NATIONAL POLICIES ON IRAQ REFLECT EXPRESSED WILL OF THE PEOPLE(S)
Voters often complain that the government doesn't listen to the views of "ordinary people" and doesn't do what they want. But in the Iraq crisis, governments in the U.S. and Europe are closely mirroring the public opinion that has been freely expressed in recent months.
In Europe, according to polls in various countries cited by the BBC, majorities from nearly 70 percent to around 90 percent oppose intervention without fresh UN support. Sizeable minorities, or even majorities in some countries, oppose intervention even with UN sanction.
In the U.S., in contrast, a solid majority are in favor of war with Iraq. According to the Gallup Organization, some 59 percent of respondents answered "yes" to the question, "Would you favor or oppose invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power?" Support for the war has been in the high 50's since President Bush went to the United Nations in September to demand action.
The support for invasion is probably linked to the fact that 84 percent of respondents answer "No" to the question, "Do you think Iraq is complying with what the United Nations has required it to do so far?"
If there is no doubt in the majority's mind that Saddam has defied the UN, then it is no suprise that the majority favors dealing with Saddam directly. The can-do American spirit lives on.
A grumpier spirit prevails in Europe. A Forsa poll found 57% of Germans held the opinion that "the United States is a nation of warmongers." Historically, of course, it was the Germans who were the warmongers, but that attitude was apparently beaten out of them by the last big war.
In France, the public strongly opposes action without UN support, but, interestingly enough, less than 30 percent are opposed to war if the UN gave its blessing. The French government seems determined to block that possibility, however, creating something of a self-fulfilling condition.
In the UK, less than 20 percent are opposed to war if the UN goes along, which explains why Tony Blair is so desperate for a second resolution. In Spain, nearly half the respondents oppose war even if the UN approves, which has led some observers to speculate that Jose Maria Aznar could fall from power if the crisis is prolonged.
Politically, the best thing to do now is go in there and get it done. Military victory could do more to win the war of public opinion than anything that could now be expected from the United Nations. Which is exactly why Bush, Blair and Aznar are going to meet this weekend, shake hands, and pull the trigger.
Friday, March 14, 2003
VIRGINIA TECH TO RESTRICT FREE SPEECH RIGHTS
Students at Virginia Tech may soon have the same rights of peaceful assembly as the citizens of Singapore, where free-speech rights have been traded for political stability. The university's board of visitors (trustees) voted unanimously to give the university president the power to block anyone or any group that advocates domestic violence or terrorism from speaking or demonstrating on campus or in university-affiliated buildings. The resolution reads:
"No person, persons or organizations will be allowed to meet on campus or any facility owned or leased by the university if it can be determined that such persons or organizations advocate or have participated in illegal acts of domestic violence and/or terrorism. All requests for meetings will be submitted for approval to the President of the university at least 30 days in advance. The President will have final decision-making power to determine who can meet on university property."
The board was apparently reacting to a talk on campus last month by a representative of Earth First!, a radical environmental group that has sought to prevent logging by booby-trapping trees with spikes, which can damage or destroy chain saws and injure the men operating them. The Earth First speakers at Tech apparently did not advocate outright violence, however. The Earth First event was attended by the director of the Virginia Tech forestry resources research center, who challenged the Earth Firsters and provided some mainstream views to the student newspaper.
The resolution presumably would ban speakers from arson-prone groups such Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front and possibly supportive groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The Ku Klux Klan would also presumably be banned.
The resolution was proposed by board member Mitchell Carr, who is president of Augusta Lumber and Supply and Augusta Wood Exporters and a leader in the national lumber industry. "We need some protection from these terrorists," he said.
If implemented, the policy would be similar to that in place in Singapore, the city-state with clean streets, little crime, and a tightly controlled press. As the Kyodo news service put it recently, "Singapore's government does not allow street demonstrations without prior approval. Most applications are turned down and such activities are generally discouraged."
Virginia has a proud heritage of free speech going back to Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, who wrote freedom of speech into the state's Constitution: "the freedoms of speech and of the press are among the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained except by despotic governments," as Jefferson put it.
Thomas Jefferson defended the rights of man against the British army and American loyalists. He probably never figured on sacrificing those rights to the lumber industry.
Students at Virginia Tech may soon have the same rights of peaceful assembly as the citizens of Singapore, where free-speech rights have been traded for political stability. The university's board of visitors (trustees) voted unanimously to give the university president the power to block anyone or any group that advocates domestic violence or terrorism from speaking or demonstrating on campus or in university-affiliated buildings. The resolution reads:
"No person, persons or organizations will be allowed to meet on campus or any facility owned or leased by the university if it can be determined that such persons or organizations advocate or have participated in illegal acts of domestic violence and/or terrorism. All requests for meetings will be submitted for approval to the President of the university at least 30 days in advance. The President will have final decision-making power to determine who can meet on university property."
The board was apparently reacting to a talk on campus last month by a representative of Earth First!, a radical environmental group that has sought to prevent logging by booby-trapping trees with spikes, which can damage or destroy chain saws and injure the men operating them. The Earth First speakers at Tech apparently did not advocate outright violence, however. The Earth First event was attended by the director of the Virginia Tech forestry resources research center, who challenged the Earth Firsters and provided some mainstream views to the student newspaper.
The resolution presumably would ban speakers from arson-prone groups such Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front and possibly supportive groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The Ku Klux Klan would also presumably be banned.
The resolution was proposed by board member Mitchell Carr, who is president of Augusta Lumber and Supply and Augusta Wood Exporters and a leader in the national lumber industry. "We need some protection from these terrorists," he said.
If implemented, the policy would be similar to that in place in Singapore, the city-state with clean streets, little crime, and a tightly controlled press. As the Kyodo news service put it recently, "Singapore's government does not allow street demonstrations without prior approval. Most applications are turned down and such activities are generally discouraged."
Virginia has a proud heritage of free speech going back to Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, who wrote freedom of speech into the state's Constitution: "the freedoms of speech and of the press are among the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained except by despotic governments," as Jefferson put it.
Thomas Jefferson defended the rights of man against the British army and American loyalists. He probably never figured on sacrificing those rights to the lumber industry.
Wednesday, March 12, 2003
OPRAH FENDS OFF CHALLENGE TO USE OF HER INITIAL
A German publisher has tried his luck in the big casino of American litigation and come up with lemons. Ronald Brockmeyer, proprietor of a pornographic website and occasional magazine, lost in his bid to extract a few dollars from American media superstar Oprah Winfrey, whom he accused of infringing on the name of his publication, which happens to be "O." Ms. Winfrey calls her own magazine "O, the Oprah Magazine."
Brockmeyer could claim first use, since he has managed to put out four printed issues since he launched in 1995. Apparently the web site is his chief stock in trade. The issue turns, however, on whether there is any possibility of confusion between the two enterprises. On this point, U.S. District Judge John Koelt found decisively in favor of Ms. Winfrey. He noted that the German web site features images of sadomasochism and bondage, whereas the Winfrey magazine features wholesome articles on self-improvement. As he put it:
"It is virtually impossible to find even a single image or article from the plaintiff's magazine that would not be jarringly out of place in O, The Oprah Magazine and vice versa. No ordinary prudent reader would view the contents of the magazines as similar and no reasonable reader seeking the contents of one magazine would turn to the other."
Brockmeyer himself is obviously guilty of stealing the title for his site from "Story of O," a sadomasochistic novel that came out some years ago. If he had won his case against Oprah, perhaps next he would have gone after Cirque de Soleil, which has a spectacular show in Las Vegas called "O." It seems to be a popular initial.
A German publisher has tried his luck in the big casino of American litigation and come up with lemons. Ronald Brockmeyer, proprietor of a pornographic website and occasional magazine, lost in his bid to extract a few dollars from American media superstar Oprah Winfrey, whom he accused of infringing on the name of his publication, which happens to be "O." Ms. Winfrey calls her own magazine "O, the Oprah Magazine."
Brockmeyer could claim first use, since he has managed to put out four printed issues since he launched in 1995. Apparently the web site is his chief stock in trade. The issue turns, however, on whether there is any possibility of confusion between the two enterprises. On this point, U.S. District Judge John Koelt found decisively in favor of Ms. Winfrey. He noted that the German web site features images of sadomasochism and bondage, whereas the Winfrey magazine features wholesome articles on self-improvement. As he put it:
"It is virtually impossible to find even a single image or article from the plaintiff's magazine that would not be jarringly out of place in O, The Oprah Magazine and vice versa. No ordinary prudent reader would view the contents of the magazines as similar and no reasonable reader seeking the contents of one magazine would turn to the other."
Brockmeyer himself is obviously guilty of stealing the title for his site from "Story of O," a sadomasochistic novel that came out some years ago. If he had won his case against Oprah, perhaps next he would have gone after Cirque de Soleil, which has a spectacular show in Las Vegas called "O." It seems to be a popular initial.
Tuesday, March 11, 2003
WILL KUCINICH EXPAND LIMITS OF SPEECH IN POLITICS?
The rather narrow limits of political discourse in the country might be expanded considerably if Congressman Dennis Kucinich gains any traction in his long-shot bid for the Democratic nomination for President. Kucinich, known mainly as a left-of-center populist who is against the upcoming war in Iraq, is also a strict vegetarian, and, in certain circles, a proponent of airy New Age views.
"Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self," Kucinich philosophized at a conference on the "Alchemy of Peacebuilding" last summer. "The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars . . . Our vision of interconnectedness resonates with new networks of world citizens in nongovernmental organizations linking from numberless centers of energy, expressing the emergence of a new organic whole." Kucinich went from this opening to a discussion of his proposal to form a Department of Peace in the federal government. (Speech is here.)
Kucinich, whose friends include out-there actress Shirley McLaine, is apparently the first major politician since California Governor Jerry Brown to move in New Age circles. His official campaign material is toned down from the excerpt above, but you can hear the echoes. His web site discusses the Peace Department idea in these terms:
"As we stand on the threshold of a new millennium, it is time to free ourselves, to jettison our illusions and fears and transform age-old challenges with new thinking. We can conceive of peace as not simply the absence of violence but the active presence of the capacity for a higher evolution of human awareness, of respect, trust, and integrity. Of peace, wherein we all may tap the infinite capabilities of humanity to transform consciousness and conditions that impel or compel violence at a personal, group, or national level toward creating understanding, compassion, and love. We can bring forth new understandings where peace, not war, becomes inevitable. Can we move from wars to end all wars to peace to end all war?" (Click here for the site.)
Well, yes, that would be fine. And it would be quite a switch from the usual yammering about Social Security and farm subsidies. Whether Democratic audiences outside of Marin County will warm to this type of thinking is yet to be determined.
More likely, Kucinich will learn quickly that the mainstream political world rolls its eyes at mysticism (as Louis Farrakhan discovered when he used live national television time to talk about numerology) and will retreat to safer grounds, which is too bad. What the heck, maybe a little soul-light magic would fix Social Security.
The rather narrow limits of political discourse in the country might be expanded considerably if Congressman Dennis Kucinich gains any traction in his long-shot bid for the Democratic nomination for President. Kucinich, known mainly as a left-of-center populist who is against the upcoming war in Iraq, is also a strict vegetarian, and, in certain circles, a proponent of airy New Age views.
"Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self," Kucinich philosophized at a conference on the "Alchemy of Peacebuilding" last summer. "The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars . . . Our vision of interconnectedness resonates with new networks of world citizens in nongovernmental organizations linking from numberless centers of energy, expressing the emergence of a new organic whole." Kucinich went from this opening to a discussion of his proposal to form a Department of Peace in the federal government. (Speech is here.)
Kucinich, whose friends include out-there actress Shirley McLaine, is apparently the first major politician since California Governor Jerry Brown to move in New Age circles. His official campaign material is toned down from the excerpt above, but you can hear the echoes. His web site discusses the Peace Department idea in these terms:
"As we stand on the threshold of a new millennium, it is time to free ourselves, to jettison our illusions and fears and transform age-old challenges with new thinking. We can conceive of peace as not simply the absence of violence but the active presence of the capacity for a higher evolution of human awareness, of respect, trust, and integrity. Of peace, wherein we all may tap the infinite capabilities of humanity to transform consciousness and conditions that impel or compel violence at a personal, group, or national level toward creating understanding, compassion, and love. We can bring forth new understandings where peace, not war, becomes inevitable. Can we move from wars to end all wars to peace to end all war?" (Click here for the site.)
Well, yes, that would be fine. And it would be quite a switch from the usual yammering about Social Security and farm subsidies. Whether Democratic audiences outside of Marin County will warm to this type of thinking is yet to be determined.
More likely, Kucinich will learn quickly that the mainstream political world rolls its eyes at mysticism (as Louis Farrakhan discovered when he used live national television time to talk about numerology) and will retreat to safer grounds, which is too bad. What the heck, maybe a little soul-light magic would fix Social Security.
Sunday, March 09, 2003
PROTESTORS TRY TO SHUT DOWN TALK SHOWS
Anti-war protestors in Washington have seized on a new target - the Sunday morning network talk shows. Protestors crowded the sidewalks and tried to block the narrow street outside the ABC-TV studio in an attempt to keep National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice from appearing on "This Week." They claimed that the talk shows are becoming a "platform" for Bush Administration spokespersons supporting the proposed war.
The demonstration is another example of the lack of respect for free speech over on the Left, which has gone from the home of free-speech champions to the intellectual home of its biggest opponents. The demonstrators seem to overlook two facts: first, a few million people every Sunday watch the talk shows to get the latest views straight from the newsmakers, and those people have rights, too; and secondly, the talk shows can also provide opposition views that ought to be heard.
For example, "Meet the Press" this morning also provided a "platform" for the anti-war views of ex-governor Howard Dean of Vermont, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for President. Dean got priceless airtime to project his views. Unfortunately for him, what he projected mostly was an air of incoherence and political opportunism - but that's important information, too.
[edit][3/9/2003 11:54:59 PM | Richard Lobb]
Anti-war protestors in Washington have seized on a new target - the Sunday morning network talk shows. Protestors crowded the sidewalks and tried to block the narrow street outside the ABC-TV studio in an attempt to keep National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice from appearing on "This Week." They claimed that the talk shows are becoming a "platform" for Bush Administration spokespersons supporting the proposed war.
The demonstration is another example of the lack of respect for free speech over on the Left, which has gone from the home of free-speech champions to the intellectual home of its biggest opponents. The demonstrators seem to overlook two facts: first, a few million people every Sunday watch the talk shows to get the latest views straight from the newsmakers, and those people have rights, too; and secondly, the talk shows can also provide opposition views that ought to be heard.
For example, "Meet the Press" this morning also provided a "platform" for the anti-war views of ex-governor Howard Dean of Vermont, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for President. Dean got priceless airtime to project his views. Unfortunately for him, what he projected mostly was an air of incoherence and political opportunism - but that's important information, too.
[edit][3/9/2003 11:54:59 PM | Richard Lobb]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)