...more recent posts
I've mentioned AKMA, the highest profile theologian blogger, a few times before. Here's an interesting email exchange between him and Stewart Butterfield. Stewart is part of Ludicorp which is creating The Game Neverending, a massive multiplayer online role playing game (MMORPG.) He is looking for AKMA's advise on how religion should work in their virtual world.
Anti-war march thread. I'll post in the comments here if I can get a signal on my mobile. Others should feel free to do the same.
These are some complex and distracting times. The television assault is mind numbing. The repitition of certain phrases and images wears you down. But it's important to keep trying to think critically. Having to write about it helps.
If you've been following along here you know I got some, uh, negative feedback. I'm surprised this hadn't happened before. Probably the best response is no response ("don't feed the trolls") but of course I appreciate the supportive comments even while hoping they don't egg on our new friend. I'd perfer him to be one of those friends you don't ever have to spend any time with.
As I said before, I'm sure my position is infuriating to many. But my feeling is that I am not actually in opposition to these people. I mean, even though they think I am. For instance, I believe Sadam is a bad guy. I believe the world will be a better place with him removed from power. I would myself, under certain conditions, participate in a military action.
So what's the beef? I think the problem is that the excitement of war narrows people's focus. The barrage of television coverage allows some to forget that this situation is embedded inside a larger global situation, and the consequences of our actions in Iraq will travel far beyond that country. Do we want Sadam gone? Of course. Will we do anything to get that result? I, for one, don't think so.
Consider (and I don't mean to make light of the situation): If an asteroid struck the earth killing all life, that would remove Sadam from power. But obviously people don't want that to happen. I make this extreme case on purpose, just to establish that we wouldn't do just anything to accomplish our goals. Some courses of action are too costly. While the present situation is much more complex then my extreme example, I think that this present campaign is also too costly. My point with the asteroid is just to show that calculating costs like this is necessary. The gung ho "whatever it takes" attitude is obviously wrong in some cases, and so the debate should be going on as to whether this is one of those cases.
The cost is the destruction of the global framework of cooperation among countries that has been represented by the UN. In other words, the cost is the destruction of fraternity among the people of the world. The cost is the isolation of the U.S. from the concerns of all mankind.
I consider myself a patriot. But maybe there should be a new term? I don't know. I know I differ from many who call themselves patriots, and I think I know the difference. Some so called patriots would place the interests of the United States above the interest of all foreign individuals and nations. This made sense at a certain point in the past. But today, with the U.S.'s overwhelming military and economic power, we have a new responsibility. Perhaps a responsibility that no other nation has ever had to shoulder. The responsibility to look out for the interests, not just of ourselves, but of the whole world.
This will take great sacrifice. And great complexity of thought. But we are strong enough to do it. Unfortunately, our present government doesn't seem to have much interest in this. Isolationists to begin with, I think they were so scared (either personally or politically) by 9/11 that they vowed to protect this country "at all costs." But again, some people need to continue to think critically, and point out that some costs are indeed too high. Especially when your country is the undisputed leader of the world, and as such cannot morally think only of ourselves.
I think we should immediately stop this war. Our leaders should step down or be impeached. (I don't really care if they are prosecuted for war crimes, but probably they could be.) And then a new government should be elected, and we should begin the long difficult process of rebuilding our global alliances. Rebuilding the work in progress that is/was international law.
And then we should return - as a unified world - to the question of dangerous rouge regimes everywhere. We should attack these problems diplomatically, and where that doesn't work, with a global force sanctioned through international law. Is this road more difficult then "going it alone"? Yes. Much. But that is no argument against doing it.
Let's be strong.
I'm off to the protest. Maybe I'll see you there.
If you want to know what the big media news guys (CNN, MSNBC, etc...) are reporting without actually watching them, you can tune into The Agonist.
Hopefully his wife won't kill him.
[update: Here's the Monday 3.24 link - I'll keep this at the top of the left hand column from now on.]
[update: Here's the Sunday 3/23 link]
[update: Here's the Saturday 3/22 link]
Quick low bandwidth Iraq headlines at a glance from the BBC. No links. No analysis. No fluff.
[Update: the BBC is changing the link every day. Here it is for Friday 3/21/03.]
[double update - updated link fixed - thanks Tom!]
I posted this some time ago, but I'll mention it again: a blog from baghdad.
Debka is breaking news that nobody else has. This makes it hard to confirm, but in my opinion they have a very good track record. That doesn't mean that I trust them.
Apparently the invasion has started. Not with a massive bombing campaign, but with a lightning blitz of heavy armor rolling north from Kuwait towards the southern oil fields (which they claim have been surrounded for a month by U.S. special forces.)
And supposedly deputy prime minister Tareq Aziz has defected and is in U.S. hands. And Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan has not been seen in Baghdad for three days, and is suspected of having defected as well.
"[B]ut if I were a betting man, I'd wager that kottke.org and I will be around for a 50th anniversary post. Stay tuned!"
Of course I'm not a lawyer, so it may be stupid to analyze something like this. But even to my untrained eye this looks like a complete sham. So I'm going to give it a go.
Here is the 9 step argument from U.K. Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, laying out the case for why an invasion of Iraq is legal under international law. Note that Lord Goldsmith was saying thought to believe as late as yesterday Wednesday March 12 that an invasion without a second (second to 1441) security council resolution would be illegal.
You've got to keep your eye on the ball here. To me the interesting thing is that, while he mentions resolution 1441 in 5 of the 9 points of his argument, a close reading reveals that 1441 plays no real role in the argument itself. Strange. Why mention it so much then?
The main point is number 8: "Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today." The problem here is with the '[t]hus'. One would think this 'thus' refers to, and builds upon, the previous point which is that Iraq is in material breach of 1441. Unfortunately this doesn't follow, even according to his argument.
Look closely at the very careful wording of point number 7: "It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach." Note that the material breach he is refering to cannot be of 1441, because he says that Iraq is already in material breach "at the time of resolution 1441."
What he means is that Iraq is in material breach of 687 and this is what revives the use of force granted in 678, thus making the war legal. But then why all this talk of 1441?
Try this: read the argument again, but throw out points 4, 5, 6, and 9 and add the following phrase to the end of 7: "of resolution 687."
I think this shorter version is actually his argument, and it may well be correct. I don't know. But I can see linguistically, and logically, that it sure doesn't depend on 1441 in any way. So this begs the question (again,) why put in so much about it?
Well, to distract us of course. Both from the fact that 1441 doesn't authorize force (even if Iraq is in material breach,) and also from the fact that Bush and Blair both held up material breach of 1441 as being the reason for military action. So as not to confuse the public they are trying to fool, he has to make it sound like a breach of 1441 is the reason for war (thus the tricky 'thus' in 8 which would seem to refer to 1441 in point 7, but doesn't really) while still make a legally sound case for war (which would have to hinge on a resolution that actually authorizes force - like 678.)
I'll leave aside the fact that the rather bald factual assertion implicit in number 7 - that Iraq has not eliminated its weapons of mass destruction - is nowhere backed up with any facts. It's merely given as "plain." Uh huh. Isn't this precisely what the UN inspectors were trying to ascertain?
I'm searching for, and would love to find, actual knowledgeable commentary on this obviously technical matter. Pointers welcome.
Fun bits from the Daily Koss coverage of the California Democratic Party's annual conference:
But then Edwards spoke in support of the Iraq war and all hell broke loose. The entire convention hall resonated in boos, the crowd chanting "no war! No war!" It was an amazing sight, and Edwards seemed a bit taken aback. Jerome thought it looked like '68. Edwards recovered with a line about Ashcroft, but the damage was done. The 20 or so brave souls waving Edwards signs were suddenly radioactive.And on the Dean speech:
But the most amazing part was the finale, with a fiery Dean pounding the podium:Note, of course, that CDP crowds probably don't track with the viewpoints of a majority of voters. Even democratic voters. Still.I want my country back!When Dean uttered this last line, the whole place went nuts. Utter pandemonium....
I don't want to listen to fundamentalist preachers anymore!