Friday Cat Blogging

Diego. As you can see, he loves playing airplane.





Jackson. His ear has grown back. He looks pretty mad about the bow. Justifiably, I might add.

It seems so obvious to me....

...but then I'm just some guy in a call center.

I just read this:

Baghdad’s Sunni residents battle insurgents
Locals join fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq; mayor hopes U.S. stays away

BAGHDAD - Sunni residents of a west Baghdad neighborhood used assault rifles and a roadside bomb to battle the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq this week, leaving at least 28 people dead and six injured, residents said Thursday.

The mayor of the Amiriyah neighborhood, Mohammed Abdul Khaliq, said in a telephone interview that residents were rising up to try to expel al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has alienated other Sunnis with its indiscriminate violence and attacks on members of its own sect.

Though the Republicans like to paint all Muslims with one broad brush, I have always privately thought that the goals of the native insurgents and Al Quaeda in Iraq were different enough that they might turn on one another. In fact, I am not particularly convinced that Al Quaeda, with it's rigid fundamentalism, is particularly popular amongst Muslims in Iraq, or anywhere. I suspected that Iraqis found them useful, and that if they stopped being useful, they would see them as foreign interlopers and would want them to leave.

Some of the quotes in this story bear this out:

Problems arose on Tuesday when the Islamic Army, a powerful Sunni insurgent group, posted a statement at a local mosque criticizing al-Qaeda in Iraq for killing dozens of other Sunnis in Fallujah and Baghdad "on suspicion only," without sufficient evidence that they had done something wrong, according to a copy sent to The Washington Post. The message warned al-Qaeda in Iraq to stop the practice, which it said could lead to clashes between them.

Late Wednesday afternoon, according to residents reached by phone who would not be quoted by name for security reasons, an armed group scrawled graffiti on a school wall reading: "Down with al-Qaeda, long live the honest resistance." When al-Qaeda in Iraq members came to wipe away the writing, a roadside bomb exploded nearby, killing three of them, residents said.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq then attacked a mosque associated with the Islamic Army, killing the group's leader, Razi al-Zobai, and four other fighters, complaining in a statement that the Islamic Army had become involved in the political process in Iraq, residents said. In retaliation, the Islamic Army attacked a mosque associated with al-Qaeda in Iraq, killing one of the group's leaders, known as Sheik Hamid, and four other members, including Waleed Saber Tikriti, a doctor who treated al-Qaeda in Iraq's wounded, residents said

I don't think this necessarily means we have turned any corners, however. Iraqi insurgents are fighting for control of Iraq. If they see us as a threat to that-and I think it is obvious they do-and Al Quaeda in Iraq seems useful to them, they would almost assuredly strike up their alliance again:

Abdul Khaliq said he hoped U.S. forces would stay out of the fight. "But if the Americans interfere, it will blow up, because they are the enemy of us both, and we will unite against them and stop fighting each other," he said

I won't make the mistake of taking all of this at face value. Loyalties will shift constantly in a paramilitary-led war. Rhetoric is one thing, action is another. It's not like I have some direct connection to work with here-I am a blogger, writing in my spare time, working off of second-hand information from a confusing war zone.

I do think that Al-Quaeda is less popular in a real sense than it might actually seem. There could be many reasons-political, economic, social-that might motivate someone to become a terrorist or insurgent, and a religious believer might make a connection between political and religious domination without believing in rigid fundamentalist doctrine (think Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland). These people might find Al-Quaeda's ability to send zealous soldiers into buildings with bombs strapped to their bodies a usefull tool. It's almost like they're using Al-Quaeda as some sort of proxy army. But this does not mean that all potential Muslim terrorists share the same overall goals as Al-Quaeda's nuttiness, any more than the U.S. did when it funnelled support to the Mujahideen in the '80s.

I think that Al-Quaeda, while definitely not to be underestimated, is a stoppable force. But the Bush administration's constant saber-rattling about regime change plays into their hands in a way that is almost certain to make them more and more powerful no matter how many setbacks like this they might suffer.

AIDS: A Building Block for Power

At Hullabaloo, Tristero is justifiably suspicious of the motivations behind this initiative:

Bush Requests $30 Billion to Fight AIDS

WASHINGTON, May 30 — President Bush called Wednesday for Congress to spend $30 billion to fight global AIDS over the next five years, a near doubling of financing that is part of a White House effort to burnish Mr. Bush’s humanitarian credentials before he meets leaders of the Group of 8 industrialized nations next week
The initiative, if approved, would build on a program that grew out of the president’s 2003 State of the Union address, when he asked for $15 billion over five years for prevention, treatment and care of AIDS patients in developing countries. Congress approved more than $18 billion, but the program is set to expire next year.

Mr. Bush’s announcement, delivered in the White House Rose Garden, adds to what has become an unexpectedly high priority for the White House. AIDS was not a signature issue for Mr. Bush when he ran for office in 2000. But it has become one in part because the Christian conservatives who make up his political base have embraced it, and in part because Mr. Bush wants to build a legacy for the United States and a more compassionate image abroad to counter international criticism of American policies in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Specifically, Tristero sees this largely as a means of feeding the access-capitalist beast the Bush administration is so fond of (and so much a part of). And this is, of course, true.

But I think we can expand upon this. Crony capitalism and spoils-system government in a democracy is hardly new. The scope of it is unprecedented, but it is more than simple cronyism at a whole new level. The Bush administration had been attempting to establish total and permanent control of outcomes for itself, and was hoping to use powerful conservative groups as a means of doing so. Anyone looking at the Republican party should view their actions through the prism of control. This desire for control of outcomes drives all of their decision making, moving them to: install people of total incompetence or ignorance into important government positions; enact truly idiotic, fact-free policy, regardless of effectiveness; and use noise and unscientific, discredited studies and reports from ideological think tanks to give their ideas intellectual sheen. Christianists and plutocrats make perfect cogs for such a machinee. In this way, the AIDS epidemic in Africa is not only a potential cash cow for Republican aligned business interests-I'm looking at you, pharma lords-it also melds these interests perfectly with Christianist's desire for political and social control.

In fact, they may be the driving force in this issue. Christianists have been instrumental in Bush administration'sthe growing interest in the AIDS epidemic. As the Times article states

AIDS was not a signature issue for Mr. Bush when he ran for office in 2000. But it has become one in part because the Christian conservatives who make up his political base have embraced it...

And, yes, they certainly have been very active. This is of a piece with Bush's "compassionate conservative" posturing in the 2000 campaign, and his blather about his Christian beliefs.

Unfortunately, the Christian influence hasn't exactly been a boon. This is because of their love of the "Abstinence Only" programs they crow so magnificently about. Christian leaders, who obsess about the sex lives of others on a near-constant basis, seem to feel that, say, advocating correct condom use as a method of preventing AIDS will lead to wanton, uncontrolled sex; and that clean-needle exchanges will encourage intravenous drug use, immediately. Thus, any program that does not push abstinence-only programs should get no money from America at all:

Some leading Christian conservatives are calling on Congress to reduce U.S. funding allocations to the Global Fund To Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, saying that the Global Fund does not allocate adequate resources to faith-based programs and that it promotes condom use, the Boston Globe reports. According to the Globe, the Global Fund is not "popular" among U.S. Christian conservatives, some of whom object to the Global Fund's policies, which include supporting needle-exchange programs for injection drug users. In addition, some Christian conservatives are "furious that just 6%" of the Global Fund's program grants go toward faith-based groups, the Globe reports. Peter Brandt, senior director of government and public policy at the Christian group Focus on the Family, said he wants the U.S. to stop financing all of the Global Fund's HIV/AIDS programs because the group does not provide sufficient money to faith-based groups and has given little support to abstinence messages.

There is only one problem: there is no evidence that abstinence programs work:

There is no good scientific evidence that teaching abstinence to teenagers will by itself prevent unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, say the authors of a recent study. Yet they found that comprehensive sex education is declining and that more youngsters are being taught nothing more than abstinence...

...Kirby compared California and Texas, two states he said were similarly populous and were home to many Hispanics, a group whose teen pregnancy rates are high.
"California took a very progressive approach," he said. "Texas pushed abstinence and made it a little more difficult for teens to receive contraceptives. Pregnancy did go down between 1991 and 2004, but Texas had the second-lowest decline of all states, 19 percent. California had the second-greatest decrease, 46 percent.
"What's really sad is that Bush is trying to take some of the policies that didn't work in Texas and implement them nationwide."

Furthermore, the "Content of Federally-Funded Abstinence-Only Programs" study done by the House of Representatives found that such programs "Contain False and Misleading
Information about the Effectiveness of Contraceptives..."

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “Latex
condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing
the transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.”26 Contrary to this scientific
consensus, multiple curricula provide false information about condoms and HIV
transmission.

Several curricula cite an erroneous 1993 study of condom effectiveness that has
been discredited by federal health officials. The 1993 study, by Dr. Susan Weller,
looked at a variety of condom effectiveness studies and concluded that condoms
reduce HIV transmission by 69%.27 Dr. Weller’s conclusions were rejected by
the Department of Health and Human Services, which issued a statement in 1997
informing the public that “FDA and CDC believe this analysis was flawed.”28
The Department cited numerous methodological problems, including the mixing
of data on consistent condom use with data on inconsistent condom use, and
found that Dr. Weller’s calculation of a 69% effectiveness rate was based on
“serious error.” In fact, CDC noted that “[o]ther studies of discordant couples
— more recent and larger than the ones Weller reviewed, and conducted over several years — have demonstrated that consistent condom use is highly effective
at preventing HIV infection.”30

Despite these findings, several curricula refer approvingly to the Weller study.
One curriculum teaches: “A meticulous review of condom effectiveness was
reported by Dr. Susan Weller in 1993. She found that condoms were even less
likely to protect people from HIV infection. Condoms appear to reduce the risk
of heterosexual HIV infection by only 69%.”31 Another curriculum that cites Dr.
Weller’s data claims: “In heterosexual sex, condoms fail to prevent HIV
approximately 31% of the time.”32

Other abstinence-only curricula contest CDC’s finding that “latex condoms
provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD
pathogens.”33 These curricula rely on the false idea that HIV and other pathogens
can “pass through” condoms. One curriculum instructs students to:
Think on a microscopic level. Sperm cells, STI organisms, and HIV
cannot be seen with the naked eye — you need a microscope. Any
imperfections in the contraceptive not visible to the eye, could allow
sperm, STI, or HIV to pass through. . . . The size difference between a
sperm cell and the HIV virus can be roughly related to the difference
between the size of a football field and a football.34
The same curriculum states, “The actual ability of condoms to prevent the
transmission of HIV/AIDS even if the product is intact, is not definitively
known.”35 This distorts CDC’s finding and scientific consensus.

Apparently, it isn't enough to spread Texas' failed system throughout the U.S. Bushco wants that kind of success all through Africa as well.

Of course, there isn't any reason sex-only-with-your-married partner should apply to, say, Bush operatives in charge of such programs.

This is typical of the controlling religious right. They will help you...with conditions. And those conditions are that you live in a manner that they get to choose for you (even if they do not live up to those standards themselves). The rewards for helping people with these conditions attached are obvious. They have used these occasions for bringing people in dire need into their fold, which helps to maintain their numbers and political power. This makes them invaluable to the Republican party, and this value puts them in positions of power, where they can reinforce that power all over again through programs like these. An ugly loop.

This deeply cynical symbiotic relationship has nothing at all to do with AIDS prevention or helping poverty-stricken countries dealing with a horrible epidemic. Any truly intelligent or generous approach would use what works without attaching dogmatic religious conditions. But the administration and the Christian right see AIDS as an opportunity, mutually beneficial for themselves and their agendas even as it leaves real people with real needs in the lurch. And it builds the ideological foundation that will allow for the plutocratic hog-wallow that almost certainly will follow.

Republicans

They are just awesome.

What with his general incompetence, lack of substantive policy ideas, whiff of corruption and "liberals are all gay tree-hugging taxers" rhetoric, it's a surprise he's not considered Presidential material.

You can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding

Sigh. Proof that getting Democrats to do anything as a group is still like herding cats:

For Democrats, Debate on Fox Reveals Divide

WASHINGTON, May 26 — Four years ago, the leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus began looking for a television outlet to co-sponsor and broadcast a presidential debate to address the concerns of minority voters.

Only one news channel made an acceptable proposal, and an unlikely channel at that: Fox News, in what some Democrats viewed as an effort to associate itself with a group that could help it make good on its claim of presenting “fair and balanced” news coverage.

But now that relationship is being shaken by the decision of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina to shun the debate, a move that has exposed fault lines among two major constituencies of the Democratic Party. While the withdrawal by the candidates frustrated members of the black caucus, it mollified liberals who had objected to the involvement of Fox News, whose programming includes some of the most conservative and pro-Republican commentary on the air.

I have to admit that I can understand why the Congressional Black Caucus would think this might be a good deal. Any political group of any kind faces a kind of dual loyalty: they need to represent the group of people they speak for, but they also need to represent themselves, in order to get enough power and influence to make a difference. As the story points out, there were few networks jumping up and down to take the debates on (although it is interesting to me that Fox beat BET for the debates).

Nonetheless, they might wish to ask themselves where this is taking them. Fox's ratings have slipped recently. Their Republican-friendly, right-leaning tendencies are well documented in places like Media Matters for America. And it isn't simply Fox News. The whole Rupert Murdoch empire is largely a right-wing mouthpiece, which he is looking to add to in a major way.

This same news organization plays up to the Republican "base's" fear of brown people all the time. To wit:

On the March 29 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Fox News' Sean Hannity stated that the actions of protestors -- including "[p]eople holding the Mexican flag up" -- "seemed to be, in many, many ways, outrageous." Hannity subsequently asked a former adviser to Mexican President Vicente Fox to "condemn some of" the protestors' actions, but did not specify which actions

n the March 30 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Fox News analyst and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) stated that "the American people, frankly, when they see a huge crowd in a city carrying flags other than the U.S., I think they're pretty unimpressed, and frankly, a little bit irritated by the idea of people who are here illegally telling us they're going to blackmail our politicians into passing bad laws."

• On the April 2 edition of Fox News Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Fox News anchor Brit Hume stated that the sight of "tens of thousands of people demonstrating, waving foreign flags, on behalf of illegal immigration and against the idea that America should enforce its own laws" was a "repellent spectacle." Hume added that as a result, "reasonable Americans are probably having a difficult time finding anybody to root for in this debate."

All from MMfA (I know, I'm relying on them a lot here, but they do good work.)

While Fox is not the only news station spouting race-based nonsense by any means, their record on the issue is wider and longer, and with more purpose. Their alignment with the same political party that brought America the racist "Southern Strategy" is well established, despite their protests to the contrary. While I don't have any time for ideological purity, which I think is undesirable and impractical, and I certainly don't think that Democratic groups should march in any kind of mindless lockstep with one another, I do think it is reasonable to ask any Democratic Party oriented group what the long-term gain would be aligning themselves with a news organization so hostile to interests that are even vaguely liberal or Democratic.