podpolia

Quite the bit of satire.

This is rather disconcerting. I highly reccommend it, as well as its follow up.

After Ariel Sharon's comments the other day (which may have been a bit extreme, but can be well justified by reality), we have this little bit of petulent foot-stomping from Chirac. You know, that President of France that quite a number of individuals in this country insist we should ask permission from to fulfill threats of military action that have been made (with their permission) for 12 years. I don't say I really expect LOGIC from Chirac, but this is so stupid and petty that it's just amusing.

It's not the 'in' thing in Washington currently to be anti-establishment, or to stick to your own views, or to have and use your values, but occasionally you get the occasional loose cannon. I genuinely like what I've heard of this man, and think it's dissappointing that liberals (who at least theoretically hearken back to the days of radical individualism in the '60s and '70s) feel the need to vilify him. Who knows, maybe they feel threatened. Leahy probably did, but that was his own fault for being a jackass.

Stereotypes are running rampant in California. First, the one that the Governor used was a perfect stereotype of himself; and second, the reflexive cries of 'sexism!' and 'homophobia!' from state Democrats. Its things like these that make reading the news worthwhile every so often…

This is not a happy development, really. Another example of the intelligence community not quite being able to keep up with its duties. Not really a suprise: no matter how good the intelligence community is, they'll never be able to always know what's going on everywhere. Less attention has likely been paid to China since September 2001, but missing something as big as the development of an entirely new submarine is not a good sign.
It is beginning to look more and more likely that the US will end up in a conflict with China at some point. This will be a direct result of our 'don't actively take sides' policy with Taiwan. We don't want to make China mad by recognizing Taiwan, but won't take China's side either. We support Taiwan militarily, but basically say that it belongs to China. (Technically, Taiwan has never declared independence, so this is correct, but as far as I know the communist government of China has never had control of Taiwan, so it could not be a 'breakaway province' as they claim.)
It's a mess, and there isn't any really neat way to get out of it.

Ah, those crazy, crazy West Virginians…

In the ongoing effort to make the US government look like a vicious and evil regime, we have this lovely little piece of propaganda. Quite damning if true, you would think…
The problem begins in the second paragraph. Indeed, in the second sentence:
“The Geneva Conventions on the conduct of warfare require the United States to give the Red Cross access to prisoners of war and other detainees.”
Lets look at this one piece at a time, starting with the definition of 'prisoners of war.' Under the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (August 12, 1949), Article 4 terror suspects would NOT be categorized as POWs. While they could theoretically be grouped as “members of other militias… [or] of other volunteer corps” if they were taken captive in Iraq, they would violate all of the sub-subsections of Article 4, Section A, Subsection 2. Neither can they be regarded as “Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units” because they do not follow the terms immediatly following of “…carry[ing] arms openly and respect[ing] the laws and customs of war.” (Art. 4 Sect. A Subsect. 6)
As they are not categorized as POWs, they must be 'other detainees,' right? And the Red Cross must be given access to said 'other detainees,' right?
Wrong. Article 9 says that the Convention cannot prevent the Red Cross from performing 'humanitarian activities' “…subject to the consent of the Parties to the conflict concerned… .” Doesn't sound like we have to let them do jack squat, at least in this case. Terror suspects are likewise not considered to be civilians under the Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (August 12, 1949).
It seems more and more likely that the Red Cross either does not KNOW what their role is under the Geneva Conventions, or (and I believe this to be far more likely) are intentionally skewing and expanding what they are allowed and required to do in order to seize more political power from their roles. When this is combined with the desire to influence the political sphere of a country (in this case the United States), it moves beyond the bounds of what it is SUPPOSED to do, and moves into the realm of attempting to become a player in American politics. Neither of these options paints the Red Cross in a particularly rosy light.
One interesting idea derived from the above thought is that the Associated Press' correspondent (Ms. Naomi Koppel in this case) either does not understand the Geneva Conventions either, did not go to the trouble of checking the facts pertaining to the statements given her by the Red Cross, or wanted to influence American politics in the way that this article seems intentionally to do.
None of these three options make the news industry look good either.

I think this is a very telling look at the mass media of today. Somebody states an opinion that's this off the wall, and naturally the media covers it (as they tend to cover themselves rather extensively). Why? It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that what he said is obviously a falsehood. Radio stations are perfectly free to not play (or request an altered version to play) something that's obviously stupid and offends people.
A major problem with culture the way it is — if somebody says something stupid and offensive, and somebody comments on that, the ensuing controversy (and “censorship”) automatically make people assume that what was said was of value.
Sometimes something stupid and offensive is just stupid and offensive.

All I can say to this one is 'wow.'