John E.'s blog
Posted at 3:10pm on Jun. 22, 2008 Candidate Obama makes immediate war with Iran more likely.
By John E.
Israel is hastening preparations for an air strike on Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities even while President Bush is signaling that he will pass off to the next administration a well-developed European coalition prepared to escalate diplomatic efforts to stop Iranian nuclear enrichment. Helene Cooper of the NY Times develops this analysis.
...Two senior administration officials said that barring a move by Israel, which one characterized as “the wild card” on the Iranian issue, this administration would not be likely to pursue military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets.
Mr. Bush himself seemed to signal as much at the start of his European tour last week in Slovenia, when he said of Iran that he expected to “leave behind a multilateral framework to work on this issue,” a statement that seemed to suggest that military action against Iran may no longer be on the table.
But there remains the possibility that Israel could force the hand of the Bush administration, foreign policy analysts and diplomats said. Israel carried out a three-day military exercise this month that American intelligence officials say appeared to have been a rehearsal for a potential strike on nuclear targets in Iran.
Israel, being under explicit existential threat from Iran's radical Islamist revolutionary leaders, cannot accept the possibility of Iranian nuclear weapons. This fact makes irrelevant the question of whether Americans or Europeans could prefer a nuclear Iran to war. If Iran does not stand down from its nuclear program there will be war. Then the question for the US, European, and actually all countries, is what position will they take in this war.
All parties prefer to avoid war, and though judgments differ on the degree of possibility for resolution through negotiation, all would be relieved by a satisfactory diplomatic solution. However, a great irony is emerging out of American domestic politics. While many expect that Senator Obama will prevent a conflict with Iran and they sow fear that the warmongers (in their view) Bush or McCain are too eager for it, it is actually Senator Obama who is making war more likely and immediate.
Continued below the fold.
Posted in War — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 7:57pm on Dec. 17, 2007 Re: "What really matters"
By John E.
This diary is conceived with a didactic goal. In the dialogue here , several bloggers could not see why anyone would have a problem with Governor Huckabee for his new political Christmas ad. So the following is conceived illustrate the problem by looking at it from the perspective of an opposing candidate, played by me.
more
Posted in Elections — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 1:59pm on Sep. 25, 2007 An Interview Invitation for P. Ahmadenijad and a Refusal for P. Bush
By John E.
The irony is palpable. On the same week that Columbia University -- in the service of free speech -- invites President Ahmadinejad to speak to students and faculty, NPR refuses to air an interview with President Bush by Morning Edition’s Senior Correspondent Juan Williams.
Why? Brit Hume, who works closely with Juan Williams – who is also a Fox News commentator – reports
The White House offered the interview to Juan, who is an authority on race relations, on the 50th anniversary of the historic integration of a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas. The White House often offers interviews to particular reporters and anchors.
But NPR declined the offer — saying its counterproposal to use one of its news show hosts or White House correspondents instead of Williams was turned down.
What is going on here? If a private news organization made this decision, such a question might be relevant in principle but not with regard to practice. However, this is National Public Radio, which is supported by tax dollars granted for a specific purpose: “programming that creates better informed citizens on the national and local level in an objective and balanced manner.” What could be more important to that informational goal on a national level than an interview with the President of the USA?
The NPR decision fails to satisfy this goal no matter how you analyze it.
Because...
Posted in Miscellanea — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 1:19pm on Feb. 9, 2007 An Individual's Mull on a Reactionary's Catechism
By John E.
Having descended into extreme combativeness, due to my misunderstanding and the failure to discipline my emotional reactions I am returning to A Reactionary’s Shorter Catechism in an effort to participate in it in the spirit of exploring our ideas, differences and agreements, generating thought. That diary is a very, very thoughtful piece of work, one which is fully beyond my capacities to assemble. I appreciate the opportunity it gives me to think through my own inchoate conceptions on these matters. I hope the thought I give it here, while immeasurably less than the thought that the authors put into it, and despite its disagreements, is more appropriate offspring to the authors’ efforts. I shall be further indebted if their project should one day help me (probably hopeless) reach a level of systematic comprehension that can be articulated such that they can examine, challenge and criticize it has I have done with theirs.
Comments (20) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:35pm on Jan. 11, 2007 Our present war is made over ideas
By John E.
WE peoples face a monumental problem: we are at war and we have not resolved precisely with whom and at root why; we must identify and come to grips with those whom we are at war; and we must resolve the means by which we make identification.
Though such a resolution would seem rudimentary to any war stance, it meets with a great resistance arising out of the fear that it will cause many (perhaps 1.3 billion), through the power of socio-cultural and its inhering religious identity to make themselves our enemy.
Paul J. Cella’s post, “Make them give us battle” shines light on the predicament. Acknowledging our lamentable state of war – all war is lamentable – with an enemy intent upon overcoming or else destroying us by insidious “terroristic” tactics, Paul asks how we might draw them into a traditional battle of direct confrontation.
Read on.
Posted in Archived — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:08pm on Oct. 3, 2006 Cont'd - a dialogue from Moe's post on the MCA
By John E.
Various folks have contiuned a dialogue as a result of Moe Lane's Detention Bill passes Senate 65-34 . With 300+ comments, the contiuned dialogue there has become unwieldy and a system hog. Those who wish can contiune it here.
Comments (7) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:44am on Sep. 27, 2006 Letter to NPR - Bias exposed by NIE reporting
By John E.
Just another gratuitous use of blog space to document my complaints to NPR.
Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 1:15pm on Sep. 17, 2006 A Response to Lindsey Graham’s Open Letter to Condoleezza Rice
By John E.
A Response to Lindsey Graham’s Open Letter to Condoleezza Rice
What follows is a personal response to Mr. Graham’s letter, placing myself in the shoes of the State Dept.
Senator Graham:
In the context of this crucial debate about the treatment of illegal combatants, you have required the US State Dept. to take an absolute public position on a hypothetical question involving foreign policy. Though we would have preferred to have a good faith dialogue in private, we trust you would not require this merely for self-serving rhetorical effect. We assume you have done so only after carefully weighing the potential negative consequences against the positive ones. The dangers of being quoted out of context by our political adversaries, the MSM, hostile foreign media and governments and Islamist terrorists is enormous. The positive consequence is a public dialogue that results in consensus. In deference to the power you wield and your service to wisdom we will therefore set aside our better judgment and accede to your request.
Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 12:31pm on Sep. 15, 2006 My bane McCain and likewise not wise Lindsey
By John E.
The headlines read: Senator's in the Armed Services committee in revolt against the president's Military Commissions Bill.
The head of the CIA says the committee's bill will shut down the special CIA interrogation program that has been critical to acquiring key intelligence from high level terrorists.
Never mind say McCain, Graham and Powell. They insist that above all else we must satisfy the world's judgement regarding our morality. Interpreting Common Article 3 in terms of McCain's so-called torture amendment, as the president's bill proposes, would be seen by the world as "redefining" the clear meaning of the GC, tantamount to withdrawing from the treaty, and would result in the loss of our moral authority in the GWOT.
Comments (17) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:40pm on Sep. 3, 2006 Media's failure in the Plame Game. Stay the course?
By John E.
(This letter was originally addressed to Jefferey Dvorkin, with whom I had established an ongoing dialogue, but I now see he has left NPR, so I have readdressed it. Blog Modified 4:30 pm 9/5/2006).
To: Kevin Klose, President and CEO NPR
Dear Mr. Klose,
On four separate occasions in July 2005 I sent Mr. Dvorkin detailed disputations on the Wilson/Plame/Rove analysis of Dan Schorr and concomitant news stories that seemed to take story lines based on that analysis. After the Armitage revelation last week, I began listening for a retraction from Mr. Schorr. On Saturday, when Scott Simon asked Mr. Schorr about the significance of the Armitage revelation, Mr. Schorr simply said that he was very disappointed to find that there was no White House scandal involving a neo-con plot. While this ought to be surprising, it is not. Mr. Schorr is at least honestly admitting, without apology, his political partisanship which is so blatantly obvious to many of us.
Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:55pm on Jul. 14, 2006 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and Law v. Life
By John E.
Common Article III is the portion of the Geneva Conventions that the Supreme Court has ruled, as new precedent, applicable to illegal combatants. This now makes "degrading and humiliating" treatment a war crime under US law. To his credit, Lindsey Graham in the July 13 Armed Services Committee hearing on 'Hamdan v. Rumsfeld' attempted to confront the consequent dilemma with a group of present and former Judge Advocate Generals for the various branches of the military.
The direction that Sen. Graham seems to be suggesting is so troubling to me however that it is difficult not to call into question his moral reasoning even in the presence of his utter sincerity and excellent analytical articulation of the dilemma.
Consider this colloquy:
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:33am on Jul. 11, 2006 When in Doubt, Publish: The Superiority of Journalists
By John E.
Repy to When in Doubt, Publish
Dear Honorable Journalism Deans (journalismdeans@hotmail.com)
If we could be certain that journalists were absolutely objective judges of the truth, your argument would be rationally, if not legally, satisfying. However, if journalist's judgments may be colored by their view of the world just as the rest of humanity's judgments are, including the President's, then there is not a sufficient basis for concluding that yours and Mr. Keller's judgment is supreme regarding when information should be classified, especially in cases concerning national security. Our system after all does vest this precious power in an elected official, the President, who remains accountable in a political system which includes impeachment. Your judgments are not accountable to the people in any direct way, other than the need to make a profit or a reputation. And Integrity is a personal quality, not one derived from role.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:39pm on Jan. 26, 2006 A personal letter to NPR News
By John E.
Dear NPR News:
In today's (1/26/06) listener letters segment, ME apologized for referring to a 'biological' father as a 'natural' father. While a narrow connotation of 'natrual' correlates to biological, there are broader connotations of the word that certain people, the letter writers in particular, reject as inappropriate and even prejudicial. NPR News revealed that it has a policy which respects these sensitivities and in this particular case, the use of the term 'natural' had violated pre-established policy.
By contrast, based on the same 'connotative' reasoning, the Bush administration and many of us on the right object the use of the terms 'domestic spying' or 'warrantless eavesdropping' to name the NSA signals intel program targeting the calls of Islamist terrorists. Yet NPR News continues to use this headline.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 1:24pm on Dec. 22, 2005 What is the Proper Role for Intelligent Design in the Curriculum?
By John E.
I have a suggestion for all of you who are passionate about introducing Intelligent Design into the curriculum.
I recently watched Charlie Rose interview two prominent biologists, James Watson and Edward O. Wilson. Of course Charlie asked them about religion. And following the well established tradition of Darwin's `bulldog' Thomas Huxley, they both said that a proper understanding of Darwin precludes belief in a Creator. I contend that it is the conflation of that philosophical materialism with the scientific aspects of evolution that motivates the Intelligent Design theory.
To see the nature of this conflation more clearly read Science and Religion, Methodology and Humanism.The author explains how after much resistance he finally got the National Association of Biology Teachers to change the wording of their statement as requested by two theologians.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 8:34pm on Nov. 23, 2005 Lakoff presents: The Party of Mom vs. the Party of Dad
By John E.
UC Cognitive Scientist Gerorge Lakoff spoke to an appreciative crowd on a University of California campus in October.
VoD: http://www.uctv.tv/library-popup.asp?showID=11194
He is becoming well known for using insights from cognitive science to show Liberals how to win the debate in the public sphere. For example, how to use language to "frame" the debate in their favor.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml.
In the October lecture he explained that upon realizing that he, a linguist, could not comprehend the language Republicans used, he went in search of a framework, a cognitive model to provide the necessary explanatory power. And what is the gem he has cut from studying Dr. Dobson. Conservatives are the Disciplinarian Father figure. Democrats are the Nurturing Parent. (Isn't that Mom George, just to complete the analogy?)
Now, briefly stepping back from the partisan use of this model, we find that a rather lovely picture emerges. The country is a big family being raised by the party of Mom and the party of Dad. George, I've got to hand it to you. That's a whole lot better than the model we currently labor under, namely a Zoo run by an Elephant and a Donkey (maybe Greens and Libertarians won't mind being left out of that model). Now if Mom and Dad could just get along, what a happy family we could be.
George proceeds in his speech to tell his audience how Liberals can use this model to beat Conservatives. This begs the question: Hey George does the Analogy extend to the battle of the sexes? Are you modeling a late 20th century kind of Mom that took the discipline out of Dad? Or are you telling us that the liberal model has already taken the Dad out of Parent, realizing Maureen Dowd's vision: Men (dad's) are obsolete.
George, I really do like your Model, but one final question. What's wrong with being the party of the type of Mom who wants to cooperate with Dad to provide us that needed balance between nurture and discipline? Perhaps you want to concede that territory to the Conservatives. Well gee, I've got to salute your generosity.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/02/20_lakoff.shtml Some text on the Nurture Model, but it is not in the context presented by the video.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Read More »
