None but the dead

(h/t to the Washington Monthly, Kevin Drum)

In 1904, disgusted by the aftermath of the Spanish-American War and the subsequent Philippine-American War, Mark Twain wrote a short anti-war prose poem called "The War Prayer." His family begged him not to publish it, his friends advised him to bury it, and his publisher rejected it, thinking it too inflammatory for the times. Twain agreed, but instructed that it be published after his death, saying famously:

None but the dead are permitted to tell the truth.

The publisher of the Washington Monthly made "The War Prayer" into a short video which can be seen here.

The most poignant part is where the Messenger delivers the other side of the prayer for victory:

O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

Posted by pdmccaul [General] ( May 26, 2008 03:04 PM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

3/12 Viewpoint and Administrative Notice

For all the two people that probably read this blog, I am sad to say that I only will be posting my Viewpoint columns for the Technician from this point on. School comes first, and with the apparent flakiness of some of my fellow columnists, I may have to start writing a little more for the paper.

But I'll stop now, before I break down into some maudlin sentimentality.

So here's my 3/12 Viewpoint column.


Posted by pdmccaul [General] ( March 12, 2008 11:24 AM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

Administrative Nonsense

Against my better judgment, I'm opening comments again.  I look forward to the offers for free drugs that will no doubt plague this blog, but what will be will be.

Stay tuned for more political discussion, musings, and, apparently, free drugs.


Posted by pdmccaul [General] ( January 16, 2008 01:14 PM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

About Me/the Blog

My name is Paul, and I am a junior double-majoring in nuclear engineering and sociology.  While not directly relevant to my intended career path into oncology, I follow current events and politics with great interest, and would probably be considered a centrist social libertarian and left-centrist economic socialist.

The title of this blog is a tip of the cap to George Orwell's dystopic novel 1984, which greatly influences my political outlook.  I have altered one of the three parts of Oceania's slogan: Ignorance is Strength.  The parenthetical (NOT) is essentially my interpretation of ignorance: since parenthetical information in sentences can be ignored without changing the meaning of the sentence (technically clause, if I recall), the (NOT) indicates how a little knowledge can be a dangerous and depressing thing.  This is where I get the centrist social libertarian views, as I see the government as having more than just a purpose in the common defense and civil maintenance; however, I also am an advocate of maximizing the legality of individual choices.  Thus, I see modern social issues like gay marriage and abortion as social devices that should be legal, but ultimately rest on individual choice; however, I do not believe that the government has any right to invade constitutionally granted rights unless pertinent to the reasonable investigation of malfeasance.

Boy, that was a mouthful.  As to the left-centrist economic socialism, my interpretation of sociological phenomena tends to rely on Marxist arguments about inequality.  I believe that there is no good reason for people with obscene amounts of money to merely hoard it and then criticize the government for taking their "hard-earned" savings; considering how many people will eventually come to inherit enormous sums of money with now only minimal taxes, more and more of these extremely wealthy individuals cannot claim to have earned their fortunes through hard work when the money is essentially handed to them.

My goal is to bring pertinent information to the attention of as many people as possible and promote individual liberties and socioeconomic justice in the world.

If this sounds lofty or high-horsed to you, I will be happy to talk to you about it at your convenience.

I also have only lately realized that I foolishly conflated Truth with Strength in terms of the title of this blog, probably due to me conflating the three parts of the motto of the Ingsoc party with the Ministry of Truth.  I apologize for not catching this earlier.  I now feel kind of stupid...mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.


Posted by pdmccaul [General] ( November 11, 2007 02:09 PM ) Permalink

Dirty Laundry

I want to go buy the Eagles' new album soon.  I will, and following that, I will be somewhere spouting praise about one of my favorite bands of all time.

That brings me to an interesting song by Don Henley by the name of "Dirty Laundry," which I believe he did solo.  The lyrics go a little something like this:

I make my living off the evening news
Just give me something, something I can use
People love it when you lose, they love dirty laundry

Well, I could've been an actor, but I wound up here
I just have to look good, I don't have to be clear
Come and whisper in my ear, give us dirty laundry

Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em all around

We got the bubbleheaded bleach-blonde, comes on at 5
She can tell you about the plane crash with a gleam in her eye
It's interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry

Can we film the operation? Is the head dead yet?
You know the boys in the newsroom got a running bet
Get the widow on the set, we need dirty laundry

You don't really need to find out what's going on
You don't really want to know just how far it's gone
Just leave well enough alone, keep your dirty laundry

Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're stiff, kick 'em all around

Dirty little secrets, dirty little lies
We got our dirty little fingers in everybody's pie
Love to cut you down to size, we love dirty laundry

We can do the innuendo, we can dance and sing
When it's said and done, we haven't told you a thing
We all know that crap is king, give us dirty laundry

That last line is the big one, in my mind.  Crap is king: I wouldn't be surprised if that's the new motto of most news stations/political spin doctors.

God, I love the Eagles.


Posted by pdmccaul [General] ( October 29, 2007 07:49 AM ) Permalink

Closing Comments

I am now closing comments on this blog, as spam comments have gotten out of control and I am trying to block them (though I am a bit lazy, so that may take some time).

If you do have comments, send them to mccaul.paul@gmail.com


Posted by pdmccaul [General] ( October 24, 2007 09:04 AM ) Permalink

Ah, the humor

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/18/obama-on-cousin-cheney-_n_69020.html.

I just find the entire deal with Cheney shooting people hilarious.  Let's take it one step further: he becomes friends with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the present Ayatollah (whose name I cannot remember nor have the patience to try to find), and the three of them go "hunting."

Problem solved!

Posted by pdmccaul [General] ( October 19, 2007 10:20 AM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

Critique of Neoconservatism, Part I

Neoconservatives are not good for America.

I say this in light of several blogs and newspaper articles I have read over the past few days.  There is so much to say on this matter, it's going to take several posts.  So fasten your seatbelts.

Let's start by looking at the neoconservative smear machine.  Earlier, I wrote on the neoconservative smear job the media did on the Frost family after their 12-year-old son Graeme tried to put a human face on the S-CHIP program.  I thought it couldn't get worse.  Regrettably, I was naive, and the far-right has done it again; this time, the victim of the smear isn't old enough to even begin to respond.

Joan Walsh does a good job of covering the new swiftboating victim of the Republican Ministry of Truth: 2-year-old Bethany Wilkerson and her parents are now under the glaring spotlight of the filth machine.  Walsh brings up what is probably the most glaring reason why the S-CHIP opposition lacks even a hint of a cogent, reasonable counterargument to the program:

And therein lies the problem.  These neoconservatives have no idea what the average American wants; yet they purport to know all the sides to the issues and have the end-all, be-all solutions to all our problems.  For neoconservatives, there is nothing but partisan politics and this whole "you're either with us or against us" dichotomous attitude; it is so pervasive it even bleeds over into picking a presidential candidate.  Josh Marshall at TalkingPointsMemo.com sums up how the Religious Right would support a candidate (Mitt Romney) solely due to the fact that he is pro-life; God (ironically enough) forbid that we have TWO pro-choice candidates (Giuliani and Hillary) running.

This brings me to another interesting point, which also shows how deep into the sand neoconservatives have their heads stuck: abortion.  The World Health Organization recently released a study showing that abortion rates have nothing to do with the legality of abortion; however, what legality does influence is the safety of abortions:

Hmm...so when the state allows abortions, then it becomes a medical procedure that can be regulated for safety, but where it isn't legal, it's done by "Dr." Whosits with unsafe equipment in some dirty backroom.  And the best way to prevent abortion is to encourage actual birth control instead of just saying "don't have sex" millions of time.  Could this mean anything?

So the first two glaring problems with neoconservatives: they insist on ruthless smear attacks to advance their agendas and they don't know what normal people want.  Can it get worse?

Sadly, the answer is probably yes.


Posted by pdmccaul [General] ( October 17, 2007 09:01 AM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

A Call to Arms/Pens!

This is a general call for any blogger/interested individual who wishes to write counterpoints and alternative arguments to some of the more controversial issues I discuss in my blog.  I only have a few rules:

1. Must be willing to post about 3 entries a week (I'll add you to the blogroll)
   
2. Must research the post!  Need some credible links (newspapers are good, for some minutae, .edu or .gov is great)
3. Must not resort to name-calling.

I don't want this to turn into Crossfire, where the entire aspect of the debate and the dichotomy of liberal versus conservative took away from the value of discourse and focused on disagreement rather than consensus.  I would like a fellow blogger to present the rationale behind other arguments (even if it is as a devil's advocate) and then collaborate on what seems to be a reasonable compromise solution.

Please e-mail me at mccaul.paul@gmail.com or pdmccaul@ncsu.edu if you are interested.  I'll push on other fronts to get the Technician and maybe some other local Raleigh/Cary newspapers to look at this work.

Fellow citizens, this is indeed a call to arms!  Pick up your pen and bring forth the truth!  We can make a difference, no matter whatever evidence may seem to be to the contrary!


Posted by pdmccaul [General] ( October 15, 2007 12:36 PM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

Fall Break Hiatus

Since I appear to be getting hits, I'm going to announce that I am going to be taking a vacation from blog publication for the NC State fall break (October 11-14).

I will be writing a few comprehensive, heavily researched posts during the time, so be ready for a very objective look; I'm open to any suggestions.  For those of you who think I should look into a perspective on any topic, whether you think I'd agree with it or not, please e-mail me (mccaul.paul@gmail.com) with your topic and I will use my copious down time over the break to research and write.

I'd also like to thank anyone and everyone who has been reading as of late.  You people are the curious sort of individuals we need more of, and I tip my cap to you.

And if you haven't, please do read the last two posts on the entire crap-storm surrounding the S-CHIP debate (here are links to part 1 and part 2).


Posted by pdmccaul [General] ( October 12, 2007 02:48 PM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

Make War, not Peace

Today's world seems to be dominated by the idea that we, as the last remaining superpower, must constantly fight wars to be legitimately accepted on the international stage.

This premise is riduculous: wars, particularly those of aggression, are almost universally viewed as detrimental to the world as a whole.  Yet even after blindly marching into a war with Iraq, which ultimately turned out to be completely unjustified (this is confirmed in the Duelfer Report, [in the section on nuclear weapons in volume 2, which requires something to read .pdf files] which I leave you to pour through to see that the WMDs were about as real as Saddam Hussein's special production of Rent to be played throughout 2004 in Baghdad).  So why are we so eager to rush into a war with Iran after the miserable failure of the current administration to prove a legitimate reason for invading Iraq?

I have found in my research a few groups opposed to an invasion of Iran; I'm not sure how reliable these groups are, but I will present my findings.

Two very important groups opposed to war with Iran are the US military brass and IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei.  It may just be me, but when the internationally appointed organization for oversight of nuclear proliferation and the people who will actually plan any invasion of Iran oppose military action, we may want to take a step back and reconsider the war hawks' advocacy of an invasion of Iran on top of our present occupation of Iraq.  I find the mere fact that the military, the people who would actually have to do the invading of Iran on top of occupying Iraq and maintaining all the other bases we have around the world, are some of the most ardent opponents to another American adventure into the Middle East.

Glenn Greenwald points out that it was George Washington, the first President of the United States and the first commander-in-chief, warned us against any long-term foreign entanglements, and stated that foreign influence is the bane of republican democracy (hint, hint, that could mean something on dreams of  democracy in Iraq).  What best sums up Washington's argument is the part of his address as follows:

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? . . . . .

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave.

Even more disturbing is the willingness of our hawkish, warmongering leaders to hide behind incendiary rhetoric, ranging from the original Kyl-Lieberman bill (which was amended to remove the most disturbing clauses, yet still passed) to John Bolton's call to arms to the British, with numerous other cases in between (Google it - you can't miss the cries for war, whether you just browse the web or go to the Google News link).

Interestingly enough, Google News also reveals a very biased, yet very valid point israised in this OpEd by Karen Fish: Bush is increasingly taking measures to insulate himself from a rightly-deserved international backlash for the actions of his administration.  This, in conjunction made with the argument that we may be seeing the rise of "King George the V" best made by my fellow WolfBlogger Locke in an entry on the increasing powers of the executive branch and formally published in Charles Savage's book Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy, which can be found here on Amazon.com  This book does a much better job of proving the point I will state here: George W. Bush has done more to draw more power into the Oval Office than anyone other than maybe Nixon; remember Alberto Gonzales [the link is to a NYT article about his resignation] and what he did?  Or perhaps overlooked the FISA debacle and the telecoms companies' bid for retroactive immunity for illegal wiretapping-related activities (for those of you who don't know what FISA is, you can read the law in its entirety right here, or read some of my prior discouragement over the destruction of FISA in this past entry).

With all these concerns...how can anyone think we can handle another war and occupation?


Posted by pdmccaul [General] ( October 04, 2007 01:44 PM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

Misperceptions, Part III

This last misperception is more of a disturbing trend than any real error in thought I have seen.  Still, it is disturbing to see:

1. Blind Hypocrisy (the accurate description of that problem) and Selective Responsibility

I see this as the core of most misperceptions, misconceptions, misnomers, mistakes, and missteps in society, particularly in this time and age and among this generation.

I say that blind hypocrisy is a more accurate term because so few of us realize we are being hypocrites.  For the record, I will proudly admit to being a hypocrite in some areas while remaining ashamed for my hypocrisy in others; I will not deny any allegations of failing to live up to what I speak in favor of, nor deny any accusations that I act in such a direct contradiction to my misanthropic ranting (in person).

Hypocrisy is widespread, even endemic in our society.  Examples include William Bennett, Rush Limbaugh, Al Gore, and, my favorite, Dick Cheney.  The last example, in particular, is a fantastic example of what I view as, if not hypocrisy, then blatant flip-flopping.

Another interesting, albeit informal and not entirely credible, webpage about hypocrisy can be found here; it's quite amusing to look at some of these proposed.  Regardless of the source, hypocrisy is truly endemic in our way of life.  And it's not a huge problem, as long as we own up to it...which is where the problem arises and I grow annoyed: hypocrites that refuse to admit at least to the possibility they aren't exactly practicing what they preach.

What I find most annoying, however, is the idea of selective responsibility.  In my casual conversations, I am slowly growing more and more intolerant of any racial, sexist, or similarly stereotypical derogatory joke; I find that these everyday interactions occur everywhere, and that all the little jokes we make with some sort of bias add up to a significant bias that aggregates into a systemic problem.  Ultimately, the problem is that of not being able to admit to mistakes and being able to eat crow and work to fix them.  I will admit that sometimes my research on this blog is not as accurate as I hope to be, and I embrace any corrections; that is not to say that I will idly sit and listen to nonconstructive criticism.  When people point out legitimate sources of potential error, I am more than happy to re-research and clarify my initial points, as I did with my prior clarification to my first Misperception entry.

Yet this is not the worst of the problems in thinking that so widely infect our minds: what is worse is the hypocrisy of individuals who claim they support individual responsibility, but fail to live up to the part of responsibility that deals with admitting to mistakes.

I could go on about hypocrisy.  But I have other, more current events to research and I sadly have to stop my rant on a growing problem in our world today.


Posted by pdmccaul [General] ( October 03, 2007 11:02 AM ) Permalink | Comments[1]

Misperceptions, Part II

And so I shall continue my micro-litany of counterarguments to common misperceptions I hear around the NC State campus.  I would, at this point, like to state that, for the record, I am in no way suggesting that the order I present these ideas is based on the importance or prevalence of these misconceptions; rather, it is merely whatever comes to my mind (and the amount of source material I can find).  Without further adieu, I present to you....

2.  Homelessness (Technically Houselessness) and the Burden of Financial Responsibility

In a sense, this issue has come to a point with the Technician's recent article regarding the presence of people panhandling on Hillsborough Street that are registerd sex offenders; more disturbing was the Viewpoint article anonymously published that condoned banning panhandlers and housless individuals from Hillsborough Street.  This is only part of the larger problem, which concerns that of tolerance, financial responsibility, social obligation, and interdependence.

The way I see all people, both rich and poor, is very much in line with Shavian thought: I believe that we are all in this world together, and we can only solve the problems between people by coming together and reaching a consensus.  One thing I have noticed about students at NC State is this tendency to think in a typically American individual way.  This has broader implications in terms of other attitudes, but the one area I see it affecting the campus the most is with individual financial burden; ultimately, the question boils down to whether or not a person believes that each individual is responsible for their own financial well-being and the universality of application of such thought.

I quote Shaw now, from the fantastic play Pygmalion, which sums up what I feel is the problem facing us today:

"Independence?  That's middle-class blasphemy.  We are all dependent on one another, every soul of us on earth." - Professor Henry Higgins, Pygmalion.

This is the core of the issue.  College students so often perceive their new lives on campus as ones of independence, when the more accurate description is that of responsibility and recognition.

For those who have negative views of homeless individuals, I strongly recommend you visit the website for the National Coalition for the Homeless and read through some of the material.  I also propose this thought experiment, which is something I thought of (and no doubt numerous others have as well) to combat any misperception of a group of discriminated individuals: imagine one morning you wake up in the street, finding yourself homeless.  Do you honestly believe you are any less of the person you were before?  Have you suddenly become incompetent, lazy, and overly dependent upon charity for your basic living needs?

It is ridiculous to think that any one particular type of person is in any way a lesser individual than oneself: it implies that one characteristic can ultimately define a person as lazy, inept, or stupid.  So I ask all people who like to flaunt how independent they are and then demand that the economically challenged take more responsibility for themselves to take a good look in the mirror, because that is the face of hypocrisy.


Posted by pdmccaul [General] ( October 01, 2007 10:32 AM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

Clarification on Misperceptions, Part I

In a bit of retrospection, I feel the need to distinguish between affirmative action and equal opportunities.

I had misspoke when I was criticizing people who view affirmative action as quota creation; as Wikipedia so graciously points out, affirmative action is about correcting a perceived prior injustice.

However, what our nation actually has is equal opportunity, which is as how I had outlined it in my "Misperceptions, Part I" entry.  This is entirely an error on my part and I stand corrected, as I had received some questioning into my research and line of thought.  I will also say that affirmative action is simply a "social justice" form of equal opportunity, as it aims to correct for prior inequity by eliminating unfair practices.


Posted by pdmccaul [General] ( October 01, 2007 10:24 AM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

Misperceptions, Part I

It has gotten to the point where I what I read in some blogs and newspaper material (courtesy of the Technician's  Viewpoint forum) is becoming intolerably biased and built upon arguments wholly without merit or even a modicum of evidence.  I'm going to take time to list the three most annoyingly misinformed arguments I have seen and use evidence to support my counter-arguments.

Since this is going to be a very factual and well-reasoned argument (actually, three of them), I've decided to break this down and do a short Letterman with my top 3 misinformed arguments.

3.  Affirmative Action

Every time I hear someone say that affirmative action is about quotas, I like to think that somewhere in my head, the brain cell equivalent of a kitten is being killed.  I also feel like giving a lesson in civil rights in the form of a frying pan to the head, as to erase any misperceptions.  The US Code expressly prohibits quotas in Title VII, section 703, paragraph j.  There are no ifs, ands, or buts in there; they are simply illegal.  This is all under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the first desegregation/antidiscrimination legislation born of the civil rights movement.  Again, because repetition seems to work in getting information into people's heads, QUOTAS ARE ILLEGAL; all the CRA calls for is the creation of standardized processes by which a person, regardless of any distinguishing characteristics, is hired on merit.  Further, this legislation extends to education, which brings me back to countering the argument that affirmative action got some people into college.

I refer everyone to the NCSU policy on admissions for the university's criteria for undergraduate eligibility.  There is no mention of race, creed, ethnicity, religion, color, sexual orientation, sex, gender, or white-sounding names amongst the requirements; it is mostly about terms like GPA, SAT, "academic success at NC State," and diploma.  So you can see why I am annoyed at people who think that minorities on campus are here for affirmative action reasons.  This is patently untrue: people are here because they had the qualifications as listed by the website.  I'll also ask that proponents of the "black students are here for quotas" argument call the University and ask them about the demographics of the NCSU student population.  In fact, you can find the data with regard to enrollment in the past spring semester (Spring 2007) at the following website: http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/enrollmentdata/sp07enrol/index.htm (I'd have posted it as a link, but my web browser is acting funny).

I'll cut to the point with my argument  however.  NC State is a very, very white school.  A little more than three-fourths of the population is white according to the statistics as listed above; what I tend to hear is what I have recently learned in my Social Research Methods class to be either selective observation (where a person picks observations to match his/her ideas) or overgeneralization (hearing about one alleged "affirmative action quota" admission and illogically connecting it to all minorities).

I don't know how else I can debunk this misperception.  The US Code of Law does not lie, nor (at least, I hope) does the University.  But to put it simply, affirmative action never has, and never will, be about racial and ethnic quotas.


Posted by pdmccaul [General] ( September 26, 2007 05:13 PM ) Permalink | Comments[1]

The Next Truman Commission

I am incensed by neoconservatives that speak of unpatriotic behavior on behalf of liberals (or anyone opposed to the war, for that matter) when their actions speak far louder of what can only be described as treason.

Before I start my arguments, I'd like to say that I have nothing against a number of traditionally conservative arguments.  For starters, I agree that the government should be as small as necessary, and that taxes should be fair and cover the core budgetary items and some of the beneficial extra government agencies.  I also believe that the spirit of American independence as both citizens and entrepreneurs is what makes our nation great; under a regulated capitalist system, we can achieve our dreams, and with our prosperity, we can help others out of the doldrums and lift them up where dreams become reality.  It's at this point I refer you to Barack Obama's keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention; the part that I love the most goes as follows:

That's how I see America.  That's how the Founders of this nation saw it.  Ben Franklin put it best: "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."  And this nation can do great things when we act as one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I'm sorry if I went on there.  I just love this country that damn much.  Yet there are those who seek to undermine the credibility and authority of the government by abusing the faith and trust of the American electorate.  The charge?  War profiteering, something Harry Truman considered treason.

The news is slowly starting to catch on, as is Congress.  Here's one link to a Congressional audit of one of Halliburton's subsidiaries, Brown and Root Services (part of Kellogg, Brown and Root).  On page 10 is my favorite part; namely, the auditor's finding that this is not a few bad apples, but a "systemic" estimating deficiency.  And I'm not the only one finding these sources.  So has the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, and CNN, to name a few.  Presently, the New York Times points out that this treason may be very systemic, as stated in this 21 September article.

My favorite example of this disgusting exploitation of the taxpayers, troops, and Iraqi people is a little startup company called Custer Battles.  The non-partisan, non-profit Center for Media and Democracy organization lists a small timeline of the history of Custer Battles here.  But for those not in the mood to click any more links, I'll give a brief rundown of what Custer Battles did.

In the aftermath of the war, a former Army officer and a former CIA officer (Scott Custer and Michael Battles, respectively) started a security firm (with no prior experience or expertise) which won a no-bid contract to secure Baghdad International Airport.  This in itself was corrupt: there was pretty much zero civilian air traffic running into the airport...so what the hell was there to secure?  It gets better: the company then started renting some of the equipment that was left at the airport back to the US military after simply repainting it.  Custer Battles is one of the examples listed in Senator Patrick Leahy's bills to combat wartime profiteering.

I know that I have not provided a huge amount of factual support for these numerous cases of greed triumphing over principle; this does bother me, as I normally try to provide a reasonable amount of facts to support my argument (something in journalism known as "fact-checking" -- a term slowly losing all relevence in today's sensationalistic melee for ratings/readers).  But the fact is that the information is so widely available, it's actually difficult to read through all the sources that all generally come to the same conclusion: the checks and balances of our government have done nothing to prevent what can only be described as the business of greed's rape, sacking, and pillaging of Iraq and the American taxpayers' dollars.


Posted by pdmccaul [General] ( September 24, 2007 09:47 AM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

My Faith in the Government

With all the recent fuss about the Petraeus testimony and the proposed changes to FISA, I almost feel as if the government has completely lost touch with the citizens it is supposed to represent.

Regarding FISA, I'll say this much: upon quick inspection of the criminal and civil sanctions faced for not living up to the requirements of FISA to provide justification for electronic surveillance, then it becomes blatantly obvious that the Bush administration's illegal wiretapping program is enough for a subpoena into potential damages caused by such measures.  If such an investigation yields results demonstrating that the president failed to live up to the virtues of FISA, then he should face impeachment.

As to Petraeus, I honestly do not see how anyone can see the September deadline for reports on the surge to be anything but a coldly calculated political statement by neoconservatives in the government and media.  One argument regarding the antics of the right-wing media apparatchik known to many as Fox News Channel and their exclusive interview with Petraeus following his testimony can be seen in fellow WolfBlogger Steven Greene's "Fully Myelinated" entry on September 11th. 

It would be absolutely naive for anyone to view the interview between Petraeus and Brit Hume (who, as blogger Glenn Greenwald points out, is treated as a shining example of objective journalism when he is little more than a mouthpiece for neoconservative arguments) as anything but propaganda.  But just consider the logistics of the situation: the Great General of Unquestionable Character returns from the battlefront on the anniversary of the Horrible Event that started it all.  He delivers testimony that supports the administration's desire to remain in Iraq; later, when Principled Democrats question the veracity of his statements and want to hold the administration to the pre-surge promise of a timetable for withdrawal if the surge was not as successful as hoped, the right-wing media machine spits out what the Patriotic neoconservatives want them to: Democrats question the General?  They must be unpatriotic and somehow hate America as much as the Evil Terrorists!  This is ridiculous.  Again, Glenn Greenwald points out that even the selection of Petraeus was a calculated political play: in an echo of the great Pax Romana, the August Imperator Caesar recalls his Great Generals from the field to tell the masses that all is well; in this day and age, the Pax Americana seeks to have General Petraeus (a Latin name, to boot!) support the great President Bush that the war goes well.

Does anyone not see the echos of an Orwellian totalitarianism in these two issues?  First the invasion of privacy and the potential abolition of the safeguards that prevent such actions; quickly follow with the dire threat of constant war and you have a populace eating out of your hands.

It's easy to see why my faith in the American government is fading fast.


Posted by pdmccaul [General] ( September 21, 2007 10:07 AM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

On Priorities

I don't think people have the right priorities in life anymore.

Just look at the world around us: the universe is so old and large that our planet occupies a small amount of its history and an infinitesimally small portion of space.  This is just the universe itself, which may be part of something larger and older, making us all the more tiny and young; think of the earth itself: the planet is roughly 4.5 billion years old.  We have existed for maybe 30,000 years.  That's a difference of ten to the fifth power...if that doesn't sink in, the earth is ONE-HUNDRED THOUSAND TIMES older than humanity.  Life itself...we consider ourselves to be the pinnacle of life on the planet; but we must question if this is true.  After all, insects have been around for a few billion years; bacteria and viruses continue to thrive; and for every dangerous weapon we create, the planet has naturally produced one dangerous creature on land (and probably 50 in the water) for each of our weapons.

I merely point out these facts because they are relevant to our construction of meaning; taking it all into perspective, money, fame, and power are empty goals in life, because we can't take it with us into whatever happens after we die.  Meaning is constructed by much, much smaller things.

I cannot honestly say I am innocent of desiring these pointless ends.  But I can say that the impact I'd rather have is on a few people.  I would like to have a small influence on the lives of the people who live after me, which they pass on to future generations; it's nothing like some specific idea or object I wish passed on...more an attitude towards life. 

I'd pass on my hopes that there is always room for improvement.  I'd pass on my philosophy of open-mindedness and egalitarianism.  I'd pass on my dreams of happiness.  I'd pass on my respect for the ideas of others.  I'd pass on my determination to do what I believe in.  I'd pass on my realization that we all need our fellow humans.

But more importantly, I'd pass on my quiet yet firm belief in true, flawed love.

Love is one of the most satisfying solutions to the problem of life.  If we can't care about people who are dear to us, how can we ever raise the bar?  Humans aren't solitary creatures: we congregate when we have the chance; we deteriorate when we are isolated; we cannot perpetuate without others; and we define ourselves more and more through others.

This is what I believe.  I think it's a great idea; others may think it is complete and total bullshit.  But I'm not trying to persuade you to adopt my philosophy on life.  I just want you to think about it a little.


Posted by pdmccaul [General] ( July 05, 2007 09:09 PM ) Permalink | Comments[1]

The Law, Part 2

The present administration has finally cemented their place in history as the most corrupt U.S. administration ever.

Let's look at a nice list of things that have gone wrong since 2000:

• Supreme Court puts Bush in the White House (a bad omen)
• President Bush spends a little less than half of his first 8 months in office on vacation: if I tried this at any of my jobs, I'd get fired.
• 9/11.  More becomes evident with the findings of the 9/11 Commission
• Invading Iraq (the wrong nation to invade).  The corruption, however, stems from the no-bid contracts handed out post-war: this is nothing short of war profiteering, which is nothing short of treason.  For comparison, treason is so heinous a crime that Dante considered it to be the worst sin and thus most harshly punished in Hell, and the punishment during the Revolutionary War period for treason was for a person to be hung, drawn, and quartered (this consists of hanging the person, taking them down when they are unconscious, ripping out their entrails, burning them in front of their face, then attaching ropes to all four limbs, attaching the other ends of the ropes to horses, then sending all the horses in different directions...this is very, very painful).
  
• Terri Schiavo and other "right-to-life" causes Bush endorsed.  Politicizing something which is a family matter with regard to medicine (doctor-patient confidentiality, ethics...any of this sound familiar) is simply sick.  As is all the other right-to-life stuff.  These are usually medical issues which have bearing on the PERSON for whom it is an issue; it is not an issue for the US Congress.
• North Korea and Iran.  Two members of the Axis of Evil that were ignored.  One of these nations now has nuclear weapons, and the other is on its way.  In case anyone is wondering: these are BAD things.
• Social Security.  Ever since its inception in the Depression years, it has been the third rail of American politics: touch it and you die a very rapid, painful death.  Yet it hasn't killed Bush; I think this is due to think protective hide that he has that prevents anything from entering his body other than dangerous pretzels (you want to chew your food BEFORE you swallow it, George)
• The Patriot Act and Gitmo (Guantanomo Bay): this violates two basic rights all humans should have: the right to some degree of privacy and the right to fair justice.  Moreover, Gitmo continues to sound more and more like a Nazi concentration camp.  The people who ran those were put on trial in Geneva.  George W. Bush was re-elected.  There is a small problem here.  Further, the strongest grounds for impeachment at this time are via the illegal wiretapping program Bush started, which stemmed from the Patriot Act.
• Dick Cheney.  If you mess with Cheney, you either get shot in the face or go to jail for him (in Lewis "Scooter" Libby's case, you pretend to go to jail for him).  Ending this already nauseating topic, I believe Dick Cheney may be the Antichrist.
• Karl Rove: if Dick Cheney is the Antichrist, Rove is some manifestation of Satan.  The man is sufficiently evil when it comes to how he gets his candidates elected, I risk going into some form of severe septic shock induced by infection with the evilness that is merely associated with the writings describing Rove's evil deeds.
• Hurricane Katrina.  This in itself is not Bush's fault: George W. Bush is in fact the last person I'd ever want to be a deity, because the universe would probably come to a painful, abrupt end.  His response, however, warrants me bending over a trash can and vomiting for a good five hours.  The callous disregard for a major disaster in America does not befit the occupant of the Oval Office; furthermore, the callous disregard for the tsunami victims in South Asia is equally unbefitting of the leader of the most powerful nation in the world.

This list ends here because I almost feel like vomiting after thinking of all these things.  Regardless of the sudden weakness of my digestive tract, it is nigh-impossible to argue the competence of the current administration; the nation is now scarred by the inaction and corruption of our federal government.  No one is above the law.  But for some reason, after all that's happened, we still think some people are immune to the law.

It's time for us to come back to reality.


Posted by pdmccaul [General] ( July 03, 2007 12:02 PM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

The Law

I truly love the law.

The law is the essence of humanity's higher thought processes; without the creation of laws, all humans would act for personal gain and protection (which includes immediate "family" of a sorts).  But lately, people seem to be more and more convinced that they are above the law.

I hate jumping on the bandwagon by mentioning the Mike Nifong case, and I know that unlike many other bloggers, I'm not posting links.  This is logical laziness: if you can't go look up several articles on Google or CNN or NYTimes.com, I don't believe you are sufficiently well-informed to read; I assume you know what I talk about and merely offer speculation.  Rest assured that if a particular blogger writes something of interest that I have no idea about, I will read any links they post (assuming they are more helpful than I) or look up information on the issue myself.

But I digress.  The Nifong controversy really bothered me.  The fact that there was prosecutorial misconduct for political ends bothers me too, but what I found disturbing was the fact that this case happened to be the one that got all the attention due to the fact it happened with the Duke lacrosse team and someone's family had money (according to the N&O, the Raleigh newspaper).  This is equally disturbing!  Not only are prosecutors seemingly above the law (prosecutorial misconduct happens for political gain all the damned time...it just rarely comes back to bite the DA in the keister like this), but the fact that a typical white, upper-class American was the one who brought the misconduct to the press' attention.  Money can't buy you love...so sang the Beatles...but it seemingly can buy you a nice "get out of jail relatively free" card.

This, however, is NOTHING compared to the entire fiasco that is the Federal Justice System.  Attorney General Gonzalez accused of sacking federal prosecutors for bad immigration case stats.  The unethical means by which approval for a cancellation of the sunset clause of the Patriot Act (or something like that...I've not been following closely, but I refer to the incident where Gonzalez claimed to have gotten approval for President Bush's wiretapping program from former Attorney General Ashcroft on his sickbed).

I would have to say that I almost feel disgraced living in this era of our nation: we have had one of the most corrupt administrations control Washington for six years, and what has happened?  Billions of dollars meant for reconstruction in Iraq mysteriously vanished, and numerous corporations with ties to key players in the administration holders of a number of these contracts into which money has disappeared.  A tax cut during war, which makes no sense at all...no nation at war in history EVER cut taxes.  It's comparable to betting a million chips in a poker game on a bluff...and you only have a thousand chips.  A mishandling of the post-invasion strategy in Iraq that has been called by top Pentagon officials to be at best, incompetence, and at worst, treason.  The fiasco that is Guantanamo Bay; I refer you to the blog Fully Mylinated for more details about the doublespeak the Bush administration has spun around its torture policies.

I seem to recall a little proceeding called the Truman Commission during World War II.  At first, the administration was against Truman, saying his efforts would detract from the war effort; ultimately, the Truman Commission saved billions of dollars, and got Truman noticed enough to be put on the ticket as VP in 1944.  Truman rightfully thought war profiteering was and will remain treason.  For some reason, we don't seem to have a Harry Truman.

Hell, we don't seem to have respect for the laws anymore.


Posted by pdmccaul [General] ( June 19, 2007 10:23 PM ) Permalink | Comments[0]