The following critique of Peter Galbraith was written by Robin Yassin-Kassab, a colleague of mine from PULSE. Robin is a great guy and he knows his stuff. This was so well written that it should be posted here. I think we should hear from Arab perspectives of Galbraith's solution for Iraq. I also recommend checking out Robin's latest book. It's called The Road from Damascus.- Christian Avard
In 2007 I read Peter W. Galbraith's "The End of Iraq", which suggests cutting Iraq into three mini-states, and then responded in two parts. The first part criticises Galbraith's thesis, and the second part criticises the failures of Arabism. Both are merged below. More recently it has been revealed that Galbraith actually stood to gain financially from the dismantlement of Iraq.
Peter W. Galbraith's book 'The End of Iraq' argues the initially persuasive thesis that Iraqis have already divided themselves into three separate countries roughly corresponding to the Ottoman provinces of Basra (the Shii Arab south), Baghdad (the Sunni Arab centre) and Mosul (the Kurdish north), and that American attempts to keep the country unified are bound to fail. I agree wholeheartedly with Galbraith's call for America to withdraw from Iraq - America is incapable of stopping the civil war, and is in fact exacerbating it. (update: I stick by this. The civil war has to some extent calmed because of internal Iraqi dynamics, not because of the US 'surge' - the Sunni forces turned on al-Qaida, and also realised that they had lost the battle for Baghdad and national power. Some groups then allied with the US for a variety of reasons to do with self-preservation). The rest of Galbraith's argument is much more debatable.
Ever so quietly in a Thanksgiving Day news story Vermont State gives notice of an out of court settlement and payout in a taser related incident from 2006. The $40,000 settlement is called "frankly, a business decision" to avoid risk of trial.
The Vermont Attorney General's Office has paid $40,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by a man who claims he was Tasered in 2006 by state police as he was having a seizure that was mistaken as an attempt to resist arrest.
State police deny wrongdoing, state assistant attorney general J.J. Tyzbir told the Valley News. He said he agreed to the settlement to avoid the risk of trial, where a jury could have awarded more money.
"We still believe Mr. Fairbrother was not actually in the throes of a seizure," Tyzbir said. "We believe Mr. Fairbrother was actually trying to evade the officers and was resisting them and was noncompliant. But whenever you go to trial, you risk not getting a favorable outcome. This was, frankly, a business decision."
A wise business decision might include continued review of the Taser policy as local police continue to equip themselves with the Tasers. This October the Taser Company issued a training bulletin warning that 50,000 volt tasering could cause an "adverse cardiac event" when shot in the chest. Avoiding the chest, face and neck is now strongly advised. Suggested shot placements currently include back, abdomen and thighs.
The Vermont AG Taser policy report of 2008 in its conclusion suggests room for further review of their safety.
There remain questions about the safety of the taser's use in certain situations and on certain categories of subjects. These questions are particularly important in situations when multiple tases or extended continuous tasings of a subject are inflicted and when subjects are manifesting a condition called "excited delirium". Continued study of the safety and health effects of tasers is warranted.
The First Stonewall Rebellion (or "riot," depending on your point of view) was arguably the (ahem) seminal event in modern lgbt history. Queers, dykes, faggots, cross-dressers, and street kids for the first time fought back against the expectation that they would just allow themselves to be brutalized and arrested out of shame for who they were. No longer would we let electioneering prosecutors make their names by "cleaning up the streets" through closing down our gathering places.
And to the gay and lesbian communities' credit, it's happening again. The community is broader, and maybe older, but has lost none of its moxie. A group of bloggers and activists have followed the National Equality March (October 11) with a simple proposal:
Shut Down the gAyTM
The idea is this: lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans have been part of the Democratic Party's constituency for decades. The Party has been promising movement toward equality for decades. In response to those promises, lgbt Americans have been giving money to the Democratic Party to help elect Democrats who will enact laws furthering our equality. Result? The Defense of Marriage Act. Don't Ask, Don't Tell (and the ignored third leg, Don't Pursue). No count in the census. No clout for equality, no progress. No Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). We are the first constituency thrown under the bus, tossed to the lions, sacrificed for expediency's sake, despite the national Democratic Party's own rhetoric.
"It is not enough to look back in wonder at how far we have come; those who came before us did not strike a blow against injustice only so that we would allow injustice to fester in our time. That means removing the barriers of prejudice and misunderstanding that still exist in America." - Democratic Party Platform, 2008
The gAyTM shut down movement says we're not going to pay for our own oppression at the hands of politicians with pretty words and no action any more. Those who sign up pledge not to give money to the DNC or the Democratic House or Senate Campaign funds until we see some actual progress. If you want to give money to your Senator or your Rep., fine. But send nothing to the organization that ignored the campaign to preserve marriage equality legislation in Maine and has decreased its lgbt-specific policy positions.
[Why Obama's gAyTM PIN has been sequestered, too, after the jump]
What are they looking for? Well, let's look at the RFP itself:
The Office of Purchasing & Contracting is seeking to establish purchasing agreements with one or more companies that can provide and manage eBay and Specialty on-line site sales.
The state expects to periodically have surplus item(s) available for sale via eBay or Specialty on-line listing site in an effort to realize the best possible return for each item(s).
Yes. That's right. The state wants to hire an outside contractor whose sole job it is to list things on eBay.
Clearly, a job too specialized and sophisticated to hire a state employee for it.
And how much is the state willing to pay to avoid having an actual employee handle this?
The estimated annual value of this contract is $50,000.00. The annual value and quantities are estimated only based on prior usage; actual purchases may be higher or lower depending on the state's needs.
Odd sidenote: for whatever reason, this is a sealed bid, issued on the day of a Holiday weekend, distributed at 2:30 am. Something about that seems a little... odd... to me.
It's almost two years ago now that Anthony Pollina started his campaign to try to get the state's Democratic Party to support him in his run for governor. What he heard from me, and presumably others, was that there was one straightforward way to get the support of the Party: enter the Democratic primary and win.
Of course we know that he didn't do that, but he didn't run as a Progressive, either. Instead he ran as an Independent, polled a lower percentage of the vote than he received in his last statewide race, but counted that as a win because he didn't come in last.
It's another year, both the governor's and lite gov's seats are open, and liberals and progressives across the state are hoping to avoid the mistakes of years past, including setting up three-way races likely to lead to a minority Republican win. Part of this strategy involves focussing on winnable races. For instance, while the D's were scrambling for a candidate against Douglas two years ago, this year there are five announced candidates
For the Lite Gov seat there are multiple declared or possible candidates, but with a twist: David Zuckerman, a Progressive State Rep. from Burlington, has announced that he's thinking of a Lite Gov run in the Democratic primary.
Exactly the strategy some of us were urging on Pollina two years ago. While Vermont law says you can't appear on the ballot in two party primaries, there is no impediment to running on the primary of one party and launching a write-in campaign in another. Naturally, the only way this can possibly work is to run in the D primary and persuade your Prog supporters to write your name in. A few hundred write-ins and you're on the ballot as the fusion D-P (or P-D) candidate, going head to head against the Republican.
Last night Zuckerman took the first step down this path, meeting with the Washington County Democratic Committee. While making it clear that he hadn't decided whether to run, and what office he might run for (either Lite Gov or State Senate), Zuckerman laid out the key issues that would form the basis of his campaign, tok questions, and directly addressed the issue of electability.
The reaction of this favorably disposed observer was that Zuckerman was well received by the Democratic activists in attendance. His key issues of health care, agriculture and rural economic development, and environmental protection are all well within the Vermont Democratic mainstream. The answers he gave to the questions from the committee were detailed, fluent, and showed a good command of the issues.
What may be more important is that he was open and approachable, emphasized the importance of looking at the future and on where we can work together, and explicitly called for both sides to drop the old fights of who did who wrong in the last election, or the one before that, or the one before that, or . . . You get the picture.
This is Step One. He's met with one county committee, talked directly about how he would overcome the obstacles that any Prog would have in getting Democrats and Republicans to vote for him, and came away with good feelings on both sides. Over the next month or two Democrats in other counties can expect a visit. How those visits go will tell us a lot about our chances in November.
It should be plain to anyone with half a brain that the explosion of state "ratings" and "top ten" lists are often not designed to further discussion, so much as short circuit it. I'm not talking about lists of clearly quantifiable metrics - obesity, unemployment, etc. Obviously, such lists can and do inform meanngful debate.
I'm talking about top ten lists of more subjective values that are arrived at too often by ideological measures, rather than anything scientific. Which states have the most "freedom" or are the most "moral," even (especially) the "best for business." There's been an explosion of such lists in recent years, and the press has generally leaped at the opportunity for a canned headline and eagerly regurgitated what can be misleading, or even partisan gobledeegook into uncritical headlines.
All of this is why Kevin O'Connor at the Times Argus/Rutland Herald deserves a big gold star this week. He used last week's buch-ballyhooed United Health Foundation ranking of Vermont as the "healthiest state" as a springboard to discuss one major metric that any meaningful "healthy" index should have included - hunger.
As O'Connor reports, "a just-released U.S. Department of Agriculture report says more than 14,000 Vermont households (one in 20, or triple the number since 2000) face hunger so severe that adults frequently go without food, while one in 10 residents now relies on donations to eat." That's hardly an occasion for self-congratulation. But O'Connor even goes further, talking to local activists and describing for readers what they can do to help make a difference.
I don't want to sound like I'm knocking the United Health Foundation (well... not much). As mass ratings go, theirs is pretty comprehensive. And it does include economic factors. But for states that end up on the top of such rankings, these sorts of lists are more often an occasion for self-congratulation than self-analysis - especially among the traditional media. As such, O'Connor and his editors deserve credit for looking beyond the numbers. Hopefully this will be the beginning of a trend in the coverage of the next such lists.
I originally intended to send this directly (and privately) to Deb Markowitz but have decided instead to do so through GMD because I think the subject warrants discussion.
Deb
In your Nov. 18 Free Press op-ed, you said "As governor I will work tirelessly to bring good jobs to Vermont." (emphasis added)
To some extent, this is standard campaign speak that merits no special comment. However, it is a phrase with a literal meaning that has found its way into common parlance through repeated use by (almost) all candidates and elected officials.
It is used to justify certain policies that are ineffective and wasteful. And as a result, it diverts attention and resources from more sensible approaches to economic development.
The notion that the state can "bring good jobs to Vermont" is predicated on the assumption that a significant number of businesses are moving from state to state based on favorable tax treatment (among other things). Unfortunately, this received wisdom is not supported by the evidence. Indeed, the number of net jobs gained or lost from interstate moves is negligible as a percentage of all jobs created or destroyed.
Suggesting (even indirectly) that VT should use tax policy to encourage more businesses to locate here reflects and feeds the Trickle Down mantra we've been fed for a quarter century. Advocates of this failed approach have succeeded in poisoning the discourse about economic development because no elected official wants to be branded as anti-business.
But one can be pro-jobs without buying into this calculated and misleading tripe.
So while I'm projecting a bit because I don't know exactly how you meant it, I hope that you will not reinforce the idea that jobs are to be purchased with tax breaks and incentives. Voters need to be told the truth and those who perpetuate such myths for their own self-interest need to be exposed.
In my view, the campaign for governor is an opportunity to break with the past and speak honestly with Vermonters. I hope you (and the other Dem candidates) will do just that.
(Why is) Auditor Tom Salmon is still running around in decidedly un-Auditor-ial arenas still trying to make himself into a teabagger hero, when he (and his pals) have decided that Brian Dubie is the gubernatorial candidate and de facto Party leader?
One wonders if the two stories suggest a common, underlying theme, as articulated by (Potential Independent Candidate for Governor Michael) Bernhardt:
"While the lieutenant governor (Dubie) has a record, there are a lot of folks who haven't heard him talk on how he's going to handle (the economy). So it's raised some concern."
It's still a long time to the full-on electoral season. Lots of things can still happen, especially if GOP insiders are feeling sketchy about their anointed (for now) candidate.
Native Vermonter, businessman and former ambassador Rodolphe "Skip" Vallee said Friday he is thinking about running to replace Gov. James Douglas.
[...] "I know Brian Dubie, I like Brian Dubie, I respect Brian Dubie," Vallee said. But, he added, "I learned a long time ago that elections are not anointments. My view, whether it is people reaching out to me or to anybody else, is that Vermonters really need to have a full range of choices both within their party and certainly in a general election."
What'd I tellya? The big money fiscal conservative wing of the GOP is nervous about Dubie's ability to win, and whether he can be reliably counted on to do what he's told. Mark my words - there's gonna be a primary, whether it's Vallee or someone else.
The idea is this: lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans have been part of the Democratic Party's constituency for decades. The Party has been promising movement toward equality for decades. In response to those promises, lgbt Americans have been giving money to the Democratic Party to help elect Democrats who will enact laws furthering our equality. Result? The Defense of Marriage Act. Don't Ask, Don't Tell (and the ignored third leg, Don't Pursue). No count in the census. No clout for equality, no progress. No Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). We are the first constituency thrown under the bus, tossed to the lions, sacrificed for expediency's sake, despite the national Democratic Party's own rhetoric.
