Category: Politics

Apparently not satisfied with merely causing a split between long-time allies American and South Korea, Bush administration officials seem to be going out of their way to alienate our allies in Europe.

As reported in this Christian Science Monitor article, that master of the obvious lie, Secretary of Defense Rumsfield seemed to go out of his way to offend Germany and France:

Echoing Mr. Bush’s irritation with Germany and France in particular, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday denounced their opposition to war as "old Europe." He said the two countries didn’t represent all of Europe: "Now you’re thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don’t. I think that’s old Europe," he said. "If you look at the entire NATO Europe today, the center of gravity is shifting to the East," the CBC quoted Rumsfeld as saying.

I must admit that I find it difficult to understand what administration officials hope to accomplish by labeling Germany and France as “old Europe.” These are, after all, important trade partners, if nothing else. Do they really believe that countries like Hungary and Yugoslavia are going to replace Germany and France as customers and trade partners?

Does the Bush administration feel its attempts to cut dividend and inheritance taxes will build such a strong American economy that we will no longer need to trade with anyone other than England and Australia?

With few signs that the economy is going to rebound in the near future, it increasingly looks like the Bush administration is gambling that a victory in Iraq will lead to their re-election. They appear desperate to start our war with Iraq as soon as possible, whether or not UN inspectors can find evidence to support our claims that Iraq is readying weapons of mass destruction.

The real question is how long it will take the next administration to undo the damage this administration has done to our foreign relations. This adminstration seems as intent on squandering any good will the Clinton administration gained in the world by using our powers to gain peace as they have been to spend budget surplus that Clinton’s policies accumulated.

It just keeps getting better and better, doesn’t it?

If I were to choose a theme song for this administration, it would have to be: “Who Let the Idiots Out.”

It’s hard to imagine an action less likely to actually find terrorists while still managing to offend the greatest number of Muslim immigrants. You’ll have to read the Yahoo articleto see whether you agree or not.

Damn, I might have to donate to the ACLU, yet, this Christmas season.

I spent most of the weekend picking up the leaves I so loved when they provided shelter from August’s sweltering heat and adored even more when their red, yellow and oranges dazzled in the fall. Somehow, though, they seem slightly less lovable now that they’ve turned into dusky shades of yellow and brown and are slowly but surely choking out the bright green grass below. They’re downright ugly when they must be scraped out of gutters brimming over with two years of debris. Passing rain showers and an aged-back unwilling to shoulder one more sack of soggy leaves didn’t make the job any easier.

I also began reading Archibald MacLeish’s Collected Poems: 1917-1982. I enjoyed the first section of poems written in the ‘80’s and finished them quickly in one sitting. Once I reached the poems written in 1917, though, I slowed considerably and found myself unable to read longer than an hour at a time. Determined to read all of the poems carefully in order to see them in the context of MacLeish’s whole work, I spent more time than I should have trying to understand “The Pot of Earth” which begins with a quote from Frazer’s The Golden Bough and seems reminiscent of Eliot’s "The Waste Land," which is certainly not one of my favorite poems. It’s obviously going to be a few more days before I’m going to be ready to write anything meaningful about MacLeish.

To complicate matters, I’ve started taking income tax classes at H&R Block in anticipation of working during the upcoming tax season. If I’m going to continue buying computer and woodworking toys to power my hobbies, I’m probably going to have to work at least one more year, if not two. Since I’m unwilling to substitute teach or spend the Christmas season working in the local computer store, I imagine I’m going to have spend some more time doing taxes. However, I keep putting off reading the lessons until the day before class. It reminds me a little of being back in college, except that reading about tax laws is not nearly as interesting as reading a Faulkner or Hemingway novel.

Early retirement is swell and all, but half of a teacher’s salary really doesn’t go too far, particularly when the cost of medical premiums and electricity continue to skyrocket out of control. Unfortunately, I don’t see much chance of medical reform during this administration; so, I certainly need to prepare for even higher premiums in the future. Nor is it very reassuring that my TSA account has sunk below the value it had when I originally started contributing over ten years ago. That, of course, was my inflation hedge to offset higher medical premiums. Considering last year’s throat surgery cost over $40,000, though, I’m not likely to let my premiums slip by, no matter how much I have to work to pay them.

Luckily, I am reassured by the public’s confidence in the fine job Bush has been doing. At least when the Republicans get through passing all the tax breaks for those lucky enough to still have money I will have lots of work as a tax preparer. Apparently Republicans have never found a tax break for the rich they didn’t adore. Of course, having to ensure that not too much of the tax break is passed down to the poor requires laws so carefully crafted that not even tax preparers are truly sure what they mean, at least not until the tax courts have interpreted them ten years from now.

I don’t particularly like the term “chickenhawk,” though as a Vietnam vet I’ve been known to use the concept in arguments with others who have known next to nothing about the effects of war. Despite my distaste for that word, I liked most of what Dave Rogers had to say November 14th about Christopher Hitchens’essay in Slate. In particular, I agreed with Dave that the Bush administration and the warbloggers purposely exaggerate the dangers from Iraq in order to convince others that we must invade now.

Obviously Sadam is a miserable excuse for a human being, and it’s doubtful his own people would miss him, but that doesn’t mean that he’s likely to use “weapons of mass destruction” against the USA. Certainly he was willing to use them against his own people and against Iranians, but that’s because they had no viable counter threat. However, he didn’t use them against us in the Gulf War, precisely because he knew that their use would immediately result in the end of he and his regime.

Using that argument to justify an unprecedented American first strike on Iraq, in my opinion, is totally unconvincing. Although I could well image a religious fanatic like Bin Laden turning to such weapons, I find it difficult to imagine any scenario under which Sadam would use such weapons. I don’t think he is religious enough to want to die as a martyr for the Islamic cause.

Worse yet, the argument doesn’t even consider the moral issues involved in such an attack. It’s too bad that more of the arguments about whether we should or shouldn’t invade Iraq don’t focus on the moral issues discussed in this article in the Christian Science Monitor. If more arguments would focus on the moral grounds discussed in the “just war theory” at least we would have a consistent way of judging them rather than having to rely on name-calling and red herrings to help us decide how we feel.

Of course, perhaps the reason so few refer to the concepts of a ‘”just war” may be because the Catholic Bishops, using those very principles, recently expressed opposition to America’s invasion of Iraq.