Liberal and Loving It

Operation Soccer Ball

This is an email I sent to all of the girls on my daughters soccer teams. I encourage those of you that have kids playing soccer to do the same:

Some soldiers in Iraq are asking for soccer balls. Lots of them. The details are here http://adayiniraq.blogspot.com/2005/05/operation-soccer-ball.html and I think he has a wonderful idea. If all of you do this, that adds up to a lot of soccer balls.

So please, I figure all of you have at least 1 or 2 extra balls. Can you package them up and send them over there? You can find someone to send them to at http://anysoldier.com/index.cfm (make sure it’s someone not leaving for awhile and not in the middle of nowhere).

And add a note to the package – being stationed over there letters from the US are a wonderful break in the day. Even if it’s just 2 – 3 sentences.

Milblogs I like

I read a lot of milblogs to get the perspective of those on the ground in Iraq trying to get the job done. These are the ones I keep finding myself coming back to:

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/ - great wide coverage.

http://www.bootsinbaghdad.blogspot.com/ - at the point of the spear.

http://dadmanly.blogspot.com/ - very thoughtful.

http://www.uppermansblog.blogspot.com/ - a fellow nerd and an honest look of an American in a foreign culture.

http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/ - not a milblog but I think the best reporting coming out of Iraq.

Plenty of Blame to go Around

The fallout from the story by Newsweek about desecrating the Quran at Guantanamo has plenty of parties that could have done a lot better.

First off, how could Newsweek run with this story based on here-say from a single source. The problems at Guantanamo have so far been leaked by numerous people. It's very unlikely that if this had actually happened several times as reported, there would only be one source.

Second, if Newsweek had good cause to believe the story was true. Like say, multiple first-hand sources, then they absolutely should have run it. America is strong because a free press exposes it's mistakes, not in spite of mistakes being exposed.

Third, it's understandable that Newsweek didn't foresee such a violent reaction. The American flag is burned daily across the world (hourly right now in many Muslim countries). But that does not lead to any reaction here in the U.S. I doubt anyone at Newsweek thought this would lead to riots.

Fourth, the Department of Defense to a certain degree brought this upon itself. At Guantanamo the prisoners there have no rights - not even those of the Geneva convention. The Red Cross as well as both military and FBI personnel there have stated that the treatment of the prisoners violates our country's norms of acceptable behavior. Because of this history, the story is very believable. If instead Guantanamo had treated the prisoners according the the Geneva convention, allowed them contact with their families and lawyers, and had clearly and openly treated the prisoners humanely, then the riots very likely would not have happened.

Fifth, the true direct cause of the riots is - - the rioters. Everything else aside, what good do riots in Pakistan, etc. do to resolve this issue. Demonstrate & protest yes. But the rioting has only harmed fellow Muslims.

And finally, shame on White House press secretary Scott McClellan for complaining that Newsweek did not admit their mistake sooner or make a bigger apology. This from a White House that famously has never admitted a single mistake (aside from some unnamed appointments). This is the height of hypocrisy.

I am a subscriber of Newsweek and will continue to be. I think they are the best weekly magazine out there.

I also think problems like this will continue to crop up until the Administration opens up the military prisons. Because the root cause of this is the fact that people are locked up with no appeal and no rights. And that is un-American.

A call from mom

This is my $0.02 worth on the recent case where a school did not let a student talk to his mom in Iraq (http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/002772.html).

In terms of how the school handled it, there is so much :he said, she said" that none of us will probably ever know what actually happened. But I can understand a 17 year old getting very upset if it was his one chance in a month to talk to his mom, who is in a war zone, and the call was ended. It would take a rare person to not get very upset very fast in that situation. So I would say his reaction while possibly not correct, was very understandable.

Second, all of the blogs on this state that calls come from Iraq about once a month. We have the most advanced telecommunications system in the world. The military has tremendous bandwidth between the U.S. and Iraq. Why do they not have it set up so people can call home daily - and for free? This seems like a very easy and cheap way to improve morale.

Finally, schools should have a very simple rule for calls from Iraq (at least as long as they remain a rare occurance). If a student gets a call from a close family member from Iraq, they are excused from anything - immediately. However, the school administration has the right to check any call by speaking to the person on the other end. If it's not a call from Iraq, then the student loses their rights to take calls from Iraq. No student is going to risk losing the right to hear from their parent by faking who the call is from.

And the other 205 judges are?

There has been a hard press from the religious right recently claiming that the Democrats are holding up 10 judges because of the judge's religious beliefs. I don't see how this argument is anything other than totally bogus.

First off, if this is truly the case, then that means the other 205 judges that have been approved by the Senate were not religious. And in that case the religious right should be going after President Bush for nominating 205 secular judges.

Clearly this is not the case. So what we have is religious leaders trying to make a case of religious discrimination where it must be clear to them it does not exist. And I think it speaks very poorly of them that they would use their religion to further their political agenda.

A very strong argument for freedom of religion (which many of the founding fathers used) was not to protect the political sphere from the religious sphere, but to protect the religious sphere from the political sphere. This separation is needed now to protect religion from being mis-used by those who would use it to promote their political agenda.

And as to those who say the Senate should approve the 10 judges on their merits, the Senate is required by the constitution to determine if judges meet the criteria they set. At present the Democrats are holding up less than 5% of the judges. This is a very reasonable number to hold up, and a lot fewer than the Republicans held up of Clinton's appointments.