Random Points on Lebanon

This morning the BBC is reporting that Israel bombed a UN observer post killing four UN observers. Records indicate that the observers asked Israel to stop shelling at least four times as the bombs fell closer to their post.

In other news, it appears that the Lebanese government has adopted at least four conditions to a cease fire that our consistent with Hezbollah's demands. Among them: Israel must relinquish Shebba Farms which they currently occupy, Israel must release three Lebanese prisoners, and must end fly overs in Lebanon's airspace.

On the US end, Condi Rice failed to advocate for an immediate cease fire and instead said the US wants some sort of global deal. This combined with the US' delay in sending someone to Lebanon, and evidence indicating that an invasion of Lebanon was cleared by the Bush administration months ago, suggests to many that the US is willing to let Israel continue its incursion into Lebanon in the hopes that it will weaken Hezbollah, and by association Iran and Syria. I fear this tactic will only cement anti -US sentiment throughout the region.

Duhhh...

This morning USA Today, ran an editorial stating that Congress has its priorities skewed. More precisely, the paper of record for the information challenged suggested that Congress was not really serving the public interest as it debated repealing the estate tax, which would benefit only the wealthiest of the wealthy, and failed to raise the minimum wage, which stands at its lowest inflation adjusted point since 1955.

UT actually used some strong language and even suggested that Congress had been corrupted by big money interests. Ya think....

Back to Beirut

This morning, news outlets are reporting that over 350 civilians have died during Israel's bombing of southern Lebanon. At one point, an Israeli missile hit a bus carrying refugees and three were killed. While Israel has temporarily lifted its blockade to allow the Red Cross to bring supplies into major cities, Israel has refused (as of this writing) to guarantee the safety of Red Cross convoys bringing supplies to the actual sites of bombings.

At least one commentator from a center right think tank in Jerusalem has suggested that Israel's massive bombing attack was designed to motivate the UN to place a peacekeeing force in southern Lebanon. This is a change of course for Israel, who had previously scoffed at the PLO's requests for international peacekeepers. Apparently, Israel feels that anti- Arab sentiment in the US and Europe will strengthen its hand in this regard.

Stop the Whine

I am now officially sick of Sen. Joe Liebermann's whining. The junior democratic senator from Connecticut (and his friends) keep going on about how he is some sort of victim, how he is the focus of cruel attacks and bitter partisanship. BS.

Get over yourself Joe.

Did you really think that you could embrace one of the least succesful and most unpopular President's in American history, support one of the least popular wars in American history and your Democratic constituents would just turn the other cheek and figure you knew better than they? Earth to Joe, when elected officials take stands that are wildly unpopular with their constituency, they risk losing their jobs.

Climb down off the cross already. This isn't about the politics of personal destruction. This is about you being out of touch with the people who elect you and foregtting that a dozen years in the Senate does not entitle you to employment for life.

We Need Hero

As regular readers will remember, we praised Alberto Mora, the General Counsel of the Navy for his principled stand against torture by Us Forces. Yesterday, he received an award from the Kennedy Foundation, and part of his acceptance speech bears repeating:

"Cruelty disfigures our national character. It is incompatible with our constitutional order, with our laws, and with our most prized values. Cruelty can be as effective as torture in destroying human dignity, and there is no moral distinction between one and the other.”

Can't Help Myself

I' m sorry, I just can't help myself.

In the wake of the Bush Administration's decision to afford the detainees at Gitmo the protections of the Geneva Convention, USA Today again allowed its readers to comment. Perhaps predictably, the posts recommended euthanizing the detainees, whom they termed "terrorists" and "proven enemies" of the US, and suggested that "we treat them like they treat us." Now, I realize that this type of forum tends to the extremes of the political spectrum and that USA Today's demographic occupies the farther ends of the Bell Curve but a few point are worth making:

• I am not sure that the behavior of a bunch of lawless jihadists is a benchmark for the behavior of U.S soldiers. They are blinded by a religious fervor that divides the world into believers and infidels. The latter being pretty much disposable. We are a nation of laws with, at least in theory, a respect for the dignity of all life.
• While you may call them what you will, the vast majority of the Gitmo detainees have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime. While the Administration would have us believe they are the "worst of the worst," no one has actually bothered to try and prove that in the past four years. ( I guess they want us to take their word for it. That system works ... in Russia.)

Perhaps the bigger point here is that, were you a Martian seeking to learn about the United States and you looked at this group of webposts, I suspect that the differences between us and our so called enemies would be almost imperceptible.

A Point Worth Arguing?

This weekend's violence was some of the worst in the past six months in Iraq. More US soldiers were killed and a Shia militia went on a shooting rampage in a Sunni neighborhood. This morning a bomb in Baghdad claimed more lives.

On top of all this, the military has arrested yet another soldier in the rape/murder of an Iraqi family. Interestingly, it seems the military is very interested in the age of the girl allegedly raped and then shot by US forces. Her birth certificate says she was 14. However, some neighbors said she was 15 or perhaps closer to 20. The military is hot on the trail of this information. I can see why. It is one thing to be a rapist and a murderer. Quite another to be a rapist, murder and pedarest.

As George Will poinetd out a while ago, this is precisely where the hostile occupation of a country leads us. It is where Algeria led the French, India led the British and Vietnam led the United States. It is a place where hairs must be split in the face of catastrophe. A place where every new atrocity must be defended with increasingly attenuated arguments.

There are people who supported this war and continue to support it. There are people who voted for George Bush in 2004 because he would keep us safe. These people are businesspeople, parents, neighbors, boyfriends and girlfriends. Many of them will tell you they go to church each Sunday and proudly call themselves Christians. They are people right at the center of American life and they appear morally depraved.

This Is Really Incredible...

Today, USA Today posted General Barry McCafferty's report on the Guantanomo Prison Camp. As has been their custom, USA Today then provided a reader forum. One reader responded:

"YOU CAN'T DEAL HUMANELY WITH SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T RESPECT LIFE, KILL THEM ALL AND LET GOD SORT THEM OUT!" (all caps in original).

Congratulations. Someone finally got "respect life" and "kill them all " in one sentence. Buffoon.

Or Maybe Some of Those Hallmark Balloons ....

This week, the LA Times reported that the civilian death toll in Iraq may have topped 50,000, or about 15 Iraqis for every American who died on 9/11. (Proprtionately, this is the equivalent of having 600,000 American die in the last three years). The Times used data from the morgues in major Iraqi cities but acknowledged that many morgues in Northern Iraq do not report their numbers. This raises the question, has enough blood been shed that Americans feel safe? To find out, we traveled to Elk Grove, Il and asked Bush supporter Christine Blowfish, who reported that she voted for the President in 2004 because he made her feel safe in the wake of 9/11. Blowfish, who was shopping for a new cell phone in a suburban strip mall, told us, "Safe? Yes, I suppose I feel safer than I did back then. But that is not the end of it. I need to feel... I don't know ....heroic too. I need to feel like we were right and I want the Iraqi's to acknowledge the tremendous sacrifice we made in invading their country. I mean safe is only part of it, I need to be proud too." Asked how the Iraqi's could repay our kindness, Blowfish paused and said, well, "I will leave that up to them, but I would think a nice gift card,to the Coach Outlet or something..."

Sex In The Middle of the Road

This morning I read an article about the efforts of some Christian groups to get further federal support for programs that encourage celibacy. I really can't figure out who has done more damage: the neo puritans who make sex dirty outside of their carefully perscribed parameters, or the purveyors of our soft porn consumer culture who have made sex so very un sexy. Its odd, we are definetly a sex infatuated culture. We are infatuated with having it (often in some highly stylized way) or telling other people not to have it (mostly in some highly pious way). The lack of a middle ground does not bode well.

Get Your War On...

Last week, USA Today ran a piece on the increasing sophistication and boldness of the drug cartels in Mexico. According to the story, the drug cartels have amassed an arsenal of military weapons, have vast numbers of public officials on the payroll and do not hesitate to flex their muscle. Along with the story, there was an interactive feature that allowed readers to comment. I would say about half the posts suggested that we need to get "tougher" on drug sellers and users. Some even called for the military to become involved. (Folks wanted the military to become involved in Katrina relief too. It seems that engaging the armed services is our answer to everything now.)

It is difficult to imagine that anyone could read the USA Today story (carefully written in seventh grade English with nice short paragraphs) and come away with the conclusion that we just need to ratchet up the War on Drugs. Since president Nixon declared war ion 1972, our outlays of money to combat drug use have expanded exponentially, now topping $40 billion a year. Our jails are packed to the ceilings thanks to mandatory minimum sentences, we have catered to many a warlord in Afghanistan and Latin America in order to secure their help in shutting down the drug trade, and our Fourth Amendment protections have been consistently scaled back as evidenced by the demise of the "knock and announce" rule. The result? Drug lords are now more powerful than ever. Drugs are stronger and more readily available and while surveys show that our interest in particular drugs waxes and wanes, we are far from being a narcotic free society. Yet, all we hear in the public square is the cry for more enforcement, harsher sentences, more para military tactics and more money.

The reason for the one sided debate is not hard to discern. Saying "more of the same" is easy. No one likes drug lords, or drug pushers, we all will admit that even the recreational use of drugs is a vice that carries certain risks and we all admit that drug use by folks prone to addiction can be devastating if not deadly. No one is really going to stand up for drug use. The trouble is, Piety Road has gotten us nowhere. We have not made any significant progress in wiping out drug use, we have not made drugs less available, and we have paid a tremendous price in dollars, liberty, and our stature abroad for our efforts. If you were running a business and you saw this mix of investment and results, I suspect heads would roll and some plans would change.

Americans will never really agree on drug use. Some see it as a scourge, a sin, a sign of weak character. Others see it as a harmless social vice, a matter of personal choice, and perhaps even some sort of acceptable cognitive enhancement. We all have our vision of the good life and we are just never going to sing from the same hymnal on this issue. But there are some things I believe we can agree on.

First, we have to agree that Americans like to take the edge off, get high, catch a buzz, get a good nights sleep, or what have you. Whether it is Tennessee Whiskey, British Columbian pot, Ambien, or the valium our doctor so helpfully prescribed, Americans like their narcotics. There are a lot of reasons for this, not the least of which is that our particular brand of late capitalism breeds a whole lot of anxiety, alienation and despair. It also breeds an appetite for constant enhancement of any experience. Like sex? Try it with Viagara ...or Ecstasy. Like the symphony? Listen to it stoned. Enjoy a quiet day in your back yard? Take a valium and you will forget the office, the kids, and your aunt Gracie in the nursing home. A good meal? Everything is better with the right wine or the perfect scotch. Your workout? We have a whole host of things that will make you lift more, run longer, and play harder. Trouble sleeping... millions of Americans have found the answer in a pill bottle .. after seeing a prime time commercial featuring oh so well rested actors. Let's face it, chemicals make the jokes funnier, the colors richer, our friends more charismatic. our thoughts more lucid, and our lives so much more enjoyable. Americans have no real qualm with enhancing their quality of life chemically. We would not have a "Drug War" if there was not an insatiable appetite for narcotics in this country and no one would be interested in getting into a mean and dangerous business if there was not serious change involved. Lastly, Big Pharma would not have the sales numbers it enjoys if we Americans did not relish the fact that many pharmaceuticals serve no other purpose than to make life more liveable. Demand is driving supply. Live with it.

Second, I suspect we can all agree that government does not do a very good job of protecting people from themselves. Prohibition is the usual example of this but there are others. The bottom line seems to be that no matter how much you spend and no matter how much of a moral sanction you attach to certain conduct, people tend to follow their own desires and ethics. You may change some behavior, but not a lot and not for a very long time. This is particularly true with the War On Drugs because, wittingly or unwittingly, often the public messages of our drug warriors do not square with scientific facts and often do not even square with everyday experience. Thus, we tend to undermine our own best p.r. efforts.

Third, and I know we can all agree on this, even though we may not be able to stop people from taking drugs, we can certainly mitigate the societal cost of drug use. We can certainly maintain that it is a crime to sell drugs to minors whose brain chemistry and judgment is still maturing. As with alcohol, we can make it a crime to engage in any number of activities while under the influence: driving, hunting, flying a plane.

One would like to think that substantial agreement on these issues would outweigh the moral divide over the use of drugs. Unfortunately, prohibitionists have a powerful jones which they are unable to shake -- the bogus image of a pure America free of vice and largely free of the social conditions that nurture it. That's probably one addiction we should outlaw.