|
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Bush Admin In Bed With 'Merchant of Death' Arms Dealer
The U.S. government has for years kept in its sights one of the world’s most notorious arms traffickers, Victor Bout. Known on both sides of the Atlantic as the "merchant of death," Bout has been implicated in running guns and missiles to combatants across the world, from the Taliban and Northern Alliance in Afghanistan to the UNITA rebels of Angola and the teen-age army of Liberia’s former tyrant, Charles Taylor. He has been blacklisted by the U.S. Treasury from doing any business in the United States, faces an arrest warrant for money laundering in Belgium, and was aggressively pursued by the Clinton administration. "We were trying to take him out of business," says Witney Schneidman, an Africa expert who worked in the State Department at the time.
But now the Bush administration has hired at least one company tied to Bout's network for the war effort in Iraq. Records obtained by Mother Jones show that as recently as August, Air Bas, a company tied to Bout and his associates, was flying charter missions under contract with the U.S. military in Iraq. Air Bas is overseen by Victor Bout’s brother, Serguei, and his long-time business manager, Richard Chichakli, an accountant living in Texas; in the past, payments for Air Bas have gone to a Kazakh company that the United Nations identifies as "a front for the leasing operations of Victor Bout’s aircraft."
Concerns about Bout’s work for the United States date back to May, when Senator Russ Feingold asked the Pentagon and the State Department to scour their files for any evidence of contracts with companies tied to Bout. An inquiry conducted by the State Department found, according to a State Department source, that "there were allegations that raised our concerns, and we shared those concerns with the Department of Defense." Months later, however, the Pentagon has yet to respond, and officials there would not say whether they are looking into the State Department’s concerns. Read more..
Posted at 11:19 am by Ethel, the Early-Warning Frog
[Link to this post]
Americans Spying on Americans: 'Trust us. Our intentions are good.'
Ever heard of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency? No, me neither, A spin-off of the National Security Agency, the NGA uses satellite photographs and computer imaging to spy-- on us.BETHESDA, Md. — In the name of homeland security, America's spy imagery agency is keeping a close eye, close to home. It's watching America.
Since the Sept. 11 attacks, about 100 employees of a little-known branch of the Defense Department called the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency — and some of the country's most sophisticated aerial imaging equipment — have focused on observing what's going on in the United States.
The National Mall is an example of an area on which imaging has been assembled by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency to assist the Department of Homeland Security. Their work brushes the fine line between protecting the public and performing illegal government spying on Americans.
Roughly twice a month, the agency helps with the security of events inside the United States. More routinely, it is asked to help prepare imagery and related information to protect against possible attacks.
For instance, the agency has modified basic maps of the nation's capital to highlight the location of hospitals, linking them to data on the number of beds or the burn unit in each. To secure the Ronald Reagan funeral procession, the agency married aerial photographs and 3D images, allowing security planners to virtually walk, drive or fly through the Simi Valley, Calif., route.
The agency is especially watchful of big events or targets that might attract terrorists — political conventions, for example, or nuclear power plants.
The domestic mission of the NGA has increased dramatically in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, even though laws are in place to prevent government surveillance aimed at Americans. The agency is not interested in information on U.S. citizens, stresses office director Bert Beaulieu. "We couldn't care less about individuals and people and companies," he said.
But that's not enough for secrecy expert Steven Aftergood, who oversees a project on government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, a nonprofit watchdog of the impact of politics on science. "What it all boils down to is 'Trust us. Our intentions are good,' " he said.
Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, said, "As a general matter, when there are systems of public surveillance, there needs to be public oversight." Ten-to-one it was used on the anti-Bush demonstrators in NYC because--well, pick your excuse: the demonstrations could have been a front for terrorist activity; terrorists could have used the crowds for cover (I know, it was NYC and you don't need demonstrators to find a crowd to hide in, but that's the way these guys think); suicide-bombers may have infiltrated the crowd with the intention of blowing themselves up outside the MSQ to make a statement against Bush, their arch-enemy (right); known terrorists live in NYC. I mean, excuses don't take a lot of imagination. Post Sept. 11, the agency's new Americas Office assembles visual information on more than 130 urban areas, among other assignments, including creating maps of the National Mall, the country's high-voltage transmission lines and disaster exercises.
Sometimes, agency officials work with private groups, such as hotel security offices, to get access to video footage of lobbies and hallways. That footage can then be merged with other information to make an event more secure — or to take action, if a hostage situation or other catastrophe happens.
The level of detail varies widely, depending on the threat and what the FBI or another agency needs.
"In most cases, it's not intrusive," said the NGA's associate general counsel, Laura Jennings. "It is information to help secure an event and to have people prepared to respond should there be an attack, or to analyze the area where a threat has been made." The agency's lawyer is also its spokeswoman? Good Golly, Miss Molly, I wonder why? The NGA insists that 'it has aggressive internal oversight' and that 'its employees go through annual training on what is allowed', but let's face it, that's what they all say. We know it's not true of the CIA, the NSA, DID or NI or the SIS or any of a dozen other govt and military intelligence units; why should it be true of this one? In the Age of BushCo, the credibility of the intelligence services rivals that of an insurance salesman. The NGA is just one more expensive toy for Poindexter or Ashcroft or somebody just like them to play with, and based on previous history the BA is going to be less interested in being anti-terror than anti-dissent.
Posted at 11:08 am by Ethel, the Early-Warning Frog
[Link to this post]
Monday, September 27, 2004
I think Kerry's going to win, and by a larger margin than the polls suggest. I've said that. I've also said I think I can smell a Truman/Dewey-style upset in the works, maybe. So far I see nothing, despite the hand-wringng and constant laments from the corporate press about what a loser Kerry is and how his whole campaign is a shambles, his advisors are all wet, he's a flip-flopper, he isn't 'likeable', his charisma has turned--since Karl Rove noticed it--into a deadly-dull patrician whining that puts people to sleep and so forth and so on, to make me change that assessment. Having said that, I have to say this: I could be wrong. Well, what if I am? What if the election is actually as close as everybody says it will be? What if Junior wins--or steals it again? (And how will we know the difference with no paper trail in most states?) What if the worst happens? And it is the worst--the worst for the environment, for the economy, for privacy, for the Constitution, for women's rights, workers' rights, human rights, for product safety and protection from corporate market manipulation, for political stability and global stability, for democracy itself. In every single one of those areas this radical conservative Admin has proved itself, time and again, to be an utter disaster, a boil on the neck of society, a plague, thoroughly useless and contemptibly corrupt, yadda yadda yadda. What then? This then: Benjamin Franklin.
 | Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
- and this -
The only thing more expensive than education is ignorance.
- and finally this -
Gentlemen, you have your democracy--if you can keep it. |
1. Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.In the wake of 9/11 we have shown ourselves over and over again to be willing to do just that. Worse, we have been willing to follow Bush down the road to making the whole planet less stable in the name of our 'security'. We have even been willing to forego actual security for the feeling of security we get from a 'strong' (read: stubborn, intransigent, blind, and disconnected from reality) leader willing to use the military as a first rather than a last resort. By over-reacting to 9/11, we played right into Osama bin Laden's hands and into the hands of every religious zealot in the Middle East who wants a massive jihad against the power of the West. We made our security an illusion when it didn't have to be, and now we're threatening to give the extremists the Armageddon they hope for--disrupting the security of the world, not just our own--because we've allowed Bush to talk us into believing the comforting illusion that Might Makes Right, and anyway it's only a few wackos who are causing all the trouble. To that degree, our blindness, denial of and disconnectedness from reality must be said to rival his own. There is at this point no possible excuse for our ignorance except that. If we don't know that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11; that George Bush has allowed his corporate cronies and contributors to hijack the govt and loot the Treasury; that his Administration is run by ex-corporate lobbyists and executives who have spent the last four years dismantling every law, every regulation, every consumer protection in the name of higher profits; that John Ashcroft has done everything in his power to undercut and lay waste to the Constitution under the guise of 'protecting' us; and that Bush is shifting the burdens of paying--for everything--away from Big Business and onto our backs; if we don't know these obvious, well-reported facts, then this, too, must be said: We deserve everything that will happen to us. I'm sorry, but I'm broke and just as busy earning--or, in BushAmerica, trying to earn--a living as anybody else, and I know these things. I only have access to the internet and the radio, but I know these things. These things are so blatant, so badly hidden to even the mildly curious, that anyone with an ounce of skepticism or a pinch of realism saw them developing as soon as he was sworn in and cranked up to high after 9/11. And that can only mean that all of us who don't know them, don't know them because we don't want to know them. I'd like to blame the press. They deserve to be blamed. They've abandoned their ethics, their professional standards, and their guts in the face of a few loud voices in the media and a fat little man with a mean streak who did little more than threaten to take their toys away before they caved. Their awesome gullibility, cowardice, and astounding lack of curiosity are the stuff of legend. It's impossible to overstate how lazy, inept, and corrupt they have become under Karl Rove's tutelage, or the extent to which they have been willing to sell us out in return for a few dollars and the privilege of being treated with ever-increasing disdain by the very people they sold us out to. Their complicity in and responsibility for the destruction of our democracy by the radcons and the corporate forces behind them is beyond dispute. They have, by and large with some honorable exceptions, acted like trained seals, jumping and honking and flapping their flippers whenever Rove barked. The evidence is overwhelming and they are guilty as charged. Period. So what? At the level of the bone, where decisions are made, we were the ones who ate up their recitation of BA talking points as if it were Holy Writ; we were the ones who were satisfied to sit in front of the tv and accept FoxNews as legitimate journalism and Bill 'King of the of the Dingbats' O'Reilly as a real commentator rather than the peddler of fantasies and fiction stories he so obviously is; we were the ones content to see troops in Iraq after all the reasons they were supposed to be there turned out to be lies; and we were the ones who were outraged by Abu Ghraib and then refused to hold anyone higher than a sargeant accountable, who never raised our voices about the 1600 prisoners in Gitmo held without trial and who--until recently, 18 months in--were refused legal counsel, who haven't demanded the resignation of John Ashcroft despite the fact that his Justice Dept has not succeeded in convicting even one of those 1600 so-called 'terrorists' in all that time and has lost every case it brought, who haven't protested the fact that people have been arrested for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts or standing in the wrong place at a legal protest gathering or taking the wrong book out of the library, and who don't seem to mind that this Admin has targeted a whole group of people based on their looks, ethnicty and religion--the very anathema of what America has always BB (Before Bush) stood for. We have, after 230 years, finally allowed a single, tragic, criminal event to be used as the excuse for powerful men with few scruples (if any--I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt even though they don't deserve it because I am, goddammit, a liberal) to enrich and empower themselves by taking our liberties from us--liberties tens of thousands have died for over the years--in the name of 'protecting' us. After 230 years we have finally made the mistake Franklin warned us about, and we will pay the price he warned us about: we won't be any more secure and we will have lost our liberty for nothing. Nothing. 2. The only thing more expensive than education is ignorance.The mindless movement to cut taxes in this country, fueled by shrinking middle-class wallets desperate to find a justification for hanging on to more of what little was left to them, and Norquista conservatives whose radical faith in the tenets of Social Darwinism--the Law of the Jungle--provided the pitch the middle class was looking for, has gone a long way toward making the public school system a failure. Crumbling buildings they don't have the money to fix, antiquated textbooks they don't have the money to replace, class sizes triple that recommended by the profession and every educational expert because they don't have the money to either build more classrooms or hire more teachers, and complicated subject curricula they don't have the time to teach, have combined to make most of our current educational system what Big Business has wanted since Horace Mann--to turn schools into warehouses that do little more than train cadres of cogs to make their giant hamster-wheels run. In the past 20 years, though there have been boom periods when education did its level best to push itself into the 20th century and provide a rounded education intended to produce well-developed minds, each spurt was inevitably truncated when the next bender of tax-cutting came down the pike. Especially with the onset of the radcon-driven 'testing' mania, our schools have become sad, warped, minimalist zones restricted to pounding away at the basics without providing a context to understand them in or a reason for understanding them at all except 'you'll need these to get a job'. We are producing graduates who know nothing of any life around them unconnected to making money and consuming the consumer-oriented corporate culture. The life of the mind is scoffed at, ridiculed, ignored; the life of the heart, in this adolescent society, is equated to sex; and the life of the soul means--maybe--going to church on Sunday and sleeping through the sermon. Every attempt by progressives in the educational system to teach students how to think has either been shot down by being starved of funds as a 'frivolous extra we can't afford' or destroyed by a concerted onslaught against 'secular humanist' thinking by the same radcon forces--often allied with radcon Xtian fundamentalists--who are 'starving the beast'. We seem to have accepted this idiocy as being necessary in 'a time of belt-tightening' and to be totally unaware (perhaps deliberately) that the kinds of experiences we had when we were growing up, that we cherish as adults and that are often the loadstones directing our life-choices, are being denied to our kids through penury. We even seem to have talked ourselves into believing it doesn't matter, or that--even worse--'it will be good for them'. What Franklin was talking about it all around us. The lies, misdirections, and obfuscations of the Bush Administration, obvious as they are, are ignored by a population that thoroughly lacks the critical thinking skills schools were meant to implant, and lacks them to the degree that the rankest, most base, most primal tricks fool us completely. There's nothing subtle or sophisticated about what Rove and his minions are engineering and have been for the past four years; by and large, they are the oldest tricks in the Propagandist's Handbook: bait-and-switch, the Big Lie, 'Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain', say-one-thing-and-do-another, rumor-mongering, libel and innuendo, and trash-talking. Karl has invented nothing new, he has simply opened the whole bag o' tricks and dumped them over our heads, removing the ancient constrictions of fair-play and lines-you-don't-cross as he implements them. A half-educated monkey would see through them in an instant but we don't. They confuse us. We get all, 'I can't tell what the truth is. This is so confusing.' The destruction of the modern educational system (which started almost immediately on its creation) by corporate forces which see a rounded individual who knows how to think as a detriment to the smooth operation of its mindless routine has resulted in a giant class of robots who can only do what their previously-installed programming tells them to do. Faced with a new situation, with unexpected stimulae and undigested facts, the mechanism breaks down, crashes in on itself, and runs for the cover of its basic programming module. Our stunted hearts and souls may be (and I believe are) peppering us with doubt, dismay, and a sense of foreboding, desperately trying to get us to wake up and smell the coffee, but in their weakened, un-trained state it's slow going getting through the layers of indoctrination and invested belief. A badly educated populace is worse than an uneducated one. An uneducated populace will fall back on instinct and experience, which have some value; a badly educated one knows just enough to distrust both but has nothing better to replace them with. A badly educated citizenry means, as Franklin understood only too well, a flock of citizens who don't know what their duties are let alone how to honor and fulfill them, and who represent the greatest danger to a democratic system: the ignorance and misperceptions of 'a little knowledge'. If we have allowed anti-educational forces to twist our system into a pretzel of convenient constrictions and do-what-we-tell-you orthodoxy, then we have created the very citizenry Franklin feared, a citizenry contaminated by an inability to face any reality more complex than a microbe. If it has been done, we have done it to ourselves, for there is no one else in a democracy who has the ultimate responsibility for making the decision except us. We didn't demand that corporations pay their taxes so our schools could afford to maintain their infrastructure; we weren't willing to pay the price ourselves; and we allowed a public curriculum to be set by private interests to the needs of their self-serving agendas. We didn't question, we didn't protest, and we didn't think teaching our kids to be full-bore, active citizens was as important as teaching them to make a living. As a consequence, they may soon have neither. We will have to face that culpability when we add up the effect of our lives, and it won't be fun. There are dark, painful nights ahead for many of us. We went cheap and bought ignorance. Our children and grand-children may pay for our frugality with the loss of their liberty. Once we understand that--and we will--mirrors are going to be hard things to look into. 3. Gentlemen, you have your democracy--if you can keep it.'...if you can keep it.' Franklin and all the other Founders knew perfectly well, having lived most of their lives under a monarchy and thrown it off finally only at great cost and sacrifice, that a democratic system, even a representative one with checks and balances up the wahzoo, was only as good as the amount of time, energy, and just plain work its citizens were willing to put into it to keep it running. By that measure, we have often deserved a much worse government than we wound up with, especially in the 30 years since Nixon's resignation. It was as if by ending Jim Crow segregation, ensuring that no one in America would ever starve to death again, seeing the end of the subjugation of women, and stopping an unjust war, we had shot our bolt and decided that, as citizens, we needed a nice long vacation. Or maybe having done all that only to see Nixon pervert the Constitution as if by Divine Right took the heart out of us. We changed the world only to see the world change back again in a few short years--Jim Crow was gone but anti-busing was in; no one would have to starve but they might very well have to live in a cardboard box in an alley; discrimination against women was now illegal but the 'glass ceiling' was invented to fix it so that nothing much would actually change; Viet Nam was over but Honduras, El Salvador, Panama and even Grenada were on the horizon and the First Gulf War wasn't far off. Whatever it was, we went back to sleep again and when we did, the forces of darkness moved in to take advantage of the stupor. Greed never sleeps, fear never rests, and the lust for power knows no limits. Citizenship in a democracy is, always has been, and always will be a job like any other. If we are not willing to support it with sweat, blood, and tears, then we'll lose it and, as Franklin said, we'll deserve to lose it. Democracy isn't a gift from the gods, it's employment for anyone who believes in liberty, a job of work that needs to be done every day, rain or shine, sick or not. 'I don't have time' or 'What's it got to do with me?' are not acceptable responses. If we let this latest batch of power-hungry, tunnel-visioned, narrow-minded, intolerant yahoos take it away from us because we can't be bothered to search out the truth of who and what they are, then we will have earned our just and reasonable reward and dishonored the sacrifice of thousands for the sake of a comfortable and convenient illusion. I don't want to say out loud what that would make us.
Posted at 12:03 am by Ethel, the Early-Warning Frog
[Link to this post]
Friday, September 24, 2004
How Reporters 'Translate' the Truth
I really don't have time for this but I ran across it and had to share it with you. It's a sharing kind of thing.... A commenter to Just a Bump on the Beltway named David Byron responded to melanie's post on a WaPo article about Allawi's visit to his Emperor by de-constructing the process the reporter had used to downgrade Allawi's murder of six people to the status of 'gunplay' and applying it to a different sentence. It is the single most masterly description I have ever read on how the corporate press trains its 'reporters' to think about BushCo and how those 'reporters' use what they've been taught. I reproduce it here in its entirety for your amusement and edification. If the internet had been invented 50 years ago we could Google for the same newspapers writing up glowing appraisals of the installation of Saddam Hussein no doubt.
the unfounded but popular Baghdad street rumor of his recent gunplay against some bad guys
Ok, so independent witnessess say he executed half a dozen people in cold blood. Same difference. Just a little change to a couple of details, right? The message here is that any "facts" that the WaPo reports are likely to be this "accurate".
Let that settle in.
Let's play a little game whereby we assume that the WaPo was no more dishonest, but no less dishonest with other sections of it's article, and on that basis guess what I like to call "what really happened". For example, WaPo says,
that night in London in 1978 when intruders presumed to be Saddam Hussein's henchmen tried to hack him apart with axe
Ok let's change the location and date first of all, since WaPo considers such things to be window dressing (per "Baghdad street" rumour). Let's say the event took place in Mosul in 1969 instead. Same difference, right?
And instead of it being an unprovocked attack on Allawi as suggested (not quite stated) let's make it a mutual thing -- let's say it happened during a gang fight basically initiated by others (Allawi being too young to be a leader then). Same difference, eh? I mean the word "gunplay" in the above pretty much says it's ok to switch from "one party totally responsible" to "both parties equally responsible".
Lets replace "hack him apart with an axe" with "received some bruises" because (per "gunplay") even death itself can be characterised as "play" then a horrible wound can be represented as a bruise I'm sure.
Finally "Saddam Hussein's henchmen" becomes "rival gangsters" and we can keep the word "presumed" or not. Presumption of innocence surely means nothing because civilians rounded up by the authorities without charge but designated terrorists become "bad guys".
So in summary what is the truth?
that night in London in 1978 when intruders presumed to be Saddam Hussein's henchmen tried to hack him apart with axe
or
Allawi had a little more than his ego brusied in a gang fight with other criminal types back in 1969 in Mosul
Same difference, right? Pretty much explains it, don't it?
Posted at 11:56 am by Ethel, the Early-Warning Frog
[Link to this post]
# Cynthia Tucker on Zell Miller and the history of Republican race-baiting in the South:Zell Miller wants you to believe that he is dispensing a dose of discipline to his beloved Democratic Party — pointing out the foibles and foolishness that have led to its loss of the South. Miller claims he only wants the Democrats to regain their traditional values before it's too late.
Miller is a hypocrite. As a historian, he knows exactly why the Democratic Party is teetering in the South: It's precisely because the Democrats set aside a century and a half of ugly traditions that it has lost so many rural white Southerners. Miller knows better than most; he was once one of those rural white Southerners who embraced those ugly traditions.
Running for Congress in 1964, Miller dismissed the Civil Rights Act as neither "constitutionally acceptable [n]or fundamentally proper as an approach to the solution of racial problems in America." Even back then, he denounced the Democratic presidential nominee, declaring that Lyndon Johnson "is a Southerner who sold his birthright for a mess of dark pottage." From 1968-71, Miller served as executive secretary to Gov. Lester Maddox, who remained an unrepentant segregationist until the day he died. eVoting News# In Georgia, A Chimp Erases Votes WASHINGTON — The computer systems that will count roughly half the ballots cast on Election Day are so vulnerable to hackers that almost anyone could rig the results, critics said Wednesday.
The group BlackBoxVoting.org illustrated its charge with a video showing "Baxter the Chimp" hamming it up as he punched a couple of computer keys that wiped out the totals on a vote-tabulating program.
Andy Stephenson of BlackBoxVoting.org shows former U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney how to hack a voting program.
Bev Harris, executive director of the citizens action group and a computer voting critic who has written a book on the subject, said the program was the same used throughout Georgia, which two years ago became the first state to adopt paperless touch-screen voting statewide.
At the demonstration, Harris asked former U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney, a Democrat from DeKalb County, to follow instructions and demonstrate the ease of hacking into the program made by Diebold Elections Systems Inc., the nation's biggest provider of electronic voting equipment.
McKinney moved the mouse and punched a few buttons, and the computer file vanished.
"This is incredible," said McKinney, who is running in the Nov. 2 election to regain her old seat. The response: Diebold representative David Bear: "What was presented was analogous to a magic show. In a real election environment, people don't have unfettered access to the system."Spokeswoman for Republican Sec of State Cathy Cox, Kara Sinkule: "If you allowed a monkey access to the cockpit of an airplane — without any physical security whatsoever — he could possibly cause it to crash," Sinkule said. She said Georgia has "multiple, overlapping security" elements to safeguard its system.Uh-huh. Election Officials Wish They Hadn'tMeanwhile, computer scientists from coast to coast have warned that the machines sometimes err in counting votes and could be easily compromised by amateur hackers intent on disrupting elections. In either case, they say, a manual recount would be meaningless if it was based on corrupted electronic data.
All of this has left officials like Palm Beach County Commissioner Addie Greene wishing they hadn't rushed to spend millions of dollars on the new touch-screen machines so soon.
In the last few months, as Greene campaigned for reelection, she told dozens of senior citizens to forget the newfangled voting terminals and put pencil to paper on their absentee ballots instead.
"I want our votes to be counted," said Greene, a 61-year-old Democrat. "I'd rather do absentee ballots than take a chance on the machines."
Greene is an unlikely critic of the electronic voting machines. After all, she helped get 5,000 of them deployed throughout this seaside county of 1.2 million residents. As eRobin over at Fact-esque points out succinctly: I haven't been posting much about the eVoting issues lately because, frankly, I've seen my worst fears realized and it's depressing. The stories now being written are mostly about how it's too late to do anything about the election in November. Of course, it is not, but that's the story we're being fed. Go back to sleep.
We get fed lies daily by the corporate media - damaging, dangerous, deadly lies. # Jonathan Chait on Bush's lack of principles--of any kind: One of the things we Bush haters like to say to each other, over lattes with NPR in the background, is that the current president makes us nostalgic for George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. Non-Bush haters have trouble understanding this point. Is this GOP president really that much more conservative than other GOP presidents? Well, yes, he is. But the main problem is less his conservative principles than the frequent absence of any ideological principles whatsoever.
One telling episode began last year, when, because of a World Trade Organization ruling, Congress had to eliminate a $5-billion-a-year export subsidy. The obvious thing to do was pocket the $5 billion and make a dent in our quite large budget deficit. Of course, the GOP-controlled Congress decided instead that every dollar saved would be devoted to tax cuts. And because the newfound money would come from corporate America, it would be returned to corporate America.
Posted at 10:51 am by Ethel, the Early-Warning Frog
[Link to this post]
Thursday, September 23, 2004
'Whoever is the most committed, wins....'
That line, from the uncomfortably prophetic film The Siege, in some ways may say everything that needs to be said about the situation in Iraq as it is evolving, just as it would have summed up Viet Nam forty years earlier. Car bombs, suicide attacks, poorly armed militias holding off the might of the biggest, best, and most powerful military force in the world--it's time to say it out loud: Holbrooke is right. Iraq is Viet Nam all over again, only worse.
Ever since Bush announced his intention to follow the PNAC 'plan' from 1989 and invade Iraq on the strength of innuendo, misinformation, and bald-faced lies, critics like me have been saying it would be Nam all over again, and from the start of the invasion the parallels have been downright spooky. Yes, the physical terrain is different--desert instead of jungle; yes, the people are different, Arabs instead of Asians; yes, there is more at stake in the Gulf than there ever was in Nam--real oil instead of imaginary dominoes; and yes, Nam was not a response to a direct attack on US soil. But the mistakes are the same: arrogance fueled by fear, lies fueled by ideology, disastrous military decisions being made by civilians for political reasons against the advice of military leaders, a steady stream of HappyTalk from the Administration and its loyalists about how much better everything is than it looks, and, most importantly, a native insurgency arising from a desire to expel a foreign occupier being defined by a blind Admin as the rumpus made by a few 'outside agitators'.
The neocon naifs in the Bush Admin are patently still in thrall to Laurie Mylroie's paranoid fantasies and Ahmad Chalabi's self-serving lies: Wolfowitz and Perle are still insisting no more troops are needed and that everything is just ducky even as we have reached and passed the 1000-death mark in a war that was supposed to be over--shades of McNamara grousing about 'negativity'; Bush is running around the country campaigning on his 'Don't listen to them' platform, pleading with people to pay no attention to the reports of chaos and confusion, incompetence and outright theft, a massively botched reconstruction, and instead trust his glowing, optimistic assessment based on--what? He doesn't say. His optimism, one imagines.
It didn't have to be this way. As Jay Bookman points out in a brilliant essay, Tikrit is as quiet as Fallujah is an uproar. The Army's 1st Infantry Division is headquartered in Tikrit, and its footprint has been heavy and it has been felt. U.S. troops patrol the streets in relative safety, because here, if nowhere else in Iraq, they have been given the numbers to squelch opposition. "I can sit on that corner, on 'RPG Alley,' and eat an ice cream cone now," Lt. Col. Jeffrey Sinclair recently told the Associated Press, pointing on a map to the infamous city's most infamous street.
Before the invasion, the haughty amateurs who planned this brave adventure were warned that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to pacify Iraq. Rather than listen and learn, they scoffed at the four-star generals who spouted such nonsense. These men knew better, for in the Washington think tanks that had nurtured them like fragile hothouse orchids, eager Iraqi exiles had assured them that if we invaded, we would be greeted as liberators, that our path would be strewn with roses, that our leaders would be honored with statues on Baghdad squares.
Tikrit, by its silence, condemns those men for their arrogance. Here, at the very core of Saddam's strength, the difficult has been achieved. The calm may be a sullen calm, an enforced calm, but it is a calm nonetheless. This is what might have been elsewhere in Iraq if competence had been valued over blind allegiance, if we had been led into this war by serious people who understood that when you bet high stakes, you play to win and you assume nothing.
But we weren't. We were led into this war by corporate-style leaders watching the bottom line, ex-corporate executives who believe that the truth is what they say it is and that how it looks is more important than what it is, and corporate consultants who specialize in marketing attractive ideas in order to sell shoddy, defective, and useless products to people who don't need or want them. Corporate executives are valued largely on their ability to convince themselves and others that the impossible is doable, that illusions are what matter, and that products can be forced on unwilling consumers if you tell them the right lies in the right way.
Well, we elected a pile of corporate-trained, corporate-educated, corporate-indulged executives who, like all their class, were so completely cut off from reality, so thoroughly enmeshed in their own private fantasy world of success, so convinced that the lofty heights of business to which they had climbed--largely through political contacts and the Old Boy network--were the direct result of their own genius, that they virtually live in an alternate universe, a universe where their stubbornness is heroism, their incompetence is superior vision, and their blindness is loyalty. So what did we expect them to do? Suddenly become realists after spending their lives investing their energy and resources committing to an illusion? It don't work that way, people.
If we ever get out of this I hope the one lesson we take away with us, indelibly printed in the core of our brainpans, is to never never NEVER again allow corporate managers to grab the reins of government. Because while it matter who is the most committed, it matters just as much what they're committed to.
Posted at 07:30 am by Ethel, the Early-Warning Frog
[Link to this post]
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Junior is finally keeping his 2000 campaign promise to bring us together. Republicans and Democrats in the Congress are at long last united-- against him, or at least his policies in Iraq. WASHINGTON (AP)--Senators from both parties urged the Bush administration on Sunday to make a realistic assessment of the situation in Iraq and adjust its policies aimed at pacifying the country. But Bush readied a firm defense of his Iraq policy--and a sharp new attack on rival John Kerry's stance--for a speech Monday.
``The fact is a crisp, sharp analysis of our policies is required. We didn't do that in Vietnam, and we saw 11 years of casualties mount to the point where we finally lost,'' said Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran who is co-chairman of President Bush's re-election committee in Nebraska.
``We can't lose this. It is too important,'' Hagel, R-Neb., said on CBS' ``Face the Nation.''
A major problem, said leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was incompetence by the administration in reconstructing the country's shattered infrastructure.
The chairman, Sen. Richard Lugar, noted that Congress appropriated $18.4 billion a year ago this week for reconstruction. No more than $1 billion has been spent. ``This is the incompetence in the administration,'' Lugar, R-Ind., said on ABC's ``This Week.''
``Exactly right,'' interjected Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, the committee's top Democrat. He said later: ``This has been incompetence so far. Five percent of the $18.4 billion that George Bush keeps ... beating the other candidate up and about the head for how he voted and didn't vote, and he's released 5 percent.''
Sen. John McCain, who has campaigned often with the president, said mistakes in Iraq generally can be attributed to inadequate manpower. McCain, R-Ariz., said problems began arising shortly after the dash through the desert to take Baghdad, the capital, in April 2003.
``We made serious mistakes right after the initial successes by not having enough troops on the ground, by allowing the looting, by not securing the borders,'' McCain said.
``Airstrikes don't do it; artillery doesn't do it. Boots on the ground do it,'' McCain told ``Fox News Sunday.'' Now that's leadership.
Posted at 02:32 pm by Ethel, the Early-Warning Frog
[Link to this post]
Sunday, September 19, 2004
I was going to kick my new home off with a long piece on the direness of the situation in the Middle East caused by Junior's war-fever and imperialist chest-thumping that I've been knocking around on the word processor for a few days now. But then something happened that sent my mind off on a whole different tangent and I decided to spend my first post talking about that instead as a sort of signal--you know?--that Arran's Alley is going to be, well, different, if you know what I mean. No holds barred, everything on the table, prejudices and all. So Ok, here goes. Why do women feel this compulsion to 'share' absolutely everything that happens to them with somebody even when that somebody was right there with them when it happened? It's not an exclusively female trait but it is primarily female and extreme in almost every case. So I'm standing at the bus stop outside the supermarket the other day with nothing much to do except admire the shine on the shopping cart that was, no matter which way I moved, unerringly bouncing the glare of the midday sun right straight toward my left eyeball, when this woman with two kids got out of an SUV and walked across the parking lot toward the store. She was talking when she got out of the truck and she talked without letup all the way across the lot. Even before I could actually hear what she was saying, I could see the 14-yr-old daughter rolling her eyes while the 12-yr-old boy had apparently found something that fascinated him sticking to the toe of his sneaker. Now, I had a daughter--well, I mean, I still have her but she's not 14 any more, she's 35--who started rolling her eyes at her mother when she was 9 and didn't stop until she was 24, so I am not unaware that adolescent female eye-rolling is endemic to the breed and can be set off by nothing more consequential than being told to tuck her shirt in or an offhand comment to the effect that the Beatles were a way better group than, say, Duran-Duran, and that once started it can go on for days, during which time everything you've ever thought, said or done comes in for close examination and is judged to be either seriously flawed or convincing proof that you've been daffy since Nero was a tot rolling around on the palace floor playing with matches. However, as they got closer and I could hear what the mother was--still--saying, I had to admit that in this case the girl had a clear and objective case that could be defended in any court from Natchez to Mobile, from Memphis to St Jo. Mom had been out during the morning with her camera and had taken, it seemed, a few thousand pictures. Mother: --and I saw this cute outfit in the window of Lane's that reminded me of that time I went to Portland with my girlfriend Jane and her friend Kathy, the one with blonde hair out of a bottle that was cut so short she looked like she was bald, so I wanted to take a picture of it but I didn't know how the light would play out through the reflection in the glass so I backed up all the way across the sidewalk so of course this guy walking his dog, a Schnauzer, the cutest little thing, it had a red collar, had to come by and stand right in front of the window and I had to ask him to move so I could take the picture--
Daughter:(patiently) I know, Mom, I was there.
Mother:(without missing a beat, as if Daughter hadn't spoken) --and he got all grumpy about it and pulled the dog away while you were still petting it--
Daughter: I remember, Mom, it was only 20 minutes ago.
Mother: --and then I realized I forgot to take the lens cap off, so of course I had to do that, and then I took the picture and we got back in the car to go to the drug store but when I was supposed to make that left turn some guy cut me off and I had to take a right and go all the way around the rotary again and then I got stuck behind this black Ford--
Daughter: I know, Ma, I was sitting right there next to you.
Mother: --and she didn't know which way she was going so I-- And that's when the supermarket's automatic door shut behind them and I couldn't hear any more. Now, what struck me about this (maybe it struck you, too) wasn't that she wanted to tell the story of her morning's picture-taking but that in doing it she felt the need to include every single extraneous detail that she could remember, right down to the color of the dog's collar, no matter how mind-numbingly irrelevant and miniscule and insignificant it was, and that she had to tell this story as soon as she could even if that meant telling it to people who had been there with her and seen it all for themselves. And a moment later I was struck again, this time by the realization that I hadn't thought anything whatever of this when it was going on. It was so familiar, I was so used to sitting through exactly the same kind of long-winded, pointlessly-detailed and strung-out-to-the-max story-telling emanating from virtually every female I have known well enough to call by their first names, that it never for a moment occured to me that there was anything odd about it. I know that men do this, too, but only when they're talking about sports (in which every conceivable detail of Manny Ramirez's breakfast is dissected for its potential effect on his batting average) or cars (where the intricacies of cleaning a fuel-injection system can take longer to catalog than it took to do the actual cleaning) but women do it about practically everything. Any woman alive, it seems, can make a 30-minute story out of a 5-minute trip to the corner store for a half-gallon of milk that will have any normal male's head spinning trying to figure out the point while other women just nod and sympathize with the ungodly unfairness of, apparently, having to suffer the indignity of getting milk rather than it being delivered to her doorstep so she doesn't have to go through the double-bladed traumas of driving, parking, mingling with other people in the store, and then carrying this heavy burden back to the car all by herself. It is as if every woman considers every second of her life worthy of epic saga, a tale of such monumental cosmic importance that every last tiny, remorselessly banal detail of it should be encased in amber and preserved for future generations to study with awe and reverence. If you think I'm exaggerating, I suggest 2 tests: 1) Stop closing your ears when the women in your life talk, and try actually listening to them. I realize this will be painful, but suck it up for the sake of widening your horizons. 2) Do what I did: cruise female blogs. I did that for several months looking for blogs to include in Women Blog, Too!, and I learned a few things. * Whenever a blog has entries that start with 'I got up this morning and took a shower. I used the pink soap and rinsed my hair thoroughly twice, just like it said on the bottle', 99 times out of 100, that blog belongs to a female. After awhile I realized that 'I got up this morning and--' was all that was needed for purposes of gender identification. Men rarely--if ever--start that way (I think I saw it once). * Whenever a female blog has entries that start with 'The most important thing happened to me today--' the odds are overwhelming that it will be followed by 20 long, unutterably verbose grafs in which nothing happens of any importance whatever to anyone, living or dead, except--maybe--the blogger herself, and even then you'd have to stretch the traditional definition of 'important' to include activities like buying a different brand of ketchup (how daring!) and leaving work 15 minutes early to pick up the dry cleaning. There are exceptions, thank god. When Cyclopatra talks about her personal life, not only is she witty and straightforward about it but she connects it to life in general for a lot of people, not just herself, and every detail she includes is there for a reason. (Whether she shows such admirable restraint and concision when telling her partner these very same things is veiled in mystery, however.) But they pale into insignificance next to the inordinate numbers of merciless tale-spinners who are entirely without pity for male brains that lack either the interest in or the capacity for processing long, complicated files whose only excuse for being is that they're there, like lumps of coal in a Christmas stocking, and can't be ignored. So you might say that this post is in the nature of a plea. There's nothing actually illegal about telling long, pointless stories that fry the brains of any male inside the 12-mile marker in any direction, but it isn't very nice. Have a heart. Lay off once in a while. You may not believe this, but the world will not explode into a billion pieces tomorrow if one--or even two--of your stories remain untold. Honest. The sun will still come up, birds will still sing, and Red Lobster restaurants will still be a blot on the suburban escutcheon from which there is no forseeable escape. Give us a break one time, OK? It would be an act of kindness that will ease your way into a Heaven where every woman gets to be the only guest on Oprah for eternity. That's worth a little self-control, isn't it?
Posted at 07:28 am by Ethel, the Early-Warning Frog
[Link to this post]
Thursday, September 16, 2004
That's what former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke had to say about the situation in Iraq last week. He pointed to the potentially disastrous consequences of waging a never-ending war in the region which supplies most of the world's oil and suggested bluntly that it could lead to destabilization of the world's economy. I read five papers a day, and I missed that little item.
Holbrooke is one of the few looking past the immediate quagmire to see the larger picture: what's the occupation of Iraq doing to the global balance of power? We are treating the deteriorating situation there as at best a temporary chaos created by outside agitators and remnants of the old Ba'athist regime and at worst a local insurrection, but Holbrooke is seeing it as a developing regional conflict that could easily force other Arab nations to choose up sides, enlarging the 'insurrection' into a region-wide nationalist struggle. Kaveh L Afrasiabi of the Asia Times agrees. In an essay entitled 'Refocus on the the big picture', Afrasiabi lays out the way the war has already changed.
The stage is now set for another chapter in a showdown between the forces of occupation and their local props on the one hand, and the diverse forces of (religious) nationalism seeking to regain Iraq's independence on the other. This means that contrary to some recent analyses focusing on a Shi'ite-Sunni divide, the most important determining factor in the war-torn country is, and for the foreseeable future will be, nationalism versus imperialism.
Whether we think of ourselves as an imperial power or not, the point is that they do.
Posted at 02:20 pm by Ethel, the Early-Warning Frog
[Link to this post]
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
The More Things Change....
As things go, nothing much has changed. There will be a bit less posting and the posts may be a bit longer, but the man behind the curtain is still wearing a rubber nose.
Posted at 12:59 pm by Ethel, the Early-Warning Frog
[Link to this post]
|
|