Category: Politics

The US is now floating a compromise resolution in the UN, which would not mandate military action if inspections fail. It would leave the door open for an invasion, but it wouldn’t explicitly link the two.

This comes after strong criticism from most of the world in open UN debate. You’d expect Middle Eastern countries to be edgy about the whole thing, but even Australia recommended against linking military action to failed inspections. I should perhaps be more confident in the system.

The news becomes more interesting to me in that some right wing pundits had predicted disaster arising from anything short of Bush’s original resolution. At this point, it looks like the original resolution won’t happen. So what happens if there’s no disaster?

By the same token, left-wing pundits who called for Bush to follow the UN’s guidance on this need to accept it if this path leads to war. And it might. It probably will, and it probably should: while I’m still suspicious that we’re distracting ourselves from Al Qaeda by attacking Iraq, the UN isn’t at war with Al Qaeda. The UN does have an ongoing problem with Iraq’s refusal to abide by UN resolutions. If the US is willing to sacrifice its own interests to help the UN out, well, I can’t really argue that the UN should decline our gracious assistance.

Hopefully we’ll remember to deal with that nagging Osama bin Laden problem at some point.

This atrocity (a word I use carefully) is deeply regrettable and not at all surprising. Possibly, if the right wing thinks about it a little, they’ll understand why it’s also such a good illustration of the stupidity of this attitude.

Yes, throwing milk on PETA protestors is funny and ironic. But in a civilized society, we do not adopt the belief that it’s OK to reply to bad behavior with more bad behavior.

Pym Fortuyn’s party is collapsing, which is no great surprise when you get right down to it. Fortuyn himself was assassinated this summer, right before the Dutch elections, which did not prevent his party from becoming the second largest party in the Dutch government. But without Fortuyn at the center of the party, it’s dissolved into squabbles and factionalism.

What this says to me is that Fortuyn was never a politician. He was a charismatic figure who was able to assemble a coalition by force of personality, but he wasn’t a politician. His party had no strength at the core, no ability to function without him.

There’s no question that his death was tragic, but I’m pretty certain I’m correct in classifying the man as a right-wing demogogue.

Quick update to my last entry: Osama bin Laden (or someone claiming to be him) has taken responsibility for the French oil tanker attack. He did not take credit for the recent bombing in Bali, although Indonesian officials have made that link.

Why is Al Qaeda so eager for us to attack Iraq?

A week ago, a French oil tanker in Yemen exploded; Yemen officials are now calling it a terrorist attack. Early evidence says it’s an Al Qaeda action. The attack was very similar to the Al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole, in October 2000, and at least one American intelligence official was willing to make the link.

So: why would Al Qaeda target a French tanker right now? France is opposing the US resolution in the UN Security Council. This action will strengthen France’s desire to fight terror, not weaken it. If anything, France will now be more willing to support the US. On the face of it, blowing up a French tanker seems really stupid.

Unless, and this is pure speculation, but unless Al Qaeda is not in Iraq. If that’s true, it makes a ton of sense. If Osama wants the US to get distracted by Iraq, this is an excellent move.

Hey, Californians. Dianne Feinstein knows better than you.

I serve as the senior senator from California, representing 35 million people. That is a formidable task. People have weighed in by the tens of thousands. If I were just to cast a representative vote based on those who have voiced their opinions with my office — and with no other factors — I would have to vote against this resolution.

She voted yes, of course. Screw the constituents.

SCOTUSBlog is one of those places that those of us who like to claim we’re keeping up with politics ought to visit frequently. SCOTUS? Supreme Court of the United States. We sysadmins have no monopoly on acronyms. The Supreme Court is the final check on those unjust laws we so frequently protest, and it shouldn’t take an Eldred v. Ashcroft to get us to pay attention. (I remonstrate with myself, here, as much as with any imaginary typical reader.) Link discovered on the mad tea party.

This post is mostly about this, but also about this.

For what it’s worth, I don’t find Gary Haubold’s comments very compelling. Let’s break it down.

He presents no evidence that “If (2) did not exist… then odds are WE WOULDN’T ACTUALLY HAVE TO DO ANYTHING…” Unless you count all caps as evidence; I don’t. He doesn’t state his premises. Which is a shame, because one of them (whether he realizes it or not) is that there’s no reason for Saddam’s inner circle /not/ to defect if they know Saddam is going to lose power.

But that’s flawed, by current pro-war doctrine. One of the stated reasons for invading as quickly as possible is that Saddam is the kind of person who would set off nukes purely for vengeance, in the event that he was losing a war. If he’d nuke the US in a case where it would gain him nothing, how much more likely is he to take revenge on his own people if they betray him?

I suspect that even if Saddam’s inner circle was inclined to defect, fear would a powerful incentive against that decision — even in game theory terms, which Mr. Haubold didn’t actually use. Risk analysis requires them to consider the possible outcomes of betrayal in combination with the probability of each outcome. When the worst outcome is torture, followed by death, the probability of that outcome doesn’t need to be too high before that decision starts looking bad.

It’s worse if these people care about potential torture and death for their families, of course.

That covers my opinion of Mr. Haubold’s game theory. However, even if you accept his odds at face value, it’s an interesting and rather abrupt jump from “odds are” to his pentultimate paragraph, in which he says that war protestors are doing damage to the war effort simply by protesting. No mention of the odds, whatever he thinks those odds are — it has gone from a matter of probability to a definite statement of fact.

Protestors are only doing damage if in fact Saddam’s inner circle would betray him in the event that the inner circle was convinced that the US would go after Saddam full-bore. Since that has not in any way been proven, or even analyzed, it’s premature to say we should recognize the damage protestors are doing.

Whether or not free speech is more important than engaging in hard-core fighting, finally, is a personal question. I believe that free speech is in fact worth fighting for, whether directly (as Voltaire had it) or indirectly (as in the situation Mr. Haubold posits). What are we defending, if not the principles of our nation?

It requires courage to willingly adopt a course of action that may lead to harm to oneself. This is true when applied to soldiers fighting a war. It is also true when applied to those protesting tactics which are both effective and unjust.

The House has passed a bill which will give small webcasters some breathing room. Small webcasters (i.e., the ones that aren’t making significant revenue) will pay 7% of their expenses in royalty fees yearly. This is very reasonable compared to the proposed .07 cents per song per listener.

It’s still higher than a traditional radio station pays, and there’s some question about how much of the resulting revenues will filter down to the artists. It’s important to remember that while this is better than the original proposal, it is not fair. It’s also important to remember that we ought to donate to our favorite stations, since they clearly need the cash.

I’ve got to stop doing this; it’s raising my blood pressure.

But where does the Pentagon get off complaining about Iraq sneakily hiding arms before the UN inspectors arrive? I’m sure Iraq is hiding arms, yes; it’s a fairly obvious conclusion. Now. Who’s been holding back UN inspectors? Where’s the delay coming from? Hint: it’s not bloody well the inspectors dragging their feet.