Get Rich! Just Like Me!

Facebook ads were strange and are just getting stranger.

Based on the pattern on this fellow's collar – which looks an awful lot like the military's new MARPAT camouflage pattern – I suspect this fellow is a member of the U.S. military holding up some Iraq or Afghanistan reconstruction money, not some entrepreneur showing off his hard-won earnings:


As our country spindles downwards into economic darkness, I feel like I've noticed a trend whereby the claims of internet advertising have become more ambitious and outlandish. As our lives get plainer, ads promise only more luxury.

Today, we're all suddenly focused on living within our means, we wonder how we'd manage if that job disappeared, we know that our current shared struggle was hatched from the simultaneous failure of our fellow countrymen's fatally flawed get-rich-quick schemes.

Yet we're still not attentive enough to notice that the image of the fellow holding tens of thousands of dollars in his hand is a ploy, a lie in plain sight. That money is not his and it's not yours, but maybe you're more likely to click the ad today than you were a year ago, because just for a second, you want to believe that you can succeed economically without wait or effort. Just for that moment, you look at the image without seeing, hoping for the chance to get rich because you're sick of a world that says you're lucky to get by.

Volunteers

When it comes to the Iraq War, I try to have sympathy for the Bush Administration.

Conspiracy theories aside, the planners of Iraq War – even if they are today dashing away from claiming responsibility for their actions – did not hope for a bungled war. These planners wanted a war where the U.S. would achieve quick victory, a war where our national self-interest would be improved. (I'll turn it back to the conspiracy theorists regarding what that self-interest was: Cheaper oil? Permanent U.S. military bases in the Middle East? The removal of Saddam Hussein and his WMDs?)

I try to have sympathy for these war planners, but then Dick Cheney – who appears to be the central figure of the entire Iraq War effort – starts talking, and my ability to have this sympathy is destroyed.

The recent public display of heartlessness by Dick Cheney concerning the pain that the Iraq War has wrought in the U.S. (...to say nothing of the much greater pain it has heaped upon the Iraqi people) literally takes my breath away. In a pair of interviews over the past week, Cheney provides a shocking window into his psyche.

So?
Last week, Cheney remarked "So?" when confronted by an interviewer with a poll indicating the public's broad current opposition to the Iraq War. Cheney claimed that it was important to not "be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls."

Of course, today's broad opposition to the Iraq War is hardly a "fluctuation." Polls on Iraq have indicated majority opposition against the war from late 2005 onward. A fluctuation? Maybe on a clock that is tracking time on a geologic scale.

Much as I hate this "So?" comment, our Constitution has set the bar for impeachment inadvisably high for people like Cheney. However strongly critics of the President and Vice President might argue for their impeachment, until Bush et al. do something that looks like "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes or Misdemeanors" in the eyes of today's Supreme Court, our best hope is to use the other machinery of the federal government to limit the executive branch's influence for the remainder of Bush's lame duck term.

In the end, I hate Cheney's "So?" attitude, but I understand where he's coming from. We elected them. Barring impeachment, we're stuck with them. Let's demand Congress exercise its power to limit their influence. Someone has to be the least popular Vice President ever, and Cheney appears content to play the role.

Yet, I was not compelled to write about "So?" It's Cheney's comment from today that compels me to write.

They Volunteered
Confronted in an interview with the fact that the U.S. has just passed the grim milestone of 4,000 Americans dead in the Iraq War, Cheney reminded his interviewer several times that these soldiers volunteered.

Reading the article, I'm simply awestruck by how jaw-droppingly heartless Cheney comes across. He rationalizes that whatever burden communities, spouses, relatives, friends, and children bear at the loss or injury of a family member, this burden is somehow greatly eased by the fact of our all-volunteer force.

This August, I will have been writing this blog for 5 years. Over the course of writing 800 or so blog posts during this time, I've tried to develop a tone that is less confrontational than when I started blogging. Writing in a manner that tries (and, of course, fails) to see issues in shades of gray has been a continual challenge, but it's worth it — especially in developing my ability to talk about issues with people with whom I strongly disagree.

Cheney's words erase these shades of gray: Vice President Cheney, you have said and felt a horrible thing. You (and those around you?) have created a rationalization that helps you sleep at night. You've shared this rationalization with us, and it is disgusting.

As with "So?", Cheney's words carry a kernel of truth. We have an all-volunteer army. The military interests of our nation are protected by volunteers in a way that they weren't at Antietam, at Cold Harbor, on Omaha Beach, or in the Ardennes.

And let's ignore that our military draws heavily on disadvantaged populations and minorities to fill its ranks. Let's grant Cheney that, yes, we have a "volunteer" force.

Being a conscript is not the same thing as being a volunteer; however, the military requires that ALL soldiers follow orders. When rank and file soldiers confront death, even certain death, they do so at the order of another. It doesn't matter whether they're a volunteer or a draftee. An ordered military presumes – it demands – that a soldier abandon a significant portion of his or her free will in the name of achieving an objective. They must trust the system and the objective.

Iraq is a failed objective, and our continued project in Iraq is driven as much by the well-understood theory of Irrational Escalation as it by an effort to achieve ever-shifting military and geopolitical objectives.

Our soldiers volunteered to join the military. And then they were asked to do the impossible in Iraq, all the while staying in theater longer than any other soldiers in US history. They have obeyed orders and fought bravely.

That they fight and die as volunteers should do nothing to help us sleep better at night.

Volunteers & Conscripts. Side By Side.

Nur noch wir können uns retten. (t)

Hearing the sad news of Benazir Bhutto's assassination in Pakistan earlier today, I looked back at my reaction to the London bombings of July 7, 2005.

It isn't yet clear who is directly responsible for today's slaughter, but initial indications are that those behind today's attack are of the sort who share goals in common with the London bombers and with other bombers whose actions have scarred the world during the past decade.

Reading my London bombing post 903 days after I wrote it, it's clear that at the time I greatly underestimated the potential for intra-Iraqi and jihadist violence during the intervening 2 ½ years. Looking back, I realize that my intuition that the violence would quickly flame-out stood in contrast to the basic thesis of the post, that – in the long run – it's all but impossible for groups of people to force a De-Enlightenment upon the world, even if the short run shows little progress toward reducing global ignorance and provincialism. 2 ½ years later, on a dark day when apparent extremism wounded the hope of a country, I still feel that the horse is out of the barn for extremist views, though extremism and responding to extremism might be the most dominant geopolitical forces during my lifetime.

Despite my opinion that the extremist's struggle is ultimately for naught, events like today still depress me greatly. Somehow, the depression of today reminds me of the dark words Martin Heidegger said in his famous interview with Der Spiegel in 1966 (published posthumously in 1976), titled "Nur noch ein Gott kann uns retten" or "Only a God can still save us":

HEIDEGGER: Those questions bring us back to the beginning of our conversation. If I may answer quickly and perhaps somewhat vehemently, but from long reflection: Philosophy will not be able to bring about a direct change of the present state of the world. This is true not only of philosophy but of all merely human meditations and endeavors. Only a god can still save us. I think the only possibility of salvation left to us is to prepare readiness, through thinking and poetry, for the appearance of the god or for the absence of the god during the decline; so that we do not, simply put, die meaningless deaths, but that when we decline, we decline in the face of the absent god.

I agree with Heidegger in the view that there's no one philosophy, mode of being, or way of life that will unite humanity under a single banner, smoothing out the cultural differences. Yet – and I haven't studied enough Heidegger to know if he'd disagree with me on this point – it's precisely this diversity and intellectual disunion that promises to save us.

The global proliferation of pluralistic cultures, whether through the gradual introduction of democratic institutions or through the rapid technological baptism of individual citizens into a connected world, forces an increasing percentage of world citizens to an important daily realization. The realization is as follows: There are other ways of coping with the world that differ from mine.

Certainly, most greet this realization with fear, and some greet this realization with violence.

Yet, from this first exposure, can there be anything but eventual tolerance?

From that eventual tolerance, can there be anything but eventual intolerance for the ancient intolerance?

http://www.cnn.com/the_onion

CNN is currently running a story called "Iraq Welcomes Home Soccer Heroes." As they do with most of their main stories, they're touting the article throughout their site. For these little promos, the image they're running alongside the article headline doesn't quite conjure up a celebratory mood:

Iranian Fashion/Hostage Crisis Continues/Culminates

Whatever else you might say about the now-ended Iranian/British sailor imbroglio, no one knows how to deflect a hostage crisis through questionable clothing choices like the Iranians.


Having formerly swaddled its British captives in tracksuits, the Iranians chose to release all the hostages clad as game show hosts. All of them except for Faye Turney, the only woman among the 15 sailors. From the photo, it appears that she was released disguised as a Russian Babushka.

I particularly like the guy on the far right, who opted for the three-piece suit. I'm sure he's thinking, "Hey, the Iranians are giving me a free suit. I'll take a free vest, too."

Previously: Iran Complicates Hostage Crisis Through Use of Time Machine

Iran Complicates Hostage Crisis Through Use of Time Machine

Nothing funny about the escalating hostage/prisoner crisis between the UK/US & Iran. Nothing funny at all.

...except for Iran giving the 15 British sailors a bunch of assorted tracksuits to wear during their captivity. U.S. espionage has been able to determine that the Iranians are keeping the sailors in a Foot Locker circa 1995.

Abraham Lincoln on Executive Options for Unauthorized, Preemptive War

(Crossposted from American Constitution Society :: Columbia Law School)

On October 10 and October 11, 2002, the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively, passed a joint resolution that came to be known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. This resolution, signed by President Bush on October 16, 2002, specifically authorized the President to use our armed forces to "(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." At the time of the resolution, the Executive Branch wanted a resolution authorizing military action throughout the Middle East, however, the Joint Resolution only authorizes military action in Iraq.

Current bellicose bluster from administration officials, direct White House involvement with intelligence assessments, military brass presentations, and aggressive troop movements in the Persian Gulf indicate that the Executive Branch may be interested in provoking a military or paramilitary response from Iran.

Beyond merely provoking an Iranian response, other sources close to the current administration claim that the Executive Branch may contemplate a preemptive, unprovoked strike against Iran, even without Congressional authorization.

If the Executive Branch's behavior were to constitute a first strike in a shooting war between the U.S. & Iran, Abraham Lincoln would likely consider the behavior unconstitutional at best and anti-republican at worst. He wrote this letter to his law partner, William Herndon, shortly after the culmination of the Mexican-American War. In an earlier letter, Herndon had argued that the President could initiate war against Mexico without Congress's prior authorization.

WASHINGTON, February 15, 1848.

DEAR WILLIAM:--Your letter of the 29th January was received last night. Being exclusively a constitutional argument, I wish to submit some reflections upon it in the same spirit of kindness that I know actuates you. Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is that if it shall become necessary to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line and invade the territory of another country, and that whether such necessity exists in any given case the President is the sole judge.

Before going further consider well whether this is or is not your position. If it is, it is a position that neither the President himself, nor any friend of his, so far as I know, has ever taken. Their only positions are--first, that the soil was ours when the hostilities commenced; and second, that whether it was rightfully ours or not, Congress had annexed it, and the President for that reason was bound to defend it; both of which are as clearly proved to be false in fact as you can prove that your house is mine. The soil was not ours, and Congress did not annex or attempt to annex it. But to return to your position. Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him,--"I see no probability of the British invading us"; but he will say to you, "Be silent: I see it, if you don't."

The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. Write soon again.

Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.

Letter from Abraham Lincoln to William Herndon (Feb. 15, 1848), in The Writings of Abraham Lincoln - Volume 2: 1843-1858 (Arthur Brooks ed., 1923) (emphasis added).

Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan.

Ignoring Ambition Checking Ambition

At the founding of our country, James Madison felt confident that a system of checks and balances between different branches of the federal government would work, because "[a]mbition must be made to counteract ambition." Neither Madison, nor the founders generally, anticipated the role that dominant political parties would play in harmonizing the goals of the various branches when those branches were instructed to toe the party line.

Today, Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Ne) is valiantly and eloquently standing up to the Bush surge-scalation effort, vocally opposing the White House and demanding that his fellow Senators take a position. In chiding his fellow colleagues into being clear about where they stand on Iraq, Hagel offered this:

What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What do you think? Why were you elected?

If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes. This is a tough business. But is it any tougher, us having to take a tough vote, express ourselves and have the courage to step up on what we’re asking our young men and women to do?

I don’t think so.

If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes is probably the most concise, memorable statement about political responsibility that I've heard during my adult life.

So how does the neoconservative establishment respond to Hagel's ambition? By ignoring it. In the 58 posts and 8,604 words that National Review editors have written today on their blog, the word "Hagel" appears exactly once — and then, only in reference to an immigration bill he co-sponsored last year.

Until the authors of the current debacle — whether it be the intellectual authors at the National Review or the strategic authors like Dick Cheney — learn to address their critics in a forthright and authentic manner, it will be impossible for them to repair any of the erosion that has so completely undermined their credibility.

The Return of the Long-Silent Pat Robertson

Although he failed to be publicly kooky during the latter half of 2006, Pat Robertson gave 2007 a kooky start with his prediction that the U.S. will suffer a major terrorist attack this year, probably after September.

In case you missed Pat Robertson's disaster prediction for 2006, he foretold a tsunami hitting the Eastern Coast of the United States.

Click here to marvel at the lasting kookiness of Robertson.

As a Fellow Morning Person, I've Got Some Sympathy

Then again, I'm not the most powerful person in the the world.

As reported by the New York Times:

At President Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Tex., a White House spokesman, Scott Stanzel, said Mr. Bush had gone to bed before the execution took place and was not awakened. Mr. Bush had received a briefing from his national security adviser Friday afternoon, when he learned the execution would be carried out within hours, Mr. Stanzel said. Asked why Mr. Bush had gone to sleep before hearing the news, he said Mr. Bush “knew that it was going to happen.”

Hussein's execution was widely reported (here and in Iraq) at 6:10 am Baghdad time, which is 9:10 pm Crawford, Texas time. In 2004, President Bush fell asleep during the first half of the Super Bowl, missing the Janet Jackson brouhaha.

The Things People Care About

Frustrated with the Christianist turn that his party has taken, former Republican House majority leader Dick Armey recently complained "The Republicans are talking about things like gay marriage and so forth, and the Democrats are talking about the things people care about, like how do I pay my bills?"

In these last days before the election, here's hoping that Americans faced with everyday problems can look past the various Republican smokescreens — whether it be fears about gay marriage, the unproven and unceasing claim that Republicans are somehow better at the War on Tara then their vilified Defeatocrats, or the administration's recent and shocking assertion that their Iraq strategy has never been a stay the course strategy — and can focus on their everyday concerns.

Democrats, for their part, should be simplifying their message — allowing the remaining undecideds to come to their senses on Election Day. Based on her most recent campaign ad (which premiered during Game 1 of the World Series), Claire McCaskill (the Democratic nominee in Missouri for Senate) gets this:
Keep it simple.
Focus on your message, then highlight the stark between you and your opponent.
Win on November 7th.

Somehow We Muster the Courage to Commute

Having gone through the Lincoln Tunnel at 5:30 am this morning — the very day that the abortive (and physically impossible) plan to somehow flood lower Manhattan (which is above sea level) via damaging/destroying the various tunnels leading to Manhattan (which are below sea level) was publicly disclosed — I've determined that I am now worthy of joining the 101st Fighting Keyboarders.

I'm proud to enlist in this group, the courage of which is typified by Hugh Hewitt, who day-in and day-out somehow musters the intestinal fortitude to broadcast from the Empire State Building.

By the way, I'm amused by the terrorists' physics model, where blowing up a tunnel somehow means that water will flow uphill. Whatever we do, we must not let Al Qaeda get ahold of these scientists, who have (on a small scale) caused water to flow uphill in an organized manner.

Einstein Would Be So Happy & Proud

Bush has decided to stop referring to current US military operations as the War on Tara, instead opting for the moniker World War III.

Oh, yeah. That's much better.

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

Albert Einstein, in a letter to President Harry S. Truman

The Boundless Folly of the Bush Administration

Momentarily ignoring the horror of the US using nuclear weapons on a country in the Mideast, "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government" sounds a lot like "we will be greeted as liberators."

The Iran Plans by Seymour Hersh

Multiple Images, Singular Anger

This is neither here nor there, but the gallery image that Matt Drudge includes at the top of the Drudge Report to demonstrate Pan-Islamic rage in reaction to the Danish cartoon scandal is just a bit deceptive.

The signs in the top two images are clearly the work of a single person. The handwriting similarities are just too uncanny. Look at the E's.

I Hope They Convinced Him to Order the Deluxe Package

Naturally, I'm mildly bummed that Cobra Commander, er... Bin Laden has released a new audiotape. However, the bad news that he's (apparently) still alive and kicking is offset by this picture:

Source: CNN
It's nice to know that even Islamo-fascists can get duped into cheesy picture backgrounds.

Bushazzar

NY Times editorial unloads on the President's Continue-to-Stay-the-Course, There-is-Nothing-to-See-Here Speech. The tastiest bit:

Americans have been clamoring for believable goals in Iraq, but Mr. Bush stuck to his notion of staying until 'total victory.' His strategy document defines that as an Iraq that 'has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency'; is 'peaceful, united, stable, democratic and secure'; and is a partner in the war on terror, an integral part of the international community, and 'an engine for regional economic growth and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.'

That may be the most grandiose set of ambitions for the region since the vision of Nebuchadnezzar's son Belshazzar, who saw the hand writing on the wall. Mr. Bush hates comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq. But after watching the president, we couldn't resist reading Richard Nixon's 1969 Vietnamization speech. Substitute the Iraqi constitutional process for the Paris peace talks, and Mr. Bush's ideas about the Iraqi Army are not much different from Nixon's plans - except Nixon admitted the war was going very badly (which was easier for him to do because he didn't start it), and he was very clear about the risks and huge sacrifices ahead.

A president who seems less in touch with reality than Richard Nixon needs to get out more.

I'd Have Gone With Bush Continues Annoying Habit of Hiding His Lips

Today, Bush gave the nation more of the same news on how we're winning in Iraq.

On the front page of nytimes.com has a picture linking to the article. This morning, the original caption was President Bush's speech today at the U.S. Naval Academy did not break new ground or present a new strategy.

About 15 minutes later, it was softened to President Bush steadfastly refused to set a timetable for withdrawing American forces as some of his critics have demanded.

Email Sauntering@gmail.com, Predicting Bush's 12/31/05 Approval Rating. Closest Guess Wins a Prize.

The new WSJ/NBC poll is out. Here's a synopsis:

A Question for Historians Writing in 2015