Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

I ran into a very curious site tonight called Fairie Talker. It’s a group that talks about real fairies - ones that are supposed to actually exist, rather than the ones we read about in story books.

The site shows a picture of a young looking fairy, but advises that a fairy who looks young may actually be very old. “The apparent age is meaningless since they can appear to be any age. The younger manifestations are common when the fairy wants to assure that he/she is harmless and wants to be your friend. The oldest manifestations are usually because they want you to understand that they are wise.”

And the middle-aged manifestations of fairies take place when the fairies want to let you know that they’re feeling very tired, and could really use a vacation.

Daniel Gardner of Oberlin, Ohio is cool. George Luna of Atascadero, California is cool. John Bork of Grafton, Iowa is cool.

Is your mayor cool? You can check at Cool Mayors.

A mayor is counted as cool if he or she has committed the municipal government of his or her city or village to reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign (CCP) or the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. In other words, these mayors are trying to get around the inaction of the Bush White House in confronting climate change, and working to make things better where they live.

Cool.

Category Five means catastrophic. Hurricane became a Category Five hurricane overnight. That’s the second Category Five hurricane in the Caribbean this year. Think Hurricane Katrina, only it’s Central America that’s being devastated instead of New Orleans. Honduras and Belize are getting the brunt of this one, and will the Yucatan be ravaged yet again?

A link that we all should become familiar with: The National Hurricane Center.

Not a great day for George. Five more dead Americans, and 57 more dead Iraqis to think about. His right-hand man resigns. Cheney reveals it was all bullshit from the start.

Sunday: 5 GIs, 57 Iraqis Killed; 37 Iraqis Wounded

Although violence remains relatively light, U.S. forces took a heavy hit on Saturday; five American servicemembers were killed and four wounded. At least 57 Iraqis were killed and 37 more wounded during the latest incidents. Also, one security contractor from Fiji was killed, two other Fijians were wounded, and an American was wounded during an attack on their convoy.

Karl Rove Resigns

“I just think it’s time,” Mr Rove said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, adding that he was quitting for the sake of his family.

Dick Cheney ‘94: Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire

Transcript:

Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?

Cheney: No.

Q: Why not?

Cheney: Because if we’d gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn’t have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it — eastern Iraq — the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you’ve got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families — it wasn’t a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?

Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.

RED DAVE

What Every American Should Know About Iraq

by David Michael Green

Some people think that anyone who disagrees with the American invasion and occupation of Iraq is either a bleeding-heart liberal appeaser, a George W. Bush hater, a blame America firster, an underminer of the troops, a traitor, or a geopolitical naif.

To those who see opponents of the war as fitting into one, several, or all of these categories, I say read this page. I will make no arguments herein, nor even commentary. I will twist no data nor spin any tales. I will even include some of the comments and arguments made by the administration and its supporters.
Instead of arguing against the war, I will try to offer a fairly complete account of the relevant facts one might wish to consider when evaluating America’s policy in Iraq. Especially for those who continually claim that they, more than others, have the best interests of the troops at heart - but actually for all citizens in a democracy - it is incumbent upon us to educate ourselves about this most important of national policies.

Those troops are being maimed and are dying on our behalf every day. The very least we can do is spend a brief amount of our time learning about this question so that we can decide whether their continued sacrifices are justified.

So, in that spirit - and as the Founders themselves said - “let Facts be submitted to a candid world”.

This is the best short summary I know of of US involvement in Iraq

RED DAVE

This morning, I read the news of the death of a rare ocelot, and was determined to find out more. Searching for imformation, I came across an ocelot-dedicated page at a site called Change.org.

Change.org is an activist site that is based on the idea of social networking, but around serious causes instead of forms of entertainment like music and television. The idea is that people interested in an issue come together on a page at Change.org and suggest to each other things that can be done to help on the issue. Politicians and nonprofit organizations can be referred to from each issues page, encouraging members to become active, not just curious or informed.

That’s a great idea, and on some issues, it seems to be working. When it comes to the ocelot, however, interest does not seem to have translated into action. There are four members of the Save The Ocelot group on Change.org. Yet, not one of those members has taken action through the Change.org site, or made a donation, or suggested an interested politician, or added a photograph or video, or even started a discussion. The members just seem to have joined the group, and left it at that.

It’s interesting to me that this inaction would happen on a social network dedicated to change through action. The inaction on the ocelot reveals a social barrier to action: People seem more willing to take action on a subject when other people are taking action already. Of course, if everyone waits for someone else to do something on the subject, then nobody ever will.

Activism needs icebreakers, people willing to be the first ones to take action, while others stand back and look at eachother sheepishly.

I encourage Irregular Times readers to become those activist icebreakers. Of course, it would be just perpetuating the problem of social hesitancy in activism if I just asked other people to become icebreakers without doing it myself.

So, this morning, I’m going to be the icebreaker of icebreakers. I’m going to go on over to Change.org and join up, and become a member of the Save The Ocelot group and not leave it at that. I’m going to start something over there.

Maybe someone else will pick up on that action and join along. Maybe I’ll just be the equivalent of the only person dancing at a party.

There are bigger stakes than just getting a groove on, though. The extinction of a species is a serious enough issue for me to give it a shot.

I would like to create a database of people who are connected.  These people are the ones who feature in our press.  These people seem “connected” and seem to have special treatment.  People like Cherie Blairs relations and friends or Tony Blairs relations and friends.

It would be very interesting to find out information about these people as they are at the top of the tree in our society. We could use them as role models or hate models depending on your particular system of values.

I would like this database to be a visual one with little spidersweb joining each one to others.

Just how connected are the likes of Paris Hilton and Gordon Brown

The people connected through business would be interesting.

What do you think of this idea.  I will be able to contribute to the computing aspect in June (presently enrolled in a study course) but require a connected person to supply the content.

John has a good suggestion:

“I have an idea I like to call Volunteer Russia. It means that those Americans who want to have their postal mail and email read, who will allow themselves to be placed under surveillance, have their phone conversations listened to, those Americans who are willing to give up some of their rights in order to be detained and interrogated and not charged with anything in the name of national security have the right to submit their names to the government as open citizens. If they want to live in the Soviet Union, why should any of us stop them?

I think that’s fair.”

Any takers?

Someone happened by the Irregular Times web site tonight and left a message about something called Project Hamad. The project, in short, exists in order to bring attention to the plight of a man named Adel Hamad, a prisoner in the America gulag at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The federal government says that Adel Hamad is a terrorist.

I say that Adel Hamad is innocent.

How can I say that Adel Hamad is innocent? Well, how can the federal government of the United States of America declare that Adel Hamad is a terrorist?

The simple truth that Americans have forgotten is that I have solid legal standing to say that Adel Hamad is innocent, and the U.S. federal government has no legal standing to say that Adel Hamad is guilty of terrorism.

The simple truth that Americans have forgotten is that our legal system is based upon the presumption of innocence. The Supreme Court has ruled consistently, in the past, that it is a fundamental aspect of America law that a person accused of a crime is considered innocent until that person is proven to be guilty.

The federal government has not proven that Adel Hamad is guilty. The government has not brought any evidence against Adel Hamad before the public. The government has not put Adel Hamad on trial. The government has not even charged Adel Hamad with a crime. The government has not given anyone any reason to believe that Adel Hamad is guilty of anything.

So, I say that Adel Hamad is innnocent. I say that the government of the United States of America is imprisoning an innocent man. I will continue to say this, until I am proven wrong, until Adel Hamad is proven guilty. And so, I am joining Project Hamad.

Feel squeamish about that? Why? Because the name of the organization is Project Hamad? Because you think that makes the group sound like it’s some kind of terrorist front organization? Well, maybe it is, but then again, maybe Amway is a terrorist front organization. We can speculate on and on about who might be secretly coordinating with terrorist groups. The people at the Department of Homeland Security would probably love us to do that. But it’s paranoid to do so.

Besides, what reason do you have to think that Project Hamad is a terrorist group, other than the name Hamad in the title. It’s not a European name, that’s for sure, but what difference does that make? Are we now supposed to assume that all people of non-European descent are likely terrorists? That’s the mindset of people who suspect Barack Obama because his last name sounds like Osama and his middle name is Hussein. I won’t engage in that kind of ethnic hatred.

Here’s all that joining Project Hamad requires: You have to agree to the following statement:

“I believe people detained by the U.S. government have the right to:
— know the charges against them
— have access to a lawyer
— be able to have the merits of their case reviewed by a federally appointed judge”

The federal government of the United States of America has declared that people do not have these rights. Congress has assented to that declaration by passing the Military Commissions Act. Now, you have to decide whether you will be complicit.

Will you join Project Hamad, or are you too afraid to do so? Do you agree that these rights no longer exist?

As for myself, once more, I say that Adel Hamad is innocent.

Why do I insist on saying this? Because it’s the American way, that’s why.

Here’s a link for the Southern readers of Irregular Times: Atlanta Progressive News. I know, it sounds a bit like an oxymoron, but it isn’t. The truth is that Atlanta is a mix of Northerners and Southerners, plus people from elsewhere in the country, and so there is, finally, a real local struggle to establish a genuinely progressive presence.

Atlanta Progressive News doesn’t always go as far as progressives outside Georgia might expect it to go, but hey, at least it’s a step in the right direction. Georgia still isn’t Vermont, but some people are trying to move the culture ahead, at long last.

Does anyone else have some local progressive links to suggest?

Yesterday, I wrote about the embarassing fawning of Republican John McCain over George W. Bush last weekend, and McCain’s increasingly weird support for the scheme to hand over operations of American ports to a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates. John McCain’s recent actions, I concluded, suggest that he may not be a moderate after all.

Then I took a look at Senator McCain’s broader legislative record, and what I found astonished me. In our legislative scorecard of the US Senate, Senator McCain is shown to have supported progressive legislation only 8 percent of the time, while McCain supported right wing legislation 75 percent of the time. That’s not a moderate record. It’s a record of right wing extremism.

It turns out that we’re not the only ones catching on to the fraud behing the John McCain moderate hype. Over at the Down With Tyranny Blog, there’s a good discussion of the issue of McCain’s false moderation, which is then amended by a comment carrying an op-ed column by Paul Krugman published in the New York Times yesterday, coming to the same conclusion. Krugman calls McCain The Right’s Man.

It’s a coincidence that three separate people came to the same conclusion about John Mccain on the same day, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise. Just a tiny bit of digging into the substance of John McCain’s political career makes it clear that McCain is every bit as much the right winger that George W. Bush is.

For that reason, we’ve added a new section to our No Republicans for President in 2008 political shop. It’s called, simply, Not John McCain for President in 2008. We’ve just started adding to our selection there this morning, but it’s growing fast, so check back soon for more anti-McCain items.