Tag Archives: Politics

Yoinked from

Posted on by

Occupation: The Inconvenient Truth About Iraq
by George Lakoff

We’ve begun with global warming. Now the U.S. and its military allies need to face another inconvenient truth, this one about Iraq: This is an occupation, not a war.

The war was over when Bush said “Mission Accomplished.” A war has one army fighting another army over territory.U.S. fighting men and women defeated Saddam’s military machine three years ago. Then the occupation began. Our troops were trained to fight a war, not to occupy a country where they don’t know the language and culture; where they lack enough troops, where they face an anti-occupation insurgency by the Iraqis themselves; where most of the population wants them out; where they are being shot at and killed by the very Iraqis they are training; and where the U.S. has given up on reconstruction and can’t do much positive good there.

The Occupation Frame fits a politically inconvenient truth. Most people don’t want to think of our army as an occupation force, but it is. An occupying army can’t win anything. The occupation only helps Al Qaeda,which Iraqis don’t want in their country since Al Qaeda attracts foreigners who have been killing Iraqis.

Our nation has been held trapped in a fallacious War Frame that serves the interests of the Bush administration and the Republican Party. The term “cut and run,”used to vilify Democrats, is defined relative to the following frame:

There is a war against evil that must be fought. Fighting requires courage and bravery. Those fully committed to the cause are brave.Those who “cut and run” are motivated by self-interest; they are only interested in saving their own skins, not in the moral cause. They are cowards. And since those fighting for the cause need all the support they can get, anyone who decides to “cut and run” endangers both the moral cause and the lives of those brave people who are fighting for it. Those who have courage and conviction should stand and fight.

Once the false frame is set, it is hard to use any pure self-interest frame that ignores the just cause of fighting evil. That is the trap the Democrats have fallen into. Their proposed slogans evoke self-interest frames: John Murtha’s “stay and pay and ”John Kerry’s “lie and die”have an X-and-Y structure that evokes, and thus reinforces, “cut and run.”

These, as well as Senator Jack Reed’s “The Republican Plan to Be in Iraq Forever,” are self-interest frames that accepts the “cut and run” frame and says it is in our interest to leave. We “pay,” we“die,” we are stuck there forever. As long as Democrats accept the war-against-evil frame, any self-interest framing will be treated as immoral — acting as a coward, letting evil win out, and endangering our troops.

The Cut-and-Run Frame put forth as a reason why we cannot withdraw from Iraq fits a gallant war. It does not fit a failed occupation. When you have become the villain and target to the people you are trying to help, it’s time to do the right thing — admit the truth that this is an occupation and think and act accordingly. All occupations end with withdrawal. The issue is not bravery versus cowardice in a good cause. The Cut-and-Run Frame does not apply.

In an occupation, there are pragmatic issues: Are we welcome? Are we doing the Iraqis more harm than good? How badly are we being hurt? The question is not whether to withdraw, but when and how? What to say? You might prefer “End the occupation now” or “End the occupation by the end of the year” or “End the occupation within a year, “ but certainly Congress and most Americans should be able to agree on “End the occupation soon.”

In an occupation, not a war, should the president still have war powers? How, if at all, is the Supreme Court decision on military tribunals at Guantanamo affected if we are in an occupation, not a war? What high-handed actions by the President, if any, are ruled out if we are no longer at war?

Telling an inconvenient truth takes some political courage.

Stuff from my Friends List

Posted on by

From :

Why aren’t you angry about these things? I am.

From :

QUOTE
Of course the World Trade Center bombings Virginia Tech massacreis a uniquely tragic event, and it is vital that we never lose sight of the human tragedy involved. However, we must also consider if this is not also a lesson to us all; a lesson that my political views are correct. Although what is done can never be undone, the fact remains that if the world were organised according to my political views, this tragedy would never have happened.

Many people will use this terrible tragedy as an excuse to put through a political agenda other than my own. This tawdry abuse of human suffering for political gain sickens me to the core of my being. Those people who have different political views from me ought to be ashamed of themselves for thinking of cheap partisan point-scoring at a time like this. In any case, what this tragedy really shows us is that, so far from putting into practice political views other than my own, it is precisely my political agenda which ought to be advanced.

Not only are my political views vindicated by this terrible tragedy, but also the status of my profession. Furthermore, it is only in the context of a national and international tragedy like this that we are reminded of the very special status of my hobby, and its particular claim to legislative protection. My religious and spiritual views also have much to teach us about the appropriate reaction to these truly terrible events.

Countries which I like seem to never suffer such tragedies, while countries which, for one reason or another, I dislike, suffer them all the time.The one common factor which seems to explain this has to do with my political views, and it suggests that my political views should be implemented as a matter of urgency, even though they are, as a matter of fact, not implemented in the countries which I like.

Of course the World Trade Center attacks Virginia Tech massacreis a uniquely tragic event, and it is vital that we never lose sight of the human tragedy involved. But we must also not lose sight of the fact that I am right on every significant moral and political issue, and everybody ought to agree with me. Please, I ask you as fellow human beings, vote for the political party which I support, and ask your legislators to support policies endorsed by me, as a matter of urgency.

It would be a fitting memorial.

– slightly modified from Why the Bombings Mean That We Must Support My Politics

Is it politics when I really care about our country?

Posted on by

Regarding the subject of this post, I would answer no. I, perhaps with a measure of vanity, would say that it is patriotism. More on that subject at the end of the post.

Saturday evening, , , and I will be at Luna in Royal Oak, MI. You should totally join us. :)

Lately, I’ve been watching the show, with zefrank. Its provided a daily dose of the surreal, up until the last few entries. Those… the most recent have moved me. Really hit me hard. I don’t think they would have if I had not been watching, perhaps even being one of the Sports Racers, for the last month and a half or two months. If this is the result of combining television and the world wide web (don’t you dare call it the internet), I have more hope than ever.

Good Things are happening with Penguicon 5.0. Stay tuned for more info, because I’ll be blathering my head off about it as soon as things are confirmed.

Since the summer after my 11th grade year, I’ve been working with computers professionally. Every single one of these jobs has revolved around getting the computer to do what the user wants it to do, whether the error was the user’s (PEBKAC), or the computer’s. My defining professional role has been to fix technology that is not functioning properly. The irony that a “curse” has developed around me getting rides in cars (about a week after the first time you give me a ride, the car ends up in the shop for something serious that was developing anyway, but suddenly kersploded) and that I very rarely own a computer for longer than a year and a half is not lost on me. In fact, the irony has been in the forefront of my mind for a little while.

Ironies seem to find the first few rows of my brainmeats to be comfortable, as they are there more often than not.

Technology is. When we say that a computer is being ornery, or contrary, or whatever, it’s because technology has a way. It has a pattern. Perhaps even a Tao (for those not in the know, that means way with a capital W). Pieces of technology are similar to people in this way, but their Way is not ours. Their Way is governed by whatever laws govern shoving a shit-ton of electrons through tiny silicon tubes and between silicon and plastic wafers, or when you use the pressure of thousands of contained fires to get from Lansing, MI to Davis, CA. Science is pretty darn good at predicting and channeling this Way, this behavioral pattern, this pattern of essence. But, like all human endeavors, it’s not perfect. It breaks.

And that is our Way.

Dear Senator Lieberman,

Fifteen months ago, in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal praising the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy, you asked the rhetorical question, “does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq?”

“Yes,” we did, you answered.

Since the day you wrote those words, over 1,000 more American troops have lost their lives in Iraq and that country is more dangerous than ever.

Senator, you had it exactly wrong then, and this week, in another Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled “The Choice on Iraq,” you have managed to get it exactly wrong yet again.

“As the battle for Baghdad just gets underway,” you write in this week’s piece, congressional opponents of the escalation “have already made up their minds about America’s cause in Iraq.”

On the contrary, Senator, it was you and President Bush who had already made up your minds before the war started, using cherry-picked intelligence to sell the war to the American people. And if the battle for Baghdad is “just getting underway,” how do we explain the escalating violence over the last four years?

You claim that “a precipitous pullout would leave a gaping security vacuum in its wake.”

Actually, Senator, it was the precipitous invasion that you supported, along with its disastrous aftermath, which left the security vacuum that exists today – a vacuum which the terrorists, insurgents, and militias have all rushed to fill.

You plead for elected officials to “come together around a constructive legislative agenda for our security.”

Senator, we have already done this. The result was the bipartisan (remember that word?) Baker-Hamilton report which called for a redeployment of our troops over twelve months, plus aggressive diplomacy, as our best hope to bring stability to the region. The report’s conclusions were widely accepted by a strong majority of Democrats and Republicans, and then promptly disregarded by you, the President, and all those who had “already made up their minds,” the facts be damned.

You worry that Washington is removed “from what is actually happening in Iraq.”

Senator, Generals Abizaid and Casey were on the ground in Iraq and opposed the escalation. They recommended a phased redeployment of our combat troops. But rather than listen to them and redeploy the troops, President Bush redeployed his generals, and escalated the war.

On November 8th of last year, while voters across the country were giving Democrats a mandate to change course on Iraq, you were able to muddy the real “Choice on Iraq” for the voters of Connecticut. They thought they were choosing between two candidates who anticipated “significant” troop reductions by the end of the year, who both wanted “to bring our troops home.”

Senator, one of us still believes in those words we spoke during the campaign.

The American people and our military experts have already made their “Choice on Iraq” quite clear. It is now up to all of our elected representatives to follow their lead.

Sincerely,

Ned Lamont

I agree with this. If you can discuss your opinion rationally, and back it up with citations, I am open to discussion.

“Benny.” *pause* “Benny.” *pause* “No, it’s Benny.”

Posted on by

Have you ever wondered what I meant by “security theatre” when it comes to airports?

What I mean is, you get scanned and prodded while they search for shampoo, hair gel, and moisturizer, when someone can scale a fence and take a nap on a plane. There’s no -real- security going on. It’s play-acting. Thanks to Wil Wheaton for this link.

Holy crap did we find the perfect gift for . MU HA HA!

And now, the lasers! PYUUU-PYUUU!! PYUU!!

Posted on by

From :

If you’re going to stick to your guns, we’re sticking to ours. Yes, Congressman Virgil Goode, you are an ass.

I know Christians, people who try to be Christ-like, that are saddened by this sort of thing. Not only that, but it gives Virginia and the entire South a bad name. *sigh* More than that, I am saddened as an American that delusion continues to make its way into our nation’s government. I just want to help these kind of people. Help them across the street, or to their therapy appointments. I just want to pat them on the head and tell them that everything is going to be okay.

I guess it’s just the Eagle Scout in me.

Somewhere in Wisconsin

Posted on by

My iBook tells me that it’s 11:08 PM. My cell phone tells me that it’s 10:08 PM. It’s not that my iBook is dishonest, it’s just misinformed. It still thinks that I’m in the Eastern time zone. My cell phone, while not smarter than my iBook, knows more about my location.

Which, if I were paranoid (like an old friend, Ishmael, was) would bother me.

I’m in the upstairs portion of the lobby of a hotel called the AmericInn, which conjures visions of jack boots and Texas and false dichotomy patriotism.

Could also have been the politics-laden sermon by the priest at the wedding. Which, by the way, is why I’m here in the first place. is cousin to the bride, and Matron of Honor. In his first sentence, he managed to emphasize that marriage is between a man and a woman and that this was to be a Christian wedding. I felt better when he couldn’t seem to hold a coherent thought stream together for more than twelve words. That was later countered by the realization that this man actually influences peoples’ points of view.

I want more Christians to look at their holy text critically. I want them to really read their book. I want them to dissect it, find the puzzles, and relate those puzzles to puzzles that they find within themselves. I want them to see the Jesus of the bible the way that I do[1], as a companion on the quest to become a better human being.

The officiant is not one to see things that way, from my admittedly limited experience of him.

The wedding has been pretty high-stress, and pretty high-alcohol, for many of those involved. I, for one, am glad that they are married, and can start to experience their marriage, which is what the wedding is really all about. A ritual to mark the change in life. A time out of normal space and time, in which we ritualistically acknowledge a change in mode. You, who were single, who were two, are now one. You are not as you were, and we all witness and acknowledge that fact. When we leave here, and go back to our normal lives, you will both be changed, forever after. These people will help you deal with living in this different state. When you leave here, normal space and time will resume. Get with the livin’.

The food was awesome, though.

[1]This makes me a bit of a hypocrite, as the Christians that I’m talking about want me to see Jesus the way that they do. But why would they want me to hate, when he says to love? Why would they want me to kill, when he says that’s bad? Why would they succumb to the base desires and animal-like territorial tendencies, when what is attributed to Jesus in the Holy Bible says to transcend that very thing?