A Clean Process

This years presidential primaries are the best in my memory. Admittedly, that's not saying much. John Kerry was pretty much the democratic nominee before he got to my state, California in 2004. Al Gore was the vice president and heir apparent in 2000. Bill Clinton was, as far as I can remember, unopposed in 1996 and I was too young to vote in 92. So like I said, my experience is limited. What I do remember is how horrible the whole process felt in '04. Kerry seemed like a terrible choice for the nomination but I had no say in the matter. He ran a dismal campaign as the 'not Bush' candidate and I was completely uninspired to vote for him in the general election.
This year it's mostly different.Some of the Democratic candidates like Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich (who had no chance) didn't even make it to states like California or Arizona or even Nevada, in Richardson's case, where they might have had some real constituencies. Aside from this downside, the primary race has been a pretty invigorating competition between senators Obama and Clinton. It's now clear that (almost) every state in the nation will get to declare its preference in the choice. That's great, except for the almost part.
2004 revealed some some serious problems with the primary process. Many people, myself included, feel that the current system gives an unfair advantage to early voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire. There are various proposals to overhaul the entire system, like one interesting idea that has a rotating regional primary in which every four years a different region of the US will be the first to hold it's primaries. While such systems are debated, there have been some efforts to improve the current way of doing things. The Democratic party decided to move a western state, Nevada, into the early rounds of voting in an attempt to give westerners and Hispanics more voice in the primaries. Other states, Michigan and Florida, impatient with reforms decided to drastically move up their primaries into January, against the wishes of the Democratic national party. As a result, the party has barred Michigan and Florid delegates from participating at the convention. One issue not mentioned, to my knowledge, in reforming the primary system is the role of Super delegates, party elite who may have a very active role in this years convention.
What we have, then, is a very competitive and interesting race in a very technical and nuance ridden system. In short, a Democratic primary, that may end in a decidedly undemocratic fashion. In order to prevent such and undesirable outcome, I'm am proposing a sort of boycott. I will abstain from voting in the general election if the Democratic candidate is chosen in a decidedly underhanded manner. If enough people join me, we may be able to keep the candidate selection process honest. At this point in the primary, it's not the Obama campaign that worries me so much as the Clinton campaign does. I don't think that Obama is above using political machinations to come to power, I just think that Clinton has more opportunity and has shown a bit more of a predilection to do so. The affair with the Nevada caucuses meeting in the casinos comes to mind. There, nobody had a problem with casino workers meeting at their workplaces to caucus until the union representing those workers decided to endorse Obama. Then a union endorsing Clinton brought a lawsuit to try to stop the workers holding caucuses in the casinos. The lawsuit failed, casino workers turned out for both Obama and Clinton, and Clinton won Nevada.
I would happily support a Clinton candidacy if she wins the nomination through a just process. But her efforts to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida are not just. I sympathize with the states of Florida and Michigan in their attempt to make their voices heard in the primary. But when they were banned by the party from participating, nobody went to those states to campaign. If their delegates are included without Obama having had the chance to compete for their votes the nomination will be seriously tainted.
Finally, I cannot support a Clinton candidacy in which the party elite, the Super Delegates, nominate Clinton while Obama wins a majority of the popular vote. And, of course, the reverse is also true. Delegates selecting Obama over a Clinton popular win is equally unpalatable.
If this great choice is ruined by machinations and back room politics we must show the Democratic party that such actions are intolerable.

More T-Shirt

Here is a link to the account of the man who wore the T-Shirt. Email wewillnotbesilent@gmail.com to buy a shirt. I have, at present, no idea where the proceeds go.

We Will Not Be Silent

Now why, you may ask, have I decided to post again after letting my blog sit fallow for an entire year? Well, to take an entirely egocentric approach, it's as if the world were conspiring to create an event perfectly tailored to bring me to the maximum point of anger and disgust. You may say, but the Israeli aggression in Lebanon has just ended. Sure they killed nearly a 1000 civilians in indiscriminate bombing, but why weren't you complaining about that 2 weeks ago? You're right, that is certainly reason to be upset, but I'm always upset about the situations in the middle east.
No, this was a fresh stirring of my disappointment with America. The stoking of my ever smoldering disillusionment. Ever since Mr. Bush slapped our collective faces by telling us that terrorists hate us for our freedom, I have looked with disdain on Americans who support a government doing everything it can to expand the power of the executive and erode all checks and balances while saying that they support our troops who are fighting to defend our freedom.
Firstly, the troops are not fighting to defend our freedom. Oh they're fighting, and for us, but neither Afghanistan nor Iraq was in any sort of position to threaten our freedom. Secondly, and far more importantly, if you support people fighting for your freedom, you'd better know what that freedom is, and you'd better be willing to die for it yourself. I have a right-wing friend with whom I agree on absolutely nothing politically, but he says that he would be willing to give his life for my right to state my beliefs, and I would likewise do the same for him. Is freedom of expression not one of the core values of a pluralist democratic society? Is this not the reason for our "war on terror"? If so, then someone explain to me this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5297822.stm?ls

My favorite part of this BBC article is at the very end "[We will not be silent] is said to derive from the White Rose dissident group which opposed Nazi rule in Germany." I bet those nervous passengers, may their teeth rot, know all about the White Rose group.

And then there's the NY Times article (for which I had to search):

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Arabic-T-Shirt.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

It contains this gem "One official told him, ''Going to an airport with a T-shirt in Arabic script is like going to a bank and wearing a T-shirt that says, `I'm a robber,''' It's hard for me to maintain composure when I read this. The racism and idiocy is obvious, but it warrants a little deeper investigation. There is a slight ring of truth to the statement, which is what make me really angry. If you think about it, wearing a shirt with Arabic writing on it might be asking for trouble. Why? Because people fear Arabic. People are associating and entire language with centuries of history and millions of speakers of all walks of life with terrorism. The people at that airport thought Arabic=terrorism. I'm not going to write anymore on this right now. That feeling of disgust is coming over me again.

Anniversary

Well, I am late in celebrating my one year anniversary. One year, that is, since my last post. I can still remember when I first started the blog. I wanted to try to post at the very least once a week. I think that if I set my new goal to once a year, I will have a little more success.

Political Islam

I've recently started a new book (they're so much easier to start than to finish sometimes) called Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam by Gilles Kepel. Kepel is a French academic who, it seems to me, does a good job on laying out the political and intellectual framework of militant Islam, or maybe I should call it extremist political Islam. I've also recently read his "War for Muslim Minds" which details the various ideologies and philosophies vying for the hearts and minds of Muslims in the middle east and Europe. I recommend the latter book for a look at what exactly those philosophies are and by whom they are espoused.
I've heard Islamic extremism called both fascist and nihilist in the press and I think that up till now those have both been pretty good description. The methods of the ideology and the groups that espouse them do seem very fascist to me. The draw of suicide attackers, like those responsible for 9-11 seem very nihilistic. In the introduction to Jihad Kepel points out that the 19 hijackers of September 11th did not fit the expected fundamentalist model. They appeared largely as westernized educated youth, not turbaned and bearded fundamentalists. They, and those responsible for the recent London tube bombings, sought only to strike a great blow, to destroy and be nothing more than that destruction. Maybe the 19 hijackers thought they would somehow be igniting the catalyst for the reformation of the middle east into their Islamic ideal, but they must of at least had some doubts that such a thing would work, which is where nihilism would have kicked in. The London bombers, who seemed to have acted separately from any of the big political Islam theorists, almost certainly knew that their attacks could bring about nothing but destruction and mayhem.
Kepel and others argue that 9-11 represented a last ditch effort for those who wished to violently remake the middle east into the image of the glorified days of Mohammed. All other options had failed. Afghanistan was a victory, but Algeria, Egypt, Bosnia, all causes had failed to mobalize the masses to the banned of political Islam.
Al of that is very interesting and well laid out by Kepel and others. My question now is, what will become of political Islam in the face of Iraq. I greatly hope that the fascist factions of Islamic extremist recognize 9-11 as a failure that greatly harmed their cause (they lost the "righteous" government of the Taliban and failed to gain mass support) and don't kill more innocents here. But I fear that while 9-11 might have weakened them, Iraq is strengthening them and encouraging them. The very chaos of the situation there may serve to push people towards a strong leader who may emerge. Continued sectarian strife could well create more than one such leader.
The constitution will, I predict, do absolutely nothing. A nation given a deadline and told to write a constitution by that time, my God, can anything be more ridiculous? The great constitutions of the world were developed when people decided to write them and recognized when it was time to do so. This makes me worry that things will get worse there before they get better.

About an interest of mine

As those who know me will tell you, my main area of interest and specialty is the politics and recent history of the middle east. I'm frequently asked why I have so much interest in the region. Well, by frequently I mean whenever I choose to discuss the subject, which isn't too often since I have a lot of opinions and thoughts on the matter and don't like to seem to drone on about controversial or, worst, boring issues. I guess that's what blogs are for, eh?
Anyway, the reason for my interest in the middle east is that it's such a dynamic area. I mean, many of the governments have been stagnant for the past 50 years, but if you look on it with the only slightly larger scale of 100 years there have been amazing changes. The transition from the at least nominally united Ottoman Empire to colonial mandates and protectorates to the various independent nations has been a rocky one, and quite intellectually intriguing. What really sucked me into the area was reading about the Iranian revolution. There are not a huge amount of real popular revolutions in the history of mankind, and to see one in action (I would argue that it is far from over) is very educational.
There is still much change ahead for the region. It is both a powder keg and a place with great potential and hope. For these reasons, and others, I am captivated by the middle east. So I cannot help but to make it one of the main focuses of my writing here. Of course, as an American, I'll likely often focus on American policies in the region. I'm sure that at times I'll sound like a leftist who wants to blame all the regions problems on American actions. I must protest in advance that it will only seem so. As an American I feel that it is America's policies that it is my place to criticize. One recent NY Times editorial really angered me in its advising of Iraqis on how to write their constitution. What place is it of theirs to tell Iraqis what type of government they should have. Not that anyone writing the constitution would probably be looking to the Times for advice on the matter. I can see in the meeting "Well, what are we going to do about the enforcement of national law in the semi-autonomous north?," "Hmm, I was reading the Times today, you know Chalabi's mouthpiece, and they've got some great advise." I bet that's not happening. But my point is that I comment on American policies because that where I live. Oh yeah, and I'm certain to sound like a leftist.

Who's Who

Try this informal survey at work. First, ask your co-workers if they know who won the last American Idol contest. Some of them will probably be able to tell you what the last song they sang was, too. Next, ask them what they can tell you about 'Ayman Zwahiri. I'm very curious to know how many people, or what percentage of the American population can identify this man.
Zwahiri, if you don't know, which is understandable because he doesn't get quite as much press as an American Idol contestant might, is Bin Laden's right hand man. Some call him his mentor. I guess the best way to put it, as far as I can understand it, is that he's the guy who supplies Bin Laden with the "intellectual" underpinnings of Al Qaeda's actions.
What bothers me is that people don't know who he is. It seems to me that if you're at all gung-ho about the War-On-Terror, I'm sorry, the struggle against international extremism (see next post), you should probably be aware of some of the players involved. If people did know a little bit more about what was going on in this mess, maybe we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Perhaps if people start now to understand who's who, we can avoid future debacles.

No Nuclear Weapons Material

So, Tierney's Nadagate continues, and it seems to me that with all the back and forth bickering about whether what Rove, now that we've established him as the leak, did was treasonous or patriotic, the press seems to be forgetting that the presidents claims were based on forged documents and Saddam had received no uranium from Niger. Ambassadors Wilson's claims that the president was presenting faulty information were correct. Rove and Novak's attempts to poison the well by pointing out that Wilson was recommended for the Niger trip by his wife don't affect his points, indeed, it's one of the classic fallacious arguments.
This issue will fade away. Fitzgeralds case will come to nothing. Bush will fire no one. Judith Miller will get out of jail and return to writing articles like the one she wrote before the war began saying that not only would the smoking gun evidence of WMDs be found in Iraq, but a silver bullet (which I guess is a way of saying the evidence is even more compelling?)

That reminds me, I wonder what Chalabi is up to these days. It was he who, while giving fuel to the neo-cons convinced the Times (via Miller) and the Post that there was good reason for the invasion. Then he fell out of US favor a year and a half ago, was accused of counterfeiting Iraqi money, then found religion and was in some group linked to Muqtada al-Sadr. That guy's got real talent. I'm sure we've not seen the last of him.

Trajan

"Trajan was ambitious of fame; and as long as mankind shall continue to bestow more liberal applause on their destroyers than on their benefactors, the thirst for military glory will ever be the vice of the most exalted characters"

-Gibbon v.1p35

Vicissitude of Fortune

"The forests and morasses of Germany were filled with a hardy race of barbarians, who despised life when it was separated from freedom; and thought on the first attack, they seemed to yield to the weight of Roman power, they soon, by a single act of despair, regained their independence and reminded Augustus of the vicissitude of fortune."

-Gibbon v.1p32

Edward Gibbon

I've just started reading Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Some of the sentences I've come across thus far are amazing so I've decided to post them here.

Nadagate

In today's New York Times columnist John Tierney suggests Nadagate as a title for the scandal I discuss bellow. A label for "a scandal that's not scandalous" he says. If he's correct, than we have on our hands the most scandalous non-scandalous-scandal ever (I sound like Rumsfeld here). If the courts have gone so far as to send someone to jail for contempt in refusing to break sworn confidentiality when the case involves no real crimes, I think that's sort of scandalous. When the Whitehouse declares that its ridiculous to say Karl Rove had anything to do with the leaking of a CIA agents name and then its later discovered that he had been discussing that very subject with various members of the press, then that might qualify as scandalous. When a country is led to war on false pretenses, misleading statements and outright lies, then that's certainly scandalous. I think that is the larger issue that is being lost sight of in all the questions about the investigation. I really hope that peoples' attentions are once again being drawn to the presidents preverications about the war.

Kow Tow

Recently a federal prosecutor was able to cajole Time magazine into submitting to the court the notes of its reporter, Matt Cooper, thereby revealing his confidential sources for a story he wrote. Time Inc. felt that it was better to comply with a court order than to protect the integrity of their employees and their company. Time's Editor in Chief Norman Pearlstine explained his decision saying "I think it sets a bad precedent for journalists to think they are above the law, it leads to anarchy. That is one of the reasons the press is held in such low esteem." Indeed, the press is held in low esteem, but not because reporters think themselves 'above the law'. The press is poorly thought of because for the entire Bush presidency they've done nothing but tow the administration line.
Take, for example, the events that brought us to this current imbroglio. In his State of the Union address in the lead up to the occupation of Iraq, Bush claimed that there was evidence that Saddam Hussein was attempting to purchase yellowcake from Niger to produce nuclear bombs. Before he decided to bring this statement before our nation as causi bellum, it had already been discredited. Did the press aggressively scrutinize the president's claims? No, they let it pass, calling his bluff only after the war had begun. It was the same way for Bush's other claim that Saddam was buying aluminum tubes for use in a centrifuge. Again, after the war the fourth estate was kind enough to inform us that the materials in question could not be used to produce nuclear weapons.
The press is held in low esteem because they seem to have no voice of their own. Now, when two reporters attempt to bravely protect what little voice they've left, one of their editors under-cuts them, and capitulates to the governments demands. We very much need the press to question the policies and actions of this administration, not go along with and do whatever it says.