a raven attacking an eagle The Raven's Blog. May the better bird win.
Google


WWW The Raven's Blog

February 23
Grab a hold of something or sit down, because an unabashed liberal who wrote a play about Nazi war criminals is about to defend a holocaust denier.

I'm referring I hope you realize to the conviction of historian David Irving for denying the Jewish holocaust happened. He's best known, aside from the inflammatory statements, for his book Hitler's War. I have a copy purchased as a trial membership with a history book club back when I was a teenager. Yes, I was precocious, though almost everyone I know in my living history hobby was precocious that way. I mention that as voluntary disclosure that I own and have read the book, though I was young enough to not remember if it's true Irving downplayed the holocaust. That out of the way, I don't defend the things he said, but, and probably every American can finish this sentence, I defend his right to say it. It is chilling to hear someone denying what can only be denied through lunacy or grotesque bigotry, but it is also chilling to hear of a judge in a criminal trial questioning the defendant regarding his beliefs. I don't defend Nazis in any way, not even in terms of hate speech. Given their history, their threats, even implied threats, mean something. There is nonetheless a difference between espousing the beliefs of Nazis and denying the reality of what happened. Even if that denial has to deny living survivors, the remains of the camps, the film footage, and extensive documentation, it's not the same as threatening to kill Jews again. I actually don't have a problem with banning Nazi parties, since they have a history of turning hate speech into action, and threats are not legally protected speech. Hate speech by itself, however, is free speech, and if that is protected then surely just expressing delusion about history must be protected too.

One other aspect that is disturbing is the timing of this trial coinciding with the protests over the Muhammad cartoons. A defense Muslims have used of their desire to outlaw images that offend their beliefs is that some western nations outlaw denial the holocaust happened or speech that tries to downplay it. They ask what the difference is, and I don't have a good answer. In fact they're right on that point. I understand the impulse that causes Iran to run a contest for cartoons about the holocaust, and the best counter argument I can offer is that the Jews didn't run the offending cartoons. Once again, whatever happens, they blame the Jews. Still, I wouldn't pass laws against anti-semitic cartoons or pictures of Muhammad with a bomb for a turban. Bigotry must be called what it is, it must be exposed and shamed, but outlawing speech won't make it go away.


A couple tough critiques of Bush that have appeared on the editorial pages of the Twin Cities dailies lately have come from conservatives. Maybe they just seem tough because they come from Bush supporters, or maybe they're former supporters. Over in the quotes column on the right, I put a quote from a recent column by George Will (if it isn't there, check the civil liberties quotes archive) taking apart every defense the acting president has made of his warrantless surveillance of Americans. For example, WIll pointed out that Bush has claimed to be searching for judicial candidates who will strictly interpret the Constitution, yet he claims all sorts of powers are implied in a document intended to limit his power by specifying it. Will calls the idea that the president's power expands over the other two branches in wartime "monarchical". Like many liberals, Will points out how absurd it is to think that until this secret program was exposed by some unknown whistleblower, terrorists never would have suspected the government would try to eavesdrop on them.

There was a wow factor, and I did say "wow" when I read the concluding sentence, in a column by Kathleen Parker. She wrote about the decision to approve the sale of the British company that runs six US ports to a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates, specifically about how it indicates Bush has lost his survival instinct. Her take seems to be that Bush has lost the most rudimentary sense of how to protect the country. She finished by saying:

"In the more likely event Thanatos [she explained at the beginning of the column that Thanatos was sort of an ancient Greek grim reaper] truly is at the helm of our ship of state at this titanic moment, we can't afford to let Bush's death instinct subsume the national imperative to survive.

Survival now depends on fitter minds."

Was this a conservative calling for Bush's removal? Are some conservatives realizing what liberals have been thinking since at least the time we were sort of counting Floridian ballots in 2000, that a disaster is in the making? Maybe, just maybe, between principled conservatives who realize Bush is a scofflaw, non-delusional conservatives who realize the Bush administration presents a grave danger to national security, and those who might decide Bush's political survival endangers their own, impeachment looks more possible. It's hard to believe even now that conservatives/Republicans would permit a president of their party to be forced from office when they still have trouble just investigating him, but it feels like they're wishing there was some way to make him go away without giving a victory to the opposition.

February 22
I appreciate those of you who keep checking the site occasionally, even when I can't make frequent updates, which is the case lately because the raven and the missus are packing up the nest and flying to a new one. Actually we're loading boxes on a rental truck, but you get the idea. So enjoyment of my wisdom grows less frequent for a while. However, here's something. OK, this next bit is mostly lifted from a letter to the editor I wrote and may or may not get published. But I guess that's why I have a blog.


In recent letters to the editor in the local dailies, writers have asked in response to release of more photos from Abu Ghraib why liberals keep bringing up old news. That's a reasonable question, and the answer is simple. It's not old news while those responsible have never been held accountable. No rational person believes the torture was all the doing of a few enlisted men getting out of control, not when the Bush administration has made acceptance of torture government policy. So when those held accountable are named not Karpinski, England, and Graner, but Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and Bush, then it will be old news.

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who successfully prosecuted Nazis at Nuremberg for the crime of aggressive war, thereby establishing the precedent that starting a war is, in and of itself, a war crime.

"A refusal to look back inevitably means moving forward in blindness."
Philip Alston, the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, on the resistance of the Obama administration to investigating human rights abuses by the Bush administration.

"Why is it that strong women are so often called bullies and ballbreakers, while strong, opinionated men are often called, simply, Justice Scalia."
Salon editor Joan Walsh, on the bigoted attacks on Sonia Sotomayor already on the day of her announcement.

"In Minnesota, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has made military ballot protection a key priority of his Department. The result is that twice as many military ballots are actually cast, and half as many are rejected, as the national average in 2006."
The National Defense Committee, in an article on their web site praising Minnesota's efforts to encourage absentee voting by military personnel stationed overseas.

"We're seeing massive resistance to the cramdown proposal. That's a proposal to allow bankruptcy judges to reschedule a mortgage on a primary residence. They're fighting this thing tooth and nail. Now the fact is, the people fighting it are the last people who should get the ear of anyone. And it goes to show me they haven't really learned any lessons. A lot of these folks--large banks, Wall Street firms--they have the attitude that "Heads I win, tails you lose." No matter what happens, we always get ours."
Rep. Keith Ellison, on how the bailed out banks are fighting against bankruptcy reform.

''Scores of banks failed in the Great Depression as a result of unsound banking practices, and their failure only deepened the crisis,. Glass-Steagall was intended to protect our financial system by insulating commercial banking from other forms of risk. It was one of several stabilizers designed to keep a similar tragedy from recurring. Now Congress is about to repeal that economic stabilizer without putting any comparable safeguard in its place.''
The late --- and correct --- Paul Wellstone, expressing opposition to repealing the law that prevented financial corporations from entering other types of financial business, like preventing commercial banks from becoming investment banks. This repeal was a large part of making the (collapsing) conglomerates possible.

"The facts revealed reflect the way the U.S. government has consistently tried to cover up the truth of Binyam Mohamed's torture. He was being told he would never leave Guantánamo Bay unless he promised never to discuss his torture, and never sue either the Americans or the British to force disclosure of his mistreatment."
Reprieve Director Clive Stafford Smith, speaking about a British court's ruling that the Bush administration tried to get Mohamed to plead guilty to something, anything, and keep quiet about his treatment as a condition of release.

"We spend hours and hours and hours arguing over $10 million amendments on the floor of the Senate, but there has been no discussion about who has been receiving this $3 trillion."
Sen. Bernie Sanders. I-VT, on the mostly unreported spending by the Federal Reserve to prop up the big financial corporations.

"The AIG scandal is significant and has resonated so powerfully because it is a microscope that enables the public to see what and who has wreaked the destruction that threatens their security and future and, most important of all, to realize that these practices haven't ended and the perpetrators haven't been punished. The opposite is true: those who caused the crisis continue to exert control over what happens and continue to have huge amounts of public money transferred in order to enrich them."
Glenn Greenwald, explaining why the AIG bonus scandal is both symbolic and important.

"Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."
Attorney General John Ashcroft, during a principals meeting about torture methods.

"There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales." Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center, who surveyed scientific research from 1965-1979 and showed that contrary to what climate change deniers keep asserting, there was no consensus on global cooling. That means the point that climate scientists must be wrong now because they were wrong then is itself based on a false assumption.

"We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.

It is disturbing that the Washington Post would publish such information without first checking the facts."
statement on the web site of University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, responding to an assertion by global warming denier George Will that they said sea ice area is the same as 1979.

"It has often and confidently been asserted, that man's origin can never be known. But ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin, whose 200th birthday is coming up on February 12.

"The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events. That's just what creationists say can't happen."
evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, commenting on an experiment that was able to observe a mutation that changed one species into another.



Home       About       Contact       Archives       Quotes       A Strand of the Celtic Fringe       Sparkyferguson.net

This letter has been read by the acting president and approved as within his definition of national security.