The Daily Generic

2003-04-29T22:47:00.000-07:00

This blog is dead, until June.

Until then, go here.

2003-03-21T16:06:00.000-08:00

I apologize for not posting. I was away for a while, and when I had finally access to a computer, it became quite apparent that war was going to happen. And what was I to say? I had been in support of the war, and had gotten my way. I can't comment on wartime strategy (my knowledge of such things is limited to a pocket version of The Art of War and my amazing battle skills in Command & Conquer Red Alert 2, so, to put it bluntly, I know nothing), I don't feel like commenting on the recent riots (the topic of such was a dead horse prior to this week, and they've become so extreme that worrying about them reflecting or influencing popular thought is not something to dwell on), and, unlike Salam Pax or Lt. Smash, I'm not there. So, my opinion pretty much remains at what it usually is: worthless. And at such grave times, I'm a bit more reluctant to speak, not in fear of the mass conformity and cultural brutality blah blah etc etc, but as a kid, I really don't want to say anything, as it would probably be unfounded, and if not, would be stated by my intellectual superiors. If I have something to say, I'll use someone else to say it.

Things at my school have been surprisingly supportive of the war, but some of the support is borderline sadistic and jingoistic. Probably meant to be in good humor, but even as a conservative it makes my blood boil sometimes. We're going to be discussing the Vietnam War in US History in a matter of weeks, and I hope that my teacher doesn't tie in the current situation too heavily. I think that the failure of the Afgan "quagmire" arguments will prevent it. My teacher is an admitted liberal, but a moderate good-natured one, so I think the curriculum will be fair. (at least, no less fair than usual. I swear, they plan things so you have to read The Crucible at the same time you learn about the Cold War.)

Also, I've been reading Useful Idiots by Mona Charen, as my self-induced rebuttal to my current school history education. Pretty good stuff. Our history books made actor Paul Robeson's opposition seem a lot more noble than it apparently was. I feel sorry for him in his later years, though, the guilt of not truthfully reporting back to the US must have left him with a good deal of guilt.

And yes, while I'm updating, this thing will change color templates more than the set of Flashdance and Saturday Night Fever combined. I'll stop when I find one I like, I promise. I'll probably also remove the comments until people actually start reading.

2003-03-11T16:18:00.000-08:00

From now on, The Daily Generic is going to be making a format change. Rather than post one or two small posts a day, I'll focus on trying to write 3 or 4 annotated essays a week. I figure that people like Henry Hanks have the coverage thing, well, covered, and I should probably stick to my own ill-formed opinions.

The unfortunate thing is that I'm really not any more intellegent than the professionals. However, as a youth, I do think I can take something of a different perspective.

So, expect turbulence over the next few days. I'll at the very least try to post, which is more than I can say for the last little while.

2003-03-06T15:20:00.000-08:00

Reads an AP article on Blair's appearance on MTV:

Woord seemed to sum up the mood of those in the studio and much of the British public when Blair told him he was always keen to have a dialogue with people to explain his views.

"It is not really working though, is it?" Woord replied.

While I'm in no place to denounce the high amount of protest and dissent occuring within Britain's government and society, this statement couldn't have come at a worse time.

According to MORI:

A majority of the public still disapproves of Tony Blair's handling of the Iraq situation, but there has been almost a 10% swing in his favour since mid-January as he has fought to justify his position.

Three quarters (75%) of people in Britain would now be prepared to support British troops joining any American-led military action against Iraq. However, this support is conditional both on UN inspectors finding proof that Iraq is trying to hide weapons of mass destruction, and on the UN Security Council voting in favour of military action.

Yes, there is still a lot of opposition, but the gaining of 10% in public opinion is by no means "not really working".

In addition to the 75% stat, there's more:

Yet this interpretation is not supported by the polls. That same Channel 4 survey found that 62 percent supported military action "if most members of the UN Security Council back the use of force, but one or two countries use their veto to block UN action." In other words, U.N. approval in itself is not required and the British are quite happy to see action without U.N. approval, so long as that action enjoys broad international support. Indeed, they are even happy to see such action take place in the face of strong opposition from such powerful countries as Russia, France, or China.

I guess MTV in the UK is just as big a joke as it is in the US. I wonder if they asked Blair "Boxers or briefs"?

2003-03-04T17:04:00.000-08:00

It appears that Arafat is considering a billionaire for the new PM of the PLO.

I guess 300 million just doesn't cut it anymore.

Worthwhile comment from the second link:

The Guardian says:

"All this is a fraction of the Bush family's total assets. Mr and Mrs Bush declared a net worth of between $9m and $19m (£6m-13m), much of it deriving from their Texas ranch, which is valued - rather vaguely - at between $1m and $5m. "

* Filthy Oil Baron who rules the planet and exploits all the world's poor:$ 19M

* Noble, earnest leader trying to save a people broken by the cruel Isrealies: 300$ million, at the vest least.

"The Bushes' wealth is dwarfed by that of the second man in the government, Vice-President Cheney, who with his wife Lynne is said to be worth between $23m and $70m (£16m-48m). Mr Cheney spent the 1990s boom as the chief executive of the oil company Halliburton, while Mr Bush was rather less well placed to get rich as governor of Texas."

* Bloodthirsty mystery man pulling the strings of the mightiest nation on earth from an undisclosed location: $ 70M
* Leader of starving nation, broken utterly by sanctions of evil cruel empire, cannot even afford to pay to have a proper weapons declaration written: $ 2, 000 M

Its all so clear to me how evil capitalists are looting the world now that Bush is in power. I'm ashamed of my country's money grubbing ways.

/sarcasm

2003-03-04T15:26:00.000-08:00

Here's hoping.

2003-03-04T15:24:00.000-08:00

Boise pro-liberation protest at 4:00 PM, outside the BSU admin building.

I plan on attending.

2003-02-27T16:05:00.000-08:00

No doubt you've seen such drivel about Afghanistan passed around as of late.

Well, a reporter in the field seems to have some different things to say:

But Latifa, a longtime Kabul resident, says that where others saw unacceptable risks, he saw the opportunity of a lifetime.

"There is so much money to be made in Afghanistan now," he said in English learned in a Pakistani refugee camp. "The country has been held back for 25 years, and now is the time to invest and do business. Afghans are very good at this -- we've been doing it since the time of the Silk Road."

Although countries around the world have promised more than $4 billion in aid to rebuild Afghanistan, there are today very few visible signs of the planned roads and schools and infrastructure projects. There are, however, signs throughout the capital, and in many provinces, of fast and dramatic change as Afghans and some intrepid foreigners open shops, businesses and even factories, quickly put up buildings to house them, and buy enough cars to create daily traffic jams.

In a city that had a handful of shopworn eating places two years ago, a new Chinese or Italian or American hamburger restaurant opens almost weekly, as well as kebab shops by the score. Small hotels have sprung up, and a $40 million Hyatt is on the way. The food bazaars are bustling and there are downtown blocks filled almost entirely with bridal shops. Rebuilt homes are rising from the ruins, and every little storefront seems to be stuffed with bathtubs or fans or with men building and carving things to be sold.

2003-02-26T16:54:00.000-08:00

Max Boot (The Weekly Standard) offers some foreign policy optimism:

Yet some of our foreign policy mandarins are now warning darkly of crumbling transatlantic unity and a setback for the entire West. The cover of a recent Economist showed a torn-up landmass labeled "The West." Calm down, fellas. The only thing that's coming apart is France's power grab, and its failure provides a great opening for Britain to lead the rest of the continent in a different direction--more free-market, more decentralized, and more closely aligned with Washington.

But won't this mean the end of NATO, as many analysts warn? It depends on which NATO you're talking about. NATO the military alliance has been dead for years, if it was ever alive. The Kosovo conflict in 1999 showed it's virtually impossible to wage war effectively when any one of 19 nations (soon to be 26) has a veto on all targeting decisions. That's why, even after NATO invoked its Article V mutual-defense provision following September 11, the United States refused to turn Afghanistan into an alliance war. The boost to Europe's ego, the administration calculated, would not have been worth the price in lost military effectiveness.

But NATO the political alliance remains alive and well, despite France's efforts. This NATO will continue to perform two vital functions: integrating Eastern and Southern Europe into the West and integrating the United States into Europe. When a new military mission looms, Washington can pick and choose allies from among NATO members. Germany, for instance, won't support the United States over Iraq but, along with the Netherlands, it is now leading the peacekeeping force in Kabul. It would be nice to add an official NATO imprimatur to this mission (as general secretary George Robertson wants), but it's hardly essential.

2003-02-26T16:37:00.000-08:00

Garofolo on Kilmeade:

-- Kilmeade: "You don't think those people deserve a shot at freedom?"
Garofalo: "Of course I do. And stop framing it that way. I absolutely believe-"
Kilmeade: "Then, what [inaudible] frame it? These people are going to be liberated, why don't they have a shot at being liberated? Why don't those people have a shot at liberation?"
Garofalo: "They do have a shot at being liberated. First of all, negotiating with Turkey sure isn't going to accomplish that. Turkey with one of the worst human rights records in the world by the way-"

I would love to hear her suggestions about how to accomplish democratic reforms in Iraq without foreign intervention. But, alas we never get the chance to hear, because she quickly changes focus to (what else?) evil American foreign affairs.

Celebrity pundits are a shame to their own cause. And remind me, what half-decent movie has she ever appeared in? (the They Might Be Giants documentary doesn't count.)

2003-02-26T16:30:00.001-08:00

I'm serious when I say that this article makes one of the best cases for Iraqi liberation I've heard while at the same time critiquing the protesters. The end result is kind of depressing:

"Are these people ignorant, or are they blinded by hatred of the United States?" Nasser the poet demanded.

The Iraqis would had much to tell the "antiwar" marchers, had they had a chance to speak. Fadel Sultani, president of the National Association of Iraqi authors, would have told the marchers that their action would encourage Saddam to intensify his repression.

"I had a few questions for the marchers," Sultani said. "Did they not realize that oppression, torture and massacre of innocent civilians are also forms of war? Are the antiwar marchers only against a war that would liberate Iraq, or do they also oppose the war Saddam has been waging against our people for a generation?"

Sultani could have told the peaceniks how Saddam's henchmen killed dissident poets and writers by pushing page after page of forbidden books down their throats until they choked.

Hashem al-Iqabi, one of Iraq's leading writers and intellectuals, had hoped the marchers would mention the fact that Saddam had driven almost four million Iraqis out of their homes and razed more than 6,000 villages to the ground.

"The death and destruction caused by Saddam in our land is the worst since Nebuchadnezzar," he said. "These prosperous, peaceful, and fat Europeans are marching in support of evil incarnate." He said that, watching the march, he felt Nazism was "alive and well and flexing its muscles in Hyde Park."

Abdel-Majid Khoi, son of the late Grand Ayatollah Khoi, Iraq's foremost religious leader for almost 40 years, spoke of the "deep moral pain" he feels when hearing the so-called " antiwar" discourse.

"The Iraqi nation is like a man who is kept captive and tortured by a gang of thugs," Khoi said. "The proper moral position is to fly to help that man liberate himself and bring the torturers to book. But what we witness in the West is the opposite: support for the torturers and total contempt for the victim."

Khoi said he would say ahlan wasahlan (welcome) to anyone who would liberate Iraq.

"When you are being tortured to death you are not fussy about who will save you," he said.

Ismail Qaderi, a former Baathist official but now a dissident, wanted to tell the marchers how Saddam systematically destroyed even his own party, starting by murdering all but one of its 16 original leaders.

"Those who see Saddam as a symbol of socialism, progress, and secularism in the Arab world must be mad," he said.

Khalid Kishtaini, Iraq's most famous satirical writer, added his complaint.

"Don't these marchers know that the only march possible in Iraq under Saddam Hussein is from the prison to the firing-squad?" he asked. "The Western marchers behave as if the US wanted to invade Switzerland, not Iraq under Saddam Hussein."

2003-02-26T16:30:00.000-08:00

2003-02-24T15:59:00.000-08:00

Been out for the weekend.

Recently have read this article on post-war Iraq, this fisking of a NYT op-ed by Regis DeBrey (scroll down), and other stuff not particularly worthy of linking.

2003-02-20T18:13:00.000-08:00

I'm not changing locations. Sorry for the misinfo, I'll have the old design up shortly. (I'm so indecisive.)

Anyway, after reviewing ol' Martin Sheen's Million Modem March, I've come to the conclusion it may not be all that bad. My initial impression was that they were trying to jam every communications device this side of Capitol Hill, but it seems a bit more democratically focused than that. And where there's democracy, there's the potential for varied viewpoints.

The blogosphere seems to agree. Pro-war people are using the services to send letters, calls and faxes showing thier support for Bush's stance on the conflict. I did so, and I advise everybody to send their feelings to a representative.

Use this site. Send a custom message, as sending the default message would be very, very bad indeed. (Even if you agree with the default message. Speak for yourself.)

I sent this message.

Dear Senator,

As a high school student, activist and American citizen, I wish to inform you that I fully support the current administration's stance on the conflict with Iraq. As a democratic nation and a world power, it is not only our right but our duty to help the citizens of the world in overcoming despots and ensuring the people who are opposed by them both freedom and security. I feel that the implications of allowing Saddam to remain in power would not only be of the most terrible damage to his own citizens, but in funding suicide bombers in Palestine, using conflict to prohibit his neighbor Iran's transition to freedom, and allowing extremists to use his land for dangerous acts, he poses a concern to the entire free world.

While campaigns such as this one may deter you from advocating this viewpoint, I would hope that you can realize that even 1-2 million participants represents but a small majority of the American public, a public which, should you believe most polls, stands behind the administration. Also, keep in mind the "ballot-stuffing" tactics of Internet campaigning.

Thank you for your time and consideration. May you have the best judgment for these tough times.

2003-02-20T15:13:00.001-08:00

Note: I will probably move this site to a different location in the next 72 hours.

Take note, my 2 readers.

2003-02-20T15:13:00.000-08:00

When I talked about "e-activism" on Saturday, this isn't quite what I meant.

2003-02-19T15:42:00.000-08:00

Not sure what to make of this.

I'll all for free speech, and you could probably get away with wearing that shirt at my school, judging by all those cursed Anti-Flag "Why is it Not Called Terrorism When Its Done by the US?" shirts that are so popular with the kids these days.

Still, my school is pretty white dominant, and I think our Arab population is around 10, so different strokes for different areas.

In addition, "Compare and Contrast Bush and Hussain" for a school assignment? I can't tell if they're trying to raise a generation of hack journalists or uber-patriots.

UPDATE: Someone is smarter than I.

2003-02-19T15:13:00.000-08:00

Greatest video ever.

2003-02-17T12:29:00.000-08:00

I wonder what the ratings will be?

Personally, I don’t have a hard time imagining that things will go the way of the XFL. But if they have the audience, more power to them.

The new liberal radio network is initially being financed by the Paradigm Group, of which the Drobnys are the principal partners. Ms. Drobny is the chairwoman of the venture, which is being called AnShell Media L.L.C. Jon Sinton, a longtime, Atlanta-based radio executive, will be its chief executive. He helped start the nationally syndicated radio program of Jim Hightower, the former Texas agriculture commissioner. Liberals had hoped that would be their answer to Mr. Limbaugh, but it was canceled shortly after its start in the mid-1990's.

The failure of Mr. Hightower's show supported the notion of many in radio that liberal hosts do not have what it takes to become successful and entertaining hosts: the fire-and-brimstone manner and a ready-made audience alienated by the mainstream news media it perceives to be full of liberal bias.

Mr. Sinton said the new venture would seek to disprove not only those who doubt liberal hosts can make it in radio, but also those who believe that success in radio depends on an alliance with one of the handful of major distributors or station groups.

As for the "fire-and-brimstone" section: Make no mistake. Rush Limbaugh is a jerk. Bill O'Reilly is a jerk. Hannity can be a jerk. But at the same time, they are very established jerks, well-dressed and well-rehearsed. Essentially, they are perfect representations of right-wing angst. (I don't care for them, but I can see why they're popular.)

But continuing down the article, I see a bit of a problem:

"This side has failed by going at Rush, and trying to be Rush — you're not going to beat him at his game," Mr. Sinton said. "What really makes this work is tapping into Hollywood and New York and having a huge entertainment component, where political sarcasm is every bit as effective as Rush Limbaugh is at bashing you over the head."

My question is: Is the left truly represented by sarcasm, and is that in any way effective? The reason Limbaugh is successful is that he has a large cohort of followers that act in his name. Sarcasm and cynicism, on the other hand, are more likely to hinder any idea in the listener's mind that change is possible. After hearing Franken go off for 2 hours speaking about why the system is terrible in a sly, condescending demeanor, is the listener going to be more inclined to advocate causes, or just give up altogether? Then again, the entire purpose of talk radio is to both inform and entertain.

Plus, the Left houses many more political ideologies than the Right. The article seems to share that sentiment:

"Individuals who are liberal in their viewpoints can be all-encompassing," he said. "It's very hard to define liberalism, unlike how easy it is to define conservatism. So, as a result, it doesn't evoke the same kind of passion as conservative ideologies do."

It's an uphill battle for this group, any way you look at it.

2003-02-15T16:15:00.000-08:00

I suppose today is the "big day" for the antiwar movement. (I'm guessing most of my school associates are at our local one today. It's lonely being a teenaged Righty.)

And aside from the increase of numbers and worldwide participation, it seems to be a mirror image of the recent ANSWER protests. Of course, you wouldn't know that watching the reports on CNN. (You wouldn't know the ANSWER protests from watching CNN either, but that's beside the point.)

Other sources seem to report otherwise.

Sometimes I think about the Internet and the effect its going to have on the politically active as it grows. Clearly, a movement has been started on the blog front (points to self), but I hope one day, participation rises to a point where it becomes a primary location of protest and activity. I hope this for several reasons, more for the "other side" than my own:

1. Loss of unrelated activism. This is wishful thinking here, but in the protests I've attended (never in support of the causes, of course), I am given about 10-20 papers for unrelated causes. This was a primary complaint about the previous protest, as well. On a more-text based "protest", the arguments can be more easily ignored.

2. More in-depth analysis. The age of television may have increased the ability of a four-worded protest sign to hit a striking chord with our reason, but today's media allows us to relay more information, and in turn, more information should be provided for political causes. I'm not going to change my mind because I read a "No Blood For Oil" sign, but if I read a 500-word statement on the situation, I at least have to think before I dismiss it.

3. Us opponents (this goes for both sides) of a protest can't polarize the participants. I think EVERYBODY takes refuge in the appearance of protesters, be they 15-year-old anarchists who dress like they currently live in London circa 1979, or Polo-wearing Protestants. Once a system is created where the image is eliminated and we are left with nothing but the facts and rhetoric, we will have the most efficient forum for discussion.

I was discussing this with a colleague, and he pointed me in the direction of an essay written by none other than the lead singer for a punk band. (Typical.) The thesis of this performer was that Internet activism is flawed, because a person changes political beliefs based upon emotion and not reason, and thus people need to see protests, etc. Also, talking about events on the Internet will lead to people seeing the world in (semi-quote) their “warped view of reality”.

I find this argument to be bogus. The protesting Left (and Right, I suppose), needs to come to the realization that the Vietnam generation is over and protests have lost their ability to work. People don’t see protests as peaceful symbols of opinion and free speech, they think of hippies and dark times. As people, we’ve been hit over the head with pictures and films of protest. It’s become something we see as unremarkable. And given the usual types of protesters, it’s likely to disenchant rather than to inspire.

Equally, this person suggested that emotion other than reason is the basis of people’s decision-making. Maybe I’m too much of a pragmatist, but this sounds like a cop-out to me. It almost sounds as if he would prefer emotion to be paramount in all issues. It’s important, yes, but a reason-based discussion is nothing to eschew, and can be effective.

As for a “warped reality”, I don’t think any forum of discussion has caused this in the past, and regardless of what my parents might tell you, I don’t live on the Internet.

Well, I just said a whole lot of nothing, but I think I got my point across. Cheers.

2003-02-14T10:05:00.000-08:00

Fascinating.

And even more fascinating.

2003-02-12T16:41:00.000-08:00

Interesting read.

(Note that the article comes from BBC, so brace yourself should you read the comments. Actually, the comments seem balanced in stances, probably due in good part to Andrew Sullivan's linking.)

The following is a butchery/summary:

Iraq is rich enough and developed enough and has the human resources to become a great force for democracy and economic reconstruction in the Arab and Muslim world. But most Arabs are in a state of denial. The gulf that opened up between Iraqis and the rest of the Arab world that began with the 1991 Gulf War has reached a kind of crescendo with the current crisis.
Out of the Iraqi opposition - as difficult and fractious as it may be - could emerge a new kind of Arab politics. One that I believe is far healthier than the politics that dominates the Arab world today.
Since 1967, Arab political culture has largely been dominated by Arab nationalism of one form and another. This has been an obsession to the exclusion of everything else.
And today, the spectrum of what is politically possible to talk about in Arab politics runs from Palestine at one end to Palestine at the other, with no room for the plight of the Iraqi people.
Some commentators warn that a US backed war in Iraq will cause the Arab street to rise up in anger. But this much vaunted 'Arab street' is a fiction - it doesn't exist. It is a creation of nationalist intellectuals of my generation, who lived through war in the Arab world and never learned from the mistakes of the past.
During the Gulf War and, more recently, the Afghan war nothing came of the fears of the Arab world.
All we saw in Afghanistan were people cheering in the streets. I expect Iraqis to do the same - to throw sweets and flowers at the American troops as they enter our towns and cities.
We want to see America involved in Iraq for a very long time but I do not support the idea of an American military government, even for a short time. We Iraqis must take the responsibilities of our future into our own hands.

Of course, if you're sold on war, the only real concerns here are A) Can proper postwar inspections occur without the need for a military rule, and B) Most importantly, can Iraq yield a more democratic government?

I really am in no place to answer A (I'm really not in a place to answer anything, but that's beside the point), but I think that if democracy stands a chance in the middle east, Iraq is a good place to start. Says a 2001 article from Neil Munro:

Iraq's population of 23 million is not fertile ground for the radical Islam of its neighbors in Iran and Saudi Arabia. That's good for modern democracy, for women, education and economic growth, and it can help Iraq become a second secular success — after Turkey — in the heart of Arabia, forever reminding Arabs and immediate neighbors in restive Iran, that freedom and capitalism are far better for the average person than bin Laden's 11th-century Wahhabi theocracy.

Yeah, dated information. (I like the "Baghdad '02" in the subtitle.) But, as he continues, he brings up an important point regarding Iraq's relations:

Then there's Saddam with his weapons, his large and rich Iraqi stronghold, his manipulation of Arab sympathies, and his hatred of us. He undermines our position in the Gulf region by forcing us to maintain troops in Saudi Arabia, by starving his people and them blaming us before a receptive Arab audience, by slowing Iran's move towards democracy, and by maintaining false hopes among Palestinians and their supporters that there is yet hope of a victory against Israel. In comparison to Saddam, Osama, the Saudis, and the Israeli-Palestinian death-grip are minor fronts in this evolving war against terrorism. Yet Saddam is also more vulnerable that Osama or the Saudis. He has little popular support, his country is a flat-desert ideal for U.S. Army's mechanized warfare and the U.S. Air Force's bombers, and his army is weakened by years of sanctions and defeat. The response suggests itself; destroy Saddam first, and the rest of the anti-American structure will collapse, regardless of bin Laden's whereabouts or Saudi politics.

So, in addition that Iraq will probably receive a more liberated society, we have the increased speed of Iran's liberation (Iran's current regime is one to still be wary about, rest assured, but a push in the right direction never hurts and often helps), the strong possibility of lower Palestinian attacks and maybe something happening in Saudi Arabia. A long-term major stabilization of the area with two new fledgling democracies, in my opinion, is a very possible and desirable outcome.

Here's hoping for the best.

2003-02-11T15:06:00.000-08:00

I hate questions like these.

And the following conclusions, as well. I'm certain people under any type of press with any type of president would have a difficult time recalling or remembering the nationality of 17 different men.

2003-02-11T14:56:00.000-08:00

Hmm.

I hope there will be a follow-up article. I'm also curious as to how they plan to "shield". 50 people?

I think that a good follow-up to this article can be found here.

2003-02-10T15:44:00.000-08:00

It seems to me that somebody is trying to make a Vietnam-esque "legacy music statement".

Of course, that really wouldn't surprise me, since the sentiment seems to be widespread among the more artistic (I'm using the term loosely):

But there's something in the air at this moment--some scent of a long-vanished dawn among the old, some hunger for a heaven they never knew among the young--that lures from political retirement even Richard Wilbur. At a recent march in Colorado, Hunter S. Thompson drew ecstatic cheers with the line: "I've become almost homesick for the smell of tear gas." The fact that they are not actually being tear-gassed only makes the nostalgia easier.

AT LEAST WILBUR was merely signing a manifesto and not issuing poetry. For that, one has to go to "100 Poets Against the War" and "100 Poets Against the War Redux," Internet-published anthologies organized by Todd Swift, a Canadian living in Europe. It's almost unfair to quote any of these extempore effusions. "This kind of effort, regardless of how valuable each poem is on its own, as a collection represents a step forward for the kind of activism that poets need to be part of," a contributor named George Murray told the Toronto Globe and Mail--and that was in defense of the antiwar verse.

Individually, the poems show all the elements you might expect. Jay Parini, who accepted the White House invitation "because I thought I could have said something about the war directly to Mrs. Bush," told the New York Times that poets are important now "because our language is pure." That's not quite the impression one gets from the antiwar poems. There's the definition of Republicans as famous for rewriting history in the style of evil dictators Stalin and Hitler. There's the sloganeering: "How Many Lives per Gallon? / Go Solar Not Ballistic / Draft SUV Drivers Now", argues one poet. "War is gud 4 bizniz", adds another.

2003-02-10T15:23:00.000-08:00

Mirage: The Worst (Yet Oddly Appropriate) Name Ever

I suppose the big news of this weekend was the unveiling of the Franco-German plan (yes, I'm aware that the French foreign minister denied it, but I'm sure that given the stances France and Germany have displayed, that such a plan has been talked about or widely considered, if not selected). You can read about it here. The plan, referred to as "Mirage", is summed up by Andrew Suttaford: "the idea seems to be that ‘thousands’ of UN troops would take control of the entire country for years in order to guarantee a "durable disarmament regime." The US troops already in the region would remain there as guarantors of the UN incursion. According to the magazine, Iraq would become for all practical purposes a protectorate of the UN, with Saddam remaining as only the formal head of state. If the Saddam regime were to collapse as a result, that would be “acceptable”, but that’s not the primary purpose of the exercise. "

Some have dismissed the policy as being less than worrisome, yet others don't seem to be too sure:

If the government of Iraq cooperates fully, 100%, then this might well actually work. But if there's anything which is clear now, it's that Saddam has no intention of actually getting rid of his WMDs. If he was actually willing to cooperate, he'd have done so a long time ago. So inevitably the time would come when the inspectors would, with their accompanying UN guards, try to enter some facility or home or something, and would run into armed men who refused to let them in. Maybe the Iraqis resisting them point their AK-47's directly at the inspectors. Maybe they fire over their heads. (Both happened during the previous round of inspections which ended in 1998.) Would the UN troops actually be willing to attack in such a case, to force their way in? Would they be willing to call in air strikes to obliterate any building they were not allowed to enter (say, a hospital or grade school or mosque)? Not a chance. The record on that kind of thing internationally is extremely poor; these kinds of forces are most successful when deployed to places where the people themselves actually support the international troops. When there's substantial local resistance, or a local force which refuses to go along, the result is usually catastrophe.

Thus it was that international peacekeepers in Bosnia could not prevent slaughter of Bosnian Muslims, and thus it was that international peacekeepers in Rwanda did not act to prevent the genocide. They wore their blue berets, and carried the UN flag, but when it actually came time to either fight or withdraw, they nearly always withdraw...

...Logical arguments against the plan (such as presented above) will have no important effect. Expect war-opponents all over the world to rally to this idea and begin pushing it. And when advocates of war try to argue that it has little chance of success, they will respond, "But it might work and if so we could avoid the infinite catastrophe of war; we have to at least give it a try before you invade!" And then they will lay out a litany of the expected carnage, with hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead after the US inevitably carpet-bombs every Iraqi city, and millions of starvation victims when the flow of supplies breaks down in the chaos after the war and you've heard it all before, not to mention all the Iraqis who would die when we bombed the places where Iraq is storing the chemical weapons it doesn't have and cause those chemicals to be released to drift over the nearby orphanages and retirement homes. "Isn't it worth giving this a try to avoid all that? How can you be so heartless as to want to cause such great amounts of death and destruction?" Rational argument (e.g. "The war isn't actually going to cause that kind of carnage; we don't carpet bomb cities any longer.") has no effect, because those making these arguments aren't really interested in anything except opposing war.

I agree wholeheartedly. I am especially worried that such a plan would meet little resistance (of course, such a plan would probably lead to "unilateral" US action one way or another), because a good deal of the international community seems to have grown wary of Saddam, yet remains wary of war. I feel that a good deal of the war opposition will be all too quick to support a quick solution that isn't necessarily "wholesale war".

2003-02-08T08:58:00.000-08:00

Hello. If you're reading this, expect surprise from me, since I realize that there are hundreds upon thousands of sites offering commentary and punditry, most of them headed and published by people far more intelligent and experienced in life than I. Honestly speaking, I probably wouldn't be reading this myself if it was published by another person. I have a tendency of not trusting the opinions of anybody under the age of 24, and considering I'm not out of high school yet, that pretty much would make me a young, idealistic blowhard that doesn't pay taxes.

True, perhaps, but enough self-degrading. I suppose I represent a particular section of youth, and more importantly, I think that I represent myself as well. I've been enjoying for the last 1/2 year reading the weblogs of other, more professional people and gaining from their views. I figure that having a place to express my opinion, regardless of if anybody reads it, is well worth it.

But enough about my crazy motives, and me, and on to the actual blog. I will probably write about what I'm thinking about, which means I'll most likely to focus mainly on politics. I will probably include what I feel about an album or movie time to time, but I hate multipurpose blogs so I'll try to keep the unwanted out. Expect at least one update a day, unless that's physically impossible for me.

See you soon.