Monday, February 24, 2003

Eric Muller is responding to an article by Ken Masugi of the Claremont Institute, who defends the internment of Japanese Americans. Eric does a much better job of countering Mr. Masugi's arguments than I could do, so I will direct you to my link to his response above. However, I would like to address one portion of the article which concerns me a great deal. Mr. Masugi states: As Congressman Coble argues, the relocation and contemporary policies have to be judged with these questions in mind. This is sobriety, true moderation and restraint in a crisis. After all, the more questions we ask, the better policy we are likely to get. Anything else is ideological fanaticism. Congressman Coble's critics are the fanatics. They are the ones who should be regarded with wariness in these nervous times. Apparently, in Mr. Masugi's view, anyone who disagrees with him or with Howard Coble's statements on the internment of Japanese-Americans is a fanatic. An ideologue. Dare I say it, perhaps even a traitor (as he seems to imply with his last sentence)? While I think that Mr. Coble is decidedly wrong about the justness of the internment of Japanese Americans, it is his right to express those opinions. And as people concerned with ensuring that no one else in our nation is ever subjected to the horrors of being uprooted from their homes and forcibly relocated, it is our right to demand that he give up his chairmanship of a key subcommittee dealing with homeland security issues. This is not fanaticism Mr. Masugi, it is democracy. Unfortunately, since September 11th, for many who would consider themselves Conservative or Republican, the exercise of our democratic freedoms has become "fanaticism." Those who protest against the policies of the current administration are many times branded as "traitors." And anyone who protests the coming war in Iraq is told to "love it or leave it." It is these exact responses which make it more urgent than at any time in our history for us to hold our leaders accountable for their careless statements. We cannot afford to gloss over remarks which are not only hurtful to others, but may reflect a cavalier attitude toward protecting our Constitution at a time when the fear of terrorism may lead us to make decisions dangerous to the values on which this country was founded.   4:01:30 PM

Cable operators pledge to keep Net open. In a letter sent Friday to the Federal Communications Commission, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association said that "cable operators have no intention of blocking access to content" and that no government regulations are necessary to guarantee this. [CNET News.com] Cable companies to U.S. public: Trust Us. Unfortunately, now that the FCC has effectively granted them permanent monopolies over cable broadband access, trust is the one thing we cannot afford (broadband access may soon be the other). We only need to look to the most recently convicted monopolist, who sought to foreclose the Internet through predatory pricing and anti-competitive business deals, to see how that turns out for customers.   2:18:51 PM

New Resolution Says Iraq Missed Peace. The new resolution recalls that "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations" under U.N. resolutions. It also recalls that council decided on Nov. 8 "that false statements or omissions" in its 12,000-page declaration to U.N. weapons inspectors "and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of that resolution, would constitute a further material breach." The resolution notes that the council has repeatedly warned Iraq "that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." It also observes that Iraq's Dec. 7 weapons declaration contained "false statements and omissions." [AP World News] It seems like the United States has the facts on its side on this one. Did Resolution 1441 state that false claims in the initial report, or failure to cooperate fully in the inspection process would result in "further material breach" and "serious consequences?" Yes. Did the Iraqis both omit facts from the report and fail to cooperate fully (according to the inspectors)? Yes. Does this mean we should go to war? Perhaps not, but the French, Germans, and Russians should have thought about that before voting for 1441, rather than assuming that the Iraqis would change the policies they have followed for the past twelve years to get them off the hook. The anti-war camp has been putting a lot of blame on the United States for any potential war in Iraq, which is unfair. The entire United Nations Security Council, in addition to Iraq, are responsible. Unfortunately, rather than coming clean and admitting their mistake in voting for a resolution they didn't fully believe in, the opponents are stoking the fires of anti-Americanism to get them off the hook.   1:18:35 PM