Ah, Geeze.
I'm really becoming a bit worried about this war. I did have ridiculously expectations about the war with Iraq, but certain things are making me very concerned. I've accepted the Administration's bungling of diplomacy, but I never expected them to actually bungle the military side of the war with Iraq. However, it seems like that is happening. It seems that Rumsfeld actually cut the proposed invasion force in half. There has been a fair amount of speculation about why he did it, but I'm not really interested with that, I'm just extremely worried about it. I really hope my fears are unfounded.

Get a Job!
Sharpton May Run As An Independent
Ah, yes, Reverand Al at it again, putting his interests above the interests of the Democrats and the community he claims to care about.

Thousands rally at state Capitol to support U.S. troops

The only speaker who received a hostile reception was N. Ruby Zigrino, a Muslim from Minneapolis. She was initially cheered when she said she supports "ousting a tyrant regime."

But she then read passages from the Qur'an, suggested that a new Marshall Plan will be needed in Iraq, and said administration officials should study foreign-policy failures to avoid repeating them.

Her listeners responded with boos and shouts of "Screw Muslims!" "Screw the Qur'an!" and "Go home!"

Ah, geeze. I really hate to be associated with degenerates like these, fortunately, I think that these bigots would be ashamed to be associated with a "namby pamby" liberal hawk like me. Its a shame that cretins likes these still roam free, how much do you want to bet that their registered as republicans?

A lot of people, mainly my friend Jon, complain that my web site lacks balance and that I have a serious political bias. These critics fail to understand that this is an opinion page, not a news one and that the opinion it is meant to promote is my own. However, I will humor these junior media critics by republishing some "alternative" commentary and you can't get much more alternative than Noam Chomsky (unless anyone know's how to re-animate Lenin's pickled corpse), so here we go:

Noam Chomsky
Published March 13, 2003


The most powerful state in history has proclaimed that
it intends to control the world by force, the dimension
in which it reigns supreme.

President Bush and his cohorts evidently believe that
the means of violence in their hands are so
extraordinary that they can dismiss anyone who stands in
their way.

The consequences could be catastrophic in Iraq and
around the world. The United States may reap a whirlwind
of terrorist retaliation -- and step up the possibility
of nuclear Armageddon.

Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and company are
committed to an "imperial ambition," as G. John
Ikenberry wrote in the September/October issue of
Foreign Affairs -- "a unipolar world in which the United
States has no peer competitor" and in which "no state or
coalition could ever challenge it as global leader,
protector and enforcer."

That ambition surely includes much expanded control over
Persian Gulf resources and military bases to impose a
preferred form of order in the region.

Even before the administration began beating the war
drums against Iraq, there were plenty of warnings that
U.S. adventurism would lead to proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction, as well as terror, for deterrence
or revenge.

Right now, Washington is teaching the world a dangerous
lesson: If you want to defend yourself from us, you had
better mimic North Korea and pose a credible threat.
Otherwise we will demolish you.

There is good reason to believe that the war with Iraq
is intended, in part, to demonstrate what lies ahead
when the empire decides to strike a blow -- though "war"
is hardly the proper term, given the gross mismatch of
forces.

A flood of propaganda warns that if we do not stop
Saddam Hussein today he will destroy us tomorrow.

Last October, when Congress granted the president the
authority to go to war, it was "to defend the national
security of the United States against the continuing
threat posed by Iraq."

But no country in Iraq's neighborhood seems overly
concerned about Saddam, much as they may hate the
murderous tyrant.

Perhaps that is because the neighbors know that Iraq's
people are at the edge of survival. Iraq has become one
of the weakest states in the region. As a report from
the American Academy of Arts and Sciences points out,
Iraq's economy and military expenditures are a fraction
of some of its neighbors'.

Indeed, in recent years, countries nearby have sought to
reintegrate Iraq into the region, including Iran and
Kuwait, both invaded by Iraq.

Saddam benefited from U.S. support through the war with
Iran and beyond, up to the day of the invasion of
Kuwait. Those responsible are largely back at the helm
in Washington today.

President Ronald Reagan and the previous Bush
administration provided aid to Saddam, along with the
means to develop weapons of mass destruction, back when
he was far more dangerous than he is now, and had
already committed his worst crimes, like murdering
thousands of Kurds with poison gas.

An end to Saddam's rule would lift a horrible burden
from the people of Iraq. There is good reason to believe
that he would suffer the fate of Nicolae Ceausescu and
other vicious tyrants if Iraqi society were not
devastated by harsh sanctions that force the population
to rely on Saddam for survival while strengthening him
and his clique.

Saddam remains a terrible threat to those within his
reach. Today, his reach does not extend beyond his own
domains, though it is likely that U.S. aggression could
inspire a new generation of terrorists bent on revenge,
and might induce Iraq to carry out terrorist actions
suspected to be already in place.

Right now Saddam has every reason to keep under tight
control any chemical and biological weapons that Iraq
may have. He wouldn't provide such weapons to the Osama
bin Ladens of the world, who represent a terrible threat
to Saddam himself.

And administration hawks understand that, except as a
last resort if attacked, Iraq is highly unlikely to use
any weapons of mass destruction that it has -- and risk
instant incineration.

Under attack, however, Iraqi society would collapse,
including the controls over the weapons of mass
destruction. These could be "privatized," as
international security specialist Daniel Benjamin warns,
and offered to the huge "market for unconventional
weapons, where they will have no trouble finding
buyers." That really is "a nightmare scenario," he says.

As for the fate of the people of Iraq in war, no one can
predict with any confidence: not the CIA, not Rumsfeld,
not those who claim to be experts on Iraq, no one.

But international relief agencies are preparing for the
worst.

Studies by respected medical organizations estimate that
the death toll could rise to the hundreds of thousands.
Confidential U.N. documents warn that a war could
trigger a "humanitarian emergency of exceptional scale"
-- including the possibility that 30 percent of Iraqi
children could die from malnutrition.

Today the administration doesn't seem to be heeding the
international relief agency warnings about an attack's
horrendous aftermath.

The potential disasters are among the many reasons why
decent human beings do not contemplate the threat or use
of violence, whether in personal life or international
affairs, unless reasons have been offered that have
overwhelming force. And surely nothing remotely like
that justification has come forward.

Noam Chomsky is a political activist, professor of
linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
and author of the bestseller "9-11." He wrote this
article for the New York Times Syndicate

Ed Note: Noam Chomsky has also recieved a triple alpha rating from the B of P (Board of Pomposity) for his...exquisite...critiques of American foreign policy. Oh my yes, they are so naughty, so against the grain! Mmmmmm. I doft my hat to him, but I wish he'd stop expressing his views in such common media outlets as these blasted "daily newspapers" and instead opt for scrolls, preferably in latin, so that the commoners couldn't dirty his brilliant words with their greasy, conservative (and dare I say?) patriotic hands!

Another note: I will come up with a better counter-argument in the near future, but for now this shallow ad hominem attack will have to suffice.

One word.
TRAGDOR!!
He was responsible for it all.

Nerves of Steel or Pigheadedness?
In recent weeks a number of Center Left hawks have turned against a war with Iraq. I'd just like to make clear that I've supported a war, still support a war and will continue to support a war with Iraq. The lack of international cooperation does not phase me, well maybe it phases me only a little. I will not muddy the water with qualifications about UN approval, multilateralism or a unity at home. I believe that Saddam Hussien has to go, I believe that a regime so vile and wormeaten, a regime thathas managed to commit almost every crime a state can commit ought to be smashed to pieces and I don't really care how its done or who does it. Right now only the United States is capable of doing what needs to be done and if it has to be done unilaterally, fine. I beleive this war is right and if I'm wrong I'll pay whatever price part-time warmongers pay.

Eve of Correction
Recently there as been a lot of doom and gloom in the media (or at least certain quarters of the media) about the collapse of the transatlantic alliance. I really don't think that we actually have to worry that much about it. Its not that we shouldn't be concerned about unnecessairly angering our allies, its simply that the chasm is not unbridgeable. Our allies will march in the street and give speeches attacking our policy, the war will wrap up and life will go back ot normal, or something like that. Reagan also raised the ire of many a Western European with his deployment of Pershing missiles and the alliance survived. There is no reason to think that it will disintegrate over this current disagreement either. In fact there are some signs that it almost certainly won't. Germany, which has opposed the war with great vigor is actually aiding the United States by providing German AWACs for our with Iraq. I've also heard that France might change its posistion on the war if Saddam uses chemical weapons. The offer in itself is a good sign and if France ever actually comes to our aid, that would be even better. This is not to say that we shouldn't try to minimize the harm we do to our alliances, its just that I don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.

Ahem, Cough, Cough
I'd like to apologize for that last post on "Replacing the United Nations". In retrospect it was...garbage, I was a fool and I'm sorry. It is highly unlikely that the "Big Three" (the US, UK and Russia) would be any less gridlocked than the UN and would lack the legitimacy of the United Nations. I realy don't think international organizations are the solution to the world's problems anyhow. Despite all teh high minded rhetoric surrounding the UN (and before it, the League of Nations) these organizations really don't make much of a difference. I recently read the Arrogance of Power by Sen. Fullbright and I believed that he's right in arguing that the attitudes that the leadership and the masses of different countries have about each other actually matters a lot more than debating socities like the UN. I also think the Bush administration has failed with regards to the kind of public diplomacy needed ot manipulate opinion abroad. It is almost as if Bush has tried to live up to the cowboy image off him that has been appeared so often in the foreign press. The administration has really just been careless and short sighted. At every opportunity Bush has avoided mulitlateralism at all costs, opposing the Kyoto Protocalls, the Comprhensive Test Ban Treaty, the International Criminal Court, an enforcement provision to the treaty banning Chemical and Biological weapons, the list goes on and on. Some people might say that the Kyoto Protocalls were stupid (they probably were) or that the International Criminal Court might have been used against Americans (which is complete nonsense) or have quibbled over some other unimportant point regarding these agreements; but the actual content of the agreements is really irrelevant. I don't think that any of these treaties was of actual importance and I don't think that would have done any real harm to the US, which is all the more reason to support them. It looks very bad for the United States to be the only country not to oppose war crimes, nuclear war, environmental calamity, the serious lack of milk and cookies before bed or whatever problem these agreements were meant to deal with. So, in the interest of appealing to the neocons or the Birchers or whatever interest group whose votes he's after, Bush has done serious harm to the chances of ever getting international approval for this war or any other ventures he wishes to undertake.

Well, I'm going to be away for a couple of ways.
Time to venture out into the real world.

Replacing the United Nations
Aside from the reflexive and largely brainless UN bashing this article makes a lot of sense. The proposed replacement for the United Nations, the Big Three (the US, England and Russia) seems like a much better international organization, seeing as how it would be made up of country's that actually matter. I think the inclusion of Russia is a nice touch, because unlike the rest of Europe, Russia is not completely removed from the stream of history, so it will have a stake in making the "Big Three" work and unlike other great powers, like China, its interests and ambitions aren't almost diametrically opposed to those of the US.

Replacing the United Nations
Aside from the reflexive and largely brainless UN bashing this article makes a lot of sense. The proposed replacement for the United Nations, the Big Three (the US, England and Russia) seems like a much better international organization, seeing as how it would be made up of country's that actually matter. I think the inclusion of Russia is a nice touch, because unlike the rest of Europe, Russia is not completely removed from the stream of history, so it will have a stake in making the "Big Three" work and unlike other great powers, like China, its interests and ambitions aren't almost diametrically opposed to those of the US.

Lobster Magnet
Don't put a lobster on a plate
He'll use his magnet to escape!

Bush Trails Generic Democrat In New Poll
Cue victory techno, prepare to descend into the catacombs of success. I wonder how long before the media stops describing Bush as "popular", probably on some very cheery night in November 2004.

Here is another profile I wrote for my school newspaper. Full Disclosure: I like Edwards a lot.
Edwards: The Gambler
Of all the Democrats running for president, John Edwards maybe the one in the most precarious situation. As a youthful, moderate, southern Democrat, many see the North Carolina Senator as one of the party’s rising stars, but for a number of reasons the stakes are especially high for Edwards and a variety of threats cloud his political future.

John Edwards won his senate seat in 1998 and has not yet finished his first term, making him relatively inexperienced compared to some of his rivals.. Because of his very short political career, John Edward’s main selling points come from his life before he was a senator. He was the son of a textile worker and with brains, determination and luck Edwards was able to advance in life. Before running for the senate, John Edwards was a successful trial lawyer that lined the pockets of his clients and himself at the expense of insurance companies. The senator doesn’t fail to take advantage of his media friendly rags-to-riches life story, describing his work years in law as “representing families and children” and “standing up to the powerful insurance industry”; Edwards’ bootstrap biography meshes nicely with his position as the self-proclaimed “people’s senator”.
Despite his inexperience, or perhaps because of it, Edwards seems to have hit the books and has come up with fairly detailed and clear-cut positions. Edwards takes straightforward stance on Iraq, compared to other Democrats like John Kerry, whose opinions are more “complicated” or as critics say, more convoluted. In September senate speech Edwards said that he’d support a war with Iraq even if it were not sanctioned by the United Nations, using the NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia, which was never had the support of the UN, as a precedent for military action against Iraq without UN approval. Senator Edwards also supports strengthening peaceful initiatives for preventing the proliferation, such as the Nunn-Luger program, which pays for the deactivation of Russian nuclear warheads.

On domestic policy Senator Edwards is pushing a mildly populist agenda. In 2001 Edwards joined 12 senate Democrats in voting for the Bush tax cut, but now in the face of ballooning budget deficits now supports repealing the upper income portions of the tax cut while making the parts that benefit lower income and middle class Americans permanent (currently they are due to phase out in 2010). He’s also attacked the Bush’s new stimulus package, in his response to the State of the Union Address, Edwards said that “tax cuts for the richest Americans will not create jobs or put money in the pockets of millions of Americans who need help.” As part of Edward's effort to show hositility to privellege and sympathy for the common man, Edwards has also attacked legacy admissions in higher education, something that as President he'd probably have little to power to fight.

Some see John Edwards as the Democrats only hope for victory in 2004, others see him as a lightweight without the experience or name recognition to succeed. The polls at this point our erratic and in many cases contradictory, with some many people running for the nomination, standings fluctuate from week to week. At this point polls are still more about a candidates profile than the quality of their campaign and shouldn’t be taken too seriously. One sign that Edwards is gaining momentum is President Bush’s growing concern about the North Carolina senator. Many in the Bush administration see John Edwards as the President’s chief rival. George W. Bush’s recent calls for limits on medical malpractice suits were said to be aimed at attacking Edwards, because he was a former trial lawyer. The White House has also been using Republican Representative Richard Burr, who is running for Edwards’ senate seat in 2004 and has already won the backing of the President. Burr’s campaign is designed to put pressure on John Edwards to leave the senate race, because it would be an extremely difficult balancing act for Edwards to win the approval of the Democrats on the national level and his more conservative constituency. If Bush’s plan succeeds in forcing Edwards to abandon the senate race, it would put the senator in a very insecure position; if Edwards were to lose the primaries after giving up his re-election campaign he’d likely go from an up-and-comer to a washed up and forgotten politician without

More later....

This is a little profile of everyone's favorite racial demagogue, Reverand Al Sharpton, which I wrote for my school paper. It was really difficult to keep my contempt for Sharpton from poisioning my writing, but fortunately, the facts are are damning enough.
Sharpton, The Democrats’ Loose Cannon
With his checkered past and liberal agenda, Reverend Al Sharpton is probably the most controversial Democrat running for the party’s presidential nomination. Sharpton looks to attack his rivals on the left flank; he describes himself as the only person running that is "anti-war, anti-death penalty, anti-tax cut across the board." As one of the most prominent liberals in the country, Sharpton has roundly criticized the Democrats’ move to the center in recent years, attacking the moderate Democratic Leadership Council and blaming the Party’s recent misfortunes on its failure to take a more liberal stand on the issues.
Al Sharpton has been a passionate activist, inspired by his hero’s, Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson and Congressman Adam Clayton Powell and deeply involved with protest as well as electoral politics for years. He’s crusaded vigorously against police brutality, most notably in the Amadou Diallo, case, where an unarmed black man was shot by New York City police officers. Sharpton’s activism has not been without its risks, a white man stabbed him in 1991 after he protested the death of a black youth at the hands of a white mob in Bensonhurst. Al Sharpton later visited his assailant in the hospital and forgave him. Sharpton has also been jailed for protesting military training exercises on the island of Viques. Some of the Reverend’s other activities have been the source of a great deal of controversy and have made many feel that Sharpton is a divisive demagogue. The Tawana Brawley case damaged Al Sharpton’s image in many people’s eyes. Sharpton became the spokesperson for Tawana Brawley, a black teenager that claimed six white men raped her and whose claims were later proved false. One of the accused later sued Sharpton for his role in the affair and won a substantial sum in damages. Critics have also claimed that Sharpton’s rhetoric is irresponsible and dangerous, some hold him partially responsible for the burning of a small business by a deranged man, whose owner Sharpton attacked as a “white interloper”.
Though he has never held elected or appointed office, Al Sharpton claims the he is qualified to be president of the United States and takes considerable offense when his qualifications are questioned, in his recent book, Al on America, he writes that “To even question why I'm running is insulting”. This is not the first time Sharpton has jumped into the fray of electoral politics, he’s run unsuccessfully in the Democratic primaries for one of New York’s Senate seats and the for mayor of New York City.
Some Democrats are worried about Sharpton’s campaign, they see it as a threat to party unity and success in the general election. Sharpton is extremely independent and has been known to attack other Democrats as well as conservatives. After losing the Democratic primaries in 1992 for the New York Senate race, Sharpton refused to endorse the party’s nominee. In another New York senate race, Sharpton tried to weaken Democratic Senator Moynihan’s reelection bid by running as a third party candidate. Al Sharpton has also endorsed Republicans, in 1986 he endorsed Al D’Mato in the New York senate race, he also backed Michael Bloomberg in the 2001 mayoral election. These cases of disloyalty have helped fuel some Democrat’s concerns about Sharpton’s presidential campaign. They fear that Sharpton will use the race as an opportunity to cause more trouble for the Democrats. Sharpton is seen by many political analysts as a very serious threat to North Carolina Senator John Edwards, because Al Sharpton maybe able to critically weaken Edwards in the South Carolina primary.
While its extremely unlikely that Al Sharpton will be nominated by the Democrats (a recent CNN poll said that he’d receive only 7% of the vote), one thing is certain; Sharpton’s polarizing image and sometimes outlandish character guarentee a lively primary.