December 9, 2007 by Stuck In Spokane.

To my readers and/or former readers,I owe each of you an apology for a lack of explanation of my disappearance. For the last 8 months I have been working graveyard, which had significantly impacted my ability to write coherently. I am back now though, working much more sane hours, and as such I intend to write more once again.

Much has happened since the last time I’ve written, the biggest news though is that Mary Verner was elected mayor of Spokane, and Dino Rossi has  announced he will be facing Christine Gregoire in the 2008 gubernatorial race here in Washington. This plus many other stories that are developing as I write this will be the focus of my writings in the weeks and months to come.

Again, I apologize for my lack of writing,

Stuck in Spokane 

Posted in 2008, Rants | 1 Comment »

October 29, 2007 by Alpha.

Some time in the sixth century BC in China, Sunzi composed a code of maxims for the sensible prosecution of a war–not just the how, but the when and the why. He writes in his Art of War that “to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting,” and that “the clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy’s will to be imposed on him.”

There’s a great deal of murmuring and muttering continuing to circle concerning whether or not and if so to what extent there presently looms a broadening of the occupation of Iraq into Iran.

Of course, no one is talking about it like that. The discussion seems to be about “bunker busters” and “bombardments” with the plain assumption that Iran won’t retaliate in any way. Does that really seem like something that even could happen?

If we were to hypothetically pursue some strategic initiative involving smart bombs and precision-guided widgets and whatnot, here’s what would happen: the 1,458 km border between Iraq and Iran would evaporate, a large portion of the 30 million Iranians ages 18-49 would be hastily activated for military service and they would fortify the border and in a trice we would find ourselves involved in a three way regional conflict between the predominantly Sunni Iraqis and the predominantly Shi’ite Iranians, neither of whom have much love for the Stars and Stripes.

The most successful combatant is he who imposes his will on his opponents without resorting to war to do it. While recreating the preconditions to the genocide in Rwanda may serve someone’s interests it certainly would not serve the interests of the United states. What is the enlightened nation to do when faced with an oppositional, defiant opponent and regional rival?

First, we must remember that we do not and cannot act in a vacuum. Iran would respond to any at of war with a vigorous response, if only because the leadership of Iran would have to respond as such in order to maintain their authority over their own people.

Second, we must consider our position. We are involved in two wars now, with almost half our military missions staffed by private contractors (or mercenaries, if you prefer). Our ability/willingness to deploy another 100,000-plus soldiers to keep the Iranians out of Iraq is pretty well depleted. One wonders whether Americans have much stomach to fight a war with one group so that we can “protect” another war.

Third, we have to consider where exactly we would like to be. It seems as though there is some division on this point: do we prefer war or peace? There’s certainly some sizable portion of America that seems to relish war. They bask in the simplicity and the unity of a nice, long, ugly scrap. I understand–there is a purity of both action and purpose, and an intoxicating abandonment of critical thought that can be very charming.

Whenever we consult the angels of our better judgment, whenever we take a moment to think of honor, dignity and nobility, we know that peace is preferred.

So why, I ask finally, would anyone suggest that we bomb Iran?

Posted in Iraq, National, Rants | 1 Comment »

September 30, 2007 by Alpha.

I am in the odd position, historically, of having been raised sans religio, that is to say that no one successfully inculcated in me a sense of full-throated belief in something I’ve never seen any evidence for.

My parents are not religious, though both are deeply ethical people, and it seems to me that they sought in particular to shelter me from the certain fundamentalisms and fanaticisms that plagued the area where I grew up. And no, I’m not from Basra.

The lessons I treasure most from my childhood really are simple ones, but truly rare nonetheless. My mother taught me that goodness is contingent upon nothing but itself. My father taught me that nothing is so awesome as the world we live in, seen clearly and honestly. And my brother taught me, rather abjectly in some times of his tutelage, that power is not to be found in ‘what,’ but in ‘how’ and ‘why.’

My first real interaction with religion came when I was five or six (I think) when my mother sent me into a “Story Wagon” at the annual (”World Famous”) rodeo/fair in town. Neither of us had any idea just what kind of story it was that I was going to hear, but it turned out to be a very clever bit of proselytizing that went on. There were maybe ten kids in this awful plastic-topped faux-wagon, and one adult. He gave us each a little book, about two inches square, made of a variety of colors of paper.

I don’t pretend to remember all of the colors, or what each of them represented, but I remember that it started with Black, which was to represent to Void (I now begin to wonder how one has black in a proper Void). Then it went something like this: Brown to represent the Earth, then Green to represent the plants, then some fleshy type tone to represent animals, approximately.

Then came to grand finish, and as with all good endings, it comes in several falls. First, we got to the last bit of paper, which was Red, to represent Eternity in Hell which is the Wages of Sin. Then after we’d finished the little book, he said something to the effect of (add creepy Sith voiceover) “There is another way…”

He then offered to each of us, a little bit of white paper. This, he said, was to represent Jesus, and, if we would flip the paper over (I’d already looked. It wasn’t cheating. He didn’t tell us not to.) we would see what Jesus could offer us. Anyone want to guess what was on the other side of the paper?*

Then came the one which was not like the other, the triumph. He had us all bow our heads, and repeat a prayer after him. This practice, praying with someone else’s words, always seemed stupid to me. I figure that if God made you, he probably pretty much gets you. This runs in the same vein as the old Christian tradition that if it isn’t Latin it doesn’t count, and the persistent Muslim insistence that a Qur’an must be in Arabic to be the Qur’an. It just seems dumb.

Anyway, I didn’t pray. I placed my hands on my lap and I half-bowed my head and I was silent and patient and as respectful as I could be, but I did not pray. After this man and the other children finished saying someone else’s words, the Pastor, as I now recognize him, turned to me.

Referring to me first by my name, he said, “You didn’t pray.” I remember it being one of those sentences that hangs in the ether between statement and question.

“No,” I said, “I didn’t.”

“Can I ask why?” Another one of those horrid sentences. The question he asked isn’t the one he wanted answered, and I respectfully skipped the unnecessary bits of dialogue.

“I didn’t pray because I don’t believe in God.”

“Why not?” While this an effective way to frame the question, when you’re an adult debating a child. It is, however, exactly what is wrong with most religious arguments–it offers an entirely false set of premises.

The ‘answer’ is an obvious one, which comes from a man that I love at least as much as Hitchins does–William of Ockham.

“Why,” I countered to the pastor, “should I?”

“Don’t you want to go to Heaven?” At this point he probably thought he had me on the run, but he clearly hadn’t anticipated running into a genuinely curious and thoughtful little member of the Cult of Reason on this day.

“I would love to. But I haven’t ever seen any evidence that it exists.”

That did it. I think he realized that he and I could play this game all the way out, but that serve to weaken the impact of his presentation with the other kids. He then delivered the best incarnation of the evangelist’s surrender I’ve ever heard: “We will all pray for your soul, son.” And then they did. Everyone else in that little wagon, led by this monumentally creepy youth pastor (perhaps a redundancy) actually used my name in their prayers.

********************************************************

“Hate the sin, love the sinner,” the Christian maxim goes.

I don’t hate religious folk. I try very hard not to hate anyone at all. In fact, I have a great deal of respect for those who delve deep into the reasoning of the arguments and conclude, in spite of the tremendous improbability of it all, that they have faith.

I have no scorn, but only sadness, for those who uncritically accept as true that which cannot be proved. The defense that their belief, or theory, also cannot be disproved is no defense at all.

Do you know what the philosopher calls a theory that can not be proved and cannot (hypothetically) be disproved?

Bullshit.

*The reverse side of the Jesus-White piece of paper was, of course, Gold. What else could it be?

Posted in Rants | 2 Comments »

September 8, 2007 by Alpha.

Alright, folks. I’m leaving the country.

I’m only leaving for two weeks, and Stuck’ll still be around. Maybe we can get Bravo to post a couple of times, as well.

I’m going to the UK on a sort of fact-finding mission. Mostly I want to find out as much as I can about single-malt whisky, but I’m going to try to learn some other things as well. Though other topics will undoubtedly arise, I’m going to  focus on “man on the street” style informal interviews on two topics, primarily: healthcare and foreign policy.

Of course when I say healthcare, I mean that I’ll be looking into how the English and the Scottish use their healthcare system, and how they feel about how it works. The foreign policy angle is going to be largely about Iraq on the surface, but what I really want to get at there is how Brits feel about this whole “International War on Terror” thing. Before you ask, I won’t be looking for any kind of representative sample.

Underneath all of this, I want to learn about how the wonks across the pond think government should work, and their assessments of how it is working, here and there.

I’m traveling sans laptop this time, so I’ll be mostly incommunicado. Perhaps, though, I’ll stop traipsing long enough to check the email at some point. I’ll see you in this space toward the end of the month!

Also, whisky!

Posted in Rants | 3 Comments »

August 24, 2007 by Alpha.

Dear President Bush,

You and I don’t agree on much, these days. You say potato, I say quagmire. We both like baseball, though! What are your thoughts on designated hitters?

I digress. You and I would probably agree, more or less, on the short list of major threats facing the United States today. You and I would definitely both put al-Qaeda. As international criminal organizations go, you might have to skim James Bond novels to find anything better. They are thought responsible for significant attacks in 15 countries in the last 20 years, beginning with the Afghan insurgency against the Soviet Union in the late 1980’s.

I would like, as a member of the 9-11 Generation, to offer you some advice on the remainder of your term in office. Consider the terrorist, from the suicide bomber in Tanzania to Osama bin Laden in Waziristan. What is it that he seeks? What, in his mind, justifies his sins?

The stated mission of al-Qaeda, as put forth by Mr. bin Laden, is the establishment of a new Muslim caliphate. To that end, he requires the elimination of foreign forces from Muslim lands. In pursuit of this goal he has made a double-edged campaign, on the one hand working to galvanize the people of the Middle East to cast out the blasphemers (that’s us, Sir) and on the other hand using that same religious fervor to whip up a violent global effort to make our continued presence in the region as expensive and untenable as possible. These two efforts reinforce one another, as one hand washes the other.

Any thinking person would see that this delicate relationship is the lynchpin in Mr. bin Laden’s plan. If we refuse to kowtow to his demands or if we refuse to play the evil interloper in the holiest places in the most popular religion in the world, perhaps we can eliminate this particular danger.

You have, however not done these things, Sir. You have encouraged the American people to be afraid of Mr. bin Laden, when they are more likely to die by being struck by lightning or by choking on a toothpick than they are to be killed in an act of terrorism. Even more stupefying, Sir, is the nearly quixotic fervor with which you have delivered Mr. bin Ladin and al-Qaeda ammunition with which to besmirch and defame whatever good name we may have had in the Middle East. Perhaps worst of all, you appear to have attempted to best our foes at their own game by directly attacking the civil rights of American citizens and wilfully ignoring your responsibility to the Constitution.

Here is my advice to you, Mr. President: do, with what time remains everything that you have not done in the first six-and-a-half years of your presidency. Open your eyes, and open your mind. As Machiavelli wrote, while it is better to be feared, it is never to your benefit to be hated.

If you cannot do good Sir, I beg you to do better.

Posted in National, Rants | 2 Comments »

July 26, 2007 by Alpha.

Last Monday, something interesting happened. Real people got to ask questions of the Democratic Presidential candidates. While the sheer volume of candidate makes a proper debate a practical impossibility, Anderson Cooper did a relatively good job pointing the questions at candidates whose answers would prove interesting.

The big one, for me, wasn’t that important until I started seeing the direction the public response was taking. Here’s the short version of the most popular narrative: Obama’s naive, Hillary’s commanding, and Edwards is the guy we all wish were leading the pack. I want to challenge that narrative, but first, the details.

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat (then-President of Egypt) traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

COOPER: ….Senator Obama?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We’ve been talking about Iraq — one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they’re going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.

COOPER: ….Senator Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.

I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don’t want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.

And I will pursue very vigorous diplomacy.

And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we’re not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Senator Edwards, would you meet with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il?

EDWARDS: Yes, and I think actually Senator Clinton’s right though. Before that meeting takes place, we need to do the work, the diplomacy, to make sure that that meeting’s not going to be used for propaganda purposes, will not be used to just beat down the United States of America in the world community.

But I think this is just a piece of a bigger question, which is, what do we actually do? What should the president of the United States do to restore America’s moral leadership in the world. It’s not enough just to lead with bad leaders. In addition to that, the world needs to hear from the president of the United States about who we are, what it is we represent.

COOPER: Time.

EDWARDS: That, in fact, we believe in equality, we believe in diversity, that they are at the heart and soul of what the United States of America is.

Apologies for the massive quote block, but I think the juxtaposition is excellent. The candidates are asked “Will you meet with people who are avowed enemies of the United States?” Obama says: “Yes, because not doing so has been disastrous.” Clinton says: “I’d like to, but I’m not going to let these people screw America over with it.” Edwards says: “Bad diplomacy is a leadership problem, and if we want to regain a position of leadership we have to earn it.”

I want to be absolutely clear about this: Any of these three would represent a massive improvement over the Bush Administration’s “diplomatic” “policy.” However, they represent three different degrees of change.

Clinton’s position is the most Bush-esque on this topic. I appreciate that she is wary of foreign leaders who have a bad track record of playing along with American interests, but she leaves herself an awful lot of room to ease away from actively engaging Kim, Chavez, Castro, et al.

Edwards’ position is the classiest pivot I’ve seen in a while, and positions him squarely between Clinton and Obama. He refuses to commit to anything other than the lofty goals of doing good things. I like Edwards a lot, but I’ve never enjoyed him in a wonkish way. He hits me more like puppies and kittens and rainbows.

Obama takes the strongest position, and holds it. Unfortunately, since the debate his staff have done an incredible job of making it look like he really meant to say whatever it was that Hillary and John said. It’s a real shame that someone with a strong and principled stand on international relations is scared he’s going to look weak. The right response to all the accusations of naivete, in my book, is to say simply “Of course I’m not going to let Kim Jung-Il walk out of here with the keys to Air Force One. Come on. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to say no when one of the most anti-American leaders in the world asks for a sit-down.”

Anyone who’s taken a basic introduction to International Relations will recall a little thought experiment called the Prisoner’s Dilemma. I urge to to familiarize yourself with this Wikipedia page, or the rest of this might sail over your head. The conclusion is this: in any indefinitely repeating, iterated two-player game absent reliable communication, both players will seek to maximize self-interest over seeking to maximize the interest of the group. With high frequency, players will go so far as to “shoot themselves in the foot in order to stab another player in the back,” as my Intro IR professor put it.

The key to any Prisoner’s Dilemma situation is that players have little or no idea how any other player will behave, and they are unable to collude or cooperate actively. As a result, each player develops the defensive assumption that the other will betray him, and they simultaneously prove one another correct.

I love peace. And if we want to make it, keep it, and share it, we must be willing to talk to anyone. We must especially talk to those who would destroy us if they could. Peace can only be found through dialogue and through the intertwining of common interests.

Comments, as always, are encouraged.

Posted in 2008, Presidential, Rants, Campaigns | 1 Comment »

July 22, 2007 by Alpha.

CNN reports that Sen. John McCain (R-Crazyland) had this to say: “I’m not going to talk about my campaign anymore. I’m finished with talking about it. I’ve talked about it for two weeks. I will not discuss it or any aspect of it. Thank you.”

It is possible that War Candidate McCain is simply tired. Pulling all-nighters will have that effect on a man his age. But let’s face the facts: McCain’s campaign is coming apart. His staff are fleeing, his fundraising sucks, and now, finally, he has done the one thing no candidate can ever do–he’s told the media he doesn’t want to talk to them.

The last man to be elected President without mounting a campaign was Abraham Lincoln. Mr. McCain, you are no Abraham Lincoln, and if you don’t have something incredible to report in the next month, we will simply stop talking about you. And you, sir, will lose.

Posted in 2008, Presidential, Rants | 1 Comment »

July 18, 2007 by Bravo.

In a recent fit of insomnia, I happened upon the C-SPAN coverage of the all-night Senate debate over funding for the war in Iraq. I caught the arguments of a Republican Senator from Oklahoma pressing the panic button repeatedly over an early withdrawal of troops. Early withdrawal, he said, would place the troops in grave danger.

Am I missing something? Seems to me that staying in Iraq longer is the grave danger for troops. Maybe our leaders would be better served to get some sleep before the next vote.

Posted in Iraq, National, Rants | No Comments »

July 4, 2007 by Alpha.

Dear President Bush,

I have tried, I really have, to give you the benefit of the doubt. I started trying when evidence surfaced in 2000 that your aide, Mr. Rove, had run some remarkably offensive push-polls indicating that Senator McCain might have had some scandalous interracial dalliances.

But today, sir, I am truly glad that I never doubted you. I never, not for one delirious moment, doubted that you were exactly the scum-sucking would-be tyrant you have shown yourself to be.

The true shame of what you have done may, if you are very lucky, die with me and my generation. This is unlikely. Your many misdeeds have been so brazen and heinous and cowardly that you are most likely to go down in history as the most shamefully wanting “leader” that this nation has ever had. I sincerely hope that you wear that mantle for many, many years.

Now, just before America’s birthday, you have shamed her again.

You swore to the American people that whoever was responsible for the public release of Valerie Plame’s identity would see hard justice done to them. That you took that disclosure as a serious crime, worthy of severe penalties.

Now that a man has been found guilty in precisely that treason, you find that time in prison, any time in prison at all, is simply too cruel, to inhumane to lay on his head.

Sir, Mr. Libby is guilty. He lied while under oath and he lied to the FBI, obstructing an investigation that would very likely have buried Vice-President Cheney, another whose notoriety will hopefully serve as a lesson to future generations.

What is the pursuit of justice worth, Sir? You once claimed that we would find justice in Iraq. Surely, if the ugly shadow of justice that breathes in Baghdad is worth the lives of a few hundred thousand men women and children, then some real justice in Washington, D.C. must be worth a guilty man at least visiting a prison cell.

But no. Mr. Libby has been isolated, he has been terrorized, and he must now be rewarded for his loyalty. Of course, he can’t be pardoned, because then he could not claim his Fifth Amendment right to refuse self-incrimination.

Sir, I am truly disgusted.

My disgust notwithstanding, I try to be a benevolent man. In that spirit I will offer to you some guidance.

First, you must accept that the deception has failed. You have turned back into a pumpkin, and the wheels have fallen off of your Presidency. I know that you crave respect. What man does not? But you can no longer manufacture or demand that respect. If you want any more respect, you will have to earn it.

I urge you, I ask you, I beg you to tell the people of the world the truth. The real truth. No matter how ugly. Tell us who was responsible for what happened in 2000 and 2004. Tell us who was on that Energy Policy task force back in 2001. Tell us who gave you the forged documents that you used to propel the United States into Iraq. Tell us why. Tell us where the bodies are buried and show us the skeletons in your closet.

Sir, enough lies. Perhaps truth will change your legacy.

You concluded your statement on the occasion of the commutation of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s prison sentence  thusly: “The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby’s case is an appropriate exercise of this power.”

This gets at the crux of your dysfunction as an American President. You have repeatedly pursued those uses of your power which are “appropriate,” or “justified.” This standard is unacceptably low. You are not just the “Commander Guy.” You are the most powerful man in America, and you are responsible for her health. I know that responsibility has never been your strong suit, but the time has come when you have only two options.

You must either spend the rest of your Presidency taking responsibility for your past actions and working to exemplify the kind of stewardship that this nation so badly needs after six years of your lies and manipulation, or you must simply go down in history as an excellent example of the excesses of power.

The choice is yours, sir.

Alpha

Posted in Presidential, National, Rants, Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

June 22, 2007 by Alpha.

Every once in a while I tune and watch a bit of Bill O’Reilly’s show. I find it comforting to listen to Papa Bear imparting wisdom and defending the Folks.

When I tuned into his television show, “The O’Reilly Factor,” yesterday here are the first few sentences I got.

I choose not to give money to political causes or candidates because my beat is to watch all these people, not pay their bills. But I see nothing wrong with journalists donating money to people they believe will serve the country well. What is definitely wrong is for the media to beat up those with whom they disagree politically.

Since I don’t have Mr. O’Reilly’s address I can’t be certain whether or not he has contributed to any Federal level campaigns. I’ll take his word for it, this once. Let’s dissect that block of text a bit, shall we?

By way of disclaimer I want it noted that Bill O’Reilly is not a journalist and he should stop telling people he is. He’s a commentator, just like most of us filthy unwashed bloggers.

If you swing your hammer at enough screws you’re bound to pound one in eventually. O’Reilly scores when he reminds the Folks that journalists ought to be looking in every direction and maintaining professional distance from their sources and subjects. But wait! He doesn’t expect all those mortal journos to match the high, high standards he sets for himself! Not every reporter has the intestinal fortitude to be a Bill O’Reilly, after all.

So it doesn’t matter if journalists give money, just so long as they keep their reporting Fair and Balanced. Okay, I can see that. After all, the reporting’s the important thing. And once again, BillO and I agree! Only we agree in exactly opposite directions.

It’s that last bit that really worries me. The big problem, O’Reilly would have us believe, is that all those mean liberal reporters are dragging conservatives through the mud because they disagree with them on abortion, immigration, Iraq or other political issues.

Would that it were that simple. The larger problem facing our democracy today is that too many commentators, like O’Reilly himself, pass themselves off as journalists, then fail to act as critical and independent members of the Fourth Estate. The long-term health of our Republic demands an oppositional media in exactly the same way it demands an oppositional system of justice.

It may well be that as television becomes more and more concerned with entertaining viewers the Internet will develop as a stronger and more rigorous Fourth Estate 2.0. Here’s hoping.

P.S. Not only is BillO wrong, he’s also a hypocrite. Less then ten seconds after the block quote above he refers to “hateful Air America Radio Network” which was “loved” by the print press “before it went bankrupt because of low ratings.” Of course, Air America is solvent again, and is beating O’Reilly in markets all over the country.

P.P.S. My prediction package for the Democrats is coming, I promise.

Posted in Rants, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »