3 Year Jump

Three years have passed - and I am back to writing my little blog. Quite a lot has changed, however, more on that in future posts. Now its time to have a look at the older posts and see how well those predicted the future.
The following has happened:

• No one even remembers Bill Frisk, once considered front runner for the Republican presidential candidate in 2008. His chances were discussed here.
• Rick Santorum was the second highest ranked Republican in the Senate but lost his Senate race to a rather unknown Democrat. Reasons and predictions here, and here.
• Tom DeLay may well go to jail. Big fall from the most powerful man on the hill to a jailbird in Texas.
• The French have a new President, but seem to have lost influence in the EU. Especially to a very strong Germany. But also to Poland, Slowenia and others as predicted here.
  
• Americans only get a more and more censored view of the world. AP now censors photographs, the Pentagon sends out fake experts to news stations and so on and on. Not new, already discussed here and here.

Not too bad for a little spare time blog from 3 years ago.
I'll write more in the future - hopefully I'll have enough time for it.

Black Press Wednesday

Today Judy Miller of the New York Times was send to jail for refusing to give up the source of information she gathered. Its a sad day for the freedom of the press. Normally journalists get jailed in countries in the developing world - and the outcry is huge here in the developed western world.

But not too many people seem to be worried when a journalist is jailed for protecting its source here in the USA. It's a sad day for the freedom of the press, it is even worse for society - who will talk to journalists when those journalists are threatened with jail - just for keeping their sources secret?!

Judy Miller is an interesting case - it shows the hypocrisy of many liberals (and many liberal bloggers). They would bash the administration if anyone critical of the administration would go to jail. But Judy Miller has been quite supportive of many Bush administration policies in her writings - and thus the liberals don't care and even bash her for protecting her sources. But they would cry foul if it a similar thing would happen in Algeria, Pakistan, China...

Remember, Judy Miller is going to jail for protecting her sources - she has committed no crime.

Shame on you Time magazine - for being a coward that seems to have given up on the idea of a free press.

Regulating Pot

Yesterday the supreme court decided that marihuana can in effect not be used as a drug in the US, even if some states have regulations that permit the use of marihuana when prescribed by a physician.

I wonder why the government needs any regulation for pot. People that use it are adults, if they want to be potheads - let them. They are not destroying my health, they do not put our society in danger, they do not do anything that puts a strain on public life. Let them have their pot.

Legalizing (or simply not enforcing pot laws) has several advantageous side effects:

• It frees a large part of the law enforcement from handling pot cases, leaving more time for serious offenses (rape, murder etc.)
• It takes the fear from the pot user, permitting him/her a better live without criminal convictions (and eventually a better integration into a pot-free part of society)
• It reduces crime because no criminal acts have to be committed in order to get the pot or the money for the pot

Of course there has to be some enforcement (for instance in traffic law) but generally decriminalizing the average pot user has advantages for society. You think it can't done? Ask your Dutch friends what effect decriminalizing pot had on their society.

Sometimes less government and fewer regulations are better.

Get Rid of the Lie...uh...DeLay

Here is something I have been wondering about: why does the Republican Party want to be associated with a person that has shown several ethical lapses? Is it the 'moral values' the Republicans preach? Or is it the parties requirement to keep its donors and sponsors coffers open?

Here is some background: Tom DeLay the House majority leader has been admonished by the house ethics committee several times. Noting very serious, but serious enough that at least some Republican member of the house ethics committee voted with his Democratic colleagues to admonish DeLay. (Here are the rules of the ethics committee)

Now there are new allegations about DeLay (CNN, MSNBC, Houston Chronicle):

• he supposedly took trips paid for by lobbyists, which is prohibited by house rules
• his associates illegally transferred money between Texas and Washington, and his associates face convictions for their action (DeLay is still investigated and may face possible criminal charges)

Also noteworthy is DeLays attempt to change the House ethics rules in order to prevent his admonishment by the House ethics committee. His action made the Republican house leadership the laughing stock of Washington and resulted in a backlash that ended with the reinstatement of the old House ethics committee rules.

Now here is what I do not understand: How can the party accept being dragged down by a single person? DeLay is cited over and over again for his ethics rule violations, and as a consequence it appears that only Republicans violate those rules. The media focus the attention on DeLay such that by the day it seems more like the Republicans and the Republican Party has very low ethics standards. (How come there is no control in the Republican Party that prevents that such lapses appear first in the House and not in a party committee?)

For the sake of the Party, get rid of Tom DeLay as the House Majority leader. No one person is that important that the Party's name can be dragged into the dirt just because of his or her loose standards and low ethical values. DeLay is damaging the Party, and it may be better to let him go now than to have this circus going on anytime longer. DeLay may not be guilty -- but even then is he damaging the party more than he is helping at the moment.

Tom, do the Republicans another favor - resign.

Protected from Science

The administration has intervened to prevent the publication of a research paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Then topic was bioterrorism readiness and especially the safety of our food supply. The study was done by Lawrence M. Wein, an economics professor at Stanford.

The study concluded that it is very easy to poison milk with botulinum (that's right the same stuff as in Botox), leading to a high number of affected people and potentially killing a high number of people that consume the tainted milk.

The study was discussed in an op-ed piece in the New York Times (now in the archive), but the full piece is available here (pdf). CNN also picked up the story. (Here is a paper on botulinum as a biological weapon.)

This is the first time the government has directly intervened to prevent the publication in the interest of national security. However, if you are just a bit proficient in biology it is not too difficult to imagine how such an attack might be done. It may also be necessary to remind our government that its role is not to prevent the publication of such a story, but to prevent (through regulations etc.) that such an attack is possible. So, secure our milk supply (because this story shows a big hole), secure our ports (cargo is still not screened), secure our planes (cargo...). There is enough to do for the government to secure the homeland and its pace was slow in the last four years. Get to work...

Such studies as the one mentioned above should be encouraged, they identify the weak spots and are invaluable for a safe and secure America. Dear Researchers, go on with such studies, and don't be intimidated by the government - future generations will thank you for your work.

Learn to fly......with Jesus

I am worried about our military, especially the Air Force. A study by Yale University has shown that the Air Force Academy has a problem with Evangelical Christians, which seem to have infiltrated the Academy.

The Associated Press reported several incidents:

• The No. 2 commander has been reprimanded for promoting National Prayer Day.
• Evangelical Christians have harassed cadets who do not share their faith.
• There have been anti-Semitic slurs.
• One of the top chaplains at the school was fired because she criticized proselytizing at the academy (so she claims).

There is another very disturbing report in the Washington Post and a story in USA Today. Those allegations are not new, most were originally contained in a report by the Yale Divinity School. (How bad is it that a Christian religious institution complains about Christian religious intolerance?!?) A paper from AU (pdf) is available. Some people are actually fuming that the story is such a stir, here (part II, III), here and here too (poor ideologues).

The reason I am worried is that our Air Force is weakened in two respects. First the onslaught of proselytizing evangelicals may make our Air Force weak when it comes to defending the country. What do you think those people are tend to defend, their faith or their country? Well, in such circles it is usually 'I am a Christian first...'! Of course, that leaves us (and the Air Force) weak on the real assignment to defend our country. It may also discourage smart and sharp people from other religious backgrounds from enlisting in the Air Force, leaving it as an average defense institution. Clearly that is too weak for our American standards.

The second reason is that religious intolerance seems to be permeating larger and larger parts of our governmental institutions. The AFA may be the first example of this, and there may be more to come. This is of course a dangerous path, and action by the government may be required in the future. Nothing drastic, but some steps towards reducing the religious influences on our government. For the military there is already a precedent that could be used: Don't Ask Don't Tell. It would have to be modified of course: You can worship and do whatever you want to satisfy your religious needs (even at the military), but as soon as it starts impacting your service or other soldiers you are out. (Such a solution is unlikely with the present administration being led by a born-again Christian, but Rumsfeld may have the stamina to push some things through.)

Let's hope the Air Force gets its act cleaned up. Soon. We need a strong Air Force for the large challenges ahead.

The Baguette Pipe-Dream

The French don't seem to get it. They talk nice and things sound good - but when it comes to practice they are weasels. A good point to observe this was last weekends referendum on the European constitution. The French voted against adopting the proposed constitution, killing the prospect of establishing a European constitution for the foreseeable future.

Now remember the last few years: Talk of a new world order, the European Union (EU) as a power center in the world (the others being the US and China), the EU as a mediator and supporter to the sensical approach to world politics, guided by higher standards of morale in politics. All that of course under the leadership of the French.

Well, you can surely shoot yourself in the foot, and the French appear to be masters in that discipline. Not only did they kill of all the ideas mentioned above, they also disqualified themselves as leaders in Europe. I already see some European conventions where proposals by the French can be rejected by ...... (Spain/Sweden/Slovenia/Malta...fill in your favorite EU country) just by referencing their fast adoption of the EU constitution. I'd love to see the faces of the French delegation when that happens. :-))

Of course the EU will remain strong. France will lose some of its influence and its 'moral' leadership. The empty power spot left by France will be filled by some other country, probably Spain, Poland or Sweden or shared between those countries. The center of the EU may also shift, away from the French-German center to some other area, away from its western border. And the French can thank themselves for that.

But the biggest twist in the story is that the French gave a moral victory to the man they love to hate. President Bush is certainly pleased with the referendum: It clearly showed the world that trusting the French is not really wise, your fate is much better if you trust an established power such as the US. And it showed that people riding high on the wave of popularism fall deep and leave a broken promises behind.

Government Control and the (In-)Dependent Media

Here in the US we can be proud of a long tradition of free media. The media is permitted to write what they like, as long as they adhere to accepted standards, especially in reporting the news unbiased and based on facts. The Media even have the right to criticize the government, and they can also report on issues that the government would rather keep from the American citizens. It's known as 'Freedom of the Press', and it is an ingrained principle of our democracy.

We treat that principle highly and even scold other countries that do not adhere to it. Recently Russia was the country often criticized by our leaders for its increase in government control over the media there. Other countries are criticized regularly as well, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.

However, the principle of free media is also assaulted in another part of the world, and this is not widely reported. I am talking about the United States here, and I am deeply worried about our 'Free Press'. Today I'll write about government influences, a later article will deal with self-censorship.

The (current) administration is surely no media darling. As such, it is subject to a lot of criticism, some of which may be justified, while some may be not. However, when truly critical stories appear the administration tries to influence what is actually reported. Press conferences are held, and the speaker of the White House or the Pentagon deliver their (biased) views, which are uncritically reported in many media outlets. Funny thing is that the information given by the administration is often false and many of those press conferences are pure propaganda. Accountability on the administrations side does not seem to be important, a lot of the original critical stories turn out to be correct after all. But Americans do not seem to care.

One specific and very illuminating case is the recent Newsweek report on the abuse of the Koran in Guantanamo Bay. Here is a timeline: (This is an abbreviated version, only news relevant to the media are covered. A full timeline can he found here (up to the retraction) and here.)

• May 2 : Newsweek reports the military is investigating the abuse of the Koran in Guantanamo
• The days following the report: No public reaction, and no challenge to the story
  
• May 11: Anti-American Protests in Afghanistan and Pakistan
• May 12: Condolezza Rice states that the Koran is treated with respect in the US. The military reports that no evidence of abuse has been found.
  
• May 12-15: mounting pressure on Newsweek (news stories, TV coverage etc.)
• May 15: Newsweek apologizes
• May 16: Newsweek retracts story
• May 16-22: Retraction is widely reported in around the world. Asian/Moslem News outlets claim that the retraction is a political maneuver and is not based on facts
  
• May 22: The Los Angeles Times reports about the abuse of the Koran in Guantanamo
• May 25: The ACLU releases details about the abuse, taken from government documents
• May 26: The Pentagon is forced to confirm that the Koran was abused in Guantanamo
  

So, it turns out the Newsweek story was correct in most parts after all. Why did they retract the story? The administration put a lot of pressure on Newsweek, forcing them to retract the story and to apologize for the deaths of innocent Afghans. All that while the administration knew that the Newsweek story is mostly correct, thus lying about the facts in Guantanamo and deceiving Americans.

What we have here is a story in which the government tried to force the media to stop reporting unpleasant news. The government showed no respect for the freedom of the press, even worse, it tried to force its own manipulated propaganda story on the media. The entire Newsweek incident shows that the government is trying to control the media, and does not take the freedom of the press very seriously. It also shows that our government does not care much about the truth.

Who lost in this story?

• Several people lost their lives.
• The administration lost its credibility when dealing with the media.
• Newsweek lost its credibility for accurate reporting, not for the story itself, but rather for backing down under government pressure and retracting the story
• The US lost further credibility in the world and will encounter more and more resistance to its claims (Iranian Nukes, Russian Free Media...)
• The American media, as it shows that they are susceptible to governmental pressure and deception.
  

'Freedom of the Press' is under assault in America. And we should start caring about it

Thank God for the ACLU. Seriously.

We should all be thankful for the ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union. I think it is even right to thank God for this organization. Not only do they work to preserve the civil liberties of the average American, oh no, they are also helping to preserve that religious matters are taken seriously. And for that we should thank God.

The ACLUs effect is clearly felt this week, especially if you follow the news. The ACLU was the first to publish substantiated reports about the treatment of religious items in an American military prison. And that treatment was not good: the Holy Book was not treated with respect. So, lets thank God for the ACLUs effort to bring the issue to the light.

The Holy Book I am talking about is the Koran, which is more important to Muslims than the Bible is to Christians. And abusing such a Holy Item is clearly a sin, even if it is not a Holy Item in our religion. Such treatment and abuse brings shame to our faith, and we should not accept this. So let us thank God for the ACLU and pray for the sinners that abuse religious items in our name.

AI, AI, AI

Amnesty International (AI) released its 2005 report yesterday. And wants you to believe that Human Rights are in retreat. And they represent one country as an example that you wouldn't expect to see there: the United States of America.

So, we got on the list as the bad example, not the one to follow! How come? Here are some reasons:

• The president has unlimited and uncontrollable powers, as such he can declare anyone an 'enemy combatant', taking away their constitutional rights. (Only dictatorships permit similar measures.)
  
• The US does not apply justice equally, it wants its government and all people dealing on its behalf exempt from prosecution for crimes. Thus, the US does not participate in the International Criminal Court, even though all participants rights are as well protected as in the US judicial system. (Putting us at a level with Libya and China. Even Afghanistan recognizes the court now.)
• We permit detainment of any non-US citizen without access to the judicial system.
• Torture is used as a technique on detainees, even though it was renamed (now sensoric manipulation or putting detainees in stress situations/positions)
  
• The US randomly kidnaps what it considers suspects in the 'war on terror'. Those people are usually transferred to countries that permit torture, to better get 'information'. Several mishaps occurred: A German national was kidnapped and held, leading to tensions in US-German relations (similar problems with Italy). Other reports here and here.
  
• And, of course (its amnesty, what do you think), the death penalty and police brutality.

All that information actually went over our news channels, and (as with many other international news stories) I think correctly represents the facts. However, not that many people here in the US seem to care. Or to care enough, since those facts probably don't apply to you or anyone you know. Problem is that that's the start of human rights getting more and more elusive.

We may not think much about those stories, but America usually sets the standards in the world, and it would be a really bad example to set a low or weakening standard on human rights. I certainly like writing those lines without any fear of being jailed by my government tomorrow, and that should be so for everyone in the world. Sadly, that is not the case. The situation in other countries is much, much worse than it is here.

Cherish what we've got, but don't forget that many fight with their lives on the line for the freedom we already enjoy. And take a look at the AI report, it's a sad but necessary read.

How American Heroes Die ... Twice.

Ever noticed how some stories are not big news? There is a story to be told but nobody is interested enough to really tell it? Such a story just surfaced Monday, when it was revealed that Pat Tillman's family had several issues with the army's investigation into Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan in April 2004.

But that is not the real story. The real story is the abuse of media power by the Pentagon. Remember the big news-topic of April and May 2004? Yes? No? It was the pictures from Abu Ghraib, and the news was not good. America was (and still is) loosing the war in Iraq, but at least one could believe that America was helping Iraq on its way to democracy.

So what better to come along than the story of a true hero, one that was killed fighting an enemy of coward terrorists? One that gave up a privileged live to serve his duty to his country? One hero that truly stood principles. Such as honor and dignity and liberty for all.

Guess what, that story came around. Told by the Pentagon, and quickly picked up by the media. Our true hero, dying fighting the enemy. And some of the heroism fell on the fellow members of our forces. And thus a story was born in order to take away the blemishes form our armed forces.

It took about a month until first reports occurred that our hero may have died in a friendly fire incident. (You can read that report here.) It doesn't make the soldier less of a hero, he died fighting for his country. But now even the hero's family is convinced that details of his death were withheld and that they were deceived by the Pentagon. The top rank in the military knew that he died in a friendly fire incident, but withheld the truth until after his funeral service, which was nationally televised. All that, it now appears, was a staged PR stunt in order to stop suspicion about our armed forces, which surely couldn't be abusers of defenseless prisoners when they had such heroes in their ranks. (Good for our souls or are we also potential abusers? Or murderers? Or permit such abuse in our name?)

The Pentagon and the army brass (and probably the political elite) abused a true hero for political and ideological gain. Abusing his noble intentions for political games. Having his name appear in a big political lie. They put his name into the dirt, forever tarnishing his name. Our hero, in the gutter.
Murdered a second time.

Frisk Fry...?

The compromise on the filibuster for judicial nominees in the Senate has had its share of publicity. And many of the actors involved made their feelings on the issue public. However, I doubt that all the members of the senate truthfully disclosed their opinion. So, for one, lets take a look at Senator Frisk from Tennessee, who is also the majority leader in the Senate.

As the majority leader, Mr. Frisk had a lot at stake in this issue, but did neither advance nor prevent a compromise. He also hinted that he would prefer a vote on the filibuster, and as such he would have preferred the nuclear option. But a careful reconsideration of the facts shows different view than the one advocated by Mr. Frisk.

First, Mr. Frisk would have to bear most of the Democrats' rage against the Republican leadership if the filibuster would have been scraped. The Democrats would make sure that Mr. Frisk is well known throughout the country - but with a bad aftertaste, because his actions changed the rules and traditions of the senate and brought ideologues to judicial benches. As a consequence, Mr. Frisk would appear to be a right-wing, ideologically driven senator to large parts of the population. Mr. Frisk also needs a working relationship with is fellow Democratic senators, which is hard to maintain if you take away their (minority) rights.

Then there are the moderate Republican senators, and they don't really like to change the rules of the senate. A certain amount of pressure would thus be necessary to convince those senators to vote in favor of doing away with the filibuster for judicial nominees. Of course, they would like to have something in return. What? Here are some examples: Moderate candidates for the Supreme Court, no vote on gay marriage and no change in abortion laws. In the end a vote on the filibuster would cost Mr. Frisk in the long run, because several issues could become non-issues.

Thirdly, there are the Republican senators running for re-election in 2006. They might support a vote on the filibuster, but Senators from several states might feel the heat from supporting Mr. Frisk on the filibuster, especially in the Northeast and the West. As a consequence, they would expect especially strong support in their re-election campaign from Mr. Frisk. That means time on the Senate floor on high profile issues (such as homeland security etc.) and a lot of dough for their campaign fonds, which at least in part Mr. Frist would have to collect. Take Pennsylvania as an example. Senator Santorum is up for re-election in 2006 and is already running behind his challenger. And it would be hard to explain why he supported Mr. Frisk on this issue, especially since it is unclear how his fellow Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, would have voted. All that in a state that has consistently elected moderates in the last five years.

All those issues appear minor and are expected to occur in normal political discourse. As such, Mr. Frisk's advocated views on the change in the senate rules appear to be what is expected from the Senate Majority Leader in such circumstances. But there are some other facts that also bear heavily on the issue: Mr. Frisk would like to run for President in 2008. And in this position as a presidential candidate his views on changing the senate rules appear suspicious. Mr. Frisk would have a lot to loose if the senate rules were changed:

1. Democrats would make sure that Mr. Frisk is known as right-wing ideologue with no respect for minority rights. That makes Mr. Frisk unelectable in large parts of the country, hurting his presidential bid enormously.
2. Moderate Senators would be less likely to fully support Mr, Frisk's bid for president if he forced them to vote for the rule change in the senate. Those Senators are usually from moderate states (Maine, Rhode Island, Arizona) and would need to fight for their reputation in their home states. That of course is bad news for Mr. Frisk's presidential campaign, since those states tend to tip elections. A lack of clear support from the senators from such states would dramatically reduce Mr. Frisks chances of getting elected (at least in those states).
3. If the filibuster rule change had passed Mr. Frisk would be required to support Republican Senators up for re-election in 2006 to a greater extend than he has to do now. This of course leaves more time for his campaign for president and more of the money he collects can go towards his presidential bid.
4. It is unclear how a vote on the filibuster would end. A failure to get the rule change through would reflect badly on the Republican leadership in the senate, especially Mr. Frisk as the Majority Leader. This of course would damage Mr. Frisks standing in the party and effectively end all presidential aspirations he might have.

The point illustrated is this: Nobody benefits as much from the compromise as Mr. Frisk. In fact, the compromise is a godsend for him. It does not hamper his presidential aspirations while ensuring that his standing in the Republican party remains unchallenged. Why then Mr. Frisk's indication that he would have preferred a vote? Well, there is President Bush, who wanted his judicial nominees confirmed, and whose support is essential for Mr. Frisk's election campaign. And there is also the right wing of the Republican party and their supporters (who, incidentally are whining about the compromise), and Mr. Frisk for sure would like to have their support for his presidential bid. Therefore he had to bend the truth a bit and can't really say that the compromise is an excellent resolution to the situation from his point of view.

In fact, those bendings of the truth prove that he is truly presidential material, as lying to the public seems to be one of the core requirements for successful politicians those days.