Tuesday, November 30, 2004
How Much Power Do Drug Companies Have Over Children?
.
Guinea Pig Kids
Vulnerable children in some of New York's poorest districts are being forced to take part in HIV drug trials.
.
Guinea Pig Kids
Vulnerable children in some of New York's poorest districts are being forced to take part in HIV drug trials.
.
Noam Chomsky And The Bullshit Mandate
.
There are many other illustrations of the same lack of concern of planners about terror. Bush voters, whether they knew it or not, were voting for a likely increase in the threat of terror, which could be awesome: it was understood well before 9-11 that sooner or later the Jihadists organized by the CIA and its associates in the 1980s are likely to gain access to WMDs, with horrendous consequences. And even these frightening prospects are being consciously extended by the transformation of the military, which, apart from increasing the threat of "ultimate doom" by accidental nuclear war, is compelling Russia to move nuclear missiles over its huge and mostly unprotected territory to counter US military threats – including the threat of instant annihilation that is a core part of the "ownership of space" for offensive military purposes announced by the Bush administration along with its National Security Strategy in late 2002, significantly extending Clinton programs that were more than hazardous enough, and had already immobilized the UN Disarmament Committee.
As for "moral values," we learn what we need to know about them from the business press the day after the election, reporting the "euphoria" in board rooms – not because CEOs oppose gay marriage. And from the unconcealed efforts to transfer to future generations the costs of the dedicated service of Bush planners to privilege and wealth: fiscal and environmental costs, among others, not to speak of the threat of "ultimate doom." That aside, it means little to say that people vote on the basis of "moral values." The question is what they mean by the phrase. The limited indications are of some interest. In some polls, "when the voters were asked to choose the most urgent moral crisis facing the country, 33 percent cited `greed and materialism,' 31 percent selected `poverty and economic justice,' 16 percent named abortion, and 12 percent selected gay marriage" (Pax Christi). In others, "when surveyed voters were asked to list the moral issue that most affected their vote, the Iraq war placed first at 42 percent, while 13 percent named abortion and 9 percent named gay marriage" (Zogby). Whatever voters meant, it could hardly have been the operative moral values of the administration, celebrated by the business press.
I won't go through the details here, but a careful look indicates that much the same appears to be true for Kerry voters who thought they were calling for serious attention to the economy, health, and their other concerns. As in the fake markets constructed by the PR industry, so also in the fake democracy they run, the public is hardly more than an irrelevant onlooker, apart from the appeal of carefully constructed images that have only the vaguest resemblance to reality…
…It is instructive to look more closely into popular attitudes on the war in Iraq, in the light of the general opposition to the "pre-emptive war" doctrines of the bipartisan consensus. On the eve of the 2004 elections, "three quarters of Americans say that the US should not have gone to war if Iraq did not have WMD or was not providing support to al Qaeda, while nearly half still say the war was the right decision" (Stephen Kull, reporting the PIPA study he directs). But this is not a contradiction, Kull points out. Despite the quasi-official Kay and Duelfer reports undermining the claims, the decision to go to war "is sustained by persisting beliefs among half of Americans that Iraq provided substantial support to al Qaeda, and had WMD, or at least a major WMD program," and thus see the invasion as defense against an imminent severe threat. Much earlier PIPA studies had shown that a large majority believe that the UN, not the US, should take the lead in matters of security, reconstruction, and political transition in Iraq. Last March, Spanish voters were bitterly condemned for appeasing terror when they voted out of office the government that had gone to war over the objections of about 90% of the population, taking its orders from Crawford Texas, and winning plaudits for its leadership in the "New Europe" that is the hope of democracy. Few if any commentators noted that Spanish voters last March were taking about the same position as the large majority of Americans: voting for removing Spanish troops unless they were under UN direction. The major differences between the two countries are that in Spain, public opinion was known, while here it takes an individual research project to discover it; and in Spain the issue came to a vote, almost unimaginable in the deteriorating formal democracy here.
These results indicate that activists have not done their job effectively.
Turning to other areas, overwhelming majorities of the public favor expansion of domestic programs: primarily health care (80%), but also aid to education and Social Security. Similar results have long been found in these studies (CCFR). Other mainstream polls report that 80% favor guaranteed health care even if it would raise taxes – in reality, a national health care system would probably reduce expenses considerably, avoiding the heavy costs of bureaucracy, supervision, paperwork, and so on, some of the factors that render the US privatized system the most inefficient in the industrial world. Public opinion has been similar for a long time, with numbers varying depending on how questions are asked. The facts are sometimes discussed in the press, with public preferences noted but dismissed as "politically impossible." That happened again on the eve of the 2004 elections. A few days before (Oct. 31), the NY Times reported that "there is so little political support for government intervention in the health care market in the United States that Senator John Kerry took pains in a recent presidential debate to say that his plan for expanding access to health insurance would not create a new government program" – what the majority want, so it appears. But it is "politically impossible" and has "[too] little political support," meaning that the insurance companies, HMOs, pharmaceutical industries, Wall Street, etc. , are opposed.
.
There are many other illustrations of the same lack of concern of planners about terror. Bush voters, whether they knew it or not, were voting for a likely increase in the threat of terror, which could be awesome: it was understood well before 9-11 that sooner or later the Jihadists organized by the CIA and its associates in the 1980s are likely to gain access to WMDs, with horrendous consequences. And even these frightening prospects are being consciously extended by the transformation of the military, which, apart from increasing the threat of "ultimate doom" by accidental nuclear war, is compelling Russia to move nuclear missiles over its huge and mostly unprotected territory to counter US military threats – including the threat of instant annihilation that is a core part of the "ownership of space" for offensive military purposes announced by the Bush administration along with its National Security Strategy in late 2002, significantly extending Clinton programs that were more than hazardous enough, and had already immobilized the UN Disarmament Committee.
As for "moral values," we learn what we need to know about them from the business press the day after the election, reporting the "euphoria" in board rooms – not because CEOs oppose gay marriage. And from the unconcealed efforts to transfer to future generations the costs of the dedicated service of Bush planners to privilege and wealth: fiscal and environmental costs, among others, not to speak of the threat of "ultimate doom." That aside, it means little to say that people vote on the basis of "moral values." The question is what they mean by the phrase. The limited indications are of some interest. In some polls, "when the voters were asked to choose the most urgent moral crisis facing the country, 33 percent cited `greed and materialism,' 31 percent selected `poverty and economic justice,' 16 percent named abortion, and 12 percent selected gay marriage" (Pax Christi). In others, "when surveyed voters were asked to list the moral issue that most affected their vote, the Iraq war placed first at 42 percent, while 13 percent named abortion and 9 percent named gay marriage" (Zogby). Whatever voters meant, it could hardly have been the operative moral values of the administration, celebrated by the business press.
I won't go through the details here, but a careful look indicates that much the same appears to be true for Kerry voters who thought they were calling for serious attention to the economy, health, and their other concerns. As in the fake markets constructed by the PR industry, so also in the fake democracy they run, the public is hardly more than an irrelevant onlooker, apart from the appeal of carefully constructed images that have only the vaguest resemblance to reality…
…It is instructive to look more closely into popular attitudes on the war in Iraq, in the light of the general opposition to the "pre-emptive war" doctrines of the bipartisan consensus. On the eve of the 2004 elections, "three quarters of Americans say that the US should not have gone to war if Iraq did not have WMD or was not providing support to al Qaeda, while nearly half still say the war was the right decision" (Stephen Kull, reporting the PIPA study he directs). But this is not a contradiction, Kull points out. Despite the quasi-official Kay and Duelfer reports undermining the claims, the decision to go to war "is sustained by persisting beliefs among half of Americans that Iraq provided substantial support to al Qaeda, and had WMD, or at least a major WMD program," and thus see the invasion as defense against an imminent severe threat. Much earlier PIPA studies had shown that a large majority believe that the UN, not the US, should take the lead in matters of security, reconstruction, and political transition in Iraq. Last March, Spanish voters were bitterly condemned for appeasing terror when they voted out of office the government that had gone to war over the objections of about 90% of the population, taking its orders from Crawford Texas, and winning plaudits for its leadership in the "New Europe" that is the hope of democracy. Few if any commentators noted that Spanish voters last March were taking about the same position as the large majority of Americans: voting for removing Spanish troops unless they were under UN direction. The major differences between the two countries are that in Spain, public opinion was known, while here it takes an individual research project to discover it; and in Spain the issue came to a vote, almost unimaginable in the deteriorating formal democracy here.
These results indicate that activists have not done their job effectively.
Turning to other areas, overwhelming majorities of the public favor expansion of domestic programs: primarily health care (80%), but also aid to education and Social Security. Similar results have long been found in these studies (CCFR). Other mainstream polls report that 80% favor guaranteed health care even if it would raise taxes – in reality, a national health care system would probably reduce expenses considerably, avoiding the heavy costs of bureaucracy, supervision, paperwork, and so on, some of the factors that render the US privatized system the most inefficient in the industrial world. Public opinion has been similar for a long time, with numbers varying depending on how questions are asked. The facts are sometimes discussed in the press, with public preferences noted but dismissed as "politically impossible." That happened again on the eve of the 2004 elections. A few days before (Oct. 31), the NY Times reported that "there is so little political support for government intervention in the health care market in the United States that Senator John Kerry took pains in a recent presidential debate to say that his plan for expanding access to health insurance would not create a new government program" – what the majority want, so it appears. But it is "politically impossible" and has "[too] little political support," meaning that the insurance companies, HMOs, pharmaceutical industries, Wall Street, etc. , are opposed.
.
To Us Falluja Is Freedom, The World Sees Falluja As Brutal Aggression
.
CBS depiction of the war is no different than ABC, CNN, NBC or FOX. We can see from this brief summary of one week's news that American media is little more than the "information arm" of the US military. In every case, the events are shaped to create a favorable impression of our involvement. The allusions to weapons caches, anthrax labs and torture rooms are invoked to feed ethnic and racial hatred and to rationalize the horrific punishment we are visiting on the innocent civilians of Falluja.
The real story of Falluja is nowhere to be found in American media. 300,000 people were expelled from the city so that the military could exact its revenge against the killers of four mercenaries. By all accounts, the city is in ruins; bodies left on the streets are bloated and some are being devoured by dogs. Those who chose to stay (many because they were invalid or afraid that their homes would be looted) were left for two weeks without food, water or electricity. Even now, the relief efforts of the Red Crescent have been stymied by the Marines; leaving many of the wounded without medical attention. Half of the city's mosques have been damaged or destroyed; roads and infrastructure have been laid to waste, and upwards of 2,000 people have been killed. This is the real picture of Falluja; a picture that is scrupulously omitted from any mainstream newspaper or TV station in the country.
It's impossible to know when the American media morphed into the corporate-friendly bullhorn for aggression that it is today. But, we can say with certainty that the main outlets speak with one voice on the war in Iraq. Everything down to the labeling of the siege ("The Battle for Falluja") has been focus-group tested and picked up by all the main stations. In fact, there was no "Battle for Falluja"; it was a brutal siege in the same tradition as Germany's assault on Stalingrad.
MIKE WHITNEY
.
CBS depiction of the war is no different than ABC, CNN, NBC or FOX. We can see from this brief summary of one week's news that American media is little more than the "information arm" of the US military. In every case, the events are shaped to create a favorable impression of our involvement. The allusions to weapons caches, anthrax labs and torture rooms are invoked to feed ethnic and racial hatred and to rationalize the horrific punishment we are visiting on the innocent civilians of Falluja.
The real story of Falluja is nowhere to be found in American media. 300,000 people were expelled from the city so that the military could exact its revenge against the killers of four mercenaries. By all accounts, the city is in ruins; bodies left on the streets are bloated and some are being devoured by dogs. Those who chose to stay (many because they were invalid or afraid that their homes would be looted) were left for two weeks without food, water or electricity. Even now, the relief efforts of the Red Crescent have been stymied by the Marines; leaving many of the wounded without medical attention. Half of the city's mosques have been damaged or destroyed; roads and infrastructure have been laid to waste, and upwards of 2,000 people have been killed. This is the real picture of Falluja; a picture that is scrupulously omitted from any mainstream newspaper or TV station in the country.
It's impossible to know when the American media morphed into the corporate-friendly bullhorn for aggression that it is today. But, we can say with certainty that the main outlets speak with one voice on the war in Iraq. Everything down to the labeling of the siege ("The Battle for Falluja") has been focus-group tested and picked up by all the main stations. In fact, there was no "Battle for Falluja"; it was a brutal siege in the same tradition as Germany's assault on Stalingrad.
MIKE WHITNEY
.
People sure do...
People Still hate Bush
.
Five Things Paul Martin Should Tell George Bush in Ottawa
1. "The Canadian government has different priorities than your administration."
Canadians believe in peace (74% think Canada made the right decision by not going to war with Iraq), public health care (64% want the health care system to exclude for-profit corporations), clean water (97% want water to be recognized as a human right), and fair trade (60% oppose trade deals, like NAFTA, that give corporations the right to sue governments if public policies impair their profits). Paul Martin must state that these are the priorities of the Canadian people, and therefore those of his government.
2. "Canadians are opposed to deep integration with the U.S."
91% of Canadians believe that we should be able to set our own environmental health and safety standards and regulations, even if this might reduce trade with the U.S. The Prime Minister must state that Canada is a sovereign country and that it has the right to have "made in Canada" economic, foreign and defence policies, and to make its own decisions on regulatory efficiency, resource security, and border issues.
3. "Canadians are opposed to Star Wars.”
69% of Canadians believe that Canada should not support the Bush administration’s missile defence system if it requires dedicating military spending to the program or allowing U.S. missile launchers in Canada. The Prime Minister's former Cabinet colleague Lloyd Axworthy has stated that there should be, "a moratorium on any present deals or discussions related to border security or missile defence on the grounds that in a minority Parliament there is not a mandate for such decisions."
4. "Canada will enforce its Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act."
According to this Act, a war crime is any conduct defined as such by "customary international law." United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has stated that the U.S. invasion of Iraq is illegal under the terms of the UN Charter. The Toronto Star's editorial board has stated, "Martin should lobby Bush to comply with the Geneva Conventions in dealing with the hundreds of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and other detention centres."
5. "The Canadian Council of Chief Executives does not speak for Canada."
This year, 100 Canadian corporate executives went to Washington and met with Andrew Card (Bush's Chief of Staff), Condoleezza Rice (now Secretary of State), and General John Gordon (Bush's Homeland Security Advisor) to advance their agenda of deep integration. Although John Manley (the Deputy Prime Minister at the time, now the co-chair of an American-based task force on North American integration) was also present, Martin must state that the CCCE's promotion of further regulatory, economic and policy integration with the U.S. does not have hi s support.
.
Five Things Paul Martin Should Tell George Bush in Ottawa
1. "The Canadian government has different priorities than your administration."
Canadians believe in peace (74% think Canada made the right decision by not going to war with Iraq), public health care (64% want the health care system to exclude for-profit corporations), clean water (97% want water to be recognized as a human right), and fair trade (60% oppose trade deals, like NAFTA, that give corporations the right to sue governments if public policies impair their profits). Paul Martin must state that these are the priorities of the Canadian people, and therefore those of his government.
2. "Canadians are opposed to deep integration with the U.S."
91% of Canadians believe that we should be able to set our own environmental health and safety standards and regulations, even if this might reduce trade with the U.S. The Prime Minister must state that Canada is a sovereign country and that it has the right to have "made in Canada" economic, foreign and defence policies, and to make its own decisions on regulatory efficiency, resource security, and border issues.
3. "Canadians are opposed to Star Wars.”
69% of Canadians believe that Canada should not support the Bush administration’s missile defence system if it requires dedicating military spending to the program or allowing U.S. missile launchers in Canada. The Prime Minister's former Cabinet colleague Lloyd Axworthy has stated that there should be, "a moratorium on any present deals or discussions related to border security or missile defence on the grounds that in a minority Parliament there is not a mandate for such decisions."
4. "Canada will enforce its Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act."
According to this Act, a war crime is any conduct defined as such by "customary international law." United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has stated that the U.S. invasion of Iraq is illegal under the terms of the UN Charter. The Toronto Star's editorial board has stated, "Martin should lobby Bush to comply with the Geneva Conventions in dealing with the hundreds of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and other detention centres."
5. "The Canadian Council of Chief Executives does not speak for Canada."
This year, 100 Canadian corporate executives went to Washington and met with Andrew Card (Bush's Chief of Staff), Condoleezza Rice (now Secretary of State), and General John Gordon (Bush's Homeland Security Advisor) to advance their agenda of deep integration. Although John Manley (the Deputy Prime Minister at the time, now the co-chair of an American-based task force on North American integration) was also present, Martin must state that the CCCE's promotion of further regulatory, economic and policy integration with the U.S. does not have hi s support.
.
Fucking Pitiful
People Hate Bush
Did I Mention? People Hate Bush
Mature, Open Minded White House Bans Columnists Who Criticize Policy
.
Tom Brokaw Says
Hat tip Atrios
"The idea that this White House has not given Tom Friedman a long, in-depth interview is astonishing to me. I have had a very good relationship with them, I have gotten to interview the President a lot. I have had access on the phone and other areas and I have been very vigorous in my discussions with them. But no reporter that I know covering national politics and the international policies that are of such great concern today know as much about them as Tom Friedman does and they have completely shut out the NEW YORK TIMES."
That's your gov't folks. Children. Whiny little assholes who can't be bothered with opposing views...
.
Tom Brokaw Says
Hat tip Atrios
"The idea that this White House has not given Tom Friedman a long, in-depth interview is astonishing to me. I have had a very good relationship with them, I have gotten to interview the President a lot. I have had access on the phone and other areas and I have been very vigorous in my discussions with them. But no reporter that I know covering national politics and the international policies that are of such great concern today know as much about them as Tom Friedman does and they have completely shut out the NEW YORK TIMES."
That's your gov't folks. Children. Whiny little assholes who can't be bothered with opposing views...
.
Atomic Weapons Expert Warns That Bush Administration Will Use Junk Science and Misinformation To Accuse Iran Of WMD Development
.
First, The Author’s CV:
Physicist James Gordon Prather [send him mail] has served as a policy-implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. – ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico.
Gas centrifuges are not used exclusively for uranium isotope separation. Cascades of gas centrifuges are used to separate – in kilogram quantities for commercial sale – the isotopes of zinc, tungsten, molybdenum, krypton, xenon, germanium, iron, sulfur, oxygen and carbon.
For example, large quantities of zinc-acetate-dihydrate are used as an additive in water-cooled water-moderated nuclear power plants – particularly those burning plutonium-uranium mixed-oxide [MOX] fuels – to reduce corrosion and cracking of key components. However, the use of naturally occurring zinc would result in increased radiation exposure to plant workers, because Zn-64 – constituting 48 percent by isotopic concentration in naturally occurring zinc – is transformed into radioactive Zn-65 in the reactor environment. Hence, the lucrative market for large quantities of "depleted" zinc-acetate-dihydrate wherein the Zn-64 isotopic concentration is reduced to less than 1 percent.
So, until IAEA-safeguarded "nuclear materials" are actually introduced into them, the origin of the centrifuges, the construction of cascades and the operation thereof is none of the IAEA's beeswax. And who knows? Maybe the Iranian's secret plan all along has been to take over the "depleted zinc" market.
Atomic Weapons Expert Warns That Bush Administration Will Use Junk Science and Misinformation To Accused Iran Of WMD Development
.
First, The Author’s CV:
Physicist James Gordon Prather [send him mail] has served as a policy-implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. – ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico.
Gas centrifuges are not used exclusively for uranium isotope separation. Cascades of gas centrifuges are used to separate – in kilogram quantities for commercial sale – the isotopes of zinc, tungsten, molybdenum, krypton, xenon, germanium, iron, sulfur, oxygen and carbon.
For example, large quantities of zinc-acetate-dihydrate are used as an additive in water-cooled water-moderated nuclear power plants – particularly those burning plutonium-uranium mixed-oxide [MOX] fuels – to reduce corrosion and cracking of key components. However, the use of naturally occurring zinc would result in increased radiation exposure to plant workers, because Zn-64 – constituting 48 percent by isotopic concentration in naturally occurring zinc – is transformed into radioactive Zn-65 in the reactor environment. Hence, the lucrative market for large quantities of "depleted" zinc-acetate-dihydrate wherein the Zn-64 isotopic concentration is reduced to less than 1 percent.
So, until IAEA-safeguarded "nuclear materials" are actually introduced into them, the origin of the centrifuges, the construction of cascades and the operation thereof is none of the IAEA's beeswax. And who knows? Maybe the Iranian's secret plan all along has been to take over the "depleted zinc" market.
Atomic Weapons Expert Warns That Bush Administration Will Use Junk Science and Misinformation To Accused Iran Of WMD Development
.
Red Cross Says We Are Torturing People
.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 - The International Committee of the Red Cross has charged in confidential reports to the United States government that the American military has intentionally used psychological and sometimes physical coercion "tantamount to torture" on prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
The finding that the handling of prisoners detained and interrogated at Guantánamo amounted to torture came after a visit by a Red Cross inspection team that spent most of last June in Guantánamo.
The team of humanitarian workers, which included experienced medical personnel, also asserted that some doctors and other medical workers at Guantánamo were participating in planning for interrogations, in what the report called "a flagrant violation of medical ethics."
.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 - The International Committee of the Red Cross has charged in confidential reports to the United States government that the American military has intentionally used psychological and sometimes physical coercion "tantamount to torture" on prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
The finding that the handling of prisoners detained and interrogated at Guantánamo amounted to torture came after a visit by a Red Cross inspection team that spent most of last June in Guantánamo.
The team of humanitarian workers, which included experienced medical personnel, also asserted that some doctors and other medical workers at Guantánamo were participating in planning for interrogations, in what the report called "a flagrant violation of medical ethics."
.
Monday, November 29, 2004
War Games Show Bush Blew It
.
What about a pre-emptive strike of our own, like the Osirak raid? The problem is that Iran's nuclear program is now much more advanced than Iraq's was at the time of the raid. Already the U.S. government has no way of knowing exactly how many sites Iran has, or how many it would be able to destroy, or how much time it would buy in doing so. Worse, it would have no way of predicting the long-term strategic impact of such a strike. A strike might delay by three years Iran's attainment of its goal—but at the cost of further embittering the regime and its people. Iran's intentions when it did get the bomb would be all the more hostile.
Here the United States faces what the military refers to as a "branches and sequels" decision—that is, an assessment of best and second-best outcomes. It would prefer that Iran never obtain nuclear weapons. But if Iran does, America would like Iran to see itself more or less as India does—as a regional power whose nuclear status symbolizes its strength relative to regional rivals, but whose very attainment of this position makes it more committed to defending the status quo. The United States would prefer, of course, that Iran not reach a new level of power with a vendetta against America. One of our panelists thought that a strike would help the United States, simply by buying time. The rest disagreed. Iran would rebuild after a strike, and from that point on it would be much more reluctant to be talked or bargained out of pursuing its goals—and it would have far more reason, once armed, to use nuclear weapons to America's detriment.
Most of our panelists felt that the case against a U.S. strike was all the more powerful against an Israeli strike. With its much smaller air force and much more limited freedom to use airspace, Israel would probably do even less "helpful" damage to Iranian sites. The hostile reaction—against both Israel and the United States—would be potentially more lethal to both Israel and its strongest backer.
A realistic awareness of these constraints will put the next President in an awkward position. In the end, according to our panelists, he should understand that he cannot prudently order an attack on Iran. But his chances of negotiating his way out of the situation will be greater if the Iranians don't know that. He will have to brandish the threat of a possible attack while offering the incentive of economic and diplomatic favors should Iran abandon its plans. "If you say there is no acceptable military option, then you end any possibility that there will be a non-nuclear Iran," David Kay said after the war game. "If the Iranians believe they will not suffer any harm, they will go right ahead." Hammes agreed: "The threat is always an important part of the negotiating process. But you want to fool the enemy, not fool yourself. You can't delude yourself into thinking you can do something you can't." Is it therefore irresponsible to say in public, as our participants did and we do here, that the United States has no military solution to the Iran problem? Hammes said no. Iran could not be sure that an American President, seeing what he considered to be clear provocation, would not strike. "You can never assume that just because a government knows something is unviable, it won't go ahead and do it. The Iraqis knew it was not viable to invade Iran, but they still did it. History shows that countries make very serious mistakes."
.
What about a pre-emptive strike of our own, like the Osirak raid? The problem is that Iran's nuclear program is now much more advanced than Iraq's was at the time of the raid. Already the U.S. government has no way of knowing exactly how many sites Iran has, or how many it would be able to destroy, or how much time it would buy in doing so. Worse, it would have no way of predicting the long-term strategic impact of such a strike. A strike might delay by three years Iran's attainment of its goal—but at the cost of further embittering the regime and its people. Iran's intentions when it did get the bomb would be all the more hostile.
Here the United States faces what the military refers to as a "branches and sequels" decision—that is, an assessment of best and second-best outcomes. It would prefer that Iran never obtain nuclear weapons. But if Iran does, America would like Iran to see itself more or less as India does—as a regional power whose nuclear status symbolizes its strength relative to regional rivals, but whose very attainment of this position makes it more committed to defending the status quo. The United States would prefer, of course, that Iran not reach a new level of power with a vendetta against America. One of our panelists thought that a strike would help the United States, simply by buying time. The rest disagreed. Iran would rebuild after a strike, and from that point on it would be much more reluctant to be talked or bargained out of pursuing its goals—and it would have far more reason, once armed, to use nuclear weapons to America's detriment.
Most of our panelists felt that the case against a U.S. strike was all the more powerful against an Israeli strike. With its much smaller air force and much more limited freedom to use airspace, Israel would probably do even less "helpful" damage to Iranian sites. The hostile reaction—against both Israel and the United States—would be potentially more lethal to both Israel and its strongest backer.
A realistic awareness of these constraints will put the next President in an awkward position. In the end, according to our panelists, he should understand that he cannot prudently order an attack on Iran. But his chances of negotiating his way out of the situation will be greater if the Iranians don't know that. He will have to brandish the threat of a possible attack while offering the incentive of economic and diplomatic favors should Iran abandon its plans. "If you say there is no acceptable military option, then you end any possibility that there will be a non-nuclear Iran," David Kay said after the war game. "If the Iranians believe they will not suffer any harm, they will go right ahead." Hammes agreed: "The threat is always an important part of the negotiating process. But you want to fool the enemy, not fool yourself. You can't delude yourself into thinking you can do something you can't." Is it therefore irresponsible to say in public, as our participants did and we do here, that the United States has no military solution to the Iran problem? Hammes said no. Iran could not be sure that an American President, seeing what he considered to be clear provocation, would not strike. "You can never assume that just because a government knows something is unviable, it won't go ahead and do it. The Iraqis knew it was not viable to invade Iran, but they still did it. History shows that countries make very serious mistakes."
.
What Falluja Was Really Like
.
Ofori said more than once that getting a Combat Infantryman's Badge meant little to him. The ribbons, he said, were for talking, and he was here to fight so he could go home.
He respected the insurgents, he said, for their willingness to fight to the death.
The streets outside were littered with dead men, their corpses left for cats and dogs to gnaw on after the sun set. The sight of bearded insurgents, eyes open, lying in gutters was no longer a novelty.
Walking through the house, Ofori turned his gun toward a doorway. Shots rang out. A fighter in the room had been waiting with a grenade in hand. He'd probably been listening the entire time as the men sat on the sofa next door, their voices wafting through the holes in the wall.
When he jumped forward, he didn't scream "Allahu Akbar" - God is Great - as insurgents often did. He moved in silence, until Ofori's fire blew him back. Ofori looked down for a few seconds and walked out of the room. The soldiers behind him went inside to ogle. "Damn, look at Hajji," one said.
Walking into the garage, Ofori found a dead fighter lying on the ground next to a pickup truck outfitted with a machine gun.
Having heard of the incident, the New York Post wrote a headline calling Ofori a "Coney Island Hero."
His mother told the newspaper, "he doesn't like that Army food."
Later in the day, an RPG tore through the torso of Lt. Iwan, the company's executive officer, ripping his body apart. He was 28.
.
Ofori said more than once that getting a Combat Infantryman's Badge meant little to him. The ribbons, he said, were for talking, and he was here to fight so he could go home.
He respected the insurgents, he said, for their willingness to fight to the death.
The streets outside were littered with dead men, their corpses left for cats and dogs to gnaw on after the sun set. The sight of bearded insurgents, eyes open, lying in gutters was no longer a novelty.
Walking through the house, Ofori turned his gun toward a doorway. Shots rang out. A fighter in the room had been waiting with a grenade in hand. He'd probably been listening the entire time as the men sat on the sofa next door, their voices wafting through the holes in the wall.
When he jumped forward, he didn't scream "Allahu Akbar" - God is Great - as insurgents often did. He moved in silence, until Ofori's fire blew him back. Ofori looked down for a few seconds and walked out of the room. The soldiers behind him went inside to ogle. "Damn, look at Hajji," one said.
Walking into the garage, Ofori found a dead fighter lying on the ground next to a pickup truck outfitted with a machine gun.
Having heard of the incident, the New York Post wrote a headline calling Ofori a "Coney Island Hero."
His mother told the newspaper, "he doesn't like that Army food."
Later in the day, an RPG tore through the torso of Lt. Iwan, the company's executive officer, ripping his body apart. He was 28.
.
Wingnut Hypocrisy ( Is That Redundant?)
.
I normally quote Frank Rich every week or excerpt lots of his comments. I haven’t recently, even though he does the one thing that I really think is amazing and call attention to the hypocrisy of “Christians” and the GOP. This one is cited by Hecate and I cite it for two reasons. One, Hecate asks, why doesn’t the Left grab onto these truths about the red states huge appetite for porn, versus the blue states. The reason is that we don’t have a fair press anymore. Hell our media have been replaced with infotainment. Shit, why not publish the whole casualty count? It isn’t that WE aren’t doing the job. The problem is that we have to be fair and honest but the American media is useless. Until we have our own outlets, we will lose this argument. Secondly, the last paragraph here- the hit that Desperate Housewives is in Oklahoma City, home of the Christian Wrong, add to that the divorce rate in Tdxas is the highest in the country and the divorce rate in Liberal Massachusetts is the lowest in the country.
It's beginning to look a lot like "Groundhog Day." Ever since 22 percent of the country's voters said on Nov. 2 that they cared most about "moral values," opportunistic ayatollahs on the right have been working overtime to inflate this nonmandate into a landslide by ginning up cultural controversies that might induce censorship by a compliant F.C.C. and, failing that, self-censorship by TV networks. Seizing on a single overhyped poll result, they exaggerate their clout, hoping to grab power over the culture.
The mainstream press, itself in love with the "moral values" story line and traumatized by the visual exaggerations of the red-blue map, is too cowed to challenge the likes of the American Family Association. So are politicians of both parties. It took a British publication, The Economist, to point out that the percentage of American voters citing moral and ethical values as their prime concern is actually down from 2000 (35 percent) and 1996 (40 percent).
*****
Why are the Democrats not pointing this out? Are they so terrified that a Racist Radical Cleric like Dobson or Fallwell will call them "unchristian" that they can't even point out facts? Let's be clear about this. In 1996, when 40 percent of Americans based their votes on "moral values," they re-elected Bill Clinton. Now that the number of Americans who base their votes on "moral values" has been cut almost in half, they selected George Bush. And this gives the Racist Radical Clerics the ability to force their "religion" down everyone's throats?
And where's the discussion over what "moral values" means to different people? I've never thought that lining your own pocket at the public's expense, lying America into a war, or stirring up hate against minority groups were American values.
Oh, and Rich notes one very telling statistic: "Desperate Housewives is hardly a blue-state phenomenon. A hit everywhere, it is even a bigger hit in Oklahoma City than it is in Los Angeles, bigger in Kansas City than it is in New York."
-Hecate 7:35 AM
.
I normally quote Frank Rich every week or excerpt lots of his comments. I haven’t recently, even though he does the one thing that I really think is amazing and call attention to the hypocrisy of “Christians” and the GOP. This one is cited by Hecate and I cite it for two reasons. One, Hecate asks, why doesn’t the Left grab onto these truths about the red states huge appetite for porn, versus the blue states. The reason is that we don’t have a fair press anymore. Hell our media have been replaced with infotainment. Shit, why not publish the whole casualty count? It isn’t that WE aren’t doing the job. The problem is that we have to be fair and honest but the American media is useless. Until we have our own outlets, we will lose this argument. Secondly, the last paragraph here- the hit that Desperate Housewives is in Oklahoma City, home of the Christian Wrong, add to that the divorce rate in Tdxas is the highest in the country and the divorce rate in Liberal Massachusetts is the lowest in the country.
It's beginning to look a lot like "Groundhog Day." Ever since 22 percent of the country's voters said on Nov. 2 that they cared most about "moral values," opportunistic ayatollahs on the right have been working overtime to inflate this nonmandate into a landslide by ginning up cultural controversies that might induce censorship by a compliant F.C.C. and, failing that, self-censorship by TV networks. Seizing on a single overhyped poll result, they exaggerate their clout, hoping to grab power over the culture.
The mainstream press, itself in love with the "moral values" story line and traumatized by the visual exaggerations of the red-blue map, is too cowed to challenge the likes of the American Family Association. So are politicians of both parties. It took a British publication, The Economist, to point out that the percentage of American voters citing moral and ethical values as their prime concern is actually down from 2000 (35 percent) and 1996 (40 percent).
*****
Why are the Democrats not pointing this out? Are they so terrified that a Racist Radical Cleric like Dobson or Fallwell will call them "unchristian" that they can't even point out facts? Let's be clear about this. In 1996, when 40 percent of Americans based their votes on "moral values," they re-elected Bill Clinton. Now that the number of Americans who base their votes on "moral values" has been cut almost in half, they selected George Bush. And this gives the Racist Radical Clerics the ability to force their "religion" down everyone's throats?
And where's the discussion over what "moral values" means to different people? I've never thought that lining your own pocket at the public's expense, lying America into a war, or stirring up hate against minority groups were American values.
Oh, and Rich notes one very telling statistic: "Desperate Housewives is hardly a blue-state phenomenon. A hit everywhere, it is even a bigger hit in Oklahoma City than it is in Los Angeles, bigger in Kansas City than it is in New York."
-Hecate 7:35 AM
.
If Fucking Only.
.
Neocons join the lynch mob for ‘arrogant’ Rumsfeld
Sarah Baxter, New York
THE American defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, should be sacked, according to a growing chorus of conservative commentators who want him replaced by a figure with wider appeal.
In a seemingly innocuous Thanksgiving message to readers last week, William Kristol, the neoconservative editor of The Weekly Standard magazine, slipped in a surprise demand for Rumsfeld’s dismissal.
“What remains to be done is to announce new leadership for the department of defence,” wrote Kristol. “This, surely, would be an important opportunity for a strong, Bush-doctrine-supporting outsider, someone who of course would be a team player, but someone who could also work with the military and broaden support for the president’s policy.”
Boiled down, this meant: almost anybody but Rumsfeld, whose performance has not always matched his swagger. His failure to install enough troops on the ground after last year’s invasion of Iraq has upset American generals and alienated supporters of the war.
“I am allergic to Rumsfeld,” said Ralph Peters, a former lieutenant-colonel and robust media champion of the war on terror. “We did a great thing in Iraq, but we did it very badly.
“He is an extremely talented man but he has the tragic flaw of hubris. His arrogance is unbearable. My friends in uniform just hate him.”
The calls for Rumsfeld to be dismissed have intensified since the departure was announced of his cabinet rival, Colin Powell, the secretary of state. With the liberal-leaning Powell being the first to go, conservatives no longer see the need to hold back their opinions.
The defence secretary’s job security has not been enhanced by allegations that he lobbied to scupper the intelligence bill in Congress last week against President George W Bush’s wishes. Rumsfeld made little secret of his opposition to the bill’s plan for the national intelligence director to be given sweeping powers over the $40 billion intelligence budget, 80% of which is currently controlled by the Pentagon.
Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney, who first worked with Rumsfeld in the 1970s, are known to feel loyal to the architect of the swift military victories in Afghanistan and — initially — in Iraq. There is a feeling that he deserves to remain in place until after the Iraqi elections in January.
Unlike Powell, Rumsfeld lacks an obvious replacement. Robert Novak, the right-wing pundit, believes Paul Wolfowitz, the neoconservative deputy defence secretary, is a “good possibility” who has been subjected to a “healthy dose of reality” about the limits of American power.
Eating Their Young Part Three
.
Neocons join the lynch mob for ‘arrogant’ Rumsfeld
Sarah Baxter, New York
THE American defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, should be sacked, according to a growing chorus of conservative commentators who want him replaced by a figure with wider appeal.
In a seemingly innocuous Thanksgiving message to readers last week, William Kristol, the neoconservative editor of The Weekly Standard magazine, slipped in a surprise demand for Rumsfeld’s dismissal.
“What remains to be done is to announce new leadership for the department of defence,” wrote Kristol. “This, surely, would be an important opportunity for a strong, Bush-doctrine-supporting outsider, someone who of course would be a team player, but someone who could also work with the military and broaden support for the president’s policy.”
Boiled down, this meant: almost anybody but Rumsfeld, whose performance has not always matched his swagger. His failure to install enough troops on the ground after last year’s invasion of Iraq has upset American generals and alienated supporters of the war.
“I am allergic to Rumsfeld,” said Ralph Peters, a former lieutenant-colonel and robust media champion of the war on terror. “We did a great thing in Iraq, but we did it very badly.
“He is an extremely talented man but he has the tragic flaw of hubris. His arrogance is unbearable. My friends in uniform just hate him.”
The calls for Rumsfeld to be dismissed have intensified since the departure was announced of his cabinet rival, Colin Powell, the secretary of state. With the liberal-leaning Powell being the first to go, conservatives no longer see the need to hold back their opinions.
The defence secretary’s job security has not been enhanced by allegations that he lobbied to scupper the intelligence bill in Congress last week against President George W Bush’s wishes. Rumsfeld made little secret of his opposition to the bill’s plan for the national intelligence director to be given sweeping powers over the $40 billion intelligence budget, 80% of which is currently controlled by the Pentagon.
Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney, who first worked with Rumsfeld in the 1970s, are known to feel loyal to the architect of the swift military victories in Afghanistan and — initially — in Iraq. There is a feeling that he deserves to remain in place until after the Iraqi elections in January.
Unlike Powell, Rumsfeld lacks an obvious replacement. Robert Novak, the right-wing pundit, believes Paul Wolfowitz, the neoconservative deputy defence secretary, is a “good possibility” who has been subjected to a “healthy dose of reality” about the limits of American power.
Eating Their Young Part Three
.
You Won’t See This Only Kudlow And Cramer
.
Worries about the sustainability of the US economic recovery were stoked om Sunday after the stores group Wal-Mart, seen as a bellwether for the country's retail sector, announced that sales had grown by only 0.7 per cent in the year to November - a much lower rate than the 2-4 per cent increase Wal-Mart had estimated just 10 days ago.
The world's largest retailer revised its estimates down on Saturday evening after disappointing sales on "Black Friday", the day after Thanksgiving and traditionally one of the biggest shopping days in the US.
The retailer reported that sales had fallen "below plan" in the last week of November
.
Worries about the sustainability of the US economic recovery were stoked om Sunday after the stores group Wal-Mart, seen as a bellwether for the country's retail sector, announced that sales had grown by only 0.7 per cent in the year to November - a much lower rate than the 2-4 per cent increase Wal-Mart had estimated just 10 days ago.
The world's largest retailer revised its estimates down on Saturday evening after disappointing sales on "Black Friday", the day after Thanksgiving and traditionally one of the biggest shopping days in the US.
The retailer reported that sales had fallen "below plan" in the last week of November
.
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Blue Jay
Just saw this on 60 minutes.
Imagine a kid who at the age of twelve, has written 5 major symphonies. Imagine a kid who the top composition instructor at Juliard says comes along probably once in a hundred years. Imagine a kid who can take a complex sonata, turn the sheet music literally upside down and then play the entire sonata upside down and backwards.
In fact, this kid named Jay Greenberg, hears the music rise in his head. He begins to hum it, to whistle, and on the way home he is composing. He sits down to a Mac iBook and in 25 minutes writes an incredible piece of classical music, fugues, sonatas, symphonies, and more as if he is reading them and they are already composed.
Naturally, he's a Democrat.
Imagine a kid who at the age of twelve, has written 5 major symphonies. Imagine a kid who the top composition instructor at Juliard says comes along probably once in a hundred years. Imagine a kid who can take a complex sonata, turn the sheet music literally upside down and then play the entire sonata upside down and backwards.
In fact, this kid named Jay Greenberg, hears the music rise in his head. He begins to hum it, to whistle, and on the way home he is composing. He sits down to a Mac iBook and in 25 minutes writes an incredible piece of classical music, fugues, sonatas, symphonies, and more as if he is reading them and they are already composed.
Naturally, he's a Democrat.
Dinosaurs, Then and Now
.
I recently watched a program on History Channel that I felt was incredibly right and incisive an answered questions for me that I have struggled with for a long time.
Why are there so many stories, across the world's ancient cultures describing dragons, and griffons and chimera of all sorts? I mean, how could there be almost no evidence of modern day dragons when it seems that the ancient Chinese, Assyrians, Mongolians, and English all described them?
The answer is so cool. A paleontologist mapped out two things: one was the trading routes of ancient Asian tribes through to Europe, particularly where the people had long and strong histories of dragons. She correlated this map with one where dinonaur bones have been extracted in quantity.
In an eerie coincidence, these two scientists believe that the ancient Greeks, the Mongol tribes, the Chinese traders were all talking about the dinosaur bones they uncovered. Imagine what would a Chinese merchant do if he was presented with a partial Tyrranosaur skeleton. These were big deals. Proof that giant animals or gods exited. These researchers felt that the Griffon could be cobbled together with an imperfect re-assembling of the hundreds of Protocreatops found all over northern China and into Central Asia.
They showed how the carnival traders in the old west often put Mastodon bones together wrong and created "giants" which were then reshown at state fairs and in travelling carnivals. They were simply put together wrong.
Today, millions of dumb kids think that Dinosaurs lived along side of people and the world is only 10,000 years old.
So it goes that Dinosaur bones have confused the medevals, those that lived in medeval times, and those that live today.
.
I recently watched a program on History Channel that I felt was incredibly right and incisive an answered questions for me that I have struggled with for a long time.
Why are there so many stories, across the world's ancient cultures describing dragons, and griffons and chimera of all sorts? I mean, how could there be almost no evidence of modern day dragons when it seems that the ancient Chinese, Assyrians, Mongolians, and English all described them?
The answer is so cool. A paleontologist mapped out two things: one was the trading routes of ancient Asian tribes through to Europe, particularly where the people had long and strong histories of dragons. She correlated this map with one where dinonaur bones have been extracted in quantity.
In an eerie coincidence, these two scientists believe that the ancient Greeks, the Mongol tribes, the Chinese traders were all talking about the dinosaur bones they uncovered. Imagine what would a Chinese merchant do if he was presented with a partial Tyrranosaur skeleton. These were big deals. Proof that giant animals or gods exited. These researchers felt that the Griffon could be cobbled together with an imperfect re-assembling of the hundreds of Protocreatops found all over northern China and into Central Asia.
They showed how the carnival traders in the old west often put Mastodon bones together wrong and created "giants" which were then reshown at state fairs and in travelling carnivals. They were simply put together wrong.
Today, millions of dumb kids think that Dinosaurs lived along side of people and the world is only 10,000 years old.
So it goes that Dinosaur bones have confused the medevals, those that lived in medeval times, and those that live today.
.
Gonzales Is A Fascist
.
Isaac Tristan, in Wonk! says the AG designate, Alberto Gonsales, is "...essentially the architect of the legal decisions that led to the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo". But it's worse than that. The Wikipedia page for Mr. Gonzales shows that he is also the architect of the brutal death penalty regime in Texas during G.W. Bush's tenure as Governor. If you are convicted of a capital crime in Texas, even if your state-appointed lawyer slept through the trial, and never said a word in your defence, a conviction is a conviction, and your life is to be switched off. Even innocence is not an excuse once you have been declared guilty. There was a Texas Supreme Court case some time back, in which the eye witness admitted to have been lying, and other evidence proved that the acused could not have committed the crime he was convicted of. The AG stated he believed that the man was innocent. Nonetheless, the man had either lost his only appeal, or else the appeal time had expired, and the state supreme court decided that there was nothing anyone could do.
.
Isaac Tristan, in Wonk! says the AG designate, Alberto Gonsales, is "...essentially the architect of the legal decisions that led to the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo". But it's worse than that. The Wikipedia page for Mr. Gonzales shows that he is also the architect of the brutal death penalty regime in Texas during G.W. Bush's tenure as Governor. If you are convicted of a capital crime in Texas, even if your state-appointed lawyer slept through the trial, and never said a word in your defence, a conviction is a conviction, and your life is to be switched off. Even innocence is not an excuse once you have been declared guilty. There was a Texas Supreme Court case some time back, in which the eye witness admitted to have been lying, and other evidence proved that the acused could not have committed the crime he was convicted of. The AG stated he believed that the man was innocent. Nonetheless, the man had either lost his only appeal, or else the appeal time had expired, and the state supreme court decided that there was nothing anyone could do.
.
Ditto Post Below.
.
Over the past month or so the "military option" for Iran has been the hottest topic of debate in Washington. Senior officials say military intervention is not being considered. However, it is an open secret that influential neo-conservatives at least hope Iraq will be sufficiently stable within a year to free up the US military for its next campaign.
Military strategies have been discussed among the community of think-tanks and armchair generals. But the options remain unattractive, partly because of Iran's ability to retaliate itself or through its allies, such as Lebanon's Hezbollah. Daniel Byman, a terrorism expert, said Iran had the capability to make Iraq "a living hell for the US".
Ms Pletka, however, said the limits of US military abilities had been exaggerated. "That's the end of the road," she said of the military option.
.
Over the past month or so the "military option" for Iran has been the hottest topic of debate in Washington. Senior officials say military intervention is not being considered. However, it is an open secret that influential neo-conservatives at least hope Iraq will be sufficiently stable within a year to free up the US military for its next campaign.
Military strategies have been discussed among the community of think-tanks and armchair generals. But the options remain unattractive, partly because of Iran's ability to retaliate itself or through its allies, such as Lebanon's Hezbollah. Daniel Byman, a terrorism expert, said Iran had the capability to make Iraq "a living hell for the US".
Ms Pletka, however, said the limits of US military abilities had been exaggerated. "That's the end of the road," she said of the military option.
.
Itching For A Fight
.
Don’t Kid Yourself- The Neocons Are Just waiting To Attack Iran
Of course, nobody should expect a pacifist White House - and the Syrian regime should not rely on the magic of entropy to save it from punishment if it persists in aiding Iraqi terrorists. But with the administration's new focus on the Israel-Palestinian question, along with early signals that Ms. Rice will devote serious attention to the Europeans who did not support the Iraq war, we are seeing the natural tendency of democracies to revert to the moderate mean rather than go off the rails.
.
Don’t Kid Yourself- The Neocons Are Just waiting To Attack Iran
Of course, nobody should expect a pacifist White House - and the Syrian regime should not rely on the magic of entropy to save it from punishment if it persists in aiding Iraqi terrorists. But with the administration's new focus on the Israel-Palestinian question, along with early signals that Ms. Rice will devote serious attention to the Europeans who did not support the Iraq war, we are seeing the natural tendency of democracies to revert to the moderate mean rather than go off the rails.
.
TEN LAWS OF COLONIAL WARFARE
.
brilliant!!!! must read!!!
Eric S. Margolis, 2004
May 17, 2004
PARIS - Fifty years ago this month, France watched and wept for 57 days as its colonial troops defending the entrenched camp at Dien Bien Phu were submerged by endless waves of Vietnamese infantry.
In an act of incredible folly, French generals air-assaulted 15,700 soldiers into a broad valley in the remote mountains of North Vietnam in hopes of bringing the forces of General Vo Nguyen Giap to decisive battle. Instead, the French were cut off, pounded by enemy artillery, and relentlessly ground down in ferocious, hand-to-hand combat by 50,000 Vietnamese soldiers.
The fall of each strongpoint in the valley of death — Anne Marie, Dominique, Claudine, Hugette — was a dagger driven into the heart of France. Paris begged President Eisenhower to use nuclear weapons to stop the Vietminh, but he refused.
On 7 May, 1954, Foreign Legionnaires defending the last French strongpoint, Isabelle, were overrun. Nearly 10,000 French troops were killed or wounded, the rest taken captive. French soldiers were an army of lions, led by asses. France's rule over Indochina was broken and the first Vietnam War ended. Fourteen years later, US Marines almost suffering a second Dien Bien Phu at the idiotic battle of Khe Sanh.
Many Europeans retain vivid and negative memories of the continent's recent colonial past in Asia, Africa, and the Mideast. They share a collective sense there is no profit or honor in messy colonial wars, and a desire to avoid foreign entanglements.
In Vietnam, America learned many hard lessons about waging war in a nation where much of the population did not want them. Unfortunately, these lessons have been forgotten, or were never learned, by the Bush Administration, most of whose desk warriors evaded military service during Vietnam. So many grave errors made in Vietnam or now being repeated in Iraq.
Here are some maxims of colonial warfare the US will painfully relearn:
1.
Most Arabs don't want to be `liberated' or what President Bush calls `freedom.' They want freedom from US occupation, and freedom for Palestine.
2. People will accept misrule, robbery, abuse, and torture by their own fellow citizens — but not by foreigners.
3. The occupying power will always find locals ready to cooperate and join the colonial police and army for money. Ten percent will serve loyally; 50% will do nothing. The rest will covertly fight the occupiers, provide the resistance with intelligence, or quietly sabotage the occupation.
4. Most of those who cooperate with the occupation will maintain secret links with the resistance. Massive defections will occur the minute the occupiers show the first signs of thinking about withdrawal.
5. Tribal, clan, ethnic and religious loyalties will also prove stronger than political ones imposed by the occupier. You cannot buy loyalty; you can only rent it.
6. An inevitable byproduct of colonial adventures is an unwanted, usually massive influx of people from the conquered country.
7. Colonial occupations almost always cost far more than planned and produce negative earnings for the invader. Occupying Iraq and Afghanistan now costs at least US $6 billion monthly. The costs of garrisoning and running colonies usually exceeds what can be looted from them.
8. It's always cheaper to buy resources than plunder them. The Soviets thought they would pay for their invasion of Afghanistan by stealing its natural gas. The Washington neo-conservatives who engineered the Iraq war ludicrously claimed its stolen oil would fully cover the costs of invasion and occupation.
9. Guerilla wars waged among civilians inevitably produce hatred for occupiers and corrupt the invaders. Torture, brutality, mass reprisals against civilians, and black marketeering become epidemic, even among the best-discipline troops. The longer occupation troops stay on, the more they become corrupted, brutalized, and addicted to drugs — so do the nations that sent them.
10. Americans make poor colonialists. They lack the historical and cultural knowledge, subtlety, patience and Third World street smarts to be first-rate colonizers, like the French or British. They lack the ruthlessness and brutality of Dutch, Japanese, Spaniards, or Russian colonialists. Or the ability to blend with the local population, as did Portugese.
But Americans — and Canadians — make splendid liberators. France and Europe will still gratefully remember this fact long after the modern-day empire-builders currently misdirecting US foreign policy are forgotten.
Doomed To Repeat The Past
.
brilliant!!!! must read!!!
Eric S. Margolis, 2004
May 17, 2004
PARIS - Fifty years ago this month, France watched and wept for 57 days as its colonial troops defending the entrenched camp at Dien Bien Phu were submerged by endless waves of Vietnamese infantry.
In an act of incredible folly, French generals air-assaulted 15,700 soldiers into a broad valley in the remote mountains of North Vietnam in hopes of bringing the forces of General Vo Nguyen Giap to decisive battle. Instead, the French were cut off, pounded by enemy artillery, and relentlessly ground down in ferocious, hand-to-hand combat by 50,000 Vietnamese soldiers.
The fall of each strongpoint in the valley of death — Anne Marie, Dominique, Claudine, Hugette — was a dagger driven into the heart of France. Paris begged President Eisenhower to use nuclear weapons to stop the Vietminh, but he refused.
On 7 May, 1954, Foreign Legionnaires defending the last French strongpoint, Isabelle, were overrun. Nearly 10,000 French troops were killed or wounded, the rest taken captive. French soldiers were an army of lions, led by asses. France's rule over Indochina was broken and the first Vietnam War ended. Fourteen years later, US Marines almost suffering a second Dien Bien Phu at the idiotic battle of Khe Sanh.
Many Europeans retain vivid and negative memories of the continent's recent colonial past in Asia, Africa, and the Mideast. They share a collective sense there is no profit or honor in messy colonial wars, and a desire to avoid foreign entanglements.
In Vietnam, America learned many hard lessons about waging war in a nation where much of the population did not want them. Unfortunately, these lessons have been forgotten, or were never learned, by the Bush Administration, most of whose desk warriors evaded military service during Vietnam. So many grave errors made in Vietnam or now being repeated in Iraq.
Here are some maxims of colonial warfare the US will painfully relearn:
1.
Most Arabs don't want to be `liberated' or what President Bush calls `freedom.' They want freedom from US occupation, and freedom for Palestine.
2. People will accept misrule, robbery, abuse, and torture by their own fellow citizens — but not by foreigners.
3. The occupying power will always find locals ready to cooperate and join the colonial police and army for money. Ten percent will serve loyally; 50% will do nothing. The rest will covertly fight the occupiers, provide the resistance with intelligence, or quietly sabotage the occupation.
4. Most of those who cooperate with the occupation will maintain secret links with the resistance. Massive defections will occur the minute the occupiers show the first signs of thinking about withdrawal.
5. Tribal, clan, ethnic and religious loyalties will also prove stronger than political ones imposed by the occupier. You cannot buy loyalty; you can only rent it.
6. An inevitable byproduct of colonial adventures is an unwanted, usually massive influx of people from the conquered country.
7. Colonial occupations almost always cost far more than planned and produce negative earnings for the invader. Occupying Iraq and Afghanistan now costs at least US $6 billion monthly. The costs of garrisoning and running colonies usually exceeds what can be looted from them.
8. It's always cheaper to buy resources than plunder them. The Soviets thought they would pay for their invasion of Afghanistan by stealing its natural gas. The Washington neo-conservatives who engineered the Iraq war ludicrously claimed its stolen oil would fully cover the costs of invasion and occupation.
9. Guerilla wars waged among civilians inevitably produce hatred for occupiers and corrupt the invaders. Torture, brutality, mass reprisals against civilians, and black marketeering become epidemic, even among the best-discipline troops. The longer occupation troops stay on, the more they become corrupted, brutalized, and addicted to drugs — so do the nations that sent them.
10. Americans make poor colonialists. They lack the historical and cultural knowledge, subtlety, patience and Third World street smarts to be first-rate colonizers, like the French or British. They lack the ruthlessness and brutality of Dutch, Japanese, Spaniards, or Russian colonialists. Or the ability to blend with the local population, as did Portugese.
But Americans — and Canadians — make splendid liberators. France and Europe will still gratefully remember this fact long after the modern-day empire-builders currently misdirecting US foreign policy are forgotten.
Doomed To Repeat The Past
.
Bush Folds
US vows to end banned tariff rule- no wonder, with the dollar down and everyone hating us, how can we emerge victorious on international disputes.
.
The US says it will comply with a World Trade Organisation ban on the US practice of levying tariffs on imports it regards as excessively cheap.
President George W Bush said on Friday that he would work with Congress to bring the US into compliance.
The announcement follows a WTO ruling allowing the EU, Japan and other countries to impose tariffs on US imports in retaliation.
The US steel industry has been the main beneficiary of the American law.
The co-called "Byrd Amendment" allows US firms to blow the whistle on practices by trading partners they regard as unfair .
The money raised by the tariffs can be passed on to American companies.
.
The US says it will comply with a World Trade Organisation ban on the US practice of levying tariffs on imports it regards as excessively cheap.
President George W Bush said on Friday that he would work with Congress to bring the US into compliance.
The announcement follows a WTO ruling allowing the EU, Japan and other countries to impose tariffs on US imports in retaliation.
The US steel industry has been the main beneficiary of the American law.
The co-called "Byrd Amendment" allows US firms to blow the whistle on practices by trading partners they regard as unfair .
The money raised by the tariffs can be passed on to American companies.
Everywhere You Go, People Hate Bush
.
(Americans Hate Him Too)
OTTAWA (CP) - Protesters are frantically organizing to yank the welcome mat out from under U.S. President George W. Bush when he arrives here Tuesday.
Sporadic graffiti heralds what could be a nasty reception as he starts a two-day visit to Canada.
The black scrawl spray painted across a walkway near Parliament Hill uses a familiar obscenity to tell Bush to stay away.
.
Democrats Make Appeal for Hungry on Radio
.
Associated Press
Growing numbers of Americans were hungry this Thanksgiving, and the nation should do more to help them enjoy its bounty, the Democrats said Saturday in their weekly radio address.
"Unfortunately, the blessing of abundant food is not shared by all Americans," Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack said. "A recent report from our Department of Agriculture documented an increase in hunger in America, particularly among our children."
Vilsack, chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, said sharing is an American value rooted in the country's origins when American Indians helped the Pilgrims four centuries ago.
"On that day, sharing became an American value," Vilsack said. "Living up to that value requires us to do what we can, and what we must, to stop hunger in America."
Vilsack also asked that America's military, past and present, be remembered during the holiday season.
"As we think about all of our blessings, we should always stop and say thank you to all those who have served to make America strong and secure," he said. "Our prayers should include those who have lost their lives, the families left behind, and those who have been injured and the difficult times that lie ahead for them.
"With these thoughts and prayers, we should rededicate ourselves to ensuring that all who've served our country receive the health and income benefits they have earned by their service."
Vilsack, a two-term governor, has become more prominent within the Democratic Party in recent years. His name was mentioned as a running mate for the Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate, John Kerry, and as a candidate to head the Democratic National Committee. He said he wasn't interested in that job because of his responsibilities as governor.
.
Associated Press
Growing numbers of Americans were hungry this Thanksgiving, and the nation should do more to help them enjoy its bounty, the Democrats said Saturday in their weekly radio address.
"Unfortunately, the blessing of abundant food is not shared by all Americans," Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack said. "A recent report from our Department of Agriculture documented an increase in hunger in America, particularly among our children."
Vilsack, chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, said sharing is an American value rooted in the country's origins when American Indians helped the Pilgrims four centuries ago.
"On that day, sharing became an American value," Vilsack said. "Living up to that value requires us to do what we can, and what we must, to stop hunger in America."
Vilsack also asked that America's military, past and present, be remembered during the holiday season.
"As we think about all of our blessings, we should always stop and say thank you to all those who have served to make America strong and secure," he said. "Our prayers should include those who have lost their lives, the families left behind, and those who have been injured and the difficult times that lie ahead for them.
"With these thoughts and prayers, we should rededicate ourselves to ensuring that all who've served our country receive the health and income benefits they have earned by their service."
Vilsack, a two-term governor, has become more prominent within the Democratic Party in recent years. His name was mentioned as a running mate for the Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate, John Kerry, and as a candidate to head the Democratic National Committee. He said he wasn't interested in that job because of his responsibilities as governor.
.
NASA's Planetary Smackdown
.
You can learn something about a rock by looking at it. But what most geologists really want is to smack it with a hammer.
And that's just what planetary scientists will do July 4 when NASA's Deep Impact mission reaches the comet Tempel 1 after a trip of six months and 80 million miles.
If all goes well, an 820-pound copper "hammer" the size of a bathtub will separate from its mother ship and, 24 hours later, smash into the comet's icy nucleus at about 23,000 mph.
The high-speed impact will wallop the pickle-shaped comet with energy equivalent to 4.8 tons of TNT, said Michael A'Hearn, a University of Maryland astronomer and principal investigator on the $311 million mission.
Nobody's sure what will happen next. There's a small chance the impactor will blow the 2 1/2-mile-long comet to smithereens, or simply bore right through it like a bullet through a snowball. More likely, scientists say, it will blast open a crater the size of a football stadium. It all depends on what Tempel 1 is made of.
Which is exactly what scientists hope to learn.
The blast also will reveal the comet's interior chemistry and nail down more precisely what conditions were like when it formed at the solar system's birth more than 4.5 billion years ago.
The Deep Impact spacecraft is undergoing final tests at Cape Canaveral, Fla. It will blast off atop a Delta 2 rocket Dec. 30, and if all goes well, rendezvous with Tempel 1 on Independence Day.
.
You can learn something about a rock by looking at it. But what most geologists really want is to smack it with a hammer.
And that's just what planetary scientists will do July 4 when NASA's Deep Impact mission reaches the comet Tempel 1 after a trip of six months and 80 million miles.
If all goes well, an 820-pound copper "hammer" the size of a bathtub will separate from its mother ship and, 24 hours later, smash into the comet's icy nucleus at about 23,000 mph.
The high-speed impact will wallop the pickle-shaped comet with energy equivalent to 4.8 tons of TNT, said Michael A'Hearn, a University of Maryland astronomer and principal investigator on the $311 million mission.
Nobody's sure what will happen next. There's a small chance the impactor will blow the 2 1/2-mile-long comet to smithereens, or simply bore right through it like a bullet through a snowball. More likely, scientists say, it will blast open a crater the size of a football stadium. It all depends on what Tempel 1 is made of.
Which is exactly what scientists hope to learn.
The blast also will reveal the comet's interior chemistry and nail down more precisely what conditions were like when it formed at the solar system's birth more than 4.5 billion years ago.
The Deep Impact spacecraft is undergoing final tests at Cape Canaveral, Fla. It will blast off atop a Delta 2 rocket Dec. 30, and if all goes well, rendezvous with Tempel 1 on Independence Day.
.
Saturday, November 27, 2004
Actual Casualty Count Is about 26,200
.
!!!!!!The total number of casualties is about 25,000, plus the more than 1,200 killed. Since about 300,000 men and women have served in Iraq, it makes for a casualty rate of about 9%. !!!!
That's 42 a day or one every hour hour roughly
.
!!!!!!The total number of casualties is about 25,000, plus the more than 1,200 killed. Since about 300,000 men and women have served in Iraq, it makes for a casualty rate of about 9%. !!!!
That's 42 a day or one every hour hour roughly
.
This Is Just Fucking Sad
.
Food and Drug Administration whistle-blower David Graham says that he expects as soon as next week to be forced from his job in the Office of Drug Safety.
"I'm going to be transferred, and I don't want to go," said Graham, who told a Senate committee Nov. 18 that the FDA is "virtually defenseless" against another "terrible tragedy and a profound regulatory failure" like Vioxx, an arthritis drug pulled off the market over concerns that it increased the risk of heart attack, stroke or sudden cardiac death.
Graham, associate director for science and medicine in the FDA office, went on to name five other drugs - Meridia, Crestor, Accutane, Serevent and Bextra - that he says threaten the public's safety.
"He's going to be exiled from work reviewing drugs and put to work in the office of the commissioner," said Graham's attorney, Tom Devine, adding that Graham has no legal recourse against such a move. "He'll be paid to fill space under the watchful eye of a baby sitter."
.
Food and Drug Administration whistle-blower David Graham says that he expects as soon as next week to be forced from his job in the Office of Drug Safety.
"I'm going to be transferred, and I don't want to go," said Graham, who told a Senate committee Nov. 18 that the FDA is "virtually defenseless" against another "terrible tragedy and a profound regulatory failure" like Vioxx, an arthritis drug pulled off the market over concerns that it increased the risk of heart attack, stroke or sudden cardiac death.
Graham, associate director for science and medicine in the FDA office, went on to name five other drugs - Meridia, Crestor, Accutane, Serevent and Bextra - that he says threaten the public's safety.
"He's going to be exiled from work reviewing drugs and put to work in the office of the commissioner," said Graham's attorney, Tom Devine, adding that Graham has no legal recourse against such a move. "He'll be paid to fill space under the watchful eye of a baby sitter."
.
Read This Thread And You Can See Why NeoCons Worship The Businessman
.
David Brooks Channels Ayn Rand
Just once, I'd like to see someone like Bono or Bruce Springsteen stand up at a concert and speak the truth to his fan base: that the world is complicated and there are no free lunches. But if you really want to reduce world poverty, you should be cheering on those guys in pinstripe suits at the free-trade negotiations and those investors jetting around the world. Thanks, in part, to them, we are making progress against poverty. Thanks, in part, to them, more people around the world have something to be thankful for.
What Globalization Begets ( Oh Holiday Cheers!!)
Across the country yesterday, millions of Americans - most of them taking the entire day off from work - rushed into suburban malls, filled downtown shopping streets and department stores and mobbed discount stores everywhere.
David Brooks Says This Is What We Should Be Cheering. What Does He Know About Labor? He Sits At An Air Conditioned Desk In New York
In Indonesia, a 21-year-old woman who worked at Mattel's Jakarta plant talked about friends and colleagues who have assembled Barbie dolls for 30 days straight without time off.
Even at a Mattel-owned plant in Guanyao, where the hours are within company guidelines, workers are so fatigued that those who return early from lunch sleep at their spots on the assembly line, their heads resting on their hands.
In environments like these, the slightest break can seem like a tremendous perk.
Near the city of Dongguan, two young women recently sat in a fourth-floor room sectioned off by crude corrugated-metal walls. They have little to show for their drudgery; they share a mattress and a hot plate. But they said their life at a Mattel contractor factory had been good. Unlike at the last plant where they worked, the Mattel vendor gives them a "day off."
But as the two friends described their "day off," it became evident that they don't get anything close: On Sundays, they explained, they get to leave work at 5 p.m., having put in eight hours instead of the typical 12.
"That's a gift," said one of the women, a migrant from Henan province who frequently flashed a broad, toothy grin that made her look even younger than her 20 years. "You don't have to work through the night."
Fear of Retaliation
At the Shenzhen factory, where about 1,000 people are employed, it seems everybody knows the drill.
Before Mattel comes through twice a year for inspection, workers said, managers promise to pay them time-and-a-half if they repeat the company line: that they work just eight hours a day, six days a week, as allowed by Chinese law.
In truth, they slog for far longer than that.
Inside a tiny metal-walled shed a short walk from the factory, the 24-year-old worker reclined on his bed with his fiancee by his side and recalled how he was recently ordered to work 24 hours straight without rest.
"On the second morning we just kept working," he said, wrinkling his nose as the eye- watering vapors of cooking peppers drifted through the room from a building a few feet away. His fiancee pressed the tummy of a defective Winnie the Pooh that she had rescued from the trash at work. The bear meowed three times — she had sewn in a computer chip from a pet toy that someone had found on the factory floor — and the woman laughed.
If all goes well, the couple said, they can each earn about $65 a month, half of which they send home to their families in rural China.
.
David Brooks Channels Ayn Rand
Just once, I'd like to see someone like Bono or Bruce Springsteen stand up at a concert and speak the truth to his fan base: that the world is complicated and there are no free lunches. But if you really want to reduce world poverty, you should be cheering on those guys in pinstripe suits at the free-trade negotiations and those investors jetting around the world. Thanks, in part, to them, we are making progress against poverty. Thanks, in part, to them, more people around the world have something to be thankful for.
What Globalization Begets ( Oh Holiday Cheers!!)
Across the country yesterday, millions of Americans - most of them taking the entire day off from work - rushed into suburban malls, filled downtown shopping streets and department stores and mobbed discount stores everywhere.
David Brooks Says This Is What We Should Be Cheering. What Does He Know About Labor? He Sits At An Air Conditioned Desk In New York
In Indonesia, a 21-year-old woman who worked at Mattel's Jakarta plant talked about friends and colleagues who have assembled Barbie dolls for 30 days straight without time off.
Even at a Mattel-owned plant in Guanyao, where the hours are within company guidelines, workers are so fatigued that those who return early from lunch sleep at their spots on the assembly line, their heads resting on their hands.
In environments like these, the slightest break can seem like a tremendous perk.
Near the city of Dongguan, two young women recently sat in a fourth-floor room sectioned off by crude corrugated-metal walls. They have little to show for their drudgery; they share a mattress and a hot plate. But they said their life at a Mattel contractor factory had been good. Unlike at the last plant where they worked, the Mattel vendor gives them a "day off."
But as the two friends described their "day off," it became evident that they don't get anything close: On Sundays, they explained, they get to leave work at 5 p.m., having put in eight hours instead of the typical 12.
"That's a gift," said one of the women, a migrant from Henan province who frequently flashed a broad, toothy grin that made her look even younger than her 20 years. "You don't have to work through the night."
Fear of Retaliation
At the Shenzhen factory, where about 1,000 people are employed, it seems everybody knows the drill.
Before Mattel comes through twice a year for inspection, workers said, managers promise to pay them time-and-a-half if they repeat the company line: that they work just eight hours a day, six days a week, as allowed by Chinese law.
In truth, they slog for far longer than that.
Inside a tiny metal-walled shed a short walk from the factory, the 24-year-old worker reclined on his bed with his fiancee by his side and recalled how he was recently ordered to work 24 hours straight without rest.
"On the second morning we just kept working," he said, wrinkling his nose as the eye- watering vapors of cooking peppers drifted through the room from a building a few feet away. His fiancee pressed the tummy of a defective Winnie the Pooh that she had rescued from the trash at work. The bear meowed three times — she had sewn in a computer chip from a pet toy that someone had found on the factory floor — and the woman laughed.
If all goes well, the couple said, they can each earn about $65 a month, half of which they send home to their families in rural China.
.
Dolphins Save Swimmers
.
Dolphins Must Be Democrats
A group of swimmers has told how a pod of dolphins protected them from a great white shark off New Zealand's coast.
The lifeguards were training at a beach near Whangarei on the North Island when they were menaced by a 3-metre shark, before the dolphins raced in to help.
The swimmers were surrounded by the dolphins for 40 minutes before they were able to make it safely back to the beach.
Marine biologists say such altruistic behaviour is not uncommon in dolphins.
Lifeguard Rob Howes was in the water with two colleagues and his teenage daughter.
It was an uncomfortable experience, as they were circled by a great white shark, which came within a couple of metres.
He said around half a dozen dolphins suddenly appeared and herded the swimmers together. The mammals swam in tight circles to create a defensive barrier as the great white lurked under the surface.
.
Dolphins Must Be Democrats
A group of swimmers has told how a pod of dolphins protected them from a great white shark off New Zealand's coast.
The lifeguards were training at a beach near Whangarei on the North Island when they were menaced by a 3-metre shark, before the dolphins raced in to help.
The swimmers were surrounded by the dolphins for 40 minutes before they were able to make it safely back to the beach.
Marine biologists say such altruistic behaviour is not uncommon in dolphins.
Lifeguard Rob Howes was in the water with two colleagues and his teenage daughter.
It was an uncomfortable experience, as they were circled by a great white shark, which came within a couple of metres.
He said around half a dozen dolphins suddenly appeared and herded the swimmers together. The mammals swam in tight circles to create a defensive barrier as the great white lurked under the surface.
.
Friday, November 26, 2004
Actual Wounded, Over 20,000
.
20,802 US Soldiers Heavily Wounded
believe it or not...
Can anyone believe how dirty and dishonorable the US administration is?
The official number of US soldiers wounded in Iraq that was announced by the US DOD (department of defense) is 8458 in Iraq and 423 in Afghanistan.
Can anyone believe that the US military hospital at Germany (alone), the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, announced that 20,802 troops have been treated at Landstuhl from injuries received in "Operations Iraqi Freedom" (occupying Iraq) and "Enduring Freedom" (occupying Afghanistan).
The interesting part of the news that I didn't find these numbers on AlJazeera (the No.1 enemy of Rumy and other little bush supporters). These Numbers were published by the well-known, Department of Defense-authorized daily newspaper distributed overseas for the U.S. military community, "Stars and Stripes".
more than 17,200 from these soldiers were injured in Iraq, and more than 3,000 were injured in Afghanistan as I read in a local newspaper.
These numbers are just for the US soldiers that were moved to Germany. There are other thousands that were injured inside Iraq and Afghanistan and treated in small local military clinics and hospitals, or moved to other US military hospitals.
The official number of Us soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan is 1375 and 144. I wonder what the real numbers are.
The small bush administration is re-identifying the meaning of "lies".
.
20,802 US Soldiers Heavily Wounded
believe it or not...
Can anyone believe how dirty and dishonorable the US administration is?
The official number of US soldiers wounded in Iraq that was announced by the US DOD (department of defense) is 8458 in Iraq and 423 in Afghanistan.
Can anyone believe that the US military hospital at Germany (alone), the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, announced that 20,802 troops have been treated at Landstuhl from injuries received in "Operations Iraqi Freedom" (occupying Iraq) and "Enduring Freedom" (occupying Afghanistan).
The interesting part of the news that I didn't find these numbers on AlJazeera (the No.1 enemy of Rumy and other little bush supporters). These Numbers were published by the well-known, Department of Defense-authorized daily newspaper distributed overseas for the U.S. military community, "Stars and Stripes".
more than 17,200 from these soldiers were injured in Iraq, and more than 3,000 were injured in Afghanistan as I read in a local newspaper.
These numbers are just for the US soldiers that were moved to Germany. There are other thousands that were injured inside Iraq and Afghanistan and treated in small local military clinics and hospitals, or moved to other US military hospitals.
The official number of Us soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan is 1375 and 144. I wonder what the real numbers are.
The small bush administration is re-identifying the meaning of "lies".
.
French Medicine
.
From the Atrios comments section
Food for thought:
Why can't we have this?
Here is the current situation in France:
- cost of a visit to the doctor: 20 euros. What the patient has to pay: 1 euro.
- who is your doctor? Anyone, or the one you like. You can change doctor whenever you want, or see multiple doctors if you need it.
- drugs: depends which drug you need but the cost are covered for about 80% of all drugs i think. To keep the prices down, there is a big push by the government to convince people to get generic drugs to reduce the costs.
- all your data (social security ID, health history, etc) is on a personnal card like a credit car, when you go buy your drugs you just give it to the pharmacist and this is how he gets paid, i usually never have to give any cash and i don't have to fill any form since it's all electronic transactions, so no paper work at all.
- who is covered: everyone. Even people without any revenue, it's called the CMU (universal health care coverage).
Overall the system is very good, i have tried the US system and i can safely say that the french system is orders of magnitude better. I lived in Belgium which has a similar system, don't know about other european countries but i think they are pretty similar.
To conclude i think Europe has much better health care systems, with much better coverage at a fraction of the cost. If democrats had a spine they would hammer republicans on this.
.
From the Atrios comments section
Food for thought:
Why can't we have this?
Here is the current situation in France:
- cost of a visit to the doctor: 20 euros. What the patient has to pay: 1 euro.
- who is your doctor? Anyone, or the one you like. You can change doctor whenever you want, or see multiple doctors if you need it.
- drugs: depends which drug you need but the cost are covered for about 80% of all drugs i think. To keep the prices down, there is a big push by the government to convince people to get generic drugs to reduce the costs.
- all your data (social security ID, health history, etc) is on a personnal card like a credit car, when you go buy your drugs you just give it to the pharmacist and this is how he gets paid, i usually never have to give any cash and i don't have to fill any form since it's all electronic transactions, so no paper work at all.
- who is covered: everyone. Even people without any revenue, it's called the CMU (universal health care coverage).
Overall the system is very good, i have tried the US system and i can safely say that the french system is orders of magnitude better. I lived in Belgium which has a similar system, don't know about other european countries but i think they are pretty similar.
To conclude i think Europe has much better health care systems, with much better coverage at a fraction of the cost. If democrats had a spine they would hammer republicans on this.
.
Thursday, November 25, 2004
Dead-Checking, A Way Out And You Don’t Have Any Idea How Fucked Up It Is Over There.
.
Reporter Evan Wrights Said Shooting Wounded Iraqis Is A Regular Event
In April 9, 2003, the day the statue of Saddam Hussein was being toppled in Baghdad, symbolizing the promised liberation of Iraq, I was embedded with a Marine unit engaged in fierce combat about 30 miles north of the city, on the outskirts of Baquba. Late that afternoon, the Humvee I was in was following about 50 feet behind a Marine Light Armored Vehicle when it pulled alongside a Toyota pickup pushed to the side of the road, its doors riddled with bullet holes. The head of at least one occupant was visible in the truck, but I couldn't determine if he was moving or not. Nor did I see any weapons. As our Humvee stopped behind the truck, a Marine in the vehicle ahead of us leapt out, pointed his rifle into the window of the pickup and sprayed it with gunfire. It was a cold-blooded execution.
53 Year Old Veteran Called Up
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A 53-year-old Vietnam veteran from western Pennsylvania has been called up for active service with the U.S. military in the Iraq war, The Tribune Review of Greensburg, Pennsylvania reported on Wednesday.
How Bad Is It Exactly?
DOÑA ANA RANGE, N.M. — Members of a California Army National Guard battalion preparing for deployment to Iraq said this week that they were under strict lockdown and being treated like prisoners rather than soldiers by Army commanders at the remote desert camp where they are training.
More troubling, a number of the soldiers said, is that the training they have received is so poor and equipment shortages so prevalent that they fear their casualty rate will be needlessly high when they arrive in Iraq early next year. "We are going to pay for this in blood," one soldier said…
… "I feel like an inmate with a weapon," said Cpl. Jajuane Smith, 31, a six-year Guard veteran from Fresno who works for an armored transport company when not on active duty.
Several soldiers have fled Doña Ana by vaulting over rolls of barbed wire that surround the small camp, the soldiers interviewed said. Others, they said, are contemplating going AWOL, at least temporarily, to reunite with their families for Thanksgiving.
.
Wingnut William Lind Says We May Have A Way Out
Between now and January, the Bush administration will have to decide whether or not to take the last dignified exit from Iraq. That is, to announce before the Iraqi elections that we will be leaving soon after them. If Bush and his neocon handlers miss this opportunity, our only choice will be to remain in Iraq until we are driven out in a humiliating defeat. Like the kid who knows he has to eat his spinach, we will be better off pretending to choose the inevitable.
Reporter Evan Wrights Said Shooting Wounded Iraqis Is A Regular Event
In April 9, 2003, the day the statue of Saddam Hussein was being toppled in Baghdad, symbolizing the promised liberation of Iraq, I was embedded with a Marine unit engaged in fierce combat about 30 miles north of the city, on the outskirts of Baquba. Late that afternoon, the Humvee I was in was following about 50 feet behind a Marine Light Armored Vehicle when it pulled alongside a Toyota pickup pushed to the side of the road, its doors riddled with bullet holes. The head of at least one occupant was visible in the truck, but I couldn't determine if he was moving or not. Nor did I see any weapons. As our Humvee stopped behind the truck, a Marine in the vehicle ahead of us leapt out, pointed his rifle into the window of the pickup and sprayed it with gunfire. It was a cold-blooded execution.
53 Year Old Veteran Called Up
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A 53-year-old Vietnam veteran from western Pennsylvania has been called up for active service with the U.S. military in the Iraq war, The Tribune Review of Greensburg, Pennsylvania reported on Wednesday.
How Bad Is It Exactly?
DOÑA ANA RANGE, N.M. — Members of a California Army National Guard battalion preparing for deployment to Iraq said this week that they were under strict lockdown and being treated like prisoners rather than soldiers by Army commanders at the remote desert camp where they are training.
More troubling, a number of the soldiers said, is that the training they have received is so poor and equipment shortages so prevalent that they fear their casualty rate will be needlessly high when they arrive in Iraq early next year. "We are going to pay for this in blood," one soldier said…
… "I feel like an inmate with a weapon," said Cpl. Jajuane Smith, 31, a six-year Guard veteran from Fresno who works for an armored transport company when not on active duty.
Several soldiers have fled Doña Ana by vaulting over rolls of barbed wire that surround the small camp, the soldiers interviewed said. Others, they said, are contemplating going AWOL, at least temporarily, to reunite with their families for Thanksgiving.
.
Wingnut William Lind Says We May Have A Way Out
Between now and January, the Bush administration will have to decide whether or not to take the last dignified exit from Iraq. That is, to announce before the Iraqi elections that we will be leaving soon after them. If Bush and his neocon handlers miss this opportunity, our only choice will be to remain in Iraq until we are driven out in a humiliating defeat. Like the kid who knows he has to eat his spinach, we will be better off pretending to choose the inevitable.
Happy Thanksgiving
.
I don't really know how long I will sit here today. I have a turkey in the oven and a family asleep.
I will say I thank God everyday that intelligent people come and see what we have to say, and sometimes share their thoughts too. We hope we can somehow make a difference. We have a lot to be thankful for. But we have a long long way to go before we are again the great country we once were.
I hope you pig out and fall asleep.
Finally, absolutely click on the New York Times and read Modo and Friedman.
Wow.
I should add, may the troops all come home whole, and soon. And may their families be cared for as well.
.
I don't really know how long I will sit here today. I have a turkey in the oven and a family asleep.
I will say I thank God everyday that intelligent people come and see what we have to say, and sometimes share their thoughts too. We hope we can somehow make a difference. We have a lot to be thankful for. But we have a long long way to go before we are again the great country we once were.
I hope you pig out and fall asleep.
Finally, absolutely click on the New York Times and read Modo and Friedman.
Wow.
I should add, may the troops all come home whole, and soon. And may their families be cared for as well.
.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
The “Education” President
.
Nearly a quarter of low- and moderate-income college students who currently qualify for federal Pell grants will see their awards reduced or eliminated under a change in federal rules that Congress allowed in its new spending bill passed over the weekend, according to an estimate from higher education analysts.
About 85,000 of the 5.2 million students currently eligible to receive Pell grants will become ineligible. And 1.2 million others will get a smaller award under a new formula the government will use to determine how much families can afford to pay for college, according to estimates from the American Council on Education, or ACE. The change will take effect for students starting or returning to classes next summer or fall.
Higher education officials worry that the change, estimated to save the government about $300 million in next year's budget, will hurt students already struggling to pay for college.
.
Nearly a quarter of low- and moderate-income college students who currently qualify for federal Pell grants will see their awards reduced or eliminated under a change in federal rules that Congress allowed in its new spending bill passed over the weekend, according to an estimate from higher education analysts.
About 85,000 of the 5.2 million students currently eligible to receive Pell grants will become ineligible. And 1.2 million others will get a smaller award under a new formula the government will use to determine how much families can afford to pay for college, according to estimates from the American Council on Education, or ACE. The change will take effect for students starting or returning to classes next summer or fall.
Higher education officials worry that the change, estimated to save the government about $300 million in next year's budget, will hurt students already struggling to pay for college.
.
Apocalypse (Almost) Now-By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF-MUst Read
.
Wow. Kristof Knocks One Out Of The Park
If America's secular liberals think they have it rough now, just wait till the Second Coming.
The "Left Behind" series, the best-selling novels for adults in the U.S., enthusiastically depict Jesus returning to slaughter everyone who is not a born-again Christian. The world's Hindus, Muslims, Jews and agnostics, along with many Catholics and Unitarians, are heaved into everlasting fire: "Jesus merely raised one hand a few inches and . . . they tumbled in, howling and screeching."
Gosh, what an uplifting scene!
If Saudi Arabians wrote an Islamic version of this series, we would furiously demand that sensible Muslims repudiate such hatemongering. We should hold ourselves to the same standard.
Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, the co-authors of the series, have both e-mailed me (after I wrote about the "Left Behind" series in July) to protest that their books do not "celebrate" the slaughter of non-Christians but simply present the painful reality of Scripture.
"We can't read it some other way just because it sounds exclusivistic and not currently politically correct," Mr. Jenkins said in an e-mail. "That's our crucible, an offensive and divisive message in an age of plurality and tolerance."
Silly me. I'd forgotten the passage in the Bible about how Jesus intends to roast everyone from the good Samaritan to Gandhi in everlasting fire, simply because they weren't born-again Christians.
I accept that Mr. Jenkins and Mr. LaHaye are sincere. (They base their conclusions on John 3.) But I've sat down in Pakistani and Iraqi mosques with Muslim fundamentalists, and they offered the same defense: they're just applying God's word.
Now, I've often written that blue staters should be less snooty toward fundamentalist Christians, and I realize that this column will seem pretty snooty. But if I praise the good work of evangelicals - like their superb relief efforts in Darfur - I'll also condemn what I perceive as bigotry. A dialogue about faith must move past taboos and discuss differences bluntly. That's what blue staters and red staters need to do about religion and the "Left Behind" books.
For starters, it's worth pointing out that those predicting an apocalypse have a long and lousy record. In America, tens of thousands of followers of William Miller waited eagerly for Jesus to reappear on Oct. 22, 1844. Some of these Millerites had given away all their belongings, and the no-show was called the Great Disappointment.
In more recent times, the best-selling nonfiction book of the 1970's was Hal Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth," selling 18 million copies worldwide with its predictions of a Second Coming. Then, one of the hottest best sellers in 1988 was a booklet called "88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988." Oops.
Being wrong has rarely been so lucrative.
Now we have the hugely profitable "Left Behind" financial empire, whose Web site flatly says that the authors "think this generation will witness the end of history." The site sells every "Left Behind" spinoff imaginable, including screen savers, regular prophecies sent to your mobile phone, children's versions of the books, audiobooks, graphic novels, videos, calendars, music and a $6.50-a-month prophesy club. This isn't religion, this is brand management.
If Mr. LaHaye and Mr. Jenkins honestly believe that the end of the world may be imminent, why not waive royalties? Why don't they use the millions of dollars in profits to help the poor - and increase their own chances of getting into heaven?
Mr. Jenkins told me that he gives 20 to 40 percent of his income to charity, and that's commendable. But there are millions more where that came from. Mr. LaHaye and Mr. Jenkins might spend less time puzzling over obscure passages in the Book of Revelation and more time with the straightforward language of Matthew 6:19, "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth." Or Matthew 19:21, where Jesus advises a rich man: "Sell your possessions and give the money to the poor. . . . It will be hard for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."
So I challenge the authors to a bet: if the events of the Apocalypse arrive in the next 10 years, then I'll donate $500 to the battle against the Antichrist; if it doesn't, you donate $500 to a charity of my choosing that fights poverty - and bigotry.
Gentlemen, do we have a deal?
.
Wow. Kristof Knocks One Out Of The Park
If America's secular liberals think they have it rough now, just wait till the Second Coming.
The "Left Behind" series, the best-selling novels for adults in the U.S., enthusiastically depict Jesus returning to slaughter everyone who is not a born-again Christian. The world's Hindus, Muslims, Jews and agnostics, along with many Catholics and Unitarians, are heaved into everlasting fire: "Jesus merely raised one hand a few inches and . . . they tumbled in, howling and screeching."
Gosh, what an uplifting scene!
If Saudi Arabians wrote an Islamic version of this series, we would furiously demand that sensible Muslims repudiate such hatemongering. We should hold ourselves to the same standard.
Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, the co-authors of the series, have both e-mailed me (after I wrote about the "Left Behind" series in July) to protest that their books do not "celebrate" the slaughter of non-Christians but simply present the painful reality of Scripture.
"We can't read it some other way just because it sounds exclusivistic and not currently politically correct," Mr. Jenkins said in an e-mail. "That's our crucible, an offensive and divisive message in an age of plurality and tolerance."
Silly me. I'd forgotten the passage in the Bible about how Jesus intends to roast everyone from the good Samaritan to Gandhi in everlasting fire, simply because they weren't born-again Christians.
I accept that Mr. Jenkins and Mr. LaHaye are sincere. (They base their conclusions on John 3.) But I've sat down in Pakistani and Iraqi mosques with Muslim fundamentalists, and they offered the same defense: they're just applying God's word.
Now, I've often written that blue staters should be less snooty toward fundamentalist Christians, and I realize that this column will seem pretty snooty. But if I praise the good work of evangelicals - like their superb relief efforts in Darfur - I'll also condemn what I perceive as bigotry. A dialogue about faith must move past taboos and discuss differences bluntly. That's what blue staters and red staters need to do about religion and the "Left Behind" books.
For starters, it's worth pointing out that those predicting an apocalypse have a long and lousy record. In America, tens of thousands of followers of William Miller waited eagerly for Jesus to reappear on Oct. 22, 1844. Some of these Millerites had given away all their belongings, and the no-show was called the Great Disappointment.
In more recent times, the best-selling nonfiction book of the 1970's was Hal Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth," selling 18 million copies worldwide with its predictions of a Second Coming. Then, one of the hottest best sellers in 1988 was a booklet called "88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988." Oops.
Being wrong has rarely been so lucrative.
Now we have the hugely profitable "Left Behind" financial empire, whose Web site flatly says that the authors "think this generation will witness the end of history." The site sells every "Left Behind" spinoff imaginable, including screen savers, regular prophecies sent to your mobile phone, children's versions of the books, audiobooks, graphic novels, videos, calendars, music and a $6.50-a-month prophesy club. This isn't religion, this is brand management.
If Mr. LaHaye and Mr. Jenkins honestly believe that the end of the world may be imminent, why not waive royalties? Why don't they use the millions of dollars in profits to help the poor - and increase their own chances of getting into heaven?
Mr. Jenkins told me that he gives 20 to 40 percent of his income to charity, and that's commendable. But there are millions more where that came from. Mr. LaHaye and Mr. Jenkins might spend less time puzzling over obscure passages in the Book of Revelation and more time with the straightforward language of Matthew 6:19, "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth." Or Matthew 19:21, where Jesus advises a rich man: "Sell your possessions and give the money to the poor. . . . It will be hard for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."
So I challenge the authors to a bet: if the events of the Apocalypse arrive in the next 10 years, then I'll donate $500 to the battle against the Antichrist; if it doesn't, you donate $500 to a charity of my choosing that fights poverty - and bigotry.
Gentlemen, do we have a deal?
.
GOP Eats Own Young
Bush Election Shock And Awe To Germans
.
Then again, there is this week’s pointed snub to José Luis Zapatero: the Spanish prime minister, who had pulled out all Spanish troops from Iraq after his election, was unable to place a congratulatory phone call to the President – while his predecessor Aznar was invited to the White House for a 40-minute private chat. Gerhard Schröder, too, knows that George the Younger neither forgets nor forgives. It looks as though the next four years will be a test of responsibility and maturity on all sides. One thing only is certain: there will be no lack of opportunities.
Then again, there is this week’s pointed snub to José Luis Zapatero: the Spanish prime minister, who had pulled out all Spanish troops from Iraq after his election, was unable to place a congratulatory phone call to the President – while his predecessor Aznar was invited to the White House for a 40-minute private chat. Gerhard Schröder, too, knows that George the Younger neither forgets nor forgives. It looks as though the next four years will be a test of responsibility and maturity on all sides. One thing only is certain: there will be no lack of opportunities.
You Have To Ask Yourself How Orphaning A Child Will Somehow Make Us Secure
.
this is pitiful
No one keeps track of exactly how many American children were left behind by the record 186,000 noncitizens expelled from the United States last year, or the 887,000 others required to make a "voluntary departure." But immigration experts say there are tens of thousands of children every year who lose a parent to deportation. As the debate over immigration policy heats up, such broken families are troubling people on all sides, and challenging schools and mental health clinics in immigrant neighborhoods.
.
this is pitiful
No one keeps track of exactly how many American children were left behind by the record 186,000 noncitizens expelled from the United States last year, or the 887,000 others required to make a "voluntary departure." But immigration experts say there are tens of thousands of children every year who lose a parent to deportation. As the debate over immigration policy heats up, such broken families are troubling people on all sides, and challenging schools and mental health clinics in immigrant neighborhoods.
.
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
China to US: Get Your Shit Together
.
China's timetable for freeing up the renminbi is expected to have an impact on sales of US goods to the mammoth and growing Chinese market as well as the consumption of Chinese goods in America.
The recent, adjustment to Chinese interest rates is seen by some in Washington as evidence that Beijing accepts administrative measures that are no longer an effective means of managing an increasingly liberalised market.
At last weekend's G20 meeting, finance ministers and central bank governors called for a global effort to reduce trade imbalances, and in partiuclar, the US current account deficit. John Snow, the US treasury secretary, repeated his commitment to work towards halving the US budget defict and to increase net US national saving, which would reduce the current account deficit.
But President George W. Bush's assurances at the weekend that his administration is committed to a strong dollar policy appeared to do little on Monday to encourage buying of the dollar, evidence of how far the White House's credibility on currencies has been undermined by the rising deficit. In mid day trading in New York the dollar was at 1.304 against the euro and 103.21 against the yen.
.
China's timetable for freeing up the renminbi is expected to have an impact on sales of US goods to the mammoth and growing Chinese market as well as the consumption of Chinese goods in America.
The recent, adjustment to Chinese interest rates is seen by some in Washington as evidence that Beijing accepts administrative measures that are no longer an effective means of managing an increasingly liberalised market.
At last weekend's G20 meeting, finance ministers and central bank governors called for a global effort to reduce trade imbalances, and in partiuclar, the US current account deficit. John Snow, the US treasury secretary, repeated his commitment to work towards halving the US budget defict and to increase net US national saving, which would reduce the current account deficit.
But President George W. Bush's assurances at the weekend that his administration is committed to a strong dollar policy appeared to do little on Monday to encourage buying of the dollar, evidence of how far the White House's credibility on currencies has been undermined by the rising deficit. In mid day trading in New York the dollar was at 1.304 against the euro and 103.21 against the yen.
.
Their Own Currency, Their Own Constitution, and Now Their Own Army
More proof that the EU is a new country
.
EU approves rapid reaction force
European Union defence ministers have agreed to set up a military rapid reaction force, to be deployed at short notice to conflicts around the world.
The force, to be in place within three years, will consist of a number of units each made up of 1500 troops.
France, Italy, Britain and Spain will each form a unit, and other EU states will be expected to contribute troops.
Ministers expect the first of the battle groups to be operational by next year, with eight more by 2007.
The development is part of an EU effort to develop an independent defence capacity that can be deployed outside of US-led Nato missions.
UK Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said the battle groups were not a precursor to the EU developing a standing army.
"Battle groups will be capable of dealing with a range of peace support and humanitarian tasks," Mr Hoon said.
"They are particularly intended for situations where an early intervention with a highly capable battle group-size force could deal with an emerging crisis."
Rapid reaction forces could be deployed to fill a gap before UN peacekeepers can be deployed, as a French-led operation did in the Bunia region of eastern Congo earlier this year.
.
EU approves rapid reaction force
European Union defence ministers have agreed to set up a military rapid reaction force, to be deployed at short notice to conflicts around the world.
The force, to be in place within three years, will consist of a number of units each made up of 1500 troops.
France, Italy, Britain and Spain will each form a unit, and other EU states will be expected to contribute troops.
Ministers expect the first of the battle groups to be operational by next year, with eight more by 2007.
The development is part of an EU effort to develop an independent defence capacity that can be deployed outside of US-led Nato missions.
UK Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said the battle groups were not a precursor to the EU developing a standing army.
"Battle groups will be capable of dealing with a range of peace support and humanitarian tasks," Mr Hoon said.
"They are particularly intended for situations where an early intervention with a highly capable battle group-size force could deal with an emerging crisis."
Rapid reaction forces could be deployed to fill a gap before UN peacekeepers can be deployed, as a French-led operation did in the Bunia region of eastern Congo earlier this year.
Americans Mostly Stupid
...
We've Been Way Too Successful
As a Nation, and slowly but surely it is going to cause us to become a second-banana nation (and then there will be hell to pay). But it sure explains why Bush is President.
This is just goddamned too sad for words...
Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved. But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools.
Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all.
There are also differences between voters who supported Kerry and those who supported Bush: 47 percent of John Kerry’s voters think God created humans as they are now, compared with 67 percent of Bush voters.
Overall, about two-thirds of Americans want creationism taught along with evolution. Only 37 percent want evolutionism replaced outright.
More than half of Kerry voters want creationism taught alongside evolution. Bush voters are much more willing to want creationism to replace evolution altogether in a curriculum (just under half favor that), and 71 percent want it at least included.
60 percent of Americans who call themselves Evangelical Christians, however, favor replacing evolution with creationism in schools altogether, as do 50 percent of those who attend religious services every week.
It's bad enough that the Bush voters are so comprised of morons, but the fact that a healthy share of Kerry voters are too is an additional tragedy.
This is a direct bi-product of what a joke evangelicals have made of public biology education. For example, this poll taken thirteen years ago...and anyone doubt it's worse now?
Table 8. Ranking of 21 Nations on Knowledge Question about Human Evolution, 1993 International Social Survey
Nation Rank % Correct *
East Germany 1-----81.6
Japan 2-----81.0
Czech Republic 3-----77.6
West Germany 4-----72.7
Great Britain 5-----76.7
Bulgaria 6-----60.9
Norway 7-----65.0
Canada 8.5---67.5
Spain 8.5---64.2
Hungary 10----62.8
Italy 11.5--65.2
Slovenia 11.5--60.7
New Zealand 13----66.3
Israel 14----56.9
Netherlands 15----58.6
Ireland 16----60.1
Philippines 17----60.9
Russia 18---41.4
Northern Ireland 19----51.5
Poland 20----35.4
United States 21----44.2
It is also an indication of why other nations are going to pass this country by eventually.
Faith-based nation.
.
We've Been Way Too Successful
As a Nation, and slowly but surely it is going to cause us to become a second-banana nation (and then there will be hell to pay). But it sure explains why Bush is President.
This is just goddamned too sad for words...
Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved. But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools.
Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all.
There are also differences between voters who supported Kerry and those who supported Bush: 47 percent of John Kerry’s voters think God created humans as they are now, compared with 67 percent of Bush voters.
Overall, about two-thirds of Americans want creationism taught along with evolution. Only 37 percent want evolutionism replaced outright.
More than half of Kerry voters want creationism taught alongside evolution. Bush voters are much more willing to want creationism to replace evolution altogether in a curriculum (just under half favor that), and 71 percent want it at least included.
60 percent of Americans who call themselves Evangelical Christians, however, favor replacing evolution with creationism in schools altogether, as do 50 percent of those who attend religious services every week.
It's bad enough that the Bush voters are so comprised of morons, but the fact that a healthy share of Kerry voters are too is an additional tragedy.
This is a direct bi-product of what a joke evangelicals have made of public biology education. For example, this poll taken thirteen years ago...and anyone doubt it's worse now?
Table 8. Ranking of 21 Nations on Knowledge Question about Human Evolution, 1993 International Social Survey
Nation Rank % Correct *
East Germany 1-----81.6
Japan 2-----81.0
Czech Republic 3-----77.6
West Germany 4-----72.7
Great Britain 5-----76.7
Bulgaria 6-----60.9
Norway 7-----65.0
Canada 8.5---67.5
Spain 8.5---64.2
Hungary 10----62.8
Italy 11.5--65.2
Slovenia 11.5--60.7
New Zealand 13----66.3
Israel 14----56.9
Netherlands 15----58.6
Ireland 16----60.1
Philippines 17----60.9
Russia 18---41.4
Northern Ireland 19----51.5
Poland 20----35.4
United States 21----44.2
It is also an indication of why other nations are going to pass this country by eventually.
Faith-based nation.
.
Kevin Sites To The Devil Dogs
.
excerpts
When we arrive at the front entrance, we see that another squad has already entered before us.
The lieutenant asks them, "Are there people inside?"
One of the Marines raises his hand signaling five.
"Did you shoot them," the lieutenant asks?
"Roger that, sir, " the same Marine responds.
"Were they armed?" The Marine just shrugs and we all move inside.
Immediately after going in, I see the same black plastic body bags spread around the mosque. The dead from the day before. But more surprising, I see the same five men that were wounded from Friday as well. It appears that one of them is now dead and three are bleeding to death from new gunshot wounds. The fifth is partially covered by a blanket and is in the same place and condition he was in on Friday, near a column. He has not been shot again. I look closely at both the dead and the wounded. There don't appear to be any weapons anywhere.
"These were the same wounded from yesterday," I say to the lieutenant. He takes a look around and goes outside the mosque with his radio operator to call in the situation to Battalion Forward HQ.
I see an old man in a red kaffiyeh lying against the back wall. Another is face down next to him, his hand on the old man's lap -- as if he were trying to take cover. I squat beside them, inches away and begin to videotape them. Then I notice that the blood coming from the old man's nose is bubbling. A sign he is still breathing. So is the man next to him.
While I continue to tape, a Marine walks up to the other two bodies about fifteen feet away, but also lying against the same back wall.
Then I hear him say this about one of the men:
"He's fucking faking he's dead -- he's faking he's fucking dead."
Through my viewfinder I can see him raise the muzzle of his rifle in the direction of the wounded Iraqi. There are no sudden movements, no reaching or lunging.
However, the Marine could legitimately believe the man poses some kind of danger. Maybe he's going to cover him while another Marine searches for weapons.
Instead, he pulls the trigger. There is a small splatter against the back wall and the man's leg slumps down.
"Well he's dead now," says another Marine in the background.
I am still rolling. I feel the deep pit of my stomach. The Marine then abruptly turns away and strides away, right past the fifth wounded insurgent lying next to a column. He is very much alive and peering from his blanket. He is moving, even trying to talk. But for some reason, it seems he did not pose the same apparent "danger" as the other man -- though he may have been more capable of hiding a weapon or explosive beneath his blanket.
But then two other marines in the room raise their weapons as the man tries to talk.
For a moment, I'm paralyzed still taping with the old man in the foreground. I get up after a beat and tell the Marines again, what I had told the lieutenant -- that this man -- all of these wounded men -- were the same ones from yesterday. That they had been disarmed treated and left here.
At that point the Marine who fired the shot became aware that I was in the room. He came up to me and said, "I didn't know sir-I didn't know." The anger that seemed present just moments before turned to fear and dread….
… The Marines have built their proud reputation on fighting for freedoms like the one that allows me to do my job, a job that in some cases may appear to discredit them. But both the leaders and the grunts in the field like you understand that if you lower your standards, if you accept less, than less is what you'll become.
There are people in our own country that would weaken your institution and our nation –by telling you it's okay to betray our guiding principles by not making the tough decisions, by letting difficult circumstances turns us into victims or worse…villains.
I interviewed your Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Colonel Willy Buhl, before the battle for Falluja began. He said something very powerful at the time-something that now seems prophetic. It was this:
"We're the good guys. We are Americans. We are fighting a gentleman's war here -- because we don't behead people, we don't come down to the same level of the people we're combating. That's a very difficult thing for a young 18-year-old Marine who's been trained to locate, close with and destroy the enemy with fire and close combat. That's a very difficult thing for a 42-year-old lieutenant colonel with 23 years experience in the service who was trained to do the same thing once upon a time, and who now has a thousand-plus men to lead, guide, coach, mentor -- and ensure we remain the good guys and keep the moral high ground."
I listened carefully when he said those words. I believed them.
So here, ultimately, is how it all plays out: when the Iraqi man in the mosque posed a threat, he was your enemy; when he was subdued he was your responsibility; when he was killed in front of my eyes and my camera -- the story of his death became my responsibility.
The burdens of war, as you so well know, are unforgiving for all of us.
I pray for your soon and safe return.
Kevin 1:37 PM
.
excerpts
When we arrive at the front entrance, we see that another squad has already entered before us.
The lieutenant asks them, "Are there people inside?"
One of the Marines raises his hand signaling five.
"Did you shoot them," the lieutenant asks?
"Roger that, sir, " the same Marine responds.
"Were they armed?" The Marine just shrugs and we all move inside.
Immediately after going in, I see the same black plastic body bags spread around the mosque. The dead from the day before. But more surprising, I see the same five men that were wounded from Friday as well. It appears that one of them is now dead and three are bleeding to death from new gunshot wounds. The fifth is partially covered by a blanket and is in the same place and condition he was in on Friday, near a column. He has not been shot again. I look closely at both the dead and the wounded. There don't appear to be any weapons anywhere.
"These were the same wounded from yesterday," I say to the lieutenant. He takes a look around and goes outside the mosque with his radio operator to call in the situation to Battalion Forward HQ.
I see an old man in a red kaffiyeh lying against the back wall. Another is face down next to him, his hand on the old man's lap -- as if he were trying to take cover. I squat beside them, inches away and begin to videotape them. Then I notice that the blood coming from the old man's nose is bubbling. A sign he is still breathing. So is the man next to him.
While I continue to tape, a Marine walks up to the other two bodies about fifteen feet away, but also lying against the same back wall.
Then I hear him say this about one of the men:
"He's fucking faking he's dead -- he's faking he's fucking dead."
Through my viewfinder I can see him raise the muzzle of his rifle in the direction of the wounded Iraqi. There are no sudden movements, no reaching or lunging.
However, the Marine could legitimately believe the man poses some kind of danger. Maybe he's going to cover him while another Marine searches for weapons.
Instead, he pulls the trigger. There is a small splatter against the back wall and the man's leg slumps down.
"Well he's dead now," says another Marine in the background.
I am still rolling. I feel the deep pit of my stomach. The Marine then abruptly turns away and strides away, right past the fifth wounded insurgent lying next to a column. He is very much alive and peering from his blanket. He is moving, even trying to talk. But for some reason, it seems he did not pose the same apparent "danger" as the other man -- though he may have been more capable of hiding a weapon or explosive beneath his blanket.
But then two other marines in the room raise their weapons as the man tries to talk.
For a moment, I'm paralyzed still taping with the old man in the foreground. I get up after a beat and tell the Marines again, what I had told the lieutenant -- that this man -- all of these wounded men -- were the same ones from yesterday. That they had been disarmed treated and left here.
At that point the Marine who fired the shot became aware that I was in the room. He came up to me and said, "I didn't know sir-I didn't know." The anger that seemed present just moments before turned to fear and dread….
… The Marines have built their proud reputation on fighting for freedoms like the one that allows me to do my job, a job that in some cases may appear to discredit them. But both the leaders and the grunts in the field like you understand that if you lower your standards, if you accept less, than less is what you'll become.
There are people in our own country that would weaken your institution and our nation –by telling you it's okay to betray our guiding principles by not making the tough decisions, by letting difficult circumstances turns us into victims or worse…villains.
I interviewed your Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Colonel Willy Buhl, before the battle for Falluja began. He said something very powerful at the time-something that now seems prophetic. It was this:
"We're the good guys. We are Americans. We are fighting a gentleman's war here -- because we don't behead people, we don't come down to the same level of the people we're combating. That's a very difficult thing for a young 18-year-old Marine who's been trained to locate, close with and destroy the enemy with fire and close combat. That's a very difficult thing for a 42-year-old lieutenant colonel with 23 years experience in the service who was trained to do the same thing once upon a time, and who now has a thousand-plus men to lead, guide, coach, mentor -- and ensure we remain the good guys and keep the moral high ground."
I listened carefully when he said those words. I believed them.
So here, ultimately, is how it all plays out: when the Iraqi man in the mosque posed a threat, he was your enemy; when he was subdued he was your responsibility; when he was killed in front of my eyes and my camera -- the story of his death became my responsibility.
The burdens of war, as you so well know, are unforgiving for all of us.
I pray for your soon and safe return.
Kevin 1:37 PM
.
Clinton To ABC, “I Remember”
.
Clinton to ABC News: It's payback time
The former president chastises Peter Jennings for ABC's "sleazy" coverage of Whitewater -- and he's right.
Perhaps ABC's most egregious journalistic misstep while chasing the Whitewater story came during a December 1995 "Nightline" broadcast, which cast an extraordinarily damning light on Hillary Rodham Clinton's explanation about previous Little Rock billings her law firm did on behalf of Jim McDougal's Madison Guaranty. Did Clinton, or a young lawyer named Rick Massey, do the work? After ABC's crude bit of editing of a 1994 press conference held by Clinton, "Nightline" viewers saw Clinton tell reporters: "The young attorney, the young bank officer, did all the work." Next the screen showed handwritten notes taken by Hillary Clinton's aides during the 1992 campaign: "She [Hillary] did all the billing," the notes indicated. The "Nightlight" telecast all but labeled the first lady a liar.
What viewers did not know was that ABC not only had taken Clinton's response out of context but had edited out 39 words from Clinton's 1994 press conference response to create a damning scenario. As Conason and Gene Lyons noted in their book "The Hunting of the President, "ABC News had taken a video clip out of context, and then accused the first lady of prevaricating about the very material it had removed." Vlasto produced the segment.
History will show that the Clintons were exonerated of all the Whitewater accusations and that the president was acquitted of all charges in the impeachment trial. For refusing to testify before the grand jury to implicate the Clintons in crimes as Starr had demanded, McDougal was held in prison for 18 months, sometimes in solitary confinement. And when she finally did testify, she said she knew of no wrongdoing by them; she was acquitted of all charges in the case.
Clinton to ABC News: It's payback time
The former president chastises Peter Jennings for ABC's "sleazy" coverage of Whitewater -- and he's right.
Perhaps ABC's most egregious journalistic misstep while chasing the Whitewater story came during a December 1995 "Nightline" broadcast, which cast an extraordinarily damning light on Hillary Rodham Clinton's explanation about previous Little Rock billings her law firm did on behalf of Jim McDougal's Madison Guaranty. Did Clinton, or a young lawyer named Rick Massey, do the work? After ABC's crude bit of editing of a 1994 press conference held by Clinton, "Nightline" viewers saw Clinton tell reporters: "The young attorney, the young bank officer, did all the work." Next the screen showed handwritten notes taken by Hillary Clinton's aides during the 1992 campaign: "She [Hillary] did all the billing," the notes indicated. The "Nightlight" telecast all but labeled the first lady a liar.
What viewers did not know was that ABC not only had taken Clinton's response out of context but had edited out 39 words from Clinton's 1994 press conference response to create a damning scenario. As Conason and Gene Lyons noted in their book "The Hunting of the President, "ABC News had taken a video clip out of context, and then accused the first lady of prevaricating about the very material it had removed." Vlasto produced the segment.
History will show that the Clintons were exonerated of all the Whitewater accusations and that the president was acquitted of all charges in the impeachment trial. For refusing to testify before the grand jury to implicate the Clintons in crimes as Starr had demanded, McDougal was held in prison for 18 months, sometimes in solitary confinement. And when she finally did testify, she said she knew of no wrongdoing by them; she was acquitted of all charges in the case.
The actual insurgent commander answers the question: Is the back of the insurgency broken?
.
Mess O Potamia
In one instance, recalled in separate interviews by two rebel sources, Hadid intervened to prevent the execution of a captured national guardsman after the guardsman's weeping mother pleaded for his release.
"I asked Omar once how he could bear to do it, how he could hold himself together when he slaughtered another human being," said one of Hadid's cousins, a 28-year-old man who gave his name only as Abu Nour. "He laughed and swore he'd never personally beheaded a hostage. He said he chose men who don't have hearts to do the actual killing. He said it's a battle, so everything is permissible."
It is unclear what happened to Hadid when U.S. troops entered Fallujah. Hadid's family and close rebel associates say Hadid survived the U.S. assault and is hiding in another town, still alive, still fighting, and still in charge. Some U.S. officials have speculated that he was killed, but they offer no hard evidence.
"I told Omar, `Why don't you take all the fighters outside Fallujah and just let the Americans enter for a while?' Fallujah is not Mecca," said Hadid's uncle, referring to the holiest city in Islam. "Omar's answer was no, we will fight to the end."
.
Mess O Potamia
In one instance, recalled in separate interviews by two rebel sources, Hadid intervened to prevent the execution of a captured national guardsman after the guardsman's weeping mother pleaded for his release.
"I asked Omar once how he could bear to do it, how he could hold himself together when he slaughtered another human being," said one of Hadid's cousins, a 28-year-old man who gave his name only as Abu Nour. "He laughed and swore he'd never personally beheaded a hostage. He said he chose men who don't have hearts to do the actual killing. He said it's a battle, so everything is permissible."
It is unclear what happened to Hadid when U.S. troops entered Fallujah. Hadid's family and close rebel associates say Hadid survived the U.S. assault and is hiding in another town, still alive, still fighting, and still in charge. Some U.S. officials have speculated that he was killed, but they offer no hard evidence.
"I told Omar, `Why don't you take all the fighters outside Fallujah and just let the Americans enter for a while?' Fallujah is not Mecca," said Hadid's uncle, referring to the holiest city in Islam. "Omar's answer was no, we will fight to the end."
.
Monday, November 22, 2004
Good News and Bad News
.
First the bad news. Tom Delay will not be prosecuted.
The GOP is protecting him because they owe him for helping to keep them in power.
Now the good news.
The Virginia Pilot, a newspaper on the east coast is dropping self loathing Asian Asswipe Michele Malkin.
woo hoo
.
First the bad news. Tom Delay will not be prosecuted.
The GOP is protecting him because they owe him for helping to keep them in power.
Now the good news.
The Virginia Pilot, a newspaper on the east coast is dropping self loathing Asian Asswipe Michele Malkin.
woo hoo
.
Strangest Story Of The Year
.
In Minnesota, pigs are being born with human blood in their veins.
In Nevada, there are sheep whose livers and hearts are largely human.
In California, mice peer from their cages with human brain cells firing inside their skulls.
.
In Minnesota, pigs are being born with human blood in their veins.
In Nevada, there are sheep whose livers and hearts are largely human.
In California, mice peer from their cages with human brain cells firing inside their skulls.
.
Where Is The Outrage Here?
.
Here’s more proof that we have long ago stopped being the moral giants we claim to be.
While American’s convene in gleeful crowds looking for some vicarious catharsis outside a court room and cheer Scott Peterson’s conviction, little attention was paid to a conviction that was so cruel, so unheard of, so draconian as to be beyond belief. Yes, Laci’s bloated corpse horrified us.
If this doesn’t horrify you, then take your pulse, you might be dead.
But I’ll summarize it. A first time marijuana possession conviction of 6months in jail was meted out to a wheel chair bound quadriplegic who died of negligence while incarcerated.
.
Here’s more proof that we have long ago stopped being the moral giants we claim to be.
While American’s convene in gleeful crowds looking for some vicarious catharsis outside a court room and cheer Scott Peterson’s conviction, little attention was paid to a conviction that was so cruel, so unheard of, so draconian as to be beyond belief. Yes, Laci’s bloated corpse horrified us.
If this doesn’t horrify you, then take your pulse, you might be dead.
But I’ll summarize it. A first time marijuana possession conviction of 6months in jail was meted out to a wheel chair bound quadriplegic who died of negligence while incarcerated.
.
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Chile Calls off Bush Banquet After Security Dispute
.
November 21st, 2004 3:09 pm
SANTIAGO, Chile (CNN) -- Plans for a state dinner for President Bush at Chile's presidential palace were scratched Sunday after the United States insisted on security measures that Chile called unacceptable.
The change came a day after Chilean security guards temporarily blocked one of Bush's Secret Service agents from entering an official dinner.
For the Sunday event, the Secret Service insisted all guests -- totaling more than 230 -- pass through a metal detector, a top level Chilean Foreign Ministry official told CNN. U.S. officials did not dispute this account.
President Ricardo Lagos believed the measure was humiliating for guests, the Chilean official said.
Instead, Bush will attend a small dinner of about 20 people in Lagos' private dining room.
Bush's security at the 21-nation summit has been a big story in Chile, where many have complained the security measures are excessive. U.S. officials have said the measures are necessary to protect a U.S. president when traveling.
The Saturday incident was captured on camera and shown around the world.
Bush was posing for photos with first lady Laura Bush in the Estacion Mapocho Cultural Center when he heard a commotion and saw that one of his plainclothes security agents was being forcefully restrained from entering.
Bush reached into a small crowd, where people were arguing and pushing one another, and pulled the agent through the door of center. (Full story)
Bush then turned around, cocked his head proudly at his maneuver and began to greet his hosts.
The White House downplayed the incident as an unfortunate misunderstanding with Chilean security services.
U.S. officials insisted the change in Sunday's dinner plans did not reflect any tension in U.S.-Chile relations.
November 21st, 2004 3:09 pm
SANTIAGO, Chile (CNN) -- Plans for a state dinner for President Bush at Chile's presidential palace were scratched Sunday after the United States insisted on security measures that Chile called unacceptable.
The change came a day after Chilean security guards temporarily blocked one of Bush's Secret Service agents from entering an official dinner.
For the Sunday event, the Secret Service insisted all guests -- totaling more than 230 -- pass through a metal detector, a top level Chilean Foreign Ministry official told CNN. U.S. officials did not dispute this account.
President Ricardo Lagos believed the measure was humiliating for guests, the Chilean official said.
Instead, Bush will attend a small dinner of about 20 people in Lagos' private dining room.
Bush's security at the 21-nation summit has been a big story in Chile, where many have complained the security measures are excessive. U.S. officials have said the measures are necessary to protect a U.S. president when traveling.
The Saturday incident was captured on camera and shown around the world.
Bush was posing for photos with first lady Laura Bush in the Estacion Mapocho Cultural Center when he heard a commotion and saw that one of his plainclothes security agents was being forcefully restrained from entering.
Bush reached into a small crowd, where people were arguing and pushing one another, and pulled the agent through the door of center. (Full story)
Bush then turned around, cocked his head proudly at his maneuver and began to greet his hosts.
The White House downplayed the incident as an unfortunate misunderstanding with Chilean security services.
U.S. officials insisted the change in Sunday's dinner plans did not reflect any tension in U.S.-Chile relations.
The Real Casualty List
Tonight on 60 minutes, a report indicated that unlike other wars like Persian Gulf I and Vietnam, the non combat related injuries are not being published along with combat wounded or dead.
In other words, if someone shoots you, you are counted a casualty. If in combat you are shot in the leg and must be evacuated from theatre, you are counted as a casualty. But if you are driving and hit a bump in the road and flip over and break your neck, you are not counted.
This is what it means to me.
Official combat death toll for Americans is 1221 in 611 days of fighting and 8000 wounded. That come to 15 medical evacuations a day. Or one every hour and 50 minutes.
A reporter got a letter from the Pentagon admitting to 15000 non combat medevacs on top of the 8000 wounded and 1221 dead. That comes to 24221 casualties in 611 days of fighting which brings us conservatively to 40 medevacs a day.
This researchers opined that he thought the real figure could be 20 or 30 thousand since the beginning of the war.
At 20000 + the 1221 reported dead and 800 wounded = 29221 casualties in 611 days and that means almost 48 casualties a day or one every half hour.
Think about what the truth is and what you are being told
In other words, if someone shoots you, you are counted a casualty. If in combat you are shot in the leg and must be evacuated from theatre, you are counted as a casualty. But if you are driving and hit a bump in the road and flip over and break your neck, you are not counted.
This is what it means to me.
Official combat death toll for Americans is 1221 in 611 days of fighting and 8000 wounded. That come to 15 medical evacuations a day. Or one every hour and 50 minutes.
A reporter got a letter from the Pentagon admitting to 15000 non combat medevacs on top of the 8000 wounded and 1221 dead. That comes to 24221 casualties in 611 days of fighting which brings us conservatively to 40 medevacs a day.
This researchers opined that he thought the real figure could be 20 or 30 thousand since the beginning of the war.
At 20000 + the 1221 reported dead and 800 wounded = 29221 casualties in 611 days and that means almost 48 casualties a day or one every half hour.
Think about what the truth is and what you are being told
Draining The Swamp
By Tom Engelhardt
"'We didn't go in with a plan. We went in with a theory,' said a veteran State Department officer who was directly involved in Iraq policy…' The Bush administration's failure to plan to win the peace in Iraq was the product of many of the same problems that plagued the administration's case for war, including wishful thinking, bad information from Iraqi exiles who said Iraqis would welcome American troops as liberators and contempt for dissenting opinions." (Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott, Post-war planning non-existent, Knight Ridder Newspapers)
"'It is only the beginning, from a military point of view,' said Janabi, who heads the mujaheddin shura, an 18-member council of clerics, tribal sheiks and former Baath Party members that assumed control of the city of 250,000 shortly after Marines aborted their first attempt to capture it in April. 'We have succeeded in drawing them into the quagmire of Fallujah, into the alleys and small pathways. They have fallen into the trap of explosive charges, land mines and, now, the defenders' short supply lines inside the neighborhoods.'" (Part of insurgent Sunni Cleric Abdullah Janabi's face-to-face interview with an Iraqi reporter working for the Washington Post in Falluja after the city was declared taken by U.S. forces. Anthony Shadid, Troops Move to Quell Insurgency in Mosul, the Washington Post)
Improving the Odds
Here was our tactical kindness: By threatening the invasion of Falluja for months and launching a bombing campaign against parts of the city long before the assault was to begin, the Bush administration managed to turn an unknown but staggering number -- up to 90% -- of that city's 250,000-300,000 residents out of their homes and into refugees living off relatives elsewhere or in the most pitiful of makeshift camps often without enough food, or clean drinking water, electricity, or medical aid. The first mainstream account of such a camp finally appeared Friday in the New York Times (Robert A. Oppel, Jr., Refugees: Fallujans in Flight: Transit Camps Are Not Much Safer Than Siege They Left), even though some of the residents described in it had been relocated there weeks, if not months before.
It's not simply a matter of journalistic lack of concern. Most non-Iraqi journalists have little choice but to be "embedded," whether in actual U.S. military units (allowing for movement into "no-go" parts of Sunni Iraq but only where the military is conducting operations, not exactly the best perspective from which to get an Iraqi view of things) or essentially in their hotels. Hannah Allam of Knight Ridder Newspapers, for instance, writes:
"The hotel has become a prison, and every foray outside its fortified gates is tinged with anxiety about returning in one piece. Baghdad has never been tougher for journalists. Treacherous roads and kidnapping squads restrict travel. 'Embedding' with the military or going with Iraqi government officials is the safest way to leave the capital. Our ability to uncover and tell the truth about Iraq -- good and bad -- has suffered terribly… As the close calls grew, the Iraq we knew shrank. The northern mountains and southern marshes are off-limits now because the roads out of Baghdad are lined with bombs and gunmen. Even a jaunt to the grocery store is a meticulously planned affair. Do you have a radio? A flak vest? A second car to watch for kidnappers?"
A recent piece in the Washingtonian magazine on-line about the return of the Washington Post's superb Anthony Shadid to Iraq after months out of the country, described the situation of Western correspondents in Iraq this way:
"[S]ome television news crews have hired security firms with armed Americans to follow their teams. Newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post prefer former British military or armed Iraqis in vehicles that follow their cars. 'They could lay down cover fire,' says Rajiv Chandrasekaran, who recently returned from 18 months as the Washington Post's bureau chief in Baghdad. 'It's a matter of improving your odds.'"
While journalists in Iraq narrowed their scope and improved their odds, the American military, after a fashion, did the same. Military commanders gathered 12,000-15,000 American troops and a couple of thousand questionable Iraqi ones and then pulled up the artillery, the planes with their 500-to-2000 pound bombs, the helicopters armed with Hellfire missiles, the lethal AC-130 gunships, the tanks, the Bradley Fighting Vehicles, the mortars, and the heavy machine guns. After months of careful planning in the wake of last April's aborted attempt to take Falluja, they then launched these forces against relatively small numbers of reasonably well-prepared insurgents, a few thousand at most, scattered in a significant-sized city.
In recent years, the American military has paid a great deal of attention to the matter of urban warfare -- much feared by our commanders before the invasion of Iraq. The question then was: Would the American army be caught in a final block-by-block urban battle for Baghdad? (Given the way things are going, the answer may still be yes.) Cities are considered great levelers of the playing field between otherwise asymmetric military forces. The Iraqi rebels are armed largely with AK-47s, rocket-propelled grenades, some mortars, and, of course, those car bombs and IEDs; but in Falluja as elsewhere in urban Iraq, they know the terrain intimately, the warren of city streets, and street fighting has a notorious reputation for cutting down on sight lines and negating technological advantages. As it happens, our military seems to have dealt with this in Fallujah largely by bringing asymmetric amounts of firepower to bear on the slightest signs of resistance even by lone snipers; in other words, as far as can be told, they responded to the challenge of urban warfare in some areas of Falluja by quite literally leveling the playing field.
Rubblizing the Neighborhood
News about the resulting devastation grows worse by the day, though the announced body counts of dead insurgents -- 1,200 or more -- can't be trusted. (I'm reminded of the informal "Mere Gook Rule" of the Vietnam War when it came to body counts: "If it's dead and it's Vietnamese, it's VC [Vietcong].") But the main point no one will make in the American news mainstream -- where U.S. military self-constraint tends to be emphasized and military claims about efforts to avoid civilian casualties are printed without significant comment -- is simple indeed: The levels of destruction in Falluja were not a by-product of the campaign, but the product itself. The rubblizing of whole neighborhoods was meant.
The Bush administration may indeed have invaded Iraq on a theory, not a plan, but the assault on Falluja itself was planned with great care over significant periods of time. So what remains of that city in which hardly a building evidently emerged unscathed (among those that remain standing) must be considered the Falluja that was supposed to be. The brief shots on the nightly news are breath-taking (or breath-stopping) in the visible levels of destruction whenever the camera bothers to pull back for a few seconds. You have to return to 1968 and the old Vietnamese imperial capital of Hue to find a city flattened in anything like this manner by the American war machine; and in that case, the Americans were responding to Hue's surprise seizure by the other side in the midst of the nationwide Tet Offensive.
As I've argued in the past, it was in the Vietnamese countryside -- where we instituted free-fire zones and bombed at phenomenal levels -- that similar planning and results could be found. The free-fire zone that was much of rural Vietnam, including in some cases literal "jungle," has been replaced in Iraq by the "urban jungle." Veteran journalist Simon Jenkins made just this point in a striking piece recently in the British Sunday Times (A wrecked nation, a desert, a ghost town. And this will be called victory). "In Vietnam," he wrote, "the Americans destroyed the village to save it. In Iraq we destroy the city to save it."
Some of you may remember that Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong famously compared guerillas to fish swimming in the sea of the people. During the Vietnam era, there was much talk among American counterinsurgency strategists about how to "drain" that sea. In Vietnam, what this turned out to mean in practical terms was grim indeed -- the forcible removal of Vietnamese peasants from rebel-controlled areas (and so their lands), their resettlement in government-controlled "strategic hamlets" (or as refugees in the South's then swelling cities) and the creation of "free-fire zones" in large swaths of the countryside which was devastated by a bombing campaign of almost unparalleled fierceness (Laos was worse), involving record tons of bombs dropped per square inch of territory. This bombing campaign in the South, unlike the one against North Vietnam, went largely unreported in our media at the time.
This was, of course, a punitive strategy leveled collectively against a population without reference to what any individual peasant might have thought or done. It gave the counterinsurgency strategy of "draining the sea" a bleakness beyond words. It also, not unsurprisingly, alienated the rural population from both the South Vietnamese government and the Americans in ways that seem all too repetitively familiar in Iraq today, and it created an especially atrocity-conducive environment for young Americans sent into an alien and hostile landscape, knowing nothing of Vietnamese culture or history, unable to communicate, and generally having no way to separate friend from foe. Does this sound the least bit repetitive to anyone?
In such circumstances acts of war grow ever more brutal. Just the other day, for instance, Tom Lasseter, a fine reporter for Knight Ridder wrote a small piece about a Marine company in Falluja whose commander had been "shot through the torso" by an RPG. In grief and anger here's what they did, according to Lasseter: "In the surrounding neighborhood, troops furious at the news of their fallen leader called in revenge, in the form of a 2,000 pound bomb airstrike and a storm of 155 millimeter artillery shells. A mosque lost half a minaret, its main building smoldering in fire and smoke." This is what you tend to do, and do ever more of, under conditions of war in an alien and increasingly hostile land.
Much of this, though not yet on a Vietnamese scale, is already taking place, not in Iraq's "countryside," but in its heavily populated cities. Just as we dropped leaflets warning residents to depart the free-fire zones of Vietnam, so we seem to have dropped endless leaflets on Falluja. (It would be interesting to have some reporter tell us just what these actually said.) It seems that, as in Vietnam where napalm and white phosphorus -- unbearably gruesome weapons -- were commonly employed, American troops have already used white phosphorus in Falluja. ("Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns.") Similarly, they seem, at least informally, to have declared parts of Falluja the equivalents of "free-fire zones."
Imagine in any case simply pouring artillery fire into a cityscape. For example, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who flew out to "Camp Falluja" with Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen Richard Myers (now, there's high-class embedding for you) to "inspect the toughest problems in Iraq firsthand" had this throwaway line in a piece about -- what else? -- how we've arrived at the "tipping point" in Iraq: "Most of the fighting in Falluja was over by the time we arrived at this headquarters compound, although the tom-tom beat of 155-millimeter howitzers, still pumping rounds into the city, was constant." Remind me one more time about that definition of "over..."
Draining the Swamp
Nor is the media doing a better job of covering the air war in Iraq than they did in South Vietnam. As I've written numerous times, while individual air strikes may be reported daily -- all those "targeted" bombings of "terrorist safe houses" in Falluja, for instance -- the loosing of air power against urban Iraq has now gone on for almost a year with increasing ferocity (as overstretched American troops, lacking any serious support from Iraqi troops or police, have to deal with an ever-widening rebellion). And yet no significant account of the overall use of air power in Iraq or of the military or political calculations behind it has yet appeared. There's a special irony here, since early in the last century the British first tested the punitive abilities of air power on rebellious Iraqi villages.
Iraq may indeed not be "Vietnam," and there may be many other more plausible historical analogies for what's happening in Iraq to draw on, but let's face it, Vietnam is unavoidable. When we train Iraqi troops with hopes that someday they will replace American ones, military officials and reporters naturally speak about "'Iraqifying' security and politics" (as once such officials and reporters talked about "Vietnamizing" them). Similarly when our military men on the ground express "disappointment" in the Iraqi troops we're training and a sneaking respect for the willingness of those they oppose to fight and die ("The insurgency has shown 'outstanding resilience'"), Vietnam will naturally come to mind.
The fact is that "Vietnam = Iraq" will never go away as long as we occupy Iraq. As a start, Vietnam (or avoiding the subject) has been obsessively on the collective brain of the Bush administration for years now; but it's been no less on the minds of others around the world. And that makes good sense. Vietnam was, after all, the last great moment before this one of American imperial overstretch and the last great American defeat. How can people everywhere not be amazed to see so many of its elements uncannily reappear, even after U.S. leaders have spent over three decades trying to obliterate that era from American memory. (It was, after all, the elder Bush at the time of Gulf War I who exulted: "By God, we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome!")
If the people of the world in some sense cannot help but be focused on the last remaining superpower and its catastrophic encounter with Iraq, then how could they not help but think about Vietnam as well. It's not a mistake that Saddam's military officers studied the Vietnam experience and evidently considered it in planting the seeds of a post-war insurgency before our invasion even began; nor that rebellious Shiites in the Baghdad slum of Sadr City last June were writing "Vietnam Street" on walls along their embattled avenues ("This is called Vietnam Street because this is where we kill Americans."); nor that a rebellious Sunni cleric in Falluja this week spoke about drawing the Americans into the "quagmire of Fallujah." Even giving some leeway for translation, the reference has to be to Vietnam, just as thoughts of the Vietnam "quagmire" never quite depart from the minds of Americans, top to bottom, assigned to Iraq. (As one American soldier in Samarra recently put it to a French reporter: "I don't think we're going to win this place. It's going to be like another Vietnam. We'll be here for a long time.")
"Quagmire" (or its cognates swamp, quicksand, bog, morass, sinkhole, bottomless pit) was, of course, the single most famous image of the Vietnam war -- we were being drawn in step by step and couldn't extricate ourselves -- and a strange one it was, as I've written elsewhere. After the September 11th 2001 assaults, it was, I believe, the first Vietnam image to come to mind in official Washington and in a curious form that combined the quagmire environment with the counterinsurgency idea of draining the sea. The phrase was "draining the swamp" (assumedly so that the mosquitoes and other evil creatures there would have no place left to propagate), and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld used it within days of 9/11. Tony Karon of Time magazine reported on September 20, 2001 that earlier in the week Rumsfeld had said of Bin Laden and his followers in Afghanistan, "[T]he campaign would combine military, political, intelligence and diplomatic initiatives to ‘drain the swamp they live in.'"
A week later, Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz addressed a meeting of NATO ministers in Brussels saying, "While we'll try to find every snake in the swamp, the essence of the strategy is draining the swamp" -- and, though he didn't quite point a finger at Iraq by name, his references were clear. Everyone there had to know, even then, just two weeks after 9/11, that in his mind the snake of snakes was Saddam, and the swamp of swamps, Saddam's Iraq.
One, two, three, many Fallujas?
In Iraq, the phrase is still "drain the swamp." Falluja was actually our second attempt to drain the Iraqi "swamp" by obliterating it -- our first having been in the Old City of Najaf -- which meant of course draining out of it those hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, many of whom may have felt little sympathy for the Talibanization of Falluja but undoubtedly now feel great anger at the brutal actions of their occupiers. Unsurprisingly, the process of draining the swamp in Iraq has had the effect of turning what were previously cities into the equivalent of swamps, places fit only for those "snakes."
Parts of Falluja were evidently quite literally turned into "swamps," according to Patrick J. McDonnell of the Los Angeles Times who wrote of "[s]hattered water and sewage pipes have left pools of sewage-filled water, sometimes knee-deep." It seems that our memorial, thus far, in Iraq is a "swamp" where a city once stood. And this is supposed to be, as Jonathan Schell pointed out at Tomdispatch recently, the prelude to a democratic vote. Now that the Falluja solution is in place (actually the Najaf-solution done far more methodically), administration planners will naturally find themselves considering "Fallujah-type solutions" for Sunni Iraq's other rebellious cities. Another lesson of Vietnam was that there's a kind of grim momentum to such things.
And here's the present black humor punch line to the Iraqi joke, as McDonnell of the Los Angeles Times wrote, "Reconstruction of Fallouja is on hold as the fighting persists." There is now much press-talk about the reconstruction of Falluja, the difficult task ahead, and the challenges we face, but imagine for a minute that after nearly two years, under far better circumstances, we haven't been able to bring 24-hour a day electricity or clean water to much of Baghdad and then think about just what kind of reconstruction we can possibly do in a destroyed but not fully subjected city in the heart of the inflamed Sunni Triangle. Subject closed.
In the meantime, "draining the swamp" in such wars, it's worth remembering, is hardly a unidirectional activity. As the London Times' Jenkins comments, reaching back to Napoleon's 19th century invasion of Russia (and an early version of the quagmire image),"The Russian general, Kutusov, called Moscow ‘the sponge that will suck Napoleon dry.' Sunni Iraq is taking on the same function for the Americans." And the rebels of various factions are intent on hastening the process by performing their own grim "draining" activities -- draining away all support for the occupiers. The horrific murder of Margaret Hassan of CARE was heavily reported here. Hers was the death of an innocent and the act of brutes, but of course it only hastened the withdrawal of aid organizations from the country (which, though certainly harmful to the American effort, is undoubtedly devastating to the lives of many ordinary Iraqis).
Yet more brutal (if such things can even be measured) has been the remarkably coordinated campaign to "drain the swamp" of anyone willing to associate with the Americans, even laundrywomen on American bases, for instance, no less translators, truck drivers, or policemen. Assassinations, beheadings, the slaughter of innocents via car bombs and roadside bombs, kidnappings, murders of every sort are met on the American side, as on Friday, by the raiding of mosques and hospitals, by the use of weapons that are, by their very nature, indiscriminate in the neighborhoods of great cities. These surely are the gates of hell. It's difficult even to remember a time when Americans could have dreamt about "liberating" Iraqis. That might as well have been in another world.
Our gamblers in Washington cast the die in March 2003 and invaded Iraq based on a "theory." Now, the game is being played out ever more extremely and murderously by others on the ground. In the penultimate paragraph of a recent piece -- oh, those last, seldom-read paragraphs of news reports in our imperial press where reporters can finally slip in their hunches and opinions, usually through the words of others -- Thomas Ricks of the Washington Post quotes a "Special Forces veteran, who speaks Arabic" as summing up the situation this way: "Across Baghdad, Latifiyah, Mahmudiyah, Salman Pak, Baqubah, Balad, Taji, Baiji, Ramadi and just about everywhere else you can name, the people absolutely hate us. . . . The Iraqi people have not bought into what the Americans are selling, and no amount of military activity is going to change this fact."
Simon Jenkins writes this:
"No statement about Iraq is more absurd than that ‘we must stay to finish the job.' What job? A dozen more Fallujahs? The thesis that leaving Iraq would plunge it into anarchy and warlordism defies the facts on the ground. Iraq south of Kurdistan is in a state of anarchy already, a land of suicide bombings, kidnapping, hijackings and gangland mayhem. There is no law or order, no public administration or police or proper banking. Its streets are Wild West. The occupying force is entombed in bases it can barely defend or supply. Occasional patrols are target practice for terrorists. Iraq is a desert in which the Americans and British rule nothing but their forts, like the French Foreign Legion in the Sahara."
But perhaps the simplest way to sum up where matters may rest in Iraq today I ran across in the final lines of a recent long New York Times piece by Edward Wong and James Glanz (Rebels Attack in Central Iraq and the North): " [T]he violence [in Mosul] had calmed since then, and children could be seen playing in some parks. At one playground, Amin Muhammad, 10, and his friends raced around with plastic guns. 'We divide ourselves into two teams,' he said, 'the mujahedeen versus the American forces.'' And in their battles, he said, the mujahedeen always win."
Copyright C2004 Tom Engelhardt
"'We didn't go in with a plan. We went in with a theory,' said a veteran State Department officer who was directly involved in Iraq policy…' The Bush administration's failure to plan to win the peace in Iraq was the product of many of the same problems that plagued the administration's case for war, including wishful thinking, bad information from Iraqi exiles who said Iraqis would welcome American troops as liberators and contempt for dissenting opinions." (Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott, Post-war planning non-existent, Knight Ridder Newspapers)
"'It is only the beginning, from a military point of view,' said Janabi, who heads the mujaheddin shura, an 18-member council of clerics, tribal sheiks and former Baath Party members that assumed control of the city of 250,000 shortly after Marines aborted their first attempt to capture it in April. 'We have succeeded in drawing them into the quagmire of Fallujah, into the alleys and small pathways. They have fallen into the trap of explosive charges, land mines and, now, the defenders' short supply lines inside the neighborhoods.'" (Part of insurgent Sunni Cleric Abdullah Janabi's face-to-face interview with an Iraqi reporter working for the Washington Post in Falluja after the city was declared taken by U.S. forces. Anthony Shadid, Troops Move to Quell Insurgency in Mosul, the Washington Post)
Improving the Odds
Here was our tactical kindness: By threatening the invasion of Falluja for months and launching a bombing campaign against parts of the city long before the assault was to begin, the Bush administration managed to turn an unknown but staggering number -- up to 90% -- of that city's 250,000-300,000 residents out of their homes and into refugees living off relatives elsewhere or in the most pitiful of makeshift camps often without enough food, or clean drinking water, electricity, or medical aid. The first mainstream account of such a camp finally appeared Friday in the New York Times (Robert A. Oppel, Jr., Refugees: Fallujans in Flight: Transit Camps Are Not Much Safer Than Siege They Left), even though some of the residents described in it had been relocated there weeks, if not months before.
It's not simply a matter of journalistic lack of concern. Most non-Iraqi journalists have little choice but to be "embedded," whether in actual U.S. military units (allowing for movement into "no-go" parts of Sunni Iraq but only where the military is conducting operations, not exactly the best perspective from which to get an Iraqi view of things) or essentially in their hotels. Hannah Allam of Knight Ridder Newspapers, for instance, writes:
"The hotel has become a prison, and every foray outside its fortified gates is tinged with anxiety about returning in one piece. Baghdad has never been tougher for journalists. Treacherous roads and kidnapping squads restrict travel. 'Embedding' with the military or going with Iraqi government officials is the safest way to leave the capital. Our ability to uncover and tell the truth about Iraq -- good and bad -- has suffered terribly… As the close calls grew, the Iraq we knew shrank. The northern mountains and southern marshes are off-limits now because the roads out of Baghdad are lined with bombs and gunmen. Even a jaunt to the grocery store is a meticulously planned affair. Do you have a radio? A flak vest? A second car to watch for kidnappers?"
A recent piece in the Washingtonian magazine on-line about the return of the Washington Post's superb Anthony Shadid to Iraq after months out of the country, described the situation of Western correspondents in Iraq this way:
"[S]ome television news crews have hired security firms with armed Americans to follow their teams. Newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post prefer former British military or armed Iraqis in vehicles that follow their cars. 'They could lay down cover fire,' says Rajiv Chandrasekaran, who recently returned from 18 months as the Washington Post's bureau chief in Baghdad. 'It's a matter of improving your odds.'"
While journalists in Iraq narrowed their scope and improved their odds, the American military, after a fashion, did the same. Military commanders gathered 12,000-15,000 American troops and a couple of thousand questionable Iraqi ones and then pulled up the artillery, the planes with their 500-to-2000 pound bombs, the helicopters armed with Hellfire missiles, the lethal AC-130 gunships, the tanks, the Bradley Fighting Vehicles, the mortars, and the heavy machine guns. After months of careful planning in the wake of last April's aborted attempt to take Falluja, they then launched these forces against relatively small numbers of reasonably well-prepared insurgents, a few thousand at most, scattered in a significant-sized city.
In recent years, the American military has paid a great deal of attention to the matter of urban warfare -- much feared by our commanders before the invasion of Iraq. The question then was: Would the American army be caught in a final block-by-block urban battle for Baghdad? (Given the way things are going, the answer may still be yes.) Cities are considered great levelers of the playing field between otherwise asymmetric military forces. The Iraqi rebels are armed largely with AK-47s, rocket-propelled grenades, some mortars, and, of course, those car bombs and IEDs; but in Falluja as elsewhere in urban Iraq, they know the terrain intimately, the warren of city streets, and street fighting has a notorious reputation for cutting down on sight lines and negating technological advantages. As it happens, our military seems to have dealt with this in Fallujah largely by bringing asymmetric amounts of firepower to bear on the slightest signs of resistance even by lone snipers; in other words, as far as can be told, they responded to the challenge of urban warfare in some areas of Falluja by quite literally leveling the playing field.
Rubblizing the Neighborhood
News about the resulting devastation grows worse by the day, though the announced body counts of dead insurgents -- 1,200 or more -- can't be trusted. (I'm reminded of the informal "Mere Gook Rule" of the Vietnam War when it came to body counts: "If it's dead and it's Vietnamese, it's VC [Vietcong].") But the main point no one will make in the American news mainstream -- where U.S. military self-constraint tends to be emphasized and military claims about efforts to avoid civilian casualties are printed without significant comment -- is simple indeed: The levels of destruction in Falluja were not a by-product of the campaign, but the product itself. The rubblizing of whole neighborhoods was meant.
The Bush administration may indeed have invaded Iraq on a theory, not a plan, but the assault on Falluja itself was planned with great care over significant periods of time. So what remains of that city in which hardly a building evidently emerged unscathed (among those that remain standing) must be considered the Falluja that was supposed to be. The brief shots on the nightly news are breath-taking (or breath-stopping) in the visible levels of destruction whenever the camera bothers to pull back for a few seconds. You have to return to 1968 and the old Vietnamese imperial capital of Hue to find a city flattened in anything like this manner by the American war machine; and in that case, the Americans were responding to Hue's surprise seizure by the other side in the midst of the nationwide Tet Offensive.
As I've argued in the past, it was in the Vietnamese countryside -- where we instituted free-fire zones and bombed at phenomenal levels -- that similar planning and results could be found. The free-fire zone that was much of rural Vietnam, including in some cases literal "jungle," has been replaced in Iraq by the "urban jungle." Veteran journalist Simon Jenkins made just this point in a striking piece recently in the British Sunday Times (A wrecked nation, a desert, a ghost town. And this will be called victory). "In Vietnam," he wrote, "the Americans destroyed the village to save it. In Iraq we destroy the city to save it."
Some of you may remember that Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong famously compared guerillas to fish swimming in the sea of the people. During the Vietnam era, there was much talk among American counterinsurgency strategists about how to "drain" that sea. In Vietnam, what this turned out to mean in practical terms was grim indeed -- the forcible removal of Vietnamese peasants from rebel-controlled areas (and so their lands), their resettlement in government-controlled "strategic hamlets" (or as refugees in the South's then swelling cities) and the creation of "free-fire zones" in large swaths of the countryside which was devastated by a bombing campaign of almost unparalleled fierceness (Laos was worse), involving record tons of bombs dropped per square inch of territory. This bombing campaign in the South, unlike the one against North Vietnam, went largely unreported in our media at the time.
This was, of course, a punitive strategy leveled collectively against a population without reference to what any individual peasant might have thought or done. It gave the counterinsurgency strategy of "draining the sea" a bleakness beyond words. It also, not unsurprisingly, alienated the rural population from both the South Vietnamese government and the Americans in ways that seem all too repetitively familiar in Iraq today, and it created an especially atrocity-conducive environment for young Americans sent into an alien and hostile landscape, knowing nothing of Vietnamese culture or history, unable to communicate, and generally having no way to separate friend from foe. Does this sound the least bit repetitive to anyone?
In such circumstances acts of war grow ever more brutal. Just the other day, for instance, Tom Lasseter, a fine reporter for Knight Ridder wrote a small piece about a Marine company in Falluja whose commander had been "shot through the torso" by an RPG. In grief and anger here's what they did, according to Lasseter: "In the surrounding neighborhood, troops furious at the news of their fallen leader called in revenge, in the form of a 2,000 pound bomb airstrike and a storm of 155 millimeter artillery shells. A mosque lost half a minaret, its main building smoldering in fire and smoke." This is what you tend to do, and do ever more of, under conditions of war in an alien and increasingly hostile land.
Much of this, though not yet on a Vietnamese scale, is already taking place, not in Iraq's "countryside," but in its heavily populated cities. Just as we dropped leaflets warning residents to depart the free-fire zones of Vietnam, so we seem to have dropped endless leaflets on Falluja. (It would be interesting to have some reporter tell us just what these actually said.) It seems that, as in Vietnam where napalm and white phosphorus -- unbearably gruesome weapons -- were commonly employed, American troops have already used white phosphorus in Falluja. ("Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns.") Similarly, they seem, at least informally, to have declared parts of Falluja the equivalents of "free-fire zones."
Imagine in any case simply pouring artillery fire into a cityscape. For example, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who flew out to "Camp Falluja" with Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen Richard Myers (now, there's high-class embedding for you) to "inspect the toughest problems in Iraq firsthand" had this throwaway line in a piece about -- what else? -- how we've arrived at the "tipping point" in Iraq: "Most of the fighting in Falluja was over by the time we arrived at this headquarters compound, although the tom-tom beat of 155-millimeter howitzers, still pumping rounds into the city, was constant." Remind me one more time about that definition of "over..."
Draining the Swamp
Nor is the media doing a better job of covering the air war in Iraq than they did in South Vietnam. As I've written numerous times, while individual air strikes may be reported daily -- all those "targeted" bombings of "terrorist safe houses" in Falluja, for instance -- the loosing of air power against urban Iraq has now gone on for almost a year with increasing ferocity (as overstretched American troops, lacking any serious support from Iraqi troops or police, have to deal with an ever-widening rebellion). And yet no significant account of the overall use of air power in Iraq or of the military or political calculations behind it has yet appeared. There's a special irony here, since early in the last century the British first tested the punitive abilities of air power on rebellious Iraqi villages.
Iraq may indeed not be "Vietnam," and there may be many other more plausible historical analogies for what's happening in Iraq to draw on, but let's face it, Vietnam is unavoidable. When we train Iraqi troops with hopes that someday they will replace American ones, military officials and reporters naturally speak about "'Iraqifying' security and politics" (as once such officials and reporters talked about "Vietnamizing" them). Similarly when our military men on the ground express "disappointment" in the Iraqi troops we're training and a sneaking respect for the willingness of those they oppose to fight and die ("The insurgency has shown 'outstanding resilience'"), Vietnam will naturally come to mind.
The fact is that "Vietnam = Iraq" will never go away as long as we occupy Iraq. As a start, Vietnam (or avoiding the subject) has been obsessively on the collective brain of the Bush administration for years now; but it's been no less on the minds of others around the world. And that makes good sense. Vietnam was, after all, the last great moment before this one of American imperial overstretch and the last great American defeat. How can people everywhere not be amazed to see so many of its elements uncannily reappear, even after U.S. leaders have spent over three decades trying to obliterate that era from American memory. (It was, after all, the elder Bush at the time of Gulf War I who exulted: "By God, we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome!")
If the people of the world in some sense cannot help but be focused on the last remaining superpower and its catastrophic encounter with Iraq, then how could they not help but think about Vietnam as well. It's not a mistake that Saddam's military officers studied the Vietnam experience and evidently considered it in planting the seeds of a post-war insurgency before our invasion even began; nor that rebellious Shiites in the Baghdad slum of Sadr City last June were writing "Vietnam Street" on walls along their embattled avenues ("This is called Vietnam Street because this is where we kill Americans."); nor that a rebellious Sunni cleric in Falluja this week spoke about drawing the Americans into the "quagmire of Fallujah." Even giving some leeway for translation, the reference has to be to Vietnam, just as thoughts of the Vietnam "quagmire" never quite depart from the minds of Americans, top to bottom, assigned to Iraq. (As one American soldier in Samarra recently put it to a French reporter: "I don't think we're going to win this place. It's going to be like another Vietnam. We'll be here for a long time.")
"Quagmire" (or its cognates swamp, quicksand, bog, morass, sinkhole, bottomless pit) was, of course, the single most famous image of the Vietnam war -- we were being drawn in step by step and couldn't extricate ourselves -- and a strange one it was, as I've written elsewhere. After the September 11th 2001 assaults, it was, I believe, the first Vietnam image to come to mind in official Washington and in a curious form that combined the quagmire environment with the counterinsurgency idea of draining the sea. The phrase was "draining the swamp" (assumedly so that the mosquitoes and other evil creatures there would have no place left to propagate), and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld used it within days of 9/11. Tony Karon of Time magazine reported on September 20, 2001 that earlier in the week Rumsfeld had said of Bin Laden and his followers in Afghanistan, "[T]he campaign would combine military, political, intelligence and diplomatic initiatives to ‘drain the swamp they live in.'"
A week later, Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz addressed a meeting of NATO ministers in Brussels saying, "While we'll try to find every snake in the swamp, the essence of the strategy is draining the swamp" -- and, though he didn't quite point a finger at Iraq by name, his references were clear. Everyone there had to know, even then, just two weeks after 9/11, that in his mind the snake of snakes was Saddam, and the swamp of swamps, Saddam's Iraq.
One, two, three, many Fallujas?
In Iraq, the phrase is still "drain the swamp." Falluja was actually our second attempt to drain the Iraqi "swamp" by obliterating it -- our first having been in the Old City of Najaf -- which meant of course draining out of it those hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, many of whom may have felt little sympathy for the Talibanization of Falluja but undoubtedly now feel great anger at the brutal actions of their occupiers. Unsurprisingly, the process of draining the swamp in Iraq has had the effect of turning what were previously cities into the equivalent of swamps, places fit only for those "snakes."
Parts of Falluja were evidently quite literally turned into "swamps," according to Patrick J. McDonnell of the Los Angeles Times who wrote of "[s]hattered water and sewage pipes have left pools of sewage-filled water, sometimes knee-deep." It seems that our memorial, thus far, in Iraq is a "swamp" where a city once stood. And this is supposed to be, as Jonathan Schell pointed out at Tomdispatch recently, the prelude to a democratic vote. Now that the Falluja solution is in place (actually the Najaf-solution done far more methodically), administration planners will naturally find themselves considering "Fallujah-type solutions" for Sunni Iraq's other rebellious cities. Another lesson of Vietnam was that there's a kind of grim momentum to such things.
And here's the present black humor punch line to the Iraqi joke, as McDonnell of the Los Angeles Times wrote, "Reconstruction of Fallouja is on hold as the fighting persists." There is now much press-talk about the reconstruction of Falluja, the difficult task ahead, and the challenges we face, but imagine for a minute that after nearly two years, under far better circumstances, we haven't been able to bring 24-hour a day electricity or clean water to much of Baghdad and then think about just what kind of reconstruction we can possibly do in a destroyed but not fully subjected city in the heart of the inflamed Sunni Triangle. Subject closed.
In the meantime, "draining the swamp" in such wars, it's worth remembering, is hardly a unidirectional activity. As the London Times' Jenkins comments, reaching back to Napoleon's 19th century invasion of Russia (and an early version of the quagmire image),"The Russian general, Kutusov, called Moscow ‘the sponge that will suck Napoleon dry.' Sunni Iraq is taking on the same function for the Americans." And the rebels of various factions are intent on hastening the process by performing their own grim "draining" activities -- draining away all support for the occupiers. The horrific murder of Margaret Hassan of CARE was heavily reported here. Hers was the death of an innocent and the act of brutes, but of course it only hastened the withdrawal of aid organizations from the country (which, though certainly harmful to the American effort, is undoubtedly devastating to the lives of many ordinary Iraqis).
Yet more brutal (if such things can even be measured) has been the remarkably coordinated campaign to "drain the swamp" of anyone willing to associate with the Americans, even laundrywomen on American bases, for instance, no less translators, truck drivers, or policemen. Assassinations, beheadings, the slaughter of innocents via car bombs and roadside bombs, kidnappings, murders of every sort are met on the American side, as on Friday, by the raiding of mosques and hospitals, by the use of weapons that are, by their very nature, indiscriminate in the neighborhoods of great cities. These surely are the gates of hell. It's difficult even to remember a time when Americans could have dreamt about "liberating" Iraqis. That might as well have been in another world.
Our gamblers in Washington cast the die in March 2003 and invaded Iraq based on a "theory." Now, the game is being played out ever more extremely and murderously by others on the ground. In the penultimate paragraph of a recent piece -- oh, those last, seldom-read paragraphs of news reports in our imperial press where reporters can finally slip in their hunches and opinions, usually through the words of others -- Thomas Ricks of the Washington Post quotes a "Special Forces veteran, who speaks Arabic" as summing up the situation this way: "Across Baghdad, Latifiyah, Mahmudiyah, Salman Pak, Baqubah, Balad, Taji, Baiji, Ramadi and just about everywhere else you can name, the people absolutely hate us. . . . The Iraqi people have not bought into what the Americans are selling, and no amount of military activity is going to change this fact."
Simon Jenkins writes this:
"No statement about Iraq is more absurd than that ‘we must stay to finish the job.' What job? A dozen more Fallujahs? The thesis that leaving Iraq would plunge it into anarchy and warlordism defies the facts on the ground. Iraq south of Kurdistan is in a state of anarchy already, a land of suicide bombings, kidnapping, hijackings and gangland mayhem. There is no law or order, no public administration or police or proper banking. Its streets are Wild West. The occupying force is entombed in bases it can barely defend or supply. Occasional patrols are target practice for terrorists. Iraq is a desert in which the Americans and British rule nothing but their forts, like the French Foreign Legion in the Sahara."
But perhaps the simplest way to sum up where matters may rest in Iraq today I ran across in the final lines of a recent long New York Times piece by Edward Wong and James Glanz (Rebels Attack in Central Iraq and the North): " [T]he violence [in Mosul] had calmed since then, and children could be seen playing in some parks. At one playground, Amin Muhammad, 10, and his friends raced around with plastic guns. 'We divide ourselves into two teams,' he said, 'the mujahedeen versus the American forces.'' And in their battles, he said, the mujahedeen always win."
Copyright C2004 Tom Engelhardt
Errol Morris - Must read
.
Not Every Picture Tells a Story
By ERROL MORRIS
Cambridge, Mass. — All of life seems to be about denial - the denial of death, the denial of reality, the denial of everything that it is convenient for us to deny. Photography, because of its causal relationship to the world, seems to give us the truth or something close to the truth. I am skeptical about this for many reasons. But even if photography doesn't give us truth on a silver platter, it does make it harder for us to deny reality. It puts a leash on fantasy, confabulation and self-deception. It provides constraints and borders. It circumscribes our ability to lie - to ourselves and to others.
We can imagine, in the privacy of our thoughts, that war is heroic and honorable - even noble. Photography can make it difficult for us to maintain these illusions. Take the recent videotape of the Iraqi insurgent in Falluja being shot and killed by a marine. It does not tell us everything we need to know about what happened. It does not tell us what the marine was thinking or what his prisoner was thinking - that is, what he was thinking before he was shot dead. But it does tell us that something happened. And, as a result, it makes the shooting, the killing, much harder to deny.
No doubt, there will be an investigation - an attempt to provide context - to fill in the details: why the prisoner was there and who he was; whether the marine was acting on instructions from his superiors and what those might have been; or whether he acted in self-defense. One central question remains: What are we looking at? And that question will not go away. No more so than the pictures of Abu Ghraib went away. Pictures are physical evidence, and as such, they are part of an effort to understand what really happened.
Pictures force us to collect our thoughts. They make us think about motivation, intent - they make us think about how we interpret our experiences, how we think about the world, how we try to understand the motives of others. (Maybe it's in our DNA. We look at pictures of other people and we want to know: what were they thinking?) And when it's a photograph of a crime or of violence, we think even harder. Such images make us care because they make us part of the mystery of what happened. We are not merely spectators; we are investigators. We are involved. What do the images mean? What do they show? What led up to these events? Are there mitigating circumstances? Is it as bad as it looks?
Pictures provide a point around which other pieces of evidence collect. They are part of, but not a substitute for, an investigation. There are real questions to be answered. That's why we have international law, rules of engagement and codes of military conduct. There is a fact of the matter to be determined; whether this was done in cold blood and therefore constitutes a war crime and who, if anyone, should be held responsible. The Abu Ghraib photographs turned out (following an investigation) to be what they seemed to be - pictures of torture and abuse. They were as bad as they looked - even worse. Some of the soldiers involved were held accountable. But accountability did not proceed very far up the chain of command. And, of course, there were those who felt that the torture and abuse were justified.
Unhappily, an unerring fact of human nature is that we habitually reject the evidence of our own senses. If we want to believe something, then we often find a way to do so regardless of evidence to the contrary. Believing is seeing and not the other way around.
For many people, the interpretation of this videotape will devolve into general questions about Iraq. People will interpret this videotape according to their ideological dispositions. Are we looking at the face of freedom on the march, or at the footprint of an out-of-control behemoth leaving a trail of bodies in its wake? For the true believers in the war in Iraq, these images will make little impression. For them, the ends for which this war is being fought justify the means. War is bloody, brutal; the enemy is vicious. But the objective of extending freedom redeems what has to be done to achieve it. In this view the war is unfortunate but necessary.
For people, like myself, who are deeply skeptical about this war, it is not clear what the "ends" of this war might be. It doesn't seem as if Iraq is freer or will be freer in the near future. Call me a naysayer or a skeptic, but what I see in the newspapers all seems evidence of mayhem. And with no end of the war in sight, the terrible means - the manner in which this war is being fought - seem, at best, misguided and at worst, deeply wrong.
John Keegan, in "The Face of Battle,'' writes about the Battle of Agincourt. Henry V has invaded France out of political ambition. He would like to be more than just king of England. (Shakespeare gives Henry the line: "The signs of war advance, no king of England if not king of France.") At a point of crisis in the battle, Henry orders the killing of his French prisoners. There are too many of them. And if the tide should turn against the English, the French prisoners represent an unacceptable threat. Mr. Keegan writes about Henry's decision: "Comprehensible in harsh tactical logic; in ethical, practical and human terms, much more difficult to understand."
In many ways we haven't progressed very far in six centuries. Presumably, shooting an unarmed, wounded prisoner is not an example of humane treatment afforded under the protections of the Geneva Conventions. And so, I find myself thrown back on my ideological predispositions. I have worried for some time that we are going down a rabbit hole in Iraq, much like the rabbit hole we went down in Vietnam. It's not that Vietnam is Iraq. The geopolitical situations are completely different. And yet, there is a common element - our capacity for self-deception, for denial and for evasion.
Videotape or no videotape, that still remains.
Errol Morris, a filmmaker and director, won an Academy Award this year for the documentary "The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons From the Life of Robert S. McNamara.''
.
Not Every Picture Tells a Story
By ERROL MORRIS
Cambridge, Mass. — All of life seems to be about denial - the denial of death, the denial of reality, the denial of everything that it is convenient for us to deny. Photography, because of its causal relationship to the world, seems to give us the truth or something close to the truth. I am skeptical about this for many reasons. But even if photography doesn't give us truth on a silver platter, it does make it harder for us to deny reality. It puts a leash on fantasy, confabulation and self-deception. It provides constraints and borders. It circumscribes our ability to lie - to ourselves and to others.
We can imagine, in the privacy of our thoughts, that war is heroic and honorable - even noble. Photography can make it difficult for us to maintain these illusions. Take the recent videotape of the Iraqi insurgent in Falluja being shot and killed by a marine. It does not tell us everything we need to know about what happened. It does not tell us what the marine was thinking or what his prisoner was thinking - that is, what he was thinking before he was shot dead. But it does tell us that something happened. And, as a result, it makes the shooting, the killing, much harder to deny.
No doubt, there will be an investigation - an attempt to provide context - to fill in the details: why the prisoner was there and who he was; whether the marine was acting on instructions from his superiors and what those might have been; or whether he acted in self-defense. One central question remains: What are we looking at? And that question will not go away. No more so than the pictures of Abu Ghraib went away. Pictures are physical evidence, and as such, they are part of an effort to understand what really happened.
Pictures force us to collect our thoughts. They make us think about motivation, intent - they make us think about how we interpret our experiences, how we think about the world, how we try to understand the motives of others. (Maybe it's in our DNA. We look at pictures of other people and we want to know: what were they thinking?) And when it's a photograph of a crime or of violence, we think even harder. Such images make us care because they make us part of the mystery of what happened. We are not merely spectators; we are investigators. We are involved. What do the images mean? What do they show? What led up to these events? Are there mitigating circumstances? Is it as bad as it looks?
Pictures provide a point around which other pieces of evidence collect. They are part of, but not a substitute for, an investigation. There are real questions to be answered. That's why we have international law, rules of engagement and codes of military conduct. There is a fact of the matter to be determined; whether this was done in cold blood and therefore constitutes a war crime and who, if anyone, should be held responsible. The Abu Ghraib photographs turned out (following an investigation) to be what they seemed to be - pictures of torture and abuse. They were as bad as they looked - even worse. Some of the soldiers involved were held accountable. But accountability did not proceed very far up the chain of command. And, of course, there were those who felt that the torture and abuse were justified.
Unhappily, an unerring fact of human nature is that we habitually reject the evidence of our own senses. If we want to believe something, then we often find a way to do so regardless of evidence to the contrary. Believing is seeing and not the other way around.
For many people, the interpretation of this videotape will devolve into general questions about Iraq. People will interpret this videotape according to their ideological dispositions. Are we looking at the face of freedom on the march, or at the footprint of an out-of-control behemoth leaving a trail of bodies in its wake? For the true believers in the war in Iraq, these images will make little impression. For them, the ends for which this war is being fought justify the means. War is bloody, brutal; the enemy is vicious. But the objective of extending freedom redeems what has to be done to achieve it. In this view the war is unfortunate but necessary.
For people, like myself, who are deeply skeptical about this war, it is not clear what the "ends" of this war might be. It doesn't seem as if Iraq is freer or will be freer in the near future. Call me a naysayer or a skeptic, but what I see in the newspapers all seems evidence of mayhem. And with no end of the war in sight, the terrible means - the manner in which this war is being fought - seem, at best, misguided and at worst, deeply wrong.
John Keegan, in "The Face of Battle,'' writes about the Battle of Agincourt. Henry V has invaded France out of political ambition. He would like to be more than just king of England. (Shakespeare gives Henry the line: "The signs of war advance, no king of England if not king of France.") At a point of crisis in the battle, Henry orders the killing of his French prisoners. There are too many of them. And if the tide should turn against the English, the French prisoners represent an unacceptable threat. Mr. Keegan writes about Henry's decision: "Comprehensible in harsh tactical logic; in ethical, practical and human terms, much more difficult to understand."
In many ways we haven't progressed very far in six centuries. Presumably, shooting an unarmed, wounded prisoner is not an example of humane treatment afforded under the protections of the Geneva Conventions. And so, I find myself thrown back on my ideological predispositions. I have worried for some time that we are going down a rabbit hole in Iraq, much like the rabbit hole we went down in Vietnam. It's not that Vietnam is Iraq. The geopolitical situations are completely different. And yet, there is a common element - our capacity for self-deception, for denial and for evasion.
Videotape or no videotape, that still remains.
Errol Morris, a filmmaker and director, won an Academy Award this year for the documentary "The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons From the Life of Robert S. McNamara.''
.
Presidential Yacht
Ht tip atrios
Um, Democrats? Families are taking donations to send body armor to their kids and Bush gets himself a presidential yacht? If you can't figure out how to play this one...
The Senate voted 65-30 for the legislation late on Saturday that sets aside funds for a range of priorities including a presidential yacht, foreign aid and energy. It is one of the final pieces of work for the 108th Congress and they may return to finish a spy agency overhaul before the end of the year.
...
...I'm serious. If the DNC isn't on the ground tomorrow running ads saying Bush took your kid's Pell grant away so he could spend the money on a yacht they're fools...
-Atrios 9:47 AM
Um, Democrats? Families are taking donations to send body armor to their kids and Bush gets himself a presidential yacht? If you can't figure out how to play this one...
The Senate voted 65-30 for the legislation late on Saturday that sets aside funds for a range of priorities including a presidential yacht, foreign aid and energy. It is one of the final pieces of work for the 108th Congress and they may return to finish a spy agency overhaul before the end of the year.
...
...I'm serious. If the DNC isn't on the ground tomorrow running ads saying Bush took your kid's Pell grant away so he could spend the money on a yacht they're fools...
-Atrios 9:47 AM
1221
Cabbies and The New World Order.
I am on a plane about every week. From each terminal I crawl into a cab with a driver who I spend anywhere from ten minutes to an hour with. Not every cabbie is very chatty. Think about how hard their job is, how uncertain and how the slow the economic support services that surround air travel are, and you can understand why cabbies are often quiet. Some are quite loquacious. Some are nervous. Many cabbies are embarrassed. I had a cabbie take me from the local airport who had made millions in construction and lost most of it in the stock market. He was proud but embarrassed to be driving a cab from so lofty and lucrative a perch provided by the construction boom of the 80s and 90s. He bragged to me about a house he built in my neighborhood. And he was red faced and sullen to bring me to the exact house he was describing that my wife and I now own.
It’s funny but whenever I sit next to a famous person, I say nothing whatsoever. It happens all the time because I often travel to LA. I am often upgraded to First Class and when stars go from LA to my town they sit with me. Part of the reason why I never speak to stars is simply my own ego. Who the fuck is this person that I should kowtow to them? I know what I have done in my own life makes me very proud and I don’ feel any worse off because I am not a star. Another reason I don’t talk to starts is that people are in their faces 24 hours a day and they probably manufacture pat answers to save time and energy.
In a roundabout way I say that I never talk to stars and always talk to cabbies. Stars are not often connected to the earth and cabbies are one foot off the ground all day long.
Yesterday I had a cabbie, about 58 years old take me home from the airport. We talked about W and thankfully I had a guy who had done everything and seen everything (including served in uniform) felt like this America is not the America I grew up in. In fact, we both felt that the best of America was behind us.
I guess the really frightening thing is that he felt that this fascist state we have become is only going to get worse. “It’s gonna get a lot worse than people think.”
It silenced me and he apologized, thinking he somehow offended me.
He didn’t offend me.
He scared me.
I think now that America is totally ideologically divided, and there is no more middle, the consequences of unbridled incompetency and theocracy with the power of high tech surveillance, is going to turn us into a place described in Margaret Atwood’s A Handmaid’s Tale. The slim majority in this country that is now behind the wheel will hit a brick wall head on in all major categories that US has typically led the world.
THE MARKET. The European Union will prove to be the first original post modern form of gevernance. It is a country where you can go from one end to the next without a passport, everyone has medical coverage, there is no death penalty, you can get an abortion without a windowful of “Christian” protesters, and it’s the number one economy in the world operating under a single currency. There are 441 million Euers, and it’s GDP is greater than ours. China is the number three economy and they will soon pass us also. Just recently China has made huge inroads into South America and is now competing head to head with us for vital resources we thought we had all locked up. In ten years, we will be the number three economy in the world and we will be saddled with so much debt, so much poverty and ignorance, so much entitlement that we will no longer have the wherewithal to pull ourselves out. This does not mention the fact that the world long ago gave up on feeling sorry for us or seeing our good intentions. We have lost most of our friends. With that loss goes leverage. Increasingly the US makes deals, not things are services. As it is, our economy rests largely upon the efforts of cheap Indian and Chinese labor, and the ability have a third of our debt financed by booming Asia. Finally we will be brought down largely in the same trap that we supposedly set for the Soviet Union. The conventional wisdom is that we were able to force the Soviet Union to spend itself into penury keeping up with us. At a time when they were involved in a bloody and increasingly expensive guerilla war in Central Asia, we were introducing new aircraft and the Los Angeles Class Nuclear Submarine. Now the shoe is on the other foot as we are engaged in a $5.8 billion a month drain on our economy, that has driven up our own oil prices, while lower paying jobs are being created faster than career jobs, and our debt is at record levels…these are burdens that could crush us.
THE MORAL HIGH GROUND. The invasion of Iraq, Abu Gharaib, the Marine executing a wounded prisoner, all these things have already ceded the moral high ground America once owned. Europeans pour into the streets demonstrating against us, not that you would know it from listening to our “Media”, but we are looked at largely as the most dangerous country in the world. Few people in America consider this: that the largest military in the world accused a formerly vanquished country with no Air Force or Navy to speak of – of having weapons of mass destruction. Then we invaded them and occupy them, and have found no WMDs. This doesn’t seem strange to the consumers of Faux News. To everyone else in the world it is a madness no one would have predicted would have ever come out of the US.
THE MILITARY. The Europeans Union is creating a series of small fast reaction forces, much like the Marines, or Delta Force, or even PJs and CCTs. They are training together, and will soon be able to provide the same excellent sort of military protection that we were once relied upon for. Like Barney Fife, convinced of his ability to defend Mayberry, with his bullet in his pocket and his permission from Andy, we will shoot ourselves in the foot as well. As we cede military bases, the European communities that once relied on them will change one way or another and will no longer rely on us at all. One day, as we continue our reckless foray into imperialism, a few key countries will simply say leave our countries, evacuate your bases.
Once we had 30 aircraft manufacturers. Now we have two. They have all eaten each other and become corporate mega-companies that are inextricably tied to our military itself. The competition that once drove designs has been replaced by an infrastructure now completely run by industry lobbyists and insiders who fill their pockets while we continue to beat the drum that no one else could possibly match our military technology. The result of this will be a hard awakening when we see a foreign air force kick our asses in aggressor training. Superior tactics and organizational changes will make the EU Armies equivalent in many battlefields. We will see the same companies that once made our small arms now make better small arms for EU armies.
China’s military will continue to grow and by the sheer size of its Navy and Infantry, they will be a force too big to step on. Keep in mind the incident when the EP-3 Aries Signal Intelligence plane crashed in 2001 over China. It was intercepted by J-8 Finback, a Chinese designed mach 2 interceptor that matches the abilities of fighter aircraft around the world. I would put the J-8 in the same class as say the MIG 21s, SU-15s, and Mirage IIIs.
China is not sitting around.
THE WAR ON TERROR. We will lose this war as well. Why? It begins with the idea that somehow, we helped ourselves by invading Iraq. The invasion weakened us militarily. It weakened our abilities to deploy around the world. It has made enemies out of allies and encouraged the worst sort of cooperation among enemies that defeats empires: passive aggression. The man who allows a terrorist a place to hide may not be actively opposing us. But he is opposing us. This counter-force has been created fueled and reinforced by our lame foreign relations team. Even today, three days after a Marine General declared that we had broken the back of the insurgency, the insurgency is alive and well, and still going on in Fallujah, the location of the alleged broken back.
BRAIN POWER. A combination of new INS/Homeland Security/Patriot Act configurations are driving the best young minds to other countries for high education and implementing new ideas. The software designers that populate the Texas Hill Country, are now going to China and India and staying there and creating the next economic drivers in an increasingly global economy.
The stage is set. My cabbie was right. It is going to get bad. I can only guess how bad.
A PREDICTION. In the next four years, we will expand our war in the Mideast with Iran. Roe V Wade will be gone and your state will decide whether you can get an abortion. The UN will move to Brussells.
.
.
Saturday, November 20, 2004
Roe v GOP
Soldiers Recruited From Oceans
David Brooks Calls It Right For Once
.
It's shifted because many House Republicans know that DeLay has been playing close to the ethical edge for years. They've noticed the number of scandals - the latest involving lobbying fees for some Indian casinos - that trace back to DeLay cronies. They still remember that delicious feeling of possibility when they arrived in Washington and vowed they would not turn into the corrupt old majority they had come to replace. They know Delay symbolizes their descent from that reformist ideal.
.
It's shifted because many House Republicans know that DeLay has been playing close to the ethical edge for years. They've noticed the number of scandals - the latest involving lobbying fees for some Indian casinos - that trace back to DeLay cronies. They still remember that delicious feeling of possibility when they arrived in Washington and vowed they would not turn into the corrupt old majority they had come to replace. They know Delay symbolizes their descent from that reformist ideal.
.
US Press Ignores Facts On The Ground
.
Our gamblers in Washington cast the die in March 2003 and invaded Iraq based on a "theory." Now, the game is being played out ever more extremely and murderously by others on the ground. In the penultimate paragraph of a recent piece -- oh, those last, seldom-read paragraphs of news reports in our imperial press where reporters can finally slip in their hunches and opinions, usually through the words of others -- Thomas Ricks of the Washington Post quotes a "Special Forces veteran, who speaks Arabic" as summing up the situation this way: "Across Baghdad, Latifiyah, Mahmudiyah, Salman Pak, Baqubah, Balad, Taji, Baiji, Ramadi and just about everywhere else you can name, the people absolutely hate us. . . . The Iraqi people have not bought into what the Americans are selling, and no amount of military activity is going to change this fact."
Simon Jenkins writes this:
"No statement about Iraq is more absurd than that ‘we must stay to finish the job.' What job? A dozen more Fallujahs? The thesis that leaving Iraq would plunge it into anarchy and warlordism defies the facts on the ground. Iraq south of Kurdistan is in a state of anarchy already, a land of suicide bombings, kidnapping, hijackings and gangland mayhem. There is no law or order, no public administration or police or proper banking. Its streets are Wild West. The occupying force is entombed in bases it can barely defend or supply. Occasional patrols are target practice for terrorists. Iraq is a desert in which the Americans and British rule nothing but their forts, like the French Foreign Legion in the Sahara."
But perhaps the simplest way to sum up where matters may rest in Iraq today I ran across in the final lines of a recent long New York Times piece by Edward Wong and James Glanz (Rebels Attack in Central Iraq and the North): " [T]he violence [in Mosul] had calmed since then, and children could be seen playing in some parks. At one playground, Amin Muhammad, 10, and his friends raced around with plastic guns. 'We divide ourselves into two teams,' he said, 'the mujahedeen versus the American forces.'' And in their battles, he said, the mujahedeen always win."
.
Our gamblers in Washington cast the die in March 2003 and invaded Iraq based on a "theory." Now, the game is being played out ever more extremely and murderously by others on the ground. In the penultimate paragraph of a recent piece -- oh, those last, seldom-read paragraphs of news reports in our imperial press where reporters can finally slip in their hunches and opinions, usually through the words of others -- Thomas Ricks of the Washington Post quotes a "Special Forces veteran, who speaks Arabic" as summing up the situation this way: "Across Baghdad, Latifiyah, Mahmudiyah, Salman Pak, Baqubah, Balad, Taji, Baiji, Ramadi and just about everywhere else you can name, the people absolutely hate us. . . . The Iraqi people have not bought into what the Americans are selling, and no amount of military activity is going to change this fact."
Simon Jenkins writes this:
"No statement about Iraq is more absurd than that ‘we must stay to finish the job.' What job? A dozen more Fallujahs? The thesis that leaving Iraq would plunge it into anarchy and warlordism defies the facts on the ground. Iraq south of Kurdistan is in a state of anarchy already, a land of suicide bombings, kidnapping, hijackings and gangland mayhem. There is no law or order, no public administration or police or proper banking. Its streets are Wild West. The occupying force is entombed in bases it can barely defend or supply. Occasional patrols are target practice for terrorists. Iraq is a desert in which the Americans and British rule nothing but their forts, like the French Foreign Legion in the Sahara."
But perhaps the simplest way to sum up where matters may rest in Iraq today I ran across in the final lines of a recent long New York Times piece by Edward Wong and James Glanz (Rebels Attack in Central Iraq and the North): " [T]he violence [in Mosul] had calmed since then, and children could be seen playing in some parks. At one playground, Amin Muhammad, 10, and his friends raced around with plastic guns. 'We divide ourselves into two teams,' he said, 'the mujahedeen versus the American forces.'' And in their battles, he said, the mujahedeen always win."
.
Iraq War Topping $5.8 Billion A Month
.
United Press International
November 18, 2004
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is spending more than $5.8 billion a month on the war in Iraq, according to the military's top generals.
That is nearly a 50 percent increase above the $4 billion-a-month benchmark the Pentagon has used to estimate the cost of the war so far.
The Army alone is spending $4.7 million a month while the Air Force is spending $800 million a month transporting soldiers and flying combat missions. The Marine Corps is spending $300 million a month, the four service chiefs told the House Armed Services Committee Wednesday.
Since 2003, the Pentagon has received some $160 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in supplemental funding -- that is, in addition to its annual budget. It will be requesting another multibillion-dollar supplement early next year to cover the continuing cost of the war.
.
United Press International
November 18, 2004
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is spending more than $5.8 billion a month on the war in Iraq, according to the military's top generals.
That is nearly a 50 percent increase above the $4 billion-a-month benchmark the Pentagon has used to estimate the cost of the war so far.
The Army alone is spending $4.7 million a month while the Air Force is spending $800 million a month transporting soldiers and flying combat missions. The Marine Corps is spending $300 million a month, the four service chiefs told the House Armed Services Committee Wednesday.
Since 2003, the Pentagon has received some $160 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in supplemental funding -- that is, in addition to its annual budget. It will be requesting another multibillion-dollar supplement early next year to cover the continuing cost of the war.
.
Moshe Dayan, Vietnam and Iraq
.
(must Read Article)
First, according to Dayan, the most important operational problem the US Forces were facing was intelligence, in other words the inability to distinguish the enemy from either the physical surroundings or the civilian population. Had intelligence been available then their enormous superiority in every kind of military hardware would have enabled them to win the War easily enough. In its absence, most of the blows they delivered – including no fewer than six million tons of bombs dropped – hit empty air. All they did was make the enemy disperse and merge into the civilian population, thus making it even harder to find him. Worst of all, lack of accurate intelligence meant that the Americans kept hitting noncombatants by mistake. They thus drove huge segments of the population straight into the arms of the Viet Cong; nothing is more conducive to hatred than the sight of relatives and friends being killed.
Second, as Dayan saw clearly enough, the campaign for hearts and minds did not work. Many of the figures being published about the progress it was making turned out to be bogus, designed to set the minds of the folks at home at rest. In other cases any progress laboriously made over a period of months was undone in a matter of minutes as the Viet Cong attacked, destroying property and killing “collaborators.” Above all, the idea that the Vietnamese people wanted to become Americanized was an illusion. All the vast majority really wanted was to be left alone and get on with their lives.
The third and most important reason why I think Vietnam is relevant to the situation in Iraq is because the Americans found themselves in the unfortunate position where they were beating down on the weak. To quote Dayan: “any comparison between the two armies… was astonishing. On the one hand there was the American Army, complete with helicopters, an air force, armor, electronic communications, artillery, and mind-boggling riches; to say nothing of ammunition, fuel, spare parts, and equipment of all kinds. On the other there were the [North Vietnamese troops] who had been walking on foot for four months, carrying some artillery rounds on their backs and using a tin spoon to eat a little ground rice from a tin plate.”
.
(must Read Article)
First, according to Dayan, the most important operational problem the US Forces were facing was intelligence, in other words the inability to distinguish the enemy from either the physical surroundings or the civilian population. Had intelligence been available then their enormous superiority in every kind of military hardware would have enabled them to win the War easily enough. In its absence, most of the blows they delivered – including no fewer than six million tons of bombs dropped – hit empty air. All they did was make the enemy disperse and merge into the civilian population, thus making it even harder to find him. Worst of all, lack of accurate intelligence meant that the Americans kept hitting noncombatants by mistake. They thus drove huge segments of the population straight into the arms of the Viet Cong; nothing is more conducive to hatred than the sight of relatives and friends being killed.
Second, as Dayan saw clearly enough, the campaign for hearts and minds did not work. Many of the figures being published about the progress it was making turned out to be bogus, designed to set the minds of the folks at home at rest. In other cases any progress laboriously made over a period of months was undone in a matter of minutes as the Viet Cong attacked, destroying property and killing “collaborators.” Above all, the idea that the Vietnamese people wanted to become Americanized was an illusion. All the vast majority really wanted was to be left alone and get on with their lives.
The third and most important reason why I think Vietnam is relevant to the situation in Iraq is because the Americans found themselves in the unfortunate position where they were beating down on the weak. To quote Dayan: “any comparison between the two armies… was astonishing. On the one hand there was the American Army, complete with helicopters, an air force, armor, electronic communications, artillery, and mind-boggling riches; to say nothing of ammunition, fuel, spare parts, and equipment of all kinds. On the other there were the [North Vietnamese troops] who had been walking on foot for four months, carrying some artillery rounds on their backs and using a tin spoon to eat a little ground rice from a tin plate.”
.
Friday, November 19, 2004
Freedom Comes With A price ($5108)
.
A 15-mile stretch between Baghdad airport and the city centre is said to be the world's most expensive taxi ride.
Small convoys of armoured cars and Western gunmen charge about £2,750 ($5,108) for the perilous journey.
.
A 15-mile stretch between Baghdad airport and the city centre is said to be the world's most expensive taxi ride.
Small convoys of armoured cars and Western gunmen charge about £2,750 ($5,108) for the perilous journey.
.
Whadyaknow? Santorum Is Not a PA Resident
.
All of which begs a much bigger question: Is Rick Santorum R-Pa. or R-Va.? No one should represent Pennsylvania in the U.S. Senate because he once lived here or because he visits all 67 counties every year. A traveling salesman can do that.
Article I of the U.S. Constitution says, "No person shall be a Senator ... who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." Rick Santorum last won election in November 2000, when he owned the house at 111 Stephens Lane in Penn Hills plus a house in Virginia. Where he was an "inhabitant" at the time only he can say.
He faces re-election in 2006, but if that election were held today, the two-term Republican would be hard-pressed to convince voters that he inhabits a house on Stephens Lane. Sure, he and his wife pay taxes on the house. They also use the address for voter registration, but so do two other people. When a Post-Gazette reporter visited the house last Friday, a young man came to the door and declined to comment. He wasn't Rick Santorum.
It gets worse. The two-bedroom house that the Santorum children called home for education purposes and that gives Mr. and Mrs. Santorum the right to vote in Pennsylvania lacks an occupancy permit. And the property tax break from the homestead exemption claimed by the Santorums on the Penn Hills house is allowed under law only if the dwelling is their "permanent home."
It's a strange case of political turnabout. In his initial House race against Rep. Doug Walgren in 1990, challenger Santorum attacked the incumbent from Mt. Lebanon for buying a house and raising his children in McLean, Va. Now Rick Santorum of Leesburg, Va., is saying that he is and he isn't a resident of Pennsylvania.
-Atrios 10:13 AM
.
All of which begs a much bigger question: Is Rick Santorum R-Pa. or R-Va.? No one should represent Pennsylvania in the U.S. Senate because he once lived here or because he visits all 67 counties every year. A traveling salesman can do that.
Article I of the U.S. Constitution says, "No person shall be a Senator ... who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." Rick Santorum last won election in November 2000, when he owned the house at 111 Stephens Lane in Penn Hills plus a house in Virginia. Where he was an "inhabitant" at the time only he can say.
He faces re-election in 2006, but if that election were held today, the two-term Republican would be hard-pressed to convince voters that he inhabits a house on Stephens Lane. Sure, he and his wife pay taxes on the house. They also use the address for voter registration, but so do two other people. When a Post-Gazette reporter visited the house last Friday, a young man came to the door and declined to comment. He wasn't Rick Santorum.
It gets worse. The two-bedroom house that the Santorum children called home for education purposes and that gives Mr. and Mrs. Santorum the right to vote in Pennsylvania lacks an occupancy permit. And the property tax break from the homestead exemption claimed by the Santorums on the Penn Hills house is allowed under law only if the dwelling is their "permanent home."
It's a strange case of political turnabout. In his initial House race against Rep. Doug Walgren in 1990, challenger Santorum attacked the incumbent from Mt. Lebanon for buying a house and raising his children in McLean, Va. Now Rick Santorum of Leesburg, Va., is saying that he is and he isn't a resident of Pennsylvania.
-Atrios 10:13 AM
.
More Bush Haters
Wherever You Go, They Hate Bush
Today marked the fourth day of confrontations in Santiago, Chile between police and protesters opposed to the two-day annual gathering of the leaders for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.
SANTIAGO, Chile, Nov. 19 - With President Bush scheduled to arrive here within hours to begin his first trip abroad since re-election, thousands of demonstrators took to the streets today to protest his presence at a weekend summit meeting that they accused of fostering economic inequality and exploitation.
Today marked the fourth day of confrontations in Santiago, Chile between police and protesters opposed to the two-day annual gathering of the leaders for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.
SANTIAGO, Chile, Nov. 19 - With President Bush scheduled to arrive here within hours to begin his first trip abroad since re-election, thousands of demonstrators took to the streets today to protest his presence at a weekend summit meeting that they accused of fostering economic inequality and exploitation.
Long Time Republican Faithful Criticizes W
.
The more immediate danger is that Mr. Bush and his troika are falling into a trap facing other re-elected presidents: hubris. When presidents win their first elections, they and their teams think they are king of the hill; when they win re-election, they too often think they are masters of the universe. As Richard Neustadt pointed out, even the best of modern presidents, Franklin Roosevelt, fell into the trap when he was first re-elected in 1936. He immediately started overreaching, as he tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937 and tried to purge Southern Democrats in 1938. F.D.R. nearly did himself in during his second term.
In Mr. Bush's case, his administration has already shown ominous signs of "group-think'' in its handling of Iraq and the nation's finances. By closing down dissent and centralizing power in a few hands, he is acting as if he truly believes that he and his team have a perfect track record, that they know best, and that they don't need any infusion of new heavyweights. He has every right to take this course, but as he knows from his Bible, pride goeth before. ...
David Gergen is professor of public service at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and editor at large of U.S. News & World Report. He served as a White House adviser to four presidents.
.
The more immediate danger is that Mr. Bush and his troika are falling into a trap facing other re-elected presidents: hubris. When presidents win their first elections, they and their teams think they are king of the hill; when they win re-election, they too often think they are masters of the universe. As Richard Neustadt pointed out, even the best of modern presidents, Franklin Roosevelt, fell into the trap when he was first re-elected in 1936. He immediately started overreaching, as he tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937 and tried to purge Southern Democrats in 1938. F.D.R. nearly did himself in during his second term.
In Mr. Bush's case, his administration has already shown ominous signs of "group-think'' in its handling of Iraq and the nation's finances. By closing down dissent and centralizing power in a few hands, he is acting as if he truly believes that he and his team have a perfect track record, that they know best, and that they don't need any infusion of new heavyweights. He has every right to take this course, but as he knows from his Bible, pride goeth before. ...
David Gergen is professor of public service at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and editor at large of U.S. News & World Report. He served as a White House adviser to four presidents.
.
Children In Charge
.
Some of the world's most important decisions - often, decisions of life and death - have been left to those who are less competent and less experienced, to men and women who are deficient in such qualities as risk perception and comprehension of future consequences, who are reckless and dangerously susceptible to magical thinking and the ideological pressure of their peers.
I look at the catastrophe in Iraq, the fiscal debacle here at home, the extent to which loyalty trumps competence at the highest levels of government, the absence of a coherent vision of the future for the U.S. and the world, and I wonder, with a sense of deep sadness, where the adults have gone.
.
Some of the world's most important decisions - often, decisions of life and death - have been left to those who are less competent and less experienced, to men and women who are deficient in such qualities as risk perception and comprehension of future consequences, who are reckless and dangerously susceptible to magical thinking and the ideological pressure of their peers.
I look at the catastrophe in Iraq, the fiscal debacle here at home, the extent to which loyalty trumps competence at the highest levels of government, the absence of a coherent vision of the future for the U.S. and the world, and I wonder, with a sense of deep sadness, where the adults have gone.
.
More Fallout From Iraq
.
KABUL, Afghanistan, Nov. 18 - Poppy cultivation in Afghanistan, the source of most of the opium and heroin on Europe's streets, was up sharply this year, reaching the highest levels in the country's history and in the world, the United Nations announced on Thursday.
"In Afghanistan, drugs are now a clear and present danger," said Antonio Maria Costa, director of the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, on the release of the 2004 Afghanistan opium survey. "The fear that Afghanistan might degenerate into a narco-state is becoming a reality."
.
KABUL, Afghanistan, Nov. 18 - Poppy cultivation in Afghanistan, the source of most of the opium and heroin on Europe's streets, was up sharply this year, reaching the highest levels in the country's history and in the world, the United Nations announced on Thursday.
"In Afghanistan, drugs are now a clear and present danger," said Antonio Maria Costa, director of the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, on the release of the 2004 Afghanistan opium survey. "The fear that Afghanistan might degenerate into a narco-state is becoming a reality."
.
What Happens When Capitalism Is More Important Than Health
.
FDA is Broken
What Happenes When Capitalism Is More Important Than Health
WASHINGTON — A Food and Drug Administration scientist told a Senate committee Thursday that the FDA is "virtually defenseless" against another "terrible tragedy and a profound regulatory failure" like Vioxx, a drug pulled off the market over safety concerns.
"It is important that this committee and the American people understand that what happened with Vioxx is really a symptom of something far more dangerous to the safety of the American people," David Graham, associate director for science and medicine in the FDA's Office of Drug Safety, told the Finance Committee. "Simply put, FDA and its Center for Drug Evaluation and Research are broken."
.
FDA is Broken
What Happenes When Capitalism Is More Important Than Health
WASHINGTON — A Food and Drug Administration scientist told a Senate committee Thursday that the FDA is "virtually defenseless" against another "terrible tragedy and a profound regulatory failure" like Vioxx, a drug pulled off the market over safety concerns.
"It is important that this committee and the American people understand that what happened with Vioxx is really a symptom of something far more dangerous to the safety of the American people," David Graham, associate director for science and medicine in the FDA's Office of Drug Safety, told the Finance Committee. "Simply put, FDA and its Center for Drug Evaluation and Research are broken."
.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Discussion Corner (Or If Fallujah Is Under Control Why Are We Still Bombing It?)
.
Everyone Has Their Price
Ads to pop up when TiVo users scan past commercials
Beginning in March, TiVo users will see a lot more than hyper people at 60 times normal speed when they hit the remote to zip through TV ads during shows recorded on the devices. A static pop-up ad, or "billboard," will spring up as TiVo users skip through an ad — perhaps a logo for an advertiser, plus a message encouraging viewers to check out a new car or enter a contest.
Media Life ( No Link) Discusses The Nanny In Chief
Last week it was "Saving Private Ryan." This week it's "Desperate Housewives."
Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell seemed on his way out the door just weeks ago, before the elections, but he's now sticking around and very much the much-quoted authority on indecency.
"We've officially bottomed out...,"
said Kramer on Seinfeld from the Merv Griffin set, after Newman extolled the virtues of waxed beans.
That phrase came to mind catching a bit of CNN this afternoon. They've offically bottomed out.
To lighten up all the bad news from Iraq, they ran an item--whimsically headlined "Holy Chow"--about a Florida ding-a-ling--pardon me, a sincere believer from the sunkissed state--who was trying to auction a 10-year-old grilled cheese sandwich on Ebay. The image looked to me more like Greta Garbo in rapture, but the Florida woman claimed that the "Virgin Mary image grows stronger each year."
Ebay pulled the item from auction, saying it violated its policy of joke auctions, even though the woman swore she was quite serious.
Before the item was pulled, the bidding had gone up to $20,000.
Man, Peggy Noonan must be rolling in it.
This IsWhat We Call “News”
1215
Bring ‘em on: Air strikes, artillery fire, ground fighting continue in Fallujah.
Bring ‘em on: Heavy fighting breaks out in Baquba.
Bring ‘em on: Insurgents attack police stations, ING base near Suwayrah, seven ING soldiers and police killed.
Bring ‘em on: Heavy fighting continues in Ramadi.
Bring ‘em on: Six ING soldiers killed as insurgents storm two police stations in Mosul.
Bring ‘em on: Insurgents seize and destroy governor’s mansion in Mosul.
Bring ‘em on: US air strikes reported near Baquba.
Bring ‘em on: Oil wells ablaze near Kirkuk.
Bring ‘em on: Insurgents destroy main highway bridge near Beiji.
Bring ‘em on: Insurgents attack Polish embassy in Baghdad.
Bring ‘em on: Central Baghdad hotels under rocket fire.
Freedom Is On The March
.
Everyone Has Their Price
Ads to pop up when TiVo users scan past commercials
Beginning in March, TiVo users will see a lot more than hyper people at 60 times normal speed when they hit the remote to zip through TV ads during shows recorded on the devices. A static pop-up ad, or "billboard," will spring up as TiVo users skip through an ad — perhaps a logo for an advertiser, plus a message encouraging viewers to check out a new car or enter a contest.
Media Life ( No Link) Discusses The Nanny In Chief
Last week it was "Saving Private Ryan." This week it's "Desperate Housewives."
Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell seemed on his way out the door just weeks ago, before the elections, but he's now sticking around and very much the much-quoted authority on indecency.
"We've officially bottomed out...,"
said Kramer on Seinfeld from the Merv Griffin set, after Newman extolled the virtues of waxed beans.
That phrase came to mind catching a bit of CNN this afternoon. They've offically bottomed out.
To lighten up all the bad news from Iraq, they ran an item--whimsically headlined "Holy Chow"--about a Florida ding-a-ling--pardon me, a sincere believer from the sunkissed state--who was trying to auction a 10-year-old grilled cheese sandwich on Ebay. The image looked to me more like Greta Garbo in rapture, but the Florida woman claimed that the "Virgin Mary image grows stronger each year."
Ebay pulled the item from auction, saying it violated its policy of joke auctions, even though the woman swore she was quite serious.
Before the item was pulled, the bidding had gone up to $20,000.
Man, Peggy Noonan must be rolling in it.
This IsWhat We Call “News”
1215
Bring ‘em on: Air strikes, artillery fire, ground fighting continue in Fallujah.
Bring ‘em on: Heavy fighting breaks out in Baquba.
Bring ‘em on: Insurgents attack police stations, ING base near Suwayrah, seven ING soldiers and police killed.
Bring ‘em on: Heavy fighting continues in Ramadi.
Bring ‘em on: Six ING soldiers killed as insurgents storm two police stations in Mosul.
Bring ‘em on: Insurgents seize and destroy governor’s mansion in Mosul.
Bring ‘em on: US air strikes reported near Baquba.
Bring ‘em on: Oil wells ablaze near Kirkuk.
Bring ‘em on: Insurgents destroy main highway bridge near Beiji.
Bring ‘em on: Insurgents attack Polish embassy in Baghdad.
Bring ‘em on: Central Baghdad hotels under rocket fire.
Freedom Is On The March
.
US Influence Drops Sharply
.
As the new Chinese tourists from the rapidly expanding middle class travel, they carry with them an image of a vastly different and more inviting China than even just a few years ago, richer, more confident and more influential. "Among some countries, China fever seems to be replacing China fear," said Wang Gungwu, the director of the East Asian Institute at National University in Singapore.
Over all, China's stepped up endeavors in cultural suasion remain modest compared with those of the United States, and American popular culture, from Hollywood movies to MTV, is still vastly more exportable and accessible, all agree. The United States also holds the balance of raw military power in the region.
But the trend is clear, educators and diplomats here say: the Americans are losing influence.
As China ramps up its cultural and language presence, Washington is ratcheting down, ceding territory that was virtually all its own when China was trapped in its hard Communist shell…
…
Last year, 2,563 Indonesian students received visas to go to China for study, according to the Chinese Embassy in Jakarta, a 51 percent increase over the previous year.
By comparison, only 1,333 Indonesian students received visas for study in the United States in 2003, the United States consul general in Jakarta says. That was a precipitous drop from the 6,250 student visas the office said it issued in 2000 and part of a worldwide decline after 9/11.
More On The End Of An Empire
.
As the new Chinese tourists from the rapidly expanding middle class travel, they carry with them an image of a vastly different and more inviting China than even just a few years ago, richer, more confident and more influential. "Among some countries, China fever seems to be replacing China fear," said Wang Gungwu, the director of the East Asian Institute at National University in Singapore.
Over all, China's stepped up endeavors in cultural suasion remain modest compared with those of the United States, and American popular culture, from Hollywood movies to MTV, is still vastly more exportable and accessible, all agree. The United States also holds the balance of raw military power in the region.
But the trend is clear, educators and diplomats here say: the Americans are losing influence.
As China ramps up its cultural and language presence, Washington is ratcheting down, ceding territory that was virtually all its own when China was trapped in its hard Communist shell…
…
Last year, 2,563 Indonesian students received visas to go to China for study, according to the Chinese Embassy in Jakarta, a 51 percent increase over the previous year.
By comparison, only 1,333 Indonesian students received visas for study in the United States in 2003, the United States consul general in Jakarta says. That was a precipitous drop from the 6,250 student visas the office said it issued in 2000 and part of a worldwide decline after 9/11.
More On The End Of An Empire
.
Friedman High On Crack Again
.
How important is taking Falluja? Huge. Falluja was to the Iraqi insurgency what Afghanistan was to Osama bin Laden. It was the safe haven where militants could, with total impunity, plan operations, stockpile weapons and connect the suicide bombers from abroad with their Iraqi handlers. That's gone. One arms cache alone found here had 49,000 pieces of ordnance, ranging from mortars to ammo rounds. Another arms cache blown up last week kept exploding for 45 minutes after it was hit, a senior U.S. officer said.
oh really? Quelling Falljuah will stop the insurgency? We actually have the ability to stop the insurgency? Dude, pass the pipe, please.
.
How important is taking Falluja? Huge. Falluja was to the Iraqi insurgency what Afghanistan was to Osama bin Laden. It was the safe haven where militants could, with total impunity, plan operations, stockpile weapons and connect the suicide bombers from abroad with their Iraqi handlers. That's gone. One arms cache alone found here had 49,000 pieces of ordnance, ranging from mortars to ammo rounds. Another arms cache blown up last week kept exploding for 45 minutes after it was hit, a senior U.S. officer said.
oh really? Quelling Falljuah will stop the insurgency? We actually have the ability to stop the insurgency? Dude, pass the pipe, please.
.
You Have To Ask
.
Why on Earth is Colin Powell standing up there saying now that Iran may have nuclear delivery systems. So what? Give me one indication that we actually know this with more certainty than we "knew" Iraq had weapons of Mass Destruction. Show me what right we have to stop a sovereign nation from developing theiur own weapons when nothing stops us from develooing more advanced versions of the exact same weapons. Give me some indication that they intend to use it. I keep hearing talk that Iran might nuke Tel-Aviv. Well, not unless they don;'t mind Israel nuking them right back.
What on Earth is he doing, particularly on his way out?
I can only imagine that somehow he is helping to conduct Bush War number 2.
Here is what I suspect that war will be. We will stand by or participate in an airstrike on a nuclear weapons plant in Iran, further alienating our allies and the rest fo the world and furthe rinflaming anti-US passions.
>
Why on Earth is Colin Powell standing up there saying now that Iran may have nuclear delivery systems. So what? Give me one indication that we actually know this with more certainty than we "knew" Iraq had weapons of Mass Destruction. Show me what right we have to stop a sovereign nation from developing theiur own weapons when nothing stops us from develooing more advanced versions of the exact same weapons. Give me some indication that they intend to use it. I keep hearing talk that Iran might nuke Tel-Aviv. Well, not unless they don;'t mind Israel nuking them right back.
What on Earth is he doing, particularly on his way out?
I can only imagine that somehow he is helping to conduct Bush War number 2.
Here is what I suspect that war will be. We will stand by or participate in an airstrike on a nuclear weapons plant in Iran, further alienating our allies and the rest fo the world and furthe rinflaming anti-US passions.
>
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Welcome to the new cold war
.
By Andrew O'Hehir
Absolute Must Read- But first a comment
We forget. Empires don’t just rise. They fall, too. What became of Rome? Once it had the only true system of laws and courts in the world, and 25 legions held the world’s armies at bay for four centuries. Athens? Greece? Hell by the time he was 35 Alexander had a kingdom that stretched from Korea to Hungary. Ghengis Khan’s country covered all of Mongolia, Central Asia and part of what is now Eastern Europe. Muhammad’s approach to the world surrounded cultures on all sides of the Mediterranean, from North Africa to Central Europe. We forget the Hapsburgs, the Ottoman Turks, the Ching Dynasty, in fact we forget the one thing that all the great countries, nation-states and empires succumbed to: they succumbed to something and no longer exist. As I stand here and our government does a steady crawl towards fascism and dictatorship, as I see the highest laws slapped down as quaint and out of touch, as I see an emerging population that wants this, I have to say, how naïve was I to think that the idealism of the 60s or the richesse of the 80s would ever last? Or should I say, last forever.
We have already seen the best of America. The day when an individual’s rights trumped corporate rights are over. The day when Americans’ valued other points of view, the day when Americans kept their churches out of other people’s affairs, those days are all over. The days when science and technology were used to level the playing field and keep people healthy have been sublimated to a new world order, where profits and power are more important than fairness and health.
I could go on infinitum, but to what effect? Those who are not paying attention will not notice the changes and basically don’t care anyway. We lost our freedoms because we were not diligent. We lost our freedoms because it matters more to most Americans that they belong to the winning team than keep the ideals of the framers of the Constitution. We lost our freedoms because we were too lazy to even learn them.
Put in a larger perspective the half of this country with a three digit IQ is no different than the losing half when Hitler came to power, or Mussolini. We watch with amazement and sadness as idiots and war criminals take their place behind the wheel. And now when I read the words from William Butler Yeats, I know whom he is talking about. “And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”
He is talking about Bush.
It's Chirac vs. Cheney, SUVs vs. minicars, and pommes frites vs. freedom fries in the new transatlantic culture war. But here's what you don't know: In the global conflict for moral and economic supremacy, Europe is winning.
11. 15, 2004 | A specter is haunting America, and it ain't the specter of communism (however much George W. Bush and company might like to describe it that way). Barely a decade after the definitive collapse of the Soviet bloc, the United States finds itself in a new cold war, one being fought simultaneously on economic, political and cultural fronts, and one it is by no means certain to win. The unipolar world of uncontested American hegemony that we were told to expect into the indefinite future has come to an end; it lasted just about long enough for us to scratch our heads and wonder what was happening next.
Yes, "Old Europe," to borrow Donald Rumsfeld's famous quip, is back, and it's looking pretty spry for its age. As Americans are finally beginning to notice, Europeans (or most of them, anyway) have reconstituted themselves into an enormous transnational superstate of 25 nations, 455 million people and an $11 trillion economy. This is, of course, the European Union, and its aims have become much broader and deeper than the stuff you've probably heard about, like allowing citizens to drive from Seville to Sicily without a passport, or to use the same anonymous-looking currency to buy a pint of Guinness in Cork and a glass of ouzo in Crete.
American heavyweights like Alan Greenspan and Henry Kissinger, by the way, publicly predicted that the euro, now the common currency of 12 European countries (with many more to follow), would never work. This week the euro is trading at an all-time high of about $1.30 against an ever weaker Bush-economy dollar. Other confident-sounding things that you hear Americans say about the EU -- that it's plagued by a sclerotic bureaucracy, that it squelches entrepreneurship and initiative with overregulation, that its cradle-to-grave welfare states are dragging down its economy -- should be viewed with similar skepticism.
It might sound alarmist to use a freighted term like "cold war" to describe our relationship with an entity whose raison d'être is to avoid all war and resolve all conflict. The political leaders of the European Union are certainly willing to be partners with the United States, and potentially to be friends as well. (Realpolitik dictates that both sides will continue to insist that the relationship is warm even when, as now, it is anything but.) But elites on both sides of the pond now know what the stakes are, and they are also willing to be competitors, even fierce rivals. If the original idea behind a united Europe was to redeem the old continent from poverty, devastation and centuries of self-destructive warfare, more recently the goal has been to build a "good superpower," one that stands as an economic and ideological counterweight to the American colossus.
Once you grasp that this transatlantic cold war is not only happening but rapidly intensifying -- as Jeremy Rifkin and T.R. Reid, the authors of two almost simultaneous books on the European conundrum, agree -- you see the major news events of the last year or two in a different light. Both the Iraq war and this year's presidential election, for instance, start to look like key symbolic episodes in the U.S.-Europe conflict.
What was the contest between Bush and John Kerry, after all, if not a proxy war between pommes frites and freedom fries, a referendum on Europe conducted among the American electorate? Kerry, we were told, spoke French and "looked French." These gibes might have played as humor on Fox News, but they were in deadly earnest.
The French, of course, sank Bush's hopes for a truly international coalition against Iraq and became the American right's chosen exemplar of global treachery and cowardice. (Frenchness, you might say, is the new communism.) The French are also the principal architects of the European Union -- suddenly, clearly, our greatest rival for economic and moral supremacy in the world -- and if Karl Rove and Karen Hughes weren't thinking about that consciously, the thought wasn't far below the surface.
Kerry was an internationalist and a secularist (at least by American standards) running against a man who wrapped himself in the flag and was guided by divine inspiration. Bush didn't just run as an American; he pretty much ran as America, which Rifkin calls a nation "living in two seemingly contradictory realms at the same time," those being the evangelical Protestant faith in salvation and the rationalist drive to accumulate wealth and build industry. That cast Kerry in the role of Europe -- intellectual and irreligious, faintly stained by the ghosts of socialism and Catholicism, with a belief in universal human rights and negotiated solutions, but not much in the way of a transformative spiritual vision.
That might be all anyone needs to know about how close the election was, or how it turned out. There is a large class of people in this country who are sympathetic to the "European dream" of a managed market economy in which cooperation is emphasized over competition, leisure is privileged over work, and the social costs of capitalism are closely regulated -- and you know who you are, gentle readers. But to most Americans "freedom" still means untrammeled private-property rights, open markets, workaholism and the belief that somehow we'll all die rich.
Going back 18 months, one of the strategic considerations driving the Bush administration's 2003 invasion of Iraq was surely the opportunity it presented to drive a wedge between pro- and anti-American politicians in Europe. By peeling away Britain's Tony Blair, Spain's José Maria Aznar and Italy's Silvio Berlusconi from the antiwar EU consensus, the Bushies may have hoped to disrupt the idea of a Europe that spoke with one voice on foreign policy and military action (an expressed EU goal) for a generation to come.
As Reid, a longtime Washington Post correspondent, discusses in his book "The United States of Europe," the strategy seemed to work, at least at first. Those three prime ministers agreed to go along with the American war, and various other European leaders hemmed and hawed, trying somehow to split the difference between the Bush-Blair position and the vehement antiwar stance of French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder.
But then surprising things started to happen. When it came time to twist arms on the U.N. Security Council over the vote to authorize military action, the Americans were outfoxed. Most of the poorer nations on the council received substantial foreign aid from Europe -- the EU gives almost three times as much aid to developing countries as the U.S. does -- and proved more amenable to lobbying from the French and Germans than from the British and Americans. Bush and Blair needed nine votes and could never get more than four; at least in that limited arena, Reid writes, "Europe's political clout proved stronger than American military might."
Furthermore, the Iraq war became a galvanizing and radicalizing event for an entire generation of younger Europeans and, in Reid's judgment, led them to see themselves as Europeans, above and beyond their national identities. While the European political elites dithered in the spring of 2003, the European people streamed into the streets by the millions, in a nearly unanimous rejection of the Iraq war in particular and the interventionist Bush foreign policy agenda in general. (And, for good measure, what most Europeans perceive as America's promiscuously wasteful culture of burgers, SUVs and obesity.) Opinion polls revealed an explosion of anti-American sentiment, even in nations like Britain, Italy and Poland that remained officially within the "coalition of the willing." In several European countries, the United States is viewed as more dangerous to world peace than Iran and North Korea, and George W. Bush may be even less popular in Scandinavia, for example, than he is in the Arab world.
These young Europeans, Reid believes, now have a sense of their own political and economic power, and they have built a pan-continental "Euroculture" that borrows what it likes from American pop culture but now stands independent of it. "For many Europeans today," he writes, "the familiar concept of 'the West,' the transatlantic alliance with shared values and common enemies, is a relic of the last century." In this century, their goal is to challenge the American claim to global supremacy, at least in moral and political terms.
Indeed, what struck me on a recent visit to Germany is how un-American Europe still feels, despite all the stories we hear to the contrary. Sure, you can eat at Pizza Hut or shop at Wal-Mart in Hamburg, and teenagers affect last year's hip-hop fashions and wear Yankee caps. (Sorry, Boston -- your triumph has not penetrated the Old World.) But those things, removed from their original context, have become, like Madonna or David Beckham, floating signifiers of a global culture that transcends nationality. The organic rhythms of the place feel nothing like the fevered consumption overdrive of American cities and suburbs: Bars and cafes remain busy long past midnight seven nights a week, but if there's any place in Hamburg where you can buy groceries or children's toys or paperback books after lunchtime on Saturday, I didn't find it.
"Europe's time is almost here," Reid quotes current EU President Romano Prodi as saying. "In fact, there are many areas of world affairs where the objective conclusion would have to be that Europe is already the superpower, and the United States must follow our lead." It's stuff like that that has Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and the rest of the neoconservative cohort gnawing on the executive branch's fine European furniture late at night. They're smart enough to know that Prodi has a point -- even if they'd scoff at him in public -- and there isn't much they can do about it.
After adding 10 new Eastern and Central European nations last May, the European Union now has a much larger population than the United States, and a slightly bigger economy. As Jeremy Rifkin argues in his dense and contentious new research-driven tome "The European Dream," the United States remains ahead in per-capita GDP, but the difference is not as significant as it looks.
Much of American "productivity," Rifkin suggests, is accounted for by economic activity that might be better described as wasteful: military spending; the endlessly expanding police and prison bureaucracies; the spiraling cost of healthcare; suburban sprawl; the fast-food industry and its inevitable corollary, the weight-loss craze. Meaningful comparisons of living standards, he says, consistently favor the Europeans. In France, for instance, the work week is 35 hours and most employees take 10 to 12 weeks off every year, factors that clearly depress GDP. Yet it takes a John Locke heart of stone to say that France is worse off as a nation for all that time people spend in the countryside downing du vin rouge et du Camembert with friends and family.
"The European Dream" is the richer of the two books, as Rifkin -- the author of such previous big-idea volumes as "The End of Work" and "The Biotech Century" -- mines deep lodes of history and sociology in search of the origins of the cross-pond cold war. But if you just want a reader-friendly survey of how the European Union was born (out of a modest Franco-German coal and steel accord after World War II), how it grew into the titan we see today, and what it's really like, Reid's personable "United States of Europe" is the better choice.
To the question of what the European Union actually is, neither author offers more than a conditional answer, largely because Europeans aren't quite sure themselves. I called the EU a "superstate" earlier, but it isn't a nation-state in conventional terms. It doesn't physically control any territory, it has no authority to tax its citizens, and it has only very limited police powers. It does, however, have an elected legislature and an executive branch, a court system and a central bank, all of which can override the laws of its 25 member nations. (It also now has its own military, the 60,000-strong European Rapid Reaction Force, or "EuroArmy," a development that led to much gnashing of teeth in Washington.)
At least some of this ambiguity is intentional; the EU looks different depending on who's looking. To the Euro-enthusiasts of France, Germany and the Low Countries, the EU is a grand federal state capable of transcending age-old problems of nationalism and sovereignty. To more standoffish nations like Britain and Sweden (neither of which has adopted the euro), it's a loose confederation of countries that remain largely autonomous. Rifkin calls it "the first really post-modern governing institution," amplifying that at another point to "the first post-territorial governing region in a network-linked global economy." (Much as I enjoyed his excursions through the historical and philosophical framework of the U.S.-EU clash, his tendency to wax lyrical with business-school buzzwords made me want to check whether I still had my wallet.)
If the EU has no intention of confronting America's military supremacy, that, Rifkin and Reid would agree, is actually Europe's ace in the hole. Let the Americans pour endless billions in taxpayer dollars down the Pentagon's money sink, the Europeans reason. As they see it, the key to future peace and prosperity lies elsewhere, in constructing complex webs of social interaction and economic cooperation that will undermine nationalism and fundamentalism of all stripes. While the United States foots the bill for the intractable conflict in Iraq and piles up huge budget and trade deficits, Europe has spent money on other priorities.
Whatever your intellectual and emotional responses may be to this burgeoning transatlantic conflict, it's difficult for any American to read Rifkin's book and not feel ashamed. The U.S. has fallen significantly behind the EU's Western European nations in infant mortality and life expectancy, despite spending more on healthcare per capita than any of them. (While 40 million Americans are uninsured, no one in Europe -- I repeat, not a single person -- lacks some form of healthcare coverage.)
European children are consistently better educated; the United States would rank ninth in the EU in reading, ninth in scientific literacy, and 13th in math. Twenty-two percent of American children grow up in poverty, which means that our country ranks 22nd out of the 23 industrialized nations, ahead of only Mexico and behind all 15 of the pre-2004 EU countries. What's more horrifying: the statistic itself or the fact that no American politician to the right of Dennis Kucinich would ever address it?
Perhaps more surprisingly, European business has not been strangled by the EU welfare state; in fact, quite the opposite is true. Europe has surpassed the United States in several high-tech and financial sectors, including wireless technology, grid computing and the insurance industry. The EU has a higher proportion of small businesses than the U.S., and their success rate is higher. American capitalists have begun to pay attention to all this. In Reid's book, Ford Motor Co. chairman Bill Ford explains that the company's Volvo subsidiary is more profitable than its U.S. manufacturing operation, even though wages and benefits are significantly higher in Sweden. Government-subsidized healthcare, child care, pensions and other social supports, Ford says, more than make up for the difference.
The new EU constitution, currently being considered by the member states, is an unwieldy, jargon-laden document that runs to 265 pages in English (and even more in Spanish and French). It should also serve as an inspiration to progressives around the world. It bars capital punishment in all 25 nations and defines such things as universal healthcare, child care, paid annual leave, parental leave, housing for the poor, and equal treatment for gays and lesbians as fundamental human rights. Most of these are still hotly contested questions in the United States; as Rifkin says, this document all by itself makes the European Union the world leader in the human rights debate. It is the first governing document that aspires to universality, "with rights and responsibilities that encompass the totality of human existence on Earth."
While Rifkin and Reid are unabashed Euro-boosters, both would urge Kerry voters rendered starry-eyed by the EU dream to ponder long and hard before pleading for asylum at the nearest consulate or scouring your family tree for relevant European ancestry. (Speaking as a dual-passport holder myself, I'm sticking it out -- at least for now.) For all the grandeur of its new vision, Europe still has relatively high unemployment and relatively sluggish economic growth. The continent faces major structural problems, most notably a declining birth rate and a long-standing hostility to immigration, which has led to a population that is aging much faster than America's. While the European welfare state is certain to remain generous by American standards, significant renegotiation of rights and benefits will be necessary unless this demographic time bomb can somehow be defused.
Despite its deepening inequality, the United States remains to a large extent a more dynamic and less class-bound society, and it still offers individuals that opportunity for constant reinvention that lies at the heart of our national dream. Rifkin in particular believes that the new cold war with Europe will be good for America in the long run and may help rejuvenate the American left (even if the next four years are likely to get pretty ugly). Americans may need to be taught, by example, that unfettered corporate capitalism, regressive taxation and a bare-minimum social safety net are not the only way to guarantee prosperity -- and perhaps that our definition of what constitutes prosperity could stand some scrutiny.
While America has been gnawing on its own innards for the last decade or so, feuding internally over White House blow jobs, flawed elections, the threat of terrorism, the ill-fated war in Iraq and an angrily polarized public discourse, Europe has quietly been cohering into an impressive whole, the world's newest superpower. For all its layers of bureaucracy and all the challenges it faces, the EU has forged a harmonious society on a continent that spent most of history at war with itself.
The rise of the European Union may in fact, as Rifkin says, represent a new phase of history, and we barely saw it coming. While the outcome of this new cold war between Europe and America is far from clear, we should feel humbled by the way it's gone so far. The EU has succeeded so dramatically in its ambitious goals that the utopian dreamers of the last century who dared to imagine a peaceful, prosperous, united Europe seem eerily prescient now. If nothing else, it's an object lesson in the power of vision.
"I am a democrat," James Joyce wrote in 1916, while an entire generation of Europe's young men were slaughtering each other in the fields of Flanders. "I'll work and act for the social liberty and equality among all classes and sexes in the United States of the Europe of the future." People read that and laughed bitterly. Europe seemed poisoned by mustard gas and history; America was the land of liberty, democracy and the future. Nobody's laughing now.
Andrew O'Hehir
.
By Andrew O'Hehir
Absolute Must Read- But first a comment
We forget. Empires don’t just rise. They fall, too. What became of Rome? Once it had the only true system of laws and courts in the world, and 25 legions held the world’s armies at bay for four centuries. Athens? Greece? Hell by the time he was 35 Alexander had a kingdom that stretched from Korea to Hungary. Ghengis Khan’s country covered all of Mongolia, Central Asia and part of what is now Eastern Europe. Muhammad’s approach to the world surrounded cultures on all sides of the Mediterranean, from North Africa to Central Europe. We forget the Hapsburgs, the Ottoman Turks, the Ching Dynasty, in fact we forget the one thing that all the great countries, nation-states and empires succumbed to: they succumbed to something and no longer exist. As I stand here and our government does a steady crawl towards fascism and dictatorship, as I see the highest laws slapped down as quaint and out of touch, as I see an emerging population that wants this, I have to say, how naïve was I to think that the idealism of the 60s or the richesse of the 80s would ever last? Or should I say, last forever.
We have already seen the best of America. The day when an individual’s rights trumped corporate rights are over. The day when Americans’ valued other points of view, the day when Americans kept their churches out of other people’s affairs, those days are all over. The days when science and technology were used to level the playing field and keep people healthy have been sublimated to a new world order, where profits and power are more important than fairness and health.
I could go on infinitum, but to what effect? Those who are not paying attention will not notice the changes and basically don’t care anyway. We lost our freedoms because we were not diligent. We lost our freedoms because it matters more to most Americans that they belong to the winning team than keep the ideals of the framers of the Constitution. We lost our freedoms because we were too lazy to even learn them.
Put in a larger perspective the half of this country with a three digit IQ is no different than the losing half when Hitler came to power, or Mussolini. We watch with amazement and sadness as idiots and war criminals take their place behind the wheel. And now when I read the words from William Butler Yeats, I know whom he is talking about. “And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”
He is talking about Bush.
It's Chirac vs. Cheney, SUVs vs. minicars, and pommes frites vs. freedom fries in the new transatlantic culture war. But here's what you don't know: In the global conflict for moral and economic supremacy, Europe is winning.
11. 15, 2004 | A specter is haunting America, and it ain't the specter of communism (however much George W. Bush and company might like to describe it that way). Barely a decade after the definitive collapse of the Soviet bloc, the United States finds itself in a new cold war, one being fought simultaneously on economic, political and cultural fronts, and one it is by no means certain to win. The unipolar world of uncontested American hegemony that we were told to expect into the indefinite future has come to an end; it lasted just about long enough for us to scratch our heads and wonder what was happening next.
Yes, "Old Europe," to borrow Donald Rumsfeld's famous quip, is back, and it's looking pretty spry for its age. As Americans are finally beginning to notice, Europeans (or most of them, anyway) have reconstituted themselves into an enormous transnational superstate of 25 nations, 455 million people and an $11 trillion economy. This is, of course, the European Union, and its aims have become much broader and deeper than the stuff you've probably heard about, like allowing citizens to drive from Seville to Sicily without a passport, or to use the same anonymous-looking currency to buy a pint of Guinness in Cork and a glass of ouzo in Crete.
American heavyweights like Alan Greenspan and Henry Kissinger, by the way, publicly predicted that the euro, now the common currency of 12 European countries (with many more to follow), would never work. This week the euro is trading at an all-time high of about $1.30 against an ever weaker Bush-economy dollar. Other confident-sounding things that you hear Americans say about the EU -- that it's plagued by a sclerotic bureaucracy, that it squelches entrepreneurship and initiative with overregulation, that its cradle-to-grave welfare states are dragging down its economy -- should be viewed with similar skepticism.
It might sound alarmist to use a freighted term like "cold war" to describe our relationship with an entity whose raison d'être is to avoid all war and resolve all conflict. The political leaders of the European Union are certainly willing to be partners with the United States, and potentially to be friends as well. (Realpolitik dictates that both sides will continue to insist that the relationship is warm even when, as now, it is anything but.) But elites on both sides of the pond now know what the stakes are, and they are also willing to be competitors, even fierce rivals. If the original idea behind a united Europe was to redeem the old continent from poverty, devastation and centuries of self-destructive warfare, more recently the goal has been to build a "good superpower," one that stands as an economic and ideological counterweight to the American colossus.
Once you grasp that this transatlantic cold war is not only happening but rapidly intensifying -- as Jeremy Rifkin and T.R. Reid, the authors of two almost simultaneous books on the European conundrum, agree -- you see the major news events of the last year or two in a different light. Both the Iraq war and this year's presidential election, for instance, start to look like key symbolic episodes in the U.S.-Europe conflict.
What was the contest between Bush and John Kerry, after all, if not a proxy war between pommes frites and freedom fries, a referendum on Europe conducted among the American electorate? Kerry, we were told, spoke French and "looked French." These gibes might have played as humor on Fox News, but they were in deadly earnest.
The French, of course, sank Bush's hopes for a truly international coalition against Iraq and became the American right's chosen exemplar of global treachery and cowardice. (Frenchness, you might say, is the new communism.) The French are also the principal architects of the European Union -- suddenly, clearly, our greatest rival for economic and moral supremacy in the world -- and if Karl Rove and Karen Hughes weren't thinking about that consciously, the thought wasn't far below the surface.
Kerry was an internationalist and a secularist (at least by American standards) running against a man who wrapped himself in the flag and was guided by divine inspiration. Bush didn't just run as an American; he pretty much ran as America, which Rifkin calls a nation "living in two seemingly contradictory realms at the same time," those being the evangelical Protestant faith in salvation and the rationalist drive to accumulate wealth and build industry. That cast Kerry in the role of Europe -- intellectual and irreligious, faintly stained by the ghosts of socialism and Catholicism, with a belief in universal human rights and negotiated solutions, but not much in the way of a transformative spiritual vision.
That might be all anyone needs to know about how close the election was, or how it turned out. There is a large class of people in this country who are sympathetic to the "European dream" of a managed market economy in which cooperation is emphasized over competition, leisure is privileged over work, and the social costs of capitalism are closely regulated -- and you know who you are, gentle readers. But to most Americans "freedom" still means untrammeled private-property rights, open markets, workaholism and the belief that somehow we'll all die rich.
Going back 18 months, one of the strategic considerations driving the Bush administration's 2003 invasion of Iraq was surely the opportunity it presented to drive a wedge between pro- and anti-American politicians in Europe. By peeling away Britain's Tony Blair, Spain's José Maria Aznar and Italy's Silvio Berlusconi from the antiwar EU consensus, the Bushies may have hoped to disrupt the idea of a Europe that spoke with one voice on foreign policy and military action (an expressed EU goal) for a generation to come.
As Reid, a longtime Washington Post correspondent, discusses in his book "The United States of Europe," the strategy seemed to work, at least at first. Those three prime ministers agreed to go along with the American war, and various other European leaders hemmed and hawed, trying somehow to split the difference between the Bush-Blair position and the vehement antiwar stance of French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder.
But then surprising things started to happen. When it came time to twist arms on the U.N. Security Council over the vote to authorize military action, the Americans were outfoxed. Most of the poorer nations on the council received substantial foreign aid from Europe -- the EU gives almost three times as much aid to developing countries as the U.S. does -- and proved more amenable to lobbying from the French and Germans than from the British and Americans. Bush and Blair needed nine votes and could never get more than four; at least in that limited arena, Reid writes, "Europe's political clout proved stronger than American military might."
Furthermore, the Iraq war became a galvanizing and radicalizing event for an entire generation of younger Europeans and, in Reid's judgment, led them to see themselves as Europeans, above and beyond their national identities. While the European political elites dithered in the spring of 2003, the European people streamed into the streets by the millions, in a nearly unanimous rejection of the Iraq war in particular and the interventionist Bush foreign policy agenda in general. (And, for good measure, what most Europeans perceive as America's promiscuously wasteful culture of burgers, SUVs and obesity.) Opinion polls revealed an explosion of anti-American sentiment, even in nations like Britain, Italy and Poland that remained officially within the "coalition of the willing." In several European countries, the United States is viewed as more dangerous to world peace than Iran and North Korea, and George W. Bush may be even less popular in Scandinavia, for example, than he is in the Arab world.
These young Europeans, Reid believes, now have a sense of their own political and economic power, and they have built a pan-continental "Euroculture" that borrows what it likes from American pop culture but now stands independent of it. "For many Europeans today," he writes, "the familiar concept of 'the West,' the transatlantic alliance with shared values and common enemies, is a relic of the last century." In this century, their goal is to challenge the American claim to global supremacy, at least in moral and political terms.
Indeed, what struck me on a recent visit to Germany is how un-American Europe still feels, despite all the stories we hear to the contrary. Sure, you can eat at Pizza Hut or shop at Wal-Mart in Hamburg, and teenagers affect last year's hip-hop fashions and wear Yankee caps. (Sorry, Boston -- your triumph has not penetrated the Old World.) But those things, removed from their original context, have become, like Madonna or David Beckham, floating signifiers of a global culture that transcends nationality. The organic rhythms of the place feel nothing like the fevered consumption overdrive of American cities and suburbs: Bars and cafes remain busy long past midnight seven nights a week, but if there's any place in Hamburg where you can buy groceries or children's toys or paperback books after lunchtime on Saturday, I didn't find it.
"Europe's time is almost here," Reid quotes current EU President Romano Prodi as saying. "In fact, there are many areas of world affairs where the objective conclusion would have to be that Europe is already the superpower, and the United States must follow our lead." It's stuff like that that has Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and the rest of the neoconservative cohort gnawing on the executive branch's fine European furniture late at night. They're smart enough to know that Prodi has a point -- even if they'd scoff at him in public -- and there isn't much they can do about it.
After adding 10 new Eastern and Central European nations last May, the European Union now has a much larger population than the United States, and a slightly bigger economy. As Jeremy Rifkin argues in his dense and contentious new research-driven tome "The European Dream," the United States remains ahead in per-capita GDP, but the difference is not as significant as it looks.
Much of American "productivity," Rifkin suggests, is accounted for by economic activity that might be better described as wasteful: military spending; the endlessly expanding police and prison bureaucracies; the spiraling cost of healthcare; suburban sprawl; the fast-food industry and its inevitable corollary, the weight-loss craze. Meaningful comparisons of living standards, he says, consistently favor the Europeans. In France, for instance, the work week is 35 hours and most employees take 10 to 12 weeks off every year, factors that clearly depress GDP. Yet it takes a John Locke heart of stone to say that France is worse off as a nation for all that time people spend in the countryside downing du vin rouge et du Camembert with friends and family.
"The European Dream" is the richer of the two books, as Rifkin -- the author of such previous big-idea volumes as "The End of Work" and "The Biotech Century" -- mines deep lodes of history and sociology in search of the origins of the cross-pond cold war. But if you just want a reader-friendly survey of how the European Union was born (out of a modest Franco-German coal and steel accord after World War II), how it grew into the titan we see today, and what it's really like, Reid's personable "United States of Europe" is the better choice.
To the question of what the European Union actually is, neither author offers more than a conditional answer, largely because Europeans aren't quite sure themselves. I called the EU a "superstate" earlier, but it isn't a nation-state in conventional terms. It doesn't physically control any territory, it has no authority to tax its citizens, and it has only very limited police powers. It does, however, have an elected legislature and an executive branch, a court system and a central bank, all of which can override the laws of its 25 member nations. (It also now has its own military, the 60,000-strong European Rapid Reaction Force, or "EuroArmy," a development that led to much gnashing of teeth in Washington.)
At least some of this ambiguity is intentional; the EU looks different depending on who's looking. To the Euro-enthusiasts of France, Germany and the Low Countries, the EU is a grand federal state capable of transcending age-old problems of nationalism and sovereignty. To more standoffish nations like Britain and Sweden (neither of which has adopted the euro), it's a loose confederation of countries that remain largely autonomous. Rifkin calls it "the first really post-modern governing institution," amplifying that at another point to "the first post-territorial governing region in a network-linked global economy." (Much as I enjoyed his excursions through the historical and philosophical framework of the U.S.-EU clash, his tendency to wax lyrical with business-school buzzwords made me want to check whether I still had my wallet.)
If the EU has no intention of confronting America's military supremacy, that, Rifkin and Reid would agree, is actually Europe's ace in the hole. Let the Americans pour endless billions in taxpayer dollars down the Pentagon's money sink, the Europeans reason. As they see it, the key to future peace and prosperity lies elsewhere, in constructing complex webs of social interaction and economic cooperation that will undermine nationalism and fundamentalism of all stripes. While the United States foots the bill for the intractable conflict in Iraq and piles up huge budget and trade deficits, Europe has spent money on other priorities.
Whatever your intellectual and emotional responses may be to this burgeoning transatlantic conflict, it's difficult for any American to read Rifkin's book and not feel ashamed. The U.S. has fallen significantly behind the EU's Western European nations in infant mortality and life expectancy, despite spending more on healthcare per capita than any of them. (While 40 million Americans are uninsured, no one in Europe -- I repeat, not a single person -- lacks some form of healthcare coverage.)
European children are consistently better educated; the United States would rank ninth in the EU in reading, ninth in scientific literacy, and 13th in math. Twenty-two percent of American children grow up in poverty, which means that our country ranks 22nd out of the 23 industrialized nations, ahead of only Mexico and behind all 15 of the pre-2004 EU countries. What's more horrifying: the statistic itself or the fact that no American politician to the right of Dennis Kucinich would ever address it?
Perhaps more surprisingly, European business has not been strangled by the EU welfare state; in fact, quite the opposite is true. Europe has surpassed the United States in several high-tech and financial sectors, including wireless technology, grid computing and the insurance industry. The EU has a higher proportion of small businesses than the U.S., and their success rate is higher. American capitalists have begun to pay attention to all this. In Reid's book, Ford Motor Co. chairman Bill Ford explains that the company's Volvo subsidiary is more profitable than its U.S. manufacturing operation, even though wages and benefits are significantly higher in Sweden. Government-subsidized healthcare, child care, pensions and other social supports, Ford says, more than make up for the difference.
The new EU constitution, currently being considered by the member states, is an unwieldy, jargon-laden document that runs to 265 pages in English (and even more in Spanish and French). It should also serve as an inspiration to progressives around the world. It bars capital punishment in all 25 nations and defines such things as universal healthcare, child care, paid annual leave, parental leave, housing for the poor, and equal treatment for gays and lesbians as fundamental human rights. Most of these are still hotly contested questions in the United States; as Rifkin says, this document all by itself makes the European Union the world leader in the human rights debate. It is the first governing document that aspires to universality, "with rights and responsibilities that encompass the totality of human existence on Earth."
While Rifkin and Reid are unabashed Euro-boosters, both would urge Kerry voters rendered starry-eyed by the EU dream to ponder long and hard before pleading for asylum at the nearest consulate or scouring your family tree for relevant European ancestry. (Speaking as a dual-passport holder myself, I'm sticking it out -- at least for now.) For all the grandeur of its new vision, Europe still has relatively high unemployment and relatively sluggish economic growth. The continent faces major structural problems, most notably a declining birth rate and a long-standing hostility to immigration, which has led to a population that is aging much faster than America's. While the European welfare state is certain to remain generous by American standards, significant renegotiation of rights and benefits will be necessary unless this demographic time bomb can somehow be defused.
Despite its deepening inequality, the United States remains to a large extent a more dynamic and less class-bound society, and it still offers individuals that opportunity for constant reinvention that lies at the heart of our national dream. Rifkin in particular believes that the new cold war with Europe will be good for America in the long run and may help rejuvenate the American left (even if the next four years are likely to get pretty ugly). Americans may need to be taught, by example, that unfettered corporate capitalism, regressive taxation and a bare-minimum social safety net are not the only way to guarantee prosperity -- and perhaps that our definition of what constitutes prosperity could stand some scrutiny.
While America has been gnawing on its own innards for the last decade or so, feuding internally over White House blow jobs, flawed elections, the threat of terrorism, the ill-fated war in Iraq and an angrily polarized public discourse, Europe has quietly been cohering into an impressive whole, the world's newest superpower. For all its layers of bureaucracy and all the challenges it faces, the EU has forged a harmonious society on a continent that spent most of history at war with itself.
The rise of the European Union may in fact, as Rifkin says, represent a new phase of history, and we barely saw it coming. While the outcome of this new cold war between Europe and America is far from clear, we should feel humbled by the way it's gone so far. The EU has succeeded so dramatically in its ambitious goals that the utopian dreamers of the last century who dared to imagine a peaceful, prosperous, united Europe seem eerily prescient now. If nothing else, it's an object lesson in the power of vision.
"I am a democrat," James Joyce wrote in 1916, while an entire generation of Europe's young men were slaughtering each other in the fields of Flanders. "I'll work and act for the social liberty and equality among all classes and sexes in the United States of the Europe of the future." People read that and laughed bitterly. Europe seemed poisoned by mustard gas and history; America was the land of liberty, democracy and the future. Nobody's laughing now.
Andrew O'Hehir
.
Loyalty Over Competency
.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 - Porter J. Goss, the new intelligence chief, has told Central Intelligence Agency employees that their job is to "support the administration and its policies in our work,'' a copy of an internal memorandum shows.
"As agency employees we do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies," Mr. Goss said in the memorandum, which was circulated late on Monday. He said in the document that he was seeking "to clarify beyond doubt the rules of the road."..
… "If Goss is asking people to color their views and be a team player, that's not what people at C.I.A. signed up for,'' said the former intelligence official.
Loyalty Over Competency
.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 - Porter J. Goss, the new intelligence chief, has told Central Intelligence Agency employees that their job is to "support the administration and its policies in our work,'' a copy of an internal memorandum shows.
"As agency employees we do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies," Mr. Goss said in the memorandum, which was circulated late on Monday. He said in the document that he was seeking "to clarify beyond doubt the rules of the road."..
… "If Goss is asking people to color their views and be a team player, that's not what people at C.I.A. signed up for,'' said the former intelligence official.
Loyalty Over Competency
.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Shooting Yourself In The Foot
.
I wanted to avoid this controversy, but just read the comments the Iraqi's made.
"Look at this old man who was slain by them," said Ahmed Khalil, 40, as he watched the video in his Baghdad shop. "Was he a fighter? Was anybody who was killed inside this mosque a fighter? Where are their weapons? I don't know what to say." ….
….Maysoun Hirmiz, 36, a Christian merchant in Baghdad, said she was not satisfied by an announcement by the U.S. military that it had removed the Marine from the battlefield and will investigate whether he acted in self defense.
"They will say or do the same thing they did with the soldiers who committed the abuses against Iraqis detainees in Abu Ghraib prison, and they are still free, enjoying their lives while they destroyed other peoples' lives," Hirmiz said.
.
I wanted to avoid this controversy, but just read the comments the Iraqi's made.
"Look at this old man who was slain by them," said Ahmed Khalil, 40, as he watched the video in his Baghdad shop. "Was he a fighter? Was anybody who was killed inside this mosque a fighter? Where are their weapons? I don't know what to say." ….
….Maysoun Hirmiz, 36, a Christian merchant in Baghdad, said she was not satisfied by an announcement by the U.S. military that it had removed the Marine from the battlefield and will investigate whether he acted in self defense.
"They will say or do the same thing they did with the soldiers who committed the abuses against Iraqis detainees in Abu Ghraib prison, and they are still free, enjoying their lives while they destroyed other peoples' lives," Hirmiz said.
.
1200
Less than 20 foreign fighters found among a 1000 prisoners.
Blue State Team Kicks Red State Team’s Ass 49-21 on Monday Night Football.
.
It was a tiny bit of fun, thinking about Drug Limbaugh, who said Donovan McNabb was getting credit only because he was Black. Drug Limbaugh’s supporters were in Texas Stadium last night and Kerry’s supporters were watching from Philadelphia Blue State Pennsylvania.
It was a tiny bit of fun, thinking about Drug Limbaugh, who said Donovan McNabb was getting credit only because he was Black. Drug Limbaugh’s supporters were in Texas Stadium last night and Kerry’s supporters were watching from Philadelphia Blue State Pennsylvania.
77 dead in 14 days
The Possible Positive Outcomes With Rice As Sec State
Maybe now that our allies will see that now there is no pretense of cooperation or diplomacy, as there was with Powell.
Consequently, the result of unilateral action will be know rather immediately. This is more honest.
Consequently, the result of unilateral action will be know rather immediately. This is more honest.
Monday, November 15, 2004
CONFESSIONS OF A CULTURAL ELITIST
.
Maps showing Kerry's blue states appended to the "United States of Canada" separated from Bush's red "Jesusland" are circulating by email. Though there is a religious component to the election results, the biggest red-blue divide is intellectual. "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?" asked the headline of the Daily Mirror in Great Britain, and the underlying assumption is undeniable. By any objective standard, you had to be spectacularly stupid to support Bush.
.
Maps showing Kerry's blue states appended to the "United States of Canada" separated from Bush's red "Jesusland" are circulating by email. Though there is a religious component to the election results, the biggest red-blue divide is intellectual. "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?" asked the headline of the Daily Mirror in Great Britain, and the underlying assumption is undeniable. By any objective standard, you had to be spectacularly stupid to support Bush.
.
Fark
Nextel is getting nearly a $5 billion windfall to “correct” an interference problem it caused in the first place. Your FCC in action
"Rule of Iraq assassins must end..." I couldn't agree more: Get out Americans.
.
Baghdad Blogger
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Rule of Iraq Assassins Must End...
I'm not feeling well- it's a combination of the change of weather and the decline in the situation. Eid is less than a week away but no one is feeling at all festive. We're all worried about the situation in Falloojeh and surrounding regions. We've ceased worrying about the explosions in Baghdad and are now concerned with the people who have left their homes and valuables and are living off of the charity of others.
Allawi declared a "State of Emergency" a couple of days ago... A state of emergency *now* - because previous to this week, we Iraqis were living in an American made Utopia, as the world is well aware. So what does an "Emergency State" signify for Iraqis? Basically, it means we are now *officially* more prone to being detained, raided, and just generally abused by our new Iraqi forces and American ones. Today they declared a curfew on Baghdad after 10 p.m. but it hasn't really made an impact because people have stopped leaving their houses after dark anyway.
The last few days have been tense and heart-rending. Most of us are really worried about Falloojeh. Really worried about Falloojeh and all the innocents dying and dead in that city. There were several explosions in Baghdad these last few days and hardly any of them were covered by the press. All this chaos has somehow become uncomfortably normal. Two years ago I never would have dreamed of living like this- now this lifestyle has become the norm and I can barely remembering having lived any other way.
My cousin kept the kids home from school, which is happening quite often. One of the explosions today was so close, the house rocked with the impact and my cousin's wife paled, "Can you imagine if the girls had been at school when that happened- I would have died."
Dozens of civilians have died these last few days in Ramadi, Falloojeh, and Samarra. We are hearing about complete families being killed under the rain of bombs being dropped by American forces. The phone lines in those areas seem to be cut off. We've been trying to call some relatives in Ramadi for the last two days, but it's next to impossible. We keep getting that dreadful busy tone and there's just no real way of knowing what is going on in there. There is talk of the use of cluster bombs and other forbidden weaponry.
We're hearing various stories about the situation. The latest is that 36 American troops have been taken prisoner along with dozens of Iraqi troops. How do people feel about the Iraqi troops? There's a certain rage. It's difficult to sympathize with a fellow-countryman while he's killing one of his own. People generally call them "Dogs of Occupation" here because instead of guarding our borders or securing areas, they are used to secure American forces. They drive out in front of American cars in order to clear the roads and possibly detonate some of those road mines at a decent distance from the American tanks. At the end of the day, most of them are the remnants of militias and that's the way they act.
And now they are being used in Falloojeh against other Iraqis. The whole situation is making me sick and there's a fury building up. The families in Falloojeh have been relegated to living in strange homes and mosques outside of the city... many of them are setting up their families inside of emptied schools and municipal buildings in Samarra and neighboring areas. Every time I see Allawi on tv talking about his regrets about 'having to attack Falloojeh' I get so angry I could scream. He's talking to the outside world, not to us. Iraqis don't buy his crap for a instant. We watch him talk and feel furious and frustrated with our new tyrant.
I was watching CNN this morning and I couldn't get the image of the hospital in Falloojeh being stormed by Iraqi and American troops out of my head- the Iraqis being made to lay face-down on the ground, hands behind their backs. Young men and old men... and then the pictures of Abu Ghraib replay themselves in my mind. I think people would rather die than be taken prisoner by the Americans.
The borders with Syria and Jordan are also closed and many of the highways leading to the borders have been blocked. There are rumors that there are currently 100 cars ready to detonate in Mosul, being driven by suicide bombers looking for American convoys. So what happens when Mosul turns into another Falloojeh? Will they also bomb it to the ground? I heard a report where they mentioned that Zarqawi 'had probably escaped from Falloojeh'... so where is he now? Mosul?
Meanwhile, Rumsfeld is making his asinine remarks again,
"There aren't going to be large numbers of civilians killed and certainly not by U.S. forces,"
No- there are only an 'estimated' 100,000 civilians in Falloojeh (and these are American estimations). So far, boys and men between the ages of 16 and 60 aren't being counted as 'civilians' in Falloojeh. They are being rounded up and taken away. And, *of course* the US forces aren't going to be doing the killing: The bombs being dropped on Falloojeh don't contain explosives, depleted uranium or anything harmful- they contain laughing gas- that would, of course, explain Rumsfeld's idiotic optimism about not killing civilians in Falloojeh. Also, being a 'civilian' is a relative thing in a country occupied by Americans. You're only a civilian if you're on their side. If you translate for them, or serve them food in the Green Zone, or wipe their floors- you're an innocent civilian. Everyone else is an insurgent, unless they can get a job as a 'civilian'.
So this is how Bush kicks off his second term. More bloodshed.
"Innocent civilians in that city have all the guidance they need as to how they can avoid getting into trouble,"
How do they do that Rumsfeld? While tons of explosives are being dropped upon your neighborhood, how do you do that? Do you stay inside the house and try to avoid the thousands of shards of glass that shoot out at you from shattering windows? Or do you hide under a table and hope that it's sturdy enough to keep the ceiling from crushing you? Or do you flee your house and pray to God you don't come face to face with an Apache or tank or that you aren't in the line of fire of a sniper? How do you avoid the cluster bombs and all the other horror being dealt out to the people of Falloojeh?
There are a couple of things I agree with. The first is the following:
"Over time you'll find that the process of tipping will take place, that more and more of the Iraqis will be angry about the fact that their innocent people are being killed..."
He's right. It is going to have a decisive affect on Iraqi opinion- but just not the way he thinks. There was a time when pro-occupation Iraqis were able to say, "Let's give them a chance..." That time is over. Whenever someone says that lately, at best, they get a lot of nasty looks... often it's worse. A fight breaks out and a lot of yelling ensues... how can one condone occupation? How can one condone genocide? What about the mass graves of Falloojeh? Leaving Islam aside, how does one agree to allow the murder of fellow-Iraqis by the strongest military in the world?
The second thing Rumsfeld said made me think he was reading my mind:
"Rule of Iraq assassins must end..." I couldn't agree more: Get out Americans.
.
Baghdad Blogger
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Rule of Iraq Assassins Must End...
I'm not feeling well- it's a combination of the change of weather and the decline in the situation. Eid is less than a week away but no one is feeling at all festive. We're all worried about the situation in Falloojeh and surrounding regions. We've ceased worrying about the explosions in Baghdad and are now concerned with the people who have left their homes and valuables and are living off of the charity of others.
Allawi declared a "State of Emergency" a couple of days ago... A state of emergency *now* - because previous to this week, we Iraqis were living in an American made Utopia, as the world is well aware. So what does an "Emergency State" signify for Iraqis? Basically, it means we are now *officially* more prone to being detained, raided, and just generally abused by our new Iraqi forces and American ones. Today they declared a curfew on Baghdad after 10 p.m. but it hasn't really made an impact because people have stopped leaving their houses after dark anyway.
The last few days have been tense and heart-rending. Most of us are really worried about Falloojeh. Really worried about Falloojeh and all the innocents dying and dead in that city. There were several explosions in Baghdad these last few days and hardly any of them were covered by the press. All this chaos has somehow become uncomfortably normal. Two years ago I never would have dreamed of living like this- now this lifestyle has become the norm and I can barely remembering having lived any other way.
My cousin kept the kids home from school, which is happening quite often. One of the explosions today was so close, the house rocked with the impact and my cousin's wife paled, "Can you imagine if the girls had been at school when that happened- I would have died."
Dozens of civilians have died these last few days in Ramadi, Falloojeh, and Samarra. We are hearing about complete families being killed under the rain of bombs being dropped by American forces. The phone lines in those areas seem to be cut off. We've been trying to call some relatives in Ramadi for the last two days, but it's next to impossible. We keep getting that dreadful busy tone and there's just no real way of knowing what is going on in there. There is talk of the use of cluster bombs and other forbidden weaponry.
We're hearing various stories about the situation. The latest is that 36 American troops have been taken prisoner along with dozens of Iraqi troops. How do people feel about the Iraqi troops? There's a certain rage. It's difficult to sympathize with a fellow-countryman while he's killing one of his own. People generally call them "Dogs of Occupation" here because instead of guarding our borders or securing areas, they are used to secure American forces. They drive out in front of American cars in order to clear the roads and possibly detonate some of those road mines at a decent distance from the American tanks. At the end of the day, most of them are the remnants of militias and that's the way they act.
And now they are being used in Falloojeh against other Iraqis. The whole situation is making me sick and there's a fury building up. The families in Falloojeh have been relegated to living in strange homes and mosques outside of the city... many of them are setting up their families inside of emptied schools and municipal buildings in Samarra and neighboring areas. Every time I see Allawi on tv talking about his regrets about 'having to attack Falloojeh' I get so angry I could scream. He's talking to the outside world, not to us. Iraqis don't buy his crap for a instant. We watch him talk and feel furious and frustrated with our new tyrant.
I was watching CNN this morning and I couldn't get the image of the hospital in Falloojeh being stormed by Iraqi and American troops out of my head- the Iraqis being made to lay face-down on the ground, hands behind their backs. Young men and old men... and then the pictures of Abu Ghraib replay themselves in my mind. I think people would rather die than be taken prisoner by the Americans.
The borders with Syria and Jordan are also closed and many of the highways leading to the borders have been blocked. There are rumors that there are currently 100 cars ready to detonate in Mosul, being driven by suicide bombers looking for American convoys. So what happens when Mosul turns into another Falloojeh? Will they also bomb it to the ground? I heard a report where they mentioned that Zarqawi 'had probably escaped from Falloojeh'... so where is he now? Mosul?
Meanwhile, Rumsfeld is making his asinine remarks again,
"There aren't going to be large numbers of civilians killed and certainly not by U.S. forces,"
No- there are only an 'estimated' 100,000 civilians in Falloojeh (and these are American estimations). So far, boys and men between the ages of 16 and 60 aren't being counted as 'civilians' in Falloojeh. They are being rounded up and taken away. And, *of course* the US forces aren't going to be doing the killing: The bombs being dropped on Falloojeh don't contain explosives, depleted uranium or anything harmful- they contain laughing gas- that would, of course, explain Rumsfeld's idiotic optimism about not killing civilians in Falloojeh. Also, being a 'civilian' is a relative thing in a country occupied by Americans. You're only a civilian if you're on their side. If you translate for them, or serve them food in the Green Zone, or wipe their floors- you're an innocent civilian. Everyone else is an insurgent, unless they can get a job as a 'civilian'.
So this is how Bush kicks off his second term. More bloodshed.
"Innocent civilians in that city have all the guidance they need as to how they can avoid getting into trouble,"
How do they do that Rumsfeld? While tons of explosives are being dropped upon your neighborhood, how do you do that? Do you stay inside the house and try to avoid the thousands of shards of glass that shoot out at you from shattering windows? Or do you hide under a table and hope that it's sturdy enough to keep the ceiling from crushing you? Or do you flee your house and pray to God you don't come face to face with an Apache or tank or that you aren't in the line of fire of a sniper? How do you avoid the cluster bombs and all the other horror being dealt out to the people of Falloojeh?
There are a couple of things I agree with. The first is the following:
"Over time you'll find that the process of tipping will take place, that more and more of the Iraqis will be angry about the fact that their innocent people are being killed..."
He's right. It is going to have a decisive affect on Iraqi opinion- but just not the way he thinks. There was a time when pro-occupation Iraqis were able to say, "Let's give them a chance..." That time is over. Whenever someone says that lately, at best, they get a lot of nasty looks... often it's worse. A fight breaks out and a lot of yelling ensues... how can one condone occupation? How can one condone genocide? What about the mass graves of Falloojeh? Leaving Islam aside, how does one agree to allow the murder of fellow-Iraqis by the strongest military in the world?
The second thing Rumsfeld said made me think he was reading my mind:
"Rule of Iraq assassins must end..." I couldn't agree more: Get out Americans.
.
Pandagon Has It
.
Shorter Ashcroft's Tenure As A.G.
Ashcroft: "The president has the power to stick the following objects up your ass...in a totally heterosexual way."
The Judiciary: "No, he doesn't."
Ashcroft: "ACTIVIST!"
.
Shorter Ashcroft's Tenure As A.G.
Ashcroft: "The president has the power to stick the following objects up your ass...in a totally heterosexual way."
The Judiciary: "No, he doesn't."
Ashcroft: "ACTIVIST!"
.
I-69
.
John Hostettler, the Congressman representing the 8th district of Indiana, has been convinced by local religious groups to introduce legislation in the House that would change the name of an Interstate 69 extension to a more moral sounding number.
There are plans to extend the interstate from Indianapolis through southwestern Indiana all the way through Texas into Mexico in the coming years. While most believe this highway will be good for the state’s economy, religious conservatives believe “I-69” sounds too risqué and want to change the interstate’s number.
Hostettler, a proponent of the interstate extension, agrees. “Every time I have been out in the public with an ‘I-69’ button on my lapel, teenagers point and snicker at it. I have had many ask me if they can have my button. I believe it is time to change the name of the highway. It is the moral thing to do"
,
John Hostettler, the Congressman representing the 8th district of Indiana, has been convinced by local religious groups to introduce legislation in the House that would change the name of an Interstate 69 extension to a more moral sounding number.
There are plans to extend the interstate from Indianapolis through southwestern Indiana all the way through Texas into Mexico in the coming years. While most believe this highway will be good for the state’s economy, religious conservatives believe “I-69” sounds too risqué and want to change the interstate’s number.
Hostettler, a proponent of the interstate extension, agrees. “Every time I have been out in the public with an ‘I-69’ button on my lapel, teenagers point and snicker at it. I have had many ask me if they can have my button. I believe it is time to change the name of the highway. It is the moral thing to do"
,
3,000,000 votes
.
A recent vote analysis shows us that 3 million more Americans voted for Democratic US Senators than for Republican US Senators.
I think that officially means we have a mandate to block Bush' court nominees.
.
A recent vote analysis shows us that 3 million more Americans voted for Democratic US Senators than for Republican US Senators.
I think that officially means we have a mandate to block Bush' court nominees.
.
Sunday, November 14, 2004
America Is Going Facist?
.
Like a lot of people I've been speaking to lately, I've been limiting my cable news and Sunday morning talkshow viewing, not out of depression or sulky resentment, but because there's only so much inane twaddle a person can take. I have no interest in listening to a Chris Matthews panel speculate on who might replace this or that person in the cabinet, as if they were engaging in Rotisserie League baseball. I assume whomever Bush picks will have horns, cloven feet, and a connection to an oil company, so who cares what name the minion goes by?
But this morning I broke down and watched CBS's Face the Nation hosted by Bob Schieffer. His guests were Dem Jane Harmon and Repub Lindsey Graham, the topic the situation in Iraq and the turmoil at the CIA.
And as usual, there was a huge gaping hole in the discussion.
Schieffer brought up newspaper reports of high-level resignations and departures from the CIA since the arrival of Porter Goss, how some longtime CIA officers were disgusted by the arrogant treatment they had received by Goss's henchmen. Both Harmon and Graham thought this was unfortunate, though what seemed to bother Graham most was that this was being played out ugly in the papers instead of being handled behind closed doors. He emphasized that the CIA had failed bigtime when it came to 9/11 and Iraq, and if a few hurt feelings were what it took to turn things around, well too bad.
But that's not the issue with the Goss purge. The issue is that Goss is politicizing the agency, turning it into a strong arm of the Bush regime, guaranteeing that information will be slanted toward the conclusions Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld have already reached, that nary a discouraging word will deter the administration from its path of crusade.
To have all the executive, congressional, and judicial branches run by one party, a party determined to bring the intelligence agencies into ideological line--that's fascism in the making, my friends.
Iraq proves this nation's decision makers learned nothing from Vietnam. Bush II is proving that the press learned nothing from Watergate, that it still thinks we're the country we once were.
.
Like a lot of people I've been speaking to lately, I've been limiting my cable news and Sunday morning talkshow viewing, not out of depression or sulky resentment, but because there's only so much inane twaddle a person can take. I have no interest in listening to a Chris Matthews panel speculate on who might replace this or that person in the cabinet, as if they were engaging in Rotisserie League baseball. I assume whomever Bush picks will have horns, cloven feet, and a connection to an oil company, so who cares what name the minion goes by?
But this morning I broke down and watched CBS's Face the Nation hosted by Bob Schieffer. His guests were Dem Jane Harmon and Repub Lindsey Graham, the topic the situation in Iraq and the turmoil at the CIA.
And as usual, there was a huge gaping hole in the discussion.
Schieffer brought up newspaper reports of high-level resignations and departures from the CIA since the arrival of Porter Goss, how some longtime CIA officers were disgusted by the arrogant treatment they had received by Goss's henchmen. Both Harmon and Graham thought this was unfortunate, though what seemed to bother Graham most was that this was being played out ugly in the papers instead of being handled behind closed doors. He emphasized that the CIA had failed bigtime when it came to 9/11 and Iraq, and if a few hurt feelings were what it took to turn things around, well too bad.
But that's not the issue with the Goss purge. The issue is that Goss is politicizing the agency, turning it into a strong arm of the Bush regime, guaranteeing that information will be slanted toward the conclusions Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld have already reached, that nary a discouraging word will deter the administration from its path of crusade.
To have all the executive, congressional, and judicial branches run by one party, a party determined to bring the intelligence agencies into ideological line--that's fascism in the making, my friends.
Iraq proves this nation's decision makers learned nothing from Vietnam. Bush II is proving that the press learned nothing from Watergate, that it still thinks we're the country we once were.
.
1984 20 Years Late
.
Before You Know It, Please With Kerry Edwards Signs Will Get A Wand Up Their Ass
WASHINGTON -- The government ordered U.S. airlines Friday to turn over personal information about passengers so it can test a system for identifying potential terrorists. The move was expected but nonetheless brought protests from civil libertarians worried about invasions of privacy
.
Before You Know It, Please With Kerry Edwards Signs Will Get A Wand Up Their Ass
WASHINGTON -- The government ordered U.S. airlines Friday to turn over personal information about passengers so it can test a system for identifying potential terrorists. The move was expected but nonetheless brought protests from civil libertarians worried about invasions of privacy
.
66 dead in 14 days makes this already the 2nd deadliest month.
More Magical Thinking
.
Whether one views the war in Iraq as a noble effort in democratization or a brutal exercise in imperialism, there can be little doubt that it has proved the proverbial "bridge too far" for those who planned and, like myself, supported it. While much has been made of the strategic missteps the Bush administration has made since the Saddam Hussein regime was toppled, it seems likely that even the best-executed occupation would have been a daunting prospect…
Well Said
…
While democracy can take root anywhere (look at Indonesia and Afghanistan), it cannot be imposed overnight anywhere. Keep in mind that in Afghanistan we dismantled only a regime and not an entire bureaucratic apparatus of control like in Iraq; for in Afghanistan no such apparatus had existed. Over sizable swaths of the country there had been only warlords and tribal militias, with whom we had to work for many months before we began to co-opt them into a new legitimate authority: or, as the situation demanded, help that new authority to gradually ease them out. In Afghanistan following 9/11, we did what we had to do, and otherwise accepted the place as it was. The result has been change for the better.
I would argue you can never impose Democracy at all ever. It is a contradiction in terms
.
Whether one views the war in Iraq as a noble effort in democratization or a brutal exercise in imperialism, there can be little doubt that it has proved the proverbial "bridge too far" for those who planned and, like myself, supported it. While much has been made of the strategic missteps the Bush administration has made since the Saddam Hussein regime was toppled, it seems likely that even the best-executed occupation would have been a daunting prospect…
Well Said
…
While democracy can take root anywhere (look at Indonesia and Afghanistan), it cannot be imposed overnight anywhere. Keep in mind that in Afghanistan we dismantled only a regime and not an entire bureaucratic apparatus of control like in Iraq; for in Afghanistan no such apparatus had existed. Over sizable swaths of the country there had been only warlords and tribal militias, with whom we had to work for many months before we began to co-opt them into a new legitimate authority: or, as the situation demanded, help that new authority to gradually ease them out. In Afghanistan following 9/11, we did what we had to do, and otherwise accepted the place as it was. The result has been change for the better.
I would argue you can never impose Democracy at all ever. It is a contradiction in terms
.
Nothing Will Not Be Politicized By The Bushies, Including Our Safety
.
WASHINGTON -- The White House has ordered the new CIA director, Porter Goss, to purge the agency of officers believed to have been disloyal to President George W. Bush or of leaking damaging information to the media about the conduct of the Iraq war and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, according to knowledgeable sources.
"The agency is being purged on instructions from the White House," said a former senior CIA official who maintains close ties to both the agency and to the White House. "Goss was given instructions ... to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats. The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president's agenda."
One of the first casualties appears to be Stephen R. Kappes, deputy director of clandestine services, the CIA's most powerful division. The Washington Post reported yesterday that Kappes had tendered his resignation after a confrontation with Goss' chief of staff, Patrick Murray, but at the behest of the White House had agreed to delay his decision till tomorrow.
But the former senior CIA official said that the White House "doesn't want Steve Kappes to reconsider his resignation. That might be the spin they put on it, but they want him out." He said the job had already been offered to the former chief of the European Division who retired after a spat with then-CIA Director George Tenet.
Disloyalty Will Be Punished, Not Incompetence
Within the past month, four former deputy directors of operations have tried to offer CIA Director Porter J. Goss advice about changing the clandestine service without setting off a rebellion, but Goss has declined to speak to any of them, said former CIA officials aware of the communications.
The four senior officials represent nearly two decades of experience leading the Directorate of Operations under both Republican and Democratic presidents. The officials were dismayed by the reaction and were concerned that Goss has isolated himself from the agency's senior staff, said former clandestine service officers aware of the offers.
The senior operations officials "wanted to talk as old colleagues and tell him to stop what he was doing the way he was doing it," said a former senior official familiar with the effort.
Nothing Will Not Be Politicized By The Bushies, Including Our Safety
.
WASHINGTON -- The White House has ordered the new CIA director, Porter Goss, to purge the agency of officers believed to have been disloyal to President George W. Bush or of leaking damaging information to the media about the conduct of the Iraq war and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, according to knowledgeable sources.
"The agency is being purged on instructions from the White House," said a former senior CIA official who maintains close ties to both the agency and to the White House. "Goss was given instructions ... to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats. The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president's agenda."
One of the first casualties appears to be Stephen R. Kappes, deputy director of clandestine services, the CIA's most powerful division. The Washington Post reported yesterday that Kappes had tendered his resignation after a confrontation with Goss' chief of staff, Patrick Murray, but at the behest of the White House had agreed to delay his decision till tomorrow.
But the former senior CIA official said that the White House "doesn't want Steve Kappes to reconsider his resignation. That might be the spin they put on it, but they want him out." He said the job had already been offered to the former chief of the European Division who retired after a spat with then-CIA Director George Tenet.
Disloyalty Will Be Punished, Not Incompetence
Within the past month, four former deputy directors of operations have tried to offer CIA Director Porter J. Goss advice about changing the clandestine service without setting off a rebellion, but Goss has declined to speak to any of them, said former CIA officials aware of the communications.
The four senior officials represent nearly two decades of experience leading the Directorate of Operations under both Republican and Democratic presidents. The officials were dismayed by the reaction and were concerned that Goss has isolated himself from the agency's senior staff, said former clandestine service officers aware of the offers.
The senior operations officials "wanted to talk as old colleagues and tell him to stop what he was doing the way he was doing it," said a former senior official familiar with the effort.
Nothing Will Not Be Politicized By The Bushies, Including Our Safety
.
Saturday, November 13, 2004
My Prayers Go Out
To all of our troops. We are so lucky to have men and women so brave serve under any conitions, inclduing conditions like there. I hope everyone gets home. The sooner the better. I am so tired of this war already. I am sure they are too.
Bush's Twilight Zone Reality
.
Facts Don't Means Much Anymore.
Bush paints rosy picture of Iraq situation
He said "support continues to grow" internationally for the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, even though the multinational force will see some reductions in the coming months.”
Although Denmark, Hungary, Czech Republic, Bulgarians, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania are all either leaving or reducing troops in the coming months.
Fighting Insurgents This Way Is Like Grabbing Jello. They Leave One And Go To Another.
FALLUJAH, Iraq (AP) - The U.S. Army has diverted an infantry battalion from the fighting in Fallujah and sent them back to Mosul after an uprising there by insurgents, U.S. military officials said Saturday.
The 1st Battalion, 5th Infantry Regiment, a unit of the 25th Infantry Division, was ordered back to Mosul late Thursday after militants attacked bridges, police stations and government buildings in the city, officials said.
The battalion, which is now part of the Stryker Brigade of Task Force Olympia, was already back in the Mosul area.
.
Facts Don't Means Much Anymore.
Bush paints rosy picture of Iraq situation
He said "support continues to grow" internationally for the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, even though the multinational force will see some reductions in the coming months.”
Although Denmark, Hungary, Czech Republic, Bulgarians, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania are all either leaving or reducing troops in the coming months.
Fighting Insurgents This Way Is Like Grabbing Jello. They Leave One And Go To Another.
FALLUJAH, Iraq (AP) - The U.S. Army has diverted an infantry battalion from the fighting in Fallujah and sent them back to Mosul after an uprising there by insurgents, U.S. military officials said Saturday.
The 1st Battalion, 5th Infantry Regiment, a unit of the 25th Infantry Division, was ordered back to Mosul late Thursday after militants attacked bridges, police stations and government buildings in the city, officials said.
The battalion, which is now part of the Stryker Brigade of Task Force Olympia, was already back in the Mosul area.
.
Bush’s FDA: Medevalism and Corporatism Vs Science.
.
Scientist Who Cited Drug's Risks Is Barred From F.D.A. Panel
By GINA KOLATA
The Food and Drug Administration has told a researcher that he cannot be part of an advisory panel that will meet early next year to review the safety of a class of drugs, COX-2 inhibitors, used to treat arthritis and pain. The reason, the agency said, is he publicly stated that he thought one of these drugs caused heart problems and that Pfizer, its maker, knew that and was covering it up.
The scientist, Dr. Curt D. Furberg, a professor of public health sciences at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, N.C., was not barred forever from the panel, an F.D.A. spokeswoman said. Instead, Dr. Furberg was asked not to participate when it took up an issue in which he was seen to have an intellectual conflict of interest.
Bush’s FDA: Fuck People, Hello Profits.
.
Scientist Who Cited Drug's Risks Is Barred From F.D.A. Panel
By GINA KOLATA
The Food and Drug Administration has told a researcher that he cannot be part of an advisory panel that will meet early next year to review the safety of a class of drugs, COX-2 inhibitors, used to treat arthritis and pain. The reason, the agency said, is he publicly stated that he thought one of these drugs caused heart problems and that Pfizer, its maker, knew that and was covering it up.
The scientist, Dr. Curt D. Furberg, a professor of public health sciences at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, N.C., was not barred forever from the panel, an F.D.A. spokeswoman said. Instead, Dr. Furberg was asked not to participate when it took up an issue in which he was seen to have an intellectual conflict of interest.
Bush’s FDA: Fuck People, Hello Profits.
.
Another One Bites The Dust
.
Secretary of Education Will Leave Bush Cabinet
WASHINGTON, Nov. 12 - After four years as education secretary, bringing President Bush's signature law on education to classrooms across the nation, Rod Paige plans to leave the cabinet in the near future, administration officials said Friday.
Nothing to cry about here. It turns out all that data was cooked that made Houston Schools look like winners.
.
Secretary of Education Will Leave Bush Cabinet
WASHINGTON, Nov. 12 - After four years as education secretary, bringing President Bush's signature law on education to classrooms across the nation, Rod Paige plans to leave the cabinet in the near future, administration officials said Friday.
Nothing to cry about here. It turns out all that data was cooked that made Houston Schools look like winners.
.
The C.I.A. Versus Bush
Friday, November 12, 2004
1166
Thank God If You Don’t Live In Alabama
.
It's not quite as bad as Texas...but this is hard to believe
One week after voters apparently rejected an amendment that would have deleted segregationist language from the Alabama Constitution, state officials now say the margin of defeat was so narrow that in all likelihood, it will automatically mean a recount.
.
It's not quite as bad as Texas...but this is hard to believe
One week after voters apparently rejected an amendment that would have deleted segregationist language from the Alabama Constitution, state officials now say the margin of defeat was so narrow that in all likelihood, it will automatically mean a recount.
.
The Sinking American Brand
.
"Kevin Roberts, chief executive of the Saatchi & Saatchi advertising agency, expects US brands such as Coca-Cola to face 'growing resistance from Europe and Asia' because of opposition to US political policies. [Seymour Hersh, as far from an ad exec as you can get, makes the same point in a recent campus talk.]
"He said: 'Consumers are going to be pissed off at having Brand America rammed down their throats.'" He said that US multinationals would have do develop a advertising camouflage campaign, tailoring their marketing to local markets and deemphasizing the American connection.
In a related story in this morning's NY Times, Coke's chief marketing officer indicated the opposite, saying that Coke would do less "tactical" local advertising and devote more attention to Coke's broad appeal.
"We want to promote the bigger global ideas that are based on universal human insights."
Aye, but here's the rub.
America itself no longer promotes universal human insights. It thumps its exceptionalism everywhere it stomps. It is perceived as the overdog unchained.
An entire chapter in Emmanuel Todd's After the Empire is devoted to America's retreat from universalism. "One of the essential forces of empires, a principle behind both their dynamism and stability, is universalism, the capacity to treat all men and peoples as equals."
.
"Kevin Roberts, chief executive of the Saatchi & Saatchi advertising agency, expects US brands such as Coca-Cola to face 'growing resistance from Europe and Asia' because of opposition to US political policies. [Seymour Hersh, as far from an ad exec as you can get, makes the same point in a recent campus talk.]
"He said: 'Consumers are going to be pissed off at having Brand America rammed down their throats.'" He said that US multinationals would have do develop a advertising camouflage campaign, tailoring their marketing to local markets and deemphasizing the American connection.
In a related story in this morning's NY Times, Coke's chief marketing officer indicated the opposite, saying that Coke would do less "tactical" local advertising and devote more attention to Coke's broad appeal.
"We want to promote the bigger global ideas that are based on universal human insights."
Aye, but here's the rub.
America itself no longer promotes universal human insights. It thumps its exceptionalism everywhere it stomps. It is perceived as the overdog unchained.
An entire chapter in Emmanuel Todd's After the Empire is devoted to America's retreat from universalism. "One of the essential forces of empires, a principle behind both their dynamism and stability, is universalism, the capacity to treat all men and peoples as equals."
.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
You Bet He Split America
.
Arthur Finkelstein, a Republican consultant known for hard-edged campaigns that helped conservatives in the United States and Israel, has said in an interview published in Israel that President Bush's campaign strategy to court evangelical Christians had divided the country as never before, to the possible detriment of the Republican Party.
"From now on, anyone who belongs to the Republican Party will automatically find himself in the same group as the opponents of abortion, and anyone who supports abortion will automatically be labeled a Democrat," Mr. Finkelstein told Maariv, a daily, in an interview published on Friday. "The political center has disappeared, and the Republican Party has become the party of the Christian right more so than in any other period in modern history."
.
Arthur Finkelstein, a Republican consultant known for hard-edged campaigns that helped conservatives in the United States and Israel, has said in an interview published in Israel that President Bush's campaign strategy to court evangelical Christians had divided the country as never before, to the possible detriment of the Republican Party.
"From now on, anyone who belongs to the Republican Party will automatically find himself in the same group as the opponents of abortion, and anyone who supports abortion will automatically be labeled a Democrat," Mr. Finkelstein told Maariv, a daily, in an interview published on Friday. "The political center has disappeared, and the Republican Party has become the party of the Christian right more so than in any other period in modern history."
.
Press Reports on U.S. Casualties: About 17,000 Short, UPI Says
NEW YORK (UPI) Nearly 17,000 service members medically evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan are absent from public Pentagon casualty reports commonly cited by newspapers, according to military data reviewed by United Press International. Most don't fit the definition of casualties, according to the Pentagon, but a veterans' advocate said they should all be counted.
The Pentagon has reported 1,019 dead and 7,245 wounded from Iraq.
The military has evacuated 16,765 individual service members from Iraq and Afghanistan for injuries and ailments not directly related to combat, according to the U.S. Transportation Command, which is responsible for the medical evacuations. Most are from Operation Iraqi Freedom.
The Pentagon's public casualty reports, available at www.defenselink.mil, list only service members who died or were wounded in action. The Pentagon's own definition of a war casualty provided to UPI in December describes a casualty as, "Any person who is lost to the organization by having been declared dead, duty status/whereabouts unknown, missing, ill, or injured."
The casualty reports do list soldiers who died in non-combat-related incidents or died from illness. But service members injured or ailing from the same non-combat causes (the majority that appear to be "lost to the organization")are not reflected in those Pentagon reports.
Guess You Don't Count If You're Not Hurt In Battle
.
James Wolcott- End Of The Empire
.
First we went it alone. Now we have to go it alone.
Yesterday the face of Colin Powell glared out from the front page of the Financial Times. He sounded ominous, too, announcing that with his electoral mandate, the Red King would not be trimming his sails or pulling back from his foreign policy. That he would continue to be "aggressive" in pursuing American interests.
Usually it's Rumsfeld or Cheney or Bolton or Rice or Wolfowitz who's sent out to look ominous and spew ash. Perhaps it was simply Powell's turn in the pitching rotation, or perhaps he is continuing his own policy of being a stand-up guy in public for the administration while pouring out his Qualms and Grave Reservations to Bob Woodward's tape recorder to give himself some wiggle room in the historical record.
Whatever the explanation, Powell's declaration of further independence was a double slap to European allies and others, his Expression of Steely Resolve being all the more dispiriting since Powell was the one power player they semi-respected for being on speaking terms with reality and willing to consult with others. Now he was politely slamming that door in their faces and telling them to get used to the new rugged reality.
The truth is that the US can no longer back up the big mouths of its leaders. If America chooses to go it alone in future conflicts, it'll be because it has no choice…
… The US assault on Fallujah is a prime example of what Todd calls "theatrical micromilitarism." I mean, calling it "Operation Phantom Fury"--it's a sick joke. What's "phantom" about it? For months the US has been touting this incursion and publicly built up forces outside the city for weeks, giving the enemy plenty of time to rig explosives and/or skip town. Billing it as a "decisive battle"--another fraud. Guerrilla warfare operates on an entirely different set of rules; as has been oft pointed out, America won every major battle during Vietnam and still lost. What's unfolding is not a decisive moment but a ghastly production that trains hellfire on a symbolic target and "plays well" to American citizens as a flex of muscle, as witness the NY Post cover today of an American soldier with a cigarette dangling from his mouth with the headline "Marlboro Men Kick Butt." Civilian casualties, the destruction of homes and livelihoods, the absence of any significant capture of insurgent ringleaders, these are secondary to getting good action footage over which benedictions can be said.
Under a second Bush term, the neocons are more entrenched and missile-rattling than ever, eyeing Iran, Syria, even China. But the fist they shake at the world is a flabby one, as the world has somberly, resentfully come to recognize.
"As for George W. Bush and his neoconservative helpers, they will go down in history as the grave diggers of the American empire."
.
First we went it alone. Now we have to go it alone.
Yesterday the face of Colin Powell glared out from the front page of the Financial Times. He sounded ominous, too, announcing that with his electoral mandate, the Red King would not be trimming his sails or pulling back from his foreign policy. That he would continue to be "aggressive" in pursuing American interests.
Usually it's Rumsfeld or Cheney or Bolton or Rice or Wolfowitz who's sent out to look ominous and spew ash. Perhaps it was simply Powell's turn in the pitching rotation, or perhaps he is continuing his own policy of being a stand-up guy in public for the administration while pouring out his Qualms and Grave Reservations to Bob Woodward's tape recorder to give himself some wiggle room in the historical record.
Whatever the explanation, Powell's declaration of further independence was a double slap to European allies and others, his Expression of Steely Resolve being all the more dispiriting since Powell was the one power player they semi-respected for being on speaking terms with reality and willing to consult with others. Now he was politely slamming that door in their faces and telling them to get used to the new rugged reality.
The truth is that the US can no longer back up the big mouths of its leaders. If America chooses to go it alone in future conflicts, it'll be because it has no choice…
… The US assault on Fallujah is a prime example of what Todd calls "theatrical micromilitarism." I mean, calling it "Operation Phantom Fury"--it's a sick joke. What's "phantom" about it? For months the US has been touting this incursion and publicly built up forces outside the city for weeks, giving the enemy plenty of time to rig explosives and/or skip town. Billing it as a "decisive battle"--another fraud. Guerrilla warfare operates on an entirely different set of rules; as has been oft pointed out, America won every major battle during Vietnam and still lost. What's unfolding is not a decisive moment but a ghastly production that trains hellfire on a symbolic target and "plays well" to American citizens as a flex of muscle, as witness the NY Post cover today of an American soldier with a cigarette dangling from his mouth with the headline "Marlboro Men Kick Butt." Civilian casualties, the destruction of homes and livelihoods, the absence of any significant capture of insurgent ringleaders, these are secondary to getting good action footage over which benedictions can be said.
Under a second Bush term, the neocons are more entrenched and missile-rattling than ever, eyeing Iran, Syria, even China. But the fist they shake at the world is a flabby one, as the world has somberly, resentfully come to recognize.
"As for George W. Bush and his neoconservative helpers, they will go down in history as the grave diggers of the American empire."
.
War as Theatre
.
America has effectively made a stage of Fallujah, forcing thousands of civilians to flee so that it can display its commitment to the 'future of Iraq' and 'democracy' in general without causing too much bloodshed or upset. Indeed, both the Americans and the insurgents seem more interested in putting on shows for the media than in winning the hearts and minds or the backing of Fallujah residents. Coalition forces' first target when they moved in to the city was the hospital, reportedly so that they could prevent doctors from exaggerating civilian casualties in reports to journalists (14). Meanwhile, insurgents invited Western journalists, even Americans, to 'embed' with them, so that 'all the media [will] see the real face of America' (15). As the residents are cleared out and their city turned into a stage, the coalition and the insurgents perform for the watching world.
It looks highly likely that America will win the battle of Fallujah. But when the tens of thousands of residents return to a city largely wrecked by this 'new war', they are unlikely to be very grateful.
.
America has effectively made a stage of Fallujah, forcing thousands of civilians to flee so that it can display its commitment to the 'future of Iraq' and 'democracy' in general without causing too much bloodshed or upset. Indeed, both the Americans and the insurgents seem more interested in putting on shows for the media than in winning the hearts and minds or the backing of Fallujah residents. Coalition forces' first target when they moved in to the city was the hospital, reportedly so that they could prevent doctors from exaggerating civilian casualties in reports to journalists (14). Meanwhile, insurgents invited Western journalists, even Americans, to 'embed' with them, so that 'all the media [will] see the real face of America' (15). As the residents are cleared out and their city turned into a stage, the coalition and the insurgents perform for the watching world.
It looks highly likely that America will win the battle of Fallujah. But when the tens of thousands of residents return to a city largely wrecked by this 'new war', they are unlikely to be very grateful.
.
Science Vs Christian Superstition
.
On May 22, 2003, the Los Angeles Times printed a front-page story by Scott Gold, its respected Houston bureau chief, about the passage of a law in Texas requiring abortion doctors to warn women that the procedure might cause breast cancer. Virtually no mainstream scientist believes that the so-called ABC link actually exists — only anti-abortion activists do. Accordingly, Gold’s article noted right off the bat that the American Cancer Society discounts the “alleged link” and that anti-abortionists have pushed for “so-called counseling” laws only after failing in their attempts to have abortion banned. Gold also reported that the National Cancer Institute had convened “more than a hundred of the world’s experts” to assess the ABC theory, which they rejected. In comparison to these scientists, Gold noted, the author of the Texas counseling bill — who called the ABC issue “still disputed” — had “a professional background in property management.”
Gold’s piece was hard-hitting but accurate. The scientific consensus is quite firm that abortion does not cause breast cancer. If reporters want to take science and its conclusions seriously, their reporting should reflect this reality — no matter what anti-abortionists say.
But what happened next illustrates one reason journalists have such a hard time calling it like they see it on science issues. In an internal memo exposed by the Web site LAobserved.com, the Times’s editor, John Carroll, singled out Gold’s story for harsh criticism, claiming it vindicated critics who accuse the paper of liberal bias. Carroll specifically criticized Gold’s “so-called counseling” line (“a phrase that is loaded with derision”) and his “professional background in property management” quip (“seldom will you read a cheaper shot than this”). “The story makes a strong case that the link between abortion and breast cancer is widely discounted among researchers,” Carroll wrote, “but I wondered as I read it whether somewhere there might exist some credible scientist who believes in it . . . . Apparently the scientific argument for the anti-abortion side is so absurd that we don’t need to waste our readers’ time with it.”
.
On May 22, 2003, the Los Angeles Times printed a front-page story by Scott Gold, its respected Houston bureau chief, about the passage of a law in Texas requiring abortion doctors to warn women that the procedure might cause breast cancer. Virtually no mainstream scientist believes that the so-called ABC link actually exists — only anti-abortion activists do. Accordingly, Gold’s article noted right off the bat that the American Cancer Society discounts the “alleged link” and that anti-abortionists have pushed for “so-called counseling” laws only after failing in their attempts to have abortion banned. Gold also reported that the National Cancer Institute had convened “more than a hundred of the world’s experts” to assess the ABC theory, which they rejected. In comparison to these scientists, Gold noted, the author of the Texas counseling bill — who called the ABC issue “still disputed” — had “a professional background in property management.”
Gold’s piece was hard-hitting but accurate. The scientific consensus is quite firm that abortion does not cause breast cancer. If reporters want to take science and its conclusions seriously, their reporting should reflect this reality — no matter what anti-abortionists say.
But what happened next illustrates one reason journalists have such a hard time calling it like they see it on science issues. In an internal memo exposed by the Web site LAobserved.com, the Times’s editor, John Carroll, singled out Gold’s story for harsh criticism, claiming it vindicated critics who accuse the paper of liberal bias. Carroll specifically criticized Gold’s “so-called counseling” line (“a phrase that is loaded with derision”) and his “professional background in property management” quip (“seldom will you read a cheaper shot than this”). “The story makes a strong case that the link between abortion and breast cancer is widely discounted among researchers,” Carroll wrote, “but I wondered as I read it whether somewhere there might exist some credible scientist who believes in it . . . . Apparently the scientific argument for the anti-abortion side is so absurd that we don’t need to waste our readers’ time with it.”
.
Frank Rich Writes The Truth About Who Won The Culture War
.
FAREWELL to Swift boats and "Shove it!," to Osama's tape and Saddam's missing weapons, to "security moms" and outsourced dads. They've all been sent to history's dustbin faster than Ralph Nader memorabilia was dumped on eBay. In their stead stands a single ambiguous phrase coined by an anonymous exit pollster: "Moral values." By near universal agreement the morning after, these two words tell the entire story of the election: it's the culture, stupid.
"It really is Michael Moore versus Mel Gibson," said Newt Gingrich. To Jon Stewart, Nov. 2 was the red states' revenge on "Will & Grace." William Safire, speaking on "Meet the Press," called the Janet Jackson fracas "the social-political event of the past year." Karl Rove was of the same mind: "I think it's people who are concerned about the coarseness of our culture, about what they see on the television sets, what they see in the movies ..."
And let's not even get started on the two most dreaded words in American comedy, regardless of your party affiliation: Whoopi Goldberg.
There's only one problem with the storyline proclaiming that the country swung to the right on cultural issues in 2004. Like so many other narratives that immediately calcify into our 24/7 media's conventional wisdom, it is fiction. Everything about the election results - and about American culture itself - confirms an inescapable reality: John Kerry's defeat notwithstanding, it's blue America, not red, that is inexorably winning the culture war, and by a landslide. Kerry voters who have been flagellating themselves since Election Day with a vengeance worthy of "The Passion of the Christ" should wake up and smell the Chardonnay.
The blue ascendancy is nearly as strong among Republicans as it is among Democrats. Those whose "moral values" are invested in cultural heroes like the accused loofah fetishist Bill O'Reilly and the self-gratifying drug consumer Rush Limbaugh are surely joking when they turn apoplectic over MTV. William Bennett's name is now as synonymous with Las Vegas as silicone. The Democrats' Ashton Kutcher is trumped by the Republicans' Britney Spears. Excess and vulgarity, as always, enjoy a vast, bipartisan constituency, and in a democracy no political party will ever stamp them out.
If anyone is laughing all the way to the bank this election year, it must be the undisputed king of the red cultural elite, Rupert Murdoch. Fox News is a rising profit center within his News Corporation, and each red-state dollar that it makes can be plowed back into the rest of Fox's very blue entertainment portfolio. The Murdoch cultural stable includes recent books like Jenna Jameson's "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star" and the Vivid Girls' "How to Have a XXX Sex Life," which have both been synergistically, even joyously, promoted on Fox News by willing hosts like Rita Cosby and, needless to say, Mr. O'Reilly. There are "real fun parts and exciting parts," said Ms. Cosby to Ms. Jameson on Fox News's "Big Story Weekend," an encounter broadcast on Saturday at 9 p.m., assuring its maximum exposure to unsupervised kids.
Almost unnoticed in the final weeks of the campaign was the record government indecency fine levied against another prime-time Fox television product, "Married by America." The $1.2 million bill, a mere bagatelle to Murdoch stockholders, was more than twice the punishment inflicted on Viacom for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction." According to the F.C.C. complaint, one episode in this heterosexual marriage-promoting reality show included scenes in which "partygoers lick whipped cream from strippers' bodies," and two female strippers "playfully spank" a man on all fours in his underwear. "Married by America" is gone now, but Fox remains the go-to network for Paris Hilton ("The Simple Life") and wife-swapping ("Trading Spouses: Meet Your New Mommy").
None of this has prompted an uprising from the red-state Fox News loyalists supposedly so preoccupied with "moral values." They all gladly contribute fungible dollars to Fox culture by boosting their fair-and-balanced channel's rise in the ratings. Some of these red staters may want to make love like porn stars besides. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) An ABC News poll two weeks before the election found that more Republicans than Democrats enjoy sex "a great deal." The Democrats' new hero, Illinois Senator-elect Barack Obama, was assured victory once his original, ostentatiously pious Republican opponent, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race rather than defend his taste for "avant-garde" sex clubs.
The 22 percent of voters who told pollsters that "moral values" were their top election issue - 79 percent of whom voted for Bush-Cheney - corresponds almost exactly to the number of voters (23 percent) who describe themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians. They are entitled to their culture, too, and their own entertainment industry. And their own show-biz scandals. The Los Angeles Times reported this summer that Paul Crouch, the evangelist who founded the largest Christian network, Trinity Broadcasting Network, vehemently denied a former employee's accusation that the two had had a homosexual encounter - though not before paying the employee a $425,000 settlement. Not so incidentally, Trinity joined Gary Bauer and Fox News as prime movers in "Redeem the Vote," the Christian-rock alternative to MTV's "Rock the Vote."
But the distance between this hard-core red culture and the majority blue culture is perhaps best captured by Tom Coburn, the newly elected Republican senator from Oklahoma, lately famous for discovering "rampant" lesbianism in that state's schools. As a congressman in 1997, Mr. Coburn attacked NBC for encouraging "irresponsible sexual behavior" and taking "network TV to an all-time low with full frontal nudity, violence and profanity being shown in our homes." The broadcast that prompted his outrage on behalf of "parents and decent-minded individuals everywhere" was the network's prime-time showing of Steven Spielberg's "Schindler's List."
It's in the G.O.P.'s interest to pander to this far-right constituency - votes are votes - but you can be certain that a party joined at the hip to much of corporate America, Mr. Murdoch included, will take no action to curtail the blue culture these voters deplore. As Marshall Wittman, an independent-minded former associate of both Ralph Reed and John McCain, wrote before the election, "The only things the religious conservatives get are largely symbolic votes on proposals guaranteed to fail, such as the gay marriage constitutional amendment." That amendment has never had a prayer of rounding up the two-thirds majority needed for passage and still doesn't.
Mr. Wittman echoes Thomas Frank, the author of "What's the Matter With Kansas?," by common consent the year's most prescient political book. "Values," Mr. Frank writes, "always take a backseat to the needs of money once the elections are won." Under this perennial "trick," as he calls it, Republican politicians promise to stop abortion and force the culture industry "to clean up its act" - until the votes are counted. Then they return to their higher priorities, like cutting capital gains and estate taxes. Mr. Murdoch and his fellow cultural barons - from Sumner Redstone, the Bush-endorsing C.E.O. of Viacom, to Richard Parsons, the Republican C.E.O. of Time Warner, to Jeffrey Immelt, the Bush-contributing C.E.O. of G.E. (NBC Universal) - are about to be rewarded not just with more tax breaks but also with deregulatory goodies increasing their power to market salacious entertainment. It's they, not Susan Sarandon and Bruce Springsteen, who actually set the cultural agenda Gary Bauer and company say they despise.
But it's not only the G.O.P.'s fealty to its financial backers that is predictive of how little cultural bang the "values" voters will get for their Bush-Cheney votes. At 78 percent, the nonvalues voters have far more votes than they do, and both parties will cater to that overwhelming majority's blue tastes first and last. Their mandate is clear: The same poll that clocked "moral values" partisans at 22 percent of the electorate found that nearly three times as many Americans approve of some form of legal status for gay couples, whether civil unions (35 percent) or marriage (27 percent). Do the math and you'll find that the poll also shows that for all the G.O.P.'s efforts to court Jews, the total number of Jewish Republican voters in 2004, while up from 2000, was still some 200,000 less than the number of gay Republican voters.
When Robert Novak writes after the election that "the anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, socially conservative agenda is ascendant, and the G.O.P. will not abandon it anytime soon," you have to wonder what drug he is on. The abandonment began at the convention. Sam Brownback, the Kansas senator who champions the religious right, was locked away in an off-camera rally across town from Madison Square Garden. Prime time was bestowed upon the three biggest stars in post-Bush Republican politics: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger. All are supporters of gay rights and opponents of the same-sex marriage constitutional amendment. Only Mr. McCain calls himself pro-life, and he's never made abortion a cause. None of the three support the Bush administration position on stem-cell research. When the No. 1 "moral values" movie star, Mel Gibson, condemned the Schwarzenegger-endorsed California ballot initiative expanding and financing stem-cell research, the governor and voters crushed him like a girlie-man. The measure carried by 59 percent, which is consistent with national polling on the issue.
If the Republican party's next round of leaders are all cool with blue culture, why should Democrats run after the red? Received Washington wisdom has it that the only Democrat who will ever be able to win a national election must be a cross between Gomer Pyle and Billy Sunday - a Scripture-quoting Sun Belt exurbanite whose loyalty to Nascar does not extend to Dale Earnhardt Jr., who was fined last month for saying a four-letter word on television.
According to this argument, the values voters the Democrats must pander to are people like Cary and Tara Leslie, archetypal Ohio evangelical "Bush votes come to life" apotheosized by The Washington Post right after Election Day. The Leslies swear by "moral absolutes," support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and mostly watch Fox News. Mr. Leslie has also watched his income drop from $55,000 to $35,000 since 2001, forcing himself, his wife and his three young children into the ranks of what he calls the "working poor." Maybe by 2008 some Democrat will figure out how to persuade him that it might be a higher moral value to worry about the future of his own family than some gay family he hasn't even met.
.
FAREWELL to Swift boats and "Shove it!," to Osama's tape and Saddam's missing weapons, to "security moms" and outsourced dads. They've all been sent to history's dustbin faster than Ralph Nader memorabilia was dumped on eBay. In their stead stands a single ambiguous phrase coined by an anonymous exit pollster: "Moral values." By near universal agreement the morning after, these two words tell the entire story of the election: it's the culture, stupid.
"It really is Michael Moore versus Mel Gibson," said Newt Gingrich. To Jon Stewart, Nov. 2 was the red states' revenge on "Will & Grace." William Safire, speaking on "Meet the Press," called the Janet Jackson fracas "the social-political event of the past year." Karl Rove was of the same mind: "I think it's people who are concerned about the coarseness of our culture, about what they see on the television sets, what they see in the movies ..."
And let's not even get started on the two most dreaded words in American comedy, regardless of your party affiliation: Whoopi Goldberg.
There's only one problem with the storyline proclaiming that the country swung to the right on cultural issues in 2004. Like so many other narratives that immediately calcify into our 24/7 media's conventional wisdom, it is fiction. Everything about the election results - and about American culture itself - confirms an inescapable reality: John Kerry's defeat notwithstanding, it's blue America, not red, that is inexorably winning the culture war, and by a landslide. Kerry voters who have been flagellating themselves since Election Day with a vengeance worthy of "The Passion of the Christ" should wake up and smell the Chardonnay.
The blue ascendancy is nearly as strong among Republicans as it is among Democrats. Those whose "moral values" are invested in cultural heroes like the accused loofah fetishist Bill O'Reilly and the self-gratifying drug consumer Rush Limbaugh are surely joking when they turn apoplectic over MTV. William Bennett's name is now as synonymous with Las Vegas as silicone. The Democrats' Ashton Kutcher is trumped by the Republicans' Britney Spears. Excess and vulgarity, as always, enjoy a vast, bipartisan constituency, and in a democracy no political party will ever stamp them out.
If anyone is laughing all the way to the bank this election year, it must be the undisputed king of the red cultural elite, Rupert Murdoch. Fox News is a rising profit center within his News Corporation, and each red-state dollar that it makes can be plowed back into the rest of Fox's very blue entertainment portfolio. The Murdoch cultural stable includes recent books like Jenna Jameson's "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star" and the Vivid Girls' "How to Have a XXX Sex Life," which have both been synergistically, even joyously, promoted on Fox News by willing hosts like Rita Cosby and, needless to say, Mr. O'Reilly. There are "real fun parts and exciting parts," said Ms. Cosby to Ms. Jameson on Fox News's "Big Story Weekend," an encounter broadcast on Saturday at 9 p.m., assuring its maximum exposure to unsupervised kids.
Almost unnoticed in the final weeks of the campaign was the record government indecency fine levied against another prime-time Fox television product, "Married by America." The $1.2 million bill, a mere bagatelle to Murdoch stockholders, was more than twice the punishment inflicted on Viacom for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction." According to the F.C.C. complaint, one episode in this heterosexual marriage-promoting reality show included scenes in which "partygoers lick whipped cream from strippers' bodies," and two female strippers "playfully spank" a man on all fours in his underwear. "Married by America" is gone now, but Fox remains the go-to network for Paris Hilton ("The Simple Life") and wife-swapping ("Trading Spouses: Meet Your New Mommy").
None of this has prompted an uprising from the red-state Fox News loyalists supposedly so preoccupied with "moral values." They all gladly contribute fungible dollars to Fox culture by boosting their fair-and-balanced channel's rise in the ratings. Some of these red staters may want to make love like porn stars besides. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) An ABC News poll two weeks before the election found that more Republicans than Democrats enjoy sex "a great deal." The Democrats' new hero, Illinois Senator-elect Barack Obama, was assured victory once his original, ostentatiously pious Republican opponent, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race rather than defend his taste for "avant-garde" sex clubs.
The 22 percent of voters who told pollsters that "moral values" were their top election issue - 79 percent of whom voted for Bush-Cheney - corresponds almost exactly to the number of voters (23 percent) who describe themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians. They are entitled to their culture, too, and their own entertainment industry. And their own show-biz scandals. The Los Angeles Times reported this summer that Paul Crouch, the evangelist who founded the largest Christian network, Trinity Broadcasting Network, vehemently denied a former employee's accusation that the two had had a homosexual encounter - though not before paying the employee a $425,000 settlement. Not so incidentally, Trinity joined Gary Bauer and Fox News as prime movers in "Redeem the Vote," the Christian-rock alternative to MTV's "Rock the Vote."
But the distance between this hard-core red culture and the majority blue culture is perhaps best captured by Tom Coburn, the newly elected Republican senator from Oklahoma, lately famous for discovering "rampant" lesbianism in that state's schools. As a congressman in 1997, Mr. Coburn attacked NBC for encouraging "irresponsible sexual behavior" and taking "network TV to an all-time low with full frontal nudity, violence and profanity being shown in our homes." The broadcast that prompted his outrage on behalf of "parents and decent-minded individuals everywhere" was the network's prime-time showing of Steven Spielberg's "Schindler's List."
It's in the G.O.P.'s interest to pander to this far-right constituency - votes are votes - but you can be certain that a party joined at the hip to much of corporate America, Mr. Murdoch included, will take no action to curtail the blue culture these voters deplore. As Marshall Wittman, an independent-minded former associate of both Ralph Reed and John McCain, wrote before the election, "The only things the religious conservatives get are largely symbolic votes on proposals guaranteed to fail, such as the gay marriage constitutional amendment." That amendment has never had a prayer of rounding up the two-thirds majority needed for passage and still doesn't.
Mr. Wittman echoes Thomas Frank, the author of "What's the Matter With Kansas?," by common consent the year's most prescient political book. "Values," Mr. Frank writes, "always take a backseat to the needs of money once the elections are won." Under this perennial "trick," as he calls it, Republican politicians promise to stop abortion and force the culture industry "to clean up its act" - until the votes are counted. Then they return to their higher priorities, like cutting capital gains and estate taxes. Mr. Murdoch and his fellow cultural barons - from Sumner Redstone, the Bush-endorsing C.E.O. of Viacom, to Richard Parsons, the Republican C.E.O. of Time Warner, to Jeffrey Immelt, the Bush-contributing C.E.O. of G.E. (NBC Universal) - are about to be rewarded not just with more tax breaks but also with deregulatory goodies increasing their power to market salacious entertainment. It's they, not Susan Sarandon and Bruce Springsteen, who actually set the cultural agenda Gary Bauer and company say they despise.
But it's not only the G.O.P.'s fealty to its financial backers that is predictive of how little cultural bang the "values" voters will get for their Bush-Cheney votes. At 78 percent, the nonvalues voters have far more votes than they do, and both parties will cater to that overwhelming majority's blue tastes first and last. Their mandate is clear: The same poll that clocked "moral values" partisans at 22 percent of the electorate found that nearly three times as many Americans approve of some form of legal status for gay couples, whether civil unions (35 percent) or marriage (27 percent). Do the math and you'll find that the poll also shows that for all the G.O.P.'s efforts to court Jews, the total number of Jewish Republican voters in 2004, while up from 2000, was still some 200,000 less than the number of gay Republican voters.
When Robert Novak writes after the election that "the anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, socially conservative agenda is ascendant, and the G.O.P. will not abandon it anytime soon," you have to wonder what drug he is on. The abandonment began at the convention. Sam Brownback, the Kansas senator who champions the religious right, was locked away in an off-camera rally across town from Madison Square Garden. Prime time was bestowed upon the three biggest stars in post-Bush Republican politics: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger. All are supporters of gay rights and opponents of the same-sex marriage constitutional amendment. Only Mr. McCain calls himself pro-life, and he's never made abortion a cause. None of the three support the Bush administration position on stem-cell research. When the No. 1 "moral values" movie star, Mel Gibson, condemned the Schwarzenegger-endorsed California ballot initiative expanding and financing stem-cell research, the governor and voters crushed him like a girlie-man. The measure carried by 59 percent, which is consistent with national polling on the issue.
If the Republican party's next round of leaders are all cool with blue culture, why should Democrats run after the red? Received Washington wisdom has it that the only Democrat who will ever be able to win a national election must be a cross between Gomer Pyle and Billy Sunday - a Scripture-quoting Sun Belt exurbanite whose loyalty to Nascar does not extend to Dale Earnhardt Jr., who was fined last month for saying a four-letter word on television.
According to this argument, the values voters the Democrats must pander to are people like Cary and Tara Leslie, archetypal Ohio evangelical "Bush votes come to life" apotheosized by The Washington Post right after Election Day. The Leslies swear by "moral absolutes," support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and mostly watch Fox News. Mr. Leslie has also watched his income drop from $55,000 to $35,000 since 2001, forcing himself, his wife and his three young children into the ranks of what he calls the "working poor." Maybe by 2008 some Democrat will figure out how to persuade him that it might be a higher moral value to worry about the future of his own family than some gay family he hasn't even met.
.
Grey Lady Trifecta
.
Modo Asks Questions Our Press Simply Won’t
Falluja, supposed to be a defining battle, showed only how undefined this guerrilla war is. The Marines swept into a city deserted by most of the insurgents, who were terrorizing and kidnapping Iraqis elsewhere.
"Falluja isn't Masada or the Alamo,'' Fred Kaplan wrote in Slate, "some last-ditch outpost where the rebels whoop their final battle cry, rally one more round of resistance, then pass into history when their last rifleman falls.''
Last night, the military said it dominated 70 percent of Falluja. But what good does that do if 98 percent of the bad guys have already moved on, or if 100 percent of the Sunnis boycott the elections out of anger over the assault? It's just like when Mr. Bush says 75 percent of Al Qaeda's leadership has been killed or captured. What good is that if Al Qaeda has become an inspirational force for 100 percent of the jihadists?
The math is self-defeating. Pictures of forces taking a Falluja mosque will no doubt spur a surge of Islamic terrorist recruits, who won't be fooled by the marines' new camouflage: their Iraqi vanguard.
Thomas Freidman Still Sane
I got a brief glimpse of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's news conference on Monday, as the battle for Falluja began. I couldn't help but rub my eyes for a moment and wonder aloud whether I had been transported back in time to some 20 months ago, when the war for Iraq had just started. Watching CNN, I saw the same Rummy joking with the Pentagon press corps, the same scratchy reports from the front by "embedded reporters,'' the same footage of U.S. generals who briefed the soldiers preparing for battle about how they were liberating Iraq.
There was only one difference that no one seemed to want to mention. It wasn't 20 months ago. It was now. And Iraq has still not been fully liberated. In fact, as the fight for Falluja shows, it hasn't even been fully occupied.
Taking in this scene I had very mixed feelings: a fervent hope that victory in Falluja will start to tip Iraq in the right direction, and utter scorn at the fact that we are now, once again, fighting a full-scale war in central Iraq, without an ounce of self-reflection by an administration that long ago declared "mission accomplished.'' But don't worry. Rummy has it all under control. He hasn't made any mistakes. Everything is going as planned. The plan was always to fight running street battles in Falluja 20 months after Saddam's fall.
So lay off. Shut up. Watch Fox. Wave a flag. Visit a red state. Don't ask how we got into this fix. Shut up. Lay off. Watch Fox. ...
Alas, I'm part of that dwindling minority who believe that a decent outcome in Iraq is both hugely important and still possible. But the "déjà vu all over again" battle for Falluja only reminds me that I still have the same questions I had before the Iraq war started.
The Most Heartbreaking Thing- MUST READ
Excerpt from an e-mail message to her cousin on his wedding day from Sgt. First Class Linda Ann Tarango-Griess of the Army. Sergeant Tarango-Griess, 33, of Sutton, Neb., was killed on July 11 in Samarra by an improvised explosive device.
May 14
So today is your big day? Wow! It seems like just yesterday that I was making you peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and Malt-O-Meal. We experienced a lot together as we grew up and for the life of me, I can't think of a time that you and I never got along. IS THAT NORMAL?
I never thought I would see the day that you settle down and get married, but here you are. You couldn't have picked a more wonderful person than Rachel. She is very sweet, very giving and most important, she loves you. Be good to her. I am sorry I can't be there to share in your day, but here I am in hopes that one day, these people will have the chance to be as happy as you. Just know that I AM with you ... just close your eyes, place your hands on your heart, and you will feel me there.
..
Modo Asks Questions Our Press Simply Won’t
Falluja, supposed to be a defining battle, showed only how undefined this guerrilla war is. The Marines swept into a city deserted by most of the insurgents, who were terrorizing and kidnapping Iraqis elsewhere.
"Falluja isn't Masada or the Alamo,'' Fred Kaplan wrote in Slate, "some last-ditch outpost where the rebels whoop their final battle cry, rally one more round of resistance, then pass into history when their last rifleman falls.''
Last night, the military said it dominated 70 percent of Falluja. But what good does that do if 98 percent of the bad guys have already moved on, or if 100 percent of the Sunnis boycott the elections out of anger over the assault? It's just like when Mr. Bush says 75 percent of Al Qaeda's leadership has been killed or captured. What good is that if Al Qaeda has become an inspirational force for 100 percent of the jihadists?
The math is self-defeating. Pictures of forces taking a Falluja mosque will no doubt spur a surge of Islamic terrorist recruits, who won't be fooled by the marines' new camouflage: their Iraqi vanguard.
Thomas Freidman Still Sane
I got a brief glimpse of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's news conference on Monday, as the battle for Falluja began. I couldn't help but rub my eyes for a moment and wonder aloud whether I had been transported back in time to some 20 months ago, when the war for Iraq had just started. Watching CNN, I saw the same Rummy joking with the Pentagon press corps, the same scratchy reports from the front by "embedded reporters,'' the same footage of U.S. generals who briefed the soldiers preparing for battle about how they were liberating Iraq.
There was only one difference that no one seemed to want to mention. It wasn't 20 months ago. It was now. And Iraq has still not been fully liberated. In fact, as the fight for Falluja shows, it hasn't even been fully occupied.
Taking in this scene I had very mixed feelings: a fervent hope that victory in Falluja will start to tip Iraq in the right direction, and utter scorn at the fact that we are now, once again, fighting a full-scale war in central Iraq, without an ounce of self-reflection by an administration that long ago declared "mission accomplished.'' But don't worry. Rummy has it all under control. He hasn't made any mistakes. Everything is going as planned. The plan was always to fight running street battles in Falluja 20 months after Saddam's fall.
So lay off. Shut up. Watch Fox. Wave a flag. Visit a red state. Don't ask how we got into this fix. Shut up. Lay off. Watch Fox. ...
Alas, I'm part of that dwindling minority who believe that a decent outcome in Iraq is both hugely important and still possible. But the "déjà vu all over again" battle for Falluja only reminds me that I still have the same questions I had before the Iraq war started.
The Most Heartbreaking Thing- MUST READ
Excerpt from an e-mail message to her cousin on his wedding day from Sgt. First Class Linda Ann Tarango-Griess of the Army. Sergeant Tarango-Griess, 33, of Sutton, Neb., was killed on July 11 in Samarra by an improvised explosive device.
May 14
So today is your big day? Wow! It seems like just yesterday that I was making you peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and Malt-O-Meal. We experienced a lot together as we grew up and for the life of me, I can't think of a time that you and I never got along. IS THAT NORMAL?
I never thought I would see the day that you settle down and get married, but here you are. You couldn't have picked a more wonderful person than Rachel. She is very sweet, very giving and most important, she loves you. Be good to her. I am sorry I can't be there to share in your day, but here I am in hopes that one day, these people will have the chance to be as happy as you. Just know that I AM with you ... just close your eyes, place your hands on your heart, and you will feel me there.
..
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Halliburton Involved In Kickbacks?
.
How could that be?
Why Does This Not Surprise Me?
Intervening in a heated business dispute, top U.S. officials exerted pressure to force Halliburton Corp. to buy allegedly overpriced fuel from a Kuwaiti company, according to State Department documents released today.
U.S. Ambassador to Kuwait Richard H. Jones urged the purchase of fuel from Altanmia Commercial Marketing Co. amid the Kuwaiti firms' accusations that Halliburton officials were demanding kickbacks, smuggling oil and in one case forcing a hotel to buy a diamond-encrusted Cartier watch for an executive's wife, the documents show.
.
How could that be?
Why Does This Not Surprise Me?
Intervening in a heated business dispute, top U.S. officials exerted pressure to force Halliburton Corp. to buy allegedly overpriced fuel from a Kuwaiti company, according to State Department documents released today.
U.S. Ambassador to Kuwait Richard H. Jones urged the purchase of fuel from Altanmia Commercial Marketing Co. amid the Kuwaiti firms' accusations that Halliburton officials were demanding kickbacks, smuggling oil and in one case forcing a hotel to buy a diamond-encrusted Cartier watch for an executive's wife, the documents show.
.
Zell, Bush Supporters Are Stupid
.
November 10, 2004 -- SEN. Zell Miller (D- Ga.) laced into New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd yesterday on the "Imus in the Morning" radio show, saying, "The more Maureen Loud [sic] gets on 'Meet the Press' and writes those col umns, the redder these states get. I mean, they don't want some high brow hussy from New York City explaining to them that they're i iots and telling them that they're stupid."
Miller also suggested "that red-headed woman at the New York Times" should not mock anyone's religion: "You can see horns just sprouting up through that Technicolor hair." Dowd responds: "I'm not a highbrow hussy from New York. I'm a highbrow hussy from Washington. Senator, pistols or swords?
.
November 10, 2004 -- SEN. Zell Miller (D- Ga.) laced into New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd yesterday on the "Imus in the Morning" radio show, saying, "The more Maureen Loud [sic] gets on 'Meet the Press' and writes those col umns, the redder these states get. I mean, they don't want some high brow hussy from New York City explaining to them that they're i iots and telling them that they're stupid."
Miller also suggested "that red-headed woman at the New York Times" should not mock anyone's religion: "You can see horns just sprouting up through that Technicolor hair." Dowd responds: "I'm not a highbrow hussy from New York. I'm a highbrow hussy from Washington. Senator, pistols or swords?
.
Texas State Board Of Education (Contradiction in Terms)
.
Take a look at the outright bigotry wingnuts wanted to include in Texas textbooks.
During one of the final hearings, SBOE member Terri Leo (R-Spring) insisted at the last minute that publishers make misleading and outright erroneous revisions to textbook discussions about marriage, relationships and homosexuality. Among the changes she demanded to the textbooks:
* Add to Teacher's Editions: "Opinions vary on why homosexuals, lesbians, and bisexuals as a group are more prone to self-destructive behaviors like depression, illegal drug use, and suicide."
*Add to Teacher's Editions: "If you discuss homosexuality in class, be aware that Texas law rejects homosexual 'marriage.' Students can therefore maintain that homosexuality and heterosexuality are not moral equivalents, without being charged with 'hate speech.'"
.
Take a look at the outright bigotry wingnuts wanted to include in Texas textbooks.
During one of the final hearings, SBOE member Terri Leo (R-Spring) insisted at the last minute that publishers make misleading and outright erroneous revisions to textbook discussions about marriage, relationships and homosexuality. Among the changes she demanded to the textbooks:
* Add to Teacher's Editions: "Opinions vary on why homosexuals, lesbians, and bisexuals as a group are more prone to self-destructive behaviors like depression, illegal drug use, and suicide."
*Add to Teacher's Editions: "If you discuss homosexuality in class, be aware that Texas law rejects homosexual 'marriage.' Students can therefore maintain that homosexuality and heterosexuality are not moral equivalents, without being charged with 'hate speech.'"
.
Retired Army General’ s View Of Reality versus Reality
.
James A Marks:In Falluja things may be different. We will use precision weapons where there is a high probability of killing innocent Iraqis, but for the most part we will use conventional artillery, mortars and rockets. Buildings will crumple - the train station demolished on Monday will not be the last - because we will destroy them and so will the insurgents. Dust will be everywhere, small fires and smoke will obscure the vision of our troops and the enemy.
British Newspaper, The Guardian
Mohammed Abboud said he watched his nine-year-old son bleed to death at their Falluja home yesterday, unable to take him to hospital as fighting raged in the streets and bombs rained down.
"My son got shrapnel in his stomach when our house was hit at dawn, but we couldn't take him for treatment," said Mr Abboud, a teacher.
"We buried him in the garden because it was too dangerous to go out."
Residents say scores of civilians have been killed or wounded in 24 hours of fighting since US-led forces pushed deep into the rebel-held city on Monday.
Doctors saw at least 15 dead civilians at the main clinic in Falluja on Monday. By yesterday, there were no clinics open and no way to count casualties.
.
James A Marks:In Falluja things may be different. We will use precision weapons where there is a high probability of killing innocent Iraqis, but for the most part we will use conventional artillery, mortars and rockets. Buildings will crumple - the train station demolished on Monday will not be the last - because we will destroy them and so will the insurgents. Dust will be everywhere, small fires and smoke will obscure the vision of our troops and the enemy.
British Newspaper, The Guardian
Mohammed Abboud said he watched his nine-year-old son bleed to death at their Falluja home yesterday, unable to take him to hospital as fighting raged in the streets and bombs rained down.
"My son got shrapnel in his stomach when our house was hit at dawn, but we couldn't take him for treatment," said Mr Abboud, a teacher.
"We buried him in the garden because it was too dangerous to go out."
Residents say scores of civilians have been killed or wounded in 24 hours of fighting since US-led forces pushed deep into the rebel-held city on Monday.
Doctors saw at least 15 dead civilians at the main clinic in Falluja on Monday. By yesterday, there were no clinics open and no way to count casualties.
.
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Ashcroft Tells Satan He Can’t Swallow One More Load
Oh yes and this:
"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved."
"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved."
Fred Kaplan Hits It Head On
.
Bush probably intends the offensive to serve as a final showdown for the insurgents, but, regardless of the immediate outcome (and I write this with no pleasure whatever), it might be a final showdown for us instead. There are two factors at work here.
First, the offensive is billed as a joint operation by the U.S. military and the Iraqi national guard, but it hasn't worked out that way. National Public Radio's Anne Garrels, who is embedded with the Marines in Fallujah, reports that of the 500 Iraqi soldiers originally deployed to go in alongside U.S. forces only 170 were still on station when the operation began. The rest had deserted—whether simply to flee for their safety or to join the other side. And these Iraqis were members of the 36th Special Operations battalion, the elite of the country's new security forces. In short, quite apart from what happens in Fallujah, the Iraqis are not remotely ready to provide defense by themselves.
Second, coupled with this grim realization, the U.S. military is finding itself increasingly alone and isolated in this war. A small story in the Nov. 4 New York Times listed the various countries that are pulling out of this "coalition." Hungary had just announced, the day before, that it would withdraw its 300 troops from Iraq. This move would come on top of withdrawals, either actual or announced, by Spain (1,300 troops); Poland (2,400); the Netherlands (1,400); Thailand (450); the Dominican Republic (302); Nicaragua (115); Honduras (370); the Philippines (51); Norway (155); and New Zealand (60). Other countries will soon reduce their troop levels— Singapore, from 191 to 32; Moldova, from 42 to 12; and Bulgaria, from 483 to 430. For the most part, these aren't large numbers—the United States has always contributed the vast bulk of the forces, with Britain, Australia, and Italy trailing far behind—but that's not the point. Their joining the coalition was presented as a show of international support; their departing will be widely perceived as an erosion of that support.
So what to do? Bush may well see the Fallujah offensive as a last gamble to turn things around. My guess is that, if it goes "well," by any stretch of a definition—and if the elections proceed with the slightest semblance of order—he might make preparations to declare victory and pull out. Such a move would almost certainly trigger chaos, but could this chaos be much more rampant than the state of life there now?
.
Bush probably intends the offensive to serve as a final showdown for the insurgents, but, regardless of the immediate outcome (and I write this with no pleasure whatever), it might be a final showdown for us instead. There are two factors at work here.
First, the offensive is billed as a joint operation by the U.S. military and the Iraqi national guard, but it hasn't worked out that way. National Public Radio's Anne Garrels, who is embedded with the Marines in Fallujah, reports that of the 500 Iraqi soldiers originally deployed to go in alongside U.S. forces only 170 were still on station when the operation began. The rest had deserted—whether simply to flee for their safety or to join the other side. And these Iraqis were members of the 36th Special Operations battalion, the elite of the country's new security forces. In short, quite apart from what happens in Fallujah, the Iraqis are not remotely ready to provide defense by themselves.
Second, coupled with this grim realization, the U.S. military is finding itself increasingly alone and isolated in this war. A small story in the Nov. 4 New York Times listed the various countries that are pulling out of this "coalition." Hungary had just announced, the day before, that it would withdraw its 300 troops from Iraq. This move would come on top of withdrawals, either actual or announced, by Spain (1,300 troops); Poland (2,400); the Netherlands (1,400); Thailand (450); the Dominican Republic (302); Nicaragua (115); Honduras (370); the Philippines (51); Norway (155); and New Zealand (60). Other countries will soon reduce their troop levels— Singapore, from 191 to 32; Moldova, from 42 to 12; and Bulgaria, from 483 to 430. For the most part, these aren't large numbers—the United States has always contributed the vast bulk of the forces, with Britain, Australia, and Italy trailing far behind—but that's not the point. Their joining the coalition was presented as a show of international support; their departing will be widely perceived as an erosion of that support.
So what to do? Bush may well see the Fallujah offensive as a last gamble to turn things around. My guess is that, if it goes "well," by any stretch of a definition—and if the elections proceed with the slightest semblance of order—he might make preparations to declare victory and pull out. Such a move would almost certainly trigger chaos, but could this chaos be much more rampant than the state of life there now?
.
Fighting For The Window Seat On The Hindenburg
One of Every 140 U.S. Residents is in Prison or Jail
Another Ray Of Hope
.
GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba, Nov. 8 - A federal judge ruled Monday that President Bush had both overstepped his constitutional bounds and improperly brushed aside the Geneva Conventions in establishing military commissions to try detainees at the United States naval base here as war criminals.
The ruling by Judge James Robertson of United States District Court in Washington brought an abrupt halt to the trial here of one detainee, one of hundreds being held at Guantánamo as enemy combatants. It threw into doubt the future of the first set of United States military commission trials since the end of World War II as well as other legal proceedings devised by the administration to deal with suspected terrorists.
The administration reacted quickly, saying it would seek an emergency stay and a quick appeal.
U.S. Judge Halts War-Crime Trial at Guantánamo
.
GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba, Nov. 8 - A federal judge ruled Monday that President Bush had both overstepped his constitutional bounds and improperly brushed aside the Geneva Conventions in establishing military commissions to try detainees at the United States naval base here as war criminals.
The ruling by Judge James Robertson of United States District Court in Washington brought an abrupt halt to the trial here of one detainee, one of hundreds being held at Guantánamo as enemy combatants. It threw into doubt the future of the first set of United States military commission trials since the end of World War II as well as other legal proceedings devised by the administration to deal with suspected terrorists.
The administration reacted quickly, saying it would seek an emergency stay and a quick appeal.
U.S. Judge Halts War-Crime Trial at Guantánamo
.
Hope
.
13. At the state legislative level, Democrats picked up a net of at least three chambers in Tuesday's elections. Of the 98 partisan-controlled state legislative chambers (house/assembly and senate), Democrats went into the 2004 elections in control of 44 chambers, Republicans controlled 53 chambers, and 1 chamber was tied. After Tuesday, Democrats now control 47 chambers, Republicans control 49 chambers, 1 chamber is tied and 1 chamber (Montana House) is still undecided.
14. Bush is now a lame duck president. He will have no greater moment than the one he's having this week. It's all downhill for him from here on out – and, more significantly, he's just not going to want to do all the hard work that will be expected of him. It'll be like everyone's last month in 12th grade – you've already made it, so it's party time! Perhaps he'll treat the next four years like a permanent Friday, spending even more time at the ranch or in Kennebunkport. And why shouldn't he? He's already proved his point, avenged his father and kicked our ass.
15. Should Bush decide to show up to work and take this country down a very dark road, it is also just as likely that either of the following two scenarios will happen: a) Now that he doesn't ever need to pander to the Christian conservatives again to get elected, someone may whisper in his ear that he should spend these last four years building "a legacy" so that history will render a kinder verdict on him and thus he will not push for too aggressive a right-wing agenda; or b) He will become so cocky and arrogant – and thus, reckless – that he will commit a blunder of such major proportions that even his own party will have to remove him from office.
16. There are nearly 300 million Americans – 200 million of them of voting age. We only lost by three and a half million! That's not a landslide – it means we're almost there. Imagine losing by 20 million. If you had 58 yards to go before you reached the goal line and then you barreled down 55 of those yards, would you stop on the three yard line, pick up the ball and go home crying – especially when you get to start the next down on the three yard line? Of course not! Buck up! Have hope! More sports analogies are coming!
17. Finally and most importantly, over 55 million Americans voted for the candidate dubbed "The #1 Liberal in the Senate." That's more than the total number of voters who voted for either Reagan, Bush I, Clinton or Gore. Again, more people voted for Kerry than Reagan. If the media are looking for a trend it should be this – that so many Americans were, for the first time since Kennedy, willing to vote for an out-and-out liberal. The country has always been filled with evangelicals – that is not news. What is news is that so many people have shifted toward a Massachusetts liberal. In fact, that's BIG news. Which means, don't expect the mainstream media, the ones who brought you the Iraq War, to ever report the real truth about Nov. 2, 2004. In fact, it's better that they don't. We'll need the element of surprise in 2008.
Feeling better? I hope so. As my friend Mort wrote me yesterday, "My Romanian grandfather used to say to me, 'Remember, Morton, this is such a wonderful country – it doesn't even need a president!'"
But it needs us. Rest up; I'll write you again tomorrow.
.
13. At the state legislative level, Democrats picked up a net of at least three chambers in Tuesday's elections. Of the 98 partisan-controlled state legislative chambers (house/assembly and senate), Democrats went into the 2004 elections in control of 44 chambers, Republicans controlled 53 chambers, and 1 chamber was tied. After Tuesday, Democrats now control 47 chambers, Republicans control 49 chambers, 1 chamber is tied and 1 chamber (Montana House) is still undecided.
14. Bush is now a lame duck president. He will have no greater moment than the one he's having this week. It's all downhill for him from here on out – and, more significantly, he's just not going to want to do all the hard work that will be expected of him. It'll be like everyone's last month in 12th grade – you've already made it, so it's party time! Perhaps he'll treat the next four years like a permanent Friday, spending even more time at the ranch or in Kennebunkport. And why shouldn't he? He's already proved his point, avenged his father and kicked our ass.
15. Should Bush decide to show up to work and take this country down a very dark road, it is also just as likely that either of the following two scenarios will happen: a) Now that he doesn't ever need to pander to the Christian conservatives again to get elected, someone may whisper in his ear that he should spend these last four years building "a legacy" so that history will render a kinder verdict on him and thus he will not push for too aggressive a right-wing agenda; or b) He will become so cocky and arrogant – and thus, reckless – that he will commit a blunder of such major proportions that even his own party will have to remove him from office.
16. There are nearly 300 million Americans – 200 million of them of voting age. We only lost by three and a half million! That's not a landslide – it means we're almost there. Imagine losing by 20 million. If you had 58 yards to go before you reached the goal line and then you barreled down 55 of those yards, would you stop on the three yard line, pick up the ball and go home crying – especially when you get to start the next down on the three yard line? Of course not! Buck up! Have hope! More sports analogies are coming!
17. Finally and most importantly, over 55 million Americans voted for the candidate dubbed "The #1 Liberal in the Senate." That's more than the total number of voters who voted for either Reagan, Bush I, Clinton or Gore. Again, more people voted for Kerry than Reagan. If the media are looking for a trend it should be this – that so many Americans were, for the first time since Kennedy, willing to vote for an out-and-out liberal. The country has always been filled with evangelicals – that is not news. What is news is that so many people have shifted toward a Massachusetts liberal. In fact, that's BIG news. Which means, don't expect the mainstream media, the ones who brought you the Iraq War, to ever report the real truth about Nov. 2, 2004. In fact, it's better that they don't. We'll need the element of surprise in 2008.
Feeling better? I hope so. As my friend Mort wrote me yesterday, "My Romanian grandfather used to say to me, 'Remember, Morton, this is such a wonderful country – it doesn't even need a president!'"
But it needs us. Rest up; I'll write you again tomorrow.
.
Hackworth, A REAL SOLDIER Rips Bush A PRETEND SOLDIER
.
During the final days of the presidential campaign, one of the thousands of neglected ammo dumps became an election flash point. In an attempt to take the heat off Bush, Rudy Giuliani actually went so far as to state that the heisted ammo was "the troops' fault" and not the responsibility of the commander-in-chief.
.
During the final days of the presidential campaign, one of the thousands of neglected ammo dumps became an election flash point. In an attempt to take the heat off Bush, Rudy Giuliani actually went so far as to state that the heisted ammo was "the troops' fault" and not the responsibility of the commander-in-chief.
.
Monday, November 08, 2004
The Crusaders
So, Karl Rove is saying that Bush will “absolutely” push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in his second term.
Well, he can push, but it ain’t gonna happen. Despite all the gloom, doom, and “holy crap, it’s Berlin, 1933!” I’m hearing from the lefties, there is not a cold chance in hell that Bush will be able to pass this amendment. Whatever shenanigans he (or Rove, more correctly) tries to pull, does anybody really believe three-quarters of the states would vote for such a measure?
Bush will do some saber rattling with this amendment, but not much else. He’ll make the effort so he can go back to the most close-minded among his base and say, “see, I tried”.
What worries me is not whether or not the amendment will pass, but the proposal of it in the first place. It is reactionary, discriminatory, and will only serve to keep the country divided.
Personally, I'm ambivalent toward gay marriage. I fully support civil unions, with rights equal to those of marriage under the law. I hesitate at the term marriage, but my hesitation is over semantics.
What galls me is the ferocity with which fundamentalist Christians fear and hate homosexuality. As a Christian, I look at their behavior and I do not see Christian behavior. They are warping Christ's words to suit their own purposes (of course, how many others have done that since his crucifixion?). In doing so, they have cherry-picked the Bible and brought shame to their own faith. They have conveniently ignored some key verses such as, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "judge not, lest ye be judged". They have forgotten that, while homosexuality is considered a sin, all sins are equal in the eyes of God.
They have profaned Christianity. They have twisted it to their own purposes as surely as the Inquisition did.
I do not hate them, but I do resent them. I resent them for supporting their holier than thou arguments by hijacking a religion of peace, tolerance, and humility. I resent them for turning so many from Christianity by their selfish misappropriation of its teachings. I resent them for making me ashamed to speak of my faith publicly.
To all out there who abhor the Christian right, know that many Christians are right there alongside you.
Well, he can push, but it ain’t gonna happen. Despite all the gloom, doom, and “holy crap, it’s Berlin, 1933!” I’m hearing from the lefties, there is not a cold chance in hell that Bush will be able to pass this amendment. Whatever shenanigans he (or Rove, more correctly) tries to pull, does anybody really believe three-quarters of the states would vote for such a measure?
Bush will do some saber rattling with this amendment, but not much else. He’ll make the effort so he can go back to the most close-minded among his base and say, “see, I tried”.
What worries me is not whether or not the amendment will pass, but the proposal of it in the first place. It is reactionary, discriminatory, and will only serve to keep the country divided.
Personally, I'm ambivalent toward gay marriage. I fully support civil unions, with rights equal to those of marriage under the law. I hesitate at the term marriage, but my hesitation is over semantics.
What galls me is the ferocity with which fundamentalist Christians fear and hate homosexuality. As a Christian, I look at their behavior and I do not see Christian behavior. They are warping Christ's words to suit their own purposes (of course, how many others have done that since his crucifixion?). In doing so, they have cherry-picked the Bible and brought shame to their own faith. They have conveniently ignored some key verses such as, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "judge not, lest ye be judged". They have forgotten that, while homosexuality is considered a sin, all sins are equal in the eyes of God.
They have profaned Christianity. They have twisted it to their own purposes as surely as the Inquisition did.
I do not hate them, but I do resent them. I resent them for supporting their holier than thou arguments by hijacking a religion of peace, tolerance, and humility. I resent them for turning so many from Christianity by their selfish misappropriation of its teachings. I resent them for making me ashamed to speak of my faith publicly.
To all out there who abhor the Christian right, know that many Christians are right there alongside you.
Don't Know If This Is Truth Or Propaganda
.
Insurgents claimed they had captured US and Iraqi soldiers, with Islamist leaders announcing over loudspeakers in a city mosque that 36 Americans and 107 Iraqi national guardsmen had been seized.
Insurgents claimed they had captured US and Iraqi soldiers, with Islamist leaders announcing over loudspeakers in a city mosque that 36 Americans and 107 Iraqi national guardsmen had been seized.
The American Century Is Over
.
by Paul Craig Roberts
On Nov. 2, Americans blew their only chance to redeem themselves in the eyes of the world.
The entire world is stunned by the Bush administration's abandonment of a half century of U.S. diplomacy in favor of misguided, unilateralist, "preemptive" naked aggression on totally false pretenses against Iraq. America's allies are amazed at the ignorance manifested by the Bush administration. They are resentful of Bush's "in-your-eye" attitude toward friends who warned Bush against leading America into a quagmire and giving Osama bin Laden the war he wanted.
The world was waiting hopefully for the sensible American people to rectify the ill-advised actions of a rogue neoconservative administration. Instead, Americans placed the stamp of approval on the least justifiable military action since Hitler invaded Poland.
In the eyes of the world, Bush's reelection is proof that Ariel Sharon's neoconservative allies in the Bush administration speak for America after all.
The world's sympathy for America that followed the Sept. 11 attacks has been squandered. If the U.S. suffers terrorist attacks in the future, the world will say that America invited the attacks and got what it asked for.
Europeans and Asians will never be able to comprehend that Bush was reelected because Americans were voting against homosexual marriage and abortion.
The world is simply unable to believe that Americans, so enamored of family values, would vote to send their sons, fathers, husbands, and brothers to unprovoked war unless Americans valued empire and control over oil as more important than their family members.
The crude propagandistic Republican campaign against John Kerry is shocking to Europeans. The childishness of American conservatives scares them.
America's French friends, seeking to save America from making the same mistakes that France made in the past, advised Bush not to rush into an Iraqi invasion. American conservatives instantly and blindly perceived French words of wisdom as proof that France was in the "against us" camp. Conservatives announced a boycott of French fries. Everything French was denigrated for no other reason than the French tried to warn us.
Conservatives quickly produced a "revisionist" book, Our Oldest Enemy: A History of America's Disastrous Relationship with France, "proving" that France has always been America's worst enemy.
America's European allies cannot differentiate the immaturity of American conservatives from the ignorance of the National Socialists.
As hearts harden and minds close against America, Americans will have to go it alone.
The U.S. invasion of Iraq has proved to be a disaster – exactly as the French and everyone with a mere modicum of sense said in advance. Eight of ten U.S. divisions are tied down by a few thousand insurgents.
U.S. troops do not control towns, cities, roads, or even the fortified Green Zone.
The American impulse is to smash cities, thus killing women and children and destroying the homes and livelihoods of noncombatants, while the insurgents regroup elsewhere. The top American generals, who were ridiculed by the Secretary of Defense and his deluded neoconservative deputy for forthrightly stating that occupation of Iraq would require a larger army than was available, stand vindicated.
The price of the Bush administration's delusion is 10,000 dead and maimed American troops – more than three times the casualties caused by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Bush's declared policy of "continuing to the end" will swell this number and bring back the draft.
The world is amazed that Americans do not care that they have been deceived, lied to, and incompetently led and that Americans have chosen to continue along this path.
Bush's reelection has ended forever respect for America. New and unflattering sobriquets for Americans are emerging. The American century is over.
.
by Paul Craig Roberts
On Nov. 2, Americans blew their only chance to redeem themselves in the eyes of the world.
The entire world is stunned by the Bush administration's abandonment of a half century of U.S. diplomacy in favor of misguided, unilateralist, "preemptive" naked aggression on totally false pretenses against Iraq. America's allies are amazed at the ignorance manifested by the Bush administration. They are resentful of Bush's "in-your-eye" attitude toward friends who warned Bush against leading America into a quagmire and giving Osama bin Laden the war he wanted.
The world was waiting hopefully for the sensible American people to rectify the ill-advised actions of a rogue neoconservative administration. Instead, Americans placed the stamp of approval on the least justifiable military action since Hitler invaded Poland.
In the eyes of the world, Bush's reelection is proof that Ariel Sharon's neoconservative allies in the Bush administration speak for America after all.
The world's sympathy for America that followed the Sept. 11 attacks has been squandered. If the U.S. suffers terrorist attacks in the future, the world will say that America invited the attacks and got what it asked for.
Europeans and Asians will never be able to comprehend that Bush was reelected because Americans were voting against homosexual marriage and abortion.
The world is simply unable to believe that Americans, so enamored of family values, would vote to send their sons, fathers, husbands, and brothers to unprovoked war unless Americans valued empire and control over oil as more important than their family members.
The crude propagandistic Republican campaign against John Kerry is shocking to Europeans. The childishness of American conservatives scares them.
America's French friends, seeking to save America from making the same mistakes that France made in the past, advised Bush not to rush into an Iraqi invasion. American conservatives instantly and blindly perceived French words of wisdom as proof that France was in the "against us" camp. Conservatives announced a boycott of French fries. Everything French was denigrated for no other reason than the French tried to warn us.
Conservatives quickly produced a "revisionist" book, Our Oldest Enemy: A History of America's Disastrous Relationship with France, "proving" that France has always been America's worst enemy.
America's European allies cannot differentiate the immaturity of American conservatives from the ignorance of the National Socialists.
As hearts harden and minds close against America, Americans will have to go it alone.
The U.S. invasion of Iraq has proved to be a disaster – exactly as the French and everyone with a mere modicum of sense said in advance. Eight of ten U.S. divisions are tied down by a few thousand insurgents.
U.S. troops do not control towns, cities, roads, or even the fortified Green Zone.
The American impulse is to smash cities, thus killing women and children and destroying the homes and livelihoods of noncombatants, while the insurgents regroup elsewhere. The top American generals, who were ridiculed by the Secretary of Defense and his deluded neoconservative deputy for forthrightly stating that occupation of Iraq would require a larger army than was available, stand vindicated.
The price of the Bush administration's delusion is 10,000 dead and maimed American troops – more than three times the casualties caused by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Bush's declared policy of "continuing to the end" will swell this number and bring back the draft.
The world is amazed that Americans do not care that they have been deceived, lied to, and incompetently led and that Americans have chosen to continue along this path.
Bush's reelection has ended forever respect for America. New and unflattering sobriquets for Americans are emerging. The American century is over.
.
Grain Of Salt Department
Bush Supporters Act On New Mandate
Saddam Had WMDs, World is 6000 Years Old, Purple Teletubby Is Gay- Life in Jesusland
.
Willfully Ignorant People
I think a case could be made that ignorance played at least as big a role in the election's outcome as values. A recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that nearly 70 percent of President Bush's supporters believe the U.S. has come up with "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda. A third of the president's supporters believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. And more than a third believe that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion.
This is scary. How do you make a rational political pitch to people who have put that part of their brain on hold? No wonder Bush won.
.
Willfully Ignorant People
I think a case could be made that ignorance played at least as big a role in the election's outcome as values. A recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that nearly 70 percent of President Bush's supporters believe the U.S. has come up with "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda. A third of the president's supporters believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. And more than a third believe that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion.
This is scary. How do you make a rational political pitch to people who have put that part of their brain on hold? No wonder Bush won.
.
Turns Out Vote Was Probably Hacked
.
I have been trying to avoid this- but wherelse will you hear about it but the blogosphere?
When I spoke with Jeff Fisher this morning (Saturday, November 06, 2004), the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's 16th District said he was waiting for the FBI to show up. Fisher has evidence, he says, not only that the Florida election was hacked, but of who hacked it and how. And not just this year, he said, but that these same people had previously hacked the Democratic primary race in 2002 so that Jeb Bush would not have to run against Janet Reno, who presented a real threat to Jeb, but instead against Bill McBride, who Jeb beat…
But I agree with Fox's Dick Morris on this one, at least in large part. Wrapping up …his story for The Hill, Morris wrote in his final paragraph, "This was no mere mistake. Exit polls cannot be as wrong across the board as they were on election night. I suspect foul play."
evidence here as well
Theoretically at least, it is conceivable that sophisticated CIA-style computer hacking – known as “cyber-warfare” – could have let George W. Bush’s campaign transform a three-percentage-point defeat, as measured by exit polls, into an official victory of about the same margin.
Whether such a scheme is feasible, however, is another matter, since it would require penetration of hundreds of local computer systems across the country, presumably from a single remote location. The known CIA successes in cyber-war have come from targeting a specific bank account or from shutting down an adversary’s computer system, not from altering data simultaneously in a large number of computers.
.
I have been trying to avoid this- but wherelse will you hear about it but the blogosphere?
When I spoke with Jeff Fisher this morning (Saturday, November 06, 2004), the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's 16th District said he was waiting for the FBI to show up. Fisher has evidence, he says, not only that the Florida election was hacked, but of who hacked it and how. And not just this year, he said, but that these same people had previously hacked the Democratic primary race in 2002 so that Jeb Bush would not have to run against Janet Reno, who presented a real threat to Jeb, but instead against Bill McBride, who Jeb beat…
But I agree with Fox's Dick Morris on this one, at least in large part. Wrapping up …his story for The Hill, Morris wrote in his final paragraph, "This was no mere mistake. Exit polls cannot be as wrong across the board as they were on election night. I suspect foul play."
evidence here as well
Theoretically at least, it is conceivable that sophisticated CIA-style computer hacking – known as “cyber-warfare” – could have let George W. Bush’s campaign transform a three-percentage-point defeat, as measured by exit polls, into an official victory of about the same margin.
Whether such a scheme is feasible, however, is another matter, since it would require penetration of hundreds of local computer systems across the country, presumably from a single remote location. The known CIA successes in cyber-war have come from targeting a specific bank account or from shutting down an adversary’s computer system, not from altering data simultaneously in a large number of computers.
.
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Today’s Lecture. Freedom Marches On (Unless Our Biggest Trading Partner Disagrees)
.
As the hypocrisy of the Bush Administration goes unnoticed, a citizen journalist over at Kos named Mumon has written assay asking the quesution: “Is Free Taiwan Going To Be A Casualty Of The War On Terror?”
The central news item that went unreported on our “media” was this statement about Taiwan that sent chills down the spines of the rest of the world if the election didn’t already:
Colin Powell said, "There is only one China. Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, and that remains our policy, our firm policy."
Mumon says that this was a quid pro quo for helping to stop North Korea’s nuclear program. I would argue that it’s a quid pro quo for remaining our largest trading partner. Plus between the Japanese and the Chinese they own 1/3 of our T-bills. Last I looked, Taiwan owned Zero T-bills.
Bush Abandons Taiwan Democracy To The World’s Largest Communist Dictatorship
Now, in China, I'm told the big, big worry is that Taiwan might declare independence in 2008, corresponding to the time that the Olympics are to be held in China. If this happens, (and Taiwan, like Israel has been shown to be a very independent "ally" of ours) China will have a dilemma: whether to retake the island by force when the spotlight is on it, or whether to let Taiwan go independent.
If Taiwan were to do this, and if China acted as it has always promised it would - to try to retake the island, then this would be a major blow to the US, and to the Republican party, as the US would be essentially helpless to do anything.
I would agree with this. Anyway, freedom marches forward in Iraq, and backwards here and in Taiwan.
Bush Administration To Tired Huddled Masses: Sorry. But All That Changed On 9/11.
I can't get the man's cries for help out of my head. ''Please help me, you have to help me, what will happen to my family?'' I tried to get him to calm down, and it didn't work. I simply had to hang up. Then a woman called from her hospital bed at Columbia Presbyterian. She had been unconscious for several days. When she woke up, her friends told her that her husband had been taken by immigration. ''I need him,'' she told me. These tragedies are haunting. I have one client whose parents, ethnic Albanians, fled Yugoslavia before she was born. She's been here for 35 of her 36 years. She was convicted of some drug felonies, went to prison, came out clean and stayed that way. But immigration authorities still arrested her, and she was ordered removed. There are too many of these stories every day.
This is where we are people.
Now this is creepy. Your credit card is giving you away.
Corporations Forming Their Own Extra Legal Databases
Revenge Of The Nerd
Karl Rove was the guys everyone in school hated. And for good reason. Now he is in power.
.
As the hypocrisy of the Bush Administration goes unnoticed, a citizen journalist over at Kos named Mumon has written assay asking the quesution: “Is Free Taiwan Going To Be A Casualty Of The War On Terror?”
The central news item that went unreported on our “media” was this statement about Taiwan that sent chills down the spines of the rest of the world if the election didn’t already:
Colin Powell said, "There is only one China. Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, and that remains our policy, our firm policy."
Mumon says that this was a quid pro quo for helping to stop North Korea’s nuclear program. I would argue that it’s a quid pro quo for remaining our largest trading partner. Plus between the Japanese and the Chinese they own 1/3 of our T-bills. Last I looked, Taiwan owned Zero T-bills.
Bush Abandons Taiwan Democracy To The World’s Largest Communist Dictatorship
Now, in China, I'm told the big, big worry is that Taiwan might declare independence in 2008, corresponding to the time that the Olympics are to be held in China. If this happens, (and Taiwan, like Israel has been shown to be a very independent "ally" of ours) China will have a dilemma: whether to retake the island by force when the spotlight is on it, or whether to let Taiwan go independent.
If Taiwan were to do this, and if China acted as it has always promised it would - to try to retake the island, then this would be a major blow to the US, and to the Republican party, as the US would be essentially helpless to do anything.
I would agree with this. Anyway, freedom marches forward in Iraq, and backwards here and in Taiwan.
Bush Administration To Tired Huddled Masses: Sorry. But All That Changed On 9/11.
I can't get the man's cries for help out of my head. ''Please help me, you have to help me, what will happen to my family?'' I tried to get him to calm down, and it didn't work. I simply had to hang up. Then a woman called from her hospital bed at Columbia Presbyterian. She had been unconscious for several days. When she woke up, her friends told her that her husband had been taken by immigration. ''I need him,'' she told me. These tragedies are haunting. I have one client whose parents, ethnic Albanians, fled Yugoslavia before she was born. She's been here for 35 of her 36 years. She was convicted of some drug felonies, went to prison, came out clean and stayed that way. But immigration authorities still arrested her, and she was ordered removed. There are too many of these stories every day.
This is where we are people.
Now this is creepy. Your credit card is giving you away.
Corporations Forming Their Own Extra Legal Databases
Revenge Of The Nerd
Karl Rove was the guys everyone in school hated. And for good reason. Now he is in power.
.
Saturday, November 06, 2004
As I Said, People Are Miserable Over This
This Is Why I don’t Think It’s Going To Get Any Better...
.
Call this a paranoid fantasy or call it the future. I’m not certain but I am scared for the first time in my whole life that the America I grew up to love is not just gone for 4 years or 12 years, but gone forever.
First of all we are talking about the Bushies, a ruthless group who will turn America into a right wing dictatorship and eventually guys, they’ll come after us. They’ll control the internet servers and cut off our only method of being politically active. They’ll identify us and come and arrest us for sedition. Perhaps they’ll allow surrogates to do this- like allow states to pass laws that disallow open dissent during wartime. ( I don’t see anyone yelling about the Free Speech Zones. ) Perhaps they’ll trump up charges and silence most of the left. Burning a flag will become a crime in the Constitution. Roe V. Wade will be overturned. It will be illegal to sue the government for anything. Secrecy will tighten further. There will no chance of prosecuting the crimes of this administration.
The Republicans will put a tightening noose around our necks. And we will live through it the way so many other people around the world have accepted their own dictatorships.
We have just told the world that the majority of us thought so little of the crimes at Abu Gharaib that we gave its perpetrator another tern and now folks....we will now get no help from anyone when our own government begins oppressing us directly.
Don’t mean to harsh your mellow, but this is what I think we are facing.
Last Wednesday week 115 thousand US citizens contacted a Canadian website about immigration. Don’t kid yourself. People are feeling a fear in the pit of their stomachs and I believe things could really really scary in the US.
This is a group of people that have, in the words of Indian political writer Arhundati, have the biggest nuclear and chemical weapons in the world but accuse the weakest country in the world of having nuclear and chemical weapons and then occupied it, and now they are auctioning it off.
Not surprisingly, the auctioning of Iraq caused a stampede at the feeding trough. Corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton, the company that US Vice-president Dick Cheney once headed, have won huge contracts for 'reconstruction' work. A brief c.v. of any one of these corporations would give us a lay person's grasp of how it all works – not just in Iraq, but all over the world. Say we pick Bechtel – only because poor little Halliburton is under investigation on charges of overpricing fuel deliveries to Iraq and for its contracts to 'restore' Iraq's oil industry which came with a pretty serious price-tag – 2.5 billion dollars.
The Bechtel Group and Saddam Hussein are old business acquaintances. Many of their dealings were negotiated by none other than Donald Rumsfeld. In 1988, after Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of Kurds, Bechtel signed contracts with his government to build a dual-use chemical plant in Baghdad.
Historically, the Bechtel Group has had and continues to have inextricably close links to the Republican establishment. You could call Bechtel and the Reagan Bush administration a team. Former Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger was a Bechtel general counsel. Former Deputy Secretary of Energy, W. Kenneth Davis was Bechtel's vice president. Riley Bechtel, the company chairman, is on the President's Export Council. Jack Sheehan, a retired marine corps general, is a senior vice president at Bechtel and a member of the US Defense Policy Board. Former Secretary of State George Shultz, who is on the Board of Directors of the Bechtel Group, was the chairman of the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.
When he was asked by the New York Times whether he was concerned about the appearance of a conflict of interest between his two 'jobs', he said, "I don't know that Bechtel would particularly benefit from it [The invasion of Iraq]. But if there's work to be done, Bechtel is the type of company that could do it." Bechtel has been awarded reconstruction contracts in Iraq worth over a billion dollars, which include contracts to re-build power generation plants, electrical grids, water supply, sewage systems, and airport facilities. Never mind revolving doors, this – if it weren't so drenched in blood- would be a bedroom farce.
Between 2001 and 2002, nine out of thirty members of the US Defense Policy Group were connected to companies that were awarded Defense contracts worth 76 billion dollars. Time was when weapons were manufactured in order to fight wars. Now wars are manufactured in order to sell weapons.
Between 1990 and 2002 the Bechtel group has contributed $3.3 million to campaign funds, both Republican and Democrat. Since 1990 it has won more than 2000 government contracts worth more than 11 billion dollars. That's an incredible return on investment, wouldn't you say?
And Bechtel has footprints around the world. That's what being a multi-national means.
The Bechtel Group first attracted international attention when it signed a contract with Hugo Banzer, the former Bolivian dictator, to privatize the water supply in the city of Cochabamba. The first thing Bechtel did was to raise the price of water. Hundreds of thousands of people who simply couldn't afford to pay Bechtel's bills came out onto the streets. A huge strike paralyzed the city. Martial law was declared. Although eventually Bechtel was forced to flee its offices, it is currently negotiating an exit payment of millions of dollars from the Bolivian government for the loss of potential profits. Which, as we'll see, is growing into a popular corporate sport.
In India, Bechtel along with General Electric are the new owners of the notorious and currently defunct Enron power project. The Enron contract, which legally binds the Government of the State of Maharashtra to pay Enron a sum of 30 billion dollars, was the largest contract ever signed in India. Enron was not shy to boast about the millions of dollars it had spent to "educate" Indian politicians and bureaucrats. The Enron contract in Maharashtra, which was India's first 'fast-track' private power project, has come to be known as the most massive fraud in the country's history. (Enron was another of the Republican Party's major campaign contributors). The electricity that Enron produced was so exorbitant that the government decided it was cheaper not to buy electricity and pay Enron the mandatory fixed charges specified in the contract. This means that the government of one of the poorest countries in the world was paying Enron 220 million US dollars a year not to produce electricity!
We apparently can’t even control the single most important road in Iraq and this government keeps saying “Freedom Is On The March”.
For those entering or leaving Iraq by air, these are often the first or last images. Nineteen months after toppling Saddam Hussein, the American military and Iraqi forces have yet to secure what is arguably the country's most important stretch of road - the five-mile umbilical cord connecting Iraq to the world, the transit point for diplomats, business people, aid workers, security contractors and journalists. The security vacuum along it is emblematic of the sheer inability to maintain control over key areas of the country.
Like an initiation rite, they have to run a gantlet on the six-lane highway before they can even begin work here. The assaults are frequent and varied: insurgents with Kalashnikovs staging coordinated ambushes using four or five cars, or popping up on an overpass with rocket-propelled grenades, setting off chains of artillery shells buried in the ground. Over nine weeks last summer, the military recorded 200 attacks.
Last month, at least two dozen major attacks took place along the east-west artery and nine inside Camp Victory, the operations center of the American-led forces next to the airport, according to an analysis by a Western security contractor. Those numbers are almost certainly a gross underestimate, said a security adviser for a Western television network.
.
Call this a paranoid fantasy or call it the future. I’m not certain but I am scared for the first time in my whole life that the America I grew up to love is not just gone for 4 years or 12 years, but gone forever.
First of all we are talking about the Bushies, a ruthless group who will turn America into a right wing dictatorship and eventually guys, they’ll come after us. They’ll control the internet servers and cut off our only method of being politically active. They’ll identify us and come and arrest us for sedition. Perhaps they’ll allow surrogates to do this- like allow states to pass laws that disallow open dissent during wartime. ( I don’t see anyone yelling about the Free Speech Zones. ) Perhaps they’ll trump up charges and silence most of the left. Burning a flag will become a crime in the Constitution. Roe V. Wade will be overturned. It will be illegal to sue the government for anything. Secrecy will tighten further. There will no chance of prosecuting the crimes of this administration.
The Republicans will put a tightening noose around our necks. And we will live through it the way so many other people around the world have accepted their own dictatorships.
We have just told the world that the majority of us thought so little of the crimes at Abu Gharaib that we gave its perpetrator another tern and now folks....we will now get no help from anyone when our own government begins oppressing us directly.
Don’t mean to harsh your mellow, but this is what I think we are facing.
Last Wednesday week 115 thousand US citizens contacted a Canadian website about immigration. Don’t kid yourself. People are feeling a fear in the pit of their stomachs and I believe things could really really scary in the US.
This is a group of people that have, in the words of Indian political writer Arhundati, have the biggest nuclear and chemical weapons in the world but accuse the weakest country in the world of having nuclear and chemical weapons and then occupied it, and now they are auctioning it off.
Not surprisingly, the auctioning of Iraq caused a stampede at the feeding trough. Corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton, the company that US Vice-president Dick Cheney once headed, have won huge contracts for 'reconstruction' work. A brief c.v. of any one of these corporations would give us a lay person's grasp of how it all works – not just in Iraq, but all over the world. Say we pick Bechtel – only because poor little Halliburton is under investigation on charges of overpricing fuel deliveries to Iraq and for its contracts to 'restore' Iraq's oil industry which came with a pretty serious price-tag – 2.5 billion dollars.
The Bechtel Group and Saddam Hussein are old business acquaintances. Many of their dealings were negotiated by none other than Donald Rumsfeld. In 1988, after Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of Kurds, Bechtel signed contracts with his government to build a dual-use chemical plant in Baghdad.
Historically, the Bechtel Group has had and continues to have inextricably close links to the Republican establishment. You could call Bechtel and the Reagan Bush administration a team. Former Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger was a Bechtel general counsel. Former Deputy Secretary of Energy, W. Kenneth Davis was Bechtel's vice president. Riley Bechtel, the company chairman, is on the President's Export Council. Jack Sheehan, a retired marine corps general, is a senior vice president at Bechtel and a member of the US Defense Policy Board. Former Secretary of State George Shultz, who is on the Board of Directors of the Bechtel Group, was the chairman of the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.
When he was asked by the New York Times whether he was concerned about the appearance of a conflict of interest between his two 'jobs', he said, "I don't know that Bechtel would particularly benefit from it [The invasion of Iraq]. But if there's work to be done, Bechtel is the type of company that could do it." Bechtel has been awarded reconstruction contracts in Iraq worth over a billion dollars, which include contracts to re-build power generation plants, electrical grids, water supply, sewage systems, and airport facilities. Never mind revolving doors, this – if it weren't so drenched in blood- would be a bedroom farce.
Between 2001 and 2002, nine out of thirty members of the US Defense Policy Group were connected to companies that were awarded Defense contracts worth 76 billion dollars. Time was when weapons were manufactured in order to fight wars. Now wars are manufactured in order to sell weapons.
Between 1990 and 2002 the Bechtel group has contributed $3.3 million to campaign funds, both Republican and Democrat. Since 1990 it has won more than 2000 government contracts worth more than 11 billion dollars. That's an incredible return on investment, wouldn't you say?
And Bechtel has footprints around the world. That's what being a multi-national means.
The Bechtel Group first attracted international attention when it signed a contract with Hugo Banzer, the former Bolivian dictator, to privatize the water supply in the city of Cochabamba. The first thing Bechtel did was to raise the price of water. Hundreds of thousands of people who simply couldn't afford to pay Bechtel's bills came out onto the streets. A huge strike paralyzed the city. Martial law was declared. Although eventually Bechtel was forced to flee its offices, it is currently negotiating an exit payment of millions of dollars from the Bolivian government for the loss of potential profits. Which, as we'll see, is growing into a popular corporate sport.
In India, Bechtel along with General Electric are the new owners of the notorious and currently defunct Enron power project. The Enron contract, which legally binds the Government of the State of Maharashtra to pay Enron a sum of 30 billion dollars, was the largest contract ever signed in India. Enron was not shy to boast about the millions of dollars it had spent to "educate" Indian politicians and bureaucrats. The Enron contract in Maharashtra, which was India's first 'fast-track' private power project, has come to be known as the most massive fraud in the country's history. (Enron was another of the Republican Party's major campaign contributors). The electricity that Enron produced was so exorbitant that the government decided it was cheaper not to buy electricity and pay Enron the mandatory fixed charges specified in the contract. This means that the government of one of the poorest countries in the world was paying Enron 220 million US dollars a year not to produce electricity!
We apparently can’t even control the single most important road in Iraq and this government keeps saying “Freedom Is On The March”.
For those entering or leaving Iraq by air, these are often the first or last images. Nineteen months after toppling Saddam Hussein, the American military and Iraqi forces have yet to secure what is arguably the country's most important stretch of road - the five-mile umbilical cord connecting Iraq to the world, the transit point for diplomats, business people, aid workers, security contractors and journalists. The security vacuum along it is emblematic of the sheer inability to maintain control over key areas of the country.
Like an initiation rite, they have to run a gantlet on the six-lane highway before they can even begin work here. The assaults are frequent and varied: insurgents with Kalashnikovs staging coordinated ambushes using four or five cars, or popping up on an overpass with rocket-propelled grenades, setting off chains of artillery shells buried in the ground. Over nine weeks last summer, the military recorded 200 attacks.
Last month, at least two dozen major attacks took place along the east-west artery and nine inside Camp Victory, the operations center of the American-led forces next to the airport, according to an analysis by a Western security contractor. Those numbers are almost certainly a gross underestimate, said a security adviser for a Western television network.
.
Even Thomas Jefferson Is Sad
.
A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt...... If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake.
-Thomas Jefferson, 1798
.
A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt...... If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake.
-Thomas Jefferson, 1798
.
Next, Come The Armbands
.
Had a bad night thinking about the spate of anti-Gay amendments that have passed.
My wife and I went and had bar b que with one of our gay neighbors last night. He was scared. On the verge of tears. He was born and bred in America. A former Republican, he hunts, he drives a truck, he makes money in oil and gas and suddenly the President of his country wants to come out against him and his partner.
This feels like Germany 1933 to them.
It shames me to watch my "Christian" neighbors rejoice in making on their neighbors fear for his future.
Don't kid yourself. Fascism is around the corner here. If the "Free Speech Zones" weren't enough the anti gay amendments should scare the shit out of you.
Remember, my mother was in Auschwitz, even she is appalled at it.
.
Had a bad night thinking about the spate of anti-Gay amendments that have passed.
My wife and I went and had bar b que with one of our gay neighbors last night. He was scared. On the verge of tears. He was born and bred in America. A former Republican, he hunts, he drives a truck, he makes money in oil and gas and suddenly the President of his country wants to come out against him and his partner.
This feels like Germany 1933 to them.
It shames me to watch my "Christian" neighbors rejoice in making on their neighbors fear for his future.
Don't kid yourself. Fascism is around the corner here. If the "Free Speech Zones" weren't enough the anti gay amendments should scare the shit out of you.
Remember, my mother was in Auschwitz, even she is appalled at it.
.
Some Thoughts
.
Definitely read Fulcrum this morning. Turns out he was a soldier and knows a thing or two about what our brave young men are about to encounter.
This reminds me of Hue City in Vietnam. I might have the details wrong about the names but it was a horrific and ultimately futile assault on a Vietcong stronghold in the South.
I can't help but think one more big assault on the insurgents in Fallujah is somehow going to derail the insurgency. Saddam himself walked softly in Fallujah. It's more than a town of like minded individuals, they're all first second and third cousins. This is like taking on the Hatfields. We will definitely whip them. And theyw ill definitely not stop fighting anyway.
I wish I could reasonably see the reason for this assault unless it's really justto avenge the mutilation of corpses months ago. Perhaps this will teach them a lesson. It will. It teaches them that we will not listen to the lessons of history.
.
Definitely read Fulcrum this morning. Turns out he was a soldier and knows a thing or two about what our brave young men are about to encounter.
This reminds me of Hue City in Vietnam. I might have the details wrong about the names but it was a horrific and ultimately futile assault on a Vietcong stronghold in the South.
I can't help but think one more big assault on the insurgents in Fallujah is somehow going to derail the insurgency. Saddam himself walked softly in Fallujah. It's more than a town of like minded individuals, they're all first second and third cousins. This is like taking on the Hatfields. We will definitely whip them. And theyw ill definitely not stop fighting anyway.
I wish I could reasonably see the reason for this assault unless it's really justto avenge the mutilation of corpses months ago. Perhaps this will teach them a lesson. It will. It teaches them that we will not listen to the lessons of history.
.
Friday, November 05, 2004
An Open Letter To Europe And The Rest Of The World
.
I set out to cover off everything I could, but that is impossible. It would take four years to write this letter. So this is a shout out to our bros in Europe, in hopes that you will understand what is happening here and realize that while 59 million Americas are dumbasses, the othe rhalf are as stunned and disappoint as you are that the worst President we have ever had was re-elected.
First of all, on behalf of half of this country, the half that voted against Bush, we would like to apologize to you. You must not let this taint your picture of all Americans, fortunately, or unfortunately, only half of us voted for this nimrod.
You must know what we know about Bush and understand that most Americans with a 3 digit IQ and a working heart voted against Bush. We know that Bush, and those that back him, are liars. We know that Crawford, Texas was incorporated in 1999 and Bush was born in Connecticut. He is no rancher or farmer. He is no soldier, and the time he held a combat pilot’s license was very short. He is a poseur, like his “businessman” image, its all smoke and mirrors and lies. Bush made terrible business decisions, ran two companies into the ground and had to be bailed out by others, not the least of which was his father.
We know that Bush hides behind his piety. He says he is a Christian but we know that he is a fake Christian who cherry picks his tenets. For example, “Thou shalt not suffer a homosexual to live,” is something he pays attention to. However “Thou shalt not bear false witness” he feels bears no obligation on him. ( Lying about weapons of mass destruction) “Thou shalt not kill” does not apply to Bush Christians. Bush Christians support war and the death penalty. You have no idea how strange it is to be living in a country where the President gives more rights to a single stem cell on micron across to a fully alive Texas child who needs money, or health care or justice. Bush is a killer. He kills prisoners, guilt and innocent, and he sends young men and women to die in war that he started.
Bush’s supporters are by and large uneducated, uninformed, and are willfully ignorant of anything that is not fed to them in a spoon on their propaganda stations.
Bush supporters actually think the political theatre on Faux News is real news. Bush supporters think Rush Limbaugh is a legitimate journalist, and like true believers, they willfully ignore things that might upset their heriarchy of pedestal installed heroes. For example, don’t bring up the fact that he sent his maid to go buy drugs for him in a parking lot. Bush supporters think the world is 6000 years old. Don’t ask them to reconcile that with dinosaur bones, they’ll just shrug. That would be too much work. I actually had one kid who works with me challenge evolution by asking “Why didn’t all the monkeys evolve?” That’s how stupid how youth are. The double standard kings and queens of all time are Bush Christians. Bush supporters hated Clinton for cheating on his wife but forgive Bush for lying about Iraq and being a drunk until he was 40. It’s hard to explain this obvious double standard. But today’s Republicans are not interested in reality. They are addicted to what they think the world should look like. Not what is. Bush supporters know little or no history, they know nothing of their own Constitution, or the history of their own country. Bush supporters know no math beyond their checkbooks and hold science in disdain. It isn’t really that they just disdain science, they disdain scientists and scientific methodology. Bush supporters lack in areas like logic: the ability to distinguish an ad hominen argument from an ad populum argument. Bush supporters couldn’t find Iraq on a blank map, or any other country for that matter. Bush supporters couldn’t find their own state on blank map of the US.
There is a sadness now.
I mean the morning after, the entire country seemed dead quiet. Airports, bus stations, I venture to say that many Republicans who voted against him, thinking this was the best thing were also completely stunned. I have never in my life felt so much sadness, like a blanket, permeating every thing. People sat at restaurants silently. My co-workers stared. This nightmare was not over.
This was not just disappointment, but tragic disappointment, the way you feel when an alcoholic friend throws it all away and gets drunk. It was sadness the way you might feel when after a long fight with cancer you realize you are going to die anyway. Bush may feel he has won a mandate, has already said as much, but if this country were geographically so inclined, it would split in two so fast it wouldn’t be funny. Bush has truly divided us in ways I have never seen. I daresay that if we are hit with a catastrophic attack, then we will not pull together like we did on 9/12, ever again. These guys can only stay in power if the side of the country that reads books and thinks for themselves are ever in the minority.
How did this happen? Well it started with a long well laid plan by very rich fascists hidden inside churches and corporations. They first spent money locally and took over local school districts. Knowing that educated populaces become democrats, they willfully decided to plant extreme rightwing demagogues inside local school districts. For example, consider Texas. When Texas buys text books, the buy is so big that Hough Mifflin cannot afford to make separate books for Kansas and Michigan and so forth. So to avoid conflict with extreme rightwing ideologues, they give a free preview of the book secretly to a family of Southern Baptists named the Gablers. They get to challenge anything in the textbook that might offend Christians. These topics might include Plate Techtonics which cannot be taught unchallenged because it suggests that the world is billions of years old. Yet the Bible clearly says the world is only 6000 years old. It can’t teach the basic operating function of biology, evolution because that means that we evolved from earlier life forms and the Bible clearly teaches us about Adam and Eve and you’ve heard the rest of that one. Local school districts are run by people like the Gablers, who by the way don’t even have high school diplomas. They are uneducated rubes affecting the content of scientific texts for millions of Americans because the book manufacturers are chicken shits. Between them and the politically correct Left ( we no longer play Cowboys and Indians, we play Cow Persons and Native Americans ) our textbooks are a lot more boring than almost anything else these children are exposed to including video games, internet surfing, cinema, TV, and Passion of the Christ.
Then the rightwing took over the media by starting at the backdoor: AM talk radio. The simplest carrier wave can be picked up by anyone with a 1950 transistor pocket radio with a 9 volt battery. And slowly they began hypnotizing the least educated, the least nourished, the most insular, inbred of Americans and worked their way outwards to today’s lower middle class suburbs. Fox News features the work of John Moody and Rupert Murdoch, sort of the Leni Reifensthals of America. They decide how the news will be interpreted. They quell news that disturbs their advertisers.
They censor and shape and package information based on ultimate monetary gain and ability to control public policy programs. They gussied up their propaganda station just as if it were a real news center and hide no predilection for complete and utter fascist bias.
Bush supporter have by and large failed to discern the difference between logically rendering an argument and just yelling “Yeehaw”. They watch Fox, believe it all, and allow the government to eradicate their rights, all in exchange for a feeling that they belong to something- like a football team say. So Karl Rove, the Joseph Goebbels of America, has managed to control the flow of information in order to complete the junta that started in 2000, and has mastered decades old Communist control secrets and Fascist power tricks.
9/11 became the neo-cons Pearl Harbor for completely dismantling the Bill of Rights and replacing it with the Orwellian named Patriot Act. Few Americans realize that for all the torture we have perpetrated upon the rest of the world, and for all the illegal detentions, we have garnered little purchase in the Wah on Terra. In fact, when Abu Gharaib became radio active, over 1000 detainees suddenly weren’t worth the trouble.
This next 4 years will likely see American women lose the right to have an abortion. We will lose the right to sue corporations for damages. We will lose many of the civil liberties we established in order to stay free. We will se Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid essentially dismantled. I’m sure we’ll have plenty of Jesus shoved up our arses as well. Don’t count out another invasion either,
Yes we are scared.
Bush is a man who allowed retarded children to be executed on death row. He allowed innocent people to die on death row. He is a sociopath who cares not one wit for anyone but himself and his self-absorbed dry drunk struggles. When he was Governor of the State of Texas, Texas was last in education, and health care. When he was a businessman he ran two oil companies into the ground and ran a losing baseball team.
You have to understand that he is a front man for a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that has planned a coup of the US and has won it handily and with the acceptance of a deluded public that will one day rue the day when they cast their vote for him.
The group behind him protects him from his failures: his past drunkenness, his past cocaine abuse, his past loss of rank and flying permits, the terrorist attack that hit us when he was on duty, the quagmire our troops are in, the millions of Americans who have lost access to health care and the millions more who have fallen into poverty, all these sins Bush and his shadow government backers will never have to pay for as long as he controls the media and he does.
His control over America is so complete that he can attack science and scientists who have won Nobel prizes and still convince the average dumb ass American ( is that redundant?) that the scientist is wrong. If you saw Farenheit 9/11, and watched Brittany Spears pop her gum and say she thought that we should support the President, you get an idea of the average IQ of the average American and can see how a program of ignorance actually works for the fascists.
Where does this all lead?
Depending on how bad it gets, I’m actually afraid that one day, I will be praying that Germany, France and England will look back at all the help we gave them in the past, and perhaps, when the moment seems dire enough, perhaps you will invade America and liberate us from our own homegrown brand of Taliban.
.
stay tuned
I set out to cover off everything I could, but that is impossible. It would take four years to write this letter. So this is a shout out to our bros in Europe, in hopes that you will understand what is happening here and realize that while 59 million Americas are dumbasses, the othe rhalf are as stunned and disappoint as you are that the worst President we have ever had was re-elected.
First of all, on behalf of half of this country, the half that voted against Bush, we would like to apologize to you. You must not let this taint your picture of all Americans, fortunately, or unfortunately, only half of us voted for this nimrod.
You must know what we know about Bush and understand that most Americans with a 3 digit IQ and a working heart voted against Bush. We know that Bush, and those that back him, are liars. We know that Crawford, Texas was incorporated in 1999 and Bush was born in Connecticut. He is no rancher or farmer. He is no soldier, and the time he held a combat pilot’s license was very short. He is a poseur, like his “businessman” image, its all smoke and mirrors and lies. Bush made terrible business decisions, ran two companies into the ground and had to be bailed out by others, not the least of which was his father.
We know that Bush hides behind his piety. He says he is a Christian but we know that he is a fake Christian who cherry picks his tenets. For example, “Thou shalt not suffer a homosexual to live,” is something he pays attention to. However “Thou shalt not bear false witness” he feels bears no obligation on him. ( Lying about weapons of mass destruction) “Thou shalt not kill” does not apply to Bush Christians. Bush Christians support war and the death penalty. You have no idea how strange it is to be living in a country where the President gives more rights to a single stem cell on micron across to a fully alive Texas child who needs money, or health care or justice. Bush is a killer. He kills prisoners, guilt and innocent, and he sends young men and women to die in war that he started.
Bush’s supporters are by and large uneducated, uninformed, and are willfully ignorant of anything that is not fed to them in a spoon on their propaganda stations.
Bush supporters actually think the political theatre on Faux News is real news. Bush supporters think Rush Limbaugh is a legitimate journalist, and like true believers, they willfully ignore things that might upset their heriarchy of pedestal installed heroes. For example, don’t bring up the fact that he sent his maid to go buy drugs for him in a parking lot. Bush supporters think the world is 6000 years old. Don’t ask them to reconcile that with dinosaur bones, they’ll just shrug. That would be too much work. I actually had one kid who works with me challenge evolution by asking “Why didn’t all the monkeys evolve?” That’s how stupid how youth are. The double standard kings and queens of all time are Bush Christians. Bush supporters hated Clinton for cheating on his wife but forgive Bush for lying about Iraq and being a drunk until he was 40. It’s hard to explain this obvious double standard. But today’s Republicans are not interested in reality. They are addicted to what they think the world should look like. Not what is. Bush supporters know little or no history, they know nothing of their own Constitution, or the history of their own country. Bush supporters know no math beyond their checkbooks and hold science in disdain. It isn’t really that they just disdain science, they disdain scientists and scientific methodology. Bush supporters lack in areas like logic: the ability to distinguish an ad hominen argument from an ad populum argument. Bush supporters couldn’t find Iraq on a blank map, or any other country for that matter. Bush supporters couldn’t find their own state on blank map of the US.
There is a sadness now.
I mean the morning after, the entire country seemed dead quiet. Airports, bus stations, I venture to say that many Republicans who voted against him, thinking this was the best thing were also completely stunned. I have never in my life felt so much sadness, like a blanket, permeating every thing. People sat at restaurants silently. My co-workers stared. This nightmare was not over.
This was not just disappointment, but tragic disappointment, the way you feel when an alcoholic friend throws it all away and gets drunk. It was sadness the way you might feel when after a long fight with cancer you realize you are going to die anyway. Bush may feel he has won a mandate, has already said as much, but if this country were geographically so inclined, it would split in two so fast it wouldn’t be funny. Bush has truly divided us in ways I have never seen. I daresay that if we are hit with a catastrophic attack, then we will not pull together like we did on 9/12, ever again. These guys can only stay in power if the side of the country that reads books and thinks for themselves are ever in the minority.
How did this happen? Well it started with a long well laid plan by very rich fascists hidden inside churches and corporations. They first spent money locally and took over local school districts. Knowing that educated populaces become democrats, they willfully decided to plant extreme rightwing demagogues inside local school districts. For example, consider Texas. When Texas buys text books, the buy is so big that Hough Mifflin cannot afford to make separate books for Kansas and Michigan and so forth. So to avoid conflict with extreme rightwing ideologues, they give a free preview of the book secretly to a family of Southern Baptists named the Gablers. They get to challenge anything in the textbook that might offend Christians. These topics might include Plate Techtonics which cannot be taught unchallenged because it suggests that the world is billions of years old. Yet the Bible clearly says the world is only 6000 years old. It can’t teach the basic operating function of biology, evolution because that means that we evolved from earlier life forms and the Bible clearly teaches us about Adam and Eve and you’ve heard the rest of that one. Local school districts are run by people like the Gablers, who by the way don’t even have high school diplomas. They are uneducated rubes affecting the content of scientific texts for millions of Americans because the book manufacturers are chicken shits. Between them and the politically correct Left ( we no longer play Cowboys and Indians, we play Cow Persons and Native Americans ) our textbooks are a lot more boring than almost anything else these children are exposed to including video games, internet surfing, cinema, TV, and Passion of the Christ.
Then the rightwing took over the media by starting at the backdoor: AM talk radio. The simplest carrier wave can be picked up by anyone with a 1950 transistor pocket radio with a 9 volt battery. And slowly they began hypnotizing the least educated, the least nourished, the most insular, inbred of Americans and worked their way outwards to today’s lower middle class suburbs. Fox News features the work of John Moody and Rupert Murdoch, sort of the Leni Reifensthals of America. They decide how the news will be interpreted. They quell news that disturbs their advertisers.
They censor and shape and package information based on ultimate monetary gain and ability to control public policy programs. They gussied up their propaganda station just as if it were a real news center and hide no predilection for complete and utter fascist bias.
Bush supporter have by and large failed to discern the difference between logically rendering an argument and just yelling “Yeehaw”. They watch Fox, believe it all, and allow the government to eradicate their rights, all in exchange for a feeling that they belong to something- like a football team say. So Karl Rove, the Joseph Goebbels of America, has managed to control the flow of information in order to complete the junta that started in 2000, and has mastered decades old Communist control secrets and Fascist power tricks.
9/11 became the neo-cons Pearl Harbor for completely dismantling the Bill of Rights and replacing it with the Orwellian named Patriot Act. Few Americans realize that for all the torture we have perpetrated upon the rest of the world, and for all the illegal detentions, we have garnered little purchase in the Wah on Terra. In fact, when Abu Gharaib became radio active, over 1000 detainees suddenly weren’t worth the trouble.
This next 4 years will likely see American women lose the right to have an abortion. We will lose the right to sue corporations for damages. We will lose many of the civil liberties we established in order to stay free. We will se Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid essentially dismantled. I’m sure we’ll have plenty of Jesus shoved up our arses as well. Don’t count out another invasion either,
Yes we are scared.
Bush is a man who allowed retarded children to be executed on death row. He allowed innocent people to die on death row. He is a sociopath who cares not one wit for anyone but himself and his self-absorbed dry drunk struggles. When he was Governor of the State of Texas, Texas was last in education, and health care. When he was a businessman he ran two oil companies into the ground and ran a losing baseball team.
You have to understand that he is a front man for a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that has planned a coup of the US and has won it handily and with the acceptance of a deluded public that will one day rue the day when they cast their vote for him.
The group behind him protects him from his failures: his past drunkenness, his past cocaine abuse, his past loss of rank and flying permits, the terrorist attack that hit us when he was on duty, the quagmire our troops are in, the millions of Americans who have lost access to health care and the millions more who have fallen into poverty, all these sins Bush and his shadow government backers will never have to pay for as long as he controls the media and he does.
His control over America is so complete that he can attack science and scientists who have won Nobel prizes and still convince the average dumb ass American ( is that redundant?) that the scientist is wrong. If you saw Farenheit 9/11, and watched Brittany Spears pop her gum and say she thought that we should support the President, you get an idea of the average IQ of the average American and can see how a program of ignorance actually works for the fascists.
Where does this all lead?
Depending on how bad it gets, I’m actually afraid that one day, I will be praying that Germany, France and England will look back at all the help we gave them in the past, and perhaps, when the moment seems dire enough, perhaps you will invade America and liberate us from our own homegrown brand of Taliban.
.
stay tuned
Thursday, November 04, 2004
I Have A Theory
Well, the rumors continue to swirl that Ashcroft is going to resign as Attorney General. Again, I'll believe it when it actually happens.
Assuming it does, however, who would Bush choose in his place?
Allow me to advance my humble theory. Bush will appoint Rudy Giuliani.
Why? Two reasons.
First, there's no denying that Rudy is qualified for the job. He's been Assistant Attorney General, and his tenure as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York is distinguished, with 4,152 convictions.
Second, an eye towards 2008. The Republicans need someone to run against Hillary, Edwards, or whoever else. Giuliani's arguably one of the three most popular Republican politicos (alongside Arnold and McCain), and he'd make a strong candidate. With a position as AG, he'd have a solid springboard toward the nomination, and it would allow the administration to say they are "passing the torch".
Assuming it does, however, who would Bush choose in his place?
Allow me to advance my humble theory. Bush will appoint Rudy Giuliani.
Why? Two reasons.
First, there's no denying that Rudy is qualified for the job. He's been Assistant Attorney General, and his tenure as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York is distinguished, with 4,152 convictions.
Second, an eye towards 2008. The Republicans need someone to run against Hillary, Edwards, or whoever else. Giuliani's arguably one of the three most popular Republican politicos (alongside Arnold and McCain), and he'd make a strong candidate. With a position as AG, he'd have a solid springboard toward the nomination, and it would allow the administration to say they are "passing the torch".
The Difference Between Bush Backers and Kerry Backers.
.
Bush backers think "I want my baby back baby back...I want my baby back.." is a cool song.
Kerry backers think it's annoying.
.
Bush backers think "I want my baby back baby back...I want my baby back.." is a cool song.
Kerry backers think it's annoying.
.
Arafat Fights for His Life
I am not one to wish death upon anyone, even a person I find as dispicable as Yasser Arafat. Nevertheless, it is looking increasingly likely that he will give up the ghost in the near future, if he has not already (by the shadiness of the quotes in the article, it seems like something is being hidden).
And there is no doubt in my mind that his passing will only smooth the way towards an Israeli-Palestinian peace, or something as close to peace as those two can come. Time and again the Israelis have offered to settle with Arafat, and time and again he has walked away from deals granting him everything, or at least almost everything, that he has demanded.
God willing, who ever succeeds Arafat will see that there are other ways to peace beyond the destruction of the Jewish state. Who will understand that the first steps towards peace and trust will have to be baby steps. Who will understand that a promise to bring an end to suicide bombings must be upheld.
And there is no doubt in my mind that his passing will only smooth the way towards an Israeli-Palestinian peace, or something as close to peace as those two can come. Time and again the Israelis have offered to settle with Arafat, and time and again he has walked away from deals granting him everything, or at least almost everything, that he has demanded.
God willing, who ever succeeds Arafat will see that there are other ways to peace beyond the destruction of the Jewish state. Who will understand that the first steps towards peace and trust will have to be baby steps. Who will understand that a promise to bring an end to suicide bombings must be upheld.
From Atrios Comment Section.
.
I guess, we lived through the last four years, we can live through the next four. It's not like we won't have enough food to eat. Practically speaking, that awful man's presence is irrelevant to our everyday lives. I hate him, I loathe him, but he is an abstract annoyance. We still have our homes, our good friends, our cars, enough food, our partners, our good health, and on and on. It would have been great to have been rid of him, but you know, this was always destined to be a sad election, no matter who won. No matter who it was, we were going to wind up with a president detested by about half the nation. Presidencies have a way of not going the way we expect. No one who voted for Bush four years ago thought he'd drive up the deficit and get us deep into "nation-building" in Iraq. His second term may be equally full of
surprises for all. At the very least, he's the one who got us into debt and Iraq and now, he's the one who's going to have to figure out how to get us out of both. Don't jump off the nearest tall building - we are going to be o.k.
stosine | Email | Homepage | 11.03.04 - 10:09 am | #
.
I guess, we lived through the last four years, we can live through the next four. It's not like we won't have enough food to eat. Practically speaking, that awful man's presence is irrelevant to our everyday lives. I hate him, I loathe him, but he is an abstract annoyance. We still have our homes, our good friends, our cars, enough food, our partners, our good health, and on and on. It would have been great to have been rid of him, but you know, this was always destined to be a sad election, no matter who won. No matter who it was, we were going to wind up with a president detested by about half the nation. Presidencies have a way of not going the way we expect. No one who voted for Bush four years ago thought he'd drive up the deficit and get us deep into "nation-building" in Iraq. His second term may be equally full of
surprises for all. At the very least, he's the one who got us into debt and Iraq and now, he's the one who's going to have to figure out how to get us out of both. Don't jump off the nearest tall building - we are going to be o.k.
stosine | Email | Homepage | 11.03.04 - 10:09 am | #
.
Let's Create Our Own Newspaper
.
"Big Journalism cannot respond as it would in previous years: with bland vows to cover the Administration fairly and a firm intention to make no changes whatsoever in its basic approach to politics and news. The situation is too unstable, the world is changing too rapidly, and the press has been pretending for too long that its old operating system will last forever. It won't."
.
"Big Journalism cannot respond as it would in previous years: with bland vows to cover the Administration fairly and a firm intention to make no changes whatsoever in its basic approach to politics and news. The situation is too unstable, the world is changing too rapidly, and the press has been pretending for too long that its old operating system will last forever. It won't."
.
Who Says Americans Aren't Stupid?
Corporations Under Bush Have Power Over Life And Death
.
Molly Ivins Summarizes What Bush Stands For
In September, Merck & Co., the huge drug manufacturer, pulled Vioxx off the market. Vioxx was a popular pain-killing, anti-arthritis drug, but Merck said it was putting patients' safety first. A new study from the Federal Drug Administration showed high doses of Vioxx triple the risk of heart attack and sudden cardiac death.
From there, the story bifurcates -- it takes two directions. Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa revealed that the FDA had tried to silence the author of the study, Dr. David Graham, associate director of science in the Office of Drug Safety. Grassley said the FDA first sat on Graham's study and that then he was "ostracized" and "subjected to veiled threats and intimidation."
The Wall Street Journal followed the other fork, finding internal memos from Merck showing that company officials may have been aware of the dangers of Vioxx as long ago as 1996, including a memo apparently instructing its sales reps to "dodge" the question when doctors asked about the cardiac record of Vioxx.
In short, we have a toothless regulatory agency in the pocket of the industry it is supposed to patrol. We have an administration-wide contempt for science and plain facts. And the allegation against the folks at Merck is that they were making such enormous profits on a drug that killed people that when they knew or suspected it was killing people, they kept right on selling it. When the information that Merck had known for a long time about Vioxx and heart attacks became public, the company's stock fell by 9.6 percent.
That's the system George W. Bush stands for: where a corporation can knowingly kill people for profit and, when it finally comes out, everyone knows the penalties will be so light the company doesn't even lose a tenth of its worth. Hey, just a little bump in the road.
.
Molly Ivins Summarizes What Bush Stands For
In September, Merck & Co., the huge drug manufacturer, pulled Vioxx off the market. Vioxx was a popular pain-killing, anti-arthritis drug, but Merck said it was putting patients' safety first. A new study from the Federal Drug Administration showed high doses of Vioxx triple the risk of heart attack and sudden cardiac death.
From there, the story bifurcates -- it takes two directions. Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa revealed that the FDA had tried to silence the author of the study, Dr. David Graham, associate director of science in the Office of Drug Safety. Grassley said the FDA first sat on Graham's study and that then he was "ostracized" and "subjected to veiled threats and intimidation."
The Wall Street Journal followed the other fork, finding internal memos from Merck showing that company officials may have been aware of the dangers of Vioxx as long ago as 1996, including a memo apparently instructing its sales reps to "dodge" the question when doctors asked about the cardiac record of Vioxx.
In short, we have a toothless regulatory agency in the pocket of the industry it is supposed to patrol. We have an administration-wide contempt for science and plain facts. And the allegation against the folks at Merck is that they were making such enormous profits on a drug that killed people that when they knew or suspected it was killing people, they kept right on selling it. When the information that Merck had known for a long time about Vioxx and heart attacks became public, the company's stock fell by 9.6 percent.
That's the system George W. Bush stands for: where a corporation can knowingly kill people for profit and, when it finally comes out, everyone knows the penalties will be so light the company doesn't even lose a tenth of its worth. Hey, just a little bump in the road.
.
Thank You
To the dozen or so people who responded to our question. It means a lot to us that we mean something and play a part in the future of our country in some positive way. It's an electronic democracy we have here in America.
Now, a simple request. We have been advertsing on Agonist, one of the better blogs in America, and it certainly works. But we might decide to cut back soon and were wondering if those bloggers who visit us might blogroll us.
It would help us keep our numbers, however meek, up a bit.
Now, a simple request. We have been advertsing on Agonist, one of the better blogs in America, and it certainly works. But we might decide to cut back soon and were wondering if those bloggers who visit us might blogroll us.
It would help us keep our numbers, however meek, up a bit.
What To Expect
.
Like pleading dogs, Democrats are hoping for more united America under a second Bush term and like many losers, my party is foolish to expect that Bush would be any different or for some reason any better than he was in this last nightmarish 4 years. When he lost the popular vote he acted as if he had a landslide. Now that he has motivated those on the bottom end of the socio/economic/IQ scale, his true supporters, the worst my friends, is yet to come.
You have to ask yourself, how bad can a President be? Well, he can be as bad as the public allows him to be. Our own uninformed, public school educated, red state, Sean Hannity loving population makes collective political decisions with the intelligence and verve as you might expect from a motivated group of 1966 Communist Chinese Maoist party operatives. They don’t understand science and don’t respect it. They think the world is 6000 years old. They will allow the President to hurt them financially as long a he acts like a guy they’d like to have a beer with. They don’t understand the rights granted to us by the Constitution, and they don’t care about the rights they lost since the Rhenquist Court or those abated by the Patriot Act. These Americans don’t think. They fell, and are susceptible to sound byte artists and well laid propaganda. This group of Americans cannot distinguish between what is cruel and unusual and fair. This group of Americans views intellect as a weakness, and reason as an elite pass time. Given a choice between Medevalism and Common Sense, They chose Medevalism. Given a choice between Science and Superstition, they chose superstition. This group gives a single stem cell more Constitutional Protections than a living American. They no longer read 1984 by George Orwell in public high schools. For this reason alone, they ironically demonstrate to this generation that 1984 was a warning, one that I never suspected I would have had to worry about. This generation of Americans is by and large is dumb, and willfully so. They will not pay attention to the perfidies perpetrated upon them by Bush and they will care little for the protocols and openness that once even the most Conservative Americans put into place to protect us all. As an example, the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency is doing little to protect any environment from profits will mean little to this voting majority. They simply do not care. In regards to foreign policy, like the uneducated masses that this voting populace is, they will continue top look at the rest of the world through the eyes of Faux News. For example, when Hussein was being compared with Hitler, history and military buffs as well as the rest of the world saw this as a stretch to say the least. Before I knew, a young kid at the office was talking about appeasing Hitler and how Bush was like Churchill. ( Never mind that Churchill was about the most articulate and witty statesman the world has ever seen, and that Bush is arguably the least of these ). Once pressed on who exactly negotiated the no aggression pact ( Neville Chamberlain) or who is was between ( Germany and Poland ) this kid could not answer. The reason? He really didn’t know history. He was repeating talking points. It felt real and valid to him, but he lacked the painfully sought details that would put things in perspective. He would not search for them either as he and his see little value in being right when you are already in power.
In short, we are in a car that is crashing, and the wheel is held by those least qualified to drive.
Don’t tell them though. Like your crazy blind and deaf aunt, they think their driving is just great.
They will not stand in the way when one morning in the next four years, women in America lose the right to have an abortion. They will not stand in the way as collective money is taxed from us all and given only to Christians. They will stand in the way as out nation public school system is dismantled and given to churches and private corporations until it is a hopeless and failed patchwork. They will not stand in the way as corporations grow more powerful and you grow less powerful. They will not stand in the way as our nation news networks are controlled and censored and exist only to push the goals profits and power and sublimate the goals of openness and truth.
I could go on categorically.
But my guess is that the people who visit us already agree. And those that don’t are the same ones I am talking about.
The good in all this? Perhaps it will force a new party to come to power. Maybe there will be a civil war and this country will split finally. Perhaps they will fail categorically and we will somehow triumph. My guess is that we will become a sort of combination of Megacorporation/Republic.
We’ll see.
.
Like pleading dogs, Democrats are hoping for more united America under a second Bush term and like many losers, my party is foolish to expect that Bush would be any different or for some reason any better than he was in this last nightmarish 4 years. When he lost the popular vote he acted as if he had a landslide. Now that he has motivated those on the bottom end of the socio/economic/IQ scale, his true supporters, the worst my friends, is yet to come.
You have to ask yourself, how bad can a President be? Well, he can be as bad as the public allows him to be. Our own uninformed, public school educated, red state, Sean Hannity loving population makes collective political decisions with the intelligence and verve as you might expect from a motivated group of 1966 Communist Chinese Maoist party operatives. They don’t understand science and don’t respect it. They think the world is 6000 years old. They will allow the President to hurt them financially as long a he acts like a guy they’d like to have a beer with. They don’t understand the rights granted to us by the Constitution, and they don’t care about the rights they lost since the Rhenquist Court or those abated by the Patriot Act. These Americans don’t think. They fell, and are susceptible to sound byte artists and well laid propaganda. This group of Americans cannot distinguish between what is cruel and unusual and fair. This group of Americans views intellect as a weakness, and reason as an elite pass time. Given a choice between Medevalism and Common Sense, They chose Medevalism. Given a choice between Science and Superstition, they chose superstition. This group gives a single stem cell more Constitutional Protections than a living American. They no longer read 1984 by George Orwell in public high schools. For this reason alone, they ironically demonstrate to this generation that 1984 was a warning, one that I never suspected I would have had to worry about. This generation of Americans is by and large is dumb, and willfully so. They will not pay attention to the perfidies perpetrated upon them by Bush and they will care little for the protocols and openness that once even the most Conservative Americans put into place to protect us all. As an example, the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency is doing little to protect any environment from profits will mean little to this voting majority. They simply do not care. In regards to foreign policy, like the uneducated masses that this voting populace is, they will continue top look at the rest of the world through the eyes of Faux News. For example, when Hussein was being compared with Hitler, history and military buffs as well as the rest of the world saw this as a stretch to say the least. Before I knew, a young kid at the office was talking about appeasing Hitler and how Bush was like Churchill. ( Never mind that Churchill was about the most articulate and witty statesman the world has ever seen, and that Bush is arguably the least of these ). Once pressed on who exactly negotiated the no aggression pact ( Neville Chamberlain) or who is was between ( Germany and Poland ) this kid could not answer. The reason? He really didn’t know history. He was repeating talking points. It felt real and valid to him, but he lacked the painfully sought details that would put things in perspective. He would not search for them either as he and his see little value in being right when you are already in power.
In short, we are in a car that is crashing, and the wheel is held by those least qualified to drive.
Don’t tell them though. Like your crazy blind and deaf aunt, they think their driving is just great.
They will not stand in the way when one morning in the next four years, women in America lose the right to have an abortion. They will not stand in the way as collective money is taxed from us all and given only to Christians. They will stand in the way as out nation public school system is dismantled and given to churches and private corporations until it is a hopeless and failed patchwork. They will not stand in the way as corporations grow more powerful and you grow less powerful. They will not stand in the way as our nation news networks are controlled and censored and exist only to push the goals profits and power and sublimate the goals of openness and truth.
I could go on categorically.
But my guess is that the people who visit us already agree. And those that don’t are the same ones I am talking about.
The good in all this? Perhaps it will force a new party to come to power. Maybe there will be a civil war and this country will split finally. Perhaps they will fail categorically and we will somehow triumph. My guess is that we will become a sort of combination of Megacorporation/Republic.
We’ll see.
.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Ashcroft to resign in "the next several days"?
So says Drudge.
Take it for what you will. I, for one, will believe it when it happens.
In the meantime, let me just say, "please, please, please, please, oh God, please! And Rummy too!"
Take it for what you will. I, for one, will believe it when it happens.
In the meantime, let me just say, "please, please, please, please, oh God, please! And Rummy too!"
We Have All Lost Something
Greetings, readers. Trajan here.
It has been quite some time since I've posted here with any regularity, but in Judah's absence it has fallen to me to keep the posts coming and give you all things to read.
It is my intention to put together some sort of a post detailing my political beliefs, for those of you who have found our humble site since my participation on it trailed off. I'm also planning to offer my perspective on this election, but while I gather my thoughts allow me to pass along this comment taken off of Fark.com. I usually do not rely on Fark for more than its humor value, but this comment in particular struck me as poignant:
The irony of this [is] that America claims to be the epitomy of freedom, yet your individual freedoms are constantly being curtailed and your social conscience grows more distant and clouded. I pity those of you who are forced to live in a nation you did not choose.
No matter what happens, half of the country is so diametrically opposed to the other half that you have all lost something.
You are divided not united and as time goes on you are more and more likely to be plunged into a civil conflict. It's sad to see a country so torn but you have done it to yourselves.
You should be ashamed of what you have become. You could be such an example for the world, but instead you fit the role of warning much more snuggly.
Have we lost something? Yes, I think that we have. No longer do we stand united as one country under anything. John Edwards was right, but not in the way he intended - there are two Americas. I look at how deep, how bitter, and how irreconcilable the rift splitting our great nation is, and I fear that there may be no way of closing it.
It has been quite some time since I've posted here with any regularity, but in Judah's absence it has fallen to me to keep the posts coming and give you all things to read.
It is my intention to put together some sort of a post detailing my political beliefs, for those of you who have found our humble site since my participation on it trailed off. I'm also planning to offer my perspective on this election, but while I gather my thoughts allow me to pass along this comment taken off of Fark.com. I usually do not rely on Fark for more than its humor value, but this comment in particular struck me as poignant:
The irony of this [is] that America claims to be the epitomy of freedom, yet your individual freedoms are constantly being curtailed and your social conscience grows more distant and clouded. I pity those of you who are forced to live in a nation you did not choose.
No matter what happens, half of the country is so diametrically opposed to the other half that you have all lost something.
You are divided not united and as time goes on you are more and more likely to be plunged into a civil conflict. It's sad to see a country so torn but you have done it to yourselves.
You should be ashamed of what you have become. You could be such an example for the world, but instead you fit the role of warning much more snuggly.
Have we lost something? Yes, I think that we have. No longer do we stand united as one country under anything. John Edwards was right, but not in the way he intended - there are two Americas. I look at how deep, how bitter, and how irreconcilable the rift splitting our great nation is, and I fear that there may be no way of closing it.
OK, I Need To Know Something
.
We know exactly how many people read this blog. We know their servers and domains and locations and languages in the most general way that you can when you subscribe to sitemeter.
What we need to know is this: Does this blog matter to you? Do you care for it? Do you look forward to it? Do you read it on the way around the news net? Would it matter if we shut down?
.
We know exactly how many people read this blog. We know their servers and domains and locations and languages in the most general way that you can when you subscribe to sitemeter.
What we need to know is this: Does this blog matter to you? Do you care for it? Do you look forward to it? Do you read it on the way around the news net? Would it matter if we shut down?
.
Taking A Few Days Off
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
9:48 PM
Here Is My Question:
Is this a Diebold thing?
I mean I expected that all these people were showing up to oust Bush. Not give him 4 more years.
Just the anecdotal evidence was overwhelming.
I expected a much bigger Kerry vote nationally.
Is this another perfidy?
7:53 PM Central
I mean I expected that all these people were showing up to oust Bush. Not give him 4 more years.
Just the anecdotal evidence was overwhelming.
I expected a much bigger Kerry vote nationally.
Is this another perfidy?
7:53 PM Central
Being Rude To The Hand That Feeds You
.
For the Press Corps, A GOP Cover Charge
The Bush administration continues its tradition of gracious hospitality to the press corps up until the very last minute. Reporters wishing to cover the president's election night party will have to pay $300 for the privilege of a 3-by-2-foot work space and a padded seat in a tent nearby to watch the proceedings on television. Wanna eat? That's $200 extra. Want a phone line or Internet hookup? Fork over separately to Verizon.
But it's not just the exceptional expense that has journalists grumbling. It's what the money buys: Small groups of media will be escorted into the atrium of the Ronald Reagan Building to look around -- but they won't be allowed to talk to participants. "There's really no mingling with the guests," said Megan Rose, of the public relations group handling arrangements. The restrictions are unusual, but the GOP message isn't: Reporters are not our kind.
.
For the Press Corps, A GOP Cover Charge
The Bush administration continues its tradition of gracious hospitality to the press corps up until the very last minute. Reporters wishing to cover the president's election night party will have to pay $300 for the privilege of a 3-by-2-foot work space and a padded seat in a tent nearby to watch the proceedings on television. Wanna eat? That's $200 extra. Want a phone line or Internet hookup? Fork over separately to Verizon.
But it's not just the exceptional expense that has journalists grumbling. It's what the money buys: Small groups of media will be escorted into the atrium of the Ronald Reagan Building to look around -- but they won't be allowed to talk to participants. "There's really no mingling with the guests," said Megan Rose, of the public relations group handling arrangements. The restrictions are unusual, but the GOP message isn't: Reporters are not our kind.
.
Ah The Light Of Day. Of Facts Versus Talkingpoints...
.
Luscious Wingnut “Family Values Irony
The state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation is Massachusetts. At latest count it had a divorce rate of 2.4 per 1,000 population, while the rate for Texas was 4.1.
.
Luscious Wingnut “Family Values Irony
The state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation is Massachusetts. At latest count it had a divorce rate of 2.4 per 1,000 population, while the rate for Texas was 4.1.
.
China Endorses Kerry
This Just In- Canadians Hate Bush Too
.
Canadians fear the US has lost its way, and see the forthcoming presidential election as more important than their own, says Anne McIlroy
Canadians believe the US presidential election will have a greater impact on them than their own recent general election did, a new poll has shown.
.
Canadians fear the US has lost its way, and see the forthcoming presidential election as more important than their own, says Anne McIlroy
Canadians believe the US presidential election will have a greater impact on them than their own recent general election did, a new poll has shown.
.
I. Can. Almost. Taste. It.
Monday, November 01, 2004
Digby On Turnout
.
Kerry [will] win because people don't stand in line for hours in the Florida sun to vote because they like a politician. People are willing to stand in line for hours because they are angry....
The underlying fact that cannot be ignored by Democrats and moderates of all stripes is that they stole the goddam election last time and then governed like they'd won in a landslide. They rubbed our noses in it for four long years with a far right agenda, treating us like shit every single step of the way. Apparently, they believed their own ridiculous hype and convinced themselves that we would just roll over and take it. They were wrong.
.
Kerry [will] win because people don't stand in line for hours in the Florida sun to vote because they like a politician. People are willing to stand in line for hours because they are angry....
The underlying fact that cannot be ignored by Democrats and moderates of all stripes is that they stole the goddam election last time and then governed like they'd won in a landslide. They rubbed our noses in it for four long years with a far right agenda, treating us like shit every single step of the way. Apparently, they believed their own ridiculous hype and convinced themselves that we would just roll over and take it. They were wrong.
.
AssFace McKinnon Prepares For Crow Dinner
.
Bush's aides predicted victory when talking on the record, pointing to polls showing that the race remained a tossup, both nationally and in key states. But despite the insistence that all was well, the erosion in the moods of Bush's inner circle over the past two weeks was unmistakable. Several of his close advisers said they were concerned because the president had achieved no last-minute momentum, and Democratic turnout was looking as if it might swamp the Bush-Cheney campaign's projections.
A Republican official who is privy to Bush-Cheney strategy and polling said that as the incumbent, Bush should be further ahead of Kerry in polls. "Some of them have been moving in the right direction, but it isn't enough," the official said. "Karl [Rove] is a big believer in the bandwagon effect, but there has been nothing over the past week for the president to use it to turn it around."
Still, aides said the president was joking and playing gin rummy with Rove, his senior adviser, in the conference room of his Boeing 747. Bush even agreed to join a gin rummy tournament with seven aides.
Mark McKinnon, Bush's chief ad strategist, flew with him all day and said Bush was "nostalgic" about having so much of his team from 2000 out on the road with him one last time. Asked about the mood on the plane, a subdued McKinnon replied, in a deadpan voice: "Jubilation."
.
Bush's aides predicted victory when talking on the record, pointing to polls showing that the race remained a tossup, both nationally and in key states. But despite the insistence that all was well, the erosion in the moods of Bush's inner circle over the past two weeks was unmistakable. Several of his close advisers said they were concerned because the president had achieved no last-minute momentum, and Democratic turnout was looking as if it might swamp the Bush-Cheney campaign's projections.
A Republican official who is privy to Bush-Cheney strategy and polling said that as the incumbent, Bush should be further ahead of Kerry in polls. "Some of them have been moving in the right direction, but it isn't enough," the official said. "Karl [Rove] is a big believer in the bandwagon effect, but there has been nothing over the past week for the president to use it to turn it around."
Still, aides said the president was joking and playing gin rummy with Rove, his senior adviser, in the conference room of his Boeing 747. Bush even agreed to join a gin rummy tournament with seven aides.
Mark McKinnon, Bush's chief ad strategist, flew with him all day and said Bush was "nostalgic" about having so much of his team from 2000 out on the road with him one last time. Asked about the mood on the plane, a subdued McKinnon replied, in a deadpan voice: "Jubilation."
.
Electoral Vote Count
'Political vandalism' in Seattle neighborhood
no link
.
SEATTLE - A Renton woman is facing hundreds of dollars in car repairs because someone didn't like her politics.
A vandal struck Joni Job's car while she shopped this weekend at a Fremont grocery store.
It seems someone didn't like her Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker.
The vandal left his own political message on the side of her car. "Bush in 2004'" was scrawled in red paint.
Her car also has a new dent in the wheel well and a confederate flag slapped on the back.
"That was the real bone chiller, that was the real bone chiller," said Job. "I just thought what, are we at civil war? This is crazy people ... stop."
Until police can examine the damage on Monday, Job has to drive around with mixed political messages.
.
.
SEATTLE - A Renton woman is facing hundreds of dollars in car repairs because someone didn't like her politics.
A vandal struck Joni Job's car while she shopped this weekend at a Fremont grocery store.
It seems someone didn't like her Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker.
The vandal left his own political message on the side of her car. "Bush in 2004'" was scrawled in red paint.
Her car also has a new dent in the wheel well and a confederate flag slapped on the back.
"That was the real bone chiller, that was the real bone chiller," said Job. "I just thought what, are we at civil war? This is crazy people ... stop."
Until police can examine the damage on Monday, Job has to drive around with mixed political messages.
.
Schadenfreude
.
A federal judge issued an order early Monday barring political party challengers from polling places throughout Ohio during Tuesday's election.
U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott found that the application of Ohio's statute allowing challengers at polling places is unconstitutional.
She said the presence of challengers inexperienced in the electoral process questioning voters about their eligibility would impede voting.
Dlott ruled on a lawsuit by a black Cincinnati couple who said Republican plans to deploy challengers to largely black precincts in Hamilton County was meant to intimidate and block black voters.
.
A federal judge issued an order early Monday barring political party challengers from polling places throughout Ohio during Tuesday's election.
U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott found that the application of Ohio's statute allowing challengers at polling places is unconstitutional.
She said the presence of challengers inexperienced in the electoral process questioning voters about their eligibility would impede voting.
Dlott ruled on a lawsuit by a black Cincinnati couple who said Republican plans to deploy challengers to largely black precincts in Hamilton County was meant to intimidate and block black voters.
.
Don’t They Know How Wrong This Is?
.
How They Do, Part III
Joshua Bearman LAWeekly Blogs
A Look At Early Poll Site GOP Shenanigans, And Why They Show We'll Win
Man are the Republicans bad at agitprop. I’ve known that since the RNC, when Stephen Elliott and I happened across the Communists for Kerry, some of whose members the producers at Fox News were either stupid or despicable enough to include in their post-debate focus group coverage after the Showdown in the Show Me State. But dressing up like Castro for a few right-wing yuks is one thing, and trying to mislead voters is another.
Here’s what happened. We followed the congregants of the Mt. Hermon AME to vote after their Sunday service. The Pastor gave a rousing speech that shook the walls about exercising one’s “God given right to vote.” Outside, there were vans waiting to take people over to an early voting station in Ft. Lauderdale at the African American Research Library, where many thousands of people have already voted in the past two weeks. This day was no different; the line stretched across the parking lot and off the grounds on the sidewalk on Sistrunk. It was 1pm, and as hot as the day was gonna get, which was burning. 85 degrees, a slight breeze but not enough to overcome the moisture — typical fall in Florida. People carried umbrellas, and fanned themselves with Kerry/Edwards paddles.
At first glance, it looked like the scene outside a stadium before an AC/DC show: too many cars trying to park; confusion in the line; people handing out water; everyone clutching their ID’s.
But the place was stamped with politics. Distributing the cold bottles of Zephyrhills were about dozen NAACP Voter Fund volunteers in yellow shirts. Others distributed folding chairs for people who wanted to sit in the line. An Election Protection corps in black uniforms passed out flyers printed with voting rights. A couple of Kerry/Edwards people handed out candy from plastic pumpkins. And then there was this other curious contingent, an obvious bunch of Republicans pretending to be from ACT UP.
“We’re from San Francisco,” one of them said. He was wearing Kerry/Edwards pins, and holding a big Kerry/Edwards campaign sign alongside a homemade one that said: SUPPORT GAY ADOPTION. “We just want everyone to know what we support.”
There were four of them, two men and two women, all carrying signs with similar social wedge issues. One of them, wearing ratty boots and a denim shorts and vest matching suit with a leopard skin collar, walked up and down the line, yelling “Vote for Kerry — support gay marriage!”
“What are a bunch of Republican staffers doing here on Sistrunk pretending to be gay?” I asked the one who seemed to be the ringleader.
“I know all about Polk street and the Castro,” he said. “Stanford University. I’m from San Francisco, and I’m for gay marriage.” He was wearing a yellow golf shirt, tucked into khaki chino shorts with a call phone clipped to his belt — the Republican uniform. “Our candidate, John Kerry, supports gay marriage, gay adoption, everything gay.”
The ruse, apparently, was supposed to target this church-going Democratic crowd by misrepresenting Kerry’s politics. It was a little surprising at first; but then again, that’s the only way Republicans can win: by misleading people.
As distasteful as it was, the stunt had the smell of desperation. (“Where evil meets stupid,” Stephen Elliott called it.) If Republicans are spending Sunday afternoon trying to fool voters with the some Gay Adoption signs then they must be in trouble. And the people in line weren’t buying. “Nobody in this line is going to listen to them,” one woman said. A chorus of voters on either side chimed in: “That’s right”; “We’re know what we’re doing”; “We’re voting for Kerry no matter what that guy in the sign thinks he’s saying.”
Among the few people who didn’t realize what was happening at first, they were extremely annoyed when they figured it out. “Is that Republicans over there? Yeah, it is!” said a man toward the back of the line. “They’re gonna come down here and, try to try to fool us? That’s not happening.” Behind him, a woman added: “Un-huh, that’s not right.”
And it’s not. Despite that this little act was a bust, it showed, under the Florida sun, the scorn the Republicans show towards voters. These were African-Americans, many of whom were old enough to remember the civil rights struggle evoked by Mt. Hermon AME’s pastor that morning — and this is how they’re treated?
The people in that line understand the sanctity of the vote more than Mr. Frisco or the rest of the right-wing false patriots ever will, especially when their political strategy relies on voter suppression. Because masquerades, of course, are just a sad line of secondary defense; the real attack comes on November 2nd,when the African American Research Library will be one of the may precincts across Florida and Ohio where the GOP will post lawyers inside the poll to challenge registrations, creating havoc, and slow down the line to limit the number of ballots cast.
In comparison, here’s how many white, rock-ribbed Republican precincts will have Democratic challengers trying to impede their democratic process: zero — because, in the words of Kerry/Edwards legal advisor Larry Davis, “we refuse to stoop to their level.” And here’s how many white Republican precincts will have Democrats marching around outside with signs saying Bush/Cheney: We Spend Your Money On War!: zero. Thankfully, Democrats (mostly) manage to be clever and entertaining with their agitprop. Billionaires For Bush, for example, throw a kick-ass party while making fun of their favorite villain, with ice sculptures and a band and a dance floor. They don’t hide behind Bush/Cheney signs; they print their own, with their own slogans, making their protest clearly satire. Nor do they set up outside polling stations, which isn’t illegal, but isn’t ethical either.
Which is why we drove them away. The trick with Republican staffers running dirty tricks, we discovered, is to turn cameras on them. They wilt like shrinking violets. Stephen Elliott and I are out here with a documentary crew, and when the film started rolling, the GOP’s bogus Gay Pride parade came to a quick end.
“Don’t film me,” the ringleader said when we stuck to them. “I’m expressing my freedom of speech.”
“And we’re going to film that expression,” Steve said. “What’s wrong with that? Gay pride, right? Unless your boss down at GOP headquarters doesn’t want you to turn up on TV.”
“I'm asking you nicely not to take pictures of me,” the ringleader said. Steve was emboldened, and pressed further. "You can ask me not nicely," I said. "You're creating news by posing as a Democrat and we're capturing that. We're not going anywhere."
It’s not in Steve’s nature to throw down the gauntlet, but he smelled weakness, and called their bluff. By that time, the other guy in their operation had retreated to the far side of the parking lot, where his John-Kerry-and-his-gay-friends-want-to-adopt-your-children-bullshit sign wasn’t just a yellow speck in the distance. It looked like he’d lost his nerve.
“That was easier than I thought,” Steve said once they were gone. “Like I said, 'I'm calling Florida for Kerry.'"
.
How They Do, Part III
Joshua Bearman LAWeekly Blogs
A Look At Early Poll Site GOP Shenanigans, And Why They Show We'll Win
Man are the Republicans bad at agitprop. I’ve known that since the RNC, when Stephen Elliott and I happened across the Communists for Kerry, some of whose members the producers at Fox News were either stupid or despicable enough to include in their post-debate focus group coverage after the Showdown in the Show Me State. But dressing up like Castro for a few right-wing yuks is one thing, and trying to mislead voters is another.
Here’s what happened. We followed the congregants of the Mt. Hermon AME to vote after their Sunday service. The Pastor gave a rousing speech that shook the walls about exercising one’s “God given right to vote.” Outside, there were vans waiting to take people over to an early voting station in Ft. Lauderdale at the African American Research Library, where many thousands of people have already voted in the past two weeks. This day was no different; the line stretched across the parking lot and off the grounds on the sidewalk on Sistrunk. It was 1pm, and as hot as the day was gonna get, which was burning. 85 degrees, a slight breeze but not enough to overcome the moisture — typical fall in Florida. People carried umbrellas, and fanned themselves with Kerry/Edwards paddles.
At first glance, it looked like the scene outside a stadium before an AC/DC show: too many cars trying to park; confusion in the line; people handing out water; everyone clutching their ID’s.
But the place was stamped with politics. Distributing the cold bottles of Zephyrhills were about dozen NAACP Voter Fund volunteers in yellow shirts. Others distributed folding chairs for people who wanted to sit in the line. An Election Protection corps in black uniforms passed out flyers printed with voting rights. A couple of Kerry/Edwards people handed out candy from plastic pumpkins. And then there was this other curious contingent, an obvious bunch of Republicans pretending to be from ACT UP.
“We’re from San Francisco,” one of them said. He was wearing Kerry/Edwards pins, and holding a big Kerry/Edwards campaign sign alongside a homemade one that said: SUPPORT GAY ADOPTION. “We just want everyone to know what we support.”
There were four of them, two men and two women, all carrying signs with similar social wedge issues. One of them, wearing ratty boots and a denim shorts and vest matching suit with a leopard skin collar, walked up and down the line, yelling “Vote for Kerry — support gay marriage!”
“What are a bunch of Republican staffers doing here on Sistrunk pretending to be gay?” I asked the one who seemed to be the ringleader.
“I know all about Polk street and the Castro,” he said. “Stanford University. I’m from San Francisco, and I’m for gay marriage.” He was wearing a yellow golf shirt, tucked into khaki chino shorts with a call phone clipped to his belt — the Republican uniform. “Our candidate, John Kerry, supports gay marriage, gay adoption, everything gay.”
The ruse, apparently, was supposed to target this church-going Democratic crowd by misrepresenting Kerry’s politics. It was a little surprising at first; but then again, that’s the only way Republicans can win: by misleading people.
As distasteful as it was, the stunt had the smell of desperation. (“Where evil meets stupid,” Stephen Elliott called it.) If Republicans are spending Sunday afternoon trying to fool voters with the some Gay Adoption signs then they must be in trouble. And the people in line weren’t buying. “Nobody in this line is going to listen to them,” one woman said. A chorus of voters on either side chimed in: “That’s right”; “We’re know what we’re doing”; “We’re voting for Kerry no matter what that guy in the sign thinks he’s saying.”
Among the few people who didn’t realize what was happening at first, they were extremely annoyed when they figured it out. “Is that Republicans over there? Yeah, it is!” said a man toward the back of the line. “They’re gonna come down here and, try to try to fool us? That’s not happening.” Behind him, a woman added: “Un-huh, that’s not right.”
And it’s not. Despite that this little act was a bust, it showed, under the Florida sun, the scorn the Republicans show towards voters. These were African-Americans, many of whom were old enough to remember the civil rights struggle evoked by Mt. Hermon AME’s pastor that morning — and this is how they’re treated?
The people in that line understand the sanctity of the vote more than Mr. Frisco or the rest of the right-wing false patriots ever will, especially when their political strategy relies on voter suppression. Because masquerades, of course, are just a sad line of secondary defense; the real attack comes on November 2nd,when the African American Research Library will be one of the may precincts across Florida and Ohio where the GOP will post lawyers inside the poll to challenge registrations, creating havoc, and slow down the line to limit the number of ballots cast.
In comparison, here’s how many white, rock-ribbed Republican precincts will have Democratic challengers trying to impede their democratic process: zero — because, in the words of Kerry/Edwards legal advisor Larry Davis, “we refuse to stoop to their level.” And here’s how many white Republican precincts will have Democrats marching around outside with signs saying Bush/Cheney: We Spend Your Money On War!: zero. Thankfully, Democrats (mostly) manage to be clever and entertaining with their agitprop. Billionaires For Bush, for example, throw a kick-ass party while making fun of their favorite villain, with ice sculptures and a band and a dance floor. They don’t hide behind Bush/Cheney signs; they print their own, with their own slogans, making their protest clearly satire. Nor do they set up outside polling stations, which isn’t illegal, but isn’t ethical either.
Which is why we drove them away. The trick with Republican staffers running dirty tricks, we discovered, is to turn cameras on them. They wilt like shrinking violets. Stephen Elliott and I are out here with a documentary crew, and when the film started rolling, the GOP’s bogus Gay Pride parade came to a quick end.
“Don’t film me,” the ringleader said when we stuck to them. “I’m expressing my freedom of speech.”
“And we’re going to film that expression,” Steve said. “What’s wrong with that? Gay pride, right? Unless your boss down at GOP headquarters doesn’t want you to turn up on TV.”
“I'm asking you nicely not to take pictures of me,” the ringleader said. Steve was emboldened, and pressed further. "You can ask me not nicely," I said. "You're creating news by posing as a Democrat and we're capturing that. We're not going anywhere."
It’s not in Steve’s nature to throw down the gauntlet, but he smelled weakness, and called their bluff. By that time, the other guy in their operation had retreated to the far side of the parking lot, where his John-Kerry-and-his-gay-friends-want-to-adopt-your-children-bullshit sign wasn’t just a yellow speck in the distance. It looked like he’d lost his nerve.
“That was easier than I thought,” Steve said once they were gone. “Like I said, 'I'm calling Florida for Kerry.'"
.
This Is How bad It Is
.
The U.S. military is increasingly turning to attack helicopters to battle guerrillas in Iraq, using tactics closer to those from Vietnam than the Gulf war. The Army is also pushing its fleets of transport helicopters as hard as it can, ferrying U.S. troops and Iraqi leaders by air, rather than letting them drive the country's ambush-prone roads.
"When we fly, soldiers don't die," said Col. Jim McConville, who commands the 1st Cavalry Division's aviation brigade. "We're basically flying as much as we can. And we can't fly them enough."
.
The U.S. military is increasingly turning to attack helicopters to battle guerrillas in Iraq, using tactics closer to those from Vietnam than the Gulf war. The Army is also pushing its fleets of transport helicopters as hard as it can, ferrying U.S. troops and Iraqi leaders by air, rather than letting them drive the country's ambush-prone roads.
"When we fly, soldiers don't die," said Col. Jim McConville, who commands the 1st Cavalry Division's aviation brigade. "We're basically flying as much as we can. And we can't fly them enough."
.
Why The Blogosphere Is Already better Than The News.
.
I don't know any of these people. But this discussion is more inciteful and more factual than the blatherings of the idiot pundits I see all too much these days.
I offer this to you from the comment section of Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly. I blogroll him and you should go there every single day.
“If Bush goes down, who is waiting in the wings? There's likely to be a power struggle for the soul of the party.”
I think the California/Arnold Schwarzenegger type Republican is going to be the new national Republican. You know, anti-tax, pro-abortion, don't really care about gays, don't really care about church, pro-fondling women's breasts...libertarian-lite, basically.
Posted by: Old Hat on November 1, 2004 at 1:33 AM | PERMALINK
“If Bush goes down, who is waiting in the wings? There's likely to be a power struggle for the soul of the party.”
Lets see, last time bush went down we had...
Newt Gingrich.
Anyone who thinks bush's defeat will lead to an immediate moderation of republican party is dreaming. There is no way Arnie will be nominated by the party for presidency, even if he could be. Republicans would continue to control the house and even though delay is weakened, there is plenty more where he came from. Gerrymandering ensures that. And Frist is supposed to be replaced by santorum. Yes, that would lead to social moderation.
Posted by: NSF on November 1, 2004 at 1:42 AM | PERMALINK
Did I say that? No. I think there will be major power struggle. My point is that the moderate wing of the party has been strangled in the past few years and may be looking to reassert itself. If there is a Kerry presidency, this is especially important; both sides will be looking to woo the moderates for legislative purposes. With wingnuts running all three branches of government, they can be more easily controlled and kept in line with threats (like Nick Smith in Michigan). But with a Democratic president they may be actually needed to pass legislation that the president will sign, so their power should go up.
Posted by: Ted on November 1, 2004 at 1:50 AM | PERMALINK
I don't know if the death of conservatism is wishful thinking, but one more bit of evidence that it's definitely worth wishing for was provided by William Safire in today's NYTs when he cited Osama bin Laden as "echoing the central Kerry theme" (Bush is decieving you, etc.). That Safire is one of the more erudite and civilized among right-wing scribblers makes any potential for their wholesale political demise that much more appealing.
Posted by: brucds on November 1, 2004 at 1:58 AM | PERMALINK
Sorry to put a brake on the triumphalism but even if Kerry *does* win by a significant margin, I very much doubt we can start hammering the nails into movement conservatism *just* yet. Among other things:
- they still have a coherent, relatively united and well-orchestrated media operation that the left doesn't have. Say what you like about the media being left-leaning but there's no left-wing media monolith: they're divided and still thrive on sensationalism and scandal. They have nowhere near the level of message effectiveness the right-wing noise machine has.
- they've managed to stick together this far by recognition of a common goal. My belief is that the leaders like Wolfie, Perle, Moore, Norquist, Falwell etc. will only seek common cause even further as they see the potential for the country to slip further into the grip of leftist depravity. The conservative movement has always thrived on alarmist and doomsday rhetoric.
At absolute worst, they could turn into a mirror-image of the late 80s/early 90s democrats - various factions jockeying for power and making common cause with "the enemy" to try and reinforce their moderate credentials.
Posted by: Downunder on November 1, 2004 at 4:40 AM | PERMALINK
.
I don't know any of these people. But this discussion is more inciteful and more factual than the blatherings of the idiot pundits I see all too much these days.
I offer this to you from the comment section of Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly. I blogroll him and you should go there every single day.
“If Bush goes down, who is waiting in the wings? There's likely to be a power struggle for the soul of the party.”
I think the California/Arnold Schwarzenegger type Republican is going to be the new national Republican. You know, anti-tax, pro-abortion, don't really care about gays, don't really care about church, pro-fondling women's breasts...libertarian-lite, basically.
Posted by: Old Hat on November 1, 2004 at 1:33 AM | PERMALINK
“If Bush goes down, who is waiting in the wings? There's likely to be a power struggle for the soul of the party.”
Lets see, last time bush went down we had...
Newt Gingrich.
Anyone who thinks bush's defeat will lead to an immediate moderation of republican party is dreaming. There is no way Arnie will be nominated by the party for presidency, even if he could be. Republicans would continue to control the house and even though delay is weakened, there is plenty more where he came from. Gerrymandering ensures that. And Frist is supposed to be replaced by santorum. Yes, that would lead to social moderation.
Posted by: NSF on November 1, 2004 at 1:42 AM | PERMALINK
Did I say that? No. I think there will be major power struggle. My point is that the moderate wing of the party has been strangled in the past few years and may be looking to reassert itself. If there is a Kerry presidency, this is especially important; both sides will be looking to woo the moderates for legislative purposes. With wingnuts running all three branches of government, they can be more easily controlled and kept in line with threats (like Nick Smith in Michigan). But with a Democratic president they may be actually needed to pass legislation that the president will sign, so their power should go up.
Posted by: Ted on November 1, 2004 at 1:50 AM | PERMALINK
I don't know if the death of conservatism is wishful thinking, but one more bit of evidence that it's definitely worth wishing for was provided by William Safire in today's NYTs when he cited Osama bin Laden as "echoing the central Kerry theme" (Bush is decieving you, etc.). That Safire is one of the more erudite and civilized among right-wing scribblers makes any potential for their wholesale political demise that much more appealing.
Posted by: brucds on November 1, 2004 at 1:58 AM | PERMALINK
Sorry to put a brake on the triumphalism but even if Kerry *does* win by a significant margin, I very much doubt we can start hammering the nails into movement conservatism *just* yet. Among other things:
- they still have a coherent, relatively united and well-orchestrated media operation that the left doesn't have. Say what you like about the media being left-leaning but there's no left-wing media monolith: they're divided and still thrive on sensationalism and scandal. They have nowhere near the level of message effectiveness the right-wing noise machine has.
- they've managed to stick together this far by recognition of a common goal. My belief is that the leaders like Wolfie, Perle, Moore, Norquist, Falwell etc. will only seek common cause even further as they see the potential for the country to slip further into the grip of leftist depravity. The conservative movement has always thrived on alarmist and doomsday rhetoric.
At absolute worst, they could turn into a mirror-image of the late 80s/early 90s democrats - various factions jockeying for power and making common cause with "the enemy" to try and reinforce their moderate credentials.
Posted by: Downunder on November 1, 2004 at 4:40 AM | PERMALINK
.
