments later.

I spent slightly more time updating my profile. It turned out the be harder than I thought. The whole issue of favorite items can be a problem as I generally have too many to choose from. I bet I will be changing those sections after each new CD, movie or book.

Current reading, listening and watching list:

I am currently reading The Pentagon's New Map: Warfare and Peace in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas P. M. Barnett. I am about half way through this book and I really like it! I saw him give a breif on warfare in the 21st centry on CSPAN an few weeks ago. After about 10 minutes I was totally hooked. This seems to be a must read for anyone interested in what the US is doing right now and what they should be doing for the forseeable future.

In my CD player is Heathen by David Bowie. This is only the second time I have listened to this one and I must say it is better the second time around. It is very mellow.

As for watching, I don't really have any plans. Maybe I will head to Blockbuster later and see what is out.

Still learning

I am still working out how to use all of the tools. I must thank Dan Rather to enlightening me to the power of a blog.

First post

This is the first post... More will follow!