stephenhoy's excellent blog over at xanga has a nice post today about the neo-con strategy to tame the middle east. It's good reading, and I recommend it. The main point seems to be the following (and I paraphrase):

The Bush team's strategy for defeating terrorism is to invade Iraq, and set up a stable democracy in order to apply pressure to neighboring countries. The pressure will be applied through the example of a Middle East democracy, which will cause the citizens of, say, Iran or Syria to begin to demand reform. The pressure of US troops in the neighborhood will also cause these suspect regimes to straight up their act, and start playing by the rules. Thus, though Iraq has been a difficult struggle, the battle is already won, and the effects are starting to be shown.

Which makes a lot of sense, unless you really think about it. What, exactly, is our goal here? If the goal is to create stability in the Middle East, then this strategy may be effective. If, however, the goal is to eliminate the threat from terrorists, then this goal is woefully inadequate.

For example, this goal assumes that taming countries like Iraq, Iran, and Syria will diminish the terrorist threat. While this may be true to some extent, there is no reason to assume that these victories will do anything to diminish the threat that is posed by Pakistan, North Korea, North Africa, or even the foothills of Montana. Tame Syria, and the terrorists run to Somalia. Boots on the ground in Somalia? The terrorists take refuge in Pakistan. There's no way to win.

In short, this idea is bankrupt. It is a bombs and boots on the ground mentality that is not allowing the necessary work of foreign policy reform to take place. Instead of taking a step back after 9/11 and asking ourselves "why are these folks so pissed?", we have simply yelled "bombs away!" for the last four years. So far, the results are mixed, but one thing has become clear: terrorism has no state, and no face. It is not Bin Laden, it is not Iraq. It is a resistance to United States' power, and the hegemonic culture that we are perpetuating around the globe. It is a fight against Coke and Britney Spears' ass as much as it is a fight against "freedom".

stephenhoy asks for historical examples of peaceful resistance bringing about change from dictatorship to self-government. While this seems a tall (and very specific) order, there are some excellent examples:

Nelson Mandela and the end of Apartheid:

Mandela remained in prison until February 1990, when sustained ANC campaigning and international pressure led to his release on 11 February, on the orders of state president F.W. de Klerk and the ending of the ban on the ANC. He and de Klerk shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993. Mandela had already been awarded the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought in 1988.

Augusto Pinochet of Chile:

From May 1983 the opposition and labour movements organized demonstrations and strikes against the regime, provoking violent responses by the security forces ... open presidential elections were held at the same time as the election of the congress that would have happened in either case. Pinochet left the presidency on March 11, 1990.

There are others: the Civil Rights Movement in America, for example, or Ghandi. The point is clear: there are ways to change the destructive, violent behavior of terrorists. One way is to fight them with guns and bombs. Another way is to unite the world in defiance of terror. The unity will never be accomplished at the point of the gun, and it will not be easy. But it is the right way to win the war.

The fact that I even have to argue this point shows how out of touch with Jesus the conservative movement has become. We hear much about the secularization of our society, but it is the secularization of the conservatives that is the most troubling, and dangerous threat to the future of this planet.

Oh, there is one other example I forgot to mention. Jesus Christ overthrew the Roman Empire with radical teachings like:

Matthew 5:44 - But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.

6 comments

Talk about a rollercoaster ride. On Saturday I presented my work on the Potawatomi Trail of Death to the First Annual Teaching American History Conference in Bloomington. The presentation went way better than I expected, with a full room and an interested audience (what else can one expect?). They laughed at my jokes, and my increasing distance from reality did not seem a distraction.

During the Q & A, several questions were directed at the validity of the Trail of Death as an actual tragedy. For example, this Professor questioned whether the 2 month, 660 mile march was actually the cause of the deaths, or if the typhoid epidemic at the time might have done them in. Dr. Wyman asked about cholera, while another academic wanted to know the perspective of the white settlers, and why I don't have, say, Henry Sadoris' take on the whole thing in the lesson.

As we went back and forth (rather fruitfully, I might add) it became clear that another myth of the Right was dissolving in front of my eyes. Where were the "liberal" professors, I wondered? Why were these white, middle America professors pushing so hard against the notion that the white man's removal of the Potawatomi was a tragedy which caused the deaths of almost 50 people?

Hmmm. Maybe the Universities aren't bastions of liberal ideology after all?

So coming off the buzz of the presentation, I went to church this morning to hear about our new worship pastor, who is a woman I hardly know (she only started attending last summer). She seems nice enough, but my best friend was passed over for this position because of this woman and I now find myself having very hurt feelings. She is an Asian-American, and specializes in contemporary African-American worship. I can't stop wondering if she was hired because of the issue of diversity, which seems to be predominant in our direction these days. I am considering leaving this church, which I've attended for over 10 years, because of this turn of events.

So I guess the universities are becoming the hotbeds of conservative thinking, and the churches are liberalizing themselves.

Maybe I should take up video games. 3 comments

That's the way I would describe the election of Laurel Prussing to the office of Mayor in our little town. Interesting is good. It is possible that she will be as bad as they say, and ruin everything good about Urbana, but somehow I doubt it. In my opinion, ruining Urbana looks like making Urbana more like Champaign. We need to get back to our roots, reject the tides of capitalist conformity, and dedicate ourselves to making every change count for something. We should try to be an example of how to develop a town intelligently.

It's better to have a future that is interesting to watch. How progressive will Prussing become? Will she moderate her radical side at the altar of consensus, or will she try to make our town a bastion of liberal idealism? And, better yet, what will happen if she does become the "moonbat" the folks on the right are calling her? Will the world end if we raise taxes to better fund the schools? If we marry homosexuals at City Hall? What if that new Chilis goes up in Savoy instead of Urbana? Will we suddenly become PoorTown USA?

Somehow I doubt it. In fact, I think we may attract more and more intelligent, thoughtful people to our little town. Build some nice, quality, affordable developments. Encourage small business growth. Encourage tolerance. Sounds like a recipe for success to me.

No wonder conservatives backed Tod. If there's one thing conservatives hate, it's interesting. 4 comments

Though I don't yet know the winner of today's Mayoral primary, one thing has become clear during this election: development has become THE issue for Urbana.

Listening to the Mayoral forum on WILL last week, I was struck by the consensus on development. According to all the candidates, we need more of it and we need it NOW!

But a careful look at what Urbana has been doing to attract developers has brought me to a disturbing conclusion: we don't have a clue. Take a ride east on Florida Avenue some evening and take a look at the new development out there. Bland, boring boxes slapped together with nail guns, cheap caulk and primer. I used to work on these same kinds of houses in the suburbs of Chicago. Let me tell you, they're crap.

But even more disturbing is the price Urbana has paid for these developments. A recent report from the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the U of I compared three housing developments in Urbana (Stone Creek, Landis Farm, and Fairway Estates) with similar developments in seven other cities (including Champaign). The results were stunning.

While towns like ...

Aurora, Normal, Peoria and St. Charles require new developments to make contributions for the construction of schools ... and require land dedication or cash contributions for the development of parks ... Urbana does not require new developments to make any contribution to off-site infrastructure. (emphasis mine)

and while ...

Aurora, Bloomington, Normal, and Peoria imposed fees or land dedications ... no fees or assessments were imposed on the three developments in Urbana. Urbana provided considerable subsidies for land or onsite infrastructure on two of its three developments. (emphasis mine)

... to the tune of about $1.6 million ($1.55 million to Stone Creek, $40K to Fairway Estates).

Yes, that's right folks we were the ONLY town in the bunch that actually subsidized developers. In fact, towns like Aurora have come to understand that they actually hold the cards when it comes to development. Currently in Aurora new developers pay impact fees for fire department coverage, public works, roads, public parks, and schools. Even with all these fees, the research suggests that Aurora will come up several thousand dollars shy of the estimated $15-30,000 cost of providing off-site infrastructure for EACH DWELLING!

We in Urbana deserve a leader who will fight to make the developers pay for every inch of our land they are allowed to develop. I sincerely hope our new Mayor will take the initiative to stop the giving away of our most precious resource: our land. 5 comments

Republicans in Urbana are up in arms over the legal fight for voters in the upcoming Mayoral primary. The self-proclaimed Moral Compasses of our community are now encouraging Republican voters to commit election fraud on February 22, by voting in the Democrat's primary. This is acceptable if the voter in question has not committed themselves to the Republican party, but is technically against the law if they are registered Republican.

What's next for our conservative brothers and sisters? Advocating civil disobedience to re-instate the death penalty? Staging sit-ins and bus boycotts in favor of the guards over at the Champaign County Jail? We're through the looking glass here, people!

What's interesting here is the conservative portrayal of the Democrats who are trying to enforce the election laws as Great Disenfranchisers. You know the story, we want poor people to vote, etc. but we don't want Republicans voting in Democratic primaries, therefore we are showing our true colors - those of Hate and Discrimination against the ever-oppressed Illinois Republah, blah, blah.

Well, as the old saying goes, everything that comes around goes around. Lest we forget:

The Farce in Florida - circa 2000.

The Army for Arnold - circa 2003.

The Omissions in Ohio - circa 2004.

And, of course, the Scandal in Seattle - circa now. 8 comments

A lot of the folks on the Right are applauding the President's cuts in the new budget. Citing "wasteful" spending, and programs that "just don't work", Conservatives are gleeful that their President is finally showing fiscal restraint.

If conservatives were truly intellectuals dedicated to their cause, one would think they would be outraged at the continuation of the national missle defense system. This cash cow, which is essentially a handout to defense contractors, with no accountability in sight, failed to make grade yet again.

Will the conservatives stand up and shout about the $10 billion Bush is requesting for this unwieldy and suspect program? I doubt it.

ps - Jeff Gannon was a male prostitute. 0 comments

The conservatives that I know continue to believe they are smarter than the rest of us. We see fossil fuels as the cause of Global Warming, they declare the jury is "still out" (at best). We see tax cuts for the rich as placing a burden on lower income workers, they declare these tax cuts will benefit the poor by, uh, giving rich people more money. We saw the Iraq War as a mission to stop a madman with WMDs, they now declare that it was all about setting up democracy in the Middle East. They get it, we don't.

The problem is that the facts just don't line up. Global Warming is a huge problem that is caused, primarily, by human activity. The 2000 scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came to this conclusion in 1995 and then again in 2000. Unconvinced, President Bush (provoked by conservative "intellectuals") asked the National Academy of Sciences to review the IPCC findings. The result? "The [NAS] committee generally agrees with the assessment of human-caused climate change presented in the IPCC ... report." Did that satisfy the conservatives? Hardly. Instead, Bush orchestrated the ouster of the IPCC Chair, Robert Watson and replaced this eminent atmospheric scientist with an Indian economist, Rejandra Pachauri.

In other words, if the facts don't fit, just change them!

Intellectual? I guess they can just change the definition. So yes, if you consider slavish allegiance to antiquated notions of Truth to be intellectualism, then conservatives are indeed intellectuals. 1 comments

For pregnant women, Illinois continues to be one of this country's worst states. I won't go into the messy details, but suffice it to say the prevalence of impatient doctors, uncomfortable settings, unnecessary medications, and the all-too-common c-sections have created a hostile environment for women who want to birth their babies naturally.

One of the remedies for the generally negative hospital birthing experience is home birth. While often not recommended for first time moms, my wife and I know several second and third-time moms who have given birth in their living rooms over the last few years, often without the aid of a doula or a midwife. This is risky behavior, not because giving birth and home is risky (quite the contrary) but because of the lack of a midwife or doula, who can respond to any pressing medical needs.

The reason so many moms choose to give birth their own is because home birth options are still slim here and not covered by insurance, since Illinois does not currently license traditional professional midwives. There are many reasons for this misguided policy (not the least of which is the power of the AMA in our state), but either way this must stop.

The Certified Professional Midwife Licensure Act (HB645) will be heard in
committee THIS WEDNESDAY! If you have time this Tuesday (2/8) to call some of the representatives listed below it might help to get this bill out of committee and introduced in Illinois. My wife and I made the calls 2 years ago and it only takes about 10 minutes because the phone calls are very short, just giving your name and address. 2 years ago 5 of 14 committee members voted yes for the bill so there is hope.

The following is a very simple script to follow. After giving name and address
say:

"Please vote YES for HB645 in the Registration and Regulation Committee."

Do not offer further information, but if they ask say "I do not live in your district but I understand that on committee issues, your representation extends beyond your district."

That's it! Less than one minute per call. Here are the numbers. Thanks to anyone who can call even one person:


Registration and Regulation Committee

Angelo Saviano (R) - (217) 782-3374 - (217) 557-7211 FAX
Edward Acevedo (D) - (217) 782-2855 - (217) 782-7762 FAX
Patricia Bellock (R) - (217) 782-1448 - (217) 782-2289 FAX
Richard Bradley (D) - (217) 782-8117 - (217) 558-6369 FAX
Rich Brauer (R) - (217) 782-0053 - (217) 782-0897 FAX
Daniel Burk (D) - (217) 782-1117 - (217) 782-0927 FAX
Elizabeth Coulson (R) - (217) 782-4194 - (217) 782-1275 FAX
Monique Davis (D) - (217) 782-0010 - (217) 782-1795 FAX
William Delgado (D) - (217) 782-0480 - (217) 557-9609 FAX
John Fritchey (D) - (217) 782-2458 - (217) 557-7214 FAX
Paul Froehlich (R) - (217) 782-3725 - (217) 782-1336 FAX
Kurt Grandberg (D) - (217) 782-0066 - (217) 557-7598 FAX
Thomas Holbrook (D) - (217) 782-0104 - (217) 782-1333 FAX
Kevin Joyce (D) - (217) 782-8200 - (217) 782-0945 FAX
Renee Kosel (R) - (217) 782-0424 - (217) 557-7249 FAX
Frank Mautino (D) - (217) 782-0140 - (217) 557-7680 FAX
Michael McAuliffe (R) - (217) 782-8182 - (217) 558-1073 FAX
Susana Mendoza (D) - (217) 782-7752 - (217) 782-8917 FAX
David Miller (D) - (217) 782-8087 - (217) 558-6433 FAX
John Millner (R) - (217) 558-1037 - (217) 558-3539 FAX
Rosemary Mulligan (R) - (217) 782-8007 - (217) 782-4533 FAX
Ruth Munson (R) - (217) 782-8020
Brandon Phelps (D) - (217) 782-5131 - (217) 782-4213 (temp)
David Reis (R) - (217) 782-2087 - (217) 782-1336 FAX
Dan Reitz (D) - (217) 782-1018 - (217) 782-0945 FAX
Ed Sullivan (R) - (217) 782-3696 - (217) 558-3539 FAX 0 comments

A recent furor has been raised over a Prof name of Ward L. Churchill, the now former chair of the Ethnic Studies Department at Colorado University in Boulder. Mr. Churchill declared the attacks of Sept. 11 were "a natural and inevitable consequence of what happens as a result of business as usual in the United States." That the victims in the WTC were not innocents but instead "Little Eichmanns", and that the terrorists who attacked us were "combat teams."

The Governor of Colorado has demanded Mr. Churchill be fired for writing these words. His speech at Hamilton College in New York has been cancelled, and America's political Right has taken to calling him a terrorist.

All because he says what no one wants to hear.

ABC News recently ran a story about the "censorship" of conservatives (specifically Christians) on college campuses. This is an old rallying cry of Conservative Christians, especially those who have graduated from college. Being conservatives, these people are (of course) against anything smacking of affirmative action, or quotas. They are only seeking to allow The Truth to be told. Right?

I am eagerly awaiting the first Conservative Christian embrace of Mr. Churchill's case.

In Urbana, Mayor Tod Satterthwaite has come under fire recently for having a pretty short fuse in chambers and out. When asked about these statements by a local reporter, Mayor Tod got shy, stammered and apparently demanded a second interview. Now the reporter has been fired after the second interview didn't go as planned. I'm not supposed to talk about it, as the reporter was a friend of mine. Let's just say Mayor Tod is not a fan of the Truth.

Up in Batavia, Illinois the School Board is floating a $65 million referendum to pay for renovations to the high school. Years ago, when the Big Corporations came asking about the cornfields on Randall Road the Citizens of Batavia were assured that these businesses would bring in much needed tax money. Apparently it wasn't enough, or else they were lying. Either way the taxes on a $200,000 house in Batavia are now well over $5,000 a year.

In the end it appears that few people are interested in Truth anymore. It's too hard to find, I guess. Mr. Churchill undoubtedly has no interest in standing up for the censored Christians, and vice versa. Mayor Todd will probably roll over the much better qualified Prussing and the all important "development" of Urbana will continue unabated. I reckon once we start to feel the True effect of the Wal-Mart tax dollars in our community my house will be too expensive to own. 2 comments

I like it over here at blogger so I will be posting here from now on. You can check out the old writing from the xanga days below:

foleyma's xanga site

Cheers! 0 comments