Running some 45 pages in the standard government printed version as originally passed, the act is divided into several dozen numbered sections of a paragraph or more which were originally divided into six parts called titles (a seventh was added in 1984 concerning cable television). The first title provides general provisions on the FCC, the second is devoted to common carrier regulation, the third deals with broadcasting (and is of primary concern here), the fourth with administrative and procedural matters, the fifth with penal provisions and forfeitures (fines), and the sixth with miscellaneous matters.

The act has been updated through amendment many times--chiefly with creation of public television in 1967 (provisions on the operation and funding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting expanded title III), and the cable act of 1984 (which created a new title VI devoted to cable regulation, sections of which were expanded in cable legislation of 1992).

| link |

Part of this law, which remains the founding law of broadcasting, is the concept that broadcasters are "public trustees."

"The obligation to serve the public interest is integral to the "trusteeship" model of broadcasting--the philosophical foundation upon which broadcasters are expected to operate. The trusteeship paradigm is used to justify government regulation of broadcasting. It maintains that the electromagnetic spectrum is a limited resource belonging to the public, and only those most capable of serving the public interest are entrusted with a broadcast license. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the government body responsible for determining whether or not applicants for broadcast license meet the requirements to obtain them and for further regulation of those to whom licenses have been granted."

| link |

From this came the notion that the trustee should be expected to serve the public interest.

Interpretation of the "public interest, convenience and necessity" clause has been a continuing source of controversy. Initially, the Federal Radio Commission implemented a set of tests, criteria which would loosely define whether or not the broadcasting entity was fulfilling its obligation to the listening public. Secifications included program diversity, quality reception, and "character" evaluation of licensees. These initial demands set a precedent for future explications of the public interest. (Same source as above.)

Among those explications were the 'fairness doctrine."

In 1949, the FCC established the Fairness Doctrine as a policy which guaranteed (among other things) the presentation of both sides of a controversial issue. This concept is rooted in the early broadcast regulation of the Federal Radio Commission (FRC). Congress declared it part of the Communications Act in 1959 to safeguard the public interest and First Amendment freedoms. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in the case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969). Although the Fairness Doctrine was enacted to promote pluralism, eventually it produced an opposite effect. Concerned that advertising time would be squandered by those who invoked the Fairness Doctrine, broadcasters challenged its constitutionality claiming that it promoted censorship instead of diversity. Declared in violation of the First Amendment, the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, and attempts to provide constitutional protection for the doctrine were vetoed by President Reagan in 1987. (Again, same source.)

But while the Fairness Doctrine was abandoned as law, the regulations surround the concept that broadcasters are public trustees weren't--until recently, under the push of deregulation.

Specific deregulatory moves--some by Congress, others by the FCC--included (a) extending television licenses to five years from three in 1981; (b) expanding the number of television stations any single entity could own grew from seven in 1981 to 12 in 1985 (a situation under consideration for further change in 1995); (c) abolishing guidelines for minimal amounts of non-entertainment programming in 1985; (d) elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987; (e) dropping, in 1985, FCC license guidelines for how much advertising could be carried; (f) leaving technical standards increasingly in the hands of licensees rather than FCC mandates; and (g) deregulation of television's competition (especially cable which went through several regulatory changes in the decade after 1983).

| link |

Following this thread, we come back to a slightly different question, which is: what is the public interest and how is it best served? This is perhaps a better framing question (it is for me, certainly). As this blog is running long, and I'm running short on time, I'll pick up those questions later today.

"WASHINGTON - Six members of Congress live in a $1.1 million Capitol Hill town house that is subsidized by a secretive religious organization, tax records show.

"The lawmakers, all Christians, pay low rent to live in the stately red brick, three-story house on C Street, two blocks from the Capitol. It is maintained by a group alternately known as the "Fellowship" and the "Foundation" and brings together world leaders and elected officials through religion....

"The six lawmakers — Reps. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn.; Bart Stupak, D-Mich.; Jim DeMint, R-S.C.; Mike Doyle, D-Pa.; and Sens. John Ensign, R-Nev. and Sam Brownback, R-Kan. — live in private rooms upstairs."

Interestingly, the article is fairly critical of the group (undermining my post of an hour ago).

"Few in the Fellowship are willing to talk about its mission.

"It organizes the annual National Prayer Breakfast attended by the president, members of Congress and dignitaries from around the world. The group leaves its name off the program, even though it spent $924,373 to host the event in 2001, bringing in $606,292 in proceeds, according to the most recent available IRS records, and pays travel expenses for foreign officials to attend....

"'My living arrangements are totally appropriate and within the House rules,' said Doyle. 'There's no direct correlation between the tenants and the Foundation — there are tenants who have absolutely zero involvement, and some do. And there's no benefit to live there, other than the fact that it's convenient....'

That secrecy is unsettling to the Rev. Barry Lynn, a United Church of Christ minister who heads watchdog group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

'"What concerns people is when you mix religion, political power, and secrecy,' Lynn said. 'Members of official Washington should always be open and direct about the groups they choose to join, just to dispel any concerns that there's an inappropriate or unconscious agenda in these groups.'"

"The survey asked about two specific tax-cut proposals -- the elimination of the tax on dividends, and the elimination of the estate tax.... On the estate tax, it was a different story: although 28 percent of Americans said they did not know enough about the subject to have an opinion on it, a solid majority (57 percent) supported eliminating the estate tax -- only 15 percent were opposed."

This is, of course, the estate tax about which conservatives have made much stink. It's worth listening to the story if you missed it, because when NPR interviewed some of the respondents, they recited back story and verse about why this tax is unjust: double taxation, excuse for the government to seize entire estates, unfairly targets small businesses and farms.

Some quotes from the story (errors in transcription my own):

Man One: "I know this gentleman, he's worked his life doing what he does and does it very well. I know his kids. And he told me once, they would have to sell 90% of what he's invested in in order to pay his taxes. So it's just not fair."

Man Two: "Oftentimes they have to sell the business or the farm to pay the federal taxes, which means they've lost that business forever. That business no longer exists in their family because the government's taxed them so heavily."

Of course, none of this is true. When the same people were polled about the actual law--farms worth $4 million or less are subject to no taxes--not just it's name, respondents reversed themselves. (NPR also explains that most estates are built through wealth from capital gains, which, thanks to the current tax giveaways--err, cuts--aren't taxed at all: no double taxation there.)

Man Two, revising his opinion: "Someone like Bill Gates, if you knock him for ten percent or something to that effect, it's not going to hurt him, it's not going to hurt anyone else involved. Maybe that's a little different. Maybe I'm just stepping off of my platform on that one. And it's not just Bill Gates--I think [anyone with] extreme, extreme, extreme wealth."

(Extreme, extreme, extreme wealth? You mean like, ah, campaign donors?)

So, how is it that a majority of people all misunderstand a law and misunderstand it exactly the same way? Because they consume news that reports these "facts." News that comes from--repeat it with Aunt Emma now--the predominantly conservative corporate media.

"But where is Saddam Hussein now? Nobody — not the Bush administration, not the Western media, not the American people themselves — appear to give much of a damn. Less than a week after the fall of Baghdad, Saddam is already largely forgotten. Bush has stopped mentioning him, as he stopped mentioning Osama....

"News has a notoriously short shelf-life in the US, where the media often appear — to the rest of the world at least — to work on the understanding that the average American viewer has a concentration span only marginally longer than that of a goldfish.

"Considering that the progressive talents of the American people ushered in the IT age, it is extraordinary that they process information so lethargically and naively, falling victim to every misinformation campaign their government concocts."

| Link |

”Like many poor countries, Bolivia was subjected to what is blandly known as structural adjustment—a set of standardized, far-reaching austerity and ‘openness’ measures that typically include the removal of restrictions on foreign investment, the abolition of public subsidies and labor rights, reduced state spending, deregulation, lower tariffs, tighter credit, the encouragement of export-oriented industries, lower marginal tax rates, currency devaluation, and the sale of major public enterprises. In Bolivia’s case, the latter included the national railways, the national airlines, the telephone system, the country’s vast tin mines, and a long list of municipal utilities…. The country’s small, white, wealthy political class seemed to have come to a quiet understanding with the international bankers. The power of the workers and peasants, once organized and formidable, was clearly broken; all of the major parties were now business aligned. And so the parties began to trade the presidency around every election cycle, and their leaders found that they could collaborate profitably with the international corporations that came to run the phone company or pump the oil and gas.”

The process above, instituted through the IMF and World Bank, will play out very nearly the same, although likely under different auspices (the foreign debt-holders, say). Iraq’s weakness makes it ideal for puppet (though democratically-elected) leadership. That it has oil wells and an impressive infrastructure make it desirable to foreign corporations who will naturally take control, as in Bolivia’s case.

Ironically, this process would be far more difficult in a country less disposed to democratic rule. Other attempts to control non-democratic countries in the Middle East are well-documented failures (US dealings with Saddam Hussein a spectacular example). It is only under the guise of independent rule that the US has any hope of establishing control in the region, and it is only with a divided, weakened country like Iraq that there is hope for a controllable, Latin-America style democracy.

The process feeds on division. While foolish anti-war types like me were busy howling that this war would destablize the region, Rumsfeld was nodding sagely: that's the only way this model can spread. In countries like Iran, where the population is generally homogenous, the Bushies need to stir up a little trouble. As a new regime establishes itself in Iraq, there will inevitably be charges that it's a US puppet. The fall-out will lead to divided populations. The evidence that the US is after destablization abounds (and I don't know how I missed it): the war's not even over, and the US threatens Syria? An ally?

And so the US fiddles while Iraqis loot. Even the most nonpolitical Americans have a gut sense that this probably isn’t so hot for a healthy democracy in the long run. They wonder why the US didn’t foresee or try to prevent it. We’re left to conclude that a healthy democracy isn’t what the President’s after. He’s after an unhealthy one. And for that, looting and revenge are just what the free-market colonialist ordered.

GENEVA - The United Nations Human Rights Commission on Tuesday overwhelmingly condemned Israel for "mass killing" of Palestinians, and for its settlement policy in the Palestinian territories.

The United States was alone in voting against all four resolutions, saying that the criticism of Israel was one-sided and unfair.

| link |

All of this seems to confirm anti-war suspicions that the US would have no real stomach for rebuilding Iraq and that a war would hasten anti-American hatred. The bungling of the war and post-war chaos is bad enough, but the administration seems hell-bent on pissing off as many people as it can. My theory is that the administration is so deep with yes-men that it never departs from its own propoganda. The rest of the world, of course, has become deeply sensitized to each message the White House sends. Thus when Franklin Graham--who called Islam an "evil religion"--was invited to speak at the Pentagon on Palm Sunday, the Muslim world got the message. Thus when the US stands alone in defence of Israel--while simultaneously threatening Syria for much smaller violations--the world gets the message.

Yesterday on the Newshour, professor As'ad AbuKhalil really gave voice to these messages.

But the question we should raise is this: Does the United States think that it can really take a case to the international community on the basis of some illegal flyers and night vision goggles that they found across the border? Does this amount to a case they can convince the world?

In addition to that, they have to understand the credibility of the United States' allegation on Iraq even after the war, do not stand. Where are these al-Qaida members and leaders that we had heard so much about that were sheltered in Baghdad? Will they be turned over?

We will see a new fanatical movement -- just as the 1991 war produced bin Laden -- I brace myself and wonder what kind of a new fanatical fundamentalist movement we'll have on our hands, and when something nasty and sinister occurs a year or two from now, Americans will innocently wonder, "why do they hate us?"

And while we're talking US credibility, what about the North Korea situation? The US is cockily trumpeting the success their "policy" produced: provoking North Korea to request multilateral rather than face-to-face discussions. And they confidently talk of winning a war with North Korea. The truth is, Kim Jong Il has made a fool of the US and will continue to do so. The US--and more importantly, South Korea--can't afford a war with NK. There would literally be hundreds of thousands of casualties. If the Iraq invasion proved anything, it's that the US cannot afford a real war. Support for an imperial policy just isn't there.

Unfortunately, Kim Jong Il may not play nice. While the White House bungles (and bungles and bungles) what will North Korea do? Does the White House really wish to call North Korea out? On this issue, Frontline did a nice piece last week. The website has additional info, if you want to really freak yourself out.

All right, enough.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Syria just needs to cooperate with us. We've made -- I made that clear on Friday. I will, if need be, reiterate it today. The Syrian government needs to cooperate with the United States and our coalition partners and not harbor any Baathists, any military officials, any people who need to be held to account for their tenure during what we are learning more and more about. It was one of the most horrendous governments ever.

Q Could they face military action if they don't cooperate?

THE PRESIDENT: They just need to cooperate.

Colin Powell, Yesterday

"In light of this new environment they [Syria] should review their actions and their behavior, not only with respect to who gets haven in Syria and weapons of mass destruction but especially the support of terrorist activity. With respect to Syria, of course we will examine possible measures of a diplomatic, economic or other nature as we move forward."

Donald Rumsfeld, Yesterday

"We have seen the chemical weapons tests in Syria over the past 12, 15 months. [W]e have intelligence that shows that Syria has allowed Syrians and others to come across the border into Iraq, people armed and people carrying leaflets indicating that they'll be rewarded if they kill Americans and members of the coalition. And we have intelligence that indicates that some Iraqi people have been allowed into Syria, in some cases to stay, in some cases to transit. [On Syrian shipments of arms to Iraq.] We consider such trafficking as hostile acts and will hold the Syrian government accountable for such shipments."

Ari Fleischer, Today

"Well, it is time for Syria to understand. This is a day of emerging liberation for the people of Iraq and it's important for President Assad of Syria -- who is a new leader, a young man -- to understand that the future needs to be different from the past, and that the Iraqi people deserve no less, the region deserves no less.

"Syria is a nation that has long been on the list of terrorist nations. They should not do that. They should not be that way. No nation should be. And that's a message the United States will not be shy about saying to Syria or other nations."

And more creepily, this exchange:

MR. FLEISCHER: I think that what's next is Syria needs to seriously ponder the implications of their actions in terms of harboring Iraqis who need not and should not be harbored. They should think seriously about their program to develop and to have chemical weapons. I think it's time for them to think through where they want their place to be in the world.

Q Why shouldn't people take that as a threat?

After that, Fleischer didn't answer the question, but went to another reporter.

Although the usual pundits have expressed surprise at these threats (which is exactly what they are), I doubt seriously if anything can dissuade the administration from invading Syria if it wishes to. What's particularly alarming to me is that so few "average" Americans seem to care. Let's leave aside the issue of war and peace--why isn't there outrage at these new threats? The war with Iraq isn't even over, and at the moment, the lack of WMDs has made liars of the administration. Now vague concern about a country no one from the administration has heretofore mention hasn't aroused more than a yawn across the country? I sputter in confusion...

"In Saddam City, a young cleric ominously hinted Monday that handing back authority over the densely populated neighborhood to a central government may be less than certain....

"Everything in Saddam City suggests power is firmly in the hands of the clerics and that the area's mosques are functioning as the centers of power. There also are many telltale signs that a central, albeit concealed, power is in existence."

The US doesn't wish the UN to be involved in post-war Iraq, and seems to have no plan itself. We've already witnessed a number of disasters that emerged from US inaction and ignorance, and now the US has taken action to worsen the problem.

The dead are still laying in the streets of Tikrit as this happens, but in Washington all we hear is talk of invading Syria. Am I mistaken, or has the White House gone mad?

"Administration critics should feel shock over their bellyaching about the wayward war plan. All of us feel awe over the professionalism and power of the U.S. military. Now we know....

"Other commentators were far scarier. Any U.S. attempt at 'regime change' would, they warned, trigger Scud and other missile attacks to obliterate Israel and U.S. troops stationed in the region; provoke the igniting of hundreds, no thousands, of Iraqi oil fields; prompt a wave of terrorism across America; impel mobs into the Arab street to foment revolution against 'friendly regimes'; cause flooding across Iraqi plains; induce Saddam Hussein, his back against the wall, to attack us and his own people with chemical and biological weapons

(Nice to see the hawks have got their eye on the ball: scoring political points.) On the other hand, there appear to be mobs fomenting revolution against--well, hard to say, amid all the chaos. They're sure fomenting something.

In fact, this bloody mess of looting and lawlessness--not to mention the assassinations, Kurdish agression--was perfectly predictable. Well, predictable by a random blogger in Oregon, anyway, if not by the US military. If anything, it's further evidence of a hugely botched operation.

Among the predictable, yet somehow unanticipated horrors going on in Iraq:

• As chaos rises, the hospital system is breaking down.
• Archaelogical artifacts looted.
• Suicide bombings begin, leading to civilian casualties.
• Turkey's becoming agitated and is ready to send in the troops.

Apparently, along with the expectation that the Iraqis would greet Americans as conquering heroes, the White House forsaw a scene of social bliss following the liberation. My question is: at what point do Americans--the two-thirds who think the war is going swimmingly, that is--begin to regard our leadership as grossly unprepared for the task at hand? When does the word incompetence start to figure in prominently. How about now: this whole operation was an exercise in incompetence.

"The court overturned $145 million in punitive damages that a Utah jury awarded against State Farm and that the Utah Supreme Court upheld. The jury had awarded $1 million in compensatory damages to a Utah couple, State Farm policyholders, who sued the company for its refusal to settle a claim and for exposing them to personal liability beyond the limits of their policy for a car accident in which a jury found the husband liable. State Farm eventually paid the claim.

"Justice Kennedy said the ratio of 145 to 1 resulted in a damage award that was 'neither reasonable nor proportionate to the wrong committed.' He called it 'an irrational and arbitrary deprivation of the property of the defendant.'"

| link |

It is potentially controversial because Democrats, who get truckloads of dough from trial lawyers, argue that there should be no limit. I disagree. A number of industries are seriously threatened by these massive lawsuits, not the least of which is medicine (because malpractice insurance is through the roof). The argument is that if massive judgments can't be brought against corrupt corporations, they'll run roughshod over the consumer. Of course, I'm all for punishing corporations, but the judiciary is the wrong branch of government to deal with the problem: it's a job for legislators.

I'd like to propose something else to bloggers who respect life, I don't care what your political persuasion. For the innocent of Iraq, for the journalists who've died, for all the dead soldiers, I propose that we make Thursday a day of silence in the blogosphere. No posts. No comments. Perhaps a memorial message to whoever you wish, posted as a final post the night before."

Actually, I think it would make more sense, given that we're wordy types and our words seem to help, that we offer up a single, coordinated word. Send out the message through the blogosphere that at, say noon eastern time on Friday, we all post the word PEACE. (I'm open to other suggestions, but peace is something to which we all aspire.) Just that.

[Or Thursday, as the case may be.]

“The sandstorm is coming back. You can smell it; it smells like the earth. Whenever I smell this, it reminds me of dead people. Think about it. Think of Iraq’s history. What is that history but thousands of years of wars and killing? This is something we have always done rather well, and a lot of, right back to Sumerian and Babylonian times. Millions of people have died in this earth and become part of it. Their bodies are part of the land, the earth we are breathing.”

This is part of that shadow reality Americans don’t experience. For us, democracy is available at the ballot box rather than the at end of a gun. Our rhetoric is heated because our democracy—ten generations since anyone died for it—is cheap and bloodless. When we fight our wars, the dead rot on foreign soil, become part of the dust of foreign countries. Our air is clean and dustless.

Will the war have been worth it? There will be many answers. We Americans should pay close attention to the answers of those who actually paid the price.

• one out of every 142 US residents is incarcerated;
• 12% of blacks aged 20-34 are incarcerated;
• only 1.6% of whites of the same age are.

The US has long been the world's leader in jailings. According to the International Centre for Prison Studies, the US's incarceration rate is 686 per 100,000 citizens. That's twice as many as Panama, and four times as many as Mexico and Jamaica. But don't think this is some kind of cultural or legal mandate: in the mid-70s, our incarceration rate was a quarter what it is now.

Oh yeah, and in light of the Mike Hawash jailing, it's again time to pose hard questions about that white/black incarceration rate differential. What the hell's gone wrong with our country?

PORTLAND, Ore., April 3 — For the last two weeks, Maher Hawash, a 38-year-old software engineer and American citizen who was from the West Bank and grew up in Kuwait, has been held in a federal prison here, though he has not been charged with a crime or brought before a judge.

Relatives and friends of Mr. Hawash, who works for the Intel Corporation and is married to a native Oregonian, say he has no idea why he was arrested by a federal terrorism task force when he arrived for work at the Intel parking lot in Hillsboro, a Portland suburb. The family home was raided at dawn on the same day by nearly a dozen armed police officers, who woke Mrs. Hawash and the family's three children, friends said.

Mr. Hawash, who is known as Mike, has yet to be interrogated and is being kept in solitary confinement, his supporters say.

Federal officials will not comment on Mr. Hawash, though they have been pressed by Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, and by a group of supporters led by a former Intel vice president, for basic information about why he is being detained.

The excuse in his case is another loophole in the law that allows indefinite detainment without charge (although in this case he's been provided counsel): the "material witness" clause. (More info on his case here.)

Again, let's just review the facts: Mike Hawash is a US citizen. He's been denied his constitutional rights under the fifth and sixth amendments. And why? Because, in this third year of the new millennium the US has suspended the rights of a US citizen solely on the basis of his race.

Tomorrow at 8:30 am, we're going to rally at the Portland courthouse where he's supposed to receive a hearing tomorrow. If he does, let's hope the judge in the case not only frees Mike, but condemns this grotesque perversion of the rule of law.

(I'll be sure to let you know how it goes.)

"Michael Kelly, 46, the Atlantic Monthly editor-at-large and Washington Post columnist who abandoned the safety of editorial offices to cover the war in Iraq, has been killed in a Humvee accident while traveling with the Army's 3rd Infantry Division."

Oh my god. No one took more heat in these pages than Michael Kelly, and yet I'm shocked and deeply saddened to hear this news. I'll miss you, Mr. Kelly.

"You're doing it all wrong. There's a reason why your daily protests have failed to invigorate the anti-war movement. You have no leadership. You have no direction.

"It's time to come up with a plan and stop this senseless and annoying lollygagging about town. Everyone's getting bored with it, and you're losing support. Say what you want about the U.S. war machine, they'll never be accused of lollygagging. That's why if you want to stop the enemy, you need to think like the enemy.

"The U.S. military is successful because they have a clear objective and spend time thinking of ways to obtain that objective. And just like the thousands of troops in Iraq, peace protesters have enough hippie power to create a "shock and awe" campaign in Portland that will captivate the nation--and all it takes is a little military-style planning.

DIVIDE AND CONQUER

"Take a tip from the Marines and break this huge group into smaller units. (For fun you can give each unit a macho shithead name like the 101st Airborne Screaming Eagles.) It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that large groups equal restricted movement. Posting smaller units at different locations within the city forces the cops (who we shall also refer to as "the defenders") to disperse their troops, and weaken their position. This is called "isolation."

Do yourself a favor and go read the whole article. Very funny stuff.

“[The policy of national security is to defend] . . . the United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders. While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country.”
[US policy on national security, Sept 19, 2002]

This violates just war theory.

I believe this for three reasons. One. It’s not possible to read the national security policy as advocating self-defense, which is the only circumstance under which one may argue just cause for invasion. “Destroying threat” is not tantamount to self-defense. And next, how do you possibly qualify “defending our interests abroad” as self defense? It’s not possible.

Two. There’s a serious argument to be made that terrorism throws the whole notion of just law on its ear. How is it possible to defend oneself against unseen forces except by aggressive policy? It’s an interesting hypothesis. But in order for it to carry any water as a just strategy, it cannot be pre-emptive and unilateral, both of which the US reserves as its right. If a new dispensation is going to be added to just war theory—that just cause includes pre-emptive strikes—it must also include further conditions. In the case of pre-emption, it must include a condition of international support.

Three. The only reason my first two points are even being discussed is because of the assumption of the US’s noble intent. This is where the argument constantly ends: a proponent of the war concludes that despite violations of just law conditions, the result will be positive because the US is the champion of liberty and democracy. But if it were China’s policy of unilateral pre-emption we were weighing against just war theory, there would be no contest. Further, China would be denounced by the world, and quite possibly face international military action for invading another country under these conditions.

Further reading: ”Iraq and the Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Self-Defence”

"The group’s main objective is to help refugees and people who have lost their homes or are sick and hungry as a result of the war, Graham told Beliefnet. 'We realize we’re in an Arab country and we just can’t go out and preach,' Graham said in a telephone interview from Samaritan’s Purse headquarters in Boone, N.C.

However, he added, 'I believe as we work, God will always give us opportunities to tell others about his Son….We are there to reach out to love them and to save them, and as a Christian I do this in the name of Jesus Christ...."

'This is not just a great opportunity to do humanitarian work but to share God's love,' said Sam Porter, state disaster relief director for the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma. 'We understand that the individual people of Iraq have done nothing to hurt us. We want to help them to have true freedom in Jesus Christ.'”

The group organizing the effort is Graham's Samaritan's Purse, essentially a missionizing group who uses international disasters as an entre for spreading the word. And Franklin himself called Islam a "very evil and wicked religion."

For the sake of clarity, let me underscore that Samaritan's Purse is not affiliated with the federal government, nor is this a government initiative. But whether those distinctions are relevant to Iraqis, now looking at the prospect of having their post-war suffering tended to by missionizing Christians, is not as clear.

[Correction: Atrios points out that Samaritan's Purse does receive federal aid. And so the plot thickens.]

"The Administration hawks seem oblivious, too, of the consequences of a unilateral, imperial-style occupation of Iraq. They welcome it. By embracing imperialism frankly—by proclaiming that the goal of their policy is the maintenance and expansion of unchallenged power—they congratulate themselves as honest and hardheaded. The Administration hawks seem oblivious, too, of the consequences of a unilateral, imperial-style occupation of Iraq. They welcome it. By embracing imperialism frankly—by proclaiming that the goal of their policy is the maintenance and expansion of unchallenged power—they congratulate themselves as honest and hardheaded."

The article has the quality of an historical account written in the present tense. Much as histories are written, Remick describes the context from which failures arise for the administration.

"Russia, which is led by a former colonel of the K.G.B., still deeply resents its decline, and what it sees as a string of broken American promises. At various points, we promised not to hasten the unification of Germany, not to expand nato, not to dispense with the A.B.M. treaty. In each case, we did what we wanted, simply because we felt it was in our interest and because we could. The new conservative theology too often seems to combine power with a preening delight in brandishing it; the very notion of coöperation is suspect."

His analysis is underscored by a wonderful quote, which might have sufficed on its own (except that he's not paid to locate quotes, but to make them). From Eisenhower's speech in London on June 12, 1945.

"Humility must always be the portion of any man who receives acclaim earned in blood of his followers and sacrifices of his friends.

"Conceivably a commander may have been professionally superior. He may have given everything of his heart and mind to meet the spiritual and physical needs of his comrades. He may have written a chapter that will glow forever in the pages of military history. Still, even such a man—if he existed—would sadly face the fact that his honors cannot hide in his memories the crosses marking the resting places of the dead. They cannot soothe the anguish of the widow or the orphan whose husband or father will not return.

"The only attitude in which a commander may with satisfaction receive the tributes of his friends is in the humble acknowledgment that no matter how unworthy he may be, his position is the symbol of great human forces that have labored arduously and successfully for a righteous cause."

The President seems to love to imagine himself pyschic kin to Churchill and Roosevelt. Eisenhower's speech and Reminck's article remind us that there was a lot more to those figures' stature than valiant armies.

Ljubljana - The United States has mistakenly named Slovenia as a partner in its war against Iraq - and even offered it a share of the money budgeted for the conflict.

One day after hundreds of Slovenians hit the streets to protest the inclusion of their nation in the US war budget, Prime Minister Anton Rop said Washington had goofed...

"We are a part of no such coalition. We are a part of a coalition for peace," Rop said.

Lesson: offer more than pocket change when bribing foreign countries (not everyone's as poor and desperate as Oregon, after all).

• Our PURPOSE is to reach leaders for Jesus Christ.

• Our OBJECTIVE is "Pray for all in authority, that we might lead Godly lives."

• Our STRATEGY is to use Prayer Breakfasts. The acceptance of Prayer Breakfasts is one of the most viable strategies for reaching into community life and impacting business and governmental leaders. Leaders desire to come, get involved, and experience a fresh new reminder of our country's Spiritual Heritage."

In the Harper's article, the author identifies several known Family members who are in the House of Representatives, including Jim DeMint (SC) and Josph Pitts (PA), both of whom are listed as co-sponsors of this resolution.

Now, not to put too fine a point on it, but here's the title of the bill:

Recognizing the public need for fasting and prayer in order to secure the blessings and protection of Providence for the people of the United States and our Armed Forces during the conflict in Iraq and under the threat of terrorism at home.

Again: securing the blessings and protection of Providence. Providence, for those of you who didn't go to Catholic school, is (according to Webster's): "Foresight; care; especially, the foresight and care which God manifests for his creatures; hence, God himself, regarded as exercising a constant wise prescience."

Thus the House of Representatives has passed a resolution calling for prayers that God intercede on the United States' behalf against a Muslim country.

Let's leave aside for the moment the Constitutional issues (the resolution was non-binding). Let's instead look merely at the strategic implications of such a public move. The US is at war against a Muslim country. Its standing throughout the Muslim world is just slightly better than Israel's. We're so unpopular in the Muslim country we're attacking that the locals would prefer the 30-year reign of terror continue rather than welcome Amercans to "liberate" them. And now 346 Christian politicians have called on God to defeat the Iraqis.

What in the hell were they thinking?

"WASHINGTON -- The House passed a resolution Thursday calling for a national day of humility, prayer and fasting in a time of war and terrorism.

The resolution, passed 346-49, says Americans should use the day of prayer 'to seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings and to learn how we can do better in our everyday activities, and to gain resolve in meeting the challenges that confront our nation.'"

Well hell, shock and awe didn't work, how about a little of the Almighty? This is remarkable. Is Washington really so out of touch with the situation in Iraq that it can't see the potential for the intense hatred this will inspire?

From the text of the resolution:

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the President should issue a proclamation--
(1) designating a day for humility, prayer, and fasting for all people of the United States; and
(2) calling on all people of the United States--
(A) to observe the day as a time of prayer and fasting;
(B) to seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings and to learn how we can do better in our everyday activities; and
(C) to gain resolve in meeting the challenges that confront our Nation.

Oh man....

Washington
"(March 19, 2003) OLYMPIA --The state House passed an anti-terrorism bill a few minutes before midnight, sidestepping a fight over gun control that had threatened to stall the measure.

"Requested by Gov. Gary Locke and Attorney General Christine Gregoire, House Bill 1210 would create six new terrorism-related crimes, including possession of a weapon of mass destruction, making terrorist threats, and providing material support to terrorists."

New York
"(March 22, 2003) Donohue has been touring the state this week to put pressure on the Democratic-led Assembly to pass an anti-terrorism bill pushed by Gov. George Pataki and the state Senate.

"Among the many provisions, the bill would authorize 'roving' wiretaps to make it easier for authorities to listen to calls of suspects using one or more cellular phones. The bills also would create the crime of cyberterrorism and widen the ability of law enforcement to prosecute potential terrorists.

"The legislation came under fire this week from defense lawyers and the New York Civil Liberties Union, who claim it would infringe on citizens’ rights and constitutional guarantees.

“'They would create extraordinary new police powers that would undermine basic freedoms,' said Robert Perry, the union’s legislative counsel."

Nevada
"(February 27, 2003) CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) -- The author of an Assembly anti-terrorism bill that's less sweeping than a Senate proposal said Thursday he's open to even narrower wording to ensure Nevadans' civil liberties aren't threatened.

"Brown's bill has several descriptions of terrorism, including one that defines it as an act that would 'disrupt, affect or influence the conduct or policy of a governmental entity by intimidation or coercion.'

"AB99, as amended, would outlaw 'any act that involves the use or the threatened or attempted use of sabotage or violence' to cause such disruptions, or to retaliate against a government agency or 'cause widespread panic or civil unrest' through attacks that result in 'substantial destruction.'"

Oklahoma
"(March 17, 2003) Oklahoma City (AP) - A state House committee today approved bills giving law enforcement agencies more power to investigate suspected terrorists.

"One bill by the Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee authorizes vaccination programs for teams that would respond to a bioterror attack.

"Another bill gives the attorney general authority to ask for wiretaps of terror suspects and allows the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation to investigate terrorism. It also allows for closed-door meetings for officials to assess and discuss acts of terrorism and exempts documents involving terrorism assessments and response plans from the Open Records Act.

"The bills have already passed the state Senate and now go to the full House for action."

It doesn't hurt to repeat: there are inadvertant, negative consequences to war.

"What person in his or her right mind actually believes a man like George W. Bush will change his views on the basis of a peace march, no matter how huge?

"The history of the Vietnam War shows clearly how ineffective protests are. No other war in American history had as many active opponents, and no other war lasted as long."

As a rebuttal, let me offer an example from our own little corner of the world. Here in Portland, we have a healthy (though under-celebrated) protest corps. But the local paper is center-right: it urged readers to vote Bush and it supports the war. Early articles were decidedly negative about the protesters. Not, I think, intentionally; everyone was in shock about the war, and for those with traditional, support-our-troop views, the early, loud protests were unseemly. But the protests continued every day, and increasingly, the discussion about the war and protests has changed. Listen:

"From bridges or helicopters, they blend into indistinguishable masses. Up close, they are of all ages, and they come from a wide spectrum of backgrounds and beliefs. They are united, however, in one thing: They all oppose the war in Iraq."

The local paper decided to give the protesters a fair shake, and the results are remarkable. For 24 hours, a reporter and photographer followed the protesters and wrote a wonderful piece about their lives and their views. Read it here.

It humanizes and gives voice to the anti-war movement. Much like the dozens of soldier profiles the media prepares, this one paints a sympathetic portrait of Americans with strong, patriotic views. I think it would be impossible to read it and not feel inspired by their voices.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate reversed itself Tuesday and voted to cut President Bush's proposed $726 billion tax cut in half, dealing a blow to the keystone of his economic recovery plan.

A week after refusing to do so, senators voted 51-48 to reduce the tax reduction's price tag to $350 billion through 2013. Bush has said his plan - which would eliminate taxes on corporate dividends and reduce income taxes - is needed to create jobs, boost investment and spur the slumbering economy.

It's a victory, but for whom? The spinmeisters are spinning. Atrios calls it advantage Democrats. But Dave Johnson and Ruminate This howl foul: three fitty's a pretty decent tax cut. Meanwhile, Ari Fleischer's still talkin big: "We'll see what the ultimate outcome is, if that vote is the final vote. They have many more to come."

But I think the real story is buried in paragraph 17:

Just Friday, the Senate voted 62-38 to reject a similar move to pare Bush's tax plan in half. That plan would have taken the additional money Bush wanted for tax cuts and used it for deficit reduction.

Let's see, last Friday. Oh right--back when everyone thought the war was going to be a cakewalk. When all the spinning is done, expect senators to look at the collapsing economy, out-of-work constituents, and insolvent states and then look at the war tally and quietly drop the tax cuts to nil.

• From ally during the Iran/Iraq war to foe during the Kuwait invasion (even leaving aside the issue of whether the US gave permission to invade);

• Failure to take Saddam out during the Kuwait debacle, which placed pro-American supporters at Saddam’s mercy;

• Iraqis watched as the US twice sold out the Kurds, most recently offering Northern Iraq to Turkey as part of the pay-off for Turkish land.

Into that context rides George W. Bush, a wild-eyed cowboy who smugly ignores international will. When the issue of Iraq arises, he ignores the UN. And when the war begins, he tries to achieve compliance through the practice of “shock and awe.”

Let’s see now, why exactly did we think the Iraqis were going to run into the streets with open arms?

I’m not a very good informant on all of this. Like others, I’m having a hard time mustering the strength to watch this all play out. So maybe it will turn out all right. Maybe the Iraqis will put down their guns. I know the US won’t, so I hope the Iraqis will. All I sense is a lot of death in the offing. But I have to admit, I can’t blame the Iraqis for not laying their guns down—I wouldn’t trust George, either. It’s a horrible crime that the Iraqis have to pay the price for America’s history of betrayal.

(I know, I know, you’re gonna torch me with that Chomsky anti-American argument. But before you do, look at it from the perspective of the average Iraqi resident.)

SECTION 1. { + (1) A person commits the crime of terrorism if the person knowingly plans, participates in or carries out any act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt:
(a) The free and orderly assembly of the inhabitants of the State of Oregon;
(b) Commerce or the transportation systems of the State of Oregon; or
(c) The educational or governmental institutions of the State of Oregon or its inhabitants.

More on it in this article.

It's absurdly unconstitutional, and is really just a stunt by Republican congressman John Minnis to demonize the sizeable number of anti-war protesters who continue to pester the city of Portland. But the fact that it's going to occupy time at the Oregon capitol should underscore an argument I've been trying to make here for the past week: America absolutely does not want to hear the anti-war message.

Some of you have advanced the “ends justify the means” argument with regard to the war—things are going well there (except now they’re not, particularly), so what’s the fuss?

Well, how’s this for one answer?