"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Teddy Roosevelt
"In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. ... Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness."
-- Hannah Arendt, The Origins Of Totalitarianism
(Found on wood s lot)
I re-encoded all the recent MP3s, so they should now work on Macs (I hope). Please let me know if you're still having problems.
Impressive collection of Iraq Maps
How's the joke go?
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography."
Contempt of familiarity by Gail Armstrong
FAIR STUDY: In Iraq Crisis, Networks Are Megaphones for Official Views
Network newscasts, dominated by current and former U.S. officials, largely exclude Americans who are skeptical of or opposed to an invasion of Iraq, a new study by FAIR has found.Among the major findings in a two-week study (1/30/03=2/12/03) of on-camera network news sources quoted on Iraq:
* Seventy-six percent of all sources were current or former officials, leaving little room for independent and grassroots views. Similarly, 75 percent of U.S. sources (199/267) were current or former officials.
* At a time when 61 percent of U.S. respondents were telling pollsters that more time was needed for diplomacy and inspections (2/6/03), only 6 percent of U.S. sources on the four networks were skeptics regarding the need for war.
* Sources affiliated with anti-war activism were nearly non-existent. On the four networks combined, just three of 393 sources were identified as being affiliated with anti-war activism-- less than 1 percent. Just one of 267 U.S. sources was affiliated with anti-war activism-- less than half a percent.
Outrageous ad from General Motors attacking public transit, effectively calling people who use it "Creeps and Wierdos".
This was barely covered on CNN -- it was given two small paragraphs inside another story -- so I thought I'd post it here:
'Many casualties' after Baghdad market hit (In pictures)
Fourteen civilians died and another 30 were injured in Baghdad when a shopping area was hit during an air raid by US-led coalition forces, the Iraqi authorities say.The BBC's Andrew Gilligan, at the scene in the north of the city, says it appears that two missiles hit a busy parade of shops.
An angry crowd of several hundred people gathered in the area following the strike, waving the shoes and clothes of victims
They shouted: "Down with Bush" and "Long live Saddam".
Our correspondent says the buildings have been burnt out and their contents scattered over a wide area, while several cars were set on fire.
He adds that the nearest military buildings are at least a quarter of a mile away.
Think they'll be dancing in the streets as we march into Baghdad? This site is trying to keep track of civilian casualties, since as General Tommy Franks is quoted as saying, "We don't do body counts."
p.s. I have found BBC News to be much more balanced than CNN.
Iraq rebuilding contracts awarded
The first contracts for rebuilding post-war Iraq have been awarded, and Vice President Dick Cheney's old employer, Halliburton Co., is one of the early winners.The revolving door swings around and around. Sad. Bringing about war and destruction, then personally profiting from it. It's just shameful.
I haven't had the time or energy to write about the war. Plus, there is so much happening, I am still taking it all in and digesting.
I do recommend reading Rebecca's thoughts and commentary.
We have nothing to fear. Optimus Prime is on our side.
Landscapes, human beings, abstracted, objectified.
Inside Iraq by Jerome Delay
Amazing photographs.
Where is Raed ? <- An Iraqi blogger.
Christopher Lydon, who used to host "The Connection" is back with a new radio series called The Whole Wide World. I caught the first episode tonight, and it was excellent. Brilliant guests, interesting topic, well put together, even the segue music was good. Highly recommended listening.
One small step towards a more peaceful mental environment:
'Do Not Call' Is Law
On a related note, an old favorite:
On Silence by Aldous Huxley
Two points for the hippies:
The Gashlycrumb Tinies by Edward Gorey
After watching the Bush news conference last night, I am convinced that he truly feels that he is doing the right and good thing. I don't believe that he is covering up some conspiracy and that this is actually about oil or economics or revenge (to him).
Now, it is entirely possible that he has been convinced that this is the right thing to do by some others (Cheney?) who REALLY DO know what is going on, and to whom this actually IS about oil, economics, and extending American power. But, as I said, watching the news conference, I cannot believe that Bush is acting up there. I just don't think he could be THAT good at deception. I don't think he is smart enough for that. He really DOES think that he is doing the right thing.
And his belief system appears to be consistent. I can understand how he can accept it. I can imagine what he must be thinking:
"Saddam Hussein is a bad man, hates America, has resources (monetary and otherwise), has done awful things in the past, and is unpredictable. He is a very dangerous character. Also, he lives over there near those other terrorist guys, and he looks like those other terrorist guys, so he MUST have some connection to them. We have been attacked (9/11), which was an awful, terrible thing, and I can't allow it to happen again. So, in the interest of protecting America, we really need to take this guy out!
"Not only that, he is also oppressive to his own people, murdering dissenters, torturing them, kidnapping them, there is no freedom of speech, he has even attacked them with chemical weapons! So, by taking him out we serve the dual purpose of protecting ourselves, while helping out those poor Iraqi people."
Seems logical to me.. and I think this is what many of the war supporters believe. So what is wrong with this train of thought?
Let's break it down:
(1) Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States.
(2) Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator.
-------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, we (the US and who-ever will join us) should attack and get rid of him.
Let's take #2 by itself first. Is this reason enough to invade a country? How bad is it there, really? Has it reached genocide level proportions? Or is he just squashing dissent? At what point are we obligated to act? Do we really want to be the world's police force? What about all of the other brutal dictators out there? Will we go take them out next? How will the people feel about a foreign superpower coming in and changing their government from the outside? Wouldn't it be better to support local forces-of-good instead? Support the people, improve their lot, decrease their dependence on the dictator, and help them to rise up in revolution themselves?
And, let's look at #1. In what way is Saddam Hussein a threat to the United States? Does he have nuclear weapons? No. Is he working on them? Maybe. Does he have chemical/biological weapons? Maybe. Does he have missiles that could reach the United States? No. Well... but couldn't he GIVE the missiles to some terrorists or deliver them to the United States in some other fashion? Maybe. If he WERE to somehow directly or indirectly attack the United States, how would we respond? We would blow him out of the water. He would be destroyed. Doesn't he know this? Doesn't he know that if he WERE to attack the United States, he would be doomed for sure?
So...
He doesn't have nuclear weapons (he MIGHT be working on them).
He MIGHT have chemical/biological weapons.
He has NO way of delivering them directly.
He knows that we are watching him VERY closely.
He knows that if he attacked us (directly or indirectly), he would be DESTROYED.
Add on top of all this the riskiness of an invasion: it could provoke retaliatory terrorist attacks, it could provoke Saddam to lob missiles at Israel, it could end up being a very long war, it could start other related conflicts, it could provoke Islamic fundamentalist uprisings, it could end up ruining our economy, countless soldiers and civilians could die in battle, millions of innocent Iraqi civilians could die of malnutrition or lack of water, etc. etc. etc.
Is the threat large enough to warrant the risk?
Buddha Bootcamp - "Have you ever sat in silence for ten days?"
Great story of a Buddhist retreat.
Windows Update keeps tabs on all system software - "Evidence obtained by German hardware site tecChannel suggests a list of software installed on an XP machine is sent to Microsoft when users run Windows Update."
Windows 98 FOREVER!
Public Service Announcement from Caterina on AAA.
George Bush is a hypocrite and liar. Keep this around for reference during the next election.
"French, German, Russian foreign ministers said Wednesday at a news conference in Paris that they will 'not allow' passage of a U.N. resolution to authorize war against Iraq."
...and...
"In an interview on Russia's state-controlled television, Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the United States was prepared to lead a war against Iraq with or without the consent of the United Nations." (Source)
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? This WARMONGERING administration is putting our nation in great peril. You don't go and pre-emptively attack a nation that has not attacked you, has not even threatened you, has allowed outside inspections of their military, and has even destroyed some of its own weapons at your request. First you humiliate them, then you attack them without credible evidence? Without any real reason? What better way to stir up hatred? What better way to provoke terrorist retaliation? Not to mention the unnecessary fear, suffering, and death that will result on both sides. This is going to be bad, bad, bad.
Atmospheric phenomena - Beautiful nature based/inspired photography.
I am just now discovering the great thinker Ivan Illich, who died last December. Here are some of his writings. I have not yet read anything by him, but it looks to be right up my alley.
Ashcroft Out of Control - Ominous Sequel to USA Patriot Act
Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war - "Secret document details American plan to bug phones and emails of key Security Council members."