|
Up to the minute notes on the current state of free thinking and free living: Kentucky moonshine - original analysis and reporting from MoreThings, and all round pop culture museum of sight and sound - photo galleries, mp3 and video downloads.
Al Barger and MoreThings - getting people's goats since 1998.
Live free or die!
----
|
November 16, 2002
To Salam with love
My exchanges with Salam in Iraq have been judged to rate a blurb on the MSNBC Weblog Central page. Read it HERE.
Salam related links:
Salam's website: Where Is Raed?
Al's letter 11-13-2002
Salam's posting 11-14-2002
Salam's letter 11-15-2002
Noting Salam's response
Al's first posting on Salam 10-27-2002
Salam's response 10-29-2002
Al's follow up post 10-29-2002
When first I ran into Salam's site, I naturally wondered as to the authenticity. This was the subject of my first post. I feel almost bad about that. It's reasonable and natural to ask, since he publishes pseudonymously, for obvious reasons- ie not wanting to be shot by Hussein's goons. He can't very well give out phone numbers and references, so it's natural that a reader might be skeptical for a minute. You have to wonder.
However, this sucks for Salam. He's already tending to being, uhm, a little moody, what with us getting ready to come a bombing. Plus, who knows what kind of crazy desperate crap Hussein will unleash when we come crashing in. So there he is, taking a pretty big risk in publishing at all, anxious to talk to the outside world- and here's some jackass from Indiana wondering if he's a CIA fake. Sorry about that, buddy.
I'm long since good and convinced of his verity- as is everyone else I know of who's spent more than five minutes on his site. The CIA has some smart folk on payroll, but they're not talented enough to create Salam. If someone had the talent to create Salam, they'd be a famous novelist or screenwriter, not a security agency drone.
Go visit his site. Drop him an email. Send him some love. He's going to need it.
posted by Al at 11/16/2002 03:06:00 PM
November 15, 2002
American terrorist
On this day, November 15, 1864, Sherman burned Atlanta, beginning his infamous "march to the sea."
posted by Al at 11/15/2002 10:30:00 PM
Salam responds from Baghdad
Our Iraqi blogger friend has responded to my letter from the 13th. He shows more grace and empathy for us than I would probably be able to muster under similar cirmcumstances.
My letter
Salam's response
Our exchange aside, you should definitely check out his whole site. Salam is a sensitive soul and a good writer who communicates in many little ways the oppression of living under Hussein as well as the dread and understandable mistrust for what seems likely to come at American hands. Visit his site, and send him some love.
We may well have to invade his country, but it behooves us to understand as much as possible what we're getting into. As Diana Moon points out eloquently, it's real easy for Americans sitting at keyboards in nice safe homes to make sweeping statements about kicking Saddam's ass. Even if we're right, we need to remember that we're not playing chess or a video game. We have the strongest, most dominating military force in human history, and how we use it impacts many millions of real lives.
It's not just harshly worded emails that we're getting ready to drop on Salam's hometown.
posted by Al at 11/15/2002 12:45:00 PM
Truth trumps immediate political benefit
Colin Powell is speaking out against negative descriptions of Islam by the American religious right, apparently as part of a concerted effort by the administration to garner support for action against Iraq. As The Guardian puts it, "As the likelihood grows of a war in Iraq there are strategic benefits for the White House in convincing Muslims that it would not be a war against their religion."
The religious right- at least in this case- have the defense of speaking truthfully. Colin Powell is on the wrong end of it here:
Days after the televangelist Pat Robertson said on his Christian Broadcasting Network that "what the Muslims want to do to the Jews is worse" than the Holocaust, Mr Powell told a gathering in Washington: "This kind of hatred must be rejected."
Wait, Mr. Powell means that what Robertson is saying is hate that must be rejected? No, now, what Robertson is saying does not incite hatred; he's NOT saying "Muslims are swine, and they should be exterminated." He made more a statement of fact: He made an analysis of the stated and demonstrated intentions of Muslims.
The question then is not Robertson's supposed "hatred." The proper question is the truth value of Robertson's claim. In light of many, many published articles and broadcasts of the speeches of Muslim clerics and practitioners, in light of the words of the Koran, and most important, in light of the actual actions of many followers of Allah- clerics, soldiers, politicians and civillians alike- Pat Robertson has substantial factual basis for his claims.
Yeah, you can come back with "not all Muslims." However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and Islam should be leaving a very bad taste in the mouths of all decent, peaceable people by this time. A pretty good swath of Muslims in fact support such charges as Robertson makes in word and deed, and relatively few fellow Muslims speak forcefully against them. You might reasonably accuse the reverend of overgeneralizing- but not by much.
It does not ultimately behoove us to fake reality, mouthing the words "Islam is a religion of peace," when that does not correspond to the facts on the ground. We could go into a long dissertation on Ayn Rand [A is A, and all that], but truth is not served by grasping onto convenient lies. Dealing on the basis of recognizing true reality is the only way of getting results in reality.
The real truth begins with recognizing that the Koran is false. This is not necessarily to say it is evil- that would be another point. Simply, things didn't all happen like in the book. In the words of one of my preferred prophets, "castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually."
Now it might work out that you could moderate the teachings and practices of Islam to blend in with the modern world. This brings to mind the recorded studio chatter of Sam Phillips talking to a recalcitrant Jerry Lee Lewis, "Now, religious conviction does not mean anything resembling extremism." The problem is that, well, yes it DOES.
The not-true beliefs of Christianity have been moderated, diluted, watered down to such an extent as to now be mostly pretty compatible with civillization. Arguably, however, the basic holy documents of Christianity are not as violent and intolerant as the Koran to start with. In any case, it took many long centuries for Christianity to get house trained for civillization. And still it causes problems.
No, better that we confront directly the basic non-truth of their religion, and the unacceptable nature of some of the common tenets. We need to be very tactful and respectful in the confrontation, but it badly needs to be done. We're doing them and ourselves a much better favor in the long run.
This isn't the job of George Bush. That's a job for philosophers and preachers and teachers. The basic job of politics is not to correct everyone's false beliefs, but negotiate the practical parameters of acceptable behavior: You have a right to believe anything you want, but if you start becoming violent, it's all over now, Baby Blue.
While de-Islamizing the world isn't in his job description, it does not serve our true long term interests for him and his minions to run interference against our truth squads. It might make it a little easier to cobble together a partnership to deal with Hussein in the next few weeks, but it will ultimately work against our efforts to deal with the root causes of terror, because make no mistake about it, the lion's share of terrorism is coming from fanatical Muslims.
Just the facts, ma'am. The Christian right is doing us a good service.
Still, couldn't they find somebody besides Jimmy Swaggart -of all people- to point out that Mohammed was a "sex deviant."
posted by Al at 11/15/2002 03:08:00 AM
Is it live, or is it Memorex from beyond the grave?
The Junkyard Blog has a fascinating explanation that even if Bin Laden's voice on the recent audiotape is authenticated, it doesn't really prove that he's alive. He backs it up with an example from his own professional work.
In short, a couple of minutes of fuzzy audiotape doesn't necessarily prove much in this day and age. There's a lot can be done with even some cheap editing equipment to run a little sleight of hand and trot out that old boogie man.
posted by Al at 11/15/2002 01:24:00 AM
November 14, 2002
Whoa, Nelly
It is certainly pleasing to see Democrats in congress brought to heel. After the pure obstinate obstructionism of the Daschle senate, they needed broke. After getting it broke off up in them during the election last week, the Democrats are understandably anxious to give in on the homeland security bill before it destroys Landrieau in Louisiana's senate run off next month.
However, perhaps they should all- Democrats and Republicans alike- just slow down for a minute on the homeland security bill. It will be the most sweeping re-organization of the federal government in at least 50 years. Yet the compromise bill is agreed to on Wednesday, expecting to be passed Thursday. There is no way that they could have time that quickly to print copies of the bill, and pass them out- much less read it or think it through.
Now, I'm not suggesting an extended period of debate. They've been fooling with it for a year. I think it's a bad idea, but nobody asked me; they're going to put it up for a vote and pass it. But considering the magnitude of what they're doing, would it be too much to ask that they take the weekend to actually read the bill, and then vote next week?
posted by Al at 11/14/2002 03:38:00 AM
And some flea powder, too
I'm hard pressed to understand how anyone could honestly hold a positive view of the United Nations. They largely constitute the scummiest scrapings of human society pretending to be some gathering of the world's guardians.
As it pertains to American actions vis a vis Iraq, the approval of the UN does not add any real moral authority, but actually actively detracts from it. Getting UN co-operation has almost nothing to do with having convinced anyone about the moral or humanitarian import of taming Saddam. It has everything to do with wheeling and dealing for money and power. As Jonah Goldberg puts it with beautiful clarity in the money quote of his new column:
By pleading for U.N. approval, the no-blood-for-oil crowd increased the international trade in both blood and oil. In order to get the votes of Russia and China we had to give those countries a free pass at killing their Muslim Chechen and Uighur populations, respectively. We also had to promise the continuity of France's oil contracts, and of Russia's too.
I would think US or British ambassadors would need a scented bath after a day of dealing with the likes of the Syrian government just to wash the stink off.
posted by Al at 11/14/2002 12:53:00 AM
November 13, 2002
An open letter to an Iraqi citizen
I find myself addressing Salam, the underground Iraqi author of the Where Is Raed? website. His remarks come from a thread connected to the Legendary Monkey, who has herself been highly skeptical of the move for military action against Iraq. Salam's not very happy with my support for overthrowing the government of his country, though this is absolutely NOT support for Hussein.
that's ok AL you won't have to wait for long. first your bushie-bush will destroy the iraqis in self defense and then turn to palestenians, saudis, Iranians.
would you like us to wear badges saying (muslim-scum)so that your super smart laser guided missiles can find us more easily ?
Posted by salam at November 13, 2002
My reply:
Salam-
You're a smart fella, so I'm confident that you know better than the ad hominem attack you're making on me ["would you like us to wear badges saying (muslim-scum)"] Obviously NO ONE in the US supports indiscriminate killings of civilians. That would be YOUR leader Hussein, and, per your list, the political leadership of the Palestenians, Saudis, and Iranians. For our part, America and our Bushie-Bush have tried very hard to avoid killing innocent civillians.
I appreciate that you aren't looking forward to military action in your country. However, it is an unfortunate necessity. You know better than I what kind of mass murdering bastard is running your country.
Your problem is Saddam, not the US. You want to lash out at somebody, I understand. Feel free to say bad things about me, Al Barger, personally if it makes you feel better. Considering what you're facing, I'll understand. I'm pretty safe down on the farm, so a little cursing from you won't hurt me.
You and your countrymen have been either unwilling or unable to get rid of him, and he has been and remains a menace to the rest of the world. Therefore WE will have to knock him down.
I don't blame you personally. You are stuck in the middle. Unfortunately a good many of your countrymen, even possibly yourself stand to get killed. For our part, the US will be trying very hard NOT to kill you.
As to your danger, though, consider your own words:
"And in a case of war I do believe that if Saddam has any biological or chemical weapons he is very likely to use them on his own people to give the CNN and Jazeera the bloody images everyone doesn't want to see."
This scenario from you is even wickeder than any that occurred to me or most American hawks. We anticipate the possibility of him using WMDs against our soldiers, or lobbing them at Israel. It hadn't occurred to me that he might bluntly and purposely turn them against his own civilians, just to punish Americans with the sight of dead bodies.
Your quote here only re-doubles my support for a military intervention, though. A guy with that kind of evil in him HAS to go. He has to go NOW. If he'd do that to his own, there's little question that he'd do it to us just for a goddam laugh.
What do you think we SHOULD do? Should we just sit back and wait for him to pass some nasty crap off to al Qaeda? He could well be doing that now, so they can run interference for him.
I'm sorry for your country, and I appreciate your anguish, but we can't afford to take our chances with allowing him to remain in power. The longer he's there, the more hazardous he becomes. It's horrible that he's put your country in such a situation. We're not going to wait around giving him the chance to do the same to us.
The best thing YOU could do would be to accept the necessity of the surgery that we're going to do in removing this cancerous regime from your society, and HELP US. You're on the ground in Baghdad? OK, what kind of clues could you give us to troop movements? Especially, do you have any clues as to where some of those chemical and biological weapons might be? If you can provide any clues, perhaps that would help us destroy them before Hussein could use them on YOU. Here is the CIA COMMENTS PAGE, which would be the most obvious place for you to report.
I can appreciate how this request might strike you the wrong way on an emotional level, but it would be truly the best way to help your country. There's no future for your country while the Baath regime remains. The quicker and more precisely we get rid of him, the better it will be for both our countries.
I can appreciate how you might not feel very friendly towards President Bush, or to me personally for supporting him in this effort. Please believe me, though, when I say that I have nothing but love in my heart for you and your countrymen. I look forward to the day- which will be coming very soon- when the menace of Hussein and his henchmen is gone from you.
Peace be with you, brother.
posted by Al at 11/13/2002 01:15:00 PM
November 11, 2002
Half a loaf is worse than none
This new UN Security Council declaration of November 8, 2002 doesn't impress me much. Studying the actual text, it doesn't seem to obviously give us much that we didn't already have. It lays out demands, but does NOT give us specific authorization to do anything to enforce them. Indeed, our representative to the UN, John Negroponte, specifically emphasized as a selling point of the statement that it does not include "automaticity."
On the other hand, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card insists that the US does not need further authorization. On Meet the Press, he said "The U.N. can meet and discuss, but we don't need their permission." Colin Powell, even, is saying similar things to CNN.
What good is this resolution then? We already could claim that the Baath regime has been in material breech of dozen year old statements from the last Gulf War. We could even reasonably use those UN resolutions as legal basis for an attack without further authorization. [That is if you think that we need UN sanction in order to be legal, which is arbitrary and incorrect. Let me explain.] People (well, the French) would bitch, but they'd bitch just the same if we used this newest authorization as our justification.
The most you could say for this resolution is that it lays down the conditions for avoiding attack, and gives international credence that these terms are legitimate. That might be perceived as advancing the ball a few yards, but just is not a diplomatic touchdown; it does not give us authority to act.
What it more obviously does is to complicate matters for the US. It grants the moral authority to the United Nations such that we strongly appear to have conceded that we need the UN to make our actions legitimate. Now we have to hope that this Swede, Hans Blix, is really the tough guy that will be necessary for any of this to have effectiveness- and that the Security Council will back him up as Hussein goes to his usual tricks to game the system.
This will surely work out right. However, in the unlikely event that Hussein goes back to playing hide and seek, we're in a rough spot. We have foolishly ceded authority to the United Nations, so now we're the bad guys if we have to go in without permission from China or Russia. Also, we're likely to have some half-assed bunch of weapons inspectors running around Iraq with their penises in their hands- right in the way of stuff we're going to need to be destroying.
I support President Bush on his Iraq policy. In fairness, he has been steady and relentless. He's kept his eye on the big picture.
Perhaps he knows exactly what he's doing. Dubya has in fact repeatedly proven himself to be the sharpest tool in the shed. Maybe he's figured out how this UN resolution plays right into his hands, and I'll be proven wrong in my analysis that it makes our job harder rather than easier. I hope so.
posted by Al at 11/11/2002 04:32:00 PM
Doesn't he have bigger fish to broil?
Here's a nice criticism of creeping nanny state carping about American eating habits coming even from Tommy Thompson. I had not been aware of Thompson's comments, which sound like typical liberal scolding.
The article gets more interesting as the author starts talking about those common grocery store discount cards, and how ripe they are for abuse. The obvious dismissal of these concerns as pure paranoia gets knocked aside in consideration of facts already on the ground, however. Go ahead and read it.
Oh, by the way, why is the federal government worrying about fast food anyway? Don't we have a war to fight, and enough homeland security problems to keep our cabinet secretaries busy?
posted by Al at 11/11/2002 03:02:00 AM
Link Soup
morethings master
photo gallery index
MP3
new album
releases
lyrics
sammy davis
little richard photos
buddy holly pictures
fats domino images
chuck berry pictures 01/
02/
03/
04/
05/
06/
07/
08/
09/
10/
11/
12/
01/
02/
03/
04/
05/
06/
07/
08/
09/
10/
11/
12/
01/
02/
03/
04/
05/
06/
07/
08/
09/
10/
11/
12/
01/02/
03/
04/
05/
06/
07/
08/
09/
10/
11/
12
01/
02/
03/
04/
05/
06/
07/
08/
09/
10/
11/
12/01/
02/
03/
04/
05/
06/
07/
08/
09/
10/
11/
12/08/
09/
10/
11/
12/
la
24
lucille ball images james
blunt photos
clint eastwood pictures lena
horne images team
america pictures
robert mitchum photos
bruce springsteen pictures
mariah carey pictures
ann coulter photos
george clooney images
loretta lynn pictures
beatles pictures
white stripes pictures
andy griffith pictures
kill bill pictures
beverly hillbillies pictures
robin williams
frank zappa pictures
jerry lee lewis pictures
richard pryor photos
june carter johnny cash pictures
vic mackey shield pictures u2 photos
four seasons images
james cagney images
elvis presley pictures
country music
blog
dolly parton pictures
olsen twins photos
tom petty photos
tori amos pictures
joaquin phoenix images David
Bowie photos
Quills movie images
reese witherspoon pictures rolling
stones photos
fiona apple images kim
novak images ray charles photos marx
brothers pictures
prince rogers nelson pictures blazing
saddles images
sinead o'connor images
eddie murphy photos aretha
franklin photos
south park pictures homer
simpson images
bob dylan pictures elizabeth
taylor photos madonna
images
saturday night live pictures willie
nelson images hee
haw pictures james
brown images pete
townshend photos
tina turner pictures
dixie chicks photos
margaret thatcher photos
guns
n roses pictures
paula abdul pictures
jodie foster photos
amy winehouse
eminem
frank sinatra photos
van
halen images
satan
blondie photos
joni
mitchell pictures
merle haggard
images
rocky horror pictures
monty
python
|
|
