"We know Saddam has the weapons, what do we do?"

This was how my undergraduate course on American Foreign policy usually began. By a show of anonymous hands, the class was divided evenly in their support for the pending war on Iraq. Already being outraged by the Bush Administration, this young student of political science was quite skeptical of many of the stated reasons for an Anglo-American invasion of Iraq.

Yet, after attending enough classes, and discussing international relations as if one were a policy maker, the assumptions that Saddam had large quantities weapons of mass destruction became internalized; as the professor always said, "We have the receipts." Even though I was always a vocal opponent of the war, it was as if to get a seat at the table, one had to adopt a certain train of thought and accept certain assumptions.

::More::

This diary isn't adding anything new. It's just for the record. The record is important.

It is common knowledge that Congress voted to pass the Iraq War Resolution. Yet the media hardly ever mentions that we are to bound the U.N. Charter, it is the law of our land, and thus I was never convinced that the United States of America had the legal authority to attack Iraq. I am not the only one, similar positions have been advocated by Juan Cole, Kofi Annan, Hans Blix, and also by neo-conservative Richard Perle.

::More::

Cross-posted at Dkos & MLW

Are typical liberal and conservative value systems apples and oranges?

When comparing two value systems which seem to be different Neil Levy, in A Short Introduction to Moral Relativism, explains two scenarios: one in which two people disagree because their perspective "begs the question" of the other's value system and another in which two individuals disagree because of a set of facts.

::More::

Last year I went out to a bar and met up with a friend who had just returned from a tour from Europe. She told me all about her trip, but then told me a brief story, or more of a lesson.

One night when she was in Dublin, she stumbled, and yes I mean stumbled, into a pub. Her and her friends were trying to think of a way to drink a lot in a short period of time, so she had the idea of ordering an "Irish car bomb" (which is when the bartender pours a pint of Guinness and gives you a shot of Jameson or Baileys, and you then subsequently drop the Jameson into the pint and chug the whole thing). This turned out to be a bad idea.

The bartender took a second, and then explained to my friend that they were fresh out of car-bombs but that he could make her a "9/11."  Well, she was a little shocked, but explained to me that she learned never to order an Irish car bomb in Dublin.

Well Irish car bombs aren't the only alcoholic endeavors to embody a political title. Back here in the Land of Liberty I have been to countless places where people play a gamed called "Beirut."

::More::

Update [2005-8-15 9:7:55 by deano]: I wrote this diary as an immediate reaction to the article. I didn't want to say Biden was not a true Democrat and I do support a strong position for the Democrats on foreign policy. I just would rather see Democrats talk and act like Democrats instead of giving into the ideas and language of the right.

Rick Klein wrote an article on the front page of the Boston Globe entitled Democrats embrace tough military stance. At face value this message seemed fine, a tough stance against imminent threats and possible humanitarian intervention:

After months of internal debate and closed-door discussions, Democrats have begun to develop a more aggressive foreign policy that focuses heavily on threats they say are being neglected by the Bush administration, while avoiding taking a contentious stance on Iraq.
Even Democrats who have been associated with liberal positions on international affairs are calling for more troops in uniform, proposing that threats of force be used to stop nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea, and pressing for potential military intervention to ease famine and oppression around the world.

But what really bothered me was the idea that this strategy is also a part of making Democrats look tough, i.e. this stance is not necessarily the right thing to do but will help us win elections.
::More::

Update [2005-8-8 4:9:45 by deano]: A few sentences reworded for clarification. It sounded a little off!

I believe there is a disconnect between certain practices in contemporary art and most of the public’s idea of what constitutes art. Part of the problem, in my humble opinion, is a lack of the proliferation of recent art history. While art is nebulas, art history can function as an important tool in exposing us to new ideas and helping us understand art.

This may be an outcome of the idea that it is common for people to reject what they don’t understand. What follows is a general attachment to received opinion about what art is, and what art should be.

If culture is important, as an influence in our society as well as our political climate, and we believe art is a fundamental cornerstone of our culture, than it follows that our culture will not progress until artistic trends of the last century are, at the least, investigated.

::More (Worth a read, I pinky swear!)::

I recently have come across two columns from different parts of the world which I thought had some interesting parallels. One was by Rami Khouri, via the Daily Star of Lebanon. The other article was by William Pfaff who is a columnist for the International Herald Tribune.

Rami  Khouri's, From Belfast to Beirut: Good news at last, tackles the idea of being inclusive in bringing various conflicting factions to the negotiating table as well as the idea that the factions must feel some sense of ownership of the ideas that are being brought to the table.

Khouri begins his piece by investigating the implications of the Irish Republican Army's decision to halt violent resistance against the UK and explaining how this could serve as a model for establishing a peaceful Middle East "which in turn would help reduce the global terror problem".

Cross-posted at My Left Wing and Daily Kos

Essentially the point of the bloggesphere is to improve the world. Most places have their own goals, their own mission, and work with others who are willing to help.. whether its exposing the calculated lies of the Bush administration or helping raise money for progressive candidates, these are all important avenues and as most people here would agree these acts can be viewed as helping other people or at the least preventing harm.

Well I don't have anything insightful for you today, sorry!  I just wanted to remind people that:

Under normal circumstances, every two seconds someone in America will need a blood transfusion. Blood transfusions are used for trauma victims - due to accidents and burns - heart surgery, organ transplants, women with complications during childbirth, newborns and premature babies, and patients receiving treatment for leukemia, cancer or other diseases, such as sickle cell disease and thalassemia. (source)

::More::

Today on DemocracyNow!, Amy Goodman interviewed three women peace activists: Dr. Jumana Odeh, Michal Sagi, and Rana Khouri. Each women has a special relationship with the checkpoints in the Occupied Territories and shared their personal stories.

Dr. Odeh is a Palestinian Mulsim who lives in Jerusalem and is the Director of the Palestinian Happy Child Center. As the title of her center indicates Dr. Odeh works with children and told the story of one epileptic child and the general requirements to get past a checkpoint in medical situations.

And I got lots of calls from my patients, especially that particular child, who was around six, and he had epilepsy. And they ran out of their anti-epileptic drugs, and they lived in a village next to Ramallah. So his father was calling, pleading for help, that they tried to enter Ramallah because the curfew was lifted only for two hours. They were not allowed to enter Ramallah within those two hours. And he was asking for medication. And he told me that `My child is seizuring, he's fitting; he's having his seizures on the checkpoint, right on the checkpoint while the soldiers were watching, and they are not allowing me.' So I had to jump into that checkpoint, run to that checkpoint, give him the medication, calm down the child. And I remember him saying to me, "Please, I don't want to fall down again! I don't want to fall down again!" I'll never, ever forget this story.

::More!::

When I saw SusanHu's diary about outrages it reminded me of some video clips I saw over at Media Matters. This website often posts video clips of Fox News at its worst hour. You might be thinking, yeah Deano, we all know "FOX News is a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party...," but I would like to take the claims one step further!

Fox News isn't just a biased news source, just another opinion, its gone too far. It's not just another opinion to state:

MARKS: It [Edgeware Road] is an area that has a very large Arab population. Surrounding that station, a large number of Middle Eastern restaurants. So, it's a further indication, if in fact these attacks were carried out by Al Qaeda-affiliated cells, that these people are, if necessary, prepared to spill Arab blood in addition to the blood of regular -- of non-Arab people living in London. (emphasis mine)

More..

One analogy that I have often heard is that different ideologies can be viewed as lenses, ways of viewing the world. One can pick up their capitalist libertarian lens and take a look at society. Through this lens one can be generally highly appreciative of the freedom one has in America but can be critical of laws which prohibit certain freedoms such as the use of particular drugs or certain large budget government programs. Through a Marxist lens, one can view society as a system of control in which a few wealthy individuals rule over the masses. One would be critical of large corporations in which the majority of the profits go to the few and which the majority of the people work long hours for much less pay.

When I think of all these different theories and making a moral judgment, I pretend the moral judgment is a blinding light and then think of which shade of glasses is appropriate to wear for the given situation. I select my shade to wear by trying on a variety of sunglasses and sometimes decide on a blend of certain pairs or perhaps even inventing a new pair.

More!

Ok, another ranting diary about some idea I think is important, but this is probably just pushing some better "scoop story" off of the list.

One difference I have noticed between myself and friends of mine on the wrong side of the political spectrum is that I have heard policies justified in terms of its importance in regards to tradition.

I believe that tradition alone is not enough to justify anything.

Cross-posted at the very orange Daily Kos.

The nature of evil is a topic which has been investigated by many thinkers far brighter than myself throughout time; Nietzsche has outlined in The Genealogy of Morals how he believed the term arrived. I am not presenting an answer, but more of an inquiry.

What I am interested in here is the idea of intent versus outcome. Whether there is really a time when labeling someone or something as evil is actually appropriate. It seems to me that often times the term evil is thrown around and it is assumed that this means that the intent of the person who is called evil is actually the case. Is George Bush's opposition to funding abortion rights and contraception education programs a moral decision, or is it evil because it leads to unnecessary suffering? Is George Bush evil?

Please Turn to Page B4, Column 3

Cross posted at the Daily Kos

Yesterday was my birthday, and it made me think of a lot of things. Since we're in the political realm I'll just share with you guys what I think is relevant. One of the things I have noticed over the years is how birthdays at one point in my life used to entail this feeling of complete unbridled joy. I remember waking up and just feeling the excitement of having a day in which each person I was close with dedicated a certain portion of their time just to celebrate me. Year after year this feeling seems to fade away, and is replaced by wanting to be around friends and family but not feeling the need for the attention and self-centered nature that the birthday originally entailed, but the nostalgia remains. So yesterday when I woke up and was officially twenty-four, I thought to myself, that this was supposed to be a special day, a day just for myself and a day where this is socially acceptable.