This day in music history: December 7

The high…

On this day in 1991, U2’s seventh studio album, “Achtung Baby”,  hit No. 1 on the Billboard 200. Bono and the boys then embarked on the game-changing Zoo TV Tour to support the album.

The low…

On this day in 1964, Brian Wilson suffered a debilitating nervous breakdown on a flight from Los Angeles to Houston, which effectively ended his touring with the Beach Boys (who then brought on Glenn Campbell to perform for him on the road).

This Day in Music History: December 4, 1944 & 1965

Chris Hillman was born on this day in 1944 and, 21 years to the day, his band, The Byrds, scored its second U.S. Billboard Hot 100 No. 1 hit with “Turn! Turn! Turn!”. The Book of Ecclesiastes never sounded so damn good. Thanks, Pete Seeger!

Bush the Brainless

Don’t miss Clive Crook’s Financial Times’ column, “Just brainless, Mr. Bush.”

Money quote:

Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt both trampled on the constitution when they believed national security required it, Mr Goldsmith points out. The difference is, they took Congress and public opinion – and hence the courts as well – along with them. In appealing for that support, they were obliged to explain themselves and make their case. This forced them to worry about what was wise and not just what was legal or illegal.

The Bush administration has spared itself that inconvenience. It was not lawless, it was brainless. Its treatment of detainees might be lawful, but it is immoral. The White House’s autistic refusal to consult or listen to others, its paranoid insistence that it knows best and must be left alone to plot in secret, has divided and weakened the country the president pledged to defend.

For for more information on U.S. torture and interrogation policy, check out Citizens for Global Solutions’ End Torture Campaign.

We are all (potentially) torturers

Fortunately for us, former U.S. Army interrogator, William Quinn, provides us with some anti-torture lessons learned the hard way.

Money quote:

Nearly six years after the 9/11 attacks, we’ve succeeded in killing a lot of people. We’ve invaded two countries, captured thousands of terrorists, and set up new, democratic-style governments in place of the dictatorships we ousted. It has been an incredibly therapeutic six years — at least it felt good at the beginning — but it hasn’t been effective at stopping or even slowing terrorism.

The people who decide our counterterrorism strategy are far better informed than I, but I suspect that, when we are successful, it will be because we recognize our enemies as human and develop plans that recognize their humanity. We need to be tough, and we shouldn’t back down from a fight, but we also need to learn that empathy can be as powerful a weapon as missiles.

For more on U.S. torture and interrogation policy, check out Citizens for Global Solutions’ EndTorture.net.

Candidate Dodd Swings and Misses with MLB

According to SI.com:

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Presidential candidate and U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd says he’ll still be cheering on the Boston Red Sox at Fenway Park, but without a randomly selected campaign donor by his side.

Major League Baseball officials warned the Connecticut Democrat this week that his plan to raffle two tickets to an American League Championship game — in return for donations to his presidential campaign — violates the organization’s rules.

Dodd, a longtime Red Sox fan, offered a chance at the tickets to anyone who donated $20.04 to his campaign, an amount selected because the Sox last won the World Series in 2004. Supporters could also enter by recruiting two dozen like-minded voters to sign up on Dodd’s campaign Web site.

But his office called off the raffle after MLB officials cried foul.

“This isn’t quite Bucky Dent or Aaron Boone, but we are disappointed nonetheless,” Dodd spokeswoman Colleen Flanagan said, referring to former New York Yankees sluggers whose home runs ended Red Sox playoff hopes.

Does the old “it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission” adage come to mind when you read this account? How many lawyers do you think the Dodd campaign has, not including Dodd himself? 50? 100? And none of them considered the legality of this innovative fundraising effort? Rrriiiggghhhttt…

As they say in NASCAR and professional cycling…if you ain’t cheatin’, you ain’t tryin’!

Pat Buchanan: George W. Bush, Globalist?

I was wondering when the noted conservative curmudgeon Pat Buchanan was gonna suit up and get back in Law of the Sea battle, and lo and behold who should pop up yesterday? None other than our man Pat the Isolationist!

Have the Bush Republicans ceased to be reliable custodians of American sovereignty? So it would seem.

President George W. Bush began well. He rejected the Kyoto Protocol on global warming negotiated by Vice President Al Gore as both injurious to the economy and rooted in questionable science. He refused to allow the armed forces and diplomats of the United States to be brought under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

But now President Bush is about to take his country by the hand and make a great leap forward into world government. He has signed on to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which transfers jurisdiction over the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian and Arctic oceans and all the oil and mineral resources they contain, to an International Seabed Authority. This second United Nations would be ceded eternal hegemony over two-thirds of the Earth. It is the greatest U.N. power grab in history and, thanks to George Bush, is about to succeed.

If Pat Buchanan actually believes that President George W. Bush is a globalist, and that rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, hard science, and the International Criminal Court is good for America, can you really trust his “analysis” of the Law of the Sea treaty? If your answer is No (and I certainly hope that’s the case), then I would highly recommend you take a look at this comprehensive Law of the Sea site provided by Citizens for Global Solutions.

Welcome back to the debate, Pat! I’m just sorry you’ve chosen to be on the losing side yet again.

Matt Yglesias and the Law of the Sea

Matt Yglesias provides us with a brief roundup of the ongoing debate between “internationalists and establishmenty business types” (including my “internationalist” colleague at Citizens for Global Solutions, Raj Purohit) and “really paranoid UN-haters” over the Law of the Sea (LOS).

While you’re reading up on LOS, check out Washington Note-ist and Citizen for Global Solution-ist Scott Paul’s recent post on why we (except for “really paranoid UN-haters, of course) should all care about LOS.

John Bolton: Pugnacious Nationalist or Petty Neocon?

The Washington Note’s Sameer Lalwani argues/affirms/reaffirms/repeats that John Bolton is, in fact, not a petty neoconservative, but rather a pugnacious nationalist . Okay. Maybe he’s right (unlikely)…maybe he’s wrong (likely). But I’m a simple Midwesterner, so I don’t care if you call it a pretty pig or a sexy swine, it’s all bacon and pork chops to me. Very simply, Bolton’s bad news if you want a U.S. foreign policy that is principled, morally sound and reflects an enlightened national self-interest.

But here’s where Sameer and I really disagree:

While it is at least conceivable that neo-cons might be brought around to constructive foreign policy engagements through a re-appropriation and re-deployment of their own rhetoric on democratization and ostensible support for human rights (though they have thus far disavowed the consequences that can accompony such moral campaigns), it is evident from Clemons’s and Rachman’s assessments that Bolton cares little for such moral crusades that depart from his narrow notion of US interests.

Conceivable that neocons might be brought around to constructive foreign policy engagements?! Re-appropriation and re-deployment of their own rhetoric on democratization and ostensible support for human rights? Seriously, Sameer? What could possibly lead you to this assertion? I certainly have seen nothing that would suggest such a shift in neoconservatism.

And suspending reality for a second or two, if neoconservatives somehow aligned with interventionist liberal hawks in the name of democratization and human rights, would that make our foreign policy more or less unilateralist and militaristic? And would that in turn make the world more or less secure and peaceful? I’ll leave you to answer those questions and ponder your own results.

Let’s not put lipstick on the proverbial pigs that are pugnacious nationalists and their neoconservative brethren, because they are all incredibly dangerous to U.S. and global interests in both the short- and long-term.

United Nations more able to prevent genocide?

According to a Washington Post report: “More than a decade after the United Nations was criticized for failing to stop genocide in Rwanda, the world body is more able to prevent another such atrocity, scholars and U.N. officials said on Wednesday.”

However, it seems to me, that that’s the right answer to exactly the wrong question. The question should be: Is the United Nations able to prevent genocide? Answer: NO. It can’t, and never will, without far greater international political will. Sure the UN’s record of genocide prevention in places like Bosnia, Rwanda and Sudan is imperfect and in need of marked improvement, but considering the lack of timely, robust political support for genocide prevention within the international community that’s to be expected. Without the full support of member countries, whether it be financial, logistical, or military, the UN cannot promise a fundamentally different response to tomorrow’s genocide.

A thoughtful Jean-Marie Guehenno, U.N. undersecretary-general for peacekeeping operations, stated:

“We’ve been haunted in the last 15 years by what happened in Yugoslavia and what happened in Rwanda. And none of us can avoid the question, would that happen again?” he said.

“And I think we have to be honest. There has been some progress in the international discussion. But does that mean that it will be fundamentally different tomorrow? Not necessarily.”

It’s up to each and everyone of us to create a fundamentally different tomorrow and make sure our elected officials and policymakers understand that when we promise “Never Again!”, we mean it. That means not standing by while a genocide burns and then passing a symbolic congressional resolution decades after the last victim has been butchered and unceremoniously buried in a mass grave.

And if you’re looking for something to do now that Season Three of Top Chef is over, why not let your elected officials know that you want the United States to play a constructive role in bringing peace and security to the long-suffering people of Burma and Sudan? The time to act is now.

There’s no crying in baseball…or cycling!

Perhaps pre-Tour de France favorite Alexander”Vino” Vinokourov didn’t get the all-important “There’s-crying-in-cycling” memo before losing more time to race leader Michael Rasmussen. According to SI.com:

“I did what I could. The team worked well again … and tried to reduce the gap,” Vinokourov told France television.

“It was another horrible day for me,” he said before breaking into tears.

During the stage, Vinokourov briefly dropped back to the doctor’s car to get an anti-inflammatory pill, the Tour doctor said.

Breaking into tears?! After a poor performance?!

Question: Would this type of behavior be acceptable if he had a tooth embedded in his forehead?

Answer: H-E-Double hockey sticks-No. Non. Absolutely not. Nyet. Nein. Nope.

You know why? Please allow me to tell you: THERE’S NO CRYING IN BASEBALL, CYCLING, OR ANY OTHER SPORT!

Just imagine what the “tough” Kazakh rider would do if Astana’s Team Manager Mario Kummer called him a “talkin’ pile of pigshit” (a la Rogers Hornsby & Jimmy Dugan)? My guess is that it would include kicking, screaming, and crying…

NO CRYING!