licentious radio

Wednesday, August 27, 2003
[3:01:10 PM]

Understanding why terrorists succeed....

One key is when many non-terrorists are not adamently opposed to the terrorists' goals. If people on the street won't call the cops when something suspicious is going on, the terrorists are ahead.

Right now, Bin Laden gets too-high approval ratings across the Arab/Islamic world.

Here's a close-to-home example. Am I sorry if people vandalize SUVs for political reasons? I suppose I am, but not very sorry. I'm not going to vandalize any Humvees myself, and I suppose I would call the cops if I saw anybody in the act, but you wouldn't catch me going out of my way to protect a dealer's lot full of Humvees. Whereas, if somebody were kidnapping children in the neighborhood, you would see me watching the street closely, and I make a practice already of watching to make sure women and children are safe. I once ran out into the street in front of a speeding car that was aimed at an elderly man in a crosswalk. I suppose anybody would, but not everybody watches, and I wouldn't *watch* to keep somebody's stupid Humvee safe.

Vandalizing SUVs doesn't seem like terrorism to me, by the way, because there is no sense that the vandals are trying to provoke a response from the government that would tend to make people reject the government.

Successful terrorism is more like September 11 -- where the main success is getting the United States to attack Afghanistan and Iraq in order to inpire generations of new terrorists. Of course you need a regime that is willing to do its part. Gore might have capitalized on the world-around goodwill for America and led the world to a more peaceful, more prosperous, more just era. September 11 could have been the last gasp of theocratic madmen, rather than the start of endless war for Pax Americana and jihad.

To get back to Baghdad, what affect does shooting 17 year-old Ali Mushin in the back have on his neighbors' attitude toward Americans? What if Chinese occupiers shot your neighbor's son? Does it matter much whether the neighbor had thrown a grenade? Compare that to arresting him, with due process, lawyers, a trial, and a diversion program so his sentence is to help re-build Baghdad....

[11:55:22 AM]
Did you notice that Americans in Iraq are using AK-47s?

Why? We have a tank division doing police work. The crew of a tank gets two rifles. You can conquer Iraq from a tank, but you can't do the dirty work of occupation that way. The soldiers have to get out of the tanks. Rather than go un-armed -- well, they get pistols -- the soldiers pick up AK-47s.

The good news is that AK-47s are generally much better weapons than the standard American weapons. AKs are more reliable in dirty environments, and better at spraying an area on automatic. Also, it's probably easier to get ammunition for them -- every raid uncovers huge amounts of ammunition that US soldiers take without bureaucratic paperwork.

Still, it doesn't seem right that American soldiers rely for their lives on confiscated weapons.

That's Rumsfeld's famous plan. Rumsfeld should be fired, and American soldiers should be given as many rifles as they want, even if they prefer AK-47s. But they should be given weapons that are known to be reliable, not just whatever they find buried with some RPGs.

[11:45:07 AM]
In fact, the conquest and occupation of Iraq is such a complete disaster, Bush and Cheney should resign now.

It's going to take years to put things right, and it's far too important to allow the current crop of buffoons to be involved for another day.

It's obvious what needs to be done, and it starts with not giving no-bid contracts to Halliburton. From there you get civil administration by the UN, and an extra 400,000 soldiers from around the world.

Bush has disgraced America, and betrayed us. There is no way he can make up for that. The only possible step in the right direction is for Bush *and* Cheney to resign immediately.

[11:27:32 AM]
"The "SA 1.5.1939" listing shows that the elder Schwarzenegger joined the Nazi troops on May 1, 1939, the year after Germany annexed Austria and six months after the brown-shirts were crucially involved in the bloody Kristallnacht riots."

Is that true? Should we care?

I say it is indicative of "family values". George W. Bush's grandfather helped bankroll Hitler, and here is The Groper's father who evidently thought Kristallnacht was such a good idea that he signed up himself.

It's not that family history automatically rules someone out, but rather that it makes you wonder when current values and behaviors are closely tied to the family's values and behaviors. Certainly Bush's propaganda lies are more than worthy of the people who raised Hitler to power. Arnold's behavior with women would not seem out of place among his father's co-workers, nor would Arnold's willingness to use steroids and mental games to beat a competitor, etc.

That Arnold is now involved with right-wing crony-capitalists does *not* give any sense that his values are different from his father's.

We have a right to be suspicious. The way to answer these suspicions is to point at a long record of accomplishments that prove the suspicions are unjustified. In fact, Schwarzenegger's record in public life raises one's suspicions.

What would Tom DeLay have done in 1930s Germany? What would Arnold? What would Bush? In power in America, do they lead us toward a more perfect, democratic union, or toward a less democratic, crony-capitalist state?

[11:10:58 AM]
Thomas Friedman ran his "In the history of the world, no one ever washed a rental car" quote again.

There are actually some serious points to make about the quote.

I've washed rental cars, so it's wrong.

Am I the exception that proves the rule? I doubt it. Mostly, people rent cars for very short periods of time. The *actual* rule here is that people almost always rent cars for less time than they go between car washings. How many people wash their cars every week? How many people rent cars for twice as long as they would go between washing their own car?

In fact, the statement is normative -- economists fervently wish people would behave the way economists say they do.

But not all of life is an economic calculation, and the prescription that people *should* behave that way wreaks inestimable damage on the world, our society, on our psyches, and on our souls.

There's no honor in driving an extremely dirty car because you are going to return it in a few days. Say you're a victim of a flock of birds -- wash the car.

Say you find a wallet -- give it back. Say a cashier gives you too much change -- give it back. Say you're brushing your teeth -- turn the water off until you need it. Say your community is at peak electricity use -- wait until off-peak to wash clothes, etc. Say you're buying a vehicle to commute -- buy one that gets good gas mileage, and therefore pollutes less, and/or avoid commuting.

If you think a little harder, you can find economic justifications for most behavior that economists theologically insist is irrational and therefore *bad*... in their belief system. But as individuals and communities, we should consider this a matter of honor, and reject the economists' worship of greed.

[10:49:23 AM]
More LIES from Bush-crony right-wing crank would-be politicians....

"As you know, I don't need to take any money from anybody." --The Groper

And yet, the Groper is now out raising campaign cash from the same people who funded "Blackout Pete".

Or maybe it's only a PROPAGANDA LIE? Maybe he meant he doesn't "need" to take money, but he's going to anyway.

We love weasel-wording right-wing misleaders even better than we love forth-right right-wing liars. On the right, you get what you pay for.

[10:41:02 AM]
Disturbing Iraq story in New York Times. It's presented as a contrast in viewpoints of Iraqi neighbors and relatives, versus the Americans who shot and killed a teenage boy who they thought had dropped two hand grenades at them.

Whether the boy, Ali Muhsin, dropped a hand grenade, I obviously don't know. Some Iraqis claim he didn't. But the most disturbing side of the story is what the Americans say, and it is *more* disturbing if they are right that the boy dropped the hand grenade.

An American saw two people on a bridge just before the grenades went off. The Americans gave chase. They found a guy they believed was one of the two. The Iraqi teenager ran, stopped after a warning shot, but then ran again.

The Humvee machine gunner, Specialist John Rogers, shot the un-armed Ali in the back as he ran. Mission Accomplished.

I wasn't there. I will never argue with John Rogers' decision to shoot the seventeen year-old in the back. I question the rules of engagement -- we should avoid making more enemies -- and I think it's obvious that the conquest and occupation were disasterously mis-managed.

But, in passing, let's note that shooting an unarmed boy in the back with a machine gun was not a John Wayne moment.

Let's also note that the American who believes he saw the boy on the bridge didn't see him drop the grenade, and wasn't present when the boy was shot. Sergeant Vejar says they killed the right boy, but they could as easily have killed a different boy in a green shirt.

I'm not complaining that they arrested the wrong person, I'm complaining that they *shot* the kid, rather than arresting him. And again, I'm not complaining about the decisions of the individuals at the scene, but rather about the overall strategy.

But the most disturbing part -- if you believe what the Americans say in the article -- is that a typical Iraqi teenager, even one with a job and who has the sole income for his family, would skip out of work and go drop some hand grenades on American Humvees. The kid was not a Baathist, not an Al-Qaeda infiltrator, not a 'dead-ender', not even an unemployed former soldier.

If this incident is typical of a percentage of the dozen attacks per day on Americans, we are in darned serious trouble.

Also, the only investigation was by a New York Times journalist.

Imagine a police department shooting teenagers in the back without investigating. It would not be acceptable in a democracy. It's something that we claim to have conquered Iraq to prevent. We had better stop doing it. We are cops there now. Mission Accomplished. We are the civil administration. Shooting unarmed teenagers in the back isn't acceptable.