Buckethead, I may be wrong, but your post on civilian casualties as a regrettable though expected side-effect of the spread of liberty reminds me of someone. Hmmm.... He was a lot like you... a Founding Father... Virginian... tall... striking... redheaded... just loved the French... into home renovations...

Matthew Yglesias has an insightful post up about that Iraq dealie we're in right now. In the interest of poking Buckethead with a sharp pointy stick, I'm just going to throw most of it up here verbatim.

". . .you can't just let a political process determine a military goal (remove Saddam Hussein from power) and then let the military pursue that goal by whatever means they deem appropriate and then declare victory when the war is over. Rather, you need to make sure that the way in which the war was conducted actually achieves your specific political goals rather than simply the broad task of defeating the other guy. 

One of the problematic elements of Operation Iraqi Freedom is that it was never really clear what these specific goals were. Instead you had lots of different people accepting different reasons for invading. On the assumption that the war would be a cakewalk, there was no problem with this, since folks could stay united around the military objective regime change and then continue the fight over political goals in the postwar period. Now that that scenario doesn't seem to be playing out, however, it seems to me that the administration is in danger of falling into the trap of redefining its political goals in purely military terms. Hence, our objectives now seem to be (a) capturing Baghdad, (b) destroying Republican Guard regiments, and (c) killing Saddam Hussein. Those are reasonable (and achievable) military objectives, but it's not clear to me that they're going to accomplish any important political goals at all."

While I think it's a little early to worry to seriously about the implementation of political goals (since we may be months from a military conclusion), it is a very real concern for this reason: nobody seems to know for sure what the political goals will even be. I've seen at least four different plans for post-war Iraq, all purportedly from gub'mint sources. Since I for one haven't seen a compelling, detailed, plan for reconstruction, my feeling is that that Matthew Y is right. Are we setting up a protectorate? A shadow government? A constitutional monarchy? An anarcho-syndiclast commune? Who gets the oil? Who develops Iraq's infrastructure? Who gets first crack at capital investment? What about trade arrangements for that same oil? What day is this? Is it dinnertime yet? Where are my pants? 

n.b. Historically, this war still definitely counts as a cakewalk. However, there are lesser and greater degrees of cakewalkitude, and my sense is that the needle is rolling over to the lesser side of the dial now. Just saying.

also n.b. Unlike my compatriots, I am not much of a political scientist. So, in choosing to separate military and political ends in my argument, I may have made a big mistake from a poli-sci standpoint. I realize that if we are at war to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, then that matters now. But, we are also at war to create a new government in Iraq, and that doesn't so much matter until the shooting dies down. That seems to me to be the true political goal, hence my disconnecting the two. If I have in fact made a big mistake, well... nyah.

I've been reading more and more about civil liberties, and the proposed revisions to the USA-PATRIOT act that are apparently forthcoming soon. It's chilling stuff. 

A story is out today that that a senior Intel engineer has been detained without being charged for giving money to an Islamic charity. The FBI claims that the charity in question has ties to Al Qaeda, but upon investigation, The Register has found that those connections are mostly imaginary. The best they can do is demonstrate that one time, a member of Al Qaeda gave money to the same, prominent, charity-- not the other way around. 

Think about that. A real guy, a computer nerd regular smart-guy Joe, detained indefinitely, without due process, for giving money to a charity that a branch of the government decided in retrospect may be loosely associated with terrorism. I don't like the implications of that one goddamn bit. 

Anyway, on to USA-Patriot II. Matt Welch has an update today on Alternet, and Nat Henthoff had a cutting analysis in the Village Voice at the end of February. Thanks to the Center for Public Integrity I have my own copy of the bill to read. Here's what I found. Among other fun pursuits, the US government would be given the power to:

• revoke one's citizenship --" the intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct"
• hold any person indefinitely in secret, without notifying a soul
• make it a crime to tell anyone about subpoenas served under Patriot II
• start a national DNA database of arrestees, as long as they are labelled as potential terrorist conspirators of any kind, or as long as the DNA "may assist in the investigation and identification of terrorists and the prevention of terrorism"
• specifically limit the recourse of private citizens, and the recourse of courts acting on their behalf who have been wrongly detained or investigated
• wiretap anyone for fifteen days, without a warrant, provided that at some point in the recent past that Congress has approved military action or a national emergency has been called
• grant immunity to businesses who report on employees' activities, even if the tips are false
• revoke habeas corpus for permanent resident aliens
• and spy on US citizens on behalf of other countries.

The document also contains language that would make the "sunset" provisions in the original PATRIOT act -- this is, certain draconian measures set to expire in five years -- permanent. There's also a bunch of more minor nibbles at liberty -- the government could look at your credit report at will (secretly), would operate under less judicial control when wiretapping citizens, gets expanded FISA powers, etc., etc., etc. 

As I've said before, it's a bad thing when the residents of a free nation begin fearing their government as I begin to fear mine. The worst part about it is the powerlessness I feel. What can I do? Write my congressmen? Write John Kerry?? I wouldn't trust John Kerry to save orphans from drowning, if he could find a political downside!! 

I'm going to do write them, but whoopdiddleydoo. I'm a broke secretary who doesn't have the scratch to donate to campaigns. Therefore, I don't count so much. Sure, I'll vote against anybody who supports the act, but by that time, the law will be in place and since it's all secret police without due process, it will be very, very hard for someone to sue the government for acting outside the bounds of the Constitution. Bye bye, checks and balances! These could be dark times indeed, if the Justice department uses the war as cover to ram through measures such as these. If I may be totally cynical for a moment, this is one of the reasons I thank God that terrorists have not been able to hit us again as they hit us two years ago. 

And you don't think any of this could happen to you? Did you ever give money to Irish causes? How about PETA, ELF, or a Right-To-Life cause? Or to an Israeli relief charity? A Palestinian relief charity? Your local mosque? Good luck to you then. I understand full well that I'm looking at the situation and seeing the worst possible outcome. But, for some reason, I tend to do that when it's civil liberties at stake. Must be the idealist in me. I better get to work on repressing that.

That will be my last post, ever, about Celine Dion.

A friend of a friend, who hates Celine Dion like all thinking people should, had this trenchant observation about Celine's latest haircut.

Oh, I saw "the cut". . .and I couldn't believe my eyes.........whoever is responsible for that travesty needs to rethink their career.

I'm sure the people at Caesar's Palace are probably saying, "Hey, we didn't pay $90 million for this bull-dyke." If I'm gonna shell out $150 to see her perform, I want some hair. I want some whip action as she's banging her chest. If I wanted to see Billy Idol.......I'd pull out my Best of MTV collection.

F*** her and her dumb baby.

In the words of Glenn Reynolds... indeed.

Buckethead, can you please explain what exactly the hell is your problem with Norway? Starting to creep me out, man!

Johno endorses Federalism.

The Bolsheviks crushed the trade unions in Russia, too, and they didn't stop being socialist. Economic planning in the Third Reich was still centrally controlled, was it not? Sadly, I know too little about the early years of the Nazis. But my dad (blatant appeal to authority: eminent Russian historian) says that Fascism grew out of the left; and if I remember correctly, in Europe the right was all the wacky ancien regime monarchist reactionary types.

Saying that workers and farmers in both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia lived under feudal conditions is unkind to serfs. From my vantage point in 21st century America, I can only discern three critical differences between the Nazis and the Commies.

1) Nazis hate Jews because they're not German, Commies hate Jews because they're rich.
2) Nazis believed that everyone who is not German must die, to make room for Germans. Commies believed that everyone should become commie, then die.
3) Nazis had far cooler uniforms.

Ohio State.

[Cue Ranier Wolfcastle]"McBain to base. I am under attack by Commie Nazis."

Buckethead, I disagree with your statement about socialism evolving into fascism, but I think I will leave that debate aside for now. Any hint of Socialism in the Nazi party platform went out the window in May 1933 when the trade unions were crushed by Goebbels. That being said, it is striking that farmers and workers both in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia existed under feudal conditions.

As for affirmative action, the problems that lead to inequality among college applicants have far more to do with the condition of public schools than with some crazy race/ethnicity axis. And don't get me started on the state of public education. Everyone blames the teachers. It's not the teachers. Everyone blames the teachers unions. It's not (totally) them. It's the incoherent (unfunded) mandates handed down by state and federal governments that rob teachers of any latitude whatsoever. It's the standards and standardized tests that change from year to year. It's the insane culture of litigation that prohibits teachers from even standing up to disruptive students, for fear of being sued, fired, and blacklisted. It's the insult of making $17,000 per year after earning a Masters degree and certification.

Education is a local issue. Ohio has different education issues than does New York or California. For that matter, New York City has different education issues than does Syracuse. This emphasis on standardized tests leaves students conditioned to accept information in a capsule format and robs them of the opportunity to learn neat stuff like how to write without using emoticons or how to play a musical instrument. Useless skills, to be sure, for America's future plumbers and hair technicians! Let's give up on them now and let those who can afford it get out of a sinking ship! HOLY SHIT THIS MAKES ME SO ANGRY!

....pant.....pant....pant

...Edison schools. Crap! Vouchers treat the symptom, not the problem! "No Child Left Behind" carries as much water as "Compassionate Conservatism," "Peace In Our Time," or "Read My Lips: No New Taxes."

Hey... while I'm all hepped up maybe I should devote a moment to the antiwar protests. Not the protesters. God bless them, except those mendacious Stalinist Fuckwits in ANSWER. The protests. Folks, the warmed-over, mentally bankrupt, tired, old 5-6-7-8 chants, hippie shit, sit-ins, human chains, and giant puppet heads have to go. Jesus!

The way the left ignores the abuses of murderers like Castro.

Our politicians making like they're Alexander the Great for busting bong manufacturers, closing down a rave, or picking on a defenseless computer geek for using ftp.

Civil Forfeiture and the RICO statutes.

Ex-Admiral John Poindexter's all seeing eye.

The Drug War

Norway

Idiots who think that America and Americans are too delicate, and must be protected by all consuming security laws. Look what happened to the shoe bomber. Or the guy on SW Airlines a few years back who was killed by his fellow passengers. I'll take a few extra risks, and keep my freedom, thank you very much.

Meddling politicians who are over-solicitous of my safety and well being, and act on it. (see above.)

Tom Daschle, who thinks I'm rich, and deserve to have two thirds of my income taken away to pay for his ridiculous sob sister policies.

People who call Bush a Nazi. National Socialist Worker's Party, jackass.

Reality programming

The University of Michigan

There's more, but that's enough for now.

As far as semantic arguments over what is and is not an empire go, I tend to fall on the side of the dictionary - if you rule it, own it, use it for your economic purposes without particularly caring what happens to the subject population, you're talking empire. Much as I abhor the term "American Global Hegemony" it is more accurate. We have power, influence and what not coming out of our ears, more in fact than we quite know what to do with. We are first, second and third among equals. But we haven't created an empire. 

Going halfway around the world to terminate the leader of a nation that pissed us off may be uppity, forceful, arrogant, domineering, renegade, of doubtful wisdom, wrong or even evil. But if after we do, we give it back, it's not imperial. Perhaps its more like empire's kindler, gentler, third cousin twice removed on the maternal side. And she has a great personality. 

And as for blogging politesse, I just wanted to assure all of my fellow tuppenny pundits that what I have done up to this point is not an attack on the morals, intelligence, ancestry, judgment, honor, personal grooming habits or sexual orientation of anyone. That way, when I do make a personal attack, it will be obvious that that was what I wanted to do. 

"Cultural Historian," huh? I heard that cultural historians were four-flushing, devious, deviant, dimwitted pinheads who couldn't narrate their way out of a wet paper sack. And that when they weren't failing to write even mediocre history, they spent their time engaged in questionable unsafe same sex practices with their aunt-mothers, brother-fathers, and any filthy goat that happens to be wandering by. And they have the perspicacity, good sense and wisdom of a retarded paint chip on crack.

Buckethead:

"sorry."

haw!

Bucket, I know full well that you say what you mean whether in writing or face to face, and Mike, I know the same about you. I've known each of you for years, and am waaaaay beyond letting opinions get the better of my esteem for you, as long as you can adequately explain yourself. I hope I have been civil as well.

But please, let's not go too far with that. Shit-talking makes the world go round. On this subject, and pursuant to my own apparent flirtation with moral equivalence over the war (we'll have WORDS about that, Buckethead, WORDS, like "cromulent," "embiggen," and "guignol"), I leave you with this quote, aptly enough, about morality:

"I don't give a tupenny fuck about your moral conundrum, you meat-headed shit-sack!"

From George Will:

WASHINGTON -- In Europe, anti-Semitism has been called the socialism of fools, which is confusing because socialism is the socialism of fools. Confusion has been compounded because Europe, nearly six decades after the continent was rendered largely Judenrein, has anti-Semitism without Jews, as when the ambassador to Britain from France -- yes, our moral tutor, France -- calls Israel a "shitty little country."

kind of thing that makes me momentarily favor "regime change" at all costs, immediately, without reservation. From the Times of London comes this story. Click the link and read it, but please steel yourself first, as it includes a horrifying witness statement taken two weeks ago from an Iraqi who fled Saddam's rule. [link no longer available, -ed. It involved people being fed into woodchippers.]

...beef with the Norwegians? It's not like they can help it!

1) On Saturday Night Live this weekend, during "Weekend Update" Tina Fey discussed the whole Freedom Fries thing, wrapping up the story with this: "In other news, France's Parliament voted this week to rename 'American Cheese', 'Idiot Cheese.'" 2) This image. (Thanks, Instapundit!)

China is planning to create a space station and start mining the moon. Meanwhile, here in America, we do diddly.

We could have had a real spaceship seven years ago, but instead we built a lot of nothing.

...wet dog?

Now that it's light out and the animal side of me is safely asleep until the next waning gibbous moon, I reread your post below and realize that you're just giving aid/comfort to your friends, who are not really the enemy! Good on me for being quick on the uptake.

Nevertheless, I stand by what I wrote. I have been talking to a lot of good people who neither think that the President is stupid nor think he stole the election, and who still don't agree with the decision to go into Iraq. That's not to claim that "if some people believe it, it must be true", or otherwise I would find myself defending pet psychics and supply-side economists, and that's just crazy talk. But, if a large number of reasonable, intelligent people with whom I interact, and not just in the Berklee East in which I live, do not feel persuaded by the arguments and evidence thus far presented, I feel compelled to investigate that.

I don't know. Maybe it's just my training as a "cultural historian." For years I have successfully fought the peer pressure to see every conflict as a struggle for hegemony, and to always favor the "subaltern" point of view against the erectile opression of the cryptophallocentric majority. (I studied "subaltern history" once. All it taught me was that Peruvian guano exports were the only way in which highland indigenous populations were tied to the colonial government of Peru. Guano. In Peru. Guano!)

But, in the interest of being fair, and owing to the fact that my hawk side has grown more feeble in the last two weeks, I want to hear what the hoopla is all about, from the quiet ones in the back who are being drowned out by the earnest mouth-breathers from the Popular People's Front of Interesting Facial Hair and the International Coalition For The Admiration Of Che's Sexy, Sexy Portrait.

Tomorrow, my thoughts on the French... A post like this can go one of two ways: three words, or three thousand. We'll see.