The CBC has released a new online tool that allows Canadians (or anyone) to answer some multiple choice questions and be told what party they should belong to. The Vote Compass tool asks how the user feels or how they would change 30 hot button issues. The answers are tabulated and the tool assigns the user to a likely political party and shows their leanings on a graph of social and economic conservatism or liberalism.
As you can see the questions are not exactly nuanced in all cases and lean toward the blunt since they need to suss out a person’s political views in short order. The tool is written in Adobe Flash so don’t bother using your elitist iPad to try to access it.
Once you’ve filled out all the questions in your choice of English or Français you’re told which party you need to start politely telling your friends about.
You can then tell the world where you stand with one click of the Facebook share button.
Update:
Thanks to Deadlist Sin (an actual Canadian, unlike me) we now learn that the liberal bias in the media is a real thing. Even people who consider themselves conservative are being labeled as liberals by the CBC.
Have you heard of reflexology? It’s the fake alternative medical practice where a hippie holistic practitioner rubs the bottoms of your feet and magically heals you…. because you obviously are a moron who never realized that all your vital organs are connected to the soles of your feet. Yes, people actually believe in this.
Well apparently the reflexologists have their own cartel trade organization that wants to prevent the scourge of unlicensed foot rubbers from ever harming the good people of New York.
State Sen. Martin Golden and a handful of other lawmakers got what looked suspiciously like foot massages in the cavernous lobby of the Legislative Office Building.
“They are looking for some of our brains,” Golden (R-Brooklyn) quipped as a member of the New York State Reflexology Association rubbed down his bare feet.
“We are finding out all about reflexology,” Golden added as he sat back in a reclining chair with his feet lifted above his head.
Reflexology, for those who don’t know, is defined as the “systematic application of alternating pressure by the use of the practitioner’s hands, thumbs and fingers to reflex points on an individual’s hands, feet, face or ears.” It is promoted primarily as a stress reduction technique.
The group was in Albany pushing for passage of an Assembly bill that would require licensing of reflexologists and set competence standards
And it would also be nice if legislators would be a little more skeptical when a trade organization wants to require licensing. Sorry, but they don’t want licensing because they’re oh so concerned about public safety. It’s because they want to restrict competition by increasing the barriers to entry. There is simply no logical reason to impose higher foot rubbing costs on society under the guise of public wellness.
Or as Matt Yglesias put it: “Another day, another spurious occupational licensing effort.”
For the second time in less than a decade, the United States is engaged in military actions against a Middle Eastern country. Since the passage of Resolution 1973 and the subsequent military actions, reported yesterday by Ken, a number of people have expressed uneasiness at the idea that Libya could “turn into another Iraq.” That’s understandable. I don’t think anyone, except possibly Tony Blair, wants another Iraq. But, this is a serious concern. So, in a two part series, I’m going to consider how the situation in Libya is similar and different from the Iraq invasion and, finally, whether, notwithstanding current distinctions, Libya could become another Iraq. Part I of the series will deal with how the situation in Libya is similar to Iraq.
How Libya Is Another Iraq
Libyan rebel waves the Libyan flag atop a destroyed government tank.
The Region- The most obvious similarity between Libya and Iraq is one of geography and religion- both countries are in the Middle East and have majority Arab Muslim populations. It’s easy to dismiss this as glossing over a number of important differences, but I would caution against such an approach. The fact is that it does matter to many people that the US and our Western allies seem selectively focused on the Middle East while ignoring human rights abuses and humanitarian crises in other parts of the world (Burma, for example).
This criticism is similar to that levied against the International Criminal Court (ICC)’s selective prosecutions of only African conflicts. Skepticism on this issue can undermine how the world, and more importantly Arab populations, view the legitimacy of the UN and US actions and potentially re-raise a number of the neo-colonialism charges that so damaged America’s reputation from the handling of the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation.
No Fly Zone Again– The US and her allies established and enforced two separate NFZs over Iraq from 1992 until the “conclusion” of the Iraq invasion in 2003 (once the US officially occupied Iraq under our “rebuilding” rationale, the NFZ was quickly lifted). Like the Libyan NFZ, the Iraq NFZs were premised on humanitarian grounds, specifically to protect civilians, the Kurdish populations in the North and the Shiite Muslims in the South.
The Usual Suspects Advocating Military Force in the Middle East- Just as with Security Council Resolution 1441 (declaring Iraq to be in material breach of WMD disarmament and the pre-text for the US/UK unilateral invasion), Resolution 1973 was co-sponsored and heavily supported by the UK and US. The Iraq NFZs were also jointly operated by the US and UK (with Turkish participation). There are non-nefarious explanations for this, mainly the reality of which countries have the military resources to actually enforce anything the UN authorizes and whose support is therefore critical.
The recent history of the US and UK in Iraq is also the reason you may be hearing people refer to fears of “mission creep”- the steady expansion of a military mission beyond its original mandate and purpose. Resolution 1973 is limited in its scope and mission and expressly bars any ground occupation. But, Resolution 1441 expressly did not authorize invading Iraq, yet that didn’t prevent the US and UK from dishonestly using it for that purpose. The UN, like any organization, is only as effective, disciplined and honest as the nation states that make up its membership. For this reason, many view any US/UK advocacy for military involvement in the Middle East with a great deal of alarm and question the “real” motivations of these two countries’ constant warmongering positions.
Middle Eastern Countries’ Participation- The Arab League’s endorsement of the Libyan NFZ has been hailed as a remarkable step and a move that inoculates Western powers from neo-colonialism claims in attacking Libya.
The Arab League never endorsed, as a group, the Iraq NFZs or the Iraq invasion, but these events did have Middle Eastern nations’ participation. Turkey officially participated in the Iraq NFZ enforcement, twice passing legislation extending Turkey’s military involvement. And, while technically no Middle Eastern country was included in the “Coalition of the Willing,” Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar all allowed the US and UK military to launch the Iraq invasion from their countries and provided air and ground access into Iraq. While Arab League members’ involvement in the NFZ is substantially greater (Qatar and UAE jets are involved in enforcement actions over Libya), their involvement, in itself, does not particularly distinguish Libya from Iraq.
Western Accountability Lacking Again– Saddam Hussein was prosecuted for crimes against humanity by the Iraqi Provisional government. However, his conviction and death sentence was based solely on the murder of 148 Shiites following a failed assassination attempt in 1982. Left out of the trials was any evidence related to crimes against humanity that were carried out with American provided weaponry and, in some cases, with US knowledge that the arms and weaponry would be used against civilian populations. Documents declassified by the National Security Archive spell out US involvement in installing and arming Hussein and, as reported by the Washington Post, “Americans drafted many of the statutes under which Hussein and his associates [were] tried.”
The US and UK, like with Iraq, have provided Gaddafi with many of the arms his military is using in committing potential crimes against humanity. Resolution 1970 gives the ICC jurisdiction to investigate these crimes, but is limited, some would say specifically to avoid US and UK accountability, to actions after February 15, 2011.
Will we one day say Libya intervention, 2011: Another Iraq?
For the reasons listed above and many others, many people watching the situation in Libya feel a creeping sense of déjà vu as these similarities revive unpleasant memories and serve as a powerful reminder that the noblest intentions (I’m being charitable here!) can lead to great, potentially irreparable harm. With that in mind, the second and final installment in this series will focus on why the situation in Libya is not like Iraq, but also acknowledge how it could become, in the future, the next Iraq.
Read More
For an excellent interactive feature on the Iraq NFZs, see here.
For an overview of the Iraq NFZs enforcement, questionable legality and a list of US/UK military strikes in Iraq based on NFZ breaches, see here.
Yesterday it was announced that former Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) was joining Fox News as a “political commentator and analyst.” My initial reaction to this news was to frown and shake my head. I am, to say the least, not a fan of Fox News. For the record, I am also not a fan of MSNBC. But, I’ll get to that in a moment. I don’t watch Fox News, so this isn’t a criticism of their news coverage or political commentary. My objection to Fox can really be summed up in two words: Glenn Beck. My problems with this hatemonger are manifold, but I’ll just mention one. As a Jew, and, ahem, specifically a Reform Jew, I strongly object to Mr. Beck being given a national, mainstream platform to spew his barely cloaked Elders of Zion Jewish world control conspiracy theories.
Because “ratings matters,” I would prefer that my fellow Americans choose to express their disapproval of Mr. Beck by not watching Fox News so long as he is on the network. By joining Fox, Sen. Bayh, a centrist well-spoken and intelligent man, is not helping in this cause. This is particularly disappointing to me given the Senator’s involvement in No Labels, an organization founded by a bipartisan group of current and former elected officials, including Independent Mayor Bloomberg, former Republican Congressman Scarborough and former Sen. Bayh, who are “frustrated and concerned about the tone of politics” and believe “hyper-partisanship is destroying our politics and paralyzing our ability to govern.” Hmmm.
In thinking about this yesterday, I tried to understand how sharing a network with Mr. Beck furthers the goals of No Labels. When the Bayh news broke, my Facebook page exploded with comments- many echoing this sentiment. However, there were opposing views. Here is a comment from a friend and political activist: “But even No Labels has to have a conduit for promoting its message. Mass media is media for the masses, and influencing those masses is how we change the system.”
Ok. This is a valid point and it got me thinking. Now, let me move at this point, to why I dislike MSNBC, because it’s relevant here. First, I find MSNBC and Fox much too partisan and slanted in their reporting to be a news source for my tastes. I hate surprises. I’d prefer to have all the facts, mitigating and otherwise, on an issue before I start forwarding around while jumping on my high horse about it. But, the bigger issue I have with MSNBC is their role in mainstreaming and rehabilitating the noxious racist, Pat Buchanan.
For those used to seeing Pat joshing around with our favorite liberal lesbian, Rachel Maddow, here’s just a sampling of Mr. Buchanan’s less adorable beliefs in his own words:
After Sen. Carol Moseley Braun blocked a federal patent for a Confederate flag insignia, Buchanan wrote that she was “putting on an act” by associating the Confederacy with slavery: “The War Between the States was about independence, about self-determination, about the right of a people to break free of a government to which they could no longer give allegiance.”
On race relations in the late 1940s and early 1950s: “There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The ‘negroes’ of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours.
But, as I thought about my friend’s comment, it occurred to me that Mr. Buchanan does not say these things on MSNBC and doesn’t seem to say them much anymore at all. Hmmm again. So, now I’m asking myself: should Mr. Buchanan be shunned for his past horrid behavior or is it better that because of his appearances on MSNBC he seems to actually have moderated his statements, if not his beliefs? Is it better that, even if he secretly still believes them, he doesn’t say them anymore?
All of which brings me back to Senator Bayh, Glenn Beck and Fox News. So, now I’m conflicted and not sure where I stand. Is it possible that, simply by having individuals of Mr. Bayh’s caliber, Fox News may move away from commentators like Glenn Beck? Is it possible that Sen. Bayh’s participation may temper Mr. Beck’s more unacceptable statements, at least on his Fox News show? Is it better to take a principled stand against Beck and Fox News or to engage to try to change them?
Ten term Congressional Representative Peter King (R-NY) became the House Chairman Homeland Security Committee in December 2010. He brought to that position his fear and distrust of all things not white and Christian. Under the guise of finding the root cause of, and eradicating, extremism among American Muslims, King is holding hearings this week on “The Radicalization of Muslim Americans”. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), has King’s back, “The purpose [of the hearing] is, if you ask Chairman King, to try and assess how we can better work with the Muslim community in America to stop the spread of radical Islam”
Representative King has a history of painting Islamic-Americans with broad strokes of a very unfriendly brush. In an interview broadcast on February 9, 2004 on Sean Hannity’s radio show, he claimed that “no American Muslim leaders are cooperating in the war on terror,” and further claimed that up to 85% of American Mosques are “ruled by the extremists”. More recent statements leading up to the hearings seem to indicate that his opinion has not mellowed in the last seven years. When asked if he would consider broadening the inquiry to all extremism leading to domestic terrorism by American citizens, Rep. King stated, “It would diffuse and water down the hearings”. He added, “The hearings are aimed at protecting Muslims from being pressured to commit terrorist acts.”
Besides his zeal being a moderating influence on our Muslim brothers, Patriotic American Peter King is well known for his very public support for the Irish Republican Army. When recently asked to justify this, he coyly dodged by saying, “The fact is, the IRA never attacked the United States. And my loyalty is to the United States,” A pretty weak defense as the IRA is known to have killed at least one American citizen in a terrorist attack. His statement becomes even more absurd when you remember who was donating weapons to the IRA in the 1970’s; none other than Muammar Gaddafi, Muslim Extremist and Dictator Extraordinaire. If Peter King wants to see what a supporter of terrorism looks like, he should look in a mirror.
My thoughts are that I believe we could improve Islamic relations in the U.S. by letting folks build community centers and not burning down their places of worship. If they weren’t spending all the community’s time defending themselves, both rhetorically and physically, Muslim-Americans could direct their energies to engaging with the public and answering questions, and, ideally, be freed of the stigma of “Otherness”. If the extreme right in the U.S. was more inclined to allow Muslim-Americans their right to be seen and heard freely, without constantly being required to account for themselves, King might not have to ask why Muslims don’t speak up or speak out against violence.
Governor Scott Walker has finally admitted that busting the Wisconsin public employee’s unions has nothing to do with the fiscal health of the state.
Can somebody give this guy the "Santorum" treatment on Urban Dictionary?
Wisconsin only requires a quorum to pass fiscally-related bills. So Gov. Walker has split his union busting bill in two and the Wisconsin senate Republicans are getting ready to pass the union busting bill without the senate Democrats.
I’m afraid the Democrats may not win this one. It is almost impossible to win when you are dealing with people who have no concept of shame or honor.
UPDATE 7:50pm: Bill passed 18-1 in the Senate. Now it moves to the State Assembly. In addition to forbidding collective bargaining for the public unions, the bill also includes requirements for state employees to contribute 5% of their income to their pensions, 12% to their health care. It also requires school district and municipal employees to contribute 5% to their pensions.
A 17% hit to the paychecks of thousands of people doesn’t sound non-fiscal to me.
In an interview with the BBC out yesterday, the former half-term Governor of Alaska, failed Vice Presidential Candidate and mother of the most embarrassing Dancing With The Stars contestant ever, remarked that the rumor that she did not know Africa was a continent (and not a country) was a fabrication by “jerk” staffers.
Next, she’ll be suing Tina Fey for impersonating her during the infamous Katie Couric interview.
Sarah, wouldn’t it be simpler to just read a book once in a while?
Taking the right wing’s common hypocrisy to mind-numbing new heights, three major conservative commentators – who have been harshly critical of the demonstrations in Wisconsin by union members – all belong to the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists union (AFTRA), which is the AFL-CIO affiliate for television and broadcast workers.
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly have have all been outspoken in their lack of sympathy to the struggles of public employee unions in Wisconsin. A representative for Glenn Beck denies that he is a union member, although it’s puzzling as to how that may be, since he, Hannity and O’Reilly famously all work for the same news organization.
According to AlterNet.org, which posted the story on February 26, 2011:
On Feb. 18, Limbaugh said on his radio program, “We are either on the side of the Wisconsin protesters or we are on the side of our country.” Hannity has featured several guests critical of the union and its supporters, including Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, on his Fox News television and radio shows.
On the Feb. 18 edition of “The O’Reilly Factor,” O’Reilly stated, “Governments can’t afford to operate” because of “union wages and benefits.” But it turns out that opposing workers’ rights isn’t the only thing these blowhards have in common.
Two weeks in to the Libyan uprising events continue to unfold at breathtaking speed as opposition and Gaddafi forces engage in heated battles for control of the country. The initial opposition momentum that resulted in close to half of the country falling to opposition hands and threatening Gaddafi’s control of Tripoli has shown signs of receding as Gaddafi has successfully reinforced his control of Tripoli and now begun counter-attacks to reclaim opposition-held territories. Though opposition forces have claimed success in repulsing Gaddafi’s most recent counter-offensive, opposition forces are now debating requesting foreign intervention under a UN banner, specifically targeted air strikes against weapons compounds and military installations such as radar stations. Foreign military intervention of this type would be a major escalation of international involvement (to date limited to non-military measures by the UN Security Council, the European Union and the United States) and appears to have little support from Security Council and NATO nation state members.
Gaddafi’s brutal crackdown and the developing humanitarian crisis has led many to ask what, if anything, the international community could do. Are there other options available? The most often mentioned proposal is the imposition of a No Fly Zone (NFZ) over Libya. This article is not advocating for or against an NFZ. An NFZ may sound like a relatively simple solution and most people are probably familiar with the general concept (as it has been used before and during the Gulf Wars and in the Balkan conflicts), but there are serious concerns about a Libyan NFZ, for both the potential enforcing foreign nations and for the opposition movement within Libya.
Many serious international commentators have weighed in on a No Fly Zone, for and against. Each view deserves careful consideration and the point of this article is to provide readers with links to the varying arguments to spur debate and present a more fleshed out backdrop of the competing concerns and interests. Before we begin, however, a quick note on the actual mechanics of how an NFZ would come into being. An NFZ would have to be authorized by the UN Security Council under its Chapter VII Charter Mandate and could be enforced either by UN member states or the NATO military alliance. An NFZ is a military intervention, not a non-military measure. From a practical standpoint, Russia (a veto-holding Security Council permanent member) is currently ruling out a UN Security Council NFZ and the NATO Alliance members are similarly split on the issue. For more on this aspect, see here.
Arguments For a No Fly Zone
Britain Prime Minister David Cameron, House of Commons Address: Prime Minister Cameron has proposed taking the lead on coordinating a military no fly zone, saying “[w]e must not tolerate this regime using military force against its own people. In that context I have asked the Ministry of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff to work with our allies on plans for a military no-fly zone.”
Michael Rubin, American Enterprise Institute, USA Today: Mr. Rubin argues that American credibility is on the line and that we cannot stand by in the face of civilian “slaughter.” He suggests that “Obama should take action: First, he should order U.S. fighter jets based in Sicily and on Mediterranean aircraft carriers to enforce a no-fly zone over northern Libya. Not only would this prevent Libyan planes from again strafing civilians, but it would also enable safer evacuation of non-Libyans. If Gadhafi’s henchmen continue their slaughter, Obama might impose no-drive zones for military vehicles.”
David Cortright, University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, NY Times Room for Debate Forum: Mr. Cortright argues for a multi-lateral no fly zone authorized by the UN, but endorsed by the Arab League and one that includes Arab governments such as Egypt and Morocco. He argues “[m]ore than 200 Arab organizations and intellectuals have urged Arab League support for a no-flight zone. Gaining the league’s support in this new era of more responsive politics in the region should be possible and must be a priority. This will make it easier to convince China and other hesitant Security Council members to approve U.N. authorization and will hasten Colonel Qaddafi’s downfall.”
Marc Lynch, Foreign Policy Magazine: Mr. Lynch argues that it is time for concrete actions against Gaddafi’s regime. “It is time for the United States, NATO, the United Nations and the Arab League to act forcefully to try to prevent the already bloody situation from degenerating into something much worse. By acting, I mean a response sufficiently forceful and direct to deter or prevent the Libyan regime from using its military resources to butcher its opponents. I have already seen reports that NATO has sternly warned Libya against further violence against its people. Making that credible could mean the declaration and enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya, presumably by NATO, to prevent the use of military aircraft against the protestors.”
“There has been a sort-of coalescing around the idea that a No Fly Zone is useful way to intervene to stop the killing. I am not so sure. While it is true that some of the slaughter has been perpetrated by Libyan air force, air assets alone are not responsible for the killing. If Qaddafi and his inner circle are intent on violently suppressing this revolt, they will use their superior ground forces as well. A No Fly Zone is a humanitarian half measure. It would let the international community say that it is doing something, but there is very little a No Fly Zone can actually do to stop ongoing slaughter.”
Defense Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, General Mathis, Pentagon News Conference: Gen. Mathis points out that an NFZ would first require disabling Libya’s air defense system, a significant military exercise. Sec. Gates stated “there would be multiple consequences to military action, including to United States forces already at war in the region. “If we move additional assets, what are the consequences of that for Afghanistan, for the Persian Gulf?” and that “we also have to think about, frankly, the use of the U.S. military in another country in the Middle East.”
Edward Rees, Senior adviser to Peace Dividend Trust, The Atlantic: Mr. Rees argues “enforcing a no-fly zone (NFZ) over Libya is unlikely to do as much good as its backers hope, and could in fact backfire.” Mr. Rees highlights the practical effectiveness of an NFZ because of the size of Libya, the lack of nearby air bases from which to impose the NFZ (meaning it may have to be enforced from aircraft carriers), the risk of downing the wrong aircrafts and being drawn into a ground conflict.
Kori Schake,Hoover Institution, NY Times Room for Debate Forum: Ms. Schake presents four reasons why the US should not use military force, including the fact that “we have not had an ambassador in Libya for months, and we have evacuated our diplomats; we ought not overestimate how much we understand what is occurring in the country or the shape Libya’s rebellion will take.”
As you can see the questions are not exactly nuanced in all cases and lean toward the blunt since they need to suss out a person’s political views in short order. The tool is written in Adobe Flash so don’t bother using your elitist iPad to try to access it.
