Washington, behaving like a police state. It makes me want to scream.
Pull the innocents from a crowd,
Raise the sticks then bring ‘em down
If they fail to obey,
If they fail to obey…
I pledge my grievance to the flag…
We’re all deserving something more
Wow, now I really want to move to Oregon. Measure 23, if passed, would enact a single-payer state-wide comprehensive medical insurance program with zero point-of-service fees. Citizens would be free to visit any licensed doctor or specialist. The current government spending (out of general taxation) would cover one third of the expected costs, with the remainder payed by employers and a personal tax on taxpayers. Depending on income, the personal tax would range from 0% of income (for those making 150% or less of the federal poverty level) to 8% for the wealthiest. One’s personal contribution will never exceed $25,000 (this is relevant if you make more than $312,500 per year which, um, I don’t.) On the state level, total personal taxation for these benifits will not exceed 3.9% of total personal income. This means that the average personal expenditure will be less than 4%, although I do not have a sense of how this cost would be distributed across the population.
It looks like good legislation. It looks like it can pay for itself. From a personal perspective, Jennifer and I already pay roughly 2% our combined income for our portion of employer-paid health insurance, and another 2% in co-pays for prescription drugs, office visits, etc., and that is before I count in my hospitalizations required in 2001 ($150 apiece) and emergency room visits ($30 apiece.) Even if our contribution had to double, or even triple, it would still be worth it to ensure that everyone in the state has health insurance.
I have read arguments for and against this measure, and really wrestled to see from the conservatives’ perspective, but still weighs in for me as overwhelmingly positive. Thoughts? Join the discussion page.
Remember the mcgees.org post about the Masai who donated fourteen blessed cows to the United States after they heard of the 11 September terrorist attacks? How could Americans hope to repay such a touching gesture?
American tourists Edward A. Lefrak and Don Hutchins might have done a bit: Hutchins flew one of the tribe’s girls to the U.S., and Lefrak gave her a heart transplant.
On Monday The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer aired an interview with U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. He was describing al-Qaida as a global menace and explained that the U.S. and its allies had just broken up a cell in Singapore. “Singapore,” he said. “Singapore. That’s around the other side of the world from the Middle East.”
Yo, Dick?
(Map from National Geographic MapMachine)
The duty of friends is not just to agree with everything, but to say, `We disagree on this point.’ That is what I believe to be the duty of friends in relations between individuals, just as it is in relations between nations, if one happens to disagree. And on this point” — Iraq — “we disagree, or I disagree.”
Read a short but informative NYTimes article on German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s position regarding the U.S. and Iraq. (By the way, can you imagine a U.S. political leader giving a high-profile interview while smoking a cigar? How’s that for a more laid-back culture?)
I should have picked a point, preferably a simple one, and hammered it over and over like White did. Instead, I was self-censoring, getting bogged down in the complexities, uncertain what distortion to correct. Most people watching the show probably read me the way the producers wanted — as a pointy-bearded civil libertarian and a paid corporate apologist trying to talk down to a concerned mom.
It can be very difficult to explore complex issues in a Phil Donahue world. If I ever go on a talk show I want a lapel pin that reads “Slow down, think, and listen for a minute.” This story by MIT professor Henry Jenkins on what passes for debate in this nation follows a frustratingly familiar pattern but makes for interesting reading nonetheless.
Texas has geared up for another year of Fahrenheit 451 homages. In the most recent case, Texas has refused adoption of a history textbook because it described rampant prostitution in the newly-settled American West. The chairperson of the Texas State Board of Education rhetorically whether “that something that should be emphasized? Is that an important historical fact?”
It turns out that Republican ideology is formally engrained in the Texas Education Code. § 28.002(h), “Required Curriculum”, contains the following:
The State Board of Education and each school district shall foster the continuation of the tradition of teaching United States and Texas history and the free enterprise system in regular subject matter and in reading courses and in the adoption of textbooks. A primary purpose of the public school curriculum is to prepare thoughtful, active citizens who understand the importance of patriotism and can function productively in a free enterprise society with appreciation for the basic democratic values of our state and national heritage. (Emphasis added)
This statute has been used to challenge numerous textbooks. In one particularly horrific example, an environmental science text was banned as being “anti-American”. Although I do not know the specifics, the only way I can conceive of an environmental science textbook being “anti-American” would be for it to note that the U.S. emits more greenhouse gases, both total and per capita, than any nation on earth, that the U.S. has refused to sign on to environmental protection treaties, and so forth. In other words, the truth. An alternative environmental sciences book was accepted, however. This one was partially funded by a consortium of mining companies. Conflicts of interests abound, not the least of which is the fact that the chairperson of the Board of Education is a co-owner of a petroleum company. “The oil and gas industry should be consulted,” she explains. “We always get a raw deal.”
Citizens for a Sound Economy, a right-wing special interest group involved in the censoring of Texas textbooks, flaunts their influence. With Texas buying one tenth of the nation’s textbooks, the field director is able to proclaim that “what we adopt in Texas is what the rest of the country gets.” The director bluntly and snidely describes their economic coercion: she explains that the publisher withdrew the textbook because they “wisely didn’t want to jeopardize their larger sales in the state by having that book as its poster child.”
Some examples of deleted and edited sentences in Texas textbooks:
Despite this blatant inculcation of ideology and censorship of true statements, the director insists that they do not want to edit or rewrite textbooks, only to assure that they are “stripped of ideology and offer a straightforward, objective statement of facts.” (Quote is from a New York Times article, and may be a paraphrase of the director’s statements.) In the end, the censors fall back on one excuse. “[Historical realities should not be swept] under the rug. But the children should see the hope and the good things about America.”
Texas’s senators are Phil Gramm and Kay Bailey Hutchison. I have written both regarding this issue. If you desire, you may use my letter as a model for your own letter:
Dear Senator [Gramm/Hutchison],
I am writing as a concerned U.S. citizen regarding the censorship of textbooks by the Texas State Board of Education. In recent decisions, environmental textbooks have been banned for their frank discussions of global warming, and history books have been banned for their discussion of prostitution in the Old West. I believe U.S. students should be armed with relevant facts, historical and modern, so that they may grow to be conscientious and knowledgeable leaders upon reaching adulthood. Texas purchases 10% of the nations textbooks, and as such is in a unique position to set the standard for the United States. Accordingly, I ask that you advocate for the revision of textbook adoption policies in the Great State of Texas.
I appreciate your time and consideration.
Best regards,
[Name]
I am chagrined that mcgees.org is turning into a “check out this survey” blog, but I found a new quiz that seems a good counterpart to the BeliefNet quizzes discussed a few weeks ago. This quiz calls itself a “Political Compass” quiz. It takes the route of considering political position on two orthogonal axes, social and economic, to try to better represent today’s complex ideologies. A case could be made that this quiz is on crack as well, but on the whole I find it useful, if only for a place to begin an interesting discussion.
My results are as follows:
Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -7.85
| Authoritarian | |||
| Left |
|
Right | |
| Libertarian | |||
The authors propose the following alignment for historic notables:
You can take the quiz here. If you are so inclined, please post your own responses at this QuickTopic forum.
I have an enormous purple and yellow welt where I have been repeatedly pinching myself. First, the execution of the mentally retarded was banned. Then 168 more death sentences were overturned. And now the Pledge of Allegiance is declared unconstitutional. It’s as if the United States were a modern nation all of a sudden. What a week.
Only when guns are used as intended are they significantly dangerous to anyone. But try telling this to all the crybabies suing the gun companies because not everybody in their family is alive. What exactly are you suing them for — making a reliable product? That’s a laugh. Somebody should be suing those shoddy import jobs: You’d be lucky to kill a baby with one of them.
– Courtesy of The Onion
I don’t know if you have heard the story of the Masai tribespeople learning of the September 11 attacks on the world Trade Center. It was only after one of their own returned from his studies abroad in the U.S. that they learned of the tragedy. In proper oral history tradition, he sat down with them and told them tales of the attack.
The Masai could not comprehend of a building so high that a man would die if he jumped from the top, but the returned Stanford University student, Mr. Naiyomah, explained that these were buildings stretching high into the clouds, that there were giant fires, and that men with special tools and equipment went into the buildings to try to save lives.
The tribespeople were relieved that their friend was unscathed, and they were angry. The village’s chief warrior, Mr. Oltetia, explained that if they got ahold of Osama bin Laden they surely would have to kill him. They recognized, however, that bin Laden must be a powerful man to have caused this devastation, so he could not be killed directly. Instead, the warriors would surround him in the bush and strike with spears and arrows.
Mostly, however, the villagers were saddened. They asked Mr. Naiyomah to help find an important American. Mr. Naiyomah contacted William Brancick, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi. This past Sunday, he flew to a game preserve and then was driven two hours over very rugged roads to reach the village. The villagers were waiting for him. At a ceremony in a grassy clearing, the village bestowed a gift of fourteen blessed cows to help the United States.
This put Brancick in a difficult position, and he explained that it would be very difficult to transport a small herd of cows to America. He told them he would probably sell the cows, use the money to buy Masai jewelry, and give the jewelry to America. I have no indication about whether this was a faux pas. Cattle are very important to the Masai, who believe that all cattle in the world belong to them. Their exhaustive use of the cattle parallels the Native Americans of the Plains’ use of bison. The animals are tapped for blood and milk, which are mixed together and drunk (this is, one would expect, highly nutritious.) When the animal is killed the meat is eaten and all the parts used. As Mr. Naiyomah explains, “It [the cow] is sacred. It’s more than property. You give it a name. You talk to it. You perform rituals with it. I don’t know if you have any sacred food in America, something that has a supernatural feel as you eat it. That’s the cow for us.”
I am touched by this gesture, but I cannot figure out how to write this post so that it does not sound condescending to the Masai. Their act was so generous, so naïve, it reminds one of the gift of a child. What an uplifting tale.
The New York Times has more info (registration required; you know the drill.) Also, an American has set up a fine “thank you” site.
Ralph Nader, in an episode of Bill Maher’s Politically Incorrect, on the 2000 U.S. presidential debates between Bush and Gore:
It was unbelievable. Gore spoke to the American people as if they did not understand the English language, and Bush spoke to the American people as if he didn’t understand the English language.
This week the Pentagon publicly appealed for help in “defeating difficult targets” - announcing a competition for ordinary Americans to come up with snappy ideas on ways of thwarting the terrorists. “We’re open to ideas from just about everybody,” said Pentagon spokesman Glenn Flood….
Our current prime minister may have got wind of the Pentagon’s novelty competition for lateral ideas, because I’m sure I heard him saying that Britain will be contributing our very own Ground Force. So the Americans are sending in thousands of highly armed marines and we’re contributing a BBC gardening programme. Mind you, once the senior clerics in the Taliban are confronted with the bra-less Charlie Dimmock jumping about, the regime will probably cave in overnight.
- John O’Farrell writing for The Guardian, Answers on a postcard please, 27 September 2001
I heard a sound bite yesterday in which President Bush announced his administration’s new air quality standards. In justifying the need for change, he stated that U.S. power plants are putting “tons” of pollution into the air every year.
This is one of the situations in which a politician’s statement is technically correct but completely out of scale with
reality. According to 1999 EPA figures cited in the Public Interest Research Group’s
paper “Lethal Legacy: The Dirty Truth About the
Nation’s Most Polluting Power Plants“, the figures for U.S. power plant annual emissions are as follows:
So yes, technically, if you are putting six billion tons of pollution into the air, you are putting tons of pollution into the air. In that spirit, here are some comparable statements in terms of scale distortion:
“Bill Gates has tens of dollars.”
“The Earth is centimeters in circumference at the equator.”
“The human body contains tens of thousands of cells.”
“Light travels hundreds of miles per month.”
“There’s a person on the Earth.”
On the Israeli siege of the West Bank, Mr. Terje Roed-Larsen, UN Special Co-ordinator for the occupied Palestinian territories, writes that the devastation left by Israeli forces is “horrific beyond belief. … [The Jenin camp] is totally destroyed, it looks like an earthquake has hit it. … We have expert people here who have been in war zones and earthquakes and they say they have never seen anything like it. … It is totally unacceptable that the government of Israel for 11 days did not allow search and rescue teams to come.” [emphasis added]
President Bush continues to describe Ariel Sharon as “a man of peace.”
Now is the time to make yourself aware of what is really going on. Do not just accept the U.S. spin of this being a war against terrorism. Contact our representatives, tell them that the U.S. cannot stand idly by, let alone fan the flames, as this genocide continues.
Reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1937000/1937387.stm
I am very displeased with the new Anti-Drug commercial airing on broadcast television. This spot features young people describing how they support terrorism by purchasing and using illegal drugs. “Drug money supports terrorism”, the banner reads.
The logic is faulty; the effort is deceptive and manipulative. I turned to Jennifer tonight and said “Well, drug money supports McDonalds hamburgers, too — and automobiles — and commercial airlines — and dental care.” Demonizing issues does no good.
This technique is far from the exclusive property of the right. On my side of the political spectrum, I become angry when fellow Greens proclaim that oil companies are trying to destroy the planet, for instance.
Hmmm. Oil companies. Jennifer turned to me and responded, “the commercial’s claim would probably be more applicable if they were talking about filling up your gask tank.”
Here is a comparison of changes between the U.S. Government International Terrorism policies of 1995 and 2002. Green text indicates text that only occurs in one version. Blue text indicates text changes. (Sources: U.S. State Department, Electronic Research Collection; post suggested by Guardian Unlimited “US Hostages Text” article.)
International Terrorism: American Hostages [1995 Policy]U.S. Government Policy The U.S. Government will make no concessions to terrorists holding |
International Terrorism: American Hostages [2002 Policy]U.S. Government Policy The U.S. Government will make no concessions to individuals or groups holding official or private U.S. citizens hostage. The United States will use every appropriate resource to gain the safe return of American citizens who are held hostage. At the same time, it is U.S. Government policy to deny hostage takers the benefits of ransom, prisoner releases, policy changes, or other acts of concession. |
|
Basic Premises
It is internationally accepted that governments are responsible for the The United States also seeks effective judicial prosecution and |
Basic Premises
It is internationally accepted that governments are responsible for the safety and welfare of persons within the borders of their nations. Aware of both the hostage threat and public security shortcomings in many parts of the world, the United States has developed enhanced physical and personal security programs for U.S. personnel and established cooperative arrangements with the U.S. private sector. It has also established bilateral assistance programs and close intelligence and law enforcement relationships with many nations to prevent hostage-taking incidents or resolve them in a manner that will deny the perpetrators benefits from their actions. The United States also seeks effective judicial prosecution and punishment for hostage takers victimizing the U.S. Government or its citizens and will use all legal methods to these ends, including extradition. U.S. policy and goals are clear, and the U.S. Government actively pursues them alone and in cooperation with other governments. |
|
U.S. Government Responsibilities When Private U.S. Citizens Are Taken Hostage The U.S. Government believes that paying ransom or making other The United States strongly urges American companies and private citizens The U.S. Government is concerned for the welfare of its citizens but If a U.S. private organization or company seeks release of hostages by |
U.S. Government Responsibilities When Private U.S. Citizens Are Taken Hostage
Based upon past experience, the U.S. Government concluded that making concessions that benefit hostage takers in exchange for the release of hostages increased the danger that others will be taken hostage. U.S. Government policy is, therefore, to deny hostage takers the benefits of ransom, prisoner releases, policy changes, or other acts of concession. At the same time, the U.S. Government will make every effort, including contact with representatives of the captors, to obtain the release of hostages without making concessions to the hostage takers. Consequently, the United States strongly urges American companies and private citizens not to accede to hostage-taker demands. It believes that good security practices, relatively modest security expenditures, and continual close cooperation with embassy and local authorities can lower the risk to Americans living in high-threat environments. The U.S. Government is concerned for the welfare of its citizens but cannot support requests that host governments violate their own laws or abdicate their normal enforcement responsibilities. If the employing organization or company works closely with local authorities and follows U.S. policy, U.S. Foreign Service posts can be involved actively in efforts to bring the incident to a safe conclusion. This includes providing reasonable administrative services and, if desired by local authorities and the American entity, full participation in strategy sessions. Requests for U.S. Government technical assistance or expertise will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The full extent of U.S. Government participation must await an analysis of each specific set of circumstances. The host government and the U.S. private organizations or citizen must understand that if they wish to follow a hostage resolution path different from that of U.S. Government policy, they do so without U.S. Government approval. In the event a hostage-taking incident is resolved through concessions, U.S. policy remains steadfastly to pursue investigation leading to the apprehension and prosecution of hostage takers who victimize U.S. citizens. |
|
Legal Caution
Under current U.S. law 18 USC 1203 (Act for the Prevention and |
Legal Caution
Under current U.S. law, 18 USC 1203 (Act for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Hostage-Taking, enacted October 1984 in implementation of the UN convention on hostage-taking), seizure of a U.S. citizen as a hostage anywhere in the world is a crime, as is any hostage-taking action in which the U.S. Government is a target or the hostage taker is a U.S. national. Such acts are, therefore, subject to investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and to prosecution by U.S. authorities. Actions by private persons or entities that have the effect of aiding or abetting the hostage taking, concealing knowledge of it from the authorities, or obstructing its investigation may themselves be in violation of U.S. law. |
Hooray for the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. This law compels the government to reveal a staggering range of material upon request, but you may need to keep nagging them for a few years. Take, for instance, a 1971 “telcon” between President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. Chinese Premier Zhou En-Lai had invited Nixon to send a secret emissary to China to make preparations for Nixon’s 1972 trip. Kissinger wants to be the envoy, but Nixon is seen toying with him, suggesting other people he might consider. An excerpt:
P: I had a couple of thoughts on this. One with regard to the [Vietnam negotiator Ambassador David K. E.] Bruce thing which seems to me may pose to them a difficult problem because of him [sic] being directly involved in the Vietnam negotiations. Secondly, let me think of whether there is something [sic] else — how about Nelson [Rockefeller]?
K: No.
P: Can’t do it, huh?
K: Mr. President, he wouldn’t be disciplined enough, although he is a possibility.
P: It would engulf him in a big deal and he is outside of the Government, you see.
K: Let me think about it, I might be able to hold him in check.
P: It is intriguing, don’t you think?
K: It is intriguing.
P: How about [future President George H. W.] Bush?
K: Absolutely not, he is too soft and not sophisticated enough.
P: I thought of that myself.
…
K: Bush would be too weak.
P: I thought so too but I was trying to think of somebody with a title.
One more:
K: The difference between them [the Chinese] and the Russians is that if you drop some loose change, when you go to pick it up the Russians will step on your fingers and the Chinese won’t.
Yes.
Some of my best friends are Americans. My father spent five happy years in the States during the 1930s and I was brought up to be pro-American … I came to realise that much of what was best in American values stemmed from the good work of those East Coast “liberals” who became such a favourite target for the Reagan Revivalists of the 1980s.
When George Bush came to town to reclaim the Republican crown that his father had lost to Bill Clinton, we wishy-washy liberals feared the worst … Then came September 11 2001 … In their innocence the British prime minister, Tony Blair, and far too many other naive observers, thought that, after the tragedy, they might see something of a, to coin a phrase, “kinder, gentler America”.
Well, there have been a number of episodes recently (that don’t need spelling out) to disabuse people of this illusion. And the latest is undoubtedly the $2.13 trillion (�1.5 trillion) budget the president sent to Congress yesterday … The largest and most significant element in this is the $1.7 trillion tax cut which is predominantly directed at the rich - in the immortal words of a past World Bank official - “at the sort of people who are wondering whether to install a fifth bathroom in their fourth home”.
What about the third world whose poverty is linked by most observers to the kind of situation that breeds the terrorism Washington wishes to fight? Forget it. …
There is something wonderfully predictable about the awfulness of the Bush Republicans. Oh, and by the way, the increase in the defence programme at $48bn will be roughly equivalent to the entire industrial country aid programme to the third world … A new generation of American liberals has new struggle on its hands. Good luck to them.
- William Keegan, The predictable awfulness of the Bush Republicans, Guardian Unlimited, 5 February 2001
[W]hen George Bush … begins to exploit and manipulate the September 11 tragedy for political advantage, alarm bells must ring out loud. Yet this is exactly what Mr Bush’s first state of the union address unabashedly set out to do. All US policy, both international and domestic, is now framed in terms of last autumn’s emergency; all measures, however partisan and divisive, are justified in the name of patriotic unity and solidarity; all misgiving and dissent must be overridden for the sake of America’s “just cause”. Mr Bush, in his black-and-white way, has clearly convinced himself that in what he calls the “decisive decade in the history of liberty”, his duty, mission and calling is to direct the triumph of good over evil at home and abroad …
This is a premise fortified by falsehoods and underpinned by a delusion. The principal falsehood is that the policies Mr Bush now advocates are dictated by an ongoing terrorist menace. They are not. Primarily they are the products of conservative Republicanism, set dangerously loose in September 11’s aftermath …
September 11 undoubtedly bound the American nation. But it did not blind it. Sooner or later, Mr Bush, self-styled universal soldier for truth, will have to stop pretending that tragedy gave him a free hand to remake America and the world to fit his simplistic, narrow vision - or risk having voters and US allies end the pretence for him.
- Lead article, The Guardian, 31 January 2002
The treatment by the United States of detainees at Guantanamo Bay in the past weeks has generated a storm of international controversy. The Bush administration have decreed that the persons captured in Afghanistan are not prisoners of war in the legal sense but rather unlawful combatants, and are therefore not subject to the terms of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (hereafter “the Convention”).
I am not an expert in military law, but this position seems untenable. The U.S. Executive branch have been perpetrating what I consider to be an act of misdirection meant to distract attention. The official word has been that the prisoners do not qualify due to their not being organized into recognized military units, not wearing uniforms, and not bearing arms openly. This belies the fact that a detainee must be classified as a prisoner of war if he falls into any of six categories, only one of which (category 2) contains the provisions cited by the Bush administration. The beginning of Article 4 is excerpted below.
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
By the description of the Bush administration, some detainees are of Taliban origin, some of al Qaeda origin. Despite the obfuscatory efforts of the Bush administration to equate the two groups and use their names interchangeably, these are separate groups of people. First consider the Taliban detainees: these individuals are unquestionably prisoners of war under the terms of 4(A)(1), “Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict.” This is indisputable. It does not matter if the U.S. did not recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan; the status of such combatants is expressly protected in 4(A)(3). The Taliban were the de facto government, as openly acknowledged by the administration, and Afghanistan is a party to the Convention.
It may be true that al Qaeda members are not covered by the Convention. To decide this, a “a competent tribunal” should operate on a case-by-case basis, as mandated in Article 5, but the Bush administration have denied the captives this entitlement as well. I had originally intended a more thorough exploration of these topics, but a press release that I found, issued yesterday by the organization Human Rights Watch, does a much better job of this than I could have. I strongly entreat you to read this and reach your own conclusions
I admit with embarassment that before researching this I had no conception of the extent of the Convention. If asked, I would have said that the convention allows a POW to state nothing but his name, rank and serial number to inquisitors, prevents the torture of prisoners, and mandates their medical care. This summation does not afford even a glimpse into the generosity of the treaty. (In my sampling below, the italicized numbers refer to the source Articles of the Convention.)
Under the Convention, detainees are allowed to keep all effects and articles in their possession at the time of capture, excepting arms, military equipment and documents, and horses; this specifically includes clothing, items of sentimental value, and items of personal protection such as gas masks and helmets (18). The prisoners must be housed in dormitories at least as desirable as those in which their captors reside, with allowances for the customs of the prisoners (25); specifically they may not be housed in penitentiaries by default (22). The prisoners’ habitual diet must be taken into account when providing food rations (26). They shall be able to freely exercise their religious duties (34), and if a minister of a prisoner’s faith is not in captivity with him, the captors must provide an appropriate minister at the request of the prisoner (37). All prisoners must be given a monetary allowance (60; more on this later) and this money, along with money the prisoners had when captured (18, 58), may be used to purchase foodstuffs and personal articles at reasonable prices from a store set up within the camp (28).
The captors must assist prisoners in the preparation of legal wills satisfying the legal requirements of their own countries in case the prisoner dies in captivity; if the captive does indeed die his will shall be forwarded to his home country, he shall be buried honorably (or cremated, if he so desires), the grave must be clearly marked and properly maintained, and its location centrally recorded (120). A prisoner of war may not be tried in a civilian court of the detaining power unless a soldier of the captor power is also permitted to be tried in a civilian court, and any trial must guarantee independence and impartiality (84). The prisoner on trial must have access to adequate counsel (99).
A prisoner shall be allowed to send and receive letters and postcards (71). The prisoner shall also be able to receive packages in the mail containing a wide range of items. A prisoner could, for instance, receive a package containing granola bars, a six-pack of Coca Cola, a coat, extra socks, Band Aids, a Koran, a crucifix, a dictionary and thesaurus, a hobby microscope, a guitar, a rugby uniform, and a GED test form (72). These may be sent to a prisoner for free, without charge for custom duties or even postage (74).
I had no idea of the scope of this convention. I love it. This is the most civilized law I have ever read; it paints a picture of a camp much like the camp portrayed in the 1997 film The Brylcreem Boys. It could be argued that these rights and resources exceed those afforded to civilian prisoners of the United States, and even exceed those afforded to the destitute and homeless. This should not suggest that we need to reduce the living standards of prisoners of war, but rather that we should not allow our own citizens to live in squalor.
I wrote that I would return to the issue of the allowances. These are specified in exact values of Swiss francs. For example, prisoners ranking below sergeant would receive the equivalent of eight francs per month in the local currency, majors, colonels, etc. would receive fifty francs, generals seventy-five francs. In 1950, one Swiss franc was equal to US$0.23. Adjusting for inflation, this is equivalent to US$1.64 in year 2000 dollars. As of this writing one Swiss franc is equal to US$0.58. This is a factor of three decrease in buying power. It think it would more desirable if this were calibrated against actual buying power in the host country (some function of, say, the prices of beef, automobiles, electricity, and books.)
Your Test on the Latest Bushisms, courtesy of The Guardian.
memepool pointed me toward a quiz entitled “The Falwell/Robertson/Bin Laden Quiz”. The goal is for the viewer to match statements to one of these three men. The author changes Christian- or Islamic-specific words to general term, and the quotes are slightly modified in the quiz portion to avoid giving extra clues, but the complete quotations are shown on the answers page; in my opinion the rephrasing has not made material changes to the statement.
The next paragraph contains some spoilers, so if you are interested I highly suggest taking the quiz before you proceed.
There are 20 questions in the quiz. I answered 9 out of 20 correctly, leaving 11 errors. Four times I answered ‘Pat’ when ‘Jerry’ was correct, or vice versa. Twice I answered ‘Usama’ when the ‘Pat’ was correct. And five times I answered ‘Pat’ or ‘Jerry’ when the answer was Usama (four times for the former, once for the latter.) I was probably biased in that direction because I assumed the quiz was to show that things we thought were Usama-esque statements actually belonged to the two Americans. But it also suggests that I am used to Pat and Jerry making statements that are hate-filled and incorrect. Let me cite one of Pat’s extended quotations:
There will never be world peace until God’s house and God’s people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world. How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy moneychangers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?
Enough on Usama for a moment. Let’s think about the Taliban versus Pat and Jerry. The season pre-premier of The West Wing this season was a hastily-constructed high school lecture. Literally, actually, as a group of high schoolers served as the foil for the viewers who knew little about the Taliban. The character of Sam Seaborn (Rob Lowe) maps the Taliban to Nazis. I contend that, for a U.S. reader, mapping the Taliban to Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and their ilk would be clearer and more accurate.
Some may argue that the Robertson/Falwell vs. Nazi distinction is academic, but I think there is an important point. The Nazis, for the most part, are a group of a prior era. They live on in our memories and histories, but Hitler and his contemporaries in the Nazi party are unlikely to directly cause horrors and atrocities today. Pat and Jerry are alive and kicking. NBC would never have the courage to map the Taliban to them on air, but I would bet that Sorkin (judging from his politics) wishes he could have done so.
This is a very easy topic to beat into the ground. I could write for much longer (I have not even gotten to the breakfast I attended at which Falwell, Robertson, Steve Forbes and the mayor of Jerusalem spoke, for instance) but I will conclude this post quickly. If you (the reader) happen to be a theistically inclined person, fine; have you ever thought that Robertson must be praying to a different deity than you are? Consider Robertson on the murders of abortion providers: “If the judges appointed by man will not deal with [them] the Lord is going to enter in and bring justice. And when that happens many of the innocent will suffer along with the guilty.” His understanding of Yahweh seems not to progress beyond Genesis 7 and Genesis 19. Even in those two stories the Bible authors had the sense of mind to allege that everyone killed was guilty; the remaining options are that Yahweh has limited power or that Yahweh does not mind killing innocent people just for the hell of it (by the way, the book of Job explores the latter option, where Yahweh does allow the killing of innocents; amusingly it is literally “for the hell of it.”)
It seems that the only reason Robertson believes in Jesus is to give himself more reason to hate those who do not. Robertson entertains a naïve theology, a sociopathic theology. It is not that Pat and Jerry have a few things in common with Usama. Usama is Pat and Jerry.
Until this year I have identified my political affiliation with the Greens as being a “California Green”; that is, registered with the Green Party of California. The national coordinating body was previously called the Association of State Green Parties, and in 2001 it voted to become a formal and unified national party organization, maintaining the structure of the established state Green parties. This is the party that ran the 2000 Nader/LaDuke ticket. On 8 November (less than one month ago, as of this writing), the U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) issued a unanimous opinion recognizing this group as the National Committee of the Green Party.
Phew!
You see, there are actually two parties claiming the title of “The Green Party” in the United States. The oldest, far more radical, and (in my opinion) far less judicious group is called “Greens / Green Party USA”. Yes, that is their official title, but they frequently refer to themselves with the almost-as-unwieldy abbreviation “G/GPUSA”. G/GPUSA calls GPUS “right wing”; a GPUS strategist has described G/GPUSA as being “on the fringes” and having “all sorts of damned-near-communistic ideas.” Some in G/GPUSA protest that accusation, but a look at their 2000 Platform might suggest otherwise. This platform promotes, among other things, a 30-hour workweek and the elimination of the U.S. Senate.
Confused yet? Here is a summary. The Green Party of the United States has federal recognition, ran Ralph Nader in the campaign, believes that electoral politics is the best route for political change, and is allied with every state Green Party. The Greens / Green Party USA are self-described radicals, are much smaller, and generate impossible political platforms. That of course is just my description; a member of the latter party might disagree with me, but would almost certainly call him/herself a radical.
This separation is frustrating. Greens have enough of a difficult time getting people to take us seriously that we cannot afford to present a fractured front, and the radicals of G/GPUSA just serve to make Greens seem crazy in the popular mindset. Fortunately most people do not realize this split due to the fringe-ness of G/GPUSA, and I believe (and hope) that the group will fade to effective silence and invisibility in the following years. (Note: If you are an annoyed G/GPUSA member and decide to email me, that’s fine. However, in contrast to my normal privacy policies, I explicitly reserve the right to publish any portion of your message on this site.)
The political issue is not the entirety, though. As an intellectual person I am bothered by people who do not have a grasp of basic logic or composition, and G/GPUSA missives seem naïve, poorly written, insufficiently considered, and factually erroneous. I will end this post with a passage comparison, juxtaposing excerpts of the two groups’ responses to the 11 September attacks.
From the press release of the Greens / Green Party USA (the group with whom I am not affiliated):
All good people abhor the death and destruction of this past week. People of the world want peace. But they also want justice … Clearly, the way countries now deal with one another isn’t working. The world needs leaders who will set good examples for Earth’s peoples. Can we not be grown-ups and use this latest Disaster as a starting point for working together towards peace? … Bring all American troops home from all over the world [presumably this means a cessation of cooperation with NATO peacekeeping campaigns] …
[T]he Green Party has been active in helping to counter the racist anti-Moslem and anti-Arab hysteria that has led to mindless attacks against Arab and dark-skinned Asian people in New York City and across the country. We are asking our members to be vigilant, to protect our brothers and sisters from other countries and to speak out against racism and anti-Semitism [sic] wherever it stirs.
Compare this to the Green Party of the United States’ release:
Greens fully support the right and obligation of the U.S. to seek justice. The complete disregard for the sanctity of human life displayed by the perpetrators of these atrocities must be countered by a just and lawful response … While there is never any justification for acts of terror against innocent civilians — indeed it is the quintessential act of dehumanization — the events of September 11th bring Americans the unique occasion to reconsider our government’s role on the world stage … The Green Party asserts that a significant aspect of preventing future terrorist attacks on the United States is to insure that our foreign policy is firmly based on economic and social justice … [T]he Green Party of the United States urges our fellow citizens and people everywhere to view September 11th as an opportunity to call for an end to all violence towards civilians. As our platform states, the Green Party seeks strength through peace and asserts that security and liberty prosper together. While we recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations, we trust that non-violence provides the surest road to peace.
The Guerilla News Network has a very well produced < 5 minute video on its site called “Countdown”. Check it out.
I purchased Michael Moore’s Downsize This! tonight and have read the first ten chapters. In a previous post I tore Moore apart and wondered if “Mr. Moore is just an idiot or if is his aim is more sinister,” in response to his distorted figures and half-truths. My verdict: he’s an idiot.
Eric Bogosian once described Oliver Stone as being not a liberal, but rather what conservatives want people to think liberals are like. I cheerfully appropriate this and apply it to Michael Moore.
The following is taken from an excellent paper entitled Between Humanitarian Law and Principles: The Principles and Practices of “Rebellious Humanitarianism” by Fran�oise Bouchet-Saulnier, Director of Research at the Médecins Sans Frontières [Doctors Without Borders] Foundation. I encourage you to read the entire paper, read their charter, and consider donating if you agree with their principles.
Humanitarian action and human rights
[The United Nations'] tendency to adopt a more global approach [toward humanitarian action] is an attempt to group humanitarian action together with peacekeeping, the restoration of democracy, and human rights. … However, this kind of approach blurs the nature of each organization’s responsibility. … Indeed, in a context in which human rights are an element of international diplomacy, giving confidential information to human rights groups might be regarded by the authorities as clandestine, suspicious and subversive. … With this approach … relief operations become a pawn in a power game that is perilous for humanitarianism. …
Thus, a genuine conditionality of humanitarian aid has gradually taken hold, in the name of peace and human rights. However, although the practice of conditionality may take refuge behind these noble objectives, it in fact violates the only absolute principle of humanitarian action: impartiality.
This principle dictates that humanitarian aid obey no other imperative than that of the needs of people, and it provides the foundation for humanitarian organizations’ right to access conflict areas. … Paradoxically, the most serious consequence of this approach becomes the subordination of humanitarian aid to non-humanitarian objectives.
Humanitarian law and human rights
Humanitarian law … is concerned with periods of armed conflict. It is enshrined in four conventions signed in Geneva in 1949 and in two additional protocols of 1977. These laws set out specific rules regarding protection and assistance to precise categories of vulnerable people (civilians, the sick and wounded, and those deprived of freedom) in situations of armed international or internal conflict.
Some NGOs see the law only as a source of constraint and limitation. Yet it is thanks to the specific provisions of humanitarian law that NGOs are able to claim independence in their actions with respect to governments; demand access to victims; assert control over the distribution of relief; enter a country’s territory without prior consent in order to bring medical relief to the wounded and the sick; and identify and denounce war crimes and crimes against humanity.Humanitarian law does not, therefore, limit the concrete action of NGOs. On the contrary, it ensures that offers of relief made by independent and impartial humanitarian organizations may not be considered interference in a country’s internal affairs.
Rebellious humanitarianism
By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to the “rebellious humanitarianism” of Médecins Sans Frontières, the Nobel Committee chose to reward the sometimes controversial choices made by MSF, which sees acting and speaking as two inseparable elements of providing relief to endangered people.
Médecins Sans Frontières does not see itself as a cog in the machinery of international solidarity, responding to medical needs like some eager hired hand summoned to deal with the failures of states or of global privatization. …
MSF is a member of the youngest generation of humanitarian organizations. Created after the Second World War, it is among those organizations questioning the role of humanitarianism with regard to genocide. It refuses to accept that silence is a precondition for its operational freedom. … This attitude was reaffirmed in the words of MSF upon the award of the Nobel Peace Prize: “We don’t know whether words save lives, but we know for sure that silence kills.”
No complete report on Author Unknown yet, but I wanted to take a moment to follow a thread from a couple of chapters ago. Foster writes:
[T]he Unabomber obtained names and addresses for Charles Epstein, a geneticist [...], and David Gelernter, developer of the networking software called LINDA. Both scholars were critically injured by Unabom devices a week later. (pp. 136)
This passage suddenly personalized the Unabomber attacks. I began (and abandoned) one of Gelernter’s books, The Muse in the Machine. I did not particularly care for his theories or his writing, but regardless I felt I somehow knew him. Suddenly, the Unabomber attacks were personal.
I find the results of the Unabomber’s actions to be horrific. I am overjoyed that Gelernter and his family survived, and I mourn the three men successfully murdered by Kaczynski. I felt somewhat foolish and irresponsible not knowing of his 1993 accident (which was, by the way, before I purchased his book.) I set out to Google in an “Is he OK?” panic. One article grabbed my attention but only listed his being “severely wounded”, so I put the page in the background until I found the specifics (disfigurement and partial loss of use of right hand, partial loss of sight in right eye, disfigurement [implied] to the right side of his face, injuries to the right side of his body requiring ten surgical operations.) I breathed a partial sigh of relief (he can see, hear, walk, type, etc.), as much as one can when learning when an injury “could have been worse”.
Now I turned back to the attention-grabbing article entitled “Save the Unabomber” which argues (quite convincingly, I think) against executing Kaczynski:
If there were real justice in America, the Unabomber would be institutionalized, probably for the rest of his life. And his brother would be invited to the White House lawn and given a medal live on national television by our selectively empathetic president.
Like decorated veterans and patriots, David Kaczynski confronted one of the most awful choices in life - to betray a member of his own family to save innocent lives - and did the right thing. He saved others at dreadful personal expense. It’s hard to think what more any country could expect of a citizen.
Concerned about possible future victims, he decided to notify the FBI of his suspicions in the spring of l996. Federal officials have repeatedly have said they might never have arrested Kaczynski - or any suspect - if not for this information. The only thing David asked for from the beginning was that his brother not be executed.
I did not need any convincing in the first place. I am a strong and vocal opponent of the death penalty, which I consider to be barbaric, ineffective, and cruel. But this objection is a novel, and quite moving, twist.
So continuing with the Google search, I find that Gelernter has written a book entitled Drawing Life : Surviving the Unabomber in which he advocates killing the Unabomber and (according to Amazon) “locate[s] the madman on a continuum of modern social degradation,” with the remainder of the “degradation” composed of scum such as liberals, intellectuals, feminists, etc. (one Amazon reader wrote an excellent critique; I wish the author had left an email address so that I could write to express my compliments.) Amazon describes the book as “not tightly reasoned”. Well, no, one wouldn’t expect it to be: this is Gelernter. This is the reason I gave up on The Muse in the Machine to begin with. That book, which would like to consider itself in the same category as books by Denett, Hofstadter, and even Penrose, is full of absurd assertions that Gelernter does not bother to substantiate. An example, from my copy of the book:
“If I ask you to close your eyes and imagine lying on the beach, the better you succeed, the closer you’ve come to staging a small-scale auto-hallucination. If we say you have a vivid imagination, we mean that what you imagine seems real to you.” (pp. 10, emphasis his.)
This is, at best, a miserably incomplete definition. What if my next question is “What do you see?” Subject A reports:
A blue sea, with perhaps three-foot swells. The sky is pale blue, paler than the water, with small pockets of white cumulus clouds. To my right is a mother, dressed in a red and black one-piece bathing suit, sitting on a striped beach towel under a green umbrella. She is trying to applying sunscreen to her four-year-old boy straining to run after his big brother into the surf. Above, a few seagulls, cawing out of unison. To my left, a boy and girl, probably siblings, building a sand castle with an old garden spade and an empty plastic plant pot. The sand is near white, the reflection blinding around the rims of my sunglasses; I’m glad I wore them. When I stretch my arm out, the sand is perceptibly and uncomfortably warm on my hand. So are my kneecaps and earlobes; I should probably apply some sunscreen or get in the shade. A quiet breeze is blowing up from the water. I can smell the kelp, a gentle iodine rot-smell, a stone’s throw away.
Subject B reports:
Umm … the ocean? Some sand? Uhhh … a sand castle? I guess that’s about it….
The relevant difference here is not that Subject A is more accomplished at self-deception. Subject A is, in my view, better at associating stimuli and memories with each other, visually modeling situations in order to closely examine them, holding complex images in the mind at once, etc. But the hallucination interpretation is apparently obvious enough to Gelernter that it does not deserve supporting evidence, not even supporting examples. Further Google explorations uncovered a transcript of Gelernter’s C-SPAN “Booknotes” interview. Gelernter continues in the same fashion, with unjustified generalizations and instances of false consensus perceptions:
“There are very few people who can live their lives
without [religion].”“Environmentalists are explicit about the spiritual,
religious side of what they’re doing.”“[T]here are [...] many other people who, when they
look for this New Age stuff [...] and that self-esteem
movement, seem to be groping pathetically in the dark
for the kind of moral and spiritual guidance that
traditional Christianity rendered very successfully
for a couple of millennia and Judaism for even longer.”“And I have a feeling that many of these people are
coming up with makeshift simulated religions [...]
because they don’t know what their traditional
religions are. I can tell you the average Jew in this
country has no concept of what Judaism is[...].”“I’ve always been in favor of the death penalty for
murderers [...] I can’t conceive of [...] our not
sentencing such a man to death if we are serious about
murder, if we are serious about our absolute refusal
to tolerate murder.”“[T]he art market today is such that there isn’t a
person in America who couldn’t sell artwork for money.
My pet parrot could. Anything goes on today’s art
market.”“I’m not a great talker; I mean, I’d rather write than
talk. But very–all writers feel that way.”
As a jab at him, note:
“I’m just tremendously impressed by the imaginativeness
of this technology [that repaired my right eye after the bombing] and by the skill of the surgeons
who did it.”
Good thing those technologists are adept at “auto-hallucination”, eh David?
Gelernter says he does not wanted to be treated as a “victim” (as I understand it, this is a central point of Drawing Life.) I believe this statement and I congratulate him. But in my view the most dangerous possibility is that people consider him a victim anyway and neglect to question his assertions simply because “he’s been through so much” or “I could never understand what he went through.” Mail-bomb or no, these statements deserve skepticism on our part and justification on his.
But all this notwithstanding: Dr. Gelernter, please accept my best wishes for you and your family.
