WashPost Watch

2002-08-20T09:07:00.000-07:00

The Case Against War on Iraq by Howard Zinn

I am sorry about the past few days…but since I got no mail about it I guess no one noticed. I am leaving the Washington Post for this morning to comment on a Boston Globe Piece by Howard Zinn. Yes, the “People’s History of the United States” Zinn. Guess what his take is about war with Iraq? His word will be in Bold and my responses won’t be.

The case against war on Iraq
By Howard Zinn, 8/19/2002

THE BUSH administration's plan for preemptive war against Iraq so flagrantly violates both international law and common morality that we need a real national debate.
If it is that flagrantly then why is a debate needed? Probably because it is so flagrant in your and your fellow America-lasters brain. Of course I imagine that you would say the same thing about the United States’ withdrawal from the Koyoto Treaty.

The discussion should begin with the recognition that an attack on Iraq would constitute an attack on the Charter of the United Nations, since the United States would then be in violation of several provisions, beginning with Article 1, Section 4, which states: ''All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state... ''

Hmmm…except that Iraq never finished complying with the terms of its surrender and in the case of pre-emptive self-defense. Of course that is a minor point. Lets continue…

But let us suppose that international law should not stand in the way when extraordinary circumstances demand immediate violent action. Such circumstances would exist if there were, in the language of our own Supreme Court, a ''clear and present danger'' represented by the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein.

International Law does allow a state to preempt an aggressor. See the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Does Iraq pose a ‘clear and present danger?’ That would be a good debate.

There are facts and there are conjectures about Iraq. The facts: This regime is unquestionably tyrannical; it invaded a neighboring country 12 years ago; it used chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels 15 years ago. The conjectures: Iraq may have biological and chemical weapons today. It may possibly be on the way to developing one nuclear weapon.

Remember that the Kurds were fellow citizens of Saddam Hussein. The conjectures are the heart of the matter. Lets look at the next paragraph. No one seriously things that Iraq doesn't have chem or bio.

But none of these facts or conjectures, even if true, make Iraq a clear and present danger. The fact that Iraq is a tyranny would not, in itself, constitute grounds for preemptive war. There are many tyrannies in the world, some kept in power by the United States. Saudi Arabia is only one example. That Iraq has cruelly attacked its Kurdish minority can hardly be a justification for war. After all, the United States remained silent, and indeed was a supporter of the Iraqi regime, when it committed that act. Turkey killed thousands of its Kurds, using US weapons.

This is the heart of the argument. Yes there are tyrannies in the world…most of them don’t attack their neighbors. When they do, people usually start listening. Our reactions to Bosnia and Kosovo are two indicators.

Furthermore, other nations which killed hundreds of thousands of their own people (Indonesia, Guatemala) not only were not threatened with war, but received weapons from the United States.

I always love the receive weapons from the United States as a means of linking the US to these Human Right abuses. Why doesn’t anyone link Russian weapons or Cuban or Chinese. In some of LGF’s wonderful pictures of the past few weeks; he shows Palestinian militants holding M-16s. No one has accused the United States of supplying Palestine with American weapons.

Iraq's history of invading Kuwait is matched by other countries, among them the United States, which has invaded Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, and Panama. True, Iraq may possess, may be developing ''weapons of mass destruction.'' But surely the possession of such weapons, if not used, does not constitute a clear and present danger justifying war.

See, here is the moral equivalence that Mr. Zinn is attempting. First he shows where the United States has supplied weapons to unsavory regimes (a guilt by association) and now he compares the invasion of Kuwait to United States interventions. The ole one-two punch. Let me see, the United States was invited to South Vietnam. I am not familiar enough with Cambodia to respond to that charge. With both Grenada and Panama, the United States left soon after (something that wasn’t on Saddam Hussein’s mind). Additionally, before the invasion of Panama, the United States had several major military bases there as well as control of the Panama Canal. The bases were given back peacefully as was the Canal.

Actually, the possession of such weapons is a clear and present danger. Its not that Iraq would ever use them....wait a minute he already did. My bad. Look at India and Pakistan for an example. They are fairly stable regimes that almost went to war. Iraq with such weapons would be a terror on its neighbors. Kuwait would probably still be Iraqi if it had a nuke or two in 1990.

Other nations have such weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons. Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons and have come close to using them. And what country has by far the largest store of weapons of mass destruction in the world? And has used them with deadly consequences to millions of people: in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Southeast Asia?

Ahh… The United States has nukes and so should the world. Millions of people suffered. I don’t think so. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible but occurred during a war with a enemy that was not on the verge of surrendering. It could be argued that those events saved far more Japanese live then they cost. I forgot about the nuking of Southeast Asia. Unless Mr. Zinn is referring to Agent Orange in South Vietnam whose long-term effects were unknown at the time. And Israel has used such weapons on the Palestinians....no they didn't. What was I thinking.

There is the issue of weapons inspection. Iraq insists on certain conditions before it will allow inspections to resume. Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year that ''inspectors have to go back in under our terms, under no one else's terms.'' One might ask if the United States would ever allow its biological, chemical, and nuclear facilities to be inspected, under any terms. Is there one moral standard for Iraq and another for the United States?
Yes, the Iraqi’s have asked for many conditions. I don’t think those terms are what Mr. Zinn is referring to. The United States has in the past agreed to inspections of its government and military facilities. It refuses to allow inspectors to private facilities. Yes there is a different moral standard between Iraq and the United States. The United States doesn’t have the reputation of conducting war upon its citizens and neighbors. The United Starts is a federal republic where the people elect their leaders. To compare the two countries is an absolute insult to the United States.

Before Sept. 11 there was not the present excited talk about a strike on Iraq. Why would that event change the situation? There is no evidence of any connection between Iraq and that act of terrorism. Is it possible that the Bush administration is using the fear created by Sept. 11 to build support for a war on Iraq that otherwise has no legitimate justification?

Before September 11, the United States thought it was safe. The United States was mistaken and it won’t happen again. The United States looks at Iraq and the possibility of WMD production there as a justification.

The talk of war has raised the question of American casualties, and rightly so. Are the lives of our young people to be expended in the dubious expectation that the demise of Saddam will bring democracy to Iraq? And what of the inevitable death of thousands of Iraqis, - all of them made doubly victims - first of Saddam, then of Bush? Shall we add a new death toll to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (the figures are from the UN) who have died since the application of sanctions?

I hate these figures. The most common figure is based off a UNICEF report that was produced with the Iraqi ministry of health (a truly unbiased source I am sure). The question about American causalities is the significant one. That is where the debate should begin.

A war against Iraq has no logical connection to the tragic events of Sept. 11. Rather than diminishing terrorism, such an attack would further inflame anger against the United States and may well lead to more terrorist attacks. We have a right to wonder if the motive for war is not stopping terrorism but expanding US power and controlling Mideast oil.

There is a connection. The United States has realized that WMDs don't obey borders and leaders such as Saddam Hussein aren't to be trusted with them. Why do the American-lasters always accuse a Republican administration scheming to get more Mideast oil? There is never any hard proof and I guess it resonates with their disciples. Yes, an attack might inflame anger against the United States. Yes, allowing a nuke to be developed by Iraq might lead to the destruction of New York. See…it is fuin to make sentences with might in them.

A preemptive war against Iraq, legally impermissible, morally unpardonable, would be a cause for shame to future generations. Let the debate begin, not just in Congress, but throughout the nation.

Sorry, you never made a good case. I still don’t see where it is morally unpardonable. Whoops. I have a question for such as Mr. Zinn and his fellow America-lasters. The bulk of reliable evidence shows that the majority of the damage the sanctions have caused has been due to the Iraqi leadership and its need to present the worst image to the world at the expense of its people. The quickest way to end the evil sanctions is to replace the Iraqi leaders. So lets invade….for the children.

If anyone wants to response...email me.

2002-08-13T17:15:00.000-07:00

A Shameful Gap on the Mall

Today's Richard Cohen editorial advocates a Museum of the African American Experience. At first, I was against the idea. Upon second thought, I am now in favor of it. Of course Richard Cohen attempts to use a ham-fisted argument that only a die-hard liberal could love. I am sick of him railing against J. Edgar Hoover for instance.

A few bloggers have already mentioned it; usually in the negative. The typical argument runs that since their family wasn’t in the United States this museum would be pointless. I disagree: their families also weren’t in the United States during the Revolutionary War but they probably celebrate the 4th of July. Still PostWatch has a good post that takes the opposite position that I do.

Richard Cohen is right in one instance:

It is, after all, an experience that has greatly defined who we are as a nation and as a culture. It encompasses so much -- not just slavery and Jim Crow but music and dance and literature and sports. The African American experience is really the American experience with a somewhat unnecessary modifier.

Upon reflection, the African-American experience is a uniquely American experience. It shows where the United States started and how it grew. It is a story of both horrors and triumphs. It is a story about how the American set of ideals has changed over two hundred years. It is a story of American moral progress.

A good museum could be invaluable in communicating this uniquely American journey. But as they say…the devil is in the details. Only serious oversight will prevent this museum from presenting a one-sided morally obtuse story. It will be too easy to exclusively present the horrors of that experience and not the triumphs. The Holocaust Museum is a good starting point. It managed to present an accounting that illuminates and preaches without being heavy-handed.

Yes, I am a libertarian but this is one example where government can do the most good. At least with a government agency, the chances of a completely one-sided view of history are lessened. In a similar vein, I would also like to see a museum of the immigrant experience. From the beginning of the United States to the present, their stories also need to be told.

What scares me is that if this museum is created; the Smithsonian will completely blow it and present a museum that shows only horrors that African-Americans have experienced and none of the joys.

The great experiment called the United States was influenced greatly by ‘that peculiar institution’ and their experiences are one of the voices that comprise the chorus of our nation. The story can be ugly but also beautiful with many lessons for the future. Lets hope that this museum can do it justice.

2002-08-13T13:02:00.000-07:00

The Answer from Iraq

Today's lead editorial from the Washington Post must be read for those both in favor of war with Iraq and those opposed. It brings up some issues that both sides must concede if a legitimate debate is to be waged.

The world is growing stranger. It appears that there will be a showdown....almost war in a fashion between the Washington Post and New York Times. The Post seems to be tiling towards the need for war while the New York Times would rather see hell freeze over. (Burrr......)

The lead editorial for the Washington Post has actually articulated a reason go into Iraq. The editorial actually lays out both the legal and moral reason that could justify a preemptive war from the Bush Administration. I am printing the entire article but it ultimately shows that Iraq has breached the terms of its surrender in 1991 by refusing United Nations Inspectors. By breaching those terms, Iraq "by flouting of U.N. resolutions are slaps not at the United States but at every nation that claims to value international law and the U.N. system." Ouch....words even a anti-war protester could enjoy.

What has not been explained to me (I was out of the country in 1998) was why the Clinton administration allowed inspectors to be kicked out? After 4 years without inspections, it will be hard to gain the credibility to insist that they be returned. So what happened then?

RANKING Iraqi official yesterday flatly ruled out a resumption of U.N. inspections of his nation's weapons of mass destruction. "Inspections have finished in Iraq," said Information Minister Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf. No one can say this is the final word; under Iraq's one-man rule, a minister's words one day can be repudiated the next, just as any official can be purged, without warning or explanation. But the information minister's comments certainly reflect today's reality and provide a useful reminder of what's at stake.

Much of the recent debate about possible U.S. military action against Iraq has centered on the propriety of a "preemptive strike," as if more than a decade of history counted for nothing. In fact, the legal, moral and practical grounds for action against Saddam Hussein have their roots back in 1990, and they are not relevant to the United States alone. Saddam Hussein sent his army into the sovereign nation of Kuwait; a broad coalition, led by the United States, resolved that such lawlessness could not stand; Saddam Hussein refused to back down, fought a war and lost. As one condition for maintaining his power in defeat, the dictator promised the U.N. Security Council that he would rid Iraq of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the missiles that can deliver them. He promised also to allow the United Nations to see for itself that he had complied.

Today no one other than Saddam Hussein and his toady ministers would claim that he has fulfilled these promises. His refusal to disarm and his brazen flouting of U.N. resolutions are slaps not at the United States but at every nation that claims to value international law and the U.N. system. Yet month after month, year after year, those nations, along with U.N. leaders, have been willing to tolerate his lawlessness. U.S. allies in Europe, Asia and the Middle East that routinely oppose military action also routinely say they will insist on robust inspection. Well, yesterday they got an answer, the same one they've been receiving for a long time. Now what?

It's true that Saddam Hussein isn't the only evil tyrant in the world. He's not even the sole tyrant seeking or possessing weapons of mass destruction. Neither the United States nor the United Nations can or should contemplate military action against every such tyrant who might qualify for membership in the axis of evil. But Saddam Hussein is in a class of his own, and not only because he has hideously used chemical weapons against his own people and others. The world already has considered his case and formed a judgment. If nations prove incapable of enforcing that judgment, the harm will spread far beyond the Middle East

2002-08-13T12:41:00.000-07:00

Horrible Incident

I am a basic law and order type of person. I don't have time for anyone breaking the law. Whether a crime is a hate crime or not, I have no sympathy. In today's Metro section probable hate crime is highlighted, Transgender Teens Killed On D.C. Street. Two biologically male (but dressed and lived as women) were killed yesterday in DC. Their ages were 18 and 19 and each body had at least 10 bullet wounds. The police have said that it looks like something beyond a typical spur-of-the-moment crime. Is it a hate crime? Possibly. Could be something completely unrelated to their sexual orientation? Possibly. It could be drug related or just a random event. I am wondering if this crime will be broadcast on all the national news agencies tonight. Somehow, I doubt it....why? Because the victims were African-American and unless the perpetrators were Caucasian it wouldn't be politically correct. If I am wrong...let me know and I will apologize.

The incident was completly regrettable and there is no excuse for this in a civilized society.

2002-08-12T15:30:00.000-07:00

Flag at Half Mast

NEWS RELEASE from the United States Department of Defense

No. 415-02
(703)697-5131(media)
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 12, 2002
(703)428-0711(public/industry)

SOLDIER DIES OF WOUNDS RECEIVED IN AFGHANISTAN

The Department of Defense announced today that Sgt. 1st Class
Christopher James Speer, 28, of Albuquerque, N.M., died on Aug.
7 as the result of wounds received in action in Afghanistan on
July 27.

Speer was one of five soldiers wounded in the same incident and
had been evacuated to Germany for medical care. The other four
soldiers' injuries were not life threatening and they were
treated at Bagram.

Speer was assigned to Headquarters U.S. Army Special Operations
Command at Fort Bragg, N.C.

[Web version: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2002/b08122002_bt415-02.html]

2002-08-12T15:28:00.000-07:00

A Mistake

I have to admit that I made a mistake today. In today's Washington Post were two articles that I was planning on writing about. The first was an Op-Ed by Henry Kissinger. The other was one by a former Clinton staffer who tried to compare Clinton's handling of Bosnia and Kosovo with that of Bush's handling of Afghanistan. The second one overstated the progress that Bosnia has made (it is not a land of milk and honey with a democracy that rivals the rest of the world) and neglects to mention that the United States has intervened in Bosnia in late 1995. Are there legimiate questions to be raised about the Bush administration's plan for Afghanistan? Yes, but that article is a transparent attempt to Whitewash Clinton and tar Bush. I left the paper at work today, confident I could cut and paste from the web-site. I was wrong; it is not on-line currently. If they put it on-line tonight good otherwise I will bring it home tommarrow.

2002-08-12T15:15:00.000-07:00

Good Afternoon. I hope everyone had a good weekend. Mine was busy as usual and to my regret I didn't get a chance to work with this site. Hopefully in a few days.

2002-08-08T19:02:00.000-07:00

Domestic Violence: Army Style

Good Evening,

I am down to one last item to post tonight. This one has been problematic for me. Domestic violence is a touchy subject especially in the military. However, with the recent deaths at Fort Bragg the Washington Post printed two letters that I have to address due to faulty information and logic. Letters are the final method for a paper to add a editorial slant to an issue with the added advantage of appearing democratic and a ‘voice of the people.’

The Washington post website entitles these two letters “Tiptoeing Around Domestic Violence” and for ease of argument I including each letter. The letter is in bold and my response will be in plain text.

With all of the progress that has been made in the effort to understand and to stop domestic violence, I was dismayed to see in the article about the Fort Bragg, N.C., murders that women are still being held responsible for their husbands' violence [news story, Aug.]

Actually, the men are being held responsible. With the singular exception of the women whom murdered her husband for the insurance money. However, it seems you are trying to simplify a very complex situation.

The article said that family advocates warn wives to tell their returning husbands about seemingly insignificant changes such as haircuts. "He might be thinking about running his hands through that long, luxuriant hair." Are they kidding?

Actually they do spend time with the soldiers’ before they deploy back. The Army warns the soldiers that there will be unexpected changes while they were deployed and not to expect things to be the same as they left. Yes, small changes can make big differences in the soldiers’ lives especially when they already had a troubled marriage. About the hair (a truly stupid comment from some PR person if I ever heard one), these changes aren’t an excuse for domestic violence but they can contribute towards it. Here is an unrelated example: walking in a bad part of town and waving money is completely legal however it is not a smart thing to do. If you get mugged it is still the mugger’s fault but….

Why are they spending so much time teaching the wives of these soldiers to tiptoe around their husbands, when they should be teaching the husbands that violence, which may have a place in their work, has no place in their home or their intimate or familial relationships? The men should be taught that it may take some time to adjust to life at home (including those pesky haircuts) when they return from overseas.

They do teach soldiers’ (both male and female) that there is no place for violence at home. In fact, they added a week to Basic to ensure that soldiers would understand these things. The men are taught that and in each of these cases the problems apparently existed before they went overseas.

The article said, "The army culture sees it as a weakness if you seek help," and that if you do, "in the minds of a lot of people . . . you're admitting failure." These murders are the Army's failure. The wives of these soldiers were treated shamefully by their husbands and also by their country.

Yes, the wives were treated shamefully but you are treating them the same way. The problems are far more complex then you make them out. In some of these cases (probably all of them) the soldier (and wife) were probably hoping that the deployment would give them each time enough to work out their problems. During the seperation, each member forms an idealized image of home life. When that image is shattered, the potential for violence rises exponentially. These murders are the soldier’s failure: they are responsible and not the Army. The Army can only do so much to prevent them and if neither member requested help then what could the Army do?

THANKFUL VANDERSTAR

Washington

P.S. It appears that Thankful Vanderstar is an attorney with the Dept. of Justice in the Office of Immigration Litigation, concentrating on cases involving criminals and international terrorists. She also recently performed in the 1999 Hexagon show, a political satire revue in D.C. She is also a volunteer in WEAVE: Women empowered Against Violence. She appears to be a long-time anti-violence advocate. I just expected here not simplify the situation as much as her letter does. Everyone is against domestic violence and it can not be tolerated in either the military or civilian life. It is just that Thankful Vanderstar simplifies the problem to the point of absurdity.

As a former Army chaplain and author of a book about sex and violence in the military, I know that domestic murder in the Army is not unique to the Special Forces. Nor is it a distinctive byproduct of the Afghanistan war. In 1994, the Army Times reported that each week one family member died at the hands of a soldier. More than one study reports the enlisting of soldiers who have histories of violent aggression that predispose them to domestic violence. To complicate matters, the Army provides higher supplemental housing benefits for married soldiers than for single soldiers. Thus, in high-stress training environments, immature first-term soldiers marry two or three years younger than their civilian peers.

Remember that with one exception, the solders were senior NCOs. Yes, the Army provides numerous incentives to marry from housing to less duty (unofficially that is). One murder a week is too many; so is one slap.

When the Army's nonselective hiring practices are coupled with pay policies that push premature marriage, the stage is set for much of the violence and family dysfunction that plague the military community. No amount of chaplain or psychological counseling will compensate for systemic policies that permit enlisting soldiers with poor psychological profiles and also promote poor lifestyle decisions by young recruits.

The Army does have high standards. Except for rare occasions, each recruit needs a high-school diploma and no criminal history. For Special Forces the standards are even higher. Yes there is considerable dysfunction in the military community due to age and frequent deployments. There is no easy answer to the problem of domestic violence except that of zero tolerance. Unfortunately, zero-tolerance is usually after the fact.

MARIE E. DeYOUNG
Maryville, Mo.

This was a tough column. I have no room for domestic violence and have seen families torn apart by it. However, there is no simple solution and to place blame upon the Army is too simplistic. Can the Army do better to prevent domestic violence? Probably but ultimately it is the solder’s responsibility and that is what I haven’t been hearing.

2002-08-08T18:06:00.000-07:00
Traffic and Taxes

Yes, for those in the Northern DC area I am going to write about everyone’s two favorite topics. Governor Warner’s recent push for referendum for a .5% additional sales tax in Northern Virginia to help fund transportation issues has made quite a few articles in Today’s Post.

For those not in the Northern Virginia area, recent problems with the state budget have slashed transportation spending for Northern Virginia. If you have ever lived in the D.C. area, traffic is the main concern. The roads are crowded and getting more so. If you ever want to make a friend for life, show them a unused shortcut to get home. In response to these cuts, our newly elected Governor has offered to increase the sales tax in the region to help fund under funded transportation issues. This will be on the ballot in November. Needles to say there is a controversy regarding the ballot. Those opposed to taxes say that this ballot will merely give Richmond the excuse to cut transportation funds from NOVA out of the general fund. Those in favor argue that this will give NOVA a chance to solve its own problems.

The Washington Post has been in favor of this plan. In three major separate articles, the Post has offered details of this plan that are a little disconcerting. In the Fairfax Weekly section, the Post has identified the members of a newly constituted board to determine both what and how the funds will be used. It is estimated that over the next 20 years over $5 billion will be taxed from the region. The panel will have 14 members drawn from each of the region’s various governments. What is interesting is that this board is designed to spend money from a tax increased that hasn’t been voted on yet. Is this merely prudence or putting the cart before the horse. Probably a little of both but it does illustrate what the powers that be think about the likelihood that this ballot will pass.

The main article on this tax is on B1 in Today’s Post and is entitled: Panel Plans Fair Shares Of Any N.Va. Road Funds: Guidelines Viewed As Boost to Referendum
This has turned into a very interesting article. For me the major debate is whether this entire sales tax issue will become yet another example of Pork Barrel spending or will there be a true effort to relieve congestion.

This article tends to support the Pork Barrel theory. In summery the article’s main thesis is that the new panel voted unanimously to “use population and sales tax revenue as the basis for distribution money for transportation projects if voters approve…”

To further clarify:

"The main point of this exercise was to ensure that there was equity in the projects and that no single jurisdiction or group could channel all the funds toward their pet projects," said Sean T. Connaughton (R), chairman of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors and its representative on the authority.
Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Chairman Katherine K. Hanley (D), her county's representative on the panel, said she voted for the guidelines because "just like everyone else, it guarantees that Fairfax citizens will benefit in direct proportion to their contribution and population. That was not necessarily the case without this action."
Hanley noted that of the $2.8 billion earmarked on the state list, only half is for projects in Fairfax, even though the county has 52 percent of the sales tax revenue and 54 percent of the region's population. Therefore Fairfax would have to get a larger share of the $2.2 billion not earmarked to achieve its fair share, she said.
The guidelines also ensure that work cannot be done in any jurisdiction that does not desire it, relieving fears in Arlington, for example, that the other jurisdictions would force a widening of I-66 inside the Capital Beltway. Guidelines also require that at least half of the money go to transit and carpool lane improvements, adding appeal to voters in closer-in jurisdictions.

All this sounds incredibly fair and that is the problem. This approach would work if each jurisdiction lived in its own little world but they don’t. The vast majority of the population in Northern Virginia works in a different jurisdiction then they live. Twenty years ago everyone had to travel from the suburbs to D.C. Although this is not completely the case in the present; it forms a good basis for illustrating the problem with a ‘fair’ approach.

Members of outlying jurisdictions don’t have the same traffic problems as those closer to D.C. In fact, it is the people from these jurisdictions that add ever more cars onto the roads. So although Fairfax County might have 50% of the resident population and tax base, the chief bottlenecks may in fact be in that country (and if you know 66 or 95 they probably are).

What this ‘fair’ plan represents is a microeconomic approach to the traffic problems in the region. What is needed is a Macro plan that looks at the complete traffic picture and allocates funds to address that regardless of the jurisdiction’s population. Yes, the other jurisdictions may not get as much of the trough but remember that this entire tax scheme is to reduce congestion. To produce a meaningful reduction of congestion will only happen if each local government can look at the big picture. Traffic congestion is not a zero-sum game.

There, I have explained why I think this entire idea is just another method of lining the trough and convince people to pass an eternal tax increase. I am sure that when Virginia’s finances return to normal and the assembly is debating transportation funding they won’t forget that Northern Virginia will have its own source and vote accordingly.

I have an absolutely insane idea. Since I am willing to experiment and see how things work out, I willing to compromise. Since a tax-cut was so dangerous that Congress had to put in a 10 year expiration date, why don’t we do the same with this tax-increase? Shouldn’t the next set of residents have a right to revisit this decision? Just a thought…remember comments are always welcome.

2002-08-08T13:11:00.000-07:00
Good Afternoon,
I won’t be writing this until the afternoon on most days. I don’t usually pick up the print edition of the Post until lunch. As usual there are some interesting articles in today’s edition (or else why would I have this blog?). I will be commenting on two of them later this evening. Thursdays are my favorite day of the Post for two special sections. It has both the home section with an example of some beautiful remodeled homes (one of my hidden vices considering I live in an apartment) and the Weekly section where each area in the DC region gets their own version describing the more intimate local news for the week. The Weekly section is the best example of what is happening locally and contained the crime blotters…each week some of most interesting reading imaginable with an occasional Darwin possibility.

The most interesting piece in the Post today is actually an advertisement. A group called the AVI CHAI Foundation purchased a full page add on page A5 (not linkable. sorry). However it looks like a national ad so it hopefully it should be in other national papers. The ad consists of either journal entries or letters from Marla Bennett, one of the victims of the July 31st terrorist attack by Hamas against the Hebrew University. The words are very touching and I would implore everyone to take a look….her final words are prophetic:

There is no other place in the world where I would rather be right now.

The one article that struck my eye upon glancing at the paper is the lead article in the Style section, Unorthodox Attorney. It is an interesting profile of attorney Stanley Cohen. Stanley Cohen is Hamas’s personal lawyer in New York; a longtime radical (formally a partner with Kathy Boudin (who is under federal indictment for helping an imprisoned sheik direct terrorism from prison). This article by Richard Leiby is pretty much a puff piece on the same general order of a Barbara Walters interview. Interesting in a traffic accident sort of way….still being in the Style section don’t expect any real criticisms or context on his motivations and action. Fluffy but like cotton candy doesn't leave much in your mouth.

2002-08-08T08:35:00.000-07:00
Understanding, Not Indoctrination

Today’s Washington post Op-Ed page has published an article by Michael Sells, author of the book: Approaching the Qur’an: The Early Revelations. This book has gotten attention for being assigned to incoming freshmen at University of North Carolina’s Chapel Hill Campus.

His piece defends his book and the stance of UNC quite well actually:

The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, is being sued for assigning my book, “Approaching the Qur’an: The Early Revelations,” as required summer reading for first-year students. The plaintiffs charge the UNC indoctrinates students with deceptive claims about the peaceful nature of Islam, violating the separation of church and state. In fact, the book makes no general claims about Islam.

Let me be honest, I never heard of the book until this debate began. The charge about the separation of Church and State seems flimsy to me. The separation was not framed to encourage ignorance and the understanding of other religions is a good thing. In thoery, learning about Islam is a good thing and promotes everything nice in the world. However (that little nasty word), learning about Islam in a vaccum is not so beneficial and lead to the fundamentalism that all religions have experienced from the Crusades to today's Taliban. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing but knowledge with a context can be even more so.

I merely wonder about the choice of books used. The choice of the book seems to rest on several assumptions that I am just not sure about. It assumes that incoming freshmen don’t understand Islam (probable) but do understand both Christianity and Judaism (not proven). The chief problem with Islam, Christianity and Judaism is their interactions with each other. Understanding one religion without understanding the others one of the primary reasons the Middle East is in such a shape today.

With the separation of Church and State being what is it; there is a good possibility that today’s freshmen don’t know much about Christianity and Judaism. After all, the closest many kids come to Christmas in our secular world is: How A Grinch Stole Christmas. For Judaism the choices are even sparser, if a kid was lucky he might have seen the Ten Commandants, once.

While I salute UNC’s intentions I have to wonder if they should have chosen a book the offered a comparative religious structure so that incoming freshmen will learn about the belief systems of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Wicca and Islam. The world has a multitude of religions each with a different belief system. If understanding others is a way of promoting tolerance (which I believe), then focusing only on one religion is not only shortsighted but will lead to intolerance.

2002-08-07T17:55:00.000-07:00
Well my first post was a little longer then I intended which will hopefully be the exception and not the rule. For the next few days I will try to devote my time between the organizational aspects of this blog and the content. I need to add some serious links to my favorite blogging site: LGF, INSTAPUNDIT, Live from the World Trade Center and USS Clueless. Hopefully in a week or two some polish will be evident but until then have a wonderful evening.

2002-08-07T17:38:00.000-07:00
PACS…..Capitalism vs. Labor vs. Advocacy Groups

Glancing through the Washington Post today I came across an interesting little chart (it looks like it is not available on-line as of yet) on Page A19. The title of the chart:

Corporate PACS Give $66 Million to Candidates

Corporate political action committees contributed more than $66 million to federal candidates from Jan 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002, according to an accounting by PoliticalMoneyLine, which tracks political money. While these PACS represent corporations they get their money from employees rather than the corporations themselves. Therefore, they don’t violate federal rule prohibiting direct corporate contributions. Most of the money went to Republicans, with $42 million going to the GOP and $24 million to Democrats.

The chart gave the top thirty corporate PACs and the amounts they gave each party. For example: UPS gave $1,235,391 with $860,016 to Republicans and $375,375 to Democrats. Most of the corporations were similar….all the top thirty gave money to both parties from WorldCom. Giving $217,176 to Republicans and $289,775 to Democrats (maybe that is why the Senate is fairly quiet). Microsoft similarly balanced. The extremes appeared to be ExxonMobil (with ~$407,000 to Republicans and ~$46,000 to Democrats) and R.J. Reynolds (~$303,000 to ~$80,000).

The post gave no relevance to these facts. The old question of “So-What” is never brought up. The Washington Post only shows some of the corporate PACS and I wondered how other types of 'nonpartisan' PACs would look like and so I decided to dig a little deeper. Ignoring Leadership PACS (by definition completely partisan) I went to opensecrets.org and looked at two other potent forms of PACS: Unions and Special Interests (both are usually nonpartisan in a theoretical sense).

Here is what I found:

Labor PACS

Labor
PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates 2001-2002 (so far)
Total Amount: $36,223,979
Total to Democrats: $32,131,105 (89%)
Total to Republicans: $3,975,774 (11%)

Number of PACs Making Contributions: 198

Building Trade Unions: $7,933,518 86% to Dems 14% to Repubs
Industrial Unions: $8,099,764 97% to Dems 2% to Repubs
Transportation Unions: $8,989,693 82% to Dems 17% to Repubs
Public Sector Unions: $7,648,977 88% to Dems 11% to Repubs
Misc Unions: $3,552,027 92% to Dems 7% to Repubs

Here are some specific examples:

AFL-CIO: ~$ 206,000 Rep: ~$ 36,000 Dem: ~$ 170,000
UAW: ~$1,424,000 Rep: ~$ 20,000 Dem: ~$1,398,000
Teamsters: ~$1,580,000 Rep: ~$223,000 Dem: ~$1,356,000
NEA ~$1,092,000 Rep: ~$ 74,000 Dem: ~ $1,016,000

Remember: The money from these PACs are paid by involuntary Union dues unlike that of the corporate PACs.

Advocacy PACS:

Foreign & Defense Policy: $166,580 82% to Dems 18% to Repubs
Pro-Israel: $1,572,391 64% to Dems 36% to Repubs
Women's Issues: $381,391 66% to Dems 34% to Repubs
Human Rights: $1,334,577 84% to Dems 16% to Repubs
Misc Issues: $533,214 71% to Dems 29% to Repubs
Environment: $141,541 85% to Dems 15% to Repubs
Gun Control: $48,856 112% to Dems -12% to Repubs
Gun Rights: $1,093,456 12% to Dems 88% to Repubs
Abortion Policy/Pro-Life: $127,702 1% to Dems 99% to Repubs
Abortion Policy/Pro-Choice: $621,361 85% to Dems 15% to Repubs

Some Specific Example:

National Rifle Association: ~$916,000 Rep: ~$793,000 Dem: ~$123,000
National Organization for Women: ~$32,000 Rep: $0 Dem: ~$32,000
Human Rights Campaign ~$734,000 Rep: $~133,000 Dem: ~$600,000
Sierra Club ~$101,000 Rep: $~4,000 Dem: ~97,000

These examples were chosen to illustrate both the general trend of each category and by name recognition. These results are by no means scientific and I am sure a true student of statistics could reexamine what all these numbers mean and gain a new perspective about what they represent. For specific examples, I only included a fraction of what opensecrets.org has for brevity's sake.

What I found interesting is how balanced the corporate interests are in giving to both Republicans and Democrats and how partisan the remainder of the PACs were. Exempting the openly partisan PACS (leadership PACs for the majority plus a few misc. ones like Log Cabin Republicans); it seems that the majority of even the special interest PAC money went to the Democrats. Even the NRA (a curse word of the left) gives a decent amount to Democrats. The supposedly apolitical NOW and Sierra Club are ones that aren’t even shy in advertising their true colors. To call NOW and the Sierra Club anything but overt appendages to the Democratic Party is a lie.

No wonder NOW never managed to report a bad word against President Clinton but have felt free to make a web-site that attacks the Bush Administration specifically.

The results of all this: I am a political novice but it seems that the corporate PACs are fair more unpartisan then both Labor and special interests. For those categories, the Democrats seem to have the upper hand in recieving money. I only hope the Washington Post continues the series to examine these groups…but I have my doubts. Corporations giving money to Republicans is inherently corrupting but Labor and advocacy groups giving money to Democrats is a completely ball game.

Comments are welcome

2002-08-07T16:12:00.000-07:00
Mission Statement:
Every endeavor should have a purpose. WashPost Watch is designed to look at the United State’s World Newspaper of Record with a critical eye. With all due respects to the New York Times, the Washington Post is the paper of record for the United States government and its policies. It is time for someone to take a slightly critical look at it.

That being said: I am not here to poke holes at it (although I probably will spend the majority of my time doing so). My purpose is to add a little depth to selected articles. There won’t be too much commentary or direct Fisking. The Op-Ed pieces will be commented infrequently because they do serve to give the publishers and their writer’s opinions. Unless there is some truly disingenuous writing; I will refrain from writing too much about them. I will also avoid the Sports and Style section except in rare instances. I am more concerned with the national and international aspects of the post so I will only refer to the Metro section on substantive issues.

Why should I write this? I am a Washington area native but currently living in Norfolk, Virginia. I am still in a government town and the post is one of the four papers I read each day (none of which is local). I am mostly writing it because of several articles in the past week that have rubbed me in the wrong way. Politically I am realist-libertarian. I will let my writing speak for itself