Jehovah's Witness

My doorbell rang this morning, as I was watching Inside Iraq on Al Jazeera English. I answered the intercom, and my visitor asked me if I would like to talk about an event that is coming up at the Cow Palace. That's about all she said — no mention of God, Jehovah, or witnessing. I knew her true purpose, though, from an article in the newspaper — she was coming to bamboozle me with religious nonsense: she was a Jehovah's Witness.

It happens by coincidence that I am currently reading Christopher Hitchens' fabulous book, God is not Great, in which he forcefully debunks the claims of religion. Although Hitchens doesn't single out the Jehovah's Witness, as he does with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (a.k.a. the Mormons), although there's plenty of fodder for criticism in the Jehovah's Witness theology. For example, Jehovah's Witness are prohibited from holding elected office of any kind, and discouraged from even voting.

The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible forbids the storing and transfusion of blood. Better yet, they believe that Jesus ascended to his heavenly throne in the year 1914, thereby causing Satan and his minions to come to earth and start World War I. (I'm not exaggerating — look it up.) Five years later, Jesus himself proclaimed that the Jehovah's Witnesses are the one and only true religion. All other religions will be destroyed by the black helicopters of the United Nations; when the U.N. turns its attention to the Witnesses, Armageddon begins, leaving behind an earthly paradise for all the faithful who don't make the cut-off of 144,000 souls allowed in Heaven. That 144,001^st-most faithful disciple is just shit out of luck, and not even god can change that. Given that there are over 6 million full-on members of the Jehovah's Witness church today, there are going to be a lot of the faithful who aren't among the 144,000 "anointed" ones, also known as the Faithful and Discreet Slave. The Faithful and Discreet Slaves who were already dead in 1918, were personally resurrected by Jesus into Heaven; the rest get individually resurrected as they die.

If you call your god anything other than יהוה, you're doing it wrong and He will smite thee. ("Smite makes right.") You definitely aren't "anointed" if you call him "God," not to mention "Allah." The name יהוה is usually rendered as "Jehovah" in English, but is also "Yahweh." The Bible is the perfect literal word of יהוה, even though it clearly cannot be. First of all, even if the original Bible had at some point been the perfect word of god, we know as a matter of incontrovertible historical fact that the Bible was altered as it passed from scribe to scribe. Passages were added, deleted, or thoroughly altered, and the result was taken apart and reassembled by committee. In some cases, the changes were innocent errors, but in others they were deliberate changes to the doctrine expressed in a particular passage. Add to that the absurdity of claiming that the perfect word of a perfect, all-powerful being could possibly ever be contained within any limited and imperfect human language — not to mention then translated perfectly into other languages — and it is impossible to claim coherently that the Bible is perfect in any way, much less in all ways. Oh, by the way: according to the Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus did not die on the cross, he died on a stake. (The term "crucify" has historically been used for various violent means of execution, not necessarily involving a cross, per se.)

One surprisingly rational point of JW theology is that the Witnesses do not believe in Hell or eternal torment. Of course, it's in direct contradiction to the Bible (see John 5:29), but on the other hand it's the truth: after death there is nothing. The souls of the wicked perish along with their bodies. Naturally, the souls of the faithful also perish along with their bodies, but the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the non-anointed faithful will live for a thousand years in an earthly paradise, at the end of which Satan will be destroyed and there will be no more evil. That has to rank up there with the holy interstellar 737's that the galactic emperor used to send the evil thetans to the volcano in Hawaii. In short, it's not even very good sci-fi.

Happily, the Jehovah's Witness on my doorstep this morning understood that I was not a good prospect for conversion, although sadly she did not seem to take to heart my exhortation that she abandon her false god. Oh well; maybe next time.

Technorati tags: Jehovah's Witness, Christopher Hitchens, God is not Great

Click below for more...

Read More......

Weather records

The city of San Francisco has already tied its all-time record rainfall for July 6th, and it's only 8:30 A.M. We still have over 15 hours in which it might actually rain.

That's right: the all-time record rainfall for July 6th in San Francisco is 0.00 inches. Never in recorded history has it even drizzled on the 6th of July. I was a bit surprised a couple of days ago when I noticed in the newspaper that the daily record precip was only 0.02” (0.5 mm), but little did I know what was just around the corner.

Meanwhile, in Death Valley yesterday, the mercury topped out at 53°. No, it's not a freak summer cold snap, that's 53° Celsius, which is to say 127° Fahrenheit. We've been having scorching temperatures here in the Bay Area, too, with Danville (in the inland part of the East Bay, between Livermore and Walnut Creek) hitting 108°F (42°C) yesterday. Even downtown San Francisco was unseasonably hot at 71°F (22°C). O, the suffering humanity. Of course, if it hit 108°F in San Francisco, that would beat our record for July 6th (1921) by a whopping 14 F°, and beat our all-time record high by 5 F°.

At the opposite extreme, Lake Tahoe had the state's lowest low for Thursday, 45°F (7°C). The paper also prints the previous day's high and low temps for California and for "the other 47" contiguous states. This time of year, like, for example last Thursday, it's not unusual for California to beat both ends of "the other 47" extremes. That day, it was a chilly 116°F (47°C) in Death Valley, and a warm and pleasant 16°F (–9°C) at Bodie State Park, a ghost town in the eastern Sierras between Lake Tahoe and Mono Lake. "The other 47" ranged from 114°F (46°C) in Bullhead City, Arizona, to 30°F (–1°C) in Embarrass, Minnesota. Yesterday, though, California's low of 45° was bested by Polebridge, Montana, on the edge of Waterton–Glacier International Peace Park, at 39°F (4°C). We can't be the highest and the lowest every day, after all.

Technorati tags: Weather Records, San Francisco

Click below for more...

Read More......

Slick Willie vs. Scooter Libby

On today's Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC, one of Chris' guests was Mr. David Rivkin, a former official in the Department of Justice under President George H.W. Bush (a.k.a. "41"). Chris Matthews was trying to pin down his guests on the comparison between the impeachment of Bill Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice and the conviction of Scooter Libby for similar crimes. Mr. Rivkin, though, came out with a bizarrely contorted argument, beginning by redefining impeachment. It is astonishing that a former official of the Justice Department — under any President other than Bush-43, at least — could be so completely wrong about the Constitution of the United States.

Here is the relevant passage:

Chris Matthews: Mr. Rivkin, do you think the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, should have been impeached — as he was — for perjury and obstruction of justice?

David Rivkin: No, as a matter of fact I do not. I want to clarify something, because I appreciate your question. The impeachment actually was complete in the House, if you look at the Constitution. So, in effect, what happened to Mr. Clinton is tantamount to what the jury found with regard to Scooter; it's just that the Senate — which really was playing the same function, conceptually, as Judge Walton — decided not to punish him. I personally think that the kind of punishment in the court of history that President Clinton received was sufficient.

I do believe that this perjury and obstruction of justice are serious crimes. The reason I personally support the commutation and even a pardon here is I do not believe this was a fair and just prosecution; I think it was politicized. I think the mistake was not made by the jury, the mistake was made by the vindictive and out-of-control prosecutor who aligned the facts in such a way that the jury had no choice but to convict Mr. Libby.

Okay, first the Constitutional lie. I say "lie" because Mr. Rivkin certainly ought to know better, and he was giving this information to "clarify." Yes, Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives. That much, Mr. Rivkin got right. However, impeachment is by no stretch of the imagination "tantamount" to conviction in an ordinary criminal case. Impeachment is precisely analogous to indictment. I'm not splitting hairs with that distinction, either. Bill Clinton was charged but not convicted in the impeachment trial. (If the impeachment itself is tantamount to a jury verdict, then why does the Senate go on to have a "trial" and vote "guilty" or "not guilty" at the conclusion?) In this analogy, no one functioned in the impeachment process in the role that Judge Walton had of sentencing Scooter after the jury found him guilty. That's not only because Clinton was not found guilty, but also because the punishment in an impeachment case is automatic: if Clinton had been found guilty, he would have been removed and barred from ever holding office again — no more, no less. Any further punishment would have required a separate criminal trial.

On then to the remainder of Mr. Rivkin's remarks. He says that he believes that perjury and obstruction of justice are serious crimes, but he undermines himself in the very next breath. The investigation which Scooter Libby hindered was into a matter of paramount importance to the governance of our nation. This wasn't some hair-splitting legalistic fudging about a blowjob in the Oval Office in relation to a civil lawsuit over alleged sexual harassment, it was an investigation of the intentional compromising of a national security asset for purely partisan political purposes. The Bush Administration endangered our national security, and endangered dozens or perhaps even hundreds of lives, all for the sake of slamming someone who criticized their political viewpoint. The prosecution was entirely just and fair; indeed, it would have been pure partisan politics not to prosecute such a clear-cut case. Of course the prosecutor presented the facts in a manner that would support a conviction; that's his job. To claim (as Mr. Rivkin did a bit later in the broadcast) that there was "nothing the defense could do" to counter Mr. Fitzgerald's "narrative" is laughably absurd. In fact, Mr. Rivkin even said, "it's not a question of being incorrect as a matter of law" — in other words, yes, Scooter did it, but because the backdrop was politics instead of direct personal financial gain, he shouldn't be prosecuted.

Of course, finding someone who will go on television to defend the Bush Administration already means you're scraping through the bottom of the barrel, so I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised at a Justice Department official who hasn't even bothered to read the Constitution before making fatuous remarks about it.

Technorati tags: , Scooter Libby, Bill Clinton, Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, Commutation, David Rivkin, Chris Matthews, MSNBC, Hardball

Click below for more...

Read More......

The Niggar Family

One of comedian Dave Chappelle's most controversial skits, "The Niggar Family," explores the question of what effect "the n-word" would have if it were just another name. The skit is filmed in black and white, with sets and costumes right out of Father Knows Best or Leave It to Beaver or, for a more recent reference, Pleasantville. We see a squeaky-clean family of aw-shucks pleasantness and golly-jeepers naïveté, a "typical American" (i.e., white) family named Niggar. The skit, from the second season of Chappelle's Show on Comedy Central, circled round into public discourse this spring in the discussion of Don Imus' inappropriate comments; in particular, Joe Scarborough brought it up on MSNBC's Scarborough Country, asking how it could be okay for Dave Chappelle to toss around the n-word so freely, if Don Imus was excoriated for saying "nappy-headed hos." Personally, I think the answer lies in the difference between racist humor and racial humor.

First of all, here's the skit. The transcript is of the version as it appears on the Season 2 DVD; the embedded clip is the version on Comedy Central's website, with the ending trimmed slightly.

[theme music] N-I-G, G-A-R, it's the Niggar Family. We all know, who they are, Frank, Tim, and Emily. Teaching Tim how to ride a bike, these are the Niggars that we like. N-I-G, G-A-R, it's the Niggar Family, it's the Niggar Family. Yeahhhhh.

[bright music]
[scene: breakfast table in a 1950's-sitcom home]

Emily Niggar: Breakfast is served!

Frank Niggar: Look, hon, my sister just had another baby. Look at this little bundle of joy!

Emily: She's got those Niggar lips.

Frank: I know, so thin! Is Tim still asleep?

Emily: I think so.

Frank: He sure is one lazy Niggar!

Timmy Niggar: Gooood morning, Mom. Morning, Dad.

Frank: Morning. You know, Tim, we're having a dinner party tonight; I trust you'll be here.

Timmy: Oh, I can't. I have my first big date with Jenny Halsted.

[scene: breakfast table in another 50's-sitcom home]

Mrs. Halsted: Jenny has a date tonight with the Niggar boy from school.

Mr. Halsted: What?! Oh, god, no!!

Jenny Halsted: No, Daddy, that's his name: Timmy Niggar.

Mr. Halsted: Oh, of course. That Niggar — he's a very good athlete, and so well-spoken. That family's going places. I mean, we're rich; they're Niggar-rich.

Mrs. Halsted: Oh, Bill!

[scene: the Niggar family breakfast table]

Clifton [Dave Chappelle]: Morning, Niggars.

Frank: Why, it's Clifton, our colored milkman.

Clifton: It's my favorite family to deliver milk to: the Niggars. Mmm-mmm, somethin' sure smells good. You Niggars cookin'?

Emily: We sure are! There's some leftover bacon if you'd like some.

Clifton: Ooh, none for me. I know better than to get between a Niggar and their pork; might get my fingers bit. Here you go. [pause] I hate to bother you about this, but, well, you didn't pay your bill last week, and I know how forgetful you Niggars are when it comes to payin' bills.

Frank: Golly, Clifton, it slipped my mind. Here you go. Sorry about that.

Clifton: Oh, Niggar, please; Niggar, please. Well, take care, Mr. N-word; I have a hot date with the wife tonight.

Frank: All right, take care.

Clifton: All right. Peace, Niggar. [exits, long pause, steps back in] Niggars! [pauses, then runs out]

Maitre d': Stevenson, party of four. Stevenson, party of four. [pause] Table 5, please; bon appetit. [pause] Niggar, party of two. Niggar, party of two.

Clifton: Lookie here, Jack; just because we're colored, didn't mean we came out here to be disrespected, okay?

Timmy: Uh, we're the Niggar family. [pause] Oh, hi, Clifton.

Clifton: Oh, well, hello, little Niggar. [to his wife:] These are the Niggars I was tellin' you about.

Clifton's wife: Are you the nigga that broke the bottle over Ronnie's head at the dice game?

Clifton: No! Not that nigga. The Niggars from work, the milk route.

Clifton's wife: Oh, okay. [pause] Have a nice meal.

Clifton: I bet you'll get the finest table a nigger's ever got in this restaurant. [Clifton and his wife laugh heartily] Oooh-wee! Oh, Lord; this racism is killin' me inside.

[theme music] N-I-G, G-A-R, it's the Niggar Family, it's the Niggar Family.

Clifton: Niggars!

[theme music] Yeaaah...

Okay, let's look at the context. Is Dave Chappelle making fun of African Americans? Yes, to some extent; after all, racism cuts both ways, even if it's much sharper in one direction than the other. However, it's clear that Dave is poking fun at (well, actually poking a stick in the eye of) racism itself. It's in the same vein as the skit about the blind KKK leader who is shocked to learn that he is black — and who then divorces his wife because she is a "nigger-lover." Neither the Niggar Family sketch nor the Clayton Bigsby sketch demeans blacks or whites, except to the extent that they are racist.

There was much to-do about Oprah's commencement address at Howard University, mainly because she used the terrifyingly brutal racist epithet "white folks." You can read the whole shameful transcript in the comments on my Oprah thread, if you dare. What a terrible world we live in, when black folks and "white folks" can work side by side. Progress towards racial equality is truly a stain on the fabric of our national identity — or so it must seem to those who were offended by Oprah.

In contrast, we have the "nappy-headed hos" remark from Don Imus. First, it was far from the first racially insensitive remark he has made on air. The remark itself was clearly demeaning to the Rutgers women's basketball team. It reduced their humanity to a racially tinged remark about their hairstyle and general appearance. There was no humor in it on any level other than, "Ha, ha, ain't it funny that them ugly [African Americans] can play basketball?" The intent was clearly to poke fun at the women, not at racist attitudes. That, in a nutshell, is the difference between racist humor and racial humor. For more examples of the latter, check out Carlos Mencia, or go back to Lenny Bruce or Richard Pryor.

Technorati tags: Dave Chappelle, Niggar Family, Chappelle's Show, Comedy Central, Racism, Don Imus, Nappy-Headed Hos

Click below for more...

Read More......

Olbermann makes the case for Resignation

[This blog entry was originally posted on my DailyKos Diary.]

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann had a "Special Comment" segment on tonight's Countdown. In it he makes the strong case, backed by precedents back to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, that both George Bush and Dick Cheney need to resign from office, for exactly the same reasons that Nixon recognized that he had no option but to resign. Just one snip:

I accuse you[, Mr. Bush,] of subverting the Constitution, not in some misguided but sincerely-motivated struggle to combat terrorists, but to stifle dissent.

I accuse you of fomenting fear among your own people, of creating the very terror you claim to have fought.

I remember Watergate vividly, even though I was only 10 years old, because I watched the hearings on TV. It wasn't the politically motivated burglary that brought down Nixon — although it might have in due course — it was the cover-up, the fundamental departure from the rule of law, that represented a betrayal of the oath of office.

I have always felt a certain affinity for James Madison, as well as for the other President for whom I am named, Abraham Lincoln. It was "Uncle James" who said in Philadelphia in 1787 that if the President abused the power of clemency to protect someone who was judged to have committed a crime in following the President's orders, that the Congress would impeach and remove him. That level of obstruction of justice rises to the level of flouting the oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The inescapable requirement for the Constitution to work is that no person is ever above the law, but Bush has precisely placed himself, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Gonzales, and now Mr. Libby out of the path of legal accountability for their actions.

The right-wingers are still talking about a variety of excuses for the clear-cut preferential treatment for a man for no possible reason other than his personal relationship with the President and the Vice President. "There's no underlying crime!" Neither was there in Martha Stewart's case. She obstructed justice to thwart the effort to examine her stock transactions, even though it was determined that no crime had been committed. The crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice are made more serious if they are concealing a more serious crime. However, in this case, the fact that no underlying crime has been proven rests partly on the fact that Scooter Libby continues to obstruct justice by refusing to disclose certain matters of context for his perjury. Did the Vice President order Scooter to disclose the identity of an undercover CIA agent as political retribution for someone who spoke out against the administration's case for war in Iraq? It's very possible that only Dick and Scooter know. And the fact that Bush commuted the sentence for Scooter, rather than pardoning him outright, makes him complicit in the obstruction of justice, because Scooter can hide behind his 5th Amendment rights as long as the appeals process drags on, and now he has the luxury of doing so with the knowledge that he will never spend a day in jail.

"The sentence was excessive!" It was within the sentencing guidelines for what was, in fact, a serious crime. Further, the recommendation of the parole board was for a sentence of at least 16 months in jail, as against an average of 64 months for the 3/4 of people convicted for perjury and obstruction of justice who get jail time. To cut to the chase, if Bush had commuted Scooter's sentence to "time served" on his way out of the White House, I'd grumble a lot less. I still wouldn't agree with the decision, but at least I would view it as within the realm of reason. Scooter would still have served about the same as the lesser sentence that was recommended. But instead Bush issued a commutation today, without a formal request, even though he's only granted 3 commutations in 6½ years.

I submit that anyone who pretends to an ounce of objectivity will admit that letting Scooter off with zero jail time was nothing short of cronyism.

Keith Olbermann (truly the closest thing to his hero and my own, Edward R. Murrow, on the air today) began with a quotation from almost a half-century ago:

“I didn’t vote for him,” an American once said, “But he’s my President, and I hope he does a good job.”

I'll let Keith explain who said it and in what context, but the point is that President Bush has proven himself unworthy of that nonpartisan patriotic trust. He has been miserably incompetent, both in the aftermath of a hurricane and in the planning and conduct of a major war, and now he refuses to uphold the rule of law. Bush and Cheney must go.

Of course, since this scandal potentially implicates both Bush and Cheney, and in any case it is clear that both must resign if they have any care at all for the welfare of the nation, we will then have a remarkable outcome: President Nancy Pelosi. On the one hand, it will be historic for being not only the first time a woman has been President, but also the first time that the Presidency has changed parties mid-term. On the other hand, though, as I well know from living in her district, Nancy Pelosi has been used as a symbol and a recruiting poster by the rabid right, because she hails from that "liberal" city of San Francisco. As a practical matter, then, she would be compelled to build a national unity government in order to be able to govern. Something close to half of the Cabinet would need to be Republicans, and she would have to turn the secrecy of the Bush White House on its head, preserving the executive privilege of private deliberations, but with full public view of who took part in them. It's a pie-in-the-sky dream, needless to say, because Bush has shown no willingness to accept anything "reality-based." Maybe Poppa can talk some sense into him, because "41" also took an oath to the Constitution, and because Junior is tainting not only his own legacy but also his father's. I'll just hold my breath waiting, shall I?

On the hopeful end of the spectrum, though, the program that immediately follows Countdown is Scarborough Country, hosted by a former "Contract with America" Congressman from the Florida Panhandle, Joe Scarborough. Joe is definitely a conservative Republican, but he's a smart guy with a genuine sense of personal integrity. In other words, he is willing to stand up and criticize Bush. Joe's been away the last couple of weeks, but the fill-in host, Dan Abrams, is cut from similar cloth (although without the Capitol Hill résumé). On tonight's show, Abrams had a "My Take" segment in which he said:

I fear this is another example of a disdain for the courts and for rules that attempt to ensure equal justice for all.

In other words, there are some courageous Republicans willing to speak out against Bush's abuse of authority. There is hope yet.

Technorati tags: Keith Olbermann, Special Comment, Scooter Libby, Commutation, Obstruction of Justice

Click below for more...

Read More......

Olbermann's Special Comment on Bush/Cheney

Word is (from that top-secret source, the promo ads on TV) that Keith Olbermann will be delivering a new "Special Comment" on tonight's MSNBC Countdown, calling for Bush and Cheney to resign. The "Special Comment" segment is generally at the end of the broadcast, or about an hour and a half from now. I hope to be blogging my reaction to it shortly afterwards, although I'm planning to do so on my Daily Kos diary, DailyKos.com/user/LincMad.

Technorati tags: Keith Olbermann, Special Comment, MSNBC, Politics, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney

Read More......

Scooter Commuter

Earlier this evening, President Bush commuted the 30-month prison sentence which Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was about to begin serving. Libby will still be required to pay a fine of $250,000, and he will still have a felony criminal conviction on his record — at least until either he prevails on appeal or President Bush grants him a full pardon on his way out the door on 2009-01-20 (only 567 days to go!). Scooter Libby lied to a grand jury with the specific criminal intent to obstruct justice. That's a serious felony, most especially for someone who works in the White House. Sadly, this is just one more example of the contempt with which the Bush Administration views the rule of law. Even more ominously, this act refreshes memories of previous ethically and legally challenged administrations, specifically Nixon during Watergate and Reagan during Iran–Contra. All three Presidents (Nixon, Reagan, and Cheney) considered themselves to be the ultimate legal authority — the Constitution, the courts, and especially the Congress be damned.

Technorati tags: Scooter Libby, Commutation, Bush, Politics

Read More......

Al Jazeera today

On Inside Iraq today on Al Jazeera English, Jasim al-Azzawi conducted a special one-on-one interview in London with Clare Short, a former minister in Tony Blair's cabinet who resigned in protest over the Iraq War. I don't have time today to transcribe the interview [watch part 1 and part 2] and , but her criticisms of Tony Blair were, if I can mix metaphors for a moment, both blunt and pointed. On the News Hour, the coverage was dominated by the situation in the Palestinian Occupied Territories. The Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas has dissolved the parliament and fired the prime minister, Ismail Haniyah. Abbas is from the Fatah party, the successor to the P.L.O.; Haniyah is from the Hamas party, whose charter calls for the obliteration of the state of Israel. In a nutshell, Hamas controls the Gaza Strip, but Fatah controls the West Bank. It makes one wonder if the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict might require a three-state solution. We can only hope that the former Finance Minister Salam Fayyad, a political independent whom President Abbas has appointed as emergency interim prime minister, can live up to his first name, and bring a bit of peace (salam or سلا) to Palestine.

Technorati tags: Palestine, Fatah, Hamas, Salam Fayyad, Mahmoud Abbas, Al Jazeera English, Inside Iraq, Clare Short

P.S. Inside Iraq repeats on Al Jazeera English at 23:30 UTC/GMT; tomorrow at 04:30, 09:30, and 20:30; and Sunday at 01:30, 07:30, and 13:30. Subtract –4 hours for U.S. EDT, –7 hours for PDT; add +1 hour for Britain, +2 hours for Central European Time, or +3 hours for Baghdad.

Read More......

Happy F(l)ag Day

Besides being the 25th anniversary of the British liberation of the Falkland Islands from the Argentinian occupation force, today has two other distinctions of note. First, it's Flag Day, commemorating the 230th anniversary of the adoption of the original U.S. flag. Second, it's the opening night of the Frameline31 San Francisco International LGBT Film Festival. The latter point means that for the next week and a half, I will be posting much more in my film festival blog, "Film Queen Reviews," than here on my political blog. See you after Pride!

Technorati tags: , Flag Day, Frameline, Frameline31, LGBT, Film Festival

Read More......

Two blasts from the past

I was watching the news on Al Jazeera this afternoon, and saw two stories that took me back to the 1980's: Austrian President and U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim died, and Argentina has been quietly stepping up economic pressure against the British territory of the Falkland Islands.

Kurt Waldheim was born in 1918, just after World War I. In 1941, at the age of 22, he was drafted into the Nazi German armed forces, the Wehrmacht. He claimed to have been given a medical discharge later that same year, but in fact he served until very near the end of World War II, deserting his post and surrendering to British forces in 1945. He consistently denied claims that he was actively involved in war crimes committed by his unit, including the deportation of 40,000 Jews from Greece and the brutal suppression of insurgents in Yugoslavia. However, since he had for many years lied about even being in the army at the time of the war crimes, his denials carry little weight.

After World War II, Waldheim completed his university education and entered the diplomatic corps. By 1956, he had risen to the post of Ambassador to Canada, and in 1964 he became the Austrian representative to the United Nations. In 1971, after losing the Austrian presidential election, he became Secretary General of the U.N., a post he held until 1981, when China vetoed his bid for a third term. In 1986, he was elected president of Austria, but it was during that campaign that many details of his Nazi past came to light, resulting in his ostracism in international circles. In 1987, he was placed on a list of persons forbidden entry to the United States. His distinguished career as a diplomat was completely overshadowed by the shame of his Nazi past.

The other news is from the Falkland Islands, or the Islas Malvinas, as they are called by Argentina, which has claimed them as part of its national territory since independence from Spain in 1816. However, the only periods during which Argentina exercised effective control of the islands were 1816–1833 and 1982-04-02 to 1982-06-14, twenty-five years ago today. In 1833, the British invaded and seized the islands, settling them with a few thousand people, but Argentina shook its fists in the air for 149 years, taking up the issue with the United Nations at its inception in 1945. In 1976, a military junta took power in Argentina, ushering in a period of economic decline and runaway inflation. To distract the people, the junta made an appeal to nationalistic fervor by "wagging the dog" with a military invasion of the Falklands. The sparsely populated islands had minimal defenses at the time, so the Argentinians easily took control, but the British navy responded in full force, removing Argentina in a mere 73 days. In spite of the decisive military defeat, and more importantly the near-unanimous will of the residents to remain British, Argentina still claims the Falklands to this day.

Argentina has little hope of ever retaking the Falklands by force, and is unlikely to try, given the humiliating trouncing they suffered in 1982. Furthermore, the period of Argentine control of the Malvinas in the early 19th century was tenuous at best. Spain and Britain had clashed over their claims from 1765, when Spain purchased the islands from France, until 1790, when Britain renounced its claim. (Britain retained the right to fish in the waters around the Falklands, though.) Spain abandoned the islands in 1811, and the newly independent Argentina claimed them in 1816, since the Spanish territory had been administered from Buenos Aires. However, Argentina did not build a permanent settlement until 1826, and it lasted only five years, largely as a penal colony. In 1831, the Argentinian settlement was destroyed by the U.S. Navy in retaliation for Argentinian interference with American seal hunters. Argentina tried unsuccessfully to re-establish control in 1832, but in 1833, the British navy retook the Falklands.

Since the 1982 invasion, the Falklands economy has involved increasing international tourism, and recently exploration for possible offshore oil deposits. Argentina has begun interfering with both industries, denying permission for Chilean charter flights to the Falklands to cross Argentinian airspace and threatening retaliation against any company that does business with the Falklands oil explorers. Two months ago, on 2007-04-02, the 25th anniversary of Argentina's invasion of the Falklands, the president of Argentina again asserted sovereignty over the islands. It seems some people just don't know when to give up; the islands are British, and have been British for more than 170 years. (It is for that reason that I refuse to use the name Malvinas, even though Argentina considers the use of Falklands to be offensive. Don't cry for the Falklands, Argentina.) The people are British, with full U.K. citizenship since 1983. The people have no interest in even discussing becoming part of Argentina.

Technorati tags: Kurt Waldheim, Austria, United Nations, Nazi Germany, Falkland Islands, Argentina, Islas Malvinas, United Kingdom, History, Politics, Al Jazeera English

Click below for more...

Read More......

Relentlessly Unfunny

Comedy Central premiered its new animated alleged-comedy program Lil' Bush on Wednesday. The premise is a bit bizarre: George W. Bush, Laura Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Don Rumsfeld, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton are students at Beltway Elementary School in Washington, D.C., in the present day, with George H. W. Bush [a.k.a. Bush 41] as the President, dealing with al Qaeda and post-Saddam Iraq. "Lil' Bush," "Little Rummy," "Little Condi," and the others are about the same age as the South Park kids, with most of the crassness and absolutely none of the humor. Not only did I not laugh once in an entire half-hour episode, only one thing in it even moved me to so much as a meager hint of a smile: the marquee outside the school proclaiming that Beltway Elementary has more vacation days than any other school. The real George W. Bush just hit a new low of 29% in his public approval poll numbers, but I expect Little Bush to outdo him in its rush to the ash-heap of TV series canceled after one episode.

Technorati tags: Lil Bush, Comedy Central, George W. Bush, Politics

Read More......

Major realignment at Comedy Central

I'm sure that most of you don't even notice, but The Colbert Réport consistently gets about 1½ to 2 seconds more airtime than The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Explanations vary, but the most common themes are

• giving the new kid (Colbert) more airtime
  
• giving the guy who's been there longer (Colbert) more airtime
  
• giving our Commander-in-Chief more admiration
  
• the extra ad revenue pays for the Daily Show field correspondents
  
• counterbalancing the left-wing media bias of America's most trusted news source

On Monday's programs, though, that all changed. In an ending that would make Tony Soprano proud, Jon Stewart got 21 minutes and 31 seconds, while Stephen Colbert got only 21:30. Dip your cigar in that, Colbert!

Technorati tags: Comedy Central, Daily Show, Colbert Report, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, TV geek trivia

Read More......

The end of The Sopranos

I just watched the conclusion of HBO's long-running drama The Sopranos. I don't want to give any spoilers, but I'll say this: the last few episodes have set up a watershed moment in Tony Soprano's life. Tony might get whacked, Tony might whack the other guy, or Tony might get indicted. Some issues were resolved, some weren't, and the show takes a surprise turn at the very, very end. I liked it; I thought it was fitting.

HBO made a point of highlighting its returning shows, plus several new shows that are premiering this summer on HBO. One of them, John from Cincinnati, is about some aging surfer dudes, including Beverly Hills 90210 veteran Luke Perry playing a character named Linc. That was the show that HBO chose to take the slot immediately following one of the most anticipated TV moments in years, the red carpet with 24-karat gold trim. It was like my screen morphed from HBO to community access without my having to change channels. I was looking forward to a show with some cute surfer boiz — I think a form-fitting wetsuit can be incredibly sexy. Instead I saw a bad episode of Summerland, a show that was only watchable with liberal use of the fast-forward button in between shots of Jesse McCartney's dimples. It was so bad, I didn't even watch long enough to figure out which one is the title character.

Some of the returning series are worth watching, though. Big Love has me hooked on the story of a family of FLDS [Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints, which is to say resolutely old-school Mormons] trying to blend polygamy with suburbia. Of course, Real Time with Bill Maher is top of my TiVo list, but it's on hiatus until August. I just hope that Flight of the Conchords gets a better start than John from Cincinnati.

Technorati tags: Sopranos, HBO, John from Cincinnati

Click below for more...

Read More......

Ron Paul on The Daily Show

The 2008 Presidential race is shaping up with two real "wild cards," with an emphasis on wild. On the Democratic side is former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel (gruh-VELL) (D–AK — wait! a Democrat from Alaska??), and for the Republicans there is Congressman Ron Paul (R–TX). Gravel made an appearance in the "Moment of Zen" segment at the end of Monday's Daily Show, but the featured guest was Ron Paul. Congressman Paul is challenging the candidates most directly on the issue of the Iraq War, but also on domestic policy, especially government spending.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, copyright ©2007 Comedy Central, airdate 2007-06-04

Jon Stewart: Welcome back! My guest tonight, a Republican Congressman from the state of Texas who is also running for President. Please welcome to the show Congressman Ron Paul. Congressman! Hello, sir. Nice to see you.

Representative Ron Paul (R–TX): Thank you. It's very nice to be here.

Stewart: Thank you for joining us. You have accomplished no small feat, which is, you're running for President, very much as an underdog, yet you've created a nice little buzz going about the Ron Paul candidacy. What do you attribute that to?

Paul: A good message. The philosophy of liberty, and people are still interested in being free people, living in a free country.

Stewart: But you're talking about America, not spreading that liberty to other areas such as Canada, right?

Paul: No, no, and I don't believe in trying to spread it. I think it's a good message, but I don't believe in spreading it with guns.

Stewart: Interesting.

Paul: We should spread it by setting a good example and get others to emulate us, but not to try to force it on other people.

Stewart: There was an interesting question — [audience cheers] and they're very pleased. Chris Wallace asked you at the Republican debate, "Why are you running as a Republican?" but really it's only your Iraq message that's somewhat different, maybe, from all your counterparts.

Paul: Well, I think that's the case, but I don't think they're very good conservatives, either. You know, they talk about balancing budgets and spending less, but they don't, really. You know, the Republican Party has been known to have a position where they didn't like going overseas. You know, they didn't especially agree with Clinton on going into Kosovo and Somalia, so they flip-flop around, but no, I've taken a very clear position that we shouldn't have gone in.

Stewart: That's what's so interesting about Congressman Ron Paul is, you appear to have consistent, principled integrity; Americans don't usually go for that. You seem to practice what you preach, you seem to preach it consistently. Even though people might disagree with the message, they can't argue that you're a man of consistent principles.

Paul: Yeah, and I like to think I've introduced a brand new idea into this campaign: I've even suggested that we follow the Constitution.

Stewart: I'm not familiar with that document, the Consti-tu-tion?

Paul: The Constitution, this thing we swear to uphold.

Stewart: See, I have found that the Republicans oftentimes will campaign against big government, but it seems, at least with this administration, they were against government they didn't control, but now that they control it, they find it to be very useful, and expand the power of it, as opposed to bring it down.

Paul: I think that's a temptation that most people yield to, once they get into power. I hope I'm different, and I hope I never yield to that temptation, and so far, so good.

Stewart: Now, you ran originally as a Libertarian.

Paul: I ran in '88 as a Libertarian candidate, but I've been in Congress for ten terms, in my tenth term, always as a Republican.

Stewart: You said something interesting before backstage: if you ran as a Libertarian, you wouldn't have gotten this platform.

Paul: No, no, you don't get into debates. You know, we're overseas, spreading the message of democracy, but here, if you're in a third party, you have a tough time. You can't get on ballots. You spend all your time getting on ballots. You have to be a Ross Perot to even get on ballots.

Stewart: To have some of the bucks.

Paul: But the two parties are very much in control of the system, and they exclude individuals who aren't in that mold.

Stewart: What about your domestic agenda? I think you've sort of made your bones on this idea about Iraq and liberty. You're a guy that really would get rid of a lot of our government.

Paul: Yeah, I think that would be true. I think a lot of our government is very wasteful.

Stewart: Right. Where would you go? Let's say — you won't accept, as a doctor, Medicare, right?

Paul: No, I never did.

Stewart: Right. But you stuck to that. Is that something you'd get rid of?

Paul: Yes, but that's not high on my agenda. Matter of fact, we've taught a couple of generations to be very dependent on government, and that's not my goal, because I think you have to have a transition period. I happen to think that the market can deliver any service better than the government can.

Stewart: Even — would you use that for defense, too?

Paul: No, we have defense, but this militarism isn't defense, this is opposite of defense.

Stewart: Right.

Paul: So I think it would be much better for the private market to deliver all ...

Stewart: Would you go Post Office? You'd stay Post Office. You gotta give the Post Office — 41¢ is a good deal.

Paul: No, I'd legalize competition. I mean, what the heck — let a private firm. You know, there's FedEx, a few other of those companies that do exist. I'd just legalize competition in First Class mail and let the market decide which is best.

Stewart: Right. But doesn't that in some respects trust corporations over, because there's always been regulation, or you would get rid of regulation for that as well?

Paul: Yeah, and there's a big difference between corporations who benefit from government largesse — that's corporatism and that's evil; you know, the Halliburton stuff —

Stewart: No, I'm familiar with that.

Paul: The Military-Industrial Complex.

Stewart: No, no, no, I've heard some things.

Paul: How about a Bill Gates, though? He's very wealthy because we buy his services, and I think that's okay. I don't think we should be afraid of people who make a lot of money, even in entertainment. We shouldn't be afraid —

Stewart: No! I agree. In entertainment, I think especially in entertainment. Now what about — you've got a debate coming up, tomorrow is the big debate. Anything you're gonna throw out there, any insight into the other candidates you can share? Is there anybody you find just unbelievably distasteful?

Paul: Well, ideas — I find some of their ideas very distasteful.

Stewart: Anybody that you literally go, like, "Don't make my podium next to that guy"?

Paul: No, I haven't said that yet, but I think what I —

Stewart: What do you think of this Romney cat? Has he talked to you?

Paul: Yeah, he said hello once.

Stewart: He did?

Paul: Yeah, he did.

Stewart: I don't go for him. He strikes me as the Republican John Kerry, in the sense of this sort of aristocratic bearing but playing the game of like, "Hey, look at me, I'm huntin', I'm drinkin' coffee, heh?"

Paul: Yeah, but he's on top of the polls! What does that mean?

Stewart: Well, what do you think that means?

Paul: That means I have to work hard and get my supporters out there and do a good job.

Stewart: Here's what I'm gonna do for you. Very quickly, I'm gonna give you a couple of zingers for these guys tomorrow, so when you're out there — okay, here's a good one for, let's go with Giuliani: "Hey, you love the War on Terror so much, why don't you marry it? Oh, wait — you'd probably then just divorce it a couple of years later." Okay. Here's one! "Hey, Tommy Thompson! What's your middle name? Tom?" I'll have this for you on cards, if you want 'em.

Paul: Okay.

Stewart: I'm here to help you.

Paul: Thank you. Me, too. "I'm here from the government, and I'm here to help you," too.

Stewart: Thank you. Thank you so much for coming by, and continued success, and continue to bring excitement to the process, because I think that's what's lacking sometimes, and it's nice to see guys just throwing their ideas out there for whatever it is and being principled.

Paul: Thanks a lot.

Stewart: It's nice to see.

Paul: I appreciate it.

Stewart: Thanks, Ron. Stay right there — all right, he's gotta go. Ron Paul, Congressman. They all leave!

Other transcripts you might want to check out:

• Former Iraqi prime minister Iyad Allawi on Al Jazeera English Inside Iraq, 2007-05-25
  
  
• Al Gore on The Daily Show, 2007-05-24
  
  
• Al Jazeera English Inside Iraq, 2007-05-18, with a Centcom spokesman squaring off against a Sri Lankan "terrorism expert" and the editor of an Arabic-language newspaper in London
  
  
• Al Jazeera English Inside Iraq, 2007-05-11, with Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations facing an Iraqi critic of the Iraqi government
  
  
• George Tenet on The Daily Show, 2007-05-08
  
  
• Colin Powell's former chief of staff Larry Wilkerson, discussing the fabrication of the case for the Iraq War, and particularly the machinations leading to Powell's presentation to the U.N. Security Council, 2007-04-27
  
  
• Senator John McCain on The Daily Show,
  • 2007-04-24
    
  • 2006-07-24
    
  • 2006-04-05
    
    
• Former Iraqi government minister Ali Allawi, brother of former prime minister Iyad Allawi, on The Daily Show, 2007-04-18

Technorati tags: Daily Show, Jon Stewart, Ron Paul, Transcript, Politics, 2008 Election, U.S. President, Iraq War, Republican, Libertarian

Transcript follows below the fold. Click below for more...

Read More......

Hugo Chávez and the opposition press

Venezuela's President, Hugo Chávez, appears to be working to consolidate his already nearly limitless power. He has refused renewal of the broadcast license of RCTV, the only nationwide television broadcaster that has opposed his government's policies, replacing it with a state-run channel. Venezuela does still have opposition media, including not only newspapers and radios, but also the Globovision TV channel. However, Chávez has removed the most prominent voice from the opposition, charging that RCTV was in violation of the law for refusing to broadcast pro-government programming during the 2002 coup attempt. What caught my eye, though, was an exchange on MSNBC's Tucker program this afternoon. The guest was Medea Benjamin, a prominent activist within the Green Party here in California, and co-founder of the anti-war group Code Pink. She was the Green candidate for U.S. Senate in 2000, but is now active with Progressive Democrats of America and Global Exchange, an anti-corporate globalization advocacy group. I found myself in the extraordinary position of agreeing with Tucker Carlson against my fellow PDA member.

I'm not going to transcribe the whole thing, but here's a quick summary with some key quotes. Over the weekend, Chávez shut down RCTV, sparking civil unrest in the capital, Caracas. Tucker quoted back a statement that Medea Benjamin made on 2006-03-04: "Another basic myth is that Chávez has limited freedom of speech and eroded civil rights."

Tucker Carlson: Do you want to revise that, given the news that Hugo Chávez has closed the last nationally broadcast opposition television station for criticizing him?

Medea Benjamin: Well, that's just not true, Tucker. What he did is, he didn't renew the license, but there still are television shows and television stations owned and run by the opposition media. I think you hear more opposition to the government in Venezuela than you would here in the United States — that's both in the TV, in the radio, and in the print media.

Tucker: I don't know what you've been smoking, Medea, but you're saying this president just closed a television station because it criticized him, but somehow Venezuela has a freer press than America?

Medea: He didn't close it because it criticized him. He closed it because it participated in a coup against a democratically elected government, his government. If a television station in the United States advocated and was part of an effort to topple a democratically elected government — the Bush administration, let's take; I don't like it —

Tucker: I'm actually reading now from the 360-page white book on RCTV, published by Chávez' government. It accuses RCTV of "showing lack of respect for authorities and institutions." I would think as a self-described liberal you would stand up for the right of people to "challenge authorities and institutions," and yet you're apologizing for the squelching of minority views. Why could that be?

Medea: Well, there are opposition TV press and print media all over Venezuela. I don't know if you've been there, Tucker, but you can go on a Reality Tour with us; you will see it everywhere you go. This is a television station, not that criticized the government, that tried to topple a democratically elected government.

Tucker: Let's be real here: you're throwing a very serious charge out there, a charge for which people have been killed there in Venezuela. I'm asking you a very simple question: explain how a television station can cause a coup. They said they didn't like the president; is that the same as pushing a coup? I mean, what the hell are you talking about?

Medea: They falsified information and got people out on the street. They falsified footage that showed pro-Chávez supporters killing people, which did not happen. They refused to cover any of the pro-Chávez demonstrations. When Chávez came back in to power after the coup, they even had a blackout on him coming back to the government.

Tucker: I wonder if you're even a tiny bit ashamed that you're apologizing for fascism on national television. Do you hear —

Medea: Well, I wonder if you're ashamed of calling a democratically elected government a fascist government.

Tucker: They just shut down a television station because that television station, as you put it, "didn't cover pro-government demonstrations"! You have got to be kidding. You are losing touch here, a little bit.

Medea: It participated in a coup against a democratically elected government. If it was done here in the United States, that television station would not only be not on the air, the people that ran it would probably be in jail right now. You're holding Chávez to a different standard. [Peru, Uruguay, etc.] Why are you holding Venezuela to a different standard?

Tucker: Medea, I think it's very clear that because Chávez hates the United States you are sympathetic to him and willing to make excuses for his anti-democratic, anti-liberal behavior, and it's a shame.

Medea: No, it's because he takes the oil money and doesn't give it to rich oil barons like in the United States, but gives it for literacy and health programs.

Personally, I would use the term "authoritarian" rather than "fascist" to describe the democratically elected government of Venezuela. However, the point remains that President Hugo Chávez did retaliate against a major media outlet for its support of his opponents. Even if RCTV did act illegally during the coup more than five years ago, it's a bit disingenuous to yank their license over that activity now. If RCTV's offense was so grievous as to justify what is effectively a death penalty, then it was certainly grievous enough to demand that RCTV be shut off immediately after Chávez regained power, with open trials of the individuals responsible.

Furthermore, as the EU has pointed out, even if refusing to renew RCTV's license had been justified, the logical next step in a nation with anything resembling freedom of the press would have been to decide by a neutral process who should get the license to replace RCTV. Simply handing it over to a puppet of the Chávez regime is intolerably autocratic; it undermines the cornerstone of free speech and free press.

Thus, while (as is often the case) I have serious problems with Tucker Carlson's views, and most especially with his leaping to "you must hate America" as an explanation, I have even stronger reservations about Medea Benjamin's position. Ignoring the fact that Hugo Chávez has a strong and deep dictatorial streak in his personality serves no useful purpose. It is intellectually dishonest and laughably naïve. Hugo Chávez is not much more a champion of open political dialogue than Vladimir Putin or Hu Jintao; Reporters Without Borders lists countries like Gabon, Armenia, and Albania, and more than 100 others, as having greater freedom of the press than Venezuela; in fact, Venezuela is in the bottom third of the list.

Technorati tags: , Hugo Chávez, Hugo Chavez, Venezuela, Tucker Carlson, Medea Benjamin, MSNBC, Freedom of the Press, RCTV, Radio Caracas

Click below for more...

Read More......

Was Boehner drunk or just a bad actor?

By now, you've probably seen the video of House Minority Leader John Boehner (R–OH) sobbing on the floor of the House of Representatives, talking about the supplemental funding bill to continue the Iraq quagmire. It's not the first time he has cried on the floor of Congress, not by a long stretch. In fact, he's become known for it. However, watching his latest performance, I am left with only two possible conclusions: he's faking it, and faking it quite badly, or else he's drunk off his ass.

Here's the text of Boehner's remarks:

I know that there’s this — I know there are differences in this chamber. Members on both sides of the aisle who feel differently about our mission in Iraq and our chances of success there. I know when I came here and every two years since I’ve been here on the opening day we all stand here, we raise our right hands and swear to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States. There are a lot of my colleagues have heard me make this statement that I didn’t come here to be a congressman. [starting to choke up a little] I came here to do something. And I think at the top of our list [choking up much more] is providing [slurring like a drunken sailor] for the safety and security of the American people. That’s at the top of our list. After 3,000 of our fellow citizens died at the hands of these terrorists, [plaintively] when are we going to stand up and take them on? When are we going to defeat them? [recovering his composure] Ladies and gentlemen, let me tell you, if we don’t do it now, and we don’t have the courage to defeat this enemy, we will long, long regret it. So thank you for the commitment to get the job done today. — Rep. John A. Boehner, R–OH 8th, on the House floor, 2007-05-24

There's not much more to say about the crybaby act than to say that I don't believe for a nanosecond that it's sincere — even by the lax standards of political rhetoric. As to the substance of his remarks, though, the real question is, When are we going to get out of Iraq so that we can take on the people who actually attacked the United States? That would be people like Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, and the Taliban who gave them safe haven. When are we going to take on bin Laden and defeat him?

Technorati tags: John Boehner, crybaby, Iraq War, War on Terror

Click below for more...

Read More......

Iraqi fmr-PM Iyad Allawi

The guest today on Al Jazeera English's weekly Inside Iraq discussion program was Iyad Allawi, the former prime minister of Iraq. Dr. Allawi was at one time a member of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, but he resigned from the party in 1975 because of Saddam's increasingly dictatorial governance. He lived in exile in London, surviving an assassination attempt. In the 1990's he began working actively to overthrow Saddam. During that time, he cooperated with American and British intelligence services, relaying to the British a report that Saddam's army could deploy its [non-existent] WMDs within 45 minutes.

Allawi became Minister of Defence under the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2003, and became interim prime minister of Iraq in 2004, appointed by Paul Bremer. His close ties to the U.S. and British governments led many Iraqis to mistrust him. His domestic credibility was further weakened in 2004 when he authorized the U.S. military "coalition forces" to conduct major offensives in Fallujah and Najaf. He also closed the Iraqi operations of Al Jazeera. In the election in January 2005, Allawi's party, the Iraqi National Accord, came in third with only 14% of the vote. In the December 2005 elections, Allawi's bloc, renamed the Iraqi National List, did even worse, losing almost 40% of its seats in parliament. However, he is now gearing up for an attempt to replace Nouri al-Maliki (نوري كامل المالكي), the current prime minister.

In today's interview, Allawi emphasized the need for a secular government in Iraq, with its institutions not structured around sectarian divisions (Sunni, Shia, Kurd, etc.). He even expressed optimism that Iraq will one day see a female prime minister. However, the picture of him is considerably more complex. There is a rumor, mentioned in the interview, that he personally shot six prisoners as a Saddam-esque show of strength. This rumor was printed in two Australian newspapers, claiming independent corroboration, and even naming some of the alleged witnesses. Allawi's checkered past, agitating for Saddam's overthrow with help from the U.S. and the U.K., his ties with other suspicious characters like Ahmed Chalabi, his forwarding of bogus intel to MI-6, and his sanctioning of U.S. military operations in Fallujah and Najaf, all must be taken into account in assessing the man, his credibility, and his potential future political career. In a perfect world, perhaps he could be a more even-handed "Saddam Lite," ruling with just enough of an iron fist to quell the civil war, and then retiring into the sunset as soon as basic security and the mechanisms of a stable democracy were established.

Here is the transcript of the interview between Al Jazeera English's Jassim al-Azzawi and Iraqi former prime minister Iyad Allawi. To make it easier to follow, since the names Azzawi and Allawi are so close, I have abbreviated the host's name to Jasim.

Jasim Azzawi: Hello, and welcome to Inside Iraq. I'm Jasim Azzawi. He's ruthless, cunning, and brutally frank. He spent years in exile honing his political skills and survival instinct. My guest today, the former Iraqi prime minister, Dr. Iyad Allawi (اياد علاو), is building a new secular liberal bloc to challenge al-Maliki's government. Al-Maliki's sectarian government has failed, irrelevant, and must leave office, he says. But can Allawi succeed this time, and why should the Iraqi people give him a second chance? Nadim Baba reports.

Nadim Baba: A scene from another time. Some might say, another Iraq. Iyad Allawi became the head of the interim government, promising security and reconstruction, but he didn't have long to make his mark. Half a year later, general elections ushered in a new administration. Fast-forward to 2007, and Allawi's promising he can turn Iraq's lawlessness around. Earlier this month, he told Al Jazeera about his priorities, if he were back in power.

Iyad Allawi: [file footage] Dismantling the laws which have been divisive, including de-Baathification, including the laws which dismantled the Iraqi military and Iraqi security forces, the Iraqi institutions, and to move away from sectarianism and to get rid of militias.

[unknown]: I think many of the liberal people in Iraq, those who are not sectarian-oriented, will be ready to back, not precisely Allawi, but anyone who present[s] an equation that will preserve the Iraqi nationalist identity. If he will behave the same way, I think he will win the minds and hearts of the people.

Baba: But some minds were made up a long time ago, when Allawi, a former Baathist who spent years in exile, cooperated with the coalition. But it's not just his previous closeness with Washington that some take issue with. Iyad Allawi also made political enemies by going along with two major operations when he was interim prime minister. One was the assault on the Sunni city of Fallujah, which reportedly saw hundreds of civilians killed, as well as dozens of U.S. troops. The other was in Najaf; the Shia holy city witnessed fierce clashes between U.S. forces and fighters loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr.

[unknown]: He should not have endorsed both the assaults on Fallujah and Najaf. Targeting people in a very wide-spectrum way, the way which the oppression powers are doing in the country, is what resulted what is there, the country now. You know, the hatred, which was grown.

Baba: But Allawi insists it's now time for the Iraqi government to talk to the various armed groups, and he believes most of the population agree with him. Nadim Baba for Inside Iraq.

Jasim: I am joined now from Amman, Jordan, by former Iraqi prime minister, Dr. Iyad Allawi. Dr. al-Allawi, welcome to Inside Iraq. You are very well known for being bold and frank, and let's hope today some of that boldness and frankness will come through at the expense of the politician and diplomat in you.

Dr. Iyad Allawi: Thank you.

Jasim: Let's start by the coalition and you are building the bloc you are trying to achieve. You are on record saying that Iraq needs a secular, liberal, nationalistic government. Will you succeed? Can you really pull it off?

Allawi: We have to succeed. There is no other route for Iraq but to succeed. I think sectarianism is a manifestation of extremism, and extremism is rejected mostly by the Iraqi people, by the Arabs, by the region, and we are very hopeful that this stand will continue to make way inside Iraq, and to build for a non-sectarian Iraqi government that could take Iraq and the region to the shores of peace, stability, and development.

Jasim: Does that mean you are a serious contender to be the next prime minister? Is this really in the cards, that you are coming next, or is this some sort of an American ploy to make you the scarecrow to scare al-Maliki to do what the Americans want him to do?

Allawi: I assure you, we respect to the Americans, we respect to our relations with the Americans, but what we are doing have nothing to do with the United States. It's an Iraqi aspiration. It's an Iraqi action by various people who believe in a non-sectarian Iraq, who want to build a national identity worthy of the Iraqi people of the region, and we want to move forward in this area, to salvage, frankly, our country, which is slipping away into catastrophe.

Jasim: The Iraqi president, Jalal Talibani (جه لال تاله با), two days ago was saying that, "We will crush any attempt, any coup-d'état, against the al-Maliki government." Was he referring to you, or was he referring to other forces, in the military, perhaps, that have had enough with this sectarianism?

Allawi: Maybe, I don't know to whom he was referring; I had some good meetings with him in London recently, and indeed nobody of us believes in military coups. He does not believe in a military coup, we don't believe in a military coup, what we believe in is that the bloodshed in Iraq should stop. The slipping of Iraq into complete and full anarchy and chaos should stop, and we should really change the whole political process into a non-sectarian political process which believes in all Iraq, as a wholesome Iraq, as one Iraq, as Iraq which belongs to all Iraqis regardless of the sect, region, or ethnic group that Iraq has come from.

Jasim: Unfortunately, that doesn't seem possible right now. The very coloration of the Iraqi government is sectarianism. It has become institutionalized, whether it's in the parliament or in the parties, or even in Baghdad, your beloved city, right now, [inaudible] is pretty much Shias and Sunnis. Now people are talking about in these terms, are you sure that you will be able to pull up enough nationalist Iraqis to say, "To hell with sectarianism! It is time to look after our own country!"?

Allawi: Well, Jasim, what I can use to convince you and to convince any person who is doubtful, that even some of the sectarian forces in the government are now calling for an Iraqi national program to save Iraq from sectarianism.

Jasim: Why is that? Because they've failed to get what they want now? They see nationalism, perhaps, as the way?

Allawi: They failed, number one. They not only failed miserably, but the country has been thrown into complete chaos, as you can see. Not only that, the region, what has happened in Iraq is spilling over to the region. The fact that this is causing a rebound phenomenon, where people now, even those who bought into sectarianism, now are trying to leave sectarianism and to embark on national reconciliation and a national program for the whole country. This is a very, indeed a very encouraging sign, and we should encourage this, and we are accordingly having dialogue with all members, all parties, all groups, to try and bring them to an Iraqi national program.

Jasim: Having said what you said just now, Dr. Iyad Allawi, still, as an observer from outside, people find it very difficult to say sectarianism will be out, because the very people who are in power, whether it's SCIRI, al-Majlis al-alalith-thaura l-islamiyya, whether it's al Tayar al-Sadri, the Sadrist movement, you know, their grass roots, since 2003, they accentuated this, they built on it, they pretty much invested all their rhetoric and all their political power to create that sectarianism which is giving them dividends. Now you think suddenly they're going to give it up and say, "We are all Iraqis"?

Allawi: Well, frankly, Jasim, there are important issues to remember. Definitely sectarianism, across the board, do[es] prevail in Iraq, and those who believe in sectarianism, unfortunately, have been taking the law into their [own] hands. One of the direct reasons, once the state of Iraq was dismantled, was that people had to revert to their clans, to their sects, to their tribes, to their neighborhoods, for protection. This was a grave mistake committed in Iraq, and this mistake led to various other mistakes that have been committed, leading and paving the way to sectarianism to prevail in Iraq. Now, after a few years of bloodshed, catastrophe, chaos, and damage, refugees, displacements, people have realized that sectarianism is not really the right path for Iraq.

Jasim: Let's spring forward, let's go to 2007. Now you are trying to put this coalition, this bloc, and people in Iraq, they have long memory. People don't forget what happened to them. People, they accuse you for the Fallujah bombing, for the Fallujah incursion, and people in the Sadris, you know, they remember 2004, the fighting in Najaf. How can you get Jabhat al-Tawafuq [Iraqi Accord Front, a Sunni Arab Islamist party], how can you get the Sunnis and the Sadris, in order to join you? People say, "He was the man who told the Americans to go after us."

Allawi: I was, frankly, even-handed with all those who tried to take the law into their [own] hands. Me, as a prime minister then, I had important tasks to perform. One of them was to build a modern state, a strong state, and to get the army back and the military, the police, and so on, and security, and secondly, really, to tackle the issue of law and order.

Jasim: Today, of all days, Moqtada al-Sadr (مقتدى الصدر), the firebrand cleric of al Tayar al-Sadri [Sadrist Bloc], appeared, and you know, he was [inaudible] of the mosque, he disappeared for quite a number of months. First of all, how do you look at his reappearance? What does it say? Is there some kind of agreement with the Americans that they are not going to target him?

Allawi: I don't think there's an agreement between him and the Americans. I think Moqtada al-Sadr was, all the way through, in Iraq, despite what had been said that he had fled the country. My information, he was in Iraq. I think his reappearance should give way to engage him in dialogue and constructive dialogue, like the rest of the groups who do exist in Iraq, and let us not forget that al-Sadr have about 30 members in parliament, representing him and he need to be accommodated, he need to be part of a national Iraqi program, and his people have been very critical of the government, and they have withdrawn from the government, from the cabinet, as well as making the right appeal in the parliament, by denouncing sectarianism.

Jasim: Dr. Allawi, before I take a break, a short answer if you would: because there is so much accusation against him, especially by the Americans, there is so much blood on his hands, can you really work with [Moqtada al-Sadr], can you really get him into your bloc?

Allawi: Well, we should not take the American accusation into account by talking to Iraqi people. We should talk to Iraqis, all Iraqis, but with very clear vision that Iraq is for all Iraqis, and we should all respect the law and order, and respect the basic rights of all Iraqis and refrain from using and embarking on militias, and allow the government, any government, to build the right forces for the country.

Jasim: Yes. Dr. Iyad Allawi, we will take a short break now. When we come back, I'm going to ask the former Iraqi prime minister about his views about the Iraqi resistance. Stay with us.

[commercial break]

[Coming back from the commercial break, the program showed a photo of Senator John Kerry (D–MA), with the following quote: "Prime Minister Allawi's trip to the United States was filled with all the wrong lessons, lessons from an administration that just can't seem to tell the truth when it comes to Iraq." However, the quote is actually from John Edwards (D–NC). Note also that, contrary to many U.S. news reports at the time, Senator Edwards was criticizing the Bush administration, at least as much as the administration of Prime Minister Allawi.

Kerry: The prime minister and the president are here obviously to put their best face on the policy. But the fact is that CIA estimates, the reporting, the ground operations and the troops all tell a different story. — U.S. Senator John Kerry (D–MA, candidate for President), 2004-09-23, at a press conference after then-Prime Minister Allawi addressed the U.S. Congress.

Edwards: The administration's credibility on Iraq collapsed today. Over the past 24 hours, the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of State have all contradicted each other on elections in Iraq. For a President who is fond of saying we should not send mixed messages — you need a scorecard today to keep up with all the different and contradictory statements from the White House. The President also talked about the need to support Prime Minister Allawi. The best lesson for any fledgling democracy is that leaders should tell the truth, to always be straight with the people. Prime Minister Allawi's trip to the United States was filled with all the wrong lessons, lessons from an administration that just can't seem to tell the truth when it comes to Iraq. — U.S. Senator John Edwards (D–NC, Kerry's vice-presidential running mate), 2004-09-24

Sources: The Washington Times, 2004-09-25, "Bush slams Kerry over 'brave' Iraqi," by Bill Sammon; Daily Kos, 2004-09-24, "Edwards keeps up the heat," by Kos.

Jasim: Welcome back to Inside Iraq. Today, we are talking to the former Iraqi prime minister, and will he be the next man in Baghdad? Let me just quote you something from June 28, 2004, when you said that any attack against the Americans is terrorism. Do you still hold that view, and, before we started, you said this is a purely Iraqi issue, it has nothing to do with the Americans, but the Americans are in Iraq, they are the most powerful entity in Iraq; what are your views about Iraqi resistance?

Allawi: Well, to be very, very open on this topic, I just had a meeting a few days ago in a regional country with some of the resistance who had been asked by the Americans to go and negotiate in Baghdad on new terms and conditions to lay down their arms and to readjust the political process so it fits a non-sectarian Iraq, Iraq for all Iraqis. Those people came to seek my views and advice, and I said that it is important to have this dialogue, but let us remember all that we Iraqis will solve our own problems amongst ourselves, but since the Americans are there, it's very important to have a dialogue with them, and to continue this dialogue, and I encouraged them, and I think the dialogue is going to take place this coming week.

Jasim: Dr. Iyad, these are your views. The views of the Iraqi government, represented by Jalal Talibani and Maliki and as recent as two days ago by [Iraqi foreign minister] Hoshyar Zebari, they don't want the Americans out. They said the Americans should stay; as a matter of fact, when there was talk about a U.S. pull-out, Jalal Talibani raised his hand; he said, "If you want bases, come to the north! Bring your forces here and stay there." So how do you tally those two conflicting ideas?

Allawi: No, these are not conflicting. The Americans are there. We need to talk to them, all of us. We need to create the right environment for the United States to withdraw from Iraq, and to build our institutions, national institutions, capable of challenging and facing the threats that are posed on Iraq, and to keep the country unified. That's why I think it's a very important step that the American now have decided again, because there were discussions in my house, in Iraq, between Americans and the resistance, and now the resistance, or at least part of it, sought my views, and I encouraged them to have these discussions because I think such discussions —

Jasim: Unless the Iraqi government is on record, and more importantly the American government is on record, that they specify a date specific for the total withdrawal from Iraq, the resistance are not going to lay down their arms; that has become amply clear to everybody.

Allawi: Yes, that's correct, and that's why the negotiations now are very important, and the issue of withdrawal should come up in the negotiations.

Jasim: Okay, moving on, Dr. Iyad. Let's talk about this "building block," this new coalition in Iraq you are trying to achieve. One of the key components for that to succeed will be the Kurds. They have almost 75 members in parliament. You have about 25 votes, Jabhat al-Tawafuq [Iraqi Accord Front] has others; in order to topple al-Maliki, you definitely need the Kurds, but the Kurds drive a very hard bargain. They want Kirkuk (كه‌ركوو), and they want federalism, and that by itself is a recipe for future tension and perhaps even conflict, so how are you going to square this?

Allawi: It is definitely — the Kurds are a very important component of Iraq, and they are in fact now as it stands, hold the balance of power inside Iraq. It is extremely important for us to talk to them. On the issues you raised, there are discussions on the Kirkuk issue, federation —

Jasim: Will you give them Kirkuk?

Allawi: It's not a matter of give and take Kirkuk, it's a matter of discussing —

Jasim: Now it is. Dr. Iyad, now, as far as the Kurds are saying, you know, "We need Kirkuk; Kirkuk is going to be the capital of Kurdistan." As a matter of fact, [President of the Kurdish Autonomous Region of Iraq] Massoud Barzani (مه‌سعوود بارزان) is on record: he said, "If Kirkuk is not given to us, we will take it by force." You remember what happened: [PM of Turkey] Erdoğan called him all the way to Turkey, and he said, "Don't say this again, because it is going to hurt you."

Allawi: Massoud Barzani is a very dear friend of mine. I met him very recently, 10 days ago, and we spoke about various issues, including the Kirkuk issue. He was a very pragmatic person. I think we can reach to a common understanding.

Jasim: Let me stop you here for a just a second. How can he be pragmatic when he lets his militia, he lets the peshmerga go into Baghdad as recently as now, and there are many, many demonstrations that the peshmergas [Kurdish militias] are fighting in these cities. You know very well — we just started by saying that Iraqis don't forget and don't forgive. Can you see how the usage of the peshmerga, whether it's by the Americans or by al-Maliki, will it create a future conflict between the South and the North, between the Arabs and the Kurds? How can he be pragmatic and a diplomat by doing that?

Allawi: Well, Jasim, I am not sure whether it is the peshmerga —

Jasim: It is. It is.

Allawi: — or some of the Iraqi forces. We don't know what the rumors are. I'm not party, frankly, to solid information. But I know Massoud, I have known Massoud for a very long time. We have discussed, we have been through very difficult stages. I know that he is a compromising person, and I know that he is a person who believes in Iraq. This is to be very honest. I'm not saying this because I want to imagine things, but I know Massoud Barzani very well, I trust him a lot, and I talk to him very openly. There are areas where we differ significantly, but there are other issues that we share common views.

Jasim: A few questions, if you could answer them rather quickly. You are very well known against the turbans, against the theocracy, but yet the major forces in Iraq, whether it's Abdul Aziz al-Hakim [leader of the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, formerly SCIRI] or Moqtada al-Sadr or even a Sistani, they are ruling in the name of religion. How do you get religion out of the formula?

Allawi: Sistani is saying — Sistani is different. He does not get involved in politics, and there are political groups who believe in Islam and the theory of Islam, and sectarianism. This is something which has caused a lot of problems in Iraq and will continue to cause problems in Iraq.

Jasim: One of the things that is causing a lot of problems in Iraq is corruption. The man in charge of reconstructing Iraq, Stuart Bowen, is saying that corruption in Iraq is the second insurgency. Billions of dollars are stolen by Iraqi politicians leaving Iraq, and nothing is happening. There is no construction and Iraq is teetering on the brink of failure.

Allawi: Iraq is at a complete standstill. The country is at a standstill. Services are nil. And corruption is extremely high. The way of tackling corruption is really by reinstating the institutions of the country and making them functional, but based on non-sectarian institutions.

Jasim: You are very well known, being frank, being tough; as a matter of fact, there are some rumors about you that on the eve of your becoming prime minister, you shot blindfoldedly six people. You must have heard the rumors.

Allawi: I have heard, but it's a rumor.

Jasim: How tough in Iraq would have to be in order to become the new prime minister of Iraq? Al-Maliki is viewed as very weak and he cannot achieve anything; will you be Iraq's next prime minister?

Allawi: I don't know, but I know any prime minister should be bold, should be courageous, should have vision, should be able to make decisions, and most importantly should be able to implement decisions. For this to be done in Iraq, you need a courageous man to be in charge, a man who believes in Iraq and the whole of the country — a man or a woman, in fact, but a man now — we are talking about boldness, about decisiveness, and this is very important for the country, otherwise the country is not going to function.

Jasim: We are way off, Dr. Iyad Allawi, from an Iraqi prime minister woman, but perhaps we can wait for that.

Allawi: Maybe. I hope so, maybe, one day.

Jasim: Former Iraqi prime minister Iyad Allawi. Thank you very much.

Allawi: Thank you, Jasim.

Jasim: To access our show, and to send us your comments, please go to our website, AlJazeera.net/English. We have reached the end of our show for this week. Join me next week when we take another look Inside Iraq. Good-bye.

Copyright ©2007, Al Jazeera English.

You may also be interested in the interview with Ali Allawi (Iyad Allawi's brother, also a former member of the Iraqi government) on Comedy Central's Daily Show with Jon Stewart: transcript, or the video of Ali Allawi's appearance on Al Jazeera English's Riz Khan program 2007-05-09. You can also go to the Al Jazeera English home page, or visit their YouTube page, with a smattering of video clips from various programs. I particularly recommend the mini-series Mo and Me, about a pioneering African photojournalist, Mohammed Amin.

I also have transcripts of Inside Iraq for these dates: 2007-05-18 [Capt. Frank Pascual, Abd al-Bari Atwan, Rohan Gunaratna]; 2007-05-11 [Hamid Al-Bayati (Iraqi UN amb.), Anas Altikriti], 2007-04-27 [Larry Wilkerson (Colin Powell's fmr chief of staff)], and 2007-01-26 [Capt. Frank Pascual, Shaikh Yusuf al-Nasri (aide to Moqtada al-Sadr), Mohammed al Douri (fmr Iraqi UN amb.), Brad Blakeman (fmr advisor to Pres. Bush)]

And of course, if you found this content interesting, please check out the rest of my blog.

Technorati tags: , Inside Iraq, Al Jazeera English, Jasim Azzawi, Iyad Allawi, Ayad Allawi, Iraq War, Politics, Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq prime minister, Moqtada al-Sadr, Kurdistan, Kirkuk, Baghdad, Sectarian Militias, Fallujah, Najaf

Transcript below the fold; click below for more...

Read More......