A Common Sense Hangover
The recent Budget tabled by the Ontario Liberal government has caught the politically uninformed off-guard. Throughout the province angry Ontarians are ready to take Mr. Guinty to task for what they see as an egregious breach of trust. One man even went so far as to send a strongly worded email—flagrantly, harassing hate-mail—to Mr. McGuinty, quickly resulting in the man’s arrest. It is doubtless, though, that many Ontarians are restraining their distaste for this budget until the June 28th Federal election. So what is it exactly that has raised the ire of so many Ontarians? Well, for one, Dalton McGuntiy misled the electorate when he said that he wouldn’t raise taxes. Also, the change Ontario voters chose apparently came at too high of a price than they were willing to stomach. But the skeptical onlooker would wryly rejoined, “Why is this news? Weren’t voters paying attention to this before the election?” Likewise, the seasoned cynic would demur, “Come’ on people, pay attention”.
In not necessarily an about face, the Liberals have implemented new health care premiums that will re-infuse $2.2 billion back into Ontario’s beleaguered Health Care System. Somehow Ontarians were under the impression that reinvesting back into our social treasures of Education and Health would be without no personal sacrifice. One must concede, though, that Dalton McGuinty offered a slightly redacted version of his vision of Ontario during the election when he promised not to raise taxes. However, if one were so inclined to read his lips carefully during the election, one would have caught the essential esoteric meaning: personal income taxes won’t be increased, though, user fees, premiums, increases in licensing, ect, will be introduced. This form of indirect taxes isn’t, within the letter of his intent—the literal meaning—an increase in personal income taxes. But within the spirit of his intent, and the commonly construed public understanding of it, an increase in indirect taxes is clearly a breach of trust.
Yet, considering the $5.6 billion deficit McGuntiy inherited from the out-going Harris/Eves government, these measures are vital to the education and health policy the Ontario Liberals hope to implement. The Ontario Liberals came to power because Ontario voters voted against the Harris/Eves Conservative record. For them, the Common Sense Revolution amounted to a self-inflicted wound that put into disrepair Ontario’s Educational, Health, and Public infrastructure. The economic prosperity Ontario underwent during the Common Sense revolution was incompetently squandered by the Tories, and in the end Ontarians were left with a $5.6 billion bill, and a nasty hangover. Though it may pain them, Ontarians must come to the sobering realization that social programs cost money, and if you’re not willing to gin up then don’t complain about health care and education when the Tories cut social spending to fund your tax cuts; because when they inevitably do, you should start looking for alternative(viz. private) forms of education and health services, to augment what will most certainly become Ontario’s weak public health and education services.
A May 22 article in The Globe and Mail by Murray Campbell speaks to these concerns. Referring to Finance Minister Greg Sorbara, the article reads:
He acknowledged that the Liberals' fiscal promises were a "small but important part" of their election campaign, but argued that the party was elected primarily because it promised to re-invest in government programs that had been cut back during eight years of Progressive Conservative rule.
Further underscoring the necessity of the measures taken, Sorbara concludes:
"The strongest mandate coming out of the campaign was for improvements in public services," he said. He noted that a Conservative campaign that argued for lower taxes and continued spending restraint had been "soundly rejected" by voters
Despite the noble intentions of the Ontario Liberal government, this budget will have an adverse political effect on the electoral fortunes of the Federal Liberals come election time. Already reeling from the sponsorship scandal, compounded by waning brand credibility, this budget may inflict an irrevocable body blow to the ailing Federal Liberals. As Ontarians dizzily awake to today's political realities, and the Common Sense Hangover sets in, poor, reactionary political choices will be made, and for this the Federal Liberals will suffer dearly. But, then again, that’s nothing new.
Saturday, May 29, 2004
Friday, May 28, 2004
Apathy, Shmapathy
With the writ dropped, Canadians are gearing up for a June 28th election date, with all the verve of a retarded lounge singer. Special election coverage by the networks is abound, as the politicians position themselves to appeal to the inquisitive electorate—whether they number in the tens of thousands, or simply in the hundreds. Most Canadians have their attention directed to the Stanley Cup, and rightfully so: The Calgary Flames are making their first appearance since 1989. In fact, the Flames are the first Canadian team in the last 10 years to be in the Finals; the last Canadian team was Vancouver in 1994. So for at least the next two weeks, the news, despite being replete with vital political information, will largely be ignored—that is of course until the Flames win the Cup.
Nonetheless, don’t be surprised by all the insipid political forums that “want” to increase youth political awareness and engagement. As far as I’m concerned, youth political engagement is a risible oxymoron. The plaintive moans of youth activists who complain that politicians ignore their demands have become a tired refrain. Calls for political reform, both electoral and institutional, have fallen on deaf ears. The argument goes: the youth don’t vote because they have no vested interest to vote. This should come as no shock to both the politically literate and the politically illiterate: the youth have no vested interest insofar as they have no political and generational capital to effect political change. Admittedly, they should be concerned as regards educational policy, especially those in any form of post-secondary institution. Though, It would be nonsensical to have youth effect change to educational policy simply because we need more youthful political engagement.
We have experts for a reason; experts have experience for a reason. Just as anyone would prefer an informed opinion when assessing a situation, one should also seek an informed vote when engaging the political process.
Youth participation in the electoral process is punctuated by the amount of comfort, knowledge, and experience they bring to the table. I would much rather that someone, of any age group, decide not to vote because of lack of comfort, lack of knowledge, and lack of experience, than someone quixotically voting uniformed, just because they can.
Thus far, the term youth has been used ambiguously, to refer to youth in general; though the term must be explained more specifically to what I contend it to mean in a demographic sense. From heretofore, youth will refer to those under the age of 26, who may still be in some form of post-secondary education or already in the work field—though a difference of degree may separate those youth who work and those who are still in school. My basic point is that those youth with no vested interest in tax policy and regional issues are less likely to be affected and appealed to by politician, more specifically politicians in their constituency. The point couldn’t be put any simpler: You vote for the Member of Parliament in your riding, not the leader of the political party you want to win. Likewise, with the high mobility of youth in post-secondary education—who appear to be the group more likely to be politically apathetic—no grounding, regional experience will engage them. Not working in the area, but for months, and having little to no property commitments will generally dictate the level of engagement one has with their surroundings. This, undoubtedly, translates to one’s political engagement in the region.
Historical perspective also illustrates this point clearer. The introduction of universal male suffrage, during the tail-end of the 19th century, had much to do with the electoral inequality of having only propertied elites dictate legislation to all. Many felt that because of taxation, which fell on each male, they needed to be politically represented: No Taxation without representation.
The political term “voter apathy” wasn’t yet in parlance because people demanded franchise, and willingly participated in the process.
Greater measures to expand suffrage to women and blacks inaugurated a rights revolution that saw the disbanding of old institutions of discrimination. The universal voting age was also lowered to 18 from 21 in the 1970’s. Though foolish, one legislator in California, just this year, has proposed a bill that would lower the voting age to 14, effectively giving 14 year olds half votes.
Today, the ethos of political engagement has not changed, considerably—though voter turn out in the western industrial countries has declined precipitously since the 1980’s. Many believe this has more to do with economic stability of liberal democracies, than a general erosion of the political process—though the point can be made, and it has been, forcefully, by some, that corporate, political party financing has changed the dynamic. The corporate infiltration into the political process is a point not to be lightly disregarded, and more needs to be said of that influence.
But my essential misgiving is with the argument that the youth aren’t politically engaged because of a failure of the system. Once youth exceed the age of 26, develop roots to a region, and begin paying substantially into the tax system, then a natural and vital engagement with the political variables that affect their lifestyles will manifest. This is not to say that all over the age of 26 are more politically engaged than those under 26; however, a greater proportion of those over 26 have a greater reason to be politically engaged, than those under 26. No representation without taxation or, from a modern perspective, no reason to care about representation because I don’t necessarily pay a lot of taxation.
Youth today aren’t as politically engaged as some would desire, yet this seems to be more a symptom of their experiential situation than necessarily a fatal flaw of the political system.
With the writ dropped, Canadians are gearing up for a June 28th election date, with all the verve of a retarded lounge singer. Special election coverage by the networks is abound, as the politicians position themselves to appeal to the inquisitive electorate—whether they number in the tens of thousands, or simply in the hundreds. Most Canadians have their attention directed to the Stanley Cup, and rightfully so: The Calgary Flames are making their first appearance since 1989. In fact, the Flames are the first Canadian team in the last 10 years to be in the Finals; the last Canadian team was Vancouver in 1994. So for at least the next two weeks, the news, despite being replete with vital political information, will largely be ignored—that is of course until the Flames win the Cup.
Nonetheless, don’t be surprised by all the insipid political forums that “want” to increase youth political awareness and engagement. As far as I’m concerned, youth political engagement is a risible oxymoron. The plaintive moans of youth activists who complain that politicians ignore their demands have become a tired refrain. Calls for political reform, both electoral and institutional, have fallen on deaf ears. The argument goes: the youth don’t vote because they have no vested interest to vote. This should come as no shock to both the politically literate and the politically illiterate: the youth have no vested interest insofar as they have no political and generational capital to effect political change. Admittedly, they should be concerned as regards educational policy, especially those in any form of post-secondary institution. Though, It would be nonsensical to have youth effect change to educational policy simply because we need more youthful political engagement.
We have experts for a reason; experts have experience for a reason. Just as anyone would prefer an informed opinion when assessing a situation, one should also seek an informed vote when engaging the political process.
Youth participation in the electoral process is punctuated by the amount of comfort, knowledge, and experience they bring to the table. I would much rather that someone, of any age group, decide not to vote because of lack of comfort, lack of knowledge, and lack of experience, than someone quixotically voting uniformed, just because they can.
Thus far, the term youth has been used ambiguously, to refer to youth in general; though the term must be explained more specifically to what I contend it to mean in a demographic sense. From heretofore, youth will refer to those under the age of 26, who may still be in some form of post-secondary education or already in the work field—though a difference of degree may separate those youth who work and those who are still in school. My basic point is that those youth with no vested interest in tax policy and regional issues are less likely to be affected and appealed to by politician, more specifically politicians in their constituency. The point couldn’t be put any simpler: You vote for the Member of Parliament in your riding, not the leader of the political party you want to win. Likewise, with the high mobility of youth in post-secondary education—who appear to be the group more likely to be politically apathetic—no grounding, regional experience will engage them. Not working in the area, but for months, and having little to no property commitments will generally dictate the level of engagement one has with their surroundings. This, undoubtedly, translates to one’s political engagement in the region.
Historical perspective also illustrates this point clearer. The introduction of universal male suffrage, during the tail-end of the 19th century, had much to do with the electoral inequality of having only propertied elites dictate legislation to all. Many felt that because of taxation, which fell on each male, they needed to be politically represented: No Taxation without representation.
The political term “voter apathy” wasn’t yet in parlance because people demanded franchise, and willingly participated in the process.
Greater measures to expand suffrage to women and blacks inaugurated a rights revolution that saw the disbanding of old institutions of discrimination. The universal voting age was also lowered to 18 from 21 in the 1970’s. Though foolish, one legislator in California, just this year, has proposed a bill that would lower the voting age to 14, effectively giving 14 year olds half votes.
Today, the ethos of political engagement has not changed, considerably—though voter turn out in the western industrial countries has declined precipitously since the 1980’s. Many believe this has more to do with economic stability of liberal democracies, than a general erosion of the political process—though the point can be made, and it has been, forcefully, by some, that corporate, political party financing has changed the dynamic. The corporate infiltration into the political process is a point not to be lightly disregarded, and more needs to be said of that influence.
But my essential misgiving is with the argument that the youth aren’t politically engaged because of a failure of the system. Once youth exceed the age of 26, develop roots to a region, and begin paying substantially into the tax system, then a natural and vital engagement with the political variables that affect their lifestyles will manifest. This is not to say that all over the age of 26 are more politically engaged than those under 26; however, a greater proportion of those over 26 have a greater reason to be politically engaged, than those under 26. No representation without taxation or, from a modern perspective, no reason to care about representation because I don’t necessarily pay a lot of taxation.
Youth today aren’t as politically engaged as some would desire, yet this seems to be more a symptom of their experiential situation than necessarily a fatal flaw of the political system.
Monday, May 10, 2004
Extreme Think-Over
With shows like Extreme Makeover, The Swan, and I Want A Celebrity Face permeating mainstream popular culture, and shamefully gracing the hapless networks, the issue of surgical enhancement has taken center stage in our relentless quest for self-perfection. Some Botox here, a chin tuck there, plus facial reconstructive surgery here, a new wardrobe, and I'm ready to begin my new life—this isn’t even taking into account the necessary cognitive therapy to assume my new persona.
Even meek, moralistic Canadians are rushing to their plastic surgeons in record numbers. In 2003, the number of Canadians going in for a surgical enhancement procedure increased by 30% from the pervious year.
Indeed, shows like The Swan reflect rather than create or instruct the growing trend toward more surgical enhancement; and, insofar as these shows sensitize and sanitize our previously temperate attitudes toward surgical enhancement, they also cultivate and intensify an atmosphere that regards such activities as socially acceptable and, more importantly, normal.
Therefore, what is interesting is how the public dialogue has pushed the moral concerns closer to the fringes. No longer is it taboo to consider surgical enhancement: a scared cow has been tipped—at least partially. As a matter of personal choice and self-improvement, what essentially is the moral difference between exercise and surgical enhancement? To be fair, the physical differences are scant when taking into account the physiological enchantment of exercise. Thus, surgical enhancement's primary goal, apart from the visible modification, is the notion that visible modification will benefit you physiological, or more specifically: it makes you feel better about your-self. One exercises for the physical and mental benefits; surgical enhancement offers these same ends—though with much less effort.
But the negative opinions still persist. Why is this?
It may simply be that surgical enhancement is a relativity effortless form of self improvement, and that people—viz. rich people—will eventually buy their way to beauty and social prominence (like they haven't already). Soci-economic disparities generally predicate the way in which employment opportunities are distributed. On top of this, it is widely accepted, and shown through numerous studies, that preferential treatment is disproportionately given to good looking people.
Therefore, a strong argument for surgical enhancement can be made on the grounds that but for surgical enhancement the livelihood of a not so good looking person would suffer. If one has the means and the desire, then why not enhance her or his professional and personal livelihood through surgical enhancement?
This, of course, raises ethical implications in our public and social policy mechanisms. Though economic accessibility still remains a barrier to the equality of surgical enhancement opportunities, a comprehensive study of the systemic flaws in contemporary social and political arrangements, which is far beyond the scope of this post, would explore the issue more adequately. Yet, remaining pragmatic on this issue appears to be the only sane position at this point
With shows like Extreme Makeover, The Swan, and I Want A Celebrity Face permeating mainstream popular culture, and shamefully gracing the hapless networks, the issue of surgical enhancement has taken center stage in our relentless quest for self-perfection. Some Botox here, a chin tuck there, plus facial reconstructive surgery here, a new wardrobe, and I'm ready to begin my new life—this isn’t even taking into account the necessary cognitive therapy to assume my new persona.
Even meek, moralistic Canadians are rushing to their plastic surgeons in record numbers. In 2003, the number of Canadians going in for a surgical enhancement procedure increased by 30% from the pervious year.
Indeed, shows like The Swan reflect rather than create or instruct the growing trend toward more surgical enhancement; and, insofar as these shows sensitize and sanitize our previously temperate attitudes toward surgical enhancement, they also cultivate and intensify an atmosphere that regards such activities as socially acceptable and, more importantly, normal.
Therefore, what is interesting is how the public dialogue has pushed the moral concerns closer to the fringes. No longer is it taboo to consider surgical enhancement: a scared cow has been tipped—at least partially. As a matter of personal choice and self-improvement, what essentially is the moral difference between exercise and surgical enhancement? To be fair, the physical differences are scant when taking into account the physiological enchantment of exercise. Thus, surgical enhancement's primary goal, apart from the visible modification, is the notion that visible modification will benefit you physiological, or more specifically: it makes you feel better about your-self. One exercises for the physical and mental benefits; surgical enhancement offers these same ends—though with much less effort.
But the negative opinions still persist. Why is this?
It may simply be that surgical enhancement is a relativity effortless form of self improvement, and that people—viz. rich people—will eventually buy their way to beauty and social prominence (like they haven't already). Soci-economic disparities generally predicate the way in which employment opportunities are distributed. On top of this, it is widely accepted, and shown through numerous studies, that preferential treatment is disproportionately given to good looking people.
Therefore, a strong argument for surgical enhancement can be made on the grounds that but for surgical enhancement the livelihood of a not so good looking person would suffer. If one has the means and the desire, then why not enhance her or his professional and personal livelihood through surgical enhancement?
This, of course, raises ethical implications in our public and social policy mechanisms. Though economic accessibility still remains a barrier to the equality of surgical enhancement opportunities, a comprehensive study of the systemic flaws in contemporary social and political arrangements, which is far beyond the scope of this post, would explore the issue more adequately. Yet, remaining pragmatic on this issue appears to be the only sane position at this point
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
Not So Shocked and Appalled
News of Iraqi prisoners being tortured, humiliated, and degraded struck me rather oddly, to say the least. I was truly unable to emote the sort of standard outrage that usually occasions news of this type. To say that my indifference borders on callous would be fair; though, it must be noted, the news wasn’t surprising to me. I tend to generally hold the U.S to a very low standard when it comes to upholding the Geneva Convention (GC)—to be honest I hold every country that has engaged in any type of warfare/military operation within the last 20 years to a lower standard, if for no other reason than they were in warfare. It’s quite easy to follow the dictates of the GC when you’re not engaged in a military operation. It’s even easier when you not providing security and stability for the country you’re not occupying.
Therefore when I heard that six military police (MP’s) humiliated and degraded Iraq prisoners, I thought to myself, “I wonder what’s not being reported?” My lack of moral outrage frightens me sometimes—as it likely should the reader—since such heinous acts should be met with moral opprobrium everywhere.
To be frank, this speaks more to my growing cynicism of political language and rhetoric, than to my growing depravity in general—although I wouldn’t necessarily discount the later.
The “the facts on the ground” are certainly far worse than is reportable or palatable to the general public. One can only imagine—and it shouldn’t be difficult to do so—the types of criminal activities US soldiers engage in with sheer impunity. There is clearly no greater power militarily than the US in the region and, likewise, clearly no other organization able to legally reprimand or sanction the US. But, the US, already struggling to win the “Hearts and Minds” of the Iraqis, has blundered in a huge way. Managing perceptions and expectations of transforming US force into a benevolent fount seemed near impossible; but, now it is a lot closer to being empirically impossible.
Opponents of the Iraqi war are now realizing all their previous predictions and checking off their laundry list of catastrophic outcomes the occupation would produce. It is doubtless the Bush Administration was overly—even criminally— optimistic when it came to making the case for war; and now their eating crow. But to be fair, their detractors shouldn’t feel contented about their pre-war predictions. As far as I see it, these outcomes were a fait accompli.
These are the facts: guerrilla warfare has broken out in the cities and is fomenting the type of alienation necessary to make regular Iraqis question the continued presence of US troops; fundamentalist clerics fearful of losing territorial authority are usurping provisional government authority in the region, desperately holding on to what little power they have left; in the commission of military security, the US has detained prisoners and either humiliated, degraded, or tortured them. These things were all bound to happen, and they have all come to fruition. It wasn’t a matter of if these things could happen, but rather when these things would happen. This is why I wasn’t surprised when I heard of the tortures. I’m saving my moral outrage for something else.
News of Iraqi prisoners being tortured, humiliated, and degraded struck me rather oddly, to say the least. I was truly unable to emote the sort of standard outrage that usually occasions news of this type. To say that my indifference borders on callous would be fair; though, it must be noted, the news wasn’t surprising to me. I tend to generally hold the U.S to a very low standard when it comes to upholding the Geneva Convention (GC)—to be honest I hold every country that has engaged in any type of warfare/military operation within the last 20 years to a lower standard, if for no other reason than they were in warfare. It’s quite easy to follow the dictates of the GC when you’re not engaged in a military operation. It’s even easier when you not providing security and stability for the country you’re not occupying.
Therefore when I heard that six military police (MP’s) humiliated and degraded Iraq prisoners, I thought to myself, “I wonder what’s not being reported?” My lack of moral outrage frightens me sometimes—as it likely should the reader—since such heinous acts should be met with moral opprobrium everywhere.
To be frank, this speaks more to my growing cynicism of political language and rhetoric, than to my growing depravity in general—although I wouldn’t necessarily discount the later.
The “the facts on the ground” are certainly far worse than is reportable or palatable to the general public. One can only imagine—and it shouldn’t be difficult to do so—the types of criminal activities US soldiers engage in with sheer impunity. There is clearly no greater power militarily than the US in the region and, likewise, clearly no other organization able to legally reprimand or sanction the US. But, the US, already struggling to win the “Hearts and Minds” of the Iraqis, has blundered in a huge way. Managing perceptions and expectations of transforming US force into a benevolent fount seemed near impossible; but, now it is a lot closer to being empirically impossible.
Opponents of the Iraqi war are now realizing all their previous predictions and checking off their laundry list of catastrophic outcomes the occupation would produce. It is doubtless the Bush Administration was overly—even criminally— optimistic when it came to making the case for war; and now their eating crow. But to be fair, their detractors shouldn’t feel contented about their pre-war predictions. As far as I see it, these outcomes were a fait accompli.
These are the facts: guerrilla warfare has broken out in the cities and is fomenting the type of alienation necessary to make regular Iraqis question the continued presence of US troops; fundamentalist clerics fearful of losing territorial authority are usurping provisional government authority in the region, desperately holding on to what little power they have left; in the commission of military security, the US has detained prisoners and either humiliated, degraded, or tortured them. These things were all bound to happen, and they have all come to fruition. It wasn’t a matter of if these things could happen, but rather when these things would happen. This is why I wasn’t surprised when I heard of the tortures. I’m saving my moral outrage for something else.
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
A Long Hard One
Either way you slice it, the US has a serious problem on its hands with Iraq. After a tumultuous month, the Administration is quickly moving to acquire more UN assistance. With the June 30th hand-over date on the horizon, and no let up in insurgent attacks, it appears that securing a workable mandate with the UN won't necessarily matter in the short-run.
Despite wails of consternation from Bush detractors to internationalize the occupation of Iraq, the UN has been hesitant to step in at any capacity since the bombing of its headquarters in Iraq last August. Some months back, Kofi Annan deplored the UN's lack of risk assement and preparedness in Iraq that led to the bombing that killed 22 and wounded 150. Seeking desperately to change the optics, the Bush Administration has tasked U.N. diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi to handle the process of power transfer by June 30th.
Another battle the US faces is keeping coalition members in the coalition. Spain and Honduras have decided to move their troops out earlier than expected, yet their military presence in Iraq-- not to demean-- was, and is, very small and ineffectual. The US hasn't really made a rile about losing these members of the "coalition of the willing", which should speak to how valuable their contributions really were.
Nonetheless, even if the Bush Administration is shifting its policy-- be it from lack of alternatives, or because of political imperatives and strategic necessities-- the attacks by insurgents still continue. If anything, the presence of more troops will only embolden insurgent and guerilla efforts. In addition, the sophistication of the attacks seem to be increasing, and an unweilding response by US forces to these attacks will only cause unavoidable civilian causalities-- further exacerbating US relations with moderates.
An interesting point, though, that goes unmentioned, is the characterization of these latest uprisings in Fulluja and Najaf as insurgent uprising, rather than terror related. The term terrorist has been dropped from White House parlance with regard to Iraq lately; though just today their seems to have been car bombings in Iraq killing 68 people which may be related to foreign terrorist.
What the Bush Administration is certainly doing right now is working the back channels of negotiation with moderate clerics like Sistani, in an attempt to mollify these uprisings. Short of precise tactical weapons to extricate these insurgents, the US has to negotiate to maintain a level of civility just to start talks. Sustained attacks against the insurgents hold up in civilian areas will prove to be extremely counter productive in the long run.
Therefore, though internationalizing the occupation of Iraq is a wise, if far a too late, move by the Bush Administration, the larger problem is regaining stability within the region. This requires propping up credible public arbiters, Sistani being one, and removing all appearances of an engineered occupation (Iraq governing Council-IGC). Likewise, other substantive measures should be taken, but the optics must be changed aswell. This will be even tougher to do, now, with the new US super embassy in Iraq headed by John Negroponte. The embassy will have a staff of 3000 thousand people, the largest in the world, and control the administrative apparatus of Iraq—overseeing the IGC, but that’s a whole other story. Right now it looks like its going to be a “long, hard slog.”
Either way you slice it, the US has a serious problem on its hands with Iraq. After a tumultuous month, the Administration is quickly moving to acquire more UN assistance. With the June 30th hand-over date on the horizon, and no let up in insurgent attacks, it appears that securing a workable mandate with the UN won't necessarily matter in the short-run.
Despite wails of consternation from Bush detractors to internationalize the occupation of Iraq, the UN has been hesitant to step in at any capacity since the bombing of its headquarters in Iraq last August. Some months back, Kofi Annan deplored the UN's lack of risk assement and preparedness in Iraq that led to the bombing that killed 22 and wounded 150. Seeking desperately to change the optics, the Bush Administration has tasked U.N. diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi to handle the process of power transfer by June 30th.
Another battle the US faces is keeping coalition members in the coalition. Spain and Honduras have decided to move their troops out earlier than expected, yet their military presence in Iraq-- not to demean-- was, and is, very small and ineffectual. The US hasn't really made a rile about losing these members of the "coalition of the willing", which should speak to how valuable their contributions really were.
Nonetheless, even if the Bush Administration is shifting its policy-- be it from lack of alternatives, or because of political imperatives and strategic necessities-- the attacks by insurgents still continue. If anything, the presence of more troops will only embolden insurgent and guerilla efforts. In addition, the sophistication of the attacks seem to be increasing, and an unweilding response by US forces to these attacks will only cause unavoidable civilian causalities-- further exacerbating US relations with moderates.
An interesting point, though, that goes unmentioned, is the characterization of these latest uprisings in Fulluja and Najaf as insurgent uprising, rather than terror related. The term terrorist has been dropped from White House parlance with regard to Iraq lately; though just today their seems to have been car bombings in Iraq killing 68 people which may be related to foreign terrorist.
What the Bush Administration is certainly doing right now is working the back channels of negotiation with moderate clerics like Sistani, in an attempt to mollify these uprisings. Short of precise tactical weapons to extricate these insurgents, the US has to negotiate to maintain a level of civility just to start talks. Sustained attacks against the insurgents hold up in civilian areas will prove to be extremely counter productive in the long run.
Therefore, though internationalizing the occupation of Iraq is a wise, if far a too late, move by the Bush Administration, the larger problem is regaining stability within the region. This requires propping up credible public arbiters, Sistani being one, and removing all appearances of an engineered occupation (Iraq governing Council-IGC). Likewise, other substantive measures should be taken, but the optics must be changed aswell. This will be even tougher to do, now, with the new US super embassy in Iraq headed by John Negroponte. The embassy will have a staff of 3000 thousand people, the largest in the world, and control the administrative apparatus of Iraq—overseeing the IGC, but that’s a whole other story. Right now it looks like its going to be a “long, hard slog.”
Monday, April 19, 2004
ELECTORAL COLLUSION
The Saudi Ambassador to the U.S, Prince Bandar, is said to have assured Bush that oil prices would be down before the November election. The effort would be to increase Saudi oil production by 1 to 2 million barrels a day thus lowering the per/bbl price to around $28 US-- as of this writing, light sweet crude is going for $36.75 US per/bbl. Low gas prices and a rosey economic picture could help Bush get re-elected. However, having this little tidbit of information as part of the public discourse before the election is a huge political liability. One way the Bush Administration could pre-empt criticism, or allay suspicions, would be to get Bandar to start pumping up oil production now; though that would only confirm the suspicions of collusion. The story is already in the news cycle, but the question is whether it will have any legs. This, from Joshua Marshall at TPM, is how they're handling it:[Transcript]
QUESTION: Can you describe conversations between the White House and Prince Bandar about his essential promise to lower oil prices before the election?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think you heard from Prince Bandar a few weeks ago about --
QUESTION: He didn’t talk specifically about the election.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- the most recent conversation that we had with him regarding oil prices. And he expressed his views out at the stakeout to you all that Saudi Arabia is committed to making sure prices remained in a range, I believe it’s $22 to $28 price per barrel of oil, and that they don’t want to do anything that would harm our consumers or harm our economy. So he made those comments at the stakeout and we’ve made our views very clear that prices should be determined by market forces, and that we are always in close contact with producers around the world on these issues to make sure that actions aren’t taken that harm our consumers or harm our economy.
QUESTION: There were no conversations specifically about the President’s reelection?
MR. McCLELLAN: You can ask Prince Bandar to --
QUESTION: But from the point -- I mean, conversations are obviously two ways.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- what his comments were. But the conversations we have are related to our long-held views that we have stated repeatedly publicly, that market forces should determine prices.
QUESTION: To follow up on that then, I would gather that the White House view is one of expectation that the Saudis would increase oil production between now and November.
MR. McCLELLAN: Our views are very well-known to Saudi Arabia. Prince Bandar made a commitment at the stakeout that I will let speak for itself. You all should look back to those remarks.
QUESTION: We’re missing the allegation here, which is that Prince Bandar and the Saudis have made a commitment to lower oil prices to help the President politically. Is that your --
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m not going to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those comments to him. I can tell you that what our views are and what he said at the stakeout is what we know his views are, as well.
QUESTION: Does the White House have any knowledge of such a commitment?
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry?
QUESTION: Does the White House have any knowledge of such a commitment?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I’m not going to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those questions --
QUESTION: Is there a deal?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- I wouldn’t speculate one way or the other. You can direct those questions to him, but I’m telling you --
QUESTION: I’m not asking you to speculate either. Do you have knowledge of such a commitment?
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m telling you what our views are and what we've stated, and I'm telling you what I do know, which is that our position is very clear when it comes to oil prices and what our views are. And Prince Bandar spoke to you all just a few weeks ago out at the stakeout after meeting with some White House officials and expressed --
QUESTION: So you have no knowledge of such a commitment?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and expressed their view. I'm not going to try to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those questions to him.
QUESTION: The President is confident that the American elections are not being manipulated by the world's largest oil producer?
MR. McCLELLAN: Our view is that the markets should determine --
QUESTION: The market doesn't. It's a cartel.
MR. McCLELLAN: But our view is that that's what -- that the markets should determine prices. And that's the view we make very clear to producers around the world, including our friends in OPEC.
The Saudi Ambassador to the U.S, Prince Bandar, is said to have assured Bush that oil prices would be down before the November election. The effort would be to increase Saudi oil production by 1 to 2 million barrels a day thus lowering the per/bbl price to around $28 US-- as of this writing, light sweet crude is going for $36.75 US per/bbl. Low gas prices and a rosey economic picture could help Bush get re-elected. However, having this little tidbit of information as part of the public discourse before the election is a huge political liability. One way the Bush Administration could pre-empt criticism, or allay suspicions, would be to get Bandar to start pumping up oil production now; though that would only confirm the suspicions of collusion. The story is already in the news cycle, but the question is whether it will have any legs. This, from Joshua Marshall at TPM, is how they're handling it:[Transcript]
QUESTION: Can you describe conversations between the White House and Prince Bandar about his essential promise to lower oil prices before the election?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think you heard from Prince Bandar a few weeks ago about --
QUESTION: He didn’t talk specifically about the election.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- the most recent conversation that we had with him regarding oil prices. And he expressed his views out at the stakeout to you all that Saudi Arabia is committed to making sure prices remained in a range, I believe it’s $22 to $28 price per barrel of oil, and that they don’t want to do anything that would harm our consumers or harm our economy. So he made those comments at the stakeout and we’ve made our views very clear that prices should be determined by market forces, and that we are always in close contact with producers around the world on these issues to make sure that actions aren’t taken that harm our consumers or harm our economy.
QUESTION: There were no conversations specifically about the President’s reelection?
MR. McCLELLAN: You can ask Prince Bandar to --
QUESTION: But from the point -- I mean, conversations are obviously two ways.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- what his comments were. But the conversations we have are related to our long-held views that we have stated repeatedly publicly, that market forces should determine prices.
QUESTION: To follow up on that then, I would gather that the White House view is one of expectation that the Saudis would increase oil production between now and November.
MR. McCLELLAN: Our views are very well-known to Saudi Arabia. Prince Bandar made a commitment at the stakeout that I will let speak for itself. You all should look back to those remarks.
QUESTION: We’re missing the allegation here, which is that Prince Bandar and the Saudis have made a commitment to lower oil prices to help the President politically. Is that your --
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m not going to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those comments to him. I can tell you that what our views are and what he said at the stakeout is what we know his views are, as well.
QUESTION: Does the White House have any knowledge of such a commitment?
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry?
QUESTION: Does the White House have any knowledge of such a commitment?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I’m not going to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those questions --
QUESTION: Is there a deal?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- I wouldn’t speculate one way or the other. You can direct those questions to him, but I’m telling you --
QUESTION: I’m not asking you to speculate either. Do you have knowledge of such a commitment?
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m telling you what our views are and what we've stated, and I'm telling you what I do know, which is that our position is very clear when it comes to oil prices and what our views are. And Prince Bandar spoke to you all just a few weeks ago out at the stakeout after meeting with some White House officials and expressed --
QUESTION: So you have no knowledge of such a commitment?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and expressed their view. I'm not going to try to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those questions to him.
QUESTION: The President is confident that the American elections are not being manipulated by the world's largest oil producer?
MR. McCLELLAN: Our view is that the markets should determine --
QUESTION: The market doesn't. It's a cartel.
MR. McCLELLAN: But our view is that that's what -- that the markets should determine prices. And that's the view we make very clear to producers around the world, including our friends in OPEC.
PURPLE PROSE
I used to like Rex Murphy, until I picked up a thesaurus and started deciphering his code. Rex is clearly a smart man-- former Rhodes Scholar (Same Class as Bill Clinton) -- but his circuitous prose tends to meander far too much for my liking. I guess for him it’s aesthetically edifying to speak above us. He creates, so meticulously, superfluous diction when simple, short and understandable words would do. But hey that's Rex, he's a national treasure. Yet, in a Saturday editorial for theGlobe and Mail , Rex lays down his stilted language, as much as is Rexly possible, to come to the defense of his Newfoundland brethren. Rex takes umbrage with the self-preening vanity and hypocrisy of the radical-activists that protest against the Seal Hunt:
Newfoundland was a playpen for the ostentatious hearts of all the good-cause world. The baby seal with its Bambi-sized eyes and pristine white coat was, as an icon, the very Pietà of activist environmentalism
Intuitively, and with that natural shiver of a sentient being, I feel the Seal hunt to be harsh. But with some rationality and compassion towards the plight of the sealers and, more importantly, a comparative delineation(Cost/Benefit) between the value of a seal's life and the value and quality of a human life, I'd have to agree with enhancing the value and quality of the sealer’s life-- absent any other apparent means of subsistence.
Thus, it is one thing to be entirely opposed to the hunt, and yet another to be critical of how the seals are killed. Ensuring that a seal is humanly killed is a cause worth advocating; though destroying the economic prospects of rural communities by stopping the hunt, is missing the point in a large way(Strawman).
The International Fund for Animal Welfare has been critical of the Seal Hunt since the early 60's, and continues to wage a public relations campaign to see that the hunt is disbanded. The Green Party of Canada, however, adopted a position in favor of the East Coast Hunt in 2002. Yet, there has been growing clamor within the Green Party to reverse that decision. The cleavage has much to do with regional interests, and understandably so. The Newfoundland wing of the Green Party supports the Hunt.
Rex's goes on to poignantly add:
There was never any appreciation, and more loathsomely, never any attempt to achieve an appreciation, either of the history of the great hunt, the desperation of the people who for generations prosecuted it, the heart-rending exigencies of the out-harbour crews who were driven to it and the great train of loss, wreckage and death that inscribed its melancholy story.
This could not be truer. All other forms of subsistence for these Newfoundlanders are scares. It would be more enlightening if these activists proposed alternatives means for acquiring a livelihood on the Coast, rather than glibly smearing regular folk. In what I must admit is a low blow, and beneath him, Rex takes a rhetorical jab at the political focus of such groups:
I have thought on more than one occasion in the last while that if even a 30th of the concern and a 10th of the press had been on offer in Rwanda, for a real cause, Romeo Dallaire need never have had a single sleepless night. But fawning over cute things is always more inviting than putting some torque into the protest of real cruelties.
Yet, that passage is somewhat instructive and should give us pause to rethink and maybe reprioritize the causes we advocate-- perspective is everything.
I used to like Rex Murphy, until I picked up a thesaurus and started deciphering his code. Rex is clearly a smart man-- former Rhodes Scholar (Same Class as Bill Clinton) -- but his circuitous prose tends to meander far too much for my liking. I guess for him it’s aesthetically edifying to speak above us. He creates, so meticulously, superfluous diction when simple, short and understandable words would do. But hey that's Rex, he's a national treasure. Yet, in a Saturday editorial for theGlobe and Mail , Rex lays down his stilted language, as much as is Rexly possible, to come to the defense of his Newfoundland brethren. Rex takes umbrage with the self-preening vanity and hypocrisy of the radical-activists that protest against the Seal Hunt:
Newfoundland was a playpen for the ostentatious hearts of all the good-cause world. The baby seal with its Bambi-sized eyes and pristine white coat was, as an icon, the very Pietà of activist environmentalism
Intuitively, and with that natural shiver of a sentient being, I feel the Seal hunt to be harsh. But with some rationality and compassion towards the plight of the sealers and, more importantly, a comparative delineation(Cost/Benefit) between the value of a seal's life and the value and quality of a human life, I'd have to agree with enhancing the value and quality of the sealer’s life-- absent any other apparent means of subsistence.
Thus, it is one thing to be entirely opposed to the hunt, and yet another to be critical of how the seals are killed. Ensuring that a seal is humanly killed is a cause worth advocating; though destroying the economic prospects of rural communities by stopping the hunt, is missing the point in a large way(Strawman).
The International Fund for Animal Welfare has been critical of the Seal Hunt since the early 60's, and continues to wage a public relations campaign to see that the hunt is disbanded. The Green Party of Canada, however, adopted a position in favor of the East Coast Hunt in 2002. Yet, there has been growing clamor within the Green Party to reverse that decision. The cleavage has much to do with regional interests, and understandably so. The Newfoundland wing of the Green Party supports the Hunt.
Rex's goes on to poignantly add:
There was never any appreciation, and more loathsomely, never any attempt to achieve an appreciation, either of the history of the great hunt, the desperation of the people who for generations prosecuted it, the heart-rending exigencies of the out-harbour crews who were driven to it and the great train of loss, wreckage and death that inscribed its melancholy story.
This could not be truer. All other forms of subsistence for these Newfoundlanders are scares. It would be more enlightening if these activists proposed alternatives means for acquiring a livelihood on the Coast, rather than glibly smearing regular folk. In what I must admit is a low blow, and beneath him, Rex takes a rhetorical jab at the political focus of such groups:
I have thought on more than one occasion in the last while that if even a 30th of the concern and a 10th of the press had been on offer in Rwanda, for a real cause, Romeo Dallaire need never have had a single sleepless night. But fawning over cute things is always more inviting than putting some torque into the protest of real cruelties.
Yet, that passage is somewhat instructive and should give us pause to rethink and maybe reprioritize the causes we advocate-- perspective is everything.
PLAN OF ATTACK
Last night on 60 minutes, famed journalist Bob Woodward-- the other guy that helped uncover the Watergate scandal-- gave an interview about his new book, Plan of Attack, that chronicles the White House leading up to the Iraq War. It should be noted that Viacom is the parent company of CBS, the network that airs 60 minutes, and is also the parent company of Simon and Schuster, the publishing house that is publishing Woodward's book. Nonetheless, it was certainly a compelling interview. Gleaned from transcripts and interviews with 75 top officials in the White House, including President Bush, Woodward's book conveys an unflattering image of a White House eager to go to war, and racked with division. The rift was clearly between hawkish Vice President Dick Cheney and the realist dove Colin Powell. Others in the administration like Rumsfeld, Rice, and Wolfiwitz, also advocates for the war in Iraq, managed to acquire more access to the President, which ultimately influenced his decision. Chief among them was Cheney. An article by the New York Times today states that the relationship between Powell and Cheney had soured through the years:
In 2002, Mr. Cheney was openly disdainful of Mr. Powell's insistence on getting approval of the United Nations Security Council before going to war, spreading consternation at the State Department. Mr. Powell won that argument, and President Bush authorized a bid to get a Security Council resolution supporting war.
Mr. Powell's memoir also recalls an exchange in the early 1990's, in which Mr. Powell accused Mr. Cheney " jokingly, he insisted " of being surrounded by "right-wing nuts like you." In the last year, the Woodward book says, Mr. Powell referred privately to the civilian conservatives in the Pentagon loyal to Mr. Cheney as the Gestapo
But irrespective of these variables, it appears that a greater force my have interceded on Bush's behalf: God. Woodward speaks of one exchange with the president, asking him with whom he sought advice for about the decision to go to war:
Did Mr. Bush ask his father for any advice? "I asked the president about this. And President Bush said, "Well, no," and then he got defensive about it," says Woodward. "Then he said something that really struck me. He said of his father, "He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength." And then he said, "There's a higher Father that I appeal to."
It's difficult to interpret this exchange without thinking: WOW. I'm mean surely faith is an integral guide in politics, and always has been. Further, public office should not be exclusive to only those who renounce thier religious faith. But, inasmuch as religious faith informs political practice, it should not be used demagogically to impose values. A decision to undertake war should be deliberative and discursive, involving all relevant members of cabinet. Woodward adds that Powell and, strangely, Rumsfeld weren't informed by the Preident when he made his decision:
"The president, in making the decision to go to war, did not ask his secretary of defense for an overall recommendation, did not ask his secretary of state, Colin Powell, for his recommendation,"says Woodward.
It seems as early as November of 2001, Bush tasked Rumsfeld to prep a War Strategy for Iraq; Joshua Marshall speaks to this here. Yet somehow, post war planning has been abysmal, if existent.
The justifications for war begin to look more threadbare with the passage of time. In the month of Apirl, thus far, 99 us soldiers have died-- the worst for any month since Operation Iraqi Freedom began. The Administration's logic that the worse it gets in Iraq, will only be evidence of how much progress is being made, needs to be rethought. Woodward 's book comes at an extremely vulnerable time for the Administration, already reeling from Richard Clark's critical book, Against All Enemies.
Last night on 60 minutes, famed journalist Bob Woodward-- the other guy that helped uncover the Watergate scandal-- gave an interview about his new book, Plan of Attack, that chronicles the White House leading up to the Iraq War. It should be noted that Viacom is the parent company of CBS, the network that airs 60 minutes, and is also the parent company of Simon and Schuster, the publishing house that is publishing Woodward's book. Nonetheless, it was certainly a compelling interview. Gleaned from transcripts and interviews with 75 top officials in the White House, including President Bush, Woodward's book conveys an unflattering image of a White House eager to go to war, and racked with division. The rift was clearly between hawkish Vice President Dick Cheney and the realist dove Colin Powell. Others in the administration like Rumsfeld, Rice, and Wolfiwitz, also advocates for the war in Iraq, managed to acquire more access to the President, which ultimately influenced his decision. Chief among them was Cheney. An article by the New York Times today states that the relationship between Powell and Cheney had soured through the years:
In 2002, Mr. Cheney was openly disdainful of Mr. Powell's insistence on getting approval of the United Nations Security Council before going to war, spreading consternation at the State Department. Mr. Powell won that argument, and President Bush authorized a bid to get a Security Council resolution supporting war.
Mr. Powell's memoir also recalls an exchange in the early 1990's, in which Mr. Powell accused Mr. Cheney " jokingly, he insisted " of being surrounded by "right-wing nuts like you." In the last year, the Woodward book says, Mr. Powell referred privately to the civilian conservatives in the Pentagon loyal to Mr. Cheney as the Gestapo
But irrespective of these variables, it appears that a greater force my have interceded on Bush's behalf: God. Woodward speaks of one exchange with the president, asking him with whom he sought advice for about the decision to go to war:
Did Mr. Bush ask his father for any advice? "I asked the president about this. And President Bush said, "Well, no," and then he got defensive about it," says Woodward. "Then he said something that really struck me. He said of his father, "He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength." And then he said, "There's a higher Father that I appeal to."
It's difficult to interpret this exchange without thinking: WOW. I'm mean surely faith is an integral guide in politics, and always has been. Further, public office should not be exclusive to only those who renounce thier religious faith. But, inasmuch as religious faith informs political practice, it should not be used demagogically to impose values. A decision to undertake war should be deliberative and discursive, involving all relevant members of cabinet. Woodward adds that Powell and, strangely, Rumsfeld weren't informed by the Preident when he made his decision:
"The president, in making the decision to go to war, did not ask his secretary of defense for an overall recommendation, did not ask his secretary of state, Colin Powell, for his recommendation,"says Woodward.
It seems as early as November of 2001, Bush tasked Rumsfeld to prep a War Strategy for Iraq; Joshua Marshall speaks to this here. Yet somehow, post war planning has been abysmal, if existent.
The justifications for war begin to look more threadbare with the passage of time. In the month of Apirl, thus far, 99 us soldiers have died-- the worst for any month since Operation Iraqi Freedom began. The Administration's logic that the worse it gets in Iraq, will only be evidence of how much progress is being made, needs to be rethought. Woodward 's book comes at an extremely vulnerable time for the Administration, already reeling from Richard Clark's critical book, Against All Enemies.
Sunday, April 18, 2004
NOT SO FUNNY.....
It’s become painfully obvious, lately, that SNL is going through a creative dearth. With Will Ferrell, Chris Katan, and Tracy Morgan leaving last year, SNL has been left in the lurch. The apparent cause of this unfunny-ness, in my opinion, has much to do with their lack of political parody— more specifically a good impersonation of the President. SNL’s in house Rich Little, Darrell Hammond, made a valiant, though completely absurd, attempt at a George Bush impersonation—an impersonation they’re in desperate need of. If Darrell Hammond can’t muster a plausible parody of the President, then SNL is clearly in trouble.
I would hope that some intervening force—hopefully a fruitful summer of new comic acquisitions—changes the ensembles' comic fortunes. What made SNL appealing, and kept me in on a Saturday night, was the attention it paid to incisive political satire. Dana Carvey’s George H.W. Bush, Darrell Hammond’s Bill Clinton, and, more recently, Will Ferrell’s George W. Bush have all had an iconic influence in shaping public perceptions of these political figures. However, SNL may not have much time to cultivate a loyal constituency for their version of George W. Bush and John Kerry, since they go on summer hiatus in May, and don’t return until October/November—clearly not enough time to create memorable political parodies before the impending mid-November election.
So now the politically astute and satirically inclined are left to the only other offering of politically ironic comedy: The Daily Show with Jon Stweart. Well, I guess that should do.
It’s become painfully obvious, lately, that SNL is going through a creative dearth. With Will Ferrell, Chris Katan, and Tracy Morgan leaving last year, SNL has been left in the lurch. The apparent cause of this unfunny-ness, in my opinion, has much to do with their lack of political parody— more specifically a good impersonation of the President. SNL’s in house Rich Little, Darrell Hammond, made a valiant, though completely absurd, attempt at a George Bush impersonation—an impersonation they’re in desperate need of. If Darrell Hammond can’t muster a plausible parody of the President, then SNL is clearly in trouble.
I would hope that some intervening force—hopefully a fruitful summer of new comic acquisitions—changes the ensembles' comic fortunes. What made SNL appealing, and kept me in on a Saturday night, was the attention it paid to incisive political satire. Dana Carvey’s George H.W. Bush, Darrell Hammond’s Bill Clinton, and, more recently, Will Ferrell’s George W. Bush have all had an iconic influence in shaping public perceptions of these political figures. However, SNL may not have much time to cultivate a loyal constituency for their version of George W. Bush and John Kerry, since they go on summer hiatus in May, and don’t return until October/November—clearly not enough time to create memorable political parodies before the impending mid-November election.
So now the politically astute and satirically inclined are left to the only other offering of politically ironic comedy: The Daily Show with Jon Stweart. Well, I guess that should do.
In the beginning, Blog created......
The Strawman has cometh! It is with obnoxious glee that I finally stake my claim to the Bloggesphere. I'm certainly not the first, and will clearly not be the last. Admittedly, I got to the party late, though this will not deter me in the least. The mission statement thus far is to pump out as much commentary as is humanly possible-- or at least until I run out of things to comment on. The topics will be diverse, and range from such subjects as political economy; to theoretical physics; to popular culture; and, strangely enough, to Michael Jackson. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, will it make a sound? I guess it really depends on the acoustical ranges, but probably not. I fall in the Bloggesphere today, and besides myself-- anxiously viewing my own blog-- none will be the wiser. Anyhow, be on with it.
The Strawman has cometh! It is with obnoxious glee that I finally stake my claim to the Bloggesphere. I'm certainly not the first, and will clearly not be the last. Admittedly, I got to the party late, though this will not deter me in the least. The mission statement thus far is to pump out as much commentary as is humanly possible-- or at least until I run out of things to comment on. The topics will be diverse, and range from such subjects as political economy; to theoretical physics; to popular culture; and, strangely enough, to Michael Jackson. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, will it make a sound? I guess it really depends on the acoustical ranges, but probably not. I fall in the Bloggesphere today, and besides myself-- anxiously viewing my own blog-- none will be the wiser. Anyhow, be on with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)