Book Review 20: His Excellency

Following my American Revolution theme, which is not yet my expertise, I decided to read a biography on George Washington. This book is unlike other biographies because it is based almost entirely on primary sources; Washington's own correspondence with the other people in his famed life. Using this correspondence allows the author to transmit many different images of George Washington: the public figure, the private husband, the man of ambition, the man of reflection, the warrior, the president, the farmer, the leader. It was an outstanding book.

One of the challenges that the author must have faced is breaking down the mythology of Washington's life. Washington has been raised to level beyond criticism in the eyes of many Americans and high school history classes teach Washington the legend, not Washington the person. We know that he is on all of the one dollar bills we spend, but we don't know how we got there. He has been idolized to the point that he has cities and an entire state named after him. It was nice to read a book that included a more human portrayl of Washington including his desires, ambitions, and weaknesses.

It was nice to read a book that will admit that some of Washington's success was luck and that he wasn't the ideal Christian as the conservative right paints him to be and bases all sorts of their political arguments on. When he was in office he was criticized for being senile by the likes of Thomas Jefferson and he believed that the Potomac was the gateway to the west, the great northwest passage that would open the door to an American Empire. This book is full of these fascinating aspects of Washington's life that don't come out in history classes in fear of casting a shadow on the legacy of the father of the United States.

All of that being said, you really get a sense of awe of George Washington by reading this book because you begin to view him as a human that accomplished all of these things rather than an American Messiah who came to earth to deliver America from the hands of the British. Getting a sense of all of the adversity he faced, both external and internal, demands inspiration.

I'm going to give this book a 4.75 out of 5, just because I feel like some parts of the book were rushed such as his involvement in the French American war and his first presidential term.

More American Torture Images

Today even more images of American torture in Iraq surfaced...

Rather than share my views, I'm going to combine the pictures with an excerpt from President Bush's 2003 State of the Union in which he made the case for war and occupation of Iraq.

January 29, 2003

Six Weeks Before the Invasion

President Bush: "Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained...

...If this is not evil then evil has no meaning...

...And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation...


...We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended...




...A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all."

Gazette, Are you Reading This?

Perhaps someone from the Gazette read my blog because today the letter, with a few changes, was published in the Metro section.


My personal favorite alteration was the title they gave my letter : Name Calling.

But as we know, the point of the letter was much more than name calling. It is raising an issue that editors shouldn't try to belittle with asinine titles.

The Gazette Turns a Deaf Ear... Surprise Surprise

A few days ago I commented on the Colorado Springs Gazette's Decision to publish a letter to the editor using the phrase "poor Muslim terrorist savages." To read that entry, scroll down to Sunday February 12th. In addition to ranting on this blog, I decided the issue was worth writing a letter to the editor of the Gazette. To nobody's surprise, the Gazette has thusfar refused to publish the letter so I will post it here.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Every time the Gazette publishes letters by readers it also prints a short disclaimer asserting the right of the editors to review submissions for "length, taste, and clarity." Where were these editors on Saturday when the Gazette published a letter that finished with the phrase " poor Muslim terrorist savages?"

I understand that a significant number of Gazette readers may share this bias, but I implore the editors to use better judgement.

This culture clash is not black and white. It is not a battle of good versus evil. By publishing such comments the Gazette reinforces a dangerous paradigm and cultivates a hate that will impede any attempts for peace and mutual understanding between followers of Islam and the West.

Shame on the editors for playing to their home crowd and preaching to their choir, a whole town full of ultra-conservatives that refuse to believe the United States and its leader, Prophet... I mean President Bush, could have any fault - or that the Muslims, whom I've heard called "mudslimes" by locals, have any reason or are anything other than irrational subhumans. That's all I have to say for now about this, but I wouldn't mind hearing your responses to this whole thing.

Found: Muhammed Cartoons

Well, I've been looking for the Danish cartoons for a few days and now I found the cartoons as well as a few cartoons about the whole crisis. Before you look at them let me say this. I think these cartoons are insensitive and I wouldn't want to publish these any more than I would want to publish cartoons offensive to anyone else. That being said, I think if the public is going to respect the conflict over the cartoons and respect the anger being shown by Muslims all over the world, they have to understand the origins of these debates.

So, if you are a Muslim viewing my blog please now that I have respect for your religion. But, in my view, the censorship of these cartoons in the American media is adding to the general biases and perceptions that all Muslims are crazed terrorists because many Americans have not been exposed to the degrading nature of the illustrations. I wish to dispel that stereotype, and show the lack of taste of these cartoons to promote understanding, not to encourage further hatred.

The following are the 12 cartoons in questions, some of which were published and some of which were not back in September 2005, starting this now global conflict.


* I found these pictures originally posted on another blog named www.newspaperindex.com*

So now that you've seen the cartoons, what do you think?

If the UN speaks but nobody listens, does it really make a sound?

Today's edition of the LA Times disclosed a leaked UN report that declared that the US is commiting acts of torture in Guantanamo Bay and may call for the military prison to be shut down. The fact that the United States military is violating its own laws as well as international treaties is nothing new, but UN condemnation is especially interesting considering the other things on the UN plate at present.

While the UN condemns the US and demands that Camp XRay be closed and the prisoners (who haven't been charged for four years) be released, it is also denounces the Iranian nuclear program.

How can the United States stand behind the United Nations as a source of legitimacy for its anti-Iranian policy while at the same time disregarding UN reports indicating the shortcomings of the United States?

Right now states attempt to push their agendas through the United Nations to gain legitimacy and the appearance of international support for their foreign policy agendas. For example, just look at the United States' desperate bids for support for war in Iraq back in 2002 and 2003. When the United Nations refused to support such action and the United States pursued, the United Nations lost some of its legitimacy and importance in the international system. Today, in the cases of both Iran and American torture, this is likely to repeat.

The UN will be little more than a sounding board until its member states stop the selective hearing. If the United States or anyone else is going to continue to use the UN to legitimize its intrusive foreign policy, it will have to stop undermining the same organization from which it seeks support every time the international community and the United States do not see eye to eye.

Book Review 19: 1776

After months of silence I'm back with another book review. I went back to nonfiction for this one but opted for a completely different genre. As I study and talk about present insurgency and conflict in other countries I thought understanding a little more about our own state's birth might broaden my perspective and help me make comparisons if any are to be made. This book is only a first step, but it interested me to take another so I will be with this genre for a while at least.

American history is not one of my favorite topics, but how can you deny a book with a straight-to-the-point title like 1776? David Mccullough (better known as the author of his Pulitzer Prize winning biography of John Adams completely accomplishes what he sets out to do, which is create an interesting and informative annal of the year of the birth of the United States. In this book he brought famous scenes to life such as the siege in Boston, the battle for Brooklyn, and the crossing of the Delaware, but the things I come away with after reading this book are overshadowed by what I felt the book lacked.


When I was in eighth grade my history teacher taught the class a long and memorable lesson about historical context (memorable because he somehow worked the conception of his daughter into the story... and she was in the room). He stressed that you don't understand a historical event unless you understand the circumstances that surrounded it. You have to know the causes and precursors. You have to know the aftermath and the effects. You have to know what else was going on at the same time.

While I knew this book would feature the events of 1776, I imagined it would open with a chapter that would set the tone and end with chapter on how it changed what would follow. Hell, even Star Wars begins with an infamous introduction that fades into space. However, it was non-existent in this book so his great story telling could not be fully appreciated.

I'm going to have to give it a 3.5/5 and I wouldn't recommend it as a first look into the history of the American Revolution. However, if you are knowledgeable about the era already you may find the detailed research and story telling to be a great summary of one of the most important years of the 18th century.

Gazette Bigots

Before this weekend I thought the ridiculously conservative content of the Colorado Springs Gazette would not surprise me again, but then I decided to read the op-ed section of Saturday's paper.

In one of the letters to the editor, a reader decided to close his ignorant letter with the following:

They have (speaking of Israel) the manpower, the military might and the hatred to do it, and no one is going to come to the aid of the poor Muslim terrorist savages.

read the full letter here.

I'm not going to blast this guy for using stupid terminology. People who see the world as black and white, good and evil, are out there and probably won't be changed. People like this piss me off, but they're there and they aren't my target right now.

What pisses me off is the Gazette's decision to publish a letter.

Every time the Gazette publishes letters, it includes a disclaimer saying: "The Gazette reserves the right to edit submissions for length, taste and clarity." The Gazette should have exercised this right and refused to publish the phrase "poor Muslim terrorist savages" from its paper and its website.

As and independent newspaper, the Gazette has the right to do whatever it wants, but it is irresponsible for a large newspaper like the Gazette to publish ignorant opinions that are uninformed and only serve to reinforce stereotypes against the world's billion Muslims and black and white "America versus the world" foreign policy paradigms. The Gazette is only propogating hate to a reading audience that already has too many anti-Islam, America can-do-no-wrong opinions.

Brokeback Mountain

On Saturday we decided to go see Brokeback Mountain and see what all of the talk was about. We were both surprised to see that it was showing in Colorado Springs, although our theater had a tiny fraction of the number of people we saw pour into "The Pink Panther" across the hall from us at the cinema.

This film has a lot of positive and negative hype for its homosexual content and I've seen reviews on both sides. Personally, I thought it was a good movie and I think people who judge the movie before seeing it or refuse to see it on the pretense that the main characters are homosexual only represent the tensions in the movie and intensify the experience of watching the movie for moviegoers.

Maybe that sounds strange, but when you go to a movie that so many refuse to see because of homosexuality, it is easier to understand the dilemmas of the characters and the social context of their relationship.

Experiencing intolerance outside the theater makes it much more real inside the theater.

If any of you've seen it, I'd like to hear what you think.

Water from a Bottle

Today's news comes from South Africa's leading news source, the Mail and Guardian.

We all know that bottled water is trendy, but an article by the Mail and Guardian shows the damage that is being done by replacing tap water with bottles. Of course, I'm not coming out against drinking bottled water some times, but when you consider the study discussed in the article, it is clear that drinking it all the time at home when you don't really need to has implications in other places. It is convenient for the drinker, which means it is probably inconvenient for others.

First off, it is expensive. You don't mind paying? Well consider the fact that the oil used to make the United States' water bottles every year could be gas for 100,000 American automobiles for an entire year. Looks like we are paying for bottled water at the pump too.

Then of course there are the environmental issues of garbage and water shortages in parts of the world this water is coming from. I'm not going to just reiterate this article. I just want you to read it and think twice about whether you need to drink bottle after bottle rather than refill the bottles you have.

L.A. Terrorist Plot Thwarted?

Today's news is everywhere, but one of the better articles I found is from the International Herald Tribune.

You can find articles anywhere, but you can read the transcript of the President's speech here, courtesy of the President's website.

Today President Bush decided to disclose to the world the intricate recently declassified details of an alleged terrorist plot against the tallest building in Los Angeles. This plot, like the 9/11 attack, involved Islamic extremists hijacking a plane to fly it into a building. Surprisingly, he didn't just chose one of the excellent terrorist plots from the TV show 24.

Whether or not this attack was actually plotted or the real chances of it coming into fruition could be arguable but debate would be futile as you and I don't have any of the relevant details. However, we can discuss the timing of the announcement.

The White House explanation of the timing is that the details were recently declassified and are no longer relevant to current spying missions. But can we really believe this? We don't know the details of the government investigation of the Kennedy Assasination over 40 years ago but the President is going to disclose a thwarted terrorist attack only a couple years after the fact?

The liberal media is quick to assume that the timing of the announcement is political and intended to rally support for the Republican party as scandals of secret wiretapping and the increasingly unpopular occupation of Iraq threaten the Republican chances in the 2006 elections. However, the liberal explanation has a notable weakness. Bush loves to grandstand so why not bring up these details during the state of the union address a week ago. I am perplexed.

Presidents have used reports of imminent threats at times throughout American history when their popularity is low and public support for long term causes wanes for a lack of short term results. The Soviets had their finger on the big red button for forty years. Communists were disguised as Americans and poised for takeover. Japan was going to destroy the American economy if one more American bought one more foreign car. And now, Muslims will fly planes into your buildings if your support for the Republican foreign agenda lags behind their dreams of global influence.

So, you can't criticize the current adminstration too much for using fear for his political agenda, but you should take it with a grain of salt.

Wikipedia in the Spotlight

The item in today's news that I would like to talk about is featured on the BBC World Service.

In an age of blogging, online reference sources, and countless internet news sources, the world wide web is becoming an increasingly important medium for sharing opinions and shaping the thoughts of the general public, and apparently our federal representatives agree.

Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that allows visitors to edit or add entries, is reporting that vandalism and embellishment of biographies of United States Congressmen are being traced to Capitol Hill computers. It turns out our reps are fine tuning their own entries while ridiculing their political adversaries on an encyclopedia that should be used as a public resource. Read the full article from the BBC here.

Now here are a couple points to chew on...

I realize that this year is an election year and all of the House and a third of the Senate seats will be up for grabs. Elected officials will do anything they can to defend their office, competition is part of the distraction of serving the public in any competitive liberal democracy. But does anybody really think Wikipedia references are going to make the difference in these elections? In a country that is so incredible divisive, political affiliation and name recogntion and association will mean far more than anything written in an online encyclopedia. Maybe they should put more effort into getting things done, like figuring out how to keep from cutting over a hundred programs in this year's federal budget without further drowning the nation in debt.

And, the internet is the world's most accessible medium for free speech. It should not be censored, if even in completely legal ways like altering the validity of entries in an online encyclopedia.

The Danish Cartoon Mess

In the latest episode of the culture clash between Islam and the secular West, tensions have never been higher and reactions have perhaps never been so widespread and utterly ridiculous.

I'll start with my stand on the cartoons. Are the cartoons distasteful? Absolutely.

I think it is unfair to stereotype any group (except for Raiders fans and Texans) as evil so demonizing an entire faith through political cartoons was insensitive and inappropriate.

But let's pay attention to why most Westerners oppose the cartoons. It isn't because they exclusively disrespect Islam. It is because they stir racial and religious discord and reinforce cultural stereotypes. In the West, we are upset on the basis of universal tolerance.

Unfortunately, the same is not true in the world of Islam. They do not riot for tolerance, coexistence, or pluralism. They riot because they are upset specifically about the ridicule of Islam.

To support my point, I'll raise the fact that Iran's largest newspaper is now holding a contest for the most offensive Holocaust cartoon, which it will publish in response to the Danish illustrations of Muhammed. Read about it here on the Al Jazeera Satellite Network.

That's my take on the cartoons. Now let's talk about the reaction.

What is reinforcing anti-Islam stereotypes in the West more - distasteful political cartoons or global rioting? Violent Muslims in protest, not Danish cartoonists, are doing more to widen the cultural divide.

Muslim leaders have been trying to distinguish their peaceful faith from the radical Islamists for years, especially since 9/11. Now, violence is rife throughout the entire world. These riots are not the works of extremists. Arguing that Islamist violence is radical rather than synonomous will be a harder argument now.

Furthermore, the same leaders that ask for distinction between Islam and terrorism are now protesting entire nations for the decisions of a few publishers. Corporations are being boycotted for the location of their headquarters. Embassies are being burned. Furthermore, these boycotts have the support of many Muslim leaders. How are they failing to distinguish between journalists, governments, and companies?

These riots are deplorable and are only reinforcing the unfavorable perception of Islam in the eyes of the West.

Finally, let's talk about the effects. The West is uniting against rioting. Islam is uniting against the West. This leaves less room for compromise at a crucial moment in history.

Hamas is in control of Palestine now, which already has Western leaders on edge. As Hamas struggles for legitimacy in the international community as a willing partner for peace, this new government will have a hard time cooperating with the West without enraging its angry rioting constituents. This will place domestic barriers to Hamas' international agenda, posing a serious threat to the peace process.

Iran is obstructing international efforts against nuclear proliferation. To this point, Iran has beena pariah with even Russia and China supporting UN inspections and possible sanctions. However, this cartoon charade helps Iran appear as a victim to Western bullying and other Islamic nations are now more prone to support Iran's resistance to the secular, disrespectful, international powers.

It will be interesting to see how this crisis diffuses and even more interesting to see the wake it will leave on the world's larger current international dilemmas.

I want to hear your thoughts.

~cbell

Iraq Fatality Map

After a two month hiatus I am back.

I've spent a lot of the last two months on grad school application chores(i got in!), family in town for the holidays, and just spending time with Kelly having fun, but I've heard multiple comments about the absence of my book reviews and political rants so I'm back to share.

Today I want to talk about a new graphic published by the New York Times.

A graduate student from Columbia put together a new way to represent the deaths caused by the insurgency and occupation of Iraq. I'm not making a political argument for once this time, just sharing a graphic. I really think you guys should take a look.

The following is a map of Iraq with symbols indicating civilian, Iraqi security, American military, and coalition fatalities. The 800 symbols represent only the month of January. Click here to see the graphic.

What really stands out to me are the number of civilian fatalities. I think the media leads us to measure the war by the slowly and steadily growing number of American fatalities. This graphic tells a different story. Take a look. I'd love to hear what you think.