Tuesday, November 16, 2004

Blogging Blues

I find myself greatly admiring the bloggers who have carried on valiantly following the election. My heart isn't in it right now. I'm still visiting the blogs, and reading the news, but the election results have taken the wind out of my sails.

I find myself spending more time on Television Without Pity and Fametracker and following the horror known as Star Reynolds (nee Jones) Big Gay Wedding. Nothing comforts the mind like silly television shows and pseudo-celebrity excesses.

Still, the political world invades. Colin Powell retires, to be replaced by Condi Rice. Here's an SAT analogy for you...
Jesus Christ:Mary Magdalene::George W. Bush:
a) Barbara Bush
b) Condoleeza Rice
c) Helen Thomas
d) Karen Hughes
e) Laura Bush

OK, it's not easy. But I'm going with (b) Condoleeza Rice. (If Karen Hughes were still in the administration, she'd be my choice.) I predict disaster. With little real management experience, and owing her political career to the Big Dick, Condi's real benefit to the administration (but not to the country as a whole, nor to the world) will be as the handmaiden who carries out Bush's every wish and desire.

Also worthy reading is Media Matters' fine analysis on why "moral values" did not REALLY affect election decisions. Just as I thought, although I didn't take the time to do the legwork. So, thanks Media Matters and David Brock.

Now, back to lick my wounds and watch The Gilmore Girls on TiVo.

Friday, November 05, 2004

Three Days Later...

It's taken me this long to begin to consider a post-election blog. I read through the opening of my last post on Tuesday morning, when I had jitters in my stomach but that same cautious optimism I'd had the last few weeks prior to the election. Fueled by decent polling numbers and continuing bad news and defections from the Bush camp, I was hopeful.

In hindsight, the piece of information that most pointed to the election result was this study: "Bush Supporters Still Believe Iraq Had WMD or Major Program, Supported al Qaeda" from the University of Maryland Program on International Policy Attitudes. The meta-analysis goes on to point out that:
  • 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%).
  • 56% assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD
  • 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.
  • 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda
  • 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found.
  • 60% of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts
  • 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.
  • 69% assume incorrectly that Bush supports Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty;
  • 72% assume incorrectly that Bush supports the treaty banning land mines
  • 51% assume incorrectly that he favors US participation in the Kyoto treaty.
  • After he denounced the International Criminal Court in the debates, the perception that he favored it dropped from 66%, but still 53% continue to believe that he favors it.
  • An overwhelming 74% incorrectly assumes that he favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements.
"The roots of the Bush supporters' resistance to information," according to Steven Kull, "very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush showed in its immediate wake. This appears to have created a powerful bond between Bush and his supporters--and an idealized image of the President that makes it difficult for his supporters to imagine that he could have made incorrect judgments before the war, that world public opinion could be critical of his policies or that the President could hold foreign policy positions that are at odds with his supporters."
Well, there you have it. I probably should have been far more worried and pessimistic after reading that study's findings.

There's been quite a lot written about the "moral values" of the exit polling, and I'm sure this is only the beginning. Without more information other than the talking heads and the bloggers, I can't begin to comment on it, or even fathom the meaning of that phrase.

What I do know is that slightly more than half this country wants desperately to believe in our President. And believe they do despite all evidence to the contrary.

Faith and emotions carry a lot of weight -- if there's anything I've learned from my many years in the marketing world, people don't make decisions based on logic. It's not that you can't reason with some people -- most people are immune to reason and seek comfort and security. As the good prince Hamlet said,
"Give me that man
That is not passion’s slave, and I will wear him
In my heart’s core..."
For me, knowing what I know about the President and his minions, I was completely willing to put my comfort and security in the hands of John Kerry. Beyond all logic, I felt, and still feel, deep in my soul, my heart, and my bones, that President Bush is rotten. Corrupt, wrongheaded, mendacious, calculating, and deceitful.

For those who believe in the President, the challenger did not offer enough. My consolation is now that Bush will have to live with the mess he had made, and perhaps he will have to face up to them. We must make him face up to them.

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

Iraqi Dead Estimated at 100,000

I know, I know. It's Election Day. I should be wringing my hands (OK, I am), engaging in nervous eating (check!), and making optimistic predictions (Kerry will win the popular vote and the electoral college).

But I thought I would address the crimes against humanity that we have perpetrated against the Iraqi people in our zeal to bring them democracy.

A recent study by the U.K.'s Lancet medical journey estimates that 100,000 non-combatant Iraqis have died in the 18 months since we invaded Iraq in March 2003. Without going into the details of the survey methodology (The Guardian has more info), it is certainly better than the complete lack of information provided by the "Coalition" forces.

This is 0.4% of the Iraqi population, which would be equivalent to 1.2 million American. Imagine that!

When I recently brought this statistic up to a friend (Bush supporter), his response was:

  • Well, we would expect civilian deaths if we were invaded, too.
    When I mentioned that we invaded Iraq without cause, and that there would be an unbelievable outcry if we lost 1.2 million people due to some invasion or attack; where was the equivalent outcry about the injustic to the Iraqis? We are blind to our own destruction.
  • The next response was: Saddam was a danger to us. We need to get rid of tyrants. What if we had gotten rid of Hitler in 1933?
    Oy, the Hitler argument. I completely absolutely totally reject the equivalency of Saddam to Hitler. I agree that Hitler was a danger, and we fought a long and bloody war to rid the world of him. Saddam was not a danger to us, though, any more than Pol Pot, or Robert Mugabe. Saddam was contained. He had no weapons programs. He was a bad baddie, but he was not a danger to the U.S. I could make a good case that we should be more worried about Kim Jung Il or Musharif where we have real documented evidence of nuclear weapons.
  • The last point: Saddam was murderous thug to his people, and he killed far more people and would keep on killing them unless we stopped him. There were 300,000 bodies found in mass graves -- women and children.
    This put me in a difficult spot, because I ain't going to start definding Saddam Hussein. But that 300,000 number seemed awfully big. But being open-minded, I wanted to check out the sources for that. I could find a lot of sources for the 300,000 number, which seemed to originate at Human Rights Watch, which estimated 290,000 Iraqis dead in mass graves. But that was from May 2003, right after we "won" the war. Since then we've had a chance to find all the mass graves (and the WMD). So what's the latest?


There are many many many sources who repeat (or even expand) Saddam's death toll at 300,000, but not a single stitch of post-invasion documentation of that number. There is certainly recent evidence of mass graves, and women and babies in them. CNN reports finding hundreds of bodies in October 2004. The article repeats the 300,000 murdered estimate, but gives no support for it.

But there was a single article in July 2004 in the Observer that stated:
Downing Street has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that '400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves' is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered.

The claims by Blair in November and December of last year, were given widespread credence, quoted by MPs and widely published, including in the introduction to a US government pamphlet on Iraq's mass graves.
So far, I haven't found this same story in any U.S. newspaper. I'm still waiting for evidence.