Convenient
al-Qaida Group Beheads American Hostage
al-Qaida Leader Killed in Saudi Raid
Friday, June 18, 2004
I'm Richard. Fly me. Safely, Please.
As a somewhat frequent flyer, I'm always a tad concerned about airline safety, maintenance, and security. You can't help but be concerned when you board a flight that a) the man (or woman) next to you is "cool", b) that the plane is being properly maintained, and c) that the flight crew is in the groove both physically and mentally. In that spirit, there's been a couple of stories over the past few days that reasonable people could interpret as "concerning".
The biggest trend I'm seeing is the struggles of the major domestic carriers - in particular, United and U.S. Airways. U.S. Airways recently emerged from bankruptcy, and could quite possibly be headed for a second round. United is struggling to emerge from bankruptcy, and was just turned down by the government agency responsible for loan guarantees to the airline industry.
Since September 11th, 2001 the U.S. airline industry (in particular, the "majors") has been subsidized by the U.S. government (read: taxpayers) to the tune of billions of dollars. Not a day passes when a report doesn't come across the wire with the management at some airline moaning about the state of the industry. But wait.
If the airline industry is in such trouble, why then would Southwest Airlines recently start service to the Philadelphia area, in a very strong play at one of U.S. Airways main hubs? U.S. Airways stranglehold on the market was instantly broken the day the first Southwest airplane taxied up to a Philly International gate. I'm sure it was quite painful for U.S. Airways to suck up the fare reductions that they had to make in order to compete with Southwest. Too fucking bad. That's what competition was supposed to be all about when the airline industry was deregulated. And guess what? Now United is going through the same thing with startup Independence Air in the Washington, DC market. Again, a stranglehold on a market was broken, and now the main gate holder (United) is forced to be competitive.
So, both of these "majors" are asking for further wage and benefits concessions from all corporate employment strata (except the executive suite, I'm sure), and are crying poor mouth again. Interestingly enough, both of these bloated carriers also, in my own experience, provide absolutely the worst service on the crappiest aircraft of any airline in the industry.
Maybe that's as much of a reason for their troubles as anything. As consumers, we're not locked in anymore.
One other story that caught my attention: the Transportation Safety Administration is testing a pilot program for frequent travelers in the Minneapolis airport. The idea is that frequent travelers can submit to background investigation, including an eye scan and fingerprinting, and if they're cool then the travelers will be issued some sort of ID that allows them to bypass the most onerous part of security screening.
Now, I don't know about you, but even as a frequent traveler myself I'm not crazy about this on several levels. I know security can sometimes be a hassle, but more often than not things seem to be moving along more efficiently now than in the days following September 11.
My reservations about the proposed program are many, but here are two biggies:
So, it's quite clear that the aviation industry in the U.S. will be changing dramatically over the next 6 or 12 months, possibly even more dramatically than in the months following September 11. The players might change. Security protocols most certainly will change.
And you can bet that amongst all the organizational chaos afflicting the industry, someone with bad intentions is watching.
As a somewhat frequent flyer, I'm always a tad concerned about airline safety, maintenance, and security. You can't help but be concerned when you board a flight that a) the man (or woman) next to you is "cool", b) that the plane is being properly maintained, and c) that the flight crew is in the groove both physically and mentally. In that spirit, there's been a couple of stories over the past few days that reasonable people could interpret as "concerning".
The biggest trend I'm seeing is the struggles of the major domestic carriers - in particular, United and U.S. Airways. U.S. Airways recently emerged from bankruptcy, and could quite possibly be headed for a second round. United is struggling to emerge from bankruptcy, and was just turned down by the government agency responsible for loan guarantees to the airline industry.
Since September 11th, 2001 the U.S. airline industry (in particular, the "majors") has been subsidized by the U.S. government (read: taxpayers) to the tune of billions of dollars. Not a day passes when a report doesn't come across the wire with the management at some airline moaning about the state of the industry. But wait.
If the airline industry is in such trouble, why then would Southwest Airlines recently start service to the Philadelphia area, in a very strong play at one of U.S. Airways main hubs? U.S. Airways stranglehold on the market was instantly broken the day the first Southwest airplane taxied up to a Philly International gate. I'm sure it was quite painful for U.S. Airways to suck up the fare reductions that they had to make in order to compete with Southwest. Too fucking bad. That's what competition was supposed to be all about when the airline industry was deregulated. And guess what? Now United is going through the same thing with startup Independence Air in the Washington, DC market. Again, a stranglehold on a market was broken, and now the main gate holder (United) is forced to be competitive.
So, both of these "majors" are asking for further wage and benefits concessions from all corporate employment strata (except the executive suite, I'm sure), and are crying poor mouth again. Interestingly enough, both of these bloated carriers also, in my own experience, provide absolutely the worst service on the crappiest aircraft of any airline in the industry.
Maybe that's as much of a reason for their troubles as anything. As consumers, we're not locked in anymore.
One other story that caught my attention: the Transportation Safety Administration is testing a pilot program for frequent travelers in the Minneapolis airport. The idea is that frequent travelers can submit to background investigation, including an eye scan and fingerprinting, and if they're cool then the travelers will be issued some sort of ID that allows them to bypass the most onerous part of security screening.
Now, I don't know about you, but even as a frequent traveler myself I'm not crazy about this on several levels. I know security can sometimes be a hassle, but more often than not things seem to be moving along more efficiently now than in the days following September 11.
My reservations about the proposed program are many, but here are two biggies:
- Unless I'm arrested for something and new laws inspired by Orwell's "1984" hit the books, ain't no one scanning my retinas. Also, I really don't need to give the federal government a reason to conduct a background check on me, even though I have nothing to hide. Except maybe that little thing in...oh, never mind. They already have my fingerprints (I assume anyway, since I was in the service). Probably have a nice little DNA profile on me, too, for the same reason (the military loves to extract bodily fluids). Why give them an excuse to put it all together, with me footing the bill?? (They're going to charge for this ID and, as it were, head of the line privileges.)
- Two words: Sleeper Cells. How do you think many of the Saudi guys who hijacked planes on September 11, 2001 got away with it? Most of them blended in with no criminal records or "terrorist" flags. They'd been here for awhile. They'd been flying all over hells half acre in the U.S. for years. They knew the system. No security system is foolproof, but again as an experienced traveler, I know that there's enough variations from airport to airport to make a single solution for a terrorist to breach security protocols both impractical and dangerous. And I'm not even a security expert.
So, it's quite clear that the aviation industry in the U.S. will be changing dramatically over the next 6 or 12 months, possibly even more dramatically than in the months following September 11. The players might change. Security protocols most certainly will change.
And you can bet that amongst all the organizational chaos afflicting the industry, someone with bad intentions is watching.
Thursday, June 17, 2004
This is Just Funny, Little Political Content
OK, maybe we could see this as the next reason for invading Iraq that the Republicans glom on to, since WMD, participation in 9/11, and all sundry other reasons are exploded. The story is about
VIAGRA!
So we invaded to provide cheap Viagra to Iraqi men, thus doing our part to lower the divorce rate? Oh, I forgot, this would be the compassionate conservative family values bit, wouldn't it?
OK, maybe we could see this as the next reason for invading Iraq that the Republicans glom on to, since WMD, participation in 9/11, and all sundry other reasons are exploded. The story is about
VIAGRA!
Life is violent, minds are frayed and the little blue pill is selling big on Sadoon Street.
"People are depressed, so they need Viagra and other drugs to give them interest in sex," said Talid Abdul-Amir Shebany, a balding pharmacist who tracks the changing ailments of Iraqis in a worn ledger on his desk. "Viagra sales have at least doubled since the war ended. Lives are not good. There's bombs and tension. When you see bodies and destroyed houses, you have psychological disturbances that affect sexual desire."
. . .
Viagra and its copycats — Kamagra from India, Novagra from Britain and Vega from Syria — have been available for several years, but importation was limited, taxed and heavily regulated by the former Iraqi Health Ministry.
Those barriers are gone. Drugs are cheaper — four Kamagra tablets sell for $2.50 — and sometimes even women in this tribal, patriarchal society will whisper their husbands' dysfunctions into the pharmacist's ear.
"The Koran does not forbid Viagra," Shebany said. "In Islam, if a man can't sexually satisfy his wife she can ask for a divorce. Viagra helps prevent this disaster."
So we invaded to provide cheap Viagra to Iraqi men, thus doing our part to lower the divorce rate? Oh, I forgot, this would be the compassionate conservative family values bit, wouldn't it?
A Smokin' NYT Editorial
Considering that this editorial was written before Monkey Boy™'s tantrum today, it's even more appropriate. The coup de grâce:
I can't help but get the feeling that the NYT editorial board knows something you and I don't. Stay tuned.
Considering that this editorial was written before Monkey Boy™'s tantrum today, it's even more appropriate. The coup de grâce:
Mr. Bush is right when he says he cannot be blamed for everything that happened on or before Sept. 11, 2001. But he is responsible for the administration's actions since then. That includes, inexcusably, selling the false Iraq-Qaeda claim to Americans. There are two unpleasant alternatives: either Mr. Bush knew he was not telling the truth, or he has a capacity for politically motivated self-deception that is terrifying in the post-9/11 world.I'll be blunt - the New York Times editorial staff doesn't commission an editorial like this without having deeper knowledge of something uniquely disturbing. There is little subtlety in the words. The phrasing is of the style usually reserved for a single columnist's opinion -- one that can be deflected as representing a single person's opinion rather than the viewpoint of the entire newspaper.
I can't help but get the feeling that the NYT editorial board knows something you and I don't. Stay tuned.
Reality. It's a Concept Thing, a Neurology Thing, a Quantum Thing
So many of us have asked the question or a variant on the question: How is it that so many people seem "not" to get what the Bush Misadministration, or Iraq, or Afghanistan or the War on Terra is all about? It's maddening.
I think I have one answer. I'm sure it's not the only answer, which is why I said "one". This thread requires reading without any of the gratification that comes from clicking on links. I've been percolating this in my brain for a few days, (always a bad sign) and have just now sat myself down to put it all into some kind of order.
The next stuff I'm quoting and paraphrasing comes from an out-of-print book by Sonia Johnson ... radical feminist, former candidate for President of the USA. From her book, "Wildfire".
I tell a story first, the one Sonia told, but one that others have told before she or I told it.
Do you ask how it is that the Tierra del Fuegans could not see the ships, with their white sails sparkling in the sun? The ships were so "real" after all.
But, they were not real to those who had no place for them in their world view. They could not see them because reality is what people expect to see in the "harbor". Reality is what we believe we will see when we look there, what we think is possible, what we have been told to believe is true, very strong, inevitable, unchangeable, irrevocable. Reality is what we are taught to think a god plunked down in front of us and we have no choice but to learn to live with the best we can. It is called "natural".
So then... reality is an internal construct, defined and controlled by the dominant group. It's in the moment we internalize the propaganda that "reality" comes to live in us. All of our other interactions with the "reality" come from that starting place.
This is one answer to why people cannot see how a smiling, glad-handing politician is not good for them, and their nation. The "not good" part of it all is simply not a part of their "reality". Which is of course why it is pointless to loudly argue politics with anyone.
In the end, we can only see something new if we create it within ourselves first. We must see, know, feel that there is another something better than what is presented to us as "reality". This is my answer to all those who reply ... well, we can't do anything about it. It is what it is. Get over it.
But, I'm not going to get over it. I've spent all of my life thinking of more than one kind of something better. I will not be a part of the blindness of those who cannot see the tall ships in the harbor, and what lies beyond. Again, going to-to-toe with someone on their cherished and endogenous notions on the "reality" of their political position is really an exercise in futility in the end. I try not to do it at all. Only events that are perspective and synapse jolting can change someone's firmly held worldview. And,... with irony, as my baby sister Shari would say... It is what it is.
So many of us have asked the question or a variant on the question: How is it that so many people seem "not" to get what the Bush Misadministration, or Iraq, or Afghanistan or the War on Terra is all about? It's maddening.
I think I have one answer. I'm sure it's not the only answer, which is why I said "one". This thread requires reading without any of the gratification that comes from clicking on links. I've been percolating this in my brain for a few days, (always a bad sign) and have just now sat myself down to put it all into some kind of order.
The next stuff I'm quoting and paraphrasing comes from an out-of-print book by Sonia Johnson ... radical feminist, former candidate for President of the USA. From her book, "Wildfire".
I tell a story first, the one Sonia told, but one that others have told before she or I told it.
"Several hundred years ago, Magellan and his men sailed into a harbor in the Tierra del Fuego islands in their tall ships, put down their anchors, and rowed ashore in rowboats. A few days later, the shaman called islanders together and she said, "I'm going to tell you something preposterous, so get ready. Those men couldn't have come across all that open sea in the little boats they landed on our beach in. That means -- and this is the preposterous part -- that there have to be big big boats out there in the harbor." Everyone turned to look -- and got goose bumps; all they could see was the shimmering blue water. "Really?" they asked. "Really," she answered.
Do you ask how it is that the Tierra del Fuegans could not see the ships, with their white sails sparkling in the sun? The ships were so "real" after all.
But, they were not real to those who had no place for them in their world view. They could not see them because reality is what people expect to see in the "harbor". Reality is what we believe we will see when we look there, what we think is possible, what we have been told to believe is true, very strong, inevitable, unchangeable, irrevocable. Reality is what we are taught to think a god plunked down in front of us and we have no choice but to learn to live with the best we can. It is called "natural".
So then... reality is an internal construct, defined and controlled by the dominant group. It's in the moment we internalize the propaganda that "reality" comes to live in us. All of our other interactions with the "reality" come from that starting place.
This is one answer to why people cannot see how a smiling, glad-handing politician is not good for them, and their nation. The "not good" part of it all is simply not a part of their "reality". Which is of course why it is pointless to loudly argue politics with anyone.
In the end, we can only see something new if we create it within ourselves first. We must see, know, feel that there is another something better than what is presented to us as "reality". This is my answer to all those who reply ... well, we can't do anything about it. It is what it is. Get over it.
But, I'm not going to get over it. I've spent all of my life thinking of more than one kind of something better. I will not be a part of the blindness of those who cannot see the tall ships in the harbor, and what lies beyond. Again, going to-to-toe with someone on their cherished and endogenous notions on the "reality" of their political position is really an exercise in futility in the end. I try not to do it at all. Only events that are perspective and synapse jolting can change someone's firmly held worldview. And,... with irony, as my baby sister Shari would say... It is what it is.
Kofi Grows Some Stones
Glow sticks up the ass?
A necessary evil in the "war on terra".
Humilitating children to get to their parent(s)?
You push whatever buttons you need to push.
Electrodes on the genitals?
Shocking in its effectiveness.
Undocumented deaths of "detainees"?
Hey, torture is an untidy business.
The entire Bush cabal before an international war crimes tribunal?
Priceless.
Glow sticks up the ass?
A necessary evil in the "war on terra".
Humilitating children to get to their parent(s)?
You push whatever buttons you need to push.
Electrodes on the genitals?
Shocking in its effectiveness.
Undocumented deaths of "detainees"?
Hey, torture is an untidy business.
The entire Bush cabal before an international war crimes tribunal?
Priceless.
UNITED NATIONS - Defying the United States, Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) urged the U.N. Security Council on Thursday to stop shielding American peacekeepers from international prosecution for war crimes.Substitute "Bush administration enablers" for "American troops" and you're closer to the truth.
Annan cited the U.S. prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq (news - web sites) in opposing a U.S. resolution calling for the blanket exemption for a third straight year.
The United States introduced the resolution last month but has delayed calling for a vote. Despite intensive lobbying, Washington doesn't have the minimum nine "yes" votes on the 15-member council to approve a new exemption, council diplomats said.
The current exemption expires June 30.
The Bush administration argues that the International Criminal Court — which started operating last year — could be used for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of American troops.
Bush's Words, Rummy's Actions
Robert McClelland comments on Richard's post below with a link to a speech by George Bush last June in honor of the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. The full text is available at the White House Web Site. And the speech was in June of 2003. Pay particular note that it was BEFORE the events of Abu Ghraib, but after all those memos were passed around between the DOJ, DOD and the White House -- you know, those pesky notes coming to light that supported illegal interrogation techniques. Here's Bush's words.
These guys are going down, and let us hope it happens before the election. How about the week of the Republican Convention?
Robert McClelland comments on Richard's post below with a link to a speech by George Bush last June in honor of the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. The full text is available at the White House Web Site. And the speech was in June of 2003. Pay particular note that it was BEFORE the events of Abu Ghraib, but after all those memos were passed around between the DOJ, DOD and the White House -- you know, those pesky notes coming to light that supported illegal interrogation techniques. Here's Bush's words.
The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment. I call on all nations to speak out against torture in all its forms and to make ending torture an essential part of their diplomacy. I further urge governments to join America and others in supporting torture victims' treatment centers, contributing to the UN Fund for the Victims of Torture, and supporting the efforts of non-governmental organizations to end torture and assist its victims.Is this a matter of Bush being an "all hat, no cattle" Texan? Certainly if you look at the actions of Rummy, reported today on MSNBC, you can conclude that none of the remarks by Bush honoring our USA reputation for Human Rights holds any water whatsoever. Here's an excerpt from MSNBC:
No people, no matter where they reside, should have to live in fear of their own government. Nowhere should the midnight knock foreshadow a nightmare of state-commissioned crime. The suffering of torture victims must end, and the United States calls on all governments to assume this great mission.
Pentagon officials tell NBC News that late last year, at the same time U.S. military police were allegedly abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered that one Iraqi prisoner be held “off the books” — hidden entirely from the International Red Cross and anyone else — in possible violation of international law.Yes, Rumsfeld was involved, and he was actively hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, or ordering it done. I think you can question whether it may in some cases be OK to question someone intensely when that person is a source of vital information. But don't lie about it, Rummy! And look here, the guy is still being held, lost, evidently, in a system designed to hide these desparado prisoners.
It’s the first direct link between Rumsfeld and questionable though not violent treatment of prisoners in Iraq.
The Iraqi prisoner was captured last July as deadly attacks on U.S. troops began to rise. He was identified as a member of the terrorist group Ansar al Islam, suspected in the attacks on coalition forces.
Shortly after the suspect’s capture, the CIA flew him to an undisclosed location outside Iraq for interrogation. But four months later the Justice Department suggested that holding him outside Iraq might be illegal, and the prisoner was returned to Iraq at the end of October.
That’s when Rumsfeld passed the order on to Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, to keep the prisoner locked up, but off the books.
In the military’s own investigation into prisoner abuse, Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba said efforts to hide prisoners from the Red Cross were “deceptive” and a “violation of international law.”
Pentagon officials claim it’s entirely lawful to hold prisoners in secret if they pose an immediate threat. But today, nearly one year after his capture, he’s still being held incommunicado.
These guys are going down, and let us hope it happens before the election. How about the week of the Republican Convention?
So Many Targets of Opportunity Today...
Yep. Looks like another great news day for Monkey Boy™. Since I've got a busy day ongoing at the office, you're free to discuss. ;-)
• 9/11 panel raps response to hijackings
Two words: Payne Stewart
• Explosive-laden SUV kills 35 in Iraq
Ok, where are they getting all these explosives? We're not talking about a box of M80's here.
• Rumsfeld ordered secret arrest in Iraq
Have they assembled the judiciary in The Hague yet?
• Son pleads for captors to release father
Simply sad. Entirely predictable. Why is anyone staying in Riyadh?
• Troops to Stay in Iraq as Long as Needed - Wolfowitz
Duh.
• Cheney Won't Back Down on Saddam-Qaeda Links -Aides
Simply unbelieveable. Didn't he catch the news last night about the 9/11 Commission hearing?
Yep. Looks like another great news day for Monkey Boy™. Since I've got a busy day ongoing at the office, you're free to discuss. ;-)
• 9/11 panel raps response to hijackings
Two words: Payne Stewart
• Explosive-laden SUV kills 35 in Iraq
Ok, where are they getting all these explosives? We're not talking about a box of M80's here.
• Rumsfeld ordered secret arrest in Iraq
Have they assembled the judiciary in The Hague yet?
• Son pleads for captors to release father
Simply sad. Entirely predictable. Why is anyone staying in Riyadh?
• Troops to Stay in Iraq as Long as Needed - Wolfowitz
Duh.
• Cheney Won't Back Down on Saddam-Qaeda Links -Aides
Simply unbelieveable. Didn't he catch the news last night about the 9/11 Commission hearing?
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Major Shot Across (through?) Bush's Bow
Atrios posted a photo and link to the following story at about 9AM Wednesday morning. I'm doing him one better. In addition to the neat caricature of John Kerry to the left, I'm giving you my feelings about the Philadelphia Daily News Page 1 headline from June 16th:
HOW YOU CAN HELP ELECT KERRY! OUR ENDORSEMENT, PAGES 14-15
I'm simply stunned. In Southeastern Pa., the Daily News is one of the two major newspapers. For those of you unfamiliar with the Philly area, this is a big damn deal. It wasn't the fact that the Daily News endorsed John Kerry - it was the timing, how they endorsed him, why they endorsed him this early, and the actions they recommended to get him elected.
Here's a few paragraphs from an endorsement that ran two full pages:
...this newspaper, the first in the nation, endorses John Kerry for president. Unlike the current White House occupant, Kerry can lead America to a brighter, better future. He has shown the personal courage, compassion, intellect and skill to lead this country in a time of war abroad and economic troubles at home. He is a serious man for a serious time.
...[Bush] has failed in even the one challenge he set out for himself at the beginning of his administration - to bring the country together. His has been one of the most ideologically driven and divisive administrations in recent times.
Instead of moving forward, the country has been on the wrong track. These last four years have been wasted.
...Kerry acknowledges that his privileges left him with a responsibility to serve and an ambition to lead. And he has - from combat in the Navy, then as the cleancut (and therefore highly effective) leader of the Vietnam veterans' anti-war movement, as a prosecutor in Boston, and in four terms in the U.S. Senate.
He is not the indecisive waffler the Bush team would have you believe. Instead, he is offering a concrete, pragmatic direction for the nation.
...Because [John Kerry] respects the intelligence of the American people, he rarely talks in sound bites. He understands that sound bites aren't solutions. Kerry's positions, while sometimes complicated, are grounded in reality, not in doctrines developed in think tanks...
I urge you to read the entire endorsement, and most particularly, the action plan. If you live in one of the swing states, everything the Philadelphia Daily News recommends applies. Even if you live in a "red state", much (if not all) is applicable.
I've said before that John Kerry was not my first choice to head the Democratic Party ticket, but he was certainly my second, and I respect the man for what he has accomplished in his life. He is the play we progressives have been dealt - like it or not. The prospect of George W. Bush running the show for 4 more years beyond this one is, frankly, frightening to most of us.
Rather than the way Bush purveys fear, I ask you to harness your fear of another four years of the same type of leadership and agenda (or worse), and invest some time and money in defeating George Bush. If you have the financial ability, contribute what you can. If money's tight, volunteer with one of the groups suggested by the Daily News.
That the Editorial Board of this major newspaper felt it so important to endorse John Kerry this early should tell you a lot. Use it as a springboard for conversations and action.
Atrios posted a photo and link to the following story at about 9AM Wednesday morning. I'm doing him one better. In addition to the neat caricature of John Kerry to the left, I'm giving you my feelings about the Philadelphia Daily News Page 1 headline from June 16th:
HOW YOU CAN HELP ELECT KERRY! OUR ENDORSEMENT, PAGES 14-15
I'm simply stunned. In Southeastern Pa., the Daily News is one of the two major newspapers. For those of you unfamiliar with the Philly area, this is a big damn deal. It wasn't the fact that the Daily News endorsed John Kerry - it was the timing, how they endorsed him, why they endorsed him this early, and the actions they recommended to get him elected.
Here's a few paragraphs from an endorsement that ran two full pages:
...this newspaper, the first in the nation, endorses John Kerry for president. Unlike the current White House occupant, Kerry can lead America to a brighter, better future. He has shown the personal courage, compassion, intellect and skill to lead this country in a time of war abroad and economic troubles at home. He is a serious man for a serious time.
...[Bush] has failed in even the one challenge he set out for himself at the beginning of his administration - to bring the country together. His has been one of the most ideologically driven and divisive administrations in recent times.
Instead of moving forward, the country has been on the wrong track. These last four years have been wasted.
...Kerry acknowledges that his privileges left him with a responsibility to serve and an ambition to lead. And he has - from combat in the Navy, then as the cleancut (and therefore highly effective) leader of the Vietnam veterans' anti-war movement, as a prosecutor in Boston, and in four terms in the U.S. Senate.
He is not the indecisive waffler the Bush team would have you believe. Instead, he is offering a concrete, pragmatic direction for the nation.
...Because [John Kerry] respects the intelligence of the American people, he rarely talks in sound bites. He understands that sound bites aren't solutions. Kerry's positions, while sometimes complicated, are grounded in reality, not in doctrines developed in think tanks...
I urge you to read the entire endorsement, and most particularly, the action plan. If you live in one of the swing states, everything the Philadelphia Daily News recommends applies. Even if you live in a "red state", much (if not all) is applicable.
I've said before that John Kerry was not my first choice to head the Democratic Party ticket, but he was certainly my second, and I respect the man for what he has accomplished in his life. He is the play we progressives have been dealt - like it or not. The prospect of George W. Bush running the show for 4 more years beyond this one is, frankly, frightening to most of us.
Rather than the way Bush purveys fear, I ask you to harness your fear of another four years of the same type of leadership and agenda (or worse), and invest some time and money in defeating George Bush. If you have the financial ability, contribute what you can. If money's tight, volunteer with one of the groups suggested by the Daily News.
That the Editorial Board of this major newspaper felt it so important to endorse John Kerry this early should tell you a lot. Use it as a springboard for conversations and action.
Collective Guilt
"The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke
Mark Danner has long and very worthwhile two-part essay concerning the current U.S. torture policy/scandal in The New York Review of Books.Part One is here and Part Two is here. Danner notes:
In Part Two, Danner includes the account of two Reuters employees first revealed in Editor and Publisher. These innocent civilians were were made to put their fingers in their anuses and then into their mouths.
Reuters Bureau Chief Andrew Marshall had this to say:
The National Security Archives has pdf's of previous U.S. torture manuals put together by the CIA (and made known to then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney.) These documents trace the precedent for the current torture of Iraqis.
Yeah, as George Bush said, they hate of because of our freedoms. He forgot to add...and because we deny others theirs.
Freedom in America seems to mean freedom to remain ignorant or uncaring about the actions of our government, both in America and around the world.
Some things bear repeating.
"The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke
"Do not shame or humiliate a man in public. Shaming a man will cause him and his family to be anti-Coalition.(From a Marine Corps pamphlet explaining Iraqi culture to troops, according to the May Harper's. )
The most important qualifier for all shame is for a third party to witness the act. If you must do something likely to cause shame, remove the person from view of others.
Shame is given by placing hoods over a detainee's head. Avoid this practice.
Placing a detainee on the ground or putting a foot on him implies you are God. This is one of the worst things we can do.
Arabs consider the following things unclean:
Feet or soles of feet.
Using the bathroom around others. Unlike Marines, who are used to open-air toilets, Arab men will not shower/use the bathroom together.
Bodily fluids."
Men little think how immorally they act in rashly meddling with what they do not understand. Their delusive good intention is no sort of excuse for their presumption. They who truly mean well must be fearful of acting ill.(Edmund Burke. Appeal. V. 131).
Mark Danner has long and very worthwhile two-part essay concerning the current U.S. torture policy/scandal in The New York Review of Books.Part One is here and Part Two is here. Danner notes:
Behind the exotic brutality so painstakingly recorded in Abu Ghraib, and the multiple tangled plotlines that will be teased out in the coming weeks and months about responsibility, knowledge, and culpability, lies a simple truth, well known but not yet publicly admitted in Washington: that since the attacks of September 11, 2001, officials of the United States, at various locations around the world, from Bagram in Afghanistan to Guantanamo in Cuba to Abu Ghraib in Iraq, have been torturing prisoners.In Part One, Danner recounts the experience of Hayder Sabbar Abd, the object of Pvt. England's amusement in the now infamous Abu Ghraib photos. Abd, after his torture was never even questioned by Military Intel.
In Part Two, Danner includes the account of two Reuters employees first revealed in Editor and Publisher. These innocent civilians were were made to put their fingers in their anuses and then into their mouths.
Reuters Bureau Chief Andrew Marshall had this to say:
"It should be noted that the bulk of their mistreatment -- including their humiliating interrogations and the mental and physical torment of the first night which all agreed was the worst part of their ordeal -- occurred several hours AFTER I had informed the 82nd Airborne Division that they were Reuters staff. I have e-mail proof of this."As Danner unflinchingly reminds us, our silence on this issue of torture is equivalent to consent. We can no longer plead ignorance, as was the conventional excuse when George Bush Sr. covered up the torture and abuse of nuns and priests in Central America, and then pardoned many enablers who are now, not coincidentally, back in power via George W.
The National Security Archives has pdf's of previous U.S. torture manuals put together by the CIA (and made known to then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney.) These documents trace the precedent for the current torture of Iraqis.
Yeah, as George Bush said, they hate of because of our freedoms. He forgot to add...and because we deny others theirs.
Freedom in America seems to mean freedom to remain ignorant or uncaring about the actions of our government, both in America and around the world.
Some things bear repeating.
Certain [Coalition Forces] military intelligence officers told the ICRC that in their estimate between 70 percent and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake.
The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.Edmund Burke
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Perpetuating the Big Lie
Editor
Orlando Sun-Sentinel
Mark Schneider
Associated Press
Your June 15th report of Vice President Cheney's speech at the James Madison Institute in Orlando was an example of perpetuating a myth. In the report, Mr. Cheney was quoted as saying "Saddam Hussein had long-established ties with al Qaida". To me, this is an example of repeating a lie enough times and it becomes the truth -- at least in people's minds.
By not more aggressively challenging Mr. Cheney's assertations in your article, you indeed continue to give credence to the myth and facilitate the grand lie - that there was some nebulous connection between Saddam and Osama bin-Laden. There was none.
Further, the article only serves to continue clouding of the issue regarding connections between the devastating events of September 11, 2001 and Iraq. Again, there was no connection.
Both of these facts have been repudiated at various times by all members of the administration, including Condeleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell. That Mr. Cheney can continue to trot out the administration's record on terrorism as a strong point, in full light of evidence to the contrary, speaks volumes about the kid gloves with which the media continues to handle the Bush Administration.
The 2003 joint congressional 9/11 inquiry concluded, "U.S. intelligence had no evidence that the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks, or that it had supported al-Qaida." Yet the vice president of the United States continues to brazenly perpetuate the lie, even today, and you continue to repeat it without strong challenge.
It's time for the media to quit enabling the big lie.
Richard Cranium
References:
Editor
Orlando Sun-Sentinel
Mark Schneider
Associated Press
Your June 15th report of Vice President Cheney's speech at the James Madison Institute in Orlando was an example of perpetuating a myth. In the report, Mr. Cheney was quoted as saying "Saddam Hussein had long-established ties with al Qaida". To me, this is an example of repeating a lie enough times and it becomes the truth -- at least in people's minds.
By not more aggressively challenging Mr. Cheney's assertations in your article, you indeed continue to give credence to the myth and facilitate the grand lie - that there was some nebulous connection between Saddam and Osama bin-Laden. There was none.
Further, the article only serves to continue clouding of the issue regarding connections between the devastating events of September 11, 2001 and Iraq. Again, there was no connection.
Both of these facts have been repudiated at various times by all members of the administration, including Condeleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell. That Mr. Cheney can continue to trot out the administration's record on terrorism as a strong point, in full light of evidence to the contrary, speaks volumes about the kid gloves with which the media continues to handle the Bush Administration.
The 2003 joint congressional 9/11 inquiry concluded, "U.S. intelligence had no evidence that the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks, or that it had supported al-Qaida." Yet the vice president of the United States continues to brazenly perpetuate the lie, even today, and you continue to repeat it without strong challenge.
It's time for the media to quit enabling the big lie.
Richard Cranium
References:
Alex Standish, editor of the UK journal Jane's Intelligence Digest - required reading for war-watchers and war-makers everywhere - thinks US intelligence officials are making 'a big mistake' on Iraq. "They are trying to convince us of something that is highly unlikely", he says. "If they really believe that Saddam is feeding and sustaining bin Laden's men, then they can't possibly understand the fundamental difference between Iraq and al-Qaeda."
New York Times, 2/2/03: At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network. "We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there," a government official said.
"Analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency have complained that senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq [and] at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network."
The report of the joint congressional inquiry into the suicide hijackings on Sept. 11, 2001, to be published Thursday, reveals U.S. intelligence had no evidence that the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks, or that it had supported al-Qaida
"Rumsfeld Sees No Link Between Iraq, 9/11." The reporter for the Associated Press, Robert Burns, wrote Defense Secretary Rumsfeld had no reason to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.
At a Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld was asked about a poll that indicated nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved. "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that," he said.
San Jose Mercury News: "Yet there was no link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida or the 9/11 attacks."
Paul Krugman Has Ashcroft Spot On!
We all know he's a weasel, and I'm still resenting Ashcroft spending thousands of dollars on drapes to cover the nude statues. Perhaps that will be the man's legacy, that he protected us from too many bare tits. Krugman evaluates Ashcroft on the battle against terror in today's New York Times. First the report on the Detroit 3, which I've not seen much about lately.
I really like Krugman's take on Ashcroft's methods...
What's worse here is that while I have never been enthusiastic about the war in Iraq, I watched the war on terror intently at the beginning, hoping and praying for our troops as we dug Taliban and Al Qaeda soldiers out of Afghanistan and worked to free those people. I reported the wonderful stories about schools, the renewed aspirations for women. I KNEW we were doing the right theing. Then Bush dropped the ball, used bad intelligence to get us mired in Iraq. Now I can't trust a soul in that Administration. I was a supporter after 9/11, and Bush should be proud that as a Democrat supported his actions. He and Cheney and especially Ashcroft have squandered that support.
Miserable failure.
We all know he's a weasel, and I'm still resenting Ashcroft spending thousands of dollars on drapes to cover the nude statues. Perhaps that will be the man's legacy, that he protected us from too many bare tits. Krugman evaluates Ashcroft on the battle against terror in today's New York Times. First the report on the Detroit 3, which I've not seen much about lately.
First, there's the absence of any major successful prosecutions. The one set of convictions that seemed fairly significant — that of the "Detroit 3" — appears to be collapsing over accusations of prosecutorial misconduct. (The lead prosecutor has filed a whistle-blower suit against Mr. Ashcroft, accusing him of botching the case. The Justice Department, in turn, has opened investigations against the prosecutor. Payback? I report; you decide.)Has anyone else heard about the botching of this case? And why isn't it getting more press. Is the liberal press sleeping on the job again?
I really like Krugman's take on Ashcroft's methods...
Perhaps most telling is the way Mr. Ashcroft responds to criticism of his performance. His first move is always to withhold the evidence. Then he tries to change the subject by making a dramatic announcement of a terrorist threat.It appears the Padilla case is unravelling. Ashcroft blows another one? Three guesses on the result of those folks suposedly planning in Columbus to bomb a shopping mall.
For an example of how Mr. Ashcroft shuts down public examination, consider the case of Sibel Edmonds, a former F.B.I. translator who says that the agency's language division is riddled with incompetence and corruption, and that the bureau missed critical terrorist warnings. In 2002 she gave closed-door Congressional testimony; Senator Charles Grassley described her as "very credible . . . because people within the F.B.I. have corroborated a lot of her story."
But the Justice Department has invoked the rarely used "state secrets privilege" to prevent Ms. Edmonds from providing evidence. And last month the department retroactively classified two-year-old testimony by F.B.I. officials, which was presumably what Mr. Grassley referred to.
For an example of changing the subject, consider the origins of the Jose Padilla case. There was no publicity when Mr. Padilla was arrested in May 2002. But on June 6, 2002, Coleen Rowley gave devastating Congressional testimony about failures at the F.B.I. (which reports to Mr. Ashcroft) before 9/11. Four days later, Mr. Ashcroft held a dramatic press conference and announced that Mr. Padilla was involved in a terrifying plot. Instead of featuring Ms. Rowley, news magazine covers ended up featuring the "dirty bomber" who Mr. Ashcroft said was plotting to kill thousands with deadly radiation.
Since then Mr. Padilla has been held as an "enemy combatant" with no legal rights. But Newsweek reports that "administration officials now concede that the principal claim they have been making about Padilla ever since his detention — that he was dispatched to the United States for the specific purpose of setting off a radiological `dirty bomb' — has turned out to be wrong and most likely can never be used in court."
What's worse here is that while I have never been enthusiastic about the war in Iraq, I watched the war on terror intently at the beginning, hoping and praying for our troops as we dug Taliban and Al Qaeda soldiers out of Afghanistan and worked to free those people. I reported the wonderful stories about schools, the renewed aspirations for women. I KNEW we were doing the right theing. Then Bush dropped the ball, used bad intelligence to get us mired in Iraq. Now I can't trust a soul in that Administration. I was a supporter after 9/11, and Bush should be proud that as a Democrat supported his actions. He and Cheney and especially Ashcroft have squandered that support.
Miserable failure.
Cheney Was Divested
Yeah, Right. That story was for the NY Times.
This from a more credible source-- FT.com, The Financial Times: Halliburton 'mismanaged $8bn in Iraq'
I could go all "neener-neener" here but I'll reserve my schadenfreude. Let's talk about no-bid contracts. A US Vice President who claims to be separated from a major contractor, but is not... Let's talk about being "happy."
Yeah, Right. That story was for the NY Times.
This from a more credible source-- FT.com, The Financial Times: Halliburton 'mismanaged $8bn in Iraq'
From the top of the article: "A Pentagon audit has found wide-spread deficiencies in the way Halliburton tracks billions of dollars of government contracts in Iraq and Kuwait, leading to "significant" overcharges."
I could go all "neener-neener" here but I'll reserve my schadenfreude. Let's talk about no-bid contracts. A US Vice President who claims to be separated from a major contractor, but is not... Let's talk about being "happy."
We have Montag In our Sights
Yes cousins. After the dramatic capture of the torturer, Montag ... uh, Saddam Hussein, we have all awaited the fate of this enemy of the people. Up next, just in time for Summer Sweeps is Saddam, the Handover. (not to be confused with the House of Hanover)
Excerpt: AP -- WASHINGTON - President Bush said Tuesday the United States will turn over former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to the new Iraqi interim government but declined to set a timetable.
"I want to make sure that when sovereignty is transferred, Saddam Hussein stays in jail," Bush told reporters. He said the United States was working with the new Iraqi government on the terms of handing over Saddam and making sure there is "appropriate security."
Who has the popcorn?
Yes cousins. After the dramatic capture of the torturer, Montag ... uh, Saddam Hussein, we have all awaited the fate of this enemy of the people. Up next, just in time for Summer Sweeps is Saddam, the Handover. (not to be confused with the House of Hanover)
Excerpt: AP -- WASHINGTON - President Bush said Tuesday the United States will turn over former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to the new Iraqi interim government but declined to set a timetable.
"I want to make sure that when sovereignty is transferred, Saddam Hussein stays in jail," Bush told reporters. He said the United States was working with the new Iraqi government on the terms of handing over Saddam and making sure there is "appropriate security."
Who has the popcorn?
Ok. It's Official. I'm Speechless.
Fox News movie review - Farenheit 9/11
I'm officially speechless. And Michael Eisner is officially a dope. If Fox is giving F9/11 this kind of review, imagine the VLWC press...
Fox News movie review - Farenheit 9/11
The crowd that gave Michael Moore's controversial "Fahrenheit 9/11" documentary a standing ovation last night at the Ziegfeld Theater premiere certainly didn't have to be encouraged to show their appreciation. From liberal radio host/writer Al Franken to actor/director Tim Robbins, Moore was in his element.Are you as blown away as I am?
But once "F9/11" gets to audiences beyond screenings, it won't be dependent on celebrities for approbation. It turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail.
As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, "F9/11" — as we saw last night — is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty — and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice...
I'm officially speechless. And Michael Eisner is officially a dope. If Fox is giving F9/11 this kind of review, imagine the VLWC press...
What About Janis?
I've previously referred to the former commander in charge of Iraqi prisons as Brig. General Janis "Who Me?" Karpinski. Well, it looks like Gen. Karpinski is starting to open up a bit - and point the finger a bit higher in the chain of command. But she's still saying, "Who? Me? In charge? Shoot, I'm just a lowly one star general."
From a BBC interview today (and there's an audio link to the interview, as well):
Oh yeah - and who's that guy being escorted into the cell by Gen. Karpinski in the photo above? Wolfo-somethingoranother...it's right on the tip of my tongue...ah, probably just some garden variety criminal.
I've previously referred to the former commander in charge of Iraqi prisons as Brig. General Janis "Who Me?" Karpinski. Well, it looks like Gen. Karpinski is starting to open up a bit - and point the finger a bit higher in the chain of command. But she's still saying, "Who? Me? In charge? Shoot, I'm just a lowly one star general."
From a BBC interview today (and there's an audio link to the interview, as well):
The US commander at the centre of the Iraqi prisoner scandal says she was told to treat detainees like dogs.Well, anyway, what do you expect? Anyone associated with this "war" and the whole Iraq lack of planning refuses to take any responsibility or accept accountability. Why should Janis Karpinski be any different? Like I said before, self preservation instinct, yada yada, yada.
Brig Gen Janis Karpinski told the BBC she was being made a "convenient scapegoat" for abuse ordered by others.
Top US commander for Iraq, Gen Ricardo Sanchez, should be asked what he knew about the abuse, she told BBC Radio 4's On The Ropes programme.
One soldier has been sentenced and six others are awaiting courts martial for abuses committed at Abu Ghraib jail.
Gen Karpinski said more damaging information was likely to emerge at those trials.
Gen Karpinski was in charge of the military police unit that ran Abu Ghraib and other prisons when the abuses were committed. She has been suspended but not charged.
Oh yeah - and who's that guy being escorted into the cell by Gen. Karpinski in the photo above? Wolfo-somethingoranother...it's right on the tip of my tongue...ah, probably just some garden variety criminal.
News from the Happy, Happy, Very Happy Planet
Woof, woof!
I've been reading a little and not writing since the curtain came down on Ronniepalooza here on the Left Coast, in the last moments of the Golden Hour (photographers might check the link).
So either the pressure is on to "produce" (in the publish or perish sense of the word), or I'm healed. Either way, I've compiled a short list of some of the recent glad tidings from the Happy Planet for your reading. Just a sample, and that in and of itself should give pause.
Note that here in California we have the largest prison complex on Earth. And the US is number one now among all "nations" for the per - prosecution and incarceration of said criminals. (dogs) This is that which is done here -- an attitude, a worldview that trickles down, up and sideways in all things governmental, and into our lives through the glass teat (from Harlan Ellison). If they are not locking the dogs up, they are prosecuting them or hunting them down and kicking them like the "criminal dogs" that they say they are. And we all feel so much safer, eh? (Quis custodiet ipso custodes? - which is how my brain remembers the phrase: Who watches the watchers? Apologies to Latin scholars.)
With that in mind, I begin with a short piece from the UK's Guardian. Brig. General Janis Karpinski's statement: here.
Who watches? Some do here.
Since there is always the need to point out to inhabitants of the Happy Planet how their governments are keeping them safe, it becomes daily important to reinforce the fear. The latest from the US DOJ is here: Somali Is Accused of Planning a Terror Attack at a Shopping Center in Ohio (NY Times link). All I've heard on the radio this morning is that the family and friends of the "accused" said he loved "America" and being free here. But you know how AshKKKroft and his gang of thugs are. It's the slammer for you, Bucko! We need incidents...
We continue on our tour... It seems the Pentagon has been "spying" on US citizens. Aside from my initial ho-hum response, I wonder how many people understand how this is connected to all things penal here in the US, ... attached to the rulers' mindset -- them and us. Here is the MSNBC link: Intelligence: The Pentagon—Spying in America?. I'm shocked. Deeply, deeply shocked.
A long time ago I learned a phrase that I didn't really understand until I was much older. It is: All that which is not forbidden is mandatory. This of course applies to us now ... citizen dogs, under the reign of feeble King George II and his group of power greedy sociopaths.
We've watched for weeks now. Abu Ghraib. (William Rivers Pitt: Nuremburg Revisited) The endless spinning of the abstractions -- torture and humane treatment of "prisoners" (AKA dogs). I think the Wizard of Oz's curtain has been pulled back for some time now, and it's really a hive mind wizard I see, with pus-dripping fangs, and skin covered with festering sores... but that's just me). How much longer can normally reasonable people make excuses for them? I must tell you, this is on my mind here a lot on the Left Coast. Understatement has never been one of my long suits.
Finally, I saw a car on my way home from work on Sunday. On the back were many stickers. The first one that caught my eye said: Tree-hugging dirt worshipper. The other was:
I'll be Post-Feminist when it's the Post-Patriarchy! (The driver and passenger looked like late 20-somethings. It made me smile.)
Woof!
Woof, woof!
I've been reading a little and not writing since the curtain came down on Ronniepalooza here on the Left Coast, in the last moments of the Golden Hour (photographers might check the link).
So either the pressure is on to "produce" (in the publish or perish sense of the word), or I'm healed. Either way, I've compiled a short list of some of the recent glad tidings from the Happy Planet for your reading. Just a sample, and that in and of itself should give pause.
Note that here in California we have the largest prison complex on Earth. And the US is number one now among all "nations" for the per - prosecution and incarceration of said criminals. (dogs) This is that which is done here -- an attitude, a worldview that trickles down, up and sideways in all things governmental, and into our lives through the glass teat (from Harlan Ellison). If they are not locking the dogs up, they are prosecuting them or hunting them down and kicking them like the "criminal dogs" that they say they are. And we all feel so much safer, eh? (Quis custodiet ipso custodes? - which is how my brain remembers the phrase: Who watches the watchers? Apologies to Latin scholars.)
With that in mind, I begin with a short piece from the UK's Guardian. Brig. General Janis Karpinski's statement: here.
Excerpt: " In an interview with British Broadcasting Corp. radio that was broadcast Tuesday, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller told her prisoners ``are like dogs, and if you allow them to believe at any point that they are more than a dog then you've lost control of them.''"
Who watches? Some do here.
Since there is always the need to point out to inhabitants of the Happy Planet how their governments are keeping them safe, it becomes daily important to reinforce the fear. The latest from the US DOJ is here: Somali Is Accused of Planning a Terror Attack at a Shopping Center in Ohio (NY Times link). All I've heard on the radio this morning is that the family and friends of the "accused" said he loved "America" and being free here. But you know how AshKKKroft and his gang of thugs are. It's the slammer for you, Bucko! We need incidents...
"All along, along there were incidents and accidents
There were hints and allegations. (Paul Simon - "Call Me Al")
We continue on our tour... It seems the Pentagon has been "spying" on US citizens. Aside from my initial ho-hum response, I wonder how many people understand how this is connected to all things penal here in the US, ... attached to the rulers' mindset -- them and us. Here is the MSNBC link: Intelligence: The Pentagon—Spying in America?. I'm shocked. Deeply, deeply shocked.
Excerpt:"June 21 issue - Last February, two Army counterintelligence agents showed up at the University of Texas law school and demanded to see the roster from a conference on Islamic law held a few days earlier. Their reason: they were trying to track down students who the agents claimed had been asking "suspicious" questions. "I felt like I was in 'Law & Order'," said one student after being grilled by one of the agents. The incident provoked a brief campus uproar, and the Army later admitted the agents had exceeded their authority. But if the Pentagon has its way, the Army may not have to make such amends in the future. Without any public hearing or debate, NEWSWEEK has learned, Defense officials recently slipped a provision into a bill before Congress that could vastly expand the Pentagon's ability to gather intelligence inside the United States, including recruiting citizens as informants.Can you spell "Cointelpro"? ;-) I knew you could.
Ever since the 1970s, when Army intel agents were caught snooping on antiwar protesters, military intel agencies have operated under tight restrictions inside the United States. But the new provision, approved in closed session last month by the Senate Intelligence Committee, would eliminate one big restriction: that they comply with the Privacy Act, a Watergate-era law that requires government officials seeking information from a resident to disclose who they are and what they want the information for. The CIA always has been exempt—although by law it isn't supposed to operate inside the United States. The new provision would now extend the same exemption to Pentagon agencies such as the Defense Intelligence Agency—so they can help track terrorists."
A long time ago I learned a phrase that I didn't really understand until I was much older. It is: All that which is not forbidden is mandatory. This of course applies to us now ... citizen dogs, under the reign of feeble King George II and his group of power greedy sociopaths.
We've watched for weeks now. Abu Ghraib. (William Rivers Pitt: Nuremburg Revisited) The endless spinning of the abstractions -- torture and humane treatment of "prisoners" (AKA dogs). I think the Wizard of Oz's curtain has been pulled back for some time now, and it's really a hive mind wizard I see, with pus-dripping fangs, and skin covered with festering sores... but that's just me). How much longer can normally reasonable people make excuses for them? I must tell you, this is on my mind here a lot on the Left Coast. Understatement has never been one of my long suits.
Finally, I saw a car on my way home from work on Sunday. On the back were many stickers. The first one that caught my eye said: Tree-hugging dirt worshipper. The other was:
I'll be Post-Feminist when it's the Post-Patriarchy! (The driver and passenger looked like late 20-somethings. It made me smile.)
Woof!
Monday, June 14, 2004
TEOTWAWKI*
Listen, after watching this, I'm not going to be able to sleep tonight. A pox on my daughter for finding it and sending it to me.
* The end of the world as we know it.
Listen, after watching this, I'm not going to be able to sleep tonight. A pox on my daughter for finding it and sending it to me.
* The end of the world as we know it.
Ray Charles, Bless you
I was first exposed to Ray Charles in 1963. We lived in Oklahoma, and my uncle, who drove an Austin Healey, was the epitome of cool. He'd come over to the house, and after a round of pinning my six year old body to the ceiling, he would take us for rides in his baby, or, as a treat, he would put Ray on the Hi-fi. Yeah, that's what they were called back then. Uncle John was my hero, and we sat rapt on the rug listening to Ray, all the way back in 1963, and almost whenever he was over at the house the next five years.
I was late to the CD craze. In deference to sports radio and talk radio and being busy as a gradual student and later a career, I almost stopped listening to music for a long time. Then about 6 years ago I got myself a CD player, and began my collection with a four CD set of Ray Charles. Oh, I've got my Simon and Garfunkel, too, and Stan Rogers, Jackson Brown, The Philadelphia Boys Choir, from when I made a large charitable gift in honor of another uncle. (Uncle Doyle was hooked on Bob Wills. He's the one who once helped change a tire for Clyde Barrow and his girl out there in the Oklahoma plains in the Great Depression. And when he and my Dad sang together those old Bob Wills songs, near into their 70's, I never got the sound of boys singing out of my mind.) I have many cherished CDs. But Ray is the sound I keep coming back to.
There is so much to love about Ray Charles, and also so much of his life is a tragedy, with the drug use, his blindness. But Ray gave us a gift that is worth far more than politics. He gave us his soul.
I guess I've got to post some lyrics:
I remember as if it really were yesterday. Uncle John called me a frog as a pet name, but what I remember is Ray's voice, hardly the croaking of a frog. God Bless Ray Charles.
I was first exposed to Ray Charles in 1963. We lived in Oklahoma, and my uncle, who drove an Austin Healey, was the epitome of cool. He'd come over to the house, and after a round of pinning my six year old body to the ceiling, he would take us for rides in his baby, or, as a treat, he would put Ray on the Hi-fi. Yeah, that's what they were called back then. Uncle John was my hero, and we sat rapt on the rug listening to Ray, all the way back in 1963, and almost whenever he was over at the house the next five years.
I was late to the CD craze. In deference to sports radio and talk radio and being busy as a gradual student and later a career, I almost stopped listening to music for a long time. Then about 6 years ago I got myself a CD player, and began my collection with a four CD set of Ray Charles. Oh, I've got my Simon and Garfunkel, too, and Stan Rogers, Jackson Brown, The Philadelphia Boys Choir, from when I made a large charitable gift in honor of another uncle. (Uncle Doyle was hooked on Bob Wills. He's the one who once helped change a tire for Clyde Barrow and his girl out there in the Oklahoma plains in the Great Depression. And when he and my Dad sang together those old Bob Wills songs, near into their 70's, I never got the sound of boys singing out of my mind.) I have many cherished CDs. But Ray is the sound I keep coming back to.
There is so much to love about Ray Charles, and also so much of his life is a tragedy, with the drug use, his blindness. But Ray gave us a gift that is worth far more than politics. He gave us his soul.
I guess I've got to post some lyrics:
I Can't Stop Loving You
(I can't stop loving you)
I've made up my mind
To live in memory of the lonesome times
(I can't stop wanting you)
It's useless to say
So I'll just live my life in dreams of yesterday
(Dreams of yesterday)
Those happy hours that we once knew
Tho' long ago, they still make me blue
They say that time heals a broken heart
But time has stood still since we've been apart
(I can't stop loving you)
I've made up my mind
To live in memories of the lonesome times
(I can't stop wanting you)
It's useless to say
So I'll just live my life in dreams of yesterday
(Those happy hours)
Those happy hours
(That we once knew)
That we once knew
(Tho' long ago)
Tho' long ago
(Still make me blue)
Still ma-a-a-ake me blue
(They say that time)
They say that time
(Heals a broken heart)
Heals a broken heart
(But time has stood still)
Time has stood still
(Since we've been apart)
Since we've been apart
(I can't stop loving you)
I said I made up my mind
To live in memory of the lonesome times
(I can't stop wanting you)
It's useless to say
So I'll just live my life of dreams of yesterday
(Of yesterday)
I remember as if it really were yesterday. Uncle John called me a frog as a pet name, but what I remember is Ray's voice, hardly the croaking of a frog. God Bless Ray Charles.
Uncivil War
This lead article at Salon, an interview with Thomas Powers, offers the most plausible reason for Tenet's resignation/firing/whichever-it-was to date:
Go read the article. The ad this time isn't one of those infomercials. Powers has some inflammable things to say about one of our allies which will surely make our current foreign policy ala torture even more destabilizing, and you can check out information on Sibel Edmonds posted there as well.
This lead article at Salon, an interview with Thomas Powers, offers the most plausible reason for Tenet's resignation/firing/whichever-it-was to date:
Powers thinks one possibility is that the CIA director may have been forced out after Pentagon officials, enraged by the Chalabi debacle, pressured Bush to get rid of him.But that's later in the article. Powers sets up this argument by noting:
The bitterest dispute, though not the only one, is between the CIA and the Pentagon, whose own secret intelligence unit, the Office of Special Plans, aggressively promoted the war on Iraq. While departing CIA Director George Tenet played along with the Bush administration -- a fact which Powers says reveals the urgent need for a truly independent intelligence chief -- much of the agency is enraged at the Pentagon, which put intense pressure on it to produce reports tailored to the policy goals of the Bush White House. The simmering tensions between the Pentagon, with its troika of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith, and rank and file CIA personnel boiled over in July 2003, when the White House trashed the career of veteran CIA operative Valerie Plame by leaking her identity. The move was a crude retaliation against Plame's husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had exposed the Bush administration's specious claim that Saddam had sought "yellowcake" from Africa to build a nuclear bomb.And the next observation reinforces what seems to be common sense:
The struggle between the CIA and the Defense Department reached a bizarre climax a few weeks ago when Ahmed Chalabi's office was very publicly ransacked by officers working under the command of the CIA; the Iraqi exile leader was later accused of leaking vital information to Iran, among other allegations. The abrupt fall from grace of the man hand-picked by neoconservative policymakers to lead post-Saddam Iraq, says Powers, lays bare the brutal turf war between the two sides.
"It reveals an extraordinary level of bitter combat between the CIA and the Pentagon. It's astonishing that the CIA actually oversaw a team of people who broke into Chalabi's headquarters -- which was paid for by the Pentagon -- and ransacked the place. The CIA single-handedly destroyed him."
The collapse of U.S. intelligence and the arrogance and extremism at the top of the Bush administration are also at the root of the torture scandal at Abu Ghraib prison, Powers says. With U.S. troops facing a mounting insurgency from an enemy they couldn't find, Powers believes Bush officials signed off on a systematic policy of hardcore interrogation in a frantic attempt to deal with the problem. He says that while it's unlikely Defense Secretary Rumsfeld gave specific orders as to what type of abuse should be meted out to the Iraqi prisoners, there is strong reason to believe Rumsfeld "issued blanket permission for them to turn up the heat."...Not to mention those insistent claims of WMD that David Kay now considers a "delusional."
Go read the article. The ad this time isn't one of those infomercials. Powers has some inflammable things to say about one of our allies which will surely make our current foreign policy ala torture even more destabilizing, and you can check out information on Sibel Edmonds posted there as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)