Wednesday, March 31, 2004
First God now Marx and with any luck Chomsky
Many a right wing critic has claimed that what happened since 1917 has proved Marx wrong. Marxism was tired and it was a miserable failure. On the flip side of things, there are those who say Marxism has never truly been put into practice. Marxism as practiced is simply a perversion. Both are wrong for the same reason. Marx's vision for a communist utopia was never adopted, or perverted and there is a simple reason for this; he had no such vision. The young Marx did feel that Capitalism would come crashing down in 1848. In a letter to Marx, Engels even went so far as to, half jokingly, recommend a cousin as minister of Agriculture. To this end, the polemical Communist Manifesto contained 10 briefly spelled out “generally applicable” things that would help birth communism in the “most advanced countries”. However, after the failure of the 1848 revolutions, the 30 year old Marx dedicated his life to detailing Capitalisms “inner contradictions”. He died doing so. He fished but one of proposed 6 Volumes of Capital. Volumes 2 and 3 were put together by Engels from what Marx left behind. He never got around to laying out a comprehensive plan for birthing Communism, nor did he feel the need to. By the end of his life, he was content that one way or another it would become a reality; his “Science” told him it was to be so. (Marx became ever more open to the possibility that Communism would come about through peaceful and democratic means. On a different front, in 1882 preface to the Communist Manifesto Marx even granted the possibility that a country need not be thoroughly capitalist to transform itself into a communist state. The country he had in mind was Russia and this is the, much ignored, proviso he added. “Now, the question is this: can the Russian Obshchina, through greatly undermined, yet a form of the primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of communist common ownership? Or on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution as constitutes the historical evolution of the West? The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.”) As to what a communist society would be like, despite his musing as a 25 year old that under Communism one would be able fish in the morning and read Plato in the afternoon, the elder Marx steadfastly refused to foretell what “the cook shops of the future” looked like.
What truly bugs me about this fruitless debate is that while the two sides, neither of whom know anything about Marx, were arguing, Marx died. The New York’s Observer’s Ron Rosenbaum provides a perfect example about the comic nature of such a debate.
“Goodbye to all that. The phrase occurred to me when I heard the sad news that Christopher Hitchens was leaving The Nation. Sad more for The Nation, a magazine I’ve read on and off since high school, now deprived of an important dissenting voice amidst lockstep Left opinion. Mr. Hitchens was valuable to The Nation, to the Left as a whole, I argued back on Jan. 14 in these pages, because he challenged "the Left to recognize the terrorists not as somewhat misguided spokesmen for the wretched of the earth, but as ‘Islamo-fascists’—theocratic oppressors of the wretched of the earth." He was leaving in part, he said, because he’d grown tired of trying to make this case in a venue that had become what he called "an echo chamber of those who believe that John Ashcroft is a greater menace than Osama bin Laden."
The Nation still has assets of course: the incomparable polymath literary critic, John Leonard; the fierce polemical intelligence of Katha Pollit, which I admire however much I might disagree with her; some serious investigative reporters. And recently Jack Newfield, who long ago co-authored an important book on the populist tradition—still a faint hope for a non-Marxist Left in America.
But Mr. Hitchens’ loss is a loss not just for the magazine, but for the entire Left; it’s important that America have an intelligent opposition, with a critique not dependent on knee-jerk, neo-Marxist idiocy. And it’s important that potential constituents of that opposition, like Nation readers, be exposed to a brilliant dissenter like Christopher Hitchens.”
While, Rosenbaum is right about the Left’s myopic focus on the US and Israel (where was the New Left when Rwanda and the Congo needed them?), he has things between Hitchens and the rest of the Nation staff ass backwards. Indeed, although, Hitchens was once a Trotskyist, I am willing to bet a week’s wage that few of Naomi Klein and company have never heard of Feuerbach, skimmed through Hegel’s Philosophy of Right or waded through all three Volumes of Capital. Marx is simply not read let alone understood by the 30 something Left. Their champion is Chomsky.
Just as an aside, Chomsky is not only the most cited author alive, he is, according to the Chicago Tribune, one of the most cited intellectual luminaries of all eras. Chomsky placed eighth, just behind Plato and Sigmund Freud.
Now, it is hard for any serious thinker to take Chomsky seriously anymore. He is way past his expiry date. http://canadawide.blogspot.com/2003_08_01_canadawide_archive.html Scroll down to The Fruits of Chomsky’s Mind Need First to be Checked for Worms and then Washed. The problem is that Chomsky is very much the spokesperson of his intellectual generation and that the new generation of leftist intellectuals has swallowed the message of the baby boomers whole. Namely, their anarchistic lack of faith in the morality of the state or its actors is such that they feel that the ability of the state to wage war should be taken away. Any action, however, inadvertently, beneficial furthers an inherently undemocratic power structure. What buttresses this belief is the highly ethnocentric belief that what enemies America has and by extention the West has are, more or less, entirely of their own creation and that the key to not making any new ones is to so tie down the government it will not be able to act in politically realist manner.
(0) comments
Many a right wing critic has claimed that what happened since 1917 has proved Marx wrong. Marxism was tired and it was a miserable failure. On the flip side of things, there are those who say Marxism has never truly been put into practice. Marxism as practiced is simply a perversion. Both are wrong for the same reason. Marx's vision for a communist utopia was never adopted, or perverted and there is a simple reason for this; he had no such vision. The young Marx did feel that Capitalism would come crashing down in 1848. In a letter to Marx, Engels even went so far as to, half jokingly, recommend a cousin as minister of Agriculture. To this end, the polemical Communist Manifesto contained 10 briefly spelled out “generally applicable” things that would help birth communism in the “most advanced countries”. However, after the failure of the 1848 revolutions, the 30 year old Marx dedicated his life to detailing Capitalisms “inner contradictions”. He died doing so. He fished but one of proposed 6 Volumes of Capital. Volumes 2 and 3 were put together by Engels from what Marx left behind. He never got around to laying out a comprehensive plan for birthing Communism, nor did he feel the need to. By the end of his life, he was content that one way or another it would become a reality; his “Science” told him it was to be so. (Marx became ever more open to the possibility that Communism would come about through peaceful and democratic means. On a different front, in 1882 preface to the Communist Manifesto Marx even granted the possibility that a country need not be thoroughly capitalist to transform itself into a communist state. The country he had in mind was Russia and this is the, much ignored, proviso he added. “Now, the question is this: can the Russian Obshchina, through greatly undermined, yet a form of the primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of communist common ownership? Or on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution as constitutes the historical evolution of the West? The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.”) As to what a communist society would be like, despite his musing as a 25 year old that under Communism one would be able fish in the morning and read Plato in the afternoon, the elder Marx steadfastly refused to foretell what “the cook shops of the future” looked like.
What truly bugs me about this fruitless debate is that while the two sides, neither of whom know anything about Marx, were arguing, Marx died. The New York’s Observer’s Ron Rosenbaum provides a perfect example about the comic nature of such a debate.
“Goodbye to all that. The phrase occurred to me when I heard the sad news that Christopher Hitchens was leaving The Nation. Sad more for The Nation, a magazine I’ve read on and off since high school, now deprived of an important dissenting voice amidst lockstep Left opinion. Mr. Hitchens was valuable to The Nation, to the Left as a whole, I argued back on Jan. 14 in these pages, because he challenged "the Left to recognize the terrorists not as somewhat misguided spokesmen for the wretched of the earth, but as ‘Islamo-fascists’—theocratic oppressors of the wretched of the earth." He was leaving in part, he said, because he’d grown tired of trying to make this case in a venue that had become what he called "an echo chamber of those who believe that John Ashcroft is a greater menace than Osama bin Laden."
The Nation still has assets of course: the incomparable polymath literary critic, John Leonard; the fierce polemical intelligence of Katha Pollit, which I admire however much I might disagree with her; some serious investigative reporters. And recently Jack Newfield, who long ago co-authored an important book on the populist tradition—still a faint hope for a non-Marxist Left in America.
But Mr. Hitchens’ loss is a loss not just for the magazine, but for the entire Left; it’s important that America have an intelligent opposition, with a critique not dependent on knee-jerk, neo-Marxist idiocy. And it’s important that potential constituents of that opposition, like Nation readers, be exposed to a brilliant dissenter like Christopher Hitchens.”
While, Rosenbaum is right about the Left’s myopic focus on the US and Israel (where was the New Left when Rwanda and the Congo needed them?), he has things between Hitchens and the rest of the Nation staff ass backwards. Indeed, although, Hitchens was once a Trotskyist, I am willing to bet a week’s wage that few of Naomi Klein and company have never heard of Feuerbach, skimmed through Hegel’s Philosophy of Right or waded through all three Volumes of Capital. Marx is simply not read let alone understood by the 30 something Left. Their champion is Chomsky.
Just as an aside, Chomsky is not only the most cited author alive, he is, according to the Chicago Tribune, one of the most cited intellectual luminaries of all eras. Chomsky placed eighth, just behind Plato and Sigmund Freud.
Now, it is hard for any serious thinker to take Chomsky seriously anymore. He is way past his expiry date. http://canadawide.blogspot.com/2003_08_01_canadawide_archive.html Scroll down to The Fruits of Chomsky’s Mind Need First to be Checked for Worms and then Washed. The problem is that Chomsky is very much the spokesperson of his intellectual generation and that the new generation of leftist intellectuals has swallowed the message of the baby boomers whole. Namely, their anarchistic lack of faith in the morality of the state or its actors is such that they feel that the ability of the state to wage war should be taken away. Any action, however, inadvertently, beneficial furthers an inherently undemocratic power structure. What buttresses this belief is the highly ethnocentric belief that what enemies America has and by extention the West has are, more or less, entirely of their own creation and that the key to not making any new ones is to so tie down the government it will not be able to act in politically realist manner.
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
The Irish Smoking Ban: Governments have too much Invested for this not to be a Harbinger of things to Come
While people, can certainly choose what pubs and clubs they go to and while people can refuse to work in a certain establishments, most people have no choice but to work. As such, most people would agree that in theory that the government should prohibit employers from needlessly exposing their employees to danger. Alas though, theory is one thing and practice is another. For all sorts of reasons, regulatory bodies sometimes turn a blind eye to work place dangers and when called on this they simply deny the obvious. There should be no such discrepancy in the case of second hand smoke. The government readily acknowledges that second hand smoke is dangerous. It is for this reason that they require tobacco companies to say that “second hand smoke kills” on cigarette packaging and it is for this reason that they have already banned smoking in most workplaces already. Some governments have even mulled over the suing tobacco companies over the damage that second hand smoke has caused. All of this makes the failure of certain governments to extend such a ban to all workplaces particularly galling. But there is more. Eventually someone will get around to suing one or more levels of government for this and while private individuals and entities can always argue the merits of claim that second hand smoke is dangerous, the government, whose stated position is that second hand smoking is dangerous, would be forced to either concede the point, or undermine the basis one of largest public health campaigns in the country’s history and worse still the very legitimacy of all future public health campaigns. So, hurray for Ireland. In choosing to go ahead with a country wide smoking ban they become the first country to do so.
(0) comments
While people, can certainly choose what pubs and clubs they go to and while people can refuse to work in a certain establishments, most people have no choice but to work. As such, most people would agree that in theory that the government should prohibit employers from needlessly exposing their employees to danger. Alas though, theory is one thing and practice is another. For all sorts of reasons, regulatory bodies sometimes turn a blind eye to work place dangers and when called on this they simply deny the obvious. There should be no such discrepancy in the case of second hand smoke. The government readily acknowledges that second hand smoke is dangerous. It is for this reason that they require tobacco companies to say that “second hand smoke kills” on cigarette packaging and it is for this reason that they have already banned smoking in most workplaces already. Some governments have even mulled over the suing tobacco companies over the damage that second hand smoke has caused. All of this makes the failure of certain governments to extend such a ban to all workplaces particularly galling. But there is more. Eventually someone will get around to suing one or more levels of government for this and while private individuals and entities can always argue the merits of claim that second hand smoke is dangerous, the government, whose stated position is that second hand smoking is dangerous, would be forced to either concede the point, or undermine the basis one of largest public health campaigns in the country’s history and worse still the very legitimacy of all future public health campaigns. So, hurray for Ireland. In choosing to go ahead with a country wide smoking ban they become the first country to do so.
Sunday, March 28, 2004
Suspected Al Qaeda Attacks
Curtsy of American Prospect, here are a list of suspected Al Qaeda attacks over the course of the last 10 years.
"February 1993: Bombing of World Trade Center; six killed and 1,040 injured.
October 1993: Killing of 18 U.S. soldiers in Mogadishu, Somalia.
November 1995: Truck bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills five American soldiers and injures 37.
June 1996: Truck bombing at Khobar Towers military barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, kills 19 Americans and injures hundreds, including 240 U.S. citizens. (The al-Qaeda connection here remains a subject of debate.)
August 1998: Bombing of U.S. embassies in east Africa; 224 killed, including 12 Americans, and an estimated 4,500 injured.
October 2000: Bombing of the USS Cole in a Yemen port; 17 U.S. sailors killed, 39 injured.
September 2001: Destruction of World Trade Center; Pentagon attacked. Total dead: 2,973.
April 2002: Explosion at historic synagogue in Tunisia leaves 21 dead, including 14 German tourists.
January 2002: Kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.
May 2002: Car explodes outside Sheraton Hotel in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 14, including 11 French naval engineers.
June 2002: Bomb explodes outside U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12.
October 2002: Nightclub bombings in Bali, Indonesia, kill 202, including 88 Australian citizens and 23 Britons.
November 2002: Coordinated attacks in Mombasa, Kenya; 16 killed in a suicide bombing at a hotel, while surface-to-air missiles were fired at a chartered Israeli airliner.
May 2003: Suicide bombers kill 34, including eight Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
May 2003: Four bombs targeting Jewish, Spanish, and Belgian sites in Casablanca, Morocco, killing 33 and injuring more than 100.
August 2003: Suicide car bomb kills 12, injures 150, at Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia.
November 2003: Explosions rock a Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, housing compound, killing 18 and wounding 122, including many workers from Egypt and Lebanon.
November 2003: Suicide car bombers simultaneously attack two synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 25 and injuring hundreds.
November 2003: Two truck bombs explode outside the British consulate and the headquarters of the London-based HSBC bank in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 26 and injuring hundreds.
December 2003: Attempted assassination of Pakistani President Pervez Musharaff.
March 2004: Train bombing in Madrid, Spain, kills 190 and injures more than 1,000."
There has been a number of failed attacks.
December 1999: A plan to one to target Los Angeles International Airport (December 1999)
December 1999: A plan to target mille millennium celebrations at an American hotel in Amman, Jordan
December 1999; An attempted hijacking of an Indian airliner
Januuary 2000: A Plan USS The Sullivans
Fall 2001: A group of terrorists' plan to bomb the American Embassy in Paris
December 2001: "Shoe bomber" Richard Reid's attempt to blow up an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami
June 2002: Jose Padilla is arrested for trying to obtain and use a dirty bomb
June 2002: A plot to bomb U.S. and British warships off Gibraltar
August 2003: attempts in Saudi Arabia to target U.S. transport planes with rocket-propelled grenades
(0) comments
Curtsy of American Prospect, here are a list of suspected Al Qaeda attacks over the course of the last 10 years.
"February 1993: Bombing of World Trade Center; six killed and 1,040 injured.
October 1993: Killing of 18 U.S. soldiers in Mogadishu, Somalia.
November 1995: Truck bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills five American soldiers and injures 37.
June 1996: Truck bombing at Khobar Towers military barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, kills 19 Americans and injures hundreds, including 240 U.S. citizens. (The al-Qaeda connection here remains a subject of debate.)
August 1998: Bombing of U.S. embassies in east Africa; 224 killed, including 12 Americans, and an estimated 4,500 injured.
October 2000: Bombing of the USS Cole in a Yemen port; 17 U.S. sailors killed, 39 injured.
September 2001: Destruction of World Trade Center; Pentagon attacked. Total dead: 2,973.
April 2002: Explosion at historic synagogue in Tunisia leaves 21 dead, including 14 German tourists.
January 2002: Kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.
May 2002: Car explodes outside Sheraton Hotel in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 14, including 11 French naval engineers.
June 2002: Bomb explodes outside U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12.
October 2002: Nightclub bombings in Bali, Indonesia, kill 202, including 88 Australian citizens and 23 Britons.
November 2002: Coordinated attacks in Mombasa, Kenya; 16 killed in a suicide bombing at a hotel, while surface-to-air missiles were fired at a chartered Israeli airliner.
May 2003: Suicide bombers kill 34, including eight Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
May 2003: Four bombs targeting Jewish, Spanish, and Belgian sites in Casablanca, Morocco, killing 33 and injuring more than 100.
August 2003: Suicide car bomb kills 12, injures 150, at Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia.
November 2003: Explosions rock a Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, housing compound, killing 18 and wounding 122, including many workers from Egypt and Lebanon.
November 2003: Suicide car bombers simultaneously attack two synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 25 and injuring hundreds.
November 2003: Two truck bombs explode outside the British consulate and the headquarters of the London-based HSBC bank in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 26 and injuring hundreds.
December 2003: Attempted assassination of Pakistani President Pervez Musharaff.
March 2004: Train bombing in Madrid, Spain, kills 190 and injures more than 1,000."
There has been a number of failed attacks.
December 1999: A plan to one to target Los Angeles International Airport (December 1999)
December 1999: A plan to target mille millennium celebrations at an American hotel in Amman, Jordan
December 1999; An attempted hijacking of an Indian airliner
Januuary 2000: A Plan USS The Sullivans
Fall 2001: A group of terrorists' plan to bomb the American Embassy in Paris
December 2001: "Shoe bomber" Richard Reid's attempt to blow up an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami
June 2002: Jose Padilla is arrested for trying to obtain and use a dirty bomb
June 2002: A plot to bomb U.S. and British warships off Gibraltar
August 2003: attempts in Saudi Arabia to target U.S. transport planes with rocket-propelled grenades
Saturday, March 27, 2004
Dangerous Offender Status and Capital Punishment
Even though there is no proof that capital punishment serves as a deterrent, I think a case for capital punishment can be made. From time to time certain criminals hit a societal nerve. Not surprisingly, once caught and convicted these people become the face of evil for whole communities. Here in lies the problem; so long as these people remain alive these communities remain haunted by such figures. There is no better example of this than Clifford Olson. Since, his arrest in 1983, Olson has found himself in the media spotlight from time to time and whenever that has happened old wounds where once again ripped open. Olson also has become the living embodiment of what people think is wrong with the justice system. Executing Olson and his kin seems the only way giving afflicted communities, but certainly not loved ones, a sense of completion and peace and clear sense that justice has prevailed.
The problem is that if Canada were to reintroduce the death penalty as a punishment for first degree murder, some of the same problems that plague the States and helped get capital punishment abolished in the first place would again plague the Justice System. Most notably, while the introduction of DNA evidence has lessened the likelihood of innocent person being put to death, the likelihood of an innocent person being convicted of a capital crime, somewhere down the line, is still pretty high. As such, just as Olson has become a living argument for capital punishment, Guy Paul Morin has become a living argument against capital punishment.
I think there is a way around this objection, but to my knowledge I am the only one to have put it forward. What I purpose is that the state be allowed to execute someone not for what they have done per say, but for what they are. In a Canadian context what this would boil down to is this: Rather than defining what is a capital crime, the notion of Dangerous Offender should be refined to include people convicted of murder and that authorities should have the option of executing, at least offenders, deemed such because they met the first criteria listed below. Technically speaking, the possibility of executing a person for a crime they did not commit would not exist. Currently, “under the Dangerous Offender provisions, the Crown can ask that an offender be sentenced to remain in prison for as long as he or she is considered dangerous, which in some cases, can be indefinitely. This must be done through a special court hearing held soon after the offender has been convicted. Not all offenders are considered dangerous. In order to be considered a DO, an offender must have committed a "serious personal injury offence" (for example, sexual assault, manslaughter or aggravated assault). Murder is not included since a conviction results in an automatic life sentence. In addition, there must be evidence to show that the offender constitutes a risk to others, based on any one of the following:
•a pattern of repetitive and persistent behaviour that is likely to lead to injury or death, or a pattern of aggressive behaviour showing indifference to the safety of others;
•the likelihood of injury through a failure to control sexual impulses; or
•a crime so "brutal" that it is unlikely the offender can inhibit his or her behaviour in the future.
Incidentally, "as of September 24, 2000, there were 276 active Dangerous Offenders in Canada; representing approximately 2% of the total federal offender population.”
(0) comments
Even though there is no proof that capital punishment serves as a deterrent, I think a case for capital punishment can be made. From time to time certain criminals hit a societal nerve. Not surprisingly, once caught and convicted these people become the face of evil for whole communities. Here in lies the problem; so long as these people remain alive these communities remain haunted by such figures. There is no better example of this than Clifford Olson. Since, his arrest in 1983, Olson has found himself in the media spotlight from time to time and whenever that has happened old wounds where once again ripped open. Olson also has become the living embodiment of what people think is wrong with the justice system. Executing Olson and his kin seems the only way giving afflicted communities, but certainly not loved ones, a sense of completion and peace and clear sense that justice has prevailed.
The problem is that if Canada were to reintroduce the death penalty as a punishment for first degree murder, some of the same problems that plague the States and helped get capital punishment abolished in the first place would again plague the Justice System. Most notably, while the introduction of DNA evidence has lessened the likelihood of innocent person being put to death, the likelihood of an innocent person being convicted of a capital crime, somewhere down the line, is still pretty high. As such, just as Olson has become a living argument for capital punishment, Guy Paul Morin has become a living argument against capital punishment.
I think there is a way around this objection, but to my knowledge I am the only one to have put it forward. What I purpose is that the state be allowed to execute someone not for what they have done per say, but for what they are. In a Canadian context what this would boil down to is this: Rather than defining what is a capital crime, the notion of Dangerous Offender should be refined to include people convicted of murder and that authorities should have the option of executing, at least offenders, deemed such because they met the first criteria listed below. Technically speaking, the possibility of executing a person for a crime they did not commit would not exist. Currently, “under the Dangerous Offender provisions, the Crown can ask that an offender be sentenced to remain in prison for as long as he or she is considered dangerous, which in some cases, can be indefinitely. This must be done through a special court hearing held soon after the offender has been convicted. Not all offenders are considered dangerous. In order to be considered a DO, an offender must have committed a "serious personal injury offence" (for example, sexual assault, manslaughter or aggravated assault). Murder is not included since a conviction results in an automatic life sentence. In addition, there must be evidence to show that the offender constitutes a risk to others, based on any one of the following:
•a pattern of repetitive and persistent behaviour that is likely to lead to injury or death, or a pattern of aggressive behaviour showing indifference to the safety of others;
•the likelihood of injury through a failure to control sexual impulses; or
•a crime so "brutal" that it is unlikely the offender can inhibit his or her behaviour in the future.
Incidentally, "as of September 24, 2000, there were 276 active Dangerous Offenders in Canada; representing approximately 2% of the total federal offender population.”
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
To Jack: Make Harper out to be just another Republican
If I was to send a letter to the NDPs Jack Layton, it would go something like this
I have flirted with joining the Federal NDP for some time now. What holds me back is several key policies that I disagree with and the belief that if things do not change the electorate will again assign the NDP to the margins of Canada’s political debate. With regard to the latter, the sponsorship scandal has me particularly worried. The Liberals have dropped in the polls and the Conservatives have made significant gains. The NDP, meanwhile, have stayed pretty much the same. If this holds true and the sponsorship scandal turns out to be the election’s defining issue, not only will the NDP not return to its pre 1993 status, but the whole national debate will shift to the right. My question to you is does the NDP have any plan to shift the focus of the campaign in a different direction?
For what little it is worth, I would suggest that you go after Harper and not Martin. The problem with going after Martin rather than Harper is that the NDP’s strength is that its stance on various big issues is in line with what the majority of Canadians are thinking (gay marriage, Iraq, gun control, the failure of the war on drugs, decriminalization of marijuana) and while Harper’s social conservatism makes him an inviting target, Martin is holding his cards close to his chest. (From a strategic point of view, I can understand Martin’s reluctance to show his hand. He risks loosing a lot of support, particularly in Ontario’s hinterlands. That said, in the mid to long term backing gay marriage and the decriminalization marijuana makes perfect political sense. Not only, are younger voters increasingly on side, but the Western press firmly backs these two issues. Indeed, the Economist pronounced Canada “cool” and the New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg said the following in the independence issue no less. “Good old Canada. It’s the kind of country that makes you proud to be a North American.” All and all, in the US alone, gay marriage and a plan to decriminalize pot, has gained Canada glowing reviews in the NY Times, Washington Post, San Jose Mercury, Pittsburg Gazette, the Christian Science Monitor and the aforementioned New Yorker. http://canadawide.blogspot.com/2003_08_01_canadawide_archive.html [Scroll down to "Is Cananda cool?"] By the way, if Canada could somehow find a way, in a few years time, around US objections and become the first country to legalize marijuana, I am sure Canada would receive a mountain of positive press.) The tricky thing is that in so long as Martin is content to hold his deck close to his chest, the NDP will have a difficult time making these issues key election issues. It is not enough to raise Harper’s social conservatism. The NDP will need to make a lot of noise in the process.
The way I think this can be done is to compare Harper to Bush. A simple 5 columned add in several key newspapers should do the trick. In the first column list the issues (Iraq, gay marriage, etc.). The next column should contain a box for every issue listed. At the top of the column should be a picture of George Bush. For every issue Bush supports mark the appropriate box with an X. In the next column over do the same for Harper and the next column after that for yourself. Finally, at the top of the last column should be a Canadian flag, representing the Canadian population. The heading for the ad should be as follows: Where do Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton draw their inspiration from? (The NDP should try to paint Martin as another Mulroney. They can say that Martin too is snuggling up to Quebec separatism, that his government is scandal ridden, that he shares the same corporate world view and that Bush is to Martin what Reagan was to Mulroney. Heck, you could ask when Martin and Bush where going to do their version of when “When Irish Eyes Are Smiling".)
The ad will naturally enough draw strong condemnation. People will talk about latent anti-Americanism in Canada and the South Korean and German elections will be mentioned and perhaps the Spanish. However, far from hurting the NDP, all this publicity will help draw attention to the NDP platform and will make these issues the focus of the upcoming election. Canadians, particularly those in BC and Quebec, will be all too happy to voice their disapproval of anyone barring any resemblance to Bush. What is more, as the American election is in November, if the accusation that Harper is just another Republican sticks, the NDP will be able to piggy back on what Kerry will be saying about his Republican counterpart in the States.
This will be especially useful when it comes to the subject of gay marriage. Like the Conservative party and, indeed, the NDP, the Republican Party has many contradictory tenets. It is at once the party of Red America, the poorer, less educated, less cosmopolitan and more religious cousin of Blue America. 95 of the top 100 richest zip codes went blue in 2000. If a University professor belongs to one the two parties, chances are he is a Democrat. More than 90% are and this is true holds true across academia, from the smallest colleges to the Ivy League. At the same time, the Republican Party is also a party of the super rich and the established corporate elite. The way Rove and company are able to play to both groups is by giving the later group most every thing it wants, while at the same time throwing a few legislative crumbs that appeal the prejudges of its socially conservative base. Bush’s proposal to constitutionally ban gay marriage is perfect example of the Republicans trying to buy many Red Americans, particularly those in the so called Rust Belt, who are waking up to the fact the voting Republican is not in their economic interest.
Where this relates back to Conservative party is that by developing a strategy that appeals both to rural Canadians and the Bay Street crowd, Harper, a la Bush, will try to have his cake and eat it too. By telling rural Canadians that they are being bought out at a bargain basement price, forbidding gay couples, for example, from marrying is not worth cuts to social services that will most affect them, the NDP can defeat this strategy and take many of those rural seats that are up for grabs.
(0) comments
If I was to send a letter to the NDPs Jack Layton, it would go something like this
I have flirted with joining the Federal NDP for some time now. What holds me back is several key policies that I disagree with and the belief that if things do not change the electorate will again assign the NDP to the margins of Canada’s political debate. With regard to the latter, the sponsorship scandal has me particularly worried. The Liberals have dropped in the polls and the Conservatives have made significant gains. The NDP, meanwhile, have stayed pretty much the same. If this holds true and the sponsorship scandal turns out to be the election’s defining issue, not only will the NDP not return to its pre 1993 status, but the whole national debate will shift to the right. My question to you is does the NDP have any plan to shift the focus of the campaign in a different direction?
For what little it is worth, I would suggest that you go after Harper and not Martin. The problem with going after Martin rather than Harper is that the NDP’s strength is that its stance on various big issues is in line with what the majority of Canadians are thinking (gay marriage, Iraq, gun control, the failure of the war on drugs, decriminalization of marijuana) and while Harper’s social conservatism makes him an inviting target, Martin is holding his cards close to his chest. (From a strategic point of view, I can understand Martin’s reluctance to show his hand. He risks loosing a lot of support, particularly in Ontario’s hinterlands. That said, in the mid to long term backing gay marriage and the decriminalization marijuana makes perfect political sense. Not only, are younger voters increasingly on side, but the Western press firmly backs these two issues. Indeed, the Economist pronounced Canada “cool” and the New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg said the following in the independence issue no less. “Good old Canada. It’s the kind of country that makes you proud to be a North American.” All and all, in the US alone, gay marriage and a plan to decriminalize pot, has gained Canada glowing reviews in the NY Times, Washington Post, San Jose Mercury, Pittsburg Gazette, the Christian Science Monitor and the aforementioned New Yorker. http://canadawide.blogspot.com/2003_08_01_canadawide_archive.html [Scroll down to "Is Cananda cool?"] By the way, if Canada could somehow find a way, in a few years time, around US objections and become the first country to legalize marijuana, I am sure Canada would receive a mountain of positive press.) The tricky thing is that in so long as Martin is content to hold his deck close to his chest, the NDP will have a difficult time making these issues key election issues. It is not enough to raise Harper’s social conservatism. The NDP will need to make a lot of noise in the process.
The way I think this can be done is to compare Harper to Bush. A simple 5 columned add in several key newspapers should do the trick. In the first column list the issues (Iraq, gay marriage, etc.). The next column should contain a box for every issue listed. At the top of the column should be a picture of George Bush. For every issue Bush supports mark the appropriate box with an X. In the next column over do the same for Harper and the next column after that for yourself. Finally, at the top of the last column should be a Canadian flag, representing the Canadian population. The heading for the ad should be as follows: Where do Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton draw their inspiration from? (The NDP should try to paint Martin as another Mulroney. They can say that Martin too is snuggling up to Quebec separatism, that his government is scandal ridden, that he shares the same corporate world view and that Bush is to Martin what Reagan was to Mulroney. Heck, you could ask when Martin and Bush where going to do their version of when “When Irish Eyes Are Smiling".)
The ad will naturally enough draw strong condemnation. People will talk about latent anti-Americanism in Canada and the South Korean and German elections will be mentioned and perhaps the Spanish. However, far from hurting the NDP, all this publicity will help draw attention to the NDP platform and will make these issues the focus of the upcoming election. Canadians, particularly those in BC and Quebec, will be all too happy to voice their disapproval of anyone barring any resemblance to Bush. What is more, as the American election is in November, if the accusation that Harper is just another Republican sticks, the NDP will be able to piggy back on what Kerry will be saying about his Republican counterpart in the States.
This will be especially useful when it comes to the subject of gay marriage. Like the Conservative party and, indeed, the NDP, the Republican Party has many contradictory tenets. It is at once the party of Red America, the poorer, less educated, less cosmopolitan and more religious cousin of Blue America. 95 of the top 100 richest zip codes went blue in 2000. If a University professor belongs to one the two parties, chances are he is a Democrat. More than 90% are and this is true holds true across academia, from the smallest colleges to the Ivy League. At the same time, the Republican Party is also a party of the super rich and the established corporate elite. The way Rove and company are able to play to both groups is by giving the later group most every thing it wants, while at the same time throwing a few legislative crumbs that appeal the prejudges of its socially conservative base. Bush’s proposal to constitutionally ban gay marriage is perfect example of the Republicans trying to buy many Red Americans, particularly those in the so called Rust Belt, who are waking up to the fact the voting Republican is not in their economic interest.
Where this relates back to Conservative party is that by developing a strategy that appeals both to rural Canadians and the Bay Street crowd, Harper, a la Bush, will try to have his cake and eat it too. By telling rural Canadians that they are being bought out at a bargain basement price, forbidding gay couples, for example, from marrying is not worth cuts to social services that will most affect them, the NDP can defeat this strategy and take many of those rural seats that are up for grabs.
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Spain off limits?
Abu Hafs al-Masri, a group with ties to Al Qaeda, claimed that Spain would no longer be targeted if it follows through on a pledge to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq. Now, there are some serious questions about the group’s creditability. They claimed to be behind the Madrid bombings, but there is no evidence that they were at all connected and they claimed to be behind the London and North American blackouts and there is no evidence of sabotage either of these cases let alone evidence they the group did anything. That said, what the group said is entirely consistent with what I feared Al Qaeda might do, i.e., use the threat of violence to mold already existing anti-American sentiments in the Western democracies into something bigger and longer lasting. (There is little doubt that Al Qaeda uses the Western media to help get its message out for recruitment purposes and to direct the faithful. However, it could potentially go beyond this. This may sound odd, but there is always the possibility that Al Qaeda could use Western pundits to their own advantage. Specifically, rather than themselves plotting out a clear and direct course for how to drive a wedge between the US and the West, perhaps they could borrow ideas from various pundits, or capitalize in a general way on a discourse of their own making. After all, pundits have a level expertise that Al Qaeda lacks and they will be busy speculating as to how Al Qaeda might go about achieving such an end. The cruel irony is that if such a scenario comes to pass, some pundits will look very much like prophets.)
There are a few things the Americans should take heart in. First, while European public opinion is increasingly hostile to US foreign policy, there is little doubt that as a result of Madrid some of the barriers to fighting terrorism will be removed and that European government will be much more open to working with US authorities, even if only below the radar. Second, although the new diffuse, shifting and horizontal structurally nature of Al Qaeda is in many ways more difficult to deal with, the way Al Qaeda is now structured will also make it more difficult for the Al Qaeda leadership to maintain some sort of coherent operating plan and for that matter insure that its operations are carried out to their specifications. Indeed, there is some evidence that this has already hurt them. In the most recent Riyadh bombings, terrorists hit the wrong compound and as a result a Muslim compound was hit and not one housing Westerners. Needless to say, this did not play well in Saudi Arabia. Without clear lines of communication it is entirely possible that a group tied to Al Qaeda will not stay on message. Thus, while it might very well be Al Qaeda’s intention to try to drive a wedge between Europe by carefully selecting which European countries to hit, there is also chance a splinter faction could ruin everything for them by, say, targeting Spain again. Finally, there is some good news for America in so far as Chechnians seemed to have pushed the Russians firmly into the US camp. The Russians are one of the strongest backers of the War on terror.
A friend came up with an excellent suggestion. He said Spain should remove its troops from Iraq and transfer them to Afghanistan. I do not think this is going to happen though.
(0) comments
Abu Hafs al-Masri, a group with ties to Al Qaeda, claimed that Spain would no longer be targeted if it follows through on a pledge to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq. Now, there are some serious questions about the group’s creditability. They claimed to be behind the Madrid bombings, but there is no evidence that they were at all connected and they claimed to be behind the London and North American blackouts and there is no evidence of sabotage either of these cases let alone evidence they the group did anything. That said, what the group said is entirely consistent with what I feared Al Qaeda might do, i.e., use the threat of violence to mold already existing anti-American sentiments in the Western democracies into something bigger and longer lasting. (There is little doubt that Al Qaeda uses the Western media to help get its message out for recruitment purposes and to direct the faithful. However, it could potentially go beyond this. This may sound odd, but there is always the possibility that Al Qaeda could use Western pundits to their own advantage. Specifically, rather than themselves plotting out a clear and direct course for how to drive a wedge between the US and the West, perhaps they could borrow ideas from various pundits, or capitalize in a general way on a discourse of their own making. After all, pundits have a level expertise that Al Qaeda lacks and they will be busy speculating as to how Al Qaeda might go about achieving such an end. The cruel irony is that if such a scenario comes to pass, some pundits will look very much like prophets.)
There are a few things the Americans should take heart in. First, while European public opinion is increasingly hostile to US foreign policy, there is little doubt that as a result of Madrid some of the barriers to fighting terrorism will be removed and that European government will be much more open to working with US authorities, even if only below the radar. Second, although the new diffuse, shifting and horizontal structurally nature of Al Qaeda is in many ways more difficult to deal with, the way Al Qaeda is now structured will also make it more difficult for the Al Qaeda leadership to maintain some sort of coherent operating plan and for that matter insure that its operations are carried out to their specifications. Indeed, there is some evidence that this has already hurt them. In the most recent Riyadh bombings, terrorists hit the wrong compound and as a result a Muslim compound was hit and not one housing Westerners. Needless to say, this did not play well in Saudi Arabia. Without clear lines of communication it is entirely possible that a group tied to Al Qaeda will not stay on message. Thus, while it might very well be Al Qaeda’s intention to try to drive a wedge between Europe by carefully selecting which European countries to hit, there is also chance a splinter faction could ruin everything for them by, say, targeting Spain again. Finally, there is some good news for America in so far as Chechnians seemed to have pushed the Russians firmly into the US camp. The Russians are one of the strongest backers of the War on terror.
A friend came up with an excellent suggestion. He said Spain should remove its troops from Iraq and transfer them to Afghanistan. I do not think this is going to happen though.
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Hitchens, Sullivan and Cole become unglued over Spain
Hitchens became unglued -- again --and dismissed out of hand the possibility that Al Qaeda will play favorites in Europe. http://slate.msn.com/id/2097138/ For him, the Morocco and Turkey bombings are proof enough that Al Qaeda does not discriminate. In a strange way I wish Al Qaeda was just that stupid, but, alas, they are not. According to CNN and other news sources, Al Qaeda had long thought to drive a wedge between America and its European backers, particularly Spain. I think it to goes without saying that Al Qaeda is more than smart enough to realize that targeting neutral Switzerland, or for that matter Spain again, would drive all of Europe into America’s camp. All and all, Hitchens is right to believe that Al Qaeda loathes the West in its entirety and that it may eventually target us all. However, he is just wrong to think that there is no method to their madness and that they will not act strategically. That being the case, regardless of what one thinks about the war in Iraq or American foreign policy generally, it is hard to escape the conclusion that Spain is much less likely to be attacked again now that it has pleaded to pull its troops out of Iraq.
Hitchens is also wrong about Morocco and Turkey in two respects. First, Al Qaeda did not target Muslims in either of these two countries. Their targets in Turkey were Turkey’s Jewish community and British bankers and in Morocco foreigner visitors. Two, the aim of those two attacks was drive the West out of those two countries. In this respect the fact that Muslims were also killed is gravy as far as Al Qaeda is concerned. It only helps them establish a belief amongst the population that if they what to be safe they should avoid the West.
Again, I fill strange in saying this, but my worry now is that Al Qaeda will decide to give Germany et al a mulligan on Afghanistan and will pick off America’s Iraq allies one by one. If they do this, and this, by the way, can not happen overnight, they can, if they play their cards right, make non-alignment with American Foreign policy a key election issue throughout the Western democracies. Heck, if they really wanted to, they could probably influence domestic policy to a much lesser extent (e.g., energizing non-Muslim opposition to France’s head scarf ban.)
If Al Qaeda does succeed in doing this, the alliances that the Left has forged with Europe’s Muslim community, according to an EU report the main reason for the upsurge in Anti-Semitism in the last 3 years, will become stronger and there will be an even greater upsurge in European anti Semitism. http://canadawide.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_canadawide_archive.html [Scroll down to "France's scarf Ban".]
(Read here how EU officials are trying to disguise this fact. http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F04%2F01%2Fwsemit01.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=11497
Andrew Sullivan is equally misguided in thinking that the since Al Qaeda is targeting the coalition of the willing, this is proof that pre war Iraq was a terrorist hot bed and Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked. "BIN LADEN'S VICTORY IN SPAIN" March 15 posting http://andrewsullivan.com/ This is just an aside, but I would like every one who still thinks this to say after me. There is little evidence that Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked and that, by the way, pace Hitchens, Chalabi is a lying scum bag. Now what was I saying? The reason Al Qaeda has taken up the Iraq cause is the same reason they have taken up the Palestinian cause. Like Saddam before them, Al Qaeda seeks to gain credibility within the Arab world by standing up to the West.
Sullivan and Hitchens were not the only ones to come unglued over this. Juan Cole also went off, throwing out red herring after Iraqi red herring, for entirely different reasons. http://www.juancole.com/ March 16th posting. In disparaging the reliablity of polling, Cole even engaged in a little anti intellectualism when he was unable to make a point through reasoned argument. “Although it keeps being said that the conservatives were leading in the polls before the Madrid bombings, polls are notoriously unreliable. Polls once suggested Dewey would beat Truman, too. I think the conservatives were doomed all along, and the polling just wasn't showing how unhappy people were.” I am sorry Cole but you are wrong. First, it is one thing to say that this or that poll failed to predict a close election. It is another thing altogether to say that polling routinely fails to predict that a party will loose 35 seats. Second, Spanish people were happy with the conservative party despite the fact that they took Spain into Iraq. After and because of the Madrid bombings terrorism and Iraq supplanted the economy as the number one issue and the Conservatives lost going away.
Finally, other people have suggested that the ruling party lost because it still held onto the myth that ETA was responsible even when it was clear that they were not; in other words, people were upset that they lied. Now while there is certainly a lot of truth to this, in so far as the government's stalling tactics were predictable, this does not lessen the magnitude of the Al Qaeda victory. Christ, I do not follow Spanish politics at all and I said right off the bat that such stalling tactics were likely. That being said, how likely is it that Al Qaeda, who had been thinking about the political ramifications of a bombing for months, would not come to the same conclusion as me?
(1) comments
Hitchens became unglued -- again --and dismissed out of hand the possibility that Al Qaeda will play favorites in Europe. http://slate.msn.com/id/2097138/ For him, the Morocco and Turkey bombings are proof enough that Al Qaeda does not discriminate. In a strange way I wish Al Qaeda was just that stupid, but, alas, they are not. According to CNN and other news sources, Al Qaeda had long thought to drive a wedge between America and its European backers, particularly Spain. I think it to goes without saying that Al Qaeda is more than smart enough to realize that targeting neutral Switzerland, or for that matter Spain again, would drive all of Europe into America’s camp. All and all, Hitchens is right to believe that Al Qaeda loathes the West in its entirety and that it may eventually target us all. However, he is just wrong to think that there is no method to their madness and that they will not act strategically. That being the case, regardless of what one thinks about the war in Iraq or American foreign policy generally, it is hard to escape the conclusion that Spain is much less likely to be attacked again now that it has pleaded to pull its troops out of Iraq.
Hitchens is also wrong about Morocco and Turkey in two respects. First, Al Qaeda did not target Muslims in either of these two countries. Their targets in Turkey were Turkey’s Jewish community and British bankers and in Morocco foreigner visitors. Two, the aim of those two attacks was drive the West out of those two countries. In this respect the fact that Muslims were also killed is gravy as far as Al Qaeda is concerned. It only helps them establish a belief amongst the population that if they what to be safe they should avoid the West.
Again, I fill strange in saying this, but my worry now is that Al Qaeda will decide to give Germany et al a mulligan on Afghanistan and will pick off America’s Iraq allies one by one. If they do this, and this, by the way, can not happen overnight, they can, if they play their cards right, make non-alignment with American Foreign policy a key election issue throughout the Western democracies. Heck, if they really wanted to, they could probably influence domestic policy to a much lesser extent (e.g., energizing non-Muslim opposition to France’s head scarf ban.)
If Al Qaeda does succeed in doing this, the alliances that the Left has forged with Europe’s Muslim community, according to an EU report the main reason for the upsurge in Anti-Semitism in the last 3 years, will become stronger and there will be an even greater upsurge in European anti Semitism. http://canadawide.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_canadawide_archive.html [Scroll down to "France's scarf Ban".]
(Read here how EU officials are trying to disguise this fact. http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F04%2F01%2Fwsemit01.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=11497
Andrew Sullivan is equally misguided in thinking that the since Al Qaeda is targeting the coalition of the willing, this is proof that pre war Iraq was a terrorist hot bed and Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked. "BIN LADEN'S VICTORY IN SPAIN" March 15 posting http://andrewsullivan.com/ This is just an aside, but I would like every one who still thinks this to say after me. There is little evidence that Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked and that, by the way, pace Hitchens, Chalabi is a lying scum bag. Now what was I saying? The reason Al Qaeda has taken up the Iraq cause is the same reason they have taken up the Palestinian cause. Like Saddam before them, Al Qaeda seeks to gain credibility within the Arab world by standing up to the West.
Sullivan and Hitchens were not the only ones to come unglued over this. Juan Cole also went off, throwing out red herring after Iraqi red herring, for entirely different reasons. http://www.juancole.com/ March 16th posting. In disparaging the reliablity of polling, Cole even engaged in a little anti intellectualism when he was unable to make a point through reasoned argument. “Although it keeps being said that the conservatives were leading in the polls before the Madrid bombings, polls are notoriously unreliable. Polls once suggested Dewey would beat Truman, too. I think the conservatives were doomed all along, and the polling just wasn't showing how unhappy people were.” I am sorry Cole but you are wrong. First, it is one thing to say that this or that poll failed to predict a close election. It is another thing altogether to say that polling routinely fails to predict that a party will loose 35 seats. Second, Spanish people were happy with the conservative party despite the fact that they took Spain into Iraq. After and because of the Madrid bombings terrorism and Iraq supplanted the economy as the number one issue and the Conservatives lost going away.
Finally, other people have suggested that the ruling party lost because it still held onto the myth that ETA was responsible even when it was clear that they were not; in other words, people were upset that they lied. Now while there is certainly a lot of truth to this, in so far as the government's stalling tactics were predictable, this does not lessen the magnitude of the Al Qaeda victory. Christ, I do not follow Spanish politics at all and I said right off the bat that such stalling tactics were likely. That being said, how likely is it that Al Qaeda, who had been thinking about the political ramifications of a bombing for months, would not come to the same conclusion as me?
Sunday, March 14, 2004
Spain: A major Al Qaeda victory
On the day of the Madrid bombings, I fired off the following email to a friend
"I doubt it was the ETA that carried out the bombings. Here are my reasons for thinking so.
1)They have not in past targeted people indiscriminately and they have almost always given warnings. In fact after the bombing of a supermarket killed 21 in 1987, ETA apologized and said that they had sent out a warning but that the police had not passed it on to the Media
2)The area that was targeted is working class and ETA is, if this means anything, a Marxist Leninist party.
3)ETA has almost exclusively targeted the well to do.
4)The ETA has denied responsibility and never done so before
5)Although some people have said that given the timing of the elections, it must be ETA. This explanation makes no sense. The Government in power has been quite hawkish when it comes to ETA and if it was proven that it was ETA, then the government would be more less be assured of victory. It makes more sense that Al Qaeda would carry out such a bombing at election time. The Spanish government decided to join with Bushies over the objections of 90% of its people, many of whom believed that going along with Bush would heighten the possibility of a terrorist attack. By carrying out the attack now and letting it be known that such an attack was in response to Spain’s efforts in Iraq, Al Qaeda would be dealing the Spain’s government a huge political blow. For this reason, if it starts to look more and more like Al Qaeda, the Spanish government may delay process of confirmation.
6)A bombing of this magnitude would essentially doom ETA
7)A group linked to Al Qaeda claimed responsibility"
It looks as if I was right. Al Qaeda carried out an attack 911 days after 911. That said, I must admit that I was surprised that it was enough to swing the election in favor of the socialists. The conservative party had a large lead in the polls and there was not that much time between 5 arrests and today's vote.
This is a major victory for Al Qaeda. Not only will Western populations be fearful of supporting current US policies toward the Islamic world in the future, but there is a very real chance that the new Spanish government will pull its troops out of Iraq. Put differently, if Al Qaeda plays its cards right, it could to certain degree manipulate Western populations into forcing their governments into doing Al Qaeda's political biding, whether that be leaving the Middle and East or scarping laws that ban religious head gear.
There is another thing that should be pointed out. Previously, Al Qaeda "chatter" has warned the US of an upcoming attack. This time there was no increase of chatter. If an increase of "chatter" is no longer a good indication of an upcoming attack, the US’s colour coded terrorism alert system will loose much of what current usefulness it currently has. Up until now, one of criteria authorities have used to decide what level of alert the US should be on is the level of chatter.
(0) comments
On the day of the Madrid bombings, I fired off the following email to a friend
"I doubt it was the ETA that carried out the bombings. Here are my reasons for thinking so.
1)They have not in past targeted people indiscriminately and they have almost always given warnings. In fact after the bombing of a supermarket killed 21 in 1987, ETA apologized and said that they had sent out a warning but that the police had not passed it on to the Media
2)The area that was targeted is working class and ETA is, if this means anything, a Marxist Leninist party.
3)ETA has almost exclusively targeted the well to do.
4)The ETA has denied responsibility and never done so before
5)Although some people have said that given the timing of the elections, it must be ETA. This explanation makes no sense. The Government in power has been quite hawkish when it comes to ETA and if it was proven that it was ETA, then the government would be more less be assured of victory. It makes more sense that Al Qaeda would carry out such a bombing at election time. The Spanish government decided to join with Bushies over the objections of 90% of its people, many of whom believed that going along with Bush would heighten the possibility of a terrorist attack. By carrying out the attack now and letting it be known that such an attack was in response to Spain’s efforts in Iraq, Al Qaeda would be dealing the Spain’s government a huge political blow. For this reason, if it starts to look more and more like Al Qaeda, the Spanish government may delay process of confirmation.
6)A bombing of this magnitude would essentially doom ETA
7)A group linked to Al Qaeda claimed responsibility"
It looks as if I was right. Al Qaeda carried out an attack 911 days after 911. That said, I must admit that I was surprised that it was enough to swing the election in favor of the socialists. The conservative party had a large lead in the polls and there was not that much time between 5 arrests and today's vote.
This is a major victory for Al Qaeda. Not only will Western populations be fearful of supporting current US policies toward the Islamic world in the future, but there is a very real chance that the new Spanish government will pull its troops out of Iraq. Put differently, if Al Qaeda plays its cards right, it could to certain degree manipulate Western populations into forcing their governments into doing Al Qaeda's political biding, whether that be leaving the Middle and East or scarping laws that ban religious head gear.
There is another thing that should be pointed out. Previously, Al Qaeda "chatter" has warned the US of an upcoming attack. This time there was no increase of chatter. If an increase of "chatter" is no longer a good indication of an upcoming attack, the US’s colour coded terrorism alert system will loose much of what current usefulness it currently has. Up until now, one of criteria authorities have used to decide what level of alert the US should be on is the level of chatter.
Friday, March 12, 2004
For Bertuzzi: Blame Canada?
ESPN Jim Kelly said this about the Bertuzzi suspension http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?columnist=kelley_jim&id=1757143
This what I would have said to him.
For the most part I agree with your analysis. Canadians do celebrate and foster the Hobbesian ethnic that exists in the NHL. What is more, when push comes to shove you will get many Canadians to admit just that. Of course, it would be accompanied with barbed come back that we think this is better than the off field criminality of the National Felons League. However, it is incorrect to say that American fans are not infused with same Canadian ethic. Indeed, hockey fans in the States cheer just as hard when there is a fight as Canadian fans do. The nicknames such as the Big Bad Bruins and the Board Street Bullies were terms of affection not derision and Flyer fans and Bruins fans happily referred to their teams thus. The only difference is that as a percentage of the total population there are just far fewer fans down there than up here. As a result, their acceptance of such an ethos seems a little archaic. As for American born players, one need only to review the whose who of American hockey over the last 15 years to see that American players share such an ethnic (e.g., Guerin, Tkachuk, Suter (retired), Roenick, Darren Hatcher, and Chelios)
Incidentally, I think a little bit about the Clarke Kharlamov incident during game 5 of the 1972 summit series would have boasted your argument. The series, as I am sure you know, is etched in the historical conscious of Canadians. Everyone of a certain age would be able to tell you where they were when Henderson scored the series winning goal. CBC describes the Kharlamov incident thus:
“While most incidents of on-ice violence are met with shock and disciplinary action, Bobby Clarke's slash on Soviet superstar Valeri Kharlamov's ankle has been lauded in some hockey circles as an act of heroism.
With Canada trailing in the legendary series 3-1-1 and in a dogfight in Game Six, Clarke, at the encouragement of assistant coach John Ferguson, delivered a brutal two-hand slash to Kharlamov's sore ankle. The attack proved to be the turning point in the emotionally-charged matchup.
Kharlamov, the Soviets' most skillful player, was never the same after the hack, and the Canadians rallied for a series victory. When asked about the incident years later Clarke said: "If I hadn't learned to lay on a two-hander once in a while, I'd never have left Flin Flon." The attack also cemented Canadian hockey players' reputation as thugs who won games through intimidation and violence rather than skill and finesse.”
All that said, it should be pointed out that the reaction of Vancouver fans is a far cry from way Montreal fans reacted to the Richard suspension back in 1955. CBC describes that the incident and the fallout as follows:
"The longtime Hab set the standard for snipers with an eight-point game in 1944. Few can forget his 14 all-star selections or his 1961 Hall of Fame induction. But the fiery "Rocket" Richard may best be known for the riot he sparked.
It stemmed from a March 13, 1955, game in which Richard was given a match penalty for deliberately injuring Hal Laycoe - tomahawking him over the head with his stick – and punching linesman Cliff Thompson. Richard was later suspended for the rest of the season, causing an uproar amongst Habs fans, given Richard was leading the NHL in scoring and his team was battling for first place.
The following season, NHL president Clarence Campbell was pelted with eggs while attending a game between the Canadiens and Detroit at the Montreal Forum. The game was forfeited and the arena evacuated due to an out-of-control crowd that took to the streets. A riot ensued, causing $500,000 in damage."
By contrast, some 1400 Vancouver fans have signed a petition to have Bertuzzi’s suspension reduced to only 2 playoffs rounds -- those rebels.
Turning now to the Bertuzzi incident, I do not agree with the length of Bertuzzi’s suspension. Yes, I know what you are thinking. I am a Canuck fan and have some kind of emotional investment in the team. However, hear me out. The problem I have with the Bertuzzi suspension is procedural and not substantive. Historically, the NHL has treated stick related infractions much more seriously than non stick related infractions. Hitherto, the longest suspension for an elbow, or a punch is Matt Johnson’s sucker punch for which he received 12 games. In this sense there is no point in comparing what happened to Brasher, also a completely unprecedented suspension, with what happened to Moore. What is more, the decision to factor in a victim’s health, whether in the long term or short term, is also completely without precedent. In all, Bertuzzi will miss at a minimum 13 regular season games and 4 playoff games. Potentially he could miss up to 28 playoff games and if the suspension carries into next year god knows how many regular season games. The decision to suspend Bertuzzi for the playoffs is particularly extreme. The NHL has historically been very reluctant to suspend someone for long durations during the playoffs. Claude Lemieux received only two games for what he did to Kris Draper; had he done that in the regular season. it is generally aggreed that he would likely have gotten around 10 games.
The NHL’s decision to use a knew unspecified rubric to suspend Bertuzzi is completely arbitrary and seems akin to a judge choosing without explaining himself to hand down a 50 year sentence for a crime that usually nets at most 15 years. What the NHL should have done is handed down a stiff suspension (e.g., last 13 games of the regular season 4 playoff games). Then, in the summer Bettman and company could have sat down with the players union and management and hashed out an agreement that spelled out clear criteria the league would use judge whether a player would be suspended and if so for how long. They could also spell out what penalties would be given out for publicly inciting violence. If it was then decided that the health of the victim of incident should be taken into account, fine. If it was decided that a Moore like incident warranted a 50 game suspension, that is fine too.
If the McSorely and Hunter cases proved anything, it is that far from setting the NHL on a new course the odd draconian suspension has further mudded the waters. The system for handing down suspensions is, as more than a few NHL players have already noted, even less predictable then it was before. If you sucker punch a guy, you will get anywhere from between 2 to 12 games. If on the other hand you sucker punch a guy and by some fluke the guy ends up with two fractured vertebra in the subsequent pileup, then you get the stiffest suspension ever handed down. Contrary to what Bettman might think, a fluke occurrence can not be used as precedent: after all, a fluke occurrence is by definition rare. What is worse, since fluke occurrences are by definition rare, Bertuzzi’s punishment is not likely to deter anyone from taking a shot at another player; if they think it through at all, they are going to be thinking, what are the chances. The same thing goes for the fine leveled against the Canucks. In so far, as Clarke can wax poetic about hurting Hossa and Havlet and not get punished, the message the head office is sending is that so long as someone does not end up with two fractured vertebra, such talk is permissible.
(0) comments
ESPN Jim Kelly said this about the Bertuzzi suspension http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?columnist=kelley_jim&id=1757143
This what I would have said to him.
For the most part I agree with your analysis. Canadians do celebrate and foster the Hobbesian ethnic that exists in the NHL. What is more, when push comes to shove you will get many Canadians to admit just that. Of course, it would be accompanied with barbed come back that we think this is better than the off field criminality of the National Felons League. However, it is incorrect to say that American fans are not infused with same Canadian ethic. Indeed, hockey fans in the States cheer just as hard when there is a fight as Canadian fans do. The nicknames such as the Big Bad Bruins and the Board Street Bullies were terms of affection not derision and Flyer fans and Bruins fans happily referred to their teams thus. The only difference is that as a percentage of the total population there are just far fewer fans down there than up here. As a result, their acceptance of such an ethos seems a little archaic. As for American born players, one need only to review the whose who of American hockey over the last 15 years to see that American players share such an ethnic (e.g., Guerin, Tkachuk, Suter (retired), Roenick, Darren Hatcher, and Chelios)
Incidentally, I think a little bit about the Clarke Kharlamov incident during game 5 of the 1972 summit series would have boasted your argument. The series, as I am sure you know, is etched in the historical conscious of Canadians. Everyone of a certain age would be able to tell you where they were when Henderson scored the series winning goal. CBC describes the Kharlamov incident thus:
“While most incidents of on-ice violence are met with shock and disciplinary action, Bobby Clarke's slash on Soviet superstar Valeri Kharlamov's ankle has been lauded in some hockey circles as an act of heroism.
With Canada trailing in the legendary series 3-1-1 and in a dogfight in Game Six, Clarke, at the encouragement of assistant coach John Ferguson, delivered a brutal two-hand slash to Kharlamov's sore ankle. The attack proved to be the turning point in the emotionally-charged matchup.
Kharlamov, the Soviets' most skillful player, was never the same after the hack, and the Canadians rallied for a series victory. When asked about the incident years later Clarke said: "If I hadn't learned to lay on a two-hander once in a while, I'd never have left Flin Flon." The attack also cemented Canadian hockey players' reputation as thugs who won games through intimidation and violence rather than skill and finesse.”
All that said, it should be pointed out that the reaction of Vancouver fans is a far cry from way Montreal fans reacted to the Richard suspension back in 1955. CBC describes that the incident and the fallout as follows:
"The longtime Hab set the standard for snipers with an eight-point game in 1944. Few can forget his 14 all-star selections or his 1961 Hall of Fame induction. But the fiery "Rocket" Richard may best be known for the riot he sparked.
It stemmed from a March 13, 1955, game in which Richard was given a match penalty for deliberately injuring Hal Laycoe - tomahawking him over the head with his stick – and punching linesman Cliff Thompson. Richard was later suspended for the rest of the season, causing an uproar amongst Habs fans, given Richard was leading the NHL in scoring and his team was battling for first place.
The following season, NHL president Clarence Campbell was pelted with eggs while attending a game between the Canadiens and Detroit at the Montreal Forum. The game was forfeited and the arena evacuated due to an out-of-control crowd that took to the streets. A riot ensued, causing $500,000 in damage."
By contrast, some 1400 Vancouver fans have signed a petition to have Bertuzzi’s suspension reduced to only 2 playoffs rounds -- those rebels.
Turning now to the Bertuzzi incident, I do not agree with the length of Bertuzzi’s suspension. Yes, I know what you are thinking. I am a Canuck fan and have some kind of emotional investment in the team. However, hear me out. The problem I have with the Bertuzzi suspension is procedural and not substantive. Historically, the NHL has treated stick related infractions much more seriously than non stick related infractions. Hitherto, the longest suspension for an elbow, or a punch is Matt Johnson’s sucker punch for which he received 12 games. In this sense there is no point in comparing what happened to Brasher, also a completely unprecedented suspension, with what happened to Moore. What is more, the decision to factor in a victim’s health, whether in the long term or short term, is also completely without precedent. In all, Bertuzzi will miss at a minimum 13 regular season games and 4 playoff games. Potentially he could miss up to 28 playoff games and if the suspension carries into next year god knows how many regular season games. The decision to suspend Bertuzzi for the playoffs is particularly extreme. The NHL has historically been very reluctant to suspend someone for long durations during the playoffs. Claude Lemieux received only two games for what he did to Kris Draper; had he done that in the regular season. it is generally aggreed that he would likely have gotten around 10 games.
The NHL’s decision to use a knew unspecified rubric to suspend Bertuzzi is completely arbitrary and seems akin to a judge choosing without explaining himself to hand down a 50 year sentence for a crime that usually nets at most 15 years. What the NHL should have done is handed down a stiff suspension (e.g., last 13 games of the regular season 4 playoff games). Then, in the summer Bettman and company could have sat down with the players union and management and hashed out an agreement that spelled out clear criteria the league would use judge whether a player would be suspended and if so for how long. They could also spell out what penalties would be given out for publicly inciting violence. If it was then decided that the health of the victim of incident should be taken into account, fine. If it was decided that a Moore like incident warranted a 50 game suspension, that is fine too.
If the McSorely and Hunter cases proved anything, it is that far from setting the NHL on a new course the odd draconian suspension has further mudded the waters. The system for handing down suspensions is, as more than a few NHL players have already noted, even less predictable then it was before. If you sucker punch a guy, you will get anywhere from between 2 to 12 games. If on the other hand you sucker punch a guy and by some fluke the guy ends up with two fractured vertebra in the subsequent pileup, then you get the stiffest suspension ever handed down. Contrary to what Bettman might think, a fluke occurrence can not be used as precedent: after all, a fluke occurrence is by definition rare. What is worse, since fluke occurrences are by definition rare, Bertuzzi’s punishment is not likely to deter anyone from taking a shot at another player; if they think it through at all, they are going to be thinking, what are the chances. The same thing goes for the fine leveled against the Canucks. In so far, as Clarke can wax poetic about hurting Hossa and Havlet and not get punished, the message the head office is sending is that so long as someone does not end up with two fractured vertebra, such talk is permissible.
Friday, March 05, 2004
I watched the News hour with Jim Lehrer a couple of days ago. Juan Cole (a professor from Michigan and well known Middle Eastern and Shia expert) and the Nation’s Christian Parenti were on. The subject they were discussing was the bombings the other day. Parenti had met up with some Iraqi insurgents. He claimed, as any good ideological Leftist would, that there was no way insurgents were involved and that the deed was the work of “Wahhabists”. (Some Leftists, most notably Chomsky, say that 911 was an understandable, but by no means condonable, response of a wounded beast to a cruel master. From what I can tell though, Frankenstein explanations are more popular. The dominant type of explanation has it that the US played Frankenstein to the Wahhabist monster. Without the US, they claim with some plausibility, the Saudi Monarchy would not have survived. As the predominance of Wahhabism is by product of the Saudi state and Al Qaeda a by product of extremist religious environment, the Americans can be said to have created the monster that now threatens them. This explanation has surpassed the US played Frankenstein to the Al Qaeda monster. Al Qaeda, so that argument goes, is a by byproduct of American efforts to ferment religious extremism during the Afghan War. Now, the accent of the former at the expense of the latter seems to be due to ideological reasons. Specifically, by conceiving of the monster as Wahhabi Saudi Arabia and not Al Qaeda, it is possible to accuse the administration of 1) holding a double standard in the war on terror (why just Afghanistan? Why not Saudi Arabia too?), 2) continuing to endanger its citizens by continuing to prop up the Saudi regime and 3) accuse Bush and company (the Carlyle group) of putting personal gain ahead of national security.) His evidence for this is that the insurgents he knew would never have carried out such an attack. Although he provided no such quote in the interview, he did quote an insurgent to this end in an essay. ‘We do not kill Iraqis, unless they are military interpreters or spies’ he quotes one Iraqi as saying. “To bolster his claim about not hurting Iraqis, he points out sites around Adhamiya where there have clearly been IED explosions. ‘See, there are no shops here, the roads are wide.’” One problem is that as the INC case shows words are one thing; actions are another. Another is that neither he nor his contacts are, by his own omission, in any position to say that some of Iraqi insurgents do not target Iraqis not connected with the US. According to Parenti, the resistance is “highly decentralized” and “organizationally fragmented”. Its members are isolated by fear of spies and a “lack of secure communications” and the movement lacks “ideological coherence”. Cole was right to jump down Parenti’s throat for dismissing out of hand the possibility that Iraqi insurgents were in anyway involved, but he revealed himself as a true Arabist when the downplayed the ideological coloring of the Wahhabi sect. (It seemed to me that Parenti was blinded by ideological need to characterize insurgents as pure and that none would ever stoop to the level of employing Al Qaeda like tactics or for that matter show a Bathian lack of concern for the welfare of their fellow Iraqis.)
Ideological bluster and the odd unsupported statement aside, I think Parenti is right to characterize the resistance fighters as follows. “The fighters seem to be less a movement than a collection of shamed and angry men with access to military training, weapons and targets.” If nothing else, Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi’s words of a few weeks ago jive with this interpretation. He expressed dismay at Iraqi unwillingness to swallow the Al Qaeda message.
(0) comments
Ideological bluster and the odd unsupported statement aside, I think Parenti is right to characterize the resistance fighters as follows. “The fighters seem to be less a movement than a collection of shamed and angry men with access to military training, weapons and targets.” If nothing else, Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi’s words of a few weeks ago jive with this interpretation. He expressed dismay at Iraqi unwillingness to swallow the Al Qaeda message.
