PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
Brett Stalbaum, Lecturer, LSOE
Coordinator, Interdisciplinary Computing and the Arts Major (ICAM)
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
Department of Visual Arts
9500 GILMAN DR. # 0084
La Jolla CA 92093-0084
C5 research theorist (www.c5corp.com) 1997-2007
Graduate (MFA) of the CADRE Digital Media Laboratory at San Jose State
University.
Professional affiliations:
Electronic Disturbance Theater
C5
paintersflat.net
http://www.paintersflat.net/
Latest: The Silver Island Bunker Trail, possibly the first time humans have walked like a game bot. The trail is open to the public for outdoor recreation and enjoyment.
http://silverisland.paintersflat.net
Coordinator, Interdisciplinary Computing and the Arts Major (ICAM)
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
Department of Visual Arts
9500 GILMAN DR. # 0084
La Jolla CA 92093-0084
C5 research theorist (www.c5corp.com) 1997-2007
Graduate (MFA) of the CADRE Digital Media Laboratory at San Jose State
University.
Professional affiliations:
Electronic Disturbance Theater
C5
paintersflat.net
http://www.paintersflat.net/
Latest: The Silver Island Bunker Trail, possibly the first time humans have walked like a game bot. The trail is open to the public for outdoor recreation and enjoyment.
http://silverisland.paintersflat.net
Fluidities and Oppositions among Curators, Filter Feeders, and Future Artists
A new text from Anne-Marie Schleiner...
"Artists of the future may not know that they are artists."
http://www.intelligentagent.com/archive/Vol3_No1_curation_schleiner.html
"Artists of the future may not know that they are artists."
http://www.intelligentagent.com/archive/Vol3_No1_curation_schleiner.html
General Electric claiming patent to JPEG?
http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2002-December/000998.html
Has anyone else heard anything about this? It seems like this would have
been much bigger news considering the famous compuserve/gif patent issues.
Something Ralph Nader said in wired today is the first I have heard of
it...
Has anyone else heard anything about this? It seems like this would have
been much bigger news considering the famous compuserve/gif patent issues.
Something Ralph Nader said in wired today is the first I have heard of
it...
JENNIFER AND KEVIN MCCOY: STARDUST
PRESS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JENNIFER AND KEVIN MCCOY: STARDUST
MARCH 4-APRIL 4,2003
The School of Art and Design is delighted to present the first West
Coast Installation of a work by New York-based artists Jennifer and
Kevin McCoy. Premiering at the Natalie and James Thompson Gallery on
Tuesday evening March 4, this exhibition will continue on display
through April 4. In conjunction with the opening of Stardust, Jennifer
and Kevin McCoy will introduce and discuss their work March 4th at 5-6
p.m. in the Art Building Auditorium room 133 followed by the exhibition
opening and reception. This exhibition is being sponsored, in part,
through the CADRE Laboratory for New Media at SJSU. Contact: Joel
Slayton-Director. joel@well.com.
The McCoys' work sits at the intersection of our fascination with
popular culture, rumor-mongering, and pseudo-science. For "Stardust",
the McCoys turn their attention to Las Vegas to create sculptural works
that perform minute analyses of their fascination with glamour and
celebrity. The work in this show asks viewers to objectively consider
this glittering world as an information source capable of teaching us
unpleasant lessons about attraction to the spotlight.
The exhibition will include work from The Band Rider Series, which
consists of sculptural displays of the products that musicians
contractually require to be present in their dressing rooms after a
performance. The display of the items, which alludes to classical art
historical still life, collapses the distance between the artists and
the public by reducing the artists down to commonly available consumer
items, yet the distance that separates us from their celebrity still
remain as the items are sealed within a clear glass box. The items in
the display are perishable and eventually spoil and fade away,
mirroring the musicians' own life cycle in the world of popular culture.
The McCoys' projects include installations, performances, and net art
that investigate ideas of genre, interactivity, and automation. Their
pieces have been exhibited internationally, and commissioned projects
include net art projects for the Walker Art Center, the Whitney Museum,
and the Alternative Museum. This exhibition is being sponsored, in
part, through the CADRE Laboratory for New Media at SJSU.
JENNIFER AND KEVIN MCCOY: STARDUST
MARCH 4-APRIL 4,2003
The School of Art and Design is delighted to present the first West
Coast Installation of a work by New York-based artists Jennifer and
Kevin McCoy. Premiering at the Natalie and James Thompson Gallery on
Tuesday evening March 4, this exhibition will continue on display
through April 4. In conjunction with the opening of Stardust, Jennifer
and Kevin McCoy will introduce and discuss their work March 4th at 5-6
p.m. in the Art Building Auditorium room 133 followed by the exhibition
opening and reception. This exhibition is being sponsored, in part,
through the CADRE Laboratory for New Media at SJSU. Contact: Joel
Slayton-Director. joel@well.com.
The McCoys' work sits at the intersection of our fascination with
popular culture, rumor-mongering, and pseudo-science. For "Stardust",
the McCoys turn their attention to Las Vegas to create sculptural works
that perform minute analyses of their fascination with glamour and
celebrity. The work in this show asks viewers to objectively consider
this glittering world as an information source capable of teaching us
unpleasant lessons about attraction to the spotlight.
The exhibition will include work from The Band Rider Series, which
consists of sculptural displays of the products that musicians
contractually require to be present in their dressing rooms after a
performance. The display of the items, which alludes to classical art
historical still life, collapses the distance between the artists and
the public by reducing the artists down to commonly available consumer
items, yet the distance that separates us from their celebrity still
remain as the items are sealed within a clear glass box. The items in
the display are perishable and eventually spoil and fade away,
mirroring the musicians' own life cycle in the world of popular culture.
The McCoys' projects include installations, performances, and net art
that investigate ideas of genre, interactivity, and automation. Their
pieces have been exhibited internationally, and commissioned projects
include net art projects for the Walker Art Center, the Whitney Museum,
and the Alternative Museum. This exhibition is being sponsored, in
part, through the CADRE Laboratory for New Media at SJSU.
Re: [Fwd: WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY ON FRANCE]
Classic Buckley. Erudite, "tart", conservative rhetoric. Frankly, this is
what has made him the favorite conservative critic among those on the
(American) left since whenever... Why? I think it is because he is the
conservative mirror image of what the intellectual left sees itself
as: smart, informed, accurate, and rhetorically sound. Hell, I like him,
even if this text hardly tracks with (or cares to recognize) anything that
is being said by France or Germany that is inconveinent to the argument,
such as Chirac's recent comments:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030224-423466,00.html
The problem is of course that neither the intellectual left nor right
really understand, or perhaps are afraid to understand, power. (And
now I am exclusivley referring to my homeland, because I am no position
to speak beyond this in terms of politcal analysis- Ich bin ein
Rhizomer... Nettimer nicht...)
Buckley fights the good fight of the sophisticated conservative, but this
kind of conservatism never took root here. The magical electorial formula
that has made the United States a predominantly right wing nation was
discovered by Nixon: the potent, complex semiotics of racial division
hidden behind code words like "heritage" (read: slavery), "family values"
(read: your family 'works' for ours) and "History" (read: the inability of
many in this nation to get over losing a war that ended in 1865.) But
these 'many' have fairly solid electoral control in the United States. This
is how you can have the Bush administration (domestically) arguing
before the supreme court that affirmative action is reverse racism - with
a straight face - and maintain a pretty solid majority of US/Americans
bobbing their heads in agreement. This in spite of the fact that
even "black-sounding names" are significantly discriminated against.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Midwest/01/14/name.bias.ap/index.html
So Buckley is no more dangerous than say, Chomsky. Both are good reads,
but adolecents just don't read this kind of stuff. In fact, much like our
President, they don't read much of anything analytical at all. They are
angry (don't ask me why), they vote, and listen to and read Michael Savage,
(michealsavage.com), a media star and best-selling author whose success
and influence tart William can only dream of. And they are in power.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Vijay Pattisapu wrote:
>
> ...hmm...rather tart...
>
> what does rhizome think?
>
> Vijay
>
>
> >> Feb. 14, 2003
> >> The Spoils of Glory
> >> What to do about France and NATO.
> >>
> >> The whole world, it seems, hangs on the future within NATO of the current
> >> dispute. The sense of it, in parts of Europe, is that Germany accidentally
> >> tripped into its present position. For one, there was < there is <
> >> the brooding matter of its military-imperialist past, and the sense
> >> that binds it, as it does Japan, in those postwar loincloths of innocence
> >> that make Machtpolitik something of an impiety, let alone a question
> >> of tanks and missiles and bayonets. There came then the accidental success
> >> of marginal candidate Gerhard Shroeder, who brushed the anti-American
> >> cream off the top of the electoral vat and scored an upset victory. He
> >> and Germany are stuck with it, and will come around on the matter of help
> >> to Turkey only if a formula sufficiently emasculating is contrived.
> >>
> >> The plight of France is brilliantly examined by the Strategic
> >> Forecasting Intelligence unit of Texas. The analyst reminds us of
> >> the basic problem of modern France, which is that it isn't strong enough
> >> to figure dominantly on the international scene by the mere deployment
> >> of its geopolitical or commercial resources. This requires a very heavy
> >> load on its cultural resources. These are formidable, but how many operas
> >> comiques are needed to float out the single French aircraft carrier?
> >> The Charles de Gaulle has scarcely left harbor during its accident-prone
> >> existence. The British sage Paul Johnson, summarizing France's straitened
> >> military, writes that "there is no chance of the French cutting a bella
> >> figura in any hostilities, and so the easy way out for her is to oppose them."
> >>
> >> The aircraft carrier's eponym intuited the problem in 1966, when, as
> >> president of France, he dramatically pulled the French out of the NATO
> >> administration. He did not pull out of NATO < France is still a member of
> >> that alliance, but the authority to deploy French military remains that of
> >> France alone. It is because of that rupture that the NATO administration was
> >> relocated to Brussels, where it sits cheek by jowl with the European Union.
> >> If every one of the NATO powers were to abide by de Gaulle's maxims < never
> >> divest yourself of your own power, but engage in ad hoc alignments to
> >> magnify that power < a stable alliance would be impossible. And the
> >> challenge of Iraq is illustrating an instability we'd have done better
> >> to anticipate more skillfully. What we have now, of course, is the
> >> inexpugnable challenge of taming the Iraqi beast, and the need to absorb a
> >> NATO alliance with room given for the caprice of the two major nations of <
> >> old Europe.
> >>
> >> The parliamentarians are getting great exercise in the libertine theater.
> >> There is the sense of independence not only from the power of the
> >> superpower, but from the restraints that attach to ordered rhetoric. Belgium
> >> wants, no less, to try General Sharon, after he leaves office, as a war
> >> criminal . That is the kind of thing against which cool heads warned when
> >> General Pinochet suddenly found himself a prisoner in London. Donald
> >> Rumsfeld let it fly against Germany that in behaving as it lately has, it is
> >> in the same league as Cuba and Libya. That did it for Germany's defense
> >> minister, Peter Struck, who, taking a firm grip on his pince-nez, fumed
> >> that what Rumsfeld said was "beyond impertinent. . . . It isn't acceptable.
> >> It is out of order. It is even un-American."
> >>
> >> "In recent months," writes Paul Johnson in National Review , the
> >> anti-American pitch "has surpassed itself in its fury at the notion of
> >> 'Texas adolescents' wielding more power than 'European sophisticates.' Mixed
> >> in this bouillabaisse of rage are anti-Semitism, a distrust of popular>
> >> democracy, frustrated socialism, and a smug use of French cultural
> >> superiority."
> >>
> >> What to do? "When the French elites are in such a mood they are beyond the
> >> reach of argument and are best ignored."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Get Your Free and Private Junglist E-mail from Junglist.com
> Register Online Here -> http://www.junglist.com
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Express yourself with a super cool email address from BigMailBox.com.
> Hundreds of choices. It's free!
> http://www.bigmailbox.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
what has made him the favorite conservative critic among those on the
(American) left since whenever... Why? I think it is because he is the
conservative mirror image of what the intellectual left sees itself
as: smart, informed, accurate, and rhetorically sound. Hell, I like him,
even if this text hardly tracks with (or cares to recognize) anything that
is being said by France or Germany that is inconveinent to the argument,
such as Chirac's recent comments:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030224-423466,00.html
The problem is of course that neither the intellectual left nor right
really understand, or perhaps are afraid to understand, power. (And
now I am exclusivley referring to my homeland, because I am no position
to speak beyond this in terms of politcal analysis- Ich bin ein
Rhizomer... Nettimer nicht...)
Buckley fights the good fight of the sophisticated conservative, but this
kind of conservatism never took root here. The magical electorial formula
that has made the United States a predominantly right wing nation was
discovered by Nixon: the potent, complex semiotics of racial division
hidden behind code words like "heritage" (read: slavery), "family values"
(read: your family 'works' for ours) and "History" (read: the inability of
many in this nation to get over losing a war that ended in 1865.) But
these 'many' have fairly solid electoral control in the United States. This
is how you can have the Bush administration (domestically) arguing
before the supreme court that affirmative action is reverse racism - with
a straight face - and maintain a pretty solid majority of US/Americans
bobbing their heads in agreement. This in spite of the fact that
even "black-sounding names" are significantly discriminated against.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Midwest/01/14/name.bias.ap/index.html
So Buckley is no more dangerous than say, Chomsky. Both are good reads,
but adolecents just don't read this kind of stuff. In fact, much like our
President, they don't read much of anything analytical at all. They are
angry (don't ask me why), they vote, and listen to and read Michael Savage,
(michealsavage.com), a media star and best-selling author whose success
and influence tart William can only dream of. And they are in power.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Vijay Pattisapu wrote:
>
> ...hmm...rather tart...
>
> what does rhizome think?
>
> Vijay
>
>
> >> Feb. 14, 2003
> >> The Spoils of Glory
> >> What to do about France and NATO.
> >>
> >> The whole world, it seems, hangs on the future within NATO of the current
> >> dispute. The sense of it, in parts of Europe, is that Germany accidentally
> >> tripped into its present position. For one, there was < there is <
> >> the brooding matter of its military-imperialist past, and the sense
> >> that binds it, as it does Japan, in those postwar loincloths of innocence
> >> that make Machtpolitik something of an impiety, let alone a question
> >> of tanks and missiles and bayonets. There came then the accidental success
> >> of marginal candidate Gerhard Shroeder, who brushed the anti-American
> >> cream off the top of the electoral vat and scored an upset victory. He
> >> and Germany are stuck with it, and will come around on the matter of help
> >> to Turkey only if a formula sufficiently emasculating is contrived.
> >>
> >> The plight of France is brilliantly examined by the Strategic
> >> Forecasting Intelligence unit of Texas. The analyst reminds us of
> >> the basic problem of modern France, which is that it isn't strong enough
> >> to figure dominantly on the international scene by the mere deployment
> >> of its geopolitical or commercial resources. This requires a very heavy
> >> load on its cultural resources. These are formidable, but how many operas
> >> comiques are needed to float out the single French aircraft carrier?
> >> The Charles de Gaulle has scarcely left harbor during its accident-prone
> >> existence. The British sage Paul Johnson, summarizing France's straitened
> >> military, writes that "there is no chance of the French cutting a bella
> >> figura in any hostilities, and so the easy way out for her is to oppose them."
> >>
> >> The aircraft carrier's eponym intuited the problem in 1966, when, as
> >> president of France, he dramatically pulled the French out of the NATO
> >> administration. He did not pull out of NATO < France is still a member of
> >> that alliance, but the authority to deploy French military remains that of
> >> France alone. It is because of that rupture that the NATO administration was
> >> relocated to Brussels, where it sits cheek by jowl with the European Union.
> >> If every one of the NATO powers were to abide by de Gaulle's maxims < never
> >> divest yourself of your own power, but engage in ad hoc alignments to
> >> magnify that power < a stable alliance would be impossible. And the
> >> challenge of Iraq is illustrating an instability we'd have done better
> >> to anticipate more skillfully. What we have now, of course, is the
> >> inexpugnable challenge of taming the Iraqi beast, and the need to absorb a
> >> NATO alliance with room given for the caprice of the two major nations of <
> >> old Europe.
> >>
> >> The parliamentarians are getting great exercise in the libertine theater.
> >> There is the sense of independence not only from the power of the
> >> superpower, but from the restraints that attach to ordered rhetoric. Belgium
> >> wants, no less, to try General Sharon, after he leaves office, as a war
> >> criminal . That is the kind of thing against which cool heads warned when
> >> General Pinochet suddenly found himself a prisoner in London. Donald
> >> Rumsfeld let it fly against Germany that in behaving as it lately has, it is
> >> in the same league as Cuba and Libya. That did it for Germany's defense
> >> minister, Peter Struck, who, taking a firm grip on his pince-nez, fumed
> >> that what Rumsfeld said was "beyond impertinent. . . . It isn't acceptable.
> >> It is out of order. It is even un-American."
> >>
> >> "In recent months," writes Paul Johnson in National Review , the
> >> anti-American pitch "has surpassed itself in its fury at the notion of
> >> 'Texas adolescents' wielding more power than 'European sophisticates.' Mixed
> >> in this bouillabaisse of rage are anti-Semitism, a distrust of popular>
> >> democracy, frustrated socialism, and a smug use of French cultural
> >> superiority."
> >>
> >> What to do? "When the French elites are in such a mood they are beyond the
> >> reach of argument and are best ignored."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Get Your Free and Private Junglist E-mail from Junglist.com
> Register Online Here -> http://www.junglist.com
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Express yourself with a super cool email address from BigMailBox.com.
> Hundreds of choices. It's free!
> http://www.bigmailbox.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
Senator Robert Byrd addresses the Senate (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:12:30 -0800
From: Geri Wittig <gwittig@adobe.com>
To: gwittig@adobe.com
Subject: Senator Robert Byrd addresses the Senate
Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences
by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech - Wednesday, February 12, 2003
To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences.
On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every
American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully
silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the
nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own
uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the
editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of
the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.
And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt
to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents
a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the
recent history of the world.
This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary
doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The
doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other
nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening
but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the
traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of
international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of
world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they
will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level
Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the
table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more
destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a
world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of
many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our
time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging
worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation,
suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once
solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little
guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are
being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their
stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less
than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also
short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling.
Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.
This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be
judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.
In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large
projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to
projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic
policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding
scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has
fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has
ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly.
This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland
security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long
and porous borders.
In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden.
In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and
urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances,
possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like
the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question
the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as
well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient
art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that
reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders,
and which will have consequences for years to come.
Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil,
denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude
insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive
military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need
the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the
newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome
military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating
attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military
manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support
of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters
cheering us on.
The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence
that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We
have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the
dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated
land.
Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has
not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark
on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is
our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the
war one must always secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of
plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming
an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil
for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of
power after Saddam Hussein?
Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on
Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the
Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by
Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?
Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession?
Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the
interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join
the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for
nations which need the income?
In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant
Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences
for years.
One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage
attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a
shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly
impossible to exact retribution.
But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely
destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is
currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the
awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest
superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this
Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.
Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of
horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation
of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 --
this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send
thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and
biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could
possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on
Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.
We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray
that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a
rudest of awakenings.
To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a
last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any
President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation
which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our
country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be
having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner
so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our
own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.
###
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:12:30 -0800
From: Geri Wittig <gwittig@adobe.com>
To: gwittig@adobe.com
Subject: Senator Robert Byrd addresses the Senate
Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences
by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech - Wednesday, February 12, 2003
To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences.
On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every
American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully
silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the
nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own
uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the
editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of
the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.
And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt
to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents
a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the
recent history of the world.
This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary
doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The
doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other
nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening
but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the
traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of
international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of
world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they
will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level
Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the
table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more
destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a
world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of
many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our
time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging
worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation,
suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once
solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little
guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are
being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their
stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less
than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also
short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling.
Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.
This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be
judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.
In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large
projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to
projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic
policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding
scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has
fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has
ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly.
This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland
security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long
and porous borders.
In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden.
In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and
urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances,
possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like
the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question
the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as
well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient
art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that
reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders,
and which will have consequences for years to come.
Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil,
denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude
insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive
military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need
the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the
newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome
military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating
attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military
manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support
of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters
cheering us on.
The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence
that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We
have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the
dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated
land.
Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has
not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark
on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is
our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the
war one must always secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of
plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming
an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil
for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of
power after Saddam Hussein?
Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on
Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the
Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by
Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?
Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession?
Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the
interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join
the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for
nations which need the income?
In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant
Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences
for years.
One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage
attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a
shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly
impossible to exact retribution.
But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely
destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is
currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the
awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest
superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this
Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.
Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of
horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation
of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 --
this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send
thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and
biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could
possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on
Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.
We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray
that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a
rudest of awakenings.
To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a
last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any
President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation
which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our
country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be
having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner
so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our
own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.
###