perfidy

John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla committed acts, they didn't just say stuff, and their actions certainly open the door to a possible treason charge. It's up to the prosecutors and Grand Jury whether or not they want to charge them with treason.

It can be very difficult, though, to determine when treason is an appropriate charge. The first step is an act. Then there's intent. Was the act intended to overthrow the state or give aid and comfort to enemies in time of war? It's something that has to be taken on a case by case basis. In my view, the actions of Timothy McVeigh fall under treason because they were designed to overthrow the United States government.

A treason charge is not to be administered lightly. At most, I can say that Padilla and Lindh could maybe be charged with treason on the basis of actions, and Lindh could fall under the aid and comfort category, but I don't know enough about either to say for certain.

I am not going to San Francisco. Therefore I will not wear flowers in my hair.

This is my character. Disturbingly appropriate. 

Here is a site devoted to disagreeing with Ann Coulter. Apparently, the site will soon be no more, but is available at the moment. Decide for yourself if it's just more shouting or a promotion of discourse. I'm finding evidence for both.

On a related tangent to my last post, I'd like to offer a few thoughts on discourse. The way I see it, there are two ways to argue. One is through fair debate. The other is through vicious ad hominem shouting matches. I've noticed lately that the ad hominem shouting matches are becoming many people's preferred method of disagreement. May I say, here in the little corner of the world where Mr. Two-Cents and Mr. Head have graciously allowed me some semi-public statement space, that ad hominem shouting doesn't get us anywhere.

I've been watching Bill Maher's HBO television program, Real Time, regularly lately. Maher, in his new HBO format, often has intelligent guests who present well-reasoned arguments, or at least thoughtful, usually with a cross section of left, right, and center. Some of his guests, however, quickly abandon the notion of discourse and go right to the ad hominem with a psychotic glean in their eye. Recently, he had a writer named Ann Coulter on his show. In my opinion, Ms. Coulter is a strong proponent of ad hominem shouting.

Here's my thing. Ms. Coulter has advocated the murder of 3,000+ Muslims to avenge the attacks of 11 September 2001. Few people in the United States, with the exception of looney tunes wackos (thus I'm going ad hominem over discourse) would argue that there was any thing positive about those attacks. People died. For no reason. It was horrible. There's another one of those events that toss moral relativism out the window. But how in the hell can the murder of thousands more innocents improve the situation?Isn't it better if no one else dies because of that shit? I'm sure few people have taken this seriously, but it's still not a good suggestion.

Ms. Coulter is also at work on a new book arguing that people who protested the war with Iraq are traitors. That is not the case. The Supreme Court long ago determined that treason was an act, not a statement. A person has to attempt to overthrow the government or give aid and comfort to enemies in time of war to be guilty of treason. I believed the war was unjustified, and I said so, publicly. A tiny little statement of protest. It doesn't mean I'm a traitor. If Hussein was sleeping on the futon in my living room and I harbored him, then it can go to court.

But back to my original point. On Maher's show, Coulter stated, to paraphrase, that liberals (current American sense) are a bunch of whiners. In one of her books, Coulter argued that liberals tell lies about conservatives and that liberals suck. Well, we all let our passions and beliefs get the better of us and we engage in this sort of ad hominem shouting match strategy. I've done it. Two paragraphs ago. But to offer a bit of unsolicited constructive criticism, Buckethead did it in writing that, "When Congress passed the welfare reform act back in 96, the left was having fits of apoplexy, crying and whining that we would have children starving to death because of the callousness and heartlessness of Republicans." He simultaneously pointed out that the left (though I will state that this is a very broad stroke, as I am okay with welfare reform since it is supposed to provide assistance and then get people back on their feet and working) was engaging in the same sort of ad hominem shouting. One more clarification, those members of the left who said what Buckethead correctly said they said, were some members of America's left-of-center aggregate. Not the whole goup. One more more clarification, to be fair, Buckethead was probably doing so for the sake of brevity.

But back to the main point, one of my professors at Duquesne, where I got my MA, argued that in a two party system, the parties are often defined by their opposition to each other. Shouting matches become the primary method of disagreement. That's where we are in America. We're just screaming at each other. "You're stupid!" one side says. "You're stupider!" insists the other side. "Oh yeah, well you're stupiderer!" responds the first. That needs to change. No good can come of it. Buckethead, you make good points about welfare reform and social security. Those programs need to be reconfigured to work better. Let me offer an apology for those times I engaged in the ad hominem shouting method. That was wrong.

Many thanks to my friend Tim Lacy, who with a very brief statement helped me fine tune this thought that's been running around my head.

Rick Santorum's comments viz-a-viz the Texas sodomy laws are at best misguided. But, as my blog-mates have indicated, it does open a question of the legislation of morality. I raised this during part of my lecture this evening, which covered reform movements in the U.S. in the 1820s and 1830s. Now, I think that broad issues of moral relativism went out with the Holocaust, despite postmodernist attempts to argue in favor of it. As I told my students, there are some issues of morality present in every culture. No matter who you talk to, killing someone in cold blood is immoral. 

The problem comes with moral issues upon which we cannot agree. For Santorum, and many others, homosexual relations are immoral practices. For others, it makes no nevermind. I believe that homosexual relations between two (or more) consenting adults pose no moral problems whatever. It's perfectly fine for two consenting adults to have whatever kind of sex they like. It's none of my business. Santorum, however, believes it's an erosion of what he calls family values. So the question is, does the government have a right to legislate morality on behalf of the people they represent?

The response is equally problematic. In some cases yes, in some cases no. As Buckethead argued well, the government legislates morality by prohibiting theft and murder. These things are bad. Case closed. But what about sexual behavior? Well, provided it is between the two or more aforementioned consenting adults and no one gets hurt, the government has no basis to step in. The government, as our elected representatives, can legislate to keep people from hurting one another. That's part of the social contract and leaving the state of nature, allowing the government to protect our lives, liberty, and property by sacrificing our ability to bash each other's skulls in for shits and giggles. But if two guys, or two women, want to get each other off, then what's the harm? This is where our republic does not need government intervention. 

Santorum doesn't see it that way. He believes that the government should promote his vision of morality, upon which everyone does not agree. The recourse against people like Santorum, as Buckethead would point out, is to vote against him or those who also try to legislate morality that doesn't fall under the we're all for it category. I could also write to him and tell him I disagree, but that's less effective than casting a vote for other representatives who think that the government does not need to uphold laws against homosexual intercourse. 

All that being said, I think we just need to keep talking, and permit the legislation of morality when it pertains to matters of don't kill, steal, or key someone's car just because they parked in front of your house. Other than that, we need to figure out what's a sheer judgement call and what isn't. That happens through discourse. I realize that I'm being uncharacteristically optimistic about all this. These things happen

Senor dos Pesetas, I'm curious as to how I'm wrong about Kennedy. Point 1, "the only Irish Catholic president of this great nation of ours?" was a quote from Edward Burns' The Brothers McMullen. How's that wrong? He wasn't Irish Catholic? Contest that one. The U.S. isn't a great nation? Sure, that one is up for debate. Point 2, good taste in women. What in the hell was wrong with Marilyn Monroe? You got something against Norma Jeane? Them's fightin' words, Welshy. Jacquelyn? Okay, up for debate, but she was hot. Point 3, voracious in his carnal appetites? He had so many notches in his bedpost it was a toothpick. Please explain where I went wrong. 

By the way, if you fellas haven't figured this one out already, and I would think you have, none of today's posts, from me, are to be taken too seriously. All the president stuff is very highly subjective anyway. 
 

For Lloyd George not counting, read the previous sentence. Then read the Lloyd George sentence. It will all make sense. Not all Welshman are bastards. Little disclaimer. 

Bear in mind that the little excerpt from my journal was not edited, except for two words. It's a random thoughts thing. But I'll explain. Churchill made things worse prior to the actual Treaty negotiations because he was responsible for deploying the Black and Tans in Ireland. He made things worse during the Treaty negotiations by strong-arming Collins and Griffith, constantly using threats of force. The Civil War to which I refer is the Irish Civil War of 1922-23, between pro and anti-Treaty factions. Churchill, Lloyd George, Birkenhead, Chamberlain, the lot of them, made things worse with partition because a 32 County Ireland, with Free State as opposed to fully independent Republic status, probably would have seen only the Civil War of 1922-3. The hook comes with the Troubles. No partition, no Troubles. Best case scenario was a 32 county fully independent Republic. No Civil War, no Troubles either. But Churchill, et al wouldn't hear of it. 

Some would argue, but the Loyalist community in the north would have complained and, blah blah blah blah. It was complicated. We don't what might have happened. We only know what did happen. Partition made the Troubles. Churchill helped make partition, but one in a long line beginning with Henry VIII, as far as the north is concerned. 

So yeah. I hate Cromwell too. James VI and I, for that matter, plantations and all. Elizabeth I? Oh yeah. Constant campaigns in Ireland under her. They're like presidents. They all kinda suck somehow. 

BH: I'll gladly take Reagan and Coolidge out of the same category as Hitler, Himmler, and Stalin for the very reasons you describe. But Thatcher stays.

Being the overly judgmental and critical person that I am, I'll start with the five presidents I like the least with a brief explanation as to why.

1) Woodrow Wilson. Hated the Irish, Catholics, the Chinese, probably anti-semitic as well, the list could go on and on. Having people as racist as this guy was in the White House is bad news. Loved the English at a time when the English were heinous. As I argued in my senior seminar at the dear old alma mater (snicker), let Irish rebel Roger Casement swing without lifting a finger. Thanks to this jackass, they'll never let another academic be president again. Wilson ruined it for me! Ruined it!

2) Ronald Reagan. When I was a little boy, I thought this guy was the anti-Christ. Now that I'm growed up, I see no reason to disagree with my former self. During his presidency, the mills in my hometown of Pittsburgh shut down, millions were out of work, and he was at least partly to blame. Laissez-faire economics, and breaking the Unions when firing all the air traffic controllers are little bits of evidence. Before Reagan was President, almost 2/3 of the world's steel was manufactured in Pittsburgh or near by. After he was President, about .00000000001% of the world's steel was manufactured in the region. Had a strong role in shutting down and emptying mental health hospitals.

3) George Washington. Back to the Western PA example, personally led 13,000 troops against the insurgents of the Whiskey Rebellion. First, only, and last president to lead troops personally against his own people. Hoover just had them attacked and hid in the White House. Nixon had the gestap- oh sorry, I mean the National Guard to take care of it without even waking him up. Owned slaves. Looked funny. Rich guy. Don't like him.

4) Teddy Roosevelt. Had a little cocktail weiner and overcompensated with imperialism and hunting. Freud musta loved this guy. I don't. He bugs me.

5) Dick Cheney. This guy is just totally out of control, as far as I'm concerned.

6) Nixon. Prick.

7) Collidge. Go play some golf while industry produces more goods than consumers can buy. Real good. When the bottom fell out, you were dead, so what do you care, you do-nothing laissez faire son of a bitch?

8) The rest of them. They all suck for some reason.

Oh yeah. Good presidents. Hmm. Jack Kennedy, "the only Irish Catholic president of this great country of ours." Had good taste in women, if a bit voracious in his appetites. Andrew Johnson, viz-a-viz the south and reconstruction? Sure! Stick it to those noose-swinging, sheet wearing, Jack drinkin', good old boys! "How you like me now, South Carolina? Try to pull that shit again with my presidential foot in your ass!"

Presidents in history are kinda like presidents in the past. They do things some people like and others don't. Bill Clinton tried to make everybody happy, Lyndon Johnson tried to use opinion polls too extensively. They did what they thought was best, like anyone else who held the office. So far, no president has actually sunk the country. I'm sure the Bucketman believes this is because of the brilliance of American governmental structure, so on, such forth. Okay. It seems to have worked to the point where the whole thing hasn't collapsed. Plenty of room for improvement on social and economic levels. Politcally ... 86 the electoral college and I like it a whole lot more. Stop fucking around with the Bill of Rights. Let it stand. It was a good idea.

Well, this could easily turn into something beyond wacky, cynical, slightly satirical rantings. I'll let it go at that.

Here is an excerpt from my journal, containing some of my thoughts on greatness and infamy. I wrote this about a year ago. 

I have devoted some thought to greatness, and what it is that makes someone great. I believe the first category of greatness is someone who leaves the world a better place than it was before their arrival and activities. Infamy, in contrast, is achieved when someone leaves the world in a worse position than it was before. Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Augusto Pinochet, Calvin Coolidge, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Heinrich Himmler are just a few political and military examples of infamy, in my opinion. I doubt, however, that Hitler, Himmler, Pinochet, and Stalin would generate much dissent from other voices. But what about greatness? Can greatness be tainted with infamy? Is there no clear good and evil at all? I would think that Himmler, Hitler, and Stalin were the face of evil without any redeeming characteristics whatever.

But sticking with twentieth century political examples, the great have a taint of infamy. Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill have long been considered by some historians to be untouchable pillars of greatness. But Roosevelt was a racist who saved capitalism in the United States rather than overseeing its transition to a socially responsible welfare state. He fooled around on his wife too, but shit, most people do that, it's just normal. Roosevelt's greatness lies in his stewardship of the United States in its most dire economic times, and preventing a complete collapse and catastrophe. In addition his administration saw the United States mostly through the second World War and US assistance in the destruction of the aforementioned face of evil in Germany. His infamy does lie in racism and prejudice, for example the internment of Japanese American citizens under Executive Order 9066, as well as the racism inherent in several New Deal programs. His infamy also lies in his role as the savior of American capitalism, and not taking the New Deal far enough to the left. He is great for what he did. He is infamous both for what he did and what he did not. 

Churchill, don't get me started. He and Lord Birkenhead did more to condemn Ireland to partition and civil war than any other English bastard. Lloyd George was Welsh, he doesn't count. He did more to condemn Ireland to partition and civil war than any other Welsh bastard. Churchill was a wanton imperialist, a member of the Conservative party, and a fat fuck. But his infamy was balanced with greatness. Perhaps were it not for Churchill and the English people of World War II, this journal would be written in German and there would be only praise for Hitler and Himmler. A bit far fetched I agree, since the US was conventionally unconquerable in all likelihood, but the world would be a different and much worse place were it not for Churchill the fat English bastard. His greatness lies in keeping the world from getting worse, his infamy in making Ireland worse than it could have been. A 32 county republic would also have resulted in a civil war, but then so did partition. Consider the Troubles initiated in 1972, and the fact that they have yet to end entirely. 

But to move from political to social greatness and keeping with the twentieth century, an era of which I am fond, there are examples. The ordinary men in extraordinary times in the United States Army, Navy, and Marines who fought World War II achieved greatness in that they kept the world from getting worse. The Soviet people, the bulwark of resistance to German imperialism sacrificed their lives in the millions, but I would rather glorify their actions than their unnecessary deaths, because there simply is no glory in death. The English have already been mentioned, though I should add the British, northern Irish, and the Irish who crossed the border to serve in the English military to defeat the greater evil. 

But social greatness, of course, is not always so big. A few days ago I saw a program on the Animal Planet network that described a young girl's campaign to outfit the K-9 units of her suburban police department with kevlar jackets. She collected enough money to get a vest for each and every dog on the force, something like six. This could conceivably save the lives of those dogs serving on the force. Few people outside of her suburb who don't watch Animal Planet know this, and I confess that I cannot remember her name, but she is great. That's it. It goes without saying, so of course I'll say it, that greatness and infamy are highly subjective. Many seem to have a little of both.

Apparently, some Iraqis are giving U.S. forces the thumbs up in the Middle Eastern cultural context, figuratively speaking. This story from the NYT describes protests against the current U.S. occupation. It also discusses Shi'ite demands for an Islamic fundamentalist government.

Huh. I recall saying many times in the past that the U.S. could open the door to just such a state. It's still unlikely, but nothing is impossible. Moreover, it seems that Iraqi opinion is quite divided on the American campaign and occupation. Some in favor, some against, some just trying to stay alive. Go figure. Some Americans protested the war, some supported it, most probably didn't care since war coverage didn't interrupt March Madness coverage, or their favorite sitcom, or what have you.

Okay. Clarification noted.

BH, I recall a post not too long ago in which you criticized NPR Michigan for firing an on-air employee who supported the war against Iraq and criticized NPR's coverage. You asserted that the dismissal of the pro-war employee constituted a violation of free speech. Now it seems that you're supporting HBO in their decision not to air an Oliver Stone documentary on Castro. Why is this not a violation of Stone's free speech?

If you believe that HBO is a corporation with the legal rights to restrict what it airs, you're right. But if you also argue that NPR is truly, as the name implies, public, then I wish to point out that it's only public in that it is supported with voluntary donations rather than advertising dollars. NPR, similar to HBO, also has the right to decide who works for them. Thus, I'm seeing an inconsistency here.

Free Speech is a thorny issue. The Supreme Court ruled that free speech is not absolute; you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. There are laws against slander, libel, and terroristic threats. Broadcast corporations decide what they air and what they don't. I submit that NPR was engaging in the same kind of decision as HBO when NPR dismissed their Michigan employee for espousing strong opinions on a highly controversial issue. According to NPR, they have a policy that the on-air folks not do that. NPR chose to dismiss an on-air employee who broke their rules. HBO decided not to air a documentary on Castro for reasons unspecified in your post. I'll respect the decisions of both HBO and NPR as entirely legal, and outside the bounds of free speech protection.

Wright College is currently on Spring Break, so I might be rather prolific on the postings this week. 

The Marxist Conundrum 

I'll offer a few points of clarification, as I'm more than happy to answer your questions in this regard. First, the religious imagery is not unintended. Marxism, as part prophecy, is a form of religion. It has a prophet, its own dogma, and its own scripture. Marxism bears a close resemblance to religious philosophy. It is, in many ways, a political and economic religion. Strange, given that according to Marx himself, religion is the opiate of the masses. But he meant Christianity, really.

I'm sure the environmentalists you worked with either were Communists or considered themselves such, depending on how you look at it. But like some faux Communists in power, they deviated from the scripture in a way that negates their self-definition. As Marx argued that nature existed to be dominated by man, and as the environmentalists you worked with either ignored or broke with that belief, their self-definition becomes dodgy. At best, those environmentalists represent a serious schismatic deviation. Did these folks with whom you worked ever discuss the inconsistency between environmentalism and Marxist doctrine? Or did they just carry around the Manifesto without actually reading it? Of course, the Manifesto is not the be-all, end-all. It's the equivalent of the book of Genesis. 

As to those in power, I do not dismiss people from the definition of Communist simply because they were in power and killed people. Trotsky held power for some time, and his ruthless suppression of the Krondstadt Rebellion certainly qualifies as a slaughter. But Trotsky continued to work toward global revolution and advocated the withering away of the state, whereas Stalin said one state is good enough and the state should be increased, not withered away. Lenin is highly debatable, what with NEP and the Cheka and all. 

My point, and I can't emphasize this enough, is that Communism only occurs with a global revolution and the withering away of the state. Anything less is short of the mark. I submit that there is no such thing as a Communist government. State governments are bourgeois institutions, like marriage, nationalism, and currency. There wasn't supposed to be a government because Communists were supposed to get rid of bourgeois institutions, including and especially individual state governments. The Vanguard of the Proletariat was only supposed to tend the ship while simultaneously reducing the role of the state in favor of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Part of the problem with Marxist doctrine and dogma is that the Vanguard of the Proletariat is supposed to seize power from the bourgeoisies and then do their best to get rid of it. That like many, if not all, aspects of Marxist doctrine, run counter to human nature. People in power hold on to power, not give it up, as Marx prophesied. I understand that as a devotee of political science, it might be difficult to accept. But state governments are bourgeois, and irrelevant. Marx prophesied that state governments had to fall. There is no such thing as a Communist state government. It's all about class. 

So it might be splitting hairs as far as you're concerned, but anyone who leads a state government cannot be a true Marxist or Communist. Stalin et al were Totalitarians, not Communists. Stalin looked an awful lot like the Czar, and Mao looked an awful lot like the Emperor. I would even quibble with calling them Socialists. 

As to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, it wasn't intended as a dictatorship in the repressive Totalitarian sense. The idea was that everyone would have a hand in societal decision making, essentially dictating what occurred, instead of just a small handful of wealthy elites. 

Fox News 

No, it's not just because of their slant. When I compare what Fox News says versus other broadcast sources, Fox frequently turns out to be wrong. 

Ba'ath Party 

Sorry, I'm still not convinced. I'm going to do some research and then I'll get back to you. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I want to really investigate this thoroughly with historical methodology and historical secondary sources as opposed to journalism. Thanks for providing the article link. I'll mention here, though, that complaints I hear about liberal media (in the modern American sense of liberal) and the domination of liberal media don't stand up to news sources like that one, Fox News, Scripps Howard, the National Review, etc. Seems to me there's plenty of not liberal media. 

Weapons and Camps 

Like I said, the one in the north of Iraq wasn't in territory that Hussein controlled. The camp south of Baghdad still yields no evidence that it's specifically al Qaeda. Maybe terrorist, but not necessarily al Qaeda. The Gwynne Roberts article does indicate connections, but I'll want more corroboration. Possible chemical weapons stores are not actual chemical weapons stores. At this point, I wouldn't believe it anyway. I'd think that the Americans just planted it like a cop throwing a baggie of crack into a car trunk. I'm very suspicious. It's easy to lie, even in print or on TV. I want to hear it from NPR, CNN, Reuters, and the AP before I accept it.

Ba'ath Party 

When time permits, please explain precisely how you believe Aflaq, and you can throw Gamel Abdel Nassar in there as well, were influenced by the Nazis. Citations a plus. 

Weapons and Camps 

I have not heard about chemical weapons stores. The only camp I've heard about was in the north of Iraq, in nominally Kurdish/U.S. controlled territory. Please elaborate, and citations are a definite plus. If it's Fox News, I don't believe them. Ever. At all. If they told me the sky was blue on a sunny day without clouds I would think them liars. 

To Hitler 

I obviously made up the Cheney-Rumsfeld thing. They never burned down the Capitol, nor did they invade Canada. That was a) the British b) the Fenians. 

Environmentalism 

Your brief mention of Marx in conjunction with environmentalism reminds me that I've recently been complaining about the inclusion of environmentalism into the leftist political umbrella. That's actually counter to Marxist thought. According to Marx, nature exists to be dominated by man, its resources plundered, and the cause of industrialization under the dictatorship of the proletariat advanced. Environmentalism is actually anti-Marxist. 

But of course, not every leftist is a Marxist. But every leftist should be pro-labor. Environmentalism usually runs counter to the interest of labor. Someone has to be paid to cut down trees. Therefore, if a virgin forest is slated for the chopping block, it will create jobs. If environmental restrictions make it such that a factory cannot be built somewhere, the residents of that area will have fewer jobs. Therefore, I submit that environmentalists are in fact anti-labor. They stand in the war of people having jobs. 

Environmentalists who insist on all preservation all the time, even at the expense of employment, are phony leftists. I'm generally sick of their ilk. Veganism affects no one but the vegan. The animals and animal products they don't eat will be eaten by someone else. If a vegan joins habitat for humanity and builds a house, great. But they can't say they're leftists simply because they won't eat a cheeseburger. That little tangent aside, unwavering environmentalism at the expense of labor isn't left-winged. It's just environmentalism. 

Speaking of phony leftism

And now back to false Communism. There have been Communists, but not Communism. There have been Communists since Engels. Stalin, Mao, and Castro, however, weren't three of them. The crux of the issue is global revolution. Stalin, who proclaimed that socialism in one state was legitimate, started the whole thing. On the other hand, his rival Trotsky kept trying to advance the goal of global revolution, as did Castro's associate Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. But there is no such thing, according to the strict letter of Marxist law (as written by Engels), as socialism in one state a la Stalin. The strict letter of the law is that Communism is achieved only once the national boundaries of countries have been eliminated from the map and there is only one governing body across the globe, that is, the global dictatorship of the proletariat. Revolutions start in countries, they finish in a world. 

Marx's only provision for a government was the interim between the onset of revolution and the final stage of the dialectic. During that interim, the vanguard of the proletariat was to steer matters previously tended to by governments, until the global revolution was complete, the means of production firmly in the hands of workers, and the dictatorship of the proletariat assured. Then, there was to be a withering away of the state. But Stalin, Mao, and Castro, for example, conveniently forgot about the withering of the state. They did not gradually reduce the state, transferring means of production and control to the workers, but rather increased the role of the state. In other words, they did the opposite of what real Communists are supposed to do. How can anyone really be anything if they do the opposite of what members of that thing are supposed to do? For example, if I said I was a vegan and kept eating the flesh of animals and cheese, I would be doing the opposite of what vegans do, and could not therefore legitimately call myself a vegan. 

There have been Communists, but not Communism. Communists in power, like anyone in power, sought to hold on to their power, thus preventing the withering away of the state. Instead, so-called Communists in power ensured, as Rosa Luxembourg predicated, that, "the dictatorship of the proletariat would become a dictatorship over the Proletariat." Thus the prophecy was left unfulfilled, and Communism never happened. After all, Communism was part political and economic philosophy and part prophecy. Since the ultimate aim was never achieved, Communism was never achieved. Communists tried to bring it about, but they either died before they became dangerous (as in John Reed's case), were exiled and later assassinated with an mountaineer's ice pick (as with Trotsky), or were purged at some point, in numbers too great to even comprehend. 

On other matters 

I'll let other stuff go without commentary from me for now.

Here are a few thoughts on the Bucketman's most recent post. A horrific regime is on the ropes, not extinguished. The destruction of that regime is certainly in the offing, but the war is long from over. The issue is, what will follow that regime? Given Johno's attention to the Afghanistan situation, the United States should take care that they do not forget about or abandon or Iraq as it did with Afghanistan. It remains to be seen whether the new Iraqi government is better or worse.

Casualties, in terms of numbers, have been extremely light compared to other armed conflicts. But this is a little too intellectual for me. Iraqi civilians have died, such as the three people who died when American troops opened fire on their car. I don't know what happened to the little girl. These are two incidents, not high numbers of civilian casualties, but it doesn't matter so much to me. People have died. Buckethead has argued that occasionally good people must be blown up to serve a greater good. The removal of Hussein will only serve a greater good if it does not result in leadership that's even worse. It's a wait and see. But nevertheless, if I was the father of the little girl who was shot by Marines, I wouldn't give a damn about the greater good. Civilian deaths have not been many, but they have been there. People aren't statisitics, they're people. That's stating the obvious, but sometimes it goes unrecognized.

You haven't gone off the deep end in thinking that eliminating regimes would be good for the United States in general, provided those regimes are followed by a government that isn't hostile to the United States. A democratic government in those countries could just as easily be hostile to the U.S. as the current regimes. Just look at France and Germany. A puppet state is unlikely, given the fact that so many countries would scream bloody murder if the administration tried to pull that one. You haven't gone off the deep end in thinking that elimination of regimes would be good for the people who live there. But it depends on what follows. It could be good for them, it could be just as bad, it could be worse. We just have to wait and see. The U.S. looks like it's already dropped the ball in Afghanistan. Maybe they'll pay more attention to what happens in post-war Iraq. Like everything else, it remains to be seen.

Johno, telling someone to stick it up their ass in Arabic is not to be done lightly. It is reserved for family members and people you are willing to fight to the death. That may be redundant. But still, those are definitely fighting words. I cut off your hands! You are infidel! Your sheep gives bad milk that makes foul-smelling cheese!

Oh, come on. I couldn't possibly take that personally.

As to the question of thumbs-up intended as "Ayyy!" or "Up your ass," a friend of mine has advanced a third possiblity. It could be both. Iraqis might be giving American troops a thumbs-up, knowing full well what it means in American culture, while simultaneously covering their own tizuk. Should Iraqis face a return of Hussein's regime in some way, even if for a brief period, they can say that they did not celebrate American advances, but rather told the Americans to stick it up their asses.

On a very serious note, CNN has thus far reported alarming increases in the number of civilians wounded or killed by American troops, fearful of suicide attacks. In one incident, American troops manning a checkpoint shouted at a driver, in English, to move his vehicle in a different direction. When the driver was unable to follow commands in a language he didn't understand, the troops opened fire on a vehicle, a very contained space, for several minutes. All three occupants of the vehicle were killed, and the initial report was that they had no weapons. Troops claimed that they saw muzzle flashes.

In another CNN report, a little girl, found by a reporter who risked being shot himself, and a woman were seriously wounded by American Marines. The little girl sustained a severe head wound. A Marine medic treated the girl, but only after the reporter brought her to them. When Marines demanded that the cameras be turned off, the reporters pointed out that they had wounded the girl. The reporters were then permitted to film.

Finally, CNN has also reported that no so-called weapons of mass destruction have yet been found. We've had a few posts about just wars. I think just wars must have clear goals, not hidden agendas. Given the protean nature of reasons for war as advertised by the administration (1: Weapons of mass destruction 2: 11 September 2001 3: Liberate Iraq from Hussein), there has been no clear statement from the administration about exactly why this war is being fought. The administration does not have to divulge war plans or information that compromises the position of the military. But it could at least be straight with us as to why this is happening.

An interesting editorial from the Guardian Unlimited discussed the parallels between America and Britain's pending occupation of Iraq with the British military occupation of Ireland. According to this article, people in Northern Ireland also welcomed troops in the early Seventies. But before too long, those troops were firing indiscriminately at Irish peaceful protestors in Derry. The article also exposes Ari Fleischer's ignorance of Irish cities.

So I was listening to a brief story on NPR yesterday that identified a possible misinterpretation of Iraqi jubilance. It seems that looters in Iraq, as well as those who appear to be welcoming British and American troops, are giving a thumbs-up. According to NPR, however, that might mean "up your's" in Iraq, as opposed to the American positive conotation. I got to thinking. While growing up and beyond, my half-Lebanese mother would frequently tell me to "Stick it up your [my] ass!" when she was angry with me. She would also jerk her thumb in the air while telling me to stick it up my ass. I thought that my mother probably acquired this habit from her Lebanese-born aunt, who contributed significantly to my mother's upbringing. 

During a telephone conversation this evening, I asked my mother if her Lebanese-born aunt would indeed jerk her thumb in the air while stating angrily, "Hazut pi tizuk!" It translates from Arabic, directly into English, as "Up your ass!" My mother confirmed that a raised thumb gesture would accompany the verbal declaration. 

While Lebanon is a different country than Iraq, in so very many ways, it's quite possible that there are cultural consistencies throughout the Middle East that might well transcend political and (since my mother's aunt was a Maronite Christian) religious boundaries. It is thus possible that some of these looters, and people believed to be revelers, who are not kissing American troops or otherwise making it abundantly clear that they are receiving troops with a positive attitude, are in fact telling the troops, "Hazut pi Tizuk" with their thumb gesture.