A Question of Relevance

The new buzz word, as I'm sure you've noticed, whenever anybody, liberal or conservative alike, is thinking about international bodies like NATO or the UN is "relevance." For instance, the former:

But the question is whether NATO, after its recent roller coaster history, can survive such a high profile public spat and whether it is going to retain any relevance if and when an Iraqi war begins. (CNN)

The North Atlantic Council (NAC) will reconvene tomorrow at 9.45am amidst debate over whether the on-going crisis has really blown NATO's credibility in American eyes and put the Alliance’s relevance as a military organisation into question. (EU Observer)

Nato governments were understood to be working hard to persuade Jacques Chirac, the French president, to change his position. Furious US and British officials say Paris is the main culprit behind the current 16-3 split, which is threatening to render Nato irrelevant at precisely the moment it has been "re-invented" to meet post cold war challenges. (The Guardian)

To be sure, the present NATO deadlock is an organizational crisis, but not in the way most of these articles appear to be assuming. First, if NATO's relevance is indeed related to the current 16-3 split to send defensive units to the Turkish border, one can only conclude that relevance must is indelibly linked to the tabletable, and thus the interests, of one of its members, the U.S. This is precisely the sort of hegemony, however, that the democratic process governing the organization is supposed to forestall. The fact is, and this has been repeated time and time again, notably by Jacques Chirac, the divisive issue in the debate is one of "timing." As posted a couple of days ago, the Franco-Germanic position, in both the UN and NATO, is one of declaration -- i.e., sussing out where all the players stand, and making them announce it. By putting the onus on the U.S. to either accept or reject the UN resolutions before countenancing their defensive responsibilities, a declaration upon which one cannot help but think the NATO split is predicated, the French not only stake a claim to the importance of their contribution to world affairs, outsized though it may be, they are actually doing the international bodies a long-term service by providing an outlandishly official and public platform for the U.S. to demonstrate whether or not it wants to play along. If U.S. fails to do so, then the question of relevance must indeed be posed, but not, at least from the European perspective, as a question of "relevance" vs. "irrelevance."

Adaptation to a different European landscape, one that is expanding, geographically and economically, will surely do NATO good in the end, even if the NATO of old, which, let's face it, has always been more about symbolic defense and peacekeeping than an offensive menace, must continue its ever so slow senescent fade into the annals of 20th-century history. To grow old, and possibly even to die, though, is not irrelevance; it is merely change, evolution, the nature of all things. In sum, consciously or not, the architects of the present split in NATO provide a stimulus to its potential, emergent viability, not its ruin.. America has always, in spite of itself, paradoxically, always been afraid of such change, regarding the whole process as a menace to rage against, literally as well as figuratively, especially when it is marked by the fade of something that must pass away in order that something else may be.

The Best That We Can Do

Well, the big news of the day, at least for the financial world, was going to be Alan Greenspan's testimony today before congress, which, by the way, Kevin Drum sums up the testimony pretty succinctly:

• The war with Iraq is bad for the economy.

• The proposed deficit is too large, and it's bad for the economy too.

• A big part of the deficit is caused by Republican tax cut proposals. Economic growth alone won't get rid of the deficit, no matter how often they say it will.

• Thus, taxes should not be cut right now. Eliminating the dividend tax is "a sensible long term program," but only if other taxes are raised to make up for it.
  

He goes on to conclude:

In other words, virtually every single thing the Republicans are doing is bad for the economy.

That said, one should be forgiven for thinking this to be today's big news, but BZZZTT -- sorry, try again! As everybody and their dead aunt in America -- even the dead aunt who is German and who, thus, would not have cared because she is, by default, either anti-American or lazy -- knows by now, Osama Bin Laden's BACK with a flash, and heading straight to the top of the charts! This is, I'm afraid to say, even bigger than Elvis' return to television in 1968. (Funny, don't you think, how this kind of thing always happens right around the time of bad domestic policies going public. Not saying there's anything to that, just saying . . .)

One anonymous talking head inside the Bush administration wins the award for quote-you-can't-go-today-(and probably tomorrow)-without-seeing:

"This clearly demonstrates a burgeoning alliance of terror between Iraq and al Qaeda."

The headlines are already being churned out, of course, that Bin Laden and Sadaam are not only tag-team buddies, they also (a) on a bowling team together, after which they go to Sadaam's crib to play Yahtzee; (b) were separated at birth, but were heartwarmingly reunited when they realized they both go to the same barber (yes, indeed, the very one who grooms their famous facial hair; (c) use puppies, like Vaara's, for target practice; and (d) secretly think the other is cute, but, before rumors get spread, it hasn't gotten beyond the phase of writing the other's last name down in place of their own.

I don't know, it's a little difficult to take this too seriously for a couple of reasons. Namely, and this is the most damning, I think, the statement that Powell is referencing kind of, more or less, goes out of its way to continue the long-held differentiation between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The BBC is helpful with their full transcript -- a few highlights:

O mujahideen brothers in Iraq, do not be afraid of what the United States is propagating in terms of their lies about their power and their smart, laser-guided missiles.

Note, "mujahideen brothers in Iraq" is not a reference to the Iraqi government, but to Islamic militants. The difference is even more pronounced a bit further on:

Amid this unjust war, the war of infidels and debauchees led by America along with its allies and agents, we would like to stress a number of important values:

First, showing good intentions. This means fighting should be for the sake of the one God.

It should not be for championing ethnic groups, or for championing the non-Islamic regimes in all Arab countries, including Iraq.

[. . .]

Regardless of the removal or the survival of the socialist party or Saddam, Muslims in general and the Iraqis in particular must brace themselves for jihad against this unjust campaign and acquire ammunition and weapons.

[. . .]

Under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists.

The jurisdiction of the socialists and those rulers has fallen a long time ago.

Socialists are infidels wherever they are, whether they are in Baghdad or Aden.

Now, obviously, one could read this as surreptitious, equivocal support of Hussein's regime, and I would respond with a sanguine nod, "Yes, possibly." However, equally valid, and perhaps a bit more plausible, considering the nature of Al Qaeda's fundamentalism, not to mention Bin Laden's popularity in those circles, is his very unshocking, unsurprising, damn well should've been expected all along manipulation of the situation. Did anybody honestly expect Bin Laden, or Bin Laden's successor, or whomever, to NOT use this war as a means to muster up defiance and violence against the United States and its allies, within and without Iraq? Anyone? I hear crickets chirping. If this is the smoking gun connection between terrorism and Iraq that the White House has been searching for, then it is a cap gun, at best. I concede, yet again, that Osama Bin Laden may simply be incredibly crafty in his choice of words here, and that he is actually hiding the Iraqi haven and support he enjoys, but the veracity of this concession relies upon somebody making a valid case that highlights the duplicity, that convinces somebody other than those who wanted to go to war without international support (yes, yes, I realize that it was the same Colin Powell who talked Bush into taking the UN-route that is today talking about the Bin Laden link). Smoke and mirrors, friends. Maybe not lies, per se, but definitely only part of the story, specifically that part of the story that sounds nice and coheres to the message (or the case) that, resistance and questions be damned, has not, since day one, changed.

My New Hero

"What are we going to post about tonight, Brain?"

"The same thing we post about every night, Brad . . ."

PLAYBOY INTERVIEWS!!

Okay, well, maybe I don't post on this every night, but perhaps I should. A few weeks ago, when a friend of mine mentioned his name to me, in the context of her libidinous need for the his coarse Irish sexuality, I had no clue who Colin Farrell was, or that I'd seen in a few movies. But now, like a new word you learn and that you end up seeing everywhere thereafter, I can't escape him. While looking for the latest Atlantic Monthly (honestly!), what should I see on the cover of the adjacent Playboy (granted, "adjacent" in the sense that it was two rows over, and that I was really looking for the latest Maxim) but COLIN FARRELL! Well, let me clarify: first I saw a naked, save for a few strands of strategicly placed purple fabric, brunette, who I at first thought was Jennifer Love Hewitt; and THEN I saw Colin Farrell, albeit not a naked Colin Farrell, merely the name and the headline that his "Raw and Uncut" interview lie inside (inside the magazine, not the brunette, you sicko!). I couldn't resist, and neither should you. Fortunately, somebody has illegally scanned the interview, so, hey, until Hugh Hefner finds out, you can safely link over there and take a look [Note: This is a pretty poor scan job, but it's a fair substitute for sitting in B&N with a Playboy next to your chai whilst a mother of three glares at you and her husband stares over your shoulder.]

Here's a long excerpt (excuse the length, but it's a long ass story!) to whet your appetite for more -- I assume all my readers are over the age of eighteen:

Playboy: Was she the first sexual experience you had?

Farrell: No, my first was with an Australian woman. I had this friend in school who was a big e-head. I used to be a fucking e-head. I used to smoke fucking puppies like they were fucking candy for two or three years in the Dublin club scene and got completely into it. You'd be fucking doing 15 of these a weekend, and you might pop them on Wednesday as well. It was your scene. It was really a way of life, not a weekend-warrior thing. The mates you were hanging out with were all fucking e-heads.

Playboy: So you're saying ecstasy played a part in your losing your virginity?

Farrell: I had a really good mate, Eliot, who was a huge fucking drinker, popping back Guinnesses to beat the band. He knew I was a fucking e-head, and he'd always say, '"You're with all them fucking wankers doing pills, you fucking tosser. Who the fuck do you think you are? Why don't you have a fucking drink?" I said, "We still drink. I tell you what. Some night I'll go out with you and I'll fucking do what you do and someday you'll go out and do what I do." So one night we went to the club I'd always gone to, a gay club in Dublin called Shaft. After one or two A.M.,. when the other places closed down shaft became gay, straight, whatever. We went there and danced into the wee hours.

This next line is one of my favorite lines of the entire interview, despite the fact it comes from the interviewer:

Playboy: With each other?

Ha! Slays me still.

Farrell: It was close on the floor, but there was no gyrating -- or geez, he would have started throwing fists. There would have been killings. It was about four A.M and Eliot was nearly comatose, so I put him in a taxi and sent him home becuase I'd this Australian woman who was 36 and basically said to me, "Do you want to come back to my house and fuck?" We went to her place and were lying on her bed kissing and she opened a bottle of champagne -- which I fucking hate. But I took a sip, and as I did, she reached under the bed and pulled out a wicker basket with about 400 condoms in it -- different flavors, colors, ribbed. She said, "Pick one," and I said to myself, "I am in fucking trouble here."

This is on page two of the interview, and it only gets better. Ireland's Dept. of Tourism needs to use this guy as their spokesman.

UPDATE: Apparently, all you Silentio must've flooded that poor girl's website. Apologies if you went there, eager to get your fix on the word "fuck," only to find the site down. It is, though, as of Thursday afternoon, up and running fine.

Bait and Switch

You know that somewhere along the path of life you took a wrong turn, one that looked right at the time, indeed one that looked idyllic, what with its frolicsome, nubile 20-year-olds bouncing hither and fro across the green, well-manicured hillocks, along with the possibility, that should good fortune remain, you may never have to leave this fairy-tale collegiate land of unbridled sex and experimental substances; yes, you know it turned out to be a wrong turn when ten hours of your day is spent with this guy:

Shameless

Silentio is not all about blood & guts and foreign policy. No, it's also about shameless requests for gifts! In that vein, any American reader out there who lives near an independent bookstore, and who who wishes to buy me a copy of Mcsweeney's No. 10 is kindly requested to email me ASAP. You will be rewarded with a warm apple pie-sized slice of karma, I'm sure.

Chickens Come Home to Roost?

The Guardian is reporting today that Iran will begin producing and reprocessing nuclear fuel, maintaing, like North Korea, that the technology is for "peaceful purposes." Edwin Lyman, head of the Nuclear Control Institute, doesn't think so, and neither do I, maintaining ominously:

"The intention to reprocess and close the fuel cycle is disturbing... There is no indication Iran has any economic justification for it."

"Even in countries where there's an advanced nuclear industry it's totally uneconomic, wasteful, dangerous. There is no doubt that it will be used as a cover for making nuclear weapons."

Yet another example of the "Axis of Evil" being, as Lyman also suggests, "a self-fulfilling prophecy"?

Ooooph

Paul Krugman steps to the plate this morning in his Op-Ed, on the heels of a Francophobic frenzy the past couple of days. You can't always rely on Krugman for an enormous amount of substance -- this goes, it seems, with most of the New York Times editorials -- but you can consistently rely upon his coherently incisive invective to rouse you from the stupor that the contemporary American media cannot help but induce. Coming from an "insider," who is viewing these things unfold from the "outside," with unease and, quite frankly, a large measure of embarassment, Krugman's concluding thoughts ring true for me:

Meanwhile, here's how it looks from Paris: France was willing to put ground troops at risk — and lose a number of soldiers — in the former Yugoslavia; we weren't. The U.S. didn't make good on its promises to provide security and aid to post-Taliban Afghanistan. Those Americans, they are very brave when it comes to bombing from 10,000 meters, but they expect other people to clean up the mess they make, no?

And French officials have made no secret of their belief that Mr. Bush wants to invade Iraq not because he is truly convinced that Saddam Hussein is a menace, but because he'd rather have an easy victory in a conventional war than stick to the hard task of tracking down stateless terrorists. I'm not saying they're right; I have no idea what Mr. Bush is really thinking. But you can understand their point of view.

In the days ahead, as the diplomatic confrontation between the Bush administration and the Europeans escalates, remember this: Viewed from the outside, Mr. Bush's America does not look like a regime whose promises you can trust.

A new blogger, a Canadian expat now living in Leuven, who is, methinks, insanely smarter than I, Scott Martens has some good insights on the Euro-perspective, as well. Very well worth checking out, should you be troubled at all by the tenor of America's foreign policy, even with its allies no less, these days.

EDITORIAL UPDATE: I didn't realize that this post was all out of whack until very late into the evening. I tidied up the links at the beginning, and found my opening phrase.

Cynicism

Much to-do today in Europe, "New" and "Old." First, you have Belgium and France vetoing any move by NATO, for the moment anyway, to supplement the Turkish defense on its border with Iraq, lest it appear that NATO has given up on all "diplomatic initiatives." This followed on the heels of U.S. officials going absolutely apoplectic over the, truly unsurprising (American dismay, notwithstanding), Franco-Germanic peace initiative, which would triple the number of inspectors in Iraq, back them with surveillance flights, and possibly include the assistance of UN troops. Politically, even if you completely disagree with their position, and there are practical reasons to do so (namely, its feasibility, given Iraq's reluctance to allow surveillance flights) this is a really shrewd political move on their part, at least in the short term. If their proposal is accepted on Friday, it puts the onus on the U.S. to decide, and then to declare, its place in the world. Now, I'm not sure anybody is convinced that this will actually stop the build-up for a war, or even an actual war in the matter of a couple more weeks. Again, though, it's all a matter of the official declarations themselves, which appear to carry the potential either to establish the Security Council's relevance in today's world or to show it to be little more than a theatrical distraction that fewer people will pay much attention to in subsequent years.

Depending on one's perspective, either side can be regarded as cynical. On one hand, the European perspective could be regarded as an egregious disregard of the liberal values it so publically declares to be its hallmark, as extending UN inspections prolong, or perhaps even lead to additional, sanctions against a people (not a government) these same European governments, the UK excluded, have long believed have suffered enough; or, that the European peace perspective is a cover for their existent concerns with refugees, and thus is politically expedient; or, that they're simply parasites who reap the benefits of a war without having to actually risk the fight -- in the polls or on the battlefield. On the other hand, the U.S. perspective could be regarded as a wanton giddy-up attitude to foreign policy that disregards the need, if it wants international allies, to make a compelling case for war, one that is grounded on something more than paper-thin rhetoric, deconstructed ("it's all a matter of perspective, see", "the authorship and provenance of this document doesn't matter") intelligence, and a messiah-complex that compels the belief that America must save the world from an evil that the rest of the world does not recognize; that its intentions, sometimes even the best ones, are clouded by a myopic understanding of the roots of the terrorism it so fears, resists, and, all the same, potentially inflames by a war on terrorism that might also be the war of terrorism (i.e., the very intention of "terror"'s architects).

In sum, this whole bloody mess is cynical -- how could it be anything else? Perhaps, if you'll indulge me a little more cynicism, though it can also be read it in a far more positive light as well, it is a matter now of which stain (they both appear to be blood) will be easier to clean off ourselves.

One last chance

I had several chances to catch the Matisse-Picasso exhibit when it was in London and then in Pairs, but, because I'm an idiot and forget details like the dates in which I can attend a once-in-a-lifetime exhibition of modern art masters, I missed my last chance at the beginning of January because I was holed up in Brussels drinking too much (probably). So it goes, and so it went --- across the ocean to New York. The European reviews have been quite good (London // Paris); though, if I remember correctly, my advisor mentioned that the crowds at the Tate Modern were hellish -- surprise surprise there. One can hope that the MoMA knows a bit more about crowd control.

Even if you're unable to make it to Queens before the paintings (and sculptures) head their separate ways in May, do yourself a favor and check out the story behind the exhibition (that of the artists, as well as that of the curators) in today's New York Times. A peek:

The curators decided their show would deal with the artists' long obsession with each other's work. "History and chronology would be respected," Ms. Cowling said. But as there was often a time lag of a decade or more between the call and the response, the flow of the show would be episodic rather than perfectly chronological, focusing on instances in which one artist responded, consciously or not, to the other.

"The objects would be selected so on the wall they speak to each other," Mr. Varnedoe said. It would be "art history without words." There would be 34 different groupings, and the occasion for each could be anything from a striking parallel in color, subject, composition or form to an explicit and documented duel.

On the one hand, Picasso's neo-classical painting "Three Women at the Spring" (1921) would be paired, for purely visual reasons, with two of Matisse's chunky relief sculptures of female backs from 1916 and 1931. On the other hand, a Matisse odalisque titled "Decorative Figure on an Ornamental Background" (1925-26), which Picasso found incredibly ugly, would be paired with his cocky response, an anti-odalisque called "Large Nude in a Red Armchair" (1929). With that painting, Mr. Elderfield said, Picasso was clearly taunting Matisse: You want ugly? I'll give you ugly!

[. . .]

The penultimate room of the exhibition juxtaposed Matisse's late paper cut-outs of acrobats and nudes with Picasso's paintings of acrobats and his cut-and-folded sheet-metal sculpture, "The Chair" (1961). And for the final space, Mr. Elderfield planned to hang two wistful paintings, Matisse's "Violinist at the Window" (1918) and Picasso's "Shadow" (1953). Even though these two paintings were finished 35 years apart, they looked like a mutual goodbye.

But where to put "Women of Algiers, After Delacroix" (1955), Picasso's attempt to absorb Matisse immediately after his death? It didn't fit with the cut-outs, but if it went into the small final room, people might bump into it while looking at the two goodbye paintings. That was a nut Mr. Elderfield still had not cracked.

Maybe the problem of staging the goodbye reflects the trouble in the Matisse-Picasso relationship all along, which Mr. Elderfield described as a continual volley of "jealously, peevishness, envy and fear of envy."

"One surges and the other responds," Mr. Elderfield said. In the end, "no one won." But the game made them both better painters. Picasso had the last word, and it was the kindest: "No one has ever looked at Matisse's painting more carefully than I; and no one has looked at mine more carefully than he."

When I first started hearing and reading descriptions of the exhibition, on a visceral level it sounded very appealing; however, critically speaking, when at an exhibition such as this, I am generally quite wary of such an unsubtle narrative. Lack of subtly, I felt, indeed, still feel, sentimentalizes really good stories, and thus, in turn, trivializes them. And yet, I also realize that one must also be willing to suspend disbelief in order to appreciate any story that's worth appreciating, subtle or not. So, there you go, I guess it looks like I'm flying into New York City when/if I visit the States before May. Anybody who sees it, or has seen it, before me, feel free to let me know your thoughts and opinions.

Hey man, is that Freedom Rock!?

A colorful timewaster for your Sunday afternoon. [Note: best viewed with Captain Beefheart's Trout Mask Replica playing in the background. Alternative recommendations are welcome though.]

Hmmm...

Keep an eye on the rumblings of political change in the Middle East, and not simply those from bombs. Much has been said already, but still not nearly enough, about the nascent democracy movement in Iran; unfortunately, because it is, after all, a student-led movement, I cannot help but remain skeptical. Memories of Tiananmen Square are still too real. Nevertheless, there are very similar rumblings being reported down in Saudi Arabia, of all places; notably, from within within the present government itself. Very difficult, damn near impossible, to tell how much of this is diplomatic smoke & mirrors, or what, but its very worth keeping an eye on.

Two questions you might be asking yourself: Why is democracy in the Middle East such a big deal? Isn't this importing of western ideals just another form of colonialism? I can answer quickly in reverse order. The Middle East, indeed, the modern notion of the "Arab" ethnicity and the Arab "state" is already an importation. The region, let's face it, is indelibly marked by its liminal status geopolitically, and will continue to be so for the immediate future. Granted, it's not in the West's best interest, I don't think, to be the direct agents of change, no matter its desire for a change, no matter the direction; but, this certainly doesn't preclude the presence of diplomatic advocacy of liberal democracy. Why? Quite simple really, perhaps a little trite, maybe, in some circles, very cliché, and definitely not conclusive at all: no liberal democracies have ever waged war on one another. Following the century of war, and the start of another that looks very similar, it's a small, very small, measure of hope to hang one's hat on.

An Afternoon's Reading

I've been pretty busy today with Friedrich Schelling today -- God, what an utterly pretentious phrase that turned out to be -- but I'm never too busy for The Guardian's Saturday edition -- the pretention of the former phrase is, perhaps, outweighed by the banality of the latter. There's little sense in writing too much on Saturday's, I've learned, since it seems to be a slow traffic day (not that the traffic is ever bumper-to-bumper here at Silentio, which, yes, I love to italicize), so I thought I'd just link to a few articles that are worth your attention, should you wish to be diverted from children, or spouses, or work that might need done around the house. Or, if you're not the diversionary-type, well, enjoy them for what they; that is, whatever it is you make them. (I'm down with relativity today.)

• First up, on the front page, there's a very interesting article about one Iraqi soldier who recently defected into Kurdish-held territory in northern Iraq. Defectors are, of course, often very unreliable, but Private Abass Shomail's story is in keeping with the sentiments of Kurdish spies.

  Morale was very low, he said, both among his fellow conscripts and among civilians. "We want America to attack because of the bad situation in our country. But we don't want America to launch air strikes against Iraqi soldiers because we are forced to shoot and defend. We are also victims in this situation."

  [. . .]

  As the US military puts the finishing touches to its invasion plan, it is clear that Saddam Hussein's recruits and volunteers face bleak choices in the coming weeks. If they remain in their positions they run the risk of being pulverised by American missiles. But if they try to surrender they risk being shot.

  Definitely offers a perspective I hadn't really thought too much about.

• Moving on . . . . Next Saturday, there are going to be massive demonstrations throughout Great Britain, none of which, incidentally, I'll go out of my way to attend, due to a variety of fundamental ideological reasons, not to mention the fact that Saturday's rallies, especially the one planned for London, are being compared
  to the Poll Tax rallies of 1990. If you know nothing of that memorable event, click here and here for two images that more or less tell the day's tale. (Keep in mind, that was a successful rally.) Today's article about the preparations for the protests is interesting, if only for the quotes alone, especially that of Apolo Murciano, a 28-year-old student of sculpture at the Edinburgh College of Art:

  "I think it's totally shameful," said Apolo. "I have been watching the news, reading the papers. The evidence is not enough; even with evidence it does not justify a bombing of Iraq, ever. Even if they found mass destruction arms, it does not justify a war."

  You know, I have loads of sympathy for über-pacifists, I really do, but this twaddle is downright jolting. Is it just me, or wouldn't pacifism be a much more interesting, bold position if its adherents maintained that, "Yes, this war," (not necessarily this war, as in the impending war with Iraq, but in general, hypothetically) "this war is justified," (for, let's say, the reasons that the majority of people think that a war would be justified) "but, precisely because of my pacifist position, I do not think this war should be fought." Maybe most pacifists do say this already, I don't know, but Mr. Murciano, with his understanding of what does and does not "justify a war," signalled his defection today, too, but from the realm of coherence into that of out-of-touch-with-the-rest-of-the-world.

• Speaking of being out of touch, and changing the subject quickly, Andrew Halsey is trying again to row his way across the Pacific Ocean. Two problems: (1) he has epilepsy; and, (2) due to a stretch of bad luck with the wind and the current, he hasn't actually moved for 73 days (though, to his credit, he has covered 2,300 miles since leaving Peru). This is not the first time the Pacific Ocean hasn't been kind to Halsey. After successfully crossing the Atlantic Ocean back in 1997, his attempt to traverse the Pacific in 1999 was cut short, due to hurricane conditions, 266 days into his journey -- the last 16 of which he went without food.

• And lastly, I only need to quote from the lead paragraph of this story. It says it all:

  Italian teenagers can smoke joints on school trips, as long as they are sharing them rather than selling them, an Italian court has ruled.

God, there are some days I just love Europe.

Remind me again, who're we waging war against?

I know Bush's budget came out a while ago now, but I have a hard enough time understanding the in's and the out's of my own budget, let alone the proposed budged of a nation. What can I say, I'm a literary critic cum theologian, gimme a break. I've typed and re-typed this post a half-dozen times now, and it just gets filled with more belligerence and and obscenties in each incarnation. I think I'll just let a few links speak for themselves, for the most part. I've ordered them according to my progression of emotion:

CURIOSITY

"President Bush hauled out the heavy artillery Monday, but not against Iraq or North Korea -- indeed, his budget made no mention of how he'll pay for any actions he may take in those places. Rather his $2.23-trillion spending proposal for 2004 declares war on the idea of a progressive tax code. In slashing taxes while dismissing the importance of deficits, the administration is pushing the most radical change in economic policy since Ronald Reagan, if not the New Deal." (Los Angeles Times)

BEWILDERMENT

"What does this mean? It means that the (not very bad) economic news of the past year coupled with the provisions the Bush Administration has put into its 2004 Budget will, if enacted, put the U.S. once more on the path to national bankruptcy. Once again the commitments of the government--to defense, administration of justice, the safety net, and the large elderly programs of Medicare and Social Security--will be far beyond the reach of federal revenues.

"Why would any administration deliberately unbalance the long-term finances of the federal government? Why would anybody want to set up a situation in which the taxpayers one and two generations hence will find themselves stuck with an enormous bill? Why set up a situation in which what HHS [Dept. of Health and Human Services] and SSA [Social Security Administration] tell potential beneficiaries of programs is radically inconsistent with what the White House and Treasury tell taxpayers about tax burdens?

"It really is beyond my comprehension why anyone would do this." (Brad DeLong)

HORROR

"Days after the administration asked Congress for the biggest military budget since the Reagan-era buildup, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told a Congressional panel today that the administration would soon request additional billions to fight terrorism and for any conflict with Iraq.

"Mr. Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee that sending forces for a possible war had already cost $2.1 billion and that the Pentagon was spending $1.5 billion a month to fight terrorism. Those costs are not included in the current budget nor in the $380 billion request for 2004, and they would require a separate spending bill." (New York Times)

DISBELIEF

"Administration budgeteers have designed Bush's most prominent proposals so that much -- and, in some cases, virtually all -- of their costs fall outside the White House's five-year budget window. As a result, Bush has been able to propose gargantuan changes in everything from taxes to Medicare without having to explain how he would pay full freight for them." (Los Angeles Times)

& HOPE

"So where does Mr. Greenspan come in? Next week he will testify before the Senate Banking Committee. Will he, at long last, acknowledge the administration's fecklessness?

[. . .]

"As a famous fiscal scold, he can't adopt the administration's 'deficits, schmeficits' approach. And he can't make the supply-side claim that tax cuts actually increase revenues, when just two years ago he argued for a tax cut to reduce the surplus.

"If Mr. Greenspan nonetheless finds ways to rationalize Mr. Bush's irresponsibility, or if he takes refuge in Delphic utterances that could mean anything or nothing, history will remember him as a man who urged hard choices on others, but refused to make hard choices himself.

"This may be Alan Greenspan's last chance to save his reputation — and the country's solvency." (New York Times)

Another Sequel Worth Missing [and I'm not referring to Godfather III]

Apparently not content with last year's Patriot Act, the U.S. Justice Department is trying to whip up a winning sequel. You remember the Patriot Act , don't you? Ah, those were the days, weren't they? How a year and a half flies when you're enjoying the secrecy of wiretaps, the vigiliance of electronic surveillance, and the protective cloak of a president with the right to declare war on a whim. So, tell us Dr. David Cole, Georgetown University Law professor and author of Terrorism and the Constitution, what can we expect from the sequel?

“[It] raises a lot of serious concerns. It’s troubling that they have gotten this far along and they’ve been telling people there is nothing in the works.” This proposed law, he added, “would radically expand law enforcement and intelligence gathering authorities, reduce or eliminate judicial oversight over surveillance, authorize secret arrests, create a DNA database based on unchecked executive ‘suspicion,’ create new death penalties, and even seek to take American citizenship away from persons who belong to or support disfavored political groups.”

Psh! You sound like a cranky liberal, Dr. Cole, and are obviously exaggerating. I mean, c'mon, judicial oversight is one of the key checks to executive power and legislative procedure, and the due process of law is one of the hallmarks of the democracy that the infidel terrorist despises us for. Surely a president who owes so much to judicial decision already, not to mention one who clearly loves political debate and dissent, surely he wouldn't green light this kind of proposal.

Eh, don't be so sure. Especially note (Atrios and Tom Tomorrow highlight this, too) proposed Section 501, "The Expatriation of Terrorists":

This provision, the drafters say, would establish that an American citizen could be expatriated “if, with the intent to relinquish his nationality, he becomes a member of, or provides material support to, a group that the United Stated has designated as a ‘terrorist organization’.” But whereas a citizen formerly had to state his intent to relinquish his citizenship, the new law affirms that his intent can be “inferred from conduct.” Thus, engaging in the lawful activities of a group designated as a “terrorist organization” by the Attorney General could be presumptive grounds for expatriation. (emphasis mine)

The Matrix sequel be damned! I can't wait for the previews of this mother to start hitting the screen! I really hope, though, that a subtitle is included before they do, like Patriot II: "The Electric Boogaloo" (thus implying America's diligence), or "The Roof, the Roof, the Roof is on Fire" (thus implying America's sense of danger -- this, by the way, is far more effective, for me anyway, than just the color orange), or "We Gonna Get You Sucka" (thus implying America's resolve), or anything with an appropriate amount of jive to it. A little jive goes a long way.

Here and There

Want an example of why I appreciate the news I get here in Britain, versus the news I was getting back in the States, via CNN and Fox? Click here, and then try to imagine George W. Bush, the President who would be king, in that seat across from Jeremy Paxman. Just try to imagine, that's all it will take for humor to turn to sadness to turn to rage to turn to shame to turn to bewilderment to turn to worry. Where can one find an actual, functioning democracy at the moment (I had to emphasize that last part?)? Look no further than a wee, rainy island, from which many a white person stepped ashore in America three hundred years or so ago.

Oh, and when you finish the interview, while you're stewing in the melange of emotion just described, take a look at Kieran Healy's fabulous post on the matter.

Frustrated

On the heels of my plangent cries of frustration, in my renascent endeavor to formulate a coherent opinion on a war with Iraq, Kevin Drum, though he doesn't know me from Abdul Adham, sits me down avuncularly and explains:

I am sympathetic to the notion that administrations lie a lot on the subject of war, and I'm certainly sympathetic to the idea that this particular administration routinely lies about anything they think they can get away with. And yet....that leaves us with a problem, doesn't it? If, a priori, nothing the administration says is believable, then opposition to war simply becomes a religious doctrine. After all, no one else is going to try and make the case.

[. . .]

If your opposition to war is based on the idea that Saddam does indeed possess illegal weapons but it's best to leave him alone anyway, well and good. But if it's based on the idea that the administration is lying and none of this stuff exists, you should tread carefully. I think it's pretty likely you will be proven wrong shortly.

Kevin, of course, as usual, is correct, in an irritatingly reasonable way. However, a couple of things bother me. Namely, I'm not nearly as opposed to a war against Iraq as I am the pretense in which such a war will invariably now be fought. The fact that this administration needs to give the leaders of the world ample excuse to green light a war the latter are not willing to fight does not excuse outright the fact that this "case" must be made with winks and nudges, not to mention outright forgery (in the case of Britain). There is an aesthetics and poetics to war, which acknowledge the means of war itself, not simply its myriad of ends. We have come to expect propaganda, but this does not necessitate its blithe acknowledgment and acceptance.

I envy those who have a solid opinion one way or another on this issue, I really do. I, however, am torn by the aggrieving dubiety, not to mention dangerous, preemptive precedent, that is guiding a war effort that has, on a number of levels, a legitimate end. Once again, how does one form a meaningful opinion when the process of war -- its beginning, middle, and ending -- itself is as important as the war's desired effect; when, indeed, the consequences of both are related, intertwined? To what extent, (how) does one, (how) can one, support a war with legitimate ends, but whose process is continually strained by dishonesty. (Note: these are not merely rhetorical gestures here!) After all, one need not believe everything one is told is a lie to seriously question a messenger's integrity; moreover, when the modicum of probity one expects in preparatory propaganda is left wanting, how high can one's expectation of the war be, again, no matter its justification. Will the world be free of a tyrant? Possibly. Will a nation of millions be free to live in a dummy democracy? a liberal democracy by which an Iranian theocracy will fall, Saudi Arabia's oil hegemony will be challenged, and Al Qaeda's financing thus drained? Perhaps. Will the second-largest oil reserve no longer be in the hands of "evil"? It depends on your opinion of Exxon, BP, Shell, et al. The answer to all these questions notwithstanding, is it possible for a country (or coalition) to lose a war they've "won"; and if so, at what price? In times like these, the apparent unwillingness to consider the implications of this question (eg., Donald "North Korea is a terrorist regime" Rumsfeld), irrespective of the position one ultimately takes, betrays a dangerous navigation of the passage between the Scylla and Charybdis of ignorance and madness.

Perhaps, by way of extension, in times like these, with leaders like these, none of us can afford blissful ignorance, nor do we deserve the freedom from the struggle for, or with, an opinion.

What's that cliché about "military intelligence"?

A must-read Channel 4 report (click here for video). In an unspeakably bad print-version of the story, they report:

The government's carefully co-ordinated propaganda offensive took an embarrassing hit tonight after Downing Street was accused of plagiarism.

[. . .]

The target is an intelligence dossier released on Monday and heralded by none other than Colin Powell at the UN yesterday.

Channel Four News has learnt that the bulk of the nineteen page document was copied from three different articles - one written by a graduate student.

On Monday, the day before the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell addressed the UN, Downing Street published its latest paper on Iraq.

It gives the impression of being an up to the minute intelligence-based analysis - and Mr Powell was fulsome in his praise.

[. . .]

But it made familiar reading to Cambridge academic Glen Ranwala. It was copied from an article last September in a small journal: the Middle East Review of International Affairs.

It's [sic] author, Ibrahim al-Marashi, a postgraduate student from Monterey in California. Large sections do indeed appear, verbatim.

[. . .]

In several places Downing Street edits the originals to make more sinister reading.

Number 10 says the Mukhabarat - the main intelligence agency - is "spying on foreign embassies in Iraq". The original reads: "monitoring foreign embassies in Iraq." And the provocative role of "supporting terrorist organisations in hostile regimes" has a weaker, political context in the original: "aiding opposition groups in hostile regimes."

Even typographic mistakes in the original articles are repeated.

What was it I said yesterday about every time I come close to finally supporting a war? Come back, Yossarian, we need you!!

Can't a brotha get a little peace?

Just when he thought he was going to get some peace and quiet, God, who was smiling yesterday for the first time since he got back from that month-long bender in Reykjavik with his coterie of favorite angels (No, not Gabriel, who, so I'm told, is a bit too fey for the Almighty, and, quite frankly, a little stuck-up), was summarily brought back to earth, so to speak (ha, that's a funny joke, they tell me, up in heaven), today.

"Shit, is today the National Prayer Breakfast?? Didn't I tell somebody to remind about this! Jesus Christ, I can't work like this!"

"Yes, I know."

"You know, all this is your fault, don't you?"

"Yes, I know."

Anyway, now, as a matter of course, God's all moody again, bitch-slapping Gabriel out of anger, and not just for sport this time, or even because Gabriel wanted to read one of the poems he wrote the other day. On the bright side, there's a rumor he's also sent out Gandhi to make reservations in Nuuk, at that cozy little B&B they all stayed during last year's Arctic Winter Games, and where Mother Theresa kept everybody up with her late-night ribaldry.

"Jesus! You know, being God's a bitch."

"Yes, I know."

One More Thing To Worry About In the Morning

Put this one in the "It Might Just Be a Coincidence, But I'm Buying a New Razor Today Anyway" file. The best line of the article, and maybe of the day:

He [Professor Shah Ebrahim] said the low frequency of orgasm in men who did not shave regularly might be because they had low levels of testosterone or might simply reflect the fact that they were unmarried and had less opportunity for sex. [*snicker*]

Research results of the life expectancy of French women remain, as yet, inconclusive.

A Dedication

It's 8.15 p.m (EST) -- do you know where your job went? Hmm... neither does this guy.

Oh, now don't look so glum, you still got your health (though, certainly not your health insurance) -- says University of North Carolina-Greensboro economist Christopher J. Ruhm, speaking, methinks, like a man who has a job studying people with no job.

But hey, good news, even if your syphilis has broken out once again (and whose hasn't??), Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank President Jack Guynn has some solid advice that you can take all the way to the [read: his] bank:

"It's still a bit early to declare that everything is well and back on track but I think the fundamentals are still solid and will continue to improve," Guynn said in a phone interview with Reuters.

The regional Fed bank chief, who rotated into a voting seat on the central bank's policy-setting panel this year, said worries over a possible U.S.-led war against Iraq were not the only factor restraining economic activity.

"I think it clearly is an important factor but just how big I don't think anybody knows," he said. "I look forward to getting beyond that and getting a better view of some of the other fundamentals of the economy."

Guynn said the U.S. economy would likely be growing around an annual rate of 2.75 percent to 3 percent by the end of the year, and that the jobless rate could rise for several months before it begins to fall.

Sniff... sniff.. That smell, it . . . it . . . smells so familiar. If it looks like shit and it smells like shit, there's a good chance . . .

[Dedicated to Crak]