« April 2004 | Main | June 2004 »
» May 28, 2004
Bundling with the Director: Raman Pfaff of the Macromedia Site of the Day-worthy Explore Learning site noticed that Apple is offering a Director's Special: a $300 rebate if you buy DVD Studio Pro 3 and Macromedia Director MX 2004, and an extra $200 rebate if that's combined with a Power Mac G5.
» May 27, 2004
Leave-Behinds: In his speech at the United States Army War College the other day, President Bush promised to "fund the construction of a modern, maximum security prison," then demolish Abu Ghraib, a symbol of oppression by both the regieme of Saddam Hussein and the American occupation.
Members of the Iraqi governing council, including the Interior Minister, and human rights groups, on the other hand, think that the plan to demolish Abu Ghraib misses the point, preferring an emphasis on ending the mistreatment of prisoners. The current head of the governing council, Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer, called the demolition idea a "waste of resources", saying "Torture has taken place in every vault in Iraq".
The American occupation is already too heavily associated with prisons. Do we really need to add another one to the legacy? Presumably, the new American-funded prison would ban unauthorized cameras or camcorders, but given the circumstances, it won't take long for rumors of abuse to become associated with the new prison, regardless of whether anything's actually happening or not. With Abu Ghraib, the American abuses are far overshadowed by the years of Saddam's far more heinous acts. In a new prison, the only abuse echoing through the corridors will be the ones we perpetrated.
» May 23, 2004
How Wrong Can This Go On?: It was a bad day for the Oregonian Commentary page. In addition to the aforementioned Nielsen piece, they printed James Lileks's Newhouse News Service editorial on the US Olympic Committee's ban on flag-waving by athletes at the 2004 Summer Olympic Games. It's full of righteous vigor and indignation.
There's just one problem.
The quotes Lileks uses appeared in a story in the Washington Times on May 15th which was attributed to a reporter for the London Sunday Telegraph. The USOC's online statement refuting that article appeared on May 18th and was picked up by enough other news outlets that Google shows it for MSNBC, the Tucson Citizen, Channel 4 in Denver, the Kansas City Star, New York Newsday, the Palm Beach Post...oh, and an AP-hosted site. Most of those outlets had the updated story by the 18th. The Oregonian probably did, too — I'm assuming it has an AP feed. All it would have taken to validate (or not) this piece was for someone to type www.usoc.org in their Web browser. I know it's an opinion piece, but would they print it if it was an opinion about how horrible it was that the sky was pink, without looking out the window first? Where's their fact-checking? Newhouse and Lileks are no better; the opinion piece is dated May 19, a day after the USOC press release.
Liberals Hate Baseball: Wow.
Either David Reinhard's ghost-writing the Oregonian's Susan Nielsen after her two-week hiatus from the op-ed pages, or she's decided to become a sort of mini-Ann Coulter in the interim. Apparently, liberals not only hate Bush, freedom, the troops, the police, morals, and religion, but according to Nielsen we hate "fun" and America's favorite pastime, too. It's getting kind of hard to keep up.
Her argument's difficult to follow, as most of these types of arguments usually are, but based on her read of "Portland's most liberal circles", baseball's a no-go until all possible social services are paid for. Nobody from these circles is mentioned by name, so it's hard to judge off-hand just how influential these liberals might be in city politics. It's awe-inspiring to me that the supporters of the baseball plan could be stymied by super-liberals who are so elusive and powerful that Nielsen can't even name them. Not even Neil Goldschmidt had that kind of clout.
The charge that "Portland liberals don't do corporate" is fairly laughable as well. The supporters of the baseball plan are mentioned: Vera Katz, Oregon Chai, and Nike. These aren't exactly people or companies I've seen conservatives clasping to their bosom. There are an awful lot of companies in this city whose founders and owners support liberal causes. Somebody's buying coffee from those Starbuck's shops on Hawthorne and ice cream from Ben & Jerry's; there aren't enough conservatives or middle-of-the-roaders to keep them going.
I'm all for corporations myself. As a contract programmer, I make some of my best money from corporations. But one thing I can't do as a small business owner is perform a lot of work for someone I'm not absolutely sure can afford to pay me. For new customers and companies I'm unsure of, I require money up front and payments along the way. I'd go bankrupt if I took on a large project, did the work without payment, and a customer defaulted on me. Call it fiscally conservative. It may not be as "fun" as risking my house on some dot-com's ability to pay me or plunking everything down on black at the roulette wheel, but that's just me.
We (liberals and everyone else in the Portland area) have been told time and again that sports ventures are — to mix sports metaphors here — a slam dunk, yet there has been a continual landslide of money at PGE Park, followed recently by the bankruptcy of the Rose Garden Arena, despite the operating company being associated with Paul Allen, the owner of the primary users of the arena, the Portland Trailblazers. Apparently, somebody's not paying someone else enough in rent.
A plan in which the baseball team's owners or another entity guaranteed any public losses associated with siting a team in Portland would probably do just fine with everyone, whether they liked fun or not. If the stadium lost money, if the team lost money, so long as the public didn't end up bailing somebody out yet again, that would be fun in and of itself!
It's not as if just having a baseball team is an assurance of success — if it was, the Expos wouldn't be moving. Maybe it's because of those Canadian liberals.
» May 14, 2004
The Cost of Doing War: U.N.-haters have been slobbering all over the likelihood that Saddam Hussein skimmed anywhere from $5 billion to $10 billion off out of monies derived from the United Nations Oil-for-Food program over a period of several years.
Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was asking for more money to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ostensibly, just $25 billion for now, but likely to add up to the total of $5 billion per month for the foreseeable future. The bulk of that money is regarded as "troop support", but it's not as if it's going to be paid to the troops. Much of it will go to companies like Halliburton for supply functions, food services, and other operations that used to be handled (without a profit being taken) by the military themselves. Another chunk will go to replace and refurbish weapons and vehicles. It'd be interesting to see the balance sheets of those companies in the next fiscal year; Saddam might be envious.
In 2002, the per capita income in Iraq was estimated by the World Bank as somewhere between $750 and $900. As the cost of the Iraq war alone crosses the $100 billion mark, we've spent about $3,500 per Iraqi, between four and seven years' income. Maybe we should have just skipped the invasion, the bombing, 700+ American dead and thousands of wounded (so far), tens of thousands of Iraqi dead and injured, and given them some money. At this rate, we’ll be following the Soviet Union down the same hole it dug for itself in Afghanistan.
» May 7, 2004
Vietnot!: In the Vietnam War, the U.S. faced a sovereign nation — North Vietnam — backed by both the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. Our adversary in that conflict had a capital, a country, and a government. The goal of the war was ostensibly to prevent the takeover of the South by the North.
That's not the situation in Iraq. There's no single enemy: what our forces face is a mélange of groups, each of which has its own agenda, all of which are opposed to the U.S. occupation. There's no capital to bomb, as we bombed Hanoi. The largest external supporter of the opposition is Iran, which doesn't have the status or resources of the Soviet Union or China in the '60s. There's no government opposing us. Insurgents aren't sneaking through the DMZ or along the Ho Chi Minh Trail to get to where they're launching attacks, they already live there.
A more correct comparison is Palestine. Apart from the fact that our Palestine is on the other side of the world and not next door, the situation in Iraq looks a lot more like the Occupied Territories than Indochina. Military force in the hands of a foreign power? Check. Impotent local governmental authority? Check. Thousands of detainees held without charge plus occasional torture? Check. Multiple militia groups executing attacks on occupiers and carving out some local civic control? Check. Occupier responses to attacks that have a tendency to kill civilians in the process? Check.
POW vs. POW: In the midst of the first week of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal, civilian contractor Thomas Hammill managed to escape his captors 23 days after he'd been taken hostage.
Given the mutilation of the bodies of military contractors in Fallujah in early April and the killings of U.N. personnel, aid workers, and Iraqi civilians, I wouldn't be at all surprised that many of the other hostages taken in past months have been physically abused. Certainly, any number of them have been found dead, including others taken at the same time as Mr. Hammill.
Hammill, on the other hand, although he and his hostage-takers were staying in a hovel infested with mosquitos, received some treatment for a gunshot wound in his arm that he'd received during his capture. Additionally, he'd been provided with antibiotic pills.
Beats sodomy with a light stick.
» May 6, 2004
My First Conspiracy Theory: I don't normally go for conspiracy theories, but here's a fun little timeline I cooked up this morning:
Or, it could just be a coincidence.
» May 5, 2004
Missing the Unit: Joe Conason, in a Salon article titled "Smear Boat Veterans for Bush" details the inner workings of a group of U.S. Navy officers who are in league with operatives for the Bush campaign to denigrate the Vietnam service record of John Kerry. According to John O'Neill, a founder of the group and someone who debated Kerry in 1971 on TV, 19 of 23 officers who served with Kerry have signed a letter declaring he is unfit to be commander-in-chief.
I'd humbly like to point out that it's a lot easier for people to complain about your fitness when you actually served with them. We can't get yeas or nays from any of the folks Bush served with in his time with the Alabama Air National Guard. Despite Garry Trudeau of "Doonesbury" fame offering $10,000 to anyone who could prove they'd served in Alabama with Bush, there's been nothing. Their silence is deafening.
» May 4, 2004
More Imaging Lingo Controls: Ullala, of 3DPI fame, has three user interface control behaviors available. They're used in 3DPI, and are implemented with imaging Lingo. Check out the Slider, Wheel, and Button behaviors! Thanks to Raman Pfaff of Explore Learning for pointing these out.
Hierarchical Menu: FarbFlash's Alex da Franca reports that a number of people had asked him about the menuing system he used in his FindAll and ScriptingXtrasList tools. He's rewritten and separated the code for the menu, and made it available on his site for your delectation!
» May 3, 2004
The Karpinski Defense: Implausible Deniability: Brigadier General Janis Karpinski and the U.S. Army have handed Saddam Hussein his best line of defense in any upcoming prosecution.
Karpinski, whose duty it was to oversee Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison and the hundreds of prisoners it held (as well as over a dozen other facilities in Iraq) claims that she did not know about the abuse documented in photos and shown around the world over the past week.
Nobody further up the chain of command knew anything about it, either. In fact, the report on the investigation — completed three months ago — still hadn't been opened by General Richard Meyers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Rather odd considering how it was likely to be received by the rest of the world once it became public, but apparently not untypical of this military exercise. And if those people say they don't know, then it's unlikely President George W. Bush knew.
If I was Saddam's lawyer, I'd start preparing to argue that if the top leaders of the government of the U.S. occupying force — all the way down to the general directly in charge of military police and prisons in the country — had no idea that prisoners were being abused under their charge, how in the world can you say that Saddam's guilty for anything that happened in the very same prison? He was the President! He spent a lot of time away from the capital! Nobody told him about the abuse! He could just use Karpinski's words: "Had I known anything about it, I certainly would have reacted very quickly.''
Mind you, I'm not saying that Saddam should get off for anything. But by covering their asses with plausible deniability, everyone from Karpinski on up to Bush is going to place an awful burden of proof on anyone making a case against Saddam's direct involvement in anything. The fact that this incident was covered up for over six months only makes the U.S. look even more culpable. Thanks, guys!