"America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one"

Wondering how the Bush administration was going to come down on the Andijan massacre? Wonder no longer.

[Via Liberty & Power.]

Comments

[Jennifer]

Just ONCE can we get an administration capable of learning from fucking history? Most of our problems with Islamic terrorists came from our policy of supporting any vile sonofabitch who was willing to say "I hate Communism;" now we're supporting any vile sonofabitch willing to say "I hate Islamic terrorism." Oh, no, THIS will never come back to bite us in the ass.

[tros]

Don't you wish we could have just invaded central Asia instead?

[Ken Shultz]

Where's the ol' neocon dogmatism? Is it possible that President Bush could learn from his mistakes?

...Even if he has, and I sure hope he has, I don't see how shielding these murderous thugs from international scrutiny helps our cause.

[metalgrid]

Just ONCE can we get an administration capable of learning from fucking history?

I think this is because of short term gratification. Simply put, they only need to act for the immediate future - 4 to 8 years. There is nothing pushing them to look further when it becomes someone else's problem after they are out of office. Then when the next administration gets blamed for some fiasco, they can pass the blame to one of the previous administrations.

The only way out of it I can think of is to try previous presidents/administrations for treason/criminal conduct if their policies can be directly linked to funding for terrorist organizations etc. I don't think it'll happen, but if it did, it'll give these addhats pause before they go around messing in other countries affairs.

[Shannon Love]

"Wonder no longer."

If you are willing to accept the word of anonymous sources within the State department who of course have no institutional biases or axes to grind.

The State department and Defense are almost always at loggerheads because they live in two separate worlds. The State department functions in an environment where symbolism and public relations is virtually everything. The link between their actions and concrete reality is often quite tenous. The Defense department functions in an environment of lethal immediacy. They work in the physical world where mistakes kill. The State Department usually advocates taking a symbolic action which they hope will have long term benefits whereas the Defense department wants to take practical action to head off short term physical harm.

The trade off in Uzbekistan is between symbolic action that will pay off only in the long run (if at all) at the expense of the loss of an airbase which will cause physical harm, perhaps even significant loss of life in the immediate short-term.

If the Russians had already downchecked the investigation it may have served no practical purpose for the US to push harder for a mere symbolic gain. Moral poses loose their allure when people are actually getting shot at.

[Henry]

Sorry to sound like a disciple of Noam Chomsky, but the lives of people who constitute "the other" just don't matter to our current overlords--no more than they did in the Reagan administration, when our Central American "allies" butchered tens of thousands. It was all "worth it" then, and it is "worth it" now.

[Ken Shultz]

"If the Russians had already downchecked the investigation it may have served no practical purpose for the US to push harder for a mere symbolic gain."

Making ourselves a symbolic enemy of the revolutionaries helps us in what way Shannon? ...It is possible that the revolutionaries could win, is it not? What a fine mess we'd be in then!

It seems to me that denouncing murderous thugs as murderous thugs costs us nothing. We have as much leverage with the thugs in the regime as we ever did--what are they going to do, insist that we leave? ...On whose authority? Hiding the murderous thugs from the eyes of the world is just as risky, I think.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Which is it, Shannon? Are the anonymous source in the State Department lying, or did the U.S. do the right thing in quashing the investigation?

Also, I thought the new Weekly Standard line was that the airbase in Uzbekistan is no longer necessary. What happened to that?

[Shannon Love]

"It seems to me that denouncing murderous thugs as murderous thugs costs us nothing."

Well it could cost the immediate use of an airbase which is being used to fight another group of murderous thugs as well as provide humanitarian support to some rather desperate peoples. If your analysis is based on the idea that there is no substantial short term trade off to be made then I suggest you start over. Loss of the airbase could cause people to die.

All real-world decsision involve a trade-off. There is always a cost. As the article said:

"If there was tension, a senior defense official said, it was between supporting "democracy in Uzbekistan" and "democracy in Afghanistan."

The situation internal to Uzbekistan isn't clear cut. The conflict isn't primarily between advocates of liberal democracy and corrupt authoritarians but between corrupt authoritarians and Islamist. With Russia backing the the authoritarians, it is not clear that any diplomatic pose we might strike would have any concrete effect.

The real question is: Do we sacrifice lives and risk the developing democracy in Afghanistan for what will be only a symbolic stance with only a possible long term pay off in improved American PR?

My own inclination is to support democracy and let the chips fall where they may but that is an easy choice for me to make because I won't have to see or deal with the immediate bloody consequnces.

The idea that this is an easy and obvious decision to make is just simplistic the point of silliness.

[Jennifer]

No empire remains on top of the world totem pole forever, and there will come a day when Americans are the ones whose lives are deemed expendable by the leaders of the big important nations. I devoutly hope Shannon lives long enough to see that day, and if her eventual death is the result of a corrupt policymaker on the opposite side of the planet, then so much the better.

[SR]

Dovetailing with Jennifer's comment, I've spent almost four years telling people to pay attention to who you're stepping on when you're going up the ladder because they'll be stepping on you when you're going back down. Any geopolitical theory that starts with the proposition, "The United States now has, and always will have, the world's greatest economy and world's greatest military and will always enjoy an unlimited scope of action," is NOT reality-based.

[Shannon Love]

Tim Cavanaugh,

"Are the anonymous source in the State Department lying, or did the U.S. do the right thing in quashing the investigation?"

They don't have to be lying they just have to be in the grip of their institutional biases. The State department will only see part of the decision making process and they will have only a poor understanding of Defenses concerns. I would say, however, that anonymous sourcing is usually indicative of axe grinding when two different departments have at each other in the press. I note that most of the quotes from Defense where attributed.

"did the U.S. do the right thing in quashing the investigation?"

I can't say with any certainty. First, there is the question of whether the US did in fact quash the investigation or whether Russia did. If Russia had already vetoed the investigation then what practical purpose would be served by US making a purely symbolic protest?

Implicit in the criticism of the decision that might or might not have been made is the idea that airbase isn't really important and that the loss of the base is not a really a matter of concern.

Suppose I turn the question around: How many lives in Afghanistan would you be willing to sacrifice in order to strike a symbolic stance in Uzbekistan? What are the most probable real-world benefits you see arising from such a sacrifice and in what time frame?

If you want to criticize the trade-offs that others make you must make a coherent case that the trade-offs for the course of action you advocate are better.

The first step, of course, is acknowledging that there are trade-offs in the first place.

[Ken Shultz]

"Well it could cost the immediate use of an airbase which is being used to fight another group of murderous thugs as well as provide humanitarian support to some rather desperate peoples."

If a revolution succeeds and we've made a symbolic enemy of ourselves, it could cost us the permanent use of that same airbase. Indeed, I think that's a bigger risk.

...I'm not suggesting we join the revolution. I just don't think we should protect the Uzbek regime from international scrutiny.

[linguist]

Jennifer and SR,

I think you're missing Shannon's point. The case is NOT clear-cut, and there is a choice to be made. Either choice involves a risk. I'm sure you can see that.

Plenty of people (rightly) would likewise have come down on the administration from the opposite angle if the decision had gone the other way.

Howevermuch we may think that "more PR" will make people stop wanting to kill Americans, there is no guarantee of that and it often backfires.

[Jennifer]

Actually, I've changed my mind--I don't want SHANNON to die for realpolitik; I want her dearest loved one to do so. Why? Because I think it will be enjoyable to read the Hit and Run thread where she says, "You can't expect India to criticize President Jenna Bush for killing my one true love; after all, India NEEDS American raw materials to continue its military build-up against China! The situation isn't clear cut. The idea that this is an easy and obvious decision to make is just simplistic the point of silliness. Implicit in the criticism of the decision that might or might not have been made is the idea that raw materials aren't really important and that the loss of the materials is not a really a matter of concern. "

[Jesse Walker]

The first step, of course, is acknowledging that there are trade-offs in the first place.

No one in this thread has denied the existence of trade-offs, unless you count President Bush, who supplied the title.

[quasibill]

"Howevermuch we may think that "more PR" will make people stop wanting to kill Americans, there is no guarantee of that and it often backfires. "

And this argument gets it entirely backwards. The issue is whether we should intervene more or less often in other countries. Quite clearly, the last century of interventionist policies hasn't made us any safer - quite the opposite. We went from a country who had no ability whatsoever to strike our mainland (WWI Germany) to an enemy with a remote possibility to strike us in the distant future (Nazi Germany - created by the lopsided terms the French were able to impose after we tipped the scales in WWI) to an enemy that could possibly annihilate our mainland (USSR, which we saved from the Nazis, and, if you follow closely enough, we helped the Bolsheviks into power by convincing the previous gov't to stay in WWI) to an enemy that actually pulled off a strike on our mainland, killing thousands (OBL, who we trained and encouraged in his fight against the USSR).

All that non-interventionists ask is can we try to return to a time when every backwater dictator wasn't supposedly vital to our "interests" and instead focus purely on threats to our mainland? It doesn't take a genius to see that our interventions in other countries creates a popular backlash against us. If we just left these people to their own devices after taking care of threats to our security, we'd all be a lot safer.

And it has nothing to do with PR.

[Shannon Love]

Jennifer,

I find it interesting that you assume that I have not paid some personal price for my stances on US foreign policy.

A distant cousin of mine was killed in Iraq last year and my daughter's high school sweetheart, a boy I have known for five years, is currently in basic and has been told that there is a 90% chance he will be Iraq by summers end. He is my hostage to fortune in this matter.

Speaking more generally, it is the people who must pay the immediate price who are more likely to support the realpolitik solutions. They shy away from sacrificing lives in the here-and-now for the mere chance of saving lives in the future. This is the kind of thinking that dominates the Defense department. They are responsible for people in the field who need the air support. If they lose the base, the people they are responsible for will be put at risk. Only people with nothing to lose can be caviler about losing the airbase.

In any case, you have my argument backwards. It is you that would sacrifice my one-true-love for a symbolic gesture. It is you that advocates risking lives right now for a ephemeral payoff down the road. Why are you so certain it is the right trade-off to make?

[jc]

The State department functions in an environment where symbolism and public relations is virtually everything. The link between their actions and concrete reality is often quite tenous. The Defense department functions in an environment of lethal immediacy. They work in the physical world where mistakes kill.

Which environment does Rumsfeld live in? The one where the Pentagon tells him he needs 450,000 troops to do the job, or the one where he believes 150K is enough?

[Jesse Walker]

It is you that advocates risking lives right now for a ephemeral payoff down the road.

Whoa -- Jennifer supports the Iraq war?

[Jennifer]

it is the people who must pay the immediate price who are more likely to support the realpolitik solutions

So you're saying that the families of the Uzbek dead are now saying "Well, it sucks that my husband's gone, but at least America won't hurt its chances of getting an airbase?"

And while I'm sorry about your cousin and your daughter's friend, they at least CHOSE to go into the military and assume certain risks. When did the Uzbeks sign up to help American foreign policy?

[Jennifer]

Jesse-
Slander! Lies! There's not enough pot in all Canada to get me to support this war.

[Jon H]

Democracy is on the... oh, wait... Democracy is hiding under its bed, waiting until it's safe to come out.

[Jon H]

Shannon Love writes: "the loss of an airbase which will cause physical harm, perhaps even significant loss of life in the immediate short-term"

Why, exactly, do we need this airbase?

Why do we not set one up in Afghanistan? Presumably, that'd be even *more* useful. (Though such an expenditure would tend to belie the administration's act that Afghanistan is a settled issue.)

[Jenny]

Oh, dear. I have been banned for wishing that someone the president cared about had been among the dead, so after making this one last post under a fake address (assuming it goes through) I won't be posting here any more. Which means I'll have to go back to being productive in my spare time, I suppose. But I wanted to say good-bye to everyone here; it's been a fun two years.

The one thing that really bugs me is knowing that I now have something in common with Gary Gunnels.

[Shannon Love]

Jennifer,

"When did the Uzbeks sign up to help American foreign policy?"

They didn't but their deaths didn't have their genesis in US policy. Do suppose somehow that if the US didn't have a base their that Uzbeck authoritarians would have be less likely to kill their opponents? The conflict local to Uzbekistan is driven by internal dynamics that have only a passing relationship to external actors. The fact that the US had a base their may have emboldened to pro-democracy forces to act because the worlds eyes would be more likely to be on them but that is the only way I can see that the US presence influenced events there.

More importantly, the Uzbecks are already dead. The question now is: which course of action will save more lives in the future? Do we place lives at risk in Afghanistan short term while hoping that doing so will save lives in Uzbekistan at some future point or do protect lives in Afghanistan and hope doing so doesn't boomerang in Uzbekistan or elsewhere?

You offered nothing concrete to support your contention that the choice is simple and obvious. You haven't explained how supporting an "investigation" that the Russians have already vetoed will save lives anywhere.

[Jon H]

"Do we place lives at risk in Afghanistan short term"

Little late for that, eh?

Anyway, why should we stay in Uzbekistan when we've supposedly got a free, democratic state right next door in Afghanistan? Isn't that the kind of people we should be allied with?

[gaius marius]

They work in the physical world where mistakes kill.

oh fuck me. does anyone really believe that DoD is anything but another interminable bureaucracy run out of control? what rank bullshit.

[gaius marius]

ms love, that's the kind of dreamy commentary that people issue when they're in love with the idea of killing people to make ideas happen.

They didn't but their deaths didn't have their genesis in US policy.

au contraire. usaid and freedom house have been extremely active in uzbekistan. they incited the riot, just like they did in georgia, ukraine, belarus and lebanon -- all across this supposedly "spontaneous" movement for "freedom" in the third world -- only this time, they miscalculated the reaction of the ruling regime and people got killed.

i'm sure you'll now go on to tell us all about how virtuous usaid and their minions are, and how they're not funded wholly by the united states government.

[quasibill]

"Whoa -- Jennifer supports the Iraq war?"

Jesse, beat me to it.

This is the thing about the eternal warriors - they always get tripped up on their own justifications.

Just to make it clear, Shannon - our entire Iraq fiasco is about paying the price in terms of current lives for a truly conjectural future benefit. Note that we're quickly coming to the point where (if we're only measuring in American lives), we'll have had to have prevented another 9/11 just to justify the lives we've already spent over there. And since to this date noone has provided anything close to meaningful evidence that Saddam was involved in supporting terrorist attacks against the U.S., we're talking about smoke dreams when we talk about the "lives we've saved by invading Iraq."

Somehow, I truly doubt that you see the Iraq war in the same terms that you see this airbase flap.

[Mo]

Wow. I think that's the first time I've seen gaius swear.

If our opposition would have been purely symbolic, why didn't we just abstain? Since the Russians would've blocked it, give me the benefits of actually saying that we oppose the investigation of the massacre? What is the downside of abstaining? It's the baby way out, but it still shows more stones than throwing in with murderers.

Opposing revolutionaries never hurt us before. Well, there was that time we sided with the French vs. the Vietnamese, but it all turned out ok in the end.

Is Jenny Jennifer?

[Ken Shultz]

I think we're looking at some false dichotomies here. ...The choice isn't between joining the Uzbek revolution and protecting the murderous thugs in Uzbekistan just as the choice wasn't between regime change in Iraq and supporting Saddam Hussein.

The question is, what's in the long term interest of the United States? My answer to that question is having an air base in Uzbekistan. Indeed, for proximity to Pakistan and Iran alone, I suspect that base may become our single most important strategic base. Anything that puts that base in jeopardy seems to me that it's bad for the United States.

...Joining the revolution then is bad for the United States. Protecting the murderous thugs from international scrutiny and making ourselves an apparent enemy of the would be revolutionaries is bad for the United States.

I'm not privy to communications between the Bush Administration and the thugs in Uzbekistan, but considering the apparent lack of domestic support, if the regime made our continued presence there contingent on our running interference with the international community, I'd find that requirement undoable (...and maybe impeachable.)

We should leave if the people of Uzbekistan don't want us there, of course; however, wouldn't the regime in Uzbekistan risk what legitimacy it still has if it publicly demanded a U.S. withdrawal and we tentatively refused?

...Won't you concede, Shannon, that the risk of losing the base to a successful revolutionary government is at least as significant as the risk of losing the base to the present government?

[Jon H]

"The question is, what's in the long term interest of the United States? My answer to that question is having an air base in Uzbekistan."

But why stay in an undemocratic country when we have access to a friendly democracy right next door?

Why stay in Uzbekistan when we could be in Afghanistan? We don't need Uzbekistan anymore.

[gaius marius]

I think that's the first time I've seen gaius swear.

it's rarely appropriate, mr mo, and perhaps wasn't even there. but ms love (so ironic a name) and her jingoistic militarism certainly merit denunciation in the strongest possible terms.

[Ken Shultz]

Jennifer, Jenny,

The suspension thing is only temporary. I'm not sure exactly how long it lasts, but as I recall, when I got nailed, it only lasted for a few days.

...Please come back when it's over. : )

[anonymous]

Is Jenny Jennifer?

Yes.

[videlicet]

this is where rhetoric was supposed to meet the road, but it didn't even touch base 😀

cheers!

[jc]

Jennifer,

You have first hand experience from your teaching days to know that public authoritarians will always support other public authoritarians until it actually does bite them in the ass. Until terrorists attack the US airstrip in Uzbekistan, it isn't an ass-biting.

Viet Nam, Saddam, Israel, The House of Saud, the Taliban... Being a public authoritarian means never having to say you're sorry.

[Ken Shultz]

"Opposing revolutionaries never hurt us before. Well, there was that time we sided with the French vs. the Vietnamese, but it all turned out ok in the end."

...and there was Iran, which may turn out even better than Vietnam. ; )

[Rick Barton]

Creating cover for the barbarity of regimes that our government favors-What a shame. This neocon foreign policy has got our government behaving like the old Soviet Union.

[joe]

Uzbek exurity forces killed hudreds of protesters, shooting them down in the square, and chasing them into side streets to finish the job.

Here is the first statement from the White House, spoken by Scott McClellan:

"We are concerned about the outbreak of violence, particularly by some members of a terrorist organization that were freed from prison."

Remember that - the White House has taken to referring to armed attacks by government security forces on protesters as "the outbreak of violence," accusing the dead of belonging to terrorist organizations, and considering the most "concerning" aspect of such episodes the actions of the protesters.

But, you know, only foreign governments. Of course.

[Shannon Love]

Ken Shultz,

"Won't you concede, Shannon, that the risk of losing the base to a successful revolutionary government is at least as significant as the risk of losing the base to the present government?"

Well no actually. Sadly, I don't think the democratic movement has much a chance short term regardless of the support we give them. The internal dynamics aren't favorable and the Russians are the big external players. Russia has no interest in a democracy there.

A democratic government would be best for us because it would be at odds with Russia and would need our support and goodwill more than the current regime. I don't think they would hold our supposed veto of already dead investigation against us especially since they would have their own Islamist problem to worry about.

I really think you assign this matter a tremendously exaggerated importance, especially since the only info we have comes from anonymous sources within the State department. It looks to me that (1) the investigation wasn't going to happen without Russian consent and (2) even if it happen it would have zero impact. I see only a symbolic gain here and I haven't seen anything to suggest that such a symbolic gain offsets the very real short-term cost.

[joe]

"The situation internal to Uzbekistan isn't clear cut. The conflict isn't primarily between advocates of liberal democracy and corrupt authoritarians but between corrupt authoritarians and Islamist."

As opposed to Afghanistan, where General Dotsum is actually a misuderstood Jeffersonian.

Our Afghan allies became "advocates of liberal democracy" the day the first Green Berets told them to be. I have no doubt there is a very nice, genuinely liberal, Uzbek version of Hamid Karzai currently serving as the Director of the Chamber of Commerce in whatever American city has the biggest Uzbek population, who we could fly when we felt like it.

Talk about getting tripped up by her own justification, we're supposed to believe that the Uzbek protesters are dirty for us to lie down with, and accept that as an excuse why we should be running interference for Islam Karimov.

[gaius marius]

A democratic government would be best for us because it would be at odds with Russia and would need our support and goodwill more than the current regime.

i'm glad to hear you say it, at least, ms love. some poor schmoes actually have the idea that this isn't even partially about ringing russia and china with client states of our empire as a means of containment.

but i would warn you against this old imperial game of balancing powers and spheres of influence. it will be harder than you jingoists think, ms love -- it brought down the old order of europe, and it can destroy the united states just as easily.

[Fabius Maximus]

Do people really get banned? H and R is hardly what one would call vitriolic. Spirited but only very rarely vitriolic.

Am I missing something about the etiquette of H and R?

QFMC cos. V

[gaius marius]

am i missing something about the difference between thoughts and actions? so much for being the web home of freethinking and libertarianism.

[joe]

The master banned Jennifer because you can get in trouble with the Secret Service for letting people threaten the President on your website.

So let's hear about H&R's history with the feds.

Some of you may recall the obvious FBI agent trolling for pedophiles that kept popping up a few months back - "I may only be a thirteen year old boy with a perfectly hairless body, but that doesn't mean I don't want to spend long hours talking about libertarianism with a grown up."

He pretty much gotted mocked into cyber-oblivion.

Any other juicy tidbits.

[Mo]

Some of you may recall the obvious FBI agent trolling for pedophiles that kept popping up a few months back - "I may only be a thirteen year old boy with a perfectly hairless body, but that doesn't mean I don't want to spend long hours talking about libertarianism with a grown up."

How did I miss that? Damn!!! I always miss the hillarious narc posts.

[Anonymous (last time, I swear)]

Technically, she didn't threaten the President or his family; she said she wished a family member had been among the dead so that the President would realize that their lives mattered.

[Russ D]

You think losing a loved one suddenly makes a person think rationally?

(sorry for stepping on gaius' territory there.)

[Mo]

Jennifer/anonymous,
Russ D is right. Speaking from the experience of spending and watching all of 9-11 with a guy whose best friend was a firefighter that died in the towers, the loss of a loved one is only likely to make people react more illogically. His response for what our first action should be was "We should bomb Iraq, Saudi Arabia and whoever the fuck else might be guilty of this!" He didn't feel much differently a couple weeks later when the initial shock was over.

[Anonymous for the last post ev]

Damn, Mo. Sounds like Jennifer went and got herself banned for nothing, then. On the other hand, at least the Prez wouldn't be cozying up to the Uzbek leader if that had happened.

[thoreau]

Jennifer-

It sucks to lose you on this forum.

Shannon-

It may very well be that there was nothing the US could do to get a condemnation of Uzbekistan from that meeting of NATO and Russia.

However, meetings with NATO and Russia are not the only venue in which the US can criticize foreign government. The silence on Uzbekistan has been deafening.

Ken-

Air bases in Central Asia are indeed important to our national security. However, I seem to recall US military forces seizing control of large parts of Afghanistan.

[drf]

"The one thing that really bugs me is knowing that I now have something in common with Gary Gunnels."

what happened?

drf

[drf]

thoreau -- what happened to gg?

drf

[thoreau]

drf-

Gunnels was banned a few months ago.

Jennifer/Anon/Jenny/whoever-

I don't see anything in this thread where you wished ill on Bush or his relatives. You hoped that Shannon Love loses a loved one...

...unless Shannon is a Bush relative? 🙂

Shannon-

Your return to this forum convinces me that you aren't another alias for Gunnels.

[drf]

thoreau - really?

what happened? what was the thread?
do people really get banned from H&R? i thought that one internet tough guy from last winter who claimed to have gotten banned was just a computer glitch...

jeez - i feel like han solo: i'm out of it for a little while and everybody got delusions of grandeur...

thanks,
drf

[kmw]

If I'm gathering the pieces correctly.... while there seems to be some mild rational for the apparent banning, Hit and Run without Jennifer is like summer without sunshine.

[kmw]

thoreau,

I'm guessing Jennifer said something that Tim deleted. Which actually covered both of their asses, when you think about it.

[David]

drf,

Gary got banned during a thread where he made a disparaging post about Tim Cavanaugh. I think thread had something to do with christian soldiers, or maybe JPII. His banning was more like rules that he couldn't break.

If true, I'll miss Jennifer's posts.

[Ken Shultz]

"Sadly, I don't think the democratic movement has much a chance short term regardless of the support we give them. The internal dynamics aren't favorable and the Russians are the big external players. Russia has no interest in a democracy there."

Recently, Russian backed strong men haven't fared well in the former Soviet republics, so I wouldn't count the revolutionaries out on that basis. Admittedly, other movements have enjoyed greater press freedom, relatively speaking, and relatively freer elections. ...And, admittedly, I can't tell when a former Soviet republic achieves critical mass. I just know what the trend is, and, from the looks of it, the Uzbek regime has a serious legitimacy problem.

[drf]

thanks, David.

(from one David to another)

greetings from Chicago.

cheers,
drf

[Seamus]

"I have been banned for wishing that someone the president cared about had been among the dead"

"Technically, she didn't threaten the President or his family; she said she wished a family member had been among the dead so that the President would realize that their lives mattered."

I'm confused. All Jennifer said, as far as I can tell, is "I don't want SHANNON to die for realpolitik; I want her dearest loved one to do so." So does the ban mean that Shannon is actually President Bush? If not, the banning is an outrage. (Actually, it's an outrage in any event, but if Shannon is not Pres. Bush, it's fucking *stupid* as well as an outrage.)

[Ken Shultz]

"Your return to this forum convinces me that you aren't another alias for Gunnels."

What's next? ...do you think we'll hear from Mona?

[Ken Shultz]

Um...

I'm speaking as someone who was once suspended, as opposed to "banned", and I have to say that it's not all that bad. I mean, you can't post under your regular name for a few days. They don't sue you or anything.

Now I was never really sure of what I was suspended for, and that was kinda a bummer. It may have been for calling some torture apologist a "dolt" or somethin', or it may have been for ridiculing the persistent posts of a certain commenter about the awesome power of music videos, etc. to topple, well you know. I don't know 'cause I did them both at kinda the same time.

...Except then I see another regular commenter juke the same poster about the same thing, you know, A Bridge Too Far reference and all, so I don't think that was it.

Anyway, I think it's, you know, Hit & Run's site, and they should be able to let who they want on the site whenever they want. I was ticked off for a few days when I got suspended too, but then I thought, you know, it's their site, and they want a certain level of decorum, and I was gettin' pretty hot under the collar with those torture apologist, Republican propaganda victims, and they just don't want that kinda heat on the site. So I came back, posted a comment and found that I wasn't suspended anymore.

...Anyway, having said all that, I sure hope Jennifer comes back. ...soon. The place wouldn't be the same without her. ...and although I've been as big a fan of Gunnels as anyone, (assuming he was merely suspended rather than banned) shame on him for lettin' somethin' like a little suspension get in the way of doin' somethin' that he obviously enjoyed in a place he obviously liked doin' it. I hope Jennifer doesn't do that.

[Seamus]

Sure, H&R has the right to manage its site however it wants, but that doesn't mean that however it wants to manage its site is right. I'm more outraged by the ban of Jennifer from H&R than I would be by a similar ban at Lucianne.com for the same reason I'm more apt to denounce torture at Abu Ghraib than the beheading of American and European hostages by Zawahiri's henchmen--because I expect better of H&R (and the United States). Jennifer has been a valuable contributor to H&R. In this instance, she wasn't personally abusive, nor did she incite to riot, or call for the assassination of the president, or for the overthrow of the United States government by force or violence, or offer to sell child pornography or medical marijuana. I'm at a loss to see how she deserved banning. Until someone convinces me that she did, I'm likely to be pretty testy on the subject.

I'd advise Jennifer to pick another nom de plume (nom d'ordinateur?) and post under her new persona.

[Fabius Maximus]

Well, I think I'm clear on the etiquette.

Don't call people dolts, morons, etc.

Don't curse ... at least not very often.

Don't threaten people with bodily injury, or obliquely mention anything bad happening to bigwigs, especially those who employ police forces and/or lwayers.

Dank u well.

QFMC cos. V

[Ken Shultz]

If I was an oddsmaker, and I was takin' bets on who was most likely to get suspended, I would have given really high odds that it would be Jennifer.

...and I'm not sayin' that Jennifer should have been suspended. To the contrary!

I'm sayin' that now that it's happened, I hope she comes back ASAP.

Fabius Maximus,

In context, the "dolt" comment was worse than I can relate here. In context, even as I hit the post button, I knew it was wrong. I was being unfairly brutal.

I suspect that's the big difference between my post and Jennifer's. I wanted to crush that guy, but I doubt Jennifer's meant to harm anyone ever.

...Although if it weren't for thoreau and Mo, the people of California, apparently, would have to suffer the destructive power of her apocalyptic fantasies.

Oh, and I've never noticed anyone getting in trouble specifically for using profanity. I think a pissed off Samuel L. Jackson would feel perfectly at home on this site.

[Somebody Else Who's Never Post]

Jennifer explained to me that the statement which got her banned has, in fact, been deleted; as mentioned here before, she wished that one of the murdered protesters had been a Presidential family member so that the President himself would realize that the protestors' lives were not, in fact, expendible. Though she still does not see how that constitutes an actual threat or anything close to it, she does concede that the First Daughter is an incredibly intelligent and insightful young woman who has in her lifetime accomplished a great deal on her own merit, and thus the word 'bimbo' in reference to her was unfounded. Jennifer further concedes that the First Daughter is most likely one-hundred-percent in control of her drinking, so the syllables 'alcoholic' were also uncalled for in reference to this upstanding example of young American womanhood.

And yes, Jennifer is fully aware that she could simply continue posting with a different Internet browser, as she theoretically could have done today and right now; but Jennifer, whatever her other shortcomings may be, is enough of a lady to never crash a party or elbow her way in where she is not welcomed by her host. Jennifer is also afraid that she might develop a habit of referring to herself in the third person, which could get quite obnoxious after awhile.

At any rate, Jennifer wants to say thanks for the good times she's had here, and give an especial thanks to those posters and occasional lurkers who have had various enjoyable e-mail correspondences with her.

[Ken Shultz]

"If I was an oddsmaker, and I was takin' bets on who was most likely to get suspended, I would have given really high odds that it would be Jennifer."

...Just for clarity's sake, that means that I'd have thought it was like a thousand to one shot that the suspension gods would drop a bolt on Jennifer.

[joe]

I really should have been banned a couple days ago. Just for losing my cool.

...Just a little Maoist self-criticism from the liberal.

[Shannon Love]

Unless a post got deleted, I didn't see any comments that Jennifer made that I thought were out of line. The idea that some support a particular course of action because they lack a true awareness of the human cost is such a common conceit of the psuedo-intellectual that it shouldn't raise eyebrows.

The actually difference is not between those that understand the cost in human suffering and those that don't but instead it is between those believe that there is always a cost and those that believe that there is almost always some utopian costless solution. Once a person believes that tradeoffs are not necessary they then regard those who do believe in tradeoffs as brutes who needlessly impose suffering on others. Unable to comprehend why anybody would inflict such suffering they then conclude that the person making the tradeoff must not truly grasp the harm they are causing.

Empirically, it is easy to demonstrate that the subset of the population that has the most direct experience with war and cost, i.e. members of the military and their families are also those most likely to believe the cost is justified. It is those with the least experience with war and its cost, like sheltered academics, who think it unjustified.

[thoreau]

Empirically, it is easy to demonstrate that the subset of the population that has the most direct experience with war and cost, i.e. members of the military and their families are also those most likely to believe the cost is justified. It is those with the least experience with war and its cost, like sheltered academics, who think it unjustified.

There is undoubtedly some truth in that, but it's worth noting that some of the most enthusiastic backers of the war were veterans of think tanks. Paul Wolfowitz did grim duty in the battle over office space, and led a daring raid to claim the coffee room for his working group before administrators could assign the space to a different research group.

[Ken Shultz]

Oh...While we're banning people.

I've got this ex-girlfriend, maybe some of you have seen one of her posts, and we broke up like more than five years ago, but her flying monkeys, apparently, still have me on their list. So they direct her here occasionally, which is about as much fun for me as a root canal.

So, anyway, if you wanna ban my ex-girlfriend from the site, well I think that'd be just great! In fact, can't we just throw her into the ol' Hit & Run volcano instead of Jennifer? Take my word for it, you're givin' up nothin' but trouble--it would be a completely justified, preemptive strike.

The name's spelled B-R-...

[Mo]

Empirically, it is easy to demonstrate that the subset of the population that has the most direct experience with war and cost, i.e. members of the military and their families are also those most likely to believe the cost is justified. It is those with the least experience with war and its cost, like sheltered academics, who think it unjustified.

You'd think the states most at risk for terrorist attacks would be the most enthusiatic supporters of the PATRIOT Act and the rest of the administrations anti-terror policies, especially those that saw the horrors of 9-11 firsthand. However, it was also the case that these states/metropolitan areas voted for Kerry (the decorated veteran) over Bush (who never finished his domestic service). One would also think the areas most at risk would get outsized federal anti-terror funds. That also is not true.

[Seamus]

When I said Zawahiri, I should have said Zarkawi. (Can't tell the jihadists without a scorecard, you know.)

[kmw]

Good job with the 4:20 post, thoreau!

Speaking of which... Why is it ok to advocate pot, a federally banned substance, and not get blocked from this message area. But saying something that is also a federal offense, which is then DELETED so that the poster doesn't even have to face Gitmo, results in expulsion? What about a warning?

I know, I know, sole discretion, ownership, blah blah. I wonder if you realize how much free marketing you received from Jennifer's presence. Such is the way of irony.

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

All that non-interventionists ask is can we try to return to a time when every backwater dictator wasn't supposedly vital to our "interests" and instead focus purely on threats to our mainland? It doesn't take a genius to see that our interventions in other countries creates a popular backlash against us. If we just left these people to their own devices after taking care of threats to our security, we'd all be a lot safer.

Point of Order....

What happens in the case of Rwanda, where the U.S. doesn't step in when it could have? Then the international community and the Rwandans blame the US for doing nothing. Please note that I'm not focusing specifically on Rwanda here, I'm just bring to light an example of where the opposite is true.

Either way the US takes the heat.

[Classical Tiger]

"Paul Wolfowitz did grim duty in the battle over office space, and led a daring raid to claim the coffee room for his working group before administrators could assign the space to a different research group."

Now that's humor. Kind of like Paul Fussell's jibe at an anti-atom bomber, "Indeed, when the bombs were dropped he was going on eight months old, in danger only of falling out of his pram."

[Ken Shultz]

"Empirically, it is easy to demonstrate that the subset of the population that has the most direct experience with war and cost, i.e. members of the military and their families are also those most likely to believe the cost is justified."

My uncle was pre-med and super ambitious when he went to Vietnam. When he got back, all he wanted to do was be a minister; so he went to seminary, and that's what he became. He only had a few tiny churches in the backwoods, but, to make a long story short, he made a huge difference to a lot of people. He was an amazing guy.

...All of a sudden he came down with some kind of leukemia or lymphoma--I was just a kid and the family still doesn't talk about it much--but it was a nasty disease. It killed him quick. There didn't seem to be much question as to the cause.

He had two daughters, and, to make a long story short, things would've gone a lot better for 'em if he'd been around. Yup, the world would be a better place than it is now, especially for his immediate family.

Personally, I'm not sure that what we got in Vietnam was worth the price we paid, using the value of his life alone on the cost side of the equation. ...add the lives of other servicemen, the guys who came back maimed and emotionally scarred, all the civilians, and the cost/benefit analysis just gets worse.

I think you're right about families closest to loss being more likely to support the war in question. When I talk to people in the family, they're just sure that what we were fighting for in Vietnam was worth it--it just had to be! Otherwise, my uncle died in... ...That's an appeal to pity, isn't it? It shouldn't surprise anyone to hear that military families who've lost loved ones can be just as irrational as the rest of us.

[Stevo Darkly]

Dear Somebody Else Who's Never Posted Here Before:

If you should happen to correspond with Jennifer in the future, please tell her that she will be much missed, and implore her to continue posting under her regular name whenever the period of her suspension is over.

Ask her to please remember that these are odd times, when even a rhetorical, non-serious death wish directed at a member of the First Family can bring unwanted attention by guys in dark suits and dark glasses, and even the [looks around furtively, whispers] IRS. I think the action by H&R was excesssive (could have been a warning first), but it's sort of understandable.

Please return after things have cooled off.

[Stevo Darkly]

Some of you may recall the obvious FBI agent trolling for pedophiles that kept popping up a few months back - "I may only be a thirteen year old boy with a perfectly hairless body, but that doesn't mean I don't want to spend long hours talking about libertarianism with a grown up."

Did he like movies about gladiators?

[Mo]

Ditto Stevo's 8:26 comment and on on his 8:29 comment, I only have this to say:

Was he ever in a Turkish prison?

[Ken Shultz]

Speaking of CNN and senior administration official's children inadvertently causing major legal problems for regular people and Stevo and Mo's one in three chance of being arrested for flirting with an FBI agent online, did anybody catch the "Not What I Meant", Act 1: "Froggy Goes A-Courtin'" part of that recent This American Life episode? ...dated 05/06/05 on their website?

http://www.thislife.org/

That was one of the most frightening true stories I've ever heard. It sounded like Louis XIV sending people to the Bastille on the whim of one of his courtiers! ...and it happened right here in America! ...recently!

[Ken Shultz]

"Speaking of CNN and senior administration official's children inadvertently causing major legal problems..."

I think CNN was playing in the background when I was typing--I have no other explanation.

The comment should read, "Speaking of senior administration official's..."

[Jon H]

Maybe hairless boy was the mayor of Spokane?

[Jon H]

joe writes: "Remember that - the White House has taken to referring to armed attacks by government security forces on protesters as "the outbreak of violence," accusing the dead of belonging to terrorist organizations, and considering the most "concerning" aspect of such episodes the actions of the protesters."

Hm. That might be a good reason to keep the Gitmo prisoners at Gitmo, rather than bringing them onto the mainland.

Wouldn't want to give Bush an excuse to shoot up some civilians, claiming they were "escaped terrorists".

[Jesse Walker]

Any thoughtful person knows that life contains costs and choices -- and no one in this thread has denied that it does, though Shannon keeps beating that strawman as though it were trying to mug her. As I mentioned earlier, the person pretending there's no trade-off here is the president, who keeps insisting that his foreign policy is advancing both U.S. interests and the spread of liberty even in cases, like this one, where he obviously feels he needs to choose between them.

Libertarians understand the importance of trade-offs -- after all, they're central to any appreciation of the market -- but they generally distrust the folks who spend their time thinking up grand plans to trade off other people's lives and liberty. If Stalin had grown up half-digesting the op-eds of Thomas Sowell, he might have used the word "trade-offs" himself as he delivered his lectures on making omelettes and breaking eggs. Perhaps he shed a tear or two for his victims, spent some moments pondering the regrettable costs of his tragic but necessary choices, then spent the night patting himself on the back for taking on such a weighty burden. If he didn't, I'm sure his apologists did.

[Jason Sonenshein]

Until Jennifer is invited back to Hit and Run, I'm going to boycott Reason. Oh, I'll read the website. I might even comment here occasionally. However, I will not give Reason any more business. I will neither renew my subscription nor purchase the magazine at the newsstand. I will not click through to any of the advertisements on the website. Finally, I will no longer recommend Reason to my friends and acquaintances. Who else is with me?

[thoreau]

I've been in touch with Jennifer, and I understand the circumstances of her ban, and Tim's reasons are reasonable. I won't say more, lest I divulge things that one or more participants in the affair might want to keep private.

Oh, I will say that I'll miss Jennifer's presence. If she's invited back that would be nice.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Oh, stop making an ass of yourself, Jason.

Speaking of which... Why is it ok to advocate pot, a federally banned substance, and not get blocked from this message area. But saying something that is also a federal offense, which is then DELETED so that the poster doesn't even have to face Gitmo, results in expulsion? What about a warning?

Jennifer did get a warning after the first, deleted post, which pretty clearly expressed approval of the idea of a certain person's being killed. After that warning, she posted the comment about Shannon Love or his/her relative being killed, at which point I blocked her IP. She then compounded her error by informing all and sundry of her situation rather than handling the matter quietly.

Jennifer says that she did not see the warning until after she had made the second comment, and I have no cause to doubt her. Also, unlike another longtime commenter in a similar situation a few months back, she has been gracious and patient in discussing this matter with me. I will lift the IP block when I hear back from her, and I welcome her input at Reason.

My objection to comments like the one at issue has nothing to do with federal laws or threats. Do not make comments that threaten, speculate about, express approval of, show idle curiosity regarding, counterfactually fantasize about, or in any other way entertain the idea of death or bodily injury against any other person. That goes for public figures, fellow commenters, Reason staffers, and any other individual.

As I have said before, there are no official rules around what's approved and what's not-though I am considering a general ban on anybody who bellyaches about Reason's comments-editing policy. Exercise common sense and discretion, avoid doing anything that will require me to do any extra work, and above all avoid the occasions of sin, and you'll be in the clear.

[Yogi]

...USSR, which we saved from the Nazis

This was posted like 3 days ago up above, but I'd like to comment about how bad our history classes have gotten if somebody thinks this is true. Russia saved US from the Nazis. They lost many more people the U.S. and most of their country (the inhabitable parts anyway) was destroyed. Russia was the deciding factor in WWII, not the U.S. We came in and mopped up just like in WWI. Disparage them for being Commies or enablers of Stalin, but do not discredit what they did in WWII. And people wonder why the rest of the world thinks we're arrogant.

[kmw]

Tim sez:

Also, unlike another longtime commenter in a similar situation a few months back, she has been gracious and patient in discussing this matter with me. I will lift the IP block when I hear back from her, and I welcome her input at Reason.

You know, I was afraid I was going to see Jennifer with the secret service on the 11 o'clock news. I think it was a noble thing to delete the post so quickly, and it's what I would have done. You also gave her a warning, which is also exactly what I would have done.

The fact that you're willing to reconsider the matter is quite generous of you, and I think it's another example of why Reason is a first class organization. Lesser individuals would have refused to budge.

though I am considering a general ban on anybody who bellyaches about Reason's comments-editing policy

I have no problem with your editing policy, in fact I applaud it. I was curious about whether Jennifer had been warned of a impending ban, and clearly she was. That you explained yourself here in the comments section is exemplary, and more than reasonable. Thank you.

[Jennifer's long-lost and consi]

My sister is totally embarrassed by this whole thing, and has received many very nice e-mails from posters showing their support. Thing is, she's not even embarrassed for herself so much as she feels bad about the way she cast Tim in an undeservedly unflattering light. Anyway, she promised Tim she wouldn't post again unless the ban on her IP was lifted, but she asked me to copy and paste the text of an e-mail she sent to one poster explaining the situation. So here goes:

Hi there, [name deleted]. This whole thing has been a mess (and I find it ironic that, for all that I'm a lil' pothead, it's a comment I made while perfectly clear-headed and sober that should ultimately cause me trouble). The problem was all a case of lousy timing, both on my part and Tim Cavanaugh's. Although you've probably divined most of the details from the thread, here's what happened:

I had a super-slow day at work, with literally nothing to do but surf the Net. I posted that comment about the President's daughter. Tim apparently sent me a warning then, but I did not see it, since I'm not in the habit of regularly checking this address. (When I was teaching this was the address I gave my students; now I really only use it for posting on H&R, and registration-required news sites.) I visited more Websites, went back and posted the comments about Shannon, had a coffee-cigarette break, read still more Websites, and then, for lack of anything else to do, checked my Hotmail. Tim's warning was there; I wrote back with a brief apology, but in the meanwhile he'd already gone and blocked my IP on the assumption that I'd seen his warning and disregarded it. So I assumed I was banned, and posted my good-bye on the thread.

Now, of course, Tim was furious, since from his perspective he sent me a friendly warning, which I disregarded in a very assholish fashion before going on to make him look like a ban-happy martinet. Meanwhile, I'm cheesed since from my perspective I was banned without warning for a comment which, while not the world's most insightful, certainly wasn't ban-worthy. That's where matters stood until Tim sent me another e-mail explaining things from his view, to which I responded with an explanation from my view, so I guess the whole thing will be smoothed over soon.

You know, it's really not surprising that I was unpopular in high school, is it? Anyway, I wanted to thank you for your support, which sounds like a cliche in this instance but is, in fact, true; it's just that I'm not very good with words at 8 a.m. on a cold and foggy morning. Thanks again, and once the IP ban is lifted I suppose we'll be chatting again soon. I'll be having another slow day today; hopefully Hit and Run will post a thread on "What's wrong with public schools" or "Why science fiction rocks" or some other topic that I can really sink my teeth into.

Jennifer

[Mona]

Do not make comments that threaten, speculate about, express approval of, show idle curiosity regarding, counterfactually fantasize about, or in any other way entertain the idea of death or bodily injury against any other person. That goes for public figures, fellow commenters, Reason staffers, and any other individual.

Very sound, Tim, and having learned in this thread that H&R does "discipline" commenters who cross civilized lines, I may return to commenting here nearly as abundantly as once I did. Truly, when I read the post hoping that Shannon would die at the hands of some despot, or that one of her loved ones would die, I was thinking: "this is why I don't participate here anymore." That feeling was only reinforced as I continued reading and saw no one objecting to those sentiments.

The other party who apparently was banned, GG, greatly contributed to my not finding much pleasure in commenting here. (Some of this had to do with unwanted email communications from that person, but I won't elaborate since he is not here to "defend" himself.) When the tenor and tone of the H&R comments section gets taken over by vicious offerings, some will move on. And allowing such a cesspool to develop will not reflect well on either Reason in particular, or libertarians in general.

That all said, and tho I totally disagree with Jennifer on foreign policy, I do hope she comes back. She has become a favorite personality around here, and most usually offers pith and wit.

[jc]

Empirically, it is easy to demonstrate that the subset of the population that has the most direct experience with war and cost, i.e. members of the military and their families are also those most likely to believe the cost is justified. It is those with the least experience with war and its cost, like sheltered academics, who think it unjustified.

I would think a citizen of the area where the fighting takes place has more direct experience with the war and cost than even the military. But the military outranks them, I guess.

[joe]

They stuck you with the email tag "Monaho?"

That's just not right.

[Mona]

joe writes: They stuck you with the email tag "Monaho?

Is that not just crazy? This is what happened. I signed up for PeoplePC by fone a few months ago, after moving. They asked me to pick an email handle, and I chose MonaH. The friendly Customer Service Agent starts processing accordingly, and then advises me that I need one more letter or number in my handle. Well, I did not want to use my full last name, and so he suggested I just add the next letter, which I did -- but this was over the fone and I was not looking at it. "Ho" is the first two letters of my surname.

So...I start sending friends my new email address, and posting at my usual haunt, and my in-box becomes flooded with guffaws and astonishment at my handle; I truly had not realized this at the time I chose it.

I don't want to change it again, but since I'm about to start sending out resumes, I'll have to sign up for a separate hotmail account for that endeavor. (sigh)

[drf]

hi Mona!

haven't seen you in a while. one thing with hotmail and other web-based accounts is that you can have the account only accept those names in your addressbook. for resumes, you can have the business domain in your book or something like that. i have a hotmail resume account, and although there are extra steps involved, it does work.

good luck.

and sorry about the guffaws - the church giggles via email can be annoying to receive 🙂

cheers,
drf

[Stevo Darkly]

Mona, your plight reminds me of an old Dilbert cartoon, where a female employee is trying to get the stupid pointy-haired boss to change her work e-mail address.

The boss says, "Our policy is to form your e-mail address by combining your first initial with your full last name. If I make an exception for you I'd have to do it for anyone and we'd have chaos."

The employee storms out and the boss says, "Boy, that Brenda Utthead sure is touchy."
------------
Hey, that just reminded me of a real life story. I once had a client whose name was something like Elizabeth Biggs. Her employer's policy on work e-mail address was to follow this style: last name + first initial + middle initial @ company.com. But she didn't have a middle initial, so they just subsituted an X. So her work e-mail was [e-mail]. Eventually she got them to change it.

[tdf]

"stop making an ass of yourself"

Sound advice from the ass who brought us "Nearly Headless Nick"