Finally, after months and months of harassing from everybody and his pet koala, Digby has a blog.

While on David and Oxblog, I might as well bring up this entry as well:

Anyway, the real issue here is how supporters of American foreign policy can address the perennial argument that America's record of immoral actions in the Cold War invalidates any aggressive initiatives the United States plans today...

I think the proper response is to admit what the US did wrong and shift the discussion to the merits of its current policy. As Ken Pollack tells the WaPo, what we did in the 1980s "was a horrible mistake then, but we have got it right now."

The reason for the "America supported Iraq then, and therefore shouldn't invade now" doesn't, in my view, have much to do with the moral culpability of the administration, but their credibility. Rather a lot of the rhetoric about Iraq relies on assurances by the Administration that they have evidence and reasons that for various reasons they can't bring to light, but that they should be trusted to have. This whole point basically boils down to "why on earth should we believe you, and why on earth should we trust you to do it properly and improve the situation"? (Assuming, for the moment, that the silly argument that "it can't get any worse" is rightly ignored; it can get worse, very much so.)

Sure, everybody would like to see Saddam gone, but the question is whether or not an American invasion is the right thing. That is a harder question, and the one that this whole thing strikes at. To say "no, really, we've got it now" is to invite the question "what if you're saying the same thing ten years from now?" It's a legitimate question, and one that remains to be answered.

I'm not a regular reader of Oxblog, but I ended up finding a link by Instapundit to supposed takedown of Josh Marshall. At the heart of it is an odd assertion:

Schroeder in Germany, Lula in Brazil, now Roh's victory in S. Korea…[this is the] latest 'wake-up call' to [the] U.S., but [it's] not clear what's being heard." Marshall notes that each of these election outcomes had "deep local determinants" and was fundamentally "multi-causal." Fair enough. But, Marshall concludes,

...add these and other election results up and you start to see that hostile reactions to America's newly strident and confrontational stance in the world are becoming an important force in world politics and an important force in the domestic politics of many of our allies.

Not so fast. First of all, Lula's victory in Brazil is an indication of the strength of American values, not a backlash against them. Lula was once a true working-class radical who campaigned in denim and spoke of socialism. As a result, he lost three consecutive presidential elections. This year, Lula decided to wear a suit, accept a binding commitment to IMF economic policies, and pledge to fight inflation and budget deficits.

David is correct in that Lula had moderated his position somewhat, but it's very different to say that said moderation is why he was successful; as David (somewhat misleadingly) noted, Lula's popularity has been building for a while, and he managed to achieve victory against Cardoso's hand-picked and resolutely pro-American successor, Jose Serra. Even if Lula had moderated his position, he's still to the left of his opponents and certainly to the left of the United States' government.

(Heck, look at how financial markets reacted to his election. They knew quite well what it would mean: that it was a rejection of the Washington Consensus, and that Lula's moderation might not prevent him from acting in the interests of the poor Brazilian North.)

Besides, Lula has pretty clearly set himself apart from the United States: he supports both Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, and has been openly hostile towards the FTAA due to the possibility (heck, certainty) that it would be little more than an invitation for the United States to access whichever markets it wishes and prevent access to its own market in turn. His advocacy of the Brazilian-led MERCOSUL trading body has little purpose except as a way of ensuring that South American interests are represented; and the only reason why that would even be an issue is if he didn't trust the United States' leadership of the FTAA.

No, David, Lula's win was definitely a message to the United States by the Brazilians as well as a rejection of the ruling cabal, and the moderation doesn't make sense as a movement towards the United States, but only the moderate elements within Brazil itself. I personally think that Marshall has a point; anti-Americanism has become a force in world politics. Whether that's good or bad is immaterial; it's practically inevitable, as people are not going to react kindly to a great power that is attempting to wield that power in ways that may not be in their own interests, and that claims an exceptional level of insight and morality that many probably consider overstated if not fallacious. (Except when exploiting it for their own purposes.)

More interesting is his followup on power:

Not by a long shot. What Marshall doesn't ask is whether anti-American rhetoric results in anti-American actions, or whether it is just a diversion from fundamentally pro-American foreign policies. Take Schroeder's latest speech for example. While he talks about searching for alternatives to war, he also refuses to rule out German support for a UN-authorized invasion of Iran. And Schroeder adds that: "We Germans know from our own experience that dictators sometimes can only be stopped with force."

I'm going to assume that that was a typo, and that he meant "Iraq". (Then again, given time...) Anyway, the key point there is not the "invasion" aspect, but the "UN-authorized" aspect. Most of the opposition of a unilateral invasion of Iraq comes not just from the "invasion" part but the "unilateral" part; the Germans (like rather a lot of people both inside and outside of the United States) are deeply ambivalent about the idea of the United States acting as a hegemonic power, and Iraq is seen both by advocates and opponents of the invasion as a testing ground for this idea; that it will be a symbolic gesture much more important than Saddam Hussein, Iraq, or George Bush himself. The whole point of the U.N. authorization is not to watch the U.S. get what it wants, but the symbolic element of asking permission. That's what the Germans were interested in, and still are.

(It's kind of a variation of the importance of civilian oversight of the military, although on a much different scale and involving a different kind of relationship).

See, here's the thing. David said that "If I've been a little harsh, it's because I'm worried that a lot of very intelligent and well-intentioned individuals have begun to see multilateralism as an end in itself rather than a means of promoting democracy and human rights across the globe." That's right, they have, and it's for the same reason that democracy is often seen as an end in itself, even if it doesn't promote what some consider the right things; it's because many people understand (not believe, understand) that no single individual, no single people, and no single nation should wield unchecked power over another, whether well-intentioned or not. Even a power with the best of intentions can and probably will eventually become corrupt without a counter-pressure to keep it in check. A relatively benign dominant political culture simply ain't good enough, exceptionalism or no. That culture can be changed, can be subverted, and can be ignored if things are kept below the radar- which is pretty easy with the disinterest that the American public has in foreign policy. Multilateralism is a check, and an important one, whether it fits the United States' short-term strategic interests or not. I'm sure Americans would feel the same if it were the Brits that ran the show.

Most regular readers have probably run across the political axes that I normally use to define political positions; one being whether society should be hierarchical or egalitarian, and the other being whether or not their conception of society is as a collection of independent individuals or an organic body, with each person making up a part of the whole. It's as useful and fairly reliable as any two-dimensional political classification system I've ever seen, but I do have to admit that the system Kevin Drum devised is pretty interesting itself:

There are plenty of possible choices, and one possible matrix is shown on the right. The vertical axis is a reflection of your basic view of human nature: people are naturally selfish and bad vs. people are naturally good if you allow them to be. The horizontal axis describes your view of what molds people: people are mostly responsible for their own actions vs. people are substantially shaped by their society and their environment.

Does this work? Here are the four political "types" that it produces:

"Limbaugh Conservative": This type believes that people are basically out for themselves and are responsible for their own actions. No blaming society for these folks! They have an instinctive belief in law and order and traditional values.

"Principled Conservative": These folks also believe people are responsible for themselves, but they basically view their actions as good. Thus: free market capitalism, in which self-interest turns out to be a good character trait, and a principled view that society is best when government interferes least and allows human nature to come to the fore.

"Practical Liberal": This type reluctantly agrees that people are selfish and often untrustworthy, but believes that bad luck and poor upbringing have a lot to do with it. Like FDR, they tend to believe that government programs can help produce better people by creating a better society.

"Academic Liberal": These are the people at anti-globalization rallies. They believe that people are fundamentally good but are corrupted by big business, big religion, and other societal forces. Get rid of the corrupting influences of powerful institutions and human nature will make the world a better place.

As I said, interesting. It does loosely fit the framework I mentioned, however; the "people are good" vs. "people are bad" can be fairly easily mapped onto the "hierarchy vs. egalitarian" axis, and the "responsibility" axis is a variation of the question asking whether society or individuals are the key actors.

Kevin goes on to ask:

All right then, try it yourself. This is the game I promised you at the beginning of this post: try to figure out two dimensions of underlying temperament that do a good job of predicting political views. Here are a few possibilities besides the two I already used:

Long-term view vs. short-term view.

Personal view of the worlds vs. big picture/root causes view.

Emotional vs. analytical.

The goal is to find two dimensions that (a) categorize 80% of the population reasonably well, and (b) do a decent job of predicting political viewpoints. For example, in my scheme, does the knowledge of what quadrant somebody is in do a good job of predicting their views on abortion, gun control, environmental regulations, etc.?

And now for the final question, left as an exercise for the reader (of course!): using my matrix, can you classify people's attitudes toward racism in America? You just knew it would get back to that, didn't you?

Welp, let's see. I've already got my two axes, so how do these fit?

a)I'd say it works pretty well; there's a lot of hierarchical individualism within American society, but there's a strong current of hierarchical organicism as well, as the religious do tend towards an organic conception of society. (We're all God's children/members of the church/sheep to be shepherded or whatnot). What isn't generally present is strong egalitarianism, which explains part of the reason why socialism never really took off in the United States. (There are others, and lots of them, but that is part of it.) There is some egalitarianism on certain issues, of course, but the strong acceptance of "winners and losers" shows an America that believes strongly in some measure of hierarchy based (ideally) on merit.

b)It's been done. A quick breakdown:

-Organic+Hierarchy=old-style Conservatism. Simple. Maybe not relevant today, but still certainly fits the temperment of a lot of the religous, and is part-and-parcel with historic conservatism. Divine Right of Kings and all that.

-Organic+Egalitarianism=Socialism and Social Democracy. Also simple; Marx was quite clear in arguing that the individual is a part of a larger group, and socialist and social democratic systems are designed on that principle. This would be the "hard left" in American politics, and the entire left in a fair bit of Europe.

-Individualistic+Egalitarian=Anarchism. Not anarcho-capitalism, but good old fashioned left-wing anarchism, the land of "property is theft" and of tearing down Locke's beloved enclosures. On a (much) lesser level this would also describe modern democratic liberalism; individuals have rights, and equality is something that should be strived towards without a damned good reason not to. (John Rawls made this point.)

Finally:

-Individualistic+Hierarchical=Helllo, Libertarianism! (And Anarcho-Capitalism). We're all individuals, some are better than others, and the fundamental principle is Don't Touch My Stuff.

As for those issues, (abortion, gun control, or environment) it really depends. Abortion is a battle between the individualists and the organicists; women's control over their own bodies vs. society's desire to protect those who cannot protect themselves. (Assuming, for the moment, that the fetus is not as of yet an individual, but that's a big battle that can split apart individualists too.) Gun control is another one, although made tricky by the specificities of American culture; an organicist would argue that society should be the ones protecting people and (in turn) should not be at the mercy of well-armed individuals, whereas individualists disagree. Environmentalism is a little of all four: individuals' right to do with their property as they wish vs. society's desire for the protection of the environment and the battle between those who think that those who can afford clean air and water should pay for it and the others can go hang (which would be a relatively extreme hierarchical view) against the view that all people have a right to clean air and water no matter what.

And as for Kevin's final question? Three words:

Hierarchy of races.

Aside from arguments about the Observer and neutrality and the like, this article contains a really fascinating blurb:

Bush insisted last week that America must become less dependent on foreign oil producers 'who don't like America'; but last month the US Department of Energy forecast that, by 2035, 51 per cent of world production would come from Opec - compared with 38 per cent today.

This a long time off, of course, and it's quite likely that other sources of energy will become much more competitive. Still, an OPEC that powerful is a somewhat disturbing thought; both in terms of what it would mean for world stability, for American foreign policy (and its repercussions), for the Middle East, and the west as a whole.

I love a good Counter-Fisking.

An absolutely classic Tolkien moment in this article about propaganda and the Lord of the Rings:

Tolkien also squashed a German publisher's inquiry into the possible Aryan origins of his surname by expressing his regret that he appeared to lack Jewish ancestors. (Tolkien's ancestry was, in fact, German.)

Elegant and brutally effective. One of those quotes where I wish I had thought of it.

Edit: Screw subtlety. I wasn't actually originally going to post on this, but I like the show a lot and friends of mine are obsessed, so what the hell. If you watched or know someone who watches Firefly (or, for that matter, Buffy and/or Angel), you should know that IT HAS BEEN CANCELLED. However, Fox is allowing Joss Whedon to shop the show around, and he's in talks with other networks to pick it up. The example of the X-Files shows that loud action by dedicated fans *can* make a difference. Go here, get an address, send a postcard, and strike a blow for entertainment that doesn't insult the intelligent or appeal solely to people's lizard brains.

And by the way.. anybody with a blog who likes the show can feel free to plagiarize as much of this post as they wish, as long as they post on it. I'd call for one of those "blogbursts", but I doubt that enough bloggers have watched the show to make a difference. So I'll just ask them, and you, to assist in the fans' attempts to save what is probably the best show on television.

Y'know, I didn't think that Jay Reding and I had a damned thing in common. Turns out I was wrong.

Meanwhile, shows that don't assume their audience has actual functioning brains and show an ounce of creativity and life like Firefly get cancelled.

I can only hope that there is a very special place in hell reserved for television executives. Hopefully it involves watching dreck like Friends for all eternity while being dry-humped by prong-phallused sore-covered imps.

I doubt the imps would be necessary. Still, it shows what a damned good show Firefly is that it can bring even Jay and I together to shout out "Fox execs are utter bastards" in perfect and beautiful unison.

Of course, the Fox executives were only following the poor ratings. The cancellation of Firefly was really your fault. Yes, you. You, reading the blog. If you didn't watch Firefly, you were complicit in the cancellation of one of the best shows ever to hit the phosphors on a television set. It's a belaboured point, but the networks wouldn't keep on putting crap on the screen if we didn't keep telling them to do it!

Of course, it's not too late to redeem yourself.

On December 13, 2002 Tim Minear announced at Buffistas.org that FOX would be ordering no new episodes of Firefly. Later that same day, Joss Whedon announced that 20th Century Fox Television had indicated to him that they would be willing to air the show on networks other than their sibling company.

The current goal of Firefly: Immediate Assistance is to convince a network other than FOX to broadcast Firefly.

What do we need to do?
To achieve this goal, we need to do three things:

One:
Write to networks and let them know that Firefly is available and has a strong fanbase.

Two:
Write to sponsors thanking them for their support of Firefly and asking them to support Firefly at its new network.

Three:
Make the press aware of our efforts and encourage them to discuss Firefly.

I don't have an amazon button or a paypal button. There are reasons for that, not all of my own choosing. If you were inclined towards supporting the site if such buttons existed, however, then I'll ask you to instead support something that I support, go to that site, get some addresses, and send a simple bloody postcard or two. It's cheaper, and you get to harass television executives. That is a good work that people of all political stripes can agree on.

Politics in the Zeros shows that the INS registration/detention debacle is being repeated in Houston and Cleveland, although he notes (and quotes) that "fears raised by the detention of hundreds of foreigners last week could discourage future turnout for a registration process designed to detect potential terrorists, Muslim leaders and immigration lawyers are warning."

Hmm... let's get a little Machiavellian here. What if this is the entire point? Sure, this is largely due to INS screwups, but this sort of thing is pretty predictable... both the mobs of people that show up during the last day and the panicky response. It was the White House that was behind this whole thing in the first place, however, and it's not outside the realm of possibility that they were able to predict that the overwhelmed INS would start detaining people wholesale. In fact, it's pretty likely. More to the point, however, is a related question:

What if they also knew that it would mean that people wouldn't show up to be registered? What if that was the point?

After all, if immigrants don't show up to be registered, then they can be detained and/or deported free and clear; and they're certainly not going to show up if they think they'll be arrested whether they're abiding with the (contradictory) INS regulations or not. Sure, most people will be let out, but each immigrant will ask themselves "will I be let go" and will probably say "I can't take the chance". If that's the case, though, then the White House will find itself able to instantly and easily deport any and every immigrant from a Middle Eastern country that they wish without needing to find a pretext first. Anyone in the Bush administration could point, nod, and the guy would be on a plane later that day.

Sure, it's quite possible that this was never the intention. Still, people should be careful not to assume that there's no manipulation going on. While I believe that this administration is dangerously deluded on many important issues, it has demonstrated that it can and will do whatever it takes to get what it wants, and is quite able to employ some rather devious tricks to that effect. This could be one of them, and to assume that "there's no way they'd ever do that" is terrible naivete.

Very, very disturbing news is coming out about a September massacre in the Northeastern Congo village of Nyankunde:

Wearing crowns of leaves and screaming war cries, 6,000 tribal fighters and their allies attacked the mission hospital in Nyankunde, slaughtering patients in their beds.

Then they turned on the town itself and, over the next two weeks in September, burned, shot and speared thousands to death, according to some of the 1,200 survivors who made a nine-day trek to safety in Oicha.

The Democratic Republic of Congo's government signed a power-sharing accord with two big rebel groups and the political opposition on Dec. 16 to end a four-year civil war. But the lawless northeast of this vast central African country has been a killing field of tribal conflicts for decades. Bringing peace to the region will be a key test for any post-war government.

Information is only now emerging about the massacre in Nyankunde, which began Sept. 5.

The attackers used rifles, machetes, knives, spears and arrows, said Kakani, head nurse in the intensive care ward at the Evangelical Medical Center...

...The bloodshed occurred in Ituri province, a beautiful region nearly 1,100 miles northeast of the Congolese capital, Kinshasa. It is rich in gold, timber and other resources that tribes have fought over for decades, but the violence worsened after the civil war broke out in August 1998.

"Tribal clashes in Ituri are increasingly lethal due to proliferation of heavy weapons and emergence of ethnic-based militias," said Jackson Basikana, an aid worker who fled the region. "The end to the bloodbath lies in disarmament and restoration of effective government on the ground."

Aside from all that heavy quotation, there's some important lessons and trends to be understood from this news.

First, is the seemingly self-evident (but often forgotten) fact that mass murder and even genocide need not come at the hands of weapons of mass destruction, but can be simply the work of a lot of dedicated killers with relatively simple implements. To eliminate the more powerful weapons does not necessarily mean that the problem of mass murder will be eliminated; far from it.

Second is a point that is buried within the story and not really focused on when people look at conflict nowadays: the tribalism. Tribalism and nationalism are on the rise worldwide, and have been ever since the Cold War ended and the pressure cooker of ethnocentric warfare that had been kept tightly closed throughout the World Wars and Cold War finally exploded. A lot of commentators and pundits go on about the religious aspect of conflict, without recognizing that there are usually strong ethnic aspects as well. In other words, not everything has to do with Islam, whether some of the people involved are Muslims are not.

Third is the question of what to do about it. I'm sure that some would argue that the best solution for these sorts of situations (assuming, for the moment, that the current peace deal in the Congo doesn't last) would be for a Great Power to step in and impose peace and order on "these uncivilized people". (Very Victorian, yes, but the widescale adoption of a cartoonish version of Huntington's thesis has revived some rather Victorian attitudes in many westerners.) It's certainly a solution constantly advocated for in resolving the conflicts in the Middle East. Yet it should be understood and remembered that the last time this sort of thing was attempted was the Colonial period itself, and many of the problems of the non-European world are linked to, if not stemming from, the self-serving behavior of colonial powers. To argue that there should be a return to such attitudes (with a remaining and much-revived tendency to justify similar self-serving actions by saying that it would "civilize the savages") requires the assurance that the New Colonialism wouldn't end up making things worse, just like the old one. That hasn't been proven, and barely passes the laugh test.

(This isn't a pie-in-the-sky notion, by the way; what the U.S. has planned for a post-war Iraq is very similar to the pseudo-colonial "mandates" that characterized the great powers' exploitation of the Middle East in the interwar period and (thanks to their flagrant betrayal of the Hussein-McMahon agreement) that convinced most Arabs that westerners were not to be trusted.)

Finally, the most important lesson that one can learn from this is that mankind is capable of rather horrible things. Not a new lesson, but one that needs to be remembered.

I know this is petty, but this is just a little too funny to ignore:

Krauthammer asserts that Trent Lott has exposed the real fault-lines among conservatives. He relies on the overused dichotomy between "neocons," "traditional cons," and "paleocons."

Great choice of words, Jonah! No doubt inspired by his invigorating trip to work on a really spiffy three-wheeled bicycle.

(I know I shouldn't be mocking someone about something so trivial, but how on earth does someone make the obvious mistake of using the word "dichotomy" for three choices?)

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Good news and bad news about the INS roundups from the NY Times.

The good news is that they're likely to be released soon:

Immigration officers have arrested hundreds of men in the last week after they appeared voluntarily to register, with an unknown number still in custody today. An I.N.S. official in California told family members and immigration lawyers that virtually all of those still held would be released in the next 24 hours, with instructions to report back in 30 to 60 days to complete the registration process, lawyers said.

The bad news is that it looks like this wasn't really the work of the INS itself, but somebody higher up:

An agency official in Southern California said that Justice Department officials in Washington dictated the rules of the program and gave local authorities little leeway to determine who should be detained or released. As a result, hundreds of men with minor visa violations were handcuffed and locked up for days while officials sorted through mountains of paperwork and bail applications.

It's good to see that most of these people will be released. It doesn't change the fact of the original arrests, of course, and doesn't matter one whit as to the possibility of it happening again, but at least the detention was not a long-term thing. Actually, it looks like the whole thing was something of a cockup and that the people at the INS weren't exactly happy about it:

There was apparently no plan for mass detentions, so many were kept overnight in temporary lockups or local jails, some with no sleeping facilities, said people who went through the process...

"Our objective was to hold people only until we had completed confirmation of records checks," the I.N.S. official said. "But a staggering number of people showed up on the last day and we couldn't keep up..."

..."Monday was the worst day I've ever spent at I.N.S. in 20 years of working with them," Mr. Paparelli said. "We were on the eighth floor of the federal building in Los Angeles and everyone in the corridor was weeping or in a state of extreme anxiety. Across the hall was the employee health center where aerobics music was blaring."

This isn't surprising, really; the idea that a sweeping order from the top that was poorly implemented can lead to civil rights violations isn't exactly a new one. It doesn't excuse anybody, of course, least of all the INS people that winked with one eye while preparing the handcuffs with the other, and it certainly doesn't change the precedent this sets for the wholesale and discriminatory arrests of peaceful immigrants... but at least it proves that the people at the INS were as bothered as everybody else by this. That's a hopeful sign.

Oh look, and here's more good news:

U.S. to propose Net monitor system

NEW YORK, Dec. 20 — The White House wants Internet service providers to help create a system to monitor Internet use, the New York Times reported on Friday.
The system could be potentially be used for surveillance of Internet users, the Times said.

The Bush administration plans to submit the proposal in a report, “The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace,” which will be released early next year, the newspaper said, citing several people who have been briefed on the report.

The plan is part of the Bush administration’s efforts to intensify national security following the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington. The report will suggest options for public and private cooperation to defend computer networks from viruses as well as malicious attacks, the Times said.

Now, I'm not going to pin this solely on the Bush administration by any means; it was the Clinton administration that first proposed the Clipper chip, and that was and is one of the biggest problems I had with the Clintonites (although they do deserve credit for backing off when the cries of outrage started). What's different now is that the same people who would have normally yelled the loudest about the implementation of an idea like this are the ones that are involved in the same administration that is pushing it, and (in the case of many of the pseudo-libertarians out there) are probably too protective of the promise of tax cuts to actually raise a hue and cry about this. This is their guy after all. Plus, of course, there's the perception that one's privacy is unimportant compared to the collective security of the country as a whole.

It does make me wonder, though. Most of the somewhat-repressive actions that the U.S. government has been engaged in have happened in the wake of the first real territorial threat to the United States since the Civil War. The idea of trading freedom for safety isn't exactly a new one outside the United States, and I think it's only within the North American continent that such an idea became unacceptable. How much of that, however, had to do with the fact that the security of the United States from any real external threat was protected by friendly nations on two sides, and bloody big oceans on the other two? How many of the vaunted ideals of the Revolution were kept safe and protected not due to the vigilance of those that succeeded them, but the simple luck of geostrategic positioning?

Honestly, I'd love for that to be wrong. I'd be happier than a pig in mud (so to speak) if this long-term territorial threat was not reflected by long-term abrogation of freedoms, liberties, and civil rights. I'm sure that the people of the United States would be better off as well. I'm with Principal Skinner: "Prove me wrong, kids, prove me wrong!"

More important, though, is the fact that any removal of civil rights in the United States will have repercussions all over the world. American exceptionalism is a double-edged sword; although it does mean that the United States can hold itself high as (what it considers to be) the best, freeest, and most prosperous country in the world, it means that any movement away from freedom will inevitably prompt similar movements from countries around the world. All the governments need to do is point to the United States and say "see? Even the Americans are cracking down, and they value freedom above everything else and are protected from threats on all sides! We've got to act to protect the security of the state or we'll be doomed!" So they do crack down, much harder than the United States ever did, and all of a sudden the case for freedom around the world becomes a little weaker, one step at a time.

That's why attempts by the United States to curtail freedom is more important than the United States, more important than terrorism, and more important than the Bush administration and its satellites and hangers-on. Whether the United States likes it or not, its insistence of exceptionalism means that its lead will be followed, and any abandonment of civil rights by its government and its citizenry here will have enormous effects around the globe. It sucks, and the United States shouldn't really be in this position as it's really just another state like any other, but regardless of that the responsibility exists.

The only real question is what's to be done with it.

On Eriposte, another summary of exactly what went on with the INS arrests. Most of the posting is from the L.A. Times (a site I don't yet a username for), so those who have read the L.A. Times will be familiar with most of this. Still, a few highlights:

INS ads on local Persian radio stations and in other ethnic media led many to expect a routine procedure. Instead, the registration quickly became the subject of fear as word spread that large numbers of men were being arrested. Lawyers reported crowded cells with some clients forced to rest standing up, some shackled and moved to other locations in the night, frigid conditions in jail cells — all for men with no known criminal histories....Some, he said, were hosed down with cold water before finding places to sleep on the concrete floors of cells. Lucas Guttentag, who heads the West Coast office of the American Civil Liberties Union's immigrant rights project, fears the wave of arrests is 'a prelude to much more widespread arrests and deportations.'

I don't remember who it was (maybe Foucault?) who said that a society can be judged by how it treats its prisoners. A few days ago, I would have thought that this reflected well on the United States for the most part. Times have changed.

The arrests have generated widespread publicity, mostly unfavorable, in the Middle East, said Khaled Dawoud, a correspondent for Al Ahram, one of Egypt's largest dailies. He questioned State Department official Charlotte Beers about the detentions Wednesday after a presentation she made at the National Press Club in Washington. Egyptians are not included in the registration requirement.

Beers, undersecretary of State for public diplomacy and public affairs, was presenting examples of a U.S. outreach campaign for the Middle East, which includes images of Muslims leading happy lives here. Dawoud asked how that image squared with the "humiliating" arrests in recent days. 'I don't think there is any question that the change in visa policy is going to be seen by some as difficult and, indeed — what was the word you used? — humiliating,' Beers said. But, she added, President Bush has said repeatedly that he considers 'his No. 1 ... job to be the protection of the American people.'...

Actually, Mr. President, (and I use this only because the word "asshat" might be misinterpreted) the oath you swore was to uphold the constitution, both it's spirit and its letter. The whole argument that non-citizens don't have any rights is a dodgy one in terms of the letter of the Constitution (at least in my opinion), but only the most xenophobic would argue that the spirit of the country and its founding allows the United States government the right to treat harmless quasi-illegal immigrants like this.

Honestly, however, that's not the real issue here, outrageous at it would seem. This piece from the author of the eriposte article sums it up:

There are many progressive moderate Middle-Easterners in the U.S. who could play a major role in convincing the rest of the world that there is a moderate and democratic Islam practiced in places like the U.S., that there are places like the U.S. where freedom and rights mean something. If you look at the article above you will see that Iranian Jews and Muslims are a significant contingent amongst those arrested. Why is this important to point out? Progressive Iranians are revolting against the fundamentalist mullahs in Iran, for freedom and liberty, and have been mentioned in positive light in the U.S. on many occasions. (Is there also not talk about Iraqis who might be willing to overthrow Saddam? - we need their help too). We need the support of moderates to remove the fanatics in the Middle-East! We need as many voices of Muslims to sound moderate and supportive of the U.S. internationally, to help bring about changes at a lower psychological and monetary cost to us, because we cannot spend hundreds of billions of dollars fighting battles all the time, when it financially costs much less to win umpteen times the good will constant war will generate.

People, this sort of thing plays into Osama's hands. In fact, it doesn't just play into Osama's hands, it does his job for him. Kindly remember that the entire point of Osama's quest is to convince Muslims that they need to reject the west and its embodiment, the United States, as a corrupt and evil influence. He wants to start a war between the west and Islam, and (I'm sure) is hoping that the United States will start it for him, so Muslims around the world will believe that they are next; that they are targets no matter how moderate, peaceful, and westernized they are. By doing this, the United States is reinforcing that belief. By arresting Iranians, the United States is showing that this is not limited to the Arab world and never was, and is ensuring that the clerics have a powerful weapon to keep the population in line and supporting their government- fear of the United States. Indeed, people that might not have been bothered or offended by attempts to keep terrorism in line will be forced to be suspicious, because the United States government has proven through this action that it doesn't matter who you are or where you live... as long as you come from the wrong country, you're a suspect.

(Yes, it hasn't extended to citizens. Yet. That we know about. Do *you* know which citizens that new mega-database and the new wiretapping and surveillence powers are geared towards tracking? I get the feeling it ain't caucasians. Well, at least ones that aren't critical of the government.)

The problem isn't just that these people are being arrested. The problem is that everybody outside the United States is going to know that they've been arrested, why they've been arrested, why it's a scam, and what it says about the respect the United States government has for the human rights of those it thinks may at some point threaten its security. And no amount of spin doctoring from bloggers, the punditry, the administration, or God Himself is going to make a whit of difference. They're going to know, and they're going to understand, and it's quite possible they're going to do something about it. And if they think that they're targets, not all the American pop culture in Hollywood is going to make a lick of difference.

Somewhere in Pakistan, Osama Bin Laden is smiling.

From Atrios' message board, two stories (the links are to the original postings):

First, from "ck":

Is this why "They hate our freedom"?

I have a freind in the process of immigrating. His wife is American and he's been here for 10 years, first going to school on a student Visa and now he has a work permit. INS called him in to 'register' last month and then threw him in jail and threatened to deport him. If his wife wasn't an American they would have deported him the next day despite the fact that he's spent the last 10 years building a life here-legally. He's, of course, scared out of his mind but fortunately they have the resources to secure a good lawyer to help them, many immigrants do not. I'm thankful that they can read the comments of people here and know they are not alone and that some people here do care about them.

Second, from Nick Sweeney:

For the sake of contrast, my friend Danny has shown the necessary documentation for his application for permanent residency. As he says, he has a big advantage: he's British. Were he from a Middle Eastern country, the INS would most likely not be returning forms with slight errors for resubmission; they'd be having him arrested.

And finally, from zarathustra2101, an insight:

According to the AP "The Iranian protesters said many of those detained were victims of official delays in processing visa and green card requests."

And the OC Register "all are in various stages of obtaining their green cards. Most had received INS letters telling them their applications had been accepted."

We need to get these letters scanned and uploaded where everyone can see them. We need to document every instance of "official delay" - before the evidence "disappears".

Let's be honest here. This has nothing, absolutely NOTHING, to do with the legality or illegality of their immigration status and everything to do with arresting "undesirables" solely due to their country of origin by whatever means are possible. This is like emptying an M-60 into a crowd in order to bring down the one guy who you think might be a drug dealer. It's absolutely unacceptable.

My apologies to readers of Tapped who are trying to get at my "fisking" of the Prospect and getting a "404". I've been getting those bloody "503" errors for a while now, and none of the usual workarounds are, well, working.

It's almost enough to get a guy to switch over to movable type or something like that. Pity that MT blogs are extraordinarily difficult to keep one's anonymity on. Maybe I'll just move up to Blogger Pro or something.

For the record, I don't actually have a problem with the Prospect, and actually don't like the term "fisking" in the first place. I do think that they're being unnecessarily critical of Somerby, however, and am still curious as to why.

Heh. Looks like not all conservative organizations online are quick to blame Lott. While on a site called ChronWatch (which is a conservative watchsite for the San Francisco Chronicle), I came across a poll about Trent Lott.

The question was "Should Trent Lott Resign as Majority Leader?" Here were the choices:

Yes, damaged goods. Make life difficult for GOP (42.6%) 83 votes
Yes, Just not good enough for the job (18.5%) 36 votes
No, Byrd's comments just as bad (5.1%) 10 votes
No, This is all liberal selective moralism (12.8%) 25 votes
No, Demos are just race-baiting (21.0%) 41 votes

Notice something missing? The "Yes, he's a racist putz and a blight upon both the country and the party"? Yep, I noticed it too. It would appear that away from the prying eyes of liberal bloggers and the mainstream media, at least one group of conservatives ain't as ticked about Lott as the ones in the public eye. Not surprising, but very enlightening.

(And that doesn't even get into the choice of votes. Selective moralism, my ass.)

The Farmer brought up something really bloody disturbing on my message board:

"Dictatorship in the United States would most likely be demobilizing, seeking to keep people in their homes, rather than putting them on the streets in or in uniform. An American dictatorship would clothe itself in constitutional and legal forms; it would cultivate an aura of non-partisan technocracy and business expertise, not a feverish cult of the genius-leader and the masses. An American Feuher would not rant and stut, but crack jokes and adopt the relaxed, ironic, "cool" style of a television host."
source: - Michael Lind, "The Next American Nation; The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Revolution"

I'm not quite sure that Bush fits that latter description, and my vision of what a fascist American state would look like differs (looks more like the movie version of "Starship Troopers", which is one of the reasons why I liked both the book and the movie for different reasons), but it's close enough that it's bloody disturbing. Especially considering that, as I mentioned last night, they are now rounding up peaceful immigrants and throwing them in jail for the crime of being Iranian.

If this keeps up, somebody's going to have to declare Godwin's law suspended. Or, if not, start talking about Italians an awful lot.

Roger Ailes ferrets out hate crimes:

Conservatives have discovered hate crimes.

They've also discovered that they are the victims of those crimes.

Pat Buchanan declares Trent Lott "the victim of a hate crime."

Paul Craig Roberts declares Confederate soldiers and their descendants the victims of "a hate crime." Because, you know, the Confederacy wasn't about persecuting and torturing blacks, and "free blacks had fewer rights than slaves in the South."

Pat and Paul want so badly to be persecuted you can't help but hope their wishes come true.

Somebody please call somebody at the Daily Show: this is far beyond the (still impressive) powers of internet satirists. If there was ever a subject worth a a "whuuuuuuh?" this is it.