Rubber Hose

where i blather on about stuff and you read it and like it

Friday, April 09, 2004

good friday
not a particularly good friday for me, work wise. i am pretty swamped here, not only are a lot of deadlines hitting me at once (which isn't all that unusual), but i will only be able to come in the office 3 days next week (on monday i have a hearing in brooklyn that will probably occupy me in new york all day and friday morning mrs. noz and i leave for san francisco). coming in over the weekend is pretty much out because my sister-in-law is visiting. staying late next week is also not an option as i have commitments after work on monday, tuesday, wednesday, and thursday. the net result of all of this is that today will suck. i'm going to have to be very productive and somehow get much of this crap off my desk.

but instead of buckling down when i got here, i opened up blogger. not a good sign.

okay, i'm off to get another cup of coffee and then to work. if i try to post here again today, please give me a good flogging. posted by upyernoz ¶ 9:19 AM |

Thursday, April 08, 2004

housekeeping
as part of my effort to foster ideological diversity at this site, i've added the light of reason (happy hydro?), oxblog, just one minute and tacitus to my links. thanks to chris for recommending the latter three. speaking of chris, he has abandonned his old blog see why, and moved to a new site called explanada--my link to him has been adjusted accordingly.

i'm still taking recommendations for non-liberal political sites. if you have any you think are intelligently written, let me know.

last but not least, i finally got around to adding a link for the argus, the best analysis of central asian news i can find posted by upyernoz ¶ 9:48 PM |

another link
echidne has a really good post about the use of sexual language in the comments of political blogs. posted by upyernoz ¶ 8:39 PM |

another link from downstairs
my neighbor sent me this (make sure the sound is on) posted by upyernoz ¶ 8:10 PM |

the face of war
check out this picture

(via tom tomorrow)

UPDATE: commentary by the image's creator here (scroll down to the april 7th entry if the permilink doesn't work) posted by upyernoz ¶ 11:32 AM |

Wednesday, April 07, 2004

coalition of the illing
by my count over the past few weeks, the following countries have said they are pulling out their troops from iraq: kazakstan, norway, spain, and honduras.

on top of that el salvador might pull out, and guatemala might follow. thailand is also considering pulling out

in australia the labour party promised to pull its forces out of iraq if it wins the upcoming election, and the opposition currently holds a 6 point lead in the polls (although that is a drop). similarly, the european commission president (an italian) said italy would pull out of iraq if his center-left party gained control of the country.

meanwhile, the bulgarians are reviewing the situation. the dutch parliament will debate its military's continuing presence in iraq, the ukrainian government is facing calls to withdraw

even among the countries who will remain in iraq (for the time being) the british say they won't send any more troops and south korea is scaling back its commitment to iraq by confining its troops' activities to military camps.

(thanks to the agonist for about half of the above links)

the heavy fighting over the last few days is just going to make this worse for the administration--it will both increase their need for additional troops to stabilize the country while encouraging even more countries to get out.

UPDATE: the new york times just posted a similar story to this post. copycats! posted by upyernoz ¶ 8:05 PM |

Tuesday, April 06, 2004

other worlds
iraq really seems to be coming apart these days, sadr's supporters have taken control of najaf. i can't imagine any way to see this other than as a setback for the administration. i mean, for the first time since saddam's regime fell, they are not in control of an iraqi city, instead someone hostile to the american occupation is. meanwhile, marines are fighting a separate battle with sunnis in fallujah. i'm not seeing many happy iraqis or painted schools.

but not everyone sees it that way. after writing the below post i've been cruising the other wing of the political blogisphere and it really feels like another planet. over there, today was a good day in iraq (i didn't see any mention of najaf), richard clarke is an obvious liar, condi rice is the greatest orator that ever lived (they were salivating over her coming testimony) and every offhand comment made by kerry is picked apart with a demand for consistency that is strangely absent when they talk about president bush.

it was quite depressing, and not because i disagreed with them. does my site seem as strange and disconnected from reality to them as theirs does to me? i left a few comments to see how receptive they are to alternative views, but i'm not hoping to get much out of the places i visited. there must be some conservative that will admit when his viewpoint suffers from setbacks, or at least, address the argument that recent events are a setback. i dunno. maybe i do the same thing and am blind to my own blindness.

if you have any suggestions, leave them in the comments. posted by upyernoz ¶ 5:07 PM |

almost like i'm famous
they're apparently filming a movie in front of my office right now. the front of my building is covered in fake snow. posted by upyernoz ¶ 12:56 PM |

10k
i happened to look at my sitemeter just as it recorded the 10,000th visitor. it was someone from the eastern u.s. time zone with an rr.com domain. and that's pretty much all i know

more later... posted by upyernoz ¶ 11:00 AM |

Sunday, April 04, 2004

unlawful combatants
at the risk of being de-linked from john kerry's site (after he links to me, of course), i've been having these random thoughts about those guys killed in fallujah this week. when the story was first reported and the images of their dead bodies strung from the bridge was getting a lot of attention, the press referred to the dead as "civilian contractors." the phrase has been used before in the past year, but for some reason its use this week the term started seeming odd to me. after all, when the pentagon outsources work they are generally called "military contractors." the "military" refers to the outsourcer, not the outsourcee. in fact, all military contractors are, by definition, non-military. i.e. civilians. so why did these guys get to be called "civilian contractors."

as the story developed i realized that they seemed to be even less civilian than i originally thought. when i first heard about "civilian contractors" killed in iraq, i assumed they were unarmed office workers or service employees who did menial work for the occupation authorities. instead, however, they turned out to be mercenaries. the press didn't call them that at first, but now everyone admits that they were they were armed and paid to guard supplies as they move around iraq. in other words, the outsourced work they were picking up from the military was not some civilian function to support the troops, but rather functions that go to the heart of the military's own role. so the "civilian contractor" label seems even more out of place. they were doing military things that were contracted out. shouldn't they be called "military contractors"?

so this afternoon, it occurred to me. there is a new term that fits these guys perfectly: "unlawful combatant." unlawful combatant is the term created by the bush administration to justify doing whatever the hell they wanted with the prisoners they captured in afghanistan. according to the administration, the normal rules of war do not apply to "unlawful combatants." they can be killed by lawful combatants on the battlefield, but also get none of the usual protections for POWs when they are captured. the somewhat circular definition i found here (see the bottom of page 3 to the top of page 4) defines unlawful combatants as follows:

For the purposes of this article the term “unlawful/unprivileged combatant/belligerent” is understood as describing all persons taking a direct part in hostilities without being entitled to do so and who therefore cannot be classified as prisoners of war on falling into the power of the enemy. This seems to be the most commonly shared understanding. It would include for example civilians taking a direct part in hostilities, as well as members of militias and of other volunteer corps — including those of organized resistance movements — not being integrated in the regular armed forces but belonging to a party to conflict, provided that they do not comply with the conditions of Article 4A (2) of GC III.

(emphasis added)

Article 4A of the Third Geneva Convention (referenced in the above paragraph as "GC III") states as follows:

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) 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, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

note that the above definition of combatants who are entitled to "lawful combatant" status includes "supply contractors" Article 4A(4). but from the context, it seems to me that it is referring to unarmed people since all of the others who are in the Art 4A(4) group would generally be unarmed people. (besides, the definition of "unlawful combatant specifically references "Article 4A (2)", not Article 4A(4).

as for Article 4A(2). do these guys have a clear chain of command as required by 4A(2)(a)? do they have a distinctive uniform as required by 4A(2)(b)? i could be wrong, but i don't think they do. thus, under the bush administration's definition, the mercenaries we employ in iraq would fit the definition of "unlawful combatants" that the bush administration has created.

that doesn't mean their death was right or justified. on the contrary, it is horrifying. but it is worth considering that if the u.s. did the same thing to the other side, the bush administration might not have seen anything wrong with it these killings. after all, they claim that "unlawful combatants" are outside the normal rules of war and thus fair game for anything. posted by upyernoz ¶ 5:34 PM |

the daily kos controversy
i don't know if any of you are following it, or even care about it. but everyone seems to be abuzz about it. the best summary i have found is here (via atrios (who seems to be making some significant changes in response to the whole matter)). posted by upyernoz ¶ 3:36 PM |

air america
i listened to air america the other day. they didn't mention uzbekistan, but i won't hold that against them.

seriously, i was fairly disappointed. no, that isn't the right word. it was pretty much what i expected, or rather, feared, it would be.

when i first heard that liberals were going to try to have a talk radio alternative to counter rush limbaugh, the idea did initially appeal to me. i guess as a lawyer, i am inclined to buy into the adversarial model for political discourse. the adversarial model assumes that the best way to get at the truth is to have zealous advocates for each side of the debate. thus, if i represent someone in a court case, i am expected to make the best case possible by underplaying the facts that hurt my position and overstating those that help my position. my adversary does the same for his or her client and the idea is that a judge who hears both sides can weigh the arguments against one another and come to some reasonable facsimile of the right answer. airwaves domiinated by talk radio is like a courtroom where only one one lawyer is allowed to speak. instead of weighing the arguments, the judge hears only one side and, in the end, can only be expected to decide one way.

so with that in mind, i can see why air america would have an appeal. the talk radio airwaves are dominated by conservatives--who are zealous advocates for their side--without a liberal voice to challenge them. talk radio has become a sort of alternate universe where all the facts seem to support the republican party line. embarrassing exceptions are simply not mentioned, unless the right has a handy argument ready to shoot such facts down. i understand the impulse of liberals to throw their own spin into the ether, to not let the right go unchallenged any longer.

but there's a problem with extending the adversarial model to the radio. i doubt that any rush limbaugh listeners will tune into air america, just as air america listeners are unlikely to listen to rush. rather than creating a liberal advocate to enter the conservative echo chamber to perhaps show conservatives the error of their ways, air america is instead a rival echo chamber. going back to the judicial analogy, liberal talk radio is not like allowing a second lawyer to speak in the courtroom. instead, its like setting up a new parallel court system where conservative lawyers don't get to speak. i can't see how that will help the situation in the long run at all. instead, it can only lead to further polarization in this country and even fewer opportunities to honestly debate the problems that face this country.

at times i feel like the political blogisphere is exactly like talk radio. i don't link to any of the major conservative blogs and i feel bad about it. unfortunately linking is seen as a vote to endorse that blog. on occasion i have come close to setting up a conservative link section, but then i read someone like instapundit acting as if his impressive list of links somehow means that this proves he is right (hence the he who is not to be named bit over at atrios) and i don't want to link to them anymore. despite my lack of links, i have been trying to cruise the other side now and then. it's like a parallel universe over there and we're not really talking to them. nor are they talking to us.

blogging at least, has one advantage over talk radio that undermines its echo chamber effect: the existence of links, trackbacks and comments. i notice when a blog links to me. that, at least, has the potential of creating a dialogue here in a way that i don't think air america can.

okay, i've convinced myself. i probably will set up a conservative link section soon. anyone have any suggestions for who i should link to?

posted by upyernoz ¶ 11:54 AM |

moovees
i saw three films this weekend. on friday i saw hellboy which sucked. comic books movies are a major exception to my usual film snootiness. the only movies based on comic books that i have actually liked in the past few years are the ones based on non-superhero comics (e.g. ghost world or american spendor). i guess my basic problem is my growing dislike of action films. over the past 10 years i have been finding action sequences in movies to be, well, boring. so movies like "the matrix" (i'm talking about the original) which virtually all of my friends see as a truly great movie, i thought was rather dull. i guess i am simply not excited by what others find exciting. this has been getting progressively worse (or better, depending on your perspective, i suppose) over the last ten years or so. but despite this i keep seeing comic book movies when i can. so i continue to suffer through "spider man" and now "hellboy" even though there is nothing to them but fight scenes and a bunch of lame jokes out of some lingering loyalty to the comic book subculture. i used to be really into comics. i still read them on occasion, but the only super hero comic i still regularly buy is the one that my cousin writes.

yesterday was another film in the talk cinema series. they showed us spring, summer, fall, winter... and spring, a film which is probably the polar opposite to hellboy. it's comprised of 5 sequences, all of which take place in a different season on a small floating buddist temple in the middle of a lake in korea. it was one of those films that really has to catch me in the right mood. and it did, so i liked it. don't get me wrong, there actually was a plot (there's even a murder, although it happens off screen), but the movie was more about ideas than anything else. the slow deliberate pace probably would drive some people crazy. but it's beautifully filmed, so if nothing else, you can always stare at the pretty colors on the screen.

after talk cinema, i went to eternal sunshine for the spotless mind for the second time. "eternal sunshine" was the previous film in the talk cinema series (you may remember when i wrote about it here). but my wife does not go to talk cinema with me. and in the past month or so since i saw it, the film has come out and all these people have talked about how it is the greatest movie since swiss cheese. so i went again so mrs. noz could join in on the fun. it held up well the second time. i still think its a really great movie

this week the philadelphia film festival opens. normally, this would mean that i would temporarily disappear from civil society and try to see as many obscure films as i can before the fest ends. but it's not gonna happen this year. i'm just too damn busy. between my class, the perspective students crap i do for my alma mater, my sister-in-law's upcoming visit, my work, and the fact that we are going to san francisco in a week and a half, means that obscure films are just not in the cards this year. i am thinking of ditching my arabic class to see this lebanese film. exposure to the language will be good practice, right? or am i just grasping for straws to justify seeing something? there's always the gay film festival this summer.

posted by upyernoz ¶ 11:05 AM |

Thursday, April 01, 2004

jewglebomb
jew

see here for an explanation.

(via see why) posted by upyernoz ¶ 9:39 PM |

zamaan
i didn't have much time to post today. as nathan says at the argus "We seem to be in the 'whodunnit and why' phase of things." actually, nathan's post seems to be the best summary of uzbek news there is around today. if you're not totally sick of uzbekistan yet, make sure to read nathan's post and click on all of the links--which includes both news links and blogs from NGO/peace corps volunteers in uz.

all i have to add, is an email from a friend from samarkand who is stuck in tashkent, confined to the indoors, and confused as anyone as to what exactly is going on in her country.

i'm going to be at a conference in central jersey (the former stomping grounds of my mysterious neighbor who commented below, in fact) tomorrow and i'm off to arabic class in a few minutes. so i won't get a chance to rant much tomorrow earlier in the day, but i am sure i will throw some crap up onto this site fairly soon after i get back. there's nothing like an extended car ride listening to news to get me going. posted by upyernoz ¶ 5:27 PM |

Wednesday, March 31, 2004

and now for something completely different
stock tips from sean paul

oval office space (from my neighbor)

beatnik rummy (from blogamy)

echidne had me trying to lick my elbow (i failed)

posted by upyernoz ¶ 6:56 PM |

hostages
another bomb in uzbekistan. this one in andijon (and the 6th according to their count). meanwhile militants have seized hostages in tashkent.

with the time change the fourth day of violence has just begun in the country. posted by upyernoz ¶ 2:49 PM |

it goes on and on
more confusing news from uzbekistan--this morning i just saw a wash of reports of detentions, shootings and explosions. its not clear whether they're reporting what happened over the past few days or new stuff. it can be really frustrating to try to follow news from central asia when you don't read russian. the christian science monitor has a fairly good overview of the situation, although it's only as of yesterday. so it doesn't help me figure out what is happening there now.

the best blog coverage, i think, is at the agonist (like here and here) and the argus (like here) [ed's note: why do all the blogs following central asian news start with a definite article? apparently, i never got the memo]

there's an argument that the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks are not al-qaeda here. and this article reports that powell has offered u.s. assistance to the uzbek government.

i don't usually focus on uzbekistan that much here (at least i haven't since september when i was blogging from there), so perhaps i lost many of my regular readers by my obsession with these attacks. i don't know why, but they've really affected me in a way that other, perhaps worse, attacks have not. i've had this pit in my stomach ever since i got the first email about them monday morning. it's very strange. i mean, i never lived there, i just went to the country for vacation. there have been bombings in other places where i have visited (e.g. turkey, tunisia) but i haven't felt such an emotional impact from those attacks. perhaps the explanation for my reaction is that this attack, unlike the others, came much sooner after i visited there--a matter of months not years. and i made several friends in uzbekistan who i have kept in touch with by email. the emails of those who have written me this week have added a personal dimension to the whole thing. (actually, what's a little more frightening are the friends who have not written--which is most of them, in fact. but most likely, they just can't get to an internet cafe. obviously checking in with me is not a top priority for them right now). posted by upyernoz ¶ 9:41 AM |