8/6/2003 (LINK) Little Boy, Original Child Bomb --

Fifty-eight years ago today, the people of our world entered the age of nuclear warfare, when the U.S. dropped the bomb, known to its handlers as "Little Boy," on the Japanese industrial city of Hiroshima.

Fifty-five years ago today, I was born.

On the same date, though considerably more recently, one of my favorite bloggers, NTodd, was born.

NTodd and I share several interests, and frequently enough, we share an outlook. In this case, though, we share a birthday that is the anniversary of one of the most painful events in modern history. As Mad Kane drew 9/11 as her birthday, NTodd and I were blessed with a birthday which has an even more violent history. Blessed? what, am I being sarcastic? Well, no. Isn't it a blessing to be shaken out of one's comfortable patterns of thought and confronted with such things, at least once a year?

For what I trust are obvious reasons, many Americans born on August 6 have given considerable thought to matters of war, and in particular, nuclear war. One of my own favorite sources for contemplation is Thomas Merton's Original Child Bomb (I could not find a web source of the text in English, but how's your Dutch?) Merton's presentation (circa 1961 or 1962) is straightforward, uncluttered, free of cant and rant, and, as a result, very, very moving. For lack of a complete text online, I'll give you excerpts from the first and last passages:

1: In the year 1945 an Original Child was born. The name Original Child was given to it by the Japanese people, who recognized that it was the first of its kind.

2: On April 12th, 1945, Mr. Harry Truman became the President of the United States, which was then fighting the second world war. Mr. Truman was a vice president who became president by accident when his predecessor died of a cerebral hemorrhage. He did not know as much about war as the president before him did. He new a lot less about the war than many people did.

About one hour after Mr. Truman became president, his aides told him about a new bomb which was being developed by atomic scientists. They called it the "atomic bomb." ...


     ...


32: The bomb exploded within 100 feet of the aiming point. The fireball was 18,000 feet across. The temperature at the center of the fireball was 100,000,000 degrees. The people who were near the center became nothing. The whole city was blown to bits and the ruins all caught fire instantly everywhere, burning briskly. 70,000 people were killed right away or died within a few hours. Those who did not die at once suffered great pain. Few of them were soldiers.


     ...


40: As to the Original Child that was now born, President Truman summed up the philosophy of the situation in a few words. "We found the bomb" he said "and we used it."

41: Since that summer many other bombs have been "found." What is going to happen? At the time of writing, after a season of brisk speculation, men seem to be fatigued by the whole question.

This year again, summer's heat reminds us of the blazing hell fire that swept over this very spot fifty-eight years ago. The world without nuclear weapons and beyond war that our hibakusha have sought for so long appears to be slipping deeper into a thick cover of dark clouds that they fear at any minute could become mushroom clouds spilling black rain.

The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the central international agreement guiding the elimination of nuclear weapons, is on the verge of collapse. The chief cause is U.S. nuclear policy that, by openly declaring the possibility of a pre-emptive nuclear first strike and calling for resumed research into mini-nukes and other so-called "useable nuclear weapons," appears to worship nuclear weapons as God.

However, nuclear weapons are not the only problem. Acting as if the United Nations Charter and the Japanese Constitution don't even exist, the world has suddenly veered sharply away from post-war toward pre-war mentality. As the U.S.-U.K.- led war on Iraq made clear, the assertion that war is peace is being trumpeted as truth. Conducted with disregard for the multitudes around the world demanding a peaceful solution through continued UN inspections, this war slaughtered innocent women, children, and the elderly. It destroyed the environment, most notably through radioactive contamination that will be with us for billions of years. And the weapons of mass destruction that served as the excuse for the war have yet to be found.

However, as President Lincoln once said, "You can't fool all the people all the time." Now is the time for us to focus once again on the truth that "Darkness can never be dispelled by darkness, only by light." The rule of power is darkness. The rule of law is light. In the darkness of retaliation, the proper path for human civilization is illumined by the spirit of reconciliation born of the hibakusha's determination that "no one else should ever suffer as we did."

Lifting up that light, the aging hibakusha are calling for U.S. President George Bush to visit Hiroshima. We all support that call and hereby demand that President Bush, Chairman Kim Jong Il of North Korea, and the leaders of all nuclear-weapon states come to Hiroshima and confront the reality of nuclear war. We must somehow convey to them that nuclear weapons are utterly evil, inhumane and illegal under international law. In the meanwhile, we expect that the facts about Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be shared throughout the world, and that the Hiroshima-Nagasaki Peace Study Course will be established in ever more colleges and universities.

To strengthen the NPT regime, the city of Hiroshima is calling on all members of the World Conference of Mayors for Peace to take emergency action to promote the abolition of nuclear weapons. Our goal is to gather a strong delegation of mayors representing cities throughout the world to participate in the NPT Review Conference that will take place in New York in 2005, the 60th year after the atomic bombing. In New York, we will lobby national delegates for the start of negotiations at the United Nations on a universal Nuclear Weapons Convention providing for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

At the same time, Hiroshima calls on politicians, religious professionals, academics, writers, journalists, teachers, artists, athletes and other leaders with influence. We must establish a climate that immediately confronts even casual comments that appear to approve of nuclear weapons or war. To prevent war and to abolish the absolute evil of nuclear weapons, we must pray, speak, and act to that effect in our daily lives.

The Japanese government, which publicly asserts its status as "the only A-bombed nation," must fulfill the responsibilities that accompany that status, both at home and abroad. Specifically, it must adopt as national precepts the three new non-nuclear principles - allow no production, allow no possession, and allow no use of nuclear weapons anywhere in the world - and work conscientiously toward an Asian nuclear-free zone. It must also provide full support to all hibakusha everywhere, including those exposed in "black rain areas" and those who live overseas.

On this 58th August 6, we offer our heartfelt condolences to the souls of all atomic bomb victims, and we renew our pledge to do everything in our power to abolish nuclear weapons and eliminate war altogether by the time we turn this world over to our children.

Tadatoshi Akiba
Mayor
The City of Hiroshima

8/6/2003 (LINK) Liars, damned liars, and Republicans -- From Gerry Birnberg, chair of the Harris County Democratic Party (that's Houston, for my out-of-state readers), in a broadcast email:

For months, Republicans have insisted that when they were in the minority, they never resorted to quorum busting tactics to prevent the Democratic majority from passing a redistricting bill. Now it turns out that claim is a lie.

According to the Associated Press, in 1993, eleven Republican senators ran and hid to prevent a senate vote on a bill supported by the Democrats, redrawing line for judicial districts. They had tried, unsuccessfully, to pull off quorum busting walkouts in 1983 and 1991, but in 1993, they were temporarily successful in keeping the Texas Senate from acting on a bill they opposed by running and hiding, denying a quorum. And of course, the founder of the Republican Party once jumped out of a second story window in the state capitol to bust a quorum and prevent a vote on a bill Democrats were trying to pass. So the claim the Republicans would never do any such thing as engage in quorum busting techniques is just plain false.

Websters New Collegiate Dictionary defines a demagogue as one who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims in order to gain power. Sure sounds like Tom DeLay, Rick Perry, David Dewhurst, and a bunch of other Republicans to me.

Wouldn't it be nice if they would just start telling the truth and stop trying to grab power by annulling the votes, and nullifying the political influence, of millions of Texans?

Gerry Birnberg

8/5/2003 (LINK) "I've got a little list" -- Well, no, I haven't "got a little list," but the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), like the newly-minted Lord High Executioner who originally delivered that line, has, indeed, got a little list. In fact, they've got two lists. From the Independent (via truthout):

After more than a year of complaints by some US anti-war activists that they were being unfairly targeted by airport security, Washington has admitted the existence of a list, possibly hundreds or even thousands of names long, of people it deems worthy of special scrutiny at airports.

The list had been kept secret until its disclosure last week by the new US agency in charge of aviation safety, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). And it is entirely separate from the relatively well-publicised "no-fly" list, which covers about 1,000 people believed to have criminal or terrorist ties that could endanger the safety of their fellow passengers.

The strong suspicion of such groups as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is suing the government to try to learn more, is that the second list has been used to target political activists who challenge the government in entirely legal ways. The TSA acknowledged the existence of the list in response to a Freedom of Information Act request concerning two anti-war activists from San Francisco who were stopped and briefly detained at the airport last autumn and told they were on an FBI no-fly list.
     ...
It is impossible to know for sure who might be on the list, or why. The ACLU says a list kept by security personnel at Oakland airport ran to 88 pages. More than 300 people have been subject to special questioning at San Francisco airport, and another 24 at Oakland, according to police records. In no case does it appear that a wanted criminal was apprehended.
     ...
The ACLU's senior lawyer on the case, Jayashri Srikantiah, said she is troubled by several answers that the TSA gave to her questions. The agency, she said, had no way of making sure that people did not end up on the list simply because of things they had said or organisations they belonged to. Once people were on the list, there was no procedure for trying to get off it. The TSA did not even think it was important to keep track of people singled out in error for a security grilling. According to documents the agency released, it saw "no pressing need to do so".

8/4/2003 (LINK) What Condi meant -- (Mustard? mayo? shades of a certain Woody Allen movie...) -- Mad Kane can explain to you what Condi meant! Condi gets the treatment; you get lots of laughs, as always at Mad's place. Go! Now!

8/4/2003 (NO LINK) Light blogging -- Blogging may be light for a couple of days or even more... work is indeed the curse of the blogging classes.

8/4/2003 (LINK) Pentagon decision-making: worse than we knew -- Karen Kwiatkowski, "Air Force lieutenant colonel who spent most of her final three years of military service in the Office of the Secretary of Defense's Under Secretariat for Policy," offers this damning assessment of the decision-making process by which Pentagon political appointees ignored and overrode virtually all information from their civil service staff and career military. Let me just list Kwiatkowski's bullet points, her "three prevailing themes"; that should be enough to make you want to read the article. She observed:

• Functional isolation of the professional corps.
• Cross-agency cliques.
• Groupthink.

8/4/2003 (LINK) A No-Brainer -- or it would be, if anyone in this administration had even zero brains. But every one of them apparently has a negative quantity of brains. And so we endure this debate... over whether to capture and try Saddam, or kill him outright. It is not comforting to read that Cheney and Rumsfeld are parties to the decision in progress, nor that the decision is theoretically left up to the commanders of troops on the ground, nor that some are hoping Saddam will save them the trouble by fighting to the death "like his sons" (if indeed they did so).

You know where I come down on this. If they kill him when they can capture and try him... if the Bush cabal orders Saddam killed; if he is killed, not in the exigencies of combat, but deliberately, premeditatedly, just because they don't want, for whatever reason, to risk putting him on trial... they are assassins. murderers. What kind of people are we led by? what kind of people are we becoming, to allow this, not once, not twice but possibly a third time?

8/4/2003 (LINK) American Action Market... "A Market in the Future of the World" -- ROTFLMFAO! Or else I would, but hey, it isn't too farfetched that these folks might actually be serious! If it's real (unlikely), or if it's a spoof (my bet, and I'm not even a registered trader yet), either way, it's the best sendup of the recent Pentagon terrorism futures market I've seen so far. (Thanks to John S. for the link.)

8/3/2003 (LINK) Army of One -- Don't watch this Flash presentation, Army of One, until you are in a place where you can first scream, then cry... because I assure you that you will do both. (Thanks to Nurse Ratched for the link.)

8/3/2003 (LINK) Bravo, Rep. Eddie Rodriguez! Via Burnt Orange Report, I found this splendid column by State Rep. Eddie Rodriguez (D-Austin) in the Austin American-Statesman:

On Tuesday, a quorum was not present in the Texas House until early in the afternoon. I was among those not present. I chose not to be there. I made that choice with the intention of helping to prevent a quorum -- a quorum under which the Republican majority could further exercise its partisan tyranny. I make no apologies or excuses.

On the issue of redistricting, it is abundantly evident that my vote does not matter, but my presence and cooperation in creating a quorum does. If ever my absence extends greater protection to the people of my district from tyranny such as we have seen in this redistricting effort, then count me absent.

Monday things turned even nastier, as Craddick still had only a token quorum when HB 5 (McCall), a comptroller's cash-management bill, came to the floor amid a farrago of Democratic objections. The Dems didn't have the votes to amend the bill without Republican help (not forthcoming under the Duke of Midland), so they steadily made themselves scarce. When Craddick put the measure to a vote, the board lit brightly green, but it was abundantly apparent there was no actual quorum on the floor. Yet the speaker first ignored, then simply refused, numerous demands for a "verification" vote that would have killed the measure. The House clerk now shows HB 5 as "enrolled" -- although by what legal action of the Legislature is anybody's guess.

8/2/2003 (LINK) Lieberman -- Kos has stirred some controversy with his post titled, Lieberman is NOT a Republican. A lot of bloggers are weighing in on this subject. In my opinion, the short answer is: Kos is correct. His quoted stats pretty much prove it, and I'd like to add my own. (Much of this post is taken from my comment on Kos's site.)

A Daily Kos commenter calling him/herself "vbenares" makes the following extremely relevant request:

It might be more informative to post some examples of Lieberman taking the right side of a difficult liberal position. I would find that interesting.

I can't quite do that, but I can do something similar. Back before sElection 2000, I used one of the congressional vote-tracking web sites... I think it was Project Vote Smart... to review Lieberman's Senate voting record on about a dozen of my core issues (environment, civil liberties, human rights, jobs, etc. ... the usual lefty-Democrat's list) and found him to have voted my way about 75 percent of the time. That makes him a Democrat. In my opinion, his voting record outweighs any of the crack-brained statements he's made lately, which are probably just grandstanding anyway.

Do I support Lieberman now? NO! Not even close. As I said, I'm an unabashed liberal Dem; why on earth should I lean toward Lieberman at this point. But if Lieberman gets the nod despite my best efforts, will I vote for him in preference to Dubya? You bet I will, and I'll walk home with a clear conscience. Seventy-five percent is better than zero.

8/2/2003 (LINK) * UPDATED -- Bush renews Iraq sanctions -- As difficult as it may be to believe, Mr. Bush has decided that the national emergency with respect to Iraq... i.e., sanctions... must be imposed on Iraq for yet another year:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
July 31, 2003

NOTICE
CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO IRAQ

On August 2, 1990, by Executive Order 12722, President Bush declared a national emergency with respect to Iraq pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of the Government of Iraq -- the Saddam Hussein regime. By Executive Orders 12722 of August 2, 1990, and 12724 of August 9, 1990, the President imposed trade sanctions on Iraq and blocked Iraqi government assets. Additional measures were taken with respect to this national emergency by Executive Order 13290 of March 20, 2003. Because of the continued instability in Iraq, the United States and Coalition partners' role as the temporary authority in Iraq, and the need to ensure the establishment of a process leading to representative Iraqi self-rule, the national emergency declared on August 2, 1990, and the measures adopted on August 2 and August 9, 1990, and March 20, 2003, to deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond August 2, 2003. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to Iraq.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE, July 31, 2003.

News Service 144/99
AI INDEX: MDE 14/06/99
28 July 1999

Iraq
UN Security Council Considers the Humanitarian Panel's Report on Sanctions
A summary of Amnesty International position and concerns


In January 1999, the Security Council decided to establish three separate technical panels on Iraq to review the situation and ongoing UN actions. The first panel examined disarmament and verification issues. The third panel investigated the issue of prisoners of war and Kuwaiti property. The second panel was asked to assess the current humanitarian situation in Iraq and make recommendations for improving it. This panel submitted its report to the Security Council on 30 March 1999.

Amnesty International does not take a position on the issue of sanctions as tools for influencing government behaviour. However, Amnesty International believes that the Security Council, as the body that has imposed sanctions on Iraq, has a responsibility to carry out periodic reviews of the impact of sanctions on the human rights of the Iraqi population. Now that a review has been carried out, Amnesty International believes the Security Council must take appropriate action on the recommendations of the panel it has commissioned on the humanitarian situation in Iraq with a view to ensuring that human rights considerations are fully taken into account.

The humanitarian panel's report concluded that "the gravity of the humanitarian situation of the Iraqi people is indisputable and cannot be overstated. Irrespective of alleged attempts by the Iraq authorities to exaggerate the significance of certain facts for political propaganda purposes, the data from different sources as well as qualitative assessments of bona fide observers and sheer common sense analysis of economic variables converge and corroborate this evaluation."

According to the report, infant mortality rates in Iraq are now among the highest in the world and only 41 percent of the population have regular access to clean water. The report also noted that population's dependence on humanitarian supplies has "increased government control over individual lives."

(Ed. note: as the former Iraqi government collapsed, the U.S. took effective control over individual lives. - SB)

The report does not exempt the government of Iraq from responsibility for the ongoing humanitarian crisis. But it notes that, "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of the war."

To meet pressing humanitarian needs, the panel concludes that additional revenue, more humanitarian assistance and better distribution are required. It recommends that the Security Council lift the ceiling of allowable oil exports and facilitate the provision of spare parts to the enable Iraq to increase its export capacity, and allow private foreign investment in the oil industry and agriculture. To the Iraqi government, the panel recommends that it facilitate the timely distribution of humanitarian goods, address the needs of vulnerable groups, especially street children, the disabled, the elderly and the mentally ill, and ensure that those involuntarily displaced receive adequate humanitarian assistance.

(Ed. note: the U.S. is now effectively the Iraqi government. This is now our responsibility. - SB)

Research by several international organizations, including UN agencies, indicates that the impact of sanctions on Iraq (whether directly or resulting from the manner in which the Iraqi Government has responded to the sanctions, or both) has resulted in violations of the right to life, among other rights, of civilians -- in particular children.

Amnesty International strongly supports the position of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, elaborated in General Comment No. 8 (E/C.12/1997/8), adopted on 8 December 1997, that "inhabitants of a given country do not forfeit their basic economic, social and cultural rights by virtue of any determination that their leaders have violated norms relating to international peace and security." For this reason, the Committee stated, "In considering sanctions, it is essential to distinguish between the basic objective of applying political and economic pressure upon the governing elite of the country to persuade them to conform to international law, and the collateral infliction of suffering upon the most vulnerable groups within the targeted country." The Committee identified three obligations for the parties imposing sanctions. First, human rights "must be taken fully into account when designing an appropriate sanctions regime." Second, "effective monitoring...should be undertaken throughout the period that sanctions are in force." And finally, those imposing sanctions must take measures "to respond to any disproportionate suffering experienced by vulnerable groups within the targeted country."

In light of the findings and recommendations of the Security Council's humanitarian panel, Amnesty International believes the Security Council should give urgent attention to the humanitarian situation in Iraq and take all necessary measures to protect the rights of the civilian population.

8/1/2003 (LINK) Blogdogging --

• I'm all "dogged out" after writing two doggerels yesterday. Not so Nurse Ratched, who joins the ranks of those of us who write verse and worse, offering her If I Had a Hamster, by Petter, Maul and Hairy. Go... read... laugh... now!
• It's starting again. Tom Tomorrow leads us to a trio of chilling articles about a young man visited by the FBI because someone in a coffee shop spotted him reading "subversive" material by Hal Crowther printed off the web. Read Marc Schultz regarding his own experience, the offending "subversive" column Weapons of Mass Stupidity by Crowther, and Crowther's reaction to the incident. Remember, right after 9/11/2001, that there were a whole series of such incidents, presumably Ashcroft's attempt at intimidation of college students, artists, anyone who might oppose Dubya's ham-handed treatment of political opponents? Well, this time, they're getting the jump on things: there has not yet been a major terrorist incident in the U.S. at the moment, but Ashcroft is apparently pursuing a new Dubya Doctrine that might be called Preemptive Intimidation by Secret Service (PISS), or, in this case, by the FBI.
• Jeanne of Body and Soul had no idea, when she left on vacation, that her post called Blue and Green would start such an interesting chain of comments about relations between Democrats and Greens as Election 2004 (at least we hope it's an election this time) looms on the horizon. See your YDD face off against heavy hitters like Ampersand, Patrick Neilsen Hayden, etc. Whew! do you think that's enough nom-de-blog-dropping in one sentence?
  Meanwhile, Kevin Moore, cartoonist, pundit and newly-minted Democrat at BlargBlog, has a similar thread underway, with different folks and different opinions.
• Check back soon; I'll probably continue the blogdogging late tonight.

8/1/2003 (LINK) Newshounding -- Most of these are items I collected a couple of days ago and haven't had time to blog. Apologies if I simply direct you to the sources and suggest you read them yourself.

• Senate rejects auto fuel economy measures. SUV's burn it. We all breathe it. What part of smog do they not understand?
• Blacks don't often make partner at large law firms in Houston. Glass ceiling? Surely not! Who would ever think that!
• Goodhair Perry hypes healthcare issues he has not heretofore put on the table. (Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana. Perry lies like a Republican.)
• Katy Frwy expansion $244mil over budget. (Surprise, surprise. As Kuffner points out, they need a better plan.)
• A pipeline through the Amazon rainforest. Who does it benefit? Guess.
• Bush "takes responsibility" for the 16 words. So... does "taking responsibility" mean he's going to resign now? Do wild bears use flush toilets?
• Bush, opposing gay marriage: “I am mindful that we’re all sinners and I caution those who may try to take a speck out of the neighbor’s eye when they got a log in their own.” Yeah, right. I think he'd better watch out for the blog in his own eye. Actually, probably, several hundred blogs. The Pope just announced a campaign against gay marriage, threatening (and not for the first time) politicians who do not do his bidding on this matter. In general, I have more respect for the Pope than for George W. Bush, but I believe the former is stepping into a blatantly political role... i.e., endangering our separation of church and state... when he insists that Catholic elected officials must vote a certain way on a certain issue. Should he care about separation? Should we care, when his church behaves like a political rather than a spiritual institution? More to the real point, why don't George W and the Pope both get the fuck out of our private lives and our primary relationships, and recognize that everyone should have fully equal status under law?
• Greg Palast on the "re-lynching" of Cynthia McKinney. The former congresswoman never said what the NY Times... and a lot of other sources... misquoted her as saying. That caused McKinney to be booted out of office. Did the Times care? did any allegedly responsible journalist care that McKinney never said what they published?
• R.I.P. Bill Bates, 1/7/1920-8/1/1995. All of us miss you, Dad.