Lying Media Bastards: News Archive

December 02, 2004

Burn Baby Burn

While many of us try to be calm, rational individuals, occasionally you run into people so maliciously stupid that you want to whack them with a fucking shovel.

Like this guy, for instance.

An Alabama lawmaker who sought to ban gay marriages now wants to ban novels with gay characters from public libraries, including university libraries.

A bill by Rep. Gerald Allen, R-Cottondale, would prohibit the use of public funds for "the purchase of textbooks or library materials that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle." Allen said he filed the bill to protect children from the "homosexual agenda."

"Our culture, how we know it today, is under attack from every angle," Allen said in a press conference Tuesday.

Allen said that if his bill passes, novels with gay protagonists and college textbooks that suggest homosexuality is natural would have to be removed from library shelves and destroyed.

Let's say I write a book about a talking dog.

Is my book promoting talking dogs?

Is my book suggesting that it's natural for dogs to talk?

Idiot redneck lunatic.

He does make one good point, though, when he says his culture is under attack. He's right. To the extent that his culture is sexist and racist and homophobic and harmful to other people, yes, I want to fight it and destroy it and remove it from the face of the Earth.

December 01, 2004

Le News

Guinea Pig Kids- !!! 1984 meets Charles Dickens. According to this article, New York City's Administration of Children's Services is forcing parents of HIV-positive children to give their children toxic, experimental AIDS drugs. If the parents refuse, the ACS apparently has the power to take custody of this children, who they then take to Incarceration Children's Center in Harlem, and then start the experimentation. Sounds so outlandish that I'd figure it was just anohter conspiracy theory-- if the source weren't the BBC.

The Great Indecency Hoax- y'know how conservatives now act like the Religious Right is the new sherrif in town because of that exit poll which claimed that 22% of voters made their presidential choice because of "moral issues"? Well, according to this article (which cites The Economist magazine, although I can't find the details) this number actually represents a huge drop from the 35% who say they voted based on morals in 2000, and the 40% in 1996. I don't trust polls, but this should be shoved in the face of anyone trying to push the "the Christian Right is back!" idea

Nationwide Strike Cripples Italy- "Millions of Italian workers are taking part in a one-day general strike against the economic policies of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi." I wonder what happens the next day?

Lockheed and the Future of Warfare- the vast interconnections between the Lockheed corporation and the US government, with the eerie quote, "The fox isn't guarding the henhouse. He lives there."

Shopping protesters arrested for 'nothing'- this story really pisses me off. Three people went to their local shopping mall on Black Friday (by the way, when did this term become so widespread? The media was using it like it'd been de facto for decades) for a goofy anti-consumerism protest in which they pretended to be promoting a new product called "Nothing." Kinda clever, kinda funny. Till the security guards kicked them out for violating the mall's soliciting policy. "Soliciting" usually refers to hyping or attempting to sell a product, which these folks were not doing. The mall decided to go with the irritating-as-fuck, knock-knock joke logic that these protesters were too soliciting-- they were soliciting "a response."

So then the mall threatened to call the cops and kicked the protesters out. On the way to their car, the police showed up, claimed the protesters were trespassing and arrested them.

You can read a first-hand account of the madness here.

Buy Something!- interesting critique of the annual "Buy Nothing Day" protest.

Dolphins Protect New Zealand Swimmers from Shark- not political, just a reminder that dolphins rule.

2004 Elections- more reflections on the election by Noam Chomsky. His most interesting point is that the election would have looked amazingly different if either of the candidates had actually dealt with the issues most important to Americans. He then cites some national attitude surveys which claim that the majority of Americans have "Blue" stances on the "Blue" issues, and that those issues are the ones most important to them.

Rocket Fuel in Milk, Lettuce- can someone explain to me how fucking rocket fuel is getting in my food? It's not like rockets are criss-crossing the nation, there are just a few that go up every year. Still, there it is.

Ukraine's postmodern coup d'etat- I haven't been keeping close tabs on the Ukrainian election and fallout, but this article claims that the issue isn't as easy as "bad candidate steals votes from good candidate."

Bhopal a reminder of boardroom bullies- on its 20th anniversary, let's take a minute to remember Union Carbide's atrocity in Bhopal India. An explosion at a shoddy chemical factory killed 20,000 people, and has left the land and its people a legacy of poison and pain. Union Carbide paid the Indian government $470 million, which when trickled down to the survivors, amounted to $300-$500 a person. The company and its CEO were charged with murder in India, but they refuse to face an Indian court. More info at Bhopal.net.

This Time Last Year- another live report from Iraq by journalist Dahr Jamail.

'They hate our policies, not our freedom'- the Pentagon hid this report (.pdf) by the Defense Science Board (which is supposed to advise the Secretary of Defense), finally acknowleding its contents the afternoon of the day before Thanksgiving (effectively burying it). As one might guess, the contents are highly critical of the administration, its efforts, and its rhetoric.

Al-Qaeda a Paper Tiger?- a number of news sources are now claiming that Al-Qaeda is, and always has been, a tiny organization that does not pose half the threat that we all think it does.

November 24, 2004

Mighty Thanksgiving Rerun

Wow, I is smart. Found this old post I made two years ago, and it's still good stuff. So I repost it, and everyone is happy.

Turkey Jive

I saw my fair share of anti-Thanksgiving articles this year, the standard "you are celebrating the genocide of the Indians" pieces. On one hand, they are correct, and it is probably a good idea to get up in the faces of white Americans on a regular basis to remind them (or teach them for the first time) about the aspects of their history that they tend to forget.

But on the other hand, the anti-Thanksgiving pieces tend to knowingly pretend that anyone who celebrates Thanksgiving actually does so because of their great affection for or gratitude towards the pilgrim colonists of the 1600s. Thanksgiving is more or less a forced annual family reunion, filled with poultry-centric gluttony and football games, officially marking the start of the dark consumer frenzy known as "the holiday season." I think that the anti-Thanksgiving writers know full well that to most Americans, the holiday has nothing to do with pilgrims and Indians. So when they lean on the "official" meaning of the holiday to make their point, I feel they are being slightly deceptive.

Anyhow, I found one good critical Thanksgiving piece that doesn't fall into that trap. It focuses on the history of Thanksgiving-- not the 1621 New England feast, but looks at how the holiday was or wasn't celebrated from that day till the present.

1621- "The First Thanksgiving"
November 1777- The Continental Congress declares a day of Thanksgiving to thank God for an American military victory over a powerful British general.
July 1861- Confederate Congress declares a day of Thanksgiving to thank God for their victory over the Union in the First Battle of Bull Run
April 1862- President Lincoln declares day of Thanksgiving to thank God for the Union victory over the Confederacy at Shiloh
September 1862- Confederate Congress declares a day of Thanksgiving to thank God for their victory over the Union in the Second Battle of Bull Run
August 1863- President Lincoln declares day of Thanksgiving to thank God for the Union victory over the Confederacy at Gettysburg
(see a pattern developing here?)
December 1865- President Andrew Johnson establishes a national Thanksgiving holiday to celebrate the Union victory in the Civil War
October 1931- President Hoover becomes the first president to actually make a rhetorical connection between the national holiday of Thanksgiving and the pilgrims

Maybe I'm just a history geek, but I find that fascinating. What we have come to think of as a centuries-old tradition honoring the roots of American society, was more often a series of quasi-religious celebrations to say with joy "our enemies are dead, but we are not! Thanks, God!" The "roots" aspects were inserted centuries later, and by now have largely been replaced by a more New Age "what should I be thankful for in my life" philosophy coupled with shopping and nostalgia poisoning.

I think the important lesson in there is about the evolution of meaning. Stories change, ideas mutate, "ancient" tradition dies and is reborn in unrecognizable new forms.

Lots and Lots of Stuff

Before I leave you for Thanksgiving (and I probably won't, I'm writing obsessed), here are a whole mess o' news links to look into.

Economic `Armageddon' predicted- so says the chief economist of Morgan Stanley. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that that sounds bad.

Some election comments...- didn't see this till today, but here are Noam Chomsky's thoughts on the recent election. His key point, "there is overwhelming evidence that the opinions of the majority of the population on major issues were simply off the agenda, either within the political parties or in mainstream discussion."

The Revolutionary- very long article by foreign policy analyst Walter Rusell Mead, in which he ponders Dick Cheney. Mead sees Cheney as the key architect of the Bush administration's policies, so he tries to figure out what goes on in Cheney's head, by talking to Cheney's fellow junta members, and to the Dark Cyborg himself. What is creepiest to me is that everyone tells Mead not to ask Cheney about his worldview, because he doesn't like talking about that. One of the most powerful players on the international stage, who regularly meddles in the affairs of people in dozens of countries won't talk about his basic assumptions about how he sees the world? That's kinda eerie.

Is Noam Chomsky A Senior Bush Administration Official?- Jonathan Schwarz looks at the article above and interprets a quote from a "senior administration official" about why the US invaded Iraq. If this source can be trusted (and I'm not sure he can), we invaded Iraq 1) to teach other world leaders that you cannot defy the US and get away with it, and 2) because if we took out Saddam Hussein, we could remove US troops from Saudi Arabia, and the Muslim world would no longer be mad at us. Ha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Intelligence on their designs- David Neiwert's musing about the political maneuvering of Creationists leads into a broader look at conservative ideological battle strategy-- predominantly, a propaganda technique called "card stacking." When trying to discern the truth, if you hear a bunch of people from one side say something, and a bunch of people on the other side say the opposite, then you'll probably assume that reality lies someplace in the middle, based on the assumption that these two groups represent equally popular opinions. Therefore, if you wanted to promote an unpopular opinion, it would make sense for you to try to send out as many spokespeople for your opinion as do the popular opinion folks, to invoke card-stacking-thinking among the populace.

The effect of this technique is greatly magnified by American news media's practice of faux objectivity.

Dan Rather Stepping Down- don't let the door hit you on the way out, jackass. Rather's not leaving till March, but now's a good time to link to this song by the Evolution Control Committee, which takes dozens of bizarre Dan Rather quotes and sets them to a jerky remix of AC/DC's Back in Black. CBS threatened to sue ECC over the piece.

More Proof that the Phone Company is Evil- apparently, a number of cities across the US are pondering the creation of city-wide wireless internet networks, accessible to anyone. Verizon is trying to make this illegal in the state of Pennsylvania, because if the people in that state have a free, useful service provided to them via their tax dollars, then Verizon can't charge you $40 a month for it. Fuck you, Verizon.

A Close-Up Look at Undecided Voters- mainly a long quote from a New Republic article. But since you need to register to read the NR version, you get this version instead. These are the reflections by a Kerry supporter who tried to convince undecideds to vote for Kerry. He comes up with some theories about the minds of these undecided voters that are worth thinking about.

Intimidation by Israeli-Linked Organization Aimed at US Academic - a Middle Eastern research outfit is threatening to sue blogger and Middle East scholar Juan Cole, essentially for calling them a pro-Israel organization. It seems destined to become a footnote in "The History of Bad PR Moves".

Limbaugh on NBA fight: "This is the hip-hop culture on parade"- "what I just said is going to be tagged as racist" says Rush Limbaugh of his latest comments, much the way that the words I've just typed are going to be tagged as English. Somehow, Rush tries to argue that the recent incident where a black basketball player attacked a white basketball fan who'd thrown a cup of beer at him, was a thuggish move by the player, and therefore is indicative of hip-hop itself. If he were as "fearless" as he claims he is, Rush would straight up say what he means to say: "white culture is superior to black culture, because white people are superior to black people." Pill-popping cracka.

I do, however, like how Limbaugh points out that NBA uniforms have changed so that they are now in "gang colors". Yes, those specialized gang colors, like "red" and "blue."

Jonathan Schwarz argues that Limbaugh is simply projecting.

4000 Words

BAGnewsNotes brings us a series of photo funnies that I will politely link to rather than steal:

- iconic picture of Bush at the APEC summit

- behind the scenes with Condi (check her feet)

- 2 insane pics of America's brave horse-torturers/centurions (read the caption)

[edit]

Okay, are fucking cartoon devil pitchforks standard issue in today's military? What the fuck is going on?

[/edit]

November 21, 2004

Hate Supplement

Ugh. AMERICAblog reports that Friday's print edition of the Washington Post contained a "magazine ad supplement" that was essentially one long attempt to encourage homophobia among African-Americans.

"BothSides Magazine" poses as a new publication about religious issues, and this particular issue just happens to be about the controversial social issue of gay marriage. Honestly, it looks primarily to be a self-promotional tool for Dr. Derek Grier, the editor (and pastor of the magazine's publisher, Grace Christian Church). Can't help but notice Grier's photo all over this thing, and goodness gracious, it also happens to mention that he has a new book available!

It starts off by trying to make it look like gays' demands for their own "civil rights" is a gross insult to the suffering and struggles of African-Americans in their own long fight for freedom and equality. Then it goes on to repeat tired (and often erroneous) arguments against homosexuality and gay marriage from religious and scientific "experts" (fanatics James Dobson and Paul Cameron).

I could tear this thing apart, showing every little lie and manipulation, but why bother? Their goal and message is transparent.

Obviously, the Grace Christian Church has every right to write and print their nonsense. And they have every right to try to get other publications to distribute their nonsense. But for fuck's sake, an allegedly objective newspaper of record like the Washington Post agreeing to include this shit?

You can read the magazine yourself via links here (most in pdf format), and AMERICAblog (which has been all over this story) also recommends contacting the ombudsman at the WP to tell them what you think about all this:

Mike Getler
ombudsman@washpost.com
(202) 334-7582

November 20, 2004

Crack Is Whack, Boobs Are For Boobs

You've probably seen this one all over the blogosphere already, mainly because we greatly enjoying mocking things that are really, really stupid.

Internet Porn: Worse than Crack?

Our brave Senate gazed into the abyss this week, learning about grave dangers our nation faces from digitized pictures of naked people.

Two of the "experts" quoted in the article claim that "the internet is a perfect drug delivery system", because it causes masturbation, which causes the body to release "naturally occuring opioids", "the most perfect addictive substance." But this is incorrect. The internet is not releasing these drugs, the person's body is. Therefore the human body is the perfect drug delivery system, and must be stopped.

One "expert" labelled these opioids "erototoxins," which is fucking hilarious. Reminds me of a Yippie hoax back in the 60s, when the radical jokesters held a press conference to announce that they'd created a special mix of LSD and ecstasy that could instantly force people to have sex, and planned to spray policemen with it at protests.

But my favorite part of the article was when these anti-porn researchers were asked "what should be done to save us from this voyeurstic scourge?"

The responses were mild, considering their earlier indictment of pornography. Several suggested that federal money be allocated to fund brain-mapping studies into the physical effects of pornography.

Yes, after getting all fire and brimstone on internet porn's ass for hours, the experts didn't call for a ban on porn or internet filters or a tax or governmental regulation. They just quietly said "could we have some more money, please?" And I'm sure that the moralistic Senators making political hay out of this issue will be happy to oblige.

Gotta love symbiosis.

Countless

Feministing.com has discovered a tiny, two-sentence press release which announces that as of 2005, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics will no longer gather data on female workers. This makes it impossible to use those stats to find patterns of gender discrimination across the country. But that's just fine, because sexism in the workplace was completely eliminated in the If We Can't See It, It's Not There Act of 2003.

Why are they eliminating this data-gathering? "To reduce respondent burden." Yes, it's been terribly stressful on today's modern employer to tally up how many men and women they have on staff.

Mega Mash-Ups

Earlier this year, DJ Dangermouse cleverly mixed together the music from The Beatles' "White Album" and Jay-Z's far more recent "The Black Album", to create "The Grey Album."

Now, an anonymous person (going by the moniker "R + P", I think) has created a music video for the Grey song "Encore", mixing together video footage of The Beatles and Jay-Z. It's fun, and the multiple layers of copyright infringement thrill me.

November 19, 2004

Return of the Wingnuts

Back in the late 90s, I wrote an internet newsletter called "NewsWatch", which was a combo of media criticism, neglected news, and background of current events. Over time, I started receiving regular email from plenty of bright, informed people, but from eccentric, nutty, scary people as well. Often, the scary people wanted you to help them spread "the truth" about how Bill Clinton was a spy for Red China, or how we all needed to inject ourselves with some silver-derived chemical to protect us from the terrorist gas attack that would hit in 1998. Once I stopped writing the newsletter (and changed email addresses several times), these letters dropped off.

But I must be returning to form, because these letters are beginning to trickle in again. Nothing quite as loony yet, but I'm surely on my way.

So far, they've mainly been:

- "the election was obviously stolen"
- "Bush was behind 9/11, why won't you believe meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee?"
-"here's my daily letter to the editor of some random newspaper that I've cc'd you and 300 other 'members of the media' on"
- "my impromptu quasi-newsletter email that you didn't subscribe to"
- "I don't know you, but I thought I'd send you humorous political email that you've already seen four times and that isn't actually humorous"

Nearly all of these have a liberalish slant to them, but my favorite so far was from a right-wing source, who obviously didn't bother checking me out before adding me to their cc list.

From: Columbia Christians for Life Subject: Town Council continues fight to pray in Jesus Christ's Name in Great Falls, SC

Town Council continues fight to pray in Jesus Christ's Name in Great Falls, South Carolina

A Wiccan high priestess (witch) filed a federal lawsuit against the town of Great Falls, SC for saying the Name of Jesus Christ in prayers before town council meetings. To date, the witch has prevailed at the U.S. District Court and 4th Circuit Court of Appeals levels, and the town council has ceased praying in the Name of Jesus Christ.

However, at Monday (11/15) night's meeting, the Great Falls Town Council voted 6 to 1 to continue the fight, and appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

This case is similar to the unconstitutional removal of Alabama State Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore in that it involves the tyranny of federal court rulings against the acknowledgement of God in the public square. It therefore marks another step in the direction of wiping out any public references or displays of Christianity in America.

The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." Congress has not made any law law establishing a religion, but the U.S. District Court and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals are, unconstitutionally, in violation of the clear language of the First Amendment, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" by the men of the Great Falls Town Council. The town council has not made any law establishing any religion, but they are, unconstitutionally, being prohibited by federal court tyranny, from the free exercise of religion. This is raw judicial tyranny, and should be opposed by Christians around the country as an attack on Christianity in America.

November 17, 2004
Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
CCL lobbyist
Columbia, SC

This was then followed by the text of a news article about said "raw judicial tyranny" from a local newspaper, and then, disturbingly, information about the "Constitution Restoration Act". This is an actual bill in the House of Representatives right now (HR 3799), part of which would prevent the Supreme Court from examining lower court rulings where the judge's decision was based upon religion instead of law (if the judge felt that "God [is] the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government"). That'll stop them thar activist judges. Or something.

Their letter doesn't mention when they intend to burn the witch, but I presume they'll do it in time for Baby Jesus' birthday.

Actually, I didn't notice the stuff about the Constitution Restoration Act stuff in the email till I sat down to write this. Now my pithy email reply asking if Jesus would rather spend his time on city council prayer or on aiding the sick and hungry seems... inadequate. Although if I'd written back with a scathing retort, he/they would probably get off on it.

Although the letter's lunacy is both legion and obvious, I feel like yelling about a few items:

- Rudy Moore built a shrine to the Ten Commandments and installed it on city property in the middle of the night without asking anybody. It has nothing to do with "public acknowledgement of God", you fucking pricks. If someone installed a statue of a golden calf in the courthouse, it would get the same treatment.

- "Public" and "governmental" are not the same thing. If the city council wants to go to the city park and scream about how much they love Jesus, they're free to do so. When they want to put it in their council meetings, it sorta comes across like the government endorses one particular religion over others...

- I understand that many conservative Christians believe that the First Amendment is supposed to be about keeping government out of your church. But many of the rest of us believe that the First Amendment is about keeping your church (well, all churches) out of our government. See how it goes both ways? See?

I was about to say something about this author being an idiot, but he's not. His signature says he's a lobbyist, so he's most likely very aware of what he's saying, how it does and doesn't work, and he is not as concerned with logic or truth as he is with results.

What is with the paranoia of American Christians? Nearly 80% of the country claims to be Christian, yet they talk like they're a despised minority, having to worship in the shadows for fear of their very lives. Yes, they used to throw Christians to the lions-- like 1900 years ago. Today's Christians now safely work in our nation's zoos and circuses, and churches are plentiful on our nations streets. The President is Christian, his recent opponent was Christian, the conservative Christian party holds both houses of Congress and much of the Supreme Court, and a non-Christian can probably never be elected to major office in the United States.

How can this country be oppressing Christians, Christians are the country, you crazy bastards!

Yeah, that's overly broad. A high percentage of American Christians are not part of this conservative faction. And I imagine that many of this conservative faction would argue that many Americans who call themselves Christians "aren't really Christians." But I think you see my point.

I've got a theory on this ("Jake, with a theory? Never!"). I believe that these conservative Christians have, as part of their theology, a focus on evil. All acts of evil or moral degeneracy are caused by the devil. At all times, the devil is working to weaken you, to tempt you, to make you turn away from Jesus and the Church. This point of view is, of course, paranoid. Perhaps it's simple to go from "the devil is out to get me" to "they're all out to get me."

One of the most interesting theories I've seen on conservative American Christianity today came from journalist and biting funnyman Matt Taibbi. In a recent article in Rolling Stone, he went undercover as a volunteer for the Bush campaign, and after dealing with many a conservative Christian, dished up this little tidbit:

The problem not only with fundamentalist Christians but with Republicans in general is not that they act on blind faith, without thinking. The problem is that they are incorrigible doubters with an insatiable appetite for Evidence. What they get off on is not Believing, but in having their beliefs tested. That's why their conversations and their media are so completely dominated by implacable bogeymen: marrying gays, liberals, the ACLU, Sean Penn, Europeans and so on. Their faith both in God and in their political convictions is too weak to survive without an unceasing string of real and imaginary confrontations with those people -- and for those confrontations, they are constantly assembling evidence and facts to make their case.

But here's the twist. They are not looking for facts with which to defeat opponents. They are looking for facts that ensure them an ever-expanding roster of opponents. They can be correct facts, incorrect facts, irrelevant facts, it doesn't matter. The point is not to win the argument, the point is to make sure the argument never stops. Permanent war isn't a policy imposed from above; it's an emotional imperative that rises from the bottom. In a way, it actually helps if the fact is dubious or untrue (like the Swift-boat business), because that guarantees an argument. You're arguing the particulars, where you're right, while they're arguing the underlying generalities, where they are.

Once you grasp this fact, you're a long way to understanding what the Hannitys and Limbaughs figured out long ago: These people will swallow anything you feed them, so long as it leaves them with a demon to wrestle with in their dreams.

I don't know if he's right or wrong, but it's a fascinating idea: conservative Christians' faith is actually very weak, and needs to be constantly strengthened by exposure to "enemies".

I'm thinking a lot about religion these days. I was pretty much raised agnostic. Near as I can figure, the issue of a bi-religious child was as big a concern to suburban parents in the 70s as having a biracial child is today. To avoid "making me choose" between my Jewish mother and lapsed Protestant father, there was no sort of worship in the house, no talk of gods or creation, and a rather secular celebration of Christmas, Easter and Hanukkah. About my only knowledge of religion came from an illustrated kids' bible at the doctor's office, a few weeks at a Jewish Sunday school, cartoons where Tom and Jerry went to Heaven or Hell, and two years at a Catholic school.

If that last one sounds weird, that's because it is. Long story short, my parents bought into the Montessori teaching philosophy (which probably helped make me the curious, insatiable learner I am today), and once I'd finished up at a local Montessori kindergarten, the only other nearby Montessori school was a Catholic school. At a Mission, no less. 200 years after educating the local Indians into early graves, young Jake went to learn his grammar and multiplication tables at Mission San Luis Rey.

Religion class was on Wednesday afternoons, and my Mom would take me out of school early on those days. But weird religious bits did drift in just the same. I remember Sister Judy taught us that the moon was a star and that the Sun was a burning planet. And one time she lectured us because "someone had smashed a germ on the wall of the girl's bathroom."

Now that I think about it, maybe that had nothing to do with religion, and Sister Judy was just a crazy person.

Anyhow.

Due to this upbringing, religion is strange, scary, kinda quaint and kinda stupid in my eyes. I pretty much see myself as a capital 's' Skeptic. It's hard for me to buy into anything without some decent evidence or logical deductions. I'm not an atheist because just as there's no proof of the existence of a god, there's also no proof of the absence of a god either (although our philosophy major friends say that you can't prove an absence, so...). I understand faith, I understand the idea of being raised to believe a certain thing and accepting it as a given, and I understand that assuming that the universe was "created" is in some ways the flip side of assuming that it didn't need to be "created."

But apart from that, I don't understand religion. The idea of believing the Bible to be true because the Bible tells you it's true simply baffles me. And the idea that your specific interpretation of a religious text is the only possible interpretation of that text, well, that just makes me wanna claw my fucking eyes out.

I guess I have two parallel visions of religion that I carry with me, one occasionally overtaking the other. On the one hand, I don't pretend to understand how the universe works. Therefore anybody's religion could be right, and I'm completely fine with anyone believing in any of them. On the other hand, I believe that one of the only life courses that makes sense is to wait for evidence to believe in anything. Which makes me think that anyone who is religious is being silly. I admit, sometimes this makes me feel superior to religious people. But I imagine they sometimes feel superior to me, thinking that I'm stupid for failing to see how obvious it is that Jesus Christ is our lord and savior and whatnot. So I guess we're even. Maybe.

But today, we're either seeing the return of the Christian Right as a political force (or, believing the hype, the Christian Right is seeking to flex their increased political muscle. Or, the media, believing the hype, is spending more time covering the actions of the Christian Right, making it seem as though they have returned as a political force. So hard to tell these days). And they do not, as I have, a tolerant, "let them do what they want, it doesn't bother me" attitude towards folks who's beliefs are different. Not only are they certain that their worldview is the right one (unlike myself, always doubting, and wondering even if there is a single correct view), they are taking action to change the laws of the land so that their worldview is imposed upon everyone.

Which, sadly, makes the Christian Right my enemy. Not because of their beliefs-- which in my eyes, are nutty-- but because of their actions. Their actions are hurting people, and will hurt even more people if they are not opposed.

But I've also got to wonder if that's enough. Okay, we've identified a group with blatant, obvious, concretely harmful goals. But there are plenty of folks who's religious beliefs aren't as deranged as those we'd call "the Christian Right", but are harmful just the same. General views like "gays are bad" and "women should be subservient to men" and "sex is wrong" and "you are better than people from other religions", are held by otherwise sane people, and they have effects and they cause damage.

And at their core, many of the world's religions are about obedience to authorities and to rules that are imposed from without. Does that mean that I should be opposed to most of the world's religions?

Yeah, I guess it does.

That's always been my favorite anarchist slogan, "No Gods, No Masters."

Grrr

I had been looking forward to today. I'd been planning on taking the day off, having taken care of a week's worth of part-time duties. I got to bed earlier last night than I have in weeks, so would wake up feeling more refreshed than usual. And I'd spend the day relaxing and lounging, maybe having a pleasant meal and taking in a flick. It'd be the sort of day where I'd spend the morning leisurely reading the paper while sipping iced tea on the veranda, if I subscribed to a newspaper, drank iced tea, or knew what a veranda was.

Instead, I woke up at 5am with a massively sore throat and couldn't get back to sleep. So I'm probably taking the day off anyway, but I'll spend it sick, tired, grouchy, and constantly pouring hot tea down my neck to keep my throat soothed.

Well, maybe it'll be okay; when you're sick, you usually feel worst right when you wake up.

Grrrr.

November 17, 2004

Et Tu, TiVo?

I wonder if successful companies will ever learn that if you change your product so that it sucks, people will abandon it?

Like TiVo, for example.

TiVo was a clever product that recorded TV shows to a hard drive rather than individual videocassettes. It had a computer inside that let you tell it what shows you liked, so it would find them and record them automatically. It even would try to extrapolate what other shows you might like and record those too, just in case. And, of course, you could skip through the commericals with ease.

Until now, that is.

As one might guess, TV broadcasters were pretty pissed off that there was this device that let people watch their shows but skip their ads. That's the whole point of TV, to sucker people into watching advertisements.

But TiVo has now removed its ad-skip techonolgy and replaced it with "skip the TV commercial but watch an ad from TiVo while you're waiting." In other words, TiVo has crippled one of its own key selling points.

This pisses me off. More and more, media companies are trying to control the technological devices that you and I purchase, limited their usefulness to increase their profits. Luckily, there are usually ways around these limits, if you care to look.

As if that wasn't enough, all your interaction with TiVo-- the programs you record, the programs you watch, what you stop to rewind and watch again-- is recorded sent back to TiVo headquarters to be sold to advertisers as marketing data.

I hope people leave TiVo in droves.

I'm not too familiar with it, but a non-/less evil alternative to TiVo might be Moxi, which appears to do all the stuff that TiVo does, plus more, plus is Open Source.

Well Said

The National Field Director and deputy political director for the Republican National Committee Daniel Gurley solicited unprotected sex and multiple sex partners in an online profile at Gay.com, in seeming contradiction with the Party’s call for abstinence and positions on gay issues.

There's nothing wrong with promiscuous gay sex, and it's understandable for gays to want to stay in the closet in this homophobic world of ours. But if you hide your sexuality in order to get a job where you try to repress others' sexuality, well, it's open season.

I just posted this because I loved this part of the article:

His public profile [at Gay.com] states that he is seeking "action/sex," is in an "open relationship" and that his partner and himself "enjoy playing together when we can." His private adult profile is more direct, soliciting unsafe sex and detailing more personal information.

Asked if he remembered soliciting unprotected sex, Gurley said, "I don’t remember specifics."

No, I don't suppose he would.

November 16, 2004

Up Close and Personal

Iraq Uncensored

"For months on end, these seven independent photographers and filmmakers have worked exclusively in Iraq documenting US troops and Iraqi civilians, resistance fighters and child laborers, imprisoned women and incarcerated youths. Using varied media and narrative styles ranging from photojournalism to first person narratives, cinema verite and found photography, Iraq Uncensored photographers present insights and subtleties beyond what daily news reporting can provide."

See their photos at the link above.

Schisms

David Neiwert is one of the first folks online I've seen to correctly identify the idelogical voter split in this country (urban vs. rural, not red states vs. blue states) and also come up with some ideas of what to do about it.

I think David is asking the right questions: why do rural folks dislike liberals? How can we change the Democratic party so that its policies include the needs of rural people? This is good, democratic (small "d"), egalitarian thinking.

Unfortunately, I don't think that's the popular set of questions at the moment. I think most liberals are instead asking: why won't those stupid rednecks vote for us? Don't they know we're doing what's best for them? What miniscule, symbolic steps can we take to trick them into voting for us?

I'm being a little harsh, but I think my central cynicism is accurate. Most of the post-election liberal musings I've seen have everything to do with message-craft and vision and strategy, and zero to do with finding out what voters want and giving it to them, let alone actually working with these folks as equals and collaborators.

November 15, 2004

Fun With Headlines

Vice President Has Nothing More Than Cold- yeah, I know, given Cheney's heart problems, pointing out that the illness he has is not life-threatening is valid. But if we play dumb just a tiny bit, that headline is hilarious.

Trouble spots dot Iraqi landscape- when we look inside, we learn that "trouble" means "blowing up bridges", "executing police chiefs", "burning people alive", and "setting the governor's house on fire." I'd hate to see what a "dangerous" looks like.

Tactics

Y'know, if I were an Iraqi insurgent holed up in Falljua (and I'm not), and I heard several weeks in advance that the US was sending a large force to take over the city, I think I'd say to my boys "hey, let's leave the city, let the Americans take it, and then snipe at them from the edges of the city for months, guerrilla style."

I don't have enough military knowledge to fill a thimble, but that just seems like common sense to me. The main power of a guerrilla army is that it doesn't sit there and present itself as a nice fat target the way a regular army does; it can move and split up and hide pretty easily, making any attack upon them difficult and complicated. I think that anyone running a guerrilla army would react this way to this particular US threat. And anyone with half a brain who was running a conventional army would realize this, and not go through with this Falluja-style invasion.

But what do I know?

Fine Cuisine

For the past year or so, I've been somewhat addicted to Mongolian barbecue. It's nothing fancy, just a kind of buffet-style stir-fry restaurant, primarily meat, vegetables and noodles, which is then cooked on a big open grill. The versions I've had are probably as authentic as calling an old car tire "hamburger", but I find it tasty.

I'd like to cook this stuff for myself at home, but I don't know what spices or seasonings to use to get the taste right. My impression is that Mongolian barbecue is largely flavored with soy sauce, garlic, red chili flakes, and oyster sauce, but I know there's some other stuff in there as well.

So to potentially solve this mystery, I thought I'd post one of those "hey, can anyone in the audience help me out here?" blog entries. So if anyone has any culinary knowledge to share, please drop me a line or leave a comment here. Gracias.

November 14, 2004

Moral Mandate Myth

By now, it has become common "knowledge" that George W. Bush won the election because Christian fundamentalists came out in droves to vote for the president. However this is not fact, it's an interpretation of data, and a fairly inaccurate one at that.

This myth comes from exit polls in which 22% of respondents said that "moral values" were the "most important issue". It's fairly telling that the media has decided that "moral values" means "fundamentalist Christian."

But even more to the point, political scientist Phillip Klinker has analyzed the exit poll data from 2000 and 2004, and has found no signifiant increase in the turnout of religious voters. Bush got roughly the same percentage of votes from religious voters in 2004 as he did in 2000.

So where was the increase?

Rich people.

Which makes plenty of sense. Maybe some rich folks voted for Bush in 2000, figuring he'd serve their interests better than Gore. But after 4 years, Bush truly proved himself, so it seems many more rich folks turned out for that reason.

Unfortunately, everyone is running with the "rise of the Fundamentalists" myth. Either fundamentalists are believing the hype, or the media is suddenly deciding to cover them more, but these conservative Christians are trying to exert their influence on Bush since Nov 2:

- some pro-life folks are complaining that Bush's choice for new attorney general isn't conservative enough.

- at the same time, the Christian Coalition is praising Bush's attorney general selection.

- and now, conservative Christians are attacking Bush for letting Dick Cheney's daughter "flaunt her homosexuality"... whatever that means.

I feel like it's the 80s all over again, with an all new Moral Majority. And once again, they're going to try to save us from the "oppression" of the liberals by forcing their version of morality on everyone else.

November 13, 2004

Housekeeping

- Some of you have started noticing the "comment spam." People create software that automatically posts ads in any and all available comment sections of blogs. I use a plug-in that prevents most of it (MT-Blacklist, I highly recommend it if you have Moveable Type-based blog), but some ads get through. To give you an idea of how bad the problem is, MT-B blocked over 300 spam comments TODAY. And it's only about 4pm by me. About 5-10 got through and I had to delete them by hand and add them to the prohibido list.

If it got worse, I would try to institute a comments system like the one they have at pandadon.net, where there's one extra entry blank where you have to enter a randomly-generated string of numbers that appears in each comment window.

But yeah, it's fucking infuriating. I put a lot of work into this blog as a public service, and destructive anonymous motherfuckers want to turn it into a wasteland of viagra and online casino ads.

Even worse, Tiny Revolution points out the most irritating new trend in blog spam: comment spam that advertises websites that don't even work!

- Some of you saw the alternate George Bush LMB logo I had up last week. I mostly stole that from this poster from the Obey-Giant guy. And some months before that, I also put up a temporary new logo based on the cult sci-fi movie They Live. It's just kinda fun to switch things up a bit without warning. If anyone would like to create some more fun alternate LMB logos, feel free to send em my way.

- Would anyone be interested in LMB t-shirts? I could make a silkscreen pretty easy and ink the logo (it'd have to be changed slightly to be one color) onto clothing.

November 11, 2004

The First Rule of Craigs List...

This personal ad rules.

November 09, 2004

Cavalcade of News and Opinion

US ready to put weapons in space- it is generally accepted among many lefties that the US plans for a space-based missile defense system is really just phase one of an effort to put weapons into outer space. Since the current missile defense systems don't actually work, this seems a pretty reasonable theory.

Unrest Sharply Increasing Through Much Of China- you're not hearing much about this one. The Chinese Communist Party's magazine, which one might expect to be a wee bit biased, has admitted that in 2003 there were an average of 160 "major incidents of civil unrest" every day in the rural parts of the country. And they seem to be on the rise.

Protestors Put Iraq Privatisation on Trial - Naomi Klein to Give Evidence- interesting one. Back in April, two British activists interrupted the "Iraq Procurement Conference," unfurling anti-war banners and lectured the audience about atrocities in Iraq. They were arrested for "aggravated trespass" and intending to disrupt a "lawful activity." The activists are using an unusual defense:

The defence will argue that the meeting was not a lawful event as it was facilitating acts in breach of the Iraq constitution - illegal under the Hague Regulations of 1907 and Geneva Conventions 1949. Britain and the US are signatories to both the Hague Regulations and Geneva Conventions.

As I understand it, if the Conference was illegal, then the activists can go free.

Everything's Not Zen- an article about the corporatization of yoga. You heard me. Yoga.

Republican Election Theft Clearinghouse- pretty much what the headline says. A growing list of links to news articles about suspicious voting events. Maybe they're true, maybe they're not.

Fuck the South- this person is angry. At the South. I love the passion and the humor. I don't agree with all the points, but some nice debunking of common conservative arguments.

Christian Conservatives Must Not Compromise- op-ed from a fervent Christian radio show host. Nice insight into how some Christian fundamentalists actually believe that liberals are Evil, determined to destroy civilization.

They voted for this mess- Daily Kos regular "mg_65" emailed this essay/letter to blogger Steve Gilliard, who then posted it on his site. It begins as a few sad stories about poor American women on the verge of poverty who chose to vote for Bush because of his "values" (or worse, one "because her pastor told her to vote for him"). The letter then morphs into an angry rant against conservatives--the stupid, the common, and the vicious--and the idea of making peace with them. The author argues that these conservatives aren't being tricked into voting against their interests, he claims that they would rather vote to hurt others than to help themselves. It's long and it's angry and it's rambling, but somehow I feel that it's worth reading.

Which Old Witch?

Wow. John Ashcroft, Attorney General and Grand Inquisitor, is resigning. I think that someone at the Associated Press must have a sense of humor, because they chose to pair their article on the subject with an old file photo of Ashcroft standing in front of the famed naked Spirit of Justice statue that Ashcroft had hidden away. So symbolic of... everything, really.

Part of Ashcroft's resignation letter that will be quoted derisively by all liberals everywhere:

"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved."

Somebody better tell Batman.

I'm not going to make much of that quote, because it has to be taken out of context. It just has to.

[edit]

Okay, I guess it wasn't.

[/edit]

But don't rejoice yet. While Ashcroft was an incompetent religious zealot, we don't know who will take his place. It's possible that the new guy could be just as bad, or worse.

Me, I'm hoping they replace him with the dead guy he lost his Senate seat to.

November 08, 2004

From the 101st Armored Hatter Brigade

"The enemy has got a face. He's called Satan. He's in Fallujah and we're going to destroy him."

- Col. Gary Brandl, United States Marine Corps

[via A Tiny Revolution]

Last Election Post

So what the hell happened in this election? Let's break it down as best we can.

First of all, I want to point out the people who weren't allowed to vote. In many states, there are laws preventing ex-cons from voting. I have yet to heard a good explanation for this (aren't we always saying that someone who's gone to prison has "paid their debt to society"?), and it seems to have come out of the same sets of laws passed after the Civil War that were intended to prohibit African-Americans from voting (ah, voter suppression, as American as apple pie and cross-burning). Regardless of their intent, these laws do disproportionately deprive African-Americans of their voting rights: about 13% of African-American men can't vote, about 8% of all African-Americans can't vote. All told 4.7 million Americans can't vote because of these felony disenfranchisement laws.

Then we see another 40% of Americans who can legally vote but did not vote. I think this figure is extremely important to keep in mind, but most pundits aren't bothering to. They keep acting as though the results of the election accurately reflect the ideological mindset of the country. "51% of Americans support President Bush," they say. No they don't, jackass. You can only say with certainty that about 31% of Americans (who are eligible to vote) support President Bush (or possibly don't support him, but disliked John Kerry). Maybe 31% support him, maybe 71% support him. We don't know, because we know very little about the non-voting folks. So pundits, get your damn facts straight.

Now let's look at all this Red State/Blue State bullshit. It's become conventional wisdom that the country is geographically split by ideology, with "blue" Democratic coasts and a "red" Republican middle. You can understand why media folks want to hold on to this idea, it's very simple and appealing. And wrong, but hey, if everyone else is saying it, you're not going to get in trouble for saying the same thing, right?

Here's what I'm trying to say: check out the helpful maps here. Let's look at Texas. On the state map, it's solid red. When you look at the breakdown by county (scroll down, second map on the page), we see that a number of counties voted for John Kerry. And when we look at the voting percentages, we see that 38% of the voters favored Kerry. That's not a "red" state, that's a state with a lot of Democrats but even more Republicans. The media's lazy charade in which states are solid color blocks, borders on irresponsible.

[edit]

Here's what I'm talking about.

Instead of going straight red-blue, this map marks how strongly each county supported Bush or Kerry. Not much red, not much blue, lots and lots of purple.

[/edit]

There, wanted to get those things out of the way. Now I can finally start talking about what I think happened this election.

The popular explanation of this election is that the Republicans mobilized religious conservatives to vote by putting Gay Marriage Ban referendums on many state ballots across the country. The evidence for this comes from exit polls in which 22% of respondents said that their number one concern when voting was "morality" (well, that and Karl Rove's public admissions that this was his strategy). First of all, I don't trust these polls. And second, saying that you're concerned with morals doesn't necessarily translate into "I wanted to vote down gay marriage."

That being said, it seems likely that these referendums did have an impact. At the very least, it made the voters in those areas think a bit more about their social values, and at most, turned the election into a referendum on whether or not that individual voter approves of homosexuality. And for the most part, Americans are very homophobic. This gay referendum tactic was also clever in that it played on the one inroad that Republicans have to ethnic minorities: religion. African-Americans and latinos are often devoted Christians, which often leads to conservative social values.

I think the biggest problem in analyzing the election is that commentators want to find a "magic bullet." They want to say that the nation loves Bush, or that Kerry should've used Strategy Z or that everyone just voted for Bush because they're scared of terrorism. Of course, people make their decisions based upon different criteria. Some people probably focus on candidates' policies and how it will effect that voter specifically, others will look at the best policies for society. Some will simply vote their party affiliation. Some will vote for the candidate they think seems most trustworthy. Some will vote for the person they think will make America look best. Some will vote for the person who they think will be the best leader. And of course, most people probably have not analyzed the way that they are making this decision, so you couldn't even ask them to find out. There is no one way to vote, but saying that won't get you a seat on the cable news talk shows.

It seems to me that the biggest predictor of a person's vote is whether they live in an urban area or a rural area. Check the second and third maps on this page to see that the rural areas (most of the United States) tend to have more Republican voters, while the urban areas (the coasts, the Northeast, and along the Mississippi River) tend to have more Democratic voters.

I'd say that if someone really wanted to understand the American political landscape, they'd first have to try to get a handle on the political views of non-voters. Not asking them "why didn't you vote?" as much as trying to see how they feel about various political issues. They could very well be strongly liberal or conservative, but just feel that voting doesn't make a difference. If you want to know what America thinks, you really need to tap into that mystery 40%.

After that, I think I'd try to interview folks in both rural and ubran areas, both Bush and Kerry voters, and try to get them to explain how they made their decisions. Then you could compare the responses of the urban and rural Democrats and the urban and rural Republicans and start looking for patterns.

But that's all the nice quasi-academic stuff. The core of this election was Bush himself. Bush ran on his public image rather than his record or his policies, and Kerry ran on a "Bush is doing it wrong" platform. I think your average Jo(e) would have, over the course of four years, gotten a clear image of Bush (whether that image is true or a fraud), and didn't think that Bush was doing things so badly that he should be thrown out (I think most Americans don't watch enough news to really fathom how badly Bush has fucked up the nation and world). I think that some voters are still afraid of terrorism and feel that Bush is a "strong leader" in the sense that if you were in a fort and were being attacked, that Bush would be a good guy to put in charge of the effort to fight back (this would be for people who bought into Bush's false image. I don't think he would fight the good fight in a fort siege, I think he'd be the guy who'd volunteer to go get another barrel of gun powder, and then hide in the storage room until the fighting stopped). Despite Kerry's military service, his image was never one of "good fort leader". He might be a good guy to run the fort before the attack began, but afterwards people would want the passionate fighter that Bush pretends to be.

Sadly, this election has made me fear that maybe there are so many Christian fundamentalists in this country that they can actually start acheving their goals of changing the government and culture to fit their own kooky interpretation of the Bible. I've usually been a very tolerant agnostic, but these election reults make me wonder if religion is my enemy.

And to everyone who voted for those No Gay Marriage propositions, fuck all y'all. You took your belief that some people are less human than others and made it law.

November 03, 2004

Wrap-Up

Well, we've got possibly contradictory conclusions. John Kerry has gone ahead and conceded the election to Bush. But in the last post, commenter "johnk" (no relation) says that he worked at a polling station yesterday and that 10% of their ballots were provisional, and wouldn't be counted until later. He wonders how many other ballots are as-yet uncounted. Would it make a difference? And if it did, how legally binding is Kerry's concession?

Anyhow. I'll work on the assumption that Kerry lost.

I swear I heard Kerry and Edwards talk a lot about not giving up until every ballot is counted, but I saw the news about Kerry's concession before CNN had even finished filling out its electoral map. Reminded me of the saying of old labor organizer Big Bill Haywood: "A liberal is the guy who leaves the room when a fight starts."

[update]

Investigative journalist Greg Palast is claiming that Kerry won. He argues that if shoddy voting machines in African-American and latino districts in Ohio and New Mexico hadn't spoiled so many of those people's votes, that Kerry would have won those two states and therefore the election. I don't know if his numbers add up properly, but there is evidence that districts with large African-American populations tend to have more ballots deemed "spoiled". But since Kerry seems unlikely to investigate this issue, it seems that Bush is likely to remain the president-elect whether Palast is right or not.

[/update]

I want to point out that there seems to be a myth going around that young people did not come out to vote. They did. According to The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), 4.6 million more young voters turned out in 2004 than did in 2000, an increase of more than 9% (up about 13% in battleground states). I mention this because I've seen a few liberal sites bashing young adults for "losing the election" for Kerry. Hey, pundits! Leave them kids alone!

Also, it looks like conservatives are claiming that they and their agenda now have a "mandate". The term usually implies that you have won by such a significant amount, that the vast, vast majority of people support you. However, only 60% of the electorate showed up to the polls, and only 51% of them voted for Bush. So even being generous, the election only shows about 31% of the people behind the president. Quite honestly, the "don't care much one way or the other crowd" has the closest thing to a mandate

I'll admit, at one point I looked at the numbers and saw like 52 million Americans, more than half the voters, saying that they wanted George W. Bush and his crazy wars and his idiocy and his corporate plundering, and I thought "why should I care? If this is what Americans want, why should I make any effort to fight it?" It was bitterness, really, a feeling of "let this fuckers reap what they sow. Let them get what they deserve," aimed at all of these mindless Bush voters. But then I realized that while the American warlords are going to rain hell upon 250+ million Americans in the years to come, they are also going to run roughshod over the other 6 billion or so people on Earth. Opposing Bush, and the neocons, and the corrupt system that was here long before they set foot in the Oval Office, is necessary if we really care about the people of the world.

And I do.

So, everyone asks, what do we do now?

I'd say first thing, everybody take a breather. Take a day, take a few days, and don't worry about politics so much. Relax, see some friends, meditate, take a trip, get drunk, do whatever you need to do to unwind a bit, and get a little peace and perspective. You've earned that. And frankly, you probably need that right now.

Second, don't beat yourself up over this. Maybe you campaigned for Kerry, or donated to the Democrats, or tried to talk sense into your conservative friends, or simply tried to get out the truth. Some of you feel like you could have done more, or that you failed. Sure, maybe you could have done more, but you can't change what's past. You can learn from your mistakes (if indeed you made any at all), but it's best to not wallow in them. And as for failure, you only fail if this election is the endpoint of your politically active life. If your goal was solely to get John Kerry elected and then be done with it, then yes, maybe you did fail. But if your goal is to make a better world for everybody, then this was a setback on what will be a long and twisted journey.

After that, I suppose you have to do some thinking about what's happened, some thinking about what you want to happen, and some thinking about how to get there from here, sociopolitically speaking. That first bit I can help with. The second two are up to you. We can see just from the comments in some of my recent posts that y'all have got a wide spectrum of goals, ranging from getting Democrats in office, to building third parties, to reforming the electoral system, to some sort of radical rejection of all nearly all mainstream American policies. Frankly, I believe in the latter, but I'm not going to push that on anybody right now.

I'll post an article tomorrow with my analysis of what happened in this election, and try to explain to some of our foreign brothers and sisters why Americans do some of the crazy things we do.

So chin up, folks. Things are bad, and they might get worse. But our only real choices are to cave in and despair, or to stand up and fight back.

November 02, 2004

Up in the Air

I am pretty baffled about the way that the media is treating this election. Well, maybe I'm not baffled; they suck. But it seems ridiculous to make any attempts to "call" the election till all the votes are counted. "Projecting" who will win is bullshit. Don't call the election based on exit polls. Don't call the election when 67% of the votes are counted. Don't call the election with 99%-- well, okay, 99% of the vote is probably safe to call. But I hate how the press worries more about being first than being right. I'm willing to wait a day or two if that's what it takes to get the facts straight.

I know a bunch of people who are saying at this time (11:40pm Nov 2) that this election is "basically Bush's". And maybe it will be. But given my skeptical nature, I don't feel that this has been decided yet.

But no matter who wins, this election makes one thing certain: tens of millions of Americans are stupid, stupid fuckers.

The Big Vote

If you've ever visited this site before today, odds are you're some kind of liberal, progressive, environmentalist, communist, socialist, feminist, anarchist, radical or hippie. Therefore I probably don't have to convince any of you to vote against George W. Bush. If any of you are regular readers and still haven't ruled out voting for Bush, and my hundreds of articles about the way that Bush is turning the globe into a smoking ball of idiocy, blood and hate haven't swayed you, then I am an utter failure as a human being.

Voting for Bush is like voting for a swift, pointy kick in the sensitive bodily region of your choice. Well, it's actually more like voting for someone to steal your wallet, and then use that money to clearcut a forest, throw poor people in jail, firebomb Damascus, and then lie to you about it.

And if that's what you're looking for, go ahead and vote that way.

What will voting for Kerry be like? Probably like Clinton, except with a shitty economy and eternal war.

October 31, 2004

Halloween Post

I've just posted a fairly long article about horror movies and such here. It's Halloween, y'know. For those of you who hate my non-political stuff, I've posted it separately, so you don't have to look at it if you don't want. I'm a fan of horror, and the desire to write something on it just wouldn't go away. It's also amazing I haven't written more about video games, as that's another fervent hobby of mine. I do need to write more on that topic in general, from a political ecnomoy point of view, as it has become a pretty lucrative medium (I have long included some links to news about the video game industry over in the "Media News" links section), and I should write about where the industry synergizes with others, and where I think it's all headed.

But today, you get fear and blood and guts. Lucky for most of us with internet access that we can usually limit those things to holidays and fiction.

For All Your Righteous Indignation Needs

For all the latest in "vote/Election fraud, vote suppression, voting irregularities, voter intimidation in Election 2004" news, visit Vote Watch 2004. It's pretty ugly.

While nearly all of the items on that page are about Republican dirty tricks, the site does seem pretty objective, not accusing anyone of anything unless there is some evidence (e.g. VW2004 reports on the already infamous fraudulent vote flyer in Milwaukee, but does not accuse the Republican Party of being behind it, like so many liberal bloggers have. It could've been the Republicans, a mean-spirite prankster, or any random racist motherfucker).

What it's coming down to is that Democrats generally do better when more votes are cast, and Republicans do better with fewer voters. Unless one candidate or the other wins decisively, it seems that this election will again be decided in the courts, weeks or months from now.

October 29, 2004

Poster for You

Just a reminder:

To Recap

Bush's "Timeline of Failure"

October 28, 2004

Crystal Ball

So how is this election gonna turn out?

I'm no optimist, but common sense tells me that Kerry should win (in the popular vote, anyway)(presuming that there is no massive voter fraud or suppression).

Last election, Bush got around half the vote, and that was back when people bought his "compassionate conservative" shit. This election, Bush's campaign strategy has been to smear Kerry and pander to his base. The smears do not seem to have had much impact, and he's been hemorrhaging base voters. Some Republicans feel tricked, some are angry or scared about Iraq, some are scared by his religious fundamentalism, and he's even lost a lot of the military vote for his mishandling of a ridiculous war.

It seems to me that to win, he'd have to replace these defecting voters with new independents or convert some Democrats. But he's made little effort to do that-- until this week, saying that he's not opposed to gay civil unions and praising the Democratic party. And starting to reach out to a potential voter bloc with only 6 days left in the campaign... probably a little late.

On top of that Bush has angered so many people that they've registered in droves just so they can vote against him.

If I'm right (and that's no sure thing), the only logical way that Bush can win this is if a) lots of former non-voters are inspired by Bush's presidency that they come out to vote or b) lots of Democrats are so scared of terrorism that they feel they have to vote for the hombre mas macho.

So I think things are looking... positive. All in all, I hope the vote's not even close. I hope Kerry stomps Bush into the fucking ground.

October 27, 2004

Alternate Ending

Was I the only person who was disappointed by the end of the now-famous Eminem video?

I mean, they form an army, they turn a firehose on the cops, storm a government building and then all they do is vote? I was expecting them to physically throw Bush out of the White House or set fire to the Oval Office or something.

The Magic of Polling

[Part 7 in a continuing LMB series aimed at destroying your faith in everything]

Final poll results for the 2000 Presidential Election

Zobgy- tie
Gallup- Bush +2%
ABC- Bush +4%
CNN/USA Today- Bush +5%

You'll recall, Al Gore actually won the popular vote, by about 0.5%.

As the link above reminds us, a single percentage point in a nationwide poll is a little over one million people, and most of these polls have margins of error of 2-4%. Meaning that your average poll can easily be off by around 9 million. Our conclusion should not be "then let's look at Zogby, cuz they're the most accurate." Our conclusion should be "national polls are unreliable and always will be."

Trust in polls will be a hard habit to break. Despite my frequent railing against them, I want to believe them. Everyone probably does. If national polls aren't reliable, how can we ever hope to know what the people in this country really think, short of asking all 290 million of them? Giving up all hope in polls will feel like a loss.

But if we the people will feel a loss at giving up polls, your average journalist will feel like they've quit heroin cold turkey. Polls are the easiest, handiest news-like item that the press world has. It can be a headline story. It can supplement a headline story. It can be the basis of a "trend" story. It can be the inspiration for a pundit show topic. It can be support for either side of the pundits in a discussion. Polls take thin air and give it a science-esque feel, which can then be molded to fit anywhere, like a big lump of putty.

And putty just isn't the same as information.

Yes

Although I'd love to play along with this hoax, I just can't lie to you people.

Earlier today, I got emailed a press release from the "Yes Bush Can" campaign, "an independent group dedicated to communicating Bush policies directly to the public" to announce that their group "has abandoned its campaign and is officially endorsing John Kerry for President."

This sounded like a hoax, and the organization's title was a tad too reminiscent of the activist pranksters The Yes Men. After browsing the YBC site a bit, I did see a few things which looked potentially over the top. Then I only had to watch one of their video clips for a few seconds to recognize the participants from the Yes Men documentary that came out this summer.

Surely some members of the media are going to get this press release, take it seriously, and interview members of YBC. Let the fun begin!

October 26, 2004

Endgamey

Just think! Only one more week until the lengthy post-election legal battles begin!

October 23, 2004

Em Squared

When I downloaded the Eminem anti-Bush track from the semi-official site the other day, I also downloaded a track that at a quick glance looked like it had "Bin Laden" in the title. I didn't expect much, but figured I'd check it out later.

It's later.

Wow.

As political music goes, man, does it blow the Eminem track away! It's like a hip-hop Juan Cole essay.

The song is by Immortal Technique and Mos Def (apparently with a few cameos by Jadakiss and Eminem), and is called "Bin Laden". You can listen to it here (scroll down).

Some lyrics:

Man, you hear this bullshit they be talkin’....Every day, man It’s like these motherfuckers is just like professional liars, youknowwhatI’msayin? It’s wild....Listen

Bin Laden didn’t blow up the projects
It was you, nigga, Tell the truth, nigga
(Bush knocked down the towers)
Tell the truth, nigga
(Bush knocked down the towers)
Tell the truth, nigga

...shit is run by fake Christians fake politicians,
Look at they mansions and look at the conditions you live in,
All they talk about is terrorism on television,
They tell you to listen but they don't really tell you they mission,
They funded Al-Qaeda and now they blame the Muslim religion,
Even though Bin Laden was a CIA tactician,
They gave him billions of dollars and they funded his purpose,
Fahrenheit 9/11, that's just scratchin' the surface...

They say the rebels in Iraq still fight for Saddam,
But that's bullshit I'll show you why it's totally wrong,
Cuz if another country invaded the hood tonight,
It'd be warfare through Harlem and Washington Heights,
I wouldn't be fightin' for Bush or White America's dream,
I'd be figntin' for my people's survival and self-esteem,
I wouldn't fight for racist churches from the south my nigga,
I be fightin' to be keep the occupation out my nigga,
You ever clock someone who talk shit or looked at you wrong?
Imagine if they shot at you and was raping your moms,
And of course Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons,
We sold him that shit, after Ronald Reagan's election,
Mercenary contractors fightin' a new era,
Corporate military bankin' off the war on terror,
And they controllin' the ghetto with the fear of attack,
Tryna distract the fact that they engineerin' the crack.

Dayum.

The only part of that I don't like is the "Bush knocked down the towers" line in the chorus. Everything else is pretty dope.

October 21, 2004

The Study

When browsing the news yesterday, I ran across three different stories with three different headlines:

Thinktank: invasion aided al-Qaida

Think-tank warns of increased nuclear threat

Iraqi forces may need five years to develop, think tank says

Turns out all three articles are based on the same report.

"The Military Balance 2004-2005", by the well-respected International Institute for Strategic Studies, examines the "military capabilities and defence economics of 170 countries", and apparently looks at militia and terrorist groups too. Unfortunately, it costs a chunk of money, so I can't read it and tell y'all about it.

But, given the quotes in the articles above, we can come to some conclusions. Like "wow, the war on Iraq was a terrible fucking idea."

None of those headlines should be surprising. The US invasion of Iraq angered many Muslims and inspired some to join Al Qaida. The US entanglement in Iraq made Iran and North Korea feel that it was safe to work on their nuclear programs. And it might take 5 years to train Iraqi police and military forces to the point where they could keep the peace in their country, and US forces might stay there until then.

Security does seem to be the prime concern of the Iraqi people. But we get a catch-22 there. Much of the violence in Iraq is aimed at the US and US "colalborators", so maybe things would be more secure if the Americans left. But without the US, criminal and sectarian violence might flourish.

Only one sure solution: we need a time machine.

[edit]

Now even former CIA George Tenet says the Iraq war was wrong.

[/edit]

October 20, 2004

Eminem Is a Dirty Smelly Hippy

The rumored next single by Eminem, "Mosh", looks to be an anti-war, anti-Bush track. The song is being released on the new DJ Green Lantern mixtape Sirius Bizness*, or you can download it here.

[update]

Looks like they've taken down the mp3, but you can hear the track in Windows Media or Real Player here.

[/update]

It's not the greatest song I've ever heard, even by Eminem standards, but some of the lyrics are pretty good. My favorite bits:

Imagine it pouring, it's raining down on us,
Mosh pits outside the oval office
Someone's trying to tell us something, maybe this is God just saying
we're responsible for this monster, this coward
that we have empowered
This is Bin Laden, look at his head nodding,
How could we allow something like this
Without pumping our fist
Now this is our, final hour
...
Let the President answer on high anarchy
Strap him with AK-47, let him go
Fight his own war, let him impress daddy that way
No more blood for oil, we got our own battles to fight on our soil
No more psychological warfare to trick us to think that we ain't loyal
If we don't serve our own country we're patronizing a hero
Look in his eyes, it's all lies, the stars and stripes
They've been swiped, washed out and wiped,
And Replaced with his own face, mosh now or die
If I get sniped tonight you'll know why, because I told you to fight

(I guess he's using the term "mosh" to mean get angry or fight back or something?)

We're getting all this political music these days, but I sadly predict that it won't last much past this next election. Unless, of course, Bush is re-elected and continues fucking everything up.

---
* sigh. The title of the mixtape seems to be a blatant plug for Eminem's upcoming channel on Sirius satelite radio.

** This is the 1500th LMB post. Hooray!

Joinalizm

Historicize My Polls, Dammit!- Ezra over at Pandagon brings us more info about the inaccuracy of polls. He shows us the poll data from the 2000 election around this time, and finds that there's pretty much no similarity to the poll info and the actual election results. Why do we pay attention to polls again?

Muslim peacekeepers for Iraq nixed- last month, a number of Muslim countries volunteered to send troops to Iraq to help prepare for the elections in January. The White House refused to go along with this plan unless these troops agreed to serve under US command. Not wanting to be lynched by their own citizens, these Muslim leaders declined to participate under those conditions. So there's no extra help. Good going, Bush.

Should we outsource torture?- a new bill that passed the House of Representatives says that when the US wants to interrogate a prisoner, it's okay to send that prisoner to a country that uses torture when interogating prisoners. Surely this is What Jesus Would Do.

Sinclair Fires Journalist After Critical Comments- round of applause for this fella. Jon Leiberman was the Washington bureau chief of Sinclair Broadcast Group, but when he heard about their anti-Kerry plan, he spoke out against it as an insult to journalism. And of course, they fired his ass for it. We need more people like this guy, who are willing to put themselves at risk to say what needs to be said. Whatever the opposite of a Lying Media Bastard is, Jon's one of em.

The End of Democracy- author argues that the actions of the Conservative Movement (somewhat different than conservatives or the Republican party) are actually destroying democracy in America, but that the Democrats are loathe to bring this up because it doesn't make for a good talking point.

The 9/11 Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket- is the Bush crew withholding the results of a report on 9/11 that will actually place blame on individuals and hold them accountable? If they were, would you be surprised?

The Crazy Stupid Madness

When I wrote my earlier posts about Mary Cheney, they weren't so much about her or about John Kerry, but about what I considered to be hypocrisy on the part of Kerry's liberal supporters. Not a particularly important issue, just a comment I felt like making at the time. Sadly, the American political circus has thrown this "controversy" into the center ring.

Re-re-re-affirming their complete lack of perspective, the media is treating this story like they'd found Michael Jackson kissing Monica Lewinsky at OJ's house. To even attempt to pretend that Cheney's sexuality or Kerry's mention of it is actually important is to scale the heights of insanity. There's a war in Iraq. My friends have no health insurance. There's genocide in the Sudan. And let's not forget that around 20% of the world is literally starving to death right now. I don't care if Mary Cheney is attracted to men, women, or baked potatoes. Her father is an evil fuck, and that's all I need to know. Can we get to the important stuff now?

How can journalists live with themselves? I think if I was a member of the press corps and was forced to take this Mary Cheney stuff seriously, I'd puke twice, quit my job, go home, and cry myself to sleep.

It all follows on what Jon Stewart talked about last week. Not only is Crossfire political theater, but the mainstream news is also political theater. Hell, politics is political theater. And we wonder why half of America doesn't vote? This nation's politics have gotten so far removed from reality, from people's actual day to day lives, it's hard to care about them in the slightest.

October 19, 2004

Jester with Teeth

By now you've all probably heard about Jon Stewart's appearance on CNN's Crossfire. It's pretty amazing. You can read the transcript above, or watch the video here.

It seems that conservative Tucker Carlson wanted Stewart on to argue as a liberal pundit, and that liberal Paul Begala wanted Stewart on to be funny. They both assumed that Stewart was going to play along. He didn't.

STEWART: In many ways, it's funny. And I made a special effort to come on the show today, because I have privately, amongst my friends and also in occasional newspapers and television shows, mentioned this show as being bad... And I wanted to -- I felt that that wasn't fair and I should come here and tell you that I don't -- it's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America. So I wanted to come here today and say... Stop. Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America. See, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you're helping the politicians and the corporations. And we're left out there to mow our lawns.

BEGALA: By beating up on them? You just said we're too rough on them when they make mistakes.

STEWART: No, no, no, you're not too rough on them. You're part of their strategies. You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks.

I had so much to say on this topic that it took me several days to whittle it down into something readable.

Stewart accuses these guys of being entertainers posing as newsmen, and he's right. Crossfire and all the other cable news screaming heads shows are about ratings, about drama and conflict. If they could get away with inserting explosions and car chases, they would. It's about as informative as reading the front page headlines of a newspaper while two guys yell "no, you're an idiot" at each other for half an hour.

Stewart brings up what is becoming a bit of a refrain for him, "help us, news media!" Like many idealists, Stewart reads the writing on the facade and tries to get the press corps to live up to their fabled expectations: to inform the citizenry, and to act as watchdogs on our behalf, forever scrutinizing those in power.

The Crossfire hosts attempt to dodge Stewart's demand by claiming that they're a "debate show," not a "news show," as though that makes everything alright. Carlson then counterattacks by saying that Stewart didn't ask tough enough questions of John Kerry when he appeared on The Daily Show.

Attack and counterattack is not debate, and it does not enlighten or inform us. A show with any sort of responsiblity would look at Stewart's claims and try to figure out who was right and who was wrong. Then, if they wanted, they could see if Carlson's claim was accurate. And so on. But no, we get the yelling.

And Carlson does have a bit of a point. Stewart had the opportunity to ask tough questions of Kerry in front of an audience. But "responsibility" and "opportunity" are two different things. Stewart's responsibility as talk show host only requires him to produce engaging television. As for blowing an opportunity, he's no more guilty than anyone else, professional or not, who had a chance to ask Kerry a tough question in front of an audience.

Carlson, on the other hand has an alleged responsibility as a (quasi-) journalist to inform the public. In reality though, his responsibilities are the same as Stewart's, to create good TV. They're both dancing with shadows here: Stewart is an entertainer pretending that his show has no merit or impact, while Carlson is also an entertainer, pretending that his show is only about facts and information.

The final important point that Stewart makes is about partisans and pundits. He says that he thinks that they believe in their ideological side, but that instead of making actual arguments for why their side is best, they use lies, spin and deceitful arguments in an attempt to win people over. Fuck, if you really think that John Kerry would make a bad leader, go ahead and say so and explain why. You don't have to pretend that your real concern is whether or not he threw away his war medals. But again, we get the latter because it's often more effective persuasion, and it makes better TV.

Stewart isn't saying "the emperor has no clothes," he's saying "the emperor's wearing a clown suit, and he bought it at the same store as Brokaw and Blitzer."

October 18, 2004

Bush's Bold Anti-Civil Liberties Stand

Three Oregon school teachers were threatened with arrest for wearing non-partisan "Protect Our Civil Liberties" t-shirts to a Bush rally.

October 17, 2004

Curtain #2

Journalistic scholar Jay Rosen does some deep thinking about the Sinclair propaganda scandal and asks a key question: is Sinclair a media company with political ambitions, or is Sinclair a political organization that masquerades as a media company?

Rosen discusses a number of ways in which Sinclair has become explicitly political. The first is the corporation's daily segment where the VP of Corporate Relations gets to spout a bunch of conservative drivel and have it aired all across the network. Second is their odd conservative-leaning mini-news program that they force their affiliates to insert into their local news broadcasts. And third, they're willing to lose tons of cash--the company's stock price has dropped to its lowest level since 1995-- in order to broadcast their anti-Kerry "documentary."

David Niewert theorizes that Sinclair might be a type of suicide army, out to achieve its master's political goals even if it is destroyed itself in the process.

What the hell is the Sinclair Group? What is its long term agenda? We best keep an eye on them.

[correction]

Incorrect hyperlink for Rosen's article. Fixed now.

[/correction]

October 16, 2004

Clark County: Global Village

As the United States is the most powerful nation in the world, it can be expected that the rest of the world might be a bit concerned about the results of our presidential election. They might even want some say in the outcome, as it's their world too.

The Guardian has come up with a novel idea on that subject. They have analyzed US voting patterns, and have decided that Clark County Ohio is a swing district within a swing state. And if a non-American sends an email to the Guardian, they will send you the email address of one resident of Clark County. That person can then write to this Clark County-ite and try to explain who they are, why they think voter should pick for one candidate rather than another, and why the hell the voter should care what some mysterious foreigner thinks.

To date, more than 7000 people have requested these Clark County voter pen pals. Will those people write to their Americans? Will those letters have an impact? Could the whole project backfire terribly? Guess we'll wait and see.

Still, a novel idea, trying to get Americans to see the world through the world's eyes.

October 15, 2004

Oligopoly on the Truth

Wow, never have so many people banded together to tell me that I'm wrong, and/or insane.

And maybe I am, I dunno. Wrong, I mean, not isane. Well, maybe insane too. But if both Kerry and Edwards brought up Cheney's daughter's sexual orientation, the most obvious political tactic I see there is an attempt to smear Cheney to people who are homophobic. As always, I'm open to better suggestions.

October 14, 2004

Generic Sci-Fi Dystopia Is Here!

I find this to be creepy.

The FDA has given the A-OK to imlant microchips into human skin that would carry a patient's medial records, and could be read by scanners when held close to the patient. Of course, the chips could be used to store any sort of information, and could possibly be quite helpful. But it's really just too cyberpunk apocalypse for me.

Massive Voter Fraud Yadda Yadda Yadda

Meant to mention this one earlier.

Long story short, a company that was registering people to vote apparently went through the completed application forms and threw out the people who registered Democrat. Highly illegal.

The company's called Voters Outreach of America. They were caught throwing out Democratic registrations in Nevada, although the company was also operating in Oregon. The company also registered voters in West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

The company is run by the former head of the Arizona Republican Party, and received around $500,000 from the Republican National Committee. Did the RNC actually pay this guy to trick Democrats out of their vote?

To be fair, what we've mostly got are a few eyewitness accounts of Democrat registrations being thrown out, and a couple of other shady practices. Perhaps these were isolated incidents? Again, I don't know for sure.

Bottom line is that if you think you might have registered to vote with a company like this, you should probably double-check that you are actually registered. I don't have information on how to do that from wherever you are, but it looks like you can contact the Election Assistance Commission toll-free by calling (866) 747-1471, and ask them how to find out if you're actually registered.

[update]

Kos has assembled all kinds of info about Voter Fraud 2004.

[/update]

The Northeastern Strategy

"I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as."

That's a quote from John Kerry from last night's presidential debate. Conservatives operatives are faking shock and outrage over it, as though Kerry was telling the nation smutty secrets about Mary Cheney's sex life. Of course, this says more about conservatives than it does about Mary Cheney or John Kerry; they think that simply being gay is a dirty, dirty thing.

Liberals are defending Kerry's comment by citing this conservative prejudice and prudery, and saying that since the question was about gays that Kerry had every right to mention Mary Cheney. Which is true, but I think liberals are intentionally missing the point as well.

There are only three reasons that Kerry would have brought up Mary Cheney's name, out of the millions of American gays.

1) He wanted to make the Republicans look hypocritical. "The Republicans are anti-gay yet some of them are gay?"

2) He wanted to make Republicans look anti-family. "Cheney's anti-gay even though his own daughter is gay? What a horrible father!"

3) He was pandering to homophobes. "Cheney's daughter is a dyke? I don't know if I can vote for him now."

I'd guess that it's a little of all three, but mostly #3.

If it's wrong for Republicans to pander to racists (via coded language), it's just as wrong for Democrats to pander to homophobes. End of story.

October 13, 2004

Rewind That Shit

George W. Bush: "Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations."
-Presidential Debate, October 13, 1004.

Q: "Don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?"

George W. Bush: "Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
-Press Conference, March 13, 2002.

[via Political Animal]

[correction]

I originally used a rushed transcript for Bush's quote from tonight that was slightly incorrect. I have now corrected it.

[/correction]

Fun Time

I just posted a new quote to my quotes section, by one Bart Simpson. Which gave me an idea. Post a comment to this entry, and share your favorite Simpsons quote. You know you've got one. Or seventy.

Freeway of Speech

The mysterious Freeway Blogger has declared today, October 13 to be "Freeway Free Speech Day". For those not familiar, the Freeway Blogger is a fellow who hangs clever anti-war signs and banners alongside major freeways in southern California. For Oct. 13, he has recruited perhaps hundreds of other people around the country to do their own "freeway blogging." So far, it seems pretty glorious.

Check out the Oct 13 pictures here.

Update-mania

Jeez, lots of developments on events I've talked about here.

Sinclair

This story has blown up

You've got an ex-FCC commissioner and a current FCC commisioner speaking out against Sinclair.

Pissed off liberals are pretty are mobilizing against Sinclair. Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has written a number of pieces about how you can try to pressure local Sinclair stations. It's a simple matter of finding the Sinclair affiliate nearest you, contacting that station's sales manager, and informing them that you plan to boycott all their local advertisers (and that you are about to call the advertisers and tell them that). Of course, it would help to identify and actually call those advertisers, but I think even just calling up the Sinclair station manager would have some impact. Apparently the efforts are bearing some fruit, as at least one major advertiser pulls back from Sinclair.

Free Press posts a link where you can file a complaint about Sinclair with the FCC.

And Steve Gilliard has posted information about pressuring financial firms to divest from Sinclair.

Folks with a bit of a conspiracy bent are pointing out financial links between Bush administration and Sinclair. Maybe this is true, but do you really think a corporate CEO needs an additional reason to support the business-friendly George W?

Oh yeah, and Sinclair's VP claimed that the people who don't want them to air this anti-Kerry documentary are "like Holocaust deniers". Classy.

All of this publicity could get the Sinclair heads in huge trouble. Legally speaking, the board of directors is supposed to solely work on increasing profits for shareholders. If the shareholders find that this seemingly ideological assault is not profitable, they could can the directors and sue them (as satisfying as that result might be, I have to say that I'm against this set of laws).

Dred W

Here's a little more info on the Dred Scott/abortion thing, with examples of a few more code words Bush has been covertly aiming at religious conservatives.

Afghan Elections

Author/journalist Christian Parenti gives a lengthy interview from Afghanistan, calling the elections "a farce". He talks about voter fraud, the rub-off ink, corrupt candidates, warlords, and suffering. Sadly, the grim predictions I made look like they might be true. Most surprising part of the article: Parenti, a white American, could have voted twice.

October 12, 2004

School Pride

I graduated from UCLA back in 1998. Didn't go to a single football game, didn't own a single UCLA t-shirt, and was barely aware when the basketball team won a national championship.

But I am feeling a bit of school pride this morning. Y'see, ever since I first visited the campus, there has been a Taco Bell stand near one of the outdoor quad areas. Very popular, very simple. I don't like Taco Bell so I never ate there.

For several years now, the Taco Bell corporation has been involved in a labor dispute. The workers who pick the tomatoes that go into Taco Bell products are paid miniscule starvation wages. On top of that, bizarre Florida labor laws prevent the workers from forming a union. Unfortunately, the workers are not directly employed by Taco Bell, but by an agricultural company called 6 Ls, which makes things more difficult. Most big corporations are very protective of their public image, so things like boycotts and campaigns to publicize a company's immoral actions can be very effective. But an unknown agrictultural company can't be pressured in such a way. So, these farm workers have little choice but to try to use public tactics against Taco Bell in hopes that it will pressure 6 Ls into negotiating with their workers.

(I've always thought that Taco Bell was something of bystander in this conflict, but new info posted on the farmworkers' website shows that Taco Bell puts great pressure on their produce suppliers to offer the lowest possible prices. Which means that the produce companies keep prices low by keeping costs low by keeping wages low. So Taco Bell actually has a near-direct effect on keeping these farmworkers in poverty)

Anyhow, I had heard about several universities where students concerned about the farmworkers pressured their campuses to kick out existing Taco Bell franchises on their campuses, but never dreamed that my apathetic, profit-driven alma mater would ever do something like that. But today, I read that the main student government organization at UCLA is recommending that the school terminate their contract with Taco Bell.

Nice work, Bruins.

October 10, 2004

Press Follies

Hannity Cancels Appearance- Fox News blowhard Sean Hannity agreed to give a speech at St. Louis' Washington University to "counter" a recent speech given there by Michael Moore. But alas, it was not to be. Hannity cancelled his speech because although the school agreed to hire a private jet to fly him out to STL, he had had a "bad experience" with that particular brand of private jet. I imagine we can all relate to that.

Kerry Fights Back- honestly, this article is as much about the reporters covering Kerry as it is about Kerry himself. If this author is to be believed, these reporters disliked Kerry and didn't bother hiding it. He claims that they refused to write anything positive about Kerry, even when it was warranted, and that on one occasion that the reporters had taken a "perverse pleasure in standing up to Kerry, in not giving him what he wanted."

How Would Jackson Pollock Cover This Campaign?- NY Times ombudsman/public editor/"readers' representative" writes an article claiming that his newspaper is completely unbiased, and if you think it is biased, then it's just your own passions coloring your vision. Then, he printed the names and hometowns of people who had written critical or angry letters into the paper about perceived bias. That's kind of a nasty thing to do. I probably wouldn't even do that to someone who had written me an angry email about my blog, and I have several million fewer readers than the NYT.

Both Sides Not "Equally Accountable"- I'm loathe to link to Matt Drudge, because he's a conservative smear-monging hack. But one of his recent posts is leading to some interesting discussion. Drudge posted an internal memo from the political director of ABC News, that Drudge is trying to spin as proof of a pro-Kerry/anti-Bush bias. But really the memo is a plea for reporters to stop playing the faux objectivity game.

"Objectivity" is one of my top beefs with the American press. Frankly, it's a marketing gimmick. Once upon a time, American papers were printed by political parties, and were completely biased. Then someone got the bright idea that maybe if they dropped the ideology, they could sell papers to members of both parties and make more money. Objectivity was born.

But modern objectivity might be more accurately called "anti-bias shielding". It seems that most reporters simply want to get through the day without being called biased, and the easiest way to do that is to try write a story in such a way as to maintain a perfect balance between conservative and liberal opinions. "Republicans say this, Democrats say that, who's right, who cares, enjoy this commercial for hot dogs."

The ABC memo refers to lies and distortions made by both presidential candidates at the last debate. Journalists reviewing the debate found that Bush's lies were more serious, yet slapped a "everybody's a liar" type of headline on top, as though all their sins were equal. This is what the ABC memo is speaking out against. It says that

The current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.

and

We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.

Which is my point. Fake equality and fake balance slant the news just as definitively as any ideological bias could. To me, the key part of that memo is that phrase "the facts." Where do the facts lead you? Tell that story. "Bush said this, Kerry said that and Bush is wrong". You can say that, so long as the facts back you up.

But in these increasingly ruthless political times, that sort of thing could cost a reporter their job. Journalists become minor nobles in the King's court, trying to deftly appease all sides so as not to incur anyone's wrath. Which in the end, serves absolutely no one. Just get your comics and sports scores and use A-1 to line your birdcage.

Maybe reporters--good ones, anyway--have to be like all the other countercultural figures. Great artists and rockers and writers often have to follow their passions and create in their spare time, because they simply can't get paid enough as a professional painter or singer or what have you to survive. Maybe all that's genuine has to come from that place that's drive, compulsion, love, and anyone who depends on it for a paycheck risks selling out.

Just a thought.

Southern-esque

The "Southern strategy" was a political tactic made popular by Richard Nixon, in which he could appeal to white racists using words and phrases that most non-racist listeners would not interpret as such. "Law and order" and "states rights" were code for "get the blacks."

During the last presidential debate, George W. Bush busted out with a surprise reference to the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, puzzling many. But, it's apparently a code word of a different kind.

Some lefty bloggers have discovered that anti-abortion forces have frequently argued that the Supreme Court made a wrong, immoral judgement in the Roe v. Wade case, much like they made a wrong, immoral judgement in Dred Scott. And just as Dred Scott was overturned, so could Roe.

In other words, Bush's mention of Dred Scott was a coded message to excite his anti-abortion base. Mystery solved.

With Us or Against Us

By now we've probably all heard a tale or two about folks being turned away from Bush campaign events because they were wearing a John Kerry shirt or something. But you might not realize how common it's become, or the fact that many of these folks are pulled aside by the Secret Service and threatened with arrest. A tad mind-boggling. The link takes you to a page with an NPR audio report. Really worth listening to.

The Freedom Sunrise Spreading Thingy

Afghanistan held its first ever elections last week. It will apparently take weeks to count all the ballots, but I'll be shocked if Hamid Karzai doesn't win.

As Donald Rumsfeld has reminded us, "democracy is messy." For example, according to the UN team coordinating the Afghan elections, around 9.5 million Afghans are eligible to vote. But 10.5 million Afghans are registered. And in a country of 28 million, with many people living in distant deserts and mountains, I'm very skeptical of the accuracy of those registrations.

Second, we've got a potential voter fraud issue. Apparently each voter was supposed to have their hand marked with indelible ink, so that vote officials could prevent people from voting more than once. But apparently, the officials are instead used ink that easily washes off. Are people voting more times than they're allowed? No one knows. Because of this, all of Hamid Karzai's opponents are boycotting the election, claiming that it is not legitmate and they won't honor the results (or, they might possibly be using this as an excuse, as they are all likely to be defeated in the vote).

Then you've got the issue of intimidation of women. Much of the country still seems to hold values in which women should be powerless and invisible. For example, some of the provinces of southern Afghanistan women, who make up around half the population, only make up about 10% of the registered voters. Human Rights Watch argues that this is due to women fearing for their lives and safety if they tried to vote.

And finally, we've got good old warlord intimidation. It seemed very likely that the Men With Guns who are the de facto rulers of much of Afghanistan, would tell their "subjects" who to vote for. I haven't dug around much, but this example of a southern tribal leader telling his tribe to vote for Karzai or have their homes burned down, really stands out.

Is it a bit much to expect Afghanistan to become a smooth-functioning democracy only three years after a US invasion, and 20 years of catastrophic civil war before that? Yeah, it probably is. I'm trying to play Nation-Building Savior in my head, but I'm not sure how one transforms a brutalized land which is still largely tribal in nature, into a thriving egalitarian democracy.

I don't know if the nation's of the world are particularly concerned about an Afghan democracy or the Afghan people themselves. This could very easily be play-acting, so that the world can turn away with clear conscience while pantomime-president Karzai rakes in the foreign aid to assemble a nice, unifying iron fist. Actually, that's what I'd bet my money on. If Karzai can get "Democracy" embroidered on his swell wooly hat, and then work out some deal with the warlords to share rule over the suffering millions, everyone willing to turn a blind eye is happy.

But let's say that you actually care about what happens to Afghanistan, what the hell would you do? Part of me thinks that the UN's got the cart before the horse, working on ballots and constitutions while the country's citizens are imprisoned by Kalishnikovs and burqas. Maybe democracy should take a back seat to food programs and public safety. Maybe a traumatized people needs to get some of the basics down before worrying about self-rule.

But I don't think that's true either. Many of the world's most deprived and oppressed fight for freedom and democracy, and fight hard. Who am I to pretend that democracy only matters when you've got a full belly and a front door?

I think that maybe you can only have democracy if you really want it. Maybe you really are only as free as you fight to be, and you get the democracy you deserve (that might explain a few things about democracy in the US of A).

Maybe somebody ought to ask the Afghan people what they want, and how we can help them. Maybe Father doesn't always know best.

October 08, 2004

I'll Trade Your Cow for These Magic Beans

The pro-war folks have been explaining why we needed to invade Iraq since the spring of 2002. Somehow, a year and a half after the invasion began seems a little late to be a new explanation into the mix:

President Bush and his vice president conceded Thursday in the clearest terms yet that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, even as they tried to shift the Iraq war debate to a new issue — whether the invasion was justified because Saddam was abusing a U.N. oil-for-food program.

This new rhetorical beanstalk claims that Saddam Hussein was trying to use the oil-for-food program to entice various nations into supporting an end to the fierce economic sanctions that Iraq then faced. Once free, Saddam could then begin building a new WMD program and tying helpless damsels to train tracks.

Let's make sure that we all understand here. A nation with no WMDs, no capability to create WMDs, and facing an economic embargo, was an immediate threat that we had to invade immediately (but nations that do have WMDs, the capability to make more, and a significant militant Islamic fundamentalist element, like, I dunno, PAKISTAN-- safe as houses).

You're not going to read anything sillier this month without cracking a Dr. Seuss book.

Really, this gets crazier the more you think about it. How long was it going to take for the sanctions to end? After that happened, how long until Saddam Hussein was able to actually build an infrastructure to build WMDs? And then to actually create them? Some time after that, then he could actually be a threat. The war was kinda like shooting a prison inmate on sight because you think that when he gets out in a few years, and earns enough money, he might build himself a gun.

As always though, this "Iraq threat" debate is a smokescreen. The only explanation for this invasion that has seemed to make even the slightest bit of sense was that the neoconservative faction at the White House wanted to put a US-friendly government in Iraq (and then military bases) as a part of a lunatic plan to maintain US dominance in this oil-heavy region. Some neocons have also argued that this grand scheme would stop terrorism, but I'm not even sure if they care about that.

But I'm guessing that won't make it into tonight's debates.

fearfearfearfearfearfear

This is quite possibly the worst journalism I have ever seen.

There's this unnamed fellow in Iraq who's part of a "civic group" that is making plans to rebuild the Iraqi school system. He had a couple of computer discs with photos and blueprints for several American schools.

But wait, didn't terrorists attack that Russian school and kill a bunch of kids? And isn't this Iraqi guy an A-rab? TERRORIST ALERT! TERRORIST ALERT!

This story is really pathetic. The discs were found by the US military months ago. Homeland Security says there is no threat. There is absolutely nothing to imply that any American schools are in any sort of danger whatsoever, except that a guy involved in building schools has pictures of schools. But why let reality get in the way of a good story?

Frankly, I feel that this story was planted by someone in the Bush camp, as public fear of terrorism tends to increase Bush's poll numbers.

Thunderdome

Love that Matt Taibbi.

[the 2004 election campaign] is turning out to be one of the greatest and most prolonged insults to human dignity the world has ever seen.

It is hard to imagine anything more meaningless, underhanded, vapid, shameless, pointlessly vicious, embarrassing, uninspiring, degrading and even unentertaining than this billion-dollar daily exchange of sneering teenage accusations between the Bush and Kerry camps. And it is hard to imagine anything more galling than the unspoken media subtext of the election—the idea that this slime-fest somehow represents an important moment, a landmark memory, in our own lives. The implication that we're such losers that we would actually want to watch this crap 24 hours a day for 15 or 16 months is almost more appalling than the behavior of the candidates themselves.

Taibbi blames journalists for the fiasco, and has instituted the First Quadrennial Election Hack Invitational, in which he picks 32 of the worst campaign reporters, and will slowly whittle them down to the absolute worst political journalist in the United States. And along the way, we all get to read his ruthless dismemberment of these reporters. It's win-win, unless you're one of these journalists and have feelings.

Go witness the humiliation.

October 06, 2004

Right-Wing Film Festival

Some months back, I heard that angry conservatives were going to stage a film festival. In the wake of Fahrenheit 9/11, they were upset that their voices were not being heard (what? You've got the president, both wings of Congress, Fox News and talk radio. Shut the fuck up. I mean... anyway...), and decided to screen a bunch of conservative films in the heart of the liberal beast, Hollywood itself.

Apparently "The Liberty Film Festival" took place this weekend (although it more accurately would've been called the "Anti-Michael Moore Film Festival"). I found a review of the Festival on movie geek site Ain't It Cool News. I'll warn you, the review's written by a Republican who greatly enjoyed the festival, but still, I think it's worth a look.

Dot Com

Heh.

At last night's debate, Dick Cheney told the country to visit "factcheck.com" for information that he figured would exonerate him and make John Edwards look bad. Unfortunately for Cheney, he confused those crazy internet extensions. FactCheck.org, the site he'd meant to name, is a non-partisan research organization that examines the accuracy of many of questionable claims made by politicians during the presidential campaign. But Factcheck.com is an address that redirects you to anti-Bush advocate George Soros' website. The banner of the website: "Why We Must Not Re-Elect George W. Bush".

[update]

FactCheck.org weighs in on Cheney and Edwards:

Cheney got our domain name wrong -- calling us "FactCheck.com" -- and wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton.

In fact, we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn't profited personally while in office from Halliburton's Iraq contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad. But Edwards was talking about Cheney's responsibility for earlier Halliburton troubles. And in fact, Edwards was mostly right.

It's just not your day, Dick.

[/update]

October 05, 2004

Prognosticating

Okay, what are the odds that Dick Cheney stabs someone before tonight's Vice-Presidential debate is over?

October 04, 2004

Dueling Nutjobs

As a Gen-Xer, I am an expert in discussing and debating stupid shit. It's a sad, sad practice of my generation to argue about really weird topics, usually dredging up nostalgic 70s/80s goofiness from our childhoods ("who would win in a fight, Starscream, Donkey Kong, or a box of Count Chocula cereal?"). For these crimes, we all probably deserve to have our bodies simply chucked in roadside ditches when we die.

But even I know when to say when.

In the wake of Bush/Kerry debates, many internet political geeks are not debating the issues, policies, or answers of the two candidates, but weird-ass conspiracy theories about whether or not the candidates cheated.

Conservative nuts are looking at this video clip, and see what appears to be John Kerry taking something out of his pocket before the debate. What is he pulling out? Fucked if I know, the video isn't very detailed. But a number of conservatives have decided that this mystery object is obviously a stack of forbidden crib notes that he could then use to demolish the president in the debate. Or maybe it was a pen, but if he brought his own pen it was against the rules!!! Therefore John Kerry should be horsewhipped and dragged naked through the streets.

But we must ask: did the pocket work alone? Or was there a Second Pocket?

And on the liberal side, folks are puzzling over Bush's odd "let me finish" comment during the debate, uttered when no one was trying to stop him. Some liberals are postulating that Bush must have been wearing an earpiece with someone reading him answers, and his comment was aimed at the remote reader. The detectives also point to a "mysterious bulge" in Bush's suitjacket, which is maybe supposed to be a transmitter or battery pack. Or, perhaps an alien implant.

I'm too tired to give this much more thought. Like I keep saying, the main things to focus on in any sort of election is what the candidates say they plan to do, how likely they are to actually follow through on those plans, and what are the probable impacts of those plans. Neither NotecardGate nor the Grassy Suit Bulge fall into any of those categories.

October 02, 2004

Greatest Hits

Oliver Willis summarizes the Republican National Convention with this video clip.

October 01, 2004

The Debate

I had every intention of "liveblogging" the Kerry/Bush debate tonight (liveblogging = taking a single blog entry and continually adding updates as the blogger witnesses an ongoing event). But only a few minutes into it, a friend called me. Then another. And by the time I settled back down, I'd missed most of the first 20 minutes. So I cooked dinner, and went to see "Shaun of the Dead" (which is very funny, and fucking genius if you've seen a lot of zombie movies, like I have). Gotta say, I don't regret my choice. I'm sure my still-intact TV and living room window also applaud the decision.

From the bits I caught, Kerry looked, well, presidential. Growing up in Reagan's America, I'm used to presidents who are tall, older, stiff, serious, and in crisp suits. Kerry also had the benefits of seeming very knowledgable, and being taller than Bush (it's a little-known fact that the taller candidate wins the race about 80% of the time). I was also a bit taken aback by Kerry's announcement that he would "hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are." Apparently he's part Predator.

Bush seemed kind of slouchy and snappish. I think my favorite part was when Bush began one of his rebuttals with the "sly" comment, "I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises." Which if I'd heard in a junior high debate class, I would've said, "ooh, burn!", but hearing it now as a grown-up makes me say "are you fucking kidding me?" I'll bet Bush brings a whoopee cushion to summit meetings.

I get really, really tired of Bush's intentional misunderstandings and misrepresentations. "You said this is the wrong war, you hate the troops! You hate the troops!" Or the recent "how dare you risk destablizing global international relations by insulting Iyad Allawi!" 1) Allawi's visit to the US was a simple Bush re-election stunt. 2) Allawi's a fucking unelected thug, not some respected, representative head of state. 3) If Iraq holds elections in January like it's supposed to, Allawi probably won't even be in charge of Iraq by the time the next American presidential term begins.

Kerry might've found a good rhetorical strategy. Say that whatever your opponent has done isn't good enough, and that you'll do more. If Bush argues that we don't need more, he won't find much success; we're Americans, we like "more.". "More" oughtta be tattooed on our foreheads at birth. And if Bush claims that he's gonna do more in his second term, then Kerry's argument that Bush hasn't done enough rings true.

At this moment, the consensus seems to be that Kerry beat Bush like a piñata. As some commentator, I don't remember who, said, it's likely that undecided candidates will actually start to take a look at Kerry now. Not a bad start.

While we're at it, let's end with a little off-site political humor:

Kerry-Haters for Kerry

Satan for Bush 2004 (video)

And, since I just got back from a zombie movie- Bush/Zombie Reagan 2004

[update]

FactCheck.org on the debates.

[/update]

September 30, 2004

To Arms

I think Steve Gilliard is sadly right with this post.

He argues that how Bush and Kerry actually do in tonight's debate is utterly irrelevant to the election's outcome. What matters is perception of the debate. Therefore he is urging his readers to help shape that perception:

You're going to call C-Span Friday morning, write your local newspaper and participate in online polls and say the following things:

"George Bush was completely inarticulate. I still don't understand what he meant about Iraq"

"I am so disappointed in Bush. We're seeing carbombs explode every day in Iraq and he won't admit failure"

"Bush thinks this is about him. Meanwhile American soldiers are dying in Iraq every day"

"Why won't Bush admit he blew the hunt for Osama Bin Laden"

Then,

"John Kerry convinced me he can do something about Iraq"

I think Kerry is better on Iraq than Bush"

"I'm going to vote for Kerry, I no longer trust the president"

"Bush lost my confidence last night. He just falls short against Kerry"

"I can't believe that Bush embarassed himself like that. It's amazing he's president".

As long as you hit the high points, Kerry was good, Bush was bad, and you can no longer vote for him, then you're doing your job. See, the idea is to create the feeling of defection and loss among Republicans. Not the truth, not the reality of your opinion, but a groundswell of movement away from Bush. And if you're in a swing state, all the better...

We're not trying to be right, we're trying to win.

He's right. Conservative strategists have proven that they have absolutely zero regard for the truth, unless by an amazing coincidence it happens to also be the most effective way of destroying their opponents. The press has also shown that they will slant the story according to what they think public opinion is. If they think that people favor Bush, they'll get tough on Kerry and talk skeptically about a Kerry win. If they think people favor Kerry, they'll talk frequently about the president's troubles and his uphill fight. And if you want to be a soldier in this political war, you'll probably want to help shape that perception of public opinion.

This election has about as much to do with democracy as a gang war. It's trash talk and drive-by shootings and mobilizing your loyal troops. A far cry from "democracy as the marketplace of ideas." Still, who do you want in charge of this nation, the Crips or Crips-Lite?

Are there any countries out there that don't suck?

Fake Out

Lots of interesting tidbits in this Washington Post article.

1) "The Bush administration, battling negative perceptions of the Iraq war, is sending Iraqi Americans to deliver what the Pentagon calls 'good news' about Iraq to U.S. military bases, and has curtailed distribution of reports showing increasing violence in that country." Where I come from, we call that "propaganda."

2) "Details have emerged showing the U.S. government and a representative of President Bush's reelection campaign had been heavily involved in drafting the speech given to Congress last week by interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi."

3) The day after the Post made a leaked report about the number of insurgent attacks in Iraq into a front page story, the government announced that it will no longer issue those reports.

4) The "good news" tour mentioned above will be sending Iraqi Americans and former members of the Coalition Provisional Authority to military bases to provide a "first hand account" of what's happening on the ground in Iraq. I'm not exactly sure why being of Iraqi descent means that you know what's going on in Iraq right now (... maybe all Iraqis are born with mental telepathy?), and the CPA folks have been out of Iraq since, what, June?

5) This "good news" tour is being paid for by the Pentagon! Your tax dollars are being spent to tell American soldiers that the ongoing clusterfuck in Iraq is really not so bad.

If we cut through the shit a bit, we see that convincing people that Iraq is A-OK is part of Bush's election strategy. Allawi's trip to the US was not about thanking the American people, but about getting votes for Bush. And this "feel good" tour is essentially our tax money being spent to try to win more military votes for Bush.

[Insert your favorite 1984 quote here]

[Thanks to David D]

We're From the Federal Government and We're Here to Help

Bob Morris is a blogger and progressive activist here in Los Angeles. At a recent meeting he attended, Ban Al-Wardi of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination League described to him how FBI agents are meeting with local Arab and Muslim leaders to teach them to Stop Worrying and Love the PATRIOT Act. Here's Bob summarizing Al-Wardi:

After heaping praise on the PATRIOT Act, the FBI then attacks pamphlets that Arab groups have distributed. As an example, one pamphlet said "If an FBI agent wants to question you, you have the right to have a lawyer present." Well, this got the FBI's panties in a twist. No no no they said, this is wrong. We need to get information fast, so if someone wants to have a lawyer present, this might slow us. So even if what you are saying is true, don't say it. We can move faster without all that bothersome lawyer stuff - so this helps us help you! Aw, how thoughtful of them.

But wait, there's more. Do you fear your mosque might be attacked, they asked. Then give us blueprints to the buildings, including home residences of staff, locations of alarms, and the unlock codes. Are they requesting the same information from synagogues, much less from churches? What do you think?

Ban did skip the 6 hour mock training sessions where you pretend to be an FBI agent breaking into immigrant homes. This is so you can feel their pain (The FBI's pain, not the immigrant's pain.) Sometimes we accidentally shoot someone and this makes us feel bad, the FBI said. No, I am not making this up.

As a lazy person, I can certainly understand the desire to get people to cooperate or collaborate to get things done more easily. But as a non-idiot, I also see that telling someone that night is day and asking them to help me put their friends and neighbors in jail is not only a waste of everyone's time, but absurd and insulting as well.

September 27, 2004

Critical

Last Friday we had the second broadcast of Critical Mass Radio Network. It was very fun, and I am excited by the CMRN's potential.

Basically, CMRN is a live internet audio stream that plays once a month, in which each participating internet and community radio station (most espousing fairly radical political views) is responsible for content for a certain time slot. Local radio pirates around the country then pick up the signal and broadcast it over the real airwaves. I'm told we were broadcast in LA, SF, San Diego, Santa Cruz, New York and Seattle.

Kill Radio had the 6:30-8pm timeslot last week. I arrived a little late, but the evening's programing went something like this:

- excerpt of an interview with writer/academic Cornel West, conducted by KR jazz show host Hassan. I believe he's actually airing the rest of the interview on his show tonight (Monday) at midnight.

- me, talking about the history of radio, the FCC, and the "roads not taken"

- Laura and Hassan talking about local film education/production activists at the Echo Park Film Center

- "agitkid" interviewing Sherman Austin live in studio. Austin was webmaster for the political site RaiseTheFist.com, who was sent to prison for a year on some very shady charges regarding the site. Although I have no skills or training, someone asked me to man the handicam to videotape the interview for posterity.

I think this project is only going to grow, with more stations getting involved, and perhaps enough demand so that it airs more than once a month.

Which leads me to a question. Why aren't you a DJ? Doesn't everyone want to be a DJ?

September 24, 2004

Direct Hit

Go read this comic. You'll cringe, frown and nod your head.

September 22, 2004

You Are There

Juan Cole again brings the goods with a post trying to show Americans what it would be like if the US was in the same shape as Iraq. A sample:

The population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics would have to be multiplied by that number.

Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll.

And what if those deaths occurred all over the country, including in the capital of Washington, DC, but mainly above the Mason Dixon line, in Boston, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco?

What if the grounds of the White House and the government buildings near the Mall were constantly taking mortar fire? What if almost nobody in the State Department at Foggy Bottom, the White House, or the Pentagon dared venture out of their buildings, and considered it dangerous to go over to Crystal City or Alexandria?

It goes into much more detail, and you will probably conclude by thanking your lucky stars that you aren't in Iraq. Go read it.

September 21, 2004

Battle Cry

It looks like many of the liberals out there who care about this election could do with a shot in the arm. They see Kerry's poll numbers and they're scared.

Lemme let my pal Geov do the talking:

This is a war. It's being fought like one, whether or not we participate, and we are all targets. We'd better start acting like our asses are on the firing line. They are.

I don't hate George W. Bush; I do hate what he has done and is still doing to our country and to my planet, and I do intend to do everything in my power to ensure he and his cabal don't have another four years to abuse their public trust...

Defense doesn't win wars. And that's what this is: war, one we didn't start, for nothing less than the future of the country, the world, even. The six billion of us without any trust funds to finance our tickets to Mars are pretty well stuck with this one planet. We'd better start acting, all of us, like no one government, let alone one politician who says he talks regularly with God, has the right to recklessly endanger it and the lives of so many of the people on it. Get angry about it. You should be.

That goes triply for those of us with the privilege and responsibility of being eligible to participate directly in this year's U.S. presidential election. Vote, sure. And register ten more people to vote, or fifty or a hundred, and then make sure they do it. And if you're in a state where Bush won't win, send money or time or people or yourself or all of the above to a place where he might. Use your passion, your brains, your desperation, the fact that THIS IS OUR COUNTRY. Shut his well-moneyed machine down in its oily tracks.

If you were defending yourself, your spouse, your loved ones, your kids from a life-threatening menace, you wouldn't engage in polite debate with the menace. You'd do what was necessary to make sure it could do no harm. That's Election 2004. Your job prospects are on the line. Your retirement. Your future health care. Your civil liberties. Your constitutional rights. Your kids' educations. Their kids' portion of the insane debts now being paid off to the hyperwealthy, assuming there's a natural world left to be poor in by the time these parasites finish any second term. And, beyond it all, it's your city or town increasingly likely to be targeted by some fanatic from some far side of the world who hates what your government did to murder his family...

Act like you're in a war. You are. Every day you wake up, do something about it. You have until November.

Send that to every scared liberal you know.

The Next Big Thing

Hotel workers in LA, SF and DC are trying to negotiate new contracts with their employers, but have authorized their union's leadership to call for a strike, if necessary.

The union and the hotels have been negotiating since March. On September 17, hours after the contract officially expired, LA's luxurious Wilshire Grand Hotel locked out the 17 unionized laundry workers, from one of the union's tiniest chapters, Local 52.

The decision was made by Wilshire Grand manager John Stoddard. He is a douchebag. Apparently, he is hoping to spark a city-wide labor conflict. Why? I dunno, but I think this is the part where the villain rubs his hands gleefully and says "everything is going according to plan."

I fear that this is going to get ugly. Y'see, apart from the usual demands of better wages, the union wants to change the length of the contract so that it expires at the same time as the hotel workers in other cities across the country. And they want that, so that they could negotiate as a single, larger bloc, instead of several separate groupings of hotel workers.

It's like the hotel workers and the hotel employers are playing a basketball game, and the hotel workers are saying "you guys have five players. We only have two. You mind if we get one or two more players for our team?" And since the hotels have millions and millions riding on this game, they will move heaven and earth to prevent the odds from being evened up, however slightly.

If this strike goes down, stay tuned for info on how you can help the striking workers out.

Worthy of Sun Tzu

"At some point the Iraqis will get tired of getting killed and we’ll have enough of the Iraqi security forces that they can take over responsibility for governing that country and we’ll be able to pare down the coalition security forces in the country."

-- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

"At some point, the Iraqis will get tired of getting killed". Now there's some real military strategy.

September 20, 2004

McLibel II

Maybe some of you have heard of the McLibel trial of the 1990s. It was Britain's longest court case, between international juggernaut McDonald's Inc. and two British environmentalists. Long story short, when Helen Steel and Dave Morris were distributing "What's Wrong with McDonald's?" leaflets out in front of one of the stores, the company sued the two for libel. The company planned to quickly crush the two and stop the spread of malicious (and truthful) information.

PR backfire of the year. Since British libel laws force defendants to prove that their statements are true (as opposed to the US, where the the plaintiffs have to prove that what the defendants said is false), thus began 2 and a half years of activists airing Mickey D's dirty laundry in public. Thus the leaflet that probably would have been seen by a few dozen locals in London was spread to millions internationally. Whoops.

The two eventually lost their case (the judge found that some of the things that the leaflet had said were indeed true, but did not feel there was enough evidence to support all of the accusations), but Steel and Morris have never paid McDonald's the money.

Now, Phase Two.

Morris and Steel went to the European Court of Human Rights to argue, essentially, that Britain's libel laws violate the rights set out in the European Union's charter. They want to get Britain's libel laws changed for the sake of free speech, and they want corporations banned from suing for libel because it is in the public's interest that such powerful entities are endlessly watched and criticized. If the court finds in their favor, Britiain could be compelled to change its laws.

No idea when we'll hear a verdict on this, but you know who I'm rooting for.

Where Your Homegirls' At

Sometimes, male bloggers scratch their heads and ask, "where are all the female bloggers?"*-- usually without trying very hard to find them.

Well, there's a list of several hundred of them at What She Said!.

Time to open your minds, fellas.

[via Mouse Words]

---

*"Bloggers" is understood to mean "political bloggers." For some reason, political bloggers like to pretend that the vast mountain of personal, non-political blogs don't exist, even though (as I've remarked on several occasions), the majority of blogs seem to be the personal journals of 14-year old schoolgirls. The What She Said list is huge, and only lists blogs by liberal women, who write about politics on their blogs( although not always exclusively about politics. But who does, really?).

To the Chase

I'm just going to copy this verbatim from Prof. Juan Cole:

Bin Laden Doesn't Care Who Wins

The remark of Speaker of the House Denis Hastert that al-Qaeda would like to manipulate the US election with a terrorist bombing and would be happier with Kerry as president is simply wrong. The Democrats are correct that such comments are a form of fear-mongering aimed at stampeding the American public into voting for Bush out of terror. Indeed, if the US public votes for any candidate because of concern for Bin Laden, then Bin Laden has been handed precisely the victory that Hastert professed to abhor.

But Hastert is just wrong. Al-Qaeda does not care who wins the elections. If the US withdraws from Iraq (which could happen willy-nilly under Bush as easily as under Kerry), that would be seen as a victory by al-Qaeda. If the US remains in Iraq for years, bleeding at the hands of an ongoing guerrilla insurgency, then that is also a victory for al-Qaeda from their point of view. They therefore just don't care which candidate wins. They hate general US policy in the Middle East, which would not change drastically under Kerry. To any extent that al-Qaeda is giving serious thought to the US elections, it would see no significant difference between the candidates. But given its goal of creating more polarization between the US and the Muslim World, it is entirely possible that the al-Qaeda leadership would prefer Bush, since they want to "sharpen the contradictions."

September 15, 2004

Under Siege

Knoxville's First Amendment Radio (KFAR) was just shut down by the FCC, and has had all their equipment confiscated. Details here (get a login at BugMeNot.com).

[update]

More news here, slideshow of photos here. The FCC took $4000 in equipment. The Feds's goal was just to shut the station down, so no one was arrested or fined.

South Knox Bubba, from whom I first heard about the story, posts this [unverified] report from the pseudonymous "ghost":

the bastards came, got a locksmith to let them in (i think???), and even though the warrant said nothing about "Apartment C", they went into the studio room and took EVERYTHING.

both rotation players, the mixing board, all three cd players, the turntable, the tape player, the computer & monitor, the Slink-E device, cables, the transmitter, the microphone, headphones, etc.

look for kfar to start transmitting on the web asap, and my money is that they go back live on air this weekend - with the crappiest backup equipment imaginable.

hell hath no fury like a pirate scorned.

kfar needs your support. go to http://www.kfar.org and sign up for the action alert to stay informed.

Somewhat related, I beleive that KFAR is planning to join my station, Kill Radio in the next Critical Mass Radio Network broadcast.

[/update]

[update2]

I'm listening to KFAR online right now (you can too). I'm guessing that its a non-standard broadcast (since they got shut down by the government and all), but honestly, the show I'm listening to--"Is This Thing On?"-- sounds a lot like my own show (playlist so far: Public Enemy, Interpol, Run DMC, some real old country song, Black Rebel Motorcycle... okay, and now Skee-lo, which I'd never play), except that instead of improvised political rants, they seem to favor pre-written political skits. Give it a listen, see what you think.

[/update2]

Idiocy, Futility and Desperation

Professor says Bush revealed National Guard favoritism- stop the presses! Wake the children! A rich kid got preferential treatment to avoid the draft!

Our Savage Numbness- journal entry by This Modern World blog collaborator Bob Harris. Bob is gloomy because Americans no longer seem to care that the US military openly kills innocent civilians on a regular basis. But the second half of his post is much more interesting, as he recounts how Muslims that he has met in his recent trip to Egypt have felt about America and its actions. "This is true, I swear: we have hundreds of millions more potential friends than America realizes right now. And we are losing them for a generation or more. I promise you that on my soul."

NYC: Urgent RNC Aftermath: Casa Del Sol Put Under A Vacate Order!!!!- I'm not 100% knowledgeable on this one. If I understand correctly, Casa del Sol is a "squatted" community center and garden in NYC based out of an unused, abandonded building. The center has been there for over 20 years. And now, NYC looks like it wants to abruptly eject them from the premises. I'll post more info if/when I get some.

Teachers Lose Tax Breaks for Supplies- fuck Arnold Schwarzenegger. Due to short budgets, teachers are always paying for supplies for their students and classrooms out of their own pockets. Now, due to even shorter budgets I guess, teachers are losing tax credits that offset some of these purchases. From the look of it, California teachers stand to lose up to $1750 per year.

I've got very mixed feelings about American schools. In my experience, the education they provide is 100% dependent upon the individual teachers. The teachers who give a shit and spend their own money are the ones that you want teaching you (or your kids). Pissing on them is the last thing you want to do. Hell, surveys show time and time again that Americans are willing to pay even more taxes than they do, if they knew that money was going to education.

Well, we've got one solution here. iLoveSchools.com is a website that hooks up donors with schoolteachers who need money to buy supplies. Give it a look. If the Kindergaren Cop can't be bothered to support teachers, maybe you can.

Leapfrog- how Afghanistan is fucked, filled with all kinds of upsetting facts. The most obviously jarring figure is that "over 107 percent of eligible [Afghan] voters have been registered to vote." But apart from pending voter fraud, the article discusses the de facto rule by warlords, the Taliban-lite sexism, the lack of security, the deaths, the lack of aid, and the drug-running.

September 14, 2004

Jake at the RNC

[update]

I'm moving this back to the top in case y'all missed it.

[/update]

I've finally finished my LMB version of Jake Does the RNC stuff. You might have read my initial versions at Axis of Justice. This new stuff is funnier, more personal, with more detail and insight, and more pictures (although not a lot more). Read it or not, your call.

I'm still fighting Moveable Type a bit to get the entries to show up as I'd like, but until then, here're the links:

Jake at the RNC: Intro

Jake at the RNC: Day One- ...wherein Jake takes the redeye to New York City and groggily attends a pro-choice march

Jake at the RNC: Day Two- ...wherein Jake attends the huge anti-Bush march, and bears some witness to militant Times Square action

Jake at the RNC: Day Three- ...wherein Jake looks for fellow bloggers, attends Still We Rise, and does not receive a phone call

Jake at the RNC: Day Four- ...wherein Jake misses most of A31, attends a rock and roll concert, and stays out quite late

Jake at the RNC: Day Five- ...wherein Jake waxes fearful on the NYPD, unions get mad and media giants are shouted at

Jake at the RNC: Day Six- ...wherein Jake witnesses a vigil for fallen soldiers, the dethroning of a king, and an internationally-famous dog puppet

September 12, 2004

Shocking Conclusion to TypewriterMemoThingGate

South Knox Bubba gets it exactly right:

Random Reports

U.S.: Korea Cloud Not From Nuclear Blast- this article really needs to come first. Apparently a "mushroom cloud" has been seen in North Korea, leading to fear that NK has tested a nuclear weapon. However it is my understanding that a nuclear explosion would cause such a jolt that it would register on all the world's earthquake-meters, and the world's seismologists have not noticed such a jump. Therefore it is probably some other explosion/fire/accident/something.

September 11 and Its Aftermath- Middle East scholar Juan Cole reflects upon the war on terrorism, and sadly concludes:

Although the United States and its Pakistani ally have captured significant numbers of al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a whole new generation of angry young Muslim men has been produced. Al-Qaeda has moved from being a concrete cell-based terrorist organization to being an ideal and a model, for small local groups in Casablanca, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and elsewhere.

The US is not winning the war on terror. Al-Qaeda also has by no means won. But across a whole range of objectives, al-Qaeda has accomplished more of its goals than the US has of its.

You should go read the whole thing though.

Three Years After 9/11: More than 40% of Americans Still Think Saddam Did It- sigh.

Laura Bush Given a Sex Education Class- When Laura Bush came campaigning in Lewiston, Maine last week, "A group of citizens outside of the church where she was speaking took sex education into their own hands by bringing it to the streets! At one point about twenty women lined up to show laura and the other republicans how condoms work by demonstrating with bananas. The crowd loved it and this creative action we a great media spectacle to get the point across that if our school cant get funding or wont teach sex education other than the bush's faith based abstinence campaign, we will take matters into our own hands."

Video of the protest here

Both Candidates Often Shift Positions- the Associated Press reports that both Kerry and Bush do a lot of "flip-flopping." In the real world, "flip-flopping" is known as "changing your mind," and people do it all the time without being cowards or traitors.

Facing the Copyright Rap- sigh. A federal judge has ruled that every time a musician uses a sample from another song in their own work, that they must pay royalties to the creator of that other song. In the past, it had been legal to sample other works for free, so long as the sample was not recognizable. "We do not see this as stifling creativity in any significant way," said the judges, who are obviously idiots. Rap music is largely based upon taking samples of existing music and mixing, altering, and recontextualizing it into a new song. But no, forcing rappers to pay for every single sample they use won't stifle their creativity. Bankruptcy will.

My Book Is Porn? Sure Did Fool Me- heh. Commentary by the author of the children's book "The Boy Who Looked Like Lincoln." According to the author, the main storyline of the book is that The Boy is "sent to a summer camp for kids who look like things: toasters, bowling pins, The Titanic." The book's punchline is the introduction of The Boy's younger brother "Dickie", who looks like Richard Nixon. And conservative group's are outraged, assuming for some reason that the little Nixon-looking boy (complete with 5 o'clock shadow and tape recorder), is supposed to be A Boy Who Looks Like a Penis. Which really is about as Freudian as you wanna get.

September 10, 2004

The Encyclopedia Brown Distraction

Sigh. The Unofficial John Kerry Blogger Support Team has been tricked.

While it's fun to support Kerry by ripping W for going AWOL in the National Guard, it doesn't really get Kerry any closer to the White House. To support Kerry, you really do need to focus on Bush's terrible domestic policy and his failures in Iraq and the war on terrorism. That's what resonates with the voters.

But at present, the bloggers have blown amazingly off-course.

Not only are they not talking about Bush's true weak points, not only are they not talking about Bush's military record directly, not only are they not talking about documents regarding Bush's military record, not only are they not even talking about the authenticity of documents about Bush's military record, they're debating the capabilities of 1970s typewriters!!!

Y'see, CBS uncovered some military documents from the 1970s which make George W. Bush look bad. Right-wing bloggers decide that the documents must be fake, and cobble together "proof" that they are fake. Their "proof" is pretty much "you can make documents that look a lot like this one using Microsoft Word" and "we're not experts on typewriters, but we think that the model of typewriter that we think was allegedly used to type these documents couldn't make that kind of font."

Liberal bloggers are fighting back (not just the fellow I linked to above, lots of em), arguing that yah-huh, those typewriters could too make that font, no tag backs.

So they're about five steps removed from talking about anything that actually helps John Kerry. And even if the liberal bloggers win this debate, all they've managed to do is get one piece of evidence that Bush didn't fully complete his military service accepted into the public record. Which is something that the voting public doesn't seem to care much about, and therefore accomplishes nothing.

Good work, fellas.

September 09, 2004

Music for the Masses

Does anyone know anything about mp3 players?

A friend of mine made the brilliant suggestion that I get an iPod and transfer my CDs to it, which would cut down on the staggering amount of clutter in my apartment.

But is iPod the best brand? I'd appreciate it if anyone with some knowledge or experience could give me their opinions on which mp3 player is best.

Gracias.

Caffeinated for Justice

Damn. I'm now kicking myself for missing one stop I should have made when I was in New York.

This article reminded me that I should've stopped in for a cuppa joe at the unionized Starbucks at 36th and Madison.

Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration. The Starbucks workers have voted to unionize, but Starbucks is fighting them. I don't know how it will turn out.

That article above is pretty interesting, actually. Apparently there was a small demonstration in support of the union on August 28. And, apparently, the police arrested demo organizers Daniel Gross and Anthony Polanco on various counts of "Standing Somewhere When a Police Officer Doesn't Want You Standing There, and Would Rather Arrest You Than Tell You to Move."

Hell, there's a lot of ugly RNC stuff that's still coming out. here's a story about the erroneous arrests and illegal detentions, and here's an allegedly complete list of the 1700+ folks who were arrested during the protests.

September 08, 2004

Just Say Yes

On several occasions, I have referred to The Yes Men, a group of media pranksters who masquerade as international economists, who then push over-the-top, "A Modest Proposal"-esque solutions to the world's problems.

And now, we get The Yes Men: The Movie, a documentary about the group. Sweet.

The movie is actually getting a good amount of advertising via the net. Did Fahrenheit 9/11 really pave the way for the mainstreaming of documentaries and political films, or is this just a fad? Obviously, I hope the former.

September 07, 2004

New Eyes

I consider myself pro-choice and a feminist, but this post by Amanda has given me a lot to think about regarding abortion. First of all, she demolishes the cornerstone of all pro-life rhetoric so easily I can't understand why I've never heard these arguments before (maybe I've just been looking in the wrong places).

Second, she points out aspects of pregnancy and abortion that we men don't often think about:

- if carrying a child for nine months is a lot of work, isn't forcing a woman to endure pregnancy kinda like slavery?

- isn't the pro-life point of view obsessively focused on the man's contribution and almost totally blind to the woman's contribution?

Good stuff. Go read.

September 06, 2004

Eeww.

"We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OBGYNs are unable to practice their-- their love, with women all across this country."
- George W. Bush

(video here, via Atrios)

September 05, 2004

Spammy Virus Thing?

I have a recent weirdness relating to the site that I thought I'd mention, in case anyone knows what's going on.

I am obsessed with my site's referral log. This is a page that the website owner can view that lists where people are coming from when they reach your site. More specifically, the referral log lists the URL of the page that someone clicked on to get sent to a page on your own site. It's not infallible, but it does give me an potential insight into who my readership is.

I checked the log yesterday, and found over 100 new websites linking to pages on this site this month. I was pleased, but puzzled. That was a hell of a lot of new links, and we were only a few days into the month. But when I tried to track those links back, I couldn't find the links on those pages. A little more analysis showed that nearly all of the new links were from blogs using Moveable Type, and that nearly every link allegedly came from a url like www.jimmysblog.com/mt-comments.cgi or www.jimmysblog.com/archives

Due to the flood of referrals from such pages, the only reasonable explanation would be some kind of software flaw, security flaw, or virus. Has anyone had any similar experiences? Anyone know what's going on?

[edit]

I'll try to clarify. It is my guess that there is some kind of virus or bot exploiting a newly discovered security flaw in MT. It somehow can access most of the .cgi functions of MT, and then either by goal or accident, results in other MT blogs getting new referral hits. Has anyone else with an MT blog seen a surge in their referrals from URLs like the sample ones I mention above? If so, do you have any idea why?

[/edit]

And slightly on-topic, has anyone upgraded their blog to MT 3.1? Is it worth the effort?

September 04, 2004

Putting It All Together

Back from NYC. Very tired.

I figure that since I worked like 8-14 hours a day every day from the time I finished packing to the time I set foot on my doorstep again, my employers ain't getting much out of me this coming week.

I'll probably spend the next 2-4 days finishing my Axis of Justice reports, editting and posting the photos I took for the Axis site, and posting better/more complete/funnier versions of those reports and photos here at LMB. Although the next few hours will probably be some combination of eating, bathing, video gaming, and passing out.

Special thanks to Kittie, Cari, Vanessa, and Lili for letting me crash at their place and abuse their resources, to my dad for letting me borrow his digital camera, to Candice and Adam for carting me to the airport and back, and to Indira for helping me with Axis stuff in the city.

Oh, and does anyone know of an easy method to turn a bunch of digital photos into a nice display of thumbnail images and whatnot? Using Moveable Type or some other method? That would come in handy.

September 01, 2004

NYC Cont'd.

I'm in New York through Friday morning, then blogging will return as usual. Well, maybe after a few straight days of napping.

For those of you asking for who've liked the eyewitness reporting, you can read more thorough ones in my posts at Axis of Justice, in the right-hand column. They're not as open or humorous as my blog postings, because most of the readers of that site are not familiar with me (which reminds me, I need to add photos to those entries...)

But, I mentioned in the last entry something about an arrested activist defense fund, and it turns out that there is one.

If you'd like to donate money to the activists defense (mainly bail money at this point), you can do so through United for Peace and Justice, by calling 212-868-5545 or donating online. Make sure that when you donate that you announce that this money is for "legal support". While any amount would be appreciated, they'd like lots of money, and fast. Some folks were arrested on trumped up charges and are being held on as much as $200,000 bail. There is also talk about some of the immigrant protesters being deported, so getting money in quickly is important.

Thanks folks. More later.

August 30, 2004

Greetings from Lockdown NYC

Hey folks.

I’m sitting in lovely Bryant Park in midtown Manhattan, making use of their free wireless internet access. The Republican convention starts this morning, the protests started three days ago.

First, New York City: if you’ve never been, go. It’s so dense and vertical and international, so amazing that I won’t even try to do it justice in words here (although at present, its most noticeable feature is it’s hot sweatiness. Ew. Only been awake a few hours and I probably already smell like an unwashed dog). It’s the anti-suburbs in many good ways. Why don’t I move here? I won’t rule out the possibility someday, but I’m a born and raised southern Californian, and anytime I leave my domain, that becomes achingly obvious. I’m supposed to live hours away from a beach? I’m supposed to deal with humidity and cold and snow? I’m not so down with all that.

Anyhow, went to the pro-choice march Saturday, which involved activists marching over the Brooklyn bridge for one jillion hours. Well, probably more like 2 and a half, but it seemed really long watching from the finish line. Happily, the best response that the anti-choice forces could come up with was a couple dozen red-faced men and one crazy lady who was belting out hymns or something.

And yesterday was the big, dangerous march that could have (but didn’t) go to Central Park-- dangerous only because I was afraid that many protesters would illegally go to Central Park and get arrested in droves. Huge numbers of folks there, I’m hearing reports between 100,000 and 400,000 in attendance. No crazy police crackdown, thank god. The march went to Union Square and was supposed to then disperse, but instead, it was more like a big old activist picnic, very chill. I won’t pretend that it rocked the political world, but it was enjoyable.

Then last night there were a number of direct action protests near Times Square. Activists learned that a number of Republican delegates were going to spend the night before the convention seeing some of the city’s many plays and musicals, and used this tidbit to confront the delegates in person, huge police presence be damned. Truly one of the ballsiest protests of the convention. Just read a snippet on NYC’s Indymedia site which read something like: “activists cornered Republican delegates outside a Times Square restaurant and chanted ‘right wing scum, your time has come!’” Let that image lull you to sleep tonight with a smile on your face.

But the crazy Times Square actions did incur mass arrests, sad to say, maybe 200-300. And it caused the police to occupy the area to the point that I feared that if I left my friend’s Square-adjacent apartment that the cops might not let me back in.

Other fun development: I might be interviewed on NYC’s KROCK-FM today sometime between 1-4pm EST. In an unexpected development, the station offered 3 hours of airtime to my lefty rock star bosses to do with whatever they like. And what they like sounds like it will include lots and lots of quality political tunes, an interview with Michael Moore, and an “in the field” report from me. Unless plans change, which they always can, of course.

I’ll toss out an idea: maybe some of y’all would like to start trying to raise some money for an Arrested Activist Defense Fund. If our brothers and sisters are gonna take on the evil-doers to their faces, we should try to have their backs.

August 27, 2004

Najaf II Epilogue

Juan Cole has a pretty great summary of what appears to be the end of the second American siege of Najaf.

Historial note: does anyone remember that the uprising, Najaf sieges 1 & 2, the rise of Moqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi army, all began when the US shut down al-Sadr's newspaper?

August 26, 2004

CMRN Debut

As of this week, I'm part of yet another political radio project. I recorded one of my trademark stream of consciousness political rants for the premiere broadcast of the Critical Mass Radio Network, which should air sometime tomorrow (August 27), between 10am and 10pm PST.

To quote the press release:

CMRN is a decentralized network of independent community based radio stations that will broadcast a coordinated signal internationally. The general theme of tommorow's broadcast will be the Republican National Convention in New York and the resistance to the policies of the Bush Administration.

Long story short, six pirate and internet radio stations are going to work together to create a single stream of political audio content for people to listen to, or for microbroadcasters to send out over the real airwaves. The current line-up is radioActive San Diego, Philadelphia's Radio Volta, Radio Free Santa Cruz, New York's A-Noise, Portland Indymedia Web Radio, San Francisco's Enemy Combatant Radio, and LA's own Kill Radio.

To start, CMRN will just create this stream once a month (the last Friday of each month), but it will likely grow in length and frequency as time goes on. I think the project has a lot of potential.

[update]

It seems most likely that my piece will air between 10am and noon PST, but CMRN will be webcasting all day. Listen here.

[/update]

[update 2]

Wow, they launched a new look for the site this morning. Tres dope.

[/update 2]

[update 3]

Due to some kind of mix-up, my recorded rant did not get played. Sigh.

[/update 3]

August 25, 2004

Virtual

I don't even know what to say about these:

The "naked female video game character" issue of Playboy

The "Boyfriend Arm Pillow"

The "virtual cellphone girlfriend"

Write your own punchlines.

August 23, 2004

Fahrenheit 527

After the Swift Boat attack ads, Kerry swiped back, calling on Bush to denounce the ads. Bush, using his clever Texas strategery, wouldn't denounce the ads except as part of a broader criticism of 527s. 527s are groups like MoveOn and the Swift Boaters, which raise money and buy ads that don't explicitly support one candidate or another.

After this attack, many liberal bloggers are disingenuously claiming that Bush is trying to ban political speech, or that he's being a hypocrite. That's got nothing to do with nothing. Liberal 527s have raised way more money and have been way more pro-active than conservative ones. So Bush is pretending to be calling for a dignified campaign, when he's really trying to get Kerry to give up his own advantage. It's like a kid on crutches saying "no fair, if we're gonna race, we should all have broken legs."

Or, as Mark Kleiman brilliantly put it, "I'll ask my friends to stop lying about John Kerry, if he will ask his friends to stop telling the truth about me."

Open Letter to the Media

Dear Press Corps,

As you may have noticed, 2004 is an election year. Although I, and many of my fellow Americans, have become quite jaded about the US government, there are two men running for president, and if we are going to vote, we need to know about those men.

The United States is facing a very troubling time. Terrorism is a real danger. We are fighting a war half-way around the world. Our military is stretched to the breaking point. Much of the global population-- even our allies-- think of our nation as arrogant and bloodthirsty. Our civil rights have been eroded. The economy is doing badly. People can't find work to feed their families. Our national issues of racism, sexism and violence continue unabated. Environmental danger. An unjust justice system. Corporate abuse. Epidemics of cancer and obesity.

We need to know what the candidates will do about all this (if anything). If one the candidates will start to turn the tide, we need to know. If one of the candidates will cause us harm, we need to know. If the candidates are more or less the same, we need to know. And as each candidate is more likely to tell us what they think we want to hear instead of tell us the truth, we need the media's help.

And what have you done in our time of need, when we need to focus on the future of our country? Turned all of your focus onto the cataclysmically irrelevant issue of whether someone shot at a boat in Vietnam 35 years ago!!

Have you lost your minds? Have you just gotten caught up in the herd? Are you so stupid that you think this actually matters? Or are you fully aware of the situation and continue anyway? If that's the case, you shouldn't just be ashamed, you should be humiliated.

You sicken me.

If this was history class, it would be okay to cover this ancient story, you'd get top marks. Oh wait, no you wouldn't. Because if this was history, you'd check all your sources, weigh the validity of those sources, and then come to some tentative conclusions about what really happened. Instead, the media seems to be saying that decades-old military records and the testimony of everyone on John Kerry's boat is exactly equal to the claims of a dozen guys with an axe to grind, who were not on Kerry's boat, who are funded by Kerry's political opponents.

I'm sure you have plenty of good excuses for why you're covering this ridiculous bullshit.

"It's news, we have to cover it."
"If we don't cover it, we'll fall behind."
"It's a character issue."

Shut the fuck up.

You control the cameras, you control the microphones, you control the typewriters. When this kind of trivial political nonsense comes up, it is completely within your power to turn them away from it. You can get a call from the head of the Swift Boat guys offering an interview and say "no thanks." You can receive a press release from the Kerry campaign and not quote it in your article. You can, at the very least, say "here's a quick summary of the latest Swift Boat bickering, now let's look at Bush and Kerry's respective economic plans."

Sad as it is, the nation relies on you to protect them, to inform them, to be an early warning system to prevent them from being screwed. And you've dropped the ball.

Honestly, I don't expect much from the media these days, but this nonsense is just more than I can bear.

Your fears of being unpopular, of being called "biased", of losing access to the nation's elite, have turned you into stenographers for power. I have no interest in official proclamations, I am interested in the truth.

Forget the press releases and official spokesmen. That's stage-managed crap.

Forget the partisan he-said/she-said. That's all smoke, no fire.

Instead, find out what's going on in this world, then tell it to me. That's what news is.

Jake Sexton.

August 21, 2004

That Was Fast

Earlier this week, I mocked the ridiculous and offensive plan to stop "violent" NYC protesters with cheap "peaceful protester" discounts. I also thought to myself, "hmm, I should take the image on these buttons and photoshop it into something satirical like."

Someone beat me to it.

[image stolen from Politics in the Zeros]

Obviously, the original's the one on the top.

I'm actually thinking of having some buttons printed up with that image. Neat.

Oh, and as an update, I will indeed be attending the convention protests. I will most likely be posting daily reports and photos to AxisOfJustice.org. I'll post them here as well, if I'm feeling particularly ambitious.

"Storytime", or "Don't Just Read the Cliff Notes"

A friend of mine told me this story, and I feel compelled to share it.

It's a weekday morning, and John walks into his local coffee bar for his morning Joe. A young man behind the counter is joking around with his female co-worker, and says "Wonder Twin Powers, activate!"

To those of you born after 1982, this is a reference to two of the dumbest characters to ever grace the popular Superfriends cartoon show. The Wonder Twins were brother and sister aliens or sun-tanned elves or something, and when they spoke that magic catch-phrase, the sister could turn into the animal of her choice, and her brother could turn into some form of water. Not quite on par with heat vision or super speed, but it was enough to save the day sometimes, with the help of their monkey friend. The monkey was blue. He was a "space monkey." The space monkey often carried the bucket that held water-boy when they went traveling.

That's how most of their episodes went. Someone's in trouble! Sister turns into an eagle. Brother turns into water. Monkey catches water in bucket. Sister picks up bucket-holding monkey and flies to villain lair. Sister turns into big angry gorilla. Brother turns into an ice cage or a giant ice pitchfork or some shit. Bad guy is caught. Monkey giggles.

No, no, don't thank me. It is my pleasure to enrich you with such knowledge.

Anyway.

So coffee guy says to his co-worker, "Wonder Twin Powers, activate!"

To which John wittily responds "So who's the bucket of water?"

Silence.

Timidly, coffee boy says "I-I'm Sean."

Folks, there's a moral to this story. If you're going to make pop references, know what the fuck you're referring to. Otherwise, you'll look stupid, like Sean, and get written about on some stranger's webpage. Truly a fate worse than death.

August 20, 2004

Sunset Junction, What's Your Function?

This weekend, Silverlake presents its big yearly street festival called Sunset Junction. It's just like your regular boring street fair of booths selling crafts and crap, but with one important difference: lots of musical performances by excellent, and often well-known, rock bands. The fair allegedly requires a $10 donation for entry, but those hip to city law tell me that no one can make you pay for a public event on public grounds. So technically, it's free.

And, for the third year running, Kill Radio will have a booth at the show. Stop by, say hello, pick up free stuff, possibly buy non-free stuff, spit on your favorite DJs, whatever. I won't be there, however, as I am headed down to San Diego to celebrate my dad's birthday with him. Well, maybe I'll make it back by late Sunday.

I'm looking at the performance schedule, and it's mostly bands I'm only vaguely familiar with. But I'll make some recommendations based on what I know:

Saturday
1:30pm- Dengue Fever. I haven't heard them, but their Cambodian lead singer was imprisoned during some nonsense "homeland security" sweeps, and they probably deserve a little love for that alone.
2:15pm- Giant Drag. Garage rock meets Mazzy Star. Kinda. Frequent guests on Kill Radio's Get the Fuck Up show.
9:30pm- The Donnas. If you think you'd enjoy young women singing your favorite Ramones or AC/DC songs, you'll enjoy the Donnas.

Sunday
1pm- Cuahtemoc. I believe I saw these guys perform at the farmworker protest outside Taco Bell headquarters this year, but I get my bands named after multi-syllabic Aztec gods confused. If these guys are who I think they are, they're pretty good. Political hardcore from the real OC.
2:15pm. Your Enemies Friends. Hip rock meets noisy roll.
3:30pm- Very Be Careful. I wouldn't've known what to call this style of music till I looked it up. Vallenato. "Indigenous Colombian melodies on accordion over african rhythms." All I know is that they somehow turn traditional, folksy latino tunes into party music.
5pm- Sweet and Tender Hooligans. Popular Smiths cover band. You like the Smiths. See them.
7:15pm- Camper Van Beethoven. One of my favorite bands, period. Back in the 80s they were called "college radio darlings", alternative rock when that term meant something. Sweet meanderings between pop, punk, folk and country.
8:30pm- X. LA punk legends for like 700 years. But in a good way.

Enjoy the show.

August 18, 2004

And Then They Came For...

NYPD to Shadow 56 Protesters Believed Most Dangerous

If this article is accurate (and I can't help but notice that there aren't really any specific sources mentioned in it), a few hundred NYPD officers are going to leave NY, and spy on activists in Boston, DC, North Carolina and California. And the NYPD has been spying on activist groups for almost 2 years now.

Supposedly, 56 "primary anarchists" (what the hell does that mean?) are going to be assigned 7 officers to spy on them 24 hours a day.

I could continue to analyze the article, but as I said, there's not much sourcing there. Buuuuuut the surveillance of activists is going on, especially anarchists, who have apparently become our nation's new (non-Islamic) boogymen.

Clean Sweep

It shouldn't come as a surprise, but many of Manhattan's homeless have gone missing as the weeks have been leading up to the Republican convention.

The article above does not give much in the way of specifics, but history shows us that it's fairly common for law enforcement to drive such "undesirables" out of a city in the name of tourism just before a major local event. The article does mention that a number of the services that these folks have come to rely on are being shut down or curtailed thanks to the convention.

I'd guess the homeless exodus is a combination of arrests, police harassment, and voluntary departure to avoid trouble and continue surviving.

A Bit Out of Touch

Mayor Bloomberg of New York City, in an attempt to quell potential violence, or try a new tourism strategy, or grab some free publicity, has announced that RNC protesters who agree to wear "I am a peaceful protester"-style buttons, will get discounts at restaurants and museums and such around the city.

Huh?

Do I even need to point out the ways in which this is idiocy?

"Thanks for visiting our police state! In exchange for surrendering your right to free speech and right to assemble, get $2 off your next purchase at Applebee's!"

August 17, 2004

More Goss Bashing

This is a little scary.

Until recently, new CIA head Porter Goss was member of the House of Representatives. And back in June, Goss proposed a new bill that would increase the power of the CIA head (take that, ESP skeptics!).

The creepy bit is that the Goss bill would change the legal description of the position, taking the existing text which prohibits the CIA from "exercis[ing] police, subpoena, or law enforcement powers within the United States," and adding "except as otherwise permitted by law or as directed by the president."

See, the CIA is supposed to be about American intelligence outside the country, and can't operate inside the country on American citizens. But as I understand it, the Goss bill would violate US law, if the president asked them to. As one fellow put it, "This language on its face would have allowed President Nixon to authorize the CIA to bug the Democratic National Committee headquarters."

[via Political Animal]

Coming to an Eduplex Near You

Morgan Spurlock, creator of Super Size Me, has announced that the DVD version of his film will be released soon. But more interesting to me, he has also announced the Super Size Me School Tour. This fall, Spurlock will "take the Super Sized message on the road to colleges, high schools, junior highs and elementary schools. I want parents, teachers and students to start examining how they can act locally to shift the current obesity trends that are running rampant in our country."

And to top it all off, you can try to get Spurlock to bring his travelin' show to your own school:

"If you would like me to visit your school, please contact Sean Lawton at Keppler Associates: (703) 516-4894 or SJL@kepplerassociates.com"

Coolio.

Grim Q&A

Prof. Juan Cole recently did an online chat for the Washington Post, answering many questions about the Iraq war and the war on terrorism. I put a lot of stock in his analyses, because he really seems to know his stuff, and he understands and takes into account the many complexities of the various factions, cultures, movements and governments of the Middle East.

The transcript of Cole's online chat is at the link above. It's good. Nearly all the questions are fairly in-depth, and most deal with the current siege on Najaf and Muqtada al-Sadr.

Two rather grim passages stand out for me among Cole's replies:

"I'd say there is a 50/50 chance of the Iraqis tossing the U.S. out of their country within the next two years."

and

[The recent US attack on Najaf] is ... among the most stupid political moves any military has ever made. The War on Terror requires winning hearts and minds. The attack on Najaf has made all the Shiites in the world furious at the U.S. It doesn't matter whether that is fair or not, it is the way it is. And it is highly undesirable, and our grandchildren may be living with the effects of it.

August 16, 2004

Nuance

The Bush campaign has many ways that it would like to characterize John Kerry, and one of those is that he is flip-floppy, "nuanced" and "French." Pausing to think and consider the other side, pondering the possibilty that you might actually be wrong, or changing your mind, is weak. And if you're weak, you're a faggot. And if you're a faggot, you're a girl, and there's nothing worse than being a girl (but if you are an actual girl, you shouldn't try to be a man, cuz that would be wrong).

This is quite different from Bush, who is strong and bold. He makes the wrong decision without delay, and following through and refusing to admit error, until every last passenger is killed in his train wreck.

Sadly, the media seems to be buying into Bush's spin. A Thursday NY Times headline read "For Now, Bush's Mocking Drowns Out Kerry's Nuanced Explanation of His War Vote" (note: the web headline appears to have been editted from its original version, and now reads "Bush's Mocking Drowns Out Kerry on Iraq Vote").

I'll admit, I was confused a bit by Kerry's position at first. After months of criticizing Bush's war, I naturally assumed that if he had it all to do over again, that he would not have voted to give Bush the okay to go to war. He surprised me (well, lots of folks) by saying that no, he would still vote for Bush's war authority. But he does actually explain his "nuanced" position fairly well in a quote in the link above:

KERRY (8/9/04): Yes, I would have voted for the authority [to go to war]. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has.

And my question to President Bush is, Why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace? Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth? Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve and relieve a pressure from the American people?

In other words, Kerry's nuanced position is "Bush fucked up". Really, that's about it.

If we play the little puppet show of denial, and pretend that this war really was about Iraqi liberty and a dictator's deadly weapons, Kerry's position makes some kind of sense. Giving the president the authority to declare war could have helped in negotiations and diplomacy to get rid of Saddam and the weapons. In a theoretical Kerry 2000 presidency, the inspectors probably would have stayed much longer, and perhaps an international force would have gone into Iraq maybe in the fall of 2003 (summer's a no-no cuz it's so hot). The US economy would not be in (as many) tatters, and the Arab/Muslim world would have less ability to blame all their problems on just the Americans (which I guess means "terrorism for everyone!").

Actually, I'd like to think that this magical Kerry White House wouldn't've had the lunatic neocon crusaders who wanted to invade Iraq in the first place.

Now, I think Kerry's position makes him a jackass. First of all, his "I believe it's the right authority for a president to have" is bullshit. The Constitution says that it's Congress' job to declare war. By definition it's not "the right authority for the president to have." I don't know what the hell Kerry's talking about.

Secondly, this war was not about keeping America safe, WMDs, or terrorism (ironically, the war went so badly that it has become about all of these things). It was about putting a US-friendly leader in charge of an important oil-producing country in an important oil-producing region. Under this framework, Kerry's position only makes sense if a) Kerry believes the puppet show, or b) Kerry was cool with the idea of the US planting its boot firmly in Middle Eastern soil. I'm not sure which possibilty is scarier. Okay, the second one.

Someone wanna remind me why I wanna vote for this asshole?

Oh yeah. Cuz of the other guy.

Stupid fucking two-party system.

August 15, 2004

Giggles

Commenter "Chesaw" makes a good point regarding my recent post about new CIA head Porter Goss.

I realized it when I was about to make an additional snide post at Goss' expense. I was going to link to this article, which claims that when mothers of 9/11 victims were lobbying hard for Congress to investigate the terrorist attacks, that Porter Goss had tried to avoid them by hiding behind his office door. I was going to mock the fellow by saying something like "this is the best that the head of America's spy agency can do, hide behind doors?" But I realized that I was trying for a cheap shot that didn't even really work. I was forcing a particular reading of events for the sake of a joke.

And that is the same as Goss' "I couldn't get a job at the CIA" line. Yes, it is indeed possible that someone who runs an organization not be well-suited to other jobs within that organization. You could, for example, run the McDonald's corporation without knowing how to work a cash register. I was aware of that idea, yet let it fall by the wayside for the sake of the punchline.

Still, I find Goss' claims that he "doesn't have the cultural background" regarding "Arabists" to make it seem that perhaps he's not the right guy for the job at the moment.

In addition, there are allegations that Goss is "too political" for the job (i.e. has done a fair amount of partisan PR for the Republicans and the Bush administration), that he won't do much to halt future "intelligence failures", and-- most disturbing to me-- he supports PATRIOT Act II.

That being said, I will do my best to avoid spin-for-laughs in the future. There's enough terrible, ridiculous, fucked up shit out there; I don't need to mislead for humor.

August 12, 2004

Big Audio Dynamite

I finally finally got the archives of the radio show I produce-- "The Axis of Justice Radio Network"-- back online. It's a political music show, hosted by Tom Morello of Audioslave/Rage Against the Machine and Serj Tankian of System of a Down (what, you didn't know I worked with internationally famous rock stars?). Each show has a bunch of political songs from many genres, some discussion of the significance of those songs and artists, and usually an interview with a political activist, academic, or artist. Not knowing what sort of music you, the LMB reader, enjoys, I'd say that it's worth skimming a few of the shows to see what you think. They're all in lo-fi mp3 format. Each show's about an hour, and we have about 16 of them to choose from.

I've also got one of my own radio shows available for online listening. The show's almost two hours, mostly music (check the playlists in the upper right corner of this site), with some ranting and rambling from me. It looks like Kill Radio is going to start archiving all of our shows (in the near future?), so any of you could listen to my show without having to tune in live.

In my only slightly-biased opinion, my show is ten thousand times better than Tom & Serj's.

August 11, 2004

Eyes Pop Out of Head

"It is true I was in CIA from approximately the late 50’s to approximately the early 70’s. And it's true I was a case officer, clandestine services officer and yes, I do understand the core mission of the business. I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified. I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably. And uh, as my children remind me every day, 'Dad you got to get better on your computer.’ Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don't have."

– New Head of the CIA, Porter Goss, March 3, 2004

So... this guy says he's unqualified to work for the CIA, and five months later, he's running it. I hope they filled his brain with all kinds of secret counter-terrorism serums and microchips since then, or we're fucked.

[via Atrios]

August 10, 2004

Abbott and Costello Meet Al Qaeda

Juan Cole is all over this story, and it is appalling.

The highlights, as I understand them:

- July 13, Pakistan arrests Muhammed Naeem Noor Khan, an Al Qaeda agent. Khan agrees to become a double agent, passing information to the West and spreading disinformation among Al Qaeda. This makes him (presumably) one of the only people that the US and its allies has inside the terrorist organization.

- it's a bit fuzzy, but it seems that on August 1, a Bush administration official, seeking to dispel skepticism of their latest terror alert, tells the press that they received their intelligence from Khan. The official does not say that Khan is a double agent. The NY Times prints an article naming Khan.

- August 3, British police arrest over a dozen Al Qaeda suspects, fearing that they'll get wind of Khan's blown cover and run for it. The British had not arrested these men before because they felt they didn't have enough evidence to convict them. At this time, two have been released due to lack of evidence. Five more suspects have allegedly gone underground.

So...

Some fuck-up over at the White House has cost us a valuable spy that could have helped capture muderous terrorists, possibly even do severe damage to the Al Qaeda organization. And why? We get the equally savory possibilites of political convenience, or utter incompetence. Someone is either an oily opportunist, or they're Shemp.

[update]

Half of what I said up there might be wrong. Juan Cole has continued covering this story, and says that the NY Times reporters who first mentioned Khan now claim that they got their information from a Pakistani official, not a Washington official. But the Pakistani government insists that it was a US official who did the leaking, not one of theirs.

So in addition to my possibilities listed above, there is the additional one that we have a Pakistani Shemp to blame. Honestly, that's where I put my money at the moment, because I trust two NY Times reporters more than I trust the Pakistani government. Not because I put more faith in Americans, but because governments tend to lie a lot.

[/update]

Vicious

Dear God!

Bob Harris over at This Modern World has reprinted an old photograph of George W playing rugby in college:

Check the caption. The guy can't even play sports and obey the rules.

And I know that we all have our weird moments where the camera catches us making weird faces, but Bush's looks really mean to me. Which gave me the idea for my latest Bush campaign poster.

Your Name in Ink

Looks like Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting finally printed the article I wrote for the latest edition of their magazine "Extra!" Unfortunately, the article is not online (tres ironic, as the article is about blogs and online journalism), so you'll have to buy the magazine for it. Or, you'll have to go to the bookstore, read the magazine, and then put it back on the rack.

And to give credit where it's due, there are a few paragraphs article that were not done by me, but by the magazine's zealous editor, who packed it full of even more facts, making me look even smarter. Gracias, Jim.

To any of you who've stumbled here after reading that article, welcome. I hope you'll be pleased to find that most of my web writing is shorter, funnier, and filled with more swearing, than my latest print endeavor. Fuck ass poop.

Monopolizing Competition

Oh for fuck's sake.

In a far cry from the high-minded ideals of humanity and tolerance embodied by the Olympics, the organizers of the Athens games have warned spectators that they could be barred for taking a surreptitious sip of Pepsi or an illicit bite from a Burger King Whopper.

Strict regulations published by Athens 2004 last week dictate that spectators may be refused admission to events if they are carrying food or drinks made by companies that did not see fit to sponsor the games. [emphasis mine]

The International Olympic Committee is so greedy (or needy) for corporate cash, that they will restrict the rights of paying spectators. "You want to drink a Pepsi you brought to the games? Fuck you, Pepsi didn't pay us for advertising! You don't like it, go watch at home on TV!"

I like the article's closing quote, from "Greek sports fan" Kostas Giannis:

"I don't see why, after all the money that Greek taxpayers will end up paying to host the games, McDonald's should dictate what I can eat in my own city."

August 08, 2004

Long Shot

I know that the chances of this are virtually nil, but if anyone out there has the power to get me into the Republican convention, please contact me. I'd send y'all postcards from the belly of the beast.

But most likely you'll get my reports from outside the beast, as it breathes fire at us.

August 06, 2004

Swifty Truth Boats for Veterinarians

As you may have heard, a group of Vietnam veterans have formed a group called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" (a name I keep getting confused because at I swear that at some point I heard of a group called "Swift Boat Veterans for Kerry". And because I'm not entirely sure what a "swift boat" is, besides the obvious) that is claiming that during the Vietnam war, John Kerry was an evil, lying coward. They've even created and bought air time for a TV commercial to that effect, and next week one of the swift vets is releasing a book arguing the same thing.

Is it true? Damnd if I know, and it's not something I want to delve into much. Bush is driving this country into the ground, and I'm supposed to change my vote because Kerry is vain and made up stories to get medals? No thanks, I live in Sanity Land.

But on it's face, the whole swift boat veterans thing seems shady. Mainly because the swift veterans who served on Kerry's boat all think he's great... and all these guys who hate him were not on his boat. Seems suspicious, no?

Add to that, the fact that one of these anti-Kerry veterans has now retracted his statements. And that one of the anti-Kerry book's authors was recruited by the Nixon administration to defuse Kerry as an anti-war figure. And that the other author is a certifiable right-wing nutjob (e.g. on Al Gore and Hillary Clinton, nutjob says "Mullah Ali'Gore-ah is very proud of his new Bin Laden beard and he hopes others in the Democratic Party will follow his lead. Hell-ary is disappointed she cannot grow a beard, but her press secretary reminds us she can still enroll in flight school." Get that man a Napoleon hat).

But frankly that's all conjecture. I have made zero effort to figure out who's telling the truth here. If you want take on that challenge, here is a good place to start. And then if you want, you can jump into the fray and argue about the issue over on Kevin Drum's blog. My favorite part is one commenter's mixed, shaken, and stirred metaphor:

"All you pots calling the republicans fools ought to take a good look in the mirror because I think there's been a good dose of koolaid passed around to both sides."

It's a thing of beauty.

August 05, 2004

Good Show, Old Bean

Subversive graffiti artist Banksy has pulled off a pretty impressive new stunt.

He created a 20-foot, 3 ton bronze statue of "justice as a prostitute with leather boots and a thong", and secretly cemented it into a public square in London.

Said Banksy's prepared statement:

"This is a brand new monument for London. It is a monument dedicated to thugs, to thieves, to bullies, to liars, to the corrupt, the arrogant and the stupid.

"It's the most honest depiction of British justice currently on display in the capital. I hope it stays there for good.

Carry on, Banksy, carry on.

[thanks to Indira]

Hurts So Good

No matter how much you hate the president, you have to admit that he's comedy gold.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

-George W. Bush

[via Xoverboard]

August 04, 2004

D-Con Revisited

Somehow in my big rant about the Democratic Convention, I neglected to mention something I've been saying on my radio show for weeks, about why the convention was irrelevant.

The convention is about words, about broad rhetoric to fire up the voters. But to me, the thing that matters is the reality behind the words:

- What do the candidates actually want to do? Tell me what they plan to do, not what they say they want to do. And give me some detail. When Kerry says that he wants to make America stronger, what specifically does that mean? He wants to give our soldiers steroids? He wants to give all Americans laser guns? He wants to spend $1 jillion on defense?

- Which candidate plans will actually get through? The candidates may have plans, but which plans will make it through the Congressional minefield unscathed? Which will be radically altered by the end? Which will be dead on arrival?

- What will be the likely effects of these plans? If Kerry wants to give us all laser guns, what is the likely outcome of that? Will it deter terrorism? Will it increase energy consumption? Will the guns' radiation give us all cancer?

This is the only stuff worth a damn. I don't care that Kerry was a hero in an immoral war three decades ago, or that Bush is strongly opposed to butt sex. What are they gonna do, and how will that effect us all? Everything else is bullshit.

August 02, 2004

El Convention

As they were first formulated in the US, political party conventions were a place for party delegates to come together, debate issues, hammer out a platform, and nominate their favorite candidate to be the party's presidential contender for the year. Near as I can figure, none of these happened at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

And it won't happen at the Republican Convention either.

Somewhere along the line, parties realized that candidates who are chosen early and supported early are more successful than ones who battle it out till the convention, and then only have from the convention's end till the election-time to win over the public. In other words, democracy gets in the way of winning, so the democracy's got to go.

Before I focus too much on the inside of the convention, let's cover the outside.

I have already said plenty about the protest pens, and I was very glad to see protesters use their common sense ("why the hell should we protest in that deathtrap?") instead of blindly doing what they were told. You can see lots of pictures of the protests here and here. I'm not sure how the Really Really Democratic Bazaar turned out, but it looks like it might have been a fun way to spread a little political knowledge, as opposed to your standard dull march/boring speakers/mass arrest thing. To tide you over till the RNC protests, we've got Democracy Uprising, a 258-mile march from Boston to Manhattan.

And in far-off Pakistan, an al-Qaeda "facilitator and operative" was captured, right at the height of the convention. If you read this article several weeks ago, about the Bush administration pressuring the Pakistani government to find a high-level al-Qaeda guy during the DNC, to rip the spotlight away from Kerry, you'd probably find this a bit suspicious... even more so when you read that the al-Qaeda guy was captured on July 25, yet his capture was not announced until July 29-- the day of Kerry's acceptance speech. Luckily for the Democrats, the media did not shortchange the convention in order to cover the terrorist.

Now to the inside.

Conventions these days simply introduce the characters who will be the three months' traffic of our electoral stage: John Kerry- "I'm a stern ex-military man who wants to make the country safe"; John Edwards- "I'm an earnest, boyish Southerner with passion and optimism"; Howard Dean- "I'm a the thick-necked firebrand"; Barack Obama- "I'm the really cool black guy"; Dennis Kucinich- "I'm a magical dancing elf"*. I'm sure come the Republican convention, we'll see: George W. Bush- "I'm a strong, natural leader, who is truly, utterly baffled on how anyone could possibly disagree with me";** and Dick Cheney- "Now witness the power of this fully operational battle station!"***

The media this year went a little too nuts covering bloggers. It seems the sad truth that reporters think that if it involves computers and they haven't heard of it, it must be cutting edge. Of the 15,000ish media people in attendence, 30 bloggers were granted access. This is such a small percentage that statistically speaking, there were no bloggers at the convention.

For my money, there were two blog stories worth mentioning. First, the union of the Pandagon Duo. For months now, the Pandagon blog has been written by a young guy from Dayton Ohio and a young guy from Santa Cruz California, who, until the convention, had never actually met in real life. That made me happy. You read these blogs long enough, you start to like the folks writing them, and you like it when good things happen to the authors.

The other big story was the final outing of pseudonymous blogger "Atrios". I really hope that this revelation was Duncan "Atrios" Black's choice; that would fucking suck if someone else spilled the beans, exposing him unwillingly to the world.

One other weird-ass, blog-related story. Tom Tomorrow posted a personal photo on his site of Michael Moore and Bill O'Reilly conversing/fighting/something. Then, Tomorrow discovered that internet hack Matt Drudge had posted the same photo on his own site, after flipping the image left-to-right and then photoshopping it a bit to make it look like a different picture. Just a quick glance at the two photos and you see that they're obviously the same. What the hell is up with Drudge? He couldn't just post Tom's picture and write in tiny letters below "photo courtesy Tom Tomorrow"?

Apart from Kerry's official introduction to the voters of America, there seemed to be only one significant event inside: the speech of Barack Obama. He already seems a lock for the Illinois Senate seat, and based on the popularity of his DNC speech, folks are already predicting great things for him, possibly even the presidency. As I have no psychic powers, I won't even try predicting the future like that.

I did take issue with Obama's "one America" speech. I have already written my feelings that the United States is so divided by race and class and religion and geography that I don't even know what all Americans could possibly have in common. If we experience this country in such different ways, what could it be that possibly holds us together?

Now there's just the Republican National Convention. I should hurry up and buy my plane tickets, so I can fly out there, protest, get beaten by cops and pre-emptively arrested. Sigh.

----
*Why am I always making fun of Dennis Kucinich's appearance? After a bit of soul-searching, I think it's because I'm mean.

**I think the "baffled" bit will truly play a role. "I'm just a reg'lar guy who wants what's best for 'Murica. I just don't *heh* *heh*-- I mean, what's this other guy want?" It helps paint Bush as a man of the people, and paint Kerry's stances as incomprehensible (and therefore liberal and wrong) without saying a damn thing about them.

***You just can't go wrong with "Dick Cheney = evil" jokes

July 31, 2004

Be Right Back

Probably no posting over the weekend, so y'all'll have to wait till Monday to get Jake's Take on the Democratic Convention.

Along those lines, Stephen Colbert's bit about his working class roots on Wednesday night's "The Daily Show" was one of the funniest things I've seen on TV in a long time.

July 30, 2004

Strategic Humor

A few words from "President Bush" (video)

Okay, it's not actually President Bush, it's comedian Will Ferrell pretending to be President Bush. And it's not so much "a few words" as it is a few minutes of comedy followed by a few minutes of begging from "America Coming Together", some kinda liberal "get out the vote" thing. So you'll probably want to shut it off at that point.

Anyway. It's funny, and will kill time at your soul-crushing office job.

July 28, 2004

Li'l Dissent

Funny how this isn't getting more coverage:

As Teresa Heinz Kerry spoke last night, on the floor of the convention, Medea Benjamin from Global Exchange and CodePink unfurled a pink colored banner that read "End the Occupation of Iraq." That apparently was not one of the DNC-approved messages of the night because within moments of the banner being unfurled, police were called in to remove Medea Benjamin.

Benjamin was dragged off the convention floor and thrown out of the FleetCenter. She said that the DNC was asked whether they wanted her arrested and that they decided that would not look good.

Who says the Dems don't have message discipline?

Tongue Tied

While his name is invoked so frequently these days, I'm not sure if there is anything more Orwellian right now than the concept of the Boston DNC's "Free Speech Zone".

As shown in pictures in the link above (or in words in this article here) the Boston Free Speech Zone is a prison of chain link and razor wire, constructed by the city as the designated area for activists who want to protest anywhere near the convention center.

The FSZ only holds 1000 people, so I guess if more people than that want to speak out this week, they're outta luck. They'll have to find another zone, or another country.

The FSZ (better known to activists as a "protest pen") is largely hidden by a bridge above, and I've seen photos showing that if buses park at a nearby bus depot, that the FSZ is almost completely hidden from sight. Which is the point, of course. If the powers-that-be had their way, everyone would be good little spectators and let the Big Boys make all the decisions. Of course, they can't participate, but if they want to speak their minds, that's acceptable, just do your best to keep them quiet and out of the way.

Strangely, the mainstream media seem to be universally against the FSZ, but mention it so casually. Dan Rather mentions it in passing in a commentary about the convention, whining that the 2004 DNC is not as exciting as the 2000 DNC (sorry the cops haven't been hitting my friends with rubber bullets and pepper spray for your amusement this year, asshole). So on the one hand, it's good that the mainstream media give the impression that the FSZ is wrong, but on the other, their lack of outrage turns an story of injustice into a yawn. I am glad to see that most DNC protesters seem to be boycotting the FSZ, and was extremely pleased to see the clever action of these people, who highlighted the police state mentality with a li'l street theater.

Of course, FSZ's can't be blamed on Boston, the Democrats, or the Bush regime. We started to see frequent use of FSZs/protest pens way back in April 2000, at large scale protests against the IMF and World Bank in Washington DC. Which presumably was a reaction to the "violent protests" of the Seattle WTO meeting in late 1999 (while the violence is usually blamed on protesters, or on police response to violence, I always have to remind people that the cops attacked non-violent protesters before the Black Bloc anarchists started vandalizing anything, and once they had begun the vandalism, the cops pretty much sat back and let them).

And we probably shouldn't get too reverent about free speech either. Even though it's numero uno in the Bill of Rights, free speech has pretty much been a joke in this country till the Free Speech Movement of the 1960s. Congress passed the Sedition Act in 1798, which made it illegal to criticize the government-- only seven years after the First Amendment was ratified.

So I guess all this puts me in mind of two opposing (or are they complimentary?) quotes:

"Power concedes nothing without a demand."

That's a classic oen. It says that rights are not given, they are taken, and you are as free as you want to be.

And:

"The illusion of freedom [in America] will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater."- Frank Zappa

For more info on the protest scene at the DNC, check Boston IMC, of course.

July 21, 2004

Things That Make You Go Hmm...

I laughed at this for a good long time today.

I Surrender

Bush Says: 'I Want to Be the Peace President'

July 20, 2004

Forgetting the Past

Although I wrote a little parable or something about the "Iraq was the CIA's fault" thing, I think it's important to keep reminding everyone that it's a whitewash. The Bush administration would like us all to believe that the war was noble and righteous. Barring that, they'd like to think that the war wasn't the White House's fault.

When, of course, it was the White House's fault.

The "it's the CIA's fault" line comes from the recent Senate report which criticizes the National Intelligence Estimate of Iraq (NIE) which was released in October 2002.

Problem is that the Bush administration decided to go to war in December 2001.

Yeah.

I'm very pleased with Eric Margolis' piece on this issue, "CIA Did Not Fail - The US Was Deceived Into the Iraq War". Let's quote him a bit:

The Iraq weapons fiasco was absolutely not caused by an 'intelligence failure,' as the White House and the recent Senate whitewash claim. It was not an understandable mistake made by all, as a rigged British 'inquiry' concluded.

US national security and CIA were corrupted and blinded by extremist ideology, cowardice, and careerism. The failure at CIA was not of the organization, but its leadership...

Here's what really happened. In 2002, Cheney thundered that Iraq was seeking nuclear weapons. A month later, Secretary Colin Powell proclaimed 'no doubt he (Saddam) has chemical weapons.' Shortly after, President George Bush assured the UN that Iraq had biological weapons.

National Insecurity Advisor Condoleeza Rice warned a 'mushroom cloud' threatened America. Britain's glib prime minister, Tony Blair, made similar ludicrous claims.

Many veteran CIA officers dismissed these alarms as politically-motivated propaganda. The US State Department, Air Force, and French intelligence challenged claims Iraq had threatening offensive weapons systems. Many senior Pentagon military officers opposed invading Iraq.

But the word went out: Now here this. If you value your job and pension, do not, repeat, do not contradict the boss. The president is hell-bent on invading Iraq. Make it so.

This was not a case of George Bush going about his business, suddenly receiving a report about Iraqi danger, and then leaping into action. With no real evidence of Iraqi danger, the White House wanted to invade Iraq; they were looking for a "smoking gun", and didn't mind if that gun was stretched into unnatural shapes. If you get sucked into arguments about intelligence or weapons or liberation, then you, my friend, have been suckered.

Marriage Debate Crucible

Sex columnist Dan Savage had a recent article about gay marriage at Salon which has some interesting musings about sex, monogamy and love, but I was most intrigued by his ruthlessly short yet ruthlessly accurate description of the gay marriage controversy:

The problem for opponents of gay marriage isn't that gay people are trying to redefine marriage but that straight people have redefined marriage to a point that it no longer makes any sense to exclude gay couples. Gay people can love, gay people can commit. Some of us even have children. So why can't we get married?

I think that's the crux there. The institution of marriage has already changed from what conservatives like to think it is. And not because of some homosexual onslaught, but because straight married people have changed what it means. Conservatives hope that marriage can be changed back to what it used to be, but think that the acceptance of gay marriage represents a point of no return, where there would no longer be any hope of returning to "traditional values".

Which means they've already lost. They'll keep fighting, of course, but they've lost.

[via This Space for Rent]

July 19, 2004

The Fear-mongering Continues

Last week, I wrote about the recent bout of anti-anarchist news articles, trying to make the public fearful and therefore accepting of police repression during large-scale protests.

RNC Watch has written a follow-up article, examining the NYPD's allegations described in the last week's tabloid piece: that anarchists were posting statements to the internet about how they are going to try to trick police and waste their time. The RNC Watch writers searched the internet, and could not find any such postings anywhere. They then challenged conservative writers who had gleefully seized upon the story and challenged them to find these postings. Nothing. And with powerful search engines like Google around, they should have been able to find something if such postings existed. RNCW then noticed that the author of the tabloid piece was also responsible for an equally vague and scary piece about violent protesters who were to allegedly wreak havoc at a protest in NYC back in 2002. Which leads me to theorize that this reporter, the NY Daily News' Patrice O'Shaughnessy, is one of the NYPD's go-to people when they want to spread these kinds of scare stories.

Along these lines, the NYC Independent Media Center has written a report titled "Getting Used: How the Mainstream Media Helps Create Climate of Fear and Repression During Political Protests" (.pdf). I'll go ahead and print the article's abstract here:

As New York City prepares to host the 2004 Republican National Convention, a familiar pattern of police exaggeration, governmental fear mongering, and media gullibility is threatening to create protest conditions that harm city residents and the American civil liberties tradition. Since the World Trade Organization (WTO) protests in Seattle in 1999, a sad but familiar pattern has become evident in the run-up and aftermath of protests. Police officials, aided by a hype-hopeful mainstream media, exaggerate the possible dangers posed by consistently non-violent protesters. Using the climate of fear created by this hype to justify their actions, the police consistently engage in extra-constitutional and illegal behavior, such as mass pre-emptive arrests, the interference with media outlets, and brutal protest behavior. Inevitably, the mainstream press realizes the hype once the protests are safely over, and sheepishly admits its mistake.

It is the purpose of this report to document this pattern during six large-scale political protests since the summer of 2000. Drawing almost entirely from mainstream press reports, the following pages document the climate of fear created by the media and police in the weeks and days before protests. We then see examples of how the mainstream press reported arrests during protests themselves, followed by descriptions of the actual reasons for the arrests once the protests were safely over. Usually, the reasons change. We also see how the very media outlets that eagerly repeated police claims during the protests angrily denounced manipulation once the protests were over.

It is the hope of the authors of this report that awareness of these patterns will help mainstream media outlets avoid making the same mistakes during future protests.

The report's only about 20 pages long, and is certainly worth a read.

Technolicious

Yay! I finally replaced my computer's faulty CD burner, which means a return to greater variety on the LMB radio show.

No guarantees (because I never pre-select my playlists), but I think today's show will include some David Bowie, Nas, Mos Def, Dresden Dolls, Bruce Springsteen, Wayne Kramer, Tool, Interpol, Reagan Youth, Rasputina, Franz Ferdinand, Bad Religion, and others. I'll also rant about political stuff and probably play some clips from Outfoxed.

Tune in at 2pm PST.

Psychopath LLC

Saw the movie The Corporation on Friday. Definitely good stuff and definitely too long. It felt like it should've been broken into four or five separate parts and shown as a series, not as a single movie. And I could definitely see the filmmakers doing that someday, perhaps turning it into a video series to be shown in schools (well, Canadian schools maybe). While the length didn't do the movie any serious harm, but I did spend the last 25 minutes or slightly distracted, thinking "surely it's just about over, now."

Using the increasingly-popular documentary style of combining new footage, news footage, stock footage, hip music, campy 50s footage and slick computer graphics, The Corporation is engaging and informative. While I didn't learn much from Fahrenheit 9/11, I did learn a number of things from The Corporation. I think you'll all be surprised at the genesis of Fanta cola.

The film trots out many of our favorite lefty commentators (Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Howard Zinn, Michael Moore), as well as a number of academics, evil CEOs and economists, progressive CEOs and economists, and activists, all geared towards proving the film's thesis: corporations are harmful. The film makes this point very well (although I'm sure that critics will ask why the film doesn't impartially present both the pros and the cons of corporations), and to my happy surprise, concludes by presenting a number of ways in which harmful corporate power can possibly be rectified. With so many political ideologies out there, it would've been pretty weak if the film had just said "vote Democrat" or "we need more enviro-conscious CEOs." Instead, the film seems to conclude that there are many different strategies that can challenge part of the corporate problem-- from legislation to lawsuits to storming the suites-- and doesn't try to pretend that a single cure-all exists.

July 16, 2004

Save Geov!

When I first started up with this crazy lefty journalism thing some years back, I met a fella over the net who'd been writing and agitating for quite some time. He was very supportive and encouraging, and I looked up to him.

This fella, Geov Parrish, has some problems. He's walking around with a couple pounds of borrowed organs keeping him alive, but he's never let health problems get in his way. Until now, when sleazy health insurance companies turned his health problems into financial problems, costing him his life savings him and dropping him into debt.

Anyhow, some of Geov's Seattle pals have organized a benefit concert this coming Saturday, July 24 at the Trinity United Methodist Church. If you live in the area, I'd ask you to go to help toss a little cash Geov's way. If you don't, but would like to help out just the same, you can also donate cash online via the previous link.

Gracias.

July 15, 2004

Story Time

"Henry?"

"Yes dear?"

"When our son came home today, he was very curious. He was asking me all sorts of questions about... you know." She busied herself straightening this and that. "I think you need to have a talk with him"

Henry's eyebrows jumped and his pipe drooped from his lips. "Goodness Janet, don't you think he's a little young?"

"If he doesn't hear it from us, he's just going to hear about it from the kids on the playground."

"I suppose you're right." Henry sighed. "I'll go talk to him." He stood up, kissed his wife on the cheek, and headed up the stairs to Jimmy's bedroom. Jimmy was in his pajamas, saying his nightly prayers.

"Hello son."

"Hi daddy!"

"Your mother told me that you had some questions..."

"Yeah daddy. A bunch of the older boys at school were talking about... y'know..." He took a deep breath. "About last week's report from the Senate about intellijence failures before the Iraq war."

"Yes son, that's a popular topic these days."

"But I don't understand what's going on. What happened?"

"How about you get into bed and I'll tell you all about it?"

Jimmy wriggled underneath the covers and grinned up at his father. Henry sat down on the edge of the bed.

"Well, let's see here, how to explain this... Let's say that you had a big jar of-- what's your favorite kind of cookie?"

"Peanut budder!"

"Let's say you had a big jar of peanut butter cookies, up on the kitchen counter by the stove."

"Yum!"

"Yes. Now let's say that the president of the United States came over to our house, and when no one was looking, he stole and ate every one of those cookies!"

"Hey! That's not fair!" Jimmy looked genuinely angry.

"Now let's say that sometime later, people noticed that the President had cookie crumbs all around his mouth. So the president ordered an investigation to find out why he had cookie crumbs around his mouth."

"But he had crumbs around his mouth because he ate my--"

"Yes, yes. Let me finish."

"Sorry daddy."

"So many days later, the investigators write up their conclusions, and they announce that there were crumbs around the president's mouth because cookies were stolen."

"We already knew they were stolen! The cookie jar was empty! Did the prezident get in trouble?"

"No, he didn't. The report didn't say who took the cookies, did it?"

"But... but... when are the investigaters going to arrest the prezident?"

"Well, they can't arrest him until they investigate the cookie theft."

"When will they do that?"

"Oh, I don't know son. Not for a long time, I suppose."

"But... but..."

Henry smiled and mussed his son's hair playfully. "Don't you worry. The President didn't leave you empty-handed."

Jimmy's timid smile grew. "He left me something in my cookie jar?"

"Indeed he did. After the war, the president made sure that your cookie jar was filled with the corpses of thousands of good little Iraqi boys and girls, just like you!" Henry smiled, and rose to leave.

He stopped just before closing the door behind him. "Do you want me to leave the light on?"

Jimmy didn't speak.

"I'll just leave it on then. G'nite, champ."

July 13, 2004

The Surreal Life

I'm walking down the street in east Hollywood, when I see a motorcade coming my direction on the other side of the street, slowly revealing itself as it approaches.

Four cops on motorcycles? Who're they protecting, the president?

Okay, that kinda looks like a flatbed behind them. An extra-wide flatbed.

All that junk on the back of the flatbed... that looks like film equipment: cameras, lights, mysterious other devices.

Which way are the cameras pointed, what are they actually filming?

Wait, is that an SUV on the back of the flatbed?

Wow. They're filming the people in the front seat of a stationary SUV that is on a moving flatbed so that it will look like the SUV is driving down the street.

As the flatbed pulls even with me, I look in the window.

"Driving" the SUV: comedian Andy Richter.

Weird.

Then, for no apparent reason, a bird flew at my head and attacked me. Twice.

July 12, 2004

Lincoln Logs

Yesterday I wrote about the uber-suspicious plans by the federal government to possibly postpone/suspend the presidential elections if there were a terrorist attack. To show how unnecessary this was, I presented the recent history of East Timor, a tiny nation who's citizens went to the polls in droves even when threatened by Indonesian death squads. I thought this example made the point quite well.

But the BBC did me one better: they reminded me that the United States did not even postpone elections during the Civil War*. Yes, in the midst of a brutal war, when the very concept of the United States was under siege, on the verge of a potential split that could result in the failure of both half-nations, the Union said "let's have a vote anyway." And we even have a quote on the issue by Cap'n Abe himself:

"The election is a necessity. We cannot have a free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forgo, or postpone, a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered us."

Granted, this lack of postponement did result in a Republican victory. But you can't get too upset about it when the winner had such a cool hat.

In other words, if Abraham Lincoln were alive today, he'd tell those guys who want to postpone the election, to go fuck themselves.**

----

*Here in the United States, we are vaguely aware that other countries have had civil wars, but we still speak as though ours was the only civil war to ever occur. Only we are allowed to use it as a proper noun ("Civil War"). Any of you foreign folks can capitalize your civil wars, but if you try to do that while on US soil, you will be arrested and forced to do a jillion push-ups.

**I hope that this is the first and last time I make a joke about Dick Cheney's famous cursing, because such jokes really aren't very funny.

More Anarchist Bashing

Sigh.

The tabloid the New York Daily News has another politically stifling scare story:

Yes, ANARCHY THREAT TO CITY.

The entire article is goofy, really. If you look at the "substance" of the article, the NYC police commissioner claims that anarchists have posted ideas for disrupting the Republican National Convention to the internet. What website? He doesn't say. How do we know that this stuff is posted by anarchists? We don't. As we all should know, posting stuff to the internet anonymously, or while misrepresenting your identity, is pretty easy. Watch.

This is Jaleel White, but you probably know me best as the lovable TV nerd "Urkel". I want to urge you all to turn into giant sea monsters and destroy the Australian coast.

Thank you, good night

(I'd like to take this moment to condemn Jaleel "Urkel" White for his evil terroristical plot to destroy Australia. Thank you.)

And even if you look at these alleged anarchist ploys, you won't come away real scared. The "threat" that this "shadowy, loose-knit band of traveling troublemakers" pose is that some of them might make their clothes smell like gunpowder to so that bomb-sniffing dogs stop and smell them, wasting police officers' time. Or, if the officer was particularly paranoid, and the place was public enough, it could result in delays of subway trains or something (although I want to re-iterate, there's not even any evidence here that any anarchists posted these ideas, or plan to carry them out).

The article also claims that anarchists plan to throw marbles under the hooves of police horses to make them fall, or to use slingshots to shoot marbles at the horses. This sounds completely bogus. Just about all anarchists believe in animal rights (it's a byproduct of the political philosophy. Once you start thinking that it's wrong to use force on a person to get your way, you start believing that it's wrong to use force on any creature to get your way), which makes it very unlikely that they're going to try to harm horses.

The article concludes with a quick history re-write, in which all of the major protests in the past 5 years are tales of heroic cops fighting devious protesters.

So, in response, another "anarchist" (no real way of knowing, right?) posted this FAQ-ish response. Here's an excerpt:

What about all those police claims of violent or terroristic behavior?

Time after time police have made similar claims. Time after time they have been proven to be lying.

Just look at the hard facts, compare police predictions before and during protests with what actually ends up happening. Again and again, police spokesmen predict terrible violence. They predict goons with molotov cocktails, anarchists setting off bombs, protesters throwing acid or slabs of concrete at policemen, or even more bizarre fantasies - during the last Republican Convention, for instance, Philadelphia police claimed anarchists were preparing to release poisonous snakes and reptiles all over the city. During the protests, they often claim such things are actually happening. But every time, when it's all over, police are either forced to grudgingly admit they were "mistaken" (the molotovs turned out to be paint thinner used in making puppets, the van full of reptiles turned out to be owned by a pet store), or they just stop talking about it and hope nobody notices that none of these things ever actually occurred.

Real terrorists try to create terror. They threaten to do terrible things, to kill and maim innocent people, if governments do not agree to their demands. Then they go out and do it. Afterwards, they boast about it and threaten more. Here we have the exact opposite. The anarchists who help organize protests in America have never threatened to hurt anyone, never claimed to have hurt anyone, and in fact, in four years of protests, have never have hurt a single innocent bystander in any way. Despite that, every time there's a major protest, the police keep trying to terrify the public by predicting mayhem, and the anarchists keep desperately trying to reassure the public that there's nothing to be frightened of, that the last thing we'd ever want to do is to harm them.

In other words, it's the police spokesmen who keep trying to create a climate of terror. We keep trying to diffuse it.

So we've got two things working in tandem here: police who want to scare the public so that they'll accept repressive police behavior to "save" the city; and news organizations that draw more audience and sell more papers when they have scary stories to tell. Gotta love the synergy.

Paid Hooky

Sorry, no LMB radio show today. Instead I'll be at another radio station producing another radio show, for my payin' job. That one'll air 7pm Friday on KPFK, if anyone cares. Also, I've pretty much updated my list of playlists (pull-down menu in the upper right of the page).

While we're on the subject, would anyone like to hear more interviews on the LMB show? Musicians, artists, activists and experts, I figger. I've just discovered a cheap source of phone cards, so I think I can afford to interview people by phone all over these U-nited States.

And while I'm doing housekeeping: to the people who bought buttons, I will mail them out this week. I was having some Paypal issues, and wanted to take care of them before I put anything in the mail. Thanks for waiting.

July 11, 2004

Democratic Shrink

So last week, Tom Ridge of the Office of Homeland Security announced that Al Qaeda was planning to attack the US to disrupt American elections.

First of all, I've stopped believing in these damn terrorist warnings. The government always announces that they have mysterious but credible evidence that terrorists are talking about attacking a nuclear reactor or a ferry or a highway or dry cleaners or clown college, somewhere in the coastal-desert-mountain-southern-northern-eastern part of the country, next week or this winter or in 2025. Then nothing happens. They're making shit up or are getting bad info, either way I can't trust that much. Or, perhaps Homeland Security is defeating the terrorists and foiling their plans, but somehow that never really crosses my mind.

With regards to this latest announcement, the FBI is saying that they haven't gotten any new terror info in the past six weeks, so you've gotta wonder why Homeland Security is brining this up now.

But that's not the kicker. The kicker is that the government is apparently talking about postponing the presidential elections in case of terrorist attack.

Read that again.

Let's pretend for a minute that this isn't way, way, way shady (and I don't think I could pretend for much longer than that), and ponder the idea of postponing an election due to violence.

Two words: East Timor.

East Timor is a small island country that was conquered by Indonesia back in the 1970s. The Indonesian army killed a few hundred thousand Timorese over the course of a couple decades, and when there were finally talks about East Timor becoming independent in the late 1990s, Indonesia started supplying and supporting thug militias to intimidate the Timorese people. As promised, the militias killed a lot of innocent people before the election. And after the election, the millitias went on a killing spree, and turned hundreds of thousands into refugees.

Still, under a cloud of fear and death, 90% of the Timorese turned out to the polls and voted for freedom.

When I think of that, the idea of postponing the American elections in case of a terrorist attack, no matter how heinous, is not only unnecessary, not only ridiculous, but offensive.

American democracy is pretty minimal. We don't get to vote directly, we only get to vote for representatives who will then vote for us. And, of those potential representatives, we get to select one of two white male millionaires who will generally vote in favor of large corporations instead of us.

Still, I utterly reject this idea of taking this tiny sliver of democracy away. If they can take it away for a little while, they can take it away for longer. Or whenever they want.

New Evil Blogger

Michael Powell, pro-corporate head of the FCC, has a blog.

Actually, it looks like Powell is writing a regular column for a tech news site. But it has a comments section, which makes it kinda bloggy. Powell seems to actually read the comments. And happily, most of the folks commenting don't like Powell's policies.

Maybe you'd like a chance to try to debate Powell and sway his opinions. Or maybe you'd prefer to go yell at his punk-ass.

Door's open.

July 10, 2004

F911

I finally saw Fahrenheit 9/11 this week (partially just to put an end to all the "you haven't seen it yet? Of all people, Jake, I thought you would've been first in line etc.").

When I went to the theater, there was a line to get in. At 4:15 in the afternoon. On a Wednesday. That's probably saying something.

As I'd been hearing, the movie didn't provide that much new information for people who'd been keeping an eye on the Bush administration, and as I am one of those people, I didn't come out of the movie changed very much. The "Bonanza" parody and Moore's ice cream truck adventures cracked me up. The scenes of bereaved mother Lila Lipscomb choked me up, but since my mother's death last year, upsetting me with scenes of grief is not hard to do.

Parts of the movie seemed very loose and associational, taking many facts and stirring them together until the result looked like a (blurry) conclusion. As I think back, I'm not even sure what Moore's thesis is. He almost argues that Saudi Arabia was responsible for 9/11, that Bush & co. didn't stop 9/11 because they were friends with rich Saudis, and that to prevent their rich Saudi friends from being hurt, Bush & co. decided to invade Iraq instead. And oil was involved somehow too.

I didn't like how Moore kept talking about "the Saudis" again and again in the first half of the film. "The Saudis" are not responsbile for 9/11, nor were "the Saudis" friends of the Bush family. A handful of individual terrorists from Saudi Arabia were responsible for 9/11, and a handful of rich oil men from Saudi Arabia were friends with the Bush family. The rest of the 25+ million Saudis had nothing to do with any of this, and I feel that Moore's sloppy wording implies that the Saudi people are devious shieks or muderous fanatics. This is quite unfair, as the majority of the people there are poor, and victims of their own dictatorship.

I think that "sloppy" applies to a lot of this film. It's more polished than Bowling for Columbine was, but to me, there are still parts that seem unnecessary, as though they had extra footage, and just threw it in there even though it didn't fit.

Overall, I'd say the movie ranks as "good." I think it's an important film at this point in time. To me, the film's wide attendance shows that many people in this country who don't necessarily hate the president, can tell that the stories he's been telling them don't add up. Even if they don't know or like Michael Moore, they're willing to listen to someone with a different point of view try to explain what's going on.

It's Moore's hope that once they've heard another version of the story, that the audience will feel so angry and betrayed that they'll vote Bush out of office. I hope so too.

July 08, 2004

News Vittles

Incarceration, Inc.- private, for-profit prisons. When you first hear the concept, it sounds like a bad idea. But when you start digging and looking at the reality, you see that it really is a bad idea.

The Truth About the Drug Companies- private, for-profit pharmaceutical companies. When you first hear the concept-- just stick the last article's joke here.

You Are How You Eat- your standard "common sense vs. stupid diet trends" article, but its a point that really needs to be made a lot of times. If you're overweight, maybe a healthier diet and exercise are a better plan than cutting an entire food group from your menu.

Women Stage Breast-Feeding Protest at Mall- "Chanting 'Got milk,' 50 mothers staged a protest 'nurse-in' at a Houston shopping mall after one of them said security guards asked her to cover herself or move on while breast-feeding her 4-month-old son." Rock.

Do [East Valley] anarchists pose terror threat?- a somewhat in-depth and slightly sympathetic about American anarchists. Law enforcement these days lumps together anarchists and terrorists without a second thought, harassing and arresting them. I keep thinking of that quote about the Holocaust by Martin Niemoller: "First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew..."

Almost Six Months Later, Aftershock of Strike Still Felt in Small Town- interesting article about a failed 2003 strike in a small Wisconsin town, and the effects that the strike and its settlement have had on the people who live there.

The Dark Side of Ralph Nader- since Nader's presidential run in 2000, I've always heard rumors that despite his principled opinions, that in his private dealings, that Nader has engaged in union-busting and owns corporate stock and antagonizes his workers. No one's ever really given me any evidence to substantiate those claims though. This article does give some evidence that Nader treats some of his employees like shit. Overall, it paints a picture of Nader as a hard-working progressive who is harder on his friends than on his enemies, and who will let personal vindictiveness overcome all else. Can't verify it, and don't particularly care to, but it's an intriguing read.

FEMA worker ordered home- long story short, a couple went to a pro-Bush rally at the North Carolina state capitol, and were arrested for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts. Of course, the police claim that the couple were arrested for "trespassing."

Far Away, So Close

Amanda over at Mouse Words posted a link to a personality quiz today, implying that it was blogger-oriented. It wasn't, but I took it anyway. The results were fairly spot-on, actually, so I was going to post the results here. But I accidentally closed that browser window, so I quickly retook the test, presuming that I'd get pretty much the same conclusion. Kinda sorta. My first test said that I was a WEDL-- a Wacky Emotional Destructive Leader. My second said I was a WECL-- Wacky Emotional Constructive Leader. Go figure.

Let me present my schizoid self.

WEDL:

You are a WEDL--Wacky Emotional Destructive Leader. This makes you an anarchist. You don't give a damn. When push comes to shove, you just forget about it--it's just not worth the heartache. What this means for others is that dealing with you can be aggravating, because they find they can't get you motivated about things they care about. What this means for you is that you are happier, calmer, and saner then they are on their best days.

You are near-immune to criticism, and those who know you well acknowledge and respect that. You may come across as lazy, but the truth is that you find little to get worked up about. Regardless, you have slews of friends, because they are fascinated by your world view, jealous of your lifestyle, and drawn to the fact that you are hilarious to be around.

You are a pillar in a sea of hot-bloodedness. You have a sweet tooth.

And WECL:

You are a WECL--Wacky Emotional Constructive Leader. This makes you a people's advocate. You are passionate about your causes, with a good heart and good endeavors. Your personal fire is contagious, and others wish they could be as dedicated to their beliefs as you are.

Your dedication may cause you to miss the boat on life's more slight and trivial activities. You will feel no loss when skipping some inane mixer, but it can be frustrating to others to whom such things are important. While you find it difficult to see other points of view, it may be useful to act as if you do, and play along once in a while.

In any event, you have buckets of charisma and a natural skill for making people open up. Your greatest asset is an ability to make progress while keeping the peace.

LMB- fulfilling all your wacky, emotional leadership needs

July 06, 2004

More Books to Burn

Crossroads is the name of a new radical bookstore that has just opened up in Kansas City (the Missouri one. Don't know why you midwestern folks gotta confuse us by having two Kansas Cities, and having one of them not even in fucking Kansas). Actually it is an "infoshop" and bookstore ("infoshop" being a word that anarchists use for these spaces that are kind of a mix between a bookstore, library and community center geared toward activism and politics). According to them, the infoshop will "carry a variety of radical and progressive books, shirts, and novelties. Crossroads will serve as a space for film showings, speakers, and meetings. We are worker-owned and will be affilated with the IWW as a union shop."

I want to congratulate the Crossroads folks on their success. I believe I met them about a year ago when I was on tour with Lollapalooza. Good folks. We gave the Kansas City Direct Action Network an info table at the concert, and they were trying to raise money for their proposed "Revolutionary Education Community Center." I'm not 100% certain, but I'm pretty sure that they went ahead and created the center, choosing the much shorter and friendlier title of "Crossroads."

So congrats, kids!

If you live in that area, check it out.

Veep Veep

So, John Kerry has picked John Edwards as his running mate for the presidential campaign. I would have said that Edwards was the most likely choice, until I read this column, which argues that the candidates almost never choose any of the likely suspects. But in this case it was one of the likely suspects, so, um... yeah.

Edwards seems like a good choice, as he was one of the only Democratic candidates who was able to get anyone excited about anything-- the Anti-Lieberman, if you will. People got excited about Howard Dean, but as the media told us, Dean is a raving barbarian who, if elected, will storm the nation and eat manflesh. People got excited about Wesley Clark, until they saw him campaign; then they fluffed their pillows. People got excited about Al Sharpton, but for some reason, the lighter-skinned of those people were reluctant to support him... Which means that the boyish Southerner will join Senator Jawline on the Democratic ticket.

More than anything, I think we can expect the Republicans to super-saturate the media with attacks on Edwards, because he used to be a "trial lawyer." They will try to paint him as an ambulance-chaser, a liar, a shyster, a devil, an elitist, and the reason that your medical insurance rates are so high (apparently CNN has already blamed today's dip in the stock market on Edwards). I liked Juan Cole's idea that Edwards could position himself as a foil to Dick Cheney: Cheney takes your money and gives it to big corporations like Halliburton; trial lawyer Edwards sues big companies like Halliburton and gives the money to people like you.

Does the Vice Presidential candidate really make a difference in an election? Two words: Dan Quayle. I do imagine though, that the veep choice results in increased campaign donations from the folks who consider that potential VP to be one of their own. Which means that Kerry-Edwards might see an influx in North Carolina cash.

But since the VP has little power (breaking tie votes in the Senate, and protecting the space-time continuum), I think the addition of Edwards will result in an increase in populist rhetoric, but won't change much else about the Kerry campaign.

July 04, 2004

Fourth of Jooly

It's been quite some time since I've been big on patriotism and love of country and whatnot. I was born between a couple of arbitrarily drawn lines on a map, and since I didn't have much say in the matter, that seems like a funny thing to be proud of. I do like it here. I like some of the people here, and like a lot of aspects of the culture. All my stuff is here. So for those reasons, I do like America.

But what the hell does it mean to "be an American"? The population is so diverse that there really isn't anything that we all have in common. People of different income levels, races, or geographic regions do not experience this country the same way. There are only a few tenuous things that might define an American:

1) you live in or used to live in the United States
2) you endorse values like "freedom" and "democracy" (if you do not endorse these values, it is okay to endorse their shadow-selves, like "freedom-lite" and "democracy-flavored")
3) you watch the most popular American prime time TV shows, and talk about them with others
4) you consider yourself an American

Well, there probably is one more thing that makes you an American: you oppose those popularly considered to be America's enemies. Frankly, that probably unifies the citizenry more than anything else. All the talk of anti-Americanism and traitorism in political discourse these days is really just a disagreement about who is and isn't an enemy, and what is and isn't proper opposition to those enemies.

But that's enough sociology for one night.

When I ignore the oddness of "countries", "borders" and "nationalities", I have no problem with people being proud of this country-- so long as they know both the good and the bad. If you feel national pride because all you watch is Fox News and John Wayne movies, I can't respect you much. If you can juxtapose the country's achievements and victories with its shames and atrocities, and find that your pride outweighs your disdain, then hey, you're alright.

Lately, many liberals are talking about "reclaiming patriotism and the flag" from conservatives. And the patriotism hijack really was a clever conservative ploy: they managed to successfully sell the idea that close-minded, sexist, white Christian values of the 1950s and obedience to authority were patriotic, and that anything else was its opposite. Some liberals now propose a counterattack, to shift public opinion so that liberals can denounce corrupt CEOs and proto-fascist conservatives as anti-American traitors, so that they can paint liberal agendas with stars and stripes.

I'm tired of that bullshit, of everyone's bullshit. Fuck patriotism, fuck the flag, fuck the Founding Fathers, fuck the Constitution. My goals and values are about making as many people as possible-- Americans and others-- healthier, safer, happier, and free. Whenever these goals coincide with whatever "pro-American" is, I am a patriot. When my goals conflict with that, I am sedition. Anyone who seriously wants to make people's lives better-- Republican, Democrat, whatever--, that's where you should be too.

Happy Independence Day.

June 30, 2004

Heh

Our pals at the Ironic Times present the following:

Iraq Turnover Schedule, June 30, 2004

1:00 PM: Pre-Turnover Special hosted by Dennis Miller
2:00 PM: Donald Rumsfeld gives ceremonial prisoner leash to Iraqi Security Force
3:00 PM: U.S.-Iraqi Glee Club sings “Proud to Be an American”
4:00 PM: Iyad Allawi declares martial law
4:30 PM: Jerry Falwell leads the Mormon Tabernacle Choir in "Onward Christian Soldiers"
5:00 PM: Flag ceremony/Ann Coulter striptease, music by U.S. Marine Band
6:00 PM: Civil war officially begins

Liberated, Inside a Tiny Box

I love that the US did that whole unexpected early power transfer in Iraq this week. I only hope someone jumped out of a cake and yelled "surprise!"

So Iraqis now have "sovereignty". Well, some Iraqis have sovereignty anyway. Several Iraqis appointed by the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), who were appointed by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), who were appointed by the US military. So some Iraqis indirectly appointed by the US have sovereignty.

Okay, they don't really have sovereignty either. According to our friend Juan Cole, "sovereignty" apparently means "controls the government's income." Cole points out that the Iraqi government takes in about $20 billion a year (a high estimate), although he calculates that the Iraqi government needs about $30 billion a year to run properly (and an Iraqi reconstruction expert I heard on the radio this morning claimed that Iraq will need $100 billion a year for several years to rebuild itself).

The US has another $18 billion in aid waiting in the wings, controlled by the new US ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte. This power of the purse will give the US quite a bit of influence over the new government. Negroponte's appointment is eerie in and of itself; in the 80s, he was the US ambassador to Honduras, and helped cover up the human rights abuses of that country's death squads. Makes you wonder if the White House is expecting him to do the same in Iraq...

Before leaving Iraq, the CPA also managed to tie the hands of future Iraqi government by issuing 97 edicts that the new government is obliged to obey, as well as appointing a number of Iraqis to influential posts within the government. Even though the new government is supposed to be temporary (to be replaced in national elections in January 2005), the CPA's appointees were given 5 year terms, meaning that no matter who is elected next year, CPA-friendly folks will be running part of the show through 2009.

And, as you may recall, the United States has over 100,000 heavily armed soldiers inside the country. That's bound to cramp the style of the new government, especially as the new regime has no real army or police force of its own.

Oh yeah, and the new Iraqi prime minister is pondering imposing martial law to try to defeat the Iraqi militants. As Iraq has no martial of its own, I presume the US military would be the ones doing the martialing. Which is pretty much how things have been in Iraq for months.

Smells like liberation to me!

June 27, 2004

Achilles Heel

I'm not that interested in the story of Cheney's use of the F-word last week (the man's an asshole. Why are we surprised that he cussed somebody out?)

But apparently, what set Cheney off was Senator Patrick Leahy's "criticism about alleged improprieties in Iraq military contracts awarded to Halliburton Co.", Cheney's former company (well, kinda former).

So... if pointing out the ties between Cheney and Halliburton and military contracts makes the vice president come unglued, I think y'all know what we have to do.

Dick Cheney: Soldier of Fortune
Cheney Continues to Have Financial Ties to Halliburton
Cheney's Close Ties to Brown and Root (Halliburton subsidiary)
Cheney, Halliburton and the Spoils of War

Hee Hee.

[Cheney articles courtesy of WarProfiteers.com]

Cast Changes

Congratulations to my friends Cory and Jane Allen, who gave birth to a reddish, spikey-haired, and rather adorable little girl last week.

Welcome aboard, Emily Rose Allen.

Uniter Not a Divider

10,000 Protest Bush in Ireland

40,000 Protest Bush in Turkey

Last week,

Thousands protest Bush in India

And if you read that article, you see Indian Muslims and Indian Hindus set aside their differences to scream at the US president.

[mostly via Bombs and Shields]

The Penninsula

I'm not an expert on North Korea, so I never said much about the wierdness of US-Korean relations. The little research that I've done on the subject says that: a) Kim Jong Il is a little nutty; b) South Korea and North Korea were starting to work out their problems until Bush and his pals fucked things up; c) North Korea seemed willing to give over their nuclear weapons so long as they got heavy fuel oil to run their electrical power plants and some sort of agreement with the US where the US agreed not to invade.

Then, there was pretty much a stalemate for three years.

Now, after lots of threats and bullying, Bush has North Korea right where he wants it. The US has proposed a plan where North Korea would disarm its nuclear weapons in a three-month time period, and in exchange, the US would allow other Asian nations to send North Korea heavy fuel oil, and to give North Korea "security assurances" that it won't invade. Quite different from North Korea's original desires.

This is a deal. For the price of a fairly worthless promise not to invade, and possibly some amount of foreign aid, the US can perhaps take a nuclear player off the board. Why didn't we make this agreement before? Presumably because George W. Bush wants to show the world that he has a big, long, hard cock. Ordering people around and refusing to even listen to what they want makes him feel like a big man, and if anyone says anything, he can just lean back and let them see the bulge in his pants, the crotch stuffed with a $400 billion military budget.

But I do see hope. While the US holds fast to its Threaten and Command doctrine, both North and South Korea seem to be quietly working together to unify their two nations. Again, I'm no expert on Korea, but it looks like the moves are tandem, with no one ordering around anyone else.

Maybe when Bush loses the election, we should have him deported to Korea, so he can learn a thing or two.

June 25, 2004

Cursor-esque

Cursor is a fine news website. They recently posted some want ads for part-time work, so I applied. Part of the application was to provide a sort of real-time "be Cursor editor for a day" sample. I did mine for today. It was quite an effort, and rather than simply let the Cursor folks hog all that effort, I'll go ahead and post it here.

I guess my one regret with this is that Cursor's style and form don't jive with all of my instincts. For example, below I post some links to articles about a sudden, bizarre crackdown on latino immigrants by the Border Patrol in southern California. After the news part, I would've liked to have posted a link to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, an organization that is reaching out to these immigrants who are suddenly facing possible penalties and deportation, or mention that LA Spanish language talk radio station KWKW (1300 AM) is allegedly giving updates on locations where the Border Patrol is or may raid. But I know Cursor well enough to know that that would not be appropriate to their format. So you get it here.

Anyhow, onto the Jake/Cursor sample. I hope it's good, some of it was done on very little sleep.

---
25 June 2004

Two inside looks at the Iraqi resistance: Asia Times interviews a group of ex-Ba’athist generals who claim that the insurgency was planned long before the war began, and a Guardian reporter talks to resistance fighters on the frontlines in Kerbala, Falluja and Sadr City.

The United States is reportedly taking a softer stance in its disarmament negotiations with North Korea. The proposal would provide North Korea with security assurances and heavy fuel oil, but may have been jeopardized by North Korea’s threat to proceed with nuclear testing.

Colin Powell will visit Sudan next week to pressure the government to end the seemingly genocidal violence taking place in the western part of the country. Also: aid workers in the Sudanese capital accuse the government of blocking food supplies to the region to starve the people there.

Although the Supreme Court has ruled that Vice President Dick Cheney does not need to turn over secretive documents about his 2001 Energy Task Force, he still seems to be feeling some strain.

In other White House legal news, George W. Bush was interviewed as part of the Valerie Plame leak investigation, and Ted Olson resigns as Solicitor General.

A Los Angeles Times editorial discusses a recent, surprising crackdown on illegal immigrants, mostly latinos, by the Border Patrol. Several hundred have been arrested, and thousands are keeping to their homes in fear. Local organizations claim that these new tactics are nothing more than racial profiling.

A federal appeals court repealed the FCC’s 2003 media ownership rule changes, which allowed single companies to own significantly more media outlets in a single market.

Media Matters reports on the first broadcast of NRANews.com, a new conservative talk radio program produced by the National Rifle Association, which featured call-ins from Oliver North and G. Gordon Liddy; the NRA claims that this makes that they are a "media organization", not an "advocacy organization" and therefore are not subject to many campaign finance restrictions.

Latest article by muckraker Greg Palast finds that one million African-American votes went uncounted in the 2000 election. He blames this the "spoilage game," where some voters are given the chance to correct errors in the "spoiled" ballots, and others are not…

The Blogging of the President examines more than half a dozen single-factor methods of predicting the outcome of the 2004 election

Al Gore gave a speech yesterday accusing the Bush administration of "intentionally misleading" the American people about terrorism and Iraq. Republicans respond by announcing the "Coalition of the Wild-Eyed", releasing a montage of video footage suggesting that John Kerry and his fellow Democrats are crazed, irrational and angry.

After the release of his new book, the right-wing bashes Bill Clinton’s immorality all over again. But at the same time, liberal bloggers are now seizing on the revelations about Republican senator Jack Ryan, who tried to convince his wife to have sex with him in front of strangers at sex clubs, and are doing some bashing of their own.

President Bush gives an interview to Irish TV station RTE in which he argues that the war on Iraq has not inspired any acts of terrorism, that the world is "becoming a safer place", and that the torture at Abu Ghraib prison was the work of "a few soldiers."

Although still stressing abstinence and morality above all, Bush admits that condom use can help prevent the spread of AIDS.

Fahrenheit 9/11 breaks records in New York, wins over critics, and inspires a conservative counter-film festival in Dallas.

Nicks

Read a fun review of reviews of the new Clinton book. I got a good chuckle when the blogger referred to a popular blow-dried Fox News host as "Sean 'I Have No Soul' Hannity". But that can be shortened into a better nickname. "Hannity the Soulless." Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

I admit, the nickname doesn't really fit his personality. Hannity is, more than anything else, smug. He's arrogant too, but more smug. So smug that if you touched him with a tree branch, the power of his smugness would set it ablaze.

So Hannity is smug, arrogant, and not overly bright. But perhaps his most profitable trait is his ability to live in the now. Is what he's saying different from what he said yesterday? Is he ignoring important historical facts? Did he forget what his opponent said just ten seconds ago? Is what he's saying now going to bite him in the ass in a few days? None of that matters to Sean "In the Now" Hannity. As long as he can stay firmly, myopically, eerily in the present, none of that can touch him.

All the same, I still like the name "Hannity the Soulless." I might spend the rest of the day trying to think up fun nicknames for our conservative friends.

Or, hopefully, I might not.

June 23, 2004

Interesting/Appalling

The New Blue Gold- interview with makers of "Thirst", a new documentary about corporate attempts to privatize the world's water supply.

The end of violence?- possible good news about the ongoing and ignored genocide in western Sudan. The Sudanese government has finally agreed to crack down on the militias doing the killing. Sadly, this sentence sums up where we stand: "It remains to be seen whether the Sudanese government can effectively curb the killing, or even whether it is sincere."

1 million black votes didn't count in the 2000 presidential election- according to Greg Palast, 1.9 million ballots were not counted in the 2000 election, and over half of those 1.9 million were ballots cast by African-Americans. He describes a system in which many ballots are "spoiled", when voters make extra marks on the voting paper; in predominantly white counties, voters are often given a chance to redo their messed up ballots, while in predominantly black counties, they aren't.

[edit]

I should mention that in the SF Chronicle, where I found the article, printed this article on page E-3 of the Sunday edition. I have only seen the online version, but that seems to fit the definition of "burying a story".

[/edit]

Left Behind- for some reason, American Christianity largely allies itself with the right wing. But this article argues that there might be a shift, that the National Association of Evangelicals, a religious organization representing tens of millions, wants to take a step back and analyze their political decisions instead of automatically throwing in with the Republicans.

A Marketer's Dream: Your Cell Phone- advertisers will soon ruin your life by sending spam text messages to your cell phone.

Microsoft Research DRM talk- transcribed talk with humor and plain English, explaining to Microsoft why the company's copyright protection efforts are not only doomed to failure, but is a terrible idea in and of itself.

Celebrity Poker

Ah, sweet satire.

Fictional poker game with Dick Cheney yields comical results. A veritable who's who of politicians and pundits are skwered.

I think my favorite bit was the line from Alan Colmes.

Go read, you'll see what I'm talking about.

Repetition

All roads lead to desperate.

[via Xoverboard, who remarks "You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."]

June 22, 2004

Speed Reading

So Bill Clinton's book of memoirs has just been released, and I'm sure it will be all the rage on the talk TV and talk radio circuit. But the thing's 900 freakin pages long! How many of these pundits do you think will make sure to read the book before giving their opinion of it? How many will say "I haven't read the book yet, but it seems that..." to preface their comments?

And how many will just read the snippets from a one-page press release and their party's talking points for the day and figure that that's all they need?

Fuckers.

I'm baffled by this book anyway. I don't want to read it, and I can't think of any reason that anyone else would want to.

Recap

Seems like now might be a good time for us all to re-pass around Ugga Bugga's Quotes on Al Qaeda, what with all the "we never said that" stuff coming from Cheney & co.

Ugga Bugga's list is a small database of quotes from Bush administration officials asserting links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Unfortunatley, the list is limited almost entirely to quotes of 2002, but it's a good start.

If someone's got a more complete list, let's get that passed around. We know that when something's popular in the blogosphere, it sometimes breaks into the liberal areas of the mainstream media, to the TV debate shows, and then sometimes into mainstream news coverage. Let's make some ripples.

[update]

David D reminds me of a much richer database, Iraq on the Record, commissioned by Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman

[/update]

Whoops

Sorry for abandoning the LMB radio show yesterday. I was busy coping with a fairly nasty case of food poisoning, and figured that perhaps y'all wouldn't appreciate your sarcastic political commentary with a side of audio dry heaves. Well, that, and I completely felt like shit and just wanted to stay curled up in a little ball in bed.

But some tips on coping with food poisoning:

1) Keep hydrated, but drinking Gatorade and sports drinks is probably not the best way. From what I've read, those drinks have so much sugar in them that they could actually prolong the food poisoning symptoms.

2) Instead, you should go for spefically made for rehydration, like Pedialyte. The cherry flavor of which is pretty nasty, I've discovered.

3) A dietician friend of mind also recommended taking charcoal pills, as they are good at absorbing toxins in the digestive system.

Today I feel great. Not really, but I feel normal, and compared to how I felt most of this weekend, I may as well be high.

June 19, 2004

Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies

It began Monday. Dick Cheney was giving a speech at the conservative Florida think tank The James Madison Institute. As part of his speech, he announced that Saddam Hussein "had long-established ties with Al-Qaida." I can't say for sure if Cheney was telling the truth, because I don't know what exactly he means by "ties". If he means "insinutations and wisps of unsupported fact," then yes, there are long established "ties" between the two. But, I'm pretty sure he meant for his audience to interpret his words to mean "Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida are a bunch of dirty Arabs who are working together to kills us all, destroy our freedom, and grope our white virginal daughters." In which case, he was throwing monster fibs.

On Wednesday, the 9/11 investigation commission announced that there was no credible evidence that Iraq and Al-Qaida worked together to plan the 9/11 attack, and said that it looked like Al-Qaida had tried to form a relationship with Iraq, but that Iraq had turned them down. So while there may be a history of "ties" and "contacts" between the groups, the commission confirms what many of us skeptics had been fairly certain of for quite some time: that the Saddam [heart] Osama stuff is and always was, bullshit.

At this point, one would expect the Bush administration to engage in some fancy misdirection and backpedaling to avoid looking like fools. To my surprise, they didn't.

Quoth President Dumbass:

The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaida is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida.

Bush's logic will come as joyous news to stalkers worldwide: when you ask a girl out and she says no, that's okay, because now you have a "relationship."

Then Cheney went kinda ballistic, blaming the E-vil press corps for "fuzzing up" the distinction between "Iraq-Al-Qaida links" and "Iraq-9/11 links." Hey, you started this "fuzzing up" game, asshole, don't start bitching to us when it turns on you. Jesus, what a waste of a pacemaker battery.

My favorite is the defensive lie of Condoleezza Rice:

"What I believe the 9-11 commission was opining on was operational control, an operational relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq which we never alleged," Rice said in an interview with National Public Radio...

"Operational control to me would mean that he (Saddam) was, perhaps, directing what al Qaeda would do"...

Vice Chairman [of the commission] Lee Hamilton said he was unaware of anyone ever claiming that Saddam had directed al Qaeda.

So Rice tries to cleverly redefine what the 9/11 commission meant, and is corrected by a member of the commission. That's fun.

And finally, let's get to Vladimir Putin:

President Vladimir V. Putin said Friday that Russia gave intelligence reports to the Bush administration suggesting that Saddam Hussein's government was preparing terrorist attacks in the United States or against American targets overseas.

If true, that would certainly bolster the Bush administration's credibility.

But:

But officials at the State Department expressed surprise, saying they knew of no such information from Russia.

Could Putin have made this up to support Bush, a man who supports Putin's own war on the Chechen insurgents? Nah.

June 17, 2004

Skeletor Revealed

Wow.

Rumsfeld ordered prisoner held off the books:

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.

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.

So the US took this guy prisoner, made no record of it, sent him to be interrogated in the US, but got scared that doing that was a violation of international law. Then they sent him back to Iraq, hid him from the Red Cross, and then, um, lost him.

If there was no "violent treatment", why was the military so keen on hiding this guy from the Red Cross? The most reasonable and benign explanation would be that the military was trying to cover up their prisoner's trip to the US by hiding him from legal monitors like the IRC.

Or, the military beat the fuck out of him and didn't want to get caught. Either way.

But if these "Pentagon officials" are for real, violations of the Geneva Convention and possibly orders about torture itself go all the way to the White House, to Bush's Secretary of Defense.

Honestly, this almost sounds made up. How could the head of the US military, with its hundreds of bases and millions of personnel, be such a micro-manager? "After you hide the prisoner, take care of that machine gun cache in that ditch next to Imam al-Mehdi Street. And then fill up the all soap dispensers in the bathrooms at Camp X-Ray."

But if it's true, and Rumsfeld was directly involved with authorizing torture, or at least ordering violations of the Geneva Convention...

And since you've read this whole article so patiently, you deserve the kicker:

Pentagon officials still insist Rumsfeld acted legally, but admit it all depends on how you interpret the law.

Indeed.

[correction]

A commenter has pointed out that I misread the article a bit and that the prisoner was just taken "outside Iraq", not necessarily to the United States.

[/correction]

[update]

Rumsfeld now seems to be blaming the whole thing on George Tenet.

[/update]

June 16, 2004

That Explains His Obession with Oil

Shocking CIA Leak Reveals DICK CHENEY IS A ROBOT!

This is good news. I haven't read the Constitution in a while, but I'm pretty sure it specifies that the Vice President has to be a human. Which means we can ditch this Cheney chump. Then, all we have to do is prove that the President is some sort of squash or turnip creature, then we're set.

[via Politics in the Zeros]

June 15, 2004

Touching Evil

One of the hallmarks of the LMB site is my tradition of announcing that I'm going to do something, and then not doing it.

I announced that last week was going to be "pop culture week" on the site, where I would write about various films and books and whatnot, politically and otherwise. Didn't happen.

So only a week late, I'm getting started. This one ain't so political.

Touching Evil is a newish cop drama on the USA Network. I like to say that it takes place in an "alternate reality San Francisco", because their version of the city is like 80% serial killers. And every week, the members of a special serial killer-catching police force get inside the head of a different serial killer and catch them. That sounds a bit common, of course, but it has several differences from the average cop drama.

The first difference is the show's gimmick. The main character was a brilliant detective who was shot in the head, put into a coma, and has only recently returned to work. He's come back with brain damage, which has ruined many of his social skills and have set his emotions to Intense mode most of the time. We see the extremity of his life and job, and watch him express the grief, fury, and joy it creates. He's a passionate, pained, goofy, loving, unpredictable fellow. Which again, sounds generic, but it works.

The second enjoyable aspect of the show is its tone and atmosphere. The show's music is muffled, melancholy and dreamy, all kinda stolen from the Nine Inch Nails song "A Warm Place" (which in itself was pretty much a theft of David Bowie's song "Crystal Japan"). This music matches nicely with the sequences that go between the main story. These scenes are beautiful time lapse images of San Francisco: glaciers of fog storming the bay with a quickness; city streets streaked with speeding tail lights; sunlight rising and falling on the Golden Gate. In my opinion, all this serves to emphasize the show's inherent sadness, and makes the viewer a bit more introspective and susceptible to the show's moodiness.

And finally, you have the show's characters and their interactions. As the episodes progress, you realize that this is not a crack unit of hard-boiled cops: these are a group of walking wounded. Slowly and carefully, you learn that each of these people is suffering a terrible loss, and has no clue how to cope. So they try to bury it all with cold exteriors, emotional distance and obsessions with their job. With the edition of they hyper-sensitive new detective, these icy barriers soften and fracture, and you catch glimpses of the pain and raw anguish, but also of tenderness, and the possibility that maybe, just maybe, these damaged souls could help each other start to heal.

I might be reading a lot into this, but that's just where I am right now.

Of course, the show has plenty of flaws: plots that sometimes don't quite work, abrupt conflicts or breakthroughs, twists and misdirections that are a tad transparent. And there's no guarantee just yet that it'll even be renewed for a second season. All I know is that as it stands, the show clicks with me, and maybe it'll keep on clicking.

News-a-roni

Contractor Immunity a Divisive Issue- the US government wants the new Iraqi government to make all American contractors in Iraq above the law. Happily, it seems like the Iraqi government is resisting this idea.

LA 'on the road to Falluja'?- unfortunately, this article is 80% allegations from a single source-- LA civil rights attorney named Connie Rice-- so I don't know how reliable it all is. But if even half of what she says is true, the situation in the poorer parts of LA are in a terrible state. It sounds as though the police officers patrollng these areas have little training or resources, and therefore respond to the community with violence and repression. Accompanying that, Rice claims that young gang members in the area are actually going out of their way to try to kill cops. Sounds like occupation and insurgency, hence the Falluja reference in the title.

FBI warns of possible ecoterrorism- the term "ecoterrorism" is one of my pet peeves. Frankly, every act called "ecoterrorism" would be more accurately described as "ecovandalism" or "ecosabotage". Terrorists kill; "ecoterrorists" don't. They usually just smash and burn inanimate objects. And yet environmental and animal rights radicals seem to be the main "terrorist" concern in the minds of US law enforcement.

I've got mixed feelings on the issue. Yes, ecovandals are destroying the property of other human beings. But what if they are destroying property that is itself destructive? What if you blew up a factory which was causing massive pollution and damaging people's health? I dunno.

This article is also funny because it shows how police are completely clueless when dealing with activists. The article refers to a "International Day of Action & Solidarity with Jeff 'Free' Luers". "Free" was an ecovandal who set fire to three SUVs. I haven't researched him much, but if the short bit I read on his site is to be believed, his jail sentence does sound a bit on the shady side (he was originally charged with a crime that would carry a one-year sentence, which then ballooned into 23 years. For fires that caused about $40,000 in damage...). Anyhow, it appears that exactly zero acts of violence took place on this day of action, and I can't even find any reports of related vandalism. And one activist message board I checked out brought up the point, that if they had been going to take some kind of illegal action, why would they do it on a day that they knew the cops were on alert? Why not wait till another time?.

Anyhow, it looks like this FBI warning did much more to publicize Free's case and promote the various actions/benefits for him than it did to "stop the violence."

City Braces for Grand Old Party- another article about the chaos that will be accompanying the Republican National Convention in a few months. The same cops who are so clueless about environmental activists are going to have to deal with hundreds of activist organizations and hundreds of thousands of activist individuals. The police will likely respond as they usually do, attempting to derail the protests with light violence, civil rights violations, and unsubstantiated pre-emptive arrests. I feel like I should attend the protests, but I'm honestly scared to. I think that NYC during the RNC is as close to a police state as this middle-class white American is likely to see in his lifetime.

Limbaugh: AIDS "hasn't made that jump to the heterosexual community"- yes, the human filth cannon is now claiming that AIDS is only a problem among American gays and "promiscuous" heterosexual Africans. Last I'd heard, AIDS was the number one cause of death among young African-American men. I guess all young African-American men must be gay, because surely Rush would never talk out of his ass like that.

Travesty of Justice- nice Ashcroft bashing piece by Paul Krugman.

When Ignorance Isn't Bliss- "Straight from the you-can't-make-this-stuff-up file, the five congressional votes that everyone in America should know about."

Garfield: Why we hate the Mouse but not the cartoon copycat- apparently, Garfield was never a comic strip, but an carefully-plotted marketing strategy planned by the cartoonist himself. Oh, and the movie sucks.

Last Comic Scandalous- interesting rumor-heavy story that looks behind the reality TV show "Last Comic Standing." Looks like the thing was unbelievably rigged. The article is white text on a white background, so to read it, you'll have to highlight the text with your mouse.

Let's Do the Time Warp Again!

Cheney Claims al-Qaida Linked to Saddam

Jesus fucking Christ. How many times has this been debunked? And how many times has Cheney made the same fucking claim even though it's been debunked?

Apparently, reporters brought this up to White House spokesman Scott McClellan at today's press briefing. Watch McClellan dodge the questions with the grace of a sleepy walrus.

Reporter: "What about the VP saying Saddam Hussein had long established ties with Al Qaeda?"

McClellan: "Well, um... we know that Saddam gave some money to Palestinian suicide bombers a few times, so to answer your question, yes, Saddam had extensive ties to terrorism. Next ques--"

R: "Sir, that's not what I asked."

M: "Yes it is."

R: "No it isn't."

M: "No?"

R: "No."

M: "...shit."

Spooky

I'm not sure what happened exactly, but the back end of the blog has been acting funny today. I think I've got things under control now. I think.

Jujitsu

The PR firm Russo, Marsh, & Rogers has started a campaign urging people to contact movie theater companies to tell them not to screen Michael Moore's new movie Fahrenheit 9/11. I've got no problem with people trying to use boycotts and letters and whatnot as a means of political action, but there are already claims that crazed conservatives are using the anti-Moore website's info to contact theater owners and intimidate them with death threats. That kind of shit ventures into pre-fascism territory.

But, you can use this PR company's site against them. Their page lists dozens of email addresses for top dogs at most of the major theater chains in the United States. You can easily use that info to write letters of support to the theater chains saying, "please show Fahrenheit 9/11, I want to see it and give you money."

Go to it!

You Want Fries with That?

I saw the movie Super Size Me last week, but haven't had the time or energy to review it till now.

I think you all know the premise: guy says "what would happen if I ate nothing but McDonald's food for 30 days?", proceeds to eat only McDonald's food for 30 days, and then finds that it's a lot more harmful than anyone would have predicted.

First off, I have to say that it is a good movie. Most of the time when you see a documentary, you have to put yourself in PBS mode, accepting that you're going to learn something, maybe be intrigued, but you don't really expect to be entertained much. But I actually enjoyed myself watching Super Size Me. It flowed well, and remained interesting and funny through nearly all of its screentime. I'll make the bold claim that director Morgan Spurlock is a better director than the popular Michael Moore.

The movie is much more than advertised; ninety minutes of Man Eating Burger would be a good time for no one. About half the film is Spurlock eating McD's, traveling across the country, and dealing with the consequences of his binge eating. The other half is interviews, facts, and investigative journalism. Spurlock talks to nutritionists, fast food lobbyists, elementary school gym teachers, Big Mac addicts, etc. Spurlock paints a larger picture about American eating habits, health, and corporate exploitation.

The eating habit issue is quite important. We all hear about America's obesity epidemic, which is fucking obscene, given the number of people in this world who die young and malnourished. We all know the cause: a combination of cheap, unhealthy food and a lack of exercise. But there are other factors: ever-decreasing amounts of free time; lack of nutritional education for kids; lack of physical education for kids; lobbying efforts by junk food corporations to confuse the public; and huge, huge, huge advertising efforts by the fast food industry. All of this helps alter American culture and norms towards one in which eating large amounts of unhealthy food and participating in minimal amounts of healthy exercise are quite common, and those who take a more healthful path are seen as unique and exemplary.

Apart from the book Fast Food Nation, I'm not aware of any American cultural product that has managed to spark discussion and thought about these issues among average Americans the way Super Size Me has (although this is somewhat due to defensive corporate PR, which has helped raise the film's visibility). I've been slowly trying to change my own life, eat healthier, eat out less, and exercise more. I've made a bit of progress, and this movie did give me an extra kick in the ass.

Sadly, even eating food that most Americans would consider "healthy" has problems. Meat produced in factory farms with hormones and excess antibiotics; genetically modified vegetables; meals all processed to hell with mysterious chemical additives. I'm not an expert on the subject, so I won't speak much about it, but the more you learn, the more appalled you become.

Anyhow. Super Size Me is good, and you should see it.

June 11, 2004

Protest Pics

Two major protests this week. The first was the "Reclaim the Commons" protest, taking place in San Francisco, in response to a meeting of major players in the biotech industry.

San Francisco: Pics from Reclaim the Commons- pics from the first day of this week's anti-biotech protests.

SFIMC Kids Squad- cute yet optimistic photos of very junior members of the San Francisco Independent Media Center

BIO Business Forum- someone got inside the meeting and took some pics...

The other major protest was against the G8 summit meeting on an isolated island off of the Georgia coast. Amazingly, the governor of Georgia declared a pre-emptive State of Emergency in that region before the summit or protests took place.

G8: Pictures from first day of protests

Shock and Awe- protestors try to get to Sea Island. And are... stopped.

G8: Black bloc marches despite use of military to terrorize dissent- pro-Palestinian rally near the G8 summit. Note the scary police/military presence.

Success in Brunswick- let's end on a positive note. I think my favorite pic in that set is the breakdancing guy in the hazmat suit.

You can find plenty more photos at Biotech.indymedia.org and the Atlanta Independent Media Center.

Link Mob

A Little-Noticed Supreme Court Case Represents A Huge Injustice: The Court Refuses to Free A Man Serving Six Years on a Two-Year Sentence- this is pretty nuts. Fellow gets sentenced to two years in jail for stealing a calculator from Wal-Mart, AND 14 years for being a "habitual felony offender." Except it turns out that he doesn't fit the legal definition of habitual felony offender. So the guy's been in jail for 6 years, guilty of a crime with a maximum sentence of two years. The prosecutors admit that this is true, but are trying to keep him locked up anyway.

More Enron Tapes, More Gloating- those wacky Enronians, so wrapped up in their evil schemes, they joked about how they would destroy the state of California. A lot.

The End of Oil- talk with an author about oil, energy, and geopolitics. Probably the most interesting point (but most obvious, if you actually thought it out) is that "running out of oil" is not an issue; at a certain point, there will be plenty of oil left, but it will be too expensive to find it and extract it.

Senators Back Low-Power Radio- wow. Senators John McCain and Patrick Leahy have proposed a new bill to make it easier to legally broadcast on the radio. "'I look forward to hearing more local artists, local news, local public-affairs programming and community-based programming on low-power FM radio stations throughout the country,' McCain said." Wouldn't have seen that coming.

The Gaza Trip- author argues that Ariel Sharon's current "Get Israel Out of the Gaza Strip" plan is a ruse, and that the Israeli government will never follow through on it. There's a good chance he's right.

June 10, 2004

The Kids Are Alright

Had an interesting experience yesterday. I was invited to speak at Ms. Bush's (no relation) journalism class at Josh Marshall High School (apparently the set for several John Hughes movies over the years). I'd like to say that they wanted me as a guest speaker for my expertise in news and media, but I wasn't. I was there so the students could get in some journalistic interview target practice. The teacher likes having folks from all walks of life come in for these sessions, hopefully I didn't bore anybody.

The kids had researched me, so there were a lot of references to stuff I've written on the site, and some of my other projects, which was a bit of a trip. The first question was about what impact I thought George Tenet's resignation would have on the presidential election ("none"), and veered around from writing to protest to media to civil rights. A number of kids were very interested in immigration issues, but I confess to ignorance in that area, so my answers probably let them down. But overall, I think I did pretty well, even synthesizing a few new concepts on the fly, and managing to insert a few subversive ideas here and there. And the students either appreciated me coming in, or were super courteous. I apologize to the fellow who tried to talk to me at the end but was interrupted repeatedly by like 15 people who wanted to shake my hand and say goodbye.

But the main reason I'm writing this is that there is something I wish I'd said while there, and some of those students might come back here and see it:

Student folks: if any of you want to be DJs or news reporters for Kill Radio, you are welcome to join us. The studio's not that far from your school, over by Beverly and Vermont. And sometimes, we're rebroadcast in LA at 104.7FM. Write me if you're interested in KR.

And to finish off my high school subversion, I'll have to recommend that y'all read Days of War, Nights of Love as an rough, elegant little work on dissent, free thinking and free living, with lots of art, heart and anger.

June 09, 2004

Basic Training

Jesus.

Okay, an Army officer named Sean Baker was released from service on a medical discharge back in April.

According to Baker, during a training session in Guantanamo Bay, he "posed as an uncooperative prisoner and was beaten so badly by four U.S. soldiers that he suffered a traumatic brain injury, requiring a medical discharge" (if I understand properly, the beating has caused Baker to suffer frequent seizures). He said that one of the soldiers "slammed my head against the floor and continued to choke me." "The soldiers only stopped beating him when they realized he might be American."

But the abuse and beatings and torture at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, that was just a few bad apples. Nothing widespread or systematic.

The army admits that the beating was part of the reason for Baker's discharge (after initially denying the two things were related).

[via This Modern World]

June 08, 2004

Newsilicious

Afghan children fall prey to killers who trade human organs- too awful for comment.

Civil liberties and the MBTA- "Reports that the MBTA [Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority, in Boston] is implementing a first-in-the-nation plan to stop subway passengers for random identification checks and to question them about their activities at T-stops should alarm anyone who worries about civil liberties."

Rumsfeld fears U.S. losing long-term fight against terror"The troubling unknown, he said, is whether the extremists -- whom he termed 'zealots and despots' bent on destroying the global system of nation-states -- are turning out newly trained terrorists faster than the United States can capture or kill them. 'It's quite clear to me that we do not have a coherent approach to this,' Rumsfeld said at an international security conference." Someone slipped Rummy a Red Pill.

[Correction]

Kevin Drum points out that if you look at the full transcript that Rumsfeld is not talking about the US not having a coherent strategy, but the whole world.

[/Correction]

Kurds Threaten to Pull Out of Iraqi Government- hmm, that could lead to the feared "Iraqi civil war" and the "Turkish invasion of Kurdistan" we've all been hearing about.

Women are players, too- interesting article about how the video game industry is responding to increasing numbers of female players: it isn't.

Move to Stiffen Decency Rules Is Losing Steam in Washington- without any new nipple outbreaks in the past 6 months, Congress is no longer quite so keen to continue their censorship crusade. Best news I heard all day.

Portland's time to be a village- anarchy in action. Bunch of neighbors throw a 10-day series of workshops on all kinds of subjects, taught by self-made experts from the neighborhood. These events build relationships, the relationships lead to a community, and the community leads to projects to make the community an even better place to live. Just people working with people.

June 06, 2004

Blogroll Call

I keep adding new blog titles to the "Obligatory Blog Links" section of the site, but I'm not sure that anyone is noticing. Some of these folks are quite good, so maybe I should highlight some of the new recruits here.

[Note- my criteria for blog links is as follows: at some point in time, the blog in question must have made me feel ashamed of my own, either because they are covering topics or themes that I really feel I should be covering, or because the writing and analysis is so much better than my own.]

Beyond Brilliance, Beyond Stupidity- sort of a split-level blog, each half focusing on either the positive or negative "developments in transportation, urban planning, design, the environment, the internet and many other vaguely related areas." Very good collection of real, tangible environmental news.

Bombs and Shields- anarchist news blog with links to important, neglected news stories, with a focus on radical resistance.

Feministing- "Young women are rarely given the opportunity to speak on their own behalf on issues that affect their lives and futures. Feministing provides a platform for us to comment, analyze and influence. " Frankly, my blog is frequently deficient of feminist analyses; I think I have to concede that I write best when sticking to my areas of expertise: media, military intervention, and quoting the Simpsons. To rectify this a little, I've linked to several other sites to carry the gender analysis torch.

Mouse Words- another good political blog that frequently delves into feminist analysis, although I think it first caught my eye because the author demonstrated good taste in music; sadly, a rarity among bloggers.

A Tiny Revolution- current events and politics, with an emphasis on being funny about it. First success: writing a satirical fake resume for ex-spook George Tenet, and then posting it on Monster.com

[ ]

Dong Resin wins for best blog entry title about Reagan's death:

Ronald Reagan Dead at 93. Gorbachev Rips Off Latex Mask to Reveal the Head of a Locust, Bellows 'GAME ON' at the Sky as Warheads Crank Around on Their Launchers to Once Again Point Towards Washington While Sickle and Hammer Banners Unfurl Europe-Wide

You can't beat that, so don't even try.

For No Apparent Reason

Sweet.

June 05, 2004

Ronnie's Last Ride

Big news of the weekend is the death of former president Ronald Reagan. Following American media tradition, Reagan's life will be presented as one long heroic voyage. I'll bet that Reagan treated his family and friends with love and care, and that they'll miss him to the end of their days. But that was on a personal level. On a political level, I think he did tremendous damage to this country and to people in other countries.

I was born in 1975. I was young during Reagan's reign. Because I grew up with him in office, he is what I've come to expect a president to be, image-wise: kinda old, kinda handsome, kinda rugged, kinda kindly, and kinda stupid.

But overall, when I think Reagan, I think (the sham of) trickle-down economics. I think busting the air traffic controllers union. I think demonizing the poor as "welfare queens." I think the Iran-contra. I think Latin American death squads.

I imagine in the coming days I'll find a nice comprehensive article that sums up the Reagan years, but in the meantime, you get this nice piece by Steve Gilliard.

Hallelujah

Christ-rock band Creed finally heeds the word of God and calls it quits. For those of you not up to date on your popular music, this is good news, because Creed was really, really, really not good.

[via Mouse Words]

June 03, 2004

Just.. a little... farther

Sorry folks, I'm back from vacation, but I've come back to a heaping plateful of work. I'm currently working on an article for publication (which is actually turning out much better than I expected. Maybe because I expected it to kinda suck) and then I have to write up the June edition of the Axis of Justice newsletter. So I probably won't be back in the blogging swing of things till tonight or tomorrow.

Also, I'm thinking of making next week "Pop Culture Week", where most of the posts will be analyses/reviews of movies, TV shows, books video games, etc. Should be a nice change of pace.

See ya in a few.

May 29, 2004

Quick Congrats

I'm still on vacation, but had to pop in to congratulate Kill Radio's own "Get the Fuck Up" radio show for being nominated as "Best Radio Show" in the 2004 LA Weekly Music Awards!

GTFU (formerly known as "The Buddyhead Show") is (as its hosts describe it)

"A mix of band interviews, live musical performances, and prank calls, all masked under the clever disguise of being drunken fools."

That's pretty dead-on.

But they also do what any good musical radio show should do: find good new bands and play them so that the audience can hear and enjoy. Unfortunately, the handful of radio shows out there which take chances and play new music often have no interest in playing what's new and good, only in "breaking" new bands, in playing the Next Big Thing while they're still Unknown and Mildly Underground; therefore those shows are not about entertaining and enlightening the audience, they're about raising the prestige of the DJs. I'm glad that GTFU hasn't fallen into that trap.

And to counter that noble-sounding stuff above, the GTFU guys get drunk on the air, talk a bunch of crazy shit, insult each other, and often come across like real assholes. All in all, a pretty unqiue mix of creativity, intrigue and stupidity.

GTFU is up against some stiff competition for this LA Weekly award: Rodney on the ROQ, a new show by former Sex Pistol Steve Jones, an all Grateful Dead and "jam band" show, and some other show on quality college station KXLU.

Congrats, GFTU!!

[edit]

Kill Radio's lydiadeetz reminds us that other LA Weekly Music Award nominees, musicians Mezklah, Go Betty Go, Very Be Careful and Mike Watt have all been guests on Kill Radio programs, or have performed at benefit concerts for Kill Radio.

Which means we're all cool and stuff, verdad?

[/edit]

May 22, 2004

Out to Launch

I'm on vacation, SUCKAZ!!

In the meantime, get your news, politics & snark fixes at Cursor, Pandagon, Rational Enquirer, Steve Gilliard, Mouse Words, Whiskey Bar, Dong Resin, and Bombs & Shields. Links down and to the right somewhere. Hell, look at all the news and blog sites named down there; I wouldn't've put any of those links up if I didn't think they were good.

See ya in a week.

Big mess o' links

I'll pull the troops out: Kerry- "United States Democrat John Kerry promised that, if elected president of the United States, he would pull virtually all American combat troops out of Iraq - away from the 'death zone' - by the end of his first term." Yes, if you vote for Kerry, the US might pull out of Iraq by the end of 2008. That's leadership.

'Significant Adverse Effects'- "Tens of thousands ... suffer debilitating health problems stemming from their exposure to contaminants in the air around the World Trade Center site."

House Bill Threatens Retailers- the proposed "Parents' Empowerment Act" would allow parents to sue "anyone who knowingly disseminates any media which contains 'material that is harmful to minors.'" The whole world must be child-proofed because children live in the world. Fuck off, parents. I'm an adult, and I like adult things.

More carnage in Gaza as the US mutters its disapproval- Israel makes war on Palestine some more.

Tuna Meltdown- I'm pretty pissed off about this one. The American Academy of Family Physicians published a magazine called "Essential Guide to Health and Wellbeing" and sent it out to 50,000 family doctors to put out in their waiting rooms. Among several other questionable advertisements (McDonald's? Dr. Pepper?), there is a full-page ad urging pregnant women to eat canned tuna fish for its numerous health properties. While it does have a number of health benefits, canned tuna is high in mercury, which can utterly fuck up a fetus' entire brain and nervous system! The AAFP estimates it made $100,000 from the advertisments in this magazine.

Material Given to Congress in 2002 Is Now Classified- Two years back, the Justice Department gave some documents to Congress which included testimony from an FBI translator who claimed that the bureau had dropped the ball on terrorism before 9/11. Now, suddenly, Justice has decided that those documents should have always been Classified, so they retroactively classified the documents that have been public for over 2 years. Could it be because they are critical of the government? That's crazy talk.

Sullivan on Iraq War, Sept. 1, 2002- blogger Juan Cole tears into popular conservative counterpart Andrew Sullivan for his pro-war pre-invasion propaganda.

Ammo Dump- simple article that tells you how to argue against people who are in favor of "tort reform."

A Soldier of Conscience- unpleasant tale of how one soldier lost his faith in the war on Iraq.

Raid on Chalabi Puts 'NYT' Even More on the Spot- Editor & Publisher tears into the NY Times for its hypocrisy: it criticizes the government for believing the self-serving lies of Ahmad Chalabi, but neglects to post corrections for the times it believe the self-serving lies of Ahmad Chalabi.

May 19, 2004

Random News

Keep Off the Grass- NYC refuses to grant permission for activists to protest the Republican National Convention in Central Park. Because that many people (an estimated 250,000) would "ruin the lawn." Awfully convenient time to come down with a case of environmentalism...

Brown v. Board Fifty Years Out- fifty years after the monumental court case, America's schools are all totally de-segregated. Kinda. Not really.

Pathological Power of Prisons: Parallel Paths at Stanford and Abu Ghraib- the Iraq prison abuse scandal reminded me of the Stanford prison experiment from the start. In the experiment, a handful of college students were assigned to be either guards or inmates in a mock prison for two weeks. Things got so bad so quickly that they had to pull the plug after only 6 days. After designing one of the least ethical experiments in academic history, psychologist Phil Zimbardo went on to relative fame and fortune, and even has his own line of educational psychology videos. Here is an essay by Zimbardo comparing Abu Ghraib and his own notorious experiment. I hate Phil Zimbardo.

The Jesus Landing Pad- you might have heard about this one already. Apparently, the Bush administration regularly meets with apocalyptic Christian fundamentalists to assure them that current US foreign policy does not contradict Biblical prophecy about The Rapture/Armageddon. Good to know that our government will go out of its way to appease a constituency who's main goal is to see the destruction of mankind.

Can ‘Star Wars: Episode III’ be saved?- okay, not news, just a column bashing George Lucas and his Star Wars neo-trilogy. I'll get my GenX membership card revoked for saying so, but even the first trilogy was pretty bad. For the most part, the movies are acted and directed horribly. Lucas is a fucking hack.

Conservative Legislators Sue Gay Couple Who Sought Marriage License- a gay couple in Pennsylvania is planning to challenge the state's ban on gay marriage. To stop them, some conservative assholes are planning to sue the couple themselves.

Patriot Act Suppresses News Of Challenge To Patriot Act- yes, according to the Patriot Act, it is against the law to announce that you are filing a lawsuit challenging the Patriot Act. Just wait till Patriot Act 2, when the entire city of Washington DC will be draped in a big black cloth so that no one can see what's going on inside. Y'know, for national security.

May 18, 2004

Those Who Forget the Past Are Condemned to Fuck Up Iraq

Columnist Eric Margolis reminds the Bush administration the lessons it should already have learned via past colonial wars.

- People will accept misrule, robbery, abuse and torture by their fellow citizens -- but not by foreigners.

- The occupying power will always find locals ready to co-operate and join the colonial police and army for money. Ten percent will serve loyally; 50% will do nothing. The rest will covertly fight the occupiers, provide the resistance with intelligence or quietly sabotage the occupation.

- Most of those who co-operate with the occupation will maintain secret links with the resistance. Massive defections will occur the minute the occupiers show the first signs of thinking about withdrawal.

- Tribal, clan, ethnic and religious loyalties will also prove stronger than political ones imposed by the occupier. You cannot buy loyalty; you can only rent it.

- An inevitable byproduct of colonial adventures is an unwanted, usually massive influx of people from the conquered country.

- Colonial occupations almost always cost far more than planned and produce negative earnings for the invader. Occupying Iraq and Afghanistan now costs at least $6 billion US monthly. The costs of garrisoning and running colonies usually exceeds what can be looted from them.

- It's always cheaper to buy resources than plunder them. The Soviets thought they would pay for their invasion of Afghanistan by stealing its natural gas. The Washington neo-conservatives who engineered the Iraq war ludicrously claimed its stolen oil would fully cover the costs of invasion and occupation.

- Guerrilla wars waged among civilians inevitably produce hatred for occupiers and corrupt the invaders. Torture, brutality, mass reprisals against civilians and black marketeering become epidemic, even among the best-disciplined troops. The longer occupation troops stay on, the more they become corrupted, brutalized and addicted to drugs -- so do the nations that sent them.

Sadly, the Bush administration has neither foresight nor hindsight. They're like those fucking cave fish, with big bulbous sacs where their eyes are supposed to be.

May 17, 2004

Too Much Violence in Film

Six injured in Cannes clashes

Apparently, France has some sort of special unemployment benefits for artists between shows/performances, and the government is trying to cut these benefits. In protest, several hundred "show business workers" held a march outside the Cannes Film Festival. Filmmaker Michael Moore joined in the protest (wonder how popular he'll be in France when he's turned his sites to making their government look bad).

Later, about 100 of the marchers raised a real (reel?) ruckus downtown, storming and occupying a movie theater. Le Police showed up to whomp ass: three cops were injured, three protesters were injured, and five protesters were arrested.

May 16, 2004

Sexalogical Warfare

Nice find by our pal Dong Resin.

Sex and Psychological Operations is a historical essay examining the ways in which warring nations dropped propaganda leaflets on their enemy's troops, trying to demoralize them by playing upon the soldiers' sexual fears and frustrations.

The essay reproduces and analyzes many such leaflets, from 1939 through the Vietnam war.

Although there is much variation among these leaflets, the messages really only have about three different messages:

1) If you weren't fighting us, you could be at home having sex with your wife/girlfriend.

2) While you're away, your wife/girlfriend is cheating on you.

3) While you're away, some man might be raping your wife/girlfriend.

My favorite is the series that the Americans dropped on the Germans during WWII which warn that while the German soldier is on the frontlines, their sexually-deprived wives and girlfriends would become lesbians, or have sex with dogs. Several other leaflets in that series also insinuate that adult leaders of the Nazi Youth might be seducing and raping the soldiers' young sons while their fathers were away.

According to the essay, these leaflets always seem to backfire. Not only are the soldiers not demoralized by the messages, but they actually clipped all the ones with sexy pictures for their own arousal, or simply used the leaflets as toilet paper when supplies ran low.

As a history buff with an eye towards propaganda, I find this page damn interesting.

May 15, 2004

The Way We Weren't

I saw this on someone else's blog. Sounds like fun, so I stole it:

"Invent a memory of me, and write it in the comments. It can be anything you want, and as ridiculous and silly as you want. The only stipulation is it must be completely false. Then post this onto your blog so people can create memories of you."

Have a ball. Post it in the comments, the wildest adventures we never had.

"No Damn Cat, and No Damn Cradle!"

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Kurt Vonnegut:

We’re spreading democracy, are we? Same way European explorers brought Christianity to the Indians, what we now call “Native Americans.”

How ungrateful they were! How ungrateful are the people of Baghdad today.

So let’s give another big tax cut to the super-rich. That’ll teach bin Laden a lesson he won’t soon forget. Hail to the Chief.

That chief and his cohorts have as little to do with Democracy as the Europeans had to do with Christianity. We the people have absolutely no say in whatever they choose to do next. In case you haven’t noticed, they’ve already cleaned out the treasury, passing it out to pals in the war and national security rackets, leaving your generation and the next one with a perfectly enormous debt that you’ll be asked to repay.

Nobody let out a peep when they did that to you, because they have disconnected every burglar alarm in the Constitution: The House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, the FBI, the free press (which, having been embedded, has forsaken the First Amendment) and We the People.

The whole article is good, Vonnegut doing his Twain-esque riffing on politics and society today.

I've been a Vonnegut fan for a long time, although I suppose he does take some getting used to. I think my very favorite Vonnegut moment was in his book Breakfast of Champions. The story is told in a very quirky, jerky way, with lots of crude, hand-drawn sketches of random objects related to the story wedged in between paragraphs. Every time a new character enters the novel, no matter how minor, Vonnegut gives some of their trivia, some of their backstory, and oddly, their physical measurements (bust, hips, waist, penis size where applicable). Until at one point, Vonnegut busts down the fourth wall and in a seeming fit of exasperation, blurts out what he's doing:

As I approaced my fiftieth birthday, I had become more and more enraged and mystified by the idiot decisions made by my countrymen. And then I had come sudddenly to pity them, for I understood how innocent and natural it was for them to behave so abominably with such abominable results: They were doing their best to live like people invented in story books ... Why were so many Americans treated by their government as though their lives were as disposable as paper facial tissues? Because that was the way authors customarily treated bit-part players in their made up tales

[emphasis mine]

Vonnegut claims that we live our lives as though we were the main character in a novel, and treat our fellow man as though they were merely extras in our important drama. So to counteract that, Vonnegut decides to write a book in which he treats all the characters alike. No one is a bit-part player.

And that was a pretty profound thing to me.

May 14, 2004

Party at Rummy's!

This is fun.

Washington, DC: Antiwar Group Protests Torture in Front of Rumsfeld's House

Protesters re-enacted some of the gruesome Abu Ghraib prison abuse photos out in front of Don Rumsfeld's house. Lotsa protest pics, check em out.

The only downside is that Rummy was in Iraq, playing spin doctor, but apparently faced hard questions from his own troops. Questions like "will we be getting better armor for our bodies and our Humvees?", "is it true the military won't pay my full airfare to get me back home?", "why won't the military's medical insurance cover physical therapy for my handicapped child?", "why did you say our goal is to reduce troops in Iraq and then send in additional troops?", "why can the mercenaries carry weapons to protect themselves but Defense Department civilians can't?", and "do we have a plan for stability in Iraq?"

From the sound of it, he dodged their questions too.

May 11, 2004

Vibes

My friend Naomi is going in for some fairly radical surgery tomorrow/Wednesday (I referred to her anonymously in an earlier post as "Sally"). She's become more religious since this crisis began, as one could easily imagine happening when staring mortality in the face. Anyhow, if any of you who are more spiritually-inclined said a prayer for her, or sent some good thoughts her way, I think she would appreciate it.

[update]

Wow. The surgery was even more intense than I had expected. I think they, uh, had to take her heart out, operate, and then put it back in. That was yesterday. As of the last report I heard from her family, Naomi was awake and eating ice cream. She's a scrawny little thing, but I guess she's got the endurance of a Navy Seal inside. The doctors say she's gonna be okay.

[/update]

Manna

Gotta thank Lynn, an LMB reader who sent me free stuff in honor of last month's LMB 2-year anniversary. Y'all might be hearing a little more Harry Belafonte and Bill Hicks on upcoming LMB radio shows.

Thanks again, Lynn!

Sheltering Sky

Funny how this isn't getting much coverage:

Homes of 1,100 Palestinians in Gaza destroyed

According to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, in the last 10 days, the Israeli military has destroyed more than 100 Palestinian homes in Gaza, leaving more than 1100 people homeless. By their count, that makes over 17,000 people who have had their homes demolished in Gaza since the second Intifada started, in September 2000.

[via The Killing Train]

May 10, 2004

Radio AWOL

Sorry folks, no LMB radio show today; I got out of town bidness.

BUT... you should listen to Kill Radio during that time anyway, because the legendary Humberto of Con Sin will be filling in for me.

[update]

Or maybe Miriam from The People Who Do That will be subbing? I dunno.

Chaos!! Chaos!!

[/update]

May 09, 2004

Untruer Words...

"No President has ever done more for human rights than I have."
-George W. Bush

May 08, 2004

Tortured Context

Many Americans are suddenly up in arms over the Iraqi prisoner torture, but let's step back a moment. As some of you may recall, prior to the torture, the United States INVADED IRAQ, DROPPED BOMBS ON ITS PEOPLE, AND SMASHED THE PLACE TO BITS. And before that, the United States led a strict economic embargo of the country which led to the DEATHS OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS WHO COULDN'T GET FOOD OR MEDICINE. During this time, the US was also patrolling the "no-fly zones" in northern and southern Iraq, DROPPING BOMBS ON A REGULAR BASIS. And, before that, in Gulf War I, the United States INVADED IRAQ, DROPPED BOMBS ON ITS PEOPLE, AND SMASHED THE PLACE TO BITS. And before the Gulf War, the United States SUPPORTED IRAQI DICTATOR SADDAM HUSSEIN, WHO KILLED AND OPPRESSED MILLIONS.

But somehow, most Americans didn't seem to upset by the rest of that. If Iraqis had worn black hoods and posed for photographs earlier, then maybe Americans would've gotten outraged sooner.

Also, it seems sad that more Americans don't realize that the way the guards are acting in the Iraqi prisons aren't that different from the way they act in American prisons. Yes, I suppose that's different because unlike the Iraqi prisons, we know that all of our prisoners are guilty, because they've gone through our impartial, non-racist justice system, that is never biased for or against anyone, no matter how much or little money they have in the bank. So the people in our prisons are obviously bad and deserve whatever they get. Cuz they're bad.

On a related topic, check this press release from the anti-prison group the Pennsylvania Abolitionists, which claims that one of the men prominantly featured in the humiliated Iraqi prisoner photographs is currently working as a guard at a prison about an hour outside of Pittsburgh.

(I highly recommend Christian Parenti's Lockdown America on the subject of American jails)

There's a lot of talk about whether or not the Iraq abuse is widespread, or was limited to just a few soldiers. Well, it certainly seem to be widespread, but it might go even wider.

"This is the new gulag" writes Sidney Blumenthal, and in a way, he's completely right. The United States has created a small network of foreign prisons that have nothing to do with law, in three countries (Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan and Iraq) holding perhaps as many as 12,000 people. Anyone the US government wishes to confine in these prisons can be held, with no charges, no sentence, no parole, no release date, and no rights. About the only consolation is that the torture probably isn't as bad as it would be in a prison in a military dictatorship.

Although Americans don't want to look this problem in the face, there it is. This is how the world sees us: an arrogant power that has no regard for other people, that will not hestiate to use violence on a whim. And honestly, although it isn't popularly known here, that is much of American history. That's "why do they hate us" in a nutshell. Americans are frequently kind, generous, compassionate people. But the fact that you help little old American ladies across the street is lost on people who live in other countries, who's death squads are armed with American weapons, who's homes are destroyed by American corporations, who's families are killed by American bombs. Most Americans aren't even aware these things are happening in other countries, yet they are being done in our name.

If Americans truly want to show their committment to freedom, democracy, human rights, and compassion, it is our duty to take back the power from these American predators. Ain't no other way.

Wheeled American

I have finally re-acquired an automobile!

Although I live in the drivin'-est city in the drivin-est region of the globe, I was actually getting by okay without one. Every place I needed to get to was within walking distance of my home, or of the easily accessible (and largely unknown) LA subway.

So why did I get a car?

Two reasons.

The first is that I really enjoy driving (which from an ecological point of view is like admitting "I really enjoy stabbing baby ducks in the head"). Not hot smoggy gridlocked LA driving, but exploratory drives, long coastal jaunts, cool inky night cruises, etc. Guess as a teen I fell in love with the freedom and cool of solo drives with the windows rolled down and some serious rock booming through the speakers.

The second reason is that I can't get to many of the places I want to go without a car. Which means that I either have to beg for rides, beg for friends to come out to my neighborhood, or just kinda go without friends and restrict myself to pretty much a four block radius. All of which I'd rather not.

Honestly, I think I came out slightly ahead of the game. For a price slightly higher than the amount I was given by my insurance company, I get a car nearly identical to my old one, just slightly newer, slightly less driven, and in somewhat better shape.

Now I just need to get me a nice part-time job, and things'll start being okay again.

Pundititis

I usually don't pick on right-wing pundits, because it's so unfair. It's just so easy. They're fucking lunatics who usually suck at writing, arguing and researching. They also often lie. I try to spend my time trying to figure out and explain what's really going on, not debating dumbasses.

But sometimes, a commentator steps over a line and you've just gotta say something. And this pundit jumped so far over the line that wherever she ended up, it's tomorrow morning there.

Remember how those US soldiers abused and sexually humiliated all those Iraq prisoners? Well, according to conservative Kathleen Parker, those acts weren't sadism that the soldiers were taught by military intelligence, they are acts of "gross-out humor" learned by watching Farrelly Brothers movies.

It's a slippery slope, one day you're watching "Dumb and Dumber" or "Me, Myself and Irene", the next you're a prison guard, wiring "pretend" electrodes to the genitals of a naked, terrified foreigner.

Jim Carrey must be banned from making any more movies. Not just because it would end all torture on Earth, but because his movies suck.

[via Pandagon]

DNC2K

During the first day of protest outside the 2000 Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, the police went nuts. There was a large crowd there to demonstrate, and a large crowd there simply to watch performances by Rage Against the Machine and Ozomatli. During Ozomatli's set, the police abruptly cut the power, and started ordering everyone to disperse. Without giving the crowd much time to even try to disperse, the cops began unloading with rubber bullets and bean bag guns and their usual riot weaponry. Some members of the crowd sued the city for violations of their civil rights.

Today, the city agreed to pay 91 plaintiffs a grand total of $1.2 million, but insists that the LAPD did nothing wrong.

As a sidenote, I think it's a damn shame that news stories about this event systematically forget to mention Ozomatli. They're a great band, and they were playing when this cop riot began, yet they are forgotten in all this.

May 07, 2004

Well Of Course He Does

Donald "Skeletor" Rumsfeld is responding to the prisoner abuse scandal by calling for an investigation into the way the Pentagon does investigations.

We Need Another Holiday Like We Need a Hole in the Knee

Apparently, today is national No Pants Day.

Good to know.

May 05, 2004

Big News Bites

The "Good Guys" Who Can Do No Wrong- Robert Fisk blames the Iraqi prison torture on racist soldiers raised in racist cultures.

U.S. Army report on Iraqi prisoner abuse- the full text of the official report about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

Current Iraq Troop Levels to Be Maintained Until End of 2005- pretty much what the headline says.

Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush- Disney subsidiary Miramax was on track to release Michael Moore's new anti-Bush movie "Farenheit 911", until Disney forbade them from doing so. Moore must be cackling with glee, as this can't but help generate buzz and anticipation for his film.

Putting NYC On the Map, Direct Action Groups Bring Tactic to RNC- kind of a funny name ("putting New York City on the map?" I think most folks are aware of its existence). Article about plans for direct action protest at the Republican National Convention in NYC this fall.

The next face of hate?- a look at the white supremacist group National Alliance and some of its members (with emphasis on the NA in Chicago).

May 04, 2004

Yes Strikes Again

Gotta love The Yes Men.

They're a group of anti-capitalist protesters who infiltrate the meetings of corporate bigwigs to create a spectacle.

Read about their latest exploit, attending a meeting of the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, posing as the fictional conservative organization, Society for Socioeconomic Stability.

Playas Get Played

This is a truly impressive article here:

How Ahmed Chalabi conned the neocons

It's long, and you'll have to watch a mini-commercial to read the whole thing, but it's chock-full of information. If you don't want to bother, I'll break it down for you.

This article essentially argues that the Iraq war happened because it was pushed by the neoconservative faction in the White House. And the neoconservatives pushed for the war because Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi painted them a very pretty picture of such a war's results. And Chalabi painted this picture because he was lying. And he was lying because he was using the neocons for his own ends.

It seems that Chalabi told the necons that if the US could overthrow Saddam Hussien, that Chalabi and his ilk could take power, and that he could then make peace between with Israel and build an oil pipeline from Iraq to Israel.

Now that Chalabi and some of his cronies have a measure of power in Iraq, it seems that they are making friends with Israel's enemy, Iran (including giving Iran American military secrets recently), and have no plans to build an Iraq-Israel pipeline. And now that he's gotten what he wanted from the US, Chalabi seems to be throwing in with Shia leaders in Iraq and Iran.

Long story short, if this article is correct, the Iraq war was largely due to Ahmed Chalabi tricking some White House rubes into thinking that he could achieve much of the neocon agenda. And, last I heard, the US government was still giving Chalabi around $340,000 a month.

Lotta blood on that man's hands.

Down to Earth

I was actually pretty touched by this article.

We all heard about Pat Tillman, the pro football player who turned down a lucrative sports career to go fight in Afghanistan. He was lauded as a mythic hero by just about everybody.

But this article about Tillman's funeral depicts him not as Captain America, but as a man, a brother, a thinker, a friend.

Strangely, the death of a man seems so much more tragic than the death of a hero. The politics fade, the stories drift and all that's left are people and pain.

PSA

Note to folks who bank with Washington Mutual: your bank is trying to screw you.

Washington Mutual has plans to sell your personal information to both their business affiliates and third party companies, unless you tell them not to. They included a notice to this effect in your latest bank statement. Gotta love how instead of asking your permission, they assume your permission, and if you don't want to be inundated with even more junk mail and credit card offers and shit, that the burden is placed on you.

Assholes.

Anyhow, if you don't want them to sell your info, call this number and follow the bouncing menu ball: 1-800-533-3534. I think you want option #3.

[update]

Actually, I just called that number again, hit '0' to talk to a person, and filed a complaint. It could've just been then humoring me, but the lady I spoke with said that if enough people filed complaints, the corporate office might take notice.

[/update]

New Kids on the Blog

Oh god, I hate myself for that title.

David Brock used to be a Republican hitman, smearing and sliming anyone who got in the way of the conservative agenda. He's allegedly the one behind the anti-Anita Hill campaign during Clarence Thomas' nomination for the Supreme Court. But in the past few years, he apparently changed sides, seeing the error of his ways (or at least pretending to, I don't know). He wrote an expose of how the right-wing worked, and now he has a new project: Media Matters for America.

Media Matters is a new website which analyzes, documents, and critiques the craziness of America's right wing media (from a liberal perspective, of course). At first, I thought this was a rather pointless endeavor, but after reading Brock's rationale, I do see some utility for the project.

First of all, right-wing media is ignored by pretty much everyone who's not super right-wing, which means that they can lie and distort with impunity. The MM project will drag all this into the light of day, both so non-conservatives can see it and so that the claims made in this media can be challenged. This will let the general public see what krazy things are being said in this arena, and perhaps force the right-wing audience to see another side to the story.

Second, it simply documents such media. Much of the supercharged conservative rhetoric is done in the fairly ephemeral media of radio and television. Which means that unless someone records the A/V or makes a transcript, the only people who ever hear these words are the audience tuned in at that very moment. This makes these can lead to pundits being quite irresponsible, knowing that they can rarely be held accountable for the things that they say. And this can have serious repercussions: David Neiwert makes a compelling case that some of these right-wing pundits act as "transmitters", spreading surprisingly reactionary/fascist concepts and rhetoric to an audience who's views are more moderate than that. If they knew that their words were seen by mainstream America, would they continue to say such things? Maybe they would temper themselves.

Also, lefty blogger Oliver Willis is joining the Media Matters team. Give em hell, Oliver!

Anyhow. Media Matters for America. Check em out.

May 03, 2004

Odds Unt Ends

Regarding the site:

1) My former domain "straybulletins.com" is about to expire. Anyone trying to reach that site or contact me through that domain's email addresses had better switch over to LyingMediaBastards.com

2) There was some confusion about the LMB button sale. I've changed the text there slightly to clarify.

3) I just added about 2 months' worth of radio show playlists to the pull-down menu in the upper right corner, if you're into that kinda thing.

And in real life, the adventures of Jake and His Demon Car near their end. As it turns out, I misunderstood what it meant when the insurance company declares your car a "total loss". For your own future knowledge, it means that a) your insurance company thinks it would cost them more money to fix your car than it would cost to pay you what the car is worth, and b) the insurance company notifies the DMV that your car is no longer a car, it is "salvage", and the process of getting it declared a "car" again sounds like a real pain in the ass. So I should be receiving a check soon that should actually be large enough that I could buy the exact same model of 14 year old car that just turned into salvage.

I have often joked that between my real job, this website, and my radio show, that it's like I have 3 jobs, only one of which pays. But the real job is being cut back, at least temporarily, so it seems that now I have 2 1/2 jobs, only 1/2 of which pays. So I have to find myself a part-time job to help make ends meet for at least 5 months or so. Should be... interesting.

I plan on taking a weeklong "get the hell away from everyone and everything" vacation soon. The site will probably be on hiatus then, but I admit that I find a certain romance in the idea of posting reflections from the road. We'll see what happens.

And sometime after that, I think I'm going to get a dog.

Correct

"[The Bush administration] doesn't want us to believe what they say. They want us to believe what they say they said."

-Ellen Goodman

Torture

So last week, the photos hit, of American soldiers humiliating and near-torturing Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib prison. Government officials tell us that these are just a few bad apples, and that the guards don't usually treat the prisoners this way.

Then photos and stories come out about British soldiers doing the same or worse.

Then, Amnesty International puts out a (rather vague) press release claiming that they have "received frequent reports of torture or other ill-treatment by Coalition Forces during the past year."

Then, we read allegations that British soldiers have been swapping hundreds of such photos of Iraqis being abused, for the soldiers' own amusement.

Then, most daming of all, reporter Seymour Hersh weighs in with an article mostly based upon the US Army's internal investigation about abuse in Iraqi prisons.

And finally, to personalize it all, we read first-hand accounts of the prisoners' treatment (well, alleged accounts).

So we've got a number of issues here.

First, some of those initial pictures document how the prisoners are being treated, but some are just sick souvenir photos that the fucked-up guards can show to their friends back home.

Second, Hersh's article tells us that this abuse started no later than October 2003, that there were many "sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses", and included some of the following:

Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

(although honestly, I have to wonder how much better or worse these Iraqi prisoners have been treated than American inmates in American jails)

Third, Hersh's article, and several others, allege that the guards (Military Police AKA MPs) were ordered to abuse the prisoners by members of military intelligence (MI). MI wanted the MPs to "soften up" the prisoners-- break their spirits-- so that it would be easier for MI to interrogate them.

As there is not much of a court system in Iraq right now, how many of these detainees are innocent? How many are guilty, but don't deserve to be beaten or electrocuted?

Another disturbing possiblity comes from this line this article:

"A month before the alleged abuses occurred, [Brig. Gen. Janis L. Karpinski ] said, a team of military intelligence officers from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, came to Abu Ghraib last year. 'Their main and specific mission was to get the interrogators -- give them new techniques to get more information from detainees,' she said."

Did MI from Guantanamo go teach the Abu Ghraib guards a few tricks? If so, are the detainees in Guantanamo being abused and tortured the same way that the Iraqi prisoners are? Is this common wherever the US holds foreigners in bondage?

And on top of that, many of the articles idly mention that "civilian contractors" AKA "mercenaries" are working with MI. Mercs are unaccountable to anyone except the guy signing their paychecks.

What's bizarre about some of this is that torture is not a very reliable way of extracting information. Under threat of pain, how long till you start saying whatever you think your torturer wants you to hear? When the guard's about to shove a broom handle up your ass again, do you continue to pretend innocence, tell the guard the truth that he might not believe, or lie and say that you have Osama bin Laden's cell number?

Obviously, this is bad stuff. Apart from the obvious moral and human suffering issues, the Arab and Muslim world see these photos fall neatly into their perception that the US is an uncaring occupying power that wants to destroy Islam and all Arabs. And these perceptions just increase the chances that some angry Mideast resident is going to try to blow up the asses of innocent folks like you and me.

May 01, 2004

Why Don't You Tell Us What You Really Think?

www.JohnKerryIsADoucheBagButImVotingForHimAnyway.com

May Day

Had to do some research this week about the history of the May Day holiday (AKA International Workers Day), and found it all pretty interesting. Most intriguing is that it is a holiday celebrated around the world, except in the United States, the nation where it began.

The first May Day was May 1, 1886. American workers were fighting for an 8-hour work day, down from 10 or more. Hundreds of thousands of workers went on strike, especially in Chicago. The labor movement was much more radical in those days; many of its members were avowed socialists, communists and anarchists.

The strike lasted several days, with occasional armed conflict breaking out between strikers and police. On May 4, there was a big labor rally in Chicago's Haymarket Square. An unknown person threw a bomb into the crowd, killing several and wounding many. With no evidence, the cops went ahead and arrested eight Chicago labor leaders and convicted them in a show trial. Five were sentenced to death, the other three to prison. One of those sentenced to death avoided execution by detonating a bomb inside is mouth inside the prison.

The "Haymarket Martyrs" electrified radical labor organizations worldwide. In 1889, the organization Socialist International declared May 1 to be a day of protest and celebration every year, honoring the martyrs and the struggles of working people.

May Day was celebrated in the U.S. for many decades, competing somewhat with the less radical, government-sanctioned workers' holiday, Labor Day. It seems that the Cold War killed off May Day. Mainstream labor unions, fearing reprisal for being "unamerican," threw their support behind Labor Day instead of May Day. And groups of "patriots" in the US tried to stamp out May Day by announcing that May 1 would be (I'm not making this up) "Loyalty Day", a day to celebrate one's pride in their country (and their obedience to its leaders, I suppose). Over time, May Day was forgotten, Loyalty Day was forgotten, and all that was left was Labor Day. And, as the years passed, Labor Day was transmuted into a holiday were we Americans celebrate barbecues and beer.

Happy May Day!

April 29, 2004

Plumbing the Depths

Will you tune in tomorrow night to watch "Who Wants to Win a Human Baby?"

Jesus fucking Christ.

April 28, 2004

Iraq Stuff

The flag thing. Iraqis are justifiably upset that:

• their flag was changed;
  
• the new flag is missing its traditional Islamic colors;
  
• the new flag is missing the religious phrase "God is Great" (although the words were inserted back in 1991);
  
• the flag has gained colors like Israel's;
  
• a whole 30 people out of a nation of 24 million entered the "contest" for the country's new flag;
  
• the flag contest was won by an Iraqi who lives in London instead of Iraq;
  
• the flag contest was won by the brother of the head of the "find a new Iraqi flag" committee;
  
• the flag of the new "democratic" Iraq was chosen by a group of unelected governmental officials who were appointed by the nation's occupiers.
  

And look at all the cool flags Iraq has had throughout history. They couldn't just go back to one of the old ones?

Council spokesman Hameed al-Khafaei said "This is a new era. We cannot continue with Saddam's flag." Apparently Iraq has also decided not to continue with Saddam's working electricity and Saddam's potable water.

[We will now interrupt this blog entry with a brief comic interlude featuring Ahmad Chalabi]

Now, back to the show.

Possibly the most important future news for Iraq is what the new government will look like on June 30, when the US "transfers authority" to the Iraqis. To find that out, we should look at the latest plan by UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi:

• on June 30, the Interim Governing Council is dissolved;
  
• the UN, IGC, and Coalition Provisional Authority select members of a caretaker government, that will rule till January 2005, when national elections will take place;
  
• this caretaker government should be "comprised of honest and technically qualified persons";
  
• members of the caretaker government should be people that will not run for office in the January elections;
  
• the caretaker government will be made up of one Prime Minister, one President, and two Vice-Presidents;
  
• the caretaker government should avoid making long-term decisions, because it is not an elected body, and is not representative of the people of Iraq;
  
• a "consultative council" of over 1000 Iraqis would meet, to offer advice to the government. This part is kinda vague.
  

Colin Powell then announced that the government would have to give up some of its sovereignty so that the US military could do whatever it wanted inside the country. So that's a bit of a let-down.

And don't even get me started on Fallujah and Najaf. The seige of Fallujah seems to be a manly fantasy to avenge the death and mutilations of those mercenaries, and the seige of Najaf threatens to turn the Iraqi insurgency into a full-fledged guerrilla war by the Shia at large.

I'm not Iraqi. I've never been to Iraq. In fact, I'm not even sure if I personally know anyone of Iraqi descent. But I'd like to think that I'm smart enough to have avoided the majority of the really, really stupid mistakes that the US is making in Iraq on a regular basis.

April 27, 2004

(Mud) Slings and (Bullshit) Arrows

Man, I am really getting pissed at the Republican smear machine. Well, let me focus. I hate Republican smear monger Karen Hughes.

Hughes is a long-time employee of President W, going back to the days when he was just Governor W, and even before that. Hughes was W's top aide in the White House, before quitting to spend more time with her family. But now she's back to help with W's election campaign.

Before getting into the specifics of why I hate Karen, let's examine this anecdote about Hughes from smirky conservative Tucker Carlson. Me and Tucker aren't likely to agree on much, but this seems pretty nail-on-the-headish:

Then I heard that [on the campaign bus, Bush communications director] Karen Hughes accused me of lying. And so I called Karen and asked her why she was saying this, and she had this almost Orwellian rap that she laid on me about how things she'd heard -- that I watched her hear -- she in fact had never heard, and she'd never heard Bush use profanity ever. It was insane.

I've obviously been lied to a lot by campaign operatives, but the striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway. There is no word in English that captures that. It almost crosses over from bravado into mental illness.

(emphasis mine)

Wow. Lying to someone's face even when they know that you know they're lying. And she's one of Bush's key spokespeople.

It's gonna be a long campaign.

I haven't had too much exposure to Hughes, but her style seems to be one of plain-spoken rhetoric that deliberately confuses, distorts, and makes erroneous connections between non-related things. For example, the first time I heard her speak for the 2004 Bush campaign was on NPR about a month ago, in a small pickup truck as a parking lot security guard tried to help me find my stolen car. Hughes was talking about the recent testimony of Richard Clarke. Hughes said something to the effect of "it's really unfortunate that Richard Clarke is giving the appearance that America is to blame for 9/11, when the only people responsible for the attacks are Al Qaeda."

She massively distorted Clarke's message (obviously with full knowledge that he did not say anything close to what she claimed he said) so that she could take the only real rebuttal ("Bush is not incompetent") into an innapropriate, but much more powerful one ("Al Qaeda is bad").

When I heard her say this, for a few seconds, it seemed to me that finding my missing car was nowhere near as important as convincing the elderly Jamaican security guard next to me that Karen Hughes was a miserable lying bitch. But that feeling faded as we continued to search for the car that was already being joyridden miles away.

The next smear I heard from Hughes highlighted another aspect of her strategy: phrasing things in terms of vague anxiety: "it is unfortunate that...", "it find it distressing that...", "I am very troubled by..." This way, she doesn't have to actually explain her smears, all she needs to say is that Rumor X about Politician Y causes her discomfort in some way.

Like when she says that "I remember watching Senator Kerry, back when he was against the [Vietnam] war, when he came home, and I was very troubled by the kind of allegations that he hurled against his fellow veterans..."

First of all, I don't believe her. I don't believe that she actually remembers seeing Kerry speak out in the early 1970s. It really is amazing how Kerry has been transformed from "some guy in the Senate" to "leader of the anti-war movement" in a matter of months. He was one of thousands of people involved in the movement at the time, and now everybody seems to be conveniently remembering him as a major player.

Second, you see how this rhetorical device allows her to insinuate that Kerry is a terrible human without having to actually explain why. In this particular instance, she does elaborate a tiny bit and say that Kerry's allegations were "irresponsible", but she doesn't really bother to explain how or why they were irresponsible.

Then, you had Hughes bringing up some really irrelevant (and apparently fabricated) shit to again insinuate that Kerry is of poor moral fiber. In a symbolic gesture back in the 70s, Kerry took some of the medals he'd been awarded during the war, threw them at the Capitol building, and left them there. Hughes, apparently not realizing that soldiers use the terms "ribbons" and "medals" interchangably, insinuates that Kerry only threw his "ribbons", while keeping his medals, thus proving that he's a big hypocrite. Actually, her exact words were "I think that's very revealing." Revealing of what? Don't ask Karen, her work here is done.

Then, finally we get Karen's most outrageous spin job about the recent pro-choice rally in Washington DC.

it's always an issue. And I frankly think it's changing somewhat. I think after September 11th the American people are valuing life more and realizing that we need policies to value the dignity and worth of every life...

And I think those are the kind of policies that the American people can support, particularly at a time when we're facing an enemy, and really the fundamental difference between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life. It's the founding conviction of our country, that we're endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Unfortunately our enemies in the terror network, as we're seeing repeatedly in the headlines these days, don't value any life, not even the innocent and not even their own.

Yes, you heard right, abortion is terrorism. Well, she doesn't say it explicitly, she just leaves a bunch of dots, connects a few of em, let's your brain finish the picture.

A few bloggers bemoaned the lack of press coverage that this foul statement was getting. But really, it's getting the coverage it deserves. Karren Hughes should receive no media coverage whatsoever. She's a paid deceiver with an agenda, and talking to her does not get the public any closer to the truth. Why waste any time on her?

I LOVE YOU BIG BROTHER!!

Blog-Tracking May Gain Ground Among U.S. Intelligence Officials

Sigh.

Some analysts say U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials might be starting to track blogs for important bits of information. This interest is a sign of how far Web media such as blogs have come in reshaping the data-collection habits of intelligence professionals and others, even with the knowledge that the accuracy of what's reported in some blogs is questionable.

Still, a panel of folks who work in the U.S. intelligence field - some of them spies or former spies - discussed this month at a conference in Washington the idea of tracking blogs.

"News and intelligence is about listening with a critical ear, and blogs are just another conversation to listen to and evaluate. They also are closer to (some situations) and may serve as early alerts," said Jock Gill, a former adviser on Internet media to President Clinton

Yeah, we bloggers put all this stuff out in public for people to read, but the key word there is read. I don't put it out there to be "tracked" or "surveiled".

April 26, 2004

Newsy Thangs

More on Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony: Cole and Dodge- transcript of testimony from Middle East experts Juan Cole and Toby Dodge. Does a great job of distilling the Iraq situation and its many complexities.

White supremacist Matthew Hale found guilty- how "American History X".

Laying down the copyright law -- to children- the MPAA has managed to get free time in American classrooms to spin the intelletcual property issue in their favor, truth be damned.

Secret Service investigates teen's art project- short enough to reprint the whole thing here:

One drawing showed President Bush's head on a stick. Another depicted Bush as a devil launching a missile. The drawings by a 15-year-old boy in Prosser, Washington, were enough to prompt some questions from the Secret Service.

Agents questioned the teen after being called by police. The boy's art teacher told school officials about the drawings, and they called police.

The boy was not arrested but the school district has taken disciplinary action.

Disciplinary action? When drawings are outlawed, only outlaws will be drawers.

A terrorist targets liberals- blogo-journalist David Neiwert files another report about America's domestic terrorists, and their lack of media coverage. The latest is a gun nut in Illinois who was apparently making plans to kill off lots of Democrats, liberals, and gun control advocates.

Life is not a spectator sport!- is the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) gearing up to organize Wal-Mart workers?

Washington Pro-choice March: Cheer Block/ Anti-Fascist Block- we all heard about the massive pro-choice march this weekend, but I was glad to hear about the participation of this radical yet fun-loving contingent.

Kerry faces PR fight over foreign policy- another "how exactly are Bush and Kerry different?" articles, without much answer. The article discusses differences in the two candidates' foreign policy methods, but barely breathes a word about their goals. I'm most concerned with their goals, I'll worry about their strategies later. Well, that's what I would do, if I had the information available.

Peace Not War CD- a bevy of free, streaming anti-war songs.

60% of Documentation for Modern Iraqi History Lost- but the right-wingers said that there was barely any looting after the US won!

What Do We Do Now?- historian Howard Zinn, arguing the almost unheard of point of view that the US should withdraw from Iraq, not for the sake of American lives, but for the sake of the Iraqi people.

April 25, 2004

© ® ™

April 26 is World Intellectual Property Day.

To celebrate this important day, I plan to pack Monday's LMB radio show with as much copyright-violating audio as I can find.

Here is a list of World Intellectual Property Day Activities. Note how nearly every country actually doing something for WIPD is a poor nation that is likely doing so in an embarassing attempt to woo First World dollars. The rich Western nations hold most of the world's important copyrights and patents, so they like it quite a bit when other nation's agree to uphold their monopoly rights so the cash keeps rolling in. Remember, upholding intellectual property rights is much, much more important than human lives. Just ask all the AIDS patients in Africa who can't get affordable, generic drugs for their illness.

I remember the first time I heard about the concept of intellectual property. It was back when David Letterman was moving his comedic late night talk show from NBC to CBS. NBC claimed that Letterman could not do his famed Top Ten Lists on CBS, because they were NBC's "intellectual property." I laughed my ass off. What a ridiculous idea, I thought. Now it has its own holiday. Huzzah.

[update]

The show was actually a lot of fun. I tried to make every song I played be one which violated, fucked with, or circumvented copyright law. Thanks to my friend Steven V, I think I can temporarily post an mp3 of the show itself on my site. I think I'll leave that file up for about a week.

[/update]

Dark Clouds Keep on Turnin'

Jake's soap opera life is still in full effect. I'd really like this shit to stop.

Well, we can go to the good news first. The fellow who stole my car took a plea bargain on Friday, so that case is closed. I didn't hear the final sentence, but as part of the settlement, he had to pay me $100 (a too-low number I gave the city attorney for the value of my stolen CDs). And that check already arrived yesterday. Guess I don’t care about the guy's punishment. I've been remarkably laid back about this whole care theft thing, even for me. I wonder what that says about me.

In other positive news, my apartment building has been declared "substandard" by the city. This means that my asshole landlords will likely face massive fines, and unless they can get the place up to code in the next 5 weeks (which seems ... improbable), me and all the other tenants will be eligible for reduced rent rates.

But apart from that, things aren't so good.

The insurance company has declared my damaged car "a total loss", which is apparently insurance-ese for "it's cheaper for us to cut you a check for a lowball estimate of your car's worth than to actually pay to repair your car." Not sure what to do there, lotta options involving full or partial repairs or buying something new with the pittance they give me. Either way, I'm carless in LA for days or weeks to come. Damn good thing I don't need to commute to work.

Most of the rest of my week's sorrow is more about other people's problems, people I care about a great deal.

One friend of mine, who I’ll call "Sally", revealed to me this week that doctors misdiagnosed a health problem of hers two years ago, but they have now discovered that her malady is actually lung cancer. She's 28 fucking years old.

"Sally" called me Tuesday, said in a sad cheerful voice, "I'm in the hospital. Wanna visit me?" It was a one-day thing, she'd come down with pneumonia as a complication of the disease, "Sally" would be going home by nightfall. I of course went over and sat bedside for a little while.

She asked if I would come with her to some of her future chemotherapy treatments. I agreed, but fuck, that is gonna be hard. My mother died of cancer in December. I spent countless hours with her at the oncologist's office over the years, while the chemo dripped into her arm.

"Alright, I'll go with you. But no Scrabble," I joked. Mom and I had nearly always played Scrabble during her treatments. It's a boring game, and I'd almost always lose, but Mom enjoyed it.

Worst joke backfire of my life. I laughed for a couple seconds, but was then flooded with all those Mom-chemo-Scrabble memories and just broke down into sobs, overcome. "Sally" got off the bed, came over and hugged me tight. "I don't want to leave you either," she said. But I wasn't crying for "Sally." For some reason, I'm optimistic that she's going to be okay. I was crying for what I’ve already lost. Just pure grief. How stupid and complex and awkward. "Sally" needs me to comfort her and support her through her illness, but my own head isn't screwed on completely straight these days. And all the things I might do that could help her out, might unscrew me further. Still, you gotta do what you gotta do.

But "Sally" agreed, no Scrabble. She said we'll watch DVDs instead.

On top of that, I've got another friend who it seems is headed for a train wreck. I'm really scared for them, but there's nothing I can do.

Happily, the week ended on a better note: good friends, Kill Bill 2, and yellow cake (the kind with eggs and milk and no uranium).

Things have got to start getting better. They just have to.

April 24, 2004

Comic Truth

Usually, the comic strip "Get Fuzzy" is a mildly droll copy of older comics like "Bloom County" and "Calvin and Hobbes," where sarcasm and talking animals abound.

But this week, GF does real good. It's about the war. Not about Bush or weapons or law or politics. But about war and people. No preaching, no teaching, no melodrama, no taking sides.

But it's real.

The storyline starts with the April 19 strip, and I'm not sure when it's going to end. Give it a read.

April 22, 2004

Land of the Lost

This looks pretty dope.

Lost Film Festival

It's a traveling movie fest of short, politically radical films.

See if it's coming to a theater/bookstore/squat near you.

It's in LA on May 7, at the Arts in Action space, kinda by MacArthur Park.

[edit]

Okay, I'm not sure if that link above is the one that lists all the films for this year, or if it's this one.

[/edit]

Understatement

"I kind of like ducking questions."

- George W. Bush, April 21, 2004

April 21, 2004

Not Quick Enough

Monday, the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies put out a press release, announcing that the following day, they would be publishing a major story about the occupation of Iraq, largely based upon a critical memo written by a "U.S. government official detailed to the Coalition Provisional Authority."

The next morning, the country's alt weeklies published Fables of the Reconstruction, a look at serious problems in the way that the US has managed post-invasion Iraq, written by reporter Jason Vest.

There was so much buzz about the article that the AAN agreed to post the actual memo upon which Vest's story was based online. They said that they had been keeping the memo secret, because Vest was working on another investigative piece based upon one portion of the memo, which alleged massive corruption in the UN oil-for-food program.

Looks like someone beat him to it.

Well, it's a first draft, anyway. That last article is big on allegations, big on quotes of people making allegations, not so big on evidence backing stuff up. Maybe Vest's subsequent piece will connect the dots a little more thoroughly.

Rage

There's this saying, "if you're not angry, you're not paying attention."

So imagine my surprise when someone came into my office today who has a full-time job. She works 40 hours a week at Wal-Mart. Like many of their employees, she can't afford their health insurance plan. Even if she could, they wouldn't cover her HIV care because it's a pre-existing condition. It isn't even about paying for the drugs, which are expensive - she qualifies for the state AIDS Drug Assistance Program, which picks up all of her prescriptions for her. Wal-Mart won't pay for office visits to an HIV specialist, and they won't pay for the blood tests she needs to monitor her condition.

So you, the federal taxpayer, will be paying for her medical care. Today you also gave her $40 worth of food vouchers, because after she pays her rent (which eats more than half her wages, and she lives in a slum) there's not a lot left over to buy food. I'm sure you're glad to do it, right? You don't want her to die.

And you don't want Walmart's $8 billion profits and 21.6% return on shareholder's equity to drop, the way it probably would if the public weren't picking up the cost of keeping Wal-Mart associates and their children alive. You wouldn't want any members of the Walton family to drop off the list of the richest people in the world. (Imagine if only four of them were in the top ten.)

"A social worker told me," she said to me indignantly, "that I'd be better off if I quit my job and went on welfare. I'm not doing that!"

I'm sure the Walton family is very proud of her work ethic.

In a more sane world, we wouldn't stand for this kind of bullshit. We would be so outraged that we'd head down to the local Wal-Mart, meet up with even more outraged Wal-Mart workers, march down to Sam Walton's house and burn it to the fucking ground.

[Thanks to Oliver]

Echo Chamber

Over at the website of the Republican National Committee, there is a fact sheet/press release, dated April 2, 2004, which includes this passage:

America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's polices are doing; or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation.

(second to last bullet point)

Over at the website of the US Treasury, there is a press release, dated April 9, 2004, that ends with this passage:

America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's policies are doing; or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation.

(last paragraph)

Notice any similarities?

Notice the chronology?

This is about as blatant as it can get. An allegedly non-partisan government agency, paid for by your taxes and mine, spouting Republican talking points verbatim.

[nice catch by Boing Boing]

April 20, 2004

Inner Critic

You ever write a whole blog entry, look back at it, say "that kinda sucks," and then log off without hitting the "post" button?

Just one of those days.

April 19, 2004

Big Crazy Rush

A lotta lefty bloggers are pointing out this latest Rush Limbaugh absurdity:

Hillary [Clinton] wants to be on the VP ticket so that she dispels the notion that the Clintons are sabotaging the campaign and so that she can also go out there and really be the star. She'd be the star because she'll be the one bringing excitement to it. And, by the way, she'll get all kinds of criticism and the Republicans will launch all they've got at her, and she'll endure that. They know that they're pretty confident Kerry is going to lose and if Kerry wins there's always Fort Marcy Park.

I didn't catch the reference, but apparently Fort Marcy Park is where the body of Vince Foster was found. And according to right-wing nutjob mythology, Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster killed to cover up, I dunno, something or another.

So... Rush Limbaugh is arguing that Hillary Clinton wants to run as John Kerry's running mate... to sabotage his campaign... or, if he wins... to assassinate him and seize control of the US government.

Not the craziest theory I've ever heard, but still doesn't place into what we call "The Sanity Rainbow."

At this point, a lot of liberal folks get outraged at a conservative making such slanderous charges and joking so easily about violence and death. This in turn makes conservatives laugh and say "liberals just don't get it." And in a way, the conservatives are right on this one.

I don't entirely understand it, but there is a sense of humor among conservatives in which calling for deadly mayhem to befall a person who disagrees with your political opinion (or thousands of such people), is just a harmless joke. These statements are hyperbole with which they express how much they despise their opponents; conservatives don't actually intend these statements as threats (except when they do).

So non-conservatives, lighten up.

But since we're talking Rush Limbaugh and crazy, I'll have to share some of my favorite Rush nuttiness; for a year and a half, I had to study the works of this jackasss as a research assistant in graduate school.

1. Rush was ranting about activists protesting against Gulf War I back in 1991. He was really piling the insulting adjectives on thick, something like "those lazy, traitorous, long-haired, tree-hugging, dope-smoking..." (yes, I know the irony of the "dope-smoking" epithet) when out came the eye-popping one:

"maggot-infested."

"Maggot-infested"? Did these protesters have gangrene? Where they the walking dead? Did they just have an unhealthy fixation on fly larvae? I heard this quote and just laughed my ass off.

2. The summer of 1999. Rush is Clinton-hating in a major way. Then he starts guaranteeing his audience that no matter who wins the 2000 election, that Bill Clinton will refuse to vacate the White House. He will call out the national guard and fleets of tanks to protect his throne, staging a violent coup in Washington DC. Even at the time, this prediction seemed a bit... unlikely. Of course, time has proven Rush wrong on this one, but in the strange world of Right-Wing folklore, the Clintons are the most power-hungry individuals in the history of the world. If we can make it through our lifetimes without the Clintons enslaving mankind, then we're all damn lucky.

3. While researching Rush, we couldn't always get audio recordings or transcripts of his shows, and sometimes had to rely on a Rush fan who would listen to the show every day, and condense the three hours of hot gas into about 15 pages of typed summary.

One such summary described Rush's introduction of a bit of science news, followed by his response to it. Some public interest group had done a study on the unhealthiness of many popular snack foods, and issued a press release about their findings. It claimed that movie theater popcorn was some of the most dangerous stuff around, due to (I think) the high levels of saturated fat in the butter used to pop the popcorn.

This caused Rush to blow several gaskets, lose some marbles, and make cuckoo clock noises.

Rush first began to sing the praises of movie theater butter, and popcorn made with it. He said that the kitchen at his radio studio used such butter because it made the tastiest popcorn. Air-popped popcorn just tasted inferior.

Then he began blasting this "pointy-headed liberals" trying to legislate everything and take the popcorn away, and he kept at it for quite a while. Note: the guys who came up with this study were not the Democrats, and they did not propose to take movie theater butter away from anybody, they just told everyone that the butter was bad for your health.

They cut to commercial or station ID or something, and when the come back, Rush apologizes for his earlier rant. And then he starts yelling about the popcorn butter again.

All told, Rush's popcorn rant took up three pages of the fifteen page summary!

That's some crazy shit.

April 16, 2004

Z Blogs

The website for the far-left Z Magazine, Znet is now exploring the world of blogs. Last month, they began a quasi-blog for Noam Chomsky. And now, they have begun blogs by other writers who's work has impressed me over the years.

AntiEmpire Report- "William Blum's Blog on international relations, U.S. foreign policy, and other matters of empire and resistance." I'm always talking up Blum's book Killing Hope, about the history of American military intervention and covert operations. I am looking forward to seeing his work on a regular basis.

Word from the Wise- "Tim Wise blog of insights and advisories, links and linkages, about race, racism, and other social matters." Tim Wise's work is semi-regularly published in progressive magazines, and usually focuses on the topic of American racism and white privilege. High quality stuff, but man, what a lame title.

Hotel Satire- "Lydia Sargent's personal blog of satire and sundry other humor, emphasizing matters of gender and culture..." Z Magazine frequently ends with Sargent piece about the latest gross sexism in politics or pop culture, satirically written from the point of view of a group of religious, all-American women who "know their place." Unfortunately, the Hotel Satire blog does not yet seem to have any content.

Not too familiar with/impressed by the remaining authors, although I think The Killing Train shows promise, news about the poorer, more neglected nations on Earth.

April 15, 2004

Pluggin' Away

It's a little late, but...

My friend John Dolan has a short film playing at the Newport Beach Film Festival tomorrow at 1pm. It's called "The Martyr". Instead of making a pretentious student film about white suburban angst, John chose to make a film about the Arab-Israeli conflict in Hebrew and Arabic, neither of which are his native language. It's not a preachy feel-good or an angry screed, it shows that there's a lot of needless suffering all-around.

Hell, even the smug hipsters at Film Threat magazine gave it a glowing review, and that means something.

It also marks my big screen debut, as an extra, walking away from the camera, who's not actually visible on-screen.

Anyhow, John and I'll be there tomorrow, come and say hello.

Death and

Ben Franklin said that the only sure things in life are death and taxes. I prefer Ozomatli's version, that the only two certain things in life are "la muerte, y el cambio"-- death and change. That's a little more positive.

All that said, here's some Tax News on Tax Day.

Why the Right's Wrong on Taxes- columnist Matt Miller points out a deliberate flaw in the anti-tax rhetoric of many conservatives: they neglect to include payroll taxes in their count. Working folks give up a substantial amount of their income in the form of payroll taxes, but it only accounts for a negligble amount of rich folks' income. So as conservatives us skewed numbers to "prove" that they pay all the taxes, Miller shows that American tax rates are really just "modestly progressive":

The top 1 percent of America's taxpayers earn 17 percent of the income and pay 23 percent of federal taxes; the top 5 percent earn 31 percent of the income and pay 40 percent of the taxes; the bottom 80 percent of the earners make 41 percent of the income and pay 31 percent of the taxes (and those numbers are from 2001, the most recent such data available; President Bush's tax cuts have since made the burden on top earners lower).

Unhappy Returns- some poor folks are going to tax prep companies like H&R Block and Jackson Hewitt to get an advance on their pending tax refunds. This article claims that after all the preparation and loan fees, these advances are nothing but short-term, high interest loans. The interest on these range from 70-700%.

Money poll: Tax cuts unpopular- I'm not a fan of polls, but these sorts of numbers come up again and again. People don't mind paying taxes if they are actually going to be spent on something there care about. Hell, years of poll data show that people are eager to pay more taxes if it would go towards schools. Yet the conservatives keep telling us that we're sick of high taxes, and want to repeal the estate tax and shit. It's probably long overdue that we remind them what we're really sick of...

Why Pay Taxes?- Geov Parrish's yearly screed that's meant to make people stop and think a bit. You pay your taxes because you know you're supposed to pay your taxes. But think beyond that. Should you pay your taxes when the money's going to build bombs and get people killed? Should you pay your taxes when you don't have a say in your government? Should you pay your taxes when that money just goes into the pockets of rich businessmen? Think about it.

April 14, 2004

Stop the Planet, I Want to Get Off

Kee-rist today was a ball of suck. Started with a bit of very good news, and was then followed by current money woes, future money woes, anxiety about friends, anxiety about employment, and taxes. A lot of the background comfort and stability I'd been riding for months, just up and left in less than a week. So I was feeling edgy, frazzled and depressed.

Then, when I went for a drive to soothe my nerves, I got hit by a car.

I'm fine, no need to worry. The passenger side of my car is kinda fucked up, but I think my insurance or the insurance of Evil Lexus SUV Driver will pay for it. First thing I do after the crash is ask her if she's okay. She responds by blaming me for the accident. I have to ask her three more times before she tells me that she "feels very bad." Never got around to asking me how I was.

This is, of course, Phase 2 of my car's plot to ruin my life. As you may recall, my car was outright stolen about 2 weeks ago. Frustrated that I was able to recover it, the car then decided to let itself get smashed up in an intersection.

Y'know, writing about all this is making me feel better. Hooray for that.

I need a vacation. This is too much. I've kept my troubles at bay, but right now I think I need to hide away so that they don't even know where to look for me. I'll bet they'll never look for me curled up under my desk!

While I'm thinking of it, the LMB button giveaway is over. Winners were:

Brian from Albuquerque
Piper from Fredericktown
Miriam from Saint John
Chris from LA
Andy from Chicago
Brad from parts unknown

Yes, that's more than five. What can I say, I'm generous with my new bounty.

In conclusion, if someone could magically erase today from history, I would love you forever.

Happy 2nd Birthday, LMB!

Yes, LMB turns two years old today (coincidently, as does fellow blog The Rittenhouse Review). You can click here and see how it all began, in its generic Blogger glory.

In a way, my blog's anniversary is a bigger deal to me than my birthday. I didn’t exactly have to contribute much to my own birth, and staving off death all these years has only been occasionally difficult. In contrast, starting the blog was a conscious choice, and keeping it "alive" has meant giving up a lot of time, doing a lot of research, and making my fingers move more than they would if I were, say, sleeping.

As for the LMB radio show, I’ve lost all track of those milestones. I think I passed the three-year mark sometime in late January.

[Fun fact: before it was called LMB, the show was called "Truth and Fire", after a line in a zapatista communique. And before that, the show was called "Relentless", after a Bill Hicks album.]

I could easily write up some of the history and significance of this blog, but I did that in last year’s anniversary post. Read that if you want el gran historia.

It’s been a rough year for me personally, as some of you know. My mother lost a long fight against cancer back in December. I spent about half the year trying to help her and the rest of my family as best as I could. I'm not okay. My family is not okay. But we've moved a few steps from terrible, and that's something.

I'm slowly making some changes to my lifestyle as well. For a long time now, I have felt like I've just been treading water. There's a lot of stuff I'm just not doing right in my life, but I've been getting by, and figured that's all i needed to do. But I've recently realized that "treading water" was not the right analogy to use. A more accurate one would be "walking on a sprained ankle." When you hurt your ankle like that, you can still walk around just fine, as long as you keep your feet and legs at certain angles and walk a certain way. But walking in this new way a) doesn't fix your ankle, and b) starts to hurt other parts of your body that aren't used to walking in this manner. It does you damage. And sometimes if you wait for the damage to become noticeable, it might be too late to fix it. The analogy kind of falls apart after that, so let's just say that I'm working on fixing that ankle before my hobbling fucks up too much of my future.

Maybe everyone could use a little self-analysis along those lines. Who's treading and who's hobbling?

Anyhow.

I'm happy with all the continued support and readership. I am also happy to see that in the links sectionsof their own personal webpages, people seem to put LMB in their "humor" section as often as their "politics" section, which means I must be doing something right.

Before I started blogging, a writer I truly respect told me that I had "discovered my voice" as a writer. He was wrong. The writing I was doing then was pretty straight forward quasi-journalism. It wasn't till I let all my humor and anger and hurt and confusion and sarcasm and quirk flow into the texts that my writing voice became true. And for some reason, I felt that I had completely hit my stride with this portion of this post:

"Not content to destroy the world in their own respective fields, Wal-Mart and Fox News have formed a partnership in which Wal-Mart will play Fox News segments on the TVs in their stores. In other news, Sauron and Cobra Commander are throwing a barbecue this weekend, and you're invited."

I find that paragraph so comfy I should be sitting on its front porch in rocking chair with a mug of hot chocolate.

Also this year, several people urged me to write a book. I think I will. I'm just not entirely sure what people would want to read from me. I might need y'all to give me a few pointers.

As an unintended coincidence, we also now have LMB buttons for sale just in time for the Two Year Anniversary. If you want yours to be a Special Two Year Anniverary Commemorative Edition, let me know, and I'll draw a "2" on the back with a pencil. Write me for details.

And since this is like a birthday and all, I'll drag out my Amazon.com Wishlist. C'mon, buy me things! (They're mainly political books and CDs, so it's not like you wouldn't get some second-hand benefit out of it) Okay, so no one's gonna buy me the iPod, but a fella can dream, can't he?

If no one wants to buy me the stuff above, maybe they can buy me one of those magic hypno-ties that Bush was wearing during his speech tonight. What the fuck was that about?

Special thanks to Mark McLaughlin and Quang Tang for all their work converting the drab old LMB to the new spunky one. Did I say "spunky"? I meant "groin-grabbingly spunky".

Also thanks to John, Kittie, Candice, Jeremy, Kat, Nomi, Louie, Tom, Serj, Michele, John K, David D, Steven V, Kill Radio (except that one guy. You know who I'm talking about), Aurora, Indira, Michelle, Ronny, Dad, Adam, 104.7, Dack, Alan, Chris, Cecily, Destroy All, Claudette, Schu, North Coast Hospice, Matt, Garrick, Jim, Leslie, Heidi, Lafe, Jeff, Wayne, Carsten, Matt B, Matt H, Elizabeth, Brad, Jaime, Scott, Emma, Dr. Frakes, Lili, my Mom, and a dozen others I'm surely forgetting right now.

And thanks to all of you regular readers and listeners. It is my pleasure to educate, entertain, and rock you. Without your participation, these tasks'd be a lot more depressing.

So let's all take a breather, and come back fully refreshed, ready to collectively spit in the face of power.

Cheers,

Jake.

April 13, 2004

Lo, I have become button-ordering guy, maker of... buttons.

Who wants a shiny new LMB button?

[artist rendering, roughly actual size]

Fresh from the printers, these 1" buttons are made of, uh, paper and some kind of plastic and really bendy metal, and are suitable for wearing, framing, or armor plating your bomber jacket one button at a time.

Each button features the stylish yet enigmatic LMB logo, which has become synonymous with sarcastic-yet-wonky political analysis, dry wit, and links to websites with better analysis and drier wit. Or, if you listen to the radio show, the logo is instead synonymous with rambling news commentary, an excellent mix of music, and technical difficulties.

To add to their mystery, each button only has the three-letter LMB acronym. So when attractive people come up to you and ask about your button (and they will), you can tell them that LMB stands for whatever you want it to stand for. Lazy Monkey Ballerina! Lumberjacks Making Babies! League of Michigan Bicyclists! The world is your oyster.

Also note that I did not have my web address printed along the bottom in tiny letters. I hate it when buttons do that, it ruins the look. But no, with mine, you get nothing but pure graphic goodness.

These buttons make perfect, uh, birthday presents, wedding gifts, and... I dunno. You could chuck em at cars, or skim em on lakes. Poke tiny holes in things. Oh! And I'll bet they'd make kick-ass tiny safety pins!

First 5 people to email me with their mailing address get FREE Buttons!

To win them, email me.

[update]

Contest is over, we've got our winners. Thanks.

[/update]

After that, I'll be selling em. $2 for 1, $3 for 2, something like that. Half the profits go to Quang, the dude who designed the classy logo. The other half will go to my broke ass... and orphans. Yes, orphans.

Maybe.

Thanks,

Jake,
Salesman Extraordinaire

Yowza!

Congratulations to my friend and former fellow grad student Brad Linder, who has just received the Award for Excellence in Journalism for Breaking News Reporting on Radio by the Society of Professional Journalists. Congrats, Brad!

April 09, 2004

Visceral Reaction

Ah, when art meets subversion meets tastelessness.

photomosaic of John Ashcroft made of pornographic pictures

photomosaic of George W. Bush made of pictures of human rectums

Because sometimes, subtlety is for losers.

[Thanks to Tom Tomorrow]

April 07, 2004

Fuck You, Wal-Mart

I was going to write an article Wal-Mart's loss at the ballot box in Inglewood, but Steve Gilliard has said just about everything I would've.

[edit]

Sigh. Steve's link system is all weird. Click on that link above and then scroll down to the entry titled "Rejected".

[/edit]

The Color of Caring

Wow. This is really, really offensive.

George W. Bush's campaign website is broken down into different issues, and each issue page has a gallery of pictures from photo ops that relate (sorta) to that issue.

Check out his photo gallery for Compassion

Notice any themes?

Racist motherfuckers.

[thanks to Atrios]

April 06, 2004

Operation Handbasket

Sorry, little work-swamped so I don't have much time for writin'.

That being said, what the hell is going on in Iraq? It's like the US' Paul Bremer has opened up his "how to fuck up absolutely everything" playbook and is going for the win. Mercenaries are killed in Fallujah so you close off the entire city of Fallujah? No, that won't anger the (mostly Sunni) residents and turn them against you.

Then you move from the Sunni area and start harassing prominant Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr and his followers? Shut down their newspaper, arrest one of Sadr's top aides, and then swear out an arrest warrang on Sadr himself? Good, let's get the Shia nice and trigger-happy.

I half expect Bremer to drive up to Kirkuk with a big banner that reads "All Kurds Are Faggots!" Y'know, to get all the Iraqi factions united. Against America.

It's insane. What is the plan over there? Does anyone know?

Are these attacks just a flare-up, or are phase one of an all out civil war?

Sigh.

A good source for info and updates right now is author/blogger Rahul Mahajan's site. He just arrived in Baghdad yesterday, but he's also very educated on the subjects at hand. You can check his partial timeline of recent conflict in Iraq, and his background on the Shia in Iraq.

Irony Beats Jake About the Head with a Stick

This has to be an April Fool's Day prank, doesn't it? Doesn't it?!

Optimists Club Organizes Baghdad Chapter

Can't satirize nothin no more.

April 05, 2004

Foil Big Brother

Just got this email, you might want to follow its instructions:

Yahoo is now using something called "Web Beacons" to track Yahoo Group users around the net and see what you're doing and where you are going - similar to cookies. Take a look at their updated privacy statement:

http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us/pixels/details.html

About half-way down the page, in the section "Outside the Yahoo! Network", you'll see a little "click here" link that will let you "opt-out" of their new method of snooping. I strongly recommend that you do this.

Once you have clicked that link, you are opted out. Notice the "Success" message the top the next page.

Be careful because on that page there is a "Cancel Opt-out" button that, if clicked, will *undo* the opt-out. Feel free to forward this to other groups.

So head on over to that page and opt-out of Yahoo's schemes of e-vil.

April 04, 2004

Bad Luck Brevity

Although I recently promised to write an interesting story about my lousy week, I find myself bored with the writing of it. I think I told the story out loud too many times already. So you get the short version.

On Wednesday afternoon, my car was stolen from a strip mall parking lot in Burbank. This was really poor timing, as I needed to be at a concert venue to help set up for a benefit show (for the non-profit I work for, Axis of Justice) in just a few hours.

Wednesday night, the police call me, they've found my car, it's at a towing yard in North Hollywood. The car seems none the worse for wear, the thief (apparently a paranoid, joy-riding teen) is in jail.

Our benefit show has a surprise appearance by mega-popular Zappa-esque metal band System of a Down. They usually play stadiums, our show is at tiny 500+ person club The Troubadour.

Real late Wednesday night, I get home and discover that I have jury duty the next morning. Actually, in four hours. With no car, I take the subway. With no sleep, I doze off about 53,000 times in the jury waiting room.

The people in the back of the jury room watch The People's Court on TV.

I luck out, and they don't ever call my name, so my jury service is considered served.

My friend Jeremy drives me to the towing yard that evening, where I am given the privilege of paying $196 to get my own car back. When Jeremy asks "why didn't they just leave it parked on the side of the street?" A guy behind the counter says "cuz that'd be too close to right." $53 of that 196 is a "city fee", in what is clearly a kickback system to the cops.

Car is okay, after I fix a few minor things the thief did under the hood (presumably while unhooking the battery, to disable the car alarm I don't have). Most of my CDs are missing, a jacket is gone, but it looks as though the guy actually had to clean the inside of the car a little in his search for items of value.

Funniest story of the whole adventure:

The cop who took my police report spent most of his time in his car, with the engine running. When he finished asking me questions, I thanked him, and walked over to thank two of the security guards from the Target store who'd helped me out earlier. The cop joined us a moment later, to tell us that he’s "just going to go inside to check on the price of the radios." He started to enter the story, but then walked back out, saying "better lock up the car."

Yes, the police officer was going to leave his car outside

- with the doors unlocked
- with the windows rolled down
- with the keys in the ignition
- with the engine running
- after just filling out a police report about a car theft in that exact parking lot.

Classic.

So it looks like everything turned out okay, it just cost me some money and time that I'd rather have back.

April 02, 2004

Backstabby

Wow. Check the cover of the new Economist:

The conservative elites are getting cranky. And when they get cranky, sometimes-- only sometimes-- they get honest.

Anti-Karma

Been a helluva week. Mostly in a not good way. Friend leaves town, dealing with benefit concert logistics, car gets stolen, jury duty, car gets found, sleep deprivation, towing yard extortion, rain, locusts.

I need to write it all up in one of my patented "Jake's Peculiar Adventures"-style tales, but today I have to catch up on work that's been piling up in the meantime (and a little sleep'd be nice).

April 01, 2004

Booga Booga

Look out, there's a big monster behind you!!!!!

APRIL FOOL'S!

Jeez, what a stupid fucking holiday.

March 30, 2004

WinTip

From Bob Morris over at Politics in the Zeros:

Here's how to kill that annoying popup window that appears when something in XP crashes, asking you if you want to report this to Microsoft. Well, actually no, I don't want to. Ever. And stop asking.

And if you also want this pointless nagware to go away.

Control Panel/System/Advanced tab/Error reporting/click "Disable error reporting"

It's that easy!

Thanks, Bob! That should decrease the irritation factor for running Windows significantly! Well, okay, some.

March 28, 2004

Musicians and Health Care

Most of the folks we hear about in the music industry are the superstars who sells millions of records a year and live on yachts made of gold and drive SUVs made of Cristal bottles. But there are tens of thousands of musicians in this country alone who make moderate money, or none at all. They've got little to no economic power, have no real organizations to fight for their rights, and they exist as tiny ants who's destinies are shaped by gargantuan record companies.

Just got this email from the political musician site Rock & Rap Confidential which looks at the increasingly vital issue of health care, as it relates to "working class" musicians (to sort of coin a phrase).

Music and Health Care (what are we going to do about it?)

On March 19th, a very important panel discussion, "Musicians and Health Care," was held at the South by Southwest conference in Austin, Texas. Present were artists, managers, entertainment union leaders, music journalists, and health care activists. The consensus of the discussion was two things. First, we must embrace every effort to bring health care to musicians right now, even though we all realize how flawed our health care system is. Second, we must promote the widest possible discussion of how to fundamentally solve the health care crisis.

This panel discussion will soon be replicated in Los Angeles. If you live there and would like to attend, please let us know so that we can get you the details as soon as they are set. If you do not live in Los Angeles, please think about how to organize people in your city to come together for similar discussion and action. We will help you in any way we can.

What do we, as artists and others in the music industry, do about our lack of health care?

Good question. What follows is what we have come up with so far. Let us know what we are leaving out.

1. If you are searching for a health care plan, check out Access to Health Insurance/Resources for Care, a great resource base put together by the Actors Fund. Go to the AHIRC web site and click on your state to find out what's available.

2. Rock A Mole Productions has done some ground-breaking research and discovered that there are over one thousand benefits each week in America done by musicians for other musicians in health crisis. Please support every one in your city that you can. Let us know if you are planning one (rockrap@aol.com). These benefits could be a huge movement for health care if linked up. What ideas do you have on how to do that?

3. There is a growing movement in the U.S. to set up free medical clinics. There are clinics in New Orleans and New Jersey specifically for musicians and we are aware of attempts to start musicians clinics in Texas and California. To find the nearest free medical clinic or to get information on how to start one, go to the Volunteers in Medicine web site.

4. The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) has a new contract with its signatory record labels which greatly expands the number of musicians who can get health care coverage. If you're an AFTRA member, find out about it. If you are not an AFTRA member, tell someone who is.

Contact: AFTRA at 212-532-0800 / New York or 323-634-8100 / Los Angeles

OR

AFTRA Health & Retirement at 212-499-4800 / New York or 323-937-3631 / Los
Angeles

5. Jobs With Justice is a national coalition of unions and community organizations which recently sponsored a Health Care Action Day in over 50 cities. JwJ has an Artist Support Program which involves artists of all kinds in community struggles. To get involved, contact tfaulkner@cwa-union.org.

6. The movement around health care is everywhere. There are strikes to preserve benefits, battles to keep hospitals open, struggles around the funding of medical schools, etc. etc. Find ways to involve your music in these important efforts. Let us know about it so we can spread the word (rockrap@aol.com).

7. Finally, we need a vision of how to fundamentally and permanently transform our disintegrating system of health care denial into a system of universal
health care delivery. Check out the Just Health Care campaign at www.justhealthcare.org. The Just Health Care campaign explains for the first time how such a system of universal health care can be paid for (and without raising taxes on anyone who makes under $184,000 a year).

Access to affordable health care is obviously vital to the survival, both physical and economic, of everyone in this country, yet the costs and availability are spiraling out of control. Last year, the huge costs of health care were the direct cause of at least three major labor struggles in southern California alone.

I challenge all writers, reporters and bloggers to research and write about the behind-the-scenes of American health care. Let's find out the core of the problem and tackle that.

Week In Review 03-26-04

Bush administration eases logging rules- "The Bush administration on Tuesday eased restrictions on logging old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest, completing a rules change that will allow forest managers to begin logging without first looking for rare plants and animals."

Fighting Terrorism Begins at Home- long personal story about a local activist's efforts to fight against a neo-nazi organization.

Iraq's Children of the Bomblet- in case you've forgotten, cluster bombs are a fucking crime against humanity.

Foul Justice- a look at the tragic and far-reaching impact of California's "Three Strikes" law. On the upside, the article says that perhaps voters will get a chance to amend/undo it.

Next Week, on Law & Order

Court: Evidence OK in some no-warrant searches

As I understand it, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled that if police officers do a quick search of someone's private property "to ensure [the officers'] own safety", and if during the course of that safety search they find evidence of a crime, then that evidence can be admissable in court--despite the fact that the officers searched someone's property without a search warrant.

The two dissenting judges in the case called the decision "the road to hell."

This ruling effects Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi.

This sort of thing seems not only easy to abuse, but seems destined to be abused, and frequently.

March 27, 2004

Tyranny of Taste

I have finally started up the Reviews section of the LMB website. I've been meaning to do that for a while, add an area to comment on movies, books, music, TV, video games, etc. On the one hand, it's a little self-indulgent, on the other, I think it can be helpful. I know that there are times when I'd like to see someone else's opinion before spending money, and there are times when finding such opinions are difficult.

Honestly, that comes up most often regarding local restaurants, and not so much with, say, movies in national release. Maybe I'll review restaurants too. And I really need to get my ass in gear reviewing political books. Honestly, that's what I imagine y'all'd find most helpful.

Anyhow, I currently have reviews for the new Dawn of the Dead movie, and a couple of old blog entries that are sort of reviewy. Before the weekend's out I hope to also have reviews for the movie Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and for the video game The Suffering. And I'll try to get some political book reviews up next week.

March 26, 2004

Swirly News

U.S. Officials Fashion Legal Basis to Keep Force in Iraq- sigh. The US has managed to creatively interpret UN resolutions so that they mean that the US can "transfer authority" to Iraq on June 30, 2004, yet keep American troops there through December 31, 2005.

The Apparat: George W. Bush's back-door political machine- the network of fundraisers and thinktanks that sneakily champion the conservative cause.

Bush Wants More Personnel in Colombia- that don't sound good.

Imperial Arrogance: The US in Haiti- latest on Haiti and the US' rather insulting response.

Turning the Tide- Chomsky's got a blog! Well, kinda. Looks like Z Magazine has set up a blog that will include excerpts from his recent speeches, articles and interviews, with some original Chomsky content here and there.

Advertisers try subtle approach to brand plugs- new TV ad strategy:

Through Chicago-based Starcom Entertainment, Allstate is sponsoring vignettes of "Gilmore Greats"--snippets of "pivotal moments" from past "Gilmore Girls" episodes.

The vignettes, which run for 30 seconds during the episode, are branded as "This Gilmore Great is brought to you by Allstate" and ends with the tagline, "Prepare yourself for life's great moments. Are you in good hands?"

Allstate then runs a regular 30-second ad following the vignette.

I dunno. Might work.

The Emperor of Scrounge- university professor decides to be a dumpster diver for a year, eschewing his job and getting as much of life's necessities as he can from what wasteful Americans throw away. While this probably sounds gross to most of you, but it's really the ultimate in recycling/reusing, and is a glaring example of how much we overconsume.

Just Wondering- Geov Parrish asks the questions that the 9/11 commission won't: Why did we wait 2 years to have hearings on 9/11? Why has no one been fired for failing to prevent the deaths of 3000 innocents? How much as the Iraq war set us back in our fight against terrorists?

The SD GOP discovers blogs- as a political blogger myself, I think I am legally required to post this. Democrat Stephanie Herseth is running for a seat in the House, and has been raising money via ads on political blogs. The ads take you to a specific donation page on her website that relates to blog readers that is different from the main donation page. Local Republicans are now accusing Herseth of having a "secret web page" on her site, and that, well, I don't know. It's secret (although it isn't) and therefore it's proof that she's "hiding something" which means that she's bad. I think. It seems that the Reps reason for bringing this up is the hope that they can "smear" Herseth by associating her with the content of these blogs, which they probably hope are more liberal than the general voting population. Weak.

March 25, 2004

Caption Contest

Can you look at this image of Condoleeza Rice and not hear the Darth Vader theme playing in your head?

"Now, Richard Clarke, witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational battle station!"

March 24, 2004

Boondock Sloganeering

Comic strip The Boondocks is featuring a mock advertising campaign for George W. Bush. Check it.

1
2
3

And another good one that doesn't entirely fit that theme, here.

Whistleblower Sonata

Richard Clarke joins the chorus of ex-government officials pulling back the curtain to expose the inner workings of the Bush administration. His main criticism is that a) before 9/11, no one in the Bush White House cared about terrorism, Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden, and b) both before and after 9/11, all they seemed to care about was getting Saddam Hussein.

Of course, Clarke is now being assaulted big time as the White House tries to spin itself clean again. It's such a common pattern that it's a wonder the media buys it at all, especially when Clarke's story fits in so well with all the others: DiIullio, O'Neill, Kwiatkowski, and to a lesser extent, Ritter, Wilson and Kay. Their tales weave a vibrant tapestry depicting a hyper-political administration which chooses its self-serving goals first and worries about their impact later (if ever).

By now we're headlong into the Get Clarke phase, as the Bush team tries to absolve itself of any 9/11 guilt in front of the official 9/11 investigation committee. Which is also turning into the Get Clinton phase, as the current White House tries to explain that 9/11 was really Clinton's fault, because he didn't take care of Osama bin Laden on his watch.

(Amusingly, they are also arguing that the White House didn't heed Clarke's advice on Al Qaeda because they wanted to develop a "more effective" anti-terrorism plan. And in fact they were working on one; Dick Cheney was appointed to head a counterterrorism task force back in May 2001-- it never met once)

All that remains to be seen is what effect Clarke's media splash makes on the Bush administration's activities and on the November election itself. One of the Bush team's strong suits is the poular belief that they are "strong" on terrorism and national defense. Can Clarke's claims that Bush didn't do shit about Osama and dropped the ball by going after Iraq crack this nut?

March 23, 2004

World's Most Important Nonsense

Cartoon Network's Adult Swim program asks the age-old question:

Who would win in a fight, a flying shark or a flying crocodile?

Discuss.

Or, if you find that too silly:

Who would win in a fight, cavemen or astronauts?

No, the astronauts would not get weapons.

March 22, 2004

Adobe for Prez

More photoshop madness from the nuts at Fark.com.

The theme: Photoshop ads for the 2044 presidential campaign.

"Don't blame me, I voted for Creepy Robot Thing!"

Another Silent Crisis

I feel a bit odd juxtaposing this extremely serious subject with the ridiculous blog entries above, but that's just the kinda site this is. I guess.

If you are a real news hound, you have probably picked up faint murmurings of an African catastrophe, in western Sudan. I had heard brief mentions and speculations of terrible things, but this article is the most concrete I've seen:

Mass rape atrocity in west Sudan

I will definitely research this story further, but it appears that a government-sanctioned militia of Sudanese Arabs have been attacking the "black African" population of western Sudan (a region called Darfur). The militias seem to be engaged in a program of ethnic cleansing, trying to drive the blacks out of the country, and to kill, rape and kidnap whoever does not flee.

As is the norm for Africa, this story is getting NO play in the American press. I think we need to change that...

[update]

Reader Emily points out a column written on the subject by the NY Times' Nicholas Kristof.

[/update]

Week in Review 03-19-04

Letter from Juarez- notoriously undercovered events in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. The city is home to many poor workers who staff the city's maquilas/sweatshops, and as many as 400 of the city's women have been murdered in the past 10 years. No one knows who is doing the killing, and the police don't seem to care.

US vs. Europe: two views of terror- explains how America has embraced the idea that the fight against terrorism is a "war", while most European nations think of the fight as more of a complicated law enforcement program. The two perspectives lead to very different methods and tactics. I've long thought that the war metaphor was inappropriate, as Al Qaeda and its bretheren are more like the Mafia than a state. And you couldn't stop the mafia by blowing up Sicily.

The Height of Disrespect- pretty disturbing article about black youth in America. The study on which the article is based (and I can't say if the study is worthwhile), describes a teen landscape in which black women are held in utter disdain and contempt, where no one of any gender trusts anyone else, and sex, love and relationships are just means of gaining power, money and stability.

Drug War Update- your basic informative "America's drug policy is insane and is destroying the country" article. That might sound like I'm dismissing it, but no-- everyone needs to know this stuff.

Generation Debt- rather complicated, but highly important article about the changing American economy and the ways it forces younger and younger people into more and more debt.

March 20, 2004

Blockin' Out the Scenery, Breakin' My Mind

Went to today's Iraq invasion anniversary protest in Hollywood. Left a little early because, well... medical thing. Partway through the march I noticed that my throat seemed to be swelling shut for no apparent reason, and opted to head back home. It was kind of scary, but I'm mostly fine now; I can speak and breathe and swallow properly. I'm guessing it was an allergic reaction to either the sausagey sandwich I bought from a street vendor or from a quarter of a kiwi I got from the Food Not Bombs folks. I haven't know myself to be allergic to either before, so I don't know what's up, but in typical Jake fashion, I'm choosing not to worry about it.

Anyhow.

While at said protest, I tested out the new camera attachment for my groovy little internet decvice. The pictures aren't the greatest quality, but I did get some nice shots of some of the more creative protest signs. I'll label/describe the sign below each photo in case they're hard to read.

"Bring My Brother Home. USMC CPL Sean Reynolds".

"Vote Republican" t-shirts for sale. Yeah, it's a cheap shot, but still kinda funny.

"Leave Teeth Marks on Barrells of Guns". I really don't know what that was about. Packs a visceral punch, yet I'm not sure what they're referring to. Yes, I know they mis-spelled "barrels".

A picture of the Grim Reaper saying "I Support Everyone's Troops". One of my favorite signs from the whole march. I think all my future protest signs will have to be of the biting and ironic variety.

"Bush hijacked 9/11 and flew it into Iraq". Interesting, nice metaphor. And very big. The poor guy had to keep struggling to keep the it aloft, and stop the cardboard from folding in on itself.

"Bush/Cheney 1984". This depicts Cheney in sort of a Nazi uniform and Bush dressed as Napoleon. A lot of the detail is lost in the photo, like how the swastikas on Cheney's uniform are replaced with Enron logos, and some sort of patch on Bush's shoulder (I forget what it said, but it was funny).

These next few will need a little explaining:

For reasons still not entirely clear to me, a friend of mine decided to organize a contingent made up of fans of musicians Morrissey and The Smiths. The group cleverly called itself "Louder Than Bombs," after a Smiths album. All their signs had song lyrics, either in their original forms, or slightly tweaked to spread an anti-war message. Some of the best were "If it's not love, then it's the bomb, the bomb, the bomb, that will bring us together," "Come armageddon," "Hang the newsmen," "Shoplifters for peace," and "They do the military two-step down the nape of our necks." (Trust me, if you're a Smiths fan, these are all very funny)

They also sang Smiths and Morrissey songs, with lyrics switched up to denounce war. Creative and amusing, yet I still have no idea why they choce to take this theme and run with it.

(Hmm, I'll have to play some Smiths on my radio show Monday to commerorate this weirdness.)

And finally, we come to the best sign at the protest. Not only the best sign at the protest, but the best sign EVER.

Across the street from the initial gathering point for the protesters was a small throng of counter-demonstrators. The counter folks were small in number, maybe 30. Some were pro-war and pro-patriotism, some were right-wing conspiracy theorist Freepers (their signs denouncing the peace movement as communism in disguise), and a handful of ever-present Jesus freaks ("you're all wasting your time caring for your fellow man and striving for peace, when you could be worshipping Jesus!"). The Best Sign Ever was held by a Jesus Freak (it's the one on the left).

The top of the sign reads "Support President Bush".

Below that are pictures in silhouette of: a fighter jet; a tank; a machine gun; a pistol; an attack helicopter; an atomic bomb; and a missile emplacement.

Below that, the sign reads "Trust Jesus".

Wow. Wow.

Wow.

That man breaks the sound barrier of crazy, and I salute his courage to be that insane in public.

It was a good time, I saw lots of friends on a nice sunny day. I myself carried no sign, but everyone did seem to like my Democracy: We Deliver t-shirt.

I had no illusions that I was making a difference, but I'll admit that sometimes it feels good to go out and speak your mind, even if you don't think it's going to change a thing. And by my rough estimate, maybe 10,000 folks did just that.

LA peaceniks reprazent!

March 19, 2004

Happy Birthday, Optional War!

I'll just cut to the chase here.

I do not think that the war against Iraq was ever about finding weapons of mass destruction or liberating the Iraqi people. These were red herrings, and arguing about them is a waste of time.

It has long been my belief that the war on Iraq was an idealistic/cynical plan to install a US-friendly government into Iraq, and intimidate non-friendly Middle Eastern governments into cooperation. These would in turn maintain US access to the region's oil, and possibly halt any Middle East government from aiding terrorist organizations, if indeed they were doing that. If any peoples were liberated in the process, that was a fringe benefit (sort of. Free people have to be controlled too).

The only new evidence I've seen that made me re-think my theory was this interview with former Pentagon insider Karen Kwiatkowski. She argued that there were three main reasons for the war, all extremely self-serving: to position the US for post-war/post-sanctions business contracts in Iraq; to gain locations for alternate locations (i.e. outside Saudi Arabia) military bases in the Middle East; and to protect the value of the US dollar by keeping it as the currency of choice in the oil market. Those reasons do seem a bit odd and petty, but she is in a position to know much more than we do.

The folks at Iraq Body Count estimate that between 8000 and 10,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the war and subsequent occuaption. The folks at Lunaville estimate that there have been 576 US soldiers killed and 2842 injured in the war and occupation (though I've seen other, much higher estimates of injured).

The war may cost the US $225 billion by the end of the year.

As for where things stand now, I'd say read this excellent article by scholar Juan Cole, Welcome to the Quagmire (sadly, it's on Salon.com, which means that if you want to read the whole thing, you have to subscribe, or watch a mini-ad). Things are extremely tense, with many angry ethnic and religious factions vying for power in the new government, and possibly willing to fight if they don't get what they want.

And keep in mind that the current, US-appointed government is working behind the scenes to establish rules and consolidate their own power. Maybe by the time someone gets democratically elected, all the important decisions will have been made and the new guy will have his hands tied.

I'm glad that Saddam Hussein is out of power and under arrest. But I do fear for the future; just because one bad guy is gone doesn't mean that a good guy will take his place. And if Iraq descends into civil war, what good is their previous "liberation"?

And what about new terrorism? Won't many in the Muslim and Arab world believe that this world proves exactly what militant fundamentalists have been saying about the US all along? Won't some of them want to join the cause just because of that? Won't some join the cause because US bombs killed their families?

It can be an uncomfortable question for us anti-war folks: can something good come out of something bad? In the end, could it be that a US-subservient Iraq is better than Saddam's Iraq, better enough that all the death and lies were worth it? And if so, would it have been okay to support such a cynical, self-serving action if you knew that in the end, that suffering people would be better off?

I don't want to say that things in Iraq are like Disneyland on Earth, but maybe bombs and kidnappings and occupation are better than an iron fist.

Give it a few years, then we can see the real consequences, and make judgements work a damn.

Conquest

I now have a dishwasher!!

Look on my might and tremble!!

That is all.

March 17, 2004

Blinders? Check. Rage? Check. Flying Spittle? Check.

Stop me if you've heard this one.

A Spanish guy walks into an American Republican bar. He goes up to the bartender and says "give me a beer." And the bartender says "YOU STUPID APPEASING PANSY MOTHERFUCKER!! HOW DARE YOU GIVE INTO THE TERRORISTS?!!! YOU COWARDLY TRAITOR FAGGOT!!! YOU'RE WORSE THAN FRANCE!! I'LL KILL YOU!!!! I'LL KILL ALL OF YOU!!!"

Ha ha ha. Those Republicans, they're a riot.

American conservatives just can't get rabid enough about the Spanish terrorist attack and suprise election results of the past week. I'm not sure if they are so simple-minded that they can't see the complexity of the events, their causes and potential results, or if they're just drawing the most simplistic picture possible in public to score political points.

First of all, these politicians are smearing the distinction between the "war on terrorism" and "war on Iraq" like toddlers fingerpainting. The US decided to invade Iraq, a largely terrorism-free zone.

After that, it's just a devolution into "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad" rhetoric.

- The prime minister of Spain sent the country to war with Iraq, so that's good and anti-terrorist (although as many as 90% of Spain's citizens were against the war).

- The people of Spain voted him out of office, so they're bad and pro-terrorist (without looking to see what the new guy's policy is).

- The new prime minister wants to take Spanish troops out of Iraq, which is bad and pro-terrorist (cuz Iraqis are Muslims and Muslims are terrorists and not killing terrorists is pro-terrorist)

- Spain isn't fighting in the way that the US wants it to, so they are just like Europe giving the Sudetenland to Hitler in the 1930s (despite the fact that that analogy probably doesn't work here)

It's amazingly frustrating dealing with such ignorant, narrow arguments. Of course the situation is more complex than that. It always is.

If any of these conservative politicians and pundits had bothered to ask anyone from Spain why they voted a certain way, or what their thoughts or intentions were, instead of using their apparent pundit psychic powers, we might actually learn something.

I have seen several statements by Spaniards which tell a different story (here and here).

One of the political strengths of the Popular Party was their strong anti-ETA stance (the ETA being Spain's homegrown terrorists/rebels). Once the bombs hit in Madrid, the Popular Party immediately began spinning the event, asserting that there was no doubt that this attack was perpetrated by the ETA. Even as doubt began to poke out its head, and evidence came to the fore that perhaps this was an Islamic fundamentalist attack and not the ETA, the Popular Party stood firm in its unsubstantiated claims. And when an Islamic group took credit and the ETA denied involvement, the Spanish got pissed. Furious that the current administration had played politics with the dead before the blood and wreckage had cooled, voters turned out in mass to vote the current bastards out.

In the eyes of the Spanish, this was not a pro-appeasement vote, this was an anti-exploitation vote. This was a vote against politicians manipulating the truth for their own personal gain. And, perhaps, an anti-stupid-bastards-who-take-us-into-American-wars vote.

Of course, no one is ever 100% reliable when speaking of their own motivations. We often hide the truth, try to paint ourselves more positively, or lie to ourselves as well. Perhaps the people of Spain are fooling us or themselves when they tell us why they voted that way. Or perhaps not.

Now we get into the war of perceptions. No matter how the Spanish view this election, will the terrorists view the change in the vote as a victory? They might. Will the terrorists see the new president's decision to pull troops from Iraq as another victory? They might. Will they now start attacking nation's right before elections to try to sway the outcome? They might. And these are things to worry about for the future.

But should all decisions made by any government be based primarily on how they will be interpretted by terrorists? If you start letting terrorist fears determine your every action, then the terrorists are successfully controlling you. While you should keep in mind the ramifications of your actions, you should surely never make a decision just because its what the terrorists wouldn't want you to do.

Our best hope in all of this is for all governments to start fighting terrorism in a smart way, not in an arrogant, macho way. In his public statements Spanish prime minister-elect Zapatero seems to be embracing this idea, of countries working together on effective ways to fight terrorism. Only time will tell whether or not Zapatero follows through, or whether any nation starts thinking about and implementing more effective tactics.

Queer Eye for the Unemployment Line

Does this even make sense?

LGBT Federal Workers Lose Job Protections

Gay and lesbians in the entire federal workforce have had their job protections officially removed by the office of Special Counsel. The new Special Counsel, Scott Bloch, says his interpretation of a 1978 law intended to protect employees and job applicants from adverse personnel actions is that gay and lesbian workers are not covered.

Bloch said that the while a gay employee would have no recourse for being fired or demoted for being gay, that same worker could not be fired for attending a gay Pride event...

Bloch said gays, lesbians and bisexuals cannot be covered as a protected class because they are not protected under the nation’s civil rights laws.

So it's okay to fire a federal employee because they like people of the same sex... because they're not protected by civil rights laws... but you can't fire them from attending a gay pride event... because... that would be wrong?

Let's try to piece this together. An employer can fire anyone for any reason, unless they are part of a "protected class" (presumably women and racial minorities). Since gays and lesbians are not part of a protected class (in the view of Scott Bloch, they can be fired for being gay. But seeing an employee at a gay pride parade would not be enough evidence that the employee was gay (maybe just a straight person enjoying the spectacle), so the boss would not be able to fire him.

Or something.

In related news, Rhea County, Tennessee is trying to change state law so that homosexuals can be charged with crimes against nature. No, I'm not shitting you. They also want to enact a law that would ban homosexuals from entering the county altogether.

Stupid country.

Madre de Dios!

Fun Fact:

"Many Spanish troops serving in Iraq, for example, wore an arm patch depicting the Cross of St. James of Compostela. That insignia commemorates the Battle of Clavijo in 844. According to legend, the Apostle St. James the Elder came down from the sky and killed every Moor - as Muslims were then called - in his path. Ever since, St. James has been called 'Santiago Matamoros,' St. James the Moor Killer."

March 16, 2004

Fundamentally Loathsome

Some days ago, John Kerry was quoted as saying that "foreign leaders" prefer him to Bush.

Actually, Kerry was mis-quoted as saying that. He actually said that "more leaders" preferred him. Patrick Healy, the reporter who transcribed the event, has admitted that he made a mistake, and when he listened to the tape that Kerry clearly said "more" and not "foreign."

But that's not the point. Republicans are continuing to pretend that Kerry said what he didn't say so they can criticize him. But that's not the point either. Here's the point:

Vice President Cheney took a few licks.

"'At the very least,' Cheney said, 'we have a right to know what he is saying to foreign leaders that makes them so supportive of his candidacy.' . . .

Cheney's helped run the most secretive presidential administration in the nation's history, and he's got the gall to say shit like that?

Cheney and the words "right to know" are like matter and antimatter; it's physically impossible for them to co-exist.

Surely someone's wiping Cheney innards off the inside of the undisclosed location.

Owned

Tom Engelhardt has an appalling article about the US and Iraq, misleadingly called "After November...?" The real meat of the article is way down deep (it's as though the author was getting paid by the word...), buried under some fluffy speculation about the election campaign. Skip down to the subheading "Following the money trail in Iraq" for some grim news.

First, we learn that the Pentagon has won a battle against the State Department for control of $18.4 billion in aid for Iraq. The figures are fuzzy, but the Pentagon will control how around 60-90% of that money gets spent. This money will be used for reconstruction in Iraq over the next four years (maybe more). Even though the US military will give over "official" power to some sort of Iraqi government June 30, the US military will still have plenty of leverage by controlling this huge amount of desperately-needed aid money.

Then you've got a number of facts which suggest that Ahmad Chalabi, the shady fellow that US warhawks wanted to take power from Saddam, might continue to be a power player (if not THE power player). And that he may or may not be controlled by the US. Those facts:

• Chalabi and his organization (Iraqi National Congress) are still on the US payroll
  
• Chalabi is currently a member of the Iraqi Government Council (appointed by the US, if memory serves)
  
• while leading the IGC's economic and finance committee, Chalabi was able to appoint his own people to powerful positions inside the government: minister of oil, minister of finance, central bank governor, minister of trade, head of the trade bank, and head of the country's largest commercial bank
  
• Chalabi runs the "De-Baathification Commission", which "is so wide-ranging that even one of Chalabi's aides calls it 'a government within the government'"
  

So despite Chalabi's lack of popularity with the Iraqi people, and his initial failures at taking control, it looks like Chalabi may yet end up in charge of this newly "democratic" country.

And finally, a series of facts which seem to tell us that the US will be spending billions over the next few years to build permanent US military bases in Iraq. Which, some war critics (and conspiracy theorists) claimed was one of the main goals for the US decision to go to war in the first place. Don't take my word for it, read the article and its associated links, see if you buy this conclusion.

So, when the US finally pulls out of Iraq, leaving it an autonomous democracy, we're really leaving it economically dependent, run by a fellow who may have allegiance to the US, and our military won't really be leaving it at all.

By the time we're voting in November it'll be too late; Iraq will already be ours.

[Insert Hacker Gibberish here]

I added another small section of links, on the right, down near the very bottom, called "SubvertWare."

Over time, I've come to find a number of programs that either make things easier, faster, or let you avoid big evil corps like Microsoft and AOL. I've recommended these to a few people who found them extremely helpful, so I thought I'd share the wealth.

All the programs are PC-based, sorry Mac people.

The programs:

Ad-Aware- searches your computer for various advertising/tracking/spying files sneakily inserted into your computer via websites and downloads and such. Sort of like anti-virus software.

Eudora- since so many computer viruses are tailored to Microsoft's popular Outlook email software, it's a good idea to stop using Outlook. Eudora is pretty simple and has most of the features that you'll ever need. It's free, if you don't mind a little ad in the corner of the window when its in use. If you do mind, you'll have to pay them money or use a different program.

Firefox- people seem most excited about this one. A fast web-browser with a number of handy features that's free, and not made by Microsoft.

Linux- the famous "open source" operating system. Like a non-evil version of Windows. I'll be honest, I don't know much about it, but I've been meaning to give it a try. Maybe in my (snicker) spare time.

MUTE- new file-sharing program (and network?) that really seems to protect the user's privacy, thereby protecting them from lawsuits and other threats. Haven't used it myself, don't know how well it works in practice.

Soulseek- another file-sharing program and network. Again, haven't used it, but it seems more community-based than search-based. You find clusters of users who share some of your tastes and start swapping files with them. In some ways, makes it more likely you'll find any obscure music you're looking for.

Thunderbird- haven't used it, supposed to be like a cross between Firefox and Eudora, by the makers of Firefox.

Trillian- do you use AOL Instant Messenger, Netscape Messenger, Yahoo Messenger, ICQ or IRC? This program lets you access all of thsoe networks simultaneously, without the annoying pop-up ad windows that come with some of those other programs. I highly recommend it.

If anyone else can recommend other good programs, let me know.

March 15, 2004

Warren Peace

Read till the end, the last article is pretty powerful.

'Special skills draft' on drawing board- the US militaryis talking about reinstituting a limited draft, of computer and language experts. Of course, if they call your number, we all know how to get out of this: say you're gay.

US revealed to be secretly funding opponents of Chavez- it appears that the US, via its National Endowment for Democracy, has given a bunch of money to the political opposition in Venezuela. You know, the opposition that tried to oust president Hugo Chavez in a coup a couple years back? Surely the US-coup leader link is just a coinkidink.

Gloating at Madrid's graveside- last week's terrorist attack in Madrid just before Spanish elections resulted in a new regime being voted into office. As the culprits of the attack seem to have been Al Qaeda affiliates, and since Spain had never had any Islamic terrorist attacks before this, it seems that the electorate assumed that the attack was revenge for the amazingly unpopular decision to join the Iraq invasion. Now Spaniards were dying for a war they'd never wanted in the first place, and they were going to vote those bastards out. Well, that's my interpretation of events, anyway.

Brendan O'Neill looks at the nauseating comments by pro-war politicians and pundits worldwide, who seem thrilled that Spain was attacked, hoping that this would "teach them a lesson" about the need to fight terrorism (and "fight terrorism" of course means, "whatever the US says will fight terrorism").

Real message of Madrid's millions- after the Spanish terrorist attacks, literally millions of Spaniards took to the streets in anger, protest and anguish. The reporter above feels that most news outlets missed the point, and sums up his own interpretation very poetically:

The marches on Friday night were the antithesis of what the terrorists had done 36 hours earlier. Massacring innocent people: that is the statement the terrorists make, that is the dumb and stupid drama they stage. Standing together with our fellow men, respecting and loving them even if we do not know them, that is what we the people of Spain people do. You think you won yesterday. You did not. You are the losers.

By coming out here in our millions and millions, speaking not just for Spain but for the great and enduring values of the human race, we have defeated you.

And try as you may, you sons of bitches, we always will.

March 12, 2004

"Human Filth". Or, "The Red Pill"

I believe that all politics are dirty.

I think that most people go about their daily lives thinking that there are laws and rules and that everyone follows them. Order is the rule, crime the exception.

It is my belief that these people are totally wrong.

There is no law. There is only force and obedience and illusion. Rules are something that the powerful trick other people into following while placing no such restrictions on themselves.

When stripped to the core, our world is one where the powerful fuck the powerless. And if the powerless are able, they fight back. There is nothing else.

Rarely has this been clearer to me than in this article, in Rolling Stone magazine of all places.

It's called "Bush's Bagmen". It's about the folks who collect and donate massive amounts of cash to George W. Bush, and how they are directly rewarded for their efforts, in the form of legislation, positions of power, and so on. The article gives specifics and names names.

For example, Anthony Alexander, president of FirstEnergy energy company, raised $200,000 for Bush. In exchange, Bush appointed Alexander to a government panel to shape federal energy policy.

Shopping mall magnate John Price raised $1.3 million for Bush and was named ambassador to Ireland, despite having zero diplomatic experience.

And it goes on.

This sure as hell isn't just a Republican thing. The Democrats just aren't as good at it.

The most appalling bit of information to me was not about corruption, but about a single person who, as far as I'm concerned, should die right now. Dr. Edward Floyd is a "vascular surgeon who treats patients with cancer." He also, coincidentally, is "one of the biggest tobacco growers in South Carolina." How can you possibly treat people with cancer while growing crops which cause it? Any human being with an ounce of morals would either a) quit one of those two jobs, or b) swallow a fucking bullet.

What's also appalling in the article is how little money is actually changing hands. These donors and fundraisers pony up a few hundred thousand dollars. Which really isn't that much, especially in light of how much they gain in tax breaks, deregulation and such. And it's not like Bush is "repaying" these guys out of his own pocket. So where do the donor benefits come from? Nothing more telling than this entry in the article:

In 1999, Charles Cawley threw a cocktail party at his summer home in Kennebunkport, Maine, inviting 200 people to greet the town's most famous part-time resident, George W. Bush. The oceanfront soiree raised $200,000 for the candidate -- but Cawley wasn't acting purely out of neighborly good will. As the head of MBNA America Bank, the nation's biggest independent issuer of credit cards, Cawley wanted Bush to push for a new law making it harder for families hit by unemployment or huge medical bills to declare bankruptcy. Sure enough, not long after taking office, Bush backed the measure -- which would add $75 million a year to MBNA's bottom line. [emphasis mine]

For a mere two hundred grand, Bush will give this donor $75 million from the nation's poorest. Doesn't cost Bush a fucking dime.

That's American politics. The rich and powerful give a candidate enough money to trick the public into voting for him or her. In exchange, the elected candidate pays the donor back out of the people's pockets, their health, their jobs, their futures.

Morpheus : The Matrix is everywhere. It's all around us, even in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to work, when you pay your taxes.

The Matrix is the world that has been pulled over your eyes, to blind you from the truth.

Neo : What truth?

Morpheus : That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison...for your mind.

Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

[thanks to David D]

Week in Review, 03-12-04

A few more of this week's Axis of Justice newslinks showed up on the blog than usual, so I won't repeat them.

Is Military Creeping Into Domestic Law Enforcement?- while American law has long-standing prohibitions against the military acting on US soil. This article gives examples of American military spy agencies being aimed at American citizens.

Election Week in Russia- short blog by repoter Nathan Hodges, writing about Russia n life and politics on the week of its recent elections.

Anarchy in the Classroom- while "anarchist" and "terrorist" are rapidly becoming synonyms in the governmental lexicon, this college professor teaches a class in the political philosophy of anarchism, and put some of its anti-hierarchy principles into action.

Saudi Women Get the Vote- rules for new municipal elections in Saudi Arabia will allegedly not include a ban on women's right to vote, implying that they will be allowed to vote. However, I suspect that Saudi conservatives may try some pro-active disenfranchisement between now and the October elections.

Poverty Up, Women Still Down- it is popular among American newsweekly mags like Time and Newsweek to sporadically ask the "controversial" question "is feminism dead?" or "what happened to feminism?" In my view, feminism largely became an anti-poverty/poor people's rights movement. Because women are generally paid less and kept to lower-paying types of work, and because fathers often ditch their families and leave mothers to raise and care for their children alone, women bear the brunt of poverty, no matter where they are in the world. I see feminists speaking out for welfare, housing, health care and child care, and not so much of the fiery anti-sexist rhetoric of the past. Mags like Time and Newsweek don't notice, and therefore (in their eyes) feminism no longer exists.

Chomsky on Haiti- pretty much what it says. Smart guy Noam Chomsky gives his take on the current situation in Haiti, putting it into the larger contexts of corporate power, elite domination, American interventionism, and so on.

The Scary Truth

Rahul Mahajan has a point.

More military prowess leads to more terrorist attacks, more defense of hard or politically significant targets leads to more indiscriminate attacks on soft targets, and it is simply impossible to defend all soft targets.

Willie Horton, We Hardly Knew Ye

The Bush team have released their second round of TV ads. The one titled "100 Days" is misleading and smears John Kerry as a terror-lover. But most appallingly, it plays on America's racism against central/south Asian folks. It briefly depicts a sinister dark-skinned man as a terrorist. When confronted with this, the Bush team apparently said that the man was not supposed to be Arab, and looks "generic." Blogger Rahul Mahajan thinks that the man clearly looks to be "north Indian or Pakistani." Given most Americans' lack of knowledge about folks from foreign lands...

But more importantly, here is "The Poor Man's" parody of the Bush ad.

March 11, 2004

Labor Policy, Children, and Censorship

Steve Gilliard has a very interesting short essay which argues that the pro-censorship/anti-indecency hysteria going on right now is the direct outcome of a society/economy where increasingly overworked parents are forced to let the TV raise their kids. Never thought of it that way.

Newsy Quilt

Assorted recent news (including some media stuff that probably belongs in a different section. Oh well).

The New Pentagon Papers- THE article to read today (although you'll have to watch a web ad before you can read the whole thing). From whistleblower Karen Kwiatkowski, a former Defense Department intelligence agent, who tells all abou the political manipulations that got us into the Iraq war.

Liberal Talk Radio Network to Start Up in Three Cities- the long-discussed "liberal radio network" is set to start broadcast on March 31. "Air America Radio" will feature talk shows by Al Franken, Chuck D, and Janeane Garafalo. Will it succeed? Who knows. I'm going to try to get the radio show that I produce onto their network.

[edit]

Here's Air America Radio's daily schedule

[/edit]

Fish. Barrel. Boom- nice title. Essentially a series of quotes from various Republican pundits and politicians, which make them look like stupid evil hypocrites. To be fair, I'm guessing that a fair number of them are taken out of context. But some of them probably aren't. Apparently excerpted from a new book called "Take Them At Their Words", which is supposed to be filled with this sorta thing.

"Now They Tell Us": An Exchange- rebuttals and re-rebuttals about Michael Massing's critical piece Now They Tell Us, which harshly criticizes press apathy and complicity in the White House's drive for war. This article features letters from those criticized, defending themselves, and Massing's response to their responses.

In Boston, women’s radio station counters misogynistic rap- Angry at the constant misogyny in modern rap music, a dozen teen girls in Boston decide to set up their own radio station, "Radio Log", to broadcast female-positive music to the masses. Two words: hell yeah.

Bubba The Love Sponge 'Very Close' To New Deal- former radio shock-jock "Bubba the Love Sponge" was fired recently for incidences of "indecency" on his radio show (I wasn't too sad about this, as I think the motherfucker's a sexist asshole, but I do support his freedom of speech). But Bubba is saying that he may very well join up with satelite radio to continue his show. There is also a rumor that Howard Stern may do the same. Perhaps this indecency witchhunt might drive "risque" programming from the public airwaves to the paid-subscription airwaves.

March 10, 2004

Heathen Shellfish

I dig this.

GodHatesShrimp.com

This of course points out how while there are passages in the Bible which seem to decry homosexuality, there are also passages which decry the eating of creatures that "hath no fins nor scales in the waters". Which I guess means that God says it's okay to eat fish, dolphins, and even seals. But shrimp, jellyfish, and wet giraffes are off the menu.

And while that's a dig at Christianity, it's really an issue in all religions. You choose which portions of your religious text to focus on, and leave the rest alone. Lotta folks scream about gay sex, not so many worried about the shrimp-eating (although I am now pondering the idea of going to anti-gay protests holding up an anti-shrimp sign like the one on that website).

Like that new Mel Gibson movie, "Beating the Holy Living Fuck Out of Christ". I hear focuses an awful lot on the torture of Jesus, and how his suffering saves all mankind, but not so much on the whole "be kind and generous to others" message that he preached for most of his life.

Sadly, that's a fairly common focus of many Christians.

One of these days I really do mean to write a comprehensive religion article. As you might guess, I'm not exactly a fan.

March 09, 2004

Shortest Barrier Between Two Points

Wow, amazing how hard it can be to answer a simple yes-or-no question.

Several weeks back, President Bush had announced that he would meet with the 9/11 investigation committee to answer their questions-- for an hour. Yes, while people like your or I might be willing to give up hours, days, or even months of our time if we thought it might somehow help prevent another catastrophic terrorist attack, the president is only willing to give up about 60 minutes.

At this morning's press briefing with White House spokesman Scott McClellan, reporters asked a simple question: has the president changed his mind about that 60 minute time limit? Apparently the president had made some ambiguous statements lately which could be interpretted to mean that he would now spend as much time with the investigators as they liked, so the press was asking McClellan if that was a correct interpretation (granted, the initial question was phrased in a much more confrontational way:

Q: Does the President want to really get to the bottom of the cause of 9/11? If he does, why would he limit his interview with the commission to one hour and for other officials, and, stonewall on documents?

McCLELLAN: I'm glad you brought this up. This administration has provided unprecedented cooperation to a legislative body in the 9/11 Commission. We have worked closely with the commission in a spirit of cooperation. And you only have to go back -- and I would appreciate it if you would report some of the facts of the type of access we have provided to the commission. We have provided the commission access to every bit of information that they have requested, including our most sensitive national security documents. And the commission chairman has stated such --

Q: Well, the commission certainly is not satisfied.

McCLELLAN: -- and as far as the President, the President looks forward to meeting with the chairman and vice chairman and answering all the questions that they want to raise.

Q: Why don't you just open the books and get to the truth? The American people deserve it.

McCLELLAN: Did you not hear what I just said, Helen? Have you not looked at the facts? I think you need to quit reading some of the coverage and look at the facts.

Q: You just said, “all the questions they want to raise.” That means he’s no longer going to limit it to an hour?

McCLELLAN: Well, that’s what it’s scheduled for now. But, look, he’s going to answer all the questions they want to raise. Keep in mind that the commission --

Q: If they’re still asking at one hour, he’ll still answer them?

McCLELLAN: Keep in mind that the commission has already had access to all the information they requested, as I just pointed out, including our most sensitive national security documents. That’s what I’m talking about when I’m talking about unprecedented cooperation. And the commission has also -- yes, let me finish --

Q: The issue is whether he’s limiting it to an hour --

McCLELLAN: Let me finish, Mark.

Q: -- and I’m asking a very simple question. If they’re still asking questions at one hour --

McCLELLAN: I think it’s important to point out the fact. Mark, let me finish. Mark, can I answer? Let me finish. It’s important that we point out these facts when we talk about this issue, because the facts have not been pointed out. The facts have not been pointed out. But the President -- I mean, the commission will be meeting with the President, after having talked for hours on hour with White House and senior administration officials. We’ve provided more than 2 million pages of documents; we’ve provided more than 60 compact disks of radar, flight and other information; more than 800 audio cassette tapes of interviews and other materials; more than 100 briefings, including at the head-of-agency level; more than 560 interviews. Dr. Rice met with the commission recently, and even though only five members of the commission showed up, she sat down and visited with them for some four hours.

Q: I appreciate that. You reported all that when you first told it to us. I’m asking --

McCLELLAN: No, I don’t think it was widely reported.

Q: Forgive me, I take responsibility for what I report, and I reported it.

McCLELLAN: I understand you -- I understand. But I take responsibility of talking to everybody here.

Q: Okay. All the questions that they have, he’s going to answer. If they’re still asking at one hour, is he still going to answer?

McCLELLAN: I just said that the President will answer all the questions that they want to raise. I think that’s important to point out. I mean, it’s important to point out the unprecedented cooperation we have provided to this legislative body. We have worked very closely with the commission.

Q: -- when?

McCLELLAN: Still working on the exact time for that, working with the commission...

And it goes on. And on. I'm not exaggerating when I say that the complete transcript for this back and forth is five times longer than the snippet I've just quoted. I would estimate that McClellan spends ten minutes not answering the question at hand.

McClellan knows his talking points, and refuses to diverge from them for even a second: the administration has provided unprecedented cooperation to the investigators; 2 million pages of documents; the president looks forward to being questioned; the president will answer all the questions the investigators want to raise. And that's about it. Any words outside of that extremely narrow scope will not leave McClellan's mouth.

Of course, he's no Ari Fleischer. Fleischer was slipperier'n a teflon snake at the WD-40 convention. He'd've found a way to either subtly change the subject to one which made the president look better, or pretend that the reporter had asked a different question, or say "I think we've already covered that" and force the press conference to switch to another topic. You remember that scene in "The Matrix" on the rooftop, where Keanu starts firing bullets at an Agent, and the Agent twists and bends in 12 directions at once and dodges every bullet? That's Ari Fleischer. You know that scene shortly after where Keanu is firing a helicopter's machine gun at a room full of Agents, and when the dead reincarnated Agents run back into the room, Keanu shoots them and makes them fall down? That's Scott McClellan. Ari evades. Scott gets hit, goes down, but can't really be defeated.

[Jake pauses, gives himself the "worst political analogy of the week" award]

Anyhow.

The Bush administration really doesn't have a leg to stand on here. There simply is no reasonable explanation for why the president wouldn't give this commission as much time as they asked for to answer their questions. There just isn't. Their only hope is to point out how "cooperative" they're being or try to confuse the issue.

And why don't they want this commission to be able to do its job? Because it's unlikely to say anything positive about the Bush administration. It's a report geared to (allegedly) find flaws and errors in US defense, security and intelligence in hopes of correcting those flaws. As a result, the report will be rife with ammunition that Bush's political rivals can use to attack his administration.

Am I suggesting that Bush is more concerned with re-election than with really dealing with protecting the country from future terrorist attacks? Yes and no. I think that Bush and his team are arrogant and crazy enough to think that only they can protect America (by invading countries that could possibly, maybe, potentially one day think about harming some aspect of the United States), and therefore stonewalling a commission in order to get re-elected and protecting the country are the same thing. Fucking loons.

Mockalicious

I spent some of my radio show yesterday playing and ridiculing George W. Bush's latest TV ads, but this clip of Howard Stern doing the same really blows me out of the water. Give it a listen, es muy chistoso.

[update]

Jeez, then Stern just goes nuts in these clips. He is sooooo pissed at Bush, primarily in these clips, about the economy and Bush's refusal to allow stem cell research. I read last week that Howard Stern has an audience of around 18 million people (well, before Clear Channel booted him off of some of their stations). It is actually possible that Stern might have an impact on this election.

[/update]

Tasty Sounds

My friend Ronny Mikkelsen, who engineers the radio show I produce (the Axis of Justice Radio Network), has dreamed up and worked to create a new weekly radio show on KPFK about the politics of food. Which when you think about it, is a rich and vital subject. Why do we eat what we eat? Who makes our food? What are the effects of our agricultural and consumption habits on society and the environment? Who makes the money? How does big business effect national health policy and how our culture relates to food? So on and so on.

The show's called The Organic Lounge, and premieres today, March 9, at 2pm on KPFK. 90.7 FM in LA/southern California, 98.7 FM in Santa Barbara, KPFK.org (click on "listen live") on the rest of planet Earth.

I'm not sure if they're going to archive shows on their website or not, but I'll be adding a link to their site (still under construction) down in the "Sonic Resistance" links section on this page when I get a chance.

March 05, 2004

Week In Review 03-05-04

(I had a clever title for this, but it was so obscure that even I didn't get it)

Gonna try something kinda new here. Every weekday morning, I spend an hour or two trawling the internet for news articles to post on the website for my paying job, AxisOfJustice.org. Since I do this every day, it would make sense to just transfer those article links from that site to this one, but that doesn't feel appropriate.

I can't entirely explain it, but the links I choose for the Axis site have a bit more purpose, and fit a vague yet grand design inside my head. I choose articles aimed at bright American teens who don't read much news besides the headlines. I want the articles I choose to either focus on parts of the world that don't get much coverage, or that give new background and context to familiar news topics. I want them to display the cruelty and corruption of this world, but to temper it with stories of courageous resistance, and even the occasional uplifting victory. And somehow, the three daily articles I pick either have to collectively fit this vision, or combine with older posted articles to give that overall impression.

I have no such grand design for the LMB site, so somehow just transferring the articles over seemed like a bad fit.

So, in a fit of obvious insight, I decided that every week I should look over all the Axis articles I've posted, and see which ones do fit over here, and post the links here. Genius, I tells ya. It's something I hope to do regularly.

When All is Looted & Pillaged, Your Hunger Will Remain: The Hatian Boomerang- article by a friend of mine, JG of the rap group Over the Counter Intelligence (weird how modern friendships work. Been writing him back and forth for like a year, just met him for the first time today). JG is Haitian-born and visits there often, and he is just torn up inside over the latest coup. Here is his take on the situation. In addition, he told me that he had another article posted in the same publication that attacks the American left for being so silent on the conflict. Haven't read it yet, don't know if it's any good.

The Junk Science of George W. Bush- if you haven't been paying attention, the Bush administration has been laying waste to the international scientific community, as best as it is able, because science (or some might say "reality") is at odds with the governmental policies it wants to put forth.

Hit the Road Sam- nice story about activists fighting back against US military plans to recruit youth of color in their neighborhoods.

Democrat Not Spoken Here- another article which seeks to answer the question, "why do white, working class Americans vote for politicians with anti-working class policies?", with focus on voters in the South.

If Kerry's the Answer, What's the Question?- author of the book I'm always plugging here, Killing Hope, looks at recent statements that John Kerry has made about foreign policy. Although I think his source material is a little thin, the author concludes that Kerry's foreign policy will be like Bush's with some tweaks here and there, "but nothing at all threatening, or even challenging, to business as usual for American foreign policy." I just want everyone to keep remembering that even though Kerry is probably the lesser of two evils, that he's still evil.

Liberals, bare your teeth- battle-cry from Geov Parrish:

If you were defending yourself, your spouse, your loved ones, your kids from a life-threatening menace, you wouldn't engage in polite debate with the menace. You'd do what was necessary to make sure it could do no harm. That's Election 2004. Your job prospects are on the line. Your retirement. Your future health care. Your civil liberties. Your constitutional rights. Your kids' educations. Their kids' portion of the insane debts now being paid off to the hyperwealthy, assuming there's a natural world left to be poor in by the time these parasites finish any second term. And, beyond it all, it's your city or town increasingly likely to be targeted by some fanatic from some far side of the world who hates what your government did to murder his family...

Act like you're in a war. You are. Every day you wake up, do something about it. You have until November.

Fists in the air, everybody.

Plunder and Profit- nothing really new in this article if you're familiar with the methods of the World Bank and IMF. If you're not familiar, read this damn article, and this little FAQ to get you started.

Lessons from Argentina: Your Factory, Under Worker Control- in the wake of Argentina's total economic collapse, we see the inspiring phenomenon of former workers entering their abandonded former factories, fixing them, and running them without the "help" of owners, bosses or overseers-- the holy grail of the "democratic workplace". Imagine how much less your job would suck if you had partners, not bosses, and your ideas, goals and creativity actually mattered. Something to keep in mind.

March 04, 2004

Noisy Links Added

I just added a new batch of links to the right hand column, down towards the bottom, called "Sonic Resistance." It's a list of websites for politically radical radio programs, pirate radio stations, low-power radio stations, community radio stations, and other audio projects with important informational/political/cultural messages. As I am a quasi-pirate DJ, a radio show producer, and have many DJ/pirate friends, it is a somewhat incestuous list, but nonetheless, there's a lot of good programming in there.

March 03, 2004

Brother, Can You Spare a Dietary Supplement?

Li'l help?

Like many Americans, my knowledge of health, nutrition, and the human body is near non-existent. Growing up in school, "physical education" meant "gimme ten laps", "health class" meant "how babies are made" and "biology" meant "color in this drawing of a plant cell." It's scandalous, really. The Constitution promises to "promote the general welfare", and the nation's schools works on its young citizens' health by filling their campuses with Coke and candy machines, and teaching them how to cook a perfectly balanced trigonometry function.

Trigonometry for fuck's sake! They've got time to teach you shit about sine waves but not enough to say "try the calcium." Kids, I'll tell you square: trigonometry is useless unless you plan on being a pool shark or a math teacher (and even then, you could probably fake it).

Anyhow, I've been wanting to correct this massive educational neglect by teaching myself a few things about nutrition. Seems like something a person oughta know. But walk down to your local bookstore and go to the health and nutrition section and what do you find? Books on fad diets, books on fad medical theories, and, if you're lucky, graphic books about sex nervously misplaced by curious teen boys.

The point is that I'm ignorant about nutrition, and the only books I find on the subject (when I'm consciously looking for them, anyway) tend to be shady tomes trying to sell me snake oil (or the vegan, low-carb equivalent thereof).

Y'all are some smart people. Can anyone recommend a good, basic "how food affects your health" or "what you should eat to make all your bodily systems work properly" sorta book? I'd appreciate it.

March 02, 2004

Haiti in a Handbasket

An awful lot of bloggers have written this entry today:

I was going to write about the situation in Haiti, but...

And I'm one of em.

I had collected a whole mess of links with in-depth information that help put the pieces of this puzzle together, but The Progress Report really nailed it.

I would highly recommend reading these individual articles on the Haiti conflict:

Don't Fall for Washington's Spin on Haiti (alternate link here)

U.S. political maneuvering behind the ouster

Death squad help for Haiti rebels

That last one should leave you cold.

The way that the US has responded to this revolt is amazing and hypocritical, but the media don't seem to be noticing somehow. Therefore we must highlight this as we often do, with a visit from the Analogy Fairy (see how comfortable I am with my masculinity?)

Imagine that three weeks ago, armed British thugs began seizing power of small British villages. They claimed that they were "rebels" and wanted Tony Blair to step down from power, as he was corrupt and hurting the British people. Blair refused, and the thugs continued their efforts. At this point, the White House advised the democratically-elected Tony Blair to compromise and share power with the armed thugs. And Tony Blair, fearing for his country (or his life), agreed. And the thugs refused the offer, and marched on London. Then, under mysterious circumstances, Blair was gone, leaving behind a note of resignation. Following the law of the land, Blair's successor takes over (Don't know my British government well, but I think that would be Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott). Then, American and French troops enter Britain and start setting up a new government made up of the old government, the thugs, and the "international community."

The astounding bit in there is that the United "We [heart] Democracy" States made no effort to support the democratic regime from violent attack, suggested that the thugs be given power despite their glaring lack of an electoral mandate, and then, even though the government seemed intact, decided to put a new one in its place.

The "was it a coup?" debate is one of the silliest things I've ever seen. Of course it was a coup. My first clue was when an army of men with guns demanded that the president step down or they would kill him. Was the United States behind it? Probably to some extent. The US' general modus operandi in Latin America is to find people you support, or who at least hate the guys you disagree with, and throw money at them until they do what you want (while simultaneously keeping money out of the hands of the people you oppose). So while I have yet to see anything concrete on the issue, but I'm suspicious.

So what's going to happen in Haiti? Predictions are usually pointless, but I suspect that the non-thuggish opposition (there is one) will end up taking the reins (based upon US insistence on a legitimate-looking regime) while the thugs retake the military and end up calling most of the nation's shots.

Feed the Rich

Everyone on the blogosphere seems to be linking to this article today, for good reason.

Although the rest of the government is running huge deficits — and never did run much of a surplus — the Social Security system is currently taking in much more money than it spends. Thanks to those surpluses, the program is fully financed at least through 2042. The cost of securing the program's future for many decades after that would be modest — a small fraction of the revenue that will be lost if the Bush tax cuts are made permanent.

And the reason Social Security is in fairly good shape is that during the 1980's the Greenspan commission persuaded Congress to increase the payroll tax, which supports the program.

The payroll tax is regressive: it falls much more heavily on middle- and lower-income families than it does on the rich. In fact, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, families near the middle of the income distribution pay almost twice as much in payroll taxes as in income taxes. Yet people were willing to accept a regressive tax increase to sustain Social Security.

Now the joke's on them. Mr. Greenspan pushed through an increase in taxes on working Americans, generating a Social Security surplus. Then he used that surplus to argue for tax cuts that deliver very little relief to most people, but are worth a lot to those making more than $300,000 a year. And now that those tax cuts have contributed to a soaring deficit, he wants to cut Social Security benefits.

The point, of course, is that if anyone had tried to sell this package honestly — "Let's raise taxes and cut benefits for working families so we can give big tax cuts to the rich!" — voters would have been outraged. So the class warriors of the right engaged in bait-and-switch.

Your payroll taxes pay for Social Security. But only the first $80,000 or so of your paycheck is taxed thus, so the rest of your income is payroll tax-free. Since most of us make far less than that, that cap is irrelevant. To people who make more than that, it's a blessing, making their payroll tax rate is much less than people who make less than $80,000 a year.

The stated reason for this is that since there is a limit on how much Social Security money you can receive, that there should be a limit on how much you have to pay in. Kinda makes sense, kinda doesn't. You can only receive so much in government services in your lifetime, does that mean there should be a limit on how much you pay in income tax? I don't know.

Now the governmental budget is in trouble, significantly due to the tax cuts for the rich Bush keeps shoving through Congress. So to make up for that cash shortfall, Alan Greenspan is arguing that Social Security benefits should be cut. The whole nation takes a cut in benefits to, in part, pay for a tax cut for the rich.

Class warfare, as American as apple pie.

February 27, 2004

Back in Business

I kept my "welcome" message at the top of the blog for a full week to maximize visibility, but now we return to our regularly scheduled program.

Conflict Resolution

Sigh. It looks as though the southern California grocery strike might be over. I'll wait till I get more details, but it doesn't look like the grocery workers make out very well. I'll call my striking grocery contact tomorrow and see what's up. Maybe I'll have him on my show on Monday too, we'll see.

February 26, 2004

LMB Out-Takes

I was going through some old files and folders on my computer looking for a history book satire I wrote back in the mid-90s, and ran across several other pieces I'd forgotten I'd ever written (in fact, there're a few that I'm not sure I did write). I'm still looking for that history piece, but here's a little taste of what I ran across.

Around the time that Ann Landers died, I had the idea of writing a fake advice column like Ann's, but with all the answers coming from uber-Christian proto-fascist John Ashcroft. Frankly, the only reason I wanted to write the column at all was so that I could include two gags about his weird patriotic songs. Ashcroft got some media attention for his song "Let the Mighty Eagle Soar", but I just wanted to have a reply from Ashcroft which referred to his latest tune, "Eat Holy Cleansing Fire, You Muslim Infidels" and his ground-breaking rap tune "That Islamic Fundamentalism Is Whack, Yo".

So I didn't really have the energy, or enough material, to make this project go, so all I have are the rough ideas above, and this partial column below. Enjoy.

Dear John Ashcroft,

I am a 17 year old boy from Boise, and I have been dating a wonderful girl for the past 7 months. She is beautiful and charming, and we are deeply in love.

My problem is that we spend a lot of time together, and I am ashamed to say that I am having sinful thoughts. We are both dedicated Christians, and both plan to save ourselves for marriage, but we both feel that we are far too young to be married.

These thoughts and urges are becoming very powerful, yet my faith is strong. What’s a Christian to do?

Sincerely,
Frustrated and Faithful.

Dear Frustrated and Faithful,

I certainly understand your dilemma. My wife Janet and I dated for several years before we were wed. I had not dated until I met her, and had managed to stave off sin by beating my erect penis with a hardback Bible. However, this treatment was not enough once I began spending more time with my beloved Janet. Speaking with some of my acquaintances who were more experienced with romance, I learned that another useful technique was to pour something called "DDT" down the front of one’s pants. Yessir, you could always feel DDT working, killing away sinful thoughts and feelings as though it were some kind of poison to them. But unfortunately for you, F&F, DDT is no longer available.

John Ashcroft

Confidential Reply to "Confused in Oklahoma":

I condemn thee! I condemn thee to Hell!

Rhode Island Doesn't Want Me Anymore

Anarchists are a diverse lot. They range from aggressive punks who demand an immediate destruction of most of Western civilization, to smiling hippy-types who feed the homeless in parks on weekends. The central belief of anarchists is that all power and all responsibilities should be shared among all people, not concentrated in the hands of governments or corporations. And while I know that many people will immediately jump up and yell that anarchy could never work, I can only respond with "how's that capitalism working out for ya?" I don't intend that to "prove" that anarchy is superior to capitalism, just trying to point out that all human social systems are going to have problems because they, well, involve humans. We suck.

Anyhow, no matter what their particular flavor or disposition, all anarchists are banned from the state of Rhode Island.

Well, I'm being a trifle melodramatic. By "all anarchists", I mean "any person ... willfully teach[ing] or advocat[ing] anarchy ... or opposition to organized government or any person who shall willfully become a member of or affiliated with any organization teaching and advocating disbelief in or opposition to organized government." And by "banned" I mean "shall be punished by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) years, or both." And by "the state of Rhode Island" I mean "the state of Rhode Island, if it passes the governor's proposed homeland security act."

The bill does seem to have plenty of legitimate concerns regarding terrorism and weapons of mass destruction and all (well, as relevant as those concerns can be to fucking Rhode Island), but tosses anarchists into the mix for no apparent reason. As you can see here RI anarchists are involved in such terroristical activities as organizing presentations about US policy towards Colombia, and supporting the unionization of local health care workers.

The one upside here is that the governor apparently withdrew the bill a few days back, but plans on "tweaking" and reintroducing it later. One would hope that the new bill wouldn't, y'know, criminalize an entire political philosophy.

February 25, 2004

Reconfigured

Excellent interview in the LA Weekly with Karen Kwiatowski, former Lieutenant Colonel in the US military and desk officer in the Defense Department's office for Near East South Asia (NESA). Basically, she was an intelligence office at the Pentagon working on Middle East issues at the time of the run up to the Iraq war, and dealt frequently with the notorious Office of Special Plans (OSP).

She was appalled by the way that the neoconservatives in the OSP were manipulating intelligence and propagandizing the Pentagon itself in order to get their war. She began to write anonymous columns about the situation which were posted on several internet sites, and then she finally quit the Pentagon altogether to speak out about this "neoconservative coup" back in March of 2003.

Read the whole interview, it's good stuff. But I'm going to highlight Kwiatowski's explanation for the Iraq war, the reasons that the neocons wanted to invade the country, as they differ somewhat from my own interpretation:

There were three reasons why [the neoconservatives] felt the U.S. needed to topple Saddam, put in a friendly government and occupy Iraq.

One of those reasons is that sanctions and containment were working and everybody pretty much knew it. Many companies around the world were preparing to do business with Iraq in anticipation of a lifting of sanctions. But the U.S. and the U.K. had been bombing northern and southern Iraq since 1991. So it was very unlikely that we would be in any kind of position to gain significant contracts in any post-sanctions Iraq. And those sanctions were going to be lifted soon, Saddam would still be in place, and we would get no financial benefit.

The second reason has to do with our military-basing posture in the region. We had been very dissatisfied with our relations with Saudi Arabia, particularly the restrictions on our basing. And also there was dissatisfaction from the people of Saudi Arabia. So we were looking for alternate strategic locations beyond Kuwait, beyond Qatar, to secure something we had been searching for since the days of Carter — to secure the energy lines of communication in the region. Bases in Iraq, then, were very important — that is, if you hold that is America’s role in the world. Saddam Hussein was not about to invite us in.

The last reason is the conversion, the switch Saddam Hussein made in the Food for Oil program, from the dollar to the euro. He did this, by the way, long before 9/11, in November 2000 — selling his oil for euros. The oil sales permitted in that program aren’t very much. But when the sanctions would be lifted, the sales from the country with the second largest oil reserves on the planet would have been moving to the euro.

The U.S. dollar is in a sensitive period because we are a debtor nation now. Our currency is still popular, but it’s not backed up like it used to be. If oil, a very solid commodity, is traded on the euro, that could cause massive, almost glacial, shifts in confidence in trading on the dollar. So one of the first executive orders that Bush signed in May [2003] switched trading on Iraq’s oil back to the dollar.

To sum up, Kwiatowski claims that the Iraq war was about contracts, military bases, and protecting the dollar against the euro.

For months now, I've been arguing that the invasion of Iraq was step one in a neocon plan to achieve a revamped Middle East, with all governments obedient to (or at least friendly towards) the US government. Kwiatowski's version varies from mine, and seems more based upon shorter term, more concrete goals. I'll have to look into the matter some more and see if maybe I need to reconfigure my understanding of the neocons and the conflict.

February 24, 2004

Oddz N Enz

First of all, thanks for all the compliments on the new site design. To those of you having trouble with viewing it, it seems that most of you are using older versions of Internet Explorer (below v6.0). Web guru Mark recommends the following:

A quick fix for now is to go to http://www.favelets.com and follow the instructions to use the "Toggle CSS style sheets" favelet.

Using that will toggle the stylesheets off (which causes those issues on smaller screen), and make the site more readable for those having trouble.

And personally, I recommend that everyone simply drop whatever browser they're using and download Firefox. It's fast, blocks most pop-up ad windows, and I'm just now learning the joys of of tab-browsing. Also, Firefox views the new LMB just fine.

I posted a short piece about Haiti recently, and due to my own ignorance on the subject, invited others to do a bit of research and share their findings. A couple folks did, but posted their findings over at the old site. I'm reposting them here for better visibility.

From Eric:

From what I gather, it's no black-and-white issue. Aristide is a "left" nationalist with all the baggage that implies. He came to power as a so-called "man of the people." It seems to be a classic story of a leftist nationalist selling his country out by turning to U.S. imperialist intervention when his social reforms (contained within the Haitian power structure) failed miserably (Haitian Gray Davis?). Aristide became a junior partner of the U.S. in looting the Haitian population of its wealth.

There is no doubt popular discontent with Aristide and his government, but the opposition seems to be a gang of rival right-wing thugs seeking to replace one tyranny for another, given that an infamous sweatshop owner and black-market gangsters are at the forefront of this "opposition." It's all too typical that popular outrage is channeled away from any progressive solutions and through backwards, reactionary lines. This seems to be the case here as well.

The U.S. elites would be on the fence about this, no doubt. Do they support precarious ally Aristide or deal with the right-wing opposition, which may benefit them economically, but politcally, may cast them in a bad light?

Unless there is a progressive solution inititated by the Haitian population itself, there doesn't seem to be any good that will come out of this.

And from James R MacLean, rebutting Eric somewhat:

"It seems to be a classic story of a leftist nationalist selling his country out by turning to U.S. imperialist intervention when his social reforms (contained within the Haitian power structure) failed miserably (Haitian Gray Davis?). Aristide became a junior partner of the U.S. in looting the Haitian population of its wealth."

No it wouldn't, actually. (The Gray Davis analogy is so bizarre I can't imagine what was meant by that.)

I've spent rather a while tracking down the gist of the complaints agianst Aristide and they boil down to this: after 20,000 US Marines occupied the country between 1994 and 1997, then handed it over to the civilian government and demanded that he impose order and cleanliness they could not.

I seldom agree with Zmag because I've seen too many cases where they showed no discrimination in the causes they embrace, but this excerpt you have is quite good. The Famnie Lavalas (FL) had been elected with 67% of the vote and it inherited a terrorized, brutalized, and massively armed vigilante constituency. Reining them in was to prove beyond the agency of Aristie, and of course he can't just order a country to disarm when 20,000 marines couldn't and the FRAPH junta didn't. Your humble poster has observed several far-right web sites accusing FL/Aristide of creating armed gangs, which is absurd--Haiti's been heavily armed and dominated by vigilantes for decades.

The "political opposition" to Aristide was dominated by ex-FRAPH people or collaborators. For completeness, the old OPL--the original Lavalas Party--also represents a rival party which contested the electoral victories of 10 senators in 2002. The right-left split involves the "leftist" Aristide calling for civil services like water, drains, and so on; the "right" are demanding that Haitian fortunes be tax-free (income is extremely highly concentrated; the neoliberal model of economic development has manifestly failed since all rents and profits made in Haiti are repatriated outside of the country).

This is the first I've heard of Aristide looting the nation of its wealth.

Again, I don't know enough to verify any of that. I think I'm going to interview my friend JG about the issues next week on my radio show. JG is of Hatian decent, very politically-minded, and part of the Florida hip-hop duo Over the Counter Intelligence. Or barring an actual interview, he promises to send me some links to more info.

In response to my post about the recent race riots in the Redfern district of Sydney, Stuart Graham sent me this link from the Sydney Morning Herald, a collection of black and white photographs of Redfern and its residents. At once vibrant and bleak.

Thanks, everybody.

And finally, some folks have been criticizing my "get Bush out of the White House, even if it means voting Democrat" stance, taking the "both parties are pretty much the same" point of view. While I largely agree, I do think that the Bush administration's foreign policy under the necons is a significant change. Both parties seek American dominance over all other nations, but with a slight difference in tactics. The Democratic stance is "American supremacy, by any means necessary." The necon Republican stance is "American supremacy, by force." The Democrats are willing to entertain other means of persuasion, while the Bushies have dropped all their gear 'cept their shootin' irons.

February 23, 2004

No Show

Hmm, we're having some technical glitches over at Kill Radio, so I'm not sure if I can do my show today or not. I'll give it a shot. Worse cast scenario, you should be able to tune in by going to this page and clicking on "tune in". Unfortunately, you will need a high-speed (faster than 56K) connection to hear it.

Par-T

Forgot to mention early, another Kill Radio benefit concert this Monday night (2/23) at the Silver Lake Lounge in LA, being held jointly with Clamor Magazine.

The Peak Show
The Transmissions
Mezklah
The California Navels
Fosforo
polyrhythmic
Mash Up Soundsystem

Silver Lake Lounge
2906 Sunset Blvd.
Doors open at 8pm
$0 (but we'll be begging for money throughout. And selling baked goods)

I'll be manning the Kill Radio table, come say hello.

Props to Michele for putting all this together, despite the fact it will probably make her head explode.

February 22, 2004

Nader the Destroyer

So apparently Ralph Nader is running for president. And this matters because...?

Seriously, who's going to vote for Nader? Most folks I know who voted for Nader did so because:

a) they felt that Gore and Bush were pretty much the same
b) they felt that Gore was definitely going to win
c) they wanted to help build a viable third party (the Green Party)
d) they truly felt that Nader was the best candidate

And really, those first three reasons are now gone. Pretty much everyone with mildly liberal credentials hates Bush more than they pine for a Third Party. On top of that, since Nader isn't even running as part of the Green Party, there is no party-building going on.

How many votes is Nader going to pull away from the Democratic party? How many independent-to-socalist voters are so fervently pro-Nader that they'll risk another four years of Bush insanity? Hell, without Green Party infrastructure, in how many states will he even get registered on the ballot?

Nader's main point seems to be that no matter which candidate takes the White House, corporations win. And he's right. But in this campaign, it seems that one corporate-backed candidate will engage in less war-monging than the other corporate-backed candidate. And that's the best I can hope for right now.

February 21, 2004

Forgotten History

Jeez, I'd never heard this before (keep in mind that "casualties" means refers to both deaths AND wounds):

During 1990 and 1991, some 696,778 individuals served in the Persian Gulf as elements of Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. Of these, 148 were killed in battle, 467 were wounded in action, and 145 were killed in accidents, producing a total of 760 casualties, quite a low number given the scale of the operations. As of May 2002, however, the Veterans Administration reported that an additional 8,036 soldiers had died and 159,705 were injured or ill as a result of service-connected "exposures" suffered during the war. Even more alarmingly, the VA revealed that 206,861 veterans, almost a third of General Norman Schwarzkopf's entire army, had filed claims for medical care, compensation, and pension benefits based on injuries and illnesses caused by combat. After reviewing the cases, the agency has classified 168,011 applicants as "disabled veterans." In light of these deaths and disabilities, the casualty rate for the first Gulf War may actually be a staggering 29.3 percent. -[emphasis mine]

- The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic by Chalmers Johnson

It's an excellent book so far, I'd recommend checking it out.

I Now Pronounce You Tongue and Cheek

This rocks:

12 reasons why gay people should not be allowed to get married

My favorite: "Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall."

February 20, 2004

Neo-Hessians

Excellent and fucking appalling catch by Billmon this morning:

Apartheid Enforcers Guard Iraq For the U.S.

(you'll need to register with that site to view the article, or, use this handy site recommended to me by LMB reader "The Librarian"-- BugMeNot.com)

To be honest, it looks as though that article can only document two actual apartheid-era jackboots in Iraq, but notes that the mercenary company they work for was set up by "former South African security officials" and presumes that more work there.

Here's some more background on the individuals involved. Notice how the South African paper reports that one of these fellows "worked closely with ... the notorious Vlakplass death squad."

Yeah.

"Now wait a second Jake, did you say 'mercenary company' a few paragraphs ago?"

Why yes.

The US has been hiring "private security companies" to aid in various military conflicts in recent years. And I'm not talking about service contracts to feed troops like Halliburton, but actual soldiers on the ground to "advise", "guard", and "escort". These companies hire soldiers from around the globe to do the dirty work of their clients. The benefits to the clients (in this case, the United States) is that a) if one of the soldiers is killed, it doesn't go on the clients' body count, and b) since the company has a right to privacy (trade secrets and whatnot), the client can order shady military actions and not have to ever be held publicly accountable for it.

This is a growing, and largely ignored trend. We should keep an eye out.

February 19, 2004

Welcome to LMB v3.0

[*Problems viewing the site?]

I really love the new site. Massive thanks to Mark McLaughlin and Quang Tang.

The change wasn’t just a matter of prettying things up, it was about organizing the information in a better fashion, and about kicking myself in the ass a bit. Super loosely based on the efficient layout of Dack’s Rational Enquirer site.

Now, the guided tour:

First, the colors. It seems the standard for radical political websites is to use lotsa black and lotsa red, with small amounts of white if absolutely necessary. I wanted to use that as a starting point, but not to be shy about using white and gray. And for some reason, I had this feeling that it should also contain a yellow/orange/gold color, so I trusted my intuition and went with that. And as we cranked out some trial versions, we saw that the blacks and dark reds really weren’t so good for backgrounds, so the orange, white and gray kinda took over. So the black is text and outlines, the red makes some nice highlights.

We have our fantabulous logo by Quang Tang in the upper right. Many months ago, I asked people to submit some ideas for a potential LMB logo. I liked Quang’s best. Thanks to everybody who sent me something. Some of you I never got back to. Sorry, I suck.

Right below the logo, are an easy search prompt and a pull-down menu for all my radio show playlists. No fuss, no muss. Then a new description of what LMB is, followed by my email address. Replace the “+at+” with the @ symbol and you can email me. I wrote it that way to avoid spammers, of course, but I’ve been surprised that some of my readers haven’t been able to determine that that string of characters is my email address. If you want to write me, that’s how you do it.

The left-hand column is the main blog that you’re used to. News, politics, analysis, and assorted absurdities. Also, based on your responses to my posts about my mother’s death, I got the impression that some of you really appreciated that openness, and wanted to connect with me on a more personal level than is usually contained in my posts. And I admit, I do like the idea of not being confined so tightly to topics of political opinion. So I figure I’ll occasionally unbuckle a corner of this armor and show a little skin before suiting up again to tilt at windmills.

The main reason I redesigned the site was because something bothered me. It’s called “Lying Media Bastards”, but I’d often go long spells without a single post relating to the media. To rectify this, I’ve added a box on the right where all the media-related articles will go (they won’t appear in the main body of the blog). Hopefully such a prominently placed (and prominently dated) media news section will goad me into keeping y’all more updated on transpirings in the media world.

Lots of links on the right, including a vastly improved set of news links, a fairly impressive list of media industry news links, blogs, political columnists, comics, etc.

There's a new section for inspiring or amusing political quotes, aimed at getting your ass motivated to fight the power (the link below the quote itself will lead to an ever-growing archive of such quotes).

The Snapshots section is new as well, intended to give me a little more freedom to be non-political. As a writer, my brain is always in gear, putting thoughts and experiences into words, whether I want it to or not. I guess this section will be kind of experimental, just superbrief thoughts and passages I find myself mentally writing as I go about my days.

Then you’ve got the archives, if you want to read old LMB stuff. All the posts and comments from the old LMB site should be there, except the media-related posts. Those you can find my clicking on "more media news" at the bottom of the "media news" box. We might need to find a better way to arrange that.

And later, I plan on posting reviews of books, movies, music, video games, etc. These links will appear below the archives. The reviews of political books might be very helpful to y’all, the other media less so. But dammit, as an obsessive writer and lover of movies, music and video games, we’ll see what comes up.

There are still probably bugs and glitches here and there, so please notify me by email if you find any. We’ll try to get em fixed.

Hopefully in the near future we’ll have some LMB t-shirts. A generous Kill Radio colleague made a silk screen of Quang's LMB logo some months back. Just gotta get the screen back from him and buy some non-sweatshop shirts, then I'll screen em by hand. Probably orange or red on black, maybe vice versa. I don’t expect I’ll sell many, but it’d be nice having folks walking around sporting the team colors.

Gotta give tons of thanks to my volunteer web saviors Quang Tang and Mark McLaughlin. Mark, who used to run the official Rage Against the Machine website with me, did much of the layout and coding for the new site. Quang did the logo, additional layout and coding, and is hosting the site on his servers out of the goodness of his heart. He runs the webhosting company NiceDream.net. Thanks Mark and Quang! Hire them and make them rich.

And thanks to everyone for reading. As an obsessive writer, I would have typed up a lot of this stuff anyway, but the fact that many of you find my stuff informative, important and enjoyable on top of that makes me feel good about making the effort.

Yes, I’m sure some of you are going to hate the new site format (you can't ever please everyone). Sorry, you’ll just have to get used to it. It’s still substance over style, you just get a lot more pretty to go with your substance.

[note: I'll keep this post up at the top of the page for about a week to make sure I greet all the first-time viewers of the new set-up. New articles will appear just below this entry for the next several days, then the site will resume as normal]

February 17, 2004

Theft

While on the topic of rarely discussed topics, here's another great read about a riot in Australia. On Sunday, police chased a young Aborigine boy to his death, and his community rose up. The article describes that specific situation, and then goes wider to discuss the massive problem of anti-Aborigine racism in Australia, a subject which is apparently kept quiet there among the white citizenry (probably like anti-Black or anti-Indian racism here in the States).

I feel kinda odd highlighting that article as "a great read" when it's so damn depressing.

Bad Times in Haiti

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about Haiti to put the recent news events there into context. Pretty much all my knowledge about the country comes from this chapter of the book Killing Hope. Long story short, Haiti faced dictatorships from the 50s through the 80s, overthrew the dictator, elected Jean Bertrand-Aristide, a man who seemd to truly care about the country's poor and set about reforming the country as best he could, and was then forced into exile in a military coup. What follows is a little fuzzy to me, but it seems as though the US (who seem to have abetted the coup in the first place) offered to return Aristide to power, if he agreed to a number of US demands. And since then, I've heard nothing positive said about Aristide. Don't know what to make of it.

Fast forward to the present. It seems that gangs of thugs are taking over Hatian cities, claiming that they are anti-Aristide and want to overthrow his government.

So my questions are:

1) What's up with Aristide? Was he truly the compassionate man he originally made himself out to be? Did he turn bad? Is he bad now, or am I just hearing one biased version of events? What do the people of Haiti think about Aristide right now?

2) Are these gangs truly revolutionaries, or are they petty thugs hungry for power?

3) Is the US involved in this at all? That might sound a bit conspiracy-theory to some of y'all, but the US has a long, dark history of interfering in Latin America. It's almost naive to assume that the US has nothing to do with Haiti right now.

4) Is this going to turn into an international incident?

The best answers I've found so far are here and here, and I don't have enough background to gauge their accuracy.

I'd like to research this further, but I just don't have the time at the moment. If someone else wants to dig and report back, that'd be nice.

[update]

Just discovered a Haiti-centric blog, Haiti Pundit, which seems to have all kinds of news, background and links.

[/update]

Witty Retort of the Day

In response to Bush's claims that Democrats would endanger America's fiscal health, blogger Josh Marshall says:

This is the arsonist in your house telling you that stranger outside with the hose can't be trusted.

[rimshot]

PSA

Don't Shake It Like a Polaroid Picture

February 14, 2004

More with the Love

Fairly Creative and Somewhat Mean Valentines

Print em out, give em to your sweetie and/or that ass who dumped you by email.

Mawwage

The numbers are surely changing as I type this, but between Thursday morning and Saturday morning, 665 homosexual couples have gotten married across the U.S., often in flagrant violation of the law.

This rocks.

It's part of the most socially benign form of civil disobedience: peacefully breaking an unjust law to oppose it and point out how ridiculous it is. The anti-gay-marriage laws are stupid, no one's getting hurt in this mass protest, and lots of hugging, kissing, and long loving gazes are taking place.

On top of that, this is the first mass activism I have seen by the gay community in quite some time.

I am ambivalent on the issue of gay marriage only because I am ambivalent on the issue of marriage. Is it really a good idea? Seems to me that since all humans change over time, that very few pairs of humans are going to remain in love and compatible to death do they part. But if you want to give it a shot, I say go for it.

But I fervently reject the underlying argument against gay marriage, which is essentially that homosexuals are less than human and therefore do not deserve the same rights, respect or treatment of "real" humans. My brother predicts that one day we'll look back on this the way we look back with disgust and bewilderment at the Jim Crow South. I think he might be right.

Of course, the issue of gay marriage has little to do with marriage, no matter what the conservatives tell you. It's about feelings about homosexuality, feelings about homosexual sex, gender roles, and a particular interpretation of Judeo-Christian texts. I could elaborate, but I think y'all know the steps to this song and dance.

My ony addition is that the Bible says a lot of things, and that some people would read the whole thing and decide to focus their life's work on flogging the passage condeming gay sex says more about the traits of the person who selected those issues than about the religion. While there are surely some occasions where a person might adopt an anti-gay agenda because they read a passage in the Bible, but I imagine there are many more who hate gays and find personal strength and justification in those few Bible passages. And as far as I'm concerned, those people can fuck right off.

February 13, 2004

Get Kerry

Conservatives have begun (continued?) to bash away at John Kerry in the oddest of ways: trying to connect him to Jane Fonda. I'm sure that plenty of you don't understand why they'd do that, and that's why I think that this tactic is destined to fail.

During the Vietnam (Indochina) war(s), actress Jane Fonda was a vocal opponent of the US invasion, and in her most outrageous action, she visited North Vietnam in 1972 and spoke out against the US and in favor of the North Vietnamese cause. She has since publicly apologized several times, maybe sincerely, maybe not, I don't know. It seems to me that the public considered her a traitor or an idiot.

But modern anger against her runs deep (if not that wide). Whenever I would take my mother to a doctor's appointment, there was always an aging, faded Buick in the parking lot with matching front and back bumper stickers that read: I'm Not Fonda Hanoi Jane. And I kid you not, just this morning as I drove around thinking about this issue, I saw a pick-up truck with the bumper sticker: Boycott Jane Fonda - American Traitor Bitch.

Conservatives have found a and spread a photograph of an 1970 anti-war rally featuring Jane Fonda in the foreground, with someone who is probably John Kerry about three or four rows behind her and off to one side.

See, see! John Kerry's a traitor just like Jane Fonda.

Taking it one step further, they're also distributing a fake, photoshopped picture of Fonda and Kerry sharing a podium together, allegedly at an anti-war rally. As that link shows, the photo was doctored, taken from a solo shot of Kerry at a podium, and with a photo of Fonda pasted in.

Sigh. A lot of people are going to be taken in by that.

The point is to highlight John Kerry's opposition to the Vietnam war after he returned from duty there, in an attempt to counter his "military cred."

One problem with the specific strategy: people my age and younger think of Jane Fonda as that 80s workout video chick, not as some traitor from the Age of Aquarius. We're likely to think that Kerry and Fonda are speaking out at some sort of protest about aerobics or something, leaving said military cred intact.

The other Kerry attack is a fairly unsubstantiated report from King of the Rumormongers Matt Drudge, which claims that Kerry had an affair. Maybe that story has some backing, maybe not, maybe it'll take off, maybe it won't, but I do appreciate this article pre-empitvely mocking journalists who might choose to pretend that this rumor is an important story.

February 12, 2004

Truth Spreads

I don't put much faith in polls, but these numbers made me feel good inside.*

In a random nationwide survey, 1003 adults were asked this question (among many others):

Before the war began, do you think the George W. Bush administration did or did not intentionally exaggerate its evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

"Yes, they did exaggerate"- 54%
"No, they did not exaggerate"- 42%

(margin of error +/-3%)

There're a lot of other comforting numbers in there, about declining support for and trust in President Bush, but that set above is what is most meaningful to me. The White House and their trained parrots in the media have been telling a bunch of warmongering lies and half-truths about Iraq for almost two years now, and the public always bought it. Now, finally it seems like my fellow Americans are getting their skepticism back. These numbers could be inaccurate, and they could always swing back the other way with the proper media twist, but for now, I feel kind of at peace.

Yay, truth.

*washingtonpost.com has just instituted mandatory (free) registration to see articles on their website. If you want to see this piece, you've got to register with them and give them far too much personal info. I suggest lying.

Rape Culture

What Causes Rape? Anatomy of a rape culture is a very good post over at Alas, A Blog. It looks at the three key concepts/themes/attitudes in American culture that shape men in such a way that some feel driven to rape, or that raping women (or men for that matter) is not a big deal.

I'm trying to describe the article so that it doesn't sound as though the author is exonerating men of responsibility for their actions, because he isn't. Maybe I can make an analogy that the author "blames" culture for some men committing rape in a similar way you can "blame" culture for some women becoming bulimic. The beliefs and values of the culture at large lead some people to feel that these pathological actions are both necessary and acceptable, when they're not.

And, since the Alas blog is such a debate/discussion-oriented site, you can already see plenty of discourse in the comments. Join in, or comment here, either way.

Male readers, you should definitely go read it, as I think many men like to ignore the problem and pretend it isn't there. And like the old ACT UP slogan goes, "Silence = Death".

aWol

I really don't care much about the Bush-National Guard-AWOL story. We already know that Bush is a reckless liar who's gotten by on Daddy's money and connections, so the facts of this case don't interest me. But since it's becoming a media scandal that could take him down a few pegs in the polls, and maybe inform voters that he is a lying asshole, I have to give the investigation my support.

Calpundit seems ahead of the game in this story. If you want details, go check him out.

To any conservative readers who will accuse me of mudslinging or dirty politics, you might have a point. But this isn't about me wanting "my side" to win (I'm not a Democrat anyway). I truly believe the facts back me up when I say that Bush as president is doing incredible damage to the United States, and to the rest of the world. If reporters have to veer from covering the issues to digging through Bush's sordid past to get his ass thrown out of office, so be it.

And in related news, oft-cynical columnist Geov Parrish truly believes that Bush is going to lose this election. Why? Because this election won't be about Bush vs. Democratic Contender X, but Bush vs. Bush. In 2000, he was a down-home, straight-talkin', charming conservative that no one knew much about. In 2004, his media-clumsy self is going to be on TV every day, trying to stumble through explanations of why he attacked an unarmed country, lost 2 million jobs, and drove the American economy into the crapper (yes, I'm aware that the idea that the president controls the job market or economy is arguable, but tell that to the voters). Don't know if I agree with Geov's optimism, but he makes a good case.

February 11, 2004

The Funnier Version

Jon Stewart of The Daily Show on Bush's Meet the Press appearance. It's a video clip of the whole segment, Quicktime format.

[thanks again to Oliver]

[update]

That link appears to have expired. I think it was personally captured video posted to a personal website to show to friends, and I guess they got tired of all these strangers visiting a non-public part of their site. But you can still view the clip (at least for now) at TheDailyShow.com and click on "Meet the Prez".

[/update]

February 10, 2004

One of Us! One of Us!

Pundit O'Reilly Now Skeptical About Bush

Can't find a transcript of this yet, but apparently Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly was interviewed on Good Morning America today and said that he regretted giving the Bush administration's "Iraq's got weapons" claims the benefit of the doubt, apologized to his viewers for doing so, and said that he was now more skeptical of the current White House.

Although he did also say that he didn't think the president had lied, just that he gotten bad intelligence, y'know, the current Republican party line.

Well, maybe that's some kind of progress. Or, maybe continuing to support the "Iraq's got weapons" line was making O'Reilly look like a fool every single day he was on the air, and he didn't like that.

[thanks to Dong]

Dissecting the War News

Two really insightful pieces about the news media and war.

Now They Tell Us- after David Kay's testimony that there were no WMD in Iraq, the press suddenly got somewhat aggressive, digging up the facts and pointing fingers. Well, just so long as none of those fingers point at themselves. But this article squarely aims dozens of fingers in their direction. Where the hell was all this skepticism and energy before the war started, when it, y'know, might have mattered? I mean, it wasn't hard to find the flaws in all the intelligence claims. I saw them somehow, and I don't have a fraction of the resources of a New York Times or a CNN. It wasn't just my skepticism or a nutty conspiracy theory; I looked at all the public evidence, thought about it, and realized that it didn't add up.

The article above describes the (print) media heroes, villains and victims in the drive to war. Mentions the pressures put upon journalists by the White House to fall in line, and the way that many newspapers actually covered the important stories, but buried them in the back where they wouldn't have any impact.

[edit]

Judith Miller, one of the journalists criticized in the above piece, says that she was "misquoted and misrepresented" in the piece. For some reason, Miller's rebuttal appears solely in Women's Wear Daily. No, really.

[/edit]

A Lieutenant's Story- an anonymous letter sent to a pair of bloggers. The author claims to be a 1st Lieutenant with the Army, stationed in Baghdad, who sometimes works as a "public relations officer." I can't verify the truth of any of it, but let's momentarily take it at face value. The author's most interesting point is his claim that the media come to the event with their news story already written in their minds; they just show up to fill in the blanks of dates and names, and to capture video footage to go along with it. He says that Fox News was the worst about this, with a vary narrow and politically-biased list of topics that they wanted to cover, and considered everything else "not newsworthy." It sounds like a close runner-up for this biased newsgathering was Al Jazeera.

But jeez, coming to the frontlines with the stories already written? The concept of journalism is to find out what's going on and report it, not to shoehorn reality into your pre-formed mold. I remember some years back a reader wrote to me for an academic paper, and asked if I thought that journalists were really just "information packagers." I think I've got her answer.

Police States Are Soooo 1984

You've probably seen this article someplace in the left-wing web world:

Activist group resists handing over list

Basically, a federal prosecutor is demanding that Drake University turn over "records" about an anti-war event that happened back in November, and any information about the local chapter of the National Lawyers' Guild, an organization that does pro bono law work for progressive causes.

The government demanding information about people and groups with certain political beliefs... that ain't good.

This particular article has a tad more detail than I've seen in others, claiming that at a subsequent anti-war protest at nearby Camp Dodge military base, that some of the protesters may have trespassed.

Or, they're lying and they're gathering info on "subversives." Or maybe both.

[update]

Daily Kos has a positive update on the situation. Looks like the prosecutors realize how bad this makes them look and are taking steps, in a (mostly) good way.

February 09, 2004

The Mighty Mighty Cho

In the past months, I've become a fan of comedian Margaret Cho. Not so much for her stand-up routines, but for her writing. Some times her topics are political, sometimes cultural, or sometimes very personal. Her style seems to swing from analysis, to personal diary, to hip hop. I really recommend making her blog a regular read.

Now Margaret is getting the Dixie Chicks treatment. She spoke her mind, and people who disagree with her politics have been attacking her ever since. Cho gets it bad, because she's Korean-American and a woman. So she gets the full gamut, from traitor to cunt to gook. And of course, that she should "go back where she came from" (which I believe, is Haight-Ashbury).

But she took it in stride. Posted this response, and then posted many of the hateful emails she got (including the sender's email addresses, heh).

And most recently, some conservatives in Houston tried to shut down one of Cho's comedy performances there. They wrote to the venue and said that if Cho was not removed from the bill, that their big contingent of 70ish people would picket the show. Which is of course their right, but still kinda silly. That's a common difference between the protests of leftist and rightists: they protest people because of what they say; we protest people because of what they do.

And again, no stoppin' Cho. She and her husband dressed up as, well, I dunno, winged hippies or hare krishnas or something, and joined in the anti-Cho protest.

In her post about the picket, Cho had this message for the protesters:

I want to hear what you have said to me, but before you do, look me in the eyes and tell me your name, what you do for a living, who your children are, what your mother called you when you were little, if you are married, if you are truly happy in this life and what your family is like, then word for word, repeat the emails that you have written to this figurehead in cyberspace that you do not consider a human being. I also would wish for you to hold my hands when you do it. You can say all the things that you have already told me I am - shall I remind you? Chink, dyke, hole, whore, pig fucker, telling me to go back to where I came from even though I am an American and was born here, fat, ugly, et al.

And that's really what it's all about, isn't it? When you're strangers, and when you don't have to see the other person's face, it's easy to lash out with all the easy hate, the ruthless slurs and threats and bullshit. But then, it's always easy to be a coward.

So cheers to Margaret. She fights the fools, and she wins.

Half a Dodge

During yesterday's Meet the Press interview, Bush claimed that he would "authorize the release of everything [documents] to settle" the matter of his questionable military record.

Today, at a White House press briefing:

Q I've got to ask you, too, about military records. The President committed yesterday to releasing additional records. Is there any effort by the White House, the RNC, the campaign to come up with new records, new notes --

MR. McCLELLAN: This issue, as the President pointed out, goes back to his first campaign for governor, it goes back to the 2000 campaign. You know, we made everything we had available during the 2000 campaign. I think that one of the things you can look at that will help address these questions is the annual retirement point summaries. And we previously made those available during the 2000 campaign. They show that the President fulfilled his duties, and that is why he was honorably discharged.

Q Every point summary is available -- payroll stubs --

Q Russert asked a more specific question, tax returns and payroll stubs, and the President's answer to that was, yeah.

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think -- I think the President, like most Americans, does not have his tax returns from 33 years ago. In terms of pay stubs, during the 2000 campaign we checked with the Texas National Guard and they informed us that they did not have them. Obviously, if there's anything additional, we'll keep you posted.

Q You checked during the 2000 campaign, or you checked in recent days?

MR. McCLELLAN: We checked during the 2000 campaign, yes.

Q It's your interpretation, though, that everything that could be released has been released?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, everything we had we made available. And like I said, if there's more, we'll do our best to keep you updated on that.

Q But you're not looking for anything else at this point?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if there's more that comes to our attention, we'll make sure we make that available.

[emphasis mine]

So... the White House released some of Bush's paperwork back in 2000, and it wasn't enough to convince everyone. They claim that Bush's pay stubs and tax returns for that period can't be found, and that's the end of it. They're done looking for anything else that would exonerate Bush, but, if they should find any other relevant documents in the course of their not looking for relevant documents, they'll be sure to notify the press.

I'll bet McClellan cries himself to sleep at night, wishing he was half as slick as Ari Fleischer.

I Feel Great!

And you will too, after watching this hilariously twisted fake ad for Nutrigrain bars.

[link stolen from Oliver Willis]

Presidential

Wow, Bush didn't do so good on Meet the Press this morning. Reading the transcripts, it doesn't seem much worse than his usual blathering, dodging and bullshitting, but if you watched him on the TV, he looked bad. And that's coming from conservatives.

Read the transcripts around noon, and before I could type a word of my own, was notified that the lefty Center for American Progress had already posted a "claim vs. fact" point by point rebuttal of Bush's interview.

Tim Russert was a little tougher on Bush than I would have guessed, asking some fairly tough questions. But Russert then sometimes let Bush get away, and didn't push harder. But not a bad performance on Russert's part, I'd give him a C+.

There was a lot of repetition about Iraq and the war on terrorism. And Bush fell back onto his old line, Iraq was a threat, so we had to invade them. Doesn't matter what kind of threat, nuclear, chemical, big, small, terrorism, whatever. Just a threat. And frankly, I think Bush believes his own rhetoric here. He seems a simple-minded man who was told that if Iraq was left alone, that we could have a nuclear-powered 9/11 at any time, and that he couldn't let that happen. And when he was told that the way to take care of the situation was to invade Iraq, he agreed. And, apparently, stopped thinking any deeper about the matter.

Then Russert challenged Bush about the allegations that he was AWOL during part of his time in the National Guard back in the 1970s. Bush tried to brush it aside, but his explanation didn't plug all the holes. He mainly said "I was honorably discharged, so I must've fulfilled my service," which doesn't necessarily work. He also said the he "worked it out" with the military so that he could leave his service 8 months early to go to business school. Which is kind of the point. As the son of a rich politician, you can work out deals. If you're not, you can't. And then Bush tried (with little success) to pretend that his critics were not questioning his patriotism or service, but were insulting the National Guard itself. They're not, and it would take quite a bit of re-writing history to make it seem that they were. But the Bush administration is pretty good at that, so give it some time.

The Russert brought up the economy, which is a fucking mess. There's a pretty good chance that Bush's economic policies are going to bring about the downfall of this country. One of the heads of the Senate budgetary committee has been saying lately that Bush is the most fiscally irresponsible president in American history. To which Bush responded with lines like "there is good momentum when it comes to the creation of new jobs" and "I think this economy is coming around just right, frankly." Then he told a bald-faced lie about how he's run a tighter budget than Clinton.

Russert rounded out the interview with questions about Bush being a divider and not a uniter, and confronting him with the possibility of facing John Kerry in the 2004 election campaign.

When asked about the biggest issues in the 2004 race, Bush responded:

Who can properly use American power in a way to make the world a better place, and who understands that the true strength of this country is the hearts and souls of the American citizens, who understands times are changing and how best to have policy reflect those times.

Huh?

I would've gone with "jobs and health care," but yeah, I guess that other one is important too. Somehow.

I've got an idea. One night, when Bush isn't looking, let's all move to Australia.

February 08, 2004

You Make the Call

A few questions for you all about the future of the site:

1) If I had links to archived versions of my radio show, would you listen to them? It would take some extra work on my part, but if enough folks were interested (and unable to listen during the live webcast), I could make the effort. I'm incredibly biased, but I do think it's a very good show.

2) Any interest in an LMB messageboard? I can probably get a forum in the Kill Radio messageboard where y'all could talk to each other about music, politics, news, etc.

3) Some weblogs have a "best of" list, where you can read some of the classic/favorite posts from the site's history. Any interest in LMB having one of those? And if so, are there any posts that stick out in your mind as particularly noteworthy?

I'm really tempted to end with a funny fake question here, but my intuition tells me that if I do, I'll get a dozen funny answers to the fake question and none to the real ones.

Meet the Monkey

This should be damn interesting.

Tomorrow morning on "Meet the Press", George W. Bush will be interviewed for a whole hour, all by himself, by Tim Russert. Well, that's not entirely true, I believe they recorded the interview on Saturday.

Russert's in kind of a no-win situation here. If he asks the hard questions, he'll piss off the most powerful man in the country. If he does a fluff interview, his credibility will drop. He's probably going to tightrope-walk this thing.

The Nation's David Corn came up with a list of 8 questions that Russert could ask Bush, but they suck.

I've often thought about what I would ask if I were able to interview a top governmental person like this. I criticize journalists all the time, but what would I do in their shoes?

All I can think of is one question:

"Why should we believe anything you have to say?"

This isn't about Bush's own credibility or the Iraq weapons or anything like that. This is more general.

Politicians lie and everyone knows they lie. What good will it do to ask them any questions at all, if they're going to give false answers? Really, all questions follow from that. If someone can establish that they will be telling the truth, you can ask them a host of questions. If they can't, then you're wasting your time.

True, in a way, it's not so much a question as an accusation: "you're a liar." But I guess it's also a challenge, "prove me wrong." It gives the politician an opportunity to convince us that we should trust them. But I don't know that they'd ever succeed in that.

I won't watch the show (Bush makes me ill), but I'll read the transcripts and report back to you later.

February 07, 2004

Stepping Back

I feel a bit of regret for posting my piece about the crazy Super Bowl Nipple Lawsuit. It's of course a funny story about a ludicrous event, but it plays into a popular myth that favors a harmful corporate agenda.

Rich folks and corporations have fanned the flames of the idea that America is a "sue-happy" nation, where anyone will slap you with a lawsuit at the drop of a hat for any reason. And that seems to get confirmed whenever we turn on the news and they tell us about another loony lawsuit.

The gold standard of frivolous lawsuit stories is the Woman Who Spilled the Coffee. You've heard it. Woman goes to McDonald's, buys a cup of coffee, spills the hot coffee in her lap, and sues the restaurant, when it's obviously her own fault. That story has been streamlined over the years for maximum absurdity, but when you look at the details, it's a much more gruesome story.

Long story short, that McDonald's was keeping its coffee at a temperature that will give you third-degree burns in two to seven seconds, and about 50 degrees (Farenheit) higher than the coffee you usally make at your house.

The unfortunate coffee-spiller of our story received third-degree burns over 6% of her body, was in the hospital for 8 days, and had to undergo skin grafts. She asked McDonald's to give her $20,000 to cover her medical costs, and they refused. And despite all the lurid claims of a multimillion dollar payout, it looks as though the elderly plaintiff received less than $600,000.

Sorry, the ignorance about that case is a pet peeve of mine.

But really, how many times have you been sued? And how many times have you sued someone else. How about your friends and relatives, have they sued or been sued on a regular basis? Of all of those cases, how many seemed unfounded to you?

Conservatives keep pushing this idea that frivolous lawsuits are epidemic and the root cause of all of our national ills, and that this country is in dire need of "tort reform." And tort reform is code for "price cap on lawsuits," so that no matter how awful a company's actions, no matter how badly a doctor butchers you, that the evil-doers in question don't have to pay too much money when they're found guilty.

Me bringing up the goofy Super Bowl case plays on this theme, as though there was a frivlous lawsuit around every corner, just begging for a good tort reform thrashing. That ain't so, and I'm sorry that I played into their hands.

February 06, 2004

That Sums It Up Nicely

Okay, one more story about the Supper Nipple, and we can be done. I hope. This story's just tangentially related anyhow.

To show how huge the Janet Jackson spectacle was, many news outlets reported that it was the most "rewound" moment in the history of TiVo, which gave everyone a hearty laugh.

Except for TiVo owners, who suddenly said "who the hell is tracking what I watch and rewind?"

But surely those newly-paranoid TiVo-ers will be soothed by these words from TiVo spokesman Scott Sutherland:

"I can understand people's concerns. But when weighted against reality, they are unfounded."

There. Feel better now?

February 05, 2004

Voting

Some weeks back, I meant to write a definitive post about the upcoming presidential elections. It was in response to the predictions, analysis and guesswork that are so ubiquitous around the blogosphere, people saying what Kerry or Dean or Clark "need to do" to get more voters and rack up the most votes. And I was going to essentially say "all of that stuff is nonsense. All that's going to matter in November is how the economy is doing, and whether or not Iraq is going badly. If both of those are positive, they'll vote for Bush. If not, they'll vote for the other guy." (and I was going to add that since the Republicans seem interested in making gay marriage a campaign issue, then whether or not the voters hate gay people was going to be a factor too).

But the day I'd resolved to write that post, I listened to a radio show with two entirely different possibilities that got me thinking (you can listen to the show here, scroll down to January 18).

The first guest was George Lakoff, who I studied quite a bit as a research assistant in grad school. He's a linguist who has tried to explain the different ways that American liberals and conservatives make moral judgements. In this interview, Lakoff more or less concluded that people would not be voting on issues or utilitarianism, but based upon their values and their feelings of personal identification with the candidates.

The second guest was Arlie Hochchild, who had written an article recently trying to explain why blue collar workers would support Bush, someone who so blatantly favors rich CEOs over everyday working people. I didn't quite understand what her article talked about, but the interview made more sense. She argues that working class men feel increasingly vulnerable and powerless, both in the real erosion of their economic and political power, and in the perceived encroachments by women (and in the case of white workers, by minorities). And rather than vote for the candidates that might be able to solve their problems, they opt for emotional satisfaction instead, voting for a candidate that lets them live out their macho fantasies, a fellow who'll kick a little ass in their name. The most ironic part of Hochchild's theory is that the policies of the macho candidates are often the very cause of the worker/voter's feelings of weakness and fear, which in turn, increase their desire to vote for a macho man. I don't know if I buy into the theory, but if it's true, it would mean that for aggressive candidates, hurting your constituents could actually help you in the polls.

So after having my own voter theories, and then hearing these two additional ones, I came to a conclusion so simple that it's stupid.

Different people choose who to vote for, for very different reasons.

The talking heads act as though there were only a few types of voter who each can only be appealed to by certain stances on certain issues. But this glut of ideas above would instead theorize that only some people will vote on issues, others will vote on candidate personality, or morality, or for emotional release, or a dozen other reasons.

Before spending too much time analyzing which political stances would appeal to which constituents, perhaps these pundits and analysts should first figure out how people are going to make their voting decisions in the first place.

Lo, the Apocalypse!

In an unimaginable and totally predictable act of stupidity, Terri Carlin of Knoxville, Tennesee (home of the fabulous sunsphere), has filed a class action lawsuit against Janet Jackson's nipple. Or against CBS/Viacom, I forget. It's not important.

My favorite part is where the suit claims that the lewd and lascivious Super Bowl halftime show caused the millions who watched it to "suffer outrage, anger, embarrassment and serious injury." Serious injury? Apparently Jackson's nipple was not as benign as I thought. It must've jumped through people's TV screens and started bashing them on the head with candlesticks and whatnot.

Okay, that's a lie. That's not my favorite part of the lawsuit. My favorite part is when the plaintiff claims:

"because defendants knew that the Super Bowl and the Super Bowl half-time show would have a worldwide audience and knew that for much of the world, these events would reflect the standards and the reputation of Americans abroad, plaintiff and the members of the plaintiff class have been defamed by the defendants and have suffered injuries and damages to their reputations as Americans."

That might be the funniest lawsuit ever written.

February 04, 2004

Forest for the Trees

Very good point made over at this blog here.

The post describes news coverage of yesterday's big primaries fiesta, and how the talking heads rambled on incessantly about who did well and how, and what this new landscape meant, and how Clark and Edwards were the guys to watch out for and Dean was like a big turd and so on. But mr. blogger notices that the news shows the total number of delegates each candidate has gotten so far-- which is probably the most important fact here-- for just a couple of seconds before they return to their random speculation and gossip. He said that he had to go look it up himself online to see it again. I did too, and even then, they don't make it easy for you.

Kerry- 262 delegates
Dean- 121 delegates
Edwards- 97 delegates
Clark- 80 delegates

Which means that for all the negative talk about Dean, he's actually in second place!!

And even this amount of information is fairly meaningless, as there're still dozens of primaries to go, and a candidate needs to get 2162 delegates to receive the official Democratic nomination.

In summation: thhpffft.

[edit]

Oh yeah, the best news about yesterday's primaries is that Lieberman finally dropped out. Lieberman's "Yes Mr. President, Right Away Mr. President" platform, sermons about the evils of video games, and generally anti-Democratic message somehow failed to ignite the passions of Democrats. Man, I hate that guy.

Don't let the door hit your punk-ass on the way out, Joe.

[/edit]

Buckets of Whitewash

Last year, back in the fall I think it was, there was talk of a new sheriff in town. David Kay was taking over as head US weapons inspector in Iraq, and the White House told us confidently that he would come back with results. This worried me, as it made it sound like he would find tiny scraps and spin it into evidence of an arsenal of terror, or that maybe he'd go ahead and plant evidence and come back with "proof" that the US invasion was justified and holy.

Imagine my surprise when Kay came back and announced that he'd found nothing, and that he didn't think that Iraq had any stockpiles of WMD (or WOS) since 1998, when weapons inspectors had destroyed much of Iraq's weapons supplies.

That surprise faded quickly after I heard Kay began attacking US intelligence.

Then it fell into place. Kay couldn't find anything, yet was still able to help out Bush and his pals by diverting the blame. Before anyone could point the finger at the White House for lying their way into war, Kay talked about a massive failure of America's network of spies and analysts. Therefore Bush & co. weren't liars and con men, they were responsible public defenders who'd done the best they could with faulty data. The problem wasn't dishonest leaders, it was incompetent spooks.

I'm sure the Bush administration would've like to have just let Kay's "no weapons here" testimony fade from memory along with his helpful diversionary tactic, but this issue was too hot. Politicians and media stupidly bought into Kay's line and called for an investigation into the intelligence agencies. And Bush agreed.

While Bush is announcing the this investigative team will be "independent" and "bipartisan", he conveniently gets to choose all of its members. And he's already managed to start blurring lines by announcing that it's not just about finding out what happened to Iraq intelligence, but about American intelligence about the global proliferation of WMD/WOS.

All of this can potentially be useful, of course. US intelligence did fuck up some, thinking that Iraq had some amount of chemical and biological weapons. They seem to have been wrong. And finding out how intelligence messed up, and coming up with ways for it to work better to protect us is not a bad idea.

But at the bottom of it all, I think people want this to be an investigation into "why the hell did we invade Iraq if it had none of these weapons?", and that's not the sort of investigation we're likely to get. Instead we'll get some half-assed thing about lack of communication between government branches and over-reliance on technology, tricksy Iraqi defectors, out-dated thinking, and ideological bias.

When we all know that Bush and his pals distorted, twisted, and manufactured the truth about Iraq as much as they deemed necessary to convince the American people and world (less success for the world) to support an overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime. This has been pretty well documented, although not very well publicized.

Long story short, intelligence didn't think Iraq was much of a threat, and said so, until the White House leaned on them and leaned hard. And when that pressure wasn't enough for the warhawks, they opened up their own little intelligence office (the Office of Special Programs) dedicated to finding evidence of an Iraqi threat, no matter how fishy or trivial. So in the end, Bush & co. didn't have to lie so much as to take all the ambiguous claims and questionable data that could be interpretted as evidence that Iraq was a threat, and presented it to the public as though it was a life-sized photograph of Saddam Hussein manually aiming a nuclear missile at Denver.

Some good articles on all this, past and present follow. If you want the quick version, I'd say go read this list of Key Findings from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's report on the situation. Very simple, very unambiguous.

WMD-gate: Bush Wants to Scapegoat CIA
Losing the Plot
The Stovepipe
If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em
WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications

February 03, 2004

Boobery

About half of the human population has breasts, and nearly all of the human population has nipples. One of these 12 billion nipples appeared on TV this weekend, and it was the most horrific and controversial event in the history of mankind.

Here is the offending nipple, if'n you're interested. It appears to be wearing a neat li'l metallic nipple sombrero.

If America were a society of grown-ups, this would not matter a bit. We've all got bodies with similar parts, we're all naked underneath our clothes, nudity of any kind shouldn't be a big deal. But no, we're apparently a society of idiot screaming children who find nipples--the part of the body that nourishes growing infants in their early stages of life--to be vulgar and offensive.

On the other hand, Western culture has managed to sexualize everything even slightly related to women, which means that displaying parts of a woman's body is a sexual act. Showing sex acts on TV in front of the children?! Disgusting.

Sometimes I think about living in a cave, far far away from other people. But then I'd only have two nipples to look at, and that's just not enough.

Love & Justice, Kansas Style

Back in 2000, an 18-year old fellow named Matthew R. Limon had sex with a 14-year old. Sounds a little creepy to me, but they both claim it was consensual, so whatever. But Matthew gets arrested for statuatory rape, and is sentenced to 15 months in prison.

At least he would've been, if the 14-year old had been female. But his sex partner was a male, so the great state of Kansas sentenced him to seventeen years in prison.

One of the appeals judges approved of this insane jail sentence because the state has the right to "encourage and preserve the traditional sexual mores of society."

No, sorry, fuck you, judge. The law is supposed to protect me and provide justice, not support traditions of any kind.

The only way this sentence makes any kind of sense is if gay sex is like 14 times better than hetero sex, and therefore needs 14 times more punishment.

So to my bisexual readers... is that the case? Is gay sex that much better than straight sex? Cuz if so, maybe we straight guys have got some thinking to do...

February 02, 2004

And Now, a Word from Our Sponsor

Lying Media Bastards is brought to you by Shards O' Glass brand freeze pops, "the nation's top-selling frozen treats containing glass shards."

Watch their TV ad, it's fun.

What am I doing wasting my sarcasm and satire on a personal website, when I could be making big dollars in the lucrative world of anti-cigarette propaganda?

February 01, 2004

Free Association

I was reading this entry over at C. Bryan's blog, where he makes a gratuitious Nazi reference when describing Dick Cheney. For some reason this made me think of the TV show Hogan's Heros, and I decided that Dick Cheney would really look better if he wore a monocle, like Colonel Klink. Then I thought he might also look better with a long cigarette holder. Then I realized that it wasn't the image of Cheney I was seeing in my head, but the image of another similar individual...

Surely you can see where my head was at.

Da Superbowl

We'll start with some cultural criticism from Michael R. Real's book "The Super Bowl: Mythic Spectacle":

"Football centers around winning property by competition, as does capitalism. Moreover, in football the winning of property means nothing unless one wins all the property, that is, backs one's opponent to his own valueless end zone."

and

"If one were to create from scratch a sport to reflect the sexual, racial, and organizational priorities of the American power structure, it is doubtful that one could improve on football."

I've only read a snippet of that book, but it was all good subversive stuff like that. I'll bet it's out of print by now.

Then, we'll go with a little humor, Adam Felber's Non-Fan's Guide to Super Bowl XXXVIII.

Now we'll move on to MoveOn.

Surely you've heard about the anti-Bush commercial contest that the organization had, and the money they raised to have that commercial shown during the Super Bowl. Which Super Bowl broadcaster CBS (owned by Viacom) refused to play, causing outrage and flurries of petitions among liberals.

What I can't figure out is, who was actually surprised by this?

Corporate media behemoth Viacom chooses not to air an ad that:

- attacks the government which is currently tinkering with broadcast regulations
- will irk many in the audience, who don't like mixing their entertainment and their politics
- will alienate other advertisers for putting the audience off of their "buying mood" by making the viewers think about child labor, their own money situations, and the deficit
- will bore the audience because it's about the deficit
- will leave them open to the inevitable attacks by Bush supporters as evidence that CBS/Viacom is biased/liberal/anti-Bush/anti-American.

Whereas if they choose to not show it, the only negative consequence is that they will receive tens of thousands of letters from angry lefties, letters that the corporation can easily chuck in the shredder and ignore.

Is it censorship? Of course it is (unless you're one of those folks who insist that censorship by definition is a task reserved for governments). Is it surprising? Not to me.

Trying to change the political landscape while on the turf of powerful media companies with their own opposing agendas is unlikely at best.

Notice of Change of Terminology

The term "weapons of mass destruction" or WMDs has always been an inaccurate one. The phrase is used to mean "chemical, biological or nuclear weapons." However when compared to #3, #1 and #2 are like a burning match in front of a forest fire.

Nuclear weapons kill millions outright, destroy entire cities, can cause climate change, destroy electrical equipment with their Electro-Magnetic Pulse, and kill tens of thousands more in the decades to follow due to radiation poisoning.

Chemical and biological weapons, don't really destroy anything. They can kill people, but they don't cause much "destruction." In addition, while the substances can be quite deadly, the often aren't, because the attackers don't have many good ways of dispersing these substances. Most germs/viruses or chemicals have to be inhaled or come in contact with a person's skin to have an effect, but most chemical and biological agents are heavier than air. So even if you release your chemical or biological weapon as a gas, the droplets of chemical and germ will drop to the ground fairly quickly, where they will not be effect much of anybody (except the people who like licking pavement or rolling naked on the ground).

Don't get me wrong, chemical and biological weapons can be very deadly (I saw an estimate that if anthrax was sprayed from a low-flying plane over a major city on a still night, it could kill 1-3 million people). But in the way that most of us probably think of them, as villains with gas cannisters or terrorists with bio-grenades, they aren't that big a threat. Certainly not as big as the potential threat of nuclear weapons.

Biological and chemical weapons are a frightening prospect. The idea that you can be walking down the street and suddenly be breathing poisons that liquify your lungs or be infected with a ruthless disease is the stuff of nightmares. But my point is that nuclear bombs are "weapons of mass destruction", but I don't think that biological or chemical weapons fit that category (at least not at present).

Therefore, I am going to stop using the term "weapons of mass destruction" altogether (well, I mean to, anyway). When I mean WMD, I'll say "nuclear weapons." And when I'm talking about bio or chemical weapons, I'll use my new phrase, Weapons of Scary-ness (WOS).

Thank you.

January 30, 2004

Bookkeeping

I was at a Barnes & Noble yesterday, exchanging a book I'd received as a birthday present. As you might guess, I started by looking for the political section.

The closest thing they had was "Current Events." Every book was turned so that its spine faced outwards-- except for two. These two had their covers facing outwards, taking up more horizontal space on the shelf and more easily catching a shopper's eye.

The two books: Ann Coulter's "Treason" and Bill O'Reilly's "Who's Looking Out for You?"

This aggression would not stand.

Instead of complaining to the sales clerks about pushing such inane books on the public, I decided to get a little creative. I began to search for a book I could place along Ann Coulter's that might add additional... context.

So, I placed a small book on the shelf next to Coulter's, also facing foward: "The Concise Autobiography of Adolf Hitler."

Yeah, cheap shot, but it was fun. But I'm still kicking myself for not tracking down a copy of "Politics for Dummies" to stick next to O'Reilly's book.

January 28, 2004

LALALA I'M NOT LISTENING!!!

Wow.

Blind into Baghdad is a really long article in the most recent issue of the Atlantic Monthly, by former editor of US News & World Report, James Fallows.

It is a very in-depth look at the history of the US government's planning for post-war Iraq. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the government did a huge amount of research, speculation, and planning for rebuilding Iraq and turning it into a working democracy.

But these reports showed that the process would be very complex and difficult, and would possibly require a postponement of the war to properly prepare for the smoothest post-war transition. And the loyaly-mad White House saw this as betrayal. Saying that the reconstruction would be hard, arguing that more time was needed, wondering if the tasks were possible, these were seen as "anti-war", and therefore as the works of the enemy.

So, the White House took every scrap of information that these teams of experts, from specialists inside and outside the government, and ignored them. Thousands of pages of predictions (which mostly turned out to be true), warnings (often correct), and plans (which would likely have been reasonable and helpful) went unheeded. And now American taxpayers, American soldiers, and every Iraqi must suffer the consequences.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that ignoring this mountain of information that could have avoided so much conflict and destruction, was one of the most irresponsible acts in history.

Toh-May-Toh, Toh-Mah-To

In an earlier post, I claimed that Michael Moore's quote about Bush being a "deserter" was incorrect, that Bush was in fact "AWOL."

It turns out that it's much more stupidly complicated than that, and determining what exactly defines AWOL or deserter is, well, sort of like defining what "is" is. I've seen raging debates on various websites, citing all sorts of military legal documents and so on. I'm not going to roll up my sleeves and dig for the truth on this one, as this controversy strikes me as fairly pointless. Maybe Bush was "AWOL", maybe he was a "deserter", or maybe he doesn't fit either of those technical definitions. What seems to be undeniable (well, it could be deniable if anyone brought up any evidence to the contrary) is that Bush was absent for some of his National Guard time, and was let out earlier than his contract called for. I think I'd simply call that "Daddy's got connections".

January 27, 2004

Cautiously Optimistic

Blogger Steve Gilliard has made it through his heart surgery successfully. Go Steve! Here's hoping that he'll have a speedy, painless, and long term recovery.

January 26, 2004

It's Funny Cuz It's Mean

This is freakin' hi-larious:

It certainly will be a sad day when Kucinich drops out. I can't remember who, but someone recently observed that he looks like a Star Trek villain. That's dead on, though Batman Arch-Criminal might be as accurate. You just know that if he had his way he'd wait till just the right moment before whipping off his suit in one deft motion, to the sound of trumpets, revealing the Arch-Criminal outfit underneath (a black unitard covered with infinity symbols, maybe); then he'd have all the other candidates tied to giant chess pieces, or fed through a player-piano score printing machine. Or, in response to a question by Brit Hume, he'd announce that he has developed a special germ that makes all women beautiful and kills all men over 4'6". "Only I have the antidote, Mr. Kerry. So I would choose my next move very carefully if I were you. We are not so very different you and I... more cognac?"

I like Dennis Kucinich (well, as much as you can like someone who wants to rule you). He is (in my opinion) one of the only candidates who sees the huge scope of the problems facing our nation and world and realizes the huge changes we need to make to even survive the coming storms.

But damned if that description above ain't funny.

[edit]

That quote came from the blog of a fellow calling himself "Dr. Frank". Who is apparently the lead singer of the band The Mr. T Experience. Weird.

[/edit]

January 24, 2004

Pointless Campaign Follies

The past few days, the media have had guns a-blazin' on two fairly insignificant happenings in the world of Democratic politics.

Well first, let's mention the part that does matter. Just about every pundit and commentator predicted that Howard Dean would easily win the Iowa caucus, followed by Kerry and Gephardt. They were really, really wrong.

The point I want everyone to take away from this is "the media doesn't know what they're talking about." All sorts of commentators make predictions about how certain events will come out, they're frequently wrong, and then they live to predict another day. These guys need warning labels: "Accuracy Rating 24%" or whatever.

Now, onto the fluff.

1) The Dean Yell

Probably everyone with a TV has seen it. At the end of post-Iowa caucus speech, Howard Dean started talking real loud and excitedly, and then let out some sort of whooping yell. It was pretty funny to watch, and of course became fodder for late night comedy talk shows. But then it got picked up by real live pundits who claim to have real live political knowledge about real live politics. They began to debate the meaning of this excited yelling, how it would be interpretted by voters, and some pundits even proclaimed that this yell had ruined Howard Dean's political career.

He was giving a speech before a number of his supporters after a disappointing result. He gave them a fiery pep talk to boost their spirits and hold on to their allegiance. He sounded silly to everyone else, and maybe even to those supporters. This wasn't high tea with the duchess, it was a rally, it's okay to be rowdy. But the media seem hell-bent on talking about the speech and its damage, and they more they do, the more credibility this stupid idea gains. Nuff said.

I'll also post a link here sent to me by reader Gary, that shows video of Dean's speech from an amateur videographer at the rally. From this fellow's viewpoint, in the midst of boisterous, raucous fans, Dean's speech doesn't look so out of place (or, if you're on the Dean Smear Team, it makes it look like his supporters are crazy and unpresidential too).

Gary's email also included a first-hand account from someone at the Dean rally. This account argues that Dean was yelling for a reason: the thousand or so members of the audience were cheering and talking so loudly that Dean needed to yell to be heard. And when the professional TV people used their tech to to filter out the crowd noise, it made Dean like the lone yelling fool.

2) Clark and Moore and "Deserter"

Wesley Clark is campaigning to be the Democratic presidential candidate. Film/trouble maker Michael Moore supports Wesley Clark. In a message to his fans, Michael Moore called George W. Bush a "deserter", referring to a period between 1972-1973 where Bush was enrolled in the Texas Air National Guard, but did not report for duty. And at the Democratic Presidential debate on January 22, moderator Peter Jennings tried to trap Clark, asking a question that essentially said "Bush wasn't a deserter, and unless you denounce the lying Moore for his scummy act, we will drag you through the gutter." Clark sidestepped the trap, saying that Moore could say whatever he wants, and that Clark didn't know much about these allegations.

The whole next day, the news focused on the way that Clark dodged this question, and tried to pin him down, and force him to repudiate Moore for his lying smear. And it looks as though Moore might have been technically incorrect: when you leave the military during active duty, you're a deserter; when you leave during inactive duty, you're Absent With Out Leave (AWOL). So Moore probably should have said that Bush was AWOL, not a deserter.

But the fact remains, that there is about a 12 month gap in Bush's service record while in the national guard. Moore has created a page on his site which reprints many articles which support the AWOL claim, you can judge for yourself.

But Clark is not in any way responsible for what his supporters say. Why is the press pretending otherwise? One possibility is that the press, being forgetful or having never looked into the issue in the first place, thinks that these are spurious allegations made by a scoundrel about our honorable President-in-Chief. Blogger skippy describes this exchange between CNN's Wolf Blitzer and former Clinton official Jamie Rubin. Wolfie interrogates Jamie about the "deserter" claim, and Jamie catches Wolfie by surprise by turning the tables on him:

wolf asked jamie directly: "do you believe it?"

jamie fired back: "i haven't looked into it either. have you?"

imagine! asking a journalist if he has researched the facts about a point he's making!!

wolf, taken aback for a second, could only mumble "i'm asking the questions here." meaning of course, no, he hasn't done any investigative work into the very issue he's bandying about to try to trip up candidates.

Which probably explains exactly what the issue at hand is here. When a politician makes a public mistake-- they misspeak, they say something offensive, they contradict themselves, they have ethical lapses-- that's news. And it's a kind of news that reporters can manufacture themselves and then ride for days and weeks, if they can trick the candidates into making such a mistake.

Bastards.

I'm Back... and Thanks

Hey folks,

Returning to the blog. As I mentioned, I was on hiatus, then wanted to leave those posts about my mom up so that they wouldn't be immediately lost and buried by the new stuff. But life and my writing obsession go on, so here we are.

Thanks for all the support and well-wishes. And maybe you should turn that support and optimism to someone who needs it right now, fellow blogger Steve Gilliard. Steve has consistently provided some of the most insightful blog political commentary I've seen, but right now he's facing surgery next week for a previously undiagnosed heart valve problem. Let's all hope he pulls through okay.

But for my part, I'm back. We're still working on the site redesign (I 'm lazy, my generous volunteers are swamped with other work, bad combination), and there's a fairly lengthy article about the non-profit I run over here.

Back open for business. Bring it on.

January 23, 2004

The Union, State of

Last year I did a real blow by blow analysis of Bush’s State of the Union address, inserting my own comments and context in between relevant portions of the speech. I began taking on a similar task with this year’s SOTU, but after several attempts, I’ve realized I don’t have much interesting to say on the subject (well, except maybe my little historical tidbit*).

The only thing of substance I could do would be to analyze some of Bush’s domestic proposals (his foreign policy stuff is mostly self-congratulatory lies). You can read some of the fine print of these proposals on this page of the White House website. But take it with a grain of salt, as Bush doesn’t need to show his full hand until he shows his whole budget plans in early February, and then the dance really begins. I might revisit those later.

The only non-domestic proposal worth mentioning is his increased funding for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Which is really something of a front organization for supporting factions in foreign countries who’s goals match those of the US government (i.e. the NED might give money to a pro-free-market political party in another country to help American business make a profit in that country).

But I can’t let you go away empty-handed. Here’s a bunch of good links about the SOTU done by others. Read the first one (a parody) or you’ll regret it.

The 2004 State of the Union Address- the satirists at whitehouse.org are inside Bush's fucking head. Prepare to laugh and wince.

The Kitchen-Table State of the Union- how the nation looks to regular working families, mainly on economic issues.

Bush's Defiant State of the Union- Nation magazine editor David Corn tears into Bush.

Behind the Address- USA Today does a little fact-checking...

State of the Union 2004: Myth and Reality- "author and anti-war activist" Rahul Mahajan's rebuttal to Bush's claims. Mahajan seems to have just started his own blog called Empire Notes.

IPA Takes on the State of the Union- the Institue for Public Accuracy is a left-wing organization that encourages journalists to look outside the box and interview less common, less conventional folks for alternative points of view on current events. Here are some short comments by some of those "less" folks.

Warnings During Wartime- Village Voice says that Bush's speech was mainly plans to enrich the wealthy and promises to exploit the conservative Christian vote.

The White House's Truth Deficit- blogger Calpundit finds that Bush's plans to decrease the deficit by 50% by 2009 will not only fail, but will actually increase it slightly.

* From 1801 to 1913, there were no State of the Union addresses. Thomas Jefferson thought it was the sort of thing that a king would do, so he just sent written copies of his address to both houses of Congress and let them read it themselves. 112 years went by, and the for some reason, Woodrow Wilson decided that he ought to give his address as a speech.

January 15, 2004

Intro

Please read the two posts that follow this one.

They are very long, personal and sad, so if you're not in the market for that sort of thing, maybe read it later, or come back next week, when I resume regular posting on the site.

So please give the next posts a read, they'll be at the top of the site for the next week, and then I'll start my usual ranting and commentary again a week from now.

I'll be doing my radio show this Monday, and continue to do so regularly, go ahead and tune in.

Thanks much,

Jake.

The Final Curtain

She’d been fighting cancer off and on for about ten years, but it was never as scary as this past March, when they told my mom that she had about six months to live. When my dad told me over the phone, I think I dropped it. I don’t remember dropping it, but I seem to remember picking it up from the floor with numb fingers. So I drove to my parents' home in San Diego to try to help out however I could. As always, my weird work-from-home style job came in handy.

Honestly, mom’s cancer was usually manageable. It would just be a few tiny spots on a lung or a vertebrae, but it was dangerous to let those go without treatment. It was the awful paradox at the center of her condition: she was sick yet felt fine; and to make her fine, they had to make her feel sick.

But this time was different. I still don’t like saying it. Cancer in her brain and spinal fluid.

We emailed my brother, who had barely begun his long-anticipated trip to Europe. He and his girlfriend were slated to spend six weeks traveling about. I hoped that he’d never stop at an internet café to read our message, because the longer he remained ignorant, the longer he could continue enjoying himself. Obviously, as soon as he received word, he made plans to head back to the States.

Mom’s condition got worse. Her headaches became severe. She was increasingly confused, and sometimes said things that made no sense. He balance got so bad that we had to settle her into a wheelchair and roll her into her doctor’s appointments. It was as though someone had replaced my mom’s 50 year old body with an 80 year old one.

The pain sometimes reached dizzying levels. There’s nothing that will make you feel more helpless than seeing a loved one scream and cry in pain, and there’s nothing you can do to make it any better. Nothing.

It was hard, emotionally wrenching just about every day. I tried to maintain both lives, the one of family, worry and doctor’s appointments in San Diego, and the one of work, friends and politics back home in Los Angeles. I would spend about half a week in each location, then drive back to the other. It was exhausting, and I frequently woke up in the middle of the night, with no idea where I was.

Miraculously, her conditions began to improve, thanks to a combination of radiation, drugs, and chemotherapy. Her pain receded, her balance started to return, the confusion was less frequent.

Then, the doctors apparently gave her an overdose of the chemotherapy, which put her into a state somewhere between autistic and catatonic. She laid there in the hospital bed, sleeping, and when she awoke, she wouldn’t speak, just looking up at us with bewilderment, like a newborn baby. We didn’t know what was wrong or how it had happened. Was it temporary or permanent? Would it get worse? These were the scariest two days of my life. She did come out of it by the end of the second day, but it was only something of a relief. This weirdness had come on so abruptly, so mysteriously. There was no guarantee that it wouldn’t happen again, so I felt sick and scared all the time.

But mom’s healing resumed. In fact, after a few months, she seemed out of the woods, back to what we’d come to consider "normal". Unfortunately, "normal" for us meant mom receiving frequent doses of low-level chemo and making near-daily trips to the doctor, with the rest of the family taking turns to transport her there and back. But still, it seemed as though the doctors’ grim predictions had been wrong, and things were going to be okay. One nurse even tossed around the term "remission." We all began to relax and settle back into our old routines.

Until October.

Mom was having trouble on her feet again, and took a couple of bad falls. During the springtime illness, the doctors said that mom’s lack of balance was a side effect of some of the medication they had her on. This time, they said that it was due to the illness itself.

My brother called me a few days later, after my parents had returned from an important doctor’s appointment. "I think you should probably come down," he said quietly, "when they came into the house, mom was crying hysterically and they went straight into their bedroom, and they haven’t come out since."

Oh fuck.

I came home and dad laid the news on me. The doctors had essentially told her "You are getting worse. Our current chemo treatment doesn’t seem to be having an effect, and we don’t have any back-up treatments to replace it with… You should probably get your affairs in order."

Yet at the same time, the doctors had also said "but don’t give up hope, we’re going to keep on fighting this thing." Yeah.

My parents both resolved to maintain a hyper-positive attitude, that we were going to beat this thing, somehow. But this time I could not muster a shred of hope. Maybe that was wrong of me, maybe I should have tried harder. But this time it seemed that optimism was a pipe dream. Sure, I knew that it was possible that my mom would get better, but I didn’t really believe she would.

We spent the next three months watching my mother die in slow motion.

My father took his vacation time, then his sick days, and then just quit his job to stay home and take care of her. It wasn’t even an issue. He became her primary caretaker. My brother had moved in with my parents after his curtailed European vacation and stayed there, working part-time while making plans to attend law school this coming fall. And I came back, this time spending nearly all my days in San Diego, with just short weekly trips to L.A. to check my mail and make sure my apartment hadn’t burned down. Again, I felt fairly helpless, because there wasn’t much I could do. Dad took care of Mom, so I did what I could to take care of Dad. I suppose it was helpful for me to cook and shop and launder, but it sure didn’t feel like much.

We did have a bit of help from the State health department’s nurses, and later by nurses with the local hospice. I can’t thank these people enough for helping with my mom, and helping take some of the pressure off of dad.

My mom slowly degenerated, losing her strength and coherence. In early October she’d been almost fine, as functional and outwardly healthy as you or me. By mid-December she was confined to bed, sleeping most of the time, barely moving, barely able to speak. I could sometimes get her to say hello to me, and sometimes even get her to give me a one-word response to "how are you today?" And then even that went away. Sometimes I’d hear my dad talking to her, or reading to her, hoping that she’d hear or respond. It broke my heart a hundred times to hear that.

Mom went to sleep Christmas eve and didn’t wake again. We noticed Christmas night that her breathing had gotten very labored. It got worse, louder. We all sat by her side, terrified and sad, knowing that each single solitary breath she took might be her very last. Us watching, one breath, then another. Perhaps an hour later, she stopped breathing altogether.

I guess it was about as good as we could have hoped for. She died peacefully, with (hopefully) little pain, at home instead of a hospital, surrounded by the family she loved. I can be morose and say that she died late Christmas night. Or I can say with a tiny smile that she was strong enough to make it all the way through her favorite holiday before passing on.

So there’s some light shed on my slightly mysterious ways this past year. All the trips to see the family, the unexplained time in San Diego, all the doctor’s appointments, the weeks of infrequent and shoddy blog posts, the numerous missed radio shows, references to personal misery and dark days. It’s been a shitty year, and I only hope that as I round the corner into 2004, that things might start to get better. They certainly couldn’t get much worse. But I don’t know how long I have to walk before I feel the warmth of the light at the end of the tunnel.

So most of you are probably wondering how I’m doing. It varies from moment to moment. Overall it’s a sharp-edged muddle. It’s like a break-up, like a natural disaster, like a holiday, like every other day, like a reunion, like a sickness, like a fury, like betrayal, like forgotten songs, like happy reflections, like a defeat, like aging, like losing a limb, like numbness. Like there’s a knife party in your heart and everyone’s invited.

But feelings and perceptions shift. Sometimes a whole day passes as usual, work and play and laughs and routine. Sometimes I’m quite mood swingy. Some sights, words, memories rip right through me or crush like a cave-in. Most embarrassingly, you start being moved by idiotic things, finding deep emotion in the words of a stupid sitcom character, or the photo on a billboard.

And it was not easy sitting through Return of the King, with its constant themes of death, loss and friends gone forever. Great movie, but I probably had a lot more emotional investment in it than most.

All of this, my experiences and the fictions I’ve seen on TV and movies during this time, have led me to one conclusion that seems profound: the most deeply sad words in the English language are "but I don’t want you to go."

To the friends who’ve helped me through this (and continue to do so, of course), I love you like you’ll never know. Sorry you always have to deal with my stoic, stony exterior, but I need that covering to keep my fierce fires inside. If you ever doubt how much I care, just say the word and I’ll give you an embrace that will burn us both to ashes. Y’all are what make my life worthwhile, and I thank you for everything.

I’ll get through all this, I know I will. And so will my brother. But I do worry about my father. This has been hardest on him, as he’d made my mother the very center of his entire world. So I’ll continue spending most of my time in San Diego to try to help him out, if that’s at all possible.

I do have to return to normal, maybe slowly. Life does go on, moment by moment.

If you want to do something that would have made my mother happy, I’d say donate some money to the American Cancer Society. Or, this summer, she went on a minor crusade about a Congressional bill she’d heard about that would cut medicare funding for cancer patients. If someone wants to research that for me and let me know if the bill is still alive to oppose, I’d appreciate it (email me and I’ll give you the details).

If you want to do something for me, I’d say examine your life and if possible, find a way to cut out behaviors that expose you to carcinogens. The ACS is fine and all, but they are all about treating people once they’ve been diagnosed with cancer. I’d prefer that you avoid it altogether. I’ll do some research on this and post my findings, but you know the general threats: hormone additives; fatty meats; low exercise; smoking; toxic pollutants; large electromagnetic fields, etc.

The post below this one will be a eulogy for my mom, I’d appreciate it if you’d read that too. It’s not good enough yet, but I’ll probably spend some part of the rest of my days trying to make it just right.

No good way to end this one. Find someone you love, tell em how you feel about them, and don’t let them go till they know. Go ahead and blame it on me, if you have to.

Andrea L. Sexton 1950-2003

Andrea Sexton was born May 9, 1950, in Newark, New Jersey. She lived with her mother, father and older brother, next door to her aunt, uncle and two cousins, and just one street down from her grandparents. They were all very close.

After high school, she went to Trenton State University and got a degree in education. That summer, she and some friends took a vacation to Europe, and while there, they made friends with several young Californian women that they ran across. Some time later, my mom visited these gals in California, where she met my father. While many folks my age can talk about their parents as young hippies, my dad was more of a young biker. Well, when his bikes were in working order. Seemed motorcycles enjoyed breaking down on him.

After getting to know my mother, my bike-less dad hitchhiked across the country to see her, from California to New Jersey and back. And the following year, he did it again. They eventually married in a lackluster ceremony at a California courthouse, then got married the "proper" Jewish way the following month in New Jersey. And because of this, every year they celebrated two anniversaries, one in late January and another on Valentine’s Day.

Settling in southern California, she began substitute teaching, but soon gave this up to raise my brother and me. Justified or not, my mother was impossibly proud of her boys, and spent most of the next few decades as a mother and housewife.

How can I describe my childhood with my mother? First of all, let’s say that it’s a miracle I didn’t die in the womb of sarcasm poisoning. I of course, picked up her sarcastic nature with a vengeance.

She was kind and loving, if super-protective. That last caused me no end of frustration as a kid. Well, as an adult too. Even in her final weeks, when she could barely speak, she found the strength to tell me “drive careful” before traveling back up to L.A.

My mother and I were very different people. There wasn’t a lot of common ground between us, which sometimes made it hard for us to spend time together. But we loved each other, so we both did our best to bridge the gap.

Mom was extremely outgoing and friendly (especially when compared to her husband and children). I can’t count the hours I spent as a child trying to entertain myself as mom ran into yet another friend she hadn’t seen in years while we were out at the grocery store. Or the bank. Or the library. Or a movie theater. Or a parking lot. I sometimes wondered how it was possible to know so many people. She was a very loving and giving person to her family and friends, but good luck arguing with her once she’d made up her mind.

But I can’t paint her as a saint, it’s just not in my nature. She was a caring, friendly, generous person, but some of her traits and behaviors were so infuriating that I dedicated part of my life to embodying their opposite. My mother’s tendency to guilt-trip led me to try to make my every relationship, every request and every suggestion utterly devoid of obligation or coercion. If a person doesn’t make a decision truly freely, it is dishonest and worthless. And despite her generosity, my mother managed to also be very self-centered. I am too, but my mother’s version involved making everyone else focus on her as well. While she was a self-centered pied piper, I became a self-centered loner, making no efforts to make people do what I want to do.

As her kids approached college age, Mom began teaching again, as an aide in special education classes for children with severe learning disabilities. As you can imagine, that sort of work can be an emotional roller coaster ride. She loved the children, she loved getting to know these kids, to see their determinations and passions and joys. She often marveled at their talents or kindness, giving them the care and attention that many of them didn’t get at home. But the teaching itself was extremely frustrating; some of these kids had such learning difficulties that even the simplest tasks was like asking them to fly to the moon. I remember one time that she’d spent a whole lesson with one child, on a single math problem, and the boy finally started to catch on. And the next day, he had forgotten it all. He was so angry, because he knew that he’d understood this material just 24 hours before, but try as he might, he couldn’t remember how to do it.

It would be easy for anyone with a teaching job this frustrating to sort of give up, to simply go through the motions of teaching, figuring there was no use putting in effort to teach kids who "couldn't learn." But my mom never succumbed to that. It never made me prouder of her than to hear her tell a story of a classroom breakthrough, of having gotten one of these young struggling minds to learn and grow.

As I reflect on her now, I see my childhood and think of the ways in which she taught me too. She took Adam and me on frequent trips to the library, encouraging us to read and learn everything we could get our hands on. We’d go as often as twice a week, and I’d leave with as many books as my little arms could carry. Her severe punishments when she caught me lying surely taught me how important honesty was to her, and lead to me to value the truth just as highly. And her example taught me that you were supposed to help out other people whenever you reasonably could. I do my best to live up to that ideal today.

I’m probably most thankful for a moment we had last year. At a time where her illness had receded, Mom organized a trip for the whole family to Maui. She loved Hawaii, making her prime vacation spot. She had imbued it in her mind with magical relaxation qualities. She began talking it up to me in the springtime, although we didn’t make the final plans till the fall. She told me about the condo we’d be renting, where she and my father had stayed before. She told me about how great it was, so close to the water, with such a great view, a balcony, etc. Some days later she told me about it again, and I politely listened again. And then again. She must’ve given me the identical monologue seven times before we went, making me pretty damn irritated with her.

And then we arrived. And it truly was amazing. Our balcony was maybe 100 feet from the lapping waves. The coastline stretched for dozens of miles in either direction. Deep blue sky, blue-green water till the horizon. Gently shifting palm trees, warm air with a calm, cool breeze. As night approached, the sun sunk lower, spilling deep reds and purples into the air, I turned to mom and said "I finally understand why you couldn’t stop talking about this place. You were right." She was thrilled. She’d finally shared something with me that mattered so much to her, and we’d connected. This is how I’ll best remember Mom, at this moment we shared of tropical peace and understanding.

I know that my mom was deeply fulfilled, proud of her two kids and devoted to her husband.

I can only hope that all the support and care we gave her during these last difficult years let mom know how deeply she was loved.

January 14, 2004

Self Serve

My birthday is this Saturday. If anyone wants to buy me any bright shiny objects, I've got one of those online wishlist things here.

Or, if you don't got the dough to buy me stuff, maybe you could go make a sandwich and give it to a homeless guy. That would be nice too.

Anyone who says "what's it feel like to be another year older?" will get the ignoring of a lifetime.

January 11, 2004

Almost There

I'll be resuming my radio show this Monday, January 12 (tomorrow). 2-4pm PST at www.killradio.org. Please tune in. Politics and music.

And shortly after that, I'll get back to some blogging. Got a few more things to take care of first.

December 29, 2003

Doom and Hope

Our pal Geov Parrish turned in this column last week, cataloging the globe's dire straits. He highlights the key problem, that some countries refuse to act in a democratic, cooperative, fashion, and instead try to bully other nations into following their will (hint: the name of one of these countries rhymes with Q.S.A.).

But, offering a ray of hope, Geov also points out the progress that has been made in the past twenty years by ordinary people in fighting repressive governments, and winning without bloodshed. He then takes another step further and looks at the progress that was made this year alone. It's not puppies and rainbows, but if we look in the right direction, and squint just right, there is light at the end of the tunnel. And maybe if we work real hard, we can reach the daylight at the other end.

And Knowing Is Half the Battle

PR Watch's book Mad Cow U.S.A.: Could the Nightmare Happen Here? is now available for free download.

Click here to read (in pdf format).

December 24, 2003

Shine On You Crazy Diamonds

Our photoshopping pals at Fark take some creative license with conservative asshole Sean Hannity's new book, "Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism". Now that's good parody.

Sorry I haven't been posting much lately. I've caught that devil-flu that's going around, haven't felt like spending much time working.

December 19, 2003

Test

Main blog entries go here

Test

Main blog entries go here

News Tundra

In Debate on Antiterrorism, the Courts Assert Themselves- federal courts strike down two messed-up Bush policies allowing the government to hold people in prison forever. The Jose Padilla case was always ridiculous; saying that the president can just clap an American citizen in chains on a whim, without trials or evidence, for as long as he likes? The Guantanamo prisoners are a less clear-cut situation, but again, at its core, it's about holding people captive with no legal right to do so. I'm not pro-terrorist, I'm anti-Government-Locking-Up-Innocent-People. If they can lock up Padilla, they can lock up me. And I don't like that.

Saddam on Lips At Ground Zero- very sad. NY newspaper columnist goes down to Ground Zero the day after Saddam Hussein's capture was announced. Everyone he spoke to was thrilled, because they were convinced that Saddam Hussein was behind the September 11 attacks. Even sadder, one woman rejoices because she thinks that now that Saddam has been captured, that her soldier son will surely be sent home from Iraq soon.

Bush: What's the Difference- from a 12/16/03 interview:

DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction, as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still --

GEORGE W. BUSH: So what’s the difference?

Can I trade in my president for someone who knows the difference between real and imaginary please?

FEC Fines Ashcroft's Senate Bid For Breach- the job of the U.S. Attorney General is to enforce the laws of the United States. In 2000, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft violated at least four federal campaign laws during his failed Senate campaign. Irony so thick it's trapping dinosaurs and mammoths as we speak.

Demagogue v. Instigator- Bill O'Reilly goes insane again. He publicly states that his book is outselling those of rivals Al Franken and Hillary Clinton. And it is-- at Costco stores. But nationally, outside that particular chain of stores, Franken and Clinton are kicking his ass in sales. Journalistic hack Matt Drudge exposed O'Reilly's, well, let's be generous and call it an "error", and O'Reilly then reportedly got on a radio interview show, said that Drudge was a crack addict and should be killed.

Y'know, I might stop mocking O'Reilly. It's just too easy.

“Free-Speech Zone”- conservative author speaks out against "free speech zones", (an Orwellian term if there ever was one), as an immoral political tactic aimed at silencing criticism, and if left unchecked, possibly a "war on dissent."

Headbangers Ball- a few weeks back, I wrote about the police brutality at the FTAA protests in Miami. Here's a more in-depth look at that.

Woo hoo! Classes lighten up- this semester, Centenary College of Hackettstown, New Jersey, is offering a class about TV phenomenon, The Simpsons. I, of course, already hold a PhD in the subject.

December 16, 2003

Music for Strikers

Found out yesterday that I'm (apparently) helping organize a benefit concert for the southern California grocery workers. The show is Thursday. Talk about short notice. So I spent half my day talking to various union members, artist managers, and publicity folks. Would've been nice if my employers had given me a bit more forewarning.

That's part of my job, for those of you who don't know. I run a non-profit political organization for a couple of far-left rock stars (the ex-guitarist of Rage Against the Machine, and the singer for System of a Down). The job pays enough that (when I'm not swamped with work) I can do this site and DJ my internet radio show (for free) on the side. Yes, I have a strange life.

Things for the concert are still coming together, but the show is planned for this coming Thursday, December 18, at the Roxy Theater. Tom Morello, Brad Wilk, possibly Serj Tankian, Janeane Garafalo, Boots Riley, Lester Chambers, and maybe others. I should be at an info table in the back, letting people know where they can shop without crossing a picket line.

If this musical line-up doesn't float your boat, we should be helping organize a bigger benefit show with some bigger name bands in January or February.

And if you want to toss the strikers a few bucks, you can do so here

[update]

Serj Tankian has confirmed, and we have also added Corey Taylor (Slipknot) and the band Phantom Planet. Tickets on sale from the Roxy box office, 310-278-9457.

[update 2]

Flea from the Red Hot Chili Peppers will also be joining us.

[update 3]
Show sold out. Thanks everybody!

Mother of All Captured Guys

I have to give the honest answer about the Saddam Hussein in custody thing. I don't know what to make of it.

Back in March, the U.S. drove him out of office, broke up the Iraqi army, moved into his palaces, etc. Saddam Hussein no longer ruled Iraq, and the odds of him coming back were miniscule. But still, if I was an Iraqi, I'm sure I'd have a twinge of anxiety, fearing that he could possibly come back and make my life 10x the hell it had been before. And once he was in chains, I could relax a little easier.

And it's always nice having another dictator in prison, waiting to be held accountable for their crimes. Doesn't actually solve anything or rewrite the past, but gives people a bit of closure and maybe, just maybe, makes the next autocrat a bit more reluctant to rape and pillage. I do worry that if too much time passes, we might see another case of "aging dictator syndrome," the illness that seems to occur when an old tyrant is on the verge of punishment. Pinochet was ruled to be too senile to hold trial, Pol Pot managed to evade trial by making claims about his failing health, Hussein might get off in a similar fashion.

Unfortunately, I don't think that the capture will have much impact on the violence in Iraq. While it's likely that some of the guerrillas attacking American soldiers were hoping to reinstate Saddam as their leader, it seems less likely that he was running the show. Why? CUZ HE WAS LIVING IN A FUCKING HOLE!!!

Apart from that, most information seems to point in a different direction. Politicos in DC and administrators in Baghdad tell us that the insurgents are Saddam loyalists and international terrorists. Journalists who travel around the country, talk to the people, and interview some of the alleged insurgents, say that they are Iraqi nationalists or angry anti-occupationists.

And here in the states, conversation seems to follow two veins: 1) how will Saddam Hussein be tried? and 2) look at the Democratic scum trying to spin this event to their best political advantage.

And of course they're trying to spin it. That's what politicians do, 24/7. The party in power, too. They're spinning the Hussein capture as justification for their war. And if Saddam had escaped and killed a bunch of Americans, the party in power likely would've blamed the Democrats for not supporting the war enough.

December 12, 2003

Thanks, But No Thanks

Iraqi Oil Workers Throw Out KBR, Reconstruct Their Own Workplaces Autonomously- can't verify this story, and haven't heard it from any other sources. It's written by a member of Occupation Watch, and she seems to have written quite a few pieces from Iraq, which leads me to believe that the article is probably accurate. After all the recent stories of corruption and incompetence by Halliburton (and its subsidiary KBR) in Iraq, this story is a nice change of pace. KBR had a contract to rebuild oil facilities in this part of Iraq, and the locals said "no thanks, we'll do it ourselves," and rebuffed every attempt KBR made to take over the operation.

December 11, 2003

Won't Someone Please Think of the Children!

I first heard this "news" story some months back on a local newspaper website somewhere, and it only took moments to set off my bullshit detector. As the weeks passed, I saw the story pop up again and again in local TV reports, local papers, etc.

It's about those colorful, rubbery translucent bracelets that are a fad with teenagers right now.

News reporters began telling lurid tales about how these fashion accessories are nicknamed "sex bracelets" because of a sexual game that its wearers play. You see, each color corresponds to a sex act, and if someone snaps or breaks off one of your bracelets, you must perform that sex act with them.

Okay, let's say you're a 13 year old girl walking down a school hallway with your friend. Some boy comes screaming by, and you feel your arm get wrenched forward. Boy comes back leering, holding a bracelet that you bought at the mall that weekend with your own money. He's just snapped it in two. Your wrist and shoulder hurt. Is your reaction to a) go to have sex with this stupid young man, due to the sacred laws of "sex bracelet", or b) slap him and call him an asshole?

When I was in high school, there was a game like this with the pull-tabs from cans of soda. Supposedly, if a boy gave one of these tabs to a girl, she was supposed to kiss him. And if the pull tab he gave her had the little metal circle on the bottom intact, she was supposed to have sex with him. This lead to much pulling of tabs by the boys (double entendre slightly intended), but to absolutely zero kissing and sexing. The only difference between my stupid teen game and this one is that mine didn't make the nightly news.

What's hilarious is that half of the news reports about "sex bracelets" talk about the game, and then point out that most of the teens their reporters talked to don't play it, or have never heard of it. One even said that many teens were not learning about the game from each other, but from these reports on the news. Begging the question, "what are you fuckheads in the newsroom doing?"

So today, we get another "story", from the AP, questioning whether or not this story is true, or just an urban legend. Even in partially admitting they fucked up they get more mileage out of it.

This is a combination story. On the one hand, it's the "parents, you should be very afraid for your children!" story. And on the other hand, it's a "ooh, we get a chance to talk about a lurid, taboo topic like teen sex!" story. Almost makes you long for reports on good old fashioned murders.

December 09, 2003

Do as We Say...

From the Ironicist-In-Chief:

"The comments and actions made by the leader of Taiwan indicate that he may be willing to make decisions unilaterally to change the status quo, which we oppose."

Indeed. We should always oppose political leaders who unilaterally decide to change the international status quo.

*spits coffee on monitor*

Allen Roses, vice president of genetics at the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline just went public with something that is (apparently) common knowledge within the industry.

Medication doesn't work on most people.

Let's look at that again, because that seems rather counterintuitive. We buy and take medicine because we think it will cure us. Saying that most of the time it doesn't work is disconcerting. What exactly does Roses say?

"The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people," Dr Roses said. "I wouldn't say that most drugs don't work. I would say that most drugs work in 30 to 50 per cent of people. Drugs out there on the market work, but they don't work in everybody."

Drugs for Alzheimer's disease work in fewer than one in three patients, whereas those for cancer are only effective in a quarter of patients. Drugs for migraines, for osteoporosis, and arthritis work in about half the patients, Dr Roses said. Most drugs work in fewer than one in two patients mainly because the recipients carry genes that interfere in some way with the medicine, he said.

In other words, about 10% of drugs will work on just about everyone. The other 90% only work on people with specific genetic patterns, and less than 50% of the population tends to have those genetic patterns.

The only grain of salt I'd take with this is something the articles speculates about, that perhaps Roses is a proponent of a new pharmaceutical business strategy focusing on targetting a smaller group of consumers, those with the "right" genetic makeup.

Then again, in the follow-up article, none of the pharmaceutical companies contacted would actual contradict Roses' statement...

I think that more people should know about this.

December 04, 2003

Get Your Read On

There's a new book out that I'm going to encourage you to all go out and get:

We Are Everywhere: The Irresistible Rise of Global Anticapitalism

The book is shaped roughly like a brick, which probably prompted one of the books' blurbs of praise: "This isn't a book, it's a brick with which to shatter cynicism." No Logo author Naomi Klein says in the foreward, "this is the first book to truly capture and emody the exuberant creativity and radical intellect of the protest movements."

The book does seem intent on being more of a celebration than ink on pages. It's a compilation of essays, personal stories, fiery quotes, informative history, tactical analysis, and inspirational photos. The book itself is sort of an extended collage which tells the tale of what is commonly known as "the anti-globalization movement."

Except that most Westerners get that term wrong. The antiglobalizers aren't just a handful of white American union members, treehuggers and black-clad radicals. Most of the movement is action by people worldwide, facing life or death stakes: peasants fighting water privatization in Bolivia; farmers fighting biopiracy in India; rebel Zapatistas fighting for autonomy in Mexico; the landless poor hijacking farmland in Brazil; AIDS activists fighting pharmaceutical giants in South Africa.

Sadly, much of this international resistance to domination has been hidden since 9-11, if it ever got much coverage in the first place.

This book is about the whole globalization movement, Latin American campesinos, crusty punks from Oregon, environmentalists in Niger, students in Mexico city, pie-throwers in San Francisco, squatters in Ontario, anarchists in Italy, refugees in Australia, factory workers in Poland, landless farmers in Thailand. The list goes on.

As you might imagine, the book is assembled by many authors from many lands, doing many types of work in many different ways.

This books is about the power, the tumult, the joy, the passion, the fury, the humor, the defiance, the courage. It's about finding new ways to resist, new ways to work together, ways of building bridges and sharing power.

I think quite a few of the liberal/progressive folks out there could use a good dose of this book, to remember that politics is not just about unseating George Bush and preventing specific invasions. Don't settle for that.

This is a world gone mad, where the ruthless reign and the lives of millions are snuffed out in blinding flame and in quiet darkness. Freedom is not about a wide selection of DVDs to purchase or faxing a letter to your Congressman. Freedom is life. And for many, its absence is death.

To me, activism and politics is not about battle, or destroying the folks who exploit us. It's about everyone in the world slowly turning their backs on all of the governments, corporations, armies and institutions and saying "we don't need you any more." And when our backs face an evil past, our eyes face nothing but us, and a future we get to write ourselves.

As I've said before:

Naive? Idealistic? Fucking right.

Let's go.

Wit Saves the Day

Best Comic Ever

December 02, 2003

Huh?

Can someone explain this to me?

According to the Sacramento Bee (a legitimate newspaper despite its funny name), Governor Schwarzenegger is proposing a repeal of recently passed bill AB 231 (aka the "Save Money, Fight Hunger Act") in order to save the state money.

Near as I can figure, the SMFHA simply makes it easier for poor Californians to get food stamps. Since the food stamp program is a federal program, that money won't be coming out of the state's pocket. Basically, the SMFHA removes several rules which make it harder for folks to receive food stamps. This relaxation of the rules would hopefully increase the number of Californians who use the service (only 49% of Californians eligible for the program use it).

Apparently there is some cost to the state to enroll people into the federal program, but the state Department of of Social Services says that the cost to enroll these new folks woud be "modest." And some of this cost would be made up by the rules eliminated by SMFHA (e.g. the former rules demanded that Californians applying for food stamps needed to be fingerprinted. Estimated cost per year: $10 million). And even with its limited participation, the food stamp program brought $1.7 billion in federal aid to California; surely AB 231 would raise that number.

So what's going on here? Are the costs of enrollilng new folks into the program that high? Is Schwarzenegger uninformed? Is the new governor so set on cutting items out of the budget that he'll keep a few million of his hungry constituents from getting fed? These aren't rhetorical questions, I actually want to understand.

December 01, 2003

Gilded Age Reloaded

The Invisible Recovery- nice interview with lefty economist Doug Henwood. Reminds me that economic statistics always, always need context. Occasionally overly technical, but very informative and insightful. You really should read it.

November 30, 2003

American Justice

Jeeee-zus.

Time magazine has written an extensive article about the Guantanamo Bay prisoners that the U.S. took during the Afghan war. It looks like the U.S. government is talking about releasing about 150 of the 600+ prisoners, because the Supreme Court has agreed to look into the issue, and could possibly invalidate the imprisonment altogether.

Back in late 2001, the U.S. scooped up hundreds of foreigners in Afghanistan and shipped them to a military base in Cuba. U.S. officials claimed that these prisoners were not prisoners of war, because international law gives prisoners of war certain rights. No, these were "enemy combatants", and were therefore subject to their captors' whims.

If these prisoners were all definitely members of Al Qaeda, you could possibly build a satisfactory argument to justify holding them captive for years with no trial. But no one knows if they are or not. Some probably are. Some are probably not Al Qaeda, but Taliban members who fought against the U.S. invasion. Some are probably even Afghan soldiers who disliked the Taliban and Al Qaeda but fought against the U.S. incursion. We'll never know, the whole thing is so shrouded in secrecy.

And now, the Time magazine article reports that "U.S. officials concluded that some detainees were there because they had been kidnapped by Afghan warlords and sold for the bounty the U.S. was offering for al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters."

Which means that "some" detainees (possible the soon-to-be-released 140?) were not Al Qaeda or Taliban, but were innocent people kidnapped by profiteers and sold to the Americans. Reminds me of the transatlantic slave trade.

And as if being kidnapped and sold wasn't bad enough, these people then spent two years in a foreign country, away from their friends and family, on an island prison and treated as a terrorist. Fucking appalling.

They ought to call it the War on Terrorism and Whoever Happens to Get In the Way.

November 27, 2003

Miami Vice Grip

At the FTAA protests in Miami, we saw a familiar pattern played out yet again.

1) Influential organization announces meeting in City X. Activists vow to protest meeting.

2) City X police begin solemnly warning local media about the potential threat of "violent protesters", "outside agitators", "anarchists", and "terrorists".

3) Local media begins running breathless stories like "Could City X Become Another Seattle?!", with pictures of masked anarchists or masked riot cops or both.

4) City X police create elaborate, militarized plan to protect the city. This usually involves inviting "experts" from other police departments, hundreds of cops in SWAT team gear, importing officers from surrounding towns, shifting prisoners from local jails to neighboring facilities to make room for protesters, procuring buses with which to transport huge numbers of arrested activists, and cordoning off large swaths of the city

5) Local protesters and the ACLU file a lawsuit against these measures. City responds by pointing out that they have set up a "free speech zone" (aka a "protest pen"-- an area far from the site of the contested meeting, bounded by steel fences, which activists are told is the only place where they are "allowed" to protest). If the city relents and cedes civil rights to the protesters, it does so at the last minute, and apparently does not notify the local police that they've done so.

6) Day of protest arrives. Massive throngs of law-abiding citizens march around the city with earnest slogan signs, listen to speakers at rallies, etc. The are constantly surrounded by a scary-looking paramilitary force.

7) A large group of protesters is cornered by cops, surrounded, ordered to disperse, not allowed to disperse, and is then arrested for failing to disperse. Beatings, rubber bullets and tear gas are sometimes involved. This sort of mass arrest is often done early in protest, to serve as a warning. Media shows no interest.

8) Cops get aggro on groups of protesters, hitting people with nightsticks, shoving people around, ordering them to move for no reason, shooting them with rubber bullets, spraying them with pepper spray, scaring them with concussion grenades, etc. They will justify these actions by claiming that the activists attacked them first, usually by throwing a plastic water bottle or rock at their armored bodies. Media shows no interest.

9) Protest ends, straggling protesters are harassed and/or arrested. Most arrestees are released within hours or days, after paying a fine or are let out with no charges. Activists sue city for violation of civil rights, but nothing happens. Media shows no interest.

10) Police hold press conference declaring victory. The fact that the fantasy violence that they predicted did not take place is proof that the city's repressive tactics saved the city. The police and city take credit for shit they had nothing to do with.

Much of this is based upon a lie told and retold since the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle. The lie says that violent anarchists at the protests caused chaos, forcing the police to respond and quell the rioting. Since this came without warning, all cities must take even sterner measures to make sure it doesn't happen to them.

First of all, the time frame is wrong, and it pisses me off to no end. I have read, listened to, and watched videotapes of over 100 testimonials of personal experiences at the WTO protests. I was glued to the TV, radio, and internet during the course of the entire thing. I know a number of people who were there. And the truth of the matter is that Seattle police began tear-gassing and shooting rubber bullets at non-violent protesters the morning of the first day of the protests, and the infamous "Black Bloc" anarchists did not arrive on the scene until early that afternoon.

In other words, the cops began using violence against protesters before any protester "violence" took place.

Second, the protesters were not violent. The Black Blockers went on a rampage of vandalism against franchises of multinational corporations like Starbucks and Niketown. Vandalism is not violence.

Third, the cops didn't even try to stop the Bloc. At the time of the protests, there was white-hot debate on activist websites about how the Bloc had managed to vanadalize downtown Seattle and not get caught by the cops. A number of folks argued fervently that the way that the cops left the Black Bloc alone was proof that the Blockers were undercover police officers trying to stir up trouble. I don't bring that up to suggest that it is the truth, but to dredge up a historical memory of mine that again refutes the idea that the violence of Seattle was due to a rational police response.

The continued repressive reaction to protests in the U.S. is based upon this lie. I'm really sick and tired of it. And it's probably just going to get worse.

November 20, 2003

No Rules

While "free trade" talks are going on in Miami, Bush is trying to convince the British that he still favors "free trade"-- despite his tariffs on British (and European) steel.

It boggles the mind that Bush can try to portray himself as a supporter of free trade. First of all, in every "free trade" agreement, the U.S. demands the protection of intellectual property, i.e. allowing holders of copyrights and patents to maintain monopoly control of related products. A real free trade framework would not allow such a thing.

The U.S. has racked up quite an anti-free trade record. First, there's the copyright thing. Then, back in 2001, the U.S. imposed an illegal tariff on Canadian soft lumber on phony pretenses. Then the steel tariff. And now, quotas on Chinese textiles.

To plagiarize myself:

The US does not care about free trade. Never has. The only thing the US has cared about is winning. And under the US-defined version of free trade, it usually does win. And when the US finds that it (or corporations within its borders) may lose out, they simply ignore the rules.

I'm not writing this to say "the US should stop the hypocrisy and follow its own rules." I'm writing this to say that the US does not have rules.

This nation sees rules as sets of restrictions that we can sometimes trick other countries into following. Nothing more, nothing less. All of the talk of "free trade" and globalization are just schemes, attempts to trick other nations into following rules that will deluge the coffers of US corporations with money.

Destroying the Rules to Save Them

A couple of weird, slightly related news items.

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal- the hawk in question is Richard Perle, of the U.S. Defense Policy Board. For quite some time, the White House has been trying to argue that the invasion of Iraq was justified by international law, which it clearly was not. This story is being spun as a confession, as though the Bush administration is now begrudgingly admitting that they were naughty. But no, Perle used the invasion of Iraq as a moral exemplar to denounce the wickedness of international law.

As our beloved Bill Hicks once said, "that man must carry his balls in a wheelbarrow."

(In related news, Perle was just "found innocent" of ethics violations by the Pentagon. Apparently it's okay to use your defense department connections to make money for your business clients)

Perle's quote was "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

Following the script that the invasion was solely about Saddam Hussein, Perle's argument is that international law says it's illegal to go invade a country to liberate its people from dictatorial hellspawn. Therefore international law clearly is bad, eats live babies, and listens to Slayer.

I don't have an international lawbook handy, but I'm pretty sure that international law regarding invasion pretty much goes like this.

It's illegal to attack another country unless:

a) that country attacked you first;
b) that country is going to attack you any minute
c) the UN gives you approval to do so.

So actually, as long as you can muster up the UN votes, it's never illegal to invade.

And speaking of the UN...

Iraq war saved the UN, says president- as long as Bush is president, the spinning of George Orwell's corpse in its grave could be used to power turbines, and form a source of limitless energy, bringing electricity to billions.

We now have a third fictional rationale for the war:

1) Stop Saddam Hussein's immense arsenal of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons
2) Free the Iraqi people from tyranny
3) preserve the legitmacy of a bunch of jabbering diplomats

Okay, that last insult isn't really deserved. The UN does a lot of great humanitarian work, and does occasionally resolve international disputes. But most of its resolutions go unheeded, and no one cares. Just ask Israel. The UN's legitimacy was not really at stake.

Actually, Bush didn't claim that this was why we went to war, but that it's salvation was a wonderful outcome of the invasion. I just used his statement for humorous effect. I do that sometimes. If I ever do so without making clear that a bit of kidding is involved, call me on it, citizen.

And you gotta love this Bush quote:

"And who will say that Iraq was better off when Saddam Hussein was strutting and killing, or that the world was safer when he held power? Who doubts that Afghanistan is a more just society and less dangerous without Mullah Omar playing host to terrorists from around the world? And Europe, too, is plainly better off with Milosevic answering for his crimes, instead of committing more."

Hmm. The Saddam Hussein bit is possibly true, although I have seen polls in which Iraqis overwhelmingly say that Baghdad is more dangerous now than it was before the war. The Afghanistan bit is ridiculous. I don't have numbers to back it up, but I'm pretty sure that Afghanistan is much more dangerous now. Warlords and thugs rule, people starve, and fundamentalist factions still treat women like the Taliban did. In addition, the Taliban are sneaking back into the country, as are members of Al Qaeda. We brutalized the nation, left its people to the wolves, and don't even get to wear our lousy "We Destroyed International Terror in Afghanistan" t-shirts.

As for Milosevic (an odd example to bring up since his overthrow happened on Clinton's watch), he was overthrown by an uprising of the Serbian people, not an UN action. At best, you could possibly thank NATO for (not the UN) bombing the hell out the country back in 1999, which might have helped bring the overthrow around.

I get quite tired of this. The invasion of Iraq was about boosting US political power, period. Everything else is perfumed rhetoric, trying to hide the stench of conquest.

Fuck Free Trade

Protesters taking the streets of Miami to oppose the Free Trade Area of the Americas, yet another trade treaty that'll put more power in the hands of corporations while throwing workers to the dogs and shitting on the environment. Take em to school, kids.

For frequent updates:

FTAA IMC- covering protests is what Independent Media Centers do best.

Resistance Radio- audio stream with continuous coverage, also from IMC

2003 FTAA Protests - Showdown in Miami- from anarchist news source Infoshop.org. News, personal accounts, and lots and lots of intense pictures.

This is my patriotism, ladies and gentlemen. People putting themselves on the line to fight against exploitation and abuse by the powerful. I don't care where a person's from or what their passport says, I'm proud of the people who resist, and proud to count myself among their ranks.

November 19, 2003

When Life Gives You Lemons, Make Satire

On President Bush's trip to England, he did a single exclusive newspaper interview with conservative Murdoch-owned tabloid, The Sun. Obviously feeling a bit peeved by this, rival tabloid The Mirror, published a mock interview, featuring all the harsh questions Bush probably didn't get asked by The Sun, and all the truthful answers he probably didn't give in response. Fun stuff, give it a read.

Gracias

Thanks to everybody who came to the Kill Radio Third Anniversary party and made it such a success. I honestly thought that it would be just us playing to ourselves, but we packed that tiny Silverlake Lounge till it was crowded and sweaty.

Sabretooth Tiger was good. Mash Up Soundsystem was good. Fungal Kingdom seemed to have gotten better and louder. Several women got naked in unusual ways. DJ lydiadeetz graciously gave up some of her time to expand my tiny 15 minutes to a less tiny 20+ minutes. I got a compliment on my DJ set* from a fellow KR DJ, which obviously means that I rocked the joint slightly.

If you were there, I was the guy wearing the Viking helmet.

I should be back in the studio on Monday to do my usual show of music and politics. 2-4pm PST.

*Jake's playlist:

Nas- Get Down
The Von Bondies- Going Down
Mr. Lif & Edan- Get Wise '91
The (International) Noise Conspiracy- Capitalism Stole My Virginity
Beastie Boys- In 3's
Eric B & Rakim- Juice (Know the Ledge)
Motorhead- Ace of Spades

November 16, 2003

¿Dónde Está La Fiesta?

Kill Radio, the internet radio station for which I broadcast, turns three years old this month. Three years of music, activism, piracy, news, long boring meetings, art, radical politics, where does the time go? We're having a li'l party/concert/event here in Los Angeles to celebrate. I'll be DJing an incredibly short set at about 8:45pm (well, I think I'll be there, life's on the chaotic side lately), if you want to stop by and say hello.

The details:

Kill Radio Third Anniversary Party Thang
Tuesday November 18
Silver Lake Lounge
2906 W Sunset Blvd
Los Angeles
8pm
21 & up
$0 cover charge

The show'll also feature bands Snake Versus Wizard, The Shakes, and Mash Up Soundsystem (haven't heard the first two, but the third is excellent). Should be a good time (at least for me). Please come by, make us feel cool.

Absentee

Sorry to my radio listeners, but I'm missing yet another show tomorrow (11/17).

And I might miss more shows in the near future. I'm out of town most of the time these days, due to a long term family crisis. No idea when it will get resolved. I try to get back up to L.A. about one day a week, and I hope to make that day coincide with my radio show.

This has easily been the worst year of my life, and it's possible that next year will be even worse. Obviously, there have been plenty of great things that have happened to me in 2003, but they are completely overwhelmed by the badness, like a mountain's shadow over a match flame. I'm doing my best, but it's not easy.

To try to maintain some normalcy in my life, I will keep trying to do the radio show and website as much as I reasonably can (in fact, a major website redesign is imminent. And, uh, has been for a couple months now...). But if the site languishes here and there, I'm sure y'all'll understand.

Oh. And this is my 1000th post. Hoo-ray or something.

Bush Conquers London

I remember some days back, I read a headline which claimed that protesters were going to "shut down London" for President Bush's visit to Britain. Turned out the article had it backwards. Bush was going to shut down London for his own visit. His/the secret service's demands for the president's safety border on Howard Hughes-esque paranoia. Good on the British that they refused the most crazy.

Among the crazy demands for Bush's visit:

- shut down the London subway system

- fly Air Force planes and helicopters over London

- place "battlefield weaponry to use against rioters"

- bullet- and blast-proof rooms at Buckingham palace

- massive road closures

Of that list, I think the UK only agreed to the last.

But I left out the two most crazy, because they deserve extra ridicule.

1) Secret service should be permitted to carry a minigun on them to protect the president

2) Secret service agents and snipers should be immune from prosecution if they kill a Briton

Okay, the first list essentially added up to "control of London should temporarily be transferred to the United States government, and put under martial law." The second set essentially say "if necessary, we'll kill every one of you British motherfuckers."

A "minigun" is a bit of a misnomer. It's not mini. It's the type of gun that Arnold Schwarzenegger used to mow down a police batallion in Terminator 2. I'm not real up on my weapons jargon, but I think that most of us would call it a "big-ass machine gun." Imagine someone firing a machine gun in a crowded London street. Bloodbath.

And the second is possibly more crazy. Imagine that, the president of the United States actually asked the British government if it was okay for some of his employees to kill British citizens. "Can we commit murder, can we, please? No? Fine, then you're not invited to my birthday party!"

Yeah yeah, these are "dangerous times" and in large crowds anybody could be a threat. But when a leader starts treating his people as the enemy... you've got trouble.

November 13, 2003

Fought for Freedom

Anti-Iraq war veterans pulled from parade- "Members of Veterans For Peace and Vietnam Veterans Against the War were yanked off a downtown Tallahassee street, directly in front of the Old Capitol, while marching in the [Veteran's Day] parade they had legitimately registered in." But not to worry. Says parade chairman Ken Conroy, denying that he was suppressing the veterans' free speech, "They can have their free speech, just not in the parade. They belong on the sidewalk." Good to know.

November 09, 2003

Skeletor vs. Truth

Fuck fuck fuck Donald Rumfseld.

On Feb. 20, a month before the invasion, Rumsfeld fielded a question about whether Americans would be greeted as liberators if they invaded Iraq.

"Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?" Jim Lehrer asked the defense secretary on PBS' "The News Hour."

"There is no question but that they would be welcomed," Rumsfeld replied, referring to American forces...

But on Sept. 25 ... Rumsfeld was asked about the surging resistance.

"Before the war in Iraq, you stated the case very eloquently and you said . . . they would welcome us with open arms," Sinclair Broadcasting anchor Morris Jones said to Rumsfeld as the prelude to a question.

The defense chief quickly cut him off.
"Never said that," he said. "Never did. You may remember it well, but you're thinking of somebody else. You can't find, anywhere, me saying anything like either of those two things you just said I said."

[emphasis mine]

More of Rumsfeld's historical revisionism at that link above.

November 07, 2003

We [Heart] "Democracy"

A number of blogosphere folks have made mention of Bush's recent speech about democratizing the Middle East. He gave the speech at a gathering commemorating the 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy. I'll comment on the speech in a minute, but first let's look at the NED.

Near as I can figure, the NED is a "non-governmental" organization that is completely funded by the U.S. government, yet is not accountable to the government or taxpayers. This money is used to fund political actors in other countries, usually U.S.- and business-friendly political parties, candidates, and labor unions. Who says this? American subversion chronicler William Blum and a Republican Congressman from Texas.

So Bush makes his remarks upon an American committment to Middle Eastern democracy on the anniversary of an organization that meddles in foreign political affairs for U.S. advantage. Sounds... shady.

Bush's speech itself is hard to analyze because it is almost 100% airy rhetoric. He doesn't go more than three words before peppering a sentence with "democracy", "liberty", or "freedom". Given that many U.S. politicians will use "democracy" to refer to regimes who's only democratic institutions are farcical elections, and "freedom" to mean "the ability for foreign investors to extract profit", it's hard to know where to even begin analysis and criticism. Suffice it to say that American politicians know that the American public (and indeed much of the world) hold these concepts in high esteem, and mouthing their corresponding syllables is a good way to sway public opinion to your side, truth or accuracy be damned.

The concrete core of Bush's speech basically calls upon Americans to commit themselves to a decades-long project to bring "democracy" and "freedom" to the Middle East. This is the benevolent face of neoconservative foreign policy, to transform the entire region into U.S.-friendly free markets with nominal democractic features. I can completely support the goal of Middle Eastern democracy, but trust the Bush administration's goals, motives and and strategies about as far as I can throw the White House. This is a problem I run up to again and again regarding Bush policy, that I can agree with their publicly stated goal, but I think that this goal is just a facade to cover up plans to dominate by force for the benefit of the few.

The current lack of democracy in U.S.-occupied Iraq should be a warning sign to the Bush democratization rhetoric. And if that doesn't do it, the decades of U.S. support for Middle Eastern dictatorships (continuing even as we speak) should be like a big shrieking neon warning sign.

Our friend Billmon strains out the most ironic bits out of the speech, the most amazing being this one:

They [successful societies] prohibit and punish official corruption, and invest in the health and education of their people.

[insert your own snide retort here]

And how did the Arab world respond to this speech?

Bush democracy call draws scorn

Indignant Arabs Say Bush Democracy Speech a Sham

I haven't seen any articles about American response to the speech but I imagine they'd have headlines like "Americans Don't Give a Damn" and "Americans Wish Middle East Would Just Go Away".

November 06, 2003

Is There a Spoon?

Everyone seems to be weighing in on the new Matrix movie today, so I'll hop on the bandwagon.

Saw it last night. I liked it, but I'm not sure that it made sense. Actually, I'm pretty sure it didn't make sense.

As long as you're not expecting too much, you'll might enjoy it.

Rant Mania

Cowboys and Indians-

In 1999, a federal court ordered the Interior Department to account for oil, gas, timber and grazing royalties that should have been paid to Native American landowners over more than a century. The Department owes somewhere between $6 and $12 billion to 500,000 people.

The article goes on to explain how the Senate passed a sneaky-ass bill that postpones payment of these royalties till at least 2004. And then they tacked on a number of anti-environmental, pro-business amendments.

Silly word games and weapons of mass destruction- since the inspections of Iraq have turned up no evidence of WMDs, anti-war folks have angrily been decrying Bush's lies that Iraq was an "imminent threat." Conservatives then went on a counter-offensive, claiming that Bush never said such a thing. In this article, Josh Marshall digs up a number of quotes in which Bush and his staff did say (and imply) that very thing.

Escape by Voice Vote- what scummy bastards. Fearing backlash no matter how they chose to vote, just about the entire U.S. Senate cravenly agreed to do a "voice vote" on Bush's plan to spend $87 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan. A voice vote is not recorded, so you can't check and see how your senator voted. Who wants to deal with all that "acountable to the people" crap?

NBC chief: Our shows 'sucked'- well duh. Apparently the latest Nielsen TV ratings show a huge drop in viewership by men ages 18 to 34. As this is the group thought to have the most disposable income, it is the group most sought after by advertisers, and therefore also by TV networks. Most networks are taking the surprising step of claiming that the ratings must be wrong. The head of NBC chooses to blame his network's lousy program choices-- and faulty ratings.

I find this extremely fascinating, because Nielsen ratings are amazingly faulty. Their methods are very sloppy, and there is no way if knowing that the ratings that Nielsen gives actually tell you how many people are watching which shows. Yet all the networks and all the advertisers accept their numbers as fact. The entire television industry is based upon this ridiculous, silent agreement to believe in the accuracy of Nielsen. Is this agreement starting to crack?

House Nixes Anti-Profiteering Penalties in Iraq Spending Bill- that Iraq bill that the Senate just took their silent vote on? The original version had segments that would punish those who tried to rip off the Iraq efforts for their own personal profit. The House decided to remove those parts. Yay team.

I'm tired. Going to bed.

November 05, 2003

Bringing the Funny

Energize!- Adam Felber pares down the Bush administration to its core policy: Cut its taxes. If it doesn't have taxes to cut, blow it up.

Sitcom- Billmon takes us into the future, to look back at the censoring of presidential docudramas from 2010 to the present.

Two Rascals Invade a Home and Blame the Owner for Their Erroneous Actions- A collection of comical drawings of like theme, arranged sequentially so as to present a tale of drollery and wit, with cunning political ramifications.

Know Your Audience

I gotta give props to Wesley Clark for this 30 second campaign video that he showed at the youth-oriented "Rock the Vote" Democratic debate yesterday.

More Fun From Those Scummy Wal-Mart Bastards

Jeez, this is pretty unbelievable.

Imagine that you earn $8 an hour working for Wal-Mart. Then, you learn that the store is recruiting workers, at $10 an hour, to convince neighbors and shoppers to vote against a law that would limit the size of "big- box'' stores in unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County, in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Great, you think. I'll apply. But Wal-Mart won't hire its own workers because the corporation isn't sure it's legal to use them to promote a political campaign.

When you realize that Wal-Mart will pay higher wages to those campaigning to keep your wages low, you get angry – which is how I've learned about the Arkansas retailer's countywide plans to repeal the ordinance.

Several city and county governments across the U.S. are realizing that Wal-Mart stores have negative impacts. The stores drive down wages throughout the community, and due to their lousy health care policies, more workers have to turn to Medicaid (funded by taxpayers) to get by. The governments are responding by passing laws to prohibit such stores.

Wal-Mart is striking back by forming fake grassroots organizations, and gathering signatures to overturn these ordinances. And, as the above paragraph mentions, the signature-gatherers are getting paid more than many Wal-Mart employees. What a slap in the face.

Wal-Mart is a corporation that has far too much power. They drive small stores out of business. They drive down local wages. They try to cheat their employees on health care. The very possibility of Wal-Mart grocery stores in southern California led to the supermarket labor strife here right now. They demand that the producers of their products sell them at rock bottom prices, driving down the wages of factory workers worldwide.

Wal-Mart is making the world a worse place.

Boycott Wal-Mart.

November 04, 2003

For the Chillun

Is it just me, or is this creepy as fuck?

Simplification

I spoke with KPFK reporter Jerry Quickley today. He was in New York, just returned to the country after spending about two weeks in Iraq, so I asked him a few questions about his time there (technically, I was "pre-interviewing" him for a radio show I produce for KPFK and Axis of Justice, the Axis of Justice Radio Network. No, I didn't choose the title). The fellow was literally in Iraq last week, so this was some pretty fresh data. For the most part, his answers were what we just keep hearing from the country, bad news on most fronts.

But there was one moment of clarity in our talk. Jerry said that he'd spoken with about 150 Iraqis during his trip, and two had been in favor of the U.S. occupation, and everyone else was against it. And the majority of these anti-occupation folks wanted the U.S. to leave as soon as possible.

Jerry also said that he'd talked to maybe 12-15 U.S. soldiers about their feelings regarding the occupation, and he said that every single one of them wanted to leave and go home.

The Iraqis want the Americans to leave Iraq, and the American soldiers themselves want to leave Iraq, so... what's the problem exactly?

Up until today, I'd been one of these folks who was bitterly opposed to the war, yet felt that since we were there, that the U.S. should fix the electric and water infrastructure, and provide security until Iraq got itself on its soon-to-be-democratic feet. Tthe fact that the Bush administration did not seem interested in any of this made my stance quite a confusing one; it's kind of like calling the cops about a burglary, having them shoot your dog, but hoping that now that they're there, that they'll stay and paint your living room.

But now, if Jerry is correct, it seems a significant number of Iraqis would rather risk the consequences of rebuilding their demolished country on their own, than continue to struggle under U.S. occupation. And if the occupation meant profits for Halliburton, withheld liberties, random shootings by terrified/crazed American soldiers, and still not having the electricity back on, what would they really have to lose by having the Americans leave?

I'll give it some more thought, but I am now much more significantly on the "leave" bandwagon than on the "stay" one.

[edit]

I usually let my commenters say whatever they like and don't respond, giving them the last word on the subject. Seems the fair thing to do. But I just got one that I think misunderstands part of what I wrote, so let me clarify.

The passage in question reads "a significant number of Iraqis would rather risk the consequences of rebuilding their demolished country on their own, than continue to struggle under U.S. occupation". The commenter interprets this to mean something like "those dumb Iraqis can't rebuild their country without the help of us smart Americans." This was not what I meant, although I see how one could read it that way.

To me, the bottom line is that Iraq is a nation that has been bombed and starved for over a decade, and is therefore very poor and many of the institutions and infrastructure that would be helpful/mandatory for rebuilding, have been destroyed. I'm not saying that the U.S. has more smarts that Iraq, but that the U.S. has more dollars than Iraq. It seems that the Iraqi people are willing to say "we think we have enough dollars and determination to rebuild our country without help from Uncle American Moneybags." And with all that I've heard about the terrible destruction and impoverishment of Iraq, that seems like a pretty gutsy decision. Granted, when your friends and neighbors are being shot by Uncle Moneybags' pals on a semi-regular basis, I imagine that makes the decision much easier.

So, to sum up, I was referring to Iraq's financial and logistical capacity, not implying that Iraqis were in some way inferior to Americans.

[/edit]

November 02, 2003

How We Got Here Redux

A few days back, I posted a long summary of the events, decisions and ideologies that led the U.S. into war with Iraq (although one reader did point out that I left out the British intelligence dossier fiasco).

Now there's a new article in the NY Times that not only sums up how the war decisions were made, but how the post-war decisions were (or weren't made), how we ended up at war with Iraq, and how we ended up in the sticky situation we are now in.

Blueprint for a Mess

It's long, but find some time to read it, it's good stuff.

October 30, 2003

How to Make a Killing in Business

We've all heard about how the White House's corporate cronies are winning lucrative and shady contracts for post-war Iraq, but many of us don't know many of the details.

No more excuse for not knowing, thanks to Windfalls of War, a lengthy and highly detailed report from the Center for Public Integrity. The report lists every company, how much their contract was for, what duties they are supposed to perform, and who's their contact on the inside (of the government).

October 29, 2003

Best Bushism Yet

"The vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice."

-GW Bush, Oct. 27, 2003

October 28, 2003

Up Is Down

From today's Bush Press Conference:

"The world is more peaceful and more free under my leadership, and America is more secure."
- GW Bush

Make the bad man go away, Mommy, I can't take anymore!

[edit]

Commenter mjb points out that this quote is taken a bit out of context. And s/he's kind of right. Bush is saying what he will say about his foreign policy next year when running for re-election. So he's saying that he'll be able to say the above next year. Although I've seen other quotes from Bush claiming that it's true now.

[/edit]

October 27, 2003

New Definitions of Homophobia

Rev. Stephen White (aka "Brother Stephen") was a preacher who would travel to college campuses on the eastern seaboard and give fiery, unsolicited sermons about the evils of homosexuality and promiscuity to college students who didn't really give a damn.

Which then makes it either shocking (or predictable) that he was recently arrested for trying to pay a 14 year old boy to let him suck his dick.

You've got to wonder what goes on in a man's head like this. He hated homosexuality so much that he decided to partake in it as some form of penance? He received a message from Jesus Christ saying "go suck that kid's schlong. Pay him if you have to"? After a painful back surgery, his doctor prescribed a regimen of underage gay sex and he became addicted to it?

Oh wait, I know what it is. Brother Stephen is a sick fuck.

I'll end with a letter:

Dear American clergy,

Please leave our children's penises alone.

Your pal,

Jake Sexton.

Witching Afternoon

I'm off to rock my Halloween radio show. 2-4pm PST. Listen, you'll like it.

October 26, 2003

Gas & Goudge

Ever suspect that the oil industry was jacking up the price of gasoline based upon their own greedy schemes and not due to actual petroleum shortages?

Well, one magazine did some research and has some answers.

Iraq: How Did We Get Here?

One of the most important political questions running in the US these days is "what the hell are we going to do with Iraq?" I'd like to answer that question, but it seems only natural that I first try to explain where we are now and how we got there.

I guess the seeds of the latest Iraq war can be traced back to the end of Gulf War I. A number of political and military men were dissatisfied with the results of that war, that the U.S. had not gone all the way to Baghdad. They began advocating massive U.S. military intervention in the Middle East for various reasons. These folks have come to be known as "neoconservatives" or "the neocons." Their main public face was a think-tank called the Project for a New American Century.

When George W. Bush took office, he took many of the neocons with him: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and a few others. Very loud and influential voices inside the White House.

Near as I can figure, the decision to invade Iraq was made by the Bush administration in December 2001, maybe even before that. A National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq-- which would analyze all data assess it as a threat-- had not been performed for over two years, and Bush didn't ask for one to be performed till 10 months later. So at best, this decision was made on old intelligence, if intelligence was used at all.

So how did this decision get made? I'd say that it was probably 90% neocon agenda, 10% Bush ignorance and fear.

The neocon agenda is scary and idiotic at the same time. It basically calls for the use of military force to turn the nations of the world into capitalist pseudo-democracies that maintain the U.S.-dominated status quo. Of course, all nations seek to expand their power and shape the world to best suit themselves, and the U.S. has done so on a regular basis for quite some time. But the neocon plan is an huge escalation in scope, aggression, destructiveness, and, well, stupid optimism. With regards to Iraq, the rose-colored neocon theory is this:

Overthrowing Saddam Hussein and easily turning Iraq into a free market "democracy" will destabilize all of the governments of the Middle East, which will in turn also become free market "democracies," bringing peace to the region and ending terrorism.

I'm serious, that's pretty much what they've been arguing. Well, with the exception that the countries that don't "destabilize" enough might have to be invaded. Which might mean future wars against Syria, Iran, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. But since we have this force, we shouldn't be afraid to use it, they say.

A few qualifiers:

- the "democracy" envisioned by the neocons is not real democracy. As is ever the case, the U.S. government will want these new Middle Eastern governments to be U.S.-friendly. Nothing else is acceptable.

- the U.S. will not allow these governments to be Muslim theocracies, even if that is what their people want.

- "capitalist" and "free market" are terms that are largely abused to the point that their meanings are often unclear. So to clarify, the new Middle Eastern economies will likely be corporate capitalist, with heavy protections on intellectual property (especially copyrights and patents from other countries), and will allow a great deal of foreign interference.

- no matter who becomes the leader of each of these new countries, and no matter what their political actions, they will be referred to in the U.S. as "moderates" overseeing the "difficult transition" to democracy. Should they censor, repress or starve their people, they will be portrayed as well-intentioned people making the hard decisions to modernize their countries. You see a lot of this in Latin America and southeast Asia.

- in the view of many neocons, all terrorist groups receive haven and support by national governments, primarily Islamic dictatorships. Therefore in their eyes, if the governments are replaced, terrorist groups will lose their support and terrorism will shrivel on the vine. This is really, really stupid. As 9/11 showed us, you can be a terrorist for the cost of a plane ticket and a knife blade. You don't exactly need a sheikdom to afford that.

I don't know to what degree the neocons should be seen as short-sighted optimists or opportunistic cynics. On the one hand, if they believe their own rhetoric, they probably think that an American-led world with mildly democratic institutions and rampant consumerism is the best possible outcome. It would make for relatively peaceful stability and some amount of freedom.

Or, if they are opportunists, this is all pretty rhetoric to cover up their goals of rich Americans (and lucky others) running the world for their own economic benefit. The entire world transformed into a colony for their own profit, the peace and stability of total control.

Either way you look at it, I don't like philosophy, the means, or the ends.

Now when I refer to "Bush's ignorance and fear," it is just a guess, really. But I've seen Bush give a few speeches about the Iraq war where he lays out his case, and seems to sincerely believe it. His case in a nutshell is that he feels the need to protect the U.S. from another attack like 9/11. And since Iraq hates America, and might have nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, it is conceivable that these weapons could be used in an attack that is like 9/11 times one hundred. And he can't let that happen.

That's really his total argument. Iraq, weapons, terrorists, possible WMD terrorist attack, therefore we have to attack Iraq. With this mindset, it's easy to understand his unwavering support of this plan, and his never-ending attempts to link Saddam Hussein and terrorism. Nevermind that there were no real links, and no real weapons. Bush was unwilling to take that "chance".

So the decision was made. Around this time, the administration began its PR campaign to convince the U.S. and world (and maybe itself) to invade Iraq.

This led to the "stovepiping"-- taking raw intelligence data and sending it to high ranking government officials before it has been analyzed, or even examined for accuracy (not my term, it's intelligence lingo). This bypassed much of the CIA and sent information, both correct and incorrect, straight to the White House.

On one hand, this actually made a little sense, but just a little. After all, the CIA somehow failed to stop, or even really predict the 9/11 attacks. How much trust would you have put in their assessements? But on the other hand, would you trust your own knowledge of current events and geopolitics over that of teams of CIA staff? You'd have to be a genius or a fool to do so.

Or maybe I'm giving the Bush team too much credit. Maybe the stovepipe had nothing to do with trust in the CIA, and was entirely about building a propaganda case for the war.

And they had plenty of help for that. Not only did the White House have their raw, questionably accurate stovepipe data, but they also created the Office of Special Plans. The OSP was a mini-agency created inside the Defense Department with the sole purpose of gathering any and all raw data and rumor about an Iraqi threat. This served the twin purposes of providing the administration with ammunition for their rhetorical campaign, but it also allowed them to keep the CIA distracted by continually asking them to research the "leads" that they'd received from OSP.

The propagandists were also helped greatly by Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. The INC was made up of Iraqi exiles who hoped to one day take power from Saddam Hussein. The INC managed to provide much "intelligence" to the OSP and White House. But they had an extreme vested interest in convincing the U.S. to invade, and therefore any information they provided should have been treated with much suspicion. The INC were the ones who assured the White House that the Iraqi people would be thrilled when "liberated" by the U.S. troops, and shower the soldiers with flowers and sweets. Unfortunately, the INC's intel did not receive the skeptical scrutiny that it should have.

So with a mountain of faulty intelligence (endorsed by CIA director George Tenet, apparently afraid of losing his job if he did otherwise), the Bush administration tried to convince the American public about the need for war. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, many Americans were willing to put their faith in their government to keep them safe. And after a solid decade of low-level "Saddam Hussein is the devil" propaganda, it didn't take much to convince Americans that he was a threat. However the WMD "evidence" was only enough to convince the nations of the world that weapons inspectors should be sent to Iraq, not that the country needed to be invaded.

The U.S. then abandoned its efforts to get the UN to join in the anti-Iraq quest, and decided just to fight with its "coalition of the willing": the U.S., the U.K., and a handful of other countries contributing tiny amounts of money and staff. But it continued the domestic propaganda, focusing not on WMD but on defeating an evil man and bringing freedom to an oppressed people. And when portrayed as a simple morality play, the people approved.

Coming soon- Iraq: What Do We Do Now?

October 24, 2003

Demon Sun

Here in Los Angeles today, there is a large fire in the San Bernadino National Forest. I first saw the effects of the fire this morning, when I noticed an odd orange sheen on all outdoor surfaces. There was a hazy scrim of cloud and smoke in the air, turning the sun into a grimy, Day Glo orange bindi in the sky, and that light was shading everything below it. My friend Jeremy and I were headed out to get some breakfast, and we decided that this was an omen of doom, and therefore both opted for the chicken fried steak & eggs.

But the sun's not through with us yet. Apparently some sort of big ol' solar storm is headed towards Earth. Oddly, the "mass of solar gas" that will hit the Earth at 2 million miles an hour might cause some cellphone trouble, but nothing else. But, to freak yourself out properly, check out the photo here.

Now, I'd been planning on trying to swap radio show timeslots with someone this coming week so that I could do a proper Halloween-themed show. My show is usually right in the middle of the afternoon, not your peak witching hours. But given the fact that the sun is creeping me the fuck out lately, I think doing a daytime horror show is now entirely appropriate.

Lying Media Bastards radio show
Scary Halloween Version
(aka "The Sun Wants to Kill Your Momma")
Monday, October 27
2-4pm PST
KillRadio.org

Lots of evil, creepy, disturbing muzak
Probably no politics
If you want to hear "Monster Mash", you should probably listen to something else
666
Whee

Blame Game

Sigh.

Inquiry Faults Intelligence on Iraq- "The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is preparing a blistering report on prewar intelligence on Iraq that is critical of CIA Director George J. Tenet and other intelligence officials for overstating the weapons and terrorism case against Saddam Hussein, according to congressional officials... [Sen. John] Rockefeller is under considerable pressure from the Senate Democratic leadership not to allow Roberts to focus only on intelligence bureaucrats while avoiding questions about whether Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others exaggerated the threat from Iraq."

This Senate report is correctly saying that the CIA did a lot of terrible intelligence work done on the issue of Iraq. Unfortunately, this plays right into the Bush administration's hands with there "if we went to war erroneously, it was only because the CIA gave us bad information" spin.

Anyone who reads that should make sure to read this report by Seymour Hersh. It recounts how the Bush administration restructured the national intelligence apparatus so that erroneous yet politically useful "intelligence" could go directly to the top policy makers, withough having to be examined, analyzed and checked for accuracy by the intelligence establishment-- a practice known as "stovepiping"(there's an online Q&A with Hersh on the subject with some simple explanations here). In other words, the Senate report is correct that the White House got bad intelligence, but it got bad intelligence because it wanted to.

I've been meaning to write a long "Iraq: How We Got Here" article for a few days now, and this is a large part of it. Maybe I can hammer out such an article over the weekend.

October 22, 2003

Tricksy Little Republicans

Republican victory trick #49385303: if you think that newly registered voters might vote against you, try to have their registration revoked.

Yes, in Troy, NY, close to 300 college students registered to vote in the week leading up to their local city council elections. Fearing that these students might vote Democrat and not Republican,

Republicans Art Judge, Robert Armet and Cathryne Collington said the college students are temporary residents of tax-exempt dorms, and they might challenge the enrollments.

"I think it's a little unusual," said Collington, who faces Democrat Bill Dunne in District 4. "They only stay here nine months out of the year. Most of them are not going to stay here. I think we should at least see if they are eligible to vote."

Yes, because they only live in the area 75% of the year for the four years that they are enrolled in school, they should not be allowed to vote there.

I could sit here and mock her logic, but she's not trying to make a reasonable argument. She's trying to win, logic and democracy be damned. It's like comedian Bill Maher said lately, "I'm beginning to think that Republicans will do anything to win an election -- except get the most votes."

[Thanks to August]

October 21, 2003

GAAHH!!!

Henry Kissinger is a guest on The Daily Show.

Had to shut it off. I ain't gonna watch that fucking butcher pleasantly hawk his new book unless the segment ends with him getting his war criminal ass stomped to death by hundreds of angry Cambodians.

Quote of the Day

"We're lucky if we can get over here [to the Burger King at the Baghdad International Airport] once a month, we're so busy raiding houses and kicking down doors in the middle of the night."

- Adrian Miller, U.S. 82nd Airborne Division

Return to Form

Get Your War On returns, with quality.

October 20, 2003

Honoring Picket Lines

Should've posted this earlier.

If you're in southern California and are tempted to cross the picket line of striking (and locked out) supermarket workers to get your groceries, here's a list of locations where you can shop and still honor the strike. They're mostly more upscale supermarkets like Gelson's and Whole Foods (who could use a union themselves, I'm told), so the food might cost a bit more. But if you can stick it out a little while, some low paid folks might be able to win against the grocery giants and retain health care benefits for themselves and their families.

I have a lot to say about this strike and several other local strikes, I'll be ranting about it on my radio show today.

October 18, 2003

Arty

I dig the cover of the new Blur single:

The artist is named Banksy, I think I've linked to his stuff here before. Grafitti artist who veers from the politically poignant to the absurd.

He's up to some tricks these days, apparently hanging his art on the wall of a prominent London art gallery without anyone noticing.

Art can be fun.

Back in the Saddle

I am now back in Los Angeles. My time in NYC was particularly relaxing, mainly because I left my laptop (and therefore most of my work capacity) moldering in my LA apartment. I actually almost rode on that deadly Staten Island ferry trip, let's all thank the cold weather for averting that possibility.

But I now leap back into the belly of the work beast. I'll never figure out how someone as lazy as I am spends so much time working.

Radio show will resume Monday.

Two different people told me this week that I should write a book. The idea of doing so has crossed my mind in the past, but somehow "maybe I should write a book" and "wow, other people want me to write a book so they can read it", are entirely different thoughts. Flattering, of course. Not sure what I'd write about. I'll give the idea some more thought.

October 13, 2003

Public Service Announcement

Greetings from Manhattan.Just hopping on the internet with a brief warning for y'all.I saw the new Quentin Tarrantino movie "Kill Bill" last night. The Village Voice had called it "the most violent American movie ever made." And they're right. But I feel they should have added "by a lot."That's my warning. KB is really, really violent and gory. Lots of severed limbs, decapitations, fountains of blood, etc. Keep that in mind if you're going to go see it.

October 10, 2003

And Boy Will My Arms Be Tired

Going on a trip. Won't have much computer access, so we're unlikely to have many LMB entries for about a week. In the meantime, keep apprised of the happenings in our evil world at the following:

Cursor

Anti-War.com

The Rational Enquirer

Steve Gilliard's News Blog

Eschaton

Mother Jones

I Want Media

Also, you might want to look into the recent PBS documentary Truth, War & Consequences. It provides a pretty good accounting of how the Bush adminstration led the U.S. to war, and what the new Iraqi looks like at the moment. You can apparently watch the whole thing online starting tomorrow, or just browse through their related material.

Enjoy.

October 09, 2003

Death Star Beta Test

India building nuclear attack platform in space- I don't know this news source at all (The Daily Times of Pakistan), but it quotes Indian military officials saying that they want to put some kind of space station/satellite thing into space that would have nuclear capabilities. To be used to defend India against nuclear attacks from other countries, of course.

Sigh.

More Fakery

Fake Gray Davis Concession Speech

I imagine it'll make some of you (us) Arnold haters feel a little better.

More Anti-Corporate Art Pranksterism

Before I read the forwarded email completely, I started to flip out.

It was the story of how Nike had temporarily bought the rights to a historic public square in Vienna, changed its name from "Karlsplatz" to "Nikeplatz", placed a huge "swoosh" sculpture there, and built some sort of store and info-center on the premises. And Nike apparently had plans to do this in other cities around the world, including my own Los Angeles. I was pissed and ready to mobilize.

Lucky for me, I gave the email another look.

It's all a big hoax by an art collective called 0100101110101101.ORG.

Apparently it's a big arty prank designed to raise issues about the corporatization of public space, the manipulation of symbols, etc.

Pretty clever.

As one might imagine, Nike plans to sue. To which the wry artists reply, "Why should they? We produced the first Nike no-budget advertisement!"

How the hell did they move a 100 foot sculpture into downtown Vienna and get away with it? I'm impressed with that feat alone.

Margaret In Da House

I've never been a big fan of comedian Margaret Cho, but I just discovered that she has a high quality blog on her website. And while it's not strictly political, her blog page currently has some crazy, hip hop style rants against some of today's most prominant/evil conservative icons. For example, about Arnold Schwarzenegger:

What the fuck is wrong with you? Bodybuilding is alright and everything, but you are not doing multiple reps, you are making multiple missteps. I got nothing against Austria. I got mad love for Vienna Sausage and shit, but you need to stop grabbin' on ladies and wipe that steroids eating grin off your face. All these women came forward to talk about how you were harassing them, and will not say their names because they are afraid you are gonna fuck them up like Sarah Connor. This is way worse than Clarence and Anita. We are not talking about a pubic hair on a Coke and unsolicited movie reviews of Long Dong Silver. You didn't get some head from a hot and willing intern, you molested ELEVEN women who did not show you some thong to pump you up, and if it is just six that had the bravery to step up, then I suspect there are a lot more waiting in the wings getting the courage up to call you out What I see in you is testosterone od, and if you don't get yourself into some x chromosome management program, you are going down. You don't need to check yourself because you have already wrecked yourself.

Check it out, I think you'll enjoy.

October 08, 2003

Just a Little More on the Recall

I'll keep this brief.

As a fellow who can see issues from many, many sides, I sometimes write from a point of view that I am holding at the moment, forgetting to try to incorporate that view into a larger whole, combined with all the other possibilities. I'm going to try to throw a few of the perspectives I've neglected in here.

1) Gray Davis should have resigned. I was reminded of this from Steve Gilliard this morning. If Davis had actually been concerned about California or his own political party, he would have quit the governorship before a special recall election was announced. This would have averted the recall, and put Bustamante in the governor's seat. The state would've saved $66 million, and the rest of the world would not be laughing at us. But no, Davis decided that he wanted to keep his job. Thanks a lot, fella.

2) I'm angry. I generally think that electoral, representative politics is a complete farce, so my anger at Schwarzenegger's victory confused some of my friends. If all election campaigns are about choosing which corrupt motherfucker is going to have power over you, does it really matter who gets into office? And I guess my answer is that I hate seeing people be tricked and manipulated. All election campaigns are that process, of course: lies, smears, misdirection, promises, plans, slogans, image, and illusion. But I felt that Schwarzenegger took shallowness to a new level. His campaign, quite honestly, was 90% movie quotes and promises to "clean up Sacramento". He said almost nothing about policy, barely even pretended to have a plan. His answers on the only debate he'd agree to go on (you know, the one where they agreed to give him the questions in advance, so he could just read pre-scripted answers?) sounded like someone's high school speech class homework. His answer for dealing with the California economic crisis was "we're going to open up all the books and audit everything." That's not a solution, that's Step One in actually understanding what the problem is.

What made me angry about Arnold's win is the contempt for the public behind his campaign. Other candidates built up their own illusions, making detailed plans, taking stances on policy, talking about their experience, etc. These are the steps one would think were necessary to convince voters to choose one candidate over another, because voters want to put someone in office who agrees with their own point of view and who will make their lives better. Scwarzenegger didn't even pretend to do that, didn't even pretend that voters would want to hear why he'd make a good governor. He just smirked for the cameras and said "hasta la vista, baby" for two months.

And he won.

I feel like California voters have been tricked by the most vulgar, obvious, transparent con job ever, and they don't even know it. It's revolting.

3) My main concern for California at this point is the budget. With such massive shortfalls, I fear that schools and health care might take huge hits. I'm also concerned about what right-wing economic strategies and cronyism we might see out of the Arnold administration

4) Now that Recall has proven itself a useful strategy, we will probably see it used in other states that have recall provisions in their constitution.

5) Senator Orrin Hatch has been talking publicly about an amendment to the U.S. Constitituion that would remove rule forbidding immigrants from running for president, if they have been citizens for 20 years. Schwarzenegger has appeared at some of Hatch's fundraisers, and became a U.S. citizen in 1983...

October 07, 2003

Mr. Kindergarten Cop Goes to Sacramento

Well, the good news is that the high numbers of people voting in favor of the California recall shows that the residents of the state are really fed up with governmental business as usual, and that they're fed up with being screwed over.

The bad news is that they were so easily suckered into believing that a movie star millionaire is actually going to accomplish this.

And the other good news is that Proposition 54 looks to have been defeated. See, small silver linings here and there.

Arnold Schwarzenegger. What were you people thinking?!

Leak News

White House Rules Out Three Aides in Leak on CIA- what a relief. The Bush administration has exonerated members of the Bush administration.

White House Turns Up Heat in CIA Controversy- "The White House adopted a more combative approach today to the leak of a CIA agent's identity, with spokesman Scott McClellan trying to cast doubt on the credibility of Joseph C. Wilson IV, one of those at the center of the controversy."

This is irrelevant. Let's say that Wilson is a tremendous liar and political hack. Doesn't change the FACT that someone leaked his undercover wife's name to the press.

But my favorite part is this statement from White House spokesman Scott McClellan: "[Wilson] has made previous statement and then backtracked from those statements. I think its very important to understand that there is a Washington, D.C. game of rumor and innuendo. … And I'm not going to play that game."

You're not going to play that game? Have you turned in your letter of resignation?

Keeping Our Smears Balanced

Columnist Jill Stewart claims that Gray Davis has a history of physically assaulting his staff. More details in a reprint of her original article on Davis from 1997 here.

Is it true? I have no idea. Stewart cites one unnamed former staffer, and a former aide she calls "K.", who relays her story to Stewart "through a close friend." Certainly not the most vigorous sourcing job I've ever seen. At least the Schwarzenegger scandal is backed up by more sources, even if some are anonymous.

But it's quite possible that all of the people who might win the governorship are completely unfit for the job. Whee.

Photoshop Phun

(Yeah, it ain't real, but it's funny)

[Idea stolen from "Brett W" from the Counterspin Central comment board]

Staying On Message

Good ol' political manipulation at yesterday's Schwarzenegger rally:

Staffers told supporters to discard whatever signs they had brought with them. As they entered a security check area, they were told to collect new official signs like "Remarkable Women Join Arnold" and "Democratic Women Love Arnold."

So if you went to the rally with a sign stating your own personal pro-Arnold slogan, security told you to throw that sign out and take one with the PR spin of the day designed to counter the charges that Arnold uses and abuses women. Your opinion isn't important, only the cover-up is.

And, as some others have pointed out, the signs were designed to look as though they were handmade by Arnold's supporters.

Not expecting this revelation of mine to have an impact, I just hate deception.

October 06, 2003

LMB California Re-Call Election Endorsements

Recall Davis: NO

The entire recall debacle was a strategy by Republicans to gain power by any means necessary. Like the Florida recounts, like the redistricting in Texas, like the Clinton impeachment. This has little to do with Davis' actual performance, it is about exploiting popular anger and disgust with Davis to put a Republican in the governor's mansion. While recalls are, in the abstract, extremely democratic (throwing your leader out of office? Sweet!), in this occassion it's nothing but a power grab. And to me, stopping the power grab is the most important aspect here. If it works here, we'll surely see campaigns in other states to recall Democrats in power. Would Democrats try it to get rid of Republican governors? They might, but they'd probably bungle it somehow.

By all accounts, Davis is as mercenary as politicians get, doing whatever he feels he needs to get campaign money and votes. He's sleazy. But anger towards Davis is mainly about the budget crisis and the economy. And honestly, the economy is largely the fault of the dot-com bubble-bursting, which we can't really blame on Davis. The state budget crisis is also a cause of anger, and Davis is partially to blame for this because he fucked up. The crisis was sparked when the electricity-brokering jackals bled the state dry by continually manufacturing shortages and jacking up the price of power. To stop prices from getting even higher, Davis made a long-term deal with these companies to buy electricity at a constant price, a price that was still too high. He fucked up, and we have to pay for it.

But more than Davis' sleaze and mistakes, I am angered by the Republicans playing games with the tiny bit of democratic process we have here in this state. I wish there was a Proposition 55: "Should everyone in California get a chance to punch Darrell Issa in the head?" I'd vote twice.

I'm voting against the recall because of that. If you're angrier at Davis' corrupt ways than you are and Republican manipulation, then vote for the recall.

Candidate to Succeed Davis: Cruz Bustamante

Bustamante stinks. He's an awful lot like Davis. But again, my main goal in voting this election is to foil the Republicans' scheme. And should the recall voters win, then Stinky Bustamante is the only real chance to defeat the Republicans.

Best Candidate (Actual Good Candidate): Peter Camejo

Honestly, I think Camejo has the best, most far-reaching plan, which is mainly to make rich folks pay more of their taxes by closing up loopholes. My runner-up choice would be Charles "Chuck" Pineda Jr. He's a Democrat who's main platform seems to be to stop building prisons and start building more schools. Seems reasonable to me.

Best Candidate (to Piss Off Jake): Arnold Schwarzenegger

Dude comes in with no plan, figuring that his charisma and fame will sweep him into office. As a person, he seems to be an utterly self-centered asshole who does whatever he thinks he can get away with (which is pretty much anything, because everyone near him is afraid they'll lose their jobs). As a governor, I presume he will smile and wave and spout movie dialogue, while implementing all of the ecnomic policies spouted in secret by his right-wing pals.

Proposition 53: No. I think.

Honestly, I don't know about this one. I've heard people debate it, and they pretty much keep calling each other liars. Since I can't figure out who's right on this one, I'll vote no, just in case.

Proposition 54: No

One of the stupidest plans around. "If we stop collecting data about people's racial or ethnic backgrounds, racism will go away." Brought to you by Ward Connerly, the fellow who brought us Proposition 209-- "if we stop affirmative action, racism will go away." Won't accomplish the alleged goal, and even if it did, we wouldn't have the data to show that it was working.

Kay Report Redux

Last week, David Kay- head of the Iraq Survey Group-- testified before Congress about what his team had found so far. Blogger Billmon went through the testimony with a fine-tooth comb. You can read his detailed analysis, or skip down to his conclusions that I will repost below.

According to Billmon, all that the ISG report really reveals is:

1.) Dual use R&D work with non-prohibited organisms that might have developed techniques suitable for use with weaponized anthrax and/or rictin. Not clear if the clandestine status of these programs has been confirmed by Iraqi scientists, or was merely inferred by the ISG.

2.) One vial of live C. botulinum Okra B. stashed in a scientist’s home refrigerator since 1993. No toxin found, or evidence of any effort to produce toxin.

3.) Preservation of some (undescribed) nuclear equipment and documents that might have been useful to restarting work on centrifuge purification of uranium at a later date.

4.) Several suspected efforts to build or adapt prohibited long-range ballistic missiles. Most never got beyond the drawing boards, and all were scrapped prior to the return of the UN inspectors last year.

5.) One alleged test flight of a drone aircraft beyond the maximum allowed range.

6.) Alleged discussions with the North Koreans about purchasing prohibited long-range ballistic missile technology. No actual transactions ever completed.

As you can see, Iraq was a dire, immediate threat to the United States and needed to be invaded.

October 05, 2003

No Show

Sorry folks, but I can't make my radio show for the next two weeks. This means that I'll probably have a substitute DJ tomorrow, and play some "classic LMB" the week after.

To Infiltrate and Serve

On August 30, members of the Fresno anti-war organization Peace Fresno noticed an photo of one of their members in the oobituary section of the local paper: Aaron Stokes, an independently wealthy man who came to their meetings regularly, spoke little, and took copious notes. He had died in a motorcycle accident.

Except that obituary listed him as "Aaron Kilner", detective for the Fresno County Sheriff's Department, and member of the "anti-terrorism" team.

Yes, apparently the Fresno police felt that the peace group, based out of the Fresno Center for Nonviolence, was potentially a violent threat to the community. And therefore, they needed to be spied upon.

The sheriff's department claims that Peace Fresno "was not and is not the subject of any investigation by the Fresno County Sheriff's Department." Then is it possible that Kilner was attending the meetings because he was truly against the war, yet hid his true identity because he feared it could cause trouble? Kilner's mother and brother both say no, that he was both too busy, and that he would have mentioned it if he was going to these meetings on his own.

Which leaves the most likely explanation: the Fresno police are wasting their manhours and resources investigating peace groups when they could instead be actually protecting us from terrorism. Good work, fellas.

The article's quote from Kilner's brother is also a little creepy: "We asked him, 'How do you do it when your views don't coincide [with those of the group your surveilling]?' And he said, 'The really great thing about this country is that people are allowed to express themselves.' He really strongly believed in that, but he was concerned about the line where opinions become actions."

That's a comforting thought. Every organization needs a cop to monitor their meetings just to make sure that they behave themselves, and don't get out of hand. "I love you Big Brother", and all that.

There is another article on the Kilner story here, with more context, but it is less objective than the previous one.

October 04, 2003

Enron's Recall Conspiracy?

Muckraking journalist Greg Palast just published an article which may or may not be true, but brings up an important and little-known fact about the California recall election.

The important fact: whoever wins the recall election will essentially decide the outcome of the $9 billion that Enron stole from California during its wild energy fraud days. The Davis administration is pressuring Bush's folks to demand that Enron pay up. Cruz Bustamante personally launched a lawsuit against Enron to make them pay up. But the governor of California can sign any sort of deal s/he wants with Enron to resolve the situation...

And Palast claims that there is already a "compromise" plan at the ready, drawn up by Bush's energy regulators, where Enron would pay around $180 million instead of the $9 billion (for reference, the current California budget deficit is $8 billion). And if the right governor was in office, this plan could go forward...

Then, the not-so-believable part. Palast claims that he has just received internal Enron documents that prove that Arnold Schwarzenneger met with Ken Lay of Enron in May 2001 and concocted a scheme for California. Unfortunately he gives little to no detail about these documents, or the meeting, so it's hard to take what he's saying 100% seriously.

So that's his argument, really, that during this secret meeting in 2001, Arnold and Ken Lay made plans so that if the California government kept demanding its $9 billion back, that the two would try to recall the California governor, to try to get the sweet compromise deal instead.

Yeah, seems a bit far-fetched to me. I think the bit about Davis & Bustamante and the compromise deal is true, but Palast really provides no evidence of the Arnold-Enron conspiracy. But remember come voting day, that whoever takes power can either lose or regain the state a huge chunk of stolen money.

October 03, 2003

Big Huge Story

I really can't believe this story isn't getting more coverage.

The short version:

Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called "20th hijacker" of 9/11 (who didn't actually hijack anything), is on trial on six counts of conspiracy to commit various terrorist acts. To build a legal defense for himself, Moussaoui wanted to interview al-Qaeda members held by the US government. The government refused, and the judge in the case insisted that the government allow Moussaoui access to the prisoners. The government again refused, giving the judge no choice but to sanction the prosecution. She did so by barring the prosecution from seeking the death penalty, and by forbidding them from introducing any "evidence or argument that the defendant was involved in, or had knowledge of" 9/11. In other words, if the government is going to hamstring Moussaoui's defense attempts, the judge must legally hamstring the prosecution as well.

So the three options seem to be:

1) the government concedes and lets Moussaoui talk to the al Qaeda prisoners
2) Moussaoui wins the case and goes free
3) the government shifts the case to a military court and prosecutes Moussaoui in a military tribunal

I suspect that #3 has been the goal all along.

News-pourri

Israel plans more homes in West Bank settlements- "Israel issued plans Thursday for about 600 more homes in West Bank settlements despite the Mideast 'road map' peace plan, which calls for a freeze on new settlement construction." You ever get the sneaking suspicion that the Israeli government isn't really interested in a peace plan?

US and Turkey to hit PKK- someone please tell me I'm reading this wrong. The US is going to team up with Turkey to attack a Kurdish independence group in Turkey? When Kurds are the majority ethnicity in northern Iraq? Are we trying to turn the Kurds against the US troops in Iraq and start an Iraqi civil war?

Never Too Soon to Say Goodbye to Hi- "Hi" is the name of a new "lifestyle" magazine aimed at young Arab men and women, created by the US State Department as a way of making those Arabs like the US more. This article is an analysis of Hi. The main findings are the amazing way in which the magazine depoliticizes the explicitly political, and its universal condescending tone, as if its readers were all in junior high school. And my eyes bugged out when I saw that Hi had previously featured an article titled "Arab Music Invades the West." Given that the US has recently, non-metaphorically "invaded" two Arab nations in the past two years with potentially more to come, maybe that wasn't the most appropriate phrasing.

Lobbyists Set Sights On Money-Making Opportunities in Iraq- sigh. Let the true looting begin.

Study: Wrong impressions helped support Iraq war- according to some poll, 60% of Americans have held one of the three following errors about Iraq: 1) U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. 2) There's clear evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein worked closely with the Sept. 11 terrorists. 3) People in foreign countries generally either backed the U.S.-led war or were evenly split between supporting and opposing it. And among those who held these beliefs, the greatest proportion said that their primary news source was Fox News. Go figure.

US Seen Dragging Feet on Iraqi Oil Money Watchdog- on May 22, the UN Security Council voted to create the International Advisory and Monitoring Board to "monitor U.S. spending of Iraq's oil revenues." Apparently the US has been stopping the IAMB from starting its duties. And will most likely continue to do so till the money's all been allocated.

Bush: Hussein 'A Danger to the World'- somehow in the mind of GWB, the lack of evidence that Saddam Hussein had dangerous weapons is proof that Saddam Hussein was a "danger to the world." When Bush talks about "faith-based initiatives," his faith is apparently Zen Buddhism.

Miller's Star Fades (Slightly) at 'NY Times'- Judith Miller is a star reporter at the NY Times, even though she kinda sucks. She broke a number of stories this year, largely based upon information she got via highly suspect source Ahmed Chalabi, that later turned out to be false. And yet, "she continues to prosper, the sources keep calling her back, she keeps getting published, and the editors like her because she 'delivers.'"

Limbaugh at center of controversy again- the greatest symbol of right-wing radio hot air, Rush Limbaugh, is in the middle of two scandals simultaneously. First, he made a racist remark on the air during a taping of ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown, basically alleging that black quarterbacks aren't as good as white ones, but get unjustified hype by the liberal media. Secondly, he is allegedly accused of abusing illegally obtained prescription drugs.

FTC/FCC Complaint Challenges Product Placement- interesting. Ralph Nader's Commercial Alert organization has filed a complaint with two federal government agencies about the quasi-advertising strategy of product placement in TV shows. Wonder how that will play out.

October 02, 2003

Suspension of Disbelief

Talk about your "faith-based initiatives".

Kay Says No WMD Stocks Found in Iraq- "The U.S-led team hunting for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has not found any stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons."

Officials Say Bush Seeks $600 Million to Hunt Iraq Arms- "The Bush administration is seeking more than $600 million from Congress to continue the hunt for conclusive evidence that Saddam Hussein's government had an illegal weapons program, officials said Wednesday."

"All evidence tells us that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, which means that we must search harder than ever for evidence of the unlikely," said Secretary of State Harvey the Rabbit in a press conference today. This sentiment was mirrored by Vice President Tooth Fairy. "We are so, so, so certain that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that we just NEED to show the rest of you. And if it turns out that he doesn't have them, then we're sure that we'll find evidence that he had plans to make them. And, barring that, we're pretty sure we'll find some dirty magazines."

"Meow meow meow meow meow," said Secretary of Defense Fucked-Up-Cat-Puppet-from-Mr.-Rogers'-Neighborhood.

The Department of Leprechauns and Unicorns could not be reached for comment.

600 million American dollars to search for weapons that probably aren't there. Jesus fucking Christ. Remember back at the beginning of this year, when UN weapons inspectors were investigating Iraq for free!?!

Can't we just impeach these motherfuckers already? For killing, lying, looting, take your pick.

And read the end of that second article, it should really get your blood boiling. "During the initial months of the weapons hunt, the Iraq Survey Group spent its first weeks installing air-conditioned trailers, a new dining facility, state-of-the-art software and even a sprinkler system for a new lawn, according to officials and experts who worked with the group this summer."

Okay, you know what's an important part of scouring a desert nation looking for hidden nuclear weapons? NOT SPENDING YOUR TIME PLANTING A NEW LAWN!!! If these allegations are true, I want these bastards fired, and I want them to repay every damn cent they spent on frivolous crap.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that Iraq had some amount of chemical or biological weapons. It just seems unlikely that the entire nation is barren of such things. And they probably had programs to develop weapons that they didn't have. And, if we spend enough time and money, we might find evidence of one of these things. But American kids gotta get an education, American families gotta have healthcare, and American territory needs to be protected from future terrorist activity. Hell, keep that money in Iraq even, make sure that Iraqi familes are educated, healthy and safe. But using this $600 million for the WMD hunt (which the Iraqi Survey Group will probably waste on wet bars and solid gold saunas anyway) accomplishes none of these things.

Only two explanations for this insanity. One, the Bush administration is so riddled with incompetency, that they truly thought Iraq was a threat and attacked it to save us, bungling mightily along the way. Or, two, this was a war for oil and empire, clothed in terror fears. I think y'all know which I believe.

Bad Widdle Boy

I'm getting tired of non-confession confessions.

Yesterday:

Women Say Schwarzenegger Groped, Humiliated Them

Less well-known, but two and a half years ago:

Arnold the Barbarian

This morning:

Schwarzenegger: 'I have behaved badly sometimes'

If you walk through it, between the first two articles, Schwarzenegger is accused of groping, stripping and molesting unwilling women, both in private and in public, on a number of occasions.

While the press is paraphrasing Arnold is such a way that it sounds like he has admitted to these acts and is apologizing for them, let's make sure we see what he really says. First he says that much of what's in the LA Times article is "not true." Then he says:

Wherever there is smoke, there is fire. That's true. What I want to say to you is that, yes, I have behaved badly sometimes. Yes it is true that I was on rowdy movie sets and I have done things that were not right that I thought were playful. I now recognize that I have offended people and to those people that I offended, I want to say that I am deeply sorry and I apologize.

So first, he claims that some of the allegations, who knows which ones he means, are not true. Then he says that he "behaved badly" as though he was a toddler who made a mess in the kitchen. He tries to explain away the allegations by saying that he was just kidding around, being playful. But, he realizes that some of those things were "not right". In the end, he apologizes not for doing these things, but because the things he did "offended" people.

Just warms your heart, don't it?

Oh, and he vows to be a "champion of women" if elected. Y'know how easy it is to vow something? Watch: I vow to grow wings and fly to the moon.

So what sort of things does Schwarzenegger consider "bad behavior"? I guess stuff like this:

In late 1990, Schwarzenegger was in the San Bernardino County town of Fontana, shooting "Terminator 2: Judgment Day." According to a female crew member, Schwarzenegger harassed her on several occasions.

She recalled encountering the actor in an elevator as she headed downstairs to the pool of the hotel where the cast and crew were staying. On each occasion, she said, she was wearing a terrycloth robe over a black, one-piece Speedo swimsuit.

"At least three times — if not more — he would end up in the elevator with me, groping me and trying to take my robe off," said the crew member, now 41 and still working in the movie industry.

"He would pin me against the corner in the elevator" and try to take off her robe and pull down the straps of her suit, she said.

The incidents did not last long, she said, because the elevator ride was short.

The woman said her response to Schwarzenegger's actions evolved with each incident. "The first time, you're like, "Oh, my God! I was groped by Arnold Schwarzenegger!' The second time you're like, 'This is disgusting.' The third time you're like, 'Get the ... away from me.' "

She said she told her boss, who advised her, "Just stay away from him."'

After that, the woman said, she would check the hotel hallway before entering the elevator. She said if Schwarzenegger got into the pool, she would get out.

"What could you do? He was the highest-paid actor in the world. I was a peon," she said. "The only thing you could do is stay away from him."

Yes, pinning a woman in a corner of an elevator and trying to strip her naked (and god knows what else) against her will, is "bad".

I think this incident sums it all up, and gives a titanic reason why Schwarzenegger should not be let anywhere near the governor's office. Schwarzenegger is one of the most powerful men in the entertainment industry. This means that he can do whatever he wants, and that nearly anyone around him is afraid of what he might do with that power should they oppose him. He surely has come to expect this from everyone around him, subservience. That's why he thinks it's okay to molest women; no one calls him on it. In fact, he surely has managers and cohorts who will help him explain it away as "playful" and whatever. He'll be used to giving orders and having them be obeyed, not having to work within rules and boundaries, compromising with legislators and such.

That who you want in charge of your state?

Doh!

Due to some sort of techno-problem at this site's webhost company, all my entries (and your comments) since September 28 have vanished. I apologize, and have learned a valuable lesson about obsessively backing up files "just in case."

You really didn't miss much, I guess. I mainly talked about the Wilson-Plame/CIA leak story, and you can get the info pretty much anywhere. Wait a minute, I think I also had a good piece about political pack journalists, maybe I'll repost that.

September 27, 2003

Stealth Suffering

Number of People Living in Poverty in U.S. Increases Again-

Poverty rose for a second straight year in 2002 as 1.7 million more people dropped below the poverty line, according to Census Bureau estimates released Friday that provided fresh evidence of the struggling economy's effect on Americans' pocketbooks.

The poverty rate was 12.1 percent last year, an increase from 11.7 percent in 2001 even though the last recession ended in November 2001. That meant nearly 34.6 million people were living in poverty.

Before the two years of increase, poverty had fallen for nearly a decade to 11.3 percent in 2000, its lowest level in more than 25 years.

Then there's this inexplicable line:

"The economy is moving in the right direction,'' Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Eh? More people have fallen below the (highly subjective, and almost certainly too low) poverty line for two consecutive years and we're headed in the "right direction"? Apparently in his off-hours, McClellan moonlights as Famine of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

And not surprisingly, the Bush administration tried to play some politics with the report:

For the first time in 15 years, the poverty report is being released on a Friday. That has prompted charges by Democrats that the White House hopes to see the bad news buried in little-seen Friday night and Saturday news coverage.

Bush & co. do this all the time. Any sort of negative report or negative news gets reported on Friday afternoons/evenings, hoping that the press then won't cover the story. Hell, it might not be a bad idea to start going out of your way to read the breaking news on Friday afternoons to find out what you might not hear otherwise.

World's Funniest Headline

Bush, Putin Urge Countries Against Nukes

Hee hee hee hee!!

Let me get this straight. George W. Bush, president of a country with over 10,000 nuclear warheads, and Vladimir Putin, president of a country with over 9000 nuclear warheads, are telling other countries to-- hee hee hee, stop you're killing me.

Well, okay. In the article itself Bush and Putin are specifically talking about North Korea and Iran. But still...

Why are Bush and Putin so chummy? Because Bush's "war on terrorism" gave Putin the perfect excuse and support for brutalizing the people of Chechnya.

Wow, I sure know how to suck the humor out of a room...

September 25, 2003

The Chick Is Alright

As you probably recall, a member of the band the Dixie Chicks came under heavy fire last year for making comments about being ashamed that George W. Bush was from their home state. It seemed that they halfway retracted their statements, but warmongers and conservatives nation-wide still bashed them like they were hippies at a Slayer concert. They got great public support from liberal anti-war folks, but they'd always seemed kinda wishy-washy to me.

But now I'm impressed. One of the Dixie Chicks has posted a letter to the Dixie Chick website that comes out swinging, political, sarcastic, self-deprecating and kinda angry. I'd say give it a read.

An Avid Golfer

Y'know, when I read that Bush interview one comment that the President made that stuck out to me was during the fluffy part of the interview, when Brit Hume was asking the hard-hitting questions about the White House putting green:

HUME: So you're more of a golfer than people know?

BUSH: Kind of, but I haven't played much since I've been president

This seemed odd, as I remembered that I personally had written about Bush mini-press conferences on a golf course on at least two separate occassions.

Well, our pals at Blah3 and BartCop have found us some evidence of presidential fibbing. I'll be he lies about his scores, too.

Edward Said Dies

Sad news. Prof. Edward Said has died. Said was a professor of English at Columbia University, but more importantly in my opinion, he was a knowledgable, clear-headed and prolific commentator on Middle East issues. Said's writings were some of my first insights into a region that school had only taught me was full of oil and terrorists. For that, I am thankful.

You can read some of his works via the (unofficial) Edward Said Archive.

[edit]

Found a quote of Said's that I posted on this site months and months ago. Seems a good time to repost:

"Past and future bombing raids aside, the terrorism craze is dangerous because it consolidates the immense, unrestrained psuedopatriotic narcissism we are nourishing. Is there no limit to the folly that convinces large numbers of Americans that it is now unsafe to travel, and at the same time blinds them to all the pain and violence that so many people in Africa, Asia and Latin America must endure simply because we have decided that local oppressors ... can go on with their killing ... ? Is there no way to participate in politics beyond the repetition of prefabricated slogans? What happened to the precision, discrimination and critical humanism that we celebrate as the hallmarks of liberal education and the Western heritage?"

- Edward Said, 1986

[/edit]

September 23, 2003

Brevity

I had every intention of completely dismantling George W. Bush's recent UN speech here, but I've realized that I don't care. This was not the vitally important speech that we were led to believe it would be, so I'll only give it the time it deserves.

Near as I can figure, the White House realized that their negotiations with other nations were not going well, and that no 22-minute speech in existence that was going to change that. So, they they just rolled out a fairly bland speech that said "We were right to invade Iraq. You other countries should help us make Iraq safe and democratic. Oh yeah, and Afghanistan too. And to make myself seem a little bit less obnoxious, and as a minor guilt trip tactic, I'm also going to mention that all of our countries should work together to fight hunger and AIDS. And sexual slavery. America rules!"

One interesting bit that's not getting much notice is the brief section where Bush talked about efforts to prevent the proliferation of WMD. Bush discusses it as though it were about global security, when really it is an explicit part of the Bush administration's National Security Strategy. The NSS says nothing about reducing the amount of existing WMD, or even about preventing countries that currently have WMD from making more. It only talks about "diplomacy, arms control, multilateral export controls, and threat reduction assistance that impede states and terrorists seeking WMD" [emphases mine]. I am certainly in favor of preventing any more countries or organizations creating or obtaining nuclear weapons, but this is simply about maintaining the current nuclear status quo. The countries that have nukes can keep em, and even do things like try to create "reasonable," mini versions. The countries that don't have em can't ever have em, and have to remain forever at the mercy of the nuclear powers.

The Pitter Patter of Little Softballs

Alright, time to comment on last night's Fox News interview with President Bush.

First of all, I think that this interview was a ploy. Bush never gives interviews or press conferences or interviews, because he's a verbal gimp. So he gives an interview to a sympathetic news outlet, and insists that it not air for several days. Till the weekend. Till a weekend evening. Till a weekend evening that happens to be the night before he gives a controversial speech to the UN... I figure the goal was to have the interview air outside of the usual weekday, business hours news cycle, forcing the media to talk about both the address and the interview simultaneously. You gotta admit, Bush's crew is savvy.

But the interview itself is some of the worst "journalism" I have ever seen. The first third of the interview is a fluff piece, questions about the president's family, his exercise routine, the White House putting green, Bush's religious faith, a discussion about the furnishings of the Oval Office, etc. There is nothing wrong with a news piece which gets inside the figure, which shows their private life and what makes them tick, but when that figure never answers questions publicly and when the nation faces such immense problems, spending so much time on the figure's tastes and hobbies is downright irresponsible.

At this point, interviewer Brit Hume finally gets into political Q & A. Pretty simple stuff, and Hume doesn't push real hard when Bush dodges or gets vague. Some highlights, coupled with by derisive indignation.

BUSH: That's an interesting question, because you know I'm a man of peace.

"Only a man of peace would start wars with two different countries inside of two years."

BUSH: And obviously I would hope that we wouldn't have combat. I also live in a real world of being the president during a war on terror.

I have to mention this every now and again, but no one should ever use the phrase "war on terror." It's obviously meant as a shortened form of "war on terrorism", but the two have very different meanings. Terrorism is military or political strategy involving an attack on civilians. Terror is an emotion. A "war on terror" makes as much sense as a "war on envy" or a "war on mild surprise." And of course, "war" isn't really the proper term either; "war" is more of a metaphor than an accurate description. Unfortunately, policy makers have been confusing the metaphor with the reality for some time now.

BUSH: So I guess I would rather fight them there than here. I know I would rather fight them there than here, and I know would rather fight them there than in other remote parts of the world, where it may be more difficult to find them.

HUME: Such as?

BUSH: Well, such as Yemen

Yemen shits its pants, changes its name to "Germany."

HUME: There are people who suggest that, look, you wouldn't have to be dealing with these people ["terrorists" in Iraq] at all if you hadn't gone into Iraq. That these, in some sense, are newly recruited or newly minted terrorists. What's your view of that?

BUSH: That's probably the same type of person that says that therapy would work in convincing terrorists not to kill innocent life.

And which type of person is that?

Oh yeah, the type of person who looks like me, but is made of straw.

I've said before that the Bush foreign policy doctrine is "destroy our enemies." And if you don't know what to do next, when your enemy destruction has created more enemies, just re-read Step 1.

It's ludicrous. In the Bush mind, the terrorists are our enemies and must be captured or killed. And if these actions (like bombing Baghdad or U.S. soldiers bursting into Iraqi homes and pointing guns at wives and mothers) anger anyone enough that they might join the ranks ot terrorists, then they must've been predisposed towards terrorism, and were would-be enemies anyway.

Also, this follows the Bush refrain that the folks attacking US troops in Iraq are "terrorists." The party line is that these attacks are solely by Al Qaeda infiltrators or Saddam loyalists, and no one else. I've seen an awful lot of evidence that these attackers are disgruntled Iraqi citizens who simply want the Americans to go home.

HUME: What is your theory about what Saddam Hussein did with his weapons of mass destruction?

BUSH: I think he hid them, I think he dispersed them.

Jesus Christ, you've had well over a year to come up with a good cover story and this is the best you can do? "He hid them"? Well, I guess it's a step up from "Saddam's dog ate them."

HUME: What do you say to the notion -- you're beginning to hear it more and more now -- that actually he got rid of them but he didn't want his neighbors to know that, you see, because he wanted to be able to continue to intimidate them? What do you say to that?

BUSH: I think, like I said, be patient. The truth will be out. I told David Kay to go find the truth and to bring back reports based upon his own timetable that are solid reports about what he has found. We're analyzing miles and miles of documentation, we're interviewing all kinds of people in Iraq. Some of the famous cards in the deck of cards, and just average citizens who are bringing information.

We've been there for about four months. And David is spending a great deal of time learning the truth. And the truth -- we'll find out the truth.

Apparently dropping several thousand bombs on foreigners is quite a stress-reliever. Back in March, the White House was just couldn't be patient with the UN weapons inspectors out to find "the truth." A few shocks and awes later, "it's cool, baby, take your time finding those germ and nukes."

HUME: You go to the U.N. to make a speech, and your speech of a year ago became famous. It was the speech in which you challenged the U.N. to do something about Iraq. Now you go back, different setting.

What's your message this time?

BUSH: My message is, is that although some of you didn't agree with the actions we took, now let's work together to rebuild Iraq, rebuild Afghanistan, fight AIDS and hunger, deal with slavery, like sex slavery, and deal with proliferation.

Wait, what? When exactly did ending sex slavery leap to the top of American foreign policy priorities? I'm pretty sure that this is the first time any Bush administration official has uttered a single syllable about this.

BUSH: The German people are essentially pacifists because of their -- many still remember the experience of World War II. And they may not have seen Saddam Hussein as evil a person as a lot of other people have.

Yes. The Germans didn't want to invade Iraq not because the American argument for war didn't make sense, but because their evil Nazi past made it seem like Saddam Hussein wasn't such a bad guy. They're pacifists, and they're evil.

BUSH: The French made a calculated decision to try to lead a lot of nations against what we were trying to do. And that created a lot of angst here in America. I heard from a lot of people who said, "Look, we've got relatives who died on French soil to help with their security. Why would they not only resist what many Americans thought was necessary with Saddam Hussein, but lead a coalition?"

The French refusal to kill Iraqis is causing the familes of dead WWII vets angst. France should obviously be America's bitch for all eternity because we happened to free them from Nazi rule in WWII. Their disobedience is an insult. We should obviously follow through with the reasonable plan to unbury US veterans from France.

BUSH: My attitude about all that is our goals and ambitions are noble.

"The ends justify the means."

BUSH: We believe in peace.

"And we'll bomb whoever it takes to get it."

BUSH: We strongly believe in freedom.

"Just ask John Ashcroft."

BUSH: Where we see suffering we will help.

"Unless our country, or one of our allies, are causing it. In which case, we probably won't help."

BUSH: Jacques Chirac is a -- he's a strong-willed soul that -- he and I have had some pretty frank discussions before about issues. I will continue to remind him, though -- and he needs to hear this clearly from me, which he will -- that America is a good nation, genuinely good.

Okay, I've had enough. First of all, being good doesn't make you right. But more importantly, the U.S. is not a good nation. There are many good people who live here, but ANY examination of U.S. foreign policy shows a long history of brutal, self-serving action. As always, I suggest and demand that you read Killing Hope by William Blum if you want to know more about this sort of thing.

HUME: The refrain you keep hearing from others is a larger role for the U.N. You have consistently spoken of a vital role...

BUSH: A vital role, right.

HUME: ... a vital role for the U.N. Would you be willing to grant a larger role to the U.N. in the political developments there to make way for a resolution?

BUSH: Well, for example -- I'm not so sure we have to, for starters. But secondly, I do think it would be helpful to get the United Nations in to help write a constitution. I mean, they're good at that. Or, perhaps when an election starts, they'll oversee the election. That would be deemed a larger role.

A "larger" and "vital" role for the UN in Iraq means that they can help draw up a constitution and monitor elections. That's it. But in the meantime, the U.S.-selected Iraqi interim government is making sweeping decisions that will dominate the future of the nation. The UN doesn't get to help build the house, but they can help decorate the walls once the U.S. is satisfied.

HUME: What do you say to Americans who might have thought that war was won and that we were on our way to our objectives there, who now see this drip, drip of American casualties and deaths, daily attacks, sabotage, and so on, and might very well wonder if that was anticipated? What about that?

BUSH: Yes. Well, I think in my speech on the Abraham Lincoln, if they looked at the words, I said it's still a dangerous place. I declared the end of major military actions. By that I meant, you know, tight movement armored divisions and massive airstrikes, that we wouldn't need, you know, the USS Abraham Lincoln deployed there.

Yes. That happens all the time in war, presidents stage elaborate, celebratory events to announce the end of the movement of armored divisions. Yet another Bush "we didn't lie, we just mislead you" event.

HUME: What are you going to do about him?

BUSH: With Arafat?

HUME: Yes.

BUSH: Just convince the Palestinians if they want a Palestinian state, at least with American support, get an interlocutor that is truly committed to fighting terror.

Um, did Bush just subtlely threaten the Palestinian people to get rid ofArafat?

BUSH: In America, we believe in getting rid of people through a peaceful, orderly process.

As we can clearly see from our treatment of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Libya, death row inmates, etc.

HUME: On domestic issues, the economy, the complaint that's heard that this is a jobless recovery. And there is some validity to that. And there are a number of economists who have suggested that, in order for this economy, with the productivity that is now in it, to begin to create jobs in any number, you're going to need a lot faster growth rate than has been true in the past...

BUSH: First, there is a lag. There's an employment lag that generally accompanies a recovery. The economy gets going and after a while employment catches up. But this is an unusual marketplace in that, as you said, productivity is very high, which means growth has to be higher than productivity in order to add jobs. Or productivity has got to level off some and growth be robust.

I believe we're going to add jobs, because I believe this economy is strong.

So... productivity has to drop or growth has to increase for us to have more jobs. But we don't need to worry about either because the president isn't. Because he believes that we're going to get more jobs. Gotta love faith-based economics.

HUME: How soon do you expect that to start happening?

BUSH: Well, you know, I don't know. You ask these economists, they'll say, on the one hand here and the other hand here.

Jake bangs his head against table

BUSH: We've cut taxes, which has not only helped shallow a recession that we inherited, but has added momentum to growth. There are other things we can do. We need to make the tax cuts permanent.

We have some here in Washington saying, wait a minute, we don't need this tax relief plan. Well, any time there's uncertainty, it's hard for people to plan. And we need to make them permanent.

Good thinking. We'll make tax cuts for the rich permanent so that the American people can plan for the future-- plan to be poor.

BUSH: Now we have spent money, as you mentioned. My attitude is that when we put a youngster in harm's way, somebody who wears our nation's uniform in harm's way, he or she deserves the absolute best.

What a lying sack of shit. Every day I read reports about US soldiers being short on food, water, supplies, spare parts, etc. I've even read about soldiers' families having to pay for gun-cleaner because the soldiers are supplied with gun-cleaner that rusts their rifles. Possibly the best comprehensive article on this subject is here.

HUME: Is there a perception in the country, do you think, that we are a nation at war, or that we are a nation engaged in a long sort of twilight struggle with a evil or a problem that the world has been grappling with for a long time that we're only real kind of now getting on to, and regarded as a literal war is perhaps not as accurate as regarding it figuratively more like the war on poverty or the war on drugs, that sort of thing

"Twilight struggle with evil"? Who's writing Hume's questions?

BUSH: That's a great question. I believe it's a combination of both. First of all, a lot of Americans understand that we must never forget the lessons of September 11, 2001. And that is, there is an active enemy that has got the capacity to strike and kill.

This is amazing, and you see it again and again. In Bush's mind, this is the sole lesson of 9/11: that America has enemies that want to kill us. That's it.

BUSH: But there is a longer-term issue as well, and that is, how do you change attitudes? What is necessary to defeat that sentiment that causes people to be suiciders and just kill innocent people for the sake of religion or a fake religion? And my judgment on that is the best way to do it is to spread freedom.

I equate freedom and peace. And I believe America, given its position in the world, must use our power to promote freedom. And that's precisely what this administration is doing.

That's why the reconstruction of Iraq is essential for world peace. A free Iraq will be a significant dynamic in changing attitudes in the Middle East. A free Iraq will become a catalyst for a whole new thought process in a part of the world that has spawned terror.

And, so, yes, our Americans citizens, I think they're wise enough to realize there's still a threat, because it's only been two years since people flew our own airplanes into buildings killing thousands. And many Americans also understand what I know to be true: free societies are peaceful societies. And that's why I will continue to promote what I would call an active foreign policy.

I actually saw this segment on TV, and these thirty seconds already had me yelling. "What the fuck are you talking about?!" "Free societies are peaceful societies"?

HUME: How do you get your news?

BUSH: I get briefed by Andy Card and Condi in the morning. They come in and tell me. In all due respect, you've got a beautiful face and everything.

I glance at the headlines just to kind of a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves. But like Condoleezza, in her case, the national security adviser is getting her news directly from the participants on the world stage.

HUME: Has that been your practice since day one, or is that a practice that you've...

BUSH: Practice since day one.

HUME: Really?

BUSH: Yes. You know, look, I have great respect for the media. I mean, our society is a good, solid democracy because of a good, solid media. But I also understand that a lot of times there's opinions mixed in with news. And I...

HUME: I won't disagree with that, sir.

BUSH: I appreciate people's opinions, but I'm more interested in news. And the best way to get the news is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world.

Bush does not read the news. He lets his staff filter his news. His staff is objective. Might explain a few things.

Fair, balanced, waste of time.

Oooh

Bush is about to address the UN. Let the trainwreck begin.

[update]

Well, it wasn't a trainwreck. I don't think it will do much to convince any world leader to do anything, but it wasn't a "hey, you funny-speakin' foreigners need to obey the commands of your betters" rant either.

Gotta do some driving, I'll try to write about both the speech and the Fox/Bush interview later today.

Initial Response

Dear Brit Hume,

Enclosed is a bottle of Vaseline Intensive Care Lotion®.

I figure your hands must be chafed after jerking off the president for a solid hour.

Yours,

Jake Sexton.

September 22, 2003

Liberal Media

Those traitorous media jackals tear into the president at today's exclusive interview.

The first question:

BRIT HUME: Tell me one thing. How often do you talk to your dad?

I'm gonna read the whole thing now. You best believe I'll have more to say on it later.

September 17, 2003

Oil, Oil Everywhere...

Wow, here's a fun fact for ya.

Although the U.S. military is occupying a country with the world's second largest oil reserves, the constant sabotage of the oil infrastructure, is importing oil, gasoline, diesel and propane into Iraq to the tune of about $6 million a day.

Yet Another Non-Admission Admission

I'm just gonna outright steal this from Busy Busy Busy

Yes, check the caption.

"PRES. BUSH: NO EVIDENCE SADDAM INVOLVED IN 9/11"

The Transcript:

JOHN KING (CNN): Mr. President, Dr. Rice and Secretary Rumsfeld both said yesterday that they have seen no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with September 11th. Yet, on Meet the Press, Sunday, the Vice President said Iraq was a geographic base for the terrorists and he also said, I don't know, or we don't know, when asked if there was any involvement. Your critics say that this is some effort -- deliberate effort to blur the line and confuse people. How would you answer that?

THE PRESIDENT: We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th. What the Vice President said was, is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. And al Zarqawi, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. He's a man who is still running loose, involved with the poisons network, involved with Ansar al-Islam. There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.

Yes ladies and gentlemen, after over a year of intentionally smearing the facts about Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and 9/11 into a reach creamy broth of public confusion, a reporter dares to ask him to his face about it. And he admits that there's no connection between Saddam and 9/11.

And then he lies again about Saddam being in cahoots with Al Qaeda. My understanding is that this al Zarqawi guy that Bush mentions is indeed an Al Qaeda operative, and he was in Baghdad in 2001, at a hospital, having an operation. By that logic, any of you who have ever been to a hospital are in cahoots with the government of the country in which that hospital operated. This article actually claims a much more direct link between al Zarqawi and the government of Qatar, but you don't see us bombing them.

Sigh. Two steps forward, two steps back.

I am so tired of this bullshit. Lies lies lies lies lies. We've got a recall election in California, why can't we have one in Washington? You KNOW that even Gary Coleman would make a better president than this sociopath.

[edit]

Just for posterity, let's include this link of quotes of Bush & the gang trying to link Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

[/edit]

Quote for the Ages

"Sometimes I overstate for emphasis."

-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
September 17, 2003

Jesus, the balls on this guy.

In other words, "I lie when I think it will be useful."

At this point, any real journalists should be calling him on this daily. Every time he answers a question at a press conference or interview, it should be followed up by "Mr. Rumsfeld, is that true, or are you overstating for emphasis?"

That quote comes from a longer article (link above) about members of the Bush administration quietly changing their stories about the rationale for the Iraq war, doing their best to not admit that they were wrong. Kinda interesting.

September 16, 2003

Heavyweights

In this corner, weighing in at 180 pounds of hair gel and condescending smirk, the Photogenic Fascist, Pre-Emptive Pugilist, crying "havok" all the way from Chicago, Illinois--

Donald "Skeletor" Rumsfeld:

Rumsfeld Sees No Link Between Iraq, 9/11

And in this corner, weighing in at $36 million a year, the Neo-CON, the Hellion from Halliburton, coming all the way from [LOCATION CLASSIFIED]--

Dick "The Puppetmaster" Cheney:

Cheney Reasserts Debunked Iraq-Al Qaeda Links

This going to be one exciting match, folks, a fight to the death between these two governmental titans. There can be only one winner in this bout.

Unless.... wait, who's that coming into to replace the referee? I think it's... why yes! It's Ari Fleischer!

Everything's going to be okay folks, everything's going to be okay.

Sloganeering

Saw some of these sarcastic Bush campaign slogans for the 2004 election (via Mad Prophet), and I have one of my own:

Bush/Apocalypse '04

That'd make a nice bumper sticker, don't ya think?

September 15, 2003

AWOL

Sorry folks, no LMB radio show today. Instead, I'll be producing another radio show for KPFK, the Axis of Justice Radio Network, which ain't half bad. It's the guitarist from Audioslave/Rage Against the Machine and the singer from System of a Down spinning political tunes, discussing them, and interviewing a guest activist or artist. The show will probably air this coming Friday night.

I have some say in each show's playlist, but not as much as I'd like. But still, the show is a good way to get kids thinking about music, politics and current events, and hopefully encourage them to start doing something to fix the world around them.

September 11, 2003

Anniversary

Two years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and I haven't seen anything that sums things up as poignantly as this year-old comic strip.

September 10, 2003

Fallout

Well, you've probably already seen this, and it was only logical, but...

Study Finds WTC Fires Spewed Toxic Gases for Weeks

The burning ruins of the World Trade Center spewed toxic gases "like a chemical factory" for at least six weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks despite government assurances the air was safe, according to a study released on Wednesday.

It only makes sense, right? Two enormous skyscrapers, two jet planes, and all their contents, were essentially aerosolized. Fire, smoke, jet fuel, burning jet fuel, concrete, plaster, plastic, steel, aluminum, lead, zinc, copper, glass, and that's just the stuff I can think of of the top of my head, tossed into the atmosphere for the people nearby to inhale. And somewhere in that cloud, there was surely something that was unhealthy to breathe.

And as you probably remember, the EPA conceded to pressure from the National Security Agency to lie and say that the air at Ground Zero was safe. Bastards.

Re-Enactment

And now, a presentation by Very Very Happy Recent History of International Relations Analogy Theater:

"Hey, Dave, I think I smell gas coming from that house."

"Really? I don't."

"Yeah, definitely gas. We need to go in there."

"Dude, that's somebody's house. We can't just break in there. We should call the cops."

"Dave, you pussy! I'm going in! You can screw yourself."

"Okay."

[Smash! Crash! Shatter-tinkle-CRUNCH!]

"Hey, Roger, you okay in there? I'm still not smelling any gas."

"Screw you! It's in here! I'll find it!"

"Okay."

[Time passes. Flames shoot out of front window.]

"Um...Roger? Is that flame from the gas?"

"No. That...um...that was me. Hey! Listen. You have to come in here and help me put this fire out."

"What? Why?"

"It's your duty. I know we had some disagreements in the past, but you must now acknowledge your responsibility for what has happened here, and you must now help in the long and dangerous process of putting out this fire that I started while doing something which you advised me not to do."

"Um...have you found gas in there yet?"

"I'll get back to you on that one."

Genius.

Although personally, I it works better if you change "house" to "jewelry store", and after the line "Screw you! It's in here! I'll find it!", add "maybe it's back here, near this box of diamonds..."

September 09, 2003

Rumsfeld to America: "Shut Up, Bitch!"

Rumsfeld Strikes Back at Critics of U.S. Effort on Terror

Y'see, if you criticize the war on/occupation of Iraq, it makes the terrorists think that America might pull out of Iraq early, which will make the terrorists redouble their efforts.

Yes, I suppose that might happen.

And, it is also possible, to borrow the words of Wayne Campbell, that monkeys might fly out of my butt.

Jesus, those are some balls on Rumsfeld, aren't they? He leads the nation into an unnecessary war, utterly miscalculates its effects, is letting American soldiers get killed off every day, has no plan to end the violence or rebuild the country-- but it's all our fault because we said that maybe this battle was a bad idea.

Someone break out the tar and feathers.

September 07, 2003

Shorter Bush Address to the Nation

(With apologies to Elton Beard et. al)

"America is good, and our enemies are bad. Everything is going good in Iraq, as we fight our bad enemies. And our soldiers are good, and we hope our UN allies will be good. And we will make Iraq good too. Which will cost, incidentally, $87 billion."

[edit]

Oh well, Billmon's version is better:

"Iraq is now the central front in the global war against absolute evil, but it's not so important that we have to roll back any of my tax cuts, send more U.S. troops to Iraq or do anything else that might make swing voters slightly less likely to vote for me next year. Thank you and God Bless America."

[/edit]

The Sexing-Up Inquiry

Although most Americans have not paid it too much attention, the British government has faced a tremendous crisis with regards to the Iraq war, mostly in public claims that they had lied about, or at least exaggerated, the threat posed by Iraq to the world. When one of the sources of Britain's intelligence, Dr. David Kelly, committed suicide after alleging that the British intelligence dossier had indeed been "sexed up," an formal investigation was launched, led by the highly respected Lord James Hutton.

Phase One of the investigation is over, and the Guardian summarizes the findings.

It looks like Tony Blair may have dodged a bullet. One of the claims within the report was that Iraq could have WMD ready to deploy within 45 minutes. That claim is made within the foreward of the dossier, by Tony Blair himself. That claim is now thought to be complete bullshit, and the Blair government is accused of putting that line into the report knowing full well that it was bullshit. During the Hutton inquiry, Blair actually said "You already have this extraordinarily serious allegation which, if it were true, would mean we had behaved in the most disgraceful way and I would have to resign as prime minister." Meaning that if the inquiry came to that conclusion, Blair might be forced to resign by his own words.

But there's the bullet dodge. At present, no one can prove that the Blair government "knew" that the 45 minute claim was false. I think that they can even get away with it if they "knew" that the claim came from a dubious source and used it anyway. Did Blair make that bold vow above knowing that there was no such evidence? I couldn't say.

But still, Blair's approval rating is through the floor (37% approval, 54% disapproval, by the latest poll I could find), and I don't see how he could survive another election.

Read the whole Hutton Inquiry report here

September 06, 2003

E-Purgatory

Had some technical problems lately, and lost some email messages. If you've written me in the last 24 hours and I haven't responded, you might want to resend.

Thanks.

September 04, 2003

Bush on the Economy

Just caught the "NBC exclusive interview" with President Bush, and it really is astounding to hear the man speak.

Q: How come the economic stimulus is not translating into job creation?

I actually think it will translate into job creation. Look, my attitude is that so long as somebody wants to work and can't find a job, that means we got a problem. Rather than quantifying the numbers, all I want to do is create the conditions necessary so that all eligible people can find work. And I'm optimistic that that'll happen. I'm much more optimistic today than I was a year ago.

Okay. When asked why Bush's economic plans aren't creating jobs, Bush tells us that he thinks they will. When? Why? How? Nope, we don't get any of that. This answer is worse than useless to the public, and doesn't even answer the question.

Q: Is it entirely Congress' fault that the deficits are so big?

It's nobody's fault, in the sense that half the deficit was caused by a recession. When you have a recession, there's less revenues coming in the treasury, you know that. And about half of the projected deficits were caused by the recession. A quarter of the deficit was caused by the fact that I requested, and Congress spent, enough money to win the war on terror. And my attitude is that if we're gonna put people in harm's way, we need to spend the money necessary for them to succeed.

"It's nobody's fault"? That's a funny answer for a conservative. I thought they were the party of "personal responsibility."

And although I know it's probably just Bush's poor verbal skills, but he announces here that he and Congress have appropriated enough money to "win the war on terror." You heard it here first, the latest U.S. budget will fully fund the elimination of international terrorism. Or not...

Q: Will it really cost $50-80 billion for U.S. operations in Iraq?

I have not yet decided on a number. The way I do business, or the way I run the administration, is I say to those who are responsible for the actions in the field, what does it take to get the job done? How money will it require? We're at war. We're at war against some pretty tough characters who hate America. And therefore we need to put the money up in order to win this war. I wanna make sure that America is more secure. I will not forget the lessons of September the eleventh, 2001. And the lesson of September the eleventh is that an enemy does exist, and this great country will never cower in the face of terrorists. And that we have an obligation in this administration to do everything in our power to make sure that doesn't happen again.

Well historically speaking, the way Bush does business is to run the company into the ground, and then wait for his daddy's friends to bail it out (but maybe that's just me being bitter and cynical and accurate).

We are indeed in a war in Iraq (kinda). And in Afghanistan (kinda). But as always the "war on terror(ism)" is bullshit. Terrorism is a tactic, and declaring war on it is like declaring war on gunfire. Even if we interpret it to mean what we know Bush wants it to mean--fundamentalist Islamic organizations that plot acts of violence against American targets--declaring war on them doesn't make sense either. I've said all along that the the anti-terror effort should be waged as a campaign against a particular form of organized crime, not like a battle against the Redcoats in the Revolutionary War.

Let's also note that Bush manages to complete evade the question, not mentioning how much money he thinks it will cost to succeed in Iraq.

So in the eyes of George W. Bush, the lessons of 9/11 are:

- we have enemies
- America will never "cower in the face of terrorists"
- the Bush administration has an obligation to stop thousands of Americans from being killed by terrorists (again)

I would think that 1 and 3 would be obvious, and I'm not even sure what the hell 2 means.

Who the hell listens to this simian?

September 03, 2003

Perspective

A friend of mine works at the NPR radio station in Philadelphia, and they had a Nigerian correspondent visit them on sort of a student exchange thing. He has since returned to Nigeria, and has filed a report about his American experiences. One paragraph contained this priceless observation:

I attended a press conference of the Pennsylvania governor and a U.S. senator from Pennsylvania. The two politicians gave me a good picture of how U.S. politicians conduct themselves at a media briefing. The governor particularly impressed me by displaying exemplary humility. My American journalism colleagues had a field day throwing an artillery barrage of questions. But throughout the entire briefing, the governor had only three aides with him and no mobile police with large guns.

September 02, 2003

A Whole 'Nother Level

Josh Marshall of the Talking Points Memo website has an excellent article in this month's Washington Monthly, The Post-Modern President. I highly recommend reading it.

Where I simply expose and curse about political liars, Marshall has taken things to a higher level. He talks generally about presidential lying, and outlines the lying styles of recent past presidents. He then points out some of the many lies of the Bush administration, but explains how it's part of a larger lying style:

Bush and his administration, however, specialize in a particular form of deception: The confidently expressed, but currently undisprovable assertion. In his State of the Union address last January, the president claimed that Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda and a robust nuclear weapons program, and that therefore we needed to invade Iraq. Even at the time, many military and intelligence experts said that the president's assertions probably weren't true and were based on at best fragmentary evidence. But there was no way to know for sure unless we did what Bush wanted. When the president said on numerous occasions that his tax cuts--which were essentially long-term rate reductions for the wealthy--would spur growth without causing structural deficits, most experts, again, cried foul, pointing out that both past experience and accepted economic theory said otherwise. But in point of fact nobody could say for sure that maybe this time the cuts might not work.

[emphasis mine]

Marshall then explains how the Bush administration's unpopular political goal, a radical erosion of governmental power, necessitates a massive campaign of lies towards the American people. Since the American people don't want it, they've got to lie every which way to get us to accept policies which move us down that path.

Marshall then goes on to theorize that the Bush administration's members have a sort of collective paranoia, in which they don't always necessarily ignore all dissenting facts and opinions for their political goals, but because they believe that dissenting facts and opinions are being given to them by individuals with their own contrary agendas. In other words, when they receive a CIA memo that says that invading Iraq is a bad idea, they tend to believe that it is a biased, unreliable piece of information given to them by an agency that wants to maintain the status quo to maintain their own power.

Like I said, it's a good article, which provides two or three overarching frameworks for understanding the Bush administration. Food for thought. If I am a footsoldier in the war against lies, Marshall's piece makes him John Rambo.

August 31, 2003

Bush is Bad: The Evidence

A few weeks back, blogger Jared made a fake resume for George W. Bush, mentioning his many atrocities and failures as a leader.

Apparently people weren't believing her claims, so she assembled a huge pile of links to back up the 54 assertions made about Bush in the fake resume. A huge, ungodly amount of links.

Bookmark that page next time you want to back up your latest anti-Bush argument.

That's some nice work, Jared.

Rising Tide?

500,000 Iraqi Shiites Chant "Down with America"

That ain't good.

Happy Labor Day Weekend

Labor Day 2003: Nothing to Celebrate- "Over the past 30 years the productivity of the people whose brain and muscle creates the wealth of the world's richest nation has grown by 66 percent. But the wage of the typical employee – the median wage – has grown by only 7 percent... What these numbers mean is that while American labor has continued producing more goods and services, the vast majority of employees have barely shared at all in the fruits of their increasing productivity... As billionaire Warren Buffett said to ABC's Ted Koppel last month, 'If it's class warfare, my class is winning.'"

Four Myths About Low-Wage Work- "Fully 30 million Americans – one in four U.S. workers – earn $8.70 an hour or less, a rate that works out to $18,100 a year, which is the current official poverty level in the United States for a family of four. These low-wage jobs usually lack health care, child care, pensions and vacation benefits. Their working conditions are often grueling, dangerous, even humiliating. At the same time, more and more middle-class jobs are taking on many of these same characteristics, losing the security and benefits once taken for granted."

A Labor Day Call to Arms- drawling populist pundit Jim Hightower argues that Americans need to rally around labor and personal economic issues to revitalize democracy in the country.

The History of Labor Day and The Origins of Labor Day- near as I can figure, Labor Day was the brainchild of either carpenter and AFL co-founder Peter McGuire, or New Jersey machinist Matthew Maguire (historians disagree) back in the 1880s. The holiday was celebrated sporadically in several industrial cities across the country. In 1893, the American Railway Union went on a major strike against the Pullman company, which was laying off and cutting the pay of its workers. President Grover Cleveland ordered 12,000 U.S. troops to Pullman, Illinois to break the strike, several strikers were killed. In 1894, hoping to appease the labor movement in an election year, Cleveland made Labor Day a national holiday.

Cleveland lost the election.

Bombshell

The latest Time magazine (certainly not on my usual reading list) has an article about a new 9-11 book by Gerald Posner called Why America Slept. The article speaks at length about an interrogation of al Qaeda higher-up Abu Zubaydah back in 2002. Provided that Posner's facts are correct, there are two bombshells in a row here.

Posner elaborates in startling detail how U.S. interrogators used drugs—an unnamed "quick-on, quick-off" painkiller and Sodium Pentothal, the old movie truth serum—in a chemical version of reward and punishment to make Zubaydah talk. When questioning stalled, according to Posner, cia men flew Zubaydah to an Afghan complex fitted out as a fake Saudi jail chamber, where "two Arab-Americans, now with Special Forces," pretending to be Saudi inquisitors, used drugs and threats to scare him into more confessions.

Okay. This appears to be a story of American intelligence torturing a suspect. While most Western nations seem to find such behavior repellent ("if we torture criminals, that makes us as bad as the criminals!"), Americans have never cottoned much to that notion. Right and/or wrong, we've always favored pragmatism to, well, just about anything. Torturing people to stop others from being hurt only makes sense, as does killing bad guys to prevent them from hurting anyone else ever again. But I think that many of you would be a bit disturbed by the notion of American authorities torturing people.

But that bombshell is a molehill next to this mountain.

Yet when Zubaydah was confronted by the false Saudis, writes Posner, "his reaction was not fear, but utter relief." Happy to see them, he reeled off telephone numbers for a senior member of the royal family who would, said Zubaydah, "tell you what to do." The man at the other end would be Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz, a Westernized nephew of King Fahd's and a publisher better known as a racehorse owner. His horse War Emblem won the Kentucky Derby in 2002. To the amazement of the U.S., the numbers proved valid. When the fake inquisitors accused Zubaydah of lying, he responded with a 10-minute monologue laying out the Saudi-Pakistani-bin Laden triangle.

Zubaydah, writes Posner, said the Saudi connection ran through Prince Turki al-Faisal bin Abdul Aziz, the kingdom's longtime intelligence chief. Zubaydah said bin Laden "personally" told him of a 1991 meeting at which Turki agreed to let bin Laden leave Saudi Arabia and to provide him with secret funds as long as al-Qaeda refrained from promoting jihad in the kingdom. The Pakistani contact, high-ranking air force officer Mushaf Ali Mir, entered the equation, Zubaydah said, at a 1996 meeting in Pakistan also attended by Zubaydah. Bin Laden struck a deal with Mir, then in the military but tied closely to Islamists in Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (isi), to get protection, arms and supplies for al-Qaeda.

Okay, if this is true, that means that:

a) the nephew of the king of Saudi Arabia has a direct relationship with al Qaeda

b) the nephew of the king of Saudi Arabia has given money and weapons to al Qaeda

c) al Qaeda has direct connections with the Pakistani military and Pakistani intelligence (ISI)

and one of the following

d) al Qaeda was successfully bribed to not attack Saudi Arabia (which means that the are complete hypocrites, as the alleged reason for their existence is to free Saudi Arabia from the tyranny of the royal family and its American allies), or

e) this Saudi nephew tried to bribe al Qaeda, but al Qaeda lied and took his money.

I don't want to imply that either "the Saudi government" or the "Pakistani government" are responsible for 9-11 or international terrorism. I've never entirely understood how the Saudi government works, but it does seem that some of their members have supported terrorism, although possibly as a means to protect their own power and prevent jihad/terrorism/revolution in their own country. In Pakistan, the military, the ISI, and the government are all very much different factions with their own leaders and goals, so a military/ISI connection to terrorism doesn't necessarily mean that "the government" is tied to it at all.

Honestly, this is some of the first information I've actually heard about the inner workings of al Qaeda, ever. Maybe I should track down a copy of this book...

August 29, 2003

Bill O'Reilly Wants You to Shut Up

Go see for yourself

Plea

Dear Internet,

If you could stop sending me 50+ virused emails a day, that would be just great.

Thanks,

Jake Sexton.

August 28, 2003

Diabolical Genius

Well, it's one of those non-confession confessions.

In an article in today's LA Times, "senior intelligence officials" are admitting that maybe some of Iraqi defectors to the U.S. might have been lying to them about Iraq's WMDs. Not in the way you think, though. While everything resembling history and fact tells us that these defectors were probably trying to tell the Bush administration what it wanted to hear (sometimes choreographed by the Iraqi National Congress, the group of Iraqi exiles that hoped to take power if Saddam was overthrown), this article tells us that perhaps these lying defectors who were actually double agents for Saddam.

Because if America thought that Iraq had these weapons, then the U.S. would invade Iraq, killing Saddam Hussein, or at least removing him from power. Which would play right into Saddam Hussein's hands... somehow.

Y'see, that's how cunning and evil Saddam Hussein is! He goes so far out of the way to trick us, that he actually does things that are bad for him and good for his enemies! That bastard!

I suppose these claims are just a lame way of trying to keep the moral high ground while admitting that everything the pro-war administration had been telling us for a year was bullshit.

Seriously, if you're trotting out this excuse, you're pathetic, and if you believe it, you're an idiot.

August 27, 2003

You Have the Right to Worship Jesus

Perhaps you've heard about this controversy regarding a stone sculpture of the Ten Commandments and an Alabama courthouse. The statue was put there in the dead of night by Alabama chief justice Roy Moore almost 2 years ago. The courts have now decided that the statue cannot stay there, and today had the statue removed.

Really, this does not seem to be an issue of church and state to me. It seems to be an issue of "do I have a right as a judge to take my own personal posession and have in permanently installed on public property?" In a way, Moore was stealing a square of public land for his own use. Does he have that right? Probably not.

But it's always astounding to see a segment of America's Christian population which seems to get off on the idea that they are being persecuted by the rest of mankind. Like 80-90% of Americans are Christians. Who exactly is oppressing them, the Hindus?

Many bloggers are linking to this bit of craziness, and I'll be no exception:

An irate man initiated the "Put it back!" chorus after the monument was wheeled away from the rotunda.

"Get your hands off our God, God haters!" yelled the wildly gesturing, red-faced man.

Um. A rock carved with the image of the Ten Commandments is itself the embodiment of God? The irony meter jumps off the scale when we bother remembering what the first two of those Ten Commandments say:

I. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

II. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems to me that these Christians have made this carved stone into a graven image, and are worshipping and serving it rather than their god. But that's just me.

And while we're on the topic, our pal Geov Parrish speculates that perhaps Roy Moore is using the passion of these Christian faithful to launch a political career.

So what will happen to the monument? Some folks have predictions.

It's an interesting democratic question, the church and state thing. Our Constitution forbids the government from favoring any particular religion, but what if the majority of Americans truly wanted to have a Christian government? What then?

All I know is that when we look at existing theocracies, it never looks good. And on a personal level, since all religion strikes me as crazy, I'd rather not be ruled by any particular religious dogma.

News Quilt

Bush’s party to raise funds via Noida, Gurgaon- American rednecks are going to hit the roof about this one. The U.S. Republican party has outsourced its telemarketing fundraising efforts. To India. To those of you on the Democratic hit squad, here's some ammo. Have a ball.

The Mendacity Index: Which president told the biggest whoppers?- a quasi-scientific look at which American presidents lied the most. Take a guess at who's #1.

Abercrombie & Fitch Claims 22 Ownership- clothing company Abercrombie & Fitch claims that it has the exclusive right to use the number 22 in its clothing designs and advertising. Someone on A&F's legal staff is going to walk home from court with a judge's boot up their ass.

How liberals look from the middle of the road- the debut column of former "most trusted man in America," former news anchor Walter Cronkite. Not great, but maybe something to keep an eye on.

Final Frontier

When I was a kid, I remember seeing a Superfriends cartoon that had an impact on me. It was a lousy version of the cartoon, one of those inspired by Scooby Doo's success to add in animal capering and two young detectives (who worked with Batman and Superman despite a complete lack of special skills or powers).

Anyhow, it's about some scientist ("Dr. Rebos") who is replacing astronauts with androids as part of some scheme to end the space program. When he is confronted by the superheroes, he tells them that he has no problem with space travel itself, but that there are so many problems here on Earth, that all that space money should be spent on solving Earth problems.

I don't remember Wonder Woman or Aquaman offering any sort of rebuttal to the man's very reasonable argument, they just turned him over to the police. That always stuck with me.

And in the wake of this report about the Columbia space disaster...

Does anyone have a rebuttal for the android-makin', space-program hatin' Dr. Rebos?

Loons

Best news story of the week

On October 9, there is an election scheduled for town councilmember for the Crouch Hill ward in Banbury, UK. So far, a man named Johnny Wood is the only candidate running. Unless someone else registers as a candidate by September 12, Mr. Wood automatically wins the election.

Mr. Wood is a member of the Monster Raving Loony Party. No, really.

Mr. Wood also claims to be a half-vampire.

Heh.

And you guys think California politics are crazy?

[Thanks to Candice]

August 26, 2003

Meet the New Boss...

U.S. Recruiting Hussein's Spies- umm... So Saddam's secret police, the ones who were carrying out the dictator's oppression, the U.S. is putting them on the payroll now? Good thinking. (Anyone remember Project Paperclip?)

Jesus, the article says that these intelligence operatives will "help identify resistance to American forces." Y'know what Saddam Hussein used these intelligence operatives to do? Help identify resistance to Ba'ath forces.

Families Live in Fear of Midnight Call by US Patrols- "In recent weeks there have been increasing reports of Iraqi men, women and even children being dragged from their homes at night by American patrols, or snatched off the streets and taken, hooded and manacled, to prison camps around the capital... the Americans have also set up another detention camp in the grounds of the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, west of Baghdad. Many thousands of Iraqis were taken there during the Saddam years and never seen again."

Apparently we're shifting from Operation Iraqi Freedom and into Operation Boot Stamping on an Iraqi Face Forever.

Trilogy

Due to our overwhelming success in Afghanistan--

Operating in growing numbers, the Taliban and their allies have succeeded in destabilizing large parts of Afghanistan and creating conditions that could undermine the U.S. military and central government.

and Iraq--

Iraq Could Become U.S.'s West Bank and Gaza

George W. Bush announced that we shall continue on. "We are on the offensive against terror, and we will stay on the offensive against terror... We will not wait for known enemies to strike us again."

What could the president possibly mean?

U.S. Set to Take a Hard Line in Talks on Korean Arms

Oh yeah. That.

August 24, 2003

Kinda Sad

It was one of those phone calls that started off as a surprise, but quickly became as expected as the sunrise.

I hadn't talked to Lee in some years. But the call came tonight, Louie had talked to Tony who'd talked to Jenny who'd talked to Lee's mom... and with a build-up like that, I knew what was coming.

Apparently the funeral had been three weeks ago.

My first question probably summed it all up. "He killed himself?" Yes, he had. While it was sad to hear, it was not at all a surprise.

Lee had been my neighbor in the dorms one year at UCLA, and then one of my roommates briefly in my final year at the school.

Lee was a crazy person.

It took me a while to get a grasp on the fellow. He seemed to perpetually play the straight man. He'd say the most ridiculous things in his trademark monotone, and you didn't know if he was joking or being serious. A pale Jewish Jerseyite with frizzy hair. He was a walking Twilight Zone encyclopedia. He loved Pink Floyd. And Phish. And Ralph Macchio. I remember he got upset one time after he approached me to settle a nauseatingly Gen-X debate, "no Lee, I think that if Shaft ever fought Sho' Nuff from 'The Last Dragon,' that Shaft would win."

It was he who introduced our dorm clique to the musical careers of William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy. Lee loved these records. Was it an ironic love? I never could tell. But he did seem to love his small turtle, Fred. When the dorm authorities came by, he had to hide her in the closet.

The year I moved out of the dorms, things seemed to go pretty well for Lee. He grew his hair out into a cool fro, made some wardrobe changes, and managed to land a girlfriend who could have appeared in Playboy. She wasn't the brightest thing (I swear one time I actually watched my words go over her head), but she was sweet, and it's always nice to see a fellow geek carve out a happy place in the world.

Months passed, and they eventually broke up... These things frequently come in groups, and at roughly the same time, Lee, Tony and I all suddenly found ourselves profoundly depressed and profoundly single. I gave a sad radio monologue one evening saying how you never think about this part when the relationship begins, you never say "will the pain I feel at the end be worth the good feelings I have before that?" Sitting on a bench outside the dorms the next night, Lee repeated my words back to me, and agreed with the sentiment. "If I'd known it would hurt this bad, I never would have gotten involved in the first place."

It was probably another four or five months before Lee tried to kill himself. Pills and vodka. Partway through, though, he decided he didn't want to go through with it, and stumbled into the dorm hallway where he could be found and rescued. Sometime after that, Lee was diagnosed as having some pretty intense clinical depression. "Bipolar II", I believe, which means something like "you're manic depressive, but without the manic."

They put him on some powerful medication which had some powerful side effects.

The next year, five of us from the dorms moved into a three bedroom apartment in Westwood. I've never felt I belonged anywhere socially in my whole life, but this was the closest I'd ever felt to fitting in someplace. Lee was one of the five, ready to give school the old college try.

He lasted about two weeks. His medication was wreaking havok on his body; he could barely function. His mom came down to take him back home, up north someplace. We all told him goodbye and wished him good health. I never saw him again.

I'd heard a bit from him over time. He was writing poetry. He was getting published. Maybe he'd come back down to finish school, but no one really believed that. And it seems that a few weeks ago, he again decided that he couldn't take the pain.

I'm not crying. I'm not tearing my hair in grief. I'm just sad. Lee was a good guy. He was fun to be with. He was really weird. But definitely the sort of guy that everyone would agree didn't deserve the trials and trouble that he ended up with.

G'bye, Lee.

If any of you find yourselves with a pet turtle someday, maybe I can suggest a name for it.

August 22, 2003

Creepfest 2003

Write a Story, Go to Jail- some American teens are facing criminal charges for writing realistic violent fiction. Because if a kid is writing stories about shooting the teacher who gave him detention, he obviously is going to kill her in real life, and arresting that kid saves the day. That's why I'm glad that Edgar Allen Poe was arrested back in the 1840s, or he surely would have tortured people with razor-sharp pendulums, or walled them up inside musty wine cellars.

Inside the Resistance- Australian reporter interviews two alleged members of the Iraqi resistance, men fighting U.S. troops guerrilla-style in hopes of driving out the Americans in the name of self-determination and Islam.

VICTORY ACT (.pdf)- alleged draft of the "Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations Act of 2003" or the "VICTORY Act" (well, VICTO Act, if we want to me acronymically correct). It's a proposed Congressional bill to give law enforcement more powers to go after "narcoterrorists" (narcoterrorists are drug dealers who give money to terrorist organizations). I skimmed through this bill with my limited understanding of legalese, but it seems to me that this bill is all about drug dealers, with a bit thrown in about terrorism to gain the support of "patriotic" folks. The only part that really deals with narcoterrorism is at the beginning. Not sure why narcoterrorism needs to be a new crime; selling drugs is illegal, and giving money to terrorists is illegal. We need a new crime to describe that? If the need to identify hybrid crime is so important, I propose we invent the new crime of "speedabuse," for people who molest children while driving their cars above the posted speed limit.

The remainder of the bill is mainly about money laundering (including the baffling concept of "reverse money laundering"), and specifics about seizing property and assets from drug dealers and money launderers. The bill also ups the penalties for drug offenses that involve violent acts or large quantities of drugs, and potentially (if I read it right) limits penalties for non-violent drug offenders that plead guilty and cooperate with police. There was also something crazy in there about the Endangered Species Act and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. I think the idea was that if the money laundering could somehow be tied to activities that damaged the natural environment or cultural resources, that the money launderers could be charged with violating those acts as well.

And the last section is about increasing police ability to wiretap and obtain subpoenas.

It's an 89 page document, feel free to read it yourself and correct me if I'm wrong.

[update]

ABC News takes a crack at the VICTO Act

[/update]

August 21, 2003

Time Well Spent

I am going to this tonight.

Should be cool.

The Harassinator

Jeez. I can't verify any part of this article, but if even half of it is true, Arnold Schwarzenegger is truly a scumbag. The article was originally published in the movie magazine Premeire in March 2001, which gives it some credibility.

Arnold the Barbarian

The author of the article alleges that Schwarzenegger has a long history of sexual harassment (if not outright abuse), infidelity (which I only care about because he publicly espouses "family values"), and humiliating the people who work under him.

Again, I don't know if anything in this article is true or not. But the fact that it was dangerous story printed by a major magazine, and they were not sued back to the Stone Age implies that there's some truth there.

August 20, 2003

News Cauldron

Wow, haven't done an entry like this in a long time.

Ashcroft Begins Patriot Act Tour- Attorney General John Ashcroft is out campaigning to convince America that the USA PATRIOT Act is not an unconstitutional theft of our civil liberties. Hope Ari Fleischer's writing his material, cuz this job will require a tremendous amount of lying.

Myth and Denial in the War Against Terrorism- "Killing Hope" author William Blum examines the popular myth that "terrorists just hate America and democracy", and its ramifications.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, FISCAL CONSERVATIVE?- Schwarzenegger claims to want to save California from its budget crisis, but his last six movies have lost hundreds of millions of dollars. Here's a list of em. Note: the article is slightly misleading. It lists Arnold's last six movies, and then skips over one successful movie to focus on another failure. The list skips "Eraser", which actually did fairly well.

Flood the Zone Fridays, brought to you by Karl Rove- blogger Ezra Klein discovers that the Bush campaign website GeorgeWBush.com has an Action Center which makes it easy to mass mail your local media outlets and spread the sociopathically conservative agenda. Except that it looks like you can send any old message you like, not just the ones that the Bush team wants you to send... Klein recommends hijacking the Action Center every Friday to combat Bush. Sounds good for a laugh.

Cops Against the Drug War- police officers speak out against the insanity of America's drug policies.

The Sperminator- a cheap, effective, long-lasting birth control method for men? Sounds promising. Near as I can figure, a fellow can get a single $22 injection that will kill all sperm leaving his body for up to 10 years (and can have the process reversed with another injection). The downside is that the injection must be made into the vas deferens inside the guy's scrotum. Don't know if this procedure is coming to a drug store near you anytime soon.

Why the UN is a target- a question I've been asking myself. Why did terrorists blow up the UN building in Baghdad? This article proposes that maybe it was blown up by Iraqis angry that just days earlier that the UN had welcomed the rather puppet-ish Iraqi Governing Council into its ranks. Of course, this is just one theory among many.

The Album Is Played Out- not a good article, but a significant milestone. MTV finally feels that low sales and file-trading might be the death knell for "the album." In other words, that bands and record labels might have to focus on creating and selling individual songs, instead of "song packages" like albums (which Chuck D once described as "buy three good songs, get four bad ones free").

August 19, 2003

More Historical Revisionism

Many bloggers are calling attention to this story.

When George W. gave his Iraq victory speech on that aircraft carrier back in May, the text of the speech was posted on the White House website with the title "President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended". In recent days, the "President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended" [emphasis mine].

It's not that big a deal, unless you like comparing real life to the works of George Orwell. Which some of you probably do.

Which reminds me. All day I've had this recurring thought about a bastardized movie based on Orwell's "Animal Farm". The new movie would of course be by Disney.

Snowball'd be voiced by Tom Hanks, Napoleon by Brad Pitt. Some hyperactive humorous character, maybe a duck, would be added in and voiced by Eddie Murphy. Some female pig character would also be added of course, as part of a love triangle between the main characters, voiced by Cameron Diaz, or J.Lo. The conflict between the two leading pigs would not be about ideology or control, but about their competition over the fair swine. The movie's plot would match the book's for a while, up until the point where Napoleon is about to drive his rival Snowball off the farm. At that point, the humans would return. Instead of the following the book's plot of Napoleon's power grab and the farm's descent into fascist oppression, the two rival pigs would realize that they have to work together to take on the common foe. The humans, lead by Jon Lithgow, would be driven away by the united barnyard, and all the farm animals would live happily ever after. Just imagine the McDonald's Happy Meals to go with that.

Color Blindsided

California's ballot initiative, Proposition 54, the "Racial Privacy Initiative." It's going to be on the same ballot as the well-known Recall issue, on October 7.

At its core, Prop 54 makes it illegal for the state to collect data on Californians' race, ethnicity, or national origins. The proponents of 54 claim that the RPI will put an end to racial preferences in the state, and save California over $10 million a year. The opponents of 54 point out that if we stop collecting data about race, there is no way to assess whether or not different racial groups are being treated fairly or are being discriminated against.

I heard RPI author Ward Connerly interviewed by Tavis Smiley on the radio about this issue. It was painful to listen to, but I forced myself. Connerly's argument was basically that the way race data is collected on forms is really inaccurate. Therefore, instead of trying to improve or update these data collection methods, the state of California must stop trying to do so. Can't say that I found the argument real convincing. When Smiley tried to propose the "better methods" idea instead of the RPI idea, Connerly simply dodged and dodged and dodged.

It always boggles my mind. Many people talk about wanting a colorblind society, but they seem to think that the way to achieve it is by pretending really hard that there is no such thing as race. Of course race doesn't exist in any empirical, scientific sense, only in a social sense. If all people managed to have the concept of race erased from their minds, there would be no racism. But we can't do that. In reality, all we can do is pretend that we have forgotten the concept of race. And while we're all pretending really hard, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Latinos and Native Americans are going to keep facing the disprorportionate levels of poverty, unemployment, incarceration, and more.

Seems to me like paying attention and trying to combat the damage that racism causes is a better way to deal with racism, than to pretend our way to utopia.

[edit]

The only problem with this entry is that I do not at any point refer to Ward Connerly as a "jerkass." I regret the error.

[/edit]

August 17, 2003

Blast from the Past

Was just looking through some of the LMB archives, and ran across this link that I think might be worth another look.

Over 200 Pictures from 133 [anti-war] Protests around the World on February 15/16, 2003

Jesus Is Such a Sell-Out

"The McDonald's fast-food chain was an official sponsor of Pope John Paul II's "pray-in" held in May at a Madrid airport. Some 500,000 attendees were given backpacks of papal goodies that included vouchers for food from McDonald's."

August 15, 2003

Faster Than a Rolling Blackout

Wow, investigative journalist Greg Palast has already fired off an article about the blackout that darkened a large chunk of North America yesterday.

Power Outage Traced to a Dim Bulb in the White House

It's too soon for me to be able to tell how much of the article is accurate and relevant. Palast's essential argument is that in recent times, the New York legislature "relieved ... Niagara Mohawk [the company responsible for the part of the electrical grid that failed] of the expensive obligation to properly fund the maintenance of the grid system," and adds that NiMo cut their staff and their maintenance budget. I can't verify any of that, as yet.

Palast's article is more about the wave of energy deregulation that swept the nation--Enron, California and the like-- and places this impressive blackout within that framework. Is deregulation the culprit here? Corporate greed? Or was it simply a fluke, or the fault of some poorly designed equipment? Dunno, but the article above is some food for thought.

August 13, 2003

Who Wants to Make Me a Logo?

I've slowly got a site re-design in the works, one that could probably be finished a lot more quickly if I buckled down.

But I'd like to have a new logo for it. That logo up top I created in like 30 minutes fumbling around in Photoshop like a blind monkey. I'm kinda proud of it, but it certainly isn't what I set out to make.

So I'm looking for folks who are skilled in computer graphics to make me a new one.

If you've got the time and inclination to help me out, please drop me a line and I'll write you with my ideas.

Thanks much.

August 12, 2003

Suing Yourself in the Foot

On Monday, Fox News announced that they were going to sue humorist Al Franken over the title of his new book. The book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right," has a title which contains the phrase "fair and balanced", which has apparently been a Fox/News Corp. trademark since 1995 (If you have used the phrase yourself since the, kindly make out a check to Rupert Murdoch).

On Tuesday, the book's jumped at least 50 places on the Amazon.com bestseller list, all the way to #1.

Did the publicity surrounding the lawsuit drive this leap in sales? I dunno, I just report, you decide.

[edit]

I'm aware that many bloggers are adding "fair and balanced" to their website title as a form of protest, or raising awareness about the goofy lawsuit or something. But at this point, I think it would have the same effect to add "Buy Al Franken's Book," and I really don't feel like doing that.

[/edit]

Jake vs. Low Female Self-Esteem

On my radio show today, I gave a rambling monologue about women and men, at one point re-assuring women that their breasts are okay. I know many a woman who is insecure about the size or shape of her breasts, and whether or not the guys will like them. So I set the matter straight, that while men may like some breasts more than others, that very rarely will a fellow find any set of breasts to be unappealing. So ladies, rest easy.

But now, following that same thematic arc of battling low self-esteem, I present any insecure ladies with this link.

It's a series of swimsuit magazine-quality photographs of a sexy young woman. But these photos have been retouched, and when you wave your cursor over the photo, you see it in its original form. At no point does this woman look bad, but she looks a lot more "real" in the un-retouched form. But unfortunately, the ladies of today are forced to compare themselves to these quasi-fictional images, women who do not really exist.

To the guys, don't worry, I'll find some way to raise our self-esteems later.

August 11, 2003

Historical Re-Revisionism

Last week, Al Gore gave a surprisingly decent speech in which he (among other things) implied that the Bush administration "gave false impressions" about a number of things which would make Americans supportive of a war in Iraq. Conservative pundits then apparently saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone: smear Gore and support the Iraq war. By attacking Gore's claims, they could brand him a lying trickster, and by pretending that the warhawks hadn't made half of the wacky accusations that they did in fact make, they could deflect criticism about the Iraq war.

The most egregious attempt was when pundit Fred Barnes actually tried to claim that George W. Bush had never claimed that there were links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, but in fact that Bush had "consistently" said "exactly the opposite!"

So before this goes too far, let's make sure that everyone bookmarks this page. It's a pretty extensive list of quotes from Bush administration officials about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorism. They say quite clearly on numerous occasions that there are links between Saddam and al Qaeda, that Iraq has a nuclear program, that it can deploy chemical weapons, etc.

And while we're at it, let's link to this Washington Post article which outlines "a pattern in which President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their subordinates -- in public and behind the scenes -- made allegations depicting Iraq's nuclear weapons program as more active, more certain and more imminent in its threat than the data they had would support."

And this AP article debunking Colin Powell's UN presentation.

Again, the bottom line here is that the Bush administration, for a variety of reasons, decided to invade Iraq and then formed a massive PR campaign to convince foreign leaders, Congress, and the American people that there was a good reason to do so. Debating whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or whether or not Saddam Hussein had ties to Osama bin Laden is to allow yourself to be sidetracked.

Operation Ironic Acronym

Somebody at the Pentagon with a sense of humor is going to get fired.

US Special Forces have begun a new mission to hunt down Saddam loyalists.

It's called (I'm not making this up) Operation Ivy Lightning.

Which, when abbreviated, is O.I.L.

August 07, 2003

A Number That Will Live in Infamy

13303

On my radio show Monday, I made reference to Executive Order 13303. It was an act signed into law by George W. Bush back in May 2003 that really got very little attention, but is pretty damn galling in its evil scope.

Unless licensed or otherwise authorized pursuant to this order, any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void, with respect to the following: (a) the Development Fund for Iraq, and (b) all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons.

Part A is reasonable. It protects the Development Fund for Iraq from any lawsuits or criminal judgements. The DFI is oil money that will (allegedly) go to help the people of Iraq. Protecting it isn't necessarily a bad idea.

But Part B... it makes it so that any oil company operating in Iraq (or even marketing oil pumped from Iraq) is above the law. American law, Iraqi law, all law.

This story was, as far as I know, broken by the Sustainable Energy & Economy Network (SEEN), so props to them. The story then spread to lefty outlets like Democracy Now! and Common Dreams. Yet no major news agency had touched it by early August, despite the fact that EO 13303 was established back in May.

But one of the listeners of my Kill Radio show works for CNN...

He researched the issue a bit further, brought it to the attention of at least five different department heads at CNN, then sent copies of his info to a couple of good British newspapers, and the office of a democratic senator.

This morning, I saw an article about 13303 in the LA Times (front page, below the fold, continued deep inside section A), and my listener told me that it was to be a topic of discussion on CNN's Crossfire debate show this evening. The LAT story quotes a Treasury Dept. official who claims that the scope of the EO will be restricted once the Dept. passes some new regulations, but he didn't exactly say what those regulations would be.

And that might be evidence that in this media-crazy world of ours, maybe one person can make a difference. Or, it might not be.

What I do know is that that Bush executive order is bullshit, and I'd like everyone to know about it.

Numerology

Woo-hoo! This blog now has exactly 1984 comments!

[insert cool Orwell quote here]

August 06, 2003

Garrick Out of Prison!

Yay! Garrick and the other peace activists have been released and not deported. However one condition of their release was that they stay out of Gaza and the West Bank.

Garrick was treated for his injuries. He indeed had two fractured ribs from kicks by Israeli soldiers, but it sounds like he's doing fine now.

August 05, 2003

Garrick in Prison!

Just received at email about our pal Garrick, an LA peace activist in Palestine.

The short version is that Garrick was attacked by Israeli soldiers and then arrested. He faces a type of trial in which he will most likely be deported and shipped back to the United States. The email lists some ways you can take action to get Garrick out of jail but keep him in Israel/Occupied Territories so he can continue his activism. Here is that email:

Free Garrick Ruiz Without Deportation!

Los Angeles Area Contact: Matt Horton (323) 341-6716

Note: *International Press Release Follows Local Press Release*

At 8am today (Palestinian time), Los Angeles native Garrick Ruiz was arrested along with 45 human rights activists who were trying to stop Israel's "Apartheid Wall" in the Ma'sha area near the Palestinian City of Qalqiliyah (Kal-Key-Lee-Ah).

Within 5 minutes of arriving at the Peace Camp in Ma'sha, Garrick was grabbed by three soldiers while another kicked him is his ribs. At 10am, the activists (Palestinian, Israeli and International), were taken to the Ariel Settlement Prison, where they are currently being held.

Garrick has since been able to see an army doctor, but has not recieved medical care for his possible broken ribs.

The activists are currently undergoing individual hearings by an officer from the Israeli ministry of affairs who has the power to order deportations. The activists are not permitted contact or the presence of lawyers in these hearings.

The mass detention of the 45 activists follows another incident in which a peace camp blocking the wall was attacked by the Israeli army and many activists were shot with rubber coated steel bullets and one American activist was grazed by a live round.

ACTION ALERT:

Please flood the Ministry of Interior with phone calls asking that ALL the detainees be released. Let them know that you are watching and protest the Israeli government's attempts to deport peace activists witnessing and trying to prevent abuses against Palestinian human rights.

You can phone the Ministry of Interior at:
011 972 2 670 1648

You can also flood Ariel prison with calls demanding the immediate release of all detainees. The best numbers to call are the officers but if they are unreachable, please call the General Info line.

Ariel Prison General Info:
011 972 3 906 5444

Ariel Chief of Police
011 972 3 906 5416

Prison Officer Haim Fadlan:
011 972 3 906 5406

The email I got then continued with the "international press release."

** OVER 45 HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS DETAINED TODAY, 8/5/03 **

DETAINEES ARE FROM PALESTINE, ISRAEL, U.S., U.K., ITALY, SWEDEN,
FRANCE, DENMARK, JAPAN, IRELAND, GERMANY AND CANADA

[Occupied West Bank] At approximately 7am this morning, Palestinian, Israeli, and international human rights activists were detained while attempting to block the demolition of part of a Palestinian family's home, near the village of Mas'ha. The building had been slated for demolition by the Israeli Military because it lay in the path of the Apartheid Wall that Israel is building on occupied Palestinian land.

The peace activists were violently thrown on busses by Israeli soldiers and border police. Two internationals were beaten; one, a US citizen from Los Angeles, was repeatedly kicked in the stomach and may have sustained broken ribs. Immediately, a Caterpillar bulldozer moved in to demolish part of the family home (an animal shed attached to the home).

Though it's difficult to communicate with the detainees and we are unsure of the final numbers, the detainees we know of are from the following countries:

11 US
1 Canada
1 Japan
6 UK
1 Ireland
4 Sweden
1 Denmark
8 Italian
2 France
5 Israel
3 Palestinians

Detainees are being held at Ariel Prison in the illegal settlement of Ariel in the occupied West Bank. One Palestinian and one Italian have been put under formal arrest.

The others, the Israeli Ministry of Interior is currently deciding what they want to do with.

One option is for them to deport the internationals. To our knowledge, the Ministry of Interior has not yet issued a decision.

Please flood the Ministry of Interior with phone calls from around the world, asking that ALL the detainees be released. Let them know that you are watching and protest the Israeli government's attempts to deport peace activists witnessing and trying to prevent abuses against Palestinian human rights.

You can phone the Ministry of Interior at:
011 972 2 670 1648

You can also flood Ariel prison with calls demanding the immediate release of all detainees. The best numbers to call are the officers but if they are unreachable, please call the General Info line.

Ariel Prison General Info:
011 972 3 906 5444

Ariel Chief of Police
011 972 3 906 5416

Prison Officer Haim Fadlan:
011 972 3 906 5406

For some photos, please see:

http://www.palsolidarity.org/pictures/PHOTOS_5Aug03_09_19_35Qalqiliaism.htm

http://www.palsolidarity.org/pictures/PHOTOS_5Aug03_10_02_37Qalqiliamas`ha2.htm

For video footage, Reuters (011 972-2-5370502) and still photos from freelance photographer Eyal Ofer (011 972-55-369365 www.pbase.com/yalop/masha ). [Ofer got closer than other journalists, and was shortly arrested himself.]

For further information, contact the ISM media office on 011 972 2 277 4602,

You can also email the ISM office at info@palsolidarity.org, but re sponses to email may be slower.

INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY MOVEMENT www.palsolidarity.org

Update on Mas'ha activities

Mas'ha, Occupied Palestine, August 3, 2003

A One-Family Bantustan Must Not Be Allowed

Today Palestinians, along with 50 internationals and 10 Israeli activists prevented the demolition of Palestinian property and blocked the construction of the Apartheid Wall in front of Hani A'amer's house. He and his family live in the village of Mas'ha, where for months Palestinians, Israelis and Internationals have been holding an Anti-Wall camp.

If the wall is completed as planned, Hani, Munira and their 6 children will be imprisoned between the Apartheid Wall and the fence of the illegal Elkana settlement. They will only be able to leave the house three times a day under the control of security guards, virtual prisoners on their own land.

Bulldozers began construction on the Wall at approximately7am about 20m from the house. The Israeli Military and police were called in to evict the activists. The Palestinians, Internationals and Israelis linked arms around the property as the owner of the house, representatives of the National Committee against the Wall, the ISM, IWPS, and Israeli peace organizations all held a press conference for the media who were covering the action.

Because the activists and the media were there to protect the family, construction was halted for the day, and the contractor informed the protestors there will be no work on the site of Hani A'amer's house for the next two months.

However, the activists have pledged to keep a presence in the Mas'ha peace camp erected in front of the house and hold the contractor to his promise. They want to insure that there is no further attempt to continue the path of the Wall.

Protesters will demand a written guarantee from the Israeli Defense Ministry that the house will not be cut off from its village. They are also demanding that Israeli Military immediately repair the water pipes of the house damaged by the construction.

They have given the authorities until Wednesday to respond, then they will do further action.

This camp is just one part of the campaign against the Apartheid Wall that demands:

Stopping the wall construction and demolishing the current Apartheid Wall

Repairing and compensating for the damage caused

Returning confiscated land

Dismantling the settlements

The end of the occupation

Contact Maria 055 376 204
Saif 055 829 680

August 04, 2003

Immunity Addiction

The UN Security Council voted this weekend to send a "Nigerian-led West African peacekeeping" team into Liberia.

It turns out that the vote was passed 12-0, with three countries abstaining. Why did these countries abstain? Because they were uncomfortable with some of the language in the resolution that had been introduced by the United States:

The Security Council... Decides that current or former officials or personnel from a contributing State, which is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of that contributing State for all alleged acts or omissions arising out of or related to the Multinational Force or United Nations stabilization force in Liberia, unless such exclusive jurisdiction has been expressly waived by that contributing State.

In other words, no military personnel from any of the countries involved with the peacekeeping can be tried by the International Criminal Court, nor any other national court except the courts of their own country. Which means that if any of the soldiers commits a war crime, they can only be tried by their home government. And if any of the soldiers commits a regular crime against the people of Liberia, they can't be tried in a Liberian court, only in a court in their own country. Even if a soldier from one country commits a crime against a fellow peacekeeper from another country while in Liberia, they can still only be tried in their home country. In all of these examples, it's unlikely that the offending soldier would be tried in their home country at all.

In other words, the U.S. wants to make sure that (should it decide to send its own troops to participate in the mission) U.S. soldiers can't be held accountable for anything that they do during the course of their mission. And here I thought that personal responsibility was the core of conservatism.

Anyhow, shouldn't surprise anyone, the U.S. has been trying to make itself exempt from all international law for some years now. This is just example #9874.

August 03, 2003

Going to the Chapel, and We're Not Gonna Get Married

While you people have been wasting your time on trivial issues like war, terrorism, and economic turmoil, the President and the Pope have been taking on Real issues. Like whether or not women who like kissing each other should be able to get married.

Surprise, surprise, these two fellows oppose the idea of homosexuals having the right to marry. Actually, let me re-phrase that. Bush and Popey don't care too much about gays' rights to marry; they are publicly saying "we oppose gay marriage" because it's no longer PC to say "we think gay people are fucking disgusting."

Seriously, what else could this issue possibly be about? Folks who oppose gay marriage are generally opposed to it because of their feelings about homosexuality, not their concern for the "institution of marriage." If they are in favor of gay marriage, or for that matter, gay adoption or gay rights, it's like saying "I approve of homosexuality." Which they don't. Either because of their religious beliefs, or because they are disgusted by the idea of gay sex (or because they want everyone else to know that they disprove homosexuality).

I think that blogger Calpundit hits the nail exactly on the head here, arguing that anyone's stance on the issue is simply their own emotional reaction to the issue, that they have then encased in a rationale. In other words, your stance is based upon your gut feeling, and you make up reasons to justify that feeling later.

Following that, my gut feeling on the subject is "who the fuck cares?" Let gay people get married, it affects my life not a whit. On top of that, it does seem unfair to tell one group of loving couples that they are entitled to all the legal rights and privileges that marriage brings, and tell another set of loving couples that they aren't. I like humorist Adam Felber's tongue-in-cheek take on the issue, that depriving gays of the right to marry somehow makes marriage more special to the straight folks.

I'm always tempted at this point in conversation on the subject of homosexuality to say something like "I really don't understand what people have against gays." Except that that's a total lie. I know exactly what people (well, Americans) have against gays. And you do too.

American culture is extremely gendered. Our concepts of male and female spill over onto ever aspect of our society; the clothes we wear, the foods we eat; the jobs we hold; the words we speak. And, unfortunately for homosexuals, a large part of our concept for each gender is that, by definition, they are attracted to the opposite gender. Part of being a man is liking women, and part of being a woman is liking men.

So when a man likes another man, it really batters that traditional definition of masculinity, the same way that female homosexual attraction tugs at the def of feminity. What was once black and white is now possibly gray. And there's a large segment of the American people that doesn't like such blurring. They like their whites white, and their blacks black (and in prison). They know that men like beer and pussy, and women like cooking and obeying their husbands. Challenging those concepts makes them feel doubt, and they don't like that. The backlash against the doubt-bringers is fierce.

So homosexuality is a dangerous threat to the core concept of gender, and gender concept is a core component of American culture. In other words, homosexuality threatens to totally upend American culture.

And I say bring it on. Any society that can be torn asunder by the gender of the mouth sucking a guy's dick, deserves to be destroyed.

Does any god who spends his time utterly riveted by the position of humanity's collective genitalia really deserve anyone's worship? And does a civilation based upon this god's genital obsession deserve to survive?

SMITE US!!! SMITE US!!!

I guess my feelings on all this come down to my particular moral code, "Do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else." Not much room in there for prejudice or oppression.

August 02, 2003

Testing

Just got me a fancy handheld internet device. Just checking to see whether or not I can post entries on my site with it.

[edit]

This is the device here:

It's roughly the size of a thin wallet, and that screen can swivel down and cover the keyboard to compactify it. It can check email, browse the web (well, parts of it), and do AOL Instant Messenger. The geek side of me wants to marry this thing.

However, I am currently trying to figure out if there is a temporary problem with their data network in my area, or if I just spent my money on a gadget that I can't use in my own home. Thankfully, I think it's the former.

Officially, the device is called a "Sidekick", but I figure I'll need to call it something else, as continually referring to my "sidekick" will undoubtedly cause my friends to look around in wonderment every time, and eventually have me committed. Any suggestions? Since the thing will undoubtedly rule my life, I'm leaning towards the moniker "The One Ring."

[/edit]

July 31, 2003

Fuck Issa

Here in California, we have a shitty, mercenary governor named Gray Davis. Davis will face a "recall" vote in October, where Californians get to decide whether or not Davis remains governor, and if not, who gets to replace him.

The recall is 100% partisan. A huge amount of money was spent on this effort, especially by would-be Davis-replacement Darrell Issa. Issa is a scumbag who tries (and sometimes succeeds) in buying his way into public office.

Well, just to put Mr. Issa in his place, go check out this handy chart which compares many of Issa's claims about his past to what the historical record shows.

My favorite nugget in there is that Issa was arrested in 1973 for driving around with a loaded, unlicensed, semiautomatic pistol, and a tear gas gun.

July 29, 2003

Nonviolence in Palestine

Garrick has a new report from the West Bank about a non-violent protest against the wall being built between Israel and the Occupied Territories. Go give it a read.

July 28, 2003

Rules of Engagement

Skip down to paragraph 9 of this article about U.S. forces in Iraq:

Col. David Hogg, commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division, said tougher methods are being used to gather the intelligence. On Wednesday night, he said, his troops picked up the wife and daughter of an Iraqi lieutenant general. They left a note: "If you want your family released, turn yourself in." Such tactics are justified, he said, because, "It's an intelligence operation with detainees, and these people have info." They would have been released in due course, he added later.

The tactic worked. On Friday, Hogg said, the lieutenant general appeared at the front gate of the U.S. base and surrendered.

[emphasis mine]

Okay, now re-read that.

Am I mistaken, or does that say that the U.S. military kidnapped a man's family and threatened to keep them indefinitely to scare a suspect into giving himself up? Taking innocent people prisoner to get to the (alleged) bad guys? That's fucking appalling!

Yes, this is how the U.S. will win the trust of the Iraqi people, by kidnapping their wives, mothers, sons and daughters.

Coca-Cola: the Great Destroyer

About a year ago, I wrote a couple pieces about Coca-Cola in India. The short version: Coke's factories in India were sucking up all the groundwater for use in Coke production, water that the neighboring Indians needed for drinking.

And now, another story about Coke fucking up India.

Coca-Cola's 'toxic' India fertiliser

According to this BBC news piece, Indian Coca-Cola factories have been giving free "fertilizer" to Indian farmers. Except that it turns out that the "fertilizer":

- is industrial waste from the Coca-Cola factories
- does not fertilize crops
- contains cadmium, a carcinogen that can damage the kidneys
- contains lead, which can lead to childhood retardation, anemia, and death
- contains other toxic metals
- has contaminated the water supply

(according to scientists hired by the BBC to research the situation)

But don't worry, because

Vice-President of Coca-Cola in India, Sunil Gupta, denied the fertiliser posed any risk.

"We have scientific evidence to prove it is absolutely safe and we have never had any complaints," Mr Gupta said.

Which reminds me, that other activists have called for a boycott of Coca-Cola, alleging that the company hires Colobmian paramilitary militias to terrorize Colombian Coke employees who try to unionze their workplace.

July 26, 2003

Words Words Words, Part III

The "zapatistas" are a rebel army in the Mexican state of Chiapas, who have been fighting against the Mexican government and would-be globalizers since 1994. But they differ significantly from most Latin American rebel armies in that they:

- are mostly indigenous Indians
- rarely make war
- are not trying to take over the government
- fight primarily through words

(for the best quick article I've seen on the zapatistas, read this piece by Naomi Klein)

The zapatistas are a group of Mexico's poorest, dozens of tribes of Indians with their own languages and cultures. They are treated with some of the same disdain and neglect that Indians face in the United States. But with the passage of "free trade" laws like NAFTA, these people felt that they unless they took action, they were destined for extinction, to be forgotten by history. Over and over they talk about this "oblivion," and it seems to be the thing they fear most. Their desire seems to be to end the Mexican government's corruption, increase democracy, and give more autonomy to the indigenous cities in Chiapas and elsewhere in Mexico.

So they formed an army. They made uniforms and put on masks. On January 1, 1994 (the day NAFTA took effect) they captured several Mexican cities, and then let them go. While they still fight for survival, most of what the public sees of the zapatistas are the letters and essays by the exceptionally clever and poetic "Subcomandante Marcos." The zapatistas disdain leadership and try to be as democracy- and consensus-oriented as can be, but Marcos has become their spokesman. He is probably my favorite political writer, and maybe one of my favorite writers of any genre. He weaves legend with poem, policy with wit, proclamation with charm, and righteousness with self-mockery.

After several long silences, Marcos has sent another missive to the outside world. Imagine a world where this is politics:

Originally published in Spanish by the EZLN ************************** Translated by irlandesa

CHIAPAS: The Thirteenth Stele

Part One: A Conch

Dawn in the mountains of the Mexican southeast.

Slowly, with an unhurried but continuous movement, the moon allows the dark sheet of night to slip off her body and to finally reveal the erotic nudity of her light. She then reclines across the length of the sky, desirous of looking and being looked at, that is, of touching and being touched. If light does anything, it delineates its opposite, and so, down below, a shadow offers the cloud its hand while murmuring:

"Come with me, look with your heart at what my eyes show you, walk in my steps and dream in my arms. Up above, the stars are making a shell, with the moon as origin and destiny. Look and listen. This is a dignified and rebel land. The men and women who live it are like many men and women in the world. Let us walk, then, in order to look at and listen to them now, while time hovers between night and day, when dawn is queen and lady in these lands.

Take care with that puddle and the mud. Better to follow the tracks which, like in so many other things, are the most knowing. Do you hear that laughter? It is from a couple who are repeating now the ancient rite of love. He murmurs something, and she laughs, she laughs as if she were singing. Then silence, then sighs and muted moans. Or perhaps the other way around, first sighs and moans, afterwards murmurs and laughter. But let's continue on ahead, because love needs no witnesses other than glances turned flesh, and, since it is sunlight regardless of the hour, it also undresses shadows.

Come. Let us sit for a bit and let me tell you things. We are in rebel lands. Here live and fight those who are called "zapatistas." And these zapatistas are very otherly...and they despair of more than one of them. Instead of weaving their history with executions, death and destruction, they insist on living. And the vanguards of the world tear at their hair, because, as for "victory or death," these zapatistas neither vanquish nor die, but nor do they surrender, and they despise martyrdom as much as capitulation. Very otherly, it's true. And then there is the one who is said to be their leader, one Sup Marcos, whose public image is closer to that of Cantinflas and Pedro Infante than to Emiliano Zapata's and Che' Guevara's. And it's a waste of time to say that no one will take them seriously that way, because they themselves are the first to joke about their being so otherly.

They are rebel indigenous. Breaking, thus, the traditional preconception, first from Europe and afterwards from all those who are clothed in the color of money, that was imposed on them for looking and being looked at.

And so they do not adapt to the "diabolical" image of those who sacrifice humans to appease the gods, nor to that of the needy indigenous, with his hand extended, expecting crumbs or charity from he who has everything. Nor that of the good savage who is perverted by modernity, nor that of the infant who entertains his elders with gibberish. Nor that of the submissive peon from all those haciendas which lacerated the history of Mexico. Nor that of the skillful craftsperson whose products will adorn the walls of he who despises him. Nor that of the ignorant fool who should not have an opinion about what is further than the limited horizon of his geography. Nor that of someone who is fearful of heavenly or earthly gods.

Because you must know, my blue repose, that these indigenous become angry even at those who sympathize with their cause. And the fact is that they do not obey. When they are expected to speak, they are silent. When silence is expected, they speak. When they are expected to move forward, they go back. When they are expected to keep going back, they're off on another side. When it's expected that they just speak, they break out talking of other things. When they're expected to be satisfied with their geography, they walk the world and its struggles.

Or it's that they're not content with anyone. And it doesn't seem to matter to them much. What does matter to them is for their heart to be content, and so they follow the paths shown by their heart. That's what they seem to be doing now. Everywhere there are people on paths. They are coming and going, barely exchanging the usual greetings. They are spending long hours in meetings or assemblies or whatever. They go in with frowning faces, and they leave, smiling in complicity.

Mmh...

Whatever it is, I am sure that many people will not like what they are going to do or say. In addition, as the Sup says, the zapatistas' specialty is in creating problems and then seeing later who is going to solve them. And so one shouldn't expect much from those meetings other than problems...

Perhaps we might guess what it is about if we look carefully. The zapatistas are very otherly - I don't know if I already told you that - and so they imagine things before those things exist, and they think that, by naming them, those things will begin to have life, to walk...and, yes, to create problems. And so I am sure they have already imagined something, and they are going to begin to act as if that something already exists, and no one is going to understand anything for some time, because, in effect, once named, things begin to take on body, life and a tomorrow.

Then we could look for some clue...No, I don't know where to look...I believe their way is looking with their ears and listening with their eyes. Yes, I know it sounds complicated, but nothing else occurs to me. Come, let's keep on walking.

Look, the stream is turning into a whirlpool there, and in its center the moon is shimmering its sinuous dance. A whirlpool...or a shell.

They say here that the most ancient say that other, earlier ones said that the most first of these lands held the figure of the shell in high esteem. They say that they say that they said that the conch represents entering into the heart, that is what the very first ones with knowledge said. And they say that they say that they said that the conch also represents leaving the heart in order to walk the world, which is how the first ones called life. And more, they say that they say that they said that they called the collective with the shell, so that the word would go from one to the other and agreement would be reached. And they also say that they say that they said that the conch was help so that the ear could hear even the most distant word. That is what they say that they say that they said. I don't know. I am walking hand in hand with you, and I am showing you what my ears see and my eyes hear. And I see and hear a shell, the "pu'y', as they say in their language here.

Ssh. Silence. The dawn has already yielded to day. Yes, I know it's still dark, but look how the huts are filling, little by little, with light from the fire in the stoves. Since now we are shadows in the shadow, no one sees us, but if they did see us, I am sure they would offer us a cup of coffee, which, with this cold, would be appreciated. As I appreciate the pressure of your hand in my hand.

Look, the moon is already slipping away to the west, concealing its pregnant light behind the mountain. It is time to leave, to shelter the journey in the shadow of a cave, there, where desire and weariness are soothed with another, more pleasant weariness. Come, here, I will murmur to you with flesh and words: "And, ay, how I would wish to be/a joy among all joys,/one alone, the joy you would take joy in!/A love, one single love:/the love you would fall in love with./But/I am nothing more than what I am"/ (Pedro Salinas. "La voz a ti debida"). We will no longer be looking at each other there, but, in the half-sleep of desire, moored in a safe harbour, we will be able to listen to that activity which is stirring these zapatistas now, those who insist on subverting even time, and who are once again raising, as if it were an external flag, another calendar...that of resistance."

Shadow and light go. They have not noticed that in a hut a faint light has been kept up all through the night. Now, inside, a group of men and women are sharing coffee and silence, as they shared the word previously.

For several hours these humans with their dusk-colored hearts have traced, with their ideas, a great shell. Starting from the international, their eyes and their thoughts have turned within, passing successively through the national, the regional and the local, until they reached what they call "El Votan. The guardian and heart of the people," the zapatista peoples. And so, from the shell's most external curve, they thought words like "globalization," "war of domination," "resistance," "economy," "city," "countryside," "political situation," and others which the eraser has been eliminating after the usual question: "Is it clear or are there questions?" At the end of the path from outside in, in the center of the shell, only some initials remain: "EZLN." Afterwards, there are proposals, and they paint, in thought and in heart, windows and doors which only they see (among other reasons, because they still don't exist). The disparate and scattered word begins to make common collective path. Someone asks: "Is there agreement? There is," the now collective voice responds affirmatively. The shell is traced again, but now in the opposite path, from inside out. The eraser also continues the reverse path until only one sentence remains, filling the old chalkboard, a sentence which is madness to many, but which is, to these men and women, a reason for struggle: "A world where many worlds fit." A little bit later, a decision is made.

Now is silence and waiting. A shadow goes out into the night rain. A spark of light barely illuminates the eye. Once again smoke rises from his lips in the darkness. With his hands behind his back, he begins a coming and going without destination. A few minutes ago, there, inside, a death has been decided...

(To be continued)

>From the mountains of the Mexican Southeast.

Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos

Mexico, July of 2003.

Words Words Words, Part II

I was surprised to see this piece online as well. Democrat Dennis Kucinich actually reaching out to the Green Party and its supporters. What a fucking novel idea.

Open Letter to Nader Voters and the Greens by Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich

When we marched against the WTO and the corporate trade regime in Seattle in 1999, we marched together.

When we stood together against the war with Iraq, half-a-million strong in New York City, and 15 million strong throughout the world, we stood together.

When we fought the badly-named "Patriot Act," we fought it together -- and I was the only one running who voted against it.

When we tried to stop this war from starting, we fought it together -- and I was able to pull together 126 of my colleagues to vote no to war last fall, working with my friend and ally Barbara Lee, as Co-Chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

We stand together in opposition to the death penalty; in support of living wages; in support of boosting alternative energy rather than wars for oil; in support of medicinal marijuana; in opposition to corporate hog farming; in support of organic farming; in opposition to nukes in space; in opposition to Star Wars; in support of cutting the military budget by 15% and applying those funds to public education.

We stand together for national health insurance, Canadian style. We stand together on public financing of campaigns, on same day voter registration, on instant runoff voting. We stand together on civil rights, and equal rights, and human rights. We stand together on voting reforms for ex-felons. We stand together on ending the trade and travel embargoes on Cuba. We stand together in opposition to the current war on drugs, which is all too often a war on the urban poor.

We stand together in demanding that publicly-owned clean water is a human right. We stand together in demanding that the developing world's debt be forgiven, as if it were still the Jubilee Year; and that we act seriously to build a world in which arms sales decline, hunger declines, poverty declines, and human rights increase.

We stand together on rejoining the rest of the world, and signing the Kyoto Treaty, the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Land Mines Ban Treaty, and all the rest of the treaties and agreements and working relationships that the current Administration has so cavalierly tossed aside.

We stand together in opposition to excessive CEO salaries; in opposition to offshore tax havens for corporations; in support of real pension reforms, real SEC enforcement, real crackdowns on corporate scofflaws. And we stand together in opposition to sweetheart deals for corporate friends of this Administration, whether it's Enron wrecking California for profit, the drug companies ripping off seniors and HIV patients and poor people for profit, or Halliburton ripping off Iraqi oil revenues for profit.

I am a Democrat, but I understand that Greens and Nader voters are not just liberal Democrats. Still, I note that in Europe, even when political parties disagree on issues, they are often able to work together with each other in coalition. I'd like to raise that possibility again today. And I note that Ralph Nader has suggested that my candidacy is worth supporting.

We all know we will do better if we work together. Perhaps we can find common ground on issues and principles. I would like to open up that possibility. And I would like to ask that you give serious consideration to my candidacy for President. Because a better world is still possible.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that the Democrats are going to make attacking the Greens part of their campaign strategy. It will make them look strong, because they will speak powerful and harshly, in a way that they almost never do. It will tap into the anger that many Democrats and liberals feel towards the Greens because they blame the Greens and Nader for giving us George W. Bush. And it allows them to do all this without having to "unpatriotically" use that same forcefulness in attacking their Republican opponents. And I think this will be a very successful strategy.

Which is depressing.

Words Words Words, Part I

I don't know a damn thing about Merle Haggard except that he's a country western singer who's been around a long time. Well, apparently his newest single bashes the media for its coverage of the Iraq war. But I'm more impressed with this statement on his website:

I don't even know the Dixie chicks, but I find it an insult for all the men and women who fought and died in past wars when almost the majority of America jumped down their throats for voicing an opinion. It was like a verbal witch-hunt and lynching. Whether I agree with their comments or not has no bearing.... As a country we need to look inward for the answers to the energy of the future. We need to bring down our demands for oil, rebuild some bridges and highways and allow the farmers to grow something that replenishes the soil. Those who don't know what that is, should do some research. The problem is not in Iraq and the answers are not in Iran. I hope were not buried alive beneath this pending financial collapse if the pipeline doesn't get through. Surely everything doesn't depend on oil!

Amen, Merle. All Americans who actually want this country to be a better place should be thinking real hard about how to get there from here. Going along with the president's plan is bullshit. Voting between two partisan plans handed down from on high is bullshit. The solutions, if indeed there are any, are complicated and far-reaching. And you should be thinking about that.

July 23, 2003

Meanwhile, at the Ministry of Truth...

Remember last week, when the Bush administration told us that January's Niger-uranium-speech gaffe was all the fault of George Tenet?

Well, that was last week. This week, history is different.

This week, we learn that the CIA was not to blame for the gaffe, it was all the fault of deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley. He'd read the reports about the forged Niger documents back in October 2002, but somehow failed to recall them when the State of the Union was being finalized. "I should have recalled ... that there was controversy associated with the uranium issue... it is now clear to me that I failed... The high standards that the president set with his speeches were not met... We had opportunities here to avoid this problem. We didn't take them."

So last week the CIA was to blame, and now the CIA is not to blame and a deputy security adviser is the one who screwed up. How do we reconcile that with last week's story? We forget it ever happened, like good citizens.

Hadley may have been Condoleeza Rice's assistant, but to suggest that maybe she knew the Niger claims were false and allowed them to be put into the State of the Union anyway would be quite irresponsible.

Quite.

Cough cough.

July 22, 2003

Divine Intervention

McDonald's yesterday insisted it was not the work of Satan

Yeah, they say that, but...

Hate to Say I Told You So

Back in April of 2002, I wrote some of my very first LMB pieces about a fellow named Jose Bustani, then-head of the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons:

The short version is that the US government is trying to get Jose Bustani, head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) fired from his job. The OPCW is one of the most successful disarmament agencies in history and has done great things under Bustani's leadership ... So why does the US want to get him fired?

...Bustani's agency is so well-known for its impartiality and fairness, it looks as though Iraq may agree to allow OPCW inspectors into the country to search for chemical weapons. If the inspectors can verify that there are no chemical weapons in Iraq, the US rationale for invading Iraq crumbles. For some reason, George W. seems hell-bent on invading Iraq and has trotted out the flimsy excuse that Iraq has "weapons of mass destruction." If Bustani and the OPCW can disprove that excuse, George W's evil schemes are foiled.

Of course, that's not how the US tells it. They accuse Bustani of a poor "management style," "financial mismanagement," "bias," and "ill-considered initiatives." The US seems to be the only country that feels this way though. The US asked Brazil to recall him; they refused. They proposed a vote of no confidence; they lost. In May 2000, Bustani was elected unanimously to continue his work of the OPCW. And yet the US may get its wish just the same.

Apparently, the US holds many of the purse-strings for the OPCW, and will force another vote on Bustani this coming Sunday. The US seems poised to demand that Bustani resign or it will allow the OPCW to wither and die.

On April 22, 2002, the U.S. was successful in its efforts, and Bustani was ousted from the position. As I stated above, the entire thing was fishy, and seemed to most probably be a tactic to facilitate war on Iraq.

Now, more than a year later:

U.N. labor agency says chemical weapons chief was wrongly dismissed at U.S. insistence

The International Labor Organization, a U.N. body charged with arbitrating labor disputes at the United Nations and other international institutions, said that Bustani was improperly dismissed and awarded him $56,700 in damages to be paid by the organization.

It said that while the United States had followed procedures, Bustani should have had a chance to defend himself in a court free of political pressures.

The OPCW is charged with ridding the world of chemical weapon stockpiles and production facilities. It has 153 member countries, including the world's two largest possessors of chemical weapons, the United States and Russia. Member countries are subject to inspections of weapons and chemicals banned under the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention.

If OPCW chemical weapons inspectors had gone to Iraq and, like U.N. weapons inspectors, failed to find banned chemical weapons, it could have hurt the Bush Administration's case for war...

In February 2002, The U.S. government began lobbying to have Bustani removed, saying he had not performed his job properly. However, government representatives declined to detail allegations of mismanagement, abuse of power and "destruction of staff morale." Bustani always denied wrongdoing.

Bustani called the ruling a "great relief," telling The Associated Press that he would donate the damages he won to an international cooperation program at the OPCW, based in The Hague, Netherlands.

And he's going to just give his money away? What a class act. I like this guy.

It's too late, but it's still nice to hear about justice being served, even in small portions.

July 21, 2003

Compassionate Smoke & Mirrors

When I first heard about Bush's plans to help with the African AIDS crisis, I knew there would be exaggerations and loopholes. But the situation is so much worse I can scarcely believe it.

First, Bush promises to send $15 billion in aid to Africa over the next five years, $3 billion of it 2004.

Then, Congress votes to only allocate funds for $2 billion in 2004, a billion short of what was promised (watch for more of this "Bush loudly promises, Congress quietly denies" in the future).

Then, Congress votes (with White House support) to devote one-third of the money to abstinence-only education as the means to fight AIDS.

Then, Congress votes (with White House support) to allow religious organizations receiving this funding to "reject strategies they consider objectionable." Why the hell are religious organizations getting this money? And I wonder which religious organizations W is going to choose to give money to...

Let's call all that terrible shit above Part One.

Part Two is a "follow the money" game.

Of the $3 billion that Bush wanted to send to Africa next year, only $200 million will go to the highly effective UN Global AIDS fund. Where will the rest go?

Our first clue: to run this $15 billion plan, Bush selected Randall L. Tobias. He has no experience working with AIDS, and no experience with Third World countries. His primary "qualification" to run this plan is that he used to be-- wait for it-- CEO of pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly.

Yeah.

To put it bluntly, the largest obstacles to effective measures to curb the African AIDS epidemic are pharmaceutical giants like Eli Lilly. The big drug companies hold the patents on AIDS medications, and sell them at hugely inflated prices relative to the actual cost of their manufacture (the article above says that the full-price cost of a year's worth of AIDS treatment is $12,000, but you can get the generic version for $300). Obviously, the largely impoverished population of Africa-- the ones most likely to be infected, of course-- can't afford these drugs, so they suffer and die. When governments of some of these stricken nations try to use their internationally-sanctioned right to import or produce generic versions of these drugs to treat their people, the big drug companies lean on them. Hard. Lawsuits, pulled loans, economic sanctions, that sort of thing.

Cuz, y'know, if countries started manufacturing their own drugs, it would weaken the drug companies' copyright control and profits.

(Actually, two key players who helped pressure the African continent to die for Big Pharma were Bill Clinton and Al Gore. I want all you liberals to remember that. Clinton and Gore were better than W., but they were still scum).

So, to sum up:

- Bush AIDS aid is a smaller amount than expected
- Bush AIDS aid will server as a reward to his religious supporters and as a bribe to solicit their future support
- Bush AIDS aid will largely go back into the pockets of large pharmaceutical corporations, who will likely in turn support Bush and his fellow Republicans' upcoming election campaigns
- Bush, Congress, and all major drug company execs should be savagely beaten and left to die, just outside of a hospital they can't afford

In a slightly related story, pro-lifers and Congressional Republicans are looking to cut funding to the UN Population Fund because they think it supports abortions in China. Blogger/cartoonist Ampersand demolishes these claims and shows how attacking this Fund actually hurts the anti-abortion movement.

Ernest Hemingway once wrote, "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
- William Somerset, Seven

July 18, 2003

Show Big Brother a Little Crimethink

Minister of Justice John Ashcroft will be visiting Portland, Oregon Friday, 6/18, at the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse at 11:30am. Apparently this was a last minute announcement:

A Portland Police Bureau spokesman said officials learned about the visit Tuesday, so he was not certain whether activists would have time to plan a large protest.

"This is a very short notice event," said Sgt. Brian Schmautz. "To my knowledge, the public is just now learning of it. We are monitoring the situation, and we will be working with the federal government to provide the appropriate security and crowd control."

Any LMB Portland readers that are able, do us a favor and go prove Sgt. Schamautz wrong, and show Ashcroft a little love on our behalf, would ya?

[Thanks to Emma]

July 17, 2003

New Garrick in Palestine

For those of you who are long-time LMB readers, you'll remember my site "Reports from Palestine". My friend Garrick and his friend Tamara went to the Occupied Territories in the summer of 2002, and emailed back stories of their experiences. I simply turned em into html and posted them to my website so that more people could read them.

Now, in July 2003, Garrick has returned to Palestine for more humanitarian and peace work, and he's again sending his email reports. I realized that it would be easier to do the posting by putting it in blog form, so here it is:

Reports from Palestine

The url, if you want to pass it around, is www.straybulletins.com/palestine

I've also included all of Garrick's reports from 2002 on the blog. And if I can figure out a way to integrate it without confusing the readers, I'll try to add Tamara's reports as well.

Not too much news from Garrick yet, he had just gotten into Jerusalem in his last update. Stay tuned.

July 16, 2003

Meet the New Asshole, Same as the Last Asshole

Everyone say hello to new White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan:

Q Two quick questions, one on Iraq. When the President said of Saddam Hussein, we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in and he wouldn't let them in, why didn't he say that, when the inspectors went into Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: What he was referring to was the fact that Saddam Hussein was not complying with 1441, that he continued his past pattern and refused to comply with Resolution 1441 of the United Nations Security Council, which was his final opportunity to comply. And the fact that he was trying to thwart the inspectors every step of the way, and keep them from doing their job. So that's what he's referring to in that statement.

Q But that isn't what he said...

Welcome aboard, Scott!

July 15, 2003

Big Picture

I can understand why all the bloggers and pundits and journalists and some Democrats are leaping on this Bush-Niger-Uranium story. It's a chink in the presidential armor, the first scandal that might actually stick to the Teflon Idiot. And aiding the effort to exploit this weakness is certainly a noble cause.

If you want to work with that hit squad and argue the nuances of what Tenet or Condi or Georgie knew and when, feel free. I just don't want us to get sidetracked or red herringed. So to keep us focused:

The bottom line is that the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq as early as December 2001, and everything else was a PR exercise to win domestic and foreign support. I have examined every bit of public pre-war WMD evidence, and none of it added up to "Iraq is a threat." The force with which the Bush administration tried to push this war showed that they had a reason to want to invade, but the faulty public reason they gave could not possibly be their true reason. Which meant that their had to be another, secret, publicly unacceptable reason that they wanted to invade Iraq. And to date, the best reason I've seen that explains Bush's actions is the "we want to reshape the political landscape in the entire Middle East" scenario. Which made me uncomfortable, because it sounded so conspiracy theory, but truly, it was the best explanation among many.

So the issue of whether or not Bush knew that the Niger-Iraq-uranium documents were forged at the time of his speech is pretty insignificant in contrast. Bush and his team of soulless set out to trick the nation (and create a "coalition of the willing") into supporting a war to enhance U.S. global dominance. If this scandal can take the motherfucker down, so be it, but let's not lose the forest for the trees.

Fine Print

If I understand this and this correctly, the Food and Drug Administration is going to make it easier for the grocery industry to lie to you.

Allegedly, this is to get consumers more scientific information about the claims made on food packaging. Any claim made on the package will have to be "rated" by the amount of existing scientific evidence to back up that claim. But the "ratings" just have to be a number or letter off of this FDA Report Card. So you could go to the supermarket and see a bag of chips that says "CURES CANCER - D" and "INCREASES PENIS SIZE - D" and still be in compliance with the law.

If you didn't now about these new scientific ratings (and if I hadn't randomly run across these articles, I know I wouldn't have), you might be fooled by the claims made by some food labels. Which is exactly what the FDA's rule is supposed to be preventing. Good work, fellas.

Short Term Memory

The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region.

- President George W. Bush, July 14, 2003 [emphasis added]

Um...

So I guess Hans Blix and his pals in UNMOVIC were just in Iraq for vacation from 11/27/02 03/18/03?

While Bush complains about "revisionist historians," he's going for his PHd in the subject.

July 14, 2003

Bullshit at the Grassroots

Counterspin Central does a little digging about the suspicious-sounding Sport Utility Vehicle Owners of America organization. The SUVOA has started an ad campaign to counter a slew of anti-SUV messages that have spread throughout the nation.

It should take you all of about 4 seconds to deduce that this is a corporate-sponsored front group that gives the illusion of popular support to a corporate-friendly position.

Took me a couple of minutes, but after googling the SUVOA's mailing address, I found the info I was looking for. The SUVOA office was shared by several other front-group-sounding orgs: the American Highway Users Alliance, the Heartland Institute, the Global Environmental Management Initiative, and completely coincidently, PR firm Stratacomm Inc..

And if we had any lingering doubts, we could look at the list of Stratacomm's client list:

• DaimlerChrysler
  
• American Automobile Manufacturers Association
  
• Ford Motor Company
  

Time Dilation

When testifying before the Senate last week, Donald Rumsfeld claimed that he'd only learned "in recent days" about the forged documents claiming Iraq was buying enriched uranium from Niger.

Yesterday, on This Week, George Stephanopoulos got Rumsfeld to admit that he'd learned about the forgeries on March 8.

Personally, I wouldn't count something that happened four months ago as "recent days." Not only that, but March 8 was before the war began! So it's not like Rumsfeld learned after the fact about these lies, he learned about them in a pre-war context. Well, that's if you believe Rumsfeld at all. And I don't.

Sadly, this is usually as good as our news media gets. They don't try to get to the truth or dig for exposes, at their most helpful, they simply try to catch public figures lying. That's it. If you don't talk to the press, or refuse to utter that sentence that will contradict one of your previous sentences, you're pretty much untouchable.

Okay, that's hopefully my only concession to the Uraniumgate coverage.

July 13, 2003

Gimme My Radio

And I will be resuming my radio show this Monday (7/14) as usual.

Non-News

Nice quote I found on a random blog:

Look motherfucker, you don't need a Humvee. Not at all. Not even the pretty yellow one.

You're a dentist, not the right leg of Voltron.

And here's an unusual surreal photo-comic strip (the latest one [July 11] isn't that great, skip back a few). I'm not sure why, but this one strikes me as particularly genuine.

And for the broadband-inclined, here's a video clip that answers the age old question, "what would it look like to do a live-action parody of The Matrix about Japanese ping-pong?"

Sorry folks, that's just how my brain's working today.

July 12, 2003

Homecoming

I'm back. I'll tell you the story when I get a chance.

July 06, 2003

Missouri Says Hello

Hello folks.

A brief note from a hotel room in Kansas City, the one not actually in Kansas, but in a state next to Kansas.

One show down in my brief three-show jaunt with the Lollapalooza tour. I made it through show #1 in Nobleville, Indiana alive, despite torrential rains and doing clever things like running through an epic thunderstorm carrying a 15-foot metal ladder. Apparently weather around the Midwest can turn on a dime, going from oppressive sun and heat to downpours and back one or more times a day. All I know for sure is that the Lollapalooza crowd seemed unfazed by their drenching and skies run amuck with lightning.

Our Axis of Justice booth is not going as planned, but is going quite well just the same (speaks highly of the powers of chaos and flexibility, I'd say). At the Indiana show, we had help from Boxcar Books, the Center for Sustainable Living, and Amnesty International. We also showed some nice documentaries from IndyMedia, Big Noise Films, Educating for Justice, and the Cascadia Media Collective (check out some of that last one, that shit was hardcore) on massive TV screens donated to us by Sony-- which ironically puts us into opposition with Lollapalooza sponsor Xbox (incidentally, I have it on good authority that Xbox consoles are made in sweatshops in the Czech Republic and Hungary. I'm thinking of putting a sign with this information in our tent).

I know I can and should tell y'all a vivid tale of my adventures, but I am a really, really lazy human being (someday I'll figure out how my lazy ass became a workaholic). Short version: Lollapalooza = retail hell, Midwest lightningstorms will blow your mind, and Jake's shoes are unlikely to survive their long soaking in the Indiana mud.

July 03, 2003

Mini-palooza

Well today's the day. I fly out to oversee the first week of our Axis of Justice political activism tent for the Lollapalooza concert tour. First stop Indianapolis, then Kansas City, then St. Louis, then I get flown back to Los Angeles to oversee from afar. Should be an interesting adventure, travelling with a rock tour, visiting parts of the country I haven't yet seen, meeting activists from far away, etc. (and fighting the forces of Clear Channel, who's machinations could possibly make our tent suck, despite our best efforts. Well, we'll see what happens).

Either there will be no posts from me for about a week, or sporadic "Jake on the Road" entries during the next 8 days, we'll see how energetic and internet-adjacent I am. In the meantime, y'all behave yourselves.

June 30, 2003

Lovely

Fuck.

Iraq: Everyone Now Needs Food Aid- "'Today, the lives of 100 percent of the Iraqi population, 27 million people, depend on the provision of monthly food rations,' UNICEF chief representative in Iraq Carel de Roy told IPS in a phone interview.

"The United Nations WFP (World Food Program) chief representative in Baghdad Torben Due says the crisis is unprecedented. 'To avoid a food crisis in the country we have initiated the largest emergency operation in the 40 years history of the WFP.'"

Well, to be fair, 60% of the Iraqi population was dependent upon monthly food rations before the war. But by golly, we made sure those other 40% didn't feel left out.

Those Iraqis might starve to death, but at least they'll starve to death free.

Or maybe not.

June 29, 2003

Conservative Evil

Two good finds from Emma:

Bush, Looking to His Right, Shores Up Support for 2004- the interesting bit to me is that Bush has hired Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, as a "senior member" of his campaign team.

Frist Backs Putting Gay Marriage Ban in Constitution- "Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said yesterday he supports a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages in the United States. Frist said the Supreme Court's decision last week on gay sex threatens to make the home a place where criminality is condoned... 'I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want protected in our own homes is gradually -- or I'm concerned about the potential for it gradually being encroached upon, where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned,' Frist told ABC's 'This Week.'"

Right. Somehow your right to have private sex in your own home will surely evolve into the right to commit private murders in your own home. Frist isn't doing this out of homophobia, or as a means to pander to his homophobic constituency, but because he's concerned about crime.

Lord knows, the right to have private sex in your own home might turn into the right to perform experimental surgery on stray cats in your own home, right Dr. Frist?

Electable

Can anyone explain to me why they support Howard Dean as the Democratic candidate for president? To me, it seems his only positive qualities are 1) he was against the Iraq war and 2) he isn't George W. Bush. Apart from that, he seems like a man who looked at all the criticism that liberals have levelled at Republican policy and said "how can I implement 5% of that criticism?"

Maybe I'm missing something, but he seems like an asshole.

June 28, 2003

Stagnant

Just seems like there's no new news to write about these days. The stories are always the same. The Bush administration is lying. The Bush administration is giving money away to the rich. The situation is bad in Afghanistan. The situation is bad in Iraq. North Korea is hopping mad, wishing that we'd pay attention to them.

But I'll do a bit of summary on recent badness developing in Iraq.

First, according to Dack's count, 62 U.S. soldiers have been killed since Bush pronounced that major hostilities were over from the deck of that aircraft carrier. That's about one-third as many as were killed during the war phase of this operation. That's not good.

Second, the U.S. doesn't seem to know what the hell it's doing when it comes to rebuilding Iraq. It's obvious that the Iraqi people want life to return to normal as quickly as possible, and that means that means rebuilt cities and the departure of U.S. troops. The longer it takes to accomplish number one, the more trouble it will be for the fellows in number two.

Third, "U.S. military commanders have ordered a halt to local elections and self-rule in provincial cities and towns across Iraq, choosing instead to install their own handpicked mayors and administrators, many of whom are former Iraqi military leaders." Read that again. Remember how we went into Iraq to eliminate a dictator and spread democracy through the Middle East? Yeah, this action is going to turn out well.

Fourth, and this may seem like I'm kidding at first, but Baghdad's air conditioning is failing. The temperature in Iraq can reach up to 140 degrees Farenheit duing the summer. Already, the heat is up to about 117 degrees. This is bad. Extreme heat puts everyone on edge, and increases the chances that anger and tension will boil over into violence.

Fifth, "The bodies of two U.S. soldiers missing for days were discovered early Saturday northwest of Baghdad", and honestly I consider this good news. These soldiers were abducted two days ago, and I suddenly had a flashback to hostage crises of the 1980s. Not only would something like that depress and anger the fuck out of America, but it would likely dry up any existing American sympathy for the Iraqi people. "They kidnapped one of ours, we should kill em all!" The fact that these soldiers are merely "casualties" instead of hostages being imprisoned and tortured might be better on everyone.

The cry of "U.S. out of Iraq" is being taken up by a number of anti-war groups. It's a double-edged sword. Leaving Iraq finally gives the people their liberation, but it leaves their country in a shambles. Remaining in Iraq is against the Iraqi people's wishes, but it could lead to the country's rebuilding. Or, it could just be a handover of the nation's wealth and institutions to White House corporate cronies. Not sure which way to lean on this issue.

June 25, 2003

Conservative Thought Patterns

For quite sometime now I've meant to write a long article explaining the conservative point of view to left-wing folks. In graduate school, I spent three consecutive semesters researching the American conservative ideology, conservative talk radio, and Rush Limbaugh for one of my professors (which means that I hate Rush Limbaugh more than you do, no matter who you are). At some point during the study, I had an antropologist's moment, where I was able to understand the mental framework, the way that conservatives' concepts, beliefs and values supported and reinforced each other. I couldn't disagree with it, and found many logical flaws in the belief structure, but I could see where they were coming from.

One day, I will write this article to explain to all the liberals and commies and anarchists who look at conservatives with absolute bewilderment, nearly certain that these people are not just wrong, but evil.

Today is not that day.

But I've found a good replacement.

On Calpundit's site today, he had a nice post about economic inequality and immobility in the United States. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and making the jump from poor to rich is getting to be harder and harder.

But in the comments following the article, I found a comment that got you halfway to understanding the conservative point of view. It was written by a fellow named Tim, who has his own blog here. I'm just going to reprint Tim's comments:

Conservatives are winning the debate because they have shifted the arguments to that of character alone...

By shifting the debate to one of character they've essentially won the war. It rhetoricaly fits every one of their issues: We live in a free country where everyone has an equal opportunity so if someone is poor it's because they have bad character. If someone is rich they have good character- there's no other reason for rich and poor. So, there's no reason to tax progressively, to do so would be punishing those that have good character and rewarding those that have bad character.

Every argument turns into one of character. Bad public schools? Let people go to private school! If they can't afford to that's they're own fault, they're poor because they have bad character, those with bad character don't deserve a hand-out. Lower taxation of capital? Only someone with good character is able to build capital, they shouldn't be punished for having good character. Estate tax? Only someone with good character was able to build all that wealth, they shouldn't be punished. Allowing corporations to set their own environmental standards? A corporation is led by people who made it, and therefore have good character, so of course they can be trusted. Racism? There is no other reason for racism than individuals with bad character acting badly. No such thing as institutional racism, no such thing as historical context, nothing but some people with bad character (so therefore no reason to reform anything or promote anything via things like AA).

The desire to dismantle social programs? Social programs only benefit those with poor character, why should people with good character pay to give hand-outs to those with bad character?

Of course some jackhole will probably refute this claim on a literal basis (as if I mean pundits and politicians are literally talking about "character"), but it seems pretty obvious to me. The modern conservative platform makes no sense whatsoever unless you think of it as a basic argument between good and bad character. None of their programs do what they say they'll do. Supply-side economics does not increase tax income, nothing trickles down; standardized tests do not improve schools, less environmental regulation does not mean less pollution; bombing Iraq does not mean less terrorism.

It's pretty easy, they do it themselves. Iraq? Saddam was bad, 'nuff said. France? They're arrogant, 'nuff said. Santorum? He's a good guy, 'nuff said. And on and on and on. It's a very easy debate to win, all they have to do is smear the other side and lie about their programs. If they never admit to lying, it's the same as not lying. After all, Bush, for example, is the president. He wouldn't be there unless he had good character. People with good character don't lie, they only make mistakes.

That is a significant portion of conservative ideology. It's the belief that if someone tries hard enough, they will be successful. If they are not successful, it's evidence that they need to try harder. Trying hard is a sign of good character. Refusing to try hard is a sign of poor character. Therefore someone who is a corporate CEO or a wealthy entrepreneur must have good character, because they must have worked hard to get to where they are. And someone who is poor must not have good character because they have not worked hard enough to pull themselves out of poverty.

That's only one of several pillars of the conservative belief system, and obviously most conservatives have points of view that are more flexible or nuanced. But these are some of the principles that are at the core.

Mindlessly Anti-Bush

It's no secret that I hate George W. Bush. But I'd like to think that my desire to get the man out of office (and ideally into a prison cell) does not overwhelm the rest of my faculties and values. But it seems like some lefty-minded folk have let their drive to oust Bush get the better of them.

Here's the story: it appears that before 9-11, Bush had opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan using the CIA's predator drones, but failed to order the attack. And now some liberals are flogging Bush (or at least his abilities to protect the nation) for this failure.

Well, first let's properly describe the situation.

Bush had the opportunity to order an assassination of bin Laden, and didn't. If he had, such an act would have been illegal. Presidents are prohibited from ordering assassinations.

So... liberals are criticizing the president for following the rules of his office and not assassinating someone. That's not the usual line liberals take.

I also feel the need to point out that assassinating bin Laden would not necessarily have prevented the 9-11 attacks. Sure, it's possible that killing bin Laden might have disrupted Al Qaeda, or that if bin Laden was the one who designed or ordered the 9-11 attacks that those plans and orders never would have come into existence. Or... maybe those terrorists who hijacked the planes would have done the exact same thing.

I also feel fairly certain that if this situation were reversed, if Bill Clinton was under attack for failing to assassinate bin Laden, that the liberals would be defending him by bringing up all the points that I just did.

Partisanship. It ain't pretty.

Of course, we can look at the current scenario objectively. Is it morally acceptable to assassinate someone? Is it acceptable for the president to be able to assassinate people? If not, is Osama bin Laden a special case in which it would have been acceptable? Would this assassination have been the smartest tactic to use? Did the intelligence data at the time suggest that bin Laden was a threat worthy of using this creepy kill power? And probably on most people's minds, would this assassination have protected the Americans who died on September 11? Lots of questions, lots of room for debate, very few answers.

Propaganda Prevue!

The Republicans have been working on plans for the future website of the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign for 2004. And apparently, someone accidentally left the rough draft of the site online and unprotected for a few hours this week, and a columnist for online magazine Slate ran across it...

GeorgeWBush.com is now shut and secure, but the Slate fellow managed to get some choice screengrabs so we can see what webs are being spun. The snappy, heroic photos of Bush are the best, I think. Bush hiking in the mountains (or in front of its blue screen equivalent), Bush staring at something or other with his hands on the shoulders of schoolchildren, Bush in a cowboy hat, Bush manhandling the elderly, etc.

[edit]

Heh, I thought about making a joke using the last photo there, the rather creepy one of Bush holding the hand of a woman who looks like death warmed over. But doing so seemed kind of tasteless. Lucky for me, the folks at Soundbitten have done it for me.

SkyNet is Here

This creeped me the fuck out.

20 Questions

Apparently it's a computer program designed to try to guess any object you're thinking of based upon the responses you give to its, yes, 20 questions.

IT GUESSED MINE RIGHT THREE TIMES OUT OF THREE!!

Microphone, fingernail, puddle (although it did take it 28 questions to guess "puddle")

Honestly, the creepiness probably comes from the shock. The machine asks you questions that seem barely connected to the object at all, and then bam! After question 20, it nails it.

First the computers are doing parlor tricks, then they'll be running our households, and then they'll be killing us by the truckload and driving over mountains of our skulls in big tank things. Just you wait and see.

June 23, 2003

Edits, Updates & Sneak Previews

1) A few weeks back, I announced that I would be spending my summer on the Lollapalooza concert tour, running a political activism tent. Turns out I spoke too soon. I am organizing the tent, but someone else will be taking my place on the tour to run it. Someone made the excellent point of "how exactly are you going to run two non-profit organizations while spending your days sitting in the middle of a field in Ohio?" I'll probably be on the first week of tour dates (Indianapolis, Kansas City, St. Louis, and maybe Milwaukee), and then maybe fly out for a couple of other shows mid-tour to make sure everything's still working smoothly (NYC, Denver, I dunno). A Mini-palooza, if you will. If you attend the show, feel free to try to find me, and if I'm not there, drop me a line and tell me what you thought.

2) A site redesign is in the works. My pal Mark (I'll withhold his last name, in case he's into that), former webmaster of the Rage Against the Machine website, has volunteered to re-engineer the LMB site. Frankly, my plan is to copy some of the layout of Dack's Rational Enquirer site. I'm tired of generic blog layouts. It will also allow me to present many types of information in a more logical, efficient way (I think). And I think my plan will also encourage me to write more about media issues and news, the alleged theme of this damn site.

3) Perhaps most importantly, our pal Garrick is planning on again returning to the Occupied Territories this summer. You may remember Garrick from his powerful email reports that I compiled into a page called Reports from Palestine. If you haven't read them, I highly recommend it. I also interviewed Garrick on my radio show back in November, that's worth a listen (although the sound quality is poor, sorry).

Anyhow, Garrick has expressed an interest in doing the same thing this summer, having me upload his emails to my site (although I think I'll make a few changes to that page, and blogify it). Now that I think about it, I have no idea how he'll get into the country, given recent Israeli laws prohibiting peace activists from entering the Occupied Territories. But if he makes it in, I'll post his reports on the site.

That's it. Time to sleep.

June 22, 2003

Sabotage

via Body and Soul and Nathan Newman:

The organization MoveOn.org has made itself a bit of a player in the world of Democratic politics. I first became aware of them in the past year, when they raised large amounts of cash to place anti-war ads on newspapers and on billboards. Now they seem determined to support the Democratic party, and move it in a more traditionally liberal direction.

Lately, they've been announcing a "primary", and will throw their support behind the Democratic candidate who gets the most votes.

Unfortunately, it appears that the lunatic conservatives over at the Free Republic have decided to sabotage the primary.

Their plan is apparently to register as many names and email addresses as they can, and vote for someone they feel is unelectable: Al Sharpton.

Amusingly, some of them are too afraid to participate because they are terrified to "register with a communist organization [sic]."

Something to keep an eye on.

June 19, 2003

The Goods

Wow.

If your pro-war friends demand to see your evidence that Bush and his pals lied about the reasons to invade Iraq, look no further.

The First Casualty is an amazingly comprehensive look at U.S. intelligence and the way it was manipulated, stretched, and distorted to support the plan to attack Iraq. Not a lot of the information here was new to me, but it took nearly all the data on the subject and packaged it neatly and succintly.

What was news to me was the role of CIA Director George Tenet had in all this. I had read many accounts by anonymous intelligence agents about the pressure put upon them by the Bush administration to find damning evidence against Iraq, no matter how shady. But this article argues that Tenet was fairly complicit in the lies and distortion of the agency's intelligence for political use. The article mentions that the White House "badger[ed]" Tenet into doing so, but also implies that he was willing to do these things to protect his job. After 9-11, Tenet was nearly crucified for alleged intelligence failures that led to the terrorist attack. Perhaps giving the Bush administration what it wanted was a way to keep his position.

I have been hearing rumors that if the "Where's the WMD?" issue becomes pressing, that Tenet would be the fall guy. Originally, I thought that this would be a shame, because my previous knowledge told me that the intelligence community was "innoncent" of wrongdoing here. Now I'm fine if Tenet gets the axe. But this article argues pretty persuasively that all our top leaders-- Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell-- had read all of the intelligence reports which concluded that Iraq was not much of a threat, and then told America and the world just the opposite.

Check the article, it's good stuff.

June 18, 2003

Miller Time Travel

I used to really enjoy Dennis Miller. An extremely bright, sarcastic comedian, his style became known for its countless references to pop culture icons, ancient philosophers, politics, and literature. Funny, dark, and intellectual.

Then he got his own show on HBO. It had some bright moments at first, but fell into routine, and then mediocrity. Each show, Miller would give a monologue about some political issue, beginning it with "I don't want to get into a rant here, but..." and end with "that's just my opinion, I could be wrong." After the show had covered some of the most pressing issues of the day, they had to start selecting less important and more obscure ones which increasingly seemed silly or pointless or forced. And before long the show seemed to be more and more what it truly was: a guy halfheartedly reading his writing staff's Miller-esque text off a teleprompter.

And now, Miller has (as my friend John would say) gone to the Land of Suck. Not only gone to, but has purchased a lovely home and is thinking of running for mayor.

Not only has Miller lost his comic edge, but he has also become a right-wing shill, talking a good Republican game, supporting war, etc. He was actually heard to remark once that "George W. is my president." What a cock.

So given my great disappointment in the man, it is with great glee that I link to this article:

The Miller's Crossing

It's a fictional conversation between modern, sucky Dennis Miller and younger, funnier 1988 Dennis Miller. '88 gives his doppleganger quite a lashing. Good stuff.

Fucked Up News

DEA Uses RAVE Act Threats to Block Montana NORML/SSDP Benefit- maybe you've heard of the RAVE Act. Using the truly minor drug-related danger of rave parties on our nation's beloved and innocent teens, our government passed a law which effectively made venue owners responsible for any drug use going on at one of their functions. In other words, if you are a club owner, and someone in the audience smokes a joint while a band is playing on your stage, you can be arrested. As I recall, after failing to get legislative support several times, the RAVE Act was sneakily attached to the AMBER Alert bill, which was about finding children who'd been kidnapped.

As though that wasn't bad enough, we've got this recent incident in Montana. Two activist organizations who focus on reforming America's drug laws, were going to have a benefit concert at a local club. "On May 30, the day the event was set to take place, a Billings-based DEA agent showed up at the Eagle Lodge, which had booked the concert. Waving a copy of the RAVE Act in one hand, the agent warned that the lodge could face a fine of $250,000 if someone smoked a joint during the benefit, according to Eagle Lodge manager Kelly, who asked that her last name not be used." The scared club owner cancelled the show.

So essentially, agents of the U.S. government used this law to stifle political speech. They didn't actually apply the law, but the threat to do so was enough.

Protestors Are Not Terrorists- "Under the guise of President Bush's all-consuming, yet amorphous, war against terrorism, police agencies across the country are spying and compiling dossiers on citizens exercising their constitutional rights. The Bush administration – all war against terrorism, all the time – has consistently supported policies and legislation allowing for the collection and cataloging of data on the political, religious, or social views of individuals and organizations regardless of whether they present any imminent threat to the nation's safety."

Hidden Agenda- "In the short run, the Republicans hope to win in 2004 by running as tax cutters against tax-and-spend Democrats. In the long run, Republicans plan to starve and thus drastically shrink federal government, especially spending on social programs. As budgetary crises resulting from the tax cut unfold, the only solutions will be devastating cuts in programs—including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And if the economy suffers, as is likely, the prescription will be more tax cuts."

The Screwing of Cynthia McKinney- many people consider former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney to be a nutcase. Until reading this article, I was one of them. I never knew much about her, but I'd heard that she believed in several conspiracy theories that I considered crazy, and pretty much wrote her off. But this article, by smart journalist Greg Palast, says that she never was a conspiracy theorist. Palast traces McKinney's unsavory reputation to allegations that "McKinney implied that the [Bush] Administration knew in advance about September 11 and deliberately held back the information." And while many media outlets ascribed such beliefs to McKinney, Palast's research cannot turn up the original quotes that these claims must have ostensibly come from. He theorizes that McKinney's demand for a particular investigation ("why was Osama bin Laden's family off-limits to American intelligence pre-9/11, as ordered by the Bush administration?") was misinterpretted (intentionally or no) into these whacko conspiracies. Not 100% sure if Palast is right, but he generally seems to be a good reporter.

Supreme Court Battle of a Lifetime- "Reproductive rights, environmental protections and civil liberties could all be in danger if the one or two rumored vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court this summer are filled by right-wing Bush nominees."

June 17, 2003

Cola Wars

The other day, a friend of mine told me about a news story floating around about a Coca-Cola employee being fired for drinking a Pepsi. Funny, ironic and sad at the same time.

But....

Now I found an article on the event, with a slightly different spin.

This article points out that perhaps the worker was not fired for drinking a rival soft drink, but for his unionize Coca-Cola workers several months prior.

Frankly, that explanation makes a lot more sense.

June 16, 2003

Darn Those Revisionist Historians

Bush Blasts 'Revisionist Historians' on Iraq- "President Bush countered those questioning his justification for the invasion of Iraq on Monday, dismissing 'revisionist historians' and saying Washington acted to counter a persistent threat."

Takes one to know one, I guess. Let's check out Bush's own revisionism in the same article.

Said Bush, "Saddam Hussein was a threat to America and the free world in '91, in '98, in 2003. He continually ignored the demands of the free world, so the United States and friends and allies acted... This is for certain, Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States and our friends and allies."

1) Saddam Hussein was not a threat to America and the free world in '91. After 10 years of warfare, Saddam's army couldn't defeat Iran, let alone the world's number #1 military power, and/or the rest of the free world. Quite frankly, I've seen some compelling accounts that the invasion of Kuwait was simply a means to obtaining disputed oils fields on the border of the two countries, and that Iraq mistakenly believed that they'd gotten the thumbs up from the U.S. to go ahead with that plan. Remember, from the 1950s through early August 1990, Saddam Hussein was a "valuable asset" who helped keep Islamist Iran in line. But by the time late August rolled around, Saddam was Hitler. If that's not revisionist history, I don't know what is.

2) I'm really not sure what the 1998 comment refers to. I guess 1998 was when the UN inspectors left Iraq. Obviously, Iraq was even less of a threat to America and the free world after being soundly defeated in Gulf War I, and after enduring 7 years of strict economic sanctions. And if Iraq wasn't much of a threat in 1991...

3) For information about how Iraq was not a threat to the United States or free world in 2003, check just about any entry on this website.

4) "He continually ignored the demands of the free world, so the United States and friends and allies acted." EXTREMELY interesting interpretation of events. The "United States and friends and allies acted" not to protect themselves, or the free world, or to liberatre the Iraqi people, but because Saddam Hussein "continually ignored the demands of the free world." Is the theory that Iraq was invaded due to disobedience a revision of history, or an accurate account?

5) How are we certain that Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to our friends and allies? No one knows if he's alive or dead! If he's still alive, and has any loyal, armed troops at his command, he could still cause some havok.

Damn those historical revisionists, damn them to hell!!

If I Can't Dance, I Don't Want to Be Part of Your Revolution

On today's Lying Media Bastards radio show on KillRadio.org:

LMB Dance Party!

Yes folks, I'll be breaking out the dancin-est tunes of political and non-political nature from the Jake repetoire. Raise your fist, shake your ass, a good time will be had by all.

LMB Dance Party
Monday, June 16
2-4pm PST
killradio.org

June 13, 2003

Bunch o' News

A Tested Theocracy- for two days this week, Iranians took to the streets to protest their oppressive government. Sounds very good. However, in the wake of U.S. claims that they were going to "de-stabilize the Iranian government," one has to wonder if this is a spontaneous, native uprising, or a sneaky foreign one.

Looting of Iraq's archeological sites continues: National Geographic- apparently the theft of Iraq's ancient treasures is not a past tense occurence.

War may have killed 10,000 civilians, researchers say- the researchers of IraqBodyCount.net (which seems to be made up of more prestigious individuals than I would have guessed) have evidenec that between 5000 and 7000 Iraqi civilians were killed during the Iraq war, but they suspect that the final tally will be closer to 10,000. Of course, these numbers will never truly be known, only guessed at.

Was Press Asleep on Pre-War WMD Issue?- Editor & Publisher magazine asks that question of five prominent newspapers, who respond with a slightly defensive "we did the best we could! Kinda..."

US threatens to boycott Belgium over war crimes law- in a way, this story is nothing new. For years now, the U.S. has refused to allow itself to be subject to any external war crimes courts. Belgium, which has a slightly odd "we'll try anyone from anywhere on war crimes" law on the books, is now facing the hostility of the U.S. (well, of Donald Rumsfeld, who some commentators point out, is acting as though he were the president).

Anti-US Opposition In Iraq And The So Called Roadmap: an interview with Robert Fisk- good stuff from the famed British reporter in the Middle East.

June 12, 2003

Advertisement

This Saturday, June 14, Kill Radio will be having a benefit show at Zip Fusion Sushi in downtown Los Angeles. Kill Radio DJs will be spinning tunes from around 9pm to 2am. $7 cover, you get a free drink, and money goes towards helping your favorite internet radio station stay afloat.

But most importantly, if this first night goes well, we can make it a regular event. Kill Radio will have a regular venue to display our talents, promote our causes, and rake in dough. I'm sitting this first show out, but I'll certainly take a turn spinning the political rock, rap and dance if we can make Kill Radio Nite a regular gig.

So. If you live in L.A., come to the show on Saturday. Directions here.

Thanks much.

Take Two of These and Call the Suicide Hotline in the Morning

Is this common knowledge?

The "antidepressant" drug Paxil has been found to make depressed children more suicidal.

Normally I like being more careful and tentative about citing studies, but the results are the conclusions drawn from examining nine different studies about Paxil in England (so, I guess it's possible that Paxil only makes British children more suicidal).

Moral of the story: parents, don't give your kids Paxil.

But you've got to love this bit:

"Patients who stop taking Paxil suddenly often experience dizziness, abnormal dreams, headaches and nervousness. In Britain, these are called 'withdrawal symptoms' and in the United States they are called 'discontinuation symptoms.'"

That's some brilliantly twisted PR.

June 11, 2003

New Math

Tom Tomorrow is all over this story.

Basically, a new "fact" is floating around the internet that despite all the tragic original reports of mass looting of Baghdad's museums, that "only 33" pieces were taken.

Unfortunately, that "fact" seems to be a misreading from a Washington Post article on the subject. The WP piece says that 33 pieces were missing from the main collection.

Another 3000 are missing from the rest of the collection. Which means that "only 3033 pieces" were stolen, not 33.

And that was just from the National Museum. Tomorrow also cites a quote from an International Herald Tribune article in which a UN official says, "nobody has talked about the losses at the Museum of Fine Art, which is a very important one. The National Library is a real disaster. It's gone." Again, this would inflate the numbers far above 33.

As expected, conservatives and other pro-war types are using their 33 misreading to attack the credibility of the "liberal media" (although the WP article implies that the media did get the story way wrong on the first try) and us alarmist anti-war types. "Yuk yuk, those crazy smelly hippies got it wrong again! Only 33 pieces were stolen from the museums, not thousands!! Guess we can't trust anything they say and the war was completely justified!!"

As a truth-enthusiast and a manipulation-hatah, this sort of thing really pisses me off.

Ah, Satire

I'd just link to this article, but Eat the State! is always a little slow to post their articles to their website. And I'm hungry now!

A Vast Majority of Americans Agree by Troy Skeels

Recent polls indicate that only 32% of Americans favor attacking Iran to overthrow its dictatorial regime and destroy its weapons of mass destruction. Most of those opposed responded with "I thought we just did that." When it is explained that Iran is a different country than Iraq, the numbers rise to a more patriotic 83%.

When it is further explained that Iran possesses no statues of Saddam Hussein to be toppled over and over again on cable news programs, the numbers in favor of an invasion drop to 63%.

Meanwhile, 53% of Americans say they are in favor of an invasion to overthrow the authoritarian regime currently ruling Baghdad which is widely known to possess weapons of mass destruction. Fifty-nine percent say they are in favor of intervening to halt the brutal occupation of Basra by the British Monarchy, while 63% say that it is important that the US continue to press for democratic reforms in the Ottoman Empire.

According to other polls, 74% of Americans favor invading France, and 39% would support an invasion of South Korea, slightly more than the 35% that say they are in favor of an invasion of North Korea and nearly equal to the 36% who say they are in favor of toppling the regime in West Korea. Another 32% are strongly in favor of an invasion of Canada, while fully 48% responded with, "Where's Canada?" and 36% saying they thought Canada was a state. 52% of the latter say they would support an invasion anyway.

Apparently almost no Americans would support an invasion of Burkina Faso, with 93% responding "same to you buddy" and slamming down the phone.

Meanwhile, nearly seven in ten, or 68%, said they were "somewhat in favor," "More or less in favor," or "strongly in favor," of invading China as long as it did not negatively impact the selection of merchandise available at Wal-Mart.

At the same time, 99% of respondents said they agreed with the statement that "America is one of the nations of the world most respectful of human rights and self determination for all peoples." The Homeland Security Department has taken down the names of the other 1% and has begun proceedings to deport them to Canada.

While 66% of Americans continue to support "democracy of some kind" in the USA, 47% of respondents agreed that "black is white," 53% said they supported the statement "war is peace," and 67% responded that in the post-9-11 world, they were "comfortable" or "somewhat comfortable" with the idea that "freedom is slavery."

Support for the job performance of George Bush remains high, at 73%, while 63% of the public say they would support a trained monkey if it were named "Commander in Chief."

In a related story, the Bush White House has announced steps to counteract what it describes as "800 years of liberal bias," in America's history classes and has ordered the revision of textbooks to reflect that the reason Europeans invaded and colonized North America in the first place was to prevent Native Americans from developing weapons of mass destruction.

In a speech announcing this new program, President Bush declared that, "If our forefathers hadn't stepped in and stopped the weapons programs being conducted in secret by Native Americans, who were known to possess smallpox infected blankets among other things, in clear violation of numerous treaties and solemn promises, we might very well be speaking Ojibojiway, Kicklitilcattat or some other impossible to pronounce language today."

When queried by a reporter (who was immediately fired by his employer and then hustled out and shot) why, after several hundred years, US forces had not found any of these claimed Native American weapons of mass destruction, Presidential Spokesman (Ret.) Ari Fleishcher responded with, "The United States is a large country, larger than California and Iraq combined and the Pre-Columbian regime had well over 12,000 years to hide those weapons. These things take time, but the Administration is confident they will eventually be found. And I shouldn't have to remind anyone that, as dozens of John Wayne movies have clearly shown, the Native American regime expressed its enmity and hatred over and over again for traditional American values and our way of life."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has suggested that the weapons were destroyed shortly after the sails of Columbus's ships were spotted on the horizon. He also pointed to the thousands of unmarked graves that are still being uncovered by archaeologists as proof of the brutality of the Pre-Columbian regime.

According to polls, 87% of Americans are satisfied with the explanations of the Administration on the matter, while slightly more, 91% would prefer to have it explained by a trained monkey.

June 10, 2003

Average Everyday Scum

Canada's cheaper drugs anger U.S. drug giants

Cutting to the chase, this article is about how the U.S. pharmaceutical industry is trying to lobby the Canadian health care system into oblivion. As I understand it, the Canadian government subsidizes the purchase of medicine for Canadian citizens, lowering the price that an individual has to pay. Canadian businesses seem to be using this to their advantage, selling low priced drugs over the internet to Americans. And the U.S. pharmaceutical industry is pissed because that means that they're not making as much money as they could.

So, to solve this "problem" of lower profits, the U.S. drug industry is trying to eliminate the price controls that make drugs more affordable for Canadians. Bastards.

June 07, 2003

The New Campaign

Here's an interesting development:

Ex-Official: Evidence Distorted for War

I believe this is the first intelligence agent (well, ex-) to publicly come forward about the White House manipulating evidence to mislead the public into the Iraq war. There have been many anonymous "officials" leaking these sorts of stories to the press lately, but this fellow is on the record. And he had access to all the U.S. intelligence reports until he quit the job in September of 2002. And since the Bush administration really ramped up its anti-Iraq propaganda in August of 2002, he was in a good position to see some of this.

Why are all these intelligence officials coming out to point fingers at the White House these days?

Politics, of course.

The Bush administration is starting to feel some heat for the lack of evidence of WMD in Iraq. And if they can't find any such evidence, they'll appear as either a bunch of liars who tricked the nation into war, or as a bunch of incompetents who invaded an innocent country.

The best strategy for Bush to dodge all this is to shift the blame. They'll claim that they made these decisions based upon the intelliegence gathered by the CIA and DIA and FBI. If it turns out that there are no weapons of mass destruction, then the error will have been the fault of these agencies that provided the intelligence, not poor decisions made by the executive branch. Shifting this blame would also be a good way for Bush to introduce a "Fire All the Head Guys in Intelligence Who Didn't Fabricate Anti-Iraq Reports for Me and Replace Them with More Obedient Guys, or with Some of My Corporate Pals Act of 2003."

The intelligence community is fighting back (or are they fighting pre-emptively?). by telling the tales of distortion and pressure that kept the beat for the drumbeat of war. They don't want to be saddled with the blame, especially if that blame is misplaced.

I'm not sure where all this will lead, mainly because the American public doesn't seem overly concerned about whether or not they were lied to about the necessity for war, as long as the Iraqi people are "free," and don't make too much of a fuss (which sure as hell ain't guaranteed). But if this story above gets printed in a few major media outlets, I feel assured in saying that this man is going to be smeared like nobody's business. Think Scott Ritter, or to a lesser degree, Hans Blix. I'm betting that they'll first say that he didn't have access to the deep intelligence that the White House did, then imply that he was a sloppy and unintelligent agent, and then maybe start questioning why he "retired," and hint at incompetence or some sort of scandal.

June 06, 2003

Our Brave President

In an event largely unnoticed by the media, President Bush visited Iraq today.

Well, if you consider flying over a country from 31,000 feet for an hour while your staff points out and identifies national landmarks that look like little blobs to be "a visit." And most people probably don't.

According to a White House staffer, the point of the flyover was to "show that Iraq is now free." Because you can't fly over non-free countries. Or because free countries look different from non-free countries when you're really high up. Or something.

June 04, 2003

Shock! Surprise! Yawn!

Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

I can't even type the obligatory sarcastic reply here. "What, it was about oil blah blah blah".

But what's Wolfowitz's game here? Is he trying to get fired?

[update]

This Modern World points out that the above is possibly taken out of context. According to a transcript of the press conference posted by the Defense Department:

Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different.

[/update]

Dayum!

Surgeon General Favors Tobacco Ban

Liquid Irony

June 2003: Members of the world's wealthiest industrialized nations, AKA the G8, meet in Evian, France to discuss matters of great importance.

Among the topics discussed: lack of access to clean water among the world's poorest.

Gallons of bottled water consumed by G8 delegates during four day summit: 7800

Bit o' News

Unreconstructed- go read this one. Long but fairly comprehensive look at the current state of Afghanistan- politically, economically, socially, etc. The main focus of the article is on the incredible amount of work and money that is needed to rebuild Afghanistan, and the utter lack of work and money that has been given by the wealthy Western nations who promised to give it.

Iraqis Say They Will Defy U.S. On Council Plan- wow. The U.S. occupation leaders called for a major conference of Iraqi political leaders to start making decisions on a quasi-democratic interim government. Then, the U.S. cancelled the conference, claiming that the country wasn't ready for that yet, that the U.S. would just appoint leaders. Now, Iraqis are saying that they are going to have the conference anyway. Don't know where that's going to lead...

Study: Detainees abused after 9/11- this story got a bit of play in the mainstream news. In the wake of 9-11, U.S. law enforcement went nuts, imprisoning hundreds of "Middle Eastern" and Muslim men without the usual due process of arrest. In effect, these men were abducted and held prisoner for weeks, without anyone knowing where they had gone. It seemed illegal and immoral right on the face of it. But now a report from the Justice Department says that a number of these detainees suffered "physical and verbal abuse" from their captors. Not surprising, really.

TV News That Looks Local, Even if It's Not- this is downright creepy. It's about the Sinclair Broadcast Group, a company that owns 62 American television stations. For newscasts at all SBG-owned stations, the show is perhaps half done by the local station's news team. The other half is produced at SBG headquarters, and is played on all of the local stations, passing off a national newscast as a local one. Even stranger, part of the national broadcast is fiery right-wing invective by Mark Hyman. Hyman is not a journalist or political analyst, but the Vice President of Corporate Communications for SBG. But scariest is when the local content is driven out of the local news. How the hell are you going to find out what your local politicians and business are doing if no one will cover those stories?

June 02, 2003

Don't Want to Alarm You, But...

Okay, here is a grim headline from today's Washington Post regarding the U.S. occupation of Iraq:

Leave Iraq, Tribesmen and Sacked Troops Tell U.S.

Important news indeed. But in my mind, not quite so important as the first sentence:

"Thousands of sacked Iraqi soldiers threatened Monday to launch suicide attacks against U.S. troops..."

Shouldn't that have been the headline, something like "Thousands of Iraqis Threaten Suicide Attacks on U.S. Troops"?

Actually, I guess it's hard to tell from the way the article is written if that statement is completely true. What we get is the claim that "more than 3,000 sacked soldiers marched on the U.S-led administration's headquarters vowing violence unless they were paid wages and compensation" and then a quote from one of these ex-soldiers vowing that they will all become suicide bombers. Do his 3000 comrades share his sentiment? This article won't tell you.

Okay, we'll re-write that headline again to incorporate the ambiguity. "Thousands of Iraqi Soldiers Threaten Violence Against U.S. Unless Receive Back Wages". Still a grim situation.

Is there any good news coming out of Iraq these days?

Another Quickie

U.S. prison population largest in world

Well, by percentage of total population, anyway. As of April, the United States had 2,019,234 people in prison. Which means that proportionally, we have more people in jail than any dictatorship or police state on the globe. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that that's a bad thing.

Why do we have so many people in jail? The prime culprit, of course, is America's ridiculous drug policies, followed closely by America's mandatory minimum sentencing policies. I'd recommend the book The Perpetual Prisoner Machine by Joel Dyer for more info on this subject (he also throws in "private, for-profit prisons" as another factor). But it should just be good old common sense that turning pot-smoking teens into hardened ex-cons isn't the best use of our tax dollars.

May 31, 2003

Cut to the Chase

Jack Straw, Colin Powell had serious doubts over their Iraqi weapons claims
US Intel 'Simply Wrong' on Chemical Attack-General
Australian Intelligence Knew US Was Lying About WMD Programme
How the US & UK Manipulated UN Reports That Led Us Into War
Colin Powell on US WMD Report, "This is Bullshit"

Honestly, a few of those stories above have some shaky sourcing, but most have at least some good evidence that the U.S. claims of WMD were exaggerated at best, or that smart people in high places believed that the claims were unsubstantiated.

Of course to those of us paying attention at the time, this was obvious. I examined every public piece of evidence that allegedly supported the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and did not find any of them to be particularly compelling.

In addition, there was evidence at the time that members of the Bush White House were pressuring American intelligence to "find" evidence that damned Iraq.

Therefore none of the news links I posted above were really "news." Maybe it's "news" that the media is actually starting to look into this possiblity that Bush & crew misled the American people, and the whole world.

Of course, that doesn't matter too much to most Americans, who have readily fallen for the bait and switch. We liberated the Iraqi people, and that's good enough for them.

So as the media slowly uncovers history in bits and pieces, let me write the story that should be headline news, and would save a whole lotta ink.

Bush Invaded Iraq Because He "Damn Well Felt Like It"
Sun June 1 2003 5:30PM
By Jake Sexton

WASHINGTON (LMB)- In a series of candid interviews today, key members of the Bush administration admitted that the decision to invade Iraq had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein's tyranny, weapons of mass destruction, or links to Al Qaeda. "We invaded Iraq," said Bush, "because it seemed like a good idea."

Bush confided that he had been seriously shaken by the events of 9-11. "Nothing like that could be allowed to happen on American shores again," he said, "and when Wolfie [Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz] and Rummy [Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld] told me that Iraq could maybe give the United States another 9-11, but with nuclear weapons... Saddam Hussein's a bad man, and that's just the sorta thing he'd do, I know that from TV. It was then that I knew that the man had to go. Lucky for us, Rummy and his pals already had a plan."

"Man, that guy is a sucker," cackled Donald Rumsfeld. "Me and the fellas had this great idea some years back to get power over there in the Middle East. We go throw out Saddam Hussein and take over Iraq. Now we've got Saudi Arabia shitting bricks, because if we've got control of Iraq's oil, we don't need Saudi Arabia's. Our attack won't just get us the oil, but it will put the fear of God into all the other countries in the region that haven't been as, uh, cooperative with the United States as they had been in the past: Iran, Syria, Jordan, Yemen. And if any of them don't act like team players, we can easily take them out too, just like Iraq."

Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle recounted the difficulty of putting their radical plan into action. "There just was no good reason to invade Iraq-- well, no reason that your average peace-loving hippy American would accept. Man, I hate the public so much!!" He snarled and bared his teeth, and then resumed his tale. "After 9-11, we had a great excuse: terrorism! Bush bought into it right away. We didn't need to explain much to him or present him with any sort of evidence or strategy. He listened to Don [Rumsfeld], listened to me, pretended to listen to [Colin] Powell. Then he gave me and Don a thumbs-up and went back to playing his GameBoy."

Paul Wolfowitz completed the story. "We pushed hard with the 'Saddam helped Al Qaeda' angle, but that never went too far. But a lot of our work was cut out for us, thanks to the media. They'd been helping demonize Saddam Hussein for well over a decade, so the public was ready to believe just about anything we said about him. We thought about going with the 'Saddam eats babies' message, but decided to stick with a simpler 'Saddam's going to kill us all with his evil death weapons' line. On top of that, we tried to throw the words 'terror' or 'terrorist' into every statement that mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein. 'Saddam's terrorist regimes', 'terrorist groups and dictators like Saddam Hussein', "Saddam Hussein and his arsenal of terror,"and so on. That was pretty effective."

Effective it was. After 9-11, about 3% of Americans thought that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terror attack. By March of 2003, despite any hard evidence, as many as 44% of Americans were convinced that Iraq was involved in the attack.

So what about the weapons of mass destruction? How did that fit in?

Said Rumsfeld, "Did Iraq have weapons of mass destruction? Probably. Was Saddam Hussein going to use them against the United States? Probably not. Did we care? Hell no."

"Then we listened to that damned Coin Powell. Jeez, we oughtta have him killed," grumbled Vice President Dick Cheney. "The American people were buying our story about the weapons, and he decided we should try to make it legit by going to the UN. That was a fucking disaster. Set the invasion back by 6 months or more. And made us a laughingstock. Well, a laughingstock outside of the U.S., anyway. But there is a bit of a silver lining in that we were able to grossly undermine the UN's credibility."

As weeks turn into months with no sign of the alleged weapons of mass destruction, why aren't the American people finally turning on the men in power who lied their way to war?

It seems that the Bush administration has pulled off an amazing sleight of hand trick. Once the invasion seemed inevitable, the White House shifted much of its rhetoric to the theme of "liberating the Iraqi people." They maintained that message, going so far as to shift the name of the military action from former feel-good or nature-themed names like "Operation Just Cause" or "Operation Desert Storm" to the rather transparent "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

Essentially, the Bush administration has turned a failed card trick into a political victory. The Bush administration promised to guess which card the American people had pulled from the deck. And when Bush guesses the wrong card, instead of saying "no, my card was the three of clubs," the American people have said "the seven of diamonds, that's a very nice card too."

We confronted President Bush about this in our final interview.

"Okay, you caught me. We didn't have any evidence. We invaded Iraq cuz we damn well felt like it. This invasion was in the best interests of the American people--well, the rich ones who are my friends anyway. Don't you understand? America is not safe unless other countries fear us, us and our weapons. And they're not going to fear us unless we do a little invading now and then. In addition, American military intervention is key to supporting America's kill-dependent economy."

"So we invaded Iraq, big deal?" concluded the president. "A few Americans died, a few Iraqis died, who cares about them? It was a small price to pay to maintain global order. Imagine what the plantation would be like if all the slaves and fieldhands went around doing what they wanted instead of what the master wanted them to do. Chaos, anarchy. We can't have that."

May 29, 2003

Scandalous

When I was an undergraduate in college, I enrolled in a class called "World Literature." I had assumed it would be a potpourri, with notable works from authors from around the globe. However it turned out that every year, the class was about the literature of a specific region. That year it was the literature of Africa. I decided to stick with it.

It didn't take me long to realize that I didn't know a goddam thing about Africa. Well, I knew about the pyramids, Momar Qaddafi, the Ethiopian famine, and apartheid, but that was it. One of the only six populated continents on planet Earth, and I was completely ignorant about it. To make matters more uncomfortable, the professor was from Africa, a dissident poet who'd had to flee the country to avoid arrest or death squad. A man who risked his life for the freedom of the people of a country on a continent I knew nothing about.

All those feelings of embarassed guilt have come back lately, when reading news stories like this one.

In the past five years of civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo in central Africa, 3 million people have died.

Funny, I didn't read that in the newspaper.

Obviously we can't know everything. No one can be an expert on every conflict, on every nation, on every event. So it's not shameful that we might not have heard anything about this. But the media ignore just about everything about Africa just about 100% of the time. That is shameful. And we should all feel a little foolish for not noticing the absence of news from that big-ass continent.

Sadly, I see it as a feedback loop. Schools don't teach us much about many parts of the world. And we don't learn more about these parts of the world as adults because the media doesn't cover them. The media doesn't cover them because the public isn't interested in them. The public isn't interested in them because it doesn't know anything about them. And it doesn't know much about them because schools don't teach us much about many parts of the world.

Only three ways out of this, really.

1) Pressure schools to teach more about the rest of the world
2) Pressure the media to cover stories about the rest of the world
3) Teach yourself about the rest of the world

Hey fellow bloggers and writers, let's try to take up some of the mass media's slack. Let's teach ourselves, and try to pass the info on to our readers.

War Bashin'

What a Tangled Web We Weave- blogger Billmon traces the White House rhetorical trajectory from "we're sure Iraq has WMDs" to "we're sure will find Iraq's WMDs" to "maybe Iraq no longer has any WMDs." All quotes dated and sourced.

Post-War Iraq Quiz- Stephen Shalom of Z Magazine presents a list of questions about the state of Iraq. If you're ever unsure of the correct multiple choice answer, think to yourself "which answer is most depressing" and you'll get an A.

More of that Clever Logic

"A report by the CIA and Defence Intelligence Agency yesterday concluded that two trucks found in northern Iraq with laboratory equipment represented the 'strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare programme'"

"but it conceded that no traces of biological agents had been found, nor was there any indication that the trucks had been used for that purpose."

So... if no evidence is their strongest evidence... either they've got nothing, or their making bold new steps in rhetoric.

The fact that there is no evidence that these trucks were used for a biological warfare program is the strong proof that the U.S. has that Iraq had a biological warfare program. The fact that I don't have a million dollars is proof that I'm a millionaire, and the fact that I'm not the president is proof that I'm the president.

May 27, 2003

My Summer Vacation

Some of you may have asked yourselves at some point, “I wonder what Jake does for a living that gives him the time to read so much, and write so frequently, and look so sexy.” The time has come to answer these questions.

Until fairly recently, I was the political advisor for Rage Against the Machine (no, really *). Their singer left back in 2000, but I continued working with the remaining fellows on political issues until they formed their new band, Audioslave. After that, I was sort of in flux, being more of a Political Consultant for Rock Bands, mainly for a few things for Rage’s guitarist, and oddball metal band System of a Down. Then the guitarist of Rage/Audioslave and the singer for System of a Down decided we should all collaborate and form a political organization that would make use of their media access and rock star fortunes, and my knowledge and my ability to stare at a computer screen for 45 hours a day without going blind.

So my job has now shifted from Political Consultant to Director of a Non-Profit Organization (well, technically of two non-profit organizations) called Axis of Justice which the three of us run (well, they supply ideas, fame and money, I do the rest). Which is a lot like my old job, except I also have to deal with paperwork and fundraising. AOJ is basically anything that we three want it to be to achieve our political goals. I’m a quasi-anarchist encouraging people to think and act and remake the world, Tom Morello’s an IWW-style socialist encouraging people to unionize and kick their bosses’ asses, and Serj is some kind of cross between a Buddhist and Bob Marley encouraging people to unite in peace and harmony. What’s the result? I find out day by day.

Yes, my job kicks much ass. I often say that I’m the luckiest non-rich man in America. The job combines my love of music and obsession with politics. I don’t have to commute anywhere. My work has meaning and helps people, unlike so many other jobs I’ve had. It occasionally has fringe benefits like free tickets to concerts and such. And now I get the bonus of a free cross-country trip.

Unless tragedy strikes (which I honestly can’t rule out these days), I will be traveling with the revived Lollapalooza tour this summer, to run an Axis of Justice tent dedicated to activism. Yes, your geeky, angry, overworked narrator will be traveling the U.S. of A. with millionaire rock stars in effort to incite concert-goers to overthrow the government and such. We’re working with a lot of excellent groups: Food Not Bombs, Anti-Racist Action, Independent Media Centers, RAINN, a bunch of local independent political bookstores, a bunch of local peace groups, and more. It’s a good feeling to find people who are doing good work to try to make their communities a better place and then to say “hey, what can I do to help you out?”

So if you go to the Lollapalooza tour this year (which, given the line-up, I really can’t recommend), find the tent and come say hello. Look for the guy with the bright red hair (I’m thinking of dying my hair Ronald McDonald red for the tour, to make myself more easily identifiable to the hundreds of strangers I’ll be working with). Failing that, ask for “Jake.” Or “Captain Smirky.”

Also, feel free to recommend local activist groups in or near any of the stops on the tour.

Since I will be physically on the go for weeks and weeks, my radio show will be on hiatus from early July through late August. In addition, this website will probably be quite different during that period as well. Since I won’t have the time to be reading and poring over the day’s news, yet will be experiencing the fairly unusual adventure of touring with rock bands and meeting activists across the country, this site will temporarily be Jake’s Rock’n Tour & Politics Diary or something. It’s bound to be interesting, but in a very different way than the usual site.

So there you have it, a slice of Jake’s weirdo life. You can’t have it, it’s all mine.

* Actually, one factual error in that linked article. I was a Communications student, not a Sociology student.

It's an irritating story, really. The editor of the OC Weekly called me up to try to get RATM's endorsement for an event they were doing. I figured he was calling in that capacity, that we were conversing as two people working together to try to get an innocent kid out of jail, not as a reporter and an interviewee. Apparently I was wrong. I didn't find out till months later, and I was pretty pissed off. That, ladies and gentlemen, is why you always let reporters know that you're speaking to them "off the record," even when (or maybe especially when) you think that should be obvious to them.

Anyhow, the error came when he asked, "what are you studying, sociology?" and I said "yeah," cuz I didn't think it mattered and it was easier than having to explain what the field of "communications" was for the thousandth time. So let's just say that I have an honorary degree in sociology from Shoddy Journalism University.

May 23, 2003

War vs. Tourism

Little known fact: the U.S. government gave $2.5 billion to the airline industry to help them out during the Iraq war's decreased travel and higher fuel prices.

But, according to this fellow, the airline industry only lost $2 billion in decreased trabel and fuel prices.

Yes ladies and gentlemen, the airline industry made half a billion dollars to do nothing but let the military bomb some foreign country. Nice work if you can get it.

It'll never cease to amaze me how the same companies that scream "FREE MARKET!" at the top of their lungs 95% of the time will become whiny begging bitches the moment they think they can get a government handout. It's never about ideology, only about winning.

Road to Who Knows Where

Top headline on Yahoo News:

Sharon Accepts U.S.-Backed Peace Plan

This article claims that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has agreed to the US- proposed "road map to peace" between Israel and Palestine.

Well techincally, Sharon's office said that "Israel is prepared to accept the steps prescribed in the road map." There's a lot of wiggle room there, I can easily imagine a new statement that says "we accept the steps, but not in that order."

Then there's this article here all about how the Israeli government has hired a bunch of American PR agents to undermine the U.S. plan. I recommend reading that one, as it lays out quite explicitly recommendations for how Israeli spokesmen could manipulate and persuade the American public to side with Israel on this issue. Makes the first article look a little puzzling.

And finally, this article:

Israel's Concerns May Alter Road Map

Apparently Sharon has accepted the "broad outlines" of the road map, and the "United States recognizes Israel's concerns and will seek to address them." In other words, Sharon has said that he'd like peace, but doesn't accept the U.S. plan to get there.

It looks to me like no progress has been made at all.

May 22, 2003

Some Links

Indonesia will intern civilians in war against Aceh rebels- the Indonesian government is saying that it will put up to 200,000 innocent citizens into internment camps as part of its war on the Free Aceh Movement in the Aceh province. Sounds pretty fucked up to me.

Surveys pointing to high civilian death toll in Iraq- sigh. The gathering of evidence is still a work in progress, but researchers are claiming that between 5000 and 10,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the latest war.

State monitored war protesters- the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center (brought to you by the Department of Justice) has been spying on/gathering information on the anti-war movement, and apparently using tiny tidbits and distortions of this info to scare police into cracking down on them. CATIC gave warning to the Oakland Police Department that activists might try to use violent behavior to shut down the port. Police responded by shooting wooden bullets at the protesters. To my knowledge, there was never a call to shut down the port, or to use violence.

Lots of problems here. The first is that a government agency is spying on people because of their political ideology. The second is that this agency might be using its information (or alleged information) to infringe on the civil rights of these people. Third (and fairly trivially), the agency is not doing its job. I want to be safe from terrorism. Every moment and tax dollar this agency is spending on peace activists is a moment and dollar they are not spending on catching members of Al Qaeda and any new militant groups that might arise.

But most frightening was this quote from CATIC spokesman Mike Van Winkle:

"You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that (protest). You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act."

Israel/Palestine: Why the Wall isn't about peace- good one to visit just for the visuals. A picture of what the border of Palestine will look like if Israel keeps building its "Separation Wall."

CALLS FOR AUDIT HIT 'IDOL'- probably today's stupidest "news" story. Professional rumormonger Matt Drudge claims that an unnamed "top executive" form a TV network is calling for an audit in the votes for the "American Idol" TV show. Who cares? At best, this is a smear by said TV exec (who works for a "rival network" to Idol's Fox), at worst the man's an idiot with no sense of priorities.

Media Monopoly vs. Democracy- an issue I really should have been talking up more here on the site. The FCC will vote June 2 on new rules of media ownership, likely increasing the amount of marketshare one company can have from 35% of the nation to 45% of the nation, and altogether removing limits on owning a broadcast station and a newspaper in the same town. Not quite the terror it's being described as in the lefty press (they aren't looking at the specific plan, simply describing the removal of all regulations on media ownership. Which isn't too far off, as it seems to be FCC chair Michael Powell's ultimate goal), but it's still not good. I think we all know how a handful of massive conglomerates control most of the nation's media outlets, but do we want to shrink that number any further? At present, it looks like the vote will go 3-2 in favor of the deregulation. The only hope of stopping it seems to be to lobby Congress to get involved. And you can easily send such a message to your Congresspeople by clicking here.

Well Connected- related to the article above, here is an easily searchable database of who owns every local radio station, TV station, cable company and telephone company in America.

Preachin'

"People who follow authority are dangerous motherfuckers. More crimes are committed in the name of obedience than disobedience. It's always the people who do what they're told who end up carrying out genocides and gas attacks. So just to be on the safe side I've stopped doing what I'm told, ever. That way you can always be sure."

- Banksy

May 21, 2003

Ari on Ari

Damn funny skit in which the White House press corps quiz Ari Fleischer about his own resignation.

Spy Update

Here is a longer version of the article I linked to earlier about the "Terrorist Information Awareness" system (the renamed and possibly revamped "Total Information Awareness" system):

Pentagon changes the name of its new anti-terror surveillance system

May 20, 2003

Now You See It...

Remember back in Bush's State of the Union Address where he promised to spend $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa?

Body and Soul tells us how that's pretty much a load of bullshit.

Link Soup

Man, it's been a long time since I've posted one of my miscellaneous links entries...

A Terror Tracking System By Any Other Name- go spread the word about this one right now. Remember that creepy-ass, Big Brother is watching you plan called Total Information Awareness? It is quite possibly back, under a new name: "Terrorist Information Awareness." It's being proposed by the same people, and those people are not saying how TIA 1 differs from TIA 2. Let's keep an eye on this one.

Instant-Mix Imperial Democracy (Buy One, Get One Free)- Arundhati Roy brings the goods. America as the empire that makes its own facts, the debasement of the concept of "democracy," corporations looting the Earth, etc. Go read.

Keepers of Bush Image Lift Stagecraft to New Heights- Bush the stage-managed. The PR wizards who make Bush the perpetual winner.

Kung Fu Philosophers- maybe "The Matrix" isn't as shallow as I thought it was.

Food: the way we eat now- Guardian investigative report about food. We all eat, we all think about what we eat, but we don't usually think too deeply on the subject. Maybe we should.

May 19, 2003

Pre-Emptive Strike

In St. Louis this week, a protest and conference were planned to raise awareness to the issue of genetically-engineered foods. It would take place shortly before the World Agricultural Forum meeting in that town (the directors of the WAF seemto be primarily involved in investment, commerce, and the AG industry). The counter-forum called itself Biodevastation 2003.

According to reports from the St. Louis Independent Media Center, the STL police raided the headquarters of two different organizations involved in the protests and arrested 20 people on trumped up charges before any of the protests got underway. The most egregious of these offenses is when the cops arrested one woman for having a "controlled substance," that might actually just be a bottle of Vitamin C. They have also "confiscated 20 bicycles, camping gear, puppets, construction materials, tools, circus equipment and many more items."

The police chief has explained that these raids were necessary because the protesters were planning violent attacks on the WAF meeting. He pointed to the "weapons" found on site. The protesters point out that the "weapons"-- rocks, nails and "circus whips," were used in construction (well, the last presumably as props during the protest). Bottles with rags in them were "molotov cocktails" according to the cops. That last one pisses me off something fierce, because 1) protesters are often making props for their events shortly before the event, and rags and bottles are easy ways to store and manipulate paint and turpentine, and 2) how hard is it for cops to fabricate this "evidence" by finding an open bottle inside a house and stuffing a rag/sock/paper towel into the opening? One alleged witness claims to have seen one of the cops doing just that.

Long story short, it seems that the police in St. Louis tried to scare the city into believing that a bunch of violent protesters were going to raze the city, and the only way to protect the good people of STL was to take down these "eco-terrorists" in advance (probably not mentioning that what they're going to do is kinda illegal). Then they make some arrests and maybe bust some heads. And when there's no violence, they can take credit for Saving the City.

That's a neat trick, actually. Watch.

Unless I type the word "banana" in the next ten seconds, the Earth is going to explode.

...
...

Banana

The Earth didn't explode! Hooray, I've saved the world! Love me and shower me with gifts!

Sadly, I can't verify much of this story. The folks at Independent Media Centers are usually pretty reliable folks (I can't say the same for the random folks who post the articles that appear in the right-hand column of all their sites), so I tentatively believe their version of the story. In addition, I can think of at least three different occasions when cops have done this pre-emptive activist raid in the past (IMF/WB protest in DC in spring 2000, RNC protests in Philly in Summer 2000, G8 protests in Genoa, Italy in summer 2001), so I know that it does indeed happen.

These are the sort of things that really try your patience with Democratic or liberal plans for saving the world. Law enforcement is breaking the law. People's dissent is being criminalized. Personal property is entered. Personal possesions are taken. Free speech is being suspended. You only have the rights that people with power decide not to take away. And they're going to get away with it.

Knowing all that, I'm supposed to believe that the way to positive social change is voting for Al Gore and chanting a political slogan at a legally-permitted rally?

Anyhow, more info on all this at the STL IMC site and at the Biodevastation site.

If you want to get involved, the Biodev people recommend that you "call the Chief of Police Joe Mokwa, at (314) 444-5624 and demand their immediate release and stop their harassment of the movement against genetic engineering and corporate agribusiness. We understand that the police may hang up as people try to call the above number. Other numbers for police are (314) 444-5555 and (314) 231-1212."

Good News

Ari Fleischer Resigns

Well, he'll stay on the job until July, but then his lying ass is heading for the "private sector."

So long, you fucking snake!

May 18, 2003

Imperfect Attendance Record

Sorry, no LMB radio show tomorrow. I'll try to get back to my regular schedule soon. And then I'll be gone half the summer. Interesting story, remind me to tell you about it sometime.

May 17, 2003

Operation Iraqi Something

In Reversal, Plan for Iraq Self-Rule Has Been Put Off- "In an abrupt reversal, the United States and Britain have indefinitely put off their plan to allow Iraqi opposition forces to form a national assembly and an interim government by the end of the month. Instead, top American and British diplomats leading reconstruction efforts here told exile leaders in a meeting tonight that allied officials would remain in charge of Iraq for an indefinite period, said Iraqis who attended the meeting."

This is one of those stories that many opinionists like myself could write about with mock outrage and confusion, "but I thought our goal was to bring democracy to the Iraqi people." I'm not in the mood.

All along, I've believed that the invasion of Iraq was part of a new foreign policy strategy to intimidate the nations (and possibly terrorist organizations) in the Middle East, while also securing U.S. economic and energy interests by putting a U.S.-friendly leader in charge of Iraq. It was never about freedom, never about UN mandates, never about threats to American lives.

In this light, it comes as little surprise that the U.S. would put its own officials in charge of Iraq "for an indefinite period." Once the U.S. has built the foundation and structure of the new Iraqi government, selected heads of important institutions, and set several key policies and relationships in stone, the Iraqi people can elect whoever the hell they want as their "leader" (well, so long as the leader is not a radical Muslim); by that point, it'll be too late, the new leader will be bound so tightly by pre-existing rules and agreements that he will have little choice but to serve (elite) American interests.

Therefore this news item makes perfect sense, and does not represent an inconsistency, or backpedaling. Everything is going according to plan. It's just not a very pretty plan.

The Funny Pages

From our cartoony pals.

The Boondocks:

This is your brain on news

This is your brain on news II

Ted Rall:

I've said it before, I'll say it again, democracy doesn't work!

Tom the Dancing Bug:

It was much better than "Cats"...

May 13, 2003

On the Lam

The story of the Texas Democrats fleeing the state legislature to prevent the Republicans from redrawing the Congressional districts is funny. But I'll let Adam Felber give you the scoop.

Totally unrelated, this PBS series looks good.

The Unblinking Eye

Okay, raise your hands if this makes you feel safer.

Homeland Security considers drone patrols

They're talking about flying flocks of robot spy planes to patrol the U.S. border!!

Apparently Tom Ridge wants to turn all of America into one big Orwell-inspired theme park. God bless his crypto-fascist heart!

"Predator drones". You know, those ones that we used to spy on Iraq and assassinate Al Qaeda suspects in Yemen? Those things are going to be cruising the southern parts of San Diego and El Paso, keeping a watchful eye on everything below. Groovy. Nothing spells security like that creepy feeling that you're being watched. I'll sleep easier at night knowing that the Border Patrol has the ability to launch hellfire missile attacks on guys sneaking into the U.S. to pick lettuce for a dollar an hour.

Flying spy robots! What the fuck sci-fi movie has my life wandered into? Next thing I know I'm going to be finding Smuckers Brand Soylent Green on the supermarket shelf and fighting Morlocks in the shower.

It's become an American tradition, the quick techno-fix. Somehow we've been tricked into thinking that if we throw a computer at a problem it'll go away. We can end hunger if we give laptops to the homeless. We can end racism by stapling microchips to Klansmen. Genetically-engineered pomegranates will bring about world peace. My fellow Americans, we are stupid. Sometimes technology can solve a problem. On rarer occasions, technology is the best solution to a problem. But it's not always the answer, and we need to start remembering that.

Now, keeping that in mind, who really thinks that robot fucking spyplanes are the best way of using American tax dollars to protect American citizens from terrorism?

That's what I thought.

Correction

LMB would like to apologize for incorrectly using the phrase "war against Iraq" during this latest U.S. military action.

As we have now been informed by the White House's Karl Rove, the correct phrase is "battle of Iraq".

Just as the Civil War was made up of the "battles" of Gettysburg, Bull Run and countless others, the "war on terrorism" will likewise have many "battles", against many countries and peoples who may or may not have anything to do with terrorism.

The "war" will surely last at least up until election day 2004.

LMB is really really sorry for the error.

May 10, 2003

Sign in Blood

On May 2, 2003, British TV news cameraman James Miller was shot and killed in the Rafah refugee camp, in the Gaza Strip portion of the Occupied Territories.

Israeli soldiers had been shooting in Miller's direction at that time, but the Israeli military claimed that Miller had been "killed in crossfire"-- that he'd been killed by Palestinians, not Israelis.

Now there is persuasive autopsy, video and audio evidence which make it seem near certain that Miller was killed by the Israeli military, and that there might have been no "crossfire" whatsoever.

So Israel has taken a bold new step to deal with the recent outbreak of shootings of foreigners by its own soldiers in the Occupied Territories:

All foreigners entering the Occupied Territories must sign a waiver saying it is okay for the Israeli military to shoot them

Well, that's not how Israel phrases it, but let's call a spade a spade. If you sign a document that "absolv[es] the army from responsibility if it shoots [you]", then the army is under no legal obligation to not shoot you. Once you sign the document, it is ok for Israeli soldiers to shoot and kill you as soon as you set foot in the West Bank or Gaza.

To enter these zones, you must also declare that you are not a peace activist, you cannot come near Jewish settlements inside the Territories, and cannot enter areas declared "military zones" by the Israeli military.

This new policy has several very obvious goals:

- shift blame for any accidental deaths of foreigners from the military to the victims themselves. You signed the waiver, if you get killed, there's no one to blame but yourself.

- cripple or destroy the International Solidarity Movement. ISM is a group of peace activists who put their bodies on the line to protect Palestinians who might otherwise be attacked or killed by trigger-happy Israeli soldiers. The keystone of the ISM's activity is that the soldiers would be less likely to kill "internationals" than they would be to kill Palestinians, because of the potential international controversy it could cause. This new policy neatly removes this keystone.

- eliminate negative press coverage of Israeli operations in the Occupied Territories by frightening journalists away or by outright banning them from the hot zones. Foreign journalists are not allowed in the "military zones," and can now only enter the rest of the Palestinian areas accepting a much greater threat of physical harm.

That ain't good.

Do I have to point out how ridiculous and immoral all that is? Nah, I think y'all are capable of auto-generating your own outrage.

While on the topic, I should probably remind you about a section of my site here called Reports from Palestine. Last summer, my friend Garrick Ruiz and his friend Tamara Rettino spent months in the Occupied Territories as part of the ISM. They both sent back regular email reports about their experiences. Anyone who feels that Israel is justified in its actions towards the Palestinians should certainly give this a read, because it shows the other side with a deep, personal touch (Garrick's reports are often fueled by disgust and anger, Tamara's more by shock and grief). I can't condone terrorist attacks on Israel, but it seems quite obvious to me (partially made apparent by these two's personal reports) that the Israelis are carrying out a grossly immoral repression against the Palestinians, the vast majority of whom pose no threat and are guilty of no crime.

May 08, 2003

Doubleplusgood

Bush, Blair nominated for Nobel peace prize for Iraq war

No, really.

May 07, 2003

He Says He's Not Dead

Everyone go welcome back Salam Pax, the well-known yet mysterious author of the "Where is Raed?" blog.

"Where is Raed?" came to prominance just prior to the Iraq war, because Salam claims to be a resident of Baghdad. Obviously the internet has that fun anonymous quality that made it near impossible to verify his location ( but his/her months of previous posts support the claim of Baghdad residence). And when his blog went updateless for weeks and weeks after the war started, people began to wonder if he had been killed in the attacks.

Seems like he's okay, and has bulk posted 15 entries from March 24 through May 1. Go see what Baghdad's looking like through the eyes of a resident.

May 06, 2003

They Eat Their Own

A number of right-wing crazies over at the Free Republic have come to a conclusion.

Bill O'Reilly is a leftist

Their evidence for this appears to be that O'Reilly is not sucking Bush's cock as well as he has in the past, and therefore he opposes Bush. And therefore O'Reilly is the enemy. And therefore he must be destroyed.

(Okay, I really can't disagree with that last point)

To the relief of sanity-loving people everywhere, only about half of the Freepers seem to feel this way. As for the other half, they send an uplifting message of hope, that people with massive, massive chromosomal damage can still become somewhat functional members of society.

May 05, 2003

Off the Air

Sorry folks, no LMB radio show today. Work beckons. Show will return next week.

May 03, 2003

Do Not Pass Go

As you may have heard, the US, UK, EU and Russia (can I call them the RU to make all the names match?) have drawn up a plan to peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

As Adam Felber points out, the plan has a few kinks in it.

May 01, 2003

Missiledick

My feelings towards George W. Bush usually hold steady at a cold, sullen anger, but today's brass-balled manipulation have fanned it to a clenched-jawed fury. I hate lies, I hate exploitation, and I hate it when people let themselves fall for both the former. But since Bush's heart pumps deceit like others' pump blood, American lives are condemned to gullibility, repressed rage, or outright violence for the duration of his presidency.

The bullshit got an early start here in San Diego, where I've spent most of my days lately (long story, don't ask). Regular TV programming cut off a little after 10am. "Oh, this must be the Bush speech I'd been hearing about," I thought. Not so. The local networks felt that it was of vital importance that they show footage of Bush's plane, Air Force One, landing at a San Diego airport, eight hours before he was scheduled to give his speech. And it wasn't even good footage, just some cameraman on a beach a dozen miles away, aiming his lens at distant, blurry jetliner. A number of people were gathered on this beach, I guess to see the plane land from their best available vantage point (or possibly in hopes that if they stood near the TV cameras long enough, that they might get their picture in the news).

I was pleased when the TV reporter initially chose the wrong person to interview.

"Sir, why are you here today?" she asked, clearly hoping for an effusive display.

"I was out running," he replied, "and I stopped to see why all these people were here."

"So now that you've seen it, what do you think?" she asked, a bit breathlessly.

"Well, it's just a plane being flown by your average airline pilot. No big deal, really."

Thank you good sir.

But of course, the reporter did manage to track someone down to talk about how exciting it was to watch a plane land.

What followed was so much manipulative drivel I can barely stand it.

President Bush was going to give a speech to announce that major combat in Iraq was over. A pretty unnecessary thing to do, as anyone who's turned on the TV or read a newspaper in the past two weeks knows that. Perhaps Bush was giving this speech to boost his popularity? Nah.

But it didn't stop there. Bush decided to give this speech ON AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER. As you are aware, most presidential speeches are given behind desks or lecterns in various buildings around Washington DC, and not on the decks of nuclear-powered waterborne fortresses. But, if he gave his speech there, he would be surrounded by soldiers and weapons and look properly manly and imperial.

But it went two steps further. First, BUSH ARRIVED ON THE CARRIER IN A FIGHTER JET. He could've taken a helicopter or boat to the aircraft carrier, but instead chose to be flown there by a soldier in a combat aircraft. And, as you can see in the picture in the blog entry below, instead of simply being flown there in his usual suit and tie, Bush wore a military flight suit.

Bush got to look as though he was an actual fucking soldier who won the fucking war, even though all he did was sit in his office and say "go kill the bastards!" He got to look like a war hero even though he apparently deserted the National Guard back in the 1970s. What a fucking prick. His arrogance gland is going to run out of arrogance fluid, and he's going to need a replacement, that he'll probably take from the corpse of some veteran who's benefits Bush cut.

And to cap it all off, the perfect ending to a miserable day, was Bush's speech. It pretty much said what you'd expect, praising the brave men and women who risked Iraqi lives so that the Iraqis could live freely under American military occupation, with liberty and justice for oil. Saddam is bad, democracy is good, and America is even better.

But the icing on this cake of shit:

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.

GAAAAHHHH!!!!!

HE'S STILL CLAIMING THAT IRAQ WAS WORKING WITH AL QAEDA!!!!

But now that he's here in sunny California, it seems that Bush is going to go speak to his constituents out here, American military contractors. According to AP, this is part of a re-election strategy to "[bridge] the seemingly disparate themes of the economy and national security." Of course, the message that sends me is that the only thing keeping the national economy afloat is massive government purchases of high tech weaponry that we've been frightened into thinking we need to protect us from the terrorist hordes abroad. But that could just be my formidable understanding of politics and economics talking.

I will go now, because it's late, and I still have to bang my head against a wall several hundred times before going to bed.

Daring-Do

Three fictional heros.

April 29, 2003

Sum Linkz

Sorry folks, I'm so busy lately that I barely have enough time to peruse and digest the news, let alone peruse, digest, and analyze the news, and then compose blog entries to match. So here are some rather random, yet good links with some commentary.

Domestic Nepotism- short version: George W. Bush appointed one of his ex-girlfriends to head the Export-Import Bank.

There's a bit more to it than that, she's currently a "homemaker," but she used to have fairly important positions at PepsiCo and Reader's Digest. The Ex-Im Bank is essentially a government agency that gives our tax dollars to help out American companies that sell their products abroad. Why do they deserve our money? Damn fine question. Is a former PepsiCo exec qualified to take my money away and give it to large corporations? Probably.

But the author makes one Earth-shatteringly precise point: "Can you imagine what the press would be saying if Clinton did this?"

Damn. If Clinton had been found to hire an ex-girlfriend, it would be the front page of every newspaper in the country. They'd be talking about it on Crossfire and the McLaughlin Group. The Republicans would have called for Clinton's resignation. Someone would have set the White House on fire. Saturday Night Live would have continued to suck.

But since its Bush, it's buried in the last paragraph in a wonky "inside Washington" type column on page A21 of the Washington Post.

Matters of Emphasis- nice summary of the "the war was a lie" info, with some context that explains why no one should have bought into this war in the first place.

A long and rambling post about women and war that's been ambling around my brain for a long time without ever settling comfortably into any known essay structure, even by the loose standards of blogs, but which perhaps can be defined as a small stab at a still developing genre -- the quiet and hesitant rant- My fellow males: we suck. Blogger Jeanne d'Arc notices something that very few men (if any) seemed to notice: women were mostly absent from all of the Iraqi post-war celebrations. This should be both chilling, and depressingly prophetic. Were the women unhappy about the fall of the regime and about their future prospects? And if not, what kept them off the streets? And worst of all, why didn't we notice this? Should've been pretty damned obvious, but something in our manly upbringings has put some real blinders on us. We oughtta work on that.

D'Arc points out how Iraq could easily sink into the one of the misogynist schools of fundamentalist Islam (ironically, even under the dictator Saddam, women had more rights than in most other countries in the Middle East). She also notes the lack of female representation in the coming Iraqi puppet government. That should be just as disturbing.

Can Men Be Feminists?- I'm not as interested in the title topic of the post (the answer given is "yes"), as in this quote:

When a man comes up to me and professes feminism, a lot of times, what it has meant is, "I want to be a better human being, and since you are a feminist woman, I'm going to dump it all at your feet and ask you to be responsible for my enlightenment while I pepper you with questions, demand that you explain all things feminist to me, and then when I fail to achieve the enlightenment I want, I can blame you for not enlightening me properly."

Which is a good point.

Fellas, women go through all the trials and tribulation our sexist society can pile on them, and on top of that, they're supposed to teach your sorry ass how to be a feminist?

A female friend of mine told me some time ago that her problem with most of the feminist movement was that it depended upon waiting around for men to change. She thought that women needed to be working on making women's lives better, and leave the men to do whatever.

So, my Y-chromosomed brothers, if you really care, if you really want to be the better person, you're going to have to do the work. You're going to have to teach yourself, you're going to have to read, you're going to have to think, you're going to have to change. I'm sure you have some female friends who'd be happy to share their experiences and feelings with you, and talk over some of the issues with you, but it's not their responsibility. It's yours.

I'd recommend starting with the book Feminism is for Everybody by bell hooks. She's brilliant, and lays everything out in a simple, common sense way. Using her definition of feminism, I think that "anti-sexism" might be a better label. Some men think that feminism is anti-male. hooks' feminism is not against men, it's against the sexist thoughts, beliefs and practices that can belong to both men and women. Aspects of sexism can both help and hurt members of either gender, but they most often priviledge men at the expense of women. Hopefully that description is a little less threatening.

Surely all this sounds like I think I am King of Feminist Land, but I'm far from that. I suck, but you've gotta start somewhere.

The M-Wunner- excellent comic from Ruben Bolling. As those damn H2 Humvee cars increase in numbers on our highways, the cartoonist wonders what if another military vehicle became popular for civilian use?

The more regimes change, the more it stays the same- Xoverboard points out that the recent government admission that they knew that Iraqi WMDs weren't really a threat came out almost a year to the day that the government admitted that they didn't really have enough evidence that Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan to justify bombing that country to hell. In August's words from a year ago: "You are no longer hearing it from the lunatic fringe. You are no longer hearing it from racist anti-Semitic websites that claim some inner Jewish conspiracy to cause 9/11. You are hearing it from the Defense Secretary of the United States of America: We declared Afghanistan was hosting bin Laden, then mocked the people who asked for evidence. We launched a campaign that killed thousands of civilians because we assumed he was there, but didn’t have the evidence. We bombed a country because we felt like it."

And last, but certainly not least:

U.S. Allows Iranian Group to Keep Arms- the U.S. signed a cease-fire with an Iranian terrorist group. Seriously. This means that the next time someone says something about Bush's "moral clarity," you have every right to kick them in the nuts.

April 27, 2003

America Smash!

This article is highly informative, and more than a little eerie.

American Power Moves Beyond the Mere Super

Basically argues that in absolutely all aspects of military capability-- nuclear weapons, navy, air power, ground forces, satelites, smart weapons, etc.-- the U.S. is absolutely supreme (well, China might have more foot soldiers).

The U.S. government is like Zeus, and it can smite anyone it damn well pleases.

April 25, 2003

Democracy without the Democracy

"Democracy" In Iraq: Sheiks and Swindlers

Excellent new piece by Maria Tomchick which actually looks at the nation-building project in Iraq. It looks bad, people. For the most part, it seems that the Muslim people of Iraq, after decades of repression, are busting with desire for an Islamic state. And the U.S. seems determined to prevent that from happening.

Real Silver Bullet?

Reason for War?- "To build its case for war with Iraq, the Bush administration argued that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but some officials now privately acknowledge the White House had another reason for war — a global show of American power and democracy."

Hmm... not exactly a left-wing source, ABC News...

Ghostly Silver Bullet

Dack is all over this story.

As near as I can figure:

NY Times reporter Judith Miller writes an explosive news story with new allegations about Iraq, WMD, and Al Qaeda by "an Iraqi scientist."

Buried within the article, comes the shaky evidence. It appears that a US military investigation team told Miller that an "Iraqi scientist" made these allegations to them. Miller has not spoken to or interviewed this man, and the military team has not identified him. All that Miller has really, is the military team's claim, has seen the alleged scientist from a distance, and has read an Arabic letter alleged from the man to the military team about the weapons.

That's it.

And it's being heralded as a "smoking gun" and a "silver bullet."

As always, it could be 100% true. But that's not much "evidence," if you ask me.

April 24, 2003

Kafka in Seattle

Emma over at Notes on the Atrocities wants us all to pay attention to the plight of Mike Hawash, an American citizen, not charged with any crime, who's being held indefinitely in solitary confinement as a "material witness." Go check it out.

And while you're at it, read her post about the Supreme Court case in which Nike is arguing that corporations have a Constitutional right to lie in their advertisements.

Welcome to the Club

New blog on the block

Oligopoly Watch- "The latest maneuvers of the new oligopolies and what they mean"

Keeping an eye on corporate power, mass mergers, and market domination. It's a little dry, but you do really need to know about this stuff if you want to understand what's going on in the world around you.

April 22, 2003

Yee-Haw

Date: April 22, 2003
Time: 4:11pm
Place: I-5 freeway South, Pasadena

It was a red Nissan pickup truck with matching camper shell.

Attached to the passenger side window was a small American flag.

On the bumper was a "Drop Davis" sticker and a "Bush-Cheney" sticker.

On the camper shell window was a US Marine Corps sticker and a "United We Stand" sticker.

On the inside of the glass on the back of the camper shell was a homemade sign on white paper, taped to the window. It read:

VISUALIZE WORLD PEACE THRU AMERICAN MILITARY SUPERIORITY

Jake Is...

Ever see the site Googlism?

I had it do a Google-y search of the net to answer "who is Jake?"

The answers are fun.

World Full of Bastards

Bush's Aides Plan Late Campaign Sprint in '04- paragraphs 4 and 5:

"The convention, to be held in New York City, will be the latest since the Republican Party was founded in 1856, and Mr. Bush's advisers said they chose the date so the event would flow into the commemorations of the third anniversary of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.

"The back-to-back events would complete the framework for a general election campaign that is being built around national security and Mr. Bush's role in combatting terrorism, Republicans said. Not incidentally, they said they hoped it would deprive the Democratic nominee of critical news coverage during the opening weeks of the general election campaign." (emphasis mine)

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. If Bush would try to build an unjust war on the backs of murdered Americans, why wouldn't he try to do something comparatively minor as trying to win the presidency on their dead bodies? But still, what an incredible asshole.

Ba'athists slip quietly back into control- Once upon a time, Iraq was ruled by the evil Saddam Hussein and his evil Ba'ath political party. Then the Americans came and drove the Ba'ath party away forever... until they let the Ba'ath party members back to resume their old positions.

Secret US file: oust regime in Pyongyang- "The United States should team up with China to press for the removal of North Korea's leadership, according to a classified memo circulated by the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld." Can't verify. In fact, it might be an intentional leak to intimidate North Korea and I might be just another pawn furthering Rumsfeld's secret agenda by mentioning it.

US warns of new global terror threats due to Iraq occupation- but... But we went into Iraq because of the... to fight against... Motherfucker! We had to go to Iraq to fight the war on terrorism... so we could increase global terrorism.

April 19, 2003

The Plot Thickens

Hmm....

Pentagon Expects Long-Term Access to Four Key Bases in Iraq- "The United States is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region, senior Bush administration officials say."

Even though there does not yet exist a new Iraqi government, the U.S. military is already planning on a deal with that new government that will appropriate some of Iraq's military bases. If the new Iraqi government is to be truly democratic, there is a good chance that it might not want a foreign military on their soil. If the new government is less than democratic, such a deal might be easily procured...

[edit]

Agonist points out an important fact in paragraph nine of that article:

In a particularly important development, officials said the United States was likely to reduce American forces in Saudi Arabia, as well.

The alleged reason that Al-Qaeda hates the United States because we have our infidel military forces in Saudi Arabia near the holy sites of Mecca and Medina. Getting U.S. forces out of Saudi Arabia could be one way of undercutting the terrorist group by removing the source of their alleged greivances.

Granted, by now they have many more reasons to hate us (attacks on Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq), but I think that getting U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia is a good move.

[/edit]

When the Answer is "Yes," Party at My House

Go take a look at

IsDickCheneyDeadYet.com

April 18, 2003

Korea

Korea, South and North, at Risk

Nice work by Chalmers Johnson, author of the fairly prophetic book Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire. The article is one of the most simple and complete I've seen to sum up the recent history of Korea and the United States.

Mathematics

Excellent piece from the BBC, Iraq war: Unanswered questions:

"One feature of the war in Iraq was the speed and immediacy with which many events were reported by the media. Some of these turned out to be not quite what they seemed, others are still surrounded by confusion. Was this the fog of war, effects-based warfare, propaganda, or error? BBC News Online takes stock"

Revisits questions about Iraqi Scuds, the Basra "uprising," the market bombings, chemical weapons, and more. Good stuff.

[thanks to Dack]

April 17, 2003

Get Your Curiousity On

Pretty nice FAQ about the Iraq war and post-war from Britain's Independent (although I think that their answer to the final question is a bit of a cop out). Go give it a read.

April 15, 2003

Dictionary Time

Okay, minor quibble, but it's bothering me.

CNN reported yesterday: US: Mobile labs found in Iraq

These "mobile labs" were buried near a weapons factory outside Karbala.

Okay. What bothers me is that, with the possible exception of earthworms, when you bury something underground, IT CEASES TO BE MOBILE.

Anyhow.

It really is amazing how little information is in the CNN article. Lucky for us, I was able to find a better article via Yahoo News.

Short version: The U.S. found 11 buried shipping containers, the kind that semi-trucks and trains haul. There was apparently "lab equipment" and lots of "documentation" inside some of the containers (no word on what topics are covered in the "documentation." Chemical weapons, Pokemon, no one knows yet). No WMD were found in or near the containers. U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Ben Freakly says that the containers could be "dual-use chemical and biological laboratories."

That really isn't much information. As shipping containers are usually used to, y'know, store stuff, it is entirely plausible that these were not mobile labs of death, but a makeshift storage facility for Iraqi lab equipment. Why would it be buried? Because the U.S. was going to bomb the country.

Of course, they could very well be mobile WMD labs. I just know that to date, every claim of "we've found the weapons" that the U.S. has made has been proven to be false, so my skepticism shields are at maximum power.

[edit]

U.S. military investigators are now claiming that the containers were probably not WMD labs

[/edit]

April 14, 2003

Happy Birthday LMB!

The Lying Media Bastards weblog turns one year old today.

You can read that first anemic post here.

Been an odd year for sure. Odd and depressing. And maddening, don't forget maddening. Jeez, I've been writing about the US plan to invade Iraq for almost a solid year now (and ranting about it on my radio show for even longer). I should pick a new, more enjoyable topic. Like ice cream. Yes, from now on, all LMB entries will be about ice cream.

I had been away for a while. I'd spent several years working on a newsletter called "NewsWatch" (yes, sucky name, thanks), but stopped back in 1999 when overwhelmed by grad skool. After a long hiatus, I returned to the quasi-journalism biz after 9-11, because I realized that the people who were the most frightened were the ones who were the least informed. I felt that I could help educate folks about the world around them, and maybe they wouldn't be so fearful.

I created StrayBulletins.com, which was intended as a compendium of investigative news articles. LyingMediaBastards.com was to be a place to let off steam, to set aside the objectivity and call a motherfucker a motherfucker.

As time passed, I found that I had less and less time to spend on the sort of research that SB articles would require. Add to that the fact that LMB was becoming pretty damn popular, and that LMB articles were a hell of a lot more fun to write, and, well... SB languished while LMB bloomed.

The LMB site is intended as a way of spreading news that I think is important that I don't think many people are hearing, and a way of venting my fury at some of this news. Every day cuts me to the bone, so the least I can do is bleed on my keyboard for y'all.

Some folks lately have accused me of bias here on the site. Duh. I write about what I think is important, about what makes me angry, and about what makes me laugh. All of those are highly subjective. I work on the assumption that my readers consume heaps of mainstream media, and feel that my site is a good counterbalancing supplement to that.

Lots of people like LMB, which makes me feel good (half a million hits since I moved the blog to its own domain in early May)(which sounds so impressive, until you learn what a lousy and inaccurate statistic "hits" is). I'd probably be doing this even if no one read it, but the visits and emails help validate my work (and stroke my ego). Thanks for that. Thanks for reading.

On Emma's site today, she talks about blogs as collectives, that single weblogs are unimpressive, but the way that your brain intersects with the various blogs that you read in a day changes the way you understand the news of the day. Interesting point. I have no real interest in musing on the nature of weblogs right now, so that'll have to do.

I'll also remind you that there is a Lying Media Bastards radio show. Every week. Mondays. 2-4pm PST. Hosted by me. About 75% music, about 25% the sort of material that you'd see on the site. The music's probably about 60% political music. Maybe 50% punk and hard rock, 30% "alternative", 20% rap. I think it's a very good show, but, well, bias. Listen to it online at KillRadio.org, or on the air in Los Angeles at 104.7 FM (note: it's not broadcast by Kill Radio, it's downloaded and rebroadcast over the air by some mysterious radio pirate in the L.A. area. Don't know who they are, but I appreciate the effort).

If you have money burning a hole in your pocket, and you want to get me a congratulatory (and educational) gift, you can click here for my "wish list" (don't worry, that's the first and only time I'll plug that). Also, I'm putting a lot of thought into redesigning the site. If any skilled muchacho or muchacha would like to volunteer to help me with that, please drop me an email.

I should probably put a bunch of "thank-yous" in here, but my brain is seriously misfiring at this time of night. So my lazy-ass'll just link to all the thank-yous and fuck-yous from my 2002 close-out post.

It's been a rough month for me, that could possibly turn into a rough year. But I'll do my best to keep the site in the manner to which you've become accustomed.

Thanks for reading.

[edit]

In a bizarre coincidence, fellow lefty blog The Rittenhouse Review also turns one year old today.

[/edit]

Saved!

US gives Israel 3 years to quit occupied Arab land

The EU, Russia, UN and US have put together an Israel-Palestine peace plan. Go take a look at the above link for a summary, or you can read the text of the peace plan yourself.

The plan calls for two separate, independent, democratic states by 2005.

It seems obvious to me that an independent Palestinian state is the only rational and just solution to this conflict. I don't think the above plan will get us there, at least not with the current leaders of the two sides. Yassir Arafat seems to have no real interests beyond maintaining his own power, and Ariel Sharon is a fucking thug who seems hellbent on defeating the Palestinians instead of protecting and improving Israel. I'd say that they're both a bit lacking in their committment to peace, let alone a particular peace proposal.

Sure enough, Sharon and his crew are pushing peace even further away by "moving Jewish settlers into a Palestinian district of Jerusalem". Palestinians will see that as a deliberate provocation, because, well, because it is.

I'd also like to add that the US has absolutely no credibility as a moderator or advisor on this issue. The US is the number one supplier of military equipment and aid to one of the two sides. Even if the US were totally neutral in this conflict, the arms sales issue would obviously be a conflict of interest, and any honorable nation would step down from its role and let a more impartial nation take charge. And I believe that the U.S. will continue this fairly weak effort at Middle East peace as a show for the Arabs and Muslims in the reason, to try to convince them that we are not there to pillage their oil.

April 13, 2003

The Answers

Very interesting post/summary over at Politics in the Zeros that I'm going to reprint in full here (it's short).

I was listening to Alternative Radio yesterday on KPFK, with host David Barsamian interviewing Noam Chomsky on the current Iraq invasion.

Barsamian asked Chomsky, "Many people ask, what can we do? How would you answer that?".

Chomsky's reply was fascinating. He said he travels worldwide, meeting many different kinds of people. He said when he's speaking with campensinos in Mexico or labor organizers in a third world county, they never ask, what can we do? Instead, they tell HIM what they ARE doing.

It's only elites in highly technological countries, he continued, who ask, what can we do, hoping for some quick fix so they can get back to the normal routine of their lives. The campesinos know better than that, they know struggles like this require long term dedication.

Two interesting things going on there. The first is that, in Chomsky's experience, people outside of "the West" are figuring out how to fight their struggles on their own. I think that a lot of Americans have trouble with this because they don't understand the struggles themselves. These labor organizers know the problem: their employers-- often in concert with the police, government, organized criminals and corrupt unions-- are not paying them a decent wage. The struggle is to achieve that wage, and to beat back the power of their exploiters. I think that many Americans don't understand the forces at work in the injustices they seek to rectify. Our schools and media aren't very good at educating us about these things.

The second is that "quick fix" thing. There's probably some truth to that too. The best example I know is the issue of sweatshops. People want to know what companies produce their clothing in sweatshop factories so that they can avoid that company's products. Then they wouldn't have to worry about the issue. But it's not nearly that simple. It's a good bet that just about every major clothing company in some way utilizes sweatshop labor. The only fix is quite long-term: if you want to avoid buying sweatshop-made clothing, you have to join the struggle to organized factory workers and demand responsibility by corporate clothing companies to pay workers fairly. And even if you achieved that, you'd have to forever keep an eye on those companies to prevent them from slipping back into their old habits.

April 11, 2003

Separated at Birth

I think me and this columnist could be pals:

There’s almost nothing you can’t get away with doing to an American. Take away his health insurance and he’s likely to fall to his knees in gratitude. You can tell him to his face that you’re pulling funding for his kids’ schools in order to bail out some millionaire stockbroker in Connecticut who overbet the peso–and he not only won’t get mad, he’ll swell up with pride and burst out singing the "Star-Spangled Banner." You can even steal his pension and gamble it away in Vegas, and the most he’ll do is sulk a little.

In those rare cases when an American gets mad, what he usually does is wait four years to vote for an identical candidate. Push him a little farther over the edge, and he may flirt with a hopeless third-party politician or write a sarcastic letter to the New York Times. And when he becomes disconsolate, when he finally decides to take to the streets, look out–because now he’s a real threat–standing in some park or other publicly sanctioned place, and chanting goofy slogans while carrying a poster of George Bush with a crayon-drawn forked tail.

The White House expected the Iraqis to line up like redcoats with their muskets drawn in single-rank formation because that’s what we do. Whatever they tell us the permissible means of protest is, that’s what we do. If the permit for the demonstration is at an abandoned drive-in fifty miles from the nearest town, we show up there, brows furrowed and banners waving, in huge numbers. While the generals point at high-tech maps on all the major networks, we sit there babbling into the crackly dissenter line on C-SPAN at two in the morning. There would probably still be kings playing croquet on the grounds of Versailles today if the tactics of the French revolution had been like this–better heed us peasants, messieurs, or we’ll send twice the usual amount of mail to our congressmen.

We’re so accustomed to following the "rules" of political engagement that when someone like Michael Moore breaches decorum for thirty seconds to sabotage his own Oscar acceptance, enormous numbers of us actually consider this a real act of brave defiance, and not the quixotic, colossally insufficient gesture it was.

The whole point of opposition is to make sure that the people who are making decisions know that there will be consequences if they go too far in ignoring the public, or at least a plurality of it...

After a while, it’s simply not dignified to freak out over each of these things individually. The dignified thing to do is to recognize once and for all the essential nature of what we’re up against, and then fight it. Don’t write petitions or make appeals, don’t sing songs, don’t wait for someone up there to change their "minds." Just fight it. And make it hurt...

For years, corporate America and the media have tried to convince us that buying things is a political act, a way of expressing our individuality (Fruitopia instead of flower power, Nikes sold to the tune of "Revolution," peace signs on the walls of Starbucks). Well, let’s call their bluff. Let’s non-participate. Let’s go on consumer strike. Pull a slowdown. We don’t have a lot of choices when it comes to voting for politicians, but when it comes to buying, where our existence is actually necessary, we have a thousand choices a day. It might be the only method we have of making the decision-making class pay attention to our concerns.

Hell, let’s try something, anyway. Because what we’re doing now is just what they expected–nothing.

It's what I've been saying all along, and why I haven't been throwing myself headlong into the "peace rally for peace" actions. They would not "make it hurt." In a way, peace rallies help legitimize the regime in power because now they can say "see, look how tolerant we are, we allowed hundreds of thousands of people to protest."

What would've made it hurt? The same sort of chaotic "shut down the city" actions that took place in San Francisco and New York City, that simultaneously disrupted the status quo and pissed off large segments of the population. Some peace demonstrators denounced the "shut it down" folks for alienating the population that the rally types had been courting for months. But it's a trade-off, and I don't see any way around it.

Which is not to entirely dismiss all the hard work of mainstream peace protesters. I think that the efforts and massive rallies may have helped minimize the American violence in Iraq; the Bush administration knew that it was being watched, and was probably more careful.

But I was despondent early on. I could think of plenty of actions that would "make it hurt," but nothing that would hurt enough to get the Bush administration to back down. They had so much to gain that I could not think of any action (especially in the numbers required) that could counterbalance that gain.

So I thought that my time might be better spent researching and writing, trying to spread "the truth" via my various tiny outlets. But our columnist friend had a thing or two to say about that as well:

People like me are part of the problem, too, which is why I’m even on the subject. I could make myself feel better about things by writing glibly about this or that government lie, but that’s really what it accomplishes–making me feel better.

In fact, the whole business of keeping track of media deceptions has become an unusually ridiculous exercise, and one would need a thousand pages a week to even begin to do a decent job of it.

You have to wonder after a while whether this is a good use of my or anyone else’s time, racing to keep track of the unceasing string of sensational headlines that turn out ten minutes later to be idiotic fabrications.

Or, I suppose we can sum up all of this:

Actions Speak Louder Than Words.

April 10, 2003

Lesson

Some weeks back, I wrote a piece debunking the popular "punch those hypocritical peaceniks" email that the makes the pro-war feel all warm and snuggly. Now, Digby the blogger has his own anti-war version, which I will reprint here for the benefit of the lazy.

With all of this talk of impending war, many of us will encounter "Pro-War" patriots who will try and convince us that we can keep America safe by exercising military force against anyone who we think might threaten us in the future. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

1. Listen politely while this fellow explains his views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in his ideas. He will say that we will invade any country that even thinks of threatening us. He’ll shake his fist and get in your face. He’ll loudly proclaim that everyone in the crowd agrees with him. When a couple of his friends speak up and say that they really don’t agree, he’ll tell them to piss off and that he never liked them anyway. He will then smugly tell you that this is why working with allies weakens our country and leaves America unable to protect its citizens. He says the US can do anything it damn well pleases.

2. In the middle of his remarks, without any warning, punch him in the nose.

3. When the guy gets up off of the ground, he will be very angry and he will shove you to the ground. But then, for some reason, he’ll run into the crowd and coldcock that creepy guy from your old neighborhood who he beat up at the last rally and left with two broken legs.

4. Because he has been so rude, and his actions are so inexplicable, none of his friends will help him (except his brother-in-law, who works for him.) He’ll shout to his victim’s family (who the victim treats like shit) that he’ll give them money if they’ll help him but blood runs thicker than water. (And they can’t help noticing that he seems awfully interested in their valuable heirloom jewelry.)

5. Meanwhile, you sneak around the corner and lie low while he beats the weakened opponent into the ground. The boys from the old neighborhood get more and more angry that this guy is grabbing at the jewelry and roaring that he's going to take down everybody they know unless they do what he wants. Gather them around you and tell them to go blow up his car, destroy his place of business and burn down his house.

6. When he sees his car explode and turns around looking alarmed and confused, sidle up from behind and hit him again, only harder.

7. Repeat steps 2-6 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes that if you are going to fight back, it’s smart to fight the real enemy instead of invading a country that had nothing to do with attacking you. Keep doing it until he understands that it is stupid and counterproductive to rally everyone in the neighborhood to hate him with the same fervor as his attacker just so he can prove how tough he is.

8. There is no difference between an individual using the excuse of an unwarranted attack to attack someone who had nothing to do with it and a country using the excuse of a terrorist attack to invade a country that had nothing to do with it. It is unacceptable and results in a loss of moral authority, credibility and necessary allies in the fight against the real enemy.

We owe our military respect and must hope for as little bloodshed as possible in the current circumstances. But we must do everything in our power to vote out this administration so that these brave Americans are not asked to lay their lives on the line for a bunch of ivory tower think tank intellectuals who have always been much too willing to sacrifice others to fulfill their own dreams of imperial greatness. We either fight back VERY HARD and put these people out of power, or we will keep getting hit in the nose. Lesson over. Class dismissed!

I would also like to mention that I had my own parody of this email back when it originated with the Afghan war.

1. When you see an anti-war protester, punch them in the nose as hard as you can.

2. Then, STARVE THE NATION OF AFGHANISTAN.

Still makes me chuckle.

Random War Thoughts 3

- I've been hearing comparisons of the U.S./U.K. capture of (most of) Baghdad to the liberation of France in WWII. Somehow this caused me to think about Operation Paperclip. When Germany was defeated, the U.S. illegally snuck Nazi engineers and intelligence officers out of Germany and into America, where their knowledge of technology and intel on the Soviets could be exploited. I wonder if we'll see a similar transfer of Baath party specialists treated similarly.

- While the number of deaths caused by the U.S. attacks is much lower than some of us had feared, there have been a significant number of wounds and injuries. But Iraqi hospitals are in a terrible state, seriously lacking in just about every way. I was struck by the thought this morning that some of those numbers of wounded might join the numbers of dead as the wounded are unable to receive adequate medical treatment.

April 09, 2003

Regime Death

Of course, the news of the day is that Saddam Hussein's regime seems to have up and left Baghdad. U.S. troops led an effort to tear down statues of Saddam and many Iraqis rejoiced.

As always, I am the skeptic.

Is Saddam Hussein dead? Has he fled? Or most importantly, is he going to stay gone? My concern there is that Saddam might have some loyal troops yet and be planning a counter-offensive.

As for the cheers, I am reminded of the U.S. "liberation" of Panama. TV news footage showed thousands of happy Panamanians cheering the Americans. But it turns out that the TV cameras only went to the richer, whiter, more English-speaking sections of town, not the poor areas that U.S. bombs incinerated, where the population might have had a different opinion.

I am also reminded of the U.S. "liberation" of Kuwait, where hundreds of happy Kuwaitis cheering the Americans. Then it turned out that the pro-America rally was orchestrated by shadowy American PR guru John Rendon.

Don't confuse my skepticism with conspiracy theory. Things are always complicated, that's all. I imagine that many Iraqis are overjoyed at the overthrow. I imagine many others are afraid of the Americans. Excitement, fear, gratitude, uncertainty, anger, sorrow, probably whopping doses of all these emotions are smeared all over that nation. Those feelings might hold steady, or they might change over time. To think that today's celebration means that all Iraqis love America and will let us do whatever we want to their country, is folly.

My fear and grim prediction is that the U.S. plan is to ethrone a U.S.-friendly government to replace Saddam's regime. The U.S. has a poor track record with this sort of thing, and most of the enthronees tend to be corrupt and/or dictatorial. Might the new leader be more humane and democratic than Saddam Hussein? Quite possibly. Is it morally inexcusable to wage war on a people so that you can replace one oppressor with another? Definitely.

I also fear that the strife and bloodshed might prevent the U.S. plans from even getting that far. I think that the possibility that the Iraqi people might quickly tire of the American presence in their country, and at that point things could get ugly.

One quick comment on today's media coverage. The TV news broadcast the images of Iraqi celebration and Saddam desecration non-stop. This is "the war is over" type of imagery. The Bush administration was quick to warn America that the war was not yet over. But images speak louder than words, and I think the images may have convinced Americans that the war is indeed over, despite the White House's disclaimer. How long can the war last once Americans start wondering why the hell troops are fighting even though the war is "over"?

[edit]

There is a bit of evidence that perhaps the media images of the celebration in Baghdad over the toppling of the Saddam statue may have been exaggerated. This is allegedly* a photo of the toppling from the BBC website, taken from a distance. Compare it to the close-ups. The tight shots imply that all of Baghdad is crowded with such raucous action, but the wide angle shot shows a fairly small group of people surrounded by, well, nobody.

*I can't verify too much about the distance photo. But you can see some of the same buildings in the close-up photos, and the presence of the tanks arguably proves that the photo was taken sometime today. I believe that the photo is accurate, but you should probably keep your skeptical guard up.

[/edit]

Linky Links

Sorry, I'm not doing too well with the article titles today.

U.S. tells Iran, Syria, N.Korea: "Learn from Iraq"- what balls! John R. Bolton, U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security said "With respect to the issue of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the post-conflict period, we are hopeful that a number of regimes will draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq that the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is not in their national interest." This is obviously intended as an outright threat against these regimes. But it is funny for two reasons: 1) the U.S. invasion of Iraq never seemed to have much to do with WMD, so I'm not sure what lessons anyone could take out of that. 2) The obvious, OBVIOUS lesson to draw from U.S. reactions to Iraq and North Korea, is that if a nation gets caught trying to develop WMD before completion, that they are fucked, but if they can complete development of WMD before anyone finds out, they have a useful bargaining chip.

Operation Iraqi Trashcan- biting parodies of the propaganda leaflets that the U.S. military dropped on Iraq prior to the war (a sequel to Operation Afghan Litterbug).

Republicans Want Terror Law Made Permanent- as it stands, the civil liberties devouring USA PATRIOT Act is supposed to expire in 2005. But Republicans in Congress want to make it permanent. Yay.

Radio Giant Dumps Promoters To Avoid 'Pay For Play' Criticism- wow! In the music industry, record labels will hire people called "independent promoters" to go bribe radio stations to play certain songs. It's universal, and locks many small bands and small labels out of the airwaves. Now radio behemoth Clear Channel has announced that they will no longer do business with independent promoters as of this summer. No doubt this is due to the scrutiny Clear Channel has been receiving from the gubment, but still, it's a welcome development just the same.

Wal-Mart's dominance exacts a growing price- examination of the harmful effects of monopolies on the lives of common people, using Wal-Mart as an example.

Images of a Kindler, Gentler War- nice essay from the high quality Body and Soul blog, thoughtfully discussing the harm of having the military serve as a humanitarian force.

Newsy News News

After Saddam: an Arab Congo?- I usually don't like linking to other blog entries, but this one's pretty good. Educated and thoughtful analysis and predictions about the future of Iraq. I found it most useful to skip down to the section that starts "The Shia", then read the rest of the article, then skip back up to the top and read what I missed.

Deep Concerns- what I think is the first statement/essay from Noam Chomsky about the Iraq war since it began. Looks far down the road about the implications of the war and its related policies, and what we should be doing to oppose them.

Picking a Challenger- stuff I thought I'd never hear coming out of the mouth of our pal Geov Parrish, long-time anarchist: he more or less says "vote Democrat." But it's no sell-out manuever, let him say it in his own words:

For the long-term freedom, health, prosperity, and security of Americans -- and the world's other six billion people, and all its other species, too -- there is no more critical task in the coming months than to oust George W. Bush, and the lunatics surrounding him, in November 2004.

And y'know, he's got a point. I find American electoral politics repellent and hopelessly broken, I find the Democrats to be still pretty similar to the Republicans, and I'm not keen on the idea of government in general. But fuck, Geov's right. Getting Bush out of office will probably do more good than most other worthy causes or revolutions you could think of. Which, sadly, could mean working on getting a Democrat elected to the presidency.

Whose 'truth' is being reported?- really good look at differences in Iraq war coverage between American and Arab news networks. The author finds that neither is "bad" or "wrong," but each is playing to its built-in audience, Americans who want to see their troops achieve a safe victory and Arabs who are angry at the destruction caused by a foreign invasion.

The Real Face of War- up close from afar. War is an ugly thing, and if we choose to wage it, all decent people must take it all in and not look away.

Those awkward hearts and minds- a slightly out of date chart gauging worldwide opinion about the war.

Poor hardest to find on campus- I have always considered affirmative action in college admission policies to be a type of economic redistribution. If you're a person of color in the U.S., you're more likely to be poor. And with a college degree, you're more likely to get a high paying job. Some folks argue that affirmative action should be based upon personal economics rather than race, and that's not a terrible idea. The article above is good ammunition for that idea, pointing out the very small percentage of college students who come from poor backgrounds, the ones we might most want to redistribute wealth to.

Next Stop: Syria?

For months I've been writing about what seemed to be the crazed warhawk plan that lead to the invasion of Iraq, a bizarre scheme for U.S. dominion over the Middle East by invading Iraq, followed by possible attacks on Iran and Syria (only if they hadn't been properly intimidated by the example of Iraq). Even though I still think that is the reason for our current war, I guess I still couldn't entirely believe that this was true.

But now rhetorical shots are being fired across Syria's bow.

Last week, Donald Rumsfeld announced that military supplies were being shipped into Iraq via Syria. He didn't claim that the Syrian government was shipping items to Saddam Hussein, but that interpretation is easily made (although it looks more likely that the supplies are being smuggled across the border [possibly with/possibly without the knowledge of the Syrian government], as it has been for years). Okay, that's not an explicit shot, maybe Rumsfeld meant that Syria better stop the smuggling. But when asked to clarify, Rumsfeld declined.

Then, this morning, I caught part of the news-like Christian Broadcast Network, where evangelist and fool Pat Robertson was interviewing Dr. Khidhir Hamza, alleged former nuclear scientist for Saddam Hussein (I don't intend to imply he's untrustworthy with the "alleged," I only put it because I haven't researched the fellow, so I don't know if he's reliable). Pat asked Hamza about whether or not he thought the U.S. should invade Syria as well as Iraq. Seemed like an odd question to ask... Didn't catch any more of it, and don't have a link. If anyone can help me out, I'll add the proper linkage.

And then, these two articles via Dack:

For Some, Syria Looms as Next Goal. Mainly based upon Rusmfeld's threat above, and a comment by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz on "Meet the Press": "There's got to be a change in Syria". Then another similar comment by Richard Perle. These folks generally hope/feel/pretend that Syria's regime can be changed non-violently in the aftermath of Iraq.

And then this article with a section towards the bottom titled "Syria, Iran: Are they next?".

And finally, a pair of official denials by the most peaceful (and therefore most ignored) members of the "coalition," Tony Blair and Colin Powell:

Powell Says U.S. Won't Invade Syria, Iran

Blair Says U.S. Has No Plans to Attack Syria, Iran

I'm not sure if those denials should make me less nervous or more nervous.

In conclusion... fuck, I don't know. Do these actions spell war? Are they just mean-spirited rhetoric by opposing sides? Attempts at intimidation? Hard to say. I keep waiting longer and longer to write about any war-related topic, hoping that a little time and distance will bring perspective and clarity. Guess I'll continue this discussion when/if that happens.

April 07, 2003

Pounded with News

Myths and misconceptions about the war in Iraq- good stuff.

Bamboozled By Ads- an interview examining links between commercial advertising, political advertising and propaganda.

The Death Toll- the Iraq war: who's been killed, who's been wounded, and how many.

"Stupid Security" Competition"- some organization called Privacy International is having a competition for the most idiotic, mysterious and ineffective security measures for public places. Good for a laugh and a shake of the head.

Why Bush's Tax Cut Won't Help the Economy- what the title says.

Outrage- U.S "diplomat" Otto Reich warns the government of Barbados to shut its damn mouth about criticising the war on Iraq. Barbados government kind of pissed.

'Saving Private Lynch' and other tales- quick look at race, class and gender in the reporting about rescued POW Jessica Lynch.

Twist

Good piece by our pal Robert Fisk (or Bobby F, as I may begin calling him when the mood strikes), about the small ways in which Western journalist are collaborating with the US & UK by adopting the governments' preferred phrasing.

Subversion Rocks the House

Ah, parody.

WhatIsVictoriasSecret.com

Not entirely sure what they're trying to say, but it puts an evil grin on my face just the same.

Pre-Post War

How things are shaping up for the days after the "coalition" (does the U.S., a small force of Brits and a handful of Australians really make a "coalition"?) conquers Iraq.

Britain admits there may be no WMD's in Iraq- "Well into the war that was supposed to rid Iraq of its alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, a senior British official [Home Secretary David Blunkett] admitted on Saturday that no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons of mass destruction may after all be found." Whoops.

Red Cross: Iraq Wounded Too High to Count- "The number of casualties in Baghdad is so high that hospitals have stopped counting the number of people treated, the International Committee of the Red Cross said Sunday."

Clash of the Administration Titans- Colin Powell vs. Skeletor Rumsfeld! The winner will determine how blatantly imperial the new U.S. puppet government in Iraq will be.

Wolfowitz says new government might take more than 6 months; U.N.-led government not likely- this article almost makes it sound as though the new Iraq will be okay, but--

Opposition groups reject US military rule plan- "As the time arrives for decisions about running Iraq, both the main Kurdish and Shia opposition groups yesterday rejected US plans to put Jay Garner, a retired general, in charge."

Battle over who can sell Iraq's oil- don't forget the oil!

Iraq bidder's apartheid past- Dear god. "Fluor Corporation, the US building firm tipped to land a massive reconstruction deal in postwar Iraq," is being sued for hiring security guards to dress up in KKK robes and attack employees at Fluor plants in South Africa, during the apartheid era. Just when you think a corporation couldn't sink any lower, you find another one 10,000 feet below.

So, in conclusion, re post-war Iraq:

Fuck.

You Have the Right to Disappear

I heard about this a few days ago, but didn't post anything until I'd seen some confirmation.

Bail denied for Arab American being held as material witness

Quick translation: American citizen Mike Hawash is being secretly detained by the U.S. government with no charges brought against him, and no bail, indefinitely.

It's based on the material witness statute, which essentially lets a prosecutor imprison a witness to a crime who might flee before giving their evidence. Since 9-11, law enforcement has been abusing this law. Luckily for Mike, they at least let him have access to a lawyer (for the bail hearing, anyway).

For more info, or to get involved, you can check FreeMikeHawash.org

Memory Surrenders

Sigh.

"Nearly eight in 10 Americans now accept the Bush administration's contention — disputed by some experts — that Hussein has 'close ties' to Al Qaeda (even 70% of Democrats agree). And 60% of Americans say they believe Hussein bears at least some responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks — a charge even the administration hasn't levied against him."

As you've most likely seen on a million different lefty news sites, there is no public evidence that Saddam Hussein has any ties to Al Qaeda, and logic tells you that since the two have hated each other in the past, that they probably aren't allies. And there is even less evidence (yeah, I guess I'm saying less than zero) that Saddam Hussein was involved with 9-11.

Scarily, the poll numbers of Americans who believe that Hussein has launched terrorist attacks on the U.S. (he hasn't) is increasing as time passes (and as the war goes on)(insert my usual caveat about the inherent untrustworthiness of poll data here). Pretty soon people will start blaming Saddam Hussein for the repression of women in Afghanistan. And Watergate. And of course for the Holocaust (I think he also tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden).

I'm going to theorize on this. I think that this adoption of this belief is a fairly subconscious effort by many Americans to stave off feelings of guilt or doubt that the war may have induced in them. If they start feeling bad when seeing footage on the TV of Iraqi refugees or bombed out homes, they can "remind" themselves that this war was necessary because Saddama bin Laden attacked the U.S. Then the guilt can be transformed into quiet determination. They'll resolve to keep up their courage until "our boys" complete their mission.

But all of this is part of a larger American problem. It's usually referred to in the media as "apathy," but it's really about powerlessness. Unless you or I try real real hard, we have no say in what goes on in our government. Any American could have done the research that would have disproven the Saddam-Al Qaeda link, but why bother? Your knowledge won't change policy. So why go to the effort of learning about what's going on in the world if you can't put that knowledge to any use? Since you have no say, you might better spend that time figuring out how to alleviate your feelings of guilt at what your government is doing than trying to stop the unstoppable.

That's not apathy, it's recognition of the balance of power, combined with ignorance and despair. Americans are ignorant about the world because they don't see how learning about the world is going to make any difference. And if nothing you can do will make a big difference in your country or society, why waste time trying to? Better to look out for #1, or your family, and try to get as comfortable as possible.

That's my conclusion. Huge numbers of Americans act the way they do because deep down, they feel defeated and insignificant, unable to impact or influence the world around them, and are trying to live the most fulfilling lives they can while trying to cope with that hopelessness.

Which is, of course, why I'm an activist.

I say fuck defeat, and fuck despair. Quite frankly, this world isn't worth living in, so I'm going to use my power, and use my time to TRY to make this world worth living in. Hell, I'm going to try to make it a paradise, because nothing else is worth that kind of effort.

Everyone has power, and everyone can use it.

Naive? Idealistic? Fucking right.

Let's go. We've got work to do.

April 06, 2003

Ghosts of the Past

"Past and future bombing raids aside, the terrorism craze is dangerous because it consolidates the immense, unrestrained psuedopatriotic narcissism we are nourishing. Is there no limit to the folly that convinces large numbers of Americans that it is now unsafe to travel, and at the same time blinds them to all the pain and violence that so many people in Africa, Asia and Latin America must endure simply because we have decided that local oppressors ... can go on with their killing ... ? Is there no way to participate in politics beyond the repetition of prefabricated slogans? What happened to the precision, discrimination and critical humanism that we celebrate as the hallmarks of liberal education and the Western heritage?"

- Edward Said, 1986

We never learn, do we?

April 02, 2003

Heads Will Roll

Jesus Fucking Christ.

Remember in the 2001 war with Afghanistan when the U.S. dropped food packages that looked a lot like cluster bomblets?

Well, now it's 2003 and WE'RE DOING IT AGAIN!!!

That's it. I am done. I can't live on the same planet as these motherfuckers.

A Select Few

As reported by The Daily Show-

The four people that the U.S. military has asked to leave Iraq:

Saddam Hussein
Uday Hussein
Qusay Hussein
Geraldo Rivera

Onward Christian Soldiers

I don't even know what to say about this.

Plans Under Way for Christianizing the Enemy

("The enemy"?)

Two leading evangelical Christian missionary organizations said Tuesday that they have teams of workers poised to enter Iraq to address the physical and spiritual needs of a large Muslim population.

The Southern Baptist Convention, the country's largest Protestant denomination, and the Rev. Franklin Graham's Samaritan's Purse said workers are near the Iraq border in Jordan and are ready to go in as soon as it is safe. The relief and missionary work is certain to be closely watched because both Graham and the Southern Baptist Convention have been at the heart of controversial evangelical denunciations of Islam, the world's second largest religion.

Both organizations said their priority will be to provide food, shelter and other needs to Iraqis ravaged by recent war and years of neglect. But if the situation presents itself, they will also share their Christian faith in a country that's estimated to be 98 percent Muslim and about 1 percent Christian...

Graham, the son of legendary evangelist Billy Graham, has been less diplomatic about Islam than his father has been. Two months after the Sept. 11 attacks, Franklin Graham called Islam "a very evil and wicked religion" during an interview on NBC, the television network. In his book published last year, "The Name," Graham wrote that "The God of Islam is not the God of the Christian faith." He went on to say that "the two are different as lightness and darkness."

On the eve of the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis last year, the Rev. Jerry Vines, a former denomination president, told several thousand delegates that Islam's Allah is not the same as the God worshipped by Christians. "And I will tell you Allah is not Jehovah, either. Jehovah's not going to turn you into a terrorist," Vines said.

This war is looking more like colonization every day. What are they going to do next, get the Iraqis to start building missions? Start selling them smallpox-infected blankets? Put them on reservations?

[thanks to Orcinus]

April 01, 2003

It's Funny Cuz It's True

from The Onion:

Government No Longer Even Bothering To Hide Halliburton Favors
WASHINGTON, DC—With last week's announcement that it will award Halliburton a lucrative contract to put out Iraqi oil-well fires after the war, the U.S. government has officially stopped trying to hide its favoritism toward the Houston-based company. "When we first started cutting Halliburton sweetheart deals, we'd worry about how it would look, with Dick Cheney being their former CEO and all," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said. "Somewhere along the line, though, we just kind of said, 'Ah, fuck it.'" Fleischer added that Halliburton has something "real juicy" coming its way when the U.S. invades Iran in July 2004.

Mockery on Demand

Blogger Neal Pollack has called for April 1 to be a day to mock Dick and Lynne Cheney. Who am I to argue with such a noble request?

Ahem.

"Dick and Lynne Cheney eat human babies, and they like it."

Thank you.

March 30, 2003

Another Open Thread

This entry was made solely so y'all can use the comments section to speak your minds about whatever. Go to it!

Some Definition of "Precision" I'm Not Aware Of

In the 10+ days since the war on Iraq began, U.S. missiles have managed to hit targets (intentional or accidental) in:

- Iraq
- Iran
- Turkey
- Saudi Arabia [new!]
- and possibly Kuwait [new!]

War Crime and Punishment

Not satisified with being the "world's policeman," the Unite States has decided to also become its judge, jury and executioner.

"U.S. officials vowed Friday to vigorously prosecute members of the Iraqi military who they charge are committing a wide range of war crimes... the United States intends to conduct the prosecutions for crimes against U.S. combatants, rather than turn the defendants over to an international court or tribunal."

Yes, why bother with an International Criminal Court to prosecute war criminals when we can just bring them home to the good ol U.S. of A. and prosecute em here? Jesus, what a sham.

March 29, 2003

Gall and Shame

As soon as I flipped the TV on and saw President W about to give a speech while surrounded by veterans, I knew there was gonna be trouble.

He was praising them and thanking them, and the veterans seemed proud and pleased.

I couldn't believe Bush was doing this, since he cut veterans' benefits as part of his last budget. Instead of beating his ass for this disrespect, the veterans were helping the man look impressive, allowing the president to wrap himself in their pain and glory.

What balls.

The speech pretty much played out like you'd expect.

Our veterans are good.
Our soldiers are good.
America is good.
The war on Iraq is good.
Congress should pass my $75 billion wartime supplemental appropriations bill
Our veterans are really, really good.
Goodnite.

Wait a minute.

Why exactly is the president simultaneously asking for a $726 billion tax cut and a $75 billion handout? Acting with some fiscal wisdom, Congress decided to lower the tax cut by $100 billion to pay for the war.

Looking at how this $75 billion will be spent is interesting.

- "$63 billion for fighting the war, including replenishing used munitions and other matériel to prewar levels"
- "$8 billion for relief efforts and immediate reconstruction"
- "$4 billion to better protect the United States against what the administration says is the increased likelihood of terrorist attacks."

That first figure is very shady. Restocking our ammunition should be covered under regular military spending, unless this new ammo is going to be sent right out again to shoot at Iraqis. Sounds like a way to further enrich military contractors while hiding it from the balance sheet.

The second figure is also shady, as $5 billion of the "relief effort" is actually "aid for what the administration official said were 'supportive' countries in the region affected by the war, like Pakistan, Israel, Jordan and Turkey." In other words, our bribe money for their support in the war.

And that last number could mean just about anything.

I have no good way to end this entry. Good night.

March 28, 2003

Foot in Mouth, Canadian Style

Found this amusing.

On the Common Dreams website, I found this boldly-worded headline from a Toronto Star editorial:

U.S. envoy doesn't get it: This country will not be bullied or bribed into doing something that is morally offensive

Courageous stance, Canada opposes the war and will not budge from its position.

Then, I went over to the Toronto Star website to look at the original source, and in the process, ran across this frontpage headline:

Canadian troops on the ground in Iraq, officials confirm

Whoops.

But it is a little more complicated (or at least confusing) than that. Canada still opposes the war, but has "Canadian soldiers in the British army as well as the Australian army and they may be in Iraq at this time." The Canadian soldiers have guns, but are only allowed to fire them in self-defense. They aren't allowed to attack, but they are taking part in spy and logistical efforts that will allow others to attack. Which isn't really a much more morally superior position than doing the killing yourself.

March 27, 2003

Coalition of the... Wait, You're Kidding, Right?

Apparently Morocco has joined the "coalition of the willing."

Morocco's contribution to the war effort:

Monkeys

No, really.

Adios, You Fucking Crook

I have referred to Richard Perle on this site many times. He is the head of the Defense Policy Board, which advises the president and Pentagon about all things military. His nickname (not given by me) is the "prince of darkness." He's sort of like Henry Kissinger lite, minus the sense of decorum. He is one of the architects of the "let's overthrow the whole Middle East" policy currently favored by the Bush administration (he also argued back in August that the U.S. could successfully defeat Iraq with only 40,000 troops. Compare that with today's headlines).

Anyhow, in some excellent news, Perle is resigning from his post as head demon of the DPB, allegedly because he doesn't want "controversy" about his "business dealings" to affect his furher, Donald Rumsfeld, from his prosecution of the Iraq war. Or, loosely translated into English, "they caught me, I'd better make a run for it."

What "controversies" are we speaking of?

- He is on the board of venture capital company Trireme Partners LLP, a company that "invest[s] in companies dealing in technology, goods, and services that are of value to homeland security and defense."

- He is also a paid consultant for Global Crossing, " the bankrupt telecommunications company" that is trying to "overcome Pentagon resistance to its proposed sale to a joint venture involving a Hong Kong billionaire."

Some people might see those as, y'know, conflicts of interest. People like The Law.

Upon Perle's resignation announcement, Donald "Skeletor" Rumsfeld said, "I should add that I have known Richard Perle for many years and know him to be a man of integrity and honor." And to properly interpret that, we should remember that Henry Kissinger once referred to Rumsfeld as "the most ruthless man I've ever met."

So, dear Richard Perle, you blood-drenched chickenhawk scumfuck, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

[edit]

Sigh. Atrios alleges that Perle resigned as DPB head, but might remain as a DPB member.

[/edit]

The Power of Congress Compells You

Oh for fuck's sake.

(Man, am I getting tired of having to say that)

House Approves National Day of Prayer- both the House and Senate have passed bills calling on the president to decree a specific date to be a "a national day of humility, prayer and fasting in a time of war and terrorism."

(obviously residents of Washington DC will be exempt from the "humility" part)

Seems to be a pretty obvious violation of the First Amendment to me. The government passes a law telling us to pray? Next thing you know American women are going to have to don their star-spangled burqas (well, since the U.S. is the opposite of conservative Islam in many ways, American women would probably be forced to wear skimpy outfits, not all-covering ones. Like perhaps the "burkini")(yes, terrible joke, I apologize).

Says Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the resolution "may be seen by some as an attempt to inject religion into this war at a time when some of America's enemies abroad are asserting that this indeed is a war about religion." But surely it would only appear this way to those enemies who have theyr eyes open.

More Anti-War Muzak

Just heard about this one:

Protest Records

Appears to be a site dedicated to distributing free anti-war mp3s (and a few anti-war graffitti stencils), and is allegedly run by members of Sonic Youth.

Haven't listened to any myself (except the recently-released Beastie Boys track). It also appears to be interactive. If you're a musician, you can submit your own mp3s. Go save the world, rock star.

Random War Thoughts 2

1) I was completely right about the journalist "embedding" process. The reporters out in the field with their new U.S. military comrades are telling the tale from the point of view of the soldiers, just as the Pentagon surely wants them to. They self-censor, they use goofy military jargon, and in the end, they actually do a pretty good job of telling you what it's like to be a U.S. soldier fighting this war. What they don't do is tell you anything resembling NEWS.

2) It seems clear that the Iraq war is being reported on so differently in the U.S. and abroad that each presentation would probably be unrecognizable to the other.

3) Anyone who can't easily understand that I can oppose the war and not be an evil human hell-bent on the deaths of all Americans, is probably not worth arguing with.

4) My current fear is that Americans have bought into the myth that the U.S. invaded Iraq to liberate the people, and that is going to lead to trouble. As more and more average Iraqis are revealed to be against the U.S. "liberation," these Americans are going to start being angry at how "ungrateful" the Iraqis are being. "Our troops risked their lives to free you, and this is the thanks they get?!" I can easily see an anti-Iraqi backlash for their ungrateful response. And in the resulting backlash, Americans won't care so much if the new Iraqi regime is a democracy or a junta.

5) "Support our troops" can mean many different things, and you will generally have no idea which meaning a person is using when they speak the words:

• "I stand strongly in support of this war"
  
• "my husband is in the Army and I am scared what might happen to him
  
• "I'm not for the war, but I'm afraid that if I continue to publicly oppose it, America might lose"
  
• "Whoooooooo!!!! U-S-A!! U-S-A!!!"
  
• "I like jumping on bandwagons because it makes me feel like a part of something bigger"
  
• "I just want all the soldiers to come back safely"
  
• "I don't want anyone to yell at me for not supporting the troops"
  
• "I'm going to get on the internet and yell and cuss at anyone who does't 'support our troops'"

The term has come to mean so many things that it is essentially meaningless. If you want to ask me something about my feelings on the troops, you'll have to choose different words, because I'm no longer going to respond to the phrase above.

March 26, 2003

Random War Thoughts

1) Of course, the first thought is: what a terrible fucking idea this war was.

2) Many pundits and armchair generals are already saying "there needs to be a change of tactics/this is a quagmire." But really, this is probably pretty average results for a military invasion. Just because it's not the cakewalk we were promised doesn't mean that this is Vietnam II (yet).

3) A local news station began tonight's broadcast saying "there is now proof that Iraq is hiding chemical weapons." They then went on to say that the military had taken control of a hospital which had 3000 chemical protection suits. That isn't proof of anything, you bastards.

4) When Aaron Brown and Wolf Blitzer are on the same CNN news segment, they subtly battle each other for airtime. It's funny.

5) What's up with Al Jazeera these days? Pre-Afghanistan, it was lauded for it's "get in every regime's face" style. Then it got bashed by the White House for it's non-pro-U.S. stance. Now it seems to be getting bashed by everyone. I don't watch AJ. Is this bashing justified, or is it propaganda? Is Al Jazeera a good network, did it used to be, did it change?

6) The Iraqis really don't seem to be buying into this "America as liberators" thing. Which is quite rational. A country's been starving and bombing you for ten years, then guys from that country with big guns walk into your village and say "we're here to rescue you"? I'm thinking that the U.S. will conquer Iraq, and then be attacked by Iraqis guerrilla-style for months and months afterwards, until the U.S. pulls out or until the resistance is massacred.

Quote of the Week

(via Eat the State!):

"Our armies do not come into your cities or lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators."

--British Lt. Gen. Stanley Maude, after his army, advancing from Basra in 1915, conquered and seized the city of Baghdad, inaugurating decades of British rule and plunder

Today's Assortment of Stolen Links

Lack of Skepticism Leads to Poor Reporting on Iraq Weapons Claims- new report by FAIR which points out how the media is jumping to conclusions and getting the facts wrong in the Iraq war. It's like I keep saying, don't trust any heady sounding news report until some time passes, because the facts don't usually come to light right away.

When are facts facts? Not in a war- God bless the Guardian. Excellent follow-up to the above article, examining the "Claims and counter claims made in the first week of the media war in Iraq." This is all I've ever asked for in the media. Skepticism. Research. Synthesis. Conclusions.

This Is Gulf War 2- awful pictures you won't want to see (and probably won't if you only watch American television) of the Iraq war. Not as one-sided as you might guess, images of Iraqi injuries and deaths as well as images of American deaths and POWs.

U.S. Trying to Stop U.N. Session on War- members of the UN General Assembly are trying to arrange a vote to condemn the U.S. attack on Iraq. It seems that there's a fair chance that they would get enough votes to pass the resolution. And in a diplomatic move that's become utterly predictable, the US is trying to pressure these countries to vote against the resolution.

U.S. Is Assembling a Civilian Team to Run Iraq- "The United States is preparing to establish immediate sole control of postwar Iraq, initially without recourse to the United Nations, with a civilian administration under the direct command of the military, according to senior administration officials." Military-controlled occupation by a foreign nation = freedom and democracy.

Bush Drafting New Executive Order on Declassifying Documents- so what stance do you think Bush takes on declassifying government documents? He takes the "don't declassify" and even the "REclassify" points of view. You just gotta wonder what skeletons this administration has in its closet (I mean apart from the horrific ones that we already know about).

The Secret Weapon: CIA- the CIA is involved with the war on Iraq? I am shocked and awed.

"ENLARGE YOUR COALITION! GUARANTEED!"- concluding on the lighter side. Yet another clever spam spoof that takes the crap that we all get emailed every day and twists it into a skewering political satire.

Point-Counterpoint: The War On Iraq- from The Onion. "It's funny cuz it's true."

March 23, 2003

Blogging's Answer to CNN

Sean Paul over at The Agonist is doing a really amazing job of sorting through the news of the Iraq war and presenting it as brief summaries, denoting sources and probable authenticity. But it made me think that this is the sort of news source that we really want. News that we might even be willing to pay for.

Go check out Sean Paul's site. And I say if you find it worthwhile, click on his "donate" button in the upper left and give the man a buck or five. He's obviously putting a ton of work into this, and we should show him our appreciation.

Tri-State Area

Now U.S. bombs have apparently falled on Iraq, Iran and now Turkey. I haven't seen any word on damage or casualties.

Oscar Goes to War

Some local anti-war groups called for a protest outside the Academy Awards in Hollywood tonight. Knowing how severely the police lock down events like this, I thought it was pretty much a lame idea, but I went anyway. Figured I'd go see what the post-war peace movement was looking like.

Had to get off the subway one stop early because the stop right near the Kodak Theater was closed down (for security reasons, of course). Began the trek west, keeping an eye out for protesters, cops, and barricades. It's funny how it's become commonplace around here to see people walking down the street holding placards denouncing war, the president, the media, and multinational corporations.

As I walked, the numbers of cars on the street dwindled and the number of people on the sidewalks increased. More cops, more traffic cones, more limos. Haven't seen this large a police presence since the Democratic National Convention in 2000, when the city was an abosolute warzone, no joke.

About three blocks from the Oscar ceremony home, the street was obstructed, so I had to walk down some side streets to get closer to the alleged protest location (one block past the theater). Ended up turning down Highland, and got a good view of some of the Oscar night absurdity.

From the corner of Highland and Hollywood to the corner of Highland and Santa Monica (about four large city blocks), the street was filled with nothing but limousines, taking their passengers to the Oscars.

Apparently dealing with these limos was one protest strategy. A number of demonstrators were on the sidewalks along the street, imploring the cars' inhabitants to speak out about the war. "You have a platform to speak to millions," they cried. If begging celebrities to mention your particular issue on television is your best hope of success, you're in trouble. Or maybe you're just not very imaginative. As most of the limos kept the tinted windows rolled up, it was hard to tell if these activists were having any luck.

The air above was teeming with motorized life: police helicopters, news helicopters, a Saturn blimp, and two airplanes dragging banners for Commiwood.com (which I presume would bash away at lefty actors, those Red bastards. But I can't get that url to work, maybe I'm intentionally remembering it wrong).

After much zigging and zagging, I came to the protest site. I honestly found it pretty sad. There was a flatbed truck serving as a stage, giant balloons which read "no war" (or something like that), and lots of booths selling anti-war t-shirts. And as I arrived, the speaker on the stage was imploring us to give donations to "keep the protests alive." Excuse me, but you know what you need for a protest to happen? People need to show up. That costs about $zero. Yeah yeah, to rent flatbeds and sound systems and file for permits you need money. But really, do any of those things factor in much to changing government policy? Hell, does any rally-style protest where people stand around and listen to speakers reflect that audience's own views and then tell them that they need to embrace socialism, or become a vegetarian or free Mumia to succeed?

Sorry, the seeming consumerist, monetary bent of the protest irked me.

I now walked past the protest and began circling back on Sunset, towards the limousine gauntlet. After walking several blocks, I was crossing a small side street when a small riot gear-clad policeman stepped into my way. He pulled his baton out of its holster (holster? Sheath? Scabbard?), held it in front of him like a barrier and said "you can't go this way."

I was very taken aback. It's not like it's common knowledge which streets they're going to arbitrarily close around the Oscar theater, it wasn't marked or anything. He would've just had to politely tell me to turn around, yet here he was in full defensive mode. Well, I suppose he was polite, except that he was obviously ready to shove me backwards with the broad side of his billy club. I backed away a step, hands in the "I'm unarmed" position, saying "sorry, didn't know!"

As I turned around, I saw another cop immediately to my left who was re-sheathing his own club. Was this for real? Were two cops seriously preparing to beat my ass with clubs because I didn't know that I wasn't allowed to cross the usually anonymous North Mansfield Avenue? I didn't even look threatening, no signs, no slogans on my t-shirt, no punk rock mohawk, nothing. Just a nerdy looking dude with glasses in a brown shirt and jeans. These dudes were fucking twitchy.

I'd seen about as much as I could, so I retraced my steps. When I got near Sunset and Highland, I saw a burst of movement. A large crowd of protesters was on the southwest corner of the intersection, by the McDonald's, when a swarm of riot cops sprinted over to the mob. I tried to see what was going on, but couldn't get close enough. Then the sirens came. About six cop cars, a phlanax of bicycle cops, and no fewer than twenty motorcycle cops appeared on the scene. Cops en masse freak me out. From several eyewitness reports on the LA IndyMedia site, it would appear that the cops beat a bunch of people there. I can't verify any of the claims made there, of course. But cops beating protesters is a lot more common than most people think.

Also more common than most people think are mass, unjustified arrests at protests. Ever since the WTO protests in Seattle, cops seem to think it's okay to surround a bunch of people, accuse them of failing to disperse (sometimes they tell them to disperse and won't let them out, sometimes they don't even bother doing that) and mass arrest them. When I saw this battallion of cops, that's what popped into my head.

Since I couldn't get any closer to the source of the trouble, and I wasn't in the mood to be arrested, I decided to head on home. On the long walk back, I saw a building with a line of well-dressed folks stretching around the block. I beleive these people were "seat-fillers." You see, during an awards show, the people in the audience might have to go to the bathroom or do a line of coke or something, and it would be so unseemly if there was an empty seat in the auditorium that the TV audience could see. So many "seat-fillers" are hired to make that nasty emptiness go away. The people in this line were wearing fine suits, fancy dresses with wraps, a few tuxes. Sadly, no one was around to hear my witty remark: "Look, it's the prom!"

Upon arriving home, I heard about Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine movie won for best documentary. As expected, Moore gave a speech which bashed the war and the president. Apparently his win was applauded and his speech was booed. I just hope that some of the hundreds of millions of foreigners who watched the show will see that as proof positive that not all Americans support this president or his policies, and will prevent them from carrying out suicide bombings upon our populace.

The Lighter Side

To amuse you:

Movies we would see if the MPAA censored everything down to a G rating- series of hilarious photoshopped images from the weirdos at the Fark community.

Why They Matter- LA Times film critic Kenneth Turan tries to explain why the Academy Awards ceremony is important to America, especially in a time of war. And fails miserably. Really hilariously bad.

RUMSFELD: 900 NATIONS NOW IN COALITION- "Defends Inclusion of Disneyland, Carpet World"

Havok

Stray Missiles Land in Iran- it appears that at least one and possibly as many as three US or UK missiles aimed at Iraq accidentally hit Iran.

RAF Tornado downed by US missile- it appears (I'll be using that phrase a lot these days) that a US Patriot Missile emplacement accidentally shot down a British fighter plane. The search for survivors has begun.

Soldier detained in fatal grenade attack on Army base- take this with even more skepticism, as it's a crime taking place in a war setting. One American soldier was killed and twelve wounded when several grenades detonated at an army camp in Kuwait. The current allegations are that the grenades were thrown by a disgruntled American soldier. Other reports I saw claimed that the soldier was a recent convert to Islam. Whether its true or not, if that version of the story spreads it will just add to the anti-Muslim/anti-Arab sentiment many Americans already hold. Speaking of which...

Illinois mosque attacked as Muslims pray inside- someone shot at praying Muslims inside their mosque through the mosque's large front window. I received an email that recounts this story, as well as two other attacks on Muslims in California and Michigan, although they were of the more threaten-and-discriminate variety. Since I could not find links for those, you only get the first story. Email me if you want the other one and I'll send it your way.

Now I can't find the link again, but I also read an article earlier today about a pro-war rally in which a Muslim man got up to speak. The Muslim praised the war for the liberation of Iraq and then read a passage out of the Quran; to which his fellow pro-war folks responded by yelling anti-Arab and anti-Muslim comments at him. That's something that I hadn't thought much about. How much of pro-war sentiment can be attributed to just good ol' racism and hatred?

Lawyers' hotline set to tell Iraqis: Know your rights- that headline should probably read "Iraqi-Americans." The FBI is apparently going around and interviewing Americans of Iraqi descent and Iraqi immigrants. This article is specifically about the FBI investigation in the Bay Area, and advises Iraqi-Americans to call the local chapter of the National Lawyers Guild if they think they need help- (415) 285-1055

Turkey denies push into Iraq, but sticks to intervention plans- earlier today the AP and BBC both reported that Turkey had sent thousands of soldiers into northern Iraq, but Turkey claims that their soldiers are only on the border, ready to deploy in case of a mass influx of refugees. In all likelihood, they actually want to enter northern Iraq, fight the Kurds, and retake Kirkuk, which could spark a massive conflict between the Kurds and the Turks. This would be bad.

A few in military refuse to fight 'wrong war'- America gets its own refuseniks? A small number of U.S. military servicemen are apparently refusing to serve in the war against Iraq.

March 22, 2003

Fair and Balanced and Contextless

I spent two hours in a doctor's office waiting room yesterday, forced to watch the war coverage on the Fox News Channel. No matter how I turned my seat or tried to distract myself with a magazine, I had to inevitably watch at least some of it (I appreciate your condolences).

Lots of coverage of the aerial bombardment, AKA "shock and awe." Footage of Baghdad aflame in color, and in grainy green monochrome. But all from a distance, a blazing skyline, people-less, as though the footage was of a model a young boy had set ablaze for his own amusement.

You know what would have made all this coverage worthwhile? One little phrase:

"People live here."

Thousands of tons of explosives had been dropped on a city of 5 million people, with roughly the same population density of Seattle.

Imagine a natural disaster in any major world city--an earthquake in Mexico City, an inferno in Delhi, a tsunami in Melbourne-- and this would be a major catastrophe. The Red Cross would fly in. People around the country would take up donations for the victims. Even if it was the capitol city of a tyrannical, hated governments--floods in Pyongyang, locusts in Riyadh, tornados in ... Paris?-- and the sympathy would still remain.

But this sort of disaster in Baghdad is okay. Because Saddam Hussein is a bad man, you see.

As I write this, the "official" casualty count is 3 dead and 207 wounded in Baghdad, a figure that I simply cannot believe. Of course, many of the city's 5 million certainly fled as war approached, and I'm sure that the city does have bomb shelters and the like for people's protection. I certainly hope its true, that these bombs are miraculously finding targets free of human beings, and that such miracles continue. But I fear that the death toll will rise when and if searches are made, unburying the bodies in the rubble.

I also couldn't help but notice that the Fox News Channel anchors kept saying things like "the war to liberate Iraq is on" and so forth. I must be getting old, I remember back when this was a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Then a war to force Iraq to accept weapons inspectors. Then a war to enforce UN resolutions. Then a war to disarm Iraq. And now, finally, a war of liberation. What a difference six months make.

March 21, 2003

Misdirection

So how much time do you think the media is going to spend asking "when will the military start the 'shock and awe'?" and "is Saddam Hussein really dead?" instead of, y'know, reporting on the war?

Coalition of the War-Liking

I am getting tired of hearing about this "coalition of the willing" of 30+ countries that "supports" the U.S. in its holy crusade against Iraq. And couldn't they think of a better phrase than that? Couldn't they have at least been the "coalition of freedom" or "righteousness" or something?

The White House is claiming that they have 30 nations supporting them, and another 15 that support them but won't go public about it (which is telling in itself, really). By my math that means that 45 countries support the war and 147 countries don't.

And when we take a look at those 30, a grand total of six are actually sending troops: the U.S., UK, Australia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Albania. And of those six, only the UK, UK and Australia are sending any large numbers of troops. Romania is sending 278. Albania is sending 70. That's not a hell of a lot of support.

So of this coalition of 45 semi-public supporters, it's more or less a coalition of three countries. Gotta love that doublespeak.

[edit]

Reuters has a few things to say on the subject, more specifically regarding the recent Rumsfeld comment that "The coalition in this activity is larger than the coalition that existed during the Gulf War in 1991."

In 1991 at least 33 countries sent forces to the campaign against Iraq and 16 of those provided combat ground forces, including a large number of Arab countries.

In 2003 the only fighting forces are from the United States, Britain and Australia. Ten other countries are known to have offered small numbers of noncombat forces, mostly either medical teams and specialists in decontamination, making a comparable alliance of about 13 countries.

U.S. officials have named 33 countries which support the U.S. invasion of Iraq but this includes countries which are providing overflight and basing rights and which are giving only diplomatic or political support for the invasion.

President Bush said on Wednesday that 35 countries have chosen to "share the honor" of supporting the campaign but U.S. officials could not name more than the 33.

They say some 15 other countries are cooperating with the U.S. war effort behind the scene, mostly by giving access to bases and airspace, but they do not want to be named.

In 1991 the United States and its allies did not count countries which provided overflight rights or political support because the campaign had the overwhelming support of the U.N. Security Council, which had voted 12-2 for the use of force.

Salon also has an article on the topic, but you have to do that "yes, I will watch your four page advertisement before I can read the article" thing, and I'm currently in no mind to do so, so I can't tell you if the article's any good.

[/edit]

IMF Says IMF is No Good

In the war furor, this important story got missed (well, by me anyway).

IMF-no clear proof globalization helps the poor

The IMF is the International Monetary Fund, an institution that lends money to countries in desperate need. In return, they demand that the countries follow "structural adjustment programs," which call on the countries to make themselves more friendly to foreign investors. Which means cutting social services spending, privatize national industries, charge money for public services, etc. In other words, fuck the nation's poor hard, because then wealthy foreign investors will want to swoop in, buy up the industries and resources, and maybe plunk down some factories to exploit the desperation of some of the world's poorest people.

Yeah, it's a bit more complicated than that (isn't it always), but that's the jist of it. The IMF and its sister organization the World Bank have done massive damage to many a Third World country, and that damage doesn't ever seem to heal.

And now, a new IMF study finds that the "trade liberalization" policies that the organization espouses don't actually help the countries like they're supposed to.

So what's next, IMF? Ball's in your court.

March 20, 2003

That Number Has Been Disconnected

One of the primo websites for Perpetual War News has been Dack.com. But Dack has now shifted the warlog portion of his site to a new domain, RationalEnquirer.org.

Please make a note of it.

Jake On Air, You Speak Out

Hey folks,

Going to be on the air at Kill Radio again today, spreading the anti-war, anti-lies, anti-stupid gospel the way that I do. Click here to tune in to Kill Radio, I'll only be on from 4-6pm PST.

It'll mostly be about Iraq and war. Our own Greg the DJ says he might stop in with some "audio clips that provide a sound bite historical perspective of the complicity of the u.s. in creating this situation" (if he can get out of work in time).

We'll also be taking calls from folks protesting here and Los Angeles. And if you want to give a call, no matter where you are or what you're doing, feel free, I'll put you on the air live.

The number's 213.252.0998

More War Sources

Found another website of news and perspective inside Iraq.

Kevin Sites Blog- "First-person account of a solo journalist's life on the front lines of war... Kevin Sites is a CNN correspondent, but this is a personal website not affiliated with, endorsed by, or funded by CNN. "

Kevin is currently in northern Iraq. His blog has photos and audio reports as well. Only downside is that he seems to be kinda... I dunno. In his own words, speaking about reporting, "it seems somewhat cyncial, unforgivingly opportunistic to feed a career on carnage of war. But we do... It's both an avocation and an addiction. A search for moral absolutes in uncompromising violence. War corrspondent Chris Hedges explains beautifully in his book, WAR IS A FORCE THAT GIVES US MEANING."

He sounds like kind of a journalistic fanatic. But he's there and we're not, so his stuff might be worth a read.

We've also got the BBC's "Reporters' Log: At war in Iraq, a cooperative weblog with reporters submitting entries from Baghdad, Kuwait, Amman, northern Iraq, Washington DC (?), Jerusalem, Cairo, etc. So it's not strictly an "inside Iraq" source, but that material is there.

Also, if you're looking for up-to-the-minute news coverage of the war, it looks like The Agonist weblog is doing a good job of summarizing reports from the major mainstream media as they come.

I'll go ahead and start adding these Iraq news sites into a section of the menu bar on the right.

Laugh, Clown, Laugh

Heh. Fanatical Apathy is the only weblog I know that is made up primarily of hilarious political skits in script form. It's also got other satire and photo cartoons, but the skits are what impress me most.

The latest skit:

From "Rough Justice IV" (The Movie Inside President Bush's Head)

March 19, 2003

Open Thread for You. Because I Love You

Saw this idea over at the Daily Kos blog.

Every day, Kos posts an entry for the sole purpose of the readers having a chance to write about whatever, converse, bitch, etc.

Seemed like an interesting idea, so I'm experimenting with it.

Use the "comments" section of this post to write about whatever, the war, Bush, the media, your cat's sex life, whatever.

Enjoy.

Jake.

The Aftermath

The part of the war that the Bushies haven't talked much about, what comes next The general story is that after expelling Saddam, then comes the rebuilding, then comes the new government, then the Americans leave. Details? There aren't many. On one hand, that's smart; why make plans before you've had a chance to assess the situation. On the other hand, it's a catastrophe; after the country has been invaded, damaged, and its government nullified, basic problems like food, water, medicine, transportation, electricity, refugees and possible retaliation will become vital concerns within hours of victory.

Is the U.S. military and Bush administration up to this task? The following articles argue, "no."

A bringer of liberty can soon become an occupier- history professor Eric Rauchway draws a parallel between President Bush's war to liberate Iraq in 2000s with President McKinley's war to liberate the Philippines in 1900s.

As Senator Henry Cabot Lodge mildly noted: "Those people whom we liberated down there have turned against us." An army of 75,000 Filipinos began to fight a guerrilla war against their benevolent occupiers. The Americans had the advantage of superior firepower; the rebels enjoyed the privilege of camouflage that accrues to an occupied people. The well-armed Americans hunkered in groups while stealthy guerrillas sowed terror among the coloniser troops - who then retaliated against the populace at large. This pattern culminated in an ambush on the American garrison at Balangiga - the worst massacre of US troops since Custer. In reply, US forces laid waste to the surrounding country.

News of such terrorism and indiscriminate response brought the war to a sputtering halt - although US troops stayed in the islands and rebels remained in the wilderness, as they do today. The Philippines did not attain independence, let alone democracy, until 1946.

I believe the U.S. repression in the Philippines resulted in the deaths of about a million Filipinos.

The War After the War- lengthy (but pretty much mandatory if you want to be informed about this) article about the troubles the U.S. will face in the rebuilding/transformation of Iraq. Largely based upon "The Day After: The Army in a Post-Conflict Iraq, " an "unpublicized U.S. Army War College studies being read with increasing interest by some Pentagon planners" back in December, the article paints a very grim picture due to the amazing complexity of the situation, coupled with the U.S. military's general ignorance of Iraqi society, culture, politics, and needs. The report argues that the U.S. would need 65,000-80,000 troops stationed in Iraq for 5-10 years (even with UN support) to stabilize the country. Stop reading my summary and go read the article.

All of this has got me worried. A violent and unstable post-war Iraq would make the U.S. look bad, because it would reinforce the world opinion that the war was a bad idea.

Which got me thinking that maybe the U.S. won't be as concerned with Iraqi democracy--even a facade of it--as they will be with a U.S.-friendly leader who will "keep the peace," even if that "peace" means violent repression by the new leader.

But won't a new dictator in Iraq make the U.S. look bad too? Well, you probably won't hear about it. When was the last time the mainstream press covered oppression in allied countries like Saudi Arabia, or Turkey, or Pakistan?

The Supreme Court Hates You

Justice Bans Media From Free Speech Event- "Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia banned broadcast media from an appearance Wednesday where he will receive an award for supporting free speech."

War Means Rights May Be Scaled Back- "The government has room to scale back individual rights during wartime without violating the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Tuesday. 'The Constitution just sets minimums,' Scalia said after a speech at John Carroll University in suburban Cleveland. "Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires.'" In other words, shut your cry-hole and be thankful that you have any rights at all.

Supreme Court Justice Scalia Is Sleeping With Your Mother- nah, I'm just kiddin.

Crank Up Your Bullshit Detectors

As I write this, the "time to make the war" deadline has passed, and already today there have been two major news rumors that appear to have been untrue:

- This morning, rumors swirled that Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister (and frequent spokesperson) Tariq Aziz had either defected to the Kurdish forces in northern Iraq, or had been killed. Aziz appeared in a live press conference to argue that he was not dead.

- And geopolitical analysts Stratfor apparently reported earlier that American B-52 bombers were airborne and heading towards Iraq, and are now claiming that those bombers actually are still at the airfield. Now I don't know which is true.

First off, with any breaking news, the first reports are frequently wrong. One on of the first days of the O.J. Simpson media circus, on the day that OJ was driving down the freeway in the famous white Bronco, an acquaintance of mine ran up and told me that he'd just heard on the radio that OJ had stopped the car, confronted the police, and been shot and killed by them. Needless to say, that was untrue. It usually takes some time for all the facts to be properly sorted and the "truth" (or as close as we can get to that) to be revealed.

Add to that the confusion of military conflict, language barriers, military censorship, and the powerful propaganda machines that will be in full force by the U.S., U.K. and Iraqi governments, and you've got a whole lot of work ahead of you if you want to know what's actually going on. Hell, maybe you won't be able to know what's going on ever.

I'm just saying remain skeptical, remain vigilant, and wait a while before you start thinking that any news story you hear is true. And make sure to be skeptical of me too. I try my best to be accurate, and to let you know when I'm unsure, but good intentions won't always save me.

Looks Like We've Started

According to London's "The Evening Standard," US and UK soldiers are fighting Iraqi soldiers near Basra in southern Iraq.

I don't know if that's considered "the start of the war" per se, but....

I'm really hoping that all the "shock and awe" stuff we heard about was just a scare tactic and not a real military plan.

New News from the White House

Wow a couple of things from Bush that I hadn't previously heard.

"War against Iraq will be as short as possible but Americans must be prepared for loss of life."

That's the first I can remember him mentioning casualties, ours or theirs. Now that the war is metaphysically certain, I guess he can start saying that sort of thing.

"Bush met with his war council and the White House sent Congress formal notification of justification for war. In two separate documents, Bush said diplomacy has failed to protect America's security, linked Saddam's regime with the al-Qaida network and — laying out a new rationale for war — said captured Iraqi officials could identify terrorists living in the United States."

Oh, that's right. It's not a war for weapons of mass destruction, or the sanctity of the UN or liberation of the Iraqi people or oil or revenge, it's because captured Iraqis might have info about terrorists in America. It's all so simple now! Why didn't I realize that earlier?

March 18, 2003

Bush and the Truth

A few comments about George W. Bush and truthfulness.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Ultimatums- The Weekly Lowdown dissects Bush's recent ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, verifying the truth or falsity of each segment. They find 20 lies.

Bush Clings To Dubious Allegations About Iraq - "As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this week, it is doing so on the basis of a number of allegations against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that have been challenged -- and in some cases disproved -- by the United Nations, European governments and even U.S. intelligence reports."

PUSHED INTO WAR BY LIARS AND CHEATS- editorial from The Mirror which, well, you can probably guess. Also, check out this spiffy Mirror front page from this past Monday.

And looking over Bush's speech, you have to give him some credit. How many times can you say "we need war for peace" without vomitting?

Congressional Asylum

Madness.

The Republican speaker of the House of Representatives accused Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle on Tuesday of coming "mighty close" to giving comfort to U.S. foes and undermining President Bush's march toward war with Iraq.

Rep. Dennis Hastert of Illinois ripped into Daschle for saying on Monday: "I'm saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war."

"Giving comfort to U.S. foes" is part of the legal definition of TREASON!

So let's understand. According to Dennis Hastert, saying that the president failed at something is "mighty close" to treason, the betrayal of the United States of America and its people.

Um, no. No it isn't.

I hope Daschle sues Hastert for slander.

How Bad Could It Be?

On Sunday, when it looked certain that war would be upon us before the next weekend, without even trying, I ran across a horrifying list of news articles (mostly from Antiwar.com) that make the Iraq war look scarier and scarier. And the unexpected discovery of those headlines has continued through today.

War Fears Bring Fundamentalism to Secular Iraq- as war approaches, more and more Iraqis turn to religion for comfort, some to fundamentalist Islam. Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein increasingly uses religious language and metaphor in his speeches, which could help his inevitable downfall into a martyr's tale.

Iraq War Will Be Great al-Qaeda Recruiting Tool- kinda goes without saying. "The American infidels will kill all of us Arabs, just look at Iraq! You must join al-Qaeda and blow things up!"

Kurds Prepare for War with an Old Enemy- one of the hugest possible catastrophes of this war would be potential conflict between the Kurds and the Turks. There is an unofficial region of the Middle East known as Kurdistan, an area populated primarily by Kurds that stretches from southeastern Turkey, through northern Iraq, and even into parts of Iran and Syria. The Kurds would love for this region to become its own state, or at least an area with its own autonomy. The Turks would fight this outcome, and has been fighting its own Kurdish population on it for a long time. There is fear that if the Turks enter northern Iraq, it will lead to a civil war.

Shiite Opposition Vows to Act Independently of US- just another example of how things could take unexpected turns. Not only are members of Iraqi Shiites planning to do their own thing during this war, but they are being blostered by aid and volunteers from Iran. Another wild card.

War Party Getting Ready for New Targets- the same warhawk "neocons" who through their support into the Iraq war in the name of U.S. geopolitical domination are already looking for the next coutnry to invade. Iran? Syria? North Korea? Lybia?

Bush Has Audacious Plan to Rebuild Iraq in a Year- "audacious" is the journalistic word du jour, apparently. This article is disturbing for two reasons: 1) the idea that Iraq could be rebuilt in a year shows me that either Bush does not understand the situation in Iraq, or that he has no real intention of rebuilding Iraq. The country was bombed to fuck 12 years ago, and due to the sanctions, not too much was rebuilt. Add to that the additional damage caused by a decade of sanctions, and the upcoming assault, and I cannot imagine how this rebuilding could be done in a year. 2) the rebuilding plan seems to consist of giving money to American corporations to go do the work, with a tiny portion going to non-profit humanitarian organizations. Of course, the goals of the two parties differ--profit vs. helping people-- which could lead to work done at cross purposes. In addition, I worry about how much input the Iraqi people will have into the rebuilding. Iraqi man: "We need to rebuild the water purification center." American businessman: "Hogwash! What you need is a couple of Taco Bells!"

History's deadliest night of airstrikes will start the war- stop me if you've heard this one... and if you've ever read this site before, you have.

Baghdad Ready to Take Up Arms- "'Only for Americans are they buying the weapons,' insisted Nadhir Qahtan, 35, the owner of a gun shop in Mansour who said business, especially for ammunition, has doubled in the past few days. But privately, customers and gun store owners hint at the anarchy they believe is likely if government authority collapses. That anarchy, perhaps more than the government itself, may pose the most serious challenge to U.S. forces that attempt to enter Baghdad, where residents boast that every family has at least one assault rifle and one pistol. Many Iraqis expect bloodletting, score-settling and lawlessness in the weeks ahead."

Sectarian tensions rise in Iraq as US attack looms- "A war to topple Hussein could unleash a revolt of Iraq's long-repressed Shiites."

Iraq Arming Troops With Chemical Weapons- well, I wouldn't be surprised if this one was untrue, but it is a scary scenario.

So it goes.

And let's finish with two longer, multi-faceted predictions for the outcome of the Iraq war and beyond, starting with Robert Fisk:

American and British forces use thousands of depleted uranium (DU) shells – widely regarded by 1991 veterans as the cause of Gulf War syndrome as well as thousands of child cancers in present day Iraq – to batter their way across the Kuwaiti-Iraqi frontier. Within hours, they will enter the city of Basra, to be greeted by its Shia Muslim inhabitants as liberators. US and British troops will be given roses and pelted with rice – a traditional Arab greeting – as they drive "victoriously" through the streets. The first news pictures of the war will warm the hearts of Messrs Bush and Blair. There will be virtually no mention by reporters of the use of DU munitions.

But in Baghdad, reporters will be covering the bombing raids that are killing civilians by the score and then by the hundred... By now, in Basra and other "liberated" cities south of the capital, Iraqis are taking their fearful revenge on Saddam Hussein's Baath party officials. Men are hanged from lamp-posts. Much television footage of these scenes will have to be cut to sanitise the extent of the violence.

Far better for the US and British governments will be the macabre discovery of torture chambers and "rape-rooms" and prisoners with personal accounts of the most terrible suffering at the hands of Saddam's secret police. This will "prove" how right "we" are to liberate these poor people. Then the US will have to find the "weapons of mass destruction" that supposedly provoked this bloody war. In the journalistic hunt for these weapons, any old rocket will do for the moment...

Baghdad is surrounded and its defenders ordered to surrender. There will be fighting between Shias and Sunnis around the slums of the city, the beginning of a ferocious civil conflict for which the invading armies are totally unprepared. US forces will sweep past Baghdad to his home city of Tikrit in their hunt for Saddam Hussein. Bush and Blair will appear on television to speak of their great "victories". But as they are boasting, the real story will begin to be told: the break-up of Iraqi society, the return of thousands of Basra refugees from Iran, many of them with guns, all refusing to live under western occupation.

In the north, Kurdish guerrillas will try to enter Kirkuk, where they will kill or "ethnically cleanse" many of the city's Arab inhabitants. Across Iraq, the invading armies will witness terrible scenes of revenge which can no longer be kept off television screens. The collapse of the Iraqi nation is now under way ...

And finally, a long essay on the subject by "retired U.S. Army Special Forces Master Sergeant Stan Goff", which is too long for me to excerpt here, but is worth a look.

My own prediction is that the war itself will be fairly quick and painless (for the Americans), while the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis will be swept under the rug as best as possible. As Fisk describes, I imagine there will be a speedy capture of a city so that the U.S. can declare victory and begin a propaganda assault which comforts Americans by showing how we liberated these people. Then caches of weapons of mass destruction, both genuine and fabricated, will be discovered, showing Americans the wisdom of our attack and "prove" that the anti-war protesters were wrong all along. Many will surely recant.

I really don't know how the fighting in northern Iraq will play out between Turkey and the Kurds. I'm going to guess that U.S. forces will try to separate the two, and then bribe Turkey into withdrawing... for now.

I am curious as to what will happen to Saddam Hussein. Will he be killed in the attacks? Will he flee? Will he commit suicide rather than be captured?

Then we enter the post-Afghanistan phase. The U.S. military will occupy Iraq and oversee the "rebuilding," in whatever form that might take (I'm fairly certain it will include the construction of several military bases for U.S. use, or the refurbishing of existing bases for U.S. use). The various rivalries and divisions within the country will start to intensify into outright violence. I can't say for certain, but it seems that al Qaeda might begin to enter Iraq to strike at U.S. targets in Iraq. The U.S. will try to cobble together a coalition of pro-American Iraqis to rule the "transitional government," most likely individuals that don't really represent the Iraqi people. Over time, the Iraqi people will begin rebelling against the occupation, and against the American puppet government.

But then, I am a very cynical and depressed person. I can't rule out the possibility that the war will be a quick win, and that contrary to all I've heard, the Iraqi people will be ecstatic, and that the rebuilding will be a success, and that the new government will be a beacon of democracy. That's the best we can hope for. But I don't think we can honestly expect something so rosy.

March 17, 2003

Jake on the Air in an Hour

Today's LMB Radio show is going to be a rantfest. Tune in, 2pm PST (so long as you can tolerate/enjoy a little punk & hiphop with your political commentary).

Perpetual War

Sigh.

Hawks circling for new targets

Even as President Bush struggles against robust international opposition to launch a regime-toppling invasion of Iraq, some of the strongest and earliest supporters of military action against Saddam Hussein are already looking ahead to the next target.

Some hawks outside the government are beginning to turn up the rhetorical heat against Iran and Syria, both of whom are Iraq's neighbors, and both known to be funneling aid to Middle East terrorist groups. Others are focusing on North Korea and its rapidly mobilized nuclear weapons program, or the North African country of Libya.

I've also heard chatter about attacking Yemen and, if things got out of hand, Venezuela. And we've already got troops in Djibouti and the Philippines.

To quote the great GYWO:

"Can't we just build a fucking bomb the size of the earth and cut a hole out of the middle of it in the shape of the United States?"

March 16, 2003

Inside

A few info/opinion sources inside Iraq that will surely give us some alternative points of view in the weeks to come.

Back to Iraq 2.0- former AP and NY Daily News reporter Christopher Allbritton is working as an independent reporter in Iraq, and has created his own blog with which to report. Pretty good stuff.

[edit]

Actually, it looks like I was mistaken about that. Allbritton made a trip to northern Iraq this past summer (click here for some of his photos), but is currently in New York, trying to raise money for another trip to Iraq in early April. So technically, his site does not belong on this list because he is not in Iraq at this moment. But since he will be in a few weeks, I'll leave it up with this caveat.

[/edit]

IraqJournal.org- a team of media and peace activists prepare regular text, audio and video reports from inside Iraq. Started in October 2002, seems affilated with lefty radio program Democracy Now!

Iraq Peace Team Diaries- the Iraq Peace Team is a group of activists who are working to nonviolently oppose the U.S. invasion of Iraq. A member of the team seems to update their "diary" section every 7-10 days. They've been there since September 2002.

Where is Raed?- Raed is just another blogger, who happens to be an Iraqi living in Iraq. Don't know much else about the guy. As you might guess, he's a little pissed off about being bombed, about sanctions, about Western "human shields," Islamic fundamentalists, incompetent British reporters, etc. It's largely political, but it's got some photos, poems and personal stuff too. Of course the opinions of one dude from Iraq can't be seen as representative of those of the entire country, but his opinions are more representative of the country than, I don't know, ANYTHING THAT YOU WILL SEE IN THE AMERICAN PRESS.

[another edit]

I misunderstood the blog. The author is not named Raed, but Salam Pax (obviously a psuedonym, which if I'm not mistaken means "peace peace"). I'm not sure who Raed is or how they fit into this. Anyway.

[/edit]

If you know of any other first-hand sources inside Iraq, please comment or email me and I'll add them in. Thanks.

Tick Tick Tick...

3...

"Tony Blair has told his Cabinet to brace itself for war on Iraq as early as Wednesday"

2...

"President Bush said Sunday the opportunity for a diplomatic solution to the confrontation with Iraq would end Monday"

1...

"Assuming that no peaceful resolution is found to the confrontation with Iraq, the concept of the rolling start gives the coalition's commanders the option of starting at any time"

0......

New Watchdog Weblog

When I first started this weblog, I had every intention of making it solely about the news media-- its failures, biases, effects and so on. However it became my main outlet for discussion of all things political. Sure, it has a lot of content about the media, but it really is quite the grab bag. I am completely comfortable with that, but sometimes I find that blogs that are more focused, that confine themselves to a single subject, can be very informative and effective.

Today, I discovered a brand new blog dedicated to the subject of war profiteering. It's called Arms And The Man. It's off to a good start, doggedly researching the seemingly unethical alliance of Dick Cheney and Halliburton. The most recent article links Halliburton, an oilfield firefighting company, a failed amusement park in New Mexico, and Scientology. While that sounds like a lunatic conpsiracy theory, it seems to be backed up by official business documents sent to the SEC.

Granted, most major corporations are probably so huge and multi-tentacled that they have links to all kinds of craziness. I'd say that these current AATM topics show a bit of profiteering, but speak a lot more to the issue of shady business dealings that are probably quite common.

March 15, 2003

Don't Support Our Troops

Don't Support Our Troops is the title of a new article by columnist and cartoonist Ted Rall. It is good stuff, and I recommend that you go read it.

His point is summed up, appropriately, in the concluding paragraph:

"I want our troops to return home safely. I want them to live. Like a good German watching my countrymen march into Poland and Belgium and Luxembourg and France, I don't want them to win and I don't want them to lose."

I think that's how a lot of us feel. The U.S. is committing good, brave men and women (and assholes too. Let's not forget that all kinds of people join the military, and putting on a uniform doesn't magically dissolve any of your negative qualities) to the vulgar goal of forcefully expanding American dominance over a sizable region of the globe.

We don't want these soldiers to die or suffer. Many of us know soldiers, they are our friends and neighbors and family, and we want our friends and family to come back alive. And we fear what the consequences of losing a war might be for our country and ourselves personally.

But at the same time, we don't want innocent people in another land to die or suffer. And we fear what the consequences of winning a war might be for ourselves and the world.

But that's kind of the point, I suppose. The "Support our troops" slogan was an absolutely brilliant PR move by the U.S. government during the first Gulf War, which left the public with only two possible stances: supporting the war, or wanting your countrymen to die.

We're human beings with brains, and can have all sorts of multi-faceted and nuanced opinions. You can support, oppose, or be confused about any aspect of any issue. Support the troops and hate the war. Support the war but oppose individual tactics. Oppose the war because you disagree with the concept of countries and want a borderless, peaceful utopia. It's okay. You can do that.

Don't let anyone box you in.

Two-Fisted Ink Assault

Editorial from the New York Observer, Smug President Has Painted U.S. Into a Corner

Choice bits:

The callow, smug, inarticulate man [George W. Bush] who was the lead player in a farce called "White House News Conference" gave us no new reasons to go to war, no sense of the dangers involved and no confidence in his leadership. The television appearance itself—more a blustering tape loop than exchange with the press—could only be called a national disgrace; President George W. Bush’s performance in front of a docile collection of game-show hosts posing as reporters ought to frighten all of us. We live in terrible times, dangerous times, and all this man can do is mouth platitudes and assertions put on his podium cards by his war-crazed handlers...

Amazingly, in the immediate aftermath of the President’s disgraceful performance, news outlets described him as "solemn" and "determined." These pieces must have been put together before the President actually spoke, because there was nothing solemn or determined about him; "clueless" and "lost" would have been closer...

Somehow, the Bush administration’s cowboys have done the unthinkable. They have alienated friends, ruined international relationships, squandered the good will and sympathy that the Sept. 11 atrocities inspired, and turned America into a global villain. All of this, while Saddam Hussein smiles and watches the world turn in his favor, inheriting the gusts of international opinion that Mr. Bush has mind-bogglingly forfeited. Rarely in modern times has such a blundering swap taken place...

With its Reagan-era bluster and frat-house machismo, the Bush administration has played into the hands of terrorists, breaking apart NATO and fracturing half-century-old relations with Europe that have persevered through all the roilings of post–World War II history. And the administration did it at just the very moment when the West has been targeted—not by that wretched despot Saddam, but by the murderous followers of Osama bin Laden. Thanks to the President and his hubristic crew of ideologues, America and Europe are not united, as they should be, in the face of global Islamic militancy. Instead, many people talk about the end of America’s strategic alliance with Western Europe. Instead of France and Germany, some say, we will simply align ourselves with the post-Communist states of Eastern Europe—like, say, Bulgaria.

Osama bin Laden did not create this sad state of affairs. George W. Bush did...

These are hyperbolic and misinformed times. So it was hardly surprising to hear a television commentator report, just before the President’s press conference, that Mr. Bush was not expected to use the opportunity to declare war on Iraq. It did not occur to the reporter—any more than it has to Mr. Bush and his bunch of crusaders—that no President has ever declared war, because no President has ever had that power. Congress declares war; it’s in the Constitution.

March 14, 2003

Things Fall Apart

So even the U.S. State Department doesn't buy into the "war for democracy in Iraq" argument.

A classified State Department report expresses doubt that installing a new regime in Iraq will foster the spread of democracy in the Middle East, a claim President Bush has made in trying to build support for a war, according to intelligence officials familiar with the document.

The report exposes significant divisions within the Bush administration over the so-called democratic domino theory, one of the arguments that underpins the case for invading Iraq.

The report, which has been distributed to a small group of top government officials but not publicly disclosed, says that daunting economic and social problems are likely to undermine basic stability in the region for years, let alone prospects for democratic reform.

The other thing to note is that this report is "classified." How is it that so many classified documents and secret reports are being leaked these days? I think Bush has rubbed too many people the wrong way, and they're looking to covertly oppose his stupid plans.

March 13, 2003

Think Globally, Read Globally

I'm a little pissed about this.

BP faces record fine for spoiling Los Angeles air

Y'know where I live? Los Angeles.

Where did I have to go to read this story about Los Angeles? London.

La Haine

My mind boggles at the level of anti-French sentiment in the U.S. right now. While the press might like to make sweeping generalizations that "Americans hate the French," I think it's a safe bet that most Americans don't give a fuck about the French one way or the other. Americans who intensely desire the Iraq war probably do, as do rather dumb people who like jumping on angry bandwagons, but I don't think that many other people put much thought or energy into the issue. The anti-French people just happen to be exceptionally loud.

Part of this is arrogance. We Americans are told from the day that we're born that America is the greatest country on Earth, and since we live here, we must be the greatest too. And we've got all kinds of evidence for that: American military power, technological advances, economic success, and popularity of our entertainment products. Add to that the country's immense size (many Americans will live their lives without ever leaving the country's borders), few neighbors (just Canada and Mexico), and huge distance to other nations, and you get a "we are the best" myth with little counter-evidence.

So when an "inferior" country starts "telling us what to do," some folks will get angry. It's the anger of the powerful who faces opposition. It's like in Bush's recent press conference when he said that the U.S. was "at the mercy of Saddam Hussein." Hussein's a tin-pot dictator of a ravaged country with maybe a supply of chemical weapons. And he has the most powerful nation in history "at his mercy?" When you're in absolute control, even the tiniest threat to that control can seem like a catastrophe.

(The France-haters do get one thing right though, that anti-war folks are happily ignoring: the French leadership is not opposing the Iraq war because they are more moral than American leaders, they are opposing it because of national politics and their current economic ties to Iraq. Nobody's a good guy here)

So that's the story, France. You're getting bashed for disobedience and insubordination. Since we're the best, you're supposed to do whatever we tell you. Refusing to do so is an insult of the highest caliber, and therefore loud American dumb-asses are playing some serious symbolic hardball.

It started off simply, with calls for a boycott of French goods.

Then local restaurants started renaming their foods with the word "French" in the title. "French toast" becaome "freedom toast," and so on.

Then, Congress followed suit, renaming all the "French" food in their cafeteria. "French fries" became "freedom fries" (presumably to be served with "Look At Us, We're Fucking Idiots Burgers"). Asked about this bold new potato-naming policy, a puzzled French diplomant said "'French fries did not originate in France, they came from Belgium."

(There was a similar burst of food nomenclature-based patriotism in the U.S. during WWII. "Hamburger" became "Salibury steak," and "sauerkraut" became "liberty cabbage." It astounds me that France is facing the same sort of backlash as THE NAZIS because they didn't want to vote for our war)

And now, the absolute most godawful, stupid-ass, batshit-crazy anti-France action to date....

[drumroll]

"A Florida congresswoman has proposed that the government pay for families who might want to bring home from France the remains of Americans who fought and died in the world wars."

"I, along with many other Americans, do not feel that the French government appreciates the sacrifices men and women in uniform have made to defend the freedom that the French enjoy today," Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite said in introducing legislation providing financial help for the reburial of veterans from the two world wars."

To quote blogger August, "I'm going to repeat that now. A congresswoman is pushing a bill.... that funds the government... to dig up... bodies... because we're mad... at France"

GAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!

Could someone please find me Ms. Brown-Waite's email address? I'd like to send her a message:

Dear Rep. Brown-Waite,

Having heard about your proposed plan to use my tax dollars to unbury American bodies from French soil and bring them back to the United States and rebury them, I can only conclude that you are the stupidest human being ever.

EVER.

Sincerely,

Jake Sexton

So, in conclusion:

1) Many Americans are dumb and like having a place to focus their anger.
2) The French people are okay, the French government probably isn't
3) Don't get huffy, the American government sucks too
4) Symbolic politics are stupid.
5) You can be elected to office even if you are clinically insane.

Thank you, goodnight.

The Dubya Dictionary

You'll want to read this.

The Dubya War Glossary
by our pal Geov Parrish

Sample-

peace n. The mythical state achieved when the United States has a complete global monopoly on the use of military force. Not to be confused with "democracy," "freedom," or "justice." See: empire

Bingo

This article pretty much sums up my feelings about the Iraq war.

All of the arguments about liberating the Iraqi people, about human rights, about the validity of the UN, about oil are pretty meaningless to me, because I don't think any of them are the real reason that the U.S. wants to invade so badly. I believe those are all smokescreens for the real reason: regional and global dominance. I am happy to see that a number of other lefty folks seem to be shifting to this interpretation rather than the popular "it's all about oil" interpretation.

That's why I can't support this war. Because it threatens to kill thousands of people so that the United States can establish a military force within striking distance of all of the world's major oil supplies, ensuring its own access to oil and giving it some control (via intimidation) of all of the governments in the region. "No Blood for Empire" has been my anti-war slogan of choice, no blood for control.

Not sure if I'm making much sense, as I'm really tired right now, but read that article above, and it should explain what I'm talking about.

De-Homing the Homeless

Well this is just disgusting.

Late last month, the Los Angeles police went down to Skid Row, where many homeless folks make temporary shelters out of tents and a few personal belongings.

Using bulldozers and streetsweepers, the LAPD destroyed these dwellings. I would be skeptical of this tale, except that the article above has photographs of it going down. As the author's article says, "The city sweepers basically threw away homes that were as permanent as they can get living on a street. WHO benefits from taking away a tent and a blanket from the homeless?"

March 12, 2003

Itsy Bitsy Terror from the Skies

Oh for fuck's sake.

Yesterday, I mentioned that the White House was trying to make a "smoking gun" out of an Iraqi drone aircraft. "But it could spread chemical and biological weapons from the sky" screeched Bush & co.

Now that plane has been photographed, in all its terrible glory!

Behold, and tremble!

I'm not shitting you. That's really it. It's a Reuters photo on Yahoo News, check it out for yourself.

I don't think that plane could carry a six-pack, let alone steel cannisters full of nerve agent. According to Salon, the plane "appears to be made of balsa wood and duct tape, with two small propellors attached to what look like the engines of a weed whacker."

This is it? We're supposed to rain fiery death upon the heads of the Iraqi nation because of a device I could personally destroy with a stout 2x4?

Man, the Bush administration is just one, long horrifying blooper reel, isn't it?

[thanks to Thinking It Through and Atrios]

Assorted Gasps

Bush One Vote Away from Arctic Drilling OK- Mmmm.... petroleum-covered caribou....

U.S. Stocking Uranium-Rich Bombs?- in the last Gulf War, the U.S. used tank shells with heads made of depleted uranium (DU) to allow them to betteer penetrate armor. With the unintended side effect of putting large amounts of toxic uranium dust into the air. Now one researcher thinks he has evidence that the U.S. is planning to use huge amouts of DU in "bunkter buster" bombs. Since uranium is radioactive, and the contents of the bomb will explode and spread the uranium, it seems that the U.S. may be planning to use the terrifying and evil "dirty bomb" tactic on Iraq. Lovely.

The Thirty-Year Itch- good article about Gulf War v2.0 as a decades-old hawkish plot to increase U.S. dominance worldwide.

A Theory: What if there’s method to the Franco-German madness?- crazed American Enterprise Institute scholar argues aloud that maybe the French and German opposition to a war with Iraq means that they've formed an alliance with militant Islamists against the U.S. Well, he's probably not crazed, this is probably just a simple smear campaign.

Subvert While You Shop!

You know those little discount cards you can get at all the big grocery store chains these days? They let you save money on a number of products, but also build a database of your buying habits for the store to use in their marketing. I often wanted to get one of these cards, but decided against it. Then I thought I should get one and then trade it with others to fuck up the store's records. But I didn't know how I was going to convince total strangers to trade cards with me, and swapping with my friends probably wasn't going to make much difference.

Now there's a way.

Some fella named Rob has started a plan to create The Ultimate Shopper.

Basically, if you email him, he'll send you a barcode sticker to place over the existing barcode on your Safeway discount card. He's giving out this sticker with his own barcode to dozens or even hundreds of people. Now Rob's product history is a conglomeration of his own shopping trips, melded with the shopping trips of a multitude of people around the country. The Ultimate Shopper, buying dog food in Boise, charcoal in Hoboken and mustard in Tempe.

If you shop at Safeway, visit Rob's page and join his Clone Army. If you shop at some other chain, think about starting your own clones.

My Political Soul Revealed in Six Questions or Less

Jake's results for the "Which political sterotype are you?" quiz.

"Anarcho-Syndicalist - You believe that governments and corporations are both equally evil. You think that all people should have maximum personal freedom. You think everyone should have control over their economic production, because the economy should be structured completely in terms of cooperatives and communes. Your historical role model is Noam Chomsky."

Eh. Kinda.

March 11, 2003

Sneaky Bastards

According to the Washington Post, it looks as though the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003" might be enacted into law this week.

Those of you who oppose partial birth abortion, don't start cheering yet.

As with so many sneaky fucking Congressional bills, the title is a misnomer. The "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act" does not ban partial birth abortions. It bans most second trimester abortions performed by a method that is not "partial birth."

You can read a good analysis of the bill and what it means over at Ampersand's blog. His key points:

• "partial birth abortion" is a non-medical term that generally refers to a procedure known as "intact dilation and extraction" (D&X) to doctors.
  
• D&X is mentioned nowhere in the bill
  
• the bill's terminology would indict a tiny number of D&X abortions, but a much larger number of "dilation and evacuation" (D&E) abortions
  
• 96% of all second trimester abortions in the United States are D&E
  
• it is quite possible that this bill is actually Unconstitutional.

If I Don't Score, The Terrorists Have Won

Ah, beautiful.

Pickup Lines for the War Against Terror

While most are cleverly suggestive/dirty, I think my favorite is this completely clean one:

"I don't care about North Korea, all I care about is you, baby."

Awwwwww yeah.

Disturbing Odds n Endz

Firm linked to Cheney wins oil-field contract - of course they did. Dick Cheney was chariman of Halliburton Co. until 2000. Kellogg Brown & Root Services is owned by Halliburton. And KB&R just got a contract with the U.S. government to deal with any Iraqi oil fires that may erupt if Saddam Hussein tries to sabotage them after the war starts. No one will say how much the contract is for, and Dick Cheney won't comment (or maybe they just couldn't contact his secret bunker on Saturn or wherever).

Bush Sr warning over unilateral action- I always knew that George H.W. Bush was a bleeding-heart Saddam-lover. In a speech he gave to students at Tufts University in Massachussetts, HW essentially said that unless the U.S. works with allies, that the Iraq war is going to fuck up the Middle East. And given the fact that the U.S. is not doing much of that, the implied argument is that current U.S. plans are going to end badly. Must suck to have your dad embarass you in public like that. In related news, another ex-president is unhappy with the war. Which one? I'll give you a hint: it's not the one that's a drooling vegetable.

Rupert Murdoch's Birthday- today is the 72nd birthday of billionaire tyrant and media overlord Rupert Murdoch. Turn on the Fox News Channel and moon your television in his honor.

13 Questions We Wish They'd Asked At President Bush's Press Conference Thursday Night- from Editor & Publisher magazine. Pretty decent list of questions, any of which might have actually forced Bush to answer with new information.

Documents linking Iraq to uranium were forged- did I mention this already? Apparently the "evidence" floating around that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger for a nuclear weapon were forged documents. Who forged these documents? Good question.

Restraint is dead, warns Hamas- the Palestinian group Hamas claims that Israel is targetting its leaders, and that therefore it will adopt the same strategy and target the Israeli leadership. I gotta admit, part of me likes the idea of wars being fought in which it is the leaders who pay the cost, not the countless soldiers or civilians. But the rest of me knows that this will just lead to an acceleration of bloodshed. A leader who thinks that his own life is at stake will be much more likely to order his men to their deaths than one who is not so fearful.

March 10, 2003

"Cover the Uninsured Week"

I have just discovered that it is national "Cover the Uninsured Week", a campaign to raise awareness about the 42+ million Americans who have no health insurance. Blogger Ross the Bloviator is dedicating all posts on his site this week to news and information about this issue. Sounds interesting, make the Bloviator a daily reading this week.

Of course, I can only mildly agree with the "insure the uninsured" battle cry, as I'd prefer something much more radical. It's no secret that there are massive problems with the American medical system, and while making sure everyone has health insurance so that they can get treatment is a good start, it's only that-- a start. For-profit medicine seems like an idea that is doomed to public catastrophe.

First of all, I think that there should be a massive effort to educate people about health and nutrition, which could lead to more personal preventive care and general healthier lifestyles. Then, at the very least, a nationalized health care system, and the decapitation of all former health insurance CEOs. And we should probably put those heads on pikes. And those pikes should be put outside the New York Stock Exchange.

Hiding in Plain Sight

Odd.

Here's a headline:

Blix 'Hid Smoking Gun' from Britain and US

And a quote from it:

The British and US ambassadors plan to demand that Hans Blix reveals more details of a huge undeclared Iraqi unmanned aircraft, the discovery of which he failed to mention in his oral report to Security Council foreign ministers on Friday. Its existence was only disclosed in a declassified 173-page document circulated by the inspectors at the end of the meeting — an apparent attempt by Dr Blix to hide the revelation to avoid triggering a war.

And a quote from Blix's oral report:

Inspectors are also engaged in examining Iraq’s programme for Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs). A number of sites have been inspected with data being collected to assess the range and other capabilities of the various models found. Inspections are continuing in this area.

That doesn't look like a "failure to mention" to me.

The Times article above even accuses him of keeping this information out of his report as part of a political ploy to prevent war. Someone needs to tell the Times and White House to turn up their goddam hearing aids. Or stop smearing people and lying in order to get their war, one or the other.

[thanks to Population: One]

March 08, 2003

Endless Love

The "special relationship" between the U.S. and U.K. expressed through the magic of song.

click here

You will need Quicktime to view.

March 07, 2003

Bush Speaks

I simply cannot stand watching or listening to the president speak anymore, so when he gives a major address or interview or something, I just twiddle my thumbs for a few hours and then read the transcripts. Thanks to this strategy, both my television and my living room window have remained damage-free for the first years of the W administration.

Bush spoke tonight, in his eighth presidential press conference ever. By this point during his own term, Bill Clinton had given 30 press conferences. Reagan had given 16, George Bush I 58. But W rarely takes questions, because his handlers know that putting him in front of an army of reporters is like sending a toddler outside with a flame-thrower. Nothing good is going to come of it, and the best you can hope for is that the he’s not going to burn anything irreplaceable. The topic of this stately monotonous event was Iraq.

Bush lays out with simpleton logic the reason that the U.S. must remove Saddam Hussein from Iraq:

Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists -- terrorists who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries. Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people...

The attacks of September the 11th, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction.

We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. I will not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons.

That's it, really. Saddam Hussein is an inherently bad person who does bad things (although Bush's claims about Hussein's links to terrorism are misleading at best). And since he is a bad person, he might attack the United States. And if he attacked the United States with weapons of mass destruction, the result would be much worse that September 11. And since another September 11 is not acceptable, we must remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Go read the speech yourself, that really is his argument. He gives an alternate one about violations of UN Security Council resolution 1441, but that's even weaker.

The Saddam-terrorism link above is overstated. It is true that Saddam Hussein gives money to the surviving families of Palestinian suicide bombers, but that's about it. While that's plenty bad, Palestinian terrorists are attacking Israel and Israel alone. Hardly a threat to "all peace-loving countries."

Which essentially leaves us with the argument that since Saddam Hussein is bad and has weapons that could conceivably do great damage to the United States, that we should invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein.

I think Bush might even believe his own arguments. Scary.

What was most striking to me was the near constant repetition of the word "disarm." How far our little president has come from his days of yelling “regime change” to his mature days of solemnly calling for disarmament. I have this image in my mind of a prep session where Bush was strapped into a Clockwork Orange-style brainwashing device, receiving painful electric shocks while Donald Rumsfeld and Ari Fleischer stood on either side of the president shrieking "SAY IT!!! SAY 'DISARM'!!!"

Bush vs. Mexico

Mexico is currently one of the rotating members of the UN Security Council, meaning it has a say in the vote about invading Iraq. Which also makes it a target for U.S. bullying.

Then came President Bush's Monday interview with Copley News Service. He alluded to the possibility of reprisals if Mexico didn't vote America's way, saying, "I don't expect there to be significant retribution from the government" — emphasizing the word "government." He then went on to suggest that there might, however, be a reaction from other quarters, citing "an interesting phenomena taking place here in America about the French . . . a backlash against the French, not stirred up by anybody except the people."

And Mr. Bush then said that if Mexico or other countries oppose the United States, "there will be a certain sense of discipline."

In other words, Bush strongly implies that if Mexico opposes the war resolution, Americans will start boycotting Mexican products, American sentiment will turn against Mexico and Mexican people, and then adds that ominous bit about "discipline."

Then, a bit of context and aftermath:

These remarks went virtually unreported by the ever-protective U.S. media, but they created a political firestorm in Mexico. The White House has been frantically backpedaling, claiming that when Mr. Bush talked of "discipline" he wasn't making a threat. But in the context of the rest of the interview, it's clear that he was.

Moreover, Mr. Bush was disingenuous when he described the backlash against the French as "not stirred up by anybody except the people." On the same day that the report of his interview appeared, The Financial Times carried the headline, "Hastert Orchestrates Tirade Against the French." That's Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House of Representatives. In fact, anti-French feeling has been carefully fomented by Republican officials, Rupert Murdoch's media empire and other administration allies. Can you blame Mexicans for interpreting Mr. Bush's remarks as a threat to do the same to them?

We can't entirely put the anti-French sentiment on the heads of Republicans, but they have certainly fanned the flames here and there.

I suppose in one way, this is a good development. Before 9-11, Bush was acting as though the U.S. and Mexico were equals, that he and president Vicente Fox were compatriots working together on the problems facing both countries. This current treatment should expose that previous perception as the fraud that it was.

How much longer till we overthrow this White House bastard?

Mastermind Mystery

It was certainly good news when the U.S. captured Al Qaeda mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

But really, Mohammed's capture raised as many questions as answers.

First of all, it managed to demonstrate press fallibility. Back in October 2002, it was reported "definitively" that Mohammed had been killed.

Then, there were reports that Mohammed was in U.S. custody. Then that he was in Pakistani custody. And then I even read a report that Mohammed was being shipped off to an unnamed country for "interrogation."

So for the hell of it, we'll assume that Mohammed is indeed alive, and not worry about where exactly he's being held right now.

How is this guy involved in Al Qaeda? One columnist points out that before his arrest, Mohammed was rated last on a list of 22 dangerous terrorists. Now that he's in custody, he's seen as #2 or so on the list. The columnist makes the reasonable argument that Mohammed was not an important figure but is being portrayed as one now to make the U.S. government's "war on terrorism" appear more successful.

Reporter Robert Fisk also writes in a highly cynical and skeptical tone. Fisk points out that the last known Al Qaeda position held by Mohammed was as "media adviser to the marriage of Osama bin Laden's son in Kandahar in January of 2001." Fisk also refers to the ISI, the shady Pakistani intelligence agency. They are, quite literally, the organization that brought us the Taliban. ISI has its own motives and goals, which are sometimes at odds with those of the Pakistani government and the U.S. government. According to Fisk, Mohammed was turned over to the Pakistani authorities by the ISI, which Mohammed used to work for.

And let's even go one degree shadier. According to the Christian Science Monitor, when Mohammed was captured, he was staying at the home of a representative of the Pakistani parliament. Which should remind us that although officially a U.S. ally, many folks and factions inside Pakistan are not U.S.-friendly, or even support its enemies like Al Qaeda.

With the information available to me, I really can't draw any sorts of conclusions. I certainly hope that he was a major Al Qaeda player and that his arrest and interrogation will be a devastaing blow to the terrorist group. But I can't help but be suspicious of government claims, especially when they are coincidently self-serving.

March 06, 2003

Aim Higher Than This

Read a fairly appallling story this week about last year's efforts by the Pentagon to eliminate the Defense Department Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. The Committee was meant to deal with issues of sexual harassment and assault inside the U.S. military, but conservatives really hate it when women tell them what to do about anything. The department still exists, but its charter and membership were changed so that it does not deal with the same issues.

The article then goes on to talk about a number of female Air Force cadets who recently came forward who claim that they were assaulted by their superiors in Colorado Springs. The article also talks about the horrific case of a male cadet molesting a 13-year old girl who was visiting the base for summer camp.

And it gets worse.

The number of rapes and assaulted uncovered by a recent investigation of the Air Force Academy is up to 54. And of course, the number of rapes and assaults not reported is probably much, much higher. And between the two articles, it appears that even when these cases are reported, the perpetrators are usually acquitted, or face no substantial penalties.

Frankly, the military is probably the one place that should be the most watched for sexual assault. The US military (and most likely) are built on foundations of coercion, obedience, self-sacrifice, and de-personalization. Factor in the idea that you're taught to dominate and kill other people, and you've got a perfect fucking recipe for abuse of one kind or another.

Talk to the Senate

Senate Majority Leader (and former cat mutilator) Bill Frist has a poll on his website:

"Should the United States use force to remove Saddam Hussein from power?"

Go vote.

March 05, 2003

Overheard In an Restaurant on the West Side of Town

He was a thin, dapper fellow, maybe in his late 50s, smartly trimmed goatee, sweater, sipping white wine with a friend at a table near mine in the cozy Italian diner.

Quoth he:

"When I was in Europe, all of the fervently anti-American people I met had real problems with authority. They all hated their fathers."

Take that, you silly Europeans! This wily American has figured you out. You don't hate America because of its government or policies or culture. You just have personal, unresolved Freudian issues.

March 04, 2003

Good Riddance

I've written quite a bit about Charlotte Beers on this website. In the wake of 9-11, this successful PR exec signed up with the government to convince the Middle East that the U.S. is actually a dandy place through the use of poorly thought-out advertising campaigns.

I hate PR people in general, but had a special anger in me with regard to Beers. Her campaign was particularly nauseating because it aimed to persuade Arabs and Muslims to ignore the U.S.-sponsored horrors around them and embrace the Superpower to their bosom, based upon some TV ads. That level of gall and contempt is nearly off the scale.

Well, this will probably be the last time we mention Charlotte at LMB, because Ms. Beers is resigning.

According to PR Watch, Beers departure was sneeringly cheered on the PR industry website O'Dwyer's PR Daily, with comments like "Good riddance!" and "About time! She was horrible and the U.S. has lost all post-9/11 support." Unfortunately, O'Dwyer's has become a site requiring paid subscriptions, so I can't read the insults myself.

I'd like to give her a mean-spirited farewell myself, but it appears that Charlotte is quitting because of health problems, and that rouses my sympathy. Good health to you, Charlotte, and I hope we never hear from you again. Once the White House selects your replacement, I will renew beating the ass of your sorry office of professional liars.

Pen Pals

My friend Leah Wells works for an organization called the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a group that promotes nonviolent resolution to conflict. Leah teaches a program of nonviolence to young people in the Ventura area of California.

Leah just returned from Baghdad, where she also shared these lessons with Iraqi children. She has encouraged her American students and students at this Iraqi school to write to each other, as a means of encouraging peace and understanding. I just received this email from Leah in which she shares the several dozen letters of the Iraqi students.

---

Letters from Al-Adamia Secondary School for Girls
As-Shebab Street, Al-Adamia neighborhood, Baghdad, Iraq.
Founded in 1937. 700 students, ages 15-20 years old, 48 teachers and staff. 80% of the students come from the neighborhood, 20% commute from other neighborhoods (through their parents). al-Aadamieh is one of the best public schools in Baghdad, with consistently high test scores. There are 43 students who wrote letters from this class.

Ms. Salwa al-Sharbati, principal (since 1978)
quotes from Principal al-Sharbati:
"When you have deep culture, deep history, it's like a motive to push you to do anything - you'll be ready for anything... The embargo itself is a challenge to us. Really, you have a lack in everything: chalk, desks, books, computers... We have another problem, that the students catch new diseases, especially cancers. This is effecting girls even more, they catch cancer of the breast and other disease."

5 out of 700 girls at this high school have cancer.

LETTERS

Al-Aadamia Secondary School for Girls
Baghdad, Iraq
March 3, 2003

Dear American Student,

My name is Naba'a Riad. I'm 18 years old. I say to you, How are you and want to you best wishes. At first all I want or all I wish is to be a doctor in the future and all the morning I hope this wish came true. I have a friend in my school who everyone carried their wishes. We want to live in peace. So how these wishes came true if you threaten us. Please let us live in peace and to be your friend.

With my best wishes,
Naba'a Riad

[drawing of a heart and flower] let this flower grow up.

***

Dear American Students,

My name is Thuraya El-Kaissi. I am in fifth class. I hope that we will see each other and talk about our dreams and hopes and our future ... I am really hope that, inshallah.

We love American people but the government they hate us and want to done this war on us.

I hope that you will send me your photos and letters to me and my friends in our school ... all my friends want your addresses and photos ... and any things about you all. What do you want from us? Ok!? See you soon, and keep in touch.

Your Friend,
Thuraya El-Kaissi

Note: I am 17 years old. How old you are?!
Note: I love the band:- N'Sync and (Anthony Hopkins)

***

Dear American Student,

I am Zainab from Baghdad. I'm 18 years old. I'm very happy to sent you this brief letter, and I hope to everybody good life and they become what they want. And I like to tell you what my desire is to be (doctor).

Goodbye,
Zainab Kies

***

The Bird of Peace [drawing of a bird with a flower in its beak]

Dear American Student,

I am Sara ... I live in Baghdad and I want to live in peace here ... and I am 17 years old.

So I don't know what I say. I am very sad and I am very confused. I like you to understand me what I want to say, and you have to forgive me because my English language is not good ... but I hope you understand my pain ... Just my tear could describe my pain ... I love you very very much because you want to help Iraqi children ... I want to be your friend ... I'm so sorry again for my English language is bad ... I'm so sorry.

Yours,
Sara Amer

[drawing of a flower] This flower is for you

***

For my dear friends in the world,

I am very happy for your letters sent to my school, and your opinion about the Iraqi people, and I hope to live in peace and I hope to live in calm life in my country, and I'm thank you with my love for you.

My name is Baidaa Suad, 18 years old, and goodbye with my love.

***

Dear America Students,

I send this message to any one of you to know us (Iraqi pupil) as it should be! I really glad to make a friendship with the U.S.A. student.

My name is Sarab and I'm 17 years old and I have no mother because she died in cancer last year... So I think this friendship will help me to get out from this sadness that I'm gonna through... I hope I met someone of you face to face and to still friends forever... What I hope is our problems solve... In fact I really love American people from all my heart. I swear it's true... I wish I can visit America and see you and you have to promise me that we will be a friends forever and ever.

I like dogs and I have one. It's german shepherd dog, his name is Bone... Tell me what you like, like I do...

I love Backstreet Boys, specially (A.J.)

I feel we'll contact with each other so in the second time tell me what you like to know you better.

Yours,
Sarab

Friendship forever [inside a heart]. Keep in touch and don't forget me... your friend, Sarab Taha El-Anne

***

Dear Friends in U.S.,

My name is Hiba Monther. I would like to tell you that I want to be like any people in the world. Well, I live with my family and from my house watch T.V. and read many books about the nature. Write to me and tell me about your feeling about this world. And I want to tell you that every night when I saw the moon and I feel that I am one of the stars in the sky.

Best wishes to you and your family,
Hiba Monther, 17 years old.

Hello also from Hiba's friend Rokoya (who doesn't know English very well).

***

Dear U.S.A. children,

I am Safa Emad Jihad Al-Rawi from Baghdad and my age is eighteen years old. I want to tell you that I'm very happy to send you this letter and I want you to know that Iraqi children want to speak with you about their life and their school and they live in very normal live and we love American people with all of threatenings of war on Iraq. We love you always and want to live in peace with all the world because the Iraqi people love peace for them and for other countries in the world.

Yours,
Safa Al-Rawi

***

Dear Friends,

I am student in sixth stage, secondary school for girls. I want living with peace in the world. I will be a doctor in the future, and I very like of them before the end. I hope the Peace of Iraq and America.

Zianab Munther, 18 years old.

***

Dear American Student,

My name is Rasha. I'm 18 years old. I want to say that I love the world and I love peace. I don't want war. Why do you want to kill the smiles on our faces? We want to learn and live in peace. I want to be a dentist, so how could I make that if the war happened? We are a peaceful people. We love peace. We love American people, so why do you want to kill us? I pray for the God to avoid us the war, and I hope for whole the world the peace and love. I want to be friends and keep in touch with you. Let us spread love among us.

With all the best,
Rasha Ali Abdul-Raheem

***

Dear Friends,

My name is Haneen Hamid. I have 18 years old. I want to thank you. I want to be a doctor.

Thank you,
Haneen Hamid

***

Dear American Student,

My name is Summer. We love you people America. I am 18 years old. I don't want war. We want peace. We want to learn. I love you. We want to succeed in our examinations. I want to be friends with you. So as love you because you love us.

With my best wishes,
Summer Mohammed

***

Dear Friends,

We are a group of 4 girls. We love the people of the world. We want to live in Peace.
I, Reem, I want to be a doctor. I, Aseel, I want to be a doctor. I, Halla, I want to be a doctor. I, Hadel, I want to be a doctor. I wish that I can visit U.S.A.

Good Luck,
Reem, 18 years old.
Aseel, 20 years old.
Halla, 19 years old.
Hadel, 20 years old.

***

We are love the people U.S.A. We hope go to U.S.A to meet to people and explain my feeling to you. Our hobbies listening the music and swimming. We hope becoming engineers. We are 18 years old. Our names Mary and Daniah.

***

Dear U.S.A. student,

We are friends, and we like them. We have two arms are peace and success. We know our feeling toward our country and we thank our feeling. Thank you and goodbye.

Huda Shakoor, 18 years old.

***

Hi!

I send them my best wishes and I hope them the success and all the happiness to them and to them families.

Your close friends,
Wasnaa & Hanan

Call me please! We are 18 years old.

***

Dear U.S.A. children,

Hi. I'm from Baghdad. My name is Saba. I want to tell you I am very happy to speak with you. You can understand me. I hope to learn and I hope to live in peace.

Yours,
Saba Ihsan, I am 18 years old.

***

Dear pupil of America,

.. We are Sara and Meas .. We are two pupils in Iraq .. We hope to live in peace .. and we want to learn only .. We love the people in America but we are against Bush.

Best wishes,
Sara and Meas

We are 17 years old. Thank you for your solidarity.

***

Dear American People:

Thank you very much to meeting's. I love you the best people. My name is Kother. 18 years old. I am pupil. I want to live in peace. Do you think the Iraqi people not good? I refused all the war in the world. I love you peace.

Best Wishes,
K.I.H.

***

Dear U.S.A. Student,

We are friends, and I love for love. This we are one that called for peace and no for war. Thanks for your feeling.

Raghed Salah Al-Deen, 18 years old.

***

Dear U.S.A. student,

I like your situation with us because together we have one aim - that we want peace and refuse the war in my country. I like to express my feeling towards America people - we love them but we hate America government, and in the end I thank you.

Yours,
Marwa Ali, 18 years old

***

A letter for America's students,

I'm Saja Waad. I love to say hello to all one who is my age. I'm 17 years old, and I'm Muslim and I'm love peace. I have friends in Palestine and Jordan and I love to have another in other country because I love communication with other people in all of the world. I hope you can understand me what I want to say. This idea very beautiful that we be friends. I really wish I have internet to talk with some friends in the world. My wish is to be a doctor in the future. Can you tell me your wish when you send a letter to me? I will be very proud if this idea will be successful.

With all my love,
Saja Waad Ali Al-Rubeay, 17 years.

Olive branch is a symbol of peace [drawing of an olive branch] we love peace

***

To Friends in U.S.A.,

I love people but I hate to the government (U.S.A.), and we love to be friend in school U.S.A. I hope to meet the people and I hope you can come to Iraq and visit us.

Thank you,
Hadeel Esam, 18 years old.

***

Dear American Student,

My name is Duha. I'm 18 years old. I love people America. I don't want war. We want peace. I hope to live in peace. I'm very love pupil America and I want to see somebody and I want to say for somebody pupil America. I want to be in touch with you always. I hope to love for me so as you love me for love you.

Duha Ali

***

Dear Friend in U.S.A.,

My name is Surowr. I love you for people America. I wish to visit America and I help to people America and I wish Doctor to help the children for people.

Thank you,
Surowr Muhammad, 20 years old.

***

Dear American people,

I would like to tell you that I love the American students. I want to tell you everything about the education in Iraq. We are proud of ourselves and we don't want war against our country. If you visit Iraq you saw that the Iraqi people are kindness and generosity. We hope to do this really to know your comment about us, how we are brave.

Finally, just we want that we live in peace and succeed in our examinations without war, and Iraq will be victorious.

note: I'm 18 years old.

Yours,
Marwa Hashim

***

Dear American Student,

I am 17 years old. I want to tell you that everybody in Iraq love everybody in the world. Only my wish is to continue my studies.

Yours,
Meelad

***

Dear Friends,

We love you and want to see you and we hope all the world live in peace and love each other like the flowers in one garden in heaven. Please urge your government to let us live in peace.

Best wishes,

Somiea, Anfal, & Yasamin
we are 18 years old

***

Dear American Student,

I am 17 years old. I have beautiful family and we all want to live in peace, and I want to continue my study in the future. I wish to be an engineer.

Your Friend,
Even

***

Dear America's children,

My name is Muna Khalid. I love America's people and children. I want to live in safety and the other people in Iraq. Iraqi people love America's people because the Iraqi people love peace.

We love the world.

***

Dear American Students,

All the Iraqi people love American people ... but we hate the war.

My name is Noor - 18 years old.

Thank you. Best wishes.
Noor

***

Dear America's Students! -

My name is Rasha. I have (19) years old. I hope to live in safety. I hope to a good study. I want to thank you about your feeling. You are good people.

Best wishes,
Rasha

***

Dear America's students,

My name is Israa Adel. I am from Iraq. I have 19 years old. In the beginning I want to thank you about your feeling. So in the first I want to talk about my wishes. I want to be a doctor and I hope that my God help me.

I love all the world.

Israa Adel

***

"The name of God"

For All American people,

I'm Marwa. I'm 18 years old. I'm in sixth lesson. I have my dreams .. I hope to finish my studies. I want to be a doctor. I hope to learn more than that .. I have a large number of friends and I hope to find more. Do you like to be my friend? I love all who love the peace. I love all who love the Iraqi people .. If you want to be my friend then tell me when we meet ..

Your friend,
Marwa

[drawing of a heart and flower]
"We live in one world"
Love destroy the war

***

Dear pupils in U.S.,

I am Lubna Saad. I am seventeen years old. I am student in Al-Aadamya Secondary School for girls. I live near the school and I love watching TV, and specially the movies. I hope I will be a lawyer in the future and to travel to America and I want to told you something - when I get out my house in the night I saw the moon and I believe that all the people in the world would see it even in different times. So I wish that we all live in peace and visit each other. Thank you.

Lubna Saad

You Are There

The U.S. has been dropping propaganda leaflets onto Iraq to demoralize the people or encourage them to surrender or overthrow Saddam or whatever. Wanna see em? Of course you do.

Leaflet Gallery

Read them right to left, as you do in Arabic.

March 03, 2003

Scurvy Scheme Sends Bilge Rat to Davey Jones' Locker

Former Tampa Pirate DJ Runs for City Council

During an election debate earlier this month, one of Kelly Benjamin (the DJ)'s opponents tried to smear him by pointing out his illegal behavior to the audience. Benjamin replied by explaining his actions with regards to America's history of civil disobedience. The audience cheered him mightily, and the sleazy politico who raised the question changed her expression from a smirk to a sneer.

Election's tomorrow, no idea who will win. But to any of my Tampa readers, I say back the pirate.

[thanks to Mediageek and DIYmedia]

March 01, 2003

Cloak & Dagger Diplomacy

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

The Observer newspaper claims to have a leaked document from the US National Security Agency which ordered intense surveillance of the UN Security Council members who are undecided about the decision to invade Iraq.

"The memo is directed at senior NSA officials and advises them that the agency is 'mounting a surge' aimed at gleaning information not only on how delegations on the Security Council will vote on any second resolution on Iraq, but also 'policies', 'negotiating positions', 'alliances' and 'dependencies' - the 'whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favourable to US goals or to head off surprises'."

This surveillance also seems to include tapping the home and office phones of UN delegates.

Not the sort of thing that's going to win you friends.

But like I said at the beginning, I shouldn't be surprised. I imagine all governments do their best to spy on all relevant aspects of other governments, both ally and enemy.

[thanks to Atrios]

Latest Newspeak

Our pal Wayne Grytting has a new edition of his irregularly published column "American Newspeak" out, filled with the insightful commentary and wry mockery of which we (well, I) have become so fond. Unfortunately, Wayne seems a bit slow to post his columns to his website (no updates since November). I'd recommend going to Wayne's site and signing up for an email subscription to his column (address near the bottom of the left-hand frame)(yes, Wayne's site still uses frames), and in the meantime, reading his most recent column that I'm reprinting here.

Jake

---

American Newspeak: The Orwell Awards
Word Collisions By Wayne Grytting
03.01.03

The "pre-emptive strikes" on logic and the English language by politicians, CEOs and the media has turned into one of our Empire's major industries. In recognition of the cutting edge advances being made today in American Newspeak, we are offering these awards to deserving individuals. Entries were judged by an exacting standard -- how many times their utterances would make George Orwell roll over in his grave. Here are this month's winners.

Father Knows Best Dept.

The U.S. Justice Department broke new ground with its crafting of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003. Among it's finer encroachments on civil liberties, revealed by the Center for Public Integrity, is Section 501. It would allow the government to strip U.S. citizenship away from anyone giving "material support" to any group designated as terrorists.

Some of you may recall the U.S. Constitution forbids depriving Americans of their citizenship. A minor point. Justice Department lawyers adroitly found a loophole -- the Constitution allows to voluntarily give up their rights. The bill's authors then reasoned that, "an intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct." Thank god, we have enlightened people making those inferences.

Getting the Visuals Right

When Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the UN, his background "visuals" consisted of blue draperies neatly trimmed by a row of flags. Few knew the draperies had to be installed that morning to cover over a work of art that normally stands there -- a massive tapestry reproduction of Picasso's famous anti-war painting "Guernica."

Speaking in defense of the cover-up of Picasso's images of dying women, children and animals was UN spokesperson Stephane Dujaric, who stated, "We
needed the right background that would work on television." (If only Picasso had painted happy faces.) Unbeknownst to himself, Powell was presenting the world with a perfect metaphor of how our policies and language of "collateral damage" cover over the realities of human suffering.

Term Paper Enhancements

The British government was forced to admit that large sections of their "up-to-date" report on Iraqs deception had been lifted word for word from an article by a postgraduate student in California named Ibrahim al Mirashi. The plagiarism was so blatant that even spelling and punctuation errors from the original articles had been repeated.

However, our English colony deserves praise for a number of key improvements upon Mr. Marashis prose. Where the student described the Iraqi intelligence agency as "monitoring foreign embassies in Iraq," the British upgraded that to "spying on foreign embassies in Iraq." Much better. And where Marashi referred to Iraq "aiding opposition groups in hostile regimes," British Intelligence improved this to "supporting terrorist organizations in hostile regimes." Same evidence, just more "up-to-date" conclusions, which is undoubtedly why Colin Powell relied on it in his U.N. speech.

Terrorists under the Bed Dept.

Denver's police force has taken the lead in local efforts to fight terrorism. The American Civil Liberties Union disclosed that Denver's intrepid crime fighters had surveillance files on 3,200 people and 208 organizations who could pose security risks. The diligence of the police was paid off with the discovery of what they described as a "criminal extremist" organization -- the American Friends Service Committee.

The detective work that finally "exposed" these Quaker pacifists and their subversive prayer and potluck meetings deserves recognition. However, it should be pointed out, the Denver police missed the League of Women voters. An inexplicable oversight.

Benefits from Big Brother

The state of Florida found yet another creative use for our surveillance satellites. Under pressure from Florida orange growers, they have plans to aim their lenses at Brazils orange groves to count how many trees they have producing oranges. Florida orange growers have complained that Brazils crop forecasts are too inaccurate and drive down prices for Florida oranges.

Top honors go to Bob Crawford, director of Floridas Dept of Citrus, for this insight in defense of the surveillance proposal. "Its creating a database," he said. "I think it will bring us closer together." Don't we all feel "closer" when we see cameras focused on us?

Let us end these award presentations with a random thought from Dr. Sigmund Freud which I'm told is very significant for the Bush era. "By accepting the universal neurosis," he wrote, "the individual is spared the task of forming a personal neurosis." Amen.

Off Message

Well, this one may have gone down the memory hole.

On his blog yesterday, Thomas Spencer found a nice segment in an MSNBC article that I planned to link to today. However that URL has now been replaced with an updated story that leaves out the segment in question, so I can only quote it here:

“MY ATTITUDE about Saddam Hussein is that if he had any intention of disarming, he would have disarmed,” President Bush said in an interview with USA Today. He added: “We will disarm him now.”

Bush’s press secretary, Ari Fleischer, denied that Bush’s comments suggested war was inevitable but said the Iraqi announcement was irrelevant.

“The president views this as continued trickery, continued deception. I think it’s fair to say that the Iraqi regime is a deception wrapped in a lie inside a fraud,” he said.

[emphasis mine]

You've gotta love that, when Ari has to come onstage to tell you that you didn't hear what you just heard. Bush infers pretty strongly that the U.S. is going to invade Iraq now, and Ari Fleischer--who remembers that they're not supposed to say things like that-- has to cover for him.

Another person who badly needs a PR handler is defense advisor Richard Perle. That dude shoots his mouth off in the most bellicose of ways on a regular basis. Check out this article, in which Perle calls for regime change not only in Iraq, but in Iran, Lybia, Syria "and a few others besides."

Granted, I can't verify Perle's quote (the article claims that Perle made these statements to "London-based author and analyst Amir Taheri," who did not author the article), but he has been making such grandiose claims quite frequently when speaking to the European and Asian press.

I think that Perle's extremist views do represent a healthy portion of the Bush administration, but the White House has to keep such imperial plans under wraps if they want anyone who's not a warhawk to buy into the Iraq war.

February 27, 2003

1000 Words

Baghdad Snapshot Action

"On February 13, 2003, teams of artists and activists postered New York City with thousands of copies of snapshots from Baghdad. Quiet and casual, the snapshots show a part of Baghdad we rarely see: the part with people in it.

"The snapshots were taken by a friend of ours who just got back from Baghdad working with the Iraq Peace Team. Yes, he saw Iraqis suffering and struggling. But he also saw Iraqis dancing and laughing. This moved him because laughing under the weight of the UN sanctions and the threat of an absurd war is no easy task. We were moved because the people in the pictures remind us of our friends & family.

"Thousands of snapshot posters now pepper Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens."

"We want to show New York the people who will get both liberty and death in one fatal stroke if this war begins. We want you to show them in your city. The entire snapshot collection is online as pdfs. Print them out and poster them anywhere and everywhere."

The New York Baghdad 2 were arrested for their action. Their case goes to trial March 13.

February 25, 2003

War, Doom, Nausea

The War Behind Closed Doors- PBS documentary that looks behind the "WMD" and "oil" reasons for the war on Iraq to what I feel is the core: the desire to reshape Middle Eastern politics to favor the U.S. I missed it on TV, but the entire broadcast is on this site in streaming video. If you can't handle that kind of bandwidth, I'd at least recommend reading this analysis, keeping in mind that the U.S. frequent defines "democracy" as "any pro-U.S. government, no matter how corrupt or repressive, that has elections."

Bush Set to Be Pivot in Diplomacy- "The president is scheduled to give a major speech Wednesday laying out his vision of a new Middle East, beginning with the disarmament of Iraq ... The goal is to portray Iraq as only a piece in the broader U.S. plan to reconfigure the Middle East political map and make it conform to democratic changes that have swept much of the rest of the world over the past 15 years." See my comment above about the U.S. definition of "democracy."

Iraqis will not be pawns in Bush and Blair's war game- "An American attack on my country would bring disaster, not liberation," says Iraqi intellectual in exile Kamil Mahdi.

Disquiet on the Northern Front- this should be one of the more disturbing stories you read about the pending Iraq war. The Iraqi Kurds of northern Iraq want their own autonomous state. The Turks don't want them to have one, because it may incite Turkish Kurds to try to fight for their own independence. So as part of their deal to cooperate with the U.S. on the war, Turkey wants to send 80,000 of its own troops into northern Iraq. It is unclear whether or not these troops are intended to get between the two forces, preventing the Iraqi and Turkish Kurds from joining forces, or if it is an actual plan by Turkey to crush the Iraqi Kurds and prevent their independence. The Iraqi Kurds have announced that any Turkish troops sent into Iraq's Kurdish regions will be seen as invaders. Meaning that the war to overthrow Saddam Hussein could easily blossom into a Turkey-Kurdistan war within weeks or months.

The other part of the article is also a bit disturbing. Iran has sent a proxy army (5000 Iraqis who are loyal to Iran) into Iraq. No idea how that will play out. Not surprisingly, with Iraq about to be rent asunder, Iran wants to have some forces there to nab some of the pieces.

U.S. on Diplomatic Warpath- could it have been any more blatant that America was buying Turkey's cooperation for the war? I also found it intriguing that Turkey demanded that the deal be spelled out in writing because they were promised aid in 1991, but did not receive it.

The Bush administration's actions are ridiculous from a reasonable, objective point of view. What incentive does any country in the world have to join the U.S. in a seemingly pointless war? Why should any world leader risk their political position by taking an incredibly unpopular stand on the issue? For example, 94% of the Turkish population is against the war. In a democratic regime, that could mean losing an election. In a non-democratic regime, that risks the possibility of a coup. The common sense reaction for most world leaders is to "respectfully disagree," to steal a recent Bush quote, and not join in the war effort.

The U.S. knows this, and has now jumped into both the bribery and intimidation games (hmm, kinda like the mafia). Not only is the U.S. paying huge amounts in aid and loans to get regional cooperation and Security Council votes, the U.S. is now threatening to withhold or end aid to countries that don't support the war. Motherfuckers.

U.S. Officials Say U.N. Future At Stake in Vote- "You are not going to decide whether there is war in Iraq or not," the [senior Russian] diplomat said U.S. officials told him. "That decision is ours, and we have already made it. It is already final. The only question now is whether the council will go along with it or not." That's a little shaky due to the quasi-anonymous sourcing, but it's pretty much what I've felt since August. The U.S. has always intended to invade Iraq, and everything else was just a sideshow.

Missile Defense Waiver Sought- "The Bush administration is proposing to exempt the Pentagon's controversial missile defense system from operational testing legally required of every new weapons system in order to deploy it by 2004." That's right. The Bush administration wants its missile defense system so badly that they don't even care if it works. And evidence from previous tests shows that it doesn't. And in the few tests where the missile defense system does work, it is usually rigged.

February 24, 2003

Metaphoric Smithereens

I've been thinking a lot about metaphors in political discussion because they're being used so often to try to discredit anti-war activists at the moment. Of course, no metaphor holds up under intense scrutiny, but some of them don't even hold up to a second glance. So, it's time for me to kick some metaphors in the nuts.

The first I keep hearing is the Appeasement Metaphor. It is usually said in a haughty nasal tone, like "These protesters remind me a bit of Neville Chamberlain before World War II." The implication being that protesters are being "soft" on Saddam Hussein the way that England and France were "soft" on Adolf Hitler. Therefore we anti-war activists are responsible for the Holocaust or WWII or something.

This metaphor falls apart in so many ways.

Let's look at the scenarios.

In the 1930s, Germany had violated many aspects of the Treaty of Versailles, their WWI surrender agreement. They had built a huge, technologically- advanced army and taken over/merged with Austria. In 1938, Adolf Hitler demanded that Germany be given the Sudetenland, big chunk of Czechoslovakia. If Germany got this land, they would stop their efforts for expansion. If they didn't.... In order to prevent war, Britain and France agreed to give the Sudetenland to Germany (Czechoslovakia had no say in the matter). Britain and France cheered that they had achieved peace, and then Hitler conquered the rest of Czechoslovakia. With 60+ years of searing 20-20 hindsight, it is commonly agreed that Appeasement was one of the stupidest foreign policy moves ever. Because all of us 21st century folks know that you shouldn't trust Hitler, Britain and France of the 1930s should also have known not to trust Hitler.

In 1980, Saddm Hussein tried to take over Iran, and after nearly a decade, failed. In 1990, Saddam Hussein took over Kuwait, and then was forcefully routed and kicked out by a U.S.-led international force. Iraq was then bombed and embargoed for over a decade. Iraq may have violated some aspects of its own surrender treaty, and the U.S. argues that therefore Iraq should be invaded and Saddam Hussein should be removed from power. In this scenario, "appeasement" is to disagree that Iraq should be invaded, or prefer that weapons inspectors continue to scour Iraq for "weapons of mass destruction" and find evidence of these alleged treaty violations.

Probably the biggest differences here are 1) Germany demanded land; Iraq has not demanded anything of anyone, and 2) 1930s Germany was a military juggernaut; 2003 Iraq is a frail shell of its 1991 military self, which was easily routed even then.

The analogy also assumes that things would've been much different, much better, if Germany had not been appeased. But would they? The implication is that WWII could have been avoided if only there had been no appeasement. But no one knows what would've happened. Maybe Germany would have been repelled. Maybe they would have easily destroyed their two unprepared rivals. Hard to say.

So how does Iraq figure in? If we refuse to attack Iraq, will it conquer or seek to conquer all of the region? In its current military state, that seems unlikely.

The next analogy is one that popped up in my memory lately. Right before the U.S. war on Afghanistan began (the 2001 one), there was a joke being passed around by pro-war folks. It went something like "when you see someone protesting, go up to them and punch them in the face. When they punch you back, smile and say that's what the U.S. is doing, fighting back when necessary." I admit, this pissed me off, the whole smug "they're just hypocrites who don't know what they're talking about" thing. I also didn't like the idea of strangers punching me in the face as part of some alleged object lesson (I tend to oppose most Jake-face-punching policies).

Now, the problem with this metaphor is degree. I've thought an awful lot about force, power and violence since 9-11, both figuratively and literally. When you take any action, the more force you use, the more likely you are to cause unintended damage. For example, cutting someone with a scalpel during a surgery is a reasonable application of violence, because of its limited use and its precision. But when you use more force, like cutting them with a hatchet or chainsaw, you are causing huge amounts of unintended damage. This is one of the reasons that modern warfare is so catastrophic: modern armies try to achieve surgical goals with hatchets.

It reminds me of the 1999 war against Serbia. The idea was to protect the Albanian Kosovars from attack by the Serbians. To achieve this goal, U.S. planes dropped bombs from tens of thousands of feet in the air. At the time, I argued that if the U.S. really cared about achieving this goal, they should send ground troops in to physically prevent such attacks, either by getting in the way or attacking the attackers. Much less physical force would have been used, with much less destruction.

Which is why this analogy falls apart. A fist is a much more precise instrument of physical force than is a cluster bomb or a daisy-cutter. And frankly, I would whole-heartedly support an elite team of U.S. forces springing into action in Iraq, punching every evil-doer in sight until Iraq was disarmed and/or until Saddam Hussein was overthrown. It's when you start using high-powered explosives and depleted uranium shells in areas highly populated with innocent folks that I take up opposition.

And finally, we have Bush's explanation for why 11 million peace protesters don't make a difference: "Size of protest, it's like deciding, 'Well I'm going to decide policy based up on a focus group'. The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the security - in this case - security of the people."

Actually, this could lead to an interesting debate about the role of leaders in a democratic republic: do the people elect a leader and then respect that leader's judgement, or do they elect a representative who they expect to respond to their wishes while in office? We see Bush's stance on the issue, he's a "you've elected me, now I do my thing" man.

But Bush's comment is bizarre because "size of crowd" is more or less what American democracy (actually, America is a republic, not a democracy. But when you call it "American republicanism," people get confused). The number of people who show up at the ballot box IS the democracy.

And you have to see that there's a difference between a small group of 5-15 people in a quasi-office setting answering questions because they are bored or because someone offered them money, and tens of thousands of people sometimes travelling extreme distances to march around in 10 DEGREE NEW YORK WEATHER of their own free will to express their strongly-held opinions.

Bush's comment is also amusing because I'm sure the Bush administration makes extensive use of focus groups, at least during election campaigns.

In conclusion, metaphors are stupid. Thank you.

February 21, 2003

Rock!

Axis of Countries Where the U.S. Is Fighting for Some Reason

Okay, so we have U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and plenty of troops ready to invade Iraq.

Well, now we will also have fightin' troops in Djibouti (apparently to watch over the hot zones of Yemen and Sudan) and the Philippines. Which is odd, as the Filipino constitution forbids U.S. troops from combat inside the country (why? Probably because U.S. soldiers killed more than one million Filipinos while trying to take control of the country back in 1903).

And apart from the active fighting forces, the U.S. also has military bases in Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Cuba, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, France, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Ireland, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Krygyzstan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Tajikistan, Turkey, UK, Uzbekistan, and Venezuela.

Because we have to protect ourselves, y'see?

Pax Wal-Martica

Fortune magazine has named Wal-Mart as its "biggest Most-Admired company" for 2002.

The article points out how Wal-Mart is so huge that nearly every business has to alter its practices to suit Wal-Mart.

How huge is Wal-Mart? Let's check some creepy facts:

Wal-Mart's sales on one day last fall--$1.42 billion--were larger than the GDPs of 36 countries.

It is the biggest employer in 21 states, with more people in uniform than the U.S. Army.

It plans to grow this year by the equivalent of--take your pick--one Dow Chemical, one PepsiCo, one Microsoft, or one Lockheed Martin.

If the estimated $2 billion it loses through theft each year were incorporated as a business, it would rank No. 694 on the FORTUNE 1,000.

If that doesn't blow your mind, then get off my site, you fucking cyborg.

Wal-Mart sells 39% of the nation's dog food, 32% of its disposable diapers, and 30% of its photographic film. What kind of market share do you need before its an illegal oligopoly?

The whole article is very interesting, examining Wal-Mart's cutthroat business techniques (well, some of them). The key seems to be Wal-Mart's insistence on purchasing items from their retailers at the absolute lowest possible price, allowing Wal-Mart to sell these items to consumers at a very low price. Unfortunately, it also means that the retailers need to pay their workers as little as possible to maintain their low sales price. Which presumably pushes wages down for huge portions of the population, who then need to rely on the great deals at, uh, Wal-Mart.

So that's the Wal-Mart secret, using their economic clout to get the lowest prices available and draw in maximum customers because of their deals.

Well, that and repeatedly violating their workers' rights.

Posted by Jake at 12:11 AM | Comments (9)

February 19, 2003

Beers Strikes Again

Charlotte Beers is the Maginot Line of America's propaganda offensive against anti-Americanism in the Middle East. Yes, through the magic of television ads and radio, the Arab and Muslim world will come to love America despite the harm caused by its foreign policy.

Beers has yet another unlikely-to-work plan: a new "consumer lifestyle" magazine aimed at young Arab men ages 18 to 25.

"The magazine, according to a State Department official, is meant to foster dialogue with young Arabs and dispel some of the 'misperceptions' they may have about the United States." It's always about correcting "misperceptions." Many Arabs might believe that America would kill them all to get their oil, but that's a misperception. And what would better foster "dialogue" between Arabs and Americans than a one-way medium like the glossy magazine?

Posted by Jake at 11:23 PM | Comments (1)

Safety First

Perhaps you've heard about the new Ready.gov website, where the Department of Homeland Security tells you how to prepare for a terrorist attack. It has the potential to be this millenium's answer to Duck and Cover, the kitchy 1950s film that instructed schoolchildren to protect themselves from nuclear attack by hiding under their desks.

I looked over Ready.gov's advice for terrorist attacks, and for nearly every scenario (biological attack, chemical attack, radiation attack, nuclear attack), the advice is pretty much the same: Get Out of There!

They also advise you to make up an emergency kit, like the one you'd have in case of earthquake, or tornado. Or a nuclear attack from the Russians.

Of course, this is one of those clever "Panic! Don't Panic!" sort of things. Tom Ridge gets on the television and calmly tells you that the threat of terrorism is so real that you should pack a fucking "In Case of Terrorism" kit to keep in your kitchen, while at the same time acting like you should feel safer because now you're informed and prepared.

Should we mention that having such a kit would not have saved a single life on 9-11? Of course we shouldn't.

Should we mention that most Americans who don't live in highly populated cities or near highly symbolic landmarks will probably never, ever have to worry about a terrorist attack? Maybe.

Should we mention that in the most terrorism-laden year in the United States that around 3000 people died, while in nearly every year more than 40,000 people die in car accidents? Only if we want to be crucified.

Posted by Jake at 10:25 PM | Comments (5)

Yeargh!!

Well, I have just kinda successfully upgraded my version of Movable Type, the software that runs this website. Still got some problems on my end, but I don't think y'all will notice any difference unless I fuck things up trying to fix errors behind the scenes.

Anyone who has a Movable Type weblog with the TrackBack feature turned on want to lend me a hand in setting up mine? I just followed all of the instructions and nothing happened.

Posted by Jake at 02:04 PM | Comments (2)

Skewered

The new Ampersand cartoon gets it exactly right.

Posted by Jake at 12:16 PM | Comments (0)

Shame Offensive Derails?

Just a short while ago, I wrote about the new rhetoric of the pro-war factions in the U.S.: argue that the Iraq war will be about liberation and democracy, and anyone who opposes war therefore supports slavery and repression.

But even as these arguments were made, new information was coming to light.

In a press conference on Tuesday, Tony Blair was asked on three separate occasions about whether or not a post-war Iraq would be a democracy, and he dodged the question all three times. "The future governance of Iraq is something to discuss with the UN. There are a lot of difficult issues to be resolved without speculating about that," he said. But there were a few other ominous remarks.

"Asked if Britain would support breakaway elements which wanted to create a Kurdish state in what is now northern Iraq or a Shi'ite Islamic state in the south, Mr Blair insisted that his commitment to Iraq's territorial integrity was 'absolute.'" This implies that the U.S. and its (paid-for) coalition will prevent Kurds or Shi'ites from seceding, by force if necessary. That don't sound real democratic.

Blair also told the journalists to look to Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai as an example of what a future Iraq might look like.

Uh oh.

Karzai was sort of forced upon Afghanistan during that country's loya jirga, a convention to select a leader. The most popular choice was the former Afghan king Zahir Shah, but U.S. representatives managed to keep postponing the convention until they could convince Shah to withdraw his name from the list of candidates.

Karzai is also a former consultant for Unocal, and worked for the CIA during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (and possibly again during the Taliban's reign).

So that's what we have to look forward to in Iraq? A "democratic" process in which the nation's reins are turned over to a leader in the pocket of the oil industry and American intelligence services?

One of the "war for democracy" articles I cited recently claimed that the "Iraqi people" wanted this war, but only mentioned "Kurdish leader" Barham Salih and "Iraqi intellectual" Kanan Makiya.

Since then, U.S. plans may have changed. Because now two other "Kurdish leaders," Sami Abdul-Rahman and Hoshyar Zebari are accusing the U.S. of going back on its promises for a democratic Iraq. They claim that the new U.S. plan is to eliminate the top leaders of Saddam Hussein's regime and the Ba'ath party, and to replace those figures with members of the U.S. military.

And that "Iraqi intellectual"? He wrote an article for this weekend's Observer entitled Our Hopes Betrayed on the very same subject.

From the U.S. point of view, democracy could be harmful, as the nation's large Shi'a population could move Iraqi policy in a more Islamic direction, and independent Kurds in the north would worry Iraqi neighbor Turkey.

That's one of the problems with democracy, it's always possible that the voters will make decisions that run counter to your own self-interest. Which is why the U.S. is very supportive of democracies (or dictatorships) which share American goals, and is so unsupportive (and occasionally overthrow-y) towards democracies (or dictatorships) that oppose American goals.

Posted by Jake at 12:53 AM | Comments (2)

February 18, 2003

Some Racism is More Equal Than Others

A good thought-provoking post over at Orcinus about anti-Asian racism in America.

When a US Congressman in charge of homeland security endorsed the mass incarceration of Japanese-Americans, guilty or innocent, into internment camps in WWII, there was no public outcry.

When basketball star Shaquille O'Neal mocked new Chinese player Yao Ming by mocking his language (said O'Neal, "Tell Yao Ming, ‘ching-chong-yang-wah-ah-soh'"), everyone helped him sweep it under the rug as just a harmless joke. And when sports radio talk shows encouraged people to follow Shaq's example and call them up with jokes about the Chinese, no one batted an eyelash.

Think what you will about the separate incidences above, but they all point to an apparent American perception that that racism towards Asians is either acceptable, or is "not really racism."

The link above is a good piece on the subject, especially for us white folks who are often sheltered from thinking about racial issues.

Posted by Jake at 01:03 PM | Comments (10)

We Will Bury You

From HotJobs.com:

MORTICIAN-$6,000 Sign-On Bonus
Location: New York, NY; Los Angeles, CA; Chicago, IL; Houston, TX; Philadelphia, PA; San Diego, CA
Position Type: Employee
Position Duration: Full-Time
Date Posted: 02/18/2003

We are looking for candidates Nationwide!!!!

The Navy Mortuary Affairs Program is responsible for the recovery, preparation and final disposition of Navy and Marine Corps deceased personnel and their eligible beneficiaries.

Yes, now you too can be a Navy Mortician.

Weird.

Posted by Jake at 11:30 AM | Comments (0)

February 17, 2003

Protest Pix

Wow. Check out this site.

170 Pictures from over 110 Protests around the World on February 15/16, 2003

Posted by Jake at 11:43 PM | Comments (0)

The Shame Offensive

On the Friday afternoon before the massive British peace protests kicked off, Tony Blair landed an excellent pre-emptive soundbite:

''If 500,000 people are on the march, that is less than the number of deaths Saddam is responsible for. If one million people are on the march, that is still less than the number of people who died in wars that he started.''

And so began the newest counter-offensive by pro-war conservatives.

The Iraq war isn't about oil, it's not about weapons of mass destruction, it's not about UN resolutions. It might have been a few days ago, but it's not anymore. Now the war is about defeating a tyrant and saving a nation's people from oppression. The hawks on the side of peace and freedom, and the doves are on the side of fascism and suffering.

Example: this column by Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes. The article is titled "Fascist Pigs!", and contains this tagline:

"Demonstrations over the weekend show the left's dedication to preserving murderous, dictatorial regimes--no matter what the cost."

You may have thought that you were against the war because you didn't want bombs dropping on the heads of Iraqi children, or because you opposed U.S. imperialism, but you were wrong. You oppose the war because you like it when people are crushed 'neath the iron fist.

And this article here from the usually liberal Guardian which informs us that the Iraqis want us to invade their country and liberate them. Well, some do. Well, one "Kurdish leader" and one "Iraqi intellectual" want the invasion. And "the Iraqi opposition." So if you oppose the war, you are opposing the will of the Iraqi people, you lying piece of shit hypocrite you (well, kinda).

It's a powerful argument, of course. Someone tells you that the stance you've taken on a particular issue (opposing Iraq war) will actually work against values that you hold dear (life, freedom) can throw you into a muddle.

At this point in an argument, many lefties make a dumb mistake. They will say something like, "Oh yeah, if the U.S. government is so big on freedom, why do we support dictatorships in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? Why aren't we trying to free those people?"

To anyone who does not already hold the same point of view, this generally sounds like run-of-the-mill America bashing. It sounds like the speaker is saying "we can't try to free the Iraqi people because it would be hypocritical." Which in turn sounds like the speaker would rather keep one group of people in chains in order to maintain some sort of consistency in their wanky moral philosophy. Which in turn makes the listener think that the speaker is an ass.

What these leftys are simply trying to do is to give historical (and current) evidence to support a counter-theory. These folks are arguing that since the U.S. has so frequently supported dictatorships and opposed or ignored so many lieration struggles, that the "no, we're going in to free the Iraqi people because we treasure democracy and liberty" claims made by the government look very unlikely. Which means that the government is planning an attack for ulterior motives, and is lying to the American public.

I think a lot of American leftists could take some "how to talk to people who aren't radicals without sounding like an asshole" lessons.

Speaking of assholes, there is another pro-war contingent out there, who might more accurately be called anti-anti-war. I always see a couple of these folks at peace rallies, like these fellas. These are people who do not argue in favor of war based upon the costs and benefits, but based upon their deep-seated disgust of everything liberal and their deep-seated feelings of national pride. Personally, I think it is part of a weird nexus where a person's feelings of self-esteem are tightly tied to their personal identification as Americans. And criticizing or maligning any portion of America-- its government, flag, policies, history or culture-- then becomes a personal attack on that individual. It's as though when I say "I oppose the war on Iraq," I have come up to an anti-anti-war person and said "you are a disgusting person."

But that could just be my undergraduate psychology degree talking.

Anyhow, let's talk about this democracy angle some more.

First of all, if we are going to talk about democracy, we should be concerned with what the Iraqi people actually want. While the "Iraqi opposition" (some of whom will continue living comfortably in Britain for the duration of the war) claims that the Iraqi people want the war, is that what the actual Iraqi citizens want? Obviously it's hard to tell. Gallup isn't calling up Iraq and asking them poll questions. I've spoken with several people who travelled to Iraq this past year, and they told me that everyone they talked to didn't want the war because they didn't want more destruction. But how freely would those people be to declare their support for revolution in Saddam Hussein's Iraq? As the Iraqi people are the ones who will bear the full brunt of this war, I cannot support any military action that Iraqi people don't support. This small bit of anecdotal evidence leans towards the "don't support the war" side.

There are no immediate plans for democracy in post-war Iraq. The U.S. has come up with a three stage plan to take Iraq from leaderless dictatorship to modern quasi-republicanism. First stage is "US military-led rule" that would last about a year and a half (a la Afghanistan). Second stage is an "international civilian administration (a la Kosovo). And the third is a U.S.-friendly government that at least looks kind of democratic in about two years. At least that's the U.S. version. The UK says that their troops will remain in Iraq for at least three years.

I'm with the skeptics on this one. Iraq is not a united country that was lead by an evil dictator for a few years and can be freed and restored to its former state. Like so many nations, Iraq is a country that was cobbled together by the West, lumping together people of many different ethnicities, religions, tribes and interests. And they've been living under nothing but dictatorships for decades, and any time a popular leader began to rise, Saddam had them killed.

And on top of that, even some of the Iraqis who allegedly want the U.S. to invade are furious about the foreign military rule to democracy plan. Mainly furious with the first part. To maintain stability, it looks like the U.S. wants to keep many members of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath political party in charge of the country.

So when you are attacked for opposing the freedom and democracy of the Iraqi people, just remember the two main issues: what do the Iraqi people want? and do any of the proposed U.S. actions make progress towards that goal?

[Thanks to Dack, Nickie, and my own verbosity]

Posted by Jake at 09:43 PM | Comments (4)

More Short Bits

Today seems to be a day of tiny blog entries by yours truly. That's just how it goes sometimes.

No radio show today, KillRadio.org is down for some reason.

And nearly every article over at Dack.com today (2/17) is fascinating and disturbing. The UN, Afghanistan, the Kurds, Germany, anti-war protest, democracy in Iraq, Al Qaeda, the Philippines, biochemical weapons, and more. Go visit and learn.

Posted by Jake at 12:49 PM | Comments (1)

Desaparecidos

"Desaparecidos" is the title of a recent article by the Resource Center of the Americas. It is a list of "10 Questions the Major News Media Didn’t Ask in 2002" about North America, primarily Latin America. I haven't read it all yet, but it looks like a good piece that asks some important questions.

Posted by Jake at 12:44 PM | Comments (0)

First in a Series

Here's some happy news:

"U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials on Monday that he has no doubt America will attack Iraq, and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards."

Whee.

[via Atrios]

Posted by Jake at 12:14 PM | Comments (0)

February 16, 2003

The Big Ol' Protests

How big were they?

The most recent estimate I've heard is "8 to 11.5 million people," but you can do the math.

(the above link goes to a breakdown of protest attendance for as many cities worldwide as the authors can find. If you know of one that wasn't listed, drop em a line)

I attended the L.A. protest. And in one of those weird circular life things, I unknowingly had breakfast with the fellow in this picture that I linked to in my blog entry about the last big L.A. peace protest.

I couldn't tell you how many people were there, but it was huge. For those of you familiar with L.A. geography, the rally portion of the protest stretched from Sunset and La Brea to Sunset and Highland. To those of you not familiar with L.A. geography, there was a cramped mass of humanity about 1500 feet long, five traffic lanes and two sidewalks wide. In America's most pro-driving, anti-walking city. I actually took the subway to get there, which I think means that they are revoking my L.A. citizenship.

All the stuff you've heard before. Huge numbers of people from all walks of life. A lot of creativity in the ways people expressed their love of peace, opposition to war, hatred of George Bush, etc. Pretty inspiring to have so many people on your side.

I was told that 70 different speakers were scheduled to speak at the rally. A few actually got your passions flowing, but most semi-shouted the same wan rhetoric about "wanting peace" and how we were "going to stop this war." I'm not trying to badmouth them, but I've never understood why you'd give a speech if you had nothing new to say.

So what effect will this have on the war?

As I've said before, all forms of protest have to change the cost-benefit ratio of a particular government policy or action. Activists who want to make a change must alter the balance so that the cost of decion-makers following their current course outweighs the benefits to those decision-makers. Which in this case, would mean that protesters would need to take action so massive and consequential that Bush & co. would feel that the costs of going to war were greater than the benefits.

Well, the Bush administration thinks that the successful waging of this war will give them enormous advantage on the geopolitical stage, securing them a steady supply of oil and giving them some say in who else gets any oil. And the cost of this war is that (we'll be generous) a million or more American protesters will refuse to vote for Bush in 2004 if he wages this war, people who probably wouldn't have voted for him anyway. And if Bush chose to avoid the war, he would not gain that oil control, and he would lose damn near all of his political capital.

Frankly folks, I don't know what we could to do make the cost of war overcome the benefit the war will have for the White House. But I've never been much of an optimist.

Posted by Jake at 10:31 PM | Comments (1)

February 14, 2003

News and Facts and Stuff

False Alarm?- "A key piece of the information leading to recent terror alerts was fabricated, according to two senior law enforcement officials in Washington and New York." This should make you very skeptical about the terror warnings released by Washington. Not this statement above, but how our national security is based upon some really flimsy information-gathering techniques.

Apparently, a "captured al Qaeda member" told police that his allies had developed a way to sneak bombs past airport security, and would be using "dirty" bombs on specific targets around the country. That's it, the nation thrown into terror on the unsubstantiated allegations of a man who probably doesn't feel too compelled to tell the truth to American authorities.

But it gets worse. How do we know he's lying? Cuz he failed a lie detector test. Lie detector tests are so unreliable that you can't use them as evidence in court! And that's the basis for knowing that everything's okay? Who's running the Homeland Security Office, the Three Stooges?

MTA Police Spot Check Commuter Trains- maybe these guys didn't get the "our terror source lied" memo. "The nation's heightened terrorism alert has prompted Metropolitan Transportation Authority police to conduct spot searches of commuter trains and stations... Metro-North train conductors will be making announcements on all trains that passengers and their belongings could be subject to search by police and bomb-sniffing dogs."

Afghanistan omitted from US aid budget- remember Afghanistan, that country we recently bombed back to the pre-Stone Age? The White House cares a lot about Afghanistan, and wants to help rebuild it. They care so much that they are spending ZERO DOLLARS on humanitarian aid in Afghanistan for 2003! Motherfuckers, what a bunch of motherfuckers. Even though the Bush budget left it out, Congress stepped in and is giving $300 million.

Exposing Bush and His "Techniques of Deceit"- very interesting piece that shows the misleading rhetorical devices that Bush & co. are using to convince people that war on Iraq is necessary.

Billboard Ban- the organization MoveOn.org has tried to buy space on billboards across the country from the Viacom (yes, that Viacom) billboard chain. The ads would have the anti-war message "Inspections Work. War Won't." Very simple, and doesn't really have any more unsubstantiated claims than your average toothpaste commercial. But Viacom has turned it down on some shady-sounding formal grounds; Viacom claims that MoveOn didn't pay up front and didn't place the ads 30 days in advance, as is Viacom policy. MoveOn claims that no one every told them what the guidelines were.

This is similar to an earlier story about an anti-war group that couldn't by airtime for their TV commercial. At the time, I argued that the particular instance of quasi-censorship wasn't as big a deal as the fact that activists felt so shut out of the media debate that they felt they had to buy their way on in 30 second increments. But two incidents becomes a pattern. Peace activists can't even buy their way into the debate now, and our only stand-ins can be a few liberal celebrities who are then attacked by the right for being hypocritical airheads.

Posted by Jake at 10:21 AM | Comments (3)

The Truth Comes Out

We have finally discovered the really real reason that Bush wants to attack Iraq so badly.

Is Hussein Owner of Crashed UFO?

Yes, according to Pravda, an Unidentified Flying Object fell from space and onto Iraqi soil back in 1998. And that the U.S. must therefore invade to prevent Saddam Hussein from reverse-engineering the UFO and gaining access to dangerous alien technology.

This of course puts us in grave danger of an Iraqi-Al Qaeda-Martian alliance, an Axis of Intergalactic Evil, if you will.

But fear not, because the U.S. has apparently been reverse engineering the Roswell spacecraft. So if Iraq launches a suprise attack with their photon torpedoes, we can defend ourselves with our giant samurai robots.

Hey, I read it in Pravda, it has to be true!

Posted by Jake at 09:45 AM | Comments (0)

February 13, 2003

Behind the Scenes

I've got a question for some of you long-time bloggers: after a long amount of time passes, do you get to a point where you check your website stats and referral logs obsessively?

Seriously, just about every day I feel compelled to look and see how many hits and pageviews I got, and see if any people reached my blog from a link on a new website. I guess I like seeing what looks like progress: more people visit every month, and more and more people are liking my work enough that the add me to their pile o' links.

But the referral page (when you click on a link that takes you to a page on my site, my web server company makes a note of the web address where you clicked, and gives me a list of those addresses) shows me some interesting things lately.

1) I got over 100 hits from www.iaea.org. That's the International Atomic Energy Agency, one of the entities responsible for disarming Iraq and North Korea of their (alleged) nuclear weapons. I don't see any links to me from their page, so I theorize that my site was visited by someone within the IAEA itself. I'd like to think that a copy of my altered satellite photo is haning up on a bulletin board at IAEA headquarters.

2) Got over 100 hits from the Free Republic forums, aimed at my post about Viggo Mortensen's anti-war stance during a Charlie Rose interview. The FR messageboards are absolutely insane with mean-spirited, vitriolic conservatism, featuring loads of that style of right-wing humor in which talk about the death and torture of liberals is just good-natured fun (cuz liberals are traitors to America, it's okay to poke a little murderous fun).

Anyhow, the FReepers (as Free Republic users like to call themselves) are trying to organize a boycott of movies and entertainment featuring artists who have spoken out against the war. Which is their right, I suppose, but still a little goofy. Now that some Freepers have found my site, I anticipate angry, hate-filled comments to go up by a factor of four.

3) Apparently, LMB is the subject for a college writing class' homework assignment (Heh, their professor apologizes for my "salty language"). This obviously means that I've become mainstream, and you all should go find yourself a hipper, more underground site to visit (or at least start telling people that I used to be good, but that all my albums after "Bleach" have sucked). Note to the college kids: the internet looks back. Today's assignment: write an article about me writing about you writing about me without your brain exploding.

And while on the subject of referrals, I should mention this.

Apparently, advertisers have devised a new gimmick by somehow faking a link to a person's site so that it shows up in their list of referring sites. The curious reader then clicks on the fake referrer to see who linked to them, only to find an advertisement, usually for porn sites. I discovered this phenomenon some weeks back, wondering why quiveringfuckholes.com would be linking to my rants on media and politics.

Well, that's enough weird meta-bloggery for now.

Posted by Jake at 11:54 PM | Comments (5)

February 11, 2003

Answers Without Questions

The headlines as of late have been buzzing about the "split" in NATO. The U.S. proposed a plan to send troops and military equipment into Turkey, to "defend Turkey against a possible new Gulf war." France, Germany and Belgium are opposed to the plan.

The media are running with the "NATO in crisis" angle: will NATO survive? what will this blow mean to the war on Iraq? why are these evil Euro-bastards so thick-headeded? etc.

But here's a good question I haven't seen anyone ask yet.

Why would Iraq attack Turkey?

Seriously. Iraq is about to be invaded by the United States, and possibly several other "coalition" nations who will not stop until they have defeated Saddam Hussein. It's still uncertain how much they'll help, but Turkey is certainly on the U.S.' side.

So why would Iraq attack Turkey? Saddam Hussein suddenly says, "I'm not getting my ass kicked badly enough by U.S. daisycutters, cruise missiles and cluster bombs, so I'll go open up a second front on the war!"?

Oh wait, here's another explanation:

"The United States says those measures are needed to protect Turkey — the only NATO nations bordering Iraq — from an Iraqi missile strike, as the U.S. prepares to move troops into Turkey for a possible northern front against Iraq."

Oh. The U.S. wants to put troops in Turkey to invade it from a mystery invasion, and to position troops for a Northern front in Iraq war. That makes much more sense.

So why would these NATO dissenters oppose this plan?

"France and its supporters argue that military planning would set NATO on a path to war and undermine efforts for a peaceful solution."

Oh. That makes sense too.

Posted by Jake at 11:09 PM | Comments (1)

Axis of Power-Mongering

Sigh.

Well, Osama bin Laden has apparently eluded death and is calling on all Muslims to attack America, as is his shtick.

The above link is only to "excerpts" of the bin Laden audiotape, I couldn't find the whole thing.

More specificaly, bin Laden seems to call for Iraqi Muslims to fight against the upcoming American invasion, and warn Muslims in other countries not to cooperate with the U.S. battle plans.

Sadly, I'm sure that many are going to see this as the "smoking gun" proving an Al Qaeda-Saddam Hussein alliance. To me, seems more like an act of opportunism on the part of bin Laden, trying to get innocent Iraqi Muslims to fight against bin Laden's foe.

About as close as their comes to an alliance is bin Laden claiming that it's "OK" for Muslims to fight alongside Iraqi "infidels" to defeat the greater evil, the American "crusaders" (and Israel. Most Arab and Muslim power-mongers try to play on sentiment in the region by linking the U.S. and Israel, instead of focusing on the countries singularly when appropriate). Granted, bin Laden could have called for Iraqi Muslims to overthrow Saddam Hussein instead, but I don't think it would have the same emotional resonance as a "death to the Great Satan" decree. Saddam may be an infidel, but he is not the same threat bin Laden's dream of a unified Middle Eastern Islamic kingdom (presumably one in which he is the King) as the United States.

I do get tired of bin Laden's assertions that this is a U.S. war on Islam. It's not, and never has been. It's a war for power, and any Muslims who are not in the way of U.S. schemes are totally off America's enemy map. But it's as much in bin Laden's interests to insist that this war is about religion as it is in Bush's interest to insist that this war is not about oil.

Posted by Jake at 05:09 PM | Comments (7)

February 10, 2003

Gallons of News

Saudis Plan to End U.S. Presence- possibly the most interesting news of the day. Allegedly, the Saudi royal family is going to ask the U.S. to withdraw its military forces from Saudi Arabia as soon as Iraq is disarmed/conquered. And if we remember our history (and few do), the U.S. military presence is (allegedly) why Osama bin Laden founded Al Qaeda in the first place: he claimed that the "infidels" should not be allowed in the land of Islam's two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina. And honestly, the U.S. might accept this offer, because they can just move their bases into Iraq.

The Police State Enhancement Act of 2003- the ever-insightful Geov Parrish on the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003," AKA "Patriot Act II".

Powell's Flimsy Evidence- Dayum! Maria Tomchick (who edits Eat the State with Geov above) strips bare Colin Powell's UN report, stripping it down to a skeleton of error, misdirection and ambiguity.

White House Floats Idea of Dropping Income Tax Overhaul- "President Bush, having already set off a firestorm over his proposals to cut taxes and revamp retirement accounts, suggested today that the time might be near to drop the income tax as a whole and replace it with some form of consumption tax." The more I think about it, the more pro-rich this idea is. If you make a small wage, and spend nearly all your money on day to day living, nearly 100% of your income is taxed. If you have a very large income, you probably have a substantial part of your income that you put in savings or the bank or something, meaning that a much smaller percentage of your income is taxed.

Suspicious Package Sent To Ashcroft Ends Up Being Porn- heh. Someone sends pornography to America's Puritan-in-Chief, Attorney General John Ashcroft.

77,000 body bags- in 1991, the Pentagon purchased 16,000 body bags for American casualties in Gulf War I. In 2003, the Pentagon purchased 77,000 body bags. Maybe they were just on sale....?

Comparing the News- I'm just going to steal this entry from Calpundit:

It's interesting to see how different newspapers treat the same news. Here's how the Washington Post reported yesterday's negotiations between Iraq and the UN team:

The top U.N. arms experts said tonight that they were unable to reach agreement with Saddam Hussein's government on several key issues they had traveled here to resolve in a bid to build support for continuing weapons inspections.

And here's the Los Angeles Times:

The top two U.N. weapons inspectors came to this capital over the weekend wanting something spectacular from Iraqi authorities to prevent a war. After two days of intense and arduous meetings, they announced Sunday night that what they got was not bad.

And the differences are even more pronounced if you read the full text of each article. It's kind of hard to believe that both papers are actually reporting the same meeting.

Bad Boy Done Good- Puff "Sean 'P. Diddy' Combs" Daddy just signed a huge deal with Vivendi Universal: V-U will distribute and promote the albums released by Combs' Bad Boy Entertainment record label, and Combs will make tons of money.

I only bring this up because of my record industry tirade some weeks back. If you as a musician sign a deal with a record label, you make like 12% of the profits from the sales of your own album. According to Wendi Day of the Rap Coalition, if you start your own record label and sign a distribution deal with a big label, you make like 80% of the profits. If any of you reading this are aspiring musicians, try for option #2.

Hopefully this will be the only time I ever tell anyone to emulate Puff Daddy.

Reinventing the Marketing Communications Business- more industry talk about last week's "Madison + Vine" conference about merging the advertising and entertainment industries.

Venezuelan Agencies End Anti-Government Ad War- apparently, for the length of the "let's drive President Hugo Chavez from power" oil industry strike in Venezuela, there were no commercials aired on television-- except for propaganda ads against the President. Try to imagine a similar situation here. Imagine that America was led by a popular, populist, liberal-to-radical president who had incurred the wrath of the business class. The business class incited a labor strike that lasted for two whole months, hoping to make us so miserable that we call for our president to resign just to stop the country from falling into a depression. And all the while, all of our television commercials have been replaced with anti-president propaganda. All of them.

The strike has final broken, but the country lost two months of oil revenue and the economy is in turmoil. And the advertisers are starting up work again.

For the curious, we have some the anti-Chavez print ads here (in pdf), and a video of one of the commercials. The TV ad shows that pro-Chavez and anti-Chavez folks don't have to fight, they can play soccer instead.

Posted by Jake at 12:57 PM | Comments (4)

February 08, 2003

Little for Your Money

Not exactly sure where Ampersand dug up this slightly dusty article, but it's an important read.

Is US Health Really the Best in the World?- article from the Journal of the American Medical Associations (JAMA) from July of 2000. Here's the key sentence: "The high cost of the health care system is considered to be a deficit, but seems to be tolerated under the assumption that better health results from more expensive care". What if this assumption--that high American health care costs equal higher quality care--was untrue?

According to this article, the assumption is indeed false.

Among a number of studies comparing the results of American health care to that of other countries, the U.S. frequently ranks near last, and rarely ranks higher than the median.

In other words, we're getting screwed.

Posted by Jake at 12:37 AM | Comments (4)

February 07, 2003

The Rosiest Picture

Yet another essay by Chomsky, but I find this one's conclusion very enlightening.

I've seen a few pundits and bloggers lately pondering the "rosiest outcome" of the war on Iraq. Could you still oppose the war if everything went beautifully according to plan, minimal violence, etc.?

Well, Chomsky predicts the silver lining, "a quick victory, no fighting to speak of, impose a new regime, give it a democratic façade, make sure the US has big military bases there, and effectively controls the oil."

He then gives some pretty concrete reasons why the U.S. will probably prevent anything resembling real democracy from taking place in Iraq: cuz it could lead to power for the Shi'ites (who are generally not real U.S. friendly) and/or the Kurds in the north (which could lead to instability in America's ally, Turkey).

Posted by Jake at 03:57 PM | Comments (0)

Money News

Nobel winners attack Bush economics- " Ten Nobel prize winning economists have attacked President George W Bush's tax cutting policies... The most pointed criticism by the economists is that the proposed tax cuts will not deliver what they are meant to do - to provide a boost to the US economy which is struggling to recover from a recession in 2001... The statement, which has been signed by almost 400 economists, will be formally released at a news conference by the Washington-based think-tank on Monday 10 February."

Is the Maestro a Hack?- "Although financial reporters have started to realize that Mr. Bush is out of control — he has "lost his marbles," says CBS Market Watch — the sheer banana-republic irresponsibility of his plans hasn't been widely appreciated. That $674 billion tax cut you've heard about literally isn't the half of it. Even according to its own lowball estimates, the administration wants $1.5 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade — more than it pushed through in 2001. Another $575 billion or so will be needed to fix the alternative minimum tax — something officials have said they'll do, but haven't put in the budget."

Posted by Jake at 03:32 PM | Comments (0)

Censorship by Selection

Here's an interesting media story.

A Democrat and a Republican in the House of Representatives introduced a bill to repeal the Congress' authorization for the president to use force in Iraq. Maybe it'll pass, probably it won't, but still an interesting story, don't you think?

If so, you can't have a job at a major news outlet.

As Ruminate This reports, no major news outlet ran the story. Or more specifically, they "decided not to run it."

More at yesterday's Notes on the Atrocities, a blog I just discovered and am very impressed with. Already stuck it into the links section on the right.

[thanks to Michele for the heads-up]

Posted by Jake at 03:27 PM | Comments (0)

Gah!!

Ready for USA PATRIOT ACT Part II?

Shit.

Long story short, the Justice Dept. has written a secret bill they want to push through Congress called the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003. The Center for Public Integrity got ahold of a draft and is publicizing the contents.

Read it all yourself here (in pdf format). It's 120 pages.

Also, there is supposed to be an episode of the Bill Moyers news show Now at 9pm tonight. Guess it's time to fire up the VCR.

To me, the two scariest parts of the bill are:

- Section 312 apparently removes the rules which prevent the police from spying on individuals and organizations. Not that I think that COINTELPRO ever really stopped, but this certainly unhooks its leash.

- Section 501 says that if you are "a member of, or [provide] material support to, a group that the United Stated has designated as a 'terrorist organization,'" then they can revoke your American citizenship. And if you're not a U.S. citizens, you don't have any rights as a citizen. While I'm not too worried about the rights of terrorists, I do worry about people who might be erroneously suspected of ties to terrorists, and even more about members of non-terrorist groups that the U.S. designates as "terrorist" for their own political reasons. For example, in a recent FBI report, Threat of Terrorism to the United States, the FBI director singles out the Workers' World Party, Reclaim the Streets, the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front as "threats." For fuck's sake, Reclaim the Streets is a group that throws impromptu street parties without permits! If I go to an RTS party, does that mean I can be terrorist-sympathizer and lose my citizenship?

Anyhow.

Stay alert. There's a massive effort underway to screw us all. It'd be nice to stop it, or at least put up a fight when they try.

Posted by Jake at 03:09 PM | Comments (0)

Danger! Danger!

The Homeland Security Threat Level has been raised from "Elevated" to "High." This means that all Americans should... I dunno. Stay out of buildings that might get hit by planes? Stop breathing air that might be tainted with anthrax? Run around in a panic? Go back to bed? Spend all day in the reinforced concrete bomb shelter that they don't have? Set fire to all the nearby mosques? Kill anyone who looks at them sideways?

How does this knowledge (well, alleged knowledge) that I'm more likely to be killed by terrorists now than I was yesterday, help me in any way, shape or form?

Wow, what an incredibly useless warning system.

Well, unless it's used for scaring the public and distracting them from other events of the day. In which case:

Wow, what an incredibly powerful distraction system!

Posted by Jake at 11:35 AM | Comments (3)

February 06, 2003

Two More

Geov Parrish and Robert Fisk argue that Colin Powell didn't prove a damn thing in his UN presentation.

Some of the best points:

- Geov reminds us that we won't be "launching" a war on Iraq, but an "escalation." The US and UK have been bombing Iraq pretty regularly since the early 90s.

- Geov on Powell's evidence. "There is still absolutely no evidence that the Iraqi government, now or at any foreseeable point in the future, poses a security threat even to its immediate neighbors -- let alone to the United States, halfway around the world. There is no evidence that Iraq, a country whose military is a fifth of its size ten years ago, a country crippled militarily (and in many other ways) by the most rigorous sanctions in world history, a country whose every move is closely monitored, a country which knows that any aggressive twitch would be instantly suicidal, now even possesses the capacity to inflict harm on any other country -- let alone is a threat to do so, and let alone that the United States is among those threatened."

- Geov on the "link" between Al Qaeda and Iraq. "A man seeks medical care in the only city in Southwest Asia that has both the medical facilities needed to treat him effectively and a government that would not arrest him as soon as the Americans asked them to do so. The leaps necessary to get from that point to the it-requires-war point would exhaust Superman. They include the man's guilt on the alleged charges against him; his group's association with Al-Qaeda and/or capacity to inflict damage against the United States; any evidence that the Iraqi government made contact with him -- let alone significant contact, let alone had a working relationship while he was in the country; evidence that such a relationship could overcome, and survive, the deep-seated animosity and strong political, ideological, and especially religious differences between the two parties (Saddam Hussein's government and Islamic fundamentalist groups like Al-Qaeda); and evidence that the threat thus established is serious enough to warrant an invasion and overthrow of Iraq's government."

- Fisk feels that the telephone conversation and graphics were rather silly.

- He points out that Powell's claim of "decades" of contact between Saddam and Al Qaeda is impossible, as Al Qaeda was only formed 5 years ago.

- While Powell pointed out that Iraq had ties to Hamas, Fisk reminds us that Hamas has official headquarters in the capitols of Lebanon, Syria and Iran, but not in Iraq.

Posted by Jake at 10:29 PM | Comments (0)

Finally, the Demonization

You should probably give this a read.

Comfort and the Protesters

It's an editorial from the tabloid-ish New York Sun paper about a New York anti-war protest scheduled for February 15. The organizers are having trouble getting a permit for their protest, which is just fine with the NY Sun:

"Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly are doing the people of New York and the people of Iraq a great service by delaying and obstructing the anti-war protest planned for February 15. The longer they delay in granting the protesters a permit, the less time the organizers have to get their turnout organized, and the smaller the crowd is likely to be. And we wouldn’t want to overstate the matter, but, at some level, the smaller the crowd, the more likely that President Bush will proceed with his plans to liberate Iraq. And the more likely, in that case, that the Iraqi people will be freed and the citizens of New York will be rescued from the threat of an Iraqi-aided terrorist attack."

After derisively mentioning the protesters' concerns about free speech and the First Amendment, the Sun drops this mind-melter:

So long as the protesters are invoking the Constitution, they might have a look at Article III. That says, "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

Wait for it.

There can be no question at this point that Saddam Hussein is an enemy of America....

And there is no reason to doubt that the "anti-war" protesters — we prefer to call them protesters against freeing Iraq — are giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein...

So the New York City police could do worse, in the end, than to allow the protest and send two witnesses along for each participant, with an eye toward preserving at least the possibility of an eventual treason prosecution.

There you have it. Publicly disagreeing with Bush's plans for war on Iraq is treason. I want you all to go down to your local police station and turn yourselves in.

I was going to write the Sun an angry letter, but realized that they were unlikely to print a letter that began "Dear Lying Sacks of Crap."

But, I'm gonna turn things on their head a bit, just cuz I can.

Osama bin Laden is undoubtedly an enemy of the United States.

Osama bin Laden wants Saddam Hussein overthrown, because he is not a fundamentalist Muslim.

A war on Iraq will likely overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Won't this be giving "comfort and aid" to Osama bin Laden, our enemy?

Therefore, all supporters of the war on Iraq have committed treason, and should be arrested.

Blah.

Posted by Jake at 10:06 PM | Comments (4)

Treasure Trove

So much good, painful news.

Tony Blair on Iraq- Tony Blair gets owned! Blair was interviewed on BBC Newsnight by a fairly aggressive journalist named Jeremy Paxman, and a pretty skeptical studio audience. When Blair tries to lie or tell half-truths, Paxman argues. When Blair tries to dodge a question, Paxman refuses to let it go. Can we fly this fellow over here to interview Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and the like? My favorite exchange:

JEREMY PAXMAN: And you believe American intelligence?

TONY BLAIR: Well I do actually believe this intelligence -

JEREMY PAXMAN: Because there are a lot of dead people in an aspirin factory in Sudan who don't.

DAAAAYUUUMMM!!!

First Korean border crossing opens- I didn't hear about this anywhere. " The two Koreas have re-opened their land border for the first time in half a century, despite continuing anxiety about the North's nuclear programme. About 100 South Korean tourism officials passed through the heavily fortified frontier by bus on Wednesday, travelling to the scenic Mount Kumgang tourist resort, some 30 kilometres (18 miles) to the north." It's good to see long-time rivals finally unite in peace, harmony, and hatred of the United States.

N.C. Congressman OK With Internment Camps- Rep. Howard Coble, chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security and creepy-looking old man said in a radio interview today that the U.S. internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was the right thing to do. "We were at war. They (Japanese-Americans) were an endangered species. For many of these Japanese-Americans, it wasn't safe for them to be on the street." Yes, we did it for their own good. And when the Klan burns a cross on a black family's lawn, it's just to provide them with free heat and light, and save them money on electric bills. "Some probably were intent on doing harm to us," said Coble, "just as some of these Arab-Americans are probably intent on doing harm to us." Start buying your Arab friends wire-cutters and grappling hooks today.

US to unveil greenhouse gas commitments- oh for fuck's sake. "President George W. Bush's ... climate change initiative, which aims for an 18 per cent reduction in 'greenhouse gas emissions intensity' - measured against gross domestic product over the next decade." [emphasis mine]. That's right, our environmental policy is going to be explicitly tied to the nation's economic indicators. Look at the bright side! The higher your risk of skin cancer, the better the economy!

Bush's Messiah Complex- creepy, creepy look inside the empty, narcissistic, Jesus-loving head of George W. Bush.

Confronting the Empire- recent Noam Chomsky piece, I think it is a transcript of a speech he gave at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil last week.

Posted by Jake at 09:39 PM | Comments (0)

Now, a Word from the Military

The Agonist has an interesting three part interview over on his site. He interviewed a "general officer" in the Air Force about the U.S., Iraq and Korea (well, I can't verify that this interview actually took place. The Agonist seems like a pretty straight shooter, it seems as though this officer was a relative, and the anonymity the officer is given make it a plausible truth)(it's hard work being a skeptic).

Anyhow, read the interview. It'll give you a new point of view, not a lefty analysis, not the media parroting of White House staff, but a fairly hawkish yet pragmatic soldier who'll be fighting these wars if alll goes as planned.

Part I
Part II
Final Thoughts

Posted by Jake at 12:18 AM | Comments (0)

February 05, 2003

Church & State

Got a sample ballot in the mail today, election for school board rep or something.

The front of the book says:

ATTENTION VOTER:
Your Polling Place
may have changed.
(See back cover)

So, I turn to the back cover and look for my new instructions.

YOUR POLLING PLACE IS:
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

Yes ladies and gentlemen, I have to go to a fucking cult headquarters if I want to participate in American democracy.

Posted by Jake at 11:43 PM | Comments (2)

Powell Brings the Heat. But Not Much Light

Today Colin Powell brought his powerpoint presentation of doom to the UN Security Council. You can read all the text here, and most of his photos and slides can be seen here (unfortunately not all of the slides can be enlarged).

Now, I could go through and analyze Powell's report line by line, but I don't have much to go on. Powell says "we intercepted this suspicious sounding phone call that might be about hiding chemical weapons from inspectors." Maybe it's the real deal, maybe those quotes are taken out of context, maybe the tape is a forgery. How the hell would I know?

And the satelite photos:

Seriously, how many people on Earth could tell if this analysis is accurate? How many experts on satellite imaging are also experts on military bases and weapons of mass destruction? A hundred? A thousand?

Or, it could be complete fabrication. I'd have no way of knowing.

It's all the same to me.

Here's what some other people think:

This fellow thinks that the reason for Powell's presentation was not to give evidence about whether or not Iraq had these weapons, but to deliver a message that the U.S. will go it alone if it has to. I'm skeptical of that interpretation because the White House says that on almost an hourly basis.

This fellow thinks that Powell's presentation was unconvincing, but wishes he'd said more about the al Zarqawi terrorist network itself, not its thin-to-nonexistent ties to Iraq.

This fellow sees the presentation as yet another power-play in manipulating the press.

This fellow sees the presentation as political theater.

But skipping to the end, after Powell's presentation 10 of the 14 members of the UN Security Council voted to continue on with the weapons inspections. France voted for tripling the number of inspectors, which seems like a good idea to me.

All of this information is useful on its own, but not in this context.

I remain convinced that the U.S. government seeks to invade Iraq as part of a larger plan to reshape the Middle Eastern geopolitical situation to its own advantage. Since "manipulating the political landscape of the Middle East" would not be a very acceptable reason to either the U.S. populace or the international community, a more acceptable reason was cooked up: weapons of mass destruction. An America still reeling from its first major terrorist attack would be very willing to fight for this reason. The rest of the world is a bit more skeptical.

So in context, whether or not Iraq has these weapons is irrelevant. The only thing relevant to this campaign is: do they buy it? Are enough American people convinced that war is acceptable that there won't be an outcry against the action? Are enough foreigners convinced (or intimidated or bribed) to accept this war so that they won't get in America's way?

Iraq probably does have some supply of chemical and biological weapons. After being ravaged by the Iraq-Iran war, the Gulf War, and over a decade of economic sanctions, I don't think these supplies are very plentiful, and I don't feel Iraq is very dangerous. I'm sure some folks would say "are you willing to bet your life on that?" And if the alternative is killling tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, the answer is "yes, I am."

The inspectors aren't hurting anyone, and under the close scrutiny of the entire world, I doubt that Iraq is likely to attack anybody. Nobody likes a stalemate, but this is one I can live with. Some weapons are found and dismantled, a few hundred inspectors spend months and years on a potential wild goose chase, and the citizens of Iraq are not turned into piles of ash and bone.

Until there's a good and slightly peaceful way to replace Saddam Hussein's regime, or until the Iraqi people ask us to wage a war of liberation in their name, the stalemate is probably the least bloody option.

Of course, the Bush administration and I don't see eye to eye on this issue.

Posted by Jake at 10:21 PM | Comments (12)

The Semi-Newsy News

The Powell Address--Live Coverage- satirical "live update" style post with frequent reactions by the author while watching Colin Powell present his evidence that Iraq must be razed from the Earth.

Mexican farmers stage mass protest against U.S. imports- a new wave of tariffs were eliminated between the U.S. and Mexico as part of 1994's NAFTA treaty. This means that countless Mexican farmers now have to compete with heavily-subsidized American crops. Tens of thousands of these farmers went to Mexico City last week to voice their anger. If history's any lesson, many of these farmers will lose business, go bankrupt, and be forced to look for work (read: sweatshop factory jobs) near the border-- that is, if these maquila jobs aren't shipped to China first.

Hide Your Books- odd tale of TV vs. books in an American elementary school classroom. And surprisingly, the students side with the books while the administration sides with the television.

Shakira Calls For Peace, Explains Mongoose Mystery- I'm impressed. I'd figured that rock-pop star Shakira was just like any other brainless, apolitical music celeb. But this article describes how she is inserting an explicit anti-war message into her concert performances:

"Near the end of Shakira's live show, a short film is projected on giant screens, depicting puppet caricatures of President Bush and Saddam Hussein playing chess. The visual is comical at first, like something from Genesis' 'Land of Confusion' video. But as violent war footage begins to intersperse with the match and the shot slowly pans out to reveal the puppeteer is the Grim Reaper, it develops into a disturbing segment that changes the tone of the Colombian singer's concert."

"'I think that we see war as a virtual thing and we even get to believe that bombs fall on top of cardboard cutouts and stuff like that,' Shakira said. 'They don't. They kill real people, real children, real mothers and millions of innocent people. I come from Columbia [sic], which is a country that has been under the whip of violence for more than four decades, so I've seen the consequences of war and I've seen the psychological damage that it does in a society. And I think that we're never ready for war.'"

Jesus, as she shows some depth, telling about her experience with death and oppression where she grew up, MTV spells the name of her country wrong. Jerks.

Posted by Jake at 11:31 AM | Comments (0)

February 04, 2003

It All Falls Apart

Well, the day is fast approaching when Colin Powell will reveal to the world the secret alliance between the Iraqi leadership and Al Qaeda.

...or maybe not.

Powell to detail al Qaeda travels in Iraq- "But secretary of state will not suggest alliance exists." Hmm...

Powell to Charge Iraq Is Shifting Its Illegal Arms to Foil Inspectors- "Mr. Powell hopes to convince the Security Council that further action is needed to make Iraq comply with orders to eliminate weapons of mass destruction." Looks like a change of plans. No longer with the Bush administration try to win their war on Iraq by a tenuous Saddam-bin Laden connection, but by pointing out that Iraq is hiding their weapons. Which we've all pretty much known since 1992.

Leaked report rejects Iraqi al-Qaeda link- the BBC got its hands on a leaked British intelligence report which claims that there are absolutely no links between Iraq and al Qaeda. What's the opposite of "smoking gun"?

This "Iraq is hiding their weapons so we need to bomb them" strategy is not going to go over very well with the American people. They're not going to get upset about it, and they're certainly not going to see it as a justification for war, unless the fear card is played and played hard ("Saddam Hussein is going to spray your daughter in the face with nerve gas right now and you'll have to watch her writhe in pain till her face explodes and she dies!!! Is that what you want?!?! Is it?!?!?!").

On the other hand, I think that there will be a substantial portion of my American bretheren who will tire of this spectacle and say "let's just attack already." Good ol' America, prisoner of its addiction to entertainment.

[forcefully stolen from Dack]

Posted by Jake at 11:56 PM | Comments (0)

Oddz, N's

The Real Thing- interesting article that gives a tiny introduction to Brazilian presidnet Luis "Lula" da Silva, and then compares Lula's seemingly genuine populism with Bush's fake-ass version. I really hope that Lula is successful. He's got a rough road ahead, with a massively impoverished population on one side, and ruthless financial investors on the other.

Media Masochism- okay, just a little more from Eric Alterman. His new book "What Liberal Media?" is out, and this blog entry of his riffs on that topic.

AOL to Subscribers: Don't Leave!- America Online lost 170,000 of its U.S. subscribers last financial quarter. They're still the world's biggest ISP, but maybe this signals the turning of the tide. Haw haw!

Posted by Jake at 10:48 PM | Comments (0)

Money

The White House released their proposed budget for 2004 today. Looks bad. You can read the whole thing by clicking here, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Here's the uber-quick summary.

- $1.5 trillion in NEW tax cuts over the next 10 years, ON TOP OF last year's $1.35 trillion tax cut.
- a $16.9 billion INCREASE in the military budget which DOES NOT INCLUDE THE COSTS OF A WAR ON IRAQ. Okay, granted, that war will probably take place this year. But the military occupation will likely continue into 2004.
- "overall freeze in domestic spending."

Democrats are actually standing up to mouth harsh words about the budget. They're starting to get good at that, talking tough before utterly caving in.

Well, let me take that back. In the Days of W, people act like the Democrats and Republicans are opposing forces. Remember how Republican Clinton was? And Gore? And Lieberman? Both parties are pro-big business. The Democrats seem to think they can get a little political support by aiding the little people. That's the primary difference. Well, and there seems to be a smaller percentage of Democrats who are batshit crazy.

Then there's the deficit. It's huge. If I may describe it visually:

Interestingly, if you read between the lines, even the Bush administration admits that their 2001 tax cuts helped cause the deficit. Not that that should be anything but obvious, but presidents like to lie about even the most obvious of things.

And our most damning exhibit comes from the Financial Times, that orange-y paper that caters to the world's wealthy investor class:

"It is now clear that Mr Bush's tax cut of 2001 is also too large."

When your tax cut for the wealthy worries the wealthy, you should probably take that as a warning sign.

I don't understand the math (I'm not schooled in economic theory), but the FT claims that the Bush budget will maintain a permanent deficit, and that will lead to "an annual reduction in national income of about $1,000 per person in the US by 2012." Meaning that long-term deficit spending will cost you American readers a thousand dollars a year every year.

So, in conclusion: Buddy, can you spare a dime?

Posted by Jake at 10:39 PM | Comments (0)

We Have Met the Enemy, and Watched His Streaming Video

Britain's Channel 4 will be airing an interview with Saddam Hussein tonight, conducted by anti-war activist and former member of Parliament, Tony Benn.

I imagine it will be a pack of lies, but it might be interesting just the same.

After the official broadcast, you'll be able to view clips and read transcripts online here.

[update]

The video and transcript are now available at that link above. Largely useless. The one potentially good point that Saddam makes is that if there were links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, that Iraq would be proud to announce them. That's not necessarily true, but it would be in line with Saddam's arrogant persona.

Posted by Jake at 09:30 AM | Comments (1)

Late Nite Summaries

What Liberal Media?- Liberal columnist Eric Alterman has a new book which tries to attack the myth that the U.S. media has a liberal bias. Click on the "continue" link for the first chapter in .pdf format. I recommend reading the first 2 and a half pages, as they are primarily quotes from famous conservatives admitting that the media is not liberal, and that accusations that it is are just political ploys. My favorite is from former Republican Party chair Richard Bond, "There's some strategy to [bashing the liberal media] ... If you watch any great coach, what they will try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one."

Saddam's Arab 'brothers' desert Iraq- "The Arab world's startling weakness and subservience to the West has never been more evident than in its open or discreet co-operation with Bush's plans to invade "brother" Iraq. Though 99.99% of Arabs bitterly oppose an American-British attack on Iraq, their authoritarian regimes, which rely on the U.S. for protection from their own people and their neighbours, are quietly digging Iraq's grave.

Every Arab leader knows the U.S. will crush Iraq, so none will support unloved megalomaniac Saddam Hussein and risk ending up on Washington's hit list.

In order to deflect the coming fury of their people over the almost certain invasion of Iraq (barring a last-minute coup against Saddam Hussein), Arab rulers have ordered their tame media to launch broadsides against Iraq and lay blame for the impending Gulf War II on Saddam. Never has the Arab world's chronic disunity, backstabbing and petty tribalism been more pathetically on display."

Iran: the next target?- a forward-looking piece that claims that the U.S. goal in Iraq is to install 2-4 military bases near oil fields inside the country to secure oil production and transport. These bases also then become a warning to other countries in the Middle East. The author then goes on to examine the effects these bases would have on surrouding countries (mainly Iran), and what that will mean for the war on Al Qaeda.

FOX News: The Network America Trusts’ (To Pay ‘Saddam’)- interesting point. Reporters staying in Iraq are pumping thousands of dollars into Iraq's ruined economy, and are indirectly giving money to Saddam Hussein. I'm not highlighting this to condemn Fox News, but to point out the tricky situation reporters are always in. They are not like invisible cameras who objectively record situations, they are human beings who's actions and very presence change the situations they are trying to record.

Media Concentration is a Totalitarian Tool- according to this author, proposed changes in FCC law will allow a single company to "own all the radio stations, television stations, newspapers and cable systems in any given area," and claims that "presently, 10 companies own over 90 percent of the media outlets."

Posted by Jake at 12:01 AM | Comments (0)

February 03, 2003

Coalition of Willing Leeches

U.S. woos war allies with cash, weapons: Iraq's neighbors swap staging sites for billions in aid

The U.S. is spending billions of dollars to enlist the aid and support of south and central Asian nations for the Iraq war.

The article cites a few numbers, but it's kinda hard to tell what's what. The money comes in the form of aid, loans, military hardware.

- Pakistan: $1.2 billion
- India: $78 million
- Jordan: $777 million
- Turkey: $689 million - $5.7 billion

What a bargain.

Posted by Jake at 12:21 AM | Comments (6)

When It Leaks, It Floods

Last week, a story was leaked to the press that the U.S. planned to attack Iraq with 800 cruise missiles in the first 2 days of the attack.

Now, the NY Times has an article claiming that the U.S. will use "3,000 precision-guided bombs and missiles" in the first 2 days of attack. Presumably that includes the 800 cruise missiles.

But...

The NYT article is astonishingly detailed, listing the numbers of fighter planes, support planes, and aircraft carriers. It lists the specific army and marine divisions that will be involved, tactics, supply plans, and more.

How does the NYT know all this? Because "military and other Pentagon officials" told them.

Which gives us two possibilities:

- the U.S. military is so unconcerned about Iraq's military capabilities that they don't care if the enemy knows the details of the attack.

- the U.S. military intentionally planted a whole bunch of disinformation into the NYT.

Posted by Jake at 12:13 AM | Comments (2)

February 01, 2003

Passing Through

I felt compelled to do as most bloggers are today, to say a few words about the deaths of the Columbia astronauts today. Then I realized that you're all smart people, and don't need my help to realize that that people dying in an accident is sad.

Posted by Jake at 04:49 PM | Comments (6)

January 31, 2003

Meanwhile...

Teleportation Takes Another Step- "Scientists on Thursday say they have succeeded in teleporting laser photons over two kilometers (1.25 miles), the biggest distance yet achieved." I have no idea what that means, but it certainly sounds like some kind of scientific breakthrough.

I.N.S. Shredder Ended Work Backlog, U.S. Says- remember how all those Middle Eastern immigrants got detained and deported last month for being in violation of immigration law? Remember how some of those people weren't actually in violation because they had filed their paperwork and INS staffers hadn't yet processed them? Well, one INS office in Laguna Nigel, CA found a clever way to eliminate their backlog-- by destroying it. According to this LA Times article, this INS office simply shredded their towering stack of documents in their inbox, as many as 90,000 documents. Thankfully, two managers at this INS office are now facing federal charges.

Bush backs Big Brother database- last week, the Senate killed funding for the creepy Total Information Awareness program which would act quite literally as an agency that would spy and gather data on all Americans. Then, during his State of the Union speech, Bush called for the creation of a "Terrorist Threat Integration Center," which sounded suspiciously like the Total Information Awareness program. This article is about the TTIC.

US is misquoting my Iraq report, says Blix- UN weapons inspector Hans Blix "took issue with what he said were US Secretary of State Colin Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents."

'Justice for Janitors' refocuses on capital- I really don't do enough coverage of labor issues here. The Service Employees International Union is working on winning better wages and benefits for its members in the jantiorial profession. They just had a great victory in Boston in the fall, and now they take their struggle to Sacramento.

In Time of War, Hope Triumphs in Porto Alegre- man, talk about zero media coverage! For the past three years, tens of thousands have been countering the corporate-dominated World Economic Forum meetings in Davos, Switzerland with their own World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Unlike the former, which brings a small number of the world's powerful together to scheme their way to world conquest, the latter is a huge meeting of the relatively powerless to scheme their way to a world which is a bit more equal and free. The WSF motto is "another world is possible." Without that kind of hope, there wouldn't be much to keep me going.

Posted by Jake at 01:44 PM | Comments (0)

New Thoughtcrimes

New posters added to the Ministry of Homeland Security site.

Posted by Jake at 12:12 AM | Comments (0)

January 30, 2003

So Very Tired

After yesterday's marathon analysis session, you ain't getting much today, unless my writing obsession kicks in.

Ads rushing out of Limbaugh show?- Bill Maher isn't the only American who needs to "watch what they say." After he announced on one of his shows that anti-war protesters were "anti-American," angry progressives took aim at the sponsors of Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Some of them have consequently withdrawn their advertising dollars.

This link between Islamist zealot and secular fascist just doesn't add up- more in-depth skepticism about the alleged Hussein-bin Laden link by a dude who's an expert on Al Qaeda.

U.S. Renews Claims of Hussein-Al Qaeda Link- "The Bush administration's renewed assertions of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda are based largely on the murky case of a one-legged Al Qaeda suspect who was treated in Baghdad after being wounded in the war in Afghanistan." Now that's comedy.

Divine Bullying- reading between the lines of Bush's speech: oil, empire and Jesus. Also makes a good point about the U.S. "Shock and Awe" military strategy: will not only help defeat Iraq, but will be a terrifying lesson to any nation that might think about opposing the U.S.

Report: Iraqi spies in U.S.- apparently the U.S. anti-war movement is led by e-vil spies from Iraq. Who knew?

Senate Reviews Radio Consolidation; Sen. Feingold Chases Clear Channel- might the US legislature do something about corporate radio oligarchy?

Wal-Mart's influence grows- " Wal-Mart's influence on the U.S. economy has reached levels not seen by a single company since the 19th-century rise of Standard Oil, economists and historians say. Even if you don't shop at Wal-Mart, the retail powerhouse increasingly is dictating your product choices -- and what you pay -- as its relentless price cutting helps keep inflation low." And this isn't from some biased commie source, this is from USA Today.

US soldiers attack mountain hideout in biggest battle for a year- " Hundreds of US soldiers supported by bombers and attack helicopters were last night locked in their most serious battle in Afghanistan for nearly a year. At least 18 rebel fighters, thought to be loyal to the Islamist warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, were killed in a US-led assault on their mountaintop hideout 15 miles north of Spin Boldak, a small border town in southern Afghanistan. " Y'know, if I was president, I'd try to finish up this conflict before launching into another one. But that's just me.

Hide and Seek- more proof that corporate crime is 100% completely gone in America.

Posted by Jake at 02:53 PM | Comments (0)

Extended Photo Op of the Union

[edit]

This entry is really, really long. For those of you with short attention spans, here is a summary:

Bush sucks and is a liar.

Thank you.

[/edit]

I was really torn about whether or not I should analyze Bush's State of the Union address. It's just a bunch of words, words that could keep us all distracted from the actions. Maybe I shouldn't let myself be misdirected, ignore the speech and focus on the behind the scenes.

Then I remembered the name of this site.

What bigger bastard, what bigger lies could I be debunking?

Time to get to work.

Let's start with some links to some other articles examining Bush's speech:

Key Initiatives in the President's State of the Union Message

Evidence is scant and some policy nuances are lost in Bush speech

Lobby Groups' Wish Lists in Bush Speech

Fait Divers: The State of the Bush

Bush: Eager for Combat

The Sham on the Union

"[The President] shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."
- U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3.

And now it's just a media pageant, where president and legislators engage in this pantomime as one.

Begin.

Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished citizens and fellow citizens: Every year, by law and by custom, we meet here to consider the state of the union.

Funny, one sentence in and he's already screwed up. "Distinguished citizens and fellow citizens"? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that he didn't mean to repeat himself so soon.

And as for the second half, fun trivia fact: from 1801 to 1913, there were no State of the Union addresses. Thomas Jefferson thought it was the sort of thing that a king would do, so he just sent written copies of his address to both houses of Congress and let them read it themselves. 112 years went by, and the for some reason, Woodrow Wilson decided that he ought to give his address as a speech.

In a whirlwind of change and hope and peril, our faith is sure, our resolve is firm, and our union is strong.

This is really about all Bush says about the "state of the union." It's strong. Good to know.

To lift the standards of our public schools, we achieved historic education reform -- which must now be carried out in every school and in every classroom, so that every child in America can read and learn and succeed in life.

As I understand it, Bush's "No Child Left Behind Law" mainly has schools give kids lots and lots of tests to assess how well the schools are doing. Schools then are "rewarded" or "punished" with funding, depending upon how well they do. I wasn't in school that long ago, and I know that tests are a terrible way of finding out what a student learns (they mainly reveal how good the student is at taking tests). It also may lead to "teaching to the test"-- teachers focusing on teaching children the subjects, facts and strategies that will allow them to do well on the test instead of actually teaching them useful information.

I am not aware of any data which suggests that Bush's education reforms are resulting in better schooling.

To bring our economy out of recession, we delivered the largest tax relief in a generation.

Pretty much everyone agrees that the Bush tax plan was a massive handout to the rich, and that the tax plan coupled with massively increased military spending turned an enormous national budget surplus into a massive budget deficit. It's also misleading to ever claim that a tax cut has fixed or harmed the economy. Economies change very slowly. It might be another year or two before Bush's 2001 tax cut affects the overall economy.

To insist on integrity in American business we passed tough reforms, and we are holding corporate criminals to account.

Heh.

Our economy is recovering.

Really? This statement does pass my common sense test: for the past year or two, about half of my friends have been unemployed, but two or three of them have found jobs in the past couple months. The Federal Reserve Board is keeping interest rates neutral, implying that they think the economy could go either way, towards recovery or further into recession.

92 million Americans will keep, this year, an average of almost $1,000 more of their own money.

Lefties all over the place have been pointing out this repeated distortion.

To quote the Whitehouse.org SOTU parody: "If Dick Cheney and a dozen penniless crack whores are riding a merry-go-round together, that still means the average person on that rig is worth about fourteen gazillion dollars. And therein lies the glorious logic of my administration's strategy to positively influence economic indicators without actually helping the little people."

To quote Citizens for Tax Justice, "31 percent of taxpayers would get nothing from the Bush plan... and the median tax reduction is only $289."

A family of four with an income of $40,000 would see their federal income taxes fall from $1,178 to $45 per year.

Am I doing something wrong? I pay like a quarter of my income in taxes every year. This mystery household above is only paying a fortieth of their income? I gotta get me a family.

If this tax relief is good for Americans three, or five, or seven years from now, it is even better for Americans today.

Gee, can't argue with that logic. If something is good at one time, it must be good all the time. I will now eat ice cream for every meal.

It is not fair to again tax the shareholder on the same profits.

Yeah, it must suck to be taxed twice.

to help the nearly 10 million senior who receive dividend income

About 75% of this dividend tax cut would not go to poor little old ladies, but to old folks making more than $75K a year.

We must work together to fund only our most important priorities. I will send you a budget that increases discretionary spending by 4 percent next year -- about as much as the average family's income is expected to grow. And that is a good benchmark for us. Federal spending should not rise any faster than the paychecks of American families.

Again, nice logic. If it's good for a family, it must be good for a government. As you might notice, families and national governments are a bit... different.

The American system of medicine is a model of skill and innovation, with a pace of discovery that is adding good years to our lives. Yet for many people, medical care costs too much -- and many have no coverage at all. These problems will not be solved with a nationalized health care system that dictates coverage and rations care.

That last sentence is the kicker, and is a tactic that Bush uses throughout the speech: making sentences true by combining concepts.

This is a compound sentence, comprised of a "these problems will not be solved with nationalized health care" part and a "these problems will not be solved by a system that dictates coverage and rations care" part. The second part is true, the first part is debatable.

But when you combine the two parts, you have a true statement. Any health care system, no matter what its structure, won't solve problems if it dictates and rations. So naturally a "nationalized" health care system that had those two defects would not solve any problems.

But Bush manages to make it sound like these defects are part of the definition of a nationalized health care system. And most Americans (including myself) know so little about what a nationalized health care system looks like, that we might just take his "definition" as truth.

Instead, we must work toward a system in which all Americans have a good insurance policy, choose their own doctors, and seniors and low-income Americans receive the help they need. (Applause.) Instead of bureaucrats and trial lawyers and HMOs, we must put doctors and nurses and patients back in charge of American medicine.

Note how the first word sets up a false dichotomy. Since nationalized health care systems are "inherently" flawed (rationed care and such), we must "instead" choose the opposite, obviously superior strategy.

The last sentence is another truth by combination. "Bureaucrats and trial lawyers and HMOs" control the practice of medicine, instead of doctors and patients.

There's been a lot of illness in my family, mainly among my older relatives. Heart problems, cancers, leukemias, kidney failures, arthritis, vision problems, and more. I've seen my mother spend hours on the phone dealing with doctors and insurance agents and whatnot. Lots of bargains and discussion with bureaucrats and HMOs. But in her medical wranglings, she has never had to deal with trial lawyers. Never. Never ever ever ever ever.

This is a rhetorical slight of hand. It is true that these three, taken as a whole, control the medical industry. But how much do trial lawyers contribute to that whole? In my experience, not much.

To improve our health care system, we must address one of the prime causes of higher cost, the constant threat that physicians and hospitals will be unfairly sued.

Technically, its the threat that they be sued period, fairly or unfairly.

Because of excessive litigation, everybody pays more for health care, and many parts of America are losing fine doctors. No one has ever been healed by a frivolous lawsuit. I urge the Congress to pass medical liability reform.

A lot of weird focus on frivolous lawsuits. No one in my family has sued a doctor, none of my friends have sued a doctor. Actually, I don't know a single person who's sued a doctor, frivolously or seriously. Do you?

This whole argument that medical malpractice lawsuits are the cause of a lack of medical care in the United States seems unlikely. Just a few facts from the Institute of Medicine:

- "The IOM estimates the annual costs to society for medical errors in hospitals at $17 billion to $29 billion" while "the total amount spent on medical malpractice insurance in 2000 was $6.4 billion."
- "for every 6 medical errors only 1 claim is filed."
- "Malpractice insurance costs amount to only 3.2 percent of the average physician's revenues"
- "While medical costs have increased by 113 percent since 1987, the total amount spent on medical malpractice insurance has increased by just 52 percent over that time."
- "Government data shows that medical malpractice awards have increased at a slower pace than health insurance premiums."

And many more.

I have sent you a comprehensive energy plan to promote energy efficiency and conservation, to develop cleaner technology, and to produce more energy at home. I have sent you Clear Skies legislation that mandates a 70-percent cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years.

I'm gonna be a bit skeptical about these. Remember the last energy policy that Cheney wrote with the help of the energy industry? Yeah.

I have sent you a Healthy Forests Initiative, to help prevent the catastrophic fires that devastate communities, kill wildlife, and burn away millions of acres of treasured forest.

Yes, something must be done about those dangerous trees. If only some helpful corporate entity would lend a hand, someone from the logging industry...

Tonight I'm proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles... With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom, so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free.

The fine print tells us that this huge-sounding grant actually amounts to $144 million a year for 5 years "to develop the technologies and infrastructure needed to produce, store, and distribute hydrogen fuel for use in fuel cell vehicles and electricity generation". And the goal is to have a hydrogen fuel cell car by 2020. However, the downside is that it will probably be a huge corporate handout at the same time.

Interesting Times points out that Al Gore, who was derided by the Right as an tree-hugging loony, predicted non-gas powered cars by 2017. Now the Republicans pat Bush on the back for calling for the same thing by 2020. What a difference 3 years makes.

Yet there's power, wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people.

Uh oh. I see where this is going.

I urge you to pass both my faith-based initiative and the Citizen Service Act, to encourage acts of compassion that can transform America, one heart and one soul at a time.

"I urge you to demolish the wall between church and state, while allowing the government to evade its long-standing duty to help the poor and needy."

tonight I propose a new $600-million program to help an additional 300,000 Americans receive treatment over the next three years.

This program will be $200 million a year for the next three years."by providing vouchers to individuals identified in their communities as needing treatment." I have no idea what that means.

In Afghanistan, we helped liberate an oppressed people

Anyone who's looked into this at all knows it's not true. Once the Taliban fled, most of Afghanistan was ruled by the warlord thugs of the Northern Alliance. Most women are still too afraid to go outside without their burqas. And the Taliban and members of Al Qaeda are reportedly working to take the country back. Go liberation!

I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean.

Strangely, it appears that none of this money will go out until 2004. Don't know why. It "will begin with $2 billion in FY 04 and ramp up thereafter." Over those 5 years, $1 billion will go to the "Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria" which is generally seen as the most effective funding agency. The Fund frequently purchases "goods and services and generic drugs that may be obtained more cheaply and efficiently from somewhere else." The fear is that the other 93% of the money may have to be used to buy the more expensive, made-in-America AIDS drugs.

This fear is very real. Until 2000, it was official US policy to prevent African countries from gaining access to cheap, generic AIDS drugs because it might violate the patent rights of American pharmacuetical companies. The extension of that, forcing Africans to use US aid to buy high-priced American AIDS drugs is not very far-fetched.

There are days when our fellow citizens do not hear news about the war on terror... The war goes on, and we are winning.

Uhhh...

To date, we've arrested or otherwise dealt with many key commanders of al Qaeda. They include a man who directed logistics and funding for the September the 11th attacks; the chief of al Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf, who planned the bombings of our embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole; an al Qaeda operations chief from Southeast Asia; a former director of al Qaeda's training camps in Afghanistan; a key al Qaeda operative in Europe; a major al Qaeda leader in Yemen. All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries.

Wow, two directors, two chiefs, a key operative, and a major leader. I have no way of verifying any of this. I also wonder how many of the 3000 arrested suspects are actually involved in terrorism.

Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies.

Huh huh. Huh. Dude, we like, totally killed em. America rules.

We have the terrorists on the run. We're keeping them on the run.

Again, I don't know. Are we really making any headway in defeating anti-American terrorist networks? I'd really like to know.

One by one, the terrorists are learning the meaning of American justice.

* Jake's Irony Meter breaks.

We must assume that our enemies would use these diseases as weapons, and we must act before the dangers are upon us.

Um, why must we assume this? It's entirely possibly that Islamic militants are going to break down my front door and shoot me in the face with a shotgun, but that doesn't mean I must start wearing a bullet-proof catcher's mask around my apartment.

I am instructing the leaders of the FBI, the CIA, the Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense to develop a Terrorist Threat Integration Center, to merge and analyze all threat information in a single location.

Part of me wonders if this is Total Information Awareness part 2, after the Senate killed the funding for the first one.

Whatever the duration of this struggle, and whatever the difficulties, we will not permit the triumph of violence in the affairs of men -- free people will set the course of history.

Yes, we'll bomb and bomb and bomb until there is no more violence.

Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder.

* Jake hands George W. a mirror.

They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.

This is probably the most terrifying and most irrefutible argument for attacking Iraq.

It is incredibly unlikely that Saddam Hussein would give weapons of mass destruction to anti-American Islamic fundamentalists because Saddam and the fundamentalists are enemies. They want to kill him and replace him with a religious government. He wants them dead because they are a threat to his rule.

Not a lot of love going on there.

But I can't prove that this won't happen, so people (like my barber) feel that we have "no choice" and have to go bomb Iraq "in self-defense."

Again, see my bulletproof catcher's mask comment above. It is literally impossible to prepare for all potential outcomes. Therefore you must spend your resources preparing only for those that are likely to occur. Which ain't this scenario.

This threat is new; America's duty is familiar. Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals, and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world. In each case, their ambitions of cruelty and murder had no limit. In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism, and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances, and by the might of the United States of America.

Okay.

While the United States did a good job stopping European fascism and Japanese imperialism in the 1940s, and opposing Soviet conquest during the Cold War, the U.S. is as guilty of domination as anyone. We've supported dictators in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Asia. We supported terrorist death squads in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Indonesia, Guatemala and Colombia. We have a huge army. We have nuclear weapons. We bully other countries into doing what we want them to do.

Just because Saddam Hussein is a bad guy does not make us the good guys !!!

If you want to read about nefarious U.S. doings worldwide, I can't recommend the book Killing Hope highly enough. Go buy it now, and finish reading whatever book you're on now, later.

And I'm especially curious, when exactly did the U.S. fight against "militarism"? Cuz I think we lost that one.

In all these efforts, however, America's purpose is more than to follow a process -- it is to achieve a result: the end of terrible threats to the civilized world.

Ah, very clever. Bush appeals to the American culture's core of pragmatism. The UN inspections are "following a process" not focusing on "results." This is the very opposite of pragmatic, and will disgust Americans nationwide.

In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government and determine their own destiny -- and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom.

I'd just like to remind the audience that in 1953, the U.S. overthrew the democratically-elected Iranian President Mossadegh and replaced him with a dictator known as the Shah, and helped keep him in power till 1979. Good to know that the U.S. has changed its pro-Iranian-oppression stance.

America is working with the countries of the region -- South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia -- to find a peaceful solution, and to show the North Korean government that nuclear weapons will bring only isolation, economic stagnation, and continued hardship.

If only the U.S. had learned this lesson sooner, and not had to face the isolation, economic supremacy and continued world dominance... wait a minute.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world.

Everyone shows contempt for the United Nations and the opinion of the world. All countries regularly ignore UN resolutions they don't like. All countries do what they damn please-- within the constraints of their own power. If you're the U.S., that gives you lots of options. If you're Bangladesh, you lay low and hope nobody hurts you.

The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

Did anyone really think that Saddam Hussein was suddenly going to have a change of heart and help disarm himself? I want those inspectors there for the exact reason Bush says they're not there: to search Iraq top to bottom in an attempt to find hidden weapons of mass destruction. If they fail in this task, and we see something resembling a real threat from Iraq, we can take action then. But if we can avoid dropping high-powered explosives on the heads of innocent people, I'd like to do so.

[claims about chemical and biological weapons that Saddam Hussein has not accounted for]

Don't know what to make of this. It varies quite a bit from the Hans Blix report given Monday. Does US intelligence know more than the inspectors? Are they lying? I have no idea.

From three Iraqi defectors we know...

Most Iraqi defectors that come forth with knowledge of Iraq's weapons have been smuggled out of Iraq by the Iraqi National Congress, a group that wants to take power from Saddam Hussein. It is in their best interests that Saddam look like a monstrous threat. Anyone who is involved with the INC is suspect.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

"The 1990s"? Which part? 1990, 13 years ago, before we bombed the hell out of Iraq? Or 1999, just four years back, after the weapons inspectors left the country.

[visits IAEA website]

Hmm, says here that the IAEA dismantled pretty much all of Iraq's nuclear program back in 1998.

Funny, why would Bush mention an Iraqi nuclear plan that was eliminated?

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Ah yes, those damned aluminum tubes.

The tubes that the inspector's said were likely to be used for conventional weapons, but could theoretically be altered for use in a uranium enrichment process.

That clever bastard! Intentionally importing the wrong kind of tubes to throw us off the scent!

From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.
Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

If this is true, then it does seem unlikely that the weapons inspectors will be very effective. But again, I trust the White House about as far as I can throw it.

The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

Most countries that possess nuclear weapons use them as to bolster their diplomatic position, and as deterrence. Sure, if Saddam had nuclear weapons (and I don't think he does), he could use them for the purposes Bush mentions, but pretending that this outcome is inevitable is just plain dumb.

And it's always a bit ironic when the president takes a self-righteous tone about nuclear attack, when the US is the only country that has ever actually used nuclear weapons to attack another country.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.

I dunno. I think if Iraq makes the slightest move, they'll be cruise missiled back to the Stone Age.

Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.

Funny, that's not what intelligence analysts are saying.

Again, another misleading statement. Iraq is indeed involved with terrorists; Saddam Hussein gives money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. But in the minds of most Americans, "terrorist" means "terrorist who wants to kill Americans." So Bush can say something technically true, and know that his audience will take it to mean something different.

Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

See my "bulletproof catcher's mask" comment again. Possible, highly unlikely, should use our resources on more likely threats.

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation

False dichotomy. Enemies of the Iraqi people are both ruling the country AND surrounding the country. Saddam Hussein oppresses them and U.S. bombs will kill them. They're supposed to pretend that one of those forces is an ally?

And I certainly hope that Iraqi liberation doesn't look like Afghani liberation.

The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

That will be an interesting day indeed. I'm looking forward to reading that report. I am skeptical that the U.S. has such evidence. And if it does, I'll be pissed that they didn't bother sharing some of it before (yeah, yeah, national security. But if Iraq was really a threat, and they knew that they couldn't attack without the support of the American people, then it would have been in the interest of national security to release the info).

If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

This just in: Bush says the same thing he has said every day for the past six months.

Killing for safety, bombing for peace, leading a coalition of nobody.

Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause that goes on forever

Flag-waving motherfucker. This is just despicable, trying to boost his own popularity by praising American soldiers. This asshole, the one who's going to send them off to die for empire and profit, he is using their image for poll numbers so that he can, well, send them off to die for empire and profit.

The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not.

Um, that's not true. Advances in technology greatly decrease the risks and suffering of the victors. Jesus, we have remote-controlled robo-assassin planes! How can anyone say that the risks of war haven't changed?

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all.

* Irony Meter breaks again

If war is forced upon us...

Forced upon us by who? You, motherfucker! Who decided this asshole should be our leader?

... we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail.

We will spare the innocent... by using the full force and might of the US military? That don't sound good.

Those 800 cruise missiles that will hit the city of Baghdad in days 1 and 2 of the war, those won't hit the millions of innocents there, will they?

But yeah, I think we'll prevail pretty easily. Saddam Hussein will be thrown from power. Iraq will be carved into spheres of influence for the U.S. and its allies.

Blah blah blah blah blah

The end.

Posted by Jake at 02:17 AM | Comments (9)

January 29, 2003

State of the Shadow Union

God bless the folks at Whitehouse.org. God bless them to hell.

WhiteHouse.org's 2003 State of the Union

Posted by Jake at 01:01 PM | Comments (0)

January 28, 2003

Heh. American Democracy in Action

Earlier today I posted a link to the State of the Union Drinking game. The folks on the popular Fark web community played said drinking game while watching Bush's speech and posting their jokes and jibes all the while. It's a fun read.

Relive it for posterity

Skip down to the first post after 9pm.

Posted by Jake at 07:49 PM | Comments (1)

More War

Desert Caution- former Gulf War general Norman Schwarzkopf is not convinced that war on Iraq is necessary, although he concedes that he is not privy to all of the intelligence that the White House has.

The Prince of Peace Was a Warrior, Too- Heritage Foundation loony argues that Jesus was not anti-violence, and might possibly support the war on Iraq.

800 missiles to hit Iraq in first 48 hours- alleged plan for U.S. attack, hitting Baghdad with 800 cruise missiles in the first two days of the assault. For the record, millions of civilians live in Baghdad. Advice to innocent civilians of Baghdad: get the hell out of the city. Of course, since this strategy is public, there's every probability that it was intentionally leaked to the press to scare Iraq. Here's to hoping.

Posted by Jake at 02:52 PM | Comments (0)

The Report

January 27th has come and gone.

It was The Day. The day of the UN weapons inspectors preliminary report about their work in Iraq.

Not surprisingly, we were treated to a bevy of contradictory statements. Headlines screamed that Iraq was not cooperating, while other reports claimed just the opposite. Various governmental officials claimed that the inspections were useless, or that they were going to give proof that they were useless, or that they were going to give proof that Iraq had weapons, or that we should give the inspections several more weeks, or that we should give the inspectors every opportunity to succeed.

Well, fuck all that. Let's look at the report itself.

We've got two options: the full text of Hans Blix's statement to the UN, or a Guardian article which quotes and analyzes key portions of Blix's statement. Both are pretty worthwhile reads, if you actually want to know what's going on.

Blix claims that there are two types of cooperation that they need from Iraq, Cooperation on Process and Cooperation on Substance. He states that Iraq has "cooperated rather well" with regard to the first, and implies that they are not doing as well on the second. The first is about giving the inspectors access to any part of the country they want. The second is about Iraq actively bringing information and evidence to the attention of the inspectors. And c'mon, this is Saddam Hussein's regime we're talking about. How much out of their way did we expect them to go to help deprive them of weaponry?

But onto the weapons.

Blix says that:

- as of 1988, Iraq had 6500 "chemical bombs," and these have not been accounted for. These bombs could theoretically have contained "about 1000 tons" of chemical agent. But, as a Guardian analyst points out, these bombs would not be very useful without an air force with which to drop them.
- Iraq claims that it destroyed all of its VX gas in 1991, the inspectors are still trying to verify whether or not that is true.
- Blix mentions finding a "laboratory quantity" of thiodiglycol an ingredient in mustard gas. No word whether this chemical can be used for other purposes, or whether its presence is a clear indication of attempts to create mustard gas.
- Iraq has rebuilt a chemical plant, but it is capable of manufacturing many types of chemicals. The inspectors are still deciding whether or not to let it remain or have it dismantled.
- Iraq has a few SCUD missiles. The analysts estimate Iraq has between 2 and 20 of these.
- Iraq may or may not have anthrax.
- Iraq has some missile production capability. They have two types of rockets, the most advanaced of which could travel about 183 kilometers (about 113 miles. For reference, it is about 9670 km/6009 miles from New York City to Baghdad).
- there is no evidence that Iraq has nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons programs.

And that's about it.

I can't say that this report makes me particularly nervous about Iraq's threat to myself living here in the United States. I certainly don't like the sound of Iraq potentially having all that, but I'm not really scared about it. If I lived within 100 miles of the Iraqi border, I might. But as I've been saying all along, if Saddam Hussein makes the slightest aggressive move towards any of his neighbors, the US would bomb the hell out of him, with full UN approval. Is this report, or Iraq's lack of cooperation, enought to justify a war on the country that might kill tens of thousands of people? That's your call.

Just for the fun of it, let's link to information about the United States' nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons capabilities.

Posted by Jake at 02:46 PM | Comments (1)

The State

The Handbasket Report- our pal Geov Parrish offers his alternative to the political advertisment known as the "State of the Union address"-- the Handbasket Report.

A Credibility Problem- liberal NYT columnist Paul Krugman reminds us what Bush said in last year's State of the Union, and how many of his promises have been broken. My favorite bit: "When America works, America prospers, so my economic security plan can be summed up in one word: jobs." Guess he just forgot.

State of the Union Drinking Game 2003

I'm looking foward to the Whitehouse.org version that will surely come out today or tomorrow. And I'm working on a little something myself in honor of the occasion too...

Posted by Jake at 12:14 PM | Comments (1)

Stupid Broken Internet

My apologies for anyone who tried to listen to my radio show yesterday. Our webcast was massively screwy, I think due to that "slammer" internet virus running around.

Posted by Jake at 12:04 PM | Comments (1)

January 27, 2003

Where Are We Going, and What Am I Doing in This Handbasket?

Well, let's start off with a light one.

"Moneyline" of Fire- okay, I don't like taking potshots at celebrities' family's, but this one's just too wierd. Debbi Dobbis is the wife of Lou Dobbs, host of CNN's financial news show Moneyline. On Wednesday, Debbi Dobbs was arrested when she tried to board an airplane with a loaded handgun in her purse. Yes, look at that again. They won't let you on a plane with fucking nail clippers these days, what the hell was she thinking carrying a loaded fucking semi-automatic pistol? Her story is that she put it in her purse for protection while at the Dobbs family farm, and forgot about it. I do dumb absent-minded things too sometimes, but aren't guns heavy? Wouldn't you pick up your purse and say "Jesus, why is this purse is heavy? Oh yeah, it's heavy because it's got a big fucking gun inside it."

Regime Change- this should be on the front page of every newspaper in the country. It's not news, it's a history lesson. It has short summaries of 14 such interventions that the U.S. has undertaken since the 1950s: Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Chile, Grenada, Libya, the Philippines, Panama, Somalia, Hait, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan. It cites an "analyst" who claims that the U.S. only has less than a 20% success rate with regime change.

VA to pay ex-GIs harmed by Agent Orange contact- during the Vietnam (Indochina) war(s), the U.S. dumped almost 15 million gallons of an herbicide called Agent Orange onto the jungle-- and any people that might happen to be inside. Surprise surprise, the chemical turned out to be a dangerous carcinogen. 30 years later, the military agrees to give medical treatment to American veterans who got leukemia from the chemical (note: the herbicide Agent Orange was manufactured by the Monsanto corporation, and is nothing nothing nothing like the herbicide Roundup Ultra that the U.S. and Colombia have been spraying on the Colombian countryside in an attempt to eliminate the coca crop. Well, maybe it's kinda similar).

Bush Moves to Restore Military Ties With Indonesia- this is despicable. The Indonesian army is known for two things: corruption and massacres. "'The Indonesian military has sabotaged international efforts to attain justice for crimes against humanity committed in East Timor, exonerated itself of the strong implication that its elite Special Forces recently murdered two U.S. teachers and beat a U.S. nurse - yet the Senate voted to give the military a level of support not seen in more than a decade,' said Kurt Biddle, Washington coordinator of the Indonesia Human Rights Network (IHRN). 'Why is the Senate rewarding this behaviour?'"

Kiss My Axis!- I'm mainly intrigued by the first sentence "As the war on Iraq got down to business last week with the heaviest air bombardments in 10 years..."

The Guilt-Free Soldier- medical researchers are working on pills that could help minimize the mental and emotional effects of trauma on human beings. But it also works to minimize feelings of guilt, and the author worries that such anti-guilt medication could be used by soldiers on the battlefield, allowing them to do horrific things without felling any consequences.

Posted by Jake at 10:47 PM | Comments (3)

War Updates

Planning underway to manage Iraqi oil- the top secret Bush administration plan to manage Iraq's oil fields for years after invading Iraq is not evidence that the U.S. war against Iraq is about oil. And almost as an aside in the article is this enlightening passage: "US special forces have been on the ground inside Iraq since September, monitoring the oil fields and rigs for booby traps and minefields." You'd think someone would've mentioned that by now.

U.S. to disclose data on Iraqi non-conventional weapons- "The United States administration is planning on disclosing classified information that includes concrete evidence proving that Iraq is implementing its plan to arm itself with non-conventional weapons."

The Human Cost- Robert Fisk is mad, both at chickenhawk politicians who send men to war without personal experience in battle, and the way that the media only shows romanticized, sanitized images of war, when the true grisly pictures might make us all more dedicated to averting such carnage.

Posted by Jake at 12:02 AM | Comments (16)

January 26, 2003

Israel News

I remembered that Israel is having elections on Tuesday, so I looked around for info about that, but stumbled over a lot of other Israel news.

Powell: Israel must offer Palestinians more than a 'phony state'- wow, is the U.S. taking a stand in support of Israeli negotiations with Palestine? With Sharon in power, I can't imagine they will do so.

Israel launches deadly Gaza raid-" Israeli forces have killed 12 Palestinians and wounded more than 50 in what is believed to be their biggest incursion into Gaza City since the Palestinian uprising began more than two years ago."

Those who want change- Israeli paper Ha'aretz editorial supporting the non-right wing parties Labor and Meretz. Honestly, I don't see why anyone would vote Likud. Likudnik Ariel Sharon ran on a party platform of security for Israel, and presided over (and helped cause) some of Israeli's bloodiest days in recent memory. Why would you vote for them? But, Reuters claims that Likud will win easily. For more on the Israeli elections, read these articles here.

Posted by Jake at 11:47 PM | Comments (0)

America vs. Everybody

World Rebels Against America- travelling reporter sees evidence that people worldwide are angry with the U.S. and President Bush. In other news, the sun is a big hot ball of burning gas.

When will we resist?- "The clash of civilisations that George Bush and his minions are trying to fabricate as a cover for a pre-emptive oil and hegemony war against Iraq is supposed to result in a triumph of democratic nation-building, regime change and forcible modernisation à l'Américaine. Never mind the bombs and the ravages of the sanctions, which are unmentioned. This will be a purifying war whose goal is to throw out Saddam and his men and replace them with a redrawn map of the whole region. New Sykes Picot. New Balfour. New Wilsonian 14 points. New world altogether. Iraqis, we are told by the Iraqi dissidents, will welcome their liberation, and perhaps forget entirely about their past sufferings. Perhaps...

"In this entire panorama of desolation, what catches the eye is the utter passivity and helplessness of the Arab world as a whole. The American government and its servants issue statement after statement of purpose, they move troops and material, they transport tanks and destroyers, but the Arabs individually and collectively can barely muster a bland refusal. At most they say no, you cannot use military bases in our territory, only to reverse themselves a few days later.

Why is there such silence and such astounding helplessness? The largest power in history is about to launch a war against a sovereign Arab country now ruled by a dreadful regime, the clear purpose of which is not only to destroy the Ba'ath regime but to redesign the entire region. The Pentagon has made no secret that its plans are to redraw the map of the whole Arab world, perhaps changing other regimes and borders in the process. No one can be shielded from the cataclysm if and when it comes. And yet, there is only long silence followed by a few vague bleats of polite demurral in response. Millions of people will be affected, yet America contemptuously plans for their future without consulting them. Do we deserve such racist derision?

This is not only unacceptable: it is impossible to believe. How can a region of almost 300 million Arabs wait passively for the blows to fall without attempting a collective roar of resistance? Has the Arab will completely dissolved? Even a prisoner about to be executed usually has some last words to pronounce. Why is there now no last testimonial to an era of history, to a civilisation about to be crushed and transformed utterly, to a society that, despite its drawbacks and weaknesses, nevertheless goes on functioning?"

Europe urges restraint, but Bush knows best- more about world anger against the U.S., and also debunks some of the "America rules, Europe is a bunch of whining crybabies" rhetoric.

Posted by Jake at 11:33 PM | Comments (0)

Halftime Show

The Nuclear Option in Iraq- U.S. Strategic Command reviews military policy regarding nuclear weapons, possibly saying that using them should not necessarily be absolute last resort. My personal opinion is that this is a PR ploy that I'm going to call a "softener" (until I find out the real technical name). Bush and his crew decide on a crazy policy, then come up with a decoy policy that is two levels crazier, and tell the public their thinking about the latter. Public goes crazy, pundits and politicians rally their forces, and several days later, the Bushies "compromise" and scale down to the policy they'd wanted in the first place. The public breathes a sigh of releif, and Bush's opponents puff out their chests, sure that they helped shape the administration. But no one seems to realize that the new policy is still crazy. It's like Bush changing his policy from, say, stabbing an old woman with a samurai sword, to stabbing an old woman with a combat knife. While the final position is less extreme, neither choice is what I'd call "acceptable."

FINDING GOOD REASON FOR WAR COULD TAKE MONTHS, BUSH WARNS- "US Prepared to Fight With or Without Reason, President Assures Nation". As Tom Spencer says, The Borowitz Report rides the edge between satire and truth.

Affirmative Action: How much does it cost whites?- interesting blog entry with the results of a year-old study comparing the admission rates of whites to universities with and without affirmative action programs. For students with high SAT scores, the admission rates are about 0.3% lower. For students with low SAT scores, the admission rates are about 3.0% lower.

Dick Cheney Inc. vs. Human Rights- two posts on the Body and Soul blog that implicate corporations run by Dick Cheney in schemes smashing human rights in return for massive profits. Post 1 and Post 2

The Soul of the Law- pompous wind from conservative Robert Bork which berates the Supreme Court for supporting abortion, but mainly bashes international courts. Best quote: "We know from experience that international tribunals and forums will not be friendly to the U.S. When the U.S. aided the Nicaraguan insurgency, the International Court of Justice, despite having no jurisdiction, ruled that the U.S. had violated customary international law." Um, no one should expect "friendly" treatment from a court, Mr. Bork, they should expect "fair" treatment from a court. And no matter what the jurisiction, I presume that most respectable courts would rule that organizing violent thugs to terrorize a foreign nation into regime change violates some sort of law.

Posted by Jake at 05:30 PM | Comments (3)

January 25, 2003

Too Easy

Donald Rumsfeld explains the complex factors involved in deciding whether or not to attack the moon:

"What are the benefits -- what are the advantages and disadvantages of not acting? And of course, the advantage of not acting against the moon would be that no one could say that you acted; they would say, 'Isn't that good, you didn't do anything against the moon.' The other side of the coin, of not acting against the moon in the event that the moon posed a serious threat, would be that you'd then suffered a serious loss and you're sorry after that's over. And in weighing the things, you have to make a judgment; net, do you think that you're acting most responsibly by avoiding the threat that could be characterized -- X numbers of people dying, innocent people -- and it's that kind of an evaluation one would have to make."

This quote is actually part of a larger back and forth about what factors make it okay to pre-emptively attack another country, and they just used "the moon" as an example. But damned if it isn't much funnier taken out of context.

Posted by Jake at 12:14 AM | Comments (3)

January 24, 2003

Hooray!

Senate Blocks Funding for Pentagon Database- " By a voice vote, the Senate voted to ban funding for the Total Information Awareness program, under former national security adviser John Poindexter, until the Pentagon explains the program and assesses its impact on civil liberties."

Yay!

Well, it's a good step. Keep an eye out for the day when the Pentagon releases its report about TIA's effects on civil liberties (which will likely be full of lies).

Thanks to the John Poindexter Awareness Office for harassing the plan's founder.

And you can get your TIA t-shirts here.

Posted by Jake at 08:59 AM | Comments (0)

Let's Get Ready to Rumble

The message from the Bush camp: 'It's war within weeks'- not anything we didn't already suspect, but this time it's backed up by "a European official" and "an informed source in Washington". Wait, why did I post this link again?

Central Command Background Briefing- Looks like the Pentagon has found Iraq's weapons of mass destruction: "A senior U.S. Central Command official will provide a background briefing regarding Iraq's potential use of oil as a terror weapon, tomorrow, Jan. 24, at 11 a.m. EST in the DoD Briefing Studio, Pentagon, Room 2E781." [Thanks to Oliver Willis]

Posted by Jake at 12:35 AM | Comments (0)

January 23, 2003

Unexpected Cross-Promotions

Now you too can experience joys and thrills of being a young aspiring sorcerer with new

Harry Potter Ecstasy Tablets!

Posted by Jake at 03:57 PM | Comments (1)

Two More, Then Bed

A Threat to Peace- don't click on this yet! It's a huge, huge map of the "American Terrorist Infrastructure." Six square feet of U.S. cartography pointing out America's military bases, weapons factories, and war criminal residences. Not really a "terrorist infrastructure" per se, just war and hegemony. But we lefties like to confuse war and terrorism to point out that while terrorism is the nightmare of the day, war is pretty bad too. Good info, someone worked really hard on this, I'd say download it if you've got the time or paper to print out something that size.

Some Banks Encourage Overdrafts, Reaping Profit- here's how I understand this one. "Overdraft protection" is a feature that a person can get for their checking account that will protect them from bounced checks. You can write a check for more than your account balance, the bank will pay the difference to the check recipient, and then you have to pay back your bank. Sounds kinda like a loan.

Except...

Loans are strictly regulated by the government, and overdraft protection is not...

So banks are signing up their customers for overdraft protection without their customers expressly asking for it. They especially work on signing up their poorer customers with it. They advertise to their clients that they now have overdraft protection which will protect them from bounced checks, without giving more details. Details like the overdraft fee they will be charged for each overdraft.

They'll cover bounced checks for maybe $100-$300, then give you a few days to repay the balance, and charge you $20-$35 per overdraft. Which, this article tells me, "translate[s] into an annual rate of 1,000 percent or more." All while telling half-truths about the nature of the service that imply that it's merely a free safety cushion for folks struggling to make ends meet.

Keeping my money underneath my mattress keeps looking smarter and smarter.

Posted by Jake at 12:30 AM | Comments (4)

January 22, 2003

Wargames

The proposed U.S. war on Iraq has many possible outcomes. The following is an online "game" that depicts a fairly negative conclusion.

Gulf War 2 (aka World War 2.5)

When I say "fairly negative" I mean "extremely grim, with a bit of tongue in cheek," and when I say "game" I mean "you get to click on a few things, but it's pretty much a short animated movie."

I think it's worth your while, should take you about 8-10 minutes to play/watch. While I don't agree with the designers' predictions, it does a pretty decent job of showing some of the complexities of Middle Eastern geopolitics.

Posted by Jake at 05:54 PM | Comments (3)

File-Traders to be Keelhauled

ISPs Must Forfeit Download Data- "Internet providers must agree to requests by the music industry to track down computer users who illegally download music, a federal judge ruled Tuesday in a case that could dramatically increase online pirates' risk of being caught."

"The case arose from efforts by the recording association to track down a customer of Verizon Communications who was freely sharing copies of more than 600 songs by well-known artists."

Hmm, I would interpet that to mean that people who download music who keep large numbers of mp3s of popular musicians (and probably video files of popular movies) in file directories that other people with file-sharing programs can download would be the most likely targets. If you are a file-trading/sharing person, you might want to... take appropriate steps.

Watch your asses, ladies and gentlemen.

Posted by Jake at 12:35 PM | Comments (2)

January 21, 2003

Now This Here is Pretty Fucked Up

The newly formed National Commission on Terrorist Attacks is being given $3 million and a little more than a year to investigate the 9-11 attacks.

In 1996, a federal commission received $6 million to investigate the notion of legalizing gambling.

And, according to blogger Atrios, the federal government spent $70 million to figure out if President Clinton had sex with an intern.

Call your elected Congressmen and tell them they're all fired.

Posted by Jake at 09:45 PM | Comments (2)

An Enigma, Wrapped in a Puzzle, Wrapped Inside a Dumb-Ass Texan

One question keeps coming up again and again in critiques of the pending Iraq war: why are we really fighting Iraq?

The Coming War With Iraq: Deciphering the Bush Administration's Motives gets you most of the way there.

The essay is in two parts. The first examines all of the public reasons that the Bush administration gives for needing to go to war with Iraq. This section is convince, but is a little thin. For example, when pondering whether or not the U.S. is really concerned about WMD, he more or less says "if the U.S. was really worried about WMD, they would be fighting Pakistan or North Korea instead. Since they're not, they can't really be concerned about WMD. Next question."

But part two, the "why we're really going to war" portion is well done. Author Michael Klare finds three interrelated reasons, all based upon American global dominance and the role that oil plays in that dominance. Frankly, I think I'm going to rework my personal position statement on the pending Iraq war, and supplement it with Klare's conclusions.

Give it a read, at least the second half.

Posted by Jake at 04:00 PM | Comments (1)

Snikt! Bamf! Tariff!

It had to happen sometime. International trade regulations have gone post-modern.

The X-Men is a popular comic book series that now straddles quite a few forms of media and merchandising. The X-Men universe is one in which more and more people are being born as "mutants," people with strange body alterations that usually manifest as some form of super powers. Some mutants look very different (blue fur, extra heads, etc.) while some look just like you and me (regular looking humans with mental telepathy or super strength). The majority of humankind seems to fear and hate the mutants, making an obvious parallel towards race relations (and/or treatment of homosexuals in society). Kinda clever, and it's at the very core of the X-Men concept.

Heady discussions are waged: can't we all just get along? Should mutants have their rights curtailed to protect us from their powers? What does it mean to be human? In fact, the comic's most popular villain believes that mutants are not homo sapiens, they are homo superior, the next stage of human evolution. He wages war on the regular humans, who he sees as inferior, while other humans wage war on mutants, considering them beasts and freaks.

It should be no surprise that you can buy action figures of your favorite X-Men characters. They're made in China and then imported. Which is how the philosophical questions of the X-universe become of concern for international trade.

According to U.S. trade law, "dolls" are subject to a tariff of 12%, and "toys" are only subject to a 6.8% tariff. To maximize their income, U.S. customs argues that X-Men figures are dolls, and to minimize their costs, Marvel (the company responsible for X-Men) is arguing that they are toys. And according to U.S. customs law, "dolls" are models of human figures, while the "toy" classification is made up solely of "creatures" such as monsters and robots.

So a judge for the U.S. Court of International Trade had to read briefs from both parties and study the action figures in question to determine whether or not the X-Men were human.

Fucking bizarre.

The verdict?

Not human.

Good going, judge. You've just set back mutant-nonmutant relations by 40 years.

Posted by Jake at 12:52 AM | Comments (1)

January 20, 2003

Protest Round-Up

On January 18, there were two massive anti-war protests scheduled to take place in San Francisco and Washington DC. While many people who lived far from those two cities made long pilgrimages, many folks simply organized at home. And not just in the U.S., but in at least 37 countries worldwide. Below is an incomplete (and questionably accurate) list of numbers of people protesting in cities around the globe (in no particular order).

Menomonie, WI- 200
San Francisco, CA- 200,000
Washington, DC- 200,000
Christchurch, New Zealand- 2000
Northwood Military base, UK- 150
Tokyo, Japan- 4000
Volkel, Netherlands- 100
Toronto, Canada- 15,000
Vancouver, Canada- 20,000
Montreal, Canada- 25,000
Saskatoon, Canada- 7000
Buenos Aires- 1000
Damascus- 20,000
Cairo, Egypt- 1000
Lahore, Pakistan- 200
Paris, France- 20,000
Marseille, France- 10,000
Hong Kong, China- 60
Halifax, Canada- 15,000
Ottawa, Canada- 3000
Honolulu, HI- 1300
Tampa, FL- 2000
Bellingham, WA- 600
Spokane, WA- 1500
Yorba Linda, CA (Nixon Library)- 800
San Luis Obispo, CA- 1200
Tucsuon, AZ- 5000
Albuquerque, NM- 1000
Reno, NV- 600
Salt Lake City, UT- 1000
Oklahoma City, OK- 800 (at Federal Building)
Houston, TX- 200
Fayetteville, AK- 500
Columbia, MO-500
St. Louis, MO- 100
Tallhassee, FL- 50
Miami, FL- 300
Charlottesville, VI- 900
Montpellier, VT- 3000
Portsmouth, NH- 150
Ann Arbor, MI- 1200
Rockford, IL- 300
Madison, WI- 800
Minoqua, WI- 50
Albany, NY- 300
Seattle, WA- 2500
Gainesville, FL- 50
Lincoln, NE- 500
Durham, NC- 1000
Wichita, KS- 70
Shannon Ireland- 1000
Rome, Italy- 4000
Firenze, Italy- 5000
Montpellier France- 2000
Nice, France- 1500
Vienna, Austria- 1000
Muenster, Germany- 500
Portland, OR- 20,000
Heidelberg, Germany- 2000
Tuebingen, Germany- 5000

Can't verify the numbers, got them off an IMC site and an International ANSWER press release, so take em with a grain of salt.

[edit]

Found a much more thorough accounting of protests at the JMBzine Poliblog. By that author's account, over 600,000 people from 135 cities came out to protest the war this weekend (including the small group of scientists who protested in Antarctica. Yes, you read that right, Antarctica).

Posted by Jake at 11:30 PM | Comments (2)

MLK Day

I played three different speeches by Martin Luther King, Jr. on my radio show today. Turned on my car stereo as I drove home, tuned to KPFK and heard part of a fourth speech. I suppose its a good way to commemorate King, immersing myself in his words.

[I plan to upload the speeches to the Kill Radio archive later this week]

Shortly after 9/11, I was quite depressed thinking that the vast majority of Americans at that time had their values pointed in the exact opposite direction of King's (and now, some folks argue that King would be considered a domestic terrorist).

I played his "Drum Major Instinct" sermon and his "Why I Oppose the War in Vietnam speech (and in the drive home, I heard his "Beyond Vietnam" speech). They are both excellent, and I highly recommend reading (or listening to) them both.

Both give testament to King's deep committment to his fellow man, and to the compassion and love espoused by Jesus. But his Vietnam speech is much more interesting.

King is well-known for his civil rights stances, but the Vietnam speech shows that King has broadened his perspective. He talks about the triple threats of racism, militarism and economic exploitation," all very reasonable targets for a man dedicated to freedom and justice for all.

I am most moved by his simple logic for opposing the Vietnam war, a logic that would ensure his opposition to all war.

Having focused his efforts on helping the poor, King says that he can't support the war because it takes money away from funds that could aid the poor. Then he opposes the war because it will send large numbers of poor people to the frontlines to die. And finally, he makes his decision based upon his committment to non-violence as the highest form of conflict resolution:

"As I have walked among the desperate, rejected and angry young men I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they asked -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent."

Perhaps that's what I most admire about Martin Luther King. He held fast to a series of moral principles, and followed them to their true and extreme conclusion.

And I'll conclude with a passage from "Beyond Vietnam" that shows just how radical (yet eminently reasonable) King's positions had taken by the end of his life. I urge you to read the remaining paragraphs and think on them, and how they may be relevant today:

"The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality we will find ourselves organizing clergy- and laymen-concerned committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy. Such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.

"In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which now has justified the presence of U.S. military 'advisors' in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counter-revolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Colombia and why American napalm and green beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru. It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, 'Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.'

"Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken -- the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investment.

"I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a 'thing-oriented' society to a 'person-oriented' society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered ...

"This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and through their misguided passions urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations. These are days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. We must not call everyone a Communist or an appeaser who advocates the seating of Red China in the United Nations and who recognizes that hate and hysteria are not the final answers to the problem of these turbulent days. We must not engage in a negative anti-communism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove thosse conditions of poverty, insecurity and injustice which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops."

Posted by Jake at 11:14 PM | Comments (2)

In the Hizzouse

New "Get Your War On" strips are up

Posted by Jake at 09:30 AM | Comments (0)

January 19, 2003

They Don't Need No Education

Lot of talk about affirmative action again. Why? Because of President Bush. Students at the University of Michigan have filed a lawsuit against the school for its affirmative action admissions policies, and in a fairly rare move, the White House filed a brief with the Supreme Court, who is about to hear the case. The brief opposes affirmative action.

Why would Bush & co. do this?

My thoughts: 1) a reverse "wag the dog" ploy, distracting the public from international issues (like the war) with a debate about domestic policy; 2) reassure conservatives that the White House hasn't forgotten its roots in the wake of the Trent Lott scandal; 3) win back the lost bigot vote by supporting a policy stance that can easily be interpretted as racist.

Liberals are actually coming back swinging with a semi-effective tactic. When conservatives argue that "affirmative action" and "quotas" are unfair, liberals are coutnering with "neither are legacy admissions." "Legacy" is a term that means "we let this student into the school because one of his relatives went to this school." And the liberals are right, it's not fair. Your aunt went to Harvard so you should get to go too? What kind of logic is that? Unfortunately, the argument doesn't try to justify affirmative action at all. As a political tactic, it's quite good. As a debate strategy, not very.

Conservatives are often fond of justifying their opposition to affirmative action by quoting Martin Luther King's famous statement about people being judged "not be judged by the color of their skins but bythe content of their character." Therefore the modern exemplar of civil rights and black struggle is on their side. But when you examine his views more thoroughly instead of grabbing a single quote, MLK certainly seems to have been in favor of affirmative action. That link there has many longer quotes by King, and answers to specific questions about some sort of "preferences" and reparations, and King argues in their favor (perhaps most explicitly in "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro"). But, to be fair, here is an article which claims that King was not so much in favor of race-based preferences/reparation/aid as he was in favor of these policies color-blindly aiding people living in poverty. I think the author's argument is weak, but you can see for yourself.

I wrote a column in my old college newspaper that touched on affirmative action, and I got a response from a conservative who actually brought up a good point and something of an alternative solution. Her comment went something like "why do we wait until minorities turn 18 and are entering college to help them out? Why don't we improve their elementary and high schools?"

Excellent point, really. Let's educate everyone a little better. Or hell, a lot better, whether we re-think affirmative action or not. American schools are terrible. I'll talk about that in detail one of these days.

The reason that affirmative action and college admission are important is that a college education, whether you learn a single fact or not, is frequently a gateway to a well-paying career, no matter what your race. So it's almost like people of all races are fighting each other for a middle to upper class future. For middle class kids (generally more white than non-white), this means fearing a drop in their quality of life. For poorer kids (generally more non-white than white), this means fearing their only opportunity for a better life. And the reason for this anxiety is due to the exclusivity of college admissions.

But why the hell are colleges hard to get into? Why the hell do they try to accept only the smartest people? Why shouldn't everyone be welcome to continue their learning, regardless of what their high school grades were? Hell, couldn't you make a case that only the dumbest kids should get into college, to try to give everyone the amount of schooling they need to survive and succeed?

Maybe there is competition for college acceptance because there are a limited number of colleges in the U.S. Then build some more! Build enough colleges to accomodate the demand for education! There's no goddam reason we need to be fighting each other to learn.

But then again, [insert something about how colleges are specifically set up this way to insert necessary capitalist stratification into society, a goal that has nothing to do with education].

Posted by Jake at 12:18 AM | Comments (3)

January 17, 2003

To the Point

How is it that WhiteHouse.org is so good at saying what I think Bush is really feeling?

President Denounces Michigan Admissions Quotas: "Derserving Legacy 'C' Students Are Being Displaced by Uppity Negro Trash!"

Posted by Jake at 09:36 AM | Comments (1)

The Funny Pictures

I forgot to mention that I like this week's This Modern World comic.

Go check it out.

Posted by Jake at 08:55 AM | Comments (0)

More on Beers

I have a bit more information to add to last night's post about the pro-U.S. campaign aimed at Muslims. I wrote my entry based upon a CBSNews.com article which was based upon a Wall Street Journal article. I've found the original source. It has a few more interesting quotes and facts.

- Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan all refused to play the TV ads
- the cost of producing and airing the ads was $7.5 million of the project's $15 million budget
- the full Youssef Ibrahim quote: "The ads were extremely poor. It was like this was the 1930s and the government was running commercials showing happy blacks in America. It is the policy itself we have to explain. You have to grab the bull by the horn, and the bull is 'Hey, here's our policy and there are good reasons for it,' instead of saying, 'Gee, there are a lot of happy Muslim people here.'"
- quote from an adman at Ogilvy & Mather, "The real question on the 'Shared Values' campaign is whether it does more good than harm. My premise was that any effort to address ordinary people that have been ignored too long is worthy. But Islamic opinion is influenced more by what the U.S. does than anything it can say."
- says the article, "Those involved with the ads respond that the idea behind them was simply to show there isn't an anti-Muslim movement by the American public." That's a goal? So the point of view of the average Muslims changes from "Americans hate Muslims" to "Americans hate foreign Muslims."
- one of the "stars" of the ad, Ohio Muslim Abdul-Raouf Hammuda, spoke in Lebanon as part of this campaign. "The reaction varied from those who were supportive to the idea of building this campaign to others who were suspicious and skeptical that life for Muslims in America was really all that good," he said.

And here's another, more direct piece from the Christian Science Monitor, focusing specifically on what Muslims think about the U.S.:

- Indonesian Muslim Ahmad Imron says "We know that there's religious freedom in America, and we like that. What we're angry about is the arrogant behavior of the US in the rest of the world."
- "On the street, the reaction is the same, from street peddlers to US-trained academics: The US media campaign isn't relevant to Muslims' concerns. What saps their support for America is not impressions of how Muslims are treated inside the US, but their opinions about America's international relations - particularly with Israel and Iraq. Moreover, analysts say, if the US proceeds with plans to invade Iraq, its standing among Muslims will only fall."
- Mohammed Adam Hesa: "Sometimes we feel that America is a bully. Like with Iraq. They don't show any evidence. They just want to go to war." And the knock-out blow, "If the US wants a better image, why doesn't it change its policies?"
- the article reveals a fact I have not seen anywhere else, that there is a website devoted to this campaign, OpenDialogue.com
- most of the comments posted on that site's "Comments from around the world" section are fairly mild, this one from "Aida in Indonesia" is blistering: "Do you really want to build a better understanding between Americans and Muslim? Or do you just want to win this campaign? We are not stupid or blind or deaf. We read your intention not by what you say but what you do. We are not easy to believe you anymore after so many disinformations by your politicians, mass media and others. This won't work if you see us as an object. Be fair on the Palestinian issue, stop killing Iraqis and bombing their country, repair the destruction of what you did in Afghanistan, don't play tricks with the IMF. Do you want us to suffer more? Do you hope us to be tender with this situation?"

So what do you think would've had more effect on Muslim opinion: the Beers ad campaign, or using that $15 million as humanitarian aid to feed starving Muslims in any foreign country?

Posted by Jake at 08:52 AM | Comments (0)

January 16, 2003

The Politics of Smug

Can we please stop with the SUV bashing?

We all know that they are suburban mini-vans disguised as monster trucks so that daddy can run to the supermarket to pick up diapers and drop the girls off at soccer practice without feeling emasculated. They are so tall and wide that it's hard to see the other cars on the road. They use more gas than regular cars. And to the more scholarly, they are more dangerous to others in case of a collision.

And I hear many liberals trumpetting the cause these days. SUVs use more gas and "support terrorism." SUVs are more likely to kill in an accident.

... but they still drive cars themselves.

How about getting off your high-fucking-horse? Your car uses gas too. So you support terrorism a little bit less, way to go, Gandhi. Your car is a slightly safer death chariot than an SUV, you big brave rebel you.

Yeah, I hate SUVs too. But for those of you who wear your opposition like a badge of honor, cut it the fuck out.

Unless your only form of transportation is your feet or your bicycle. In which case, flame on.

Posted by Jake at 11:58 PM | Comments (6)

Pay No Attention to the Oppression Behind the Curtain

I've written about her a number of times, Charlotte Beers. She's a former PR exec who got hired by the State Department to propagandize the Islamic world into thinking that America is keen. I find her apallling; I hate the PR industry, and I am offended by the apparent State Dept. belief that you can easily overcome decades of harmful U.S. intervention in the Middle East with just the right set of feel-good television commercials.

Overthrowing the Iranian government, supporting Saddam Hussein, supporting Israel, supporting the Saudi government, supporting Turkey, attacking Iraq, economically sanctioning Iraq, bombing Afghanistan, etc. the U.S. has taken some pretty... let's say "questionably moral" stances on Middle East issues, and those stances have frequently resulted in dire suffering by the region's residents. It's almost common sense to assume that the United States hates Arabs and Islam (an incorrect assumption, we would have treated any religion or ethnicity sitting on top of that much petroleum in a similar fashion). Charlotte Beers' job is to convince these people to believe what the TV tells them, not what the see with their own eyes.

When someone tries to cover-up something bad that they have done, we call it "whitewashing." When corporations start a PR campaign to pretend that they are eco-friendly, it is called "greenwashing." I've even heard of corporate PR campaigns to pretend that they don't exploit their employees called "bluewashing" (as in "blue collar"). So I think we need a name for what Charlotte is trying to do.

I'm gonna call it "lovewashing".

We want those Arabs and Muslims to know that America wuvs them!! We wuv them soooooo much!!!

Actually, Beers seems to have a reputation among some of her PR peers as a hack, that she was a powerful figure in their industry because she had prominant business connections, not because she was particularly skilled at manipulating public opinion. So she's really got her work cut out for her.

On to the good news.

Beers spent $15 million on a PR campaign aimed at the Islamic world called "Shared Values," which was supposed to curry sympathy for America by pointing out the good lives of Muslim Americans.

The State Department has halted these ads, and wants to review their effectiveness before continuing to shell out money.

And how effective are they? Let's ask Council on Foreign Relations member Youssef Ibrahim:

"It was like this was the 1930s and the government was running commercials showing happy blacks in America."

Ouch!

You can see some of the campaign for yourself on the State Department's "Muslim Life in America" site. If that doesn't make foreign Muslims forget their decades of repression, nothing will. Except maybe some big heavy bombs. Of Love.

Posted by Jake at 11:28 PM | Comments (2)

War Creep

Empty Chemical Warheads in Iraq- You've probably heard this breaking story already. UN weapons inspectors found 11 or 12 "empty chemical warheads" in an ammunition storage facility southwest of Baghdad. Frankly, I'm not sure what the term "warhead" means. Is that the tip of a missile? Is that a whole missile? [searches around internet a bit] Okay, I think that it's just the tip.

First of all, good job inspectors! Those weapons can't be used to hurt anyone now (unless, I suppose someone steals them, attaches them to rockets and launches them at cities).

Second, what does this mean with regards to the war. No one seems to be saying yet. Do these devices violate UN resolutions? Are these violations enough to justify war?

UN officials seem to be saying that it "might not be a smoking gun." And one unnamed US official said that the warheads might be a "smoldering gun". Which, when you think about it, doesn't make any sense.

In other horrifying war news, Iraq may be training 10 to 15-year old boys to fight as soldiers. Sounds terrible. I'm hoping it's a false report, as it's based solely on a document from a US think-tank.

And CNN and Fox News Chanenl are already vying for war coverage supremacy.

Posted by Jake at 05:26 PM | Comments (1)

Shots Fired in War Against War

17 Anti-War Protesters Arrested in L.A.- bit of street theater outside the Federal Building in downtown L.A., over a dozen peace activists laid down on the sidewalk (thereby violating the law) holding up small coffins labelled with various concepts like "Iraqi civilians, "civil liberties" and "truth," and pretended to be dead themselves. 17 were arrested, dozens others rallied in support without violating the law themselves.

Photos here

Posted by Jake at 05:06 PM | Comments (0)

Caught

President Bush is calling for "medical liability reform," calling for a limit to the amount of money you could receive if you sued your doctor for malpractice. The argument is that "excessive" malpractice judgements lead to towering rates for malpractice insurance for doctors, which lead to increased medical costs, which lead to increased medical insurance costs for people like you and me. So you see, it's not the insurance industry's fault for these high prices, it's the fault of people who are the victims of medical mistakes.

Anyhow, Bush today gave a speech in Pennsylvania to explain his proposals, and as all good politicians do, had a number of "regular Joes" around who've been affected by this issue; in this case, Dr. Joes who have been forced to move from state to state because the malpractice insurance rates were too high.

I haven't analyzed the whole speech of looked into the backgrounds of all the doctors, but the new blog Emphasis Mine found that one of the Joes, Dr. Greg Przybylski of New Jersey is "[responsible] for management of a given legislative and regulatory issue" for the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons.

In other words, one of Bush's examples is a lobbyist for the neurosurgeons, one of the groups that surely would like their malpractice insurance rates lowered.

That's the sort of thing that makes a person like me, y'know, a little suspicious...

Posted by Jake at 12:06 PM | Comments (1)

January 15, 2003

One Cliche to Rule Them All

Sorry, couldn't resist this one.

Posted by Jake at 01:27 PM | Comments (2)

Lock Up the White Folks

Last week, I posted a link to a report from the Boston Globe about racial profiling, which found that blacks' and latinos' cars were stopped and searched more often by Boston police than were whites' cars. It also found that whites who are stopped are found with illegal drugs slightly more often than blacks and latinos, which makes the whole "pragmatic" logic about the need for racial profiling in the first place.

Now the Seattle Times has done a similar study of their own police force, with nearly identical results: minorities' cars searched more often, whites found with drugs slightly more often.

Bad cop, no donut!

Posted by Jake at 01:12 PM | Comments (1)

Huge Sucking Sound

I don't usually do this, but I'm going to reprint an entire article here. It's a very good one from my pals at Eat the State. It will probably be posted to their website soon, but I think it's so important that it should be available for reading immediately. It's about how the Bush economic stimulus plan could do more than just "not stimulate" the economy, it could shipwreck the damn thing. I'm actually kind of scared now.

Anyhow, the article.

----
A Tax-Cut That Would Sink the Economy
by Maria Tomchick
ETS Vol.7, No.10

The US media is expending a lot of ink and air time evaluating the potential economic effects of George Bush's new tax-cut proposal. So far, most of the discussion has centered around how much economic stimulus the plan will provide and how long it will take to work. No one, however, is discussing the very real possibility that George Bush's tax-cut, especially the elimination of taxes on dividends, could harm the US economy and drive it deeper into a recession.

To understand how this might happen, let's look at consumer spending, the one thing that's kept the US economy afloat amidst massive layoffs and corporate bankruptcies. Low interest rates are primarily responsible for keeping consumer spending alive; big-ticket items--like new homes and cars--are a great bargain right now because of low rates on mortgages and auto loans. Despite the worst Christmas shopping season for retailers since 1970 (when the government began to keep track of shopping patterns), consumer spending is still going strong.

The Bush plan could change that by raising interest rates. Removing the tax on dividends would make dividend-paying stocks more attractive to investors than interest-paying investments: bonds, certificates of deposits (CDs), money market funds, treasury bills, bank savings accounts, etc., which are all taxable. To attract investors to those interest-bearing investments, interest rates would have to rise to offset what people pay in taxes. So banks and finance companies, corporations, and the federal government would have to pay more interest on their debts.

To recoup some of that interest paid out on CDs, bonds, savings accounts, etc., banks and finance companies would have to raise the interest rates they charge on home-equity loans, auto loans, credit lines, credit cards, and business loans. Mortgage rates would rise, too. Rising interest rates could stop the hot housing market in its tracks, just as increased rates on auto loans would make people decide to drive their old car a little while longer than they're inclined to do today. As finance companies raise the rates on credit cards, more Americans would spend less on new purchases and focus instead on paying down their credit card debt. This would send consumer spending into a tailspin.

Currently, low interest on corporate bonds and bank loans to businesses have allowed many debt-ridden companies to continue to make payments on their debts. Once interest rates rise, however, companies that are just barely keeping their heads above water could find themselves squeezed from both ends: lower consumer spending would mean lower profits, while higher interest rates would mean the companies would have to pay more to banks or to investors on their debts. This could start a second wave of corporate bankruptcies.

Meanwhile, another fallout of cutting taxes on dividends would negatively effect state and local governments. Currently state and local governments, which are required to balance their budgets and not operate in at a deficit like the federal government, are struggling to plug enormous gaps between their incoming tax revenue and their increasing expenses. The Bush tax-cut plan could make those gaps even wider.

Here's how: state and local governments, including school districts, fire districts, and cities, have the ability to issue municipal bonds to pay for special projects, construction, and even operating costs. For example, the State of California has just issued bonds to help it pay for the high energy costs the state incurred during its recent energy crisis.

Municipal bonds are tax-free for the investor, making them highly attractive investments--there's no shortage of people who want them. Because they are one of the few tax-free investments available, municipal bonds carry very low interest rates, and this helps state and local governments keep a lid on their debt costs.

But once the tax on dividends is removed, the picture changes. To attract investors and compete with dividend-paying stocks, municipal bond interest rates would have to rise. State and local governments would then have to pay higher interest expenses to investors, putting even more of a pinch on their budgets. Returning to our example, if the Bush tax-cut plan passes, the State of California could face bankruptcy.

Notably, state and local governments are major employers and major spenders in nearly every community in America. Taking this into account, the Bush tax-cut plan could have the effect of destroying jobs and curbing spending at levels not seen since the Great Depression.

But it gets worse. When state and local governments are pinched and forced to cut services to the poor, homeless, and unemployed during an economic downturn, the nonprofit sector usually steps in to help. Nonprofit groups--from food banks and homeless shelters to groups providing job training and education services--subsist on donations primarily from wealthy people. But once dividends become tax-free, many wealthy people will no longer have an incentive to make charitable contributions to offset their taxable income. Nonprofits would suffer a severe funding shortage at a time when their services are needed more than ever.

The Bush administration argument for this tax-cut plan has focused on its ability to boost the stock market. Yet a jump in the stock market doesn't usually lead to a recovery, it usually reflects a recovery that's already in progress. Most economists agree that corporate profits have to increase in order for a recovery to begin. And an increase in consumer spending across all sectors would boost corporate profits immensely.

The Bush plan, however, puts money into the hands of people who simply can't spend it. According to the Center on Budget Policies and Priorities, the richest 5% of Americans would receive two-thirds of the tax cut. These are people who have already reached their top limit on spending; they simply can't spend all the money they earn in a year. Most of his tax-cut, then, would have no effect whatsoever on consumer spending.

Any tax-cut, even one that was more equitable and aimed at people who are lower on the socio-economic scale, would have a minimal economic stimulus effect, because during economic downturns people tend to either save or pay down their debts when they get extra cash. Bush's 2001 tax cut proved that.

It was a $1.3 trillion tax break that gave back $300 to every working American--much more than most people will see from his new plan--yet it did nothing to stop the economic downturn prior to September 11. A better proposal would be to take a portion of the current tax-cut plan, maybe half (or about $300 billion), and simply give it to state and local governments to help them plug the holes in their budgets, pay wages to employees, and build infrastructure like roads and schools. This would provide far more economic stimulus than the current plan, which would only exacerbate our current economic woes.

Posted by Jake at 01:04 PM | Comments (2)

January 12, 2003

The Saddest "I Told You So"

On September 22, 2001, I went to an anti-war protest at the Federal Building in Westwood, California. Although it seemed a vain goal, I felt that I had to do something to try to prevent the U.S. from attacking Afghanistan. I couldn't think of any better plan. I was also scared, fairly certain that at some point, some frat boys from the local college would drive by in a Jeep and kick our asses for being "terrorist-lovers" or something.

(Our asses were not kicked. My friend John Kawakami suggested that maybe it was because they couldn't find parking)

I had written up a one-page flyer to hand out, which for lack of a better title, I called "Common Sense: Why a War Against Afghanistan is a Bad Idea." As Los Angeles is a terribly non-pedestrian place, there weren't many folks to hand them out to. So I ended up sticking them on free newspaper racks in the shopping district before driving dejectedly home.

My flyer had three simple reasons why a war with Afghanistan was a bad idea.

1) A War Against Afghanistan Will Not Get Rid of the Terrorists.
I still use the metaphor today, that you can't destroy an international terrorist network like al Qaeda by bombing a country any more than you could destroy the Mafia by bombing Italy. Sure enough, al Qaeda seems to be functioning today.

2) A War Against Afghanistan Will Kill Thousands of Innocent People.
The best, most conservative estimate I've seen of Afghan dead was in a January 2002 report by the Project on Defense Alternatives called Strange Victory: A critical appraisal of Operation Enduring Freedom and the Afghanistan war. The PDA report reasoned that 1000-1300 Afghan civilians died due to U.S. bombing, and that another 3000-7200 (well, up to 18,000, depending on how you juggle the numbers) died due to the bombings' effects on getting humanitarian aid to starving Afghans. So a reasonable estimate of 4000-7500 Afghan non-combatants killed due to the U.S. invasion.

3) A War Against Afghanistan Might Create New Terrorists.
"Bombs dropping on the innocent might push some desperate Afghans over the edge. Attacks from the US might have the unintended effect of inspiring a new generation to enlist in a terrorist army," I said.

At the time, this seemed like a reasonable prediction. But as the months drew on without any news reports of such things, I began to think that maybe I'd been paranoid. After all, how many widows and orphans have U.S. intervention in Latin America created? And they haven't begun terrorist attacks on us. Maybe the Afghans were going to just move on with their lives, tragedy fading and the cycle of violence coasting to a stop.

Then, I read this:

Latest Al Qaeda Recruits: Afghans Seeking Revenge

According to that article, Al Qaeda is seeking to exploit the anger of grieving Afghans to convert them to their jihad. And it's working.

So I'm three for fucking three. Not that you needed Nostradamus to figure that out.

Funny, you usually feel good when you're right. Yet all I can do is sit here and blink away furious tears.

Posted by Jake at 11:54 PM | Comments (7)

News Salad

Illinois Governor Commutes All Death Sentences- Three days before leaving his position as governor of the state, George Ryan has announced that he is changing the sentences of all 167 of Illinois' death row inmates from execution to 40 years to life in prison. The link above is to a lengthy but worthwhile speech about his decision, the death penalty, flaws in the judicial system, victims' rights, families of the executed, and more. Given the timing of the decision (just before he leaves office and can't face the political fallout of the decision) and length of the speech (way, way beyond the press release/soundbite length that would get him proper spin on the news), I think this was an actual political decision made by a man looking to do what he thought was best for his state and its people. Essentially, Ryan claims that due to the number of innocent people on death row, and the completely haphazard way in which execution is meted out as justice, that he could not leave these men to die.

The United States population seems to be deeply divided on the issue of the death penalty, with most seeming to think that it's both pragmatic and justified on many occasions. But many European countries seem to think that it's simply a moral outrage and completely unacceptable. Any European readers want to comment below about the unity of opinion on this issue in your country (or lack thereof if I'm misinformed)?

U.S. Decision On Iraq Has Puzzling Past- "On Sept. 17, 2001, six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2½-page document marked "TOP SECRET" that outlined the plan for going to war in Afghanistan as part of a global campaign against terrorism. Almost as a footnote, the document also directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq, senior administration officials said. The previously undisclosed Iraq directive is characteristic of an internal decision-making process that has been obscured from public view. Over the next nine months, the administration would make Iraq the central focus of its war on terrorism without producing a rich paper trail or record of key meetings and events leading to a formal decision to act against President Saddam Hussein, according to a review of administration decision-making based on interviews with more than 20 participants. With the nation possibly on the brink of war, the result of this murky process continues to reverberate today: tepid support for military action at the State Department, muted concern in the military ranks of the Pentagon and general confusion among relatively senior officials -- and the public -- about how or even when the policy was decided."

Quite frankly, it looks as though the top members of the Bush government simply decided that we needed to invade Iraq before they even had a clear idea as to why this was necessary. That might be an even more frightening reality: that we weren't going to Iraq for oil, that we were going to Iraq "just because."

Battle of the Boffins- read the whole article and still don't know what a "boffin" is. But the article is mainly about the new U.S. high-tech weapons and toys that will be used in the upcoming Gulf War 2.

Activist Deported to Toronto- rather harrowing tale of Canadian activist Jaggi Singh. I first heard about him with some of his anti-globalization journalism, and then when he was mysteriously kidnapped and arrested by police during the 2001 FTAA protests in Quebec. He was standing near an amusing activist prop, a catapult that was lobbing teddy bears over the chain link fence surrounding the summit meeting's compound, and cops nabbed Singh, charging him with some sort of weapons possession offense. But recently, Singh was in Israel and Palestine, as a human rights monitor/reporter with the International Solidarity Movement. The link is Singh's own story of how he was arrested, beaten and deported by Israeli police.

A Split Screen In Strike-Torn Venezuela- an American's first-hand account of the strife in Venezuela, arguing that nearly every "fact" about the conflict heard in the American media is false.

Posted by Jake at 01:17 PM | Comments (6)

The Protest

Big anti-war protest in downtown Los Angeles yesterday. As usual, check out the local IndyMedia coverage of the event. I have a lot of problems with IndyMedia (which most people would probably see as boring technical disagreements), but no one covers a protest like they do. Where the mainstream media will give you a single photo, two vague soundbites and a couple statistics (estimated number in attendance, number arrested, poll numbers showing why you shouldn't care what the protesters think, etc.), IndyMedia will usually have continually-updated live reports, audio and video of a protest, followed by dozens of first-hand accounts, lengthy interviews with participants, and many many photographs which might give you the feeling of being there. I'll put my favorite photo of the protest here, to give this entry a bit more punch:

[edit]

Posting the photo here seems to be messing with many people's browsers, so just click here to see it.

[/edit]

It was a tame protest, which I suppose I have mixed feelings about. I went without any pretensions that this event was going to have any effect on government policy. It was mainly a mildly rebellious way for people to voice their anti-war opinions. And that's never a bad thing, standing up and speaking your mind. And I was very relieved to be in a protest where I wasn't fearing for my physical well-being because I was ringed with hundreds and hundreds of cops in riot gear, stroking their weapons; this protest simply had maybe a hundred uniformed officers, a handful of traffic cops, and a much more relaxed atmosphere. Nice change of pace.

Maybe the protest helped increase vocal opposition to the war. Maybe someone seeing the protest on TV news said to themselves, "wow, I didn't know that many people felt the same way that I do hating Bush and this war. Maybe I shouldn't be afraid to speak out." Maybe somebody who attended it as their very first protest made some friends and vowed to get even more involved. But the only way this protest might have made an impact on Washington would've been if there had been some massive distrubances caused by the protesters, with the foreboding that there would be more and more such disturbances unless the government changed its policy. That didn't happen, so I imagine the White House watched the news coverage and shrugged before continuing along the pre-set path.

Then you get to the familiar "battle of the numbers." Police, politicians and "city officials" nearly always downplay the number of attendees of any sort of protest, while protest organizers inevtiably try to play them up. The press usually cites both numbers and leaves it at that, which is really pretty lazy of them. You're a reporter, you're at the protest, try to give me your own damn estimate!

Saturday's number battle:

First Cop estimate (acc'ding to LA Times)- 3000 protesters
Current Cop estimate (LA Times)- 5000-7000 protesters
Cop estimage (acci'ding to CNN.com)- 2000 protesters
Protest organizers- 20,000-50,000 protesters

I was there. I wasn't able to see the entire march, but I'd estimate about 6000-8000 people. Last time I tried to estimate a march size, I guessed 8000 and the local paper estimated 12,000, which may say something about my estimation skills. So take it all with a grain of salt.

Lots of folks at the protest, many I think for their first. Many folks in wheelchairs, many folks with dogs. Lot of the usual suspects. I think actually that's one of the reasons that cops exhibit so much fear and anger towards protesters, is because they don't recognize the usual suspects, because they are so unfamiliar with common activists, organizations, behaviors and practices. I go to a protest and immediate start some mental calculus: "okay, there's the Green party giving out bumper stickers. There's an anarchist contingent, dressed in black and masking up; they might be stirring some shit up today, better stay away from them if I don't want to get arrested. There's the folks with the giant puppets. There's some dude who's gonna try to sell me his damn Worker's Revolutionary Working Communist Worker newspaper, I'll start walking this way to avoid him. There's some white dude from a cultish Communist org somewhat suspiciously chanting slogans in Spanish. There's some IndyMedia folks, there's some unaffiliated folks. There's a beaming teen-aged girl who probably hasn't been to a protest before, unaware that the mis-drawn peace logo on her homemade sign is actually the Mercedes-Benz logo." And countless, countless others.

And for me, the highlight was the very beginning of the rally outside the downtown Federal Building. It began with an ad-hoc rock band made up of famous and semi-famous musicians from years past: some guy from Deep Purple, some guy from Toto, some guy from Shelia E (or Sheena E?)'s band, some dude from Jackson Browne, and SLASH FROM GUN 'N ROSES!

At which point I quipped to everyone who would listen, "Dude, how can we lose? We've got SLASH on our side!"

Posted by Jake at 12:42 PM | Comments (1)

January 10, 2003

Santarian Economics

More details about the less-than-equitable aspects of the Bush "economic stimulus plan."

From the Village Voice:

Almost half of the projected benefits from President Bush's plan to scrap taxes on dividends would go to the one percent of the population whose incomes top $1 million. The scheme has been promoted as beneficial to the elderly, but in fact, only six percent of the elderly with incomes under $50,000 get anything out of it... Further, taxpayers who earn $35,000 or less come away with $27 more a year...

At a time when we are supposedly trying to get rid of subsidies to farmers and other groups, Bush is offering a direct subsidy to Wall Street. The argument is that eliminating the tax would spur the market. Original predictions showed stocks would rise 20 percent. By Monday these projections had sunk to 6 to 8 percent. And critics were beginning to point out that the president's plan would hurt other sectors of the economy, leading to a probable decline in the housing sector and the sucking of money away from small business...

Meanwhile, as the Republicans ready yet another giveaway to the rich, Bush plans to cut back on domestic spending by holding the budget to $316 billion, according to The Washington Post.

Or, to put it another way:

Go find somebody else to explain how this will save our economy, cuz I sure can't.

Posted by Jake at 11:08 PM | Comments (4)

January 09, 2003

You Have the Right to be Detained

Lots of lefties up in arms about this one, but I think they're getting a couple of facts wrong in their fear.

A court of appeals has found that the president can detain U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants" without worrying much about their Constitutional rights.

However this specific case was decided almost solely on the fact that the plaintiff, Yaser Esam Hamdi, was captured on the battlefield in a foreign country, and therefore declaring him an "enemy combatant" was legal.

So we're not quite yet to the point where the president can just point any old American and say, "you, you're a terrorist, detain him forever." If you are an American in another country where the U.S. might wage war, go ahead and feel nervous. The rest of us are theoretically safe, for now.

Read the court decision yourself (in .pdf format) here.

Posted by Jake at 04:56 PM | Comments (1)

As American as White Supremacy II

We now have something of a sequel to the Trent Lott saga: the re-nomination of Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (he was nominated once by George Bush I). Who is Charles Pickering? Check out this skewering he receives from Counterpunch. And in the name of fairness, you should also read this defense of Pickering.

Even the defensive article points out that Pickering "has a bad habit of injecting his personal views into legal opinions on controversial issues" and that he is "not entirely comfortable with key principles of civil rights law," which seems to suggest that as a higher court judge, he might use his prejudice to make decisions, not the law.

That's the uber-nice way of looking at him. In 1960, he drafted a law that would strengthen Mississippi laws prohibiting blacks and whites from having sex with each other. Frankly, that might be all you need to hear. Even after 40 years, would a man with that kind of disgust and prejudice be able to change into the color-blind type of person we'd want to see on the bench? Personally, I doubt it.

But it goes on. It seems that in the 1970s, Pickering had ties to the state's Soveriegnty Commission, "a kind of secret police force which worked to keep Mississippi segregated in the wake of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling. The Sovereignty Commission, often employing KKK thugs, spied on civil rights organizers, politicians, preachers and rockers (including B.B. King, Elvis Presley, James Brown and the Rolling Stones) ... The Commission also helped to cover up attacks on blacks and civil rights workers by the KKK and other vigilantes." As a Mississsippi state senator, he voted to both give money to these thugs and to keep their records sealed from the public on two different occasions each (although perhaps his reasons for support were not racist. In 1972, he asked the Commission to spy on an active labor union in Pickering's home town. So maybe it was about secret power to fight strikers instead. Or not)

So after reading about this fellow, I ran across a number of other articles about the fine state of race relations in the U.S.

Have you heard of Matt Hale? He is the founder of World Church of the Creator, a neo-nazi "religion" who's goal is to bring about RaHoWa- Racial Holy War. They hate just about everybody, claim the Nazi Holocaust never happened, etc. You can find your own link to their site, cuz I ain't putting it here.

Matt Hale's gotten a lot of press, arguing that he's being persecuted, that his First Amendment rights are being attacked, and so on. When he keeps his rhetoric turned down to the mild tones of "white pride" and "celebration of white culture," he's somewhat convincing. But when non-racists aren't looking, he's just the rabid, fire-breathing nazi you'd expect.

Oh, and he's currently under arrest for trying to have a judge assassinated. Pardon me, for trying to have a "kike and nigger-loving judge" assassinated. Happily, according to the sidebar of this article, Hale's "church" seems to be falling apart.

But I'm going somewhere with this.

The recent Trent Lott scandal strongly suggested that conservative politicians were using code words to win over the votes of racists without arousing the suspicions of non-racists (well, non-overt racists). But we haven't looked at this phenomenon from the racists' point of view. Do they see politicians pandering to them covertly? Let's ask Matt Hale. I'll reprint this short blog entry from David Neiwert:

Here's an excerpt from from an interview Matt Hale gave a columnist for the Greenwich Village Gazette Aug. 8, 2000:

The caller also told me that he was now leaning toward Bush and that his victory in November would give him and the white-supremacist movement "cause for celebration and hope."

The man calling himself Mr. Hale told me that he was persuaded by Bush after watching both party conventions this summer.

"The conventions left me with the impression that the Democrats actually mean it when they say they want a diverse tent and the Republicans are like 'OK, this is a way to get some votes so let's go throw bait to the blacks.' So they trot out their yard (N-word) for show and dress them better than black democrats could ever dream of.'"

Bush was endorsed by Hale, David Duke and Don Black of Stormfront [another white supremacist group]. This is not to imply that Bush is racist. Rather, it is clear that he makes enough gestures that are interpreted by extremists as sympathetic to gain their votes.

So yes, I guess that racists are getting the message soft and clear.

Back in 1998, during a parade in New York City, three firemen dressed up in blackface, "threw chunks of watermelon and fried chicken to parade goers and made it appear as if one of the men in blackface was being dragged ... the same summer that a black man in Texas was dragged to his death from a pickup." Mayor Giuliani fired the three men. Well, now those three men are suing to get their jobs back.

And finally, Atrios posts a casting call for a new "reality" dating show on NBC. The interesting bit:

MEN SHOULD BE 26-34 YRS OLD & CAUCASIAN
AND
WOMEN SHOULD BE 21-34 YRS OLD & ANY ETHNICITY

Um.

Kinda interesting. Only white guys, but women of any race. I suppose this one is an easy answer. Women of different races on television are non-threatening, as they are usually just different "flavors" of T&A. But men are a different story. To me, the most glaring example is Asian men. I've seen a jillion movies and TV shows with sexy Asian women as characters, but very, very rarely with sexy Asian men. C'mon Hollywood, let's give our Asian brothers a little love.

Posted by Jake at 10:07 AM | Comments (8)

Good News, Bad News

So rarely do I have good news to report:

Radio: Where's the Diversity?- about a summit meeting of musicians, record labels, and consumers, all fed up with the radio industry. Senator Russ Feingold was there, and he vowed to "reintroduce legislation this year to ban 'the current shakedown system' of payola, bar companies that own both radio stations and concert promoters from using their leverage to bully artists and record labels and strengthen the Federal Communication Commission's radio merger review process. It would also close loopholes allowing companies to exceed current ownership caps by controlling stations through third parties."

Anti-war train drivers refuse to move arms freight- two train engineers in Scotland refused to drive trains carrying ammunition intended for UK forces in Iraq. Apparently they are the only two engineers in the area familiar with the route. And their union seems to be supporting their decision to oppose war in this fashion. Good work, fellas!

And of course, we have bad news. Some pretty immense bad news, really.

One generation to save world, report warns- doh! " The human race has only one or perhaps two generations to rescue itself, according to the 2003 State of the World report by the Washington-based Worldwatch Institute. The longer that no remedial action is taken, the greater the degree of misery and biological impoverishment that humankind must be prepared to accept, the institute says in its 20th annual report." Guess that means we all need to get to work.

Posted by Jake at 09:14 AM | Comments (1)

January 08, 2003

The Pain of the Obvious

Sigh. I am reading all kinds of repulsive current events today, and my response is "of course it is," "of course they did," "of course that happened." My cynical belief system is that just about any terrible thing you can think of has, or is currently happening.

World Health Organization Infiltrated by Food Industry- "The food industry has infiltrated the World Health Organisation, just as the tobacco industry did, and succeeded in exerting "undue influence" over policies intended to safeguard public health by limiting the amount of fat, sugar and salt we consume." Well of course they have.

US Weapons Dossier May Remain a Secret- "Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, has suggested that Washington may present little or no evidence of Iraq’s quest for banned weapons even if President Bush decides to go to war." Well of course they might.

War's Cost May Dwarf Stimulus Effect- Bush stimulus package: $674 billion over 10 years. Iraq invasion costs: $100 billion to $1.6 trillion over 10 years. Will our military spend more money than the stimulus generates? Of course.

Iraq War Could Put 10 Million In Need of Aid, U.N. Reports- of cou... Shit.

Posted by Jake at 11:37 PM | Comments (2)

January 07, 2003

White Crime

The Boston Globe is printing the results of a long investigative study in which they examined whether or not Massachusetts police officers engage in racial profiling. Not surprisingly, they do.

But here's the interesting part:

"Although blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be searched, whites are more likely than any other racial group to face drug charges following a search."

In other words, African-Americans and latinos are stopped and searched more often than whites (50% more often, according to the study), but the data shows that searches of white people's cars result in discovery of crime more often.

As a social scientist myself (kinda. I've got several important-sounding social science degrees), I know that this sort of thing should have caveats and warnings all over it (and if you're interested in them, post a comment here and I'll do what all good academics do: tear this report into tiny "these results are inconclusive" pieces). But to me, the main point is this:

Many folks seem to accept, or at least not oppose, racial profiling. They might agree that it's not egalitarian or just, but that maybe it's "necessary," buying into the stereotypes that people of color are simply more prone to criminal behavior than white folks, and that therefore racial profiling is simply an odious but pragmatic policy. If we can accept the data of this news report, the police would catch more criminals by searching white people's cars.

I don't say this as a smirky "see, white people are the real problem" jibe, but as a frowning "racial profiling is a dumb fucking idea" reality check. Racial profiling is a bad idea because it is a distraction. If you look at the numbers of this study, there really isn't that much difference in arrests among the races-

16% white
12% black
10% Hispanic
7% Asian
6% Native American
4% Middle Eastern

Frankly, there's not that much difference among those top 3, once you factor in margins of error.

Police shouldn't be in search of people of a certain race, thinking that they may have committed a crime, but should be trying to use clues and evidence to track down the right culprits, no matter what their race. Anything else is not only unjustly punishing members of one ethnicity, but threatens to let some criminals get away altogether.

Posted by Jake at 08:41 PM | Comments (4)

What Doesn't Kill Irony Just Makes It Stronger

You've probably heard the story by now.

The FBI started a manhunt for 5 illegal immigrants with alleged ties to terrorist organizations, made finding these guys their top priority. This frantic investigation was spurred by the shaky testimony of Michael John Hamdani, a man in custody for breaking laws in both the U.S. and Canada. And, surprise suprise, it turned out that Hamdani was lying. There was no "terrorist 5".

For some reason, the FBI turned off all their skepticism alarms, and figured that even though there was no evidence to support this guy's claims-- a guy who might very well be lying to try to get himself out of trouble-- they went full-speed ahead to capture the imaginary bad guys just the same.

Guess what this guy was being detained for. Go ahead, guess what crimes landed Hamdani in the hands of the police in the first place?

Fraud and forgery.

If the authorities can't trust a man who professionally spins lies to fool the authorities, then who can they trust?

My head hurts.

Posted by Jake at 02:55 PM | Comments (1)

Worse Than You Thought

The folks over at Testify! have done some digging into proposals for the Bush economic stimulus package that lay bare the rotten innards of "compassionate conservatism." Some of the highlights:

Cutting heating oil assistance
Cutting free lunches for poor children
"Military pay hike reduction" (gotta love that doublespeak)

And more. Check out the link above.

Posted by Jake at 01:40 AM | Comments (0)

January 05, 2003

It's Funny Cuz It's True

From this week's edition of the Ironic Times:

Profiles of Our New Allies
The Kurdish Militias

Where: Northern no-fly zone
Principal Virtue: Hate Saddam
Human Rights Violations: Ethnic cleansing, torture, extrajudicial executions
Policy Towards Women: A little worse than Taliban
Why We Love Them: Will help us defeat evil

Posted by Jake at 11:59 PM | Comments (1)

Cold War 2.0

Okay, why is this getting NO news coverage?

Israel is building a 220-mile long, 26 foot high wall around the West Bank

You'd think that someone might find that story interesting. Or, given the enormous geopolitical ramifications of the Israel-Palestine conflict, some people might even find the story, y'know, important.

Posted by Jake at 10:53 PM | Comments (5)

LMB Radio

I'm excited about tomorrow's show (I have a weekly internet radio show. Check the upper right corner of this page). I spent the morning going over the year-end fave lists of music critics who's opinions often match my own, and downloading tracks from any of the albums that sounded interesting. So tomorrow's program will be more or less "Jake's Best of the Critics' Best of 2002."

Of course, no LMB show is complete without some speechifying and commentary. Tomorrow I'll talk a bit about the media spectacle I helped organize this past Friday, breaking Santa Monica law to feed the homeless. And other relevant recent nooz.

Posted by Jake at 08:48 PM | Comments (0)

January 03, 2003

No War But the Class War

I very distinctly remember I heard the phrase "class war" on television. I think it was the mid-1990s, and Republican Congressmen tried to pass a tax cut. Some generic conservative legislator told a reporter "the American people are tired of hearing about 'class warfare.'"

I had two thoughts nearly simultaneously.

"No, I want to hear more about this 'class warfare' you're talking about."

and

"Wait a minute, how can I be tired of it if I haven't heard anything about it yet?"

It's absolutely hilarious, really. When conservatives try to cut taxes for the rich, they try to pre-emptively defeat the "class warfare" criticism by pretending that that angle has already been discussed at length, refuted and everyone is so sick of the topic that they want to vomit, even though not a single word on the subject has yet been uttered.

For example, regarding an "economic stimulus package" (what the hell does that really mean, anyway? Who's being stimulated and how?) that he has yet to unveil, President Bush said "Some would like to turn this into class warfare. That's not how I think." Well Mr. President, that's all well and good, but how YOU think is irrelevant to this situation. I'll bet you a trillion dollar deficit that Cheney or Rove assembled this package, not you.

But his economic stimulus plan is to cut taxes, mainly on the rich. What's the saying, "a rising tide lifts all yachts?"

And I'd like to say a few words about Bush's 2001 tax cut. The idea was to cut over $1 trillion over the course of ten years. But to make the plan look more pleasant, most of the savings don't go into effect for another 6 or 7 years, when folks like your and me won't be paying attention. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, by the time the 10 year tax plan has come and gone, 84% of the benefits will have gone to the richest 1% of the population.

Our first Chief Justice, John Jay once said, "the people who own this country ought to govern it." He'd probably like the Bush administration.

Posted by Jake at 10:23 PM | Comments (3)

Memory Hole

The U.S. Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics has a program which tracks mass-layoffs by large employers in the U.S. Until recently, the program has had a lot of work to do, because our shaky economy is making for lots of mass layoffs. These statistics remind us of our poor enconomic state, which makes the Bush administration look bad.

So, the White House took a bold step to rectify this situation. It shut down the mass layoff statistics program. Hey, it's easier than actually dealing with the economy.

It's also ironic to note that the program was shut down once before during tough economic times, in 1992-- by George W. Bush's father, George H.W. Bush.

Posted by Jake at 09:55 PM | Comments (0)

January 01, 2003

Happy 500th Post!

U.S. Bombs Hit Pakistan Town After Border Clash

Yeah, go read that headline again.

Border clash? Bombing Pakistan? "A gunbattle between U.S. and Pakistani troops"? Yeah, this is going to go over well with the Pakistanis, many of whom are fundamentalist Muslims who hate the United States, hate their president, and could potentially get their hands on some of their nation's nuclear weapons.

This is the 500th LMB post. Not quite so joyous anymore.

Posted by Jake at 10:30 PM | Comments (1)

Korean Primer

Generally, my scholarship on world affairs has focused on areas in which the United States has been involved in covert or overt military campaigns since the 1950s. That means that I'm pretty well informed about North America, South America, and parts of the Middle East, but pretty poorly informed about Europe, Africa, and parts of Asia. My ignorance on that last region is going to make analysis of the current "crisis" in North Korea a bit of a chore.

So I'm glad that I ran across this: A Korean Primer, an entry on the Agonist weblog. It seems to be a fairly objective look at the major players involved in Korean politics, what they want, and what they fear.

I'll try to better educate myself on the subject, and in the meantime, continue to post links about it by people who seem to know more than I do.

Posted by Jake at 02:18 PM | Comments (4)

December 31, 2002

Shout-Outs 2002

I guess I have three potential milestones at which I could reflect and commemorate: the year’s end, having a nice round number of blog entries (#500 is fast approaching), or the anniversary of the LMB weblog. Fuck it, I’ll just give some year-end thanks now and worry about the right and proper at some later date, when I’ve exhausted all other possible worry topics.

I'd like to thank y'all for reading. I would probably be writing obsessively on this website whether or not it was frequently visited, but the constant site traffic buoys my spirit with the knowledge that I must be doing something right. Or that if I'm doing something wrong, I'm doing it in a popular way.

More to come in 2003, of course. Hell, probably more coming in an hour or so.

Shout-Outs to:

• Tom Morello and Serj Tankian, my Axis of Justice partners/bosses in crime
  
• the Kill Radio folks
  
• Dack, who my memory tells me somehow inspired me to start with the blogging
  
• Cursor, for the info and for giving all us quasi-journalists something to aspire to
  
• Geov Parrish, for being a pal, human encyclopedia, and inspiration
  
• the Anti-Flag family for the support, music, and shoe-shopping trips
  
• David "Get Your War On" Rees for surgical humor funnier than I will be in five lifetimes
  
• Blowback/Scribbler for the shameless publicity (publicity thanks to Dack as well)
  
• Garrick Ruiz for bravely travelling to Palestine with the sole goal of using his body and passport to help desperate people at a dangerous time (his emailed reports are available on this site here)
  
• PR Watch for keeping an eye on those PR motherfuckers
  
• O’Dwyer’s PR Daily for (until recently) helping ME keep an eye on those PR motherfuckers
  
• Scott Ritter for single-handedly postponing the Iraq war by several weeks to several months
  
• Bob Morris for some damn fine national and local political blogging
  
• Destroy All Monthly for making all kinds of 13-year old California punks read my stuff
  
• Jim and Peter of FAIR for making Greens and Chomsky fans read one of my articles
  
• the Goat-Kittie for so many things
  
• the Screaming Hindu for our frequent sanity mind-melds
  
• Lucifer Noble for occasionally dragging me into the world outside
  
• Hauler-Tower for being what friends are supposed to be (take lessons, kids)
  
• the Clones for experiments in music, cinema and cuisine
  
• the musicians who rocked my world this year: Against Me, J-Live, the Coup, System of a Down, the Liars, mclusky, Covenant, the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, the White Stripes, the Distillers, Refused, the (International) Noise Conspiracy, the Catheters, Interpol, the Donnas, Baseck, the Venetian Snares, Camper Van Beethoven, Mindless Self-Indulgence, Lightning Bolt, Blackalicious, Amon Tobin, etc.
  
• the Simpsons
  
• RTMark, the Yes Men, Negativland, and all the activist pranksters
  
• Mediageek for being what this site pretends to be-- a blog about current events in the world of media
  
• Mike Park, John K, Schu, Louella, Carrie, Denise, AK Hologram, Leah Wells, Jim Keady, Leslie Kretzu, Nomi, Roree, Jamie Z, Kelley, Keith, Sweatshop Watch, Anti-Racist Action, ANCA, WRL, IMC, and a cast of thousands…
  
• And while we’re at it, let’s link to all the various blogs and sites that seem to be sending me traffic in the past year: Dack, Cursor, Blowback, Scribbler, Liberal Oasis, Doug’s Dynamic Drivel, Not Quite Random, overhaul/undertow, Alas a Blog, Interesting Times, Kill Your TV, I Don’t Feel So Good, Politics in the Zeros, Thinking It Through, Musings & Meanderings of an Unabashed Liberal, Busy Busy Busy, GreenThink, Almost There, Thoughts on the Eve of the Apocalypse, Rhetorica, Church Central, Ruminate This, Anger Management Course, William Burton, Action Figures Sold Separately, What Really Happened, and several rookie up and comers.
  

This is getting too long. Better wrap it up.
The Fuck You’s go out to:

• all governments
  
• all corporations
  
• all CEOs
  
• all Fundamentalists
  
• everyone in the PR industry
  
• the Democrats
  
• the Republicans
  
• Clear Channnel
  
• the RIAA
  
• the pharmaceutical industry
  
• Fox News Channel
  

And finally, Double Fuck You’s to a select few:

• the Sociopath-in-Chief
  
• Dick “I wouldn’t know compassion if it bit me in the ass while I was torturing orphans” Cheney
  
• Skeletor Rumsfeld
  
• the Enron honchos who fucking looted California, destroyed their employees, and still aren’t going to face any jail time
  
• fanged warmongers Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz
  
• THE COWARDLY, LAZY AMERICAN PRESS CORPS, SERVING AS BARRICADES BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND THE TRUTH, AND BUTTRESSING THE TRANSITION FROM PLUTOCRATIC REPUBLIC TO PLUTOCRATIC POLICE STATE.
  

Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.

Now go hug somebody; they'll like it, I swear.

Posted by Jake at 04:14 PM | Comments (4)

December 30, 2002

Vote Irony

Just saw a television commericial that is supposed to encourage me to go out and vote. Not sure who made it or paid for it.

A young man is in his car at the drive-thru window of a fast food restaurant. He announces his order to the clerk over the loudspeaker, when suddenly another young man comes walking up to the speaker. The walker pretends to be the driver, and claims that he wants to change his order, and places an order for a completely different meal. The driver restates his original order, and the walker again tries to change it. The two start speaking faster and louder, talking over each other, each trying to order different meals for the driver. The ad then cuts away and says something like "frustrating when someone else makes decisions for you, isn't it? That's what happens when you don't vote." So now, feeling sympathetic frustration for the poor fast food ordering victim, I'm supposed to vow to engage in American democracy from now on.

But the HUGE irony here is that voting explicitly authorizes someone else to make decisions for me. Representative democracy is about choosing someone to make all legislative and executive decisions in your place, with only minimal accountability to the people they are allegedly representing. The commercial presents a problem, but their proposed solution to the problem actually causes the exact same problem.

Voting in this country is not like giving your order to the fast food cashier without interference, it's like being allowed to choose the person (from a VERY narrow field) who will walk up alongside your car and fuck with your order.

What a stupid ad.

Posted by Jake at 07:00 PM | Comments (1)

December 29, 2002

Death = $$$

Forbes magazine's company of the Year:

Northrop Grumman

To quote our man Dack:

"Northrop Grumman is positioned to profit nicely from the War on Terror. The company is the prime contractor on the B2, and a major subcontractor on both the F-18E/F and the new Joint Strike Fighter. Northrop Grumman makes the unmanned Global Hawk (which got rave reviews in Afghanistan), is building the X-47 UCAV for the Navy, and, like Boeing, has a strong UCAV program. The best thing about owning this company, however, is its strong connections with current officials in the Bush administration (the secretary of the Air Force is a former Northrop Grumman president, for crying out loud), and its well-targeted campaign contributions to key members of both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees."

Just a tip to any of you amoral investors out there.

Posted by Jake at 08:27 PM | Comments (1)

December 21, 2002

Grrr....

US wrecks cheap drugs deal- "Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, last night blocked a global deal to provide cheap drugs to poor countries, following intense lobbying of the White House by America's pharmaceutical giants."

Good to see that Cheney remembered a holiday gift for his pal, the Grim Reaper.

Posted by Jake at 12:35 PM | Comments (0)

Memories

It was 1994, my freshman year at college. A state election was nearly upon us. And one of the most controversial measures was a ballot initiative known as Proposition 187. 187 had three main provisions: 1) cracking down on illegal immigration to the U.S., 2) preventing illegal immigrants from attending public schools, and 3) preventing illegal immigrants from treatment at public health facilities. And, since this is California we're talking about, that didn't mean "all immigrants from all over the world," it referred primarily to the poor latino immigrants who come to the U.S. looking for work, or fleeing from their dictatorships back home.

But I don't think I'll ever forget a single, brief conversation I had on the subject of Proposition 187. Two (white) friends/acquantainces of mine were telling me a bit stridently about their plans to vote in favor of 187, because of all of our tax money that was being spent educating and healing non-citizens. There was a long pause before I made my slow contribution to the discussion.

"I haven't studied the bill that much... But it seems like it's about strongly enforcing the current immigration laws... I'm not really familiar with the state of our immigration laws, so I really can't take a stand on 187 yet."

Then a looooooooooooooong embarassed silence from my pals.

They realized that what I said was just as true about themselves as it was about me. Even though they'd both been enthusiastically explaining their reasons for supporting the bill, they also knew nothing about immigration.

The whole Prop. 187 debate was loud and messy. Basically, the law appealed to the racism in white voters, giving them an acceptable outlet for it: they weren't denying latinos health care out of hostility, they were doing it because it was a drain on the state budget. They weren't denying latino children education because of bigotry, but because it wasn't fair to California taxpayers. Of course, there probably were some voters who made their decision based upon their strong feelings about California's finances, but I suspect that there were many who didn't, or at least many who let their decision-making process get tainted by some of their racial fears.

My thoughts on the issue were pretty simple: kids need to be educated and sick people need doctors, no matter on which side of an imaginary line they were born. Let the kids learn and the injured get treatment on my dime, it's okay with me.

And my pragmatic side wondered how 187 service denial--building a population of young, uneducated immigrants, who might be running around with infections diseases that they couldn't have treated at a clinic--was beneficial to legal California residents.

I bring this up now because of the current detentions of Middle Eastern immigrants. Locking them up or deporting them because "they might be terrorists" is just as "rational" as denying illegal latino immigrants access to the classroom because it's "a drain on the state budget." If you buy into these policies, just ask yourself if you agree because of the logic and outcomes of the policies, or if you agree because it will keep you away from a group of people who's appearance and culture frighten you.

Posted by Jake at 01:59 AM | Comments (1)

December 19, 2002

Perspective

I wrote earlier today about the INS detaining many immigrants of Middle Eastern descent when they showed up as ordered by the state. I imagine it's hard for many American natives to understand why this situation is so heinous. I mean, they're not American citizens, so what's the big deal? I don't like copying and pasting from other blogs, but I think that Atrios does a good job of putting our feet in someone else's shoes:

"Look folks - imagine you're dealing with your DMV. Imagine Flunky #1 messes up your driver's license application and tells you to come down to the office. Then, when you do go down to the office as requested Flunky #2 notices you drove there AND you don't have your driver's license (because, well, they screwed up your application). Flunky #2's boss recently decided they now had a no-tolerance policy on such things and he has you arrested and thrown in jail.

"Then, of course it doesn't stop there. The special DMV judge operates his own special DMV court which has its own rules. Speedy trial? Nah. You could be there awhile. Who will support your family? Who knows. Chances for appeal? Not really.

"The DMV judge deports you back to a country you haven't lived in for 10-15 years. Your American children wave goodbye, as does your wife."

Real live people with real live families are getting fucked by this policy.

Posted by Jake at 11:54 PM | Comments (1)

Fun Fact

"Among the nation’s 9,040 black elected officials, the Joint Center for Political Studies counted
only 50 from the GOP."

Posted by Jake at 10:46 AM | Comments (0)

Barking Up Every Wrong Tree

Sigh.

"Lines began forming before dawn today outside the downtown federal building here as hundreds of men from five Muslim countries showed up to register with immigration authorities under a sweeping national dragnet designed to identify potential terrorists."

"Attorney General John Ashcroft issued an order last month requiring virtually all male noncitizens over the age of 16 who come from 18 countries, mostly Arab and Muslim, to be interviewed, photographed and fingerprinted by federal authorities. The program affects tens of thousands of immigrants from those countries, most of whom hold valid work and study visas."

And, I guess we shouldn't be surprised that

"Over the past week, agency officials enforcing the program have handcuffed and detained hundreds of men who showed up to be fingerprinted. In some cases the men had expired student or work visas; in other cases the men could not provide adequate documentation of their immigration status. At one point on Friday, officials in the Los Angeles office ran out of plastic handcuffs as they herded men into the basement lockup of the federal building."

As you might expect, many immigrants are pissed. These people who chose to come live in the United States, who also tried to comply with the law and recent rule of the Justice Department are thrown in jail, where many may be deported.

The most obvious analysis:

"If they were terrorists, they would not show up to the INS for the registration."

Seriously. The same way that asking drug dealers to turn themselves into the police would probably not result in many arrests. All you get with this is people who are a) innocent, b) naive, c) guilty and really, really stupid.

Looks to me like another one of those "let's make mainstream America think that we're working hard to fight the war on terrorism by taking completely ineffective action and targetting the nation's most vulnerable" sort of things (see war on drugs, war on poverty for examples).

Posted by Jake at 10:32 AM | Comments (0)

December 18, 2002

Senator Jeckyll

A few days back, I predicted that Senator William Frist would replace Trent Lott as majority leader, if Lott were driven from the position. Tom Spencer gives us some dirt on the man. And it's some pretty creepy dirt at that.

First of all, it seems that Frist built his fortune from the family business, the immense HCA/Columbia hospital chain. And HCA/C apparently got rich by purchasing non-profit hospitals, kicking out the poor patients, and then making them for-profit hospitals. And by defrauding Medicare for hundreds of millions of dollars. And illegally preventing its workers from forming unions.

But that's just slimey, where's the creepy?

Here you go.

Frist is a doctor. His dream in the 1970s was to make heart and lung transplants a reality. He began trying to make this dream a reality by experimenting on animals, and in the process, killing them. When Frist had trouble finding new animals to experiment on, "he went to the animal shelters around Boston and promised he would care for the cats as pets. Then he killed them during experiments. 'It was a heinous and dishonest thing to do,' Frist wrote. 'I was going a little crazy.'"

Yes, the probable new head of the Senate spent his earlier years performing deadly medical experiments on stray housepets.

That's pretty fucked up.

And given my sick sense of humor, I want to hyper-exaggerate Frist's past, and portray him as a mad scientist. In my mind's eye, he roams the shadowy back alleys of Nashville, keen eyes scanning for fur or movement. As the first fingers of dawn streak the sky, he skulks home, the sack on his back that writhing and mewling. He retreats to his underground laboratory, AND BEGINS BUILDING AN ARMY OF UNDEAD REPUBLICAN ZOMBIES OUT OF THE LIMBS AND ORGANS OF DEAD KITTENS!!

I don't know about you, but I'm locking my doors and windows tonight.

Posted by Jake at 10:42 PM | Comments (1)

December 17, 2002

Sleight of Mouth

Okay, get ready for this one.

Remember the "Office of Strategic Influence"?

It was a new agency proposed by Donald "Skeletor" Rumsfeld back in February of this year. The OSI would try to drum up support for American foreign policy in other nations.

But the OSI came under heavy fire because one of the methods that it proposed to use was to plant false stories in foreign news media. There was a good deal of outrage among journalists that there was open talk of lying to them. After all the controversy, Rumsfeld publicly announced the closure of the OSI.

In November, media watchdogs FAIR wondered aloud if perhaps the OSI had continued operations, merely discarding its old title. A very wise question. I think we now have answers.

Watch carefully:

From the New York Times, 02/19/02:

"The Pentagon is developing plans to provide news items, possibly even false ones, to foreign media organizations as part of a new effort to influence public sentiment and policy makers in both friendly and unfriendly countries, military officials said."

From the New York Times, 12/15/02

"The Defense Department is considering issuing a secret directive to the American military to conduct covert operations aimed at influencing public opinion and policy makers in friendly and neutral countries, senior Pentagon and administration officials say."

Okay, did I just step into a fucking time machine here? Is the New York Times printed on paper twisted into a Mobius strip? Those descriptions are virtually identical! The only difference is that the second quote uses the broader term of "covert operations." Which of course, can include "provid[ing] news items, possibly even false ones, to foreign media organizations."

To their credit, the more recent NYT piece does make reference to the failure of the OSI. But its failure to put two and two together is sheer neglect.

But all in all, I guess the story isn't that groundbreaking. "It's official government policy to lie to people? Say it ain't so!"

Posted by Jake at 09:37 PM | Comments (0)

With Eyes Tightly Clenched

Bush Begins New American Security Program

"In a move to increase the safety and security of American citizens, President George W. Bush has embarked upon a radical new program. The new strategy will focus on obtaining real, useful intelligence about Al Qaeda in order to disrupt its operations, while simultaneously eroding the terrorists' popular support by radically altering American foreign policy in the region. This two-pronged attack will certainly save more American lives than that dumb-ass 'Missile Defense Program' that the president has been peddling for the past two years. I mean, for Christ's sake, the largest attack on American soil in decades was performed with boxcutters! Guys with steak knives! How the hell could an anti-missile system protect us from that?"

Oh wait, I read that wrong.

Bush Sets Missile Defense System In Motion

"President Bush has decided to deploy a limited system designed to protect the United States against a ballistic missile attack, with the first phase of the controversial system scheduled to be deployed within two years."

Stupid fucking country.

Posted by Jake at 09:54 AM | Comments (3)

Punch Drunk

Man, Trent Lott is going down.

I saw part of his interview on Black Entertainment Television tonight, and I shut it off because it was so pathetic.

Lott's response to the tsunami of criticism of his roundabout endorsement of Jim Crow is "I'm sorry that what I said hurt people, it was a terrible thing to say," and to float the idea that maybe he can make things right with the African-American community by passing some legislation on their behalf.

That's it? You think that lame-ass half-apology and a promise of vague pro-black law is going to keep you your job?

You got caught, Trent. You've been doing the two-faced two-step for years, wooing White Racist Mississippi and mainstream racist-hating Mississippi at the same time. You got caught using one of your "I hate the darkies too" code phrases in public. At this point, you really had to make a choice about which of these two voting blocs, the mainstream or the racist, you wanted to keep. But you got greedy and tried to keep both, and now you're toast.

If on day one, Lott had said something like "I greatly admire Strom Thurmond's intelligence and tenacity, and although I disagree with many of this personal opinions, I think his personal characteristics would have made him an excellent president," then he might have survived. But in doing so, he would have alienated the racist voter bloc by backing down from his subtle racist rhetoric. Or, he could've said "yes, America would have been better off with the contiuation of segregation," then he would have held on to his racist supporters but alienated everyone else.

Instead, he's trying to take the middle road, and everyone can see right through him. His apology doesn't convince in the slightest, and he dodges around the central question that (depending on his answer) could condemn him or set him free: Is Trent Lott a racist? If he could convince people that, despite his words, that he was not a racist, then he could possibly hold on to his position.

My prediction is that Lott will remain in the Senate, will be removed from the majority leader position, and will be replaced by Tennesee senator Bill Frist. The mainstream press is arguing that second-in-command Don Nickles will take the reins, but since his voting record is nearly identical to Lott's, I think that the party will try to innoculate itself against further criticism by putting another high-ranking Republican--with a bit more credibility on racial issues-- in charge of the team. (I don't really feel like Senate staffing decisions are actually very important, but I wanted to try my hand at some wonky political prognosticating)

[edit]

Did Trent Lott convince the BET viewers? Check the BET messageboard and find out (link via Cursor)

[/edit]

Posted by Jake at 12:34 AM | Comments (0)

December 13, 2002

Better Living Through Prankery

Hmm, how to summarize this twisted, yet brilliant story...

Some subversive activist types bought the domain name dow-chemical.com. On December 3, dow-chemical.com sent out an email press release masquerading as the real Dow Chemical company. The press release was about the Bhopal disaster of 1984, an industrial accident at a Union Carbide factory which killed tens of thousands of Indians. Dow now owns Union Carbide, and December 3 was the anniversary of the accident (I think you can see where this is going...).

The press release more or less said "We, the Dow Chemical company, probably did cause the massive death of the Bhopal disaster, but we can't acknowledge that we did because it would cost us money, and our shareholders wouldn't like that" (go read the full version, it's great). And if anyone wanted to double check the dow-chemical.com report by going to the corresponding web address, they would find a remarkably sly parody Dow site which looks almost exactly like the Dow site. Apparently, hundreds were taken in by the hoax, and wrote back with outrage.

The real Dow was obviously, um, "displeased" with these events, and was able to shut down the site with relatively little fuss (it's actually pretty funny. In order to maximize realism [and irony], the pranksters registered dow-chemical.com under the name of the son of Dow's CEO, complete with his real home address. So when Dow went to shut down the site, they found that they already legally owned it, and just changed all the content). But people are mirroring the site all around the world, including most appropriately DowEthics.com.

In related news, a different fellow set up a parody website of Burson-Marsteller, the PR company that helped Union Carbide/Dow try to spin its way out of responsibility for Bhopal (site has since been changed). B-M promptly sued the college freshman, who wrote up a lengthy, satirical legal brief in response. I'm reading through it now, and it's pretty funny.

To read all about it, check some of these reports:

YesMen.org

®(TM)ark.com

Excellent work amigos, excellent work.

Posted by Jake at 09:56 PM | Comments (1)

Good Weekend Reads

Quality columnist Eric Margolis is interviewed on CNN's "American Morning with Paula Zahn" about the new "Iraq sells nerve gas to Al Qaeda" rumors. I was happy to see that he is also highly skeptical of the report, both for its sketchy presentation, and due to his extensive knowledge of Middle Eastern regional politics. Or, in his words:

"Well, it seems to me to be a planted story that has come from someone in the administration, and when they don't have a hard story with facts and figures to it, they simply say, Well, we can't really deny or confirm it, we don't know it's true.

"But the net effect of this is that people who listen to the news here and say, Yes, Iraq is applying chemical or biological weapons to terrorist groups.

"Now, this story is interesting because it alleges that Iraq sold some amount of VX to an obscure Lebanese group, that is almost unheard of in the north of Lebanon, which then smuggled it out across Turkey, and somehow it has gotten into the hands of al Qaeda, it just -- the pieces don't add up..."

And here's a story about the conflict in Venezuela. An article in Spanish by reporter Hans Dieterich, translated to English and posted by Narco News, called "Why Are the Coup Plotters So Impatient?". It is a very well thought-out piece that asks a very vital question. The rich folks of Venezuela have now tried four times to oust Hugo Chavez this year. Yet the Venezuelan Constitution says that a sitting president can be ousted in an election after serving half of the term. Which means that Chavez could be legally removed, with little muss or fuss, by August of 2003. What is so pressing that the coup plotters risk violence and defeat now? (If you think that the answer has something to do with money, you're correct)

Posted by Jake at 06:10 PM | Comments (0)

Hooray for Our Side

Kissinger Quits As Chairman of 9/11 Panel

Posted by Jake at 03:34 PM | Comments (1)

As American as White Supremacy

So Trent Lott, one of the most powerful leaders of the Republican party, has publicly stated that Jim Crow segregation is neat. I can't imagine that's going to help them win over minority voters in the coming elections.

When I first read the quote, I was willing to believe that Lott wasn't making a statement about policy, but was merely intending to compliment Strom Thurmond, the Senate's most lovable Cro-Magnon, on his 486th birthday. I could easily imagine a situation where Lott meant, "Gee Stromy, you're a great fella! You shoulda been president."

But in 1980, Lott again said that Thurmond should've been elected president-- but it couldn't have been a light-hearted compliment then, because Strom wasn't present... And if you believe it, some anonymous guy has contacted cartoonist Tom Tomorrow, claiming that he has a tape of Lott again wishing that Strom was president at a bill-signing in 2000. And if Lott made these comments not intending them as compliments, then you have to look at their actual content, and it ain't pretty.

Back when Strom ran for president in 1948, he had a one issue platform: segregtion now, segregation forever. Or, in Strom's own words, "I want to tell you, ladies and gentleman, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theatres, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches". And Trent Lott said last week that if America had elected this redneck piece of shit president in 1948, that "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years." (One wonders which "problems" Lott is referring to)

So now the media is reporting the whole event like a chess game, which political actor makes which move when, and what repercussions it might have for party politics and personal careers. But there's a lot more serious shit going on here that is not getting touched.

1) Whether or not Lott is a racist, he has been pursuing racist policies in Congress for decades.
2) "Segregation" was not just a policy of separate but equal, but a regularly violent and oppressive system to keep whites on the top of the social order. It wasn't just separate drinking fountains, but KKK attacks, lynchings, intimidation, illegal police repression, and, well, terrorism against African-Americans that lasted for about a century after the Civil War.
3) If Lott is not a racist, he is serving a racist constituency in his home state. Frankly, my opinion is that "Strom should have been president" is one of those non-racist-sounding code phrases that mainstream politicians use as a tip of the hat to bigots. It's called the "Southern strategy", and was big during the Nixon years.

But my biggest concern of all is how shallow and limited this discussion of racism is, when it could be doing so much more. I don't care if Trent Lott is a racist, I hated him before the idea had ever been broached. I'd like him, and every member of Congress to resign, and then jump into a live volcano. But plenty of white politicians and pundits seem to be trying to earn anti-racist credentials by denouncing Lott as a racist. "There, see, I am saying that the guy who said racist stuff is wrong! I still don't give a shit about minorities, and once this controversy blows over, I can go back to pretending that racism doesn't exist!"

I'm going to quote my pal Geov Parrish here, because he says it better than I will (hell, feel free to quit reading my article and read his instead):

"In Washington yesterday, on the very day Senator Lott was issuing his half- hearted 'I'm sorry if I was misunderstood' apologies, it took the famously assimilationist Clarence Thomas to remind his fellow Supreme Court justices, in arguments regarding the free speech rights of cross burners, that burning a cross is not just a source of warmth. It had been used by the KKK for a solid century as a threat of violence. It is a threat every bit as real and pointed as a mobster putting a gun to your head, and as such should be every bit as illegal. But why should Thomas' fellow justices, among the most powerful people in the country, know such a thing? We don't talk about it in polite company.

"We also don't talk about the epidemic of fatal shootings of black and other non-white citizens by police forces across the country; or of law enforcement, and laws themselves, whose very structure impacts non-white communities most heavily. (The War on Drugs is the most obvious but hardly the only example.) The 1860 United States census counted 3,950,546 slaves in the country; in 2002, we're up to over half that number of inmates in our prisons, and growing rapidly despite declining crime rates. It's a population that is heavily non-white. Outside the prison walls, from the reservation to the farmworker encampment to the ghetto, the worst poverty and the most toxic environments in America are suffered by nonwhites. People of color have lower birthweights, do worse in school, get lousier jobs, get paid less at those jobs, get worse health care, and die younger than their white counterparts. Trent Lott is a symptom. Trent Lott is not the problem here."

White America has chosen a very convenient definition for racism: "hating someone of another race." Therefore, as long as you don't go around stringing up people from other races, then you're not a racist. Hell, let's take it one step further. I know a lot of white folks that act like they're candidates for sainthood for not being bigots. Great, you've got one friend who's Chinese and another who's black. What do you want, a fucking medal?

Bottom line: it's easy for us white folks to point at Trent Lott, or Strom the fossil, or neo-nazi skinheads and denounce them for their overt, crazy racism. What's hard is actually looking at the regular racist attitudes and practices in our society, and the way that WE BENEFIT from racist institutions. And perhaps hardest of all is to decide to voluntarily give up these privileges, and to begin the work to examine our culture, minds and behaviors, and begin making changes.

Writer bell hooks has written a lot about the feminist movement, and one thing that has alwasy intrigued me was the idea of the consciousness-rasing groups that were formed at the movement's birth. Sexism is a series of beliefs, attitudes and practices, and these groups existed so that both men and women (women first), could talk and explore what they thought and felt, to get to the root of it all. Women finding out that deep down, they actually had come to believe that women were inferior to men, men finding out that they also held sexist beliefs which hurt both themselves and the women in their lives. This sort of thing was important, because without seeing the problem, you can't fix the problem. Once the people realized the sexism within them, they could start to combat those beliefs, replace harmful behaviors with helpful ones, etc.

Frankly, I think we need some consciousness-raising groups about race and race relations, but I doubt that that will ever happen. White people are very afraid of talking about race. They "know" that they aren't racist (i.e. they don't fervently hate other races), but are afraid that they'll "misspeak" and be permanently branded as racists. In the groups that hooks talked about, the thoughts, not the people who held them, were the problem. You weren't judged to be a bad person for having sexist thoughts, you identified them so you could try to conquer them. But these days, judgements would probably come. And therefore I'm pretty sure that few white people would get involved with this sort of thing. I'm an activist, but not an optimist.

This has to be one of the longer rants that I've ever written on here, but it's important. After Trent Lott is expelled or punished or what-have-you, White America will go back to pretending that racism is just a minor matter. And thanks to our popular theology of social evolution (i.e. "American society just naturally moves towards more freedom, more equality and more justice"), white folks will feel like they don't have to take any action to fix those minor problems. They'll just fix themselves, eventually.

So go ahead and flame away now. I'll take the heat, and I'll stay in the kitchen.

Posted by Jake at 02:34 PM | Comments (1)

Men of God, Not Men of the People

I don't trust polls, this is strictly for humor value.

Saw a recent news article with the headline Fundamentalists Losing Favor with Public. The article appeared on a gay news website, so the authors have to really contain their glee at the bad news for their natural predator, the Preachy Fundamentalist Christian.

You can see the detailed results of the survey here.

The question asked 1002 American adults was "Is your impression of people in this group generally favorable, generally unfavorable, or somewhere in-between?" and then they were given 11 "types" of people to rate. Military officers beat out everybody. "Evangelicals" came in second to last, just below "lesbians" and just above "prostitutes."

Which is hi-larious on many, many different levels.

Posted by Jake at 08:22 AM | Comments (0)

December 11, 2002

Random

Media Juggernaut Coalition- cable conglomerate Liberty Media is looking to create a satelite TV system, possibly with the help of the News Corp. media giant. Also, Viacom is expecting the FCC to relax regulations that will allow it to buy even more television stations in 2003.

Postal Service May Be Urged to Privatize- "President Bush plans to name a commission today to look into privatizing part of the United States Postal Service, warning that the government cannot continue to provide universal mail service at current rates, administration officials said." Yes, Bush wants to privatize the post office. FedEx board of directors become erect at the news.

Aliens Pledge Their Support in War with Iraq- look out peace activists, Weekly World News reports that a group of America-lovin' extraterrestials are backing Bush's war plans.

Posted by Jake at 05:47 PM | Comments (0)

December 10, 2002

MOTHERFUCKER!!

I CANNOT believe this shit. I'm so angry I can barely type.

U.S. set to use mines in Iraq

"The Pentagon is preparing to use anti-personnel land mines in a war with Iraq, despite U.S. policy that calls for the military to stop using the mines everywhere in the world except Korea by 2003."

Jesus Christ!

The people of Iraq got bombed back to the Middle Ages during the Gulf War, irradiated by the US' depleted uranium tank shells, have suffered through a decade of economic sanctions that's killed more than a million civilians, get bombed fairly regularly by US & UK planes in the illegal "no-fly zone," and now we're going to fill their country with landmines so that a generation of "liberated" Iraqi youth can know the wonders of shrapnel scars and prosthetic limbs?

I'm actually beginning to hope that there is a Hell, because there ain't no Earth suffering that can punish these Washington warmongers enough to balance the scales.

[An enraged thanks to Dack.]

Posted by Jake at 11:02 PM | Comments (3)

Gah!!

US Won't Say Which Pharmaceutical GM Crop Escaped from Prodigene Corporation- Christ!

There's this corporation called ProdiGene. In their words, "ProdiGene is a private biotechnology company pioneering the use of transgenic plants to produce recombinant proteins for the pharmaceutical, animal health and industrial protein markets."

Apparently, some of ProdiGene's genetically-engineered corn contaminated a crop of non-genetically-engineered soybeans. The company was forced to buy around 500,000 tons of the contaminated soybeans and destroy them at a cost of $2.8 million, and then pay a fine for $250,000.

What makes this story so scary is that ProdiGene doesn't just engineer tomatoes that stay fresh longer or corn that is resistant to weed-killer. ProdiGene creates crops that internally produce medicinal chemicals. And as the headline above says, neither the government not the corporation will tell the public what bio-pharmaceutical was present in the tainting corn. Vegan Blog has investigated the company and speculates that the soybeans could've been tainted with an AIDS medication, a blood-clotting agent, an insulin-production stimulant, an industrial adhesive, or a vaccine for hepatitis B.

Mmm. Tastes like... The Future!

[Thanks to Politics in the Zeros]

Posted by Jake at 04:20 PM | Comments (0)

December 09, 2002

News of the Creepy

Secret blasts rattle Cheney's neighbors

"Neighbors of Vice President Dick Cheney are being shaken and rattled at least once a day by mysterious blasts on the grounds of the U.S. Naval Observatory where Cheney lives.

The Navy says the explosions are part of a construction project that has been going on for several months now, but won't say more because the project is classified."

Go ahead and read that article. It's kind of spooky. Mysterious explosions as part of a classified construction project at Dick Cheney's house. Hmmm... Maybe it's just an attempt to make his home sturdier, and offer the VP more protection from possible attacks. Or maybe it's something more sinister:

Artist rendering of Dick Cheney Memorial Superweapon

And I can't help reading that above article without thinking of this.

Posted by Jake at 10:18 PM | Comments (0)

Tired

Loooong weekend. Work-related entertainment mainly, organizing political tabling at rock shows. "Saw" four concerts in two days. For two of those concerts, I was in the lobby attending to activist volunteers, not watching (of the remaining two shows, at one I saw only one band, and then had to leave to see one band at the second concert. Did I really attend 4 concerts of more than two dozen bands and only catch two performances?). Which was actually a good thing, since so many of the bands sucked. Trust Co.? Taproot? Who listens to this shite?

At tonight's tabling, I had one of my fellow Kill Radio DJs spread the word (this wasn't me being an opportunist, it was time constraint. Folks dropped out, and I had to turn to my colleagues to help me out). Which was frequently satisfying, as we were promoting our "destroy corporate radio" movement inside one of corporate radio's largest yearly concert events. I'm not trying to pretend that our little stunt dealt corporate media a stunning blow, but I do enjoy any and all things subversive, even the little ones.

Over the course of the two days, we also managed to get a lot of publicity for Sweatshop Watch, RAINN, and the Anarchist Black Cross Federation. Thanks to all them for helping me out.

Sorry, no insightful political commentary today, I'm barely conscious. Well, okay, one tidbit: Al Qaeda now seems intent on creating its holy war between Islam and Judeo-Christianity by attacking Israel and trying to draw it into the "war on terrorism." I can't think of anything that could draw more Muslims to Osama bin Laden's cause than that. They're some clever evil bastards, those Al Qaedans.

Posted by Jake at 12:04 AM | Comments (0)

December 06, 2002

Quickly

Sorry folks, not much time to post things lately.

Two articles that have struck my attention though:

HBO Recycling Gulf War Hoax?- The HBO movie channel is showing an original TV movie called Live from Baghdad, a "true story" movie about CNN reporters during the first Gulf War. Unfortunately, the movie is standing one tale on its head. I've written here numberous times about the baby incubator lie spun by a PR company that helped sell the Iraq war to the American public. But according to FAIR, the HBO movie implies that just the opposite was true:

CNN correspondent: You are aware of the allegations, doctor?
[Kuwaiti] Doctor: I have heard these stories.
CNN producer Ingrid Formanek (whisper): This sucks. He's scared.
CNN producer Robert Wiener (whisper): Yeah, this is bad.
Doctor: I can tell you, nothing has happened at this hospital... that I know.
Correspondent: But at other hospitals?
Doctor: I cannot tell about other hospitals.
Iraqi handler: Finish! Finish! We go now!
Formanek: To the other hospitals?
Handler: No, back to Baghdad!
Wiener: Hey, hey, that was part of the deal!
Handler: That is story.

Sadly, as a decade has passed since the original story, a new generation of people might come to believe the lie again. I have to wonder if corporate synergy is at work here. A movie about CNN reporters on HBO, when both networks are owned by AOL-Time Warner. Perhaps the movie is meant as a puff piece about the news network.

UN: Water Deemed As Public Good, Human Right- with the increasing efforts by mega-corporations to privatize water in Third World countries (and don't think that we're not next), this story comes as a bit of good news. "The United Nations Committee on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights issued a statement Wednesday declaring access to water a human right and stating that water is a social and cultural good, not merely an economic commodity." Granted, UN declarations are ignored at the drop of a hat, but still...

Posted by Jake at 09:32 AM | Comments (0)

December 03, 2002

Return of the King

There's this little movie trilogy called the Lord of the Rings. Maybe you've heard of it.

Two of the movies' stars and its director were on America's dullest talk show, Charlie Rose this evening for a half-hour to talk about it.

The guy on the far right is actor Viggo Mortensen. In the Lord of the Rings movies, he plays Aragorn, a noble warrior who is reluctantly assuming his country's throne.

Check his t-shirt in the photo. It says "No More Blood for Oil".

Charlie Rose asked Viggo about his shirt, which then turned into about 5-6 minutes of debate about the war on Iraq on national television, a sad rarity.

Viggo said that he has heard many people compare the good vs. evil plot of LOTR to the U.S. vs. terrorism events running through real life. Viggo wanted to oppose this point of view, and proposed a counter-analogy in which the terror and loss of innocent life caused by the U.S. war on terrorism would make the country more like the movies' villains than like their heroes. Host Charlie Rose seemed to want to shut Mortensen up, and took some cheap shots in an apparent effort to beat him into submission, something like "well what action would you have taken after 9-11 that would have prevented the recent terrorist attacks in Kenya?"

Mortensen managed to weather Rose's inquisition, and the host seemed to realize that it was best just to let the man say his piece and then move on to talking about the movies. Mortensen's main point seemed to be that the U.S. response to the 9-11 attacks is dangerous, deadly, and nearly unquestioned. He came across as extremely intelligent and reasonable, and managed to hijack 5 minutes of movie promo time to express a politically unpopular point of view.

For all that, he's got my respect.

Posted by Jake at 11:37 PM | Comments (96)

Homework Assignment

This shit is GENIUS.

As I've mentioned here before, the recent Homeland Security Act authorizes the government to create an amazingly huge database to be used to spy and collect data on American citizens. [Insert your own horrified "1984" allusion here] It's called "Total Information Awareness," a program of the Information Awareness Office. And this office will be run by all-around scumbag John Poindexter, the dude who brought us the Iran-Contra affair. Violations of privacy will become legion.

But blogger John Gilmore has an idea (which he says was inspired by SF Weekly columnist Matt Smith): the Total Information Awareness Demonstration for Poindexter.

"The SF Weekly's column by Matt Smith in the Dec 3 issue points out that there may be some information that John M. and Linda Poindexter of 10 Barrington Fare, Rockville, MD, 20850, may be missing in their pursuit of total information awareness. He suggests that people with information to offer should phone +1 301 424 6613 to speak with that corrupt official and his wife...

"Matt Smith at matt.smith@sfweekly.com has offered to 'publish anything that readers can convincingly claim to have obtained legally.'"

In other words, these fellas have made the brilliant call to action to gather all possible personal information about John Poindexter and his wife Linda. If Poindexter wants to take away all our privacy rights, let's make sure he gets the first taste. Find everything you can on the motherfucker, and get it to Smith.

[Thanks to Politics in the Zeros]

Posted by Jake at 12:29 PM | Comments (5)

Propaganda 2002

You're gonna love this one.

The Bush administration and the Pentagon want a war with Iraq, and know that the best way to justify such a war would be to publicly display damning evidence that Iraq is a threat to the United States.

Unfortunately for them, the CIA--the primary source for this kind of evidence--can't find any.

To rectify this situation, the Defense Department has begin a campaign to create its own damning Iraqi evidence, and to discredit the CIA. Talk about playing hardball.

Now get this.

The Defense Department is relying heavily on the Iraqi National Conference (INC) for their damning evidence. The INC presents itself as a dissident force ready to step in and take the reins of Iraq from Saddam Hussein's cluster-bombed corpse after the US invasion. Frankly, most of the information I've read about them paints them as Westernized intellectuals, out of touch with the Iraqi people, who like to embezzle money when they can (perhaps including $2 million from the US State Dept. that they've somehow "lost").

Now, according to PR Watch, the INC was created with the help of a nefarious PR firm called The Rendon Group. And The Rendon Group is currently on the payroll of the Defense Department.

In other words, the Defense Department is paying money for fake intelligence data to justify a war with Iraq, because the real intelligence data does not.

Which hopefully leads you back to the question, "why are we attacking Iraq again?"

Posted by Jake at 12:27 AM | Comments (0)

December 02, 2002

Two War Bits

1) Patriot Act earns council's `no' vote- The city council of Eugene, Oregon has unanimously called for a repeal of the USA Patriot Act. Turns out that they are the 15th American city to do so. Want your hometown to join the list? Go harass your local councilman.

2) The Perpetual War Portfolio- Our pal Dack has created a small theoretical stock portfolio of companies that will flourish and prosper during America's Unending War. Y'know, companies that make fighter jets and cluster bombs and tank shells. Dack is fast becoming the Jimi Hendrix of dark, bitter political satire.

Posted by Jake at 12:11 AM | Comments (0)

December 01, 2002

Turkey Jive

I saw my fair share of anti-Thanksgiving articles this year, the standard "you are celebrating the genocide of the Indians" pieces. On one hand, they are correct, and it is probably a good idea to get up in the faces of white Americans on a regular basis to remind them (or teach them for the first time) about the aspects of their history that they tend to forget.

But on the other hand, the anti-Thanksgiving pieces tend to knowingly pretend that anyone who celebrates Thanksgiving actually does so because of their great affection for or gratitude towards the pilgrim colonists of the 1600s. Thanksgiving is more or less a forced annual family reunion, filled with poultry-centric gluttony and football games, officially marking the start of the dark consumer frenzy known as "the holiday season." I think that the anti-Thanksgiving writers know full well that to most Americans, the holiday has nothing to do with pilgrims and Indians. So when they lean on the "official" meaning of the holiday to make their point, I feel they are being slightly deceptive.

Anyhow, I found one good critical Thanksgiving piece that doesn't fall into that trap. It focuses on the history of Thanksgiving-- not the 1621 New England feast, but looks at how the holiday was or wasn't celebrated from that day till the present.

1621- "The First Thanksgiving"
November 1777- The Continental Congress declares a day of Thanksgiving to thank God for an American military victory over a powerful British general.
July 1861- Confederate Congress declares a day of Thanksgiving to thank God for their victory over the Union in the First Battle of Bull Run
April 1862- President Lincoln declares day of Thanksgiving to thank God for the Union victory over the Confederacy at Shiloh
September 1862- Confederate Congress declares a day of Thanksgiving to thank God for their victory over the Union in the Second Battle of Bull Run
August 1863- President Lincoln declares day of Thanksgiving to thank God for the Union victory over the Confederacy at Gettysburg
(see a pattern developing here?)
December 1865- President Andrew Johnson establishes a national Thanksgiving holiday to celebrate the Union victory in the Civil War
October 1931- President Hoover becomes the first president to actual make a rhetorical connection between the national holiday of Thanksgiving and the pilgrims

Maybe I'm just a history geek, but I find that fascinating. What we have come to think of as a centuries-old tradition honoring the roots of American society, was more often a series of quasi-religious celebrations to say with joy "our enemies are dead, but we are not! Thanks, God!" The "roots" aspects were inserted centuries later, and by now have largely been replaced by a more New Age "what should I be thankful for in my life" philosophy coupled with shopping and nostalgia poisoning.

I think the important lesson in there is about the evolution of meaning. Stories change, ideas mutate, "ancient" tradition dies and is reborn in unrecognizable new forms.

Posted by Jake at 11:47 PM | Comments (4)

War On is Getting

New "Get Your War On" strips available.

Also, for you L.A. folks, GYWO author David Rees will be in town promoting his book from Dec 3 & 4. I think I'm going to his odd appearance Dec 4 at the Knitting Factory at noon with jazz musician Les McCann to raise money for Afghan landmine removal.

Posted by Jake at 02:11 PM | Comments (0)

LMB Reader Poll

LMB Reader Poll #2

What are your thoughts on the recent appointment of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to head a federal investigation of the 9-11 attacks? You're kidding me You've got to be fucking kidding me Kissinger's past experience in the mass liquidation of innocent people will give him unique insight into the current investigation Kissinger is the right man to head this cover-up

Posted by Jake at 01:13 PM | Comments (0)

November 26, 2002

Worth at Least a Couple Hundred Words

What the hell?

Posted by Jake at 09:00 AM | Comments (7)

November 25, 2002

Gap Boycott

Surely you've heard of The Gap, the trendy/gargantuan clothing line/chain that is quite popular across the U.S.

1) Their clothing is made in sweatshops around the world.

2) The workers in Gap clothing factories are asking the rest of the world to pressure The Gap into improving their pay and working conditions.

3) To accomplish this, the Gap workers are asking us all to boycott Gap merchandise.

To get the quick info on the campaign (led by garment workers' union UNITE), you can go to BehindTheLabel.org. For background information, including UNITE's depressing report about working conditions in Gap factories in Lesotho, El Salvador, Bangladesh and Indonesia, click here. It's pretty brutal, tales of poverty, sickness, violence and repression.

So, if you wanna be a nice person, don't buy clothes at The Gap.

Yes yes, many other clothing companies use sweatshops too. But few of the workers for those companies call for boycotts.

Posted by Jake at 11:31 PM | Comments (14)

Tidbits

Soda So Bad? Pols Pop Off- "A World Health Organization report links sugary sodas to obesity across the globe, but the Bush administration claims WHO is grasping at straws and its report should be tossed out."

Edelman, Dittus Tackle Obesity Issues- two key pieces of info in this article: 1) the food and beverage industries are so worried that they will be blamed for America's obesity problems, that they are hiring PR firms to work on the issue. 2) The American Council for Fitness and Nutrition is a front group run by such health-conscious groups as

• American Frozen Food Institute
  
• Kraft Foods
  
• Chocolate Manufactuers Assn.
  
• Sugar Assn.
  
• National Council of Chain Restaurants
  
• and others.

The Company Formerly Known As- handy chart from the folks at Mother Jones magazine showing recent corporate name-changes. The hands-down winner: the "Agricultural Insecticide and Fungicide Association" has changed its name to "CropLife America".

Aristocracy in America, part 1- interesting essay musing on the nature of aristocrats and American society. Do we have our own aritstocracy? If so, who are they and where did they come from? If not, why not and might we develop one some day? [no convenient links to individual articles on this blog, so you'll have to find it by title and date, Nov. 25]

R.I.P. Blowback- the fine weblog "Blowback" has now closed its doors. Author Brian Lamb will now focus his efforts on a less political blog called Scribbler, which looks pretty good as well.

Posted by Jake at 11:15 PM | Comments (0)

Middle Eastern Bloc

Well, I'd heard rumors, but it looks like it's actually happening.

Israel is building an enormous wall between itself and the West Bank

26 feet high. 250 miles long.

The wall will separate many Palestinians from land that is rightfully theirs. The article describes how Israeli troops destroyed a 150 foot wide stretch of Palestinian olive grove to make room for the wall's construction, and it's cutting off access to 80% of the remaining groves. It's also separating some towns from their wells, and Israel has banned the drilling of new wells. So there's no water.

Apparently, popular opinion in Israel is "70% believe that cooperation with the Palestinians has failed," and since the Palestinians won't cooperate, there's no other way to prevent suicide attacks except to build a barrier.

The Israeli repression and the Palestinian terrorist attacks go on simultaneously, each accuses the other side of refusing to cooperate, and both sides are right.

I'm not sure whether or not the wall will make Israelis safe, but it's certain to make the West Bank residents suffer.

Posted by Jake at 10:12 PM | Comments (3)

On the Air

My Kill Radio show will be on in about 2 hours now (2pm PST). I'll be playing a large segment from Jello Biafra's new spoken word album Machine Gun in the Clown's Hand. It's the good ol' Biafra mix of politics, humor, history and absurdity.

I'm also looking for a way to increase listenership. Is there anyone who's online all day, would like to listen to the show, but forgets? Then email me with your Instant Messgenger name, and I'll drop you a line as I begin to remind you. The address is jake(at)straybulletins.com.

Posted by Jake at 11:40 AM | Comments (0)

November 24, 2002

Hooray for Mutants!

And the Mad Scientist of the Year Award goes to....

Morphotek!

See, Morphotek has invented this new technique where you insert cancer-causing genes into plants and animals so that their offspring will be a bunch of mutants. Then, if any of the mutants have useful traits, you try to isolate the genes for those traits and patent them! Then you can insert those genes into other organisms, to make more unholy demon-spawn!

It's like trying to write the world's greatest poem by throwing a dictionary in a blender! Guaranteed success, every time.

And if you're worried about the potentially disastrous consequences of this new technique, relax! If there is a terrible accident, then we'll just have to come up with a new disastrous technology to take care of the old one!

Posted by Jake at 09:44 PM | Comments (0)

Taking a Break

I am in the process of writing a Stray Bulletins style of news article, one of those longer "let's analyze the situation and put in into context" pieces. It's a short history of Iraq-U.S. relations since the 1980s. With that phrasing it sounds infinitely dull, but it'll be easy and readable, I promise.

It's funny, to write a good piece about any topic, I find I have to teach it to myself first. I call it "overlearning." I have to understand far more about the topic than will ever appear in the article. While researching my article about the Venezuelan coup back in May, I suddenly found that I was tracing the situation too far back, examining the Venezuelan petroleum export strategies. I had to tap myself on the shoulder and say "Jake, you can't include this in the article because you will bore everyone to tears. Time to start pulling back." I guess that's how it works, you delve, surface for air, figure out which bits of information will matter to the reader, and try to be thorough without being anal.

So to write my article about Iraq since maybe 1970, I read documents that summed up Iraq from 4000 BC to the present. Fascinating stuff, really. It boggles the mind that this nation that we think of as "bad place where Saddam Hussein is" has such a complicated past: Sumerian roots; Mongol invasions; Islamic conflict; the Ottoman empire; struggles with Arabic unity movements, communist movements, fundamentalist movements; racial strife; tribal politics; WWII; revolution; military dictators; etc. Yet American understanding of the region seems ignorant of anything except 1990-1998.

But all the reading is burning me out. Maybe I dove down too far and can't make it back to the surface from here.

Basically, I'm trying to put all the facts in one place, reminding everyone that the U.S. used Iran and Iraq as foils to each other to maintain the status quo during the 1980s, that Saddam Hussein was the U.S.' pal until that fateful day in 1990, and how the cat and mouse game of sanctions worked until they broke off in 1998. Seems kinda relevant.

Posted by Jake at 08:28 PM | Comments (0)

You Have the Right to Be Coerced

The Supreme Court will soon be hearing a case which could roll back the Miranda rights that you hear cops read people during their arrest on every cop drama on television: "you have the right to remain silent."

As I understand the case, the police are arguing that they can use "coercive interrogation," and violate your "right to remain silent," as long as any statements they gather from those violations are not used against you in court (although I imagine they could be used to gather other kinds of evidence that would then be used against you in court).

Not surprisingly, the Bush administration has given its support to this new interpretation.

Thanks to Politics in the Zeros

Posted by Jake at 10:07 AM | Comments (0)

November 22, 2002

Boss W's Political Machine

This article should scare you.

USA, Inc.

The Bush administration has a plan to privatize up to 850,000 government jobs. Meaning that these positions like secretaries and computer programmers will be contracted out to private companies. And the Bush administration can put this policy into effect without getting approval from Congress. Of course, the White House claims that this privatization will save taxpayer money. Because private companies never overcharge, work inefficiently, or pay their CEOs millions more than their worth. No, private companies are lean, mean, efficient and honest. Well, probably one or two are.

When I first heard about this, I simply thought "jeez, another corporate handout by Bush." But this article makes me much more anxious, and reminds us of the good ol' days of the robber barons, political "bosses," and the Teapot Dome scandal:

"By turning over half of the federal service to Corporate America, the Bush administration will create legions of employees whose jobs will depend on political loyalty to the corporations that hire them, and thus to the party that gives those corporations the employment contracts..."

"And the elimination of the federal employee unions through privatization will do away with protections for on-the-job rights, negotiated salaries and independence from corrupt political orders. (The religious right loves the plan: It renders null and void the Clinton executive order against discrimination in federal employment on the basis of sexual orientation for the privatized half of the work force.) The Bush plan is nothing less than a flying leap toward the institutionalization of the Republican Party as the party of government. It is the equivalent of a bloodless coup d’état."

Essentially, the plan gives the party in power hundreds of thousands of "favors" that can legally dole out for any reason they see fit. And knowing recent presidential administrations, those "reasons" will usually be "to increase our power."

That's enough to unnerve me, but the article delves deeper into the murk. I don't know if I entirely buy it, but it's plausible. Once the Total Information Awareness system goes into effect, some of these low-level, privatized employees might have access to the huge consumer/legal/political dossier on every American. And every company in America would like to get their hands on that data. Which could mean a) corporations will fight each other tooth and nail to get these government contracts, or b) we'll see a new era of industrial espionage, where corporate spies work undercover in these privatized jobs to illegally obtain our personal data records. Again, far-fetched, but not impossible.

I guess that's what happens when you give the keys to the country to a mob of white collar criminals.

Posted by Jake at 10:23 PM | Comments (2)

Bits of Pride

I know some fellas in a band called Anti-Flag. In these days where a punk band can make large dollars by singing pop songs about love and romance on MTV, Anti-Flag continues to sing about "unpopular" subjects like Vieques, alternative media, corporate capitalism and war. I've also always been impressed with the way they try to take care of their fans. At the start of each performance, the band passionately tells the crowd that "we're all a family here," and demand that the crowd look out for each other in the frenetic moshing and dancing that is about to take place. And the crowd enthusiastically agrees. Good fellas, Anti-Flag.

Anyhow, I visited their site today and found another way that they're trying to take care of their fans. In these days of Patriotic Correctness (the new, more dangerous PC), some of their more politically outspoken young fans are being hassled by the students and faculty of their schools. Wearing "No Blood for Oil" shirts, or even apolitical "Anti-Flag" logo t-shirts can land them in trouble, get them yelled at, picked on, or even expelled. So Anti-Flag has written and posted a page on their site dedicated to helping students fight for their freedom of speech. It tells them what their legal rights are as students, the duties and limitations of school administrators, ways to argue in defense of their speech or clothing, and ways to fight back against rules they think are unjust. I think that's fucking great, and it makes me feel kinda proud to know them.

In other prideful news, the Axis of Justice website is finally up. It is the site for the rock 'n radicalism non-profit organization I am running with Rage Against the Machine's Tom Morello (now of the band Audioslave) and System of a Down's Serj Tankian. The goal is to bring musicians, music fans, and activist organizations together to, well, turn them all into activists. Except for the graphics and programming, the site is entirely my doing. I'm trying to make the it a resource where folks can learn about political issues, movements and organizations, and then hopefully decide to somehow take action on the matters that are important to them. I am not trying to tell anyone what political topics are important, nor tell them what goals or tactics they should embrace to save the world. But I'm certainly not going to shy away from giving them my opinion.

Anyhow, please visit the site, and feel free to send me any suggestions for it. And if you're into political discussions, we've got an Axis of Justice messageboard in effect too.

Posted by Jake at 09:42 PM | Comments (0)

November 21, 2002

Mocking Bush

Bush said a lot of stuff while at the NATO summit this week. Which is always a mistake, the man should keep his mouth shut as often as possible unless he wants to look like a fool.

"Should [Saddam Hussein] again deny that this arsenal exists, he will have entered his final stage with a lie, and deception this time will not be tolerated. Delay and defiance will invite the severest consequences." So we'll attack Iraq if Saddam denies that he has these weapons? Shouldn't we base our decisions on what he does and what type of arsenal he has, not on the words he speaks?

I would be concerned, but I don't think that that's what he meant. It's just another example of Bush's talent for shoving his hands down the pants of the English language and squeezing till the tears come.

"The US president underlined his determination to crush 'global terrorists who hate freedom.'" What about the terrorists who think that freedom is kinda neat, do they get a free pass?

"People tend to focus on the inspectors as if the inspectors are the end," the president told reporters. What is important, he said, is eliminating any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. 'He's going to disarm one way or the other.'"

This is starting to drive me crazy. The U.S. can claim justification for attack so long as any doubt remains about Iraq's weapons. And doubt will always remain because you can't prove a negative. I dare anyone to prove that I don't have a machine gun. You can search my apartment, search my car. Maybe it's under the floorboards, maybe I left it with a neighbor, maybe I buried it in the park. I don't own a machine gun and I've never owned a machine gun, but I don't think any of us could prove that. By the rationale of the Bush doctrine, you all have every right to come invade me.

And finally, it's fun to note that these NATO talks were never intended to be about Iraq. They're supposed to be discussions about enlarging and reforming NATO, with Iraq not even a topic on the agenda. Yet Bush managed to force the issue in there somehow.

Posted by Jake at 12:56 AM | Comments (2)

The Cleansing Truth

"George Bush's top security adviser last night admitted the US would attack Iraq even if UN inspectors fail to find weapons."

Well duh.

But nice of them to finally admit it.

Well, take that article with a grain of salt. It is in the UK's somewhat tabloid paperThe Mirror, and is somewhat confusing. The "top security advisor" is Richard Perle and is allegedly from a meeting on "global security" with members of the British Parliament. According to the article, Perle allegedly said that if a single person in Iraq claimed to have been involved in the developement of weapons, that that would be enough of a rationale to attack.

Granted, Perle is not actually a member of the military, he's only a civilian member of a military-advising committee. Do his words reflect the truth? Is he speaking on his own? Or his he trying to manipulate the powerful through strategically place public comments?

[Thanks to Dack. Actually, all of Dack's articles are excellent today, go read em.]

Posted by Jake at 12:20 AM | Comments (0)

November 19, 2002

Anti-Mega

There are plenty of reasons to criticize Wal-Mart. They sell products made in sweatshops. They work as a force of censorship on the music and magazines they sell. And the fact that their enormous size and purchasing power end up driving small surrounding retailers out of business. PBS put together an interesting documentary last year about the crisis a small Virginia town faced when Wal-Mart wanted to open up business there. Good stuff.

There are two interlinked protests going on against Wal-Mart in the near future. The first is a union drive by the AFL-CIO. Wal-Mart workers often receive low wages, and their efforts to form or join unions are vigorously opposed by the company.

The second effort is a broader campaign which includes the first. November 21 is the Wal-Mart National Day of Action, to protest against all of these anti-social practices. That's this coming Thursday. If you want to jump on that bandwagon, you can click the link just above and find out what's going down in your neck of the woods.

Posted by Jake at 08:16 PM | Comments (5)

No Fly Joke

Well, may as well give a little detail on the "no-fly zones," since this is actually picking up some media steam.

Essentially, there are two "no-fly zones" in northern and southern Iraq because the US and UK want them there. Not because the UN put them there, not because of a declaration of surrender by Iraq, not because humanitarian groups called out for them, but because the US and UK decided to create them.

The US and UK claim that the zones are justified by two UN Security Council resolutions, 678 (passed in late 1990), and 688, passed a few months after the end of the Gulf War.

678 was passed in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and "authorizes Member States ... to use all necessary means ... to restore international peace and security in the area." While "the area" is vague, the resolution seems aimed at getting Iraq out of Kuwait and stopping any of its agression against other states.

688 was passed in response to Iraqi oppression of its people, particularly the Kurds in Northern Iraq. It "condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region."

Now watch the trick here.

If Iraqi oppression of the Kurds "threaten[s] international peace and security," and resolution 678 authorizes all UN member states to "use all necessary means ... to restore international peace and security in the area," then....

Ipso facto, presto change-o, the US and UK have a right to bomb the bejeezus out of Northern and Southern Iraq.

No one at the UN seems to agree with this interpretation. The purpose of 678 was to issue an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to get out of Kuwait. The purpose of 688 was to condemn Iraqi oppression. Neither was intended to appoint the West as guardian of Iraq. Hell, the whole purpose of the UN is to avoid war and bloodshed. It's hard to argue that regular bombing raids of Iraq work towards that goal.

If you're interested, here's a handy dandy resource to find out when the US/UK last bombed Iraq.

Posted by Jake at 11:17 AM | Comments (1)

Oh For Fuck's Sake

Iraq already in breach of resolution- the Bush administration can't even wait for the inspectors to look at anything yet. They are arguing that Iraq firing on US planes in the "no-fly zone" is a breach of the recent UN resolution. (Actually, Iraq is legally in the right. The "no-fly zones" aren't part of any UN deal or Iraqi obligation, they are simply arbitrarily-selected areas that the US and UK decreed that Iraq couldn't fly planes. Technically, it is Iraqi airspace that the US and UK have no right to fly in. And Iraq has the legal right to shoot down planes flying in their airspace without permission).

And...

Tombstone paper calls for militia- "Cochise County's 'official newspaper' has issued a call to arms and is spearheading the formation of a local militia to combat illegal immigration."

Posted by Jake at 12:12 AM | Comments (1)

November 18, 2002

Total Information Awareness

A few days back, I posted about the creepy Information Awareness Office and their massive spying plans. In the comments following that entry, a fellow posted a link to what appears to be a very good resource on the topic- http://geocities.com/totalinformationawareness/. Go check it out if you're interested.

Posted by Jake at 10:02 PM | Comments (2)

The Smear

The Republican party is comprised of evil geniuses.

The Democratic party is evil, but at present, they're as incompetent as fuck. Honestly, these days Osama bin Laden could beat a Democrat in an election. Or at least beat one in a primary.

The Republicans have a clear advantage, however. These days, elections are fueled solely by donations from wealthy individuals and corporations. Due to their pro-business philosophy, Republicans can solicit these donations easily. However Democrats (allegedly) have a business watchdog philosophy, and any donation they accept from the wealthy is a potential "hypocrite" hook on which to hang them, making their fundraising a bit more tenuous.

The current Republican diabolical scheme seems to be as follows:

• spread the word that the November 5 election is "proof" that the population is conservative or favors conservative policy (a slight majority of the slight minority that bothered to vote, voted Republican).
  
• argue that the Democrats, since they are not conservative (yeah, I know), are "out of touch" with the American people.
  
• argue that Democrats are "becoming more and more out of touch" by becoming even more liberal than it already is. Accomplish this by playing up every "liberal" thing that they do, and act as though these liberal things are proof of an increasingly liberal stance.

You can see bits of this strategy pinpointed in this analysis by the good folks at the Daily Howler.

In the DH article, you can see that the Republicans are trying to "smear" proposed Head Democrat Nancy Pelosi as a "San Francisco liberal." Ooh, two smears in one, "liberal" implying that she's out of touch, and "San Francisco" implying that she's somehow associated with homosexuals. And if you're a San Francisco liberal, man, you're obviously a queer America-hating commie (the DH article also points out that conservative pundits are gleefully linking Pelosi and a San Francisco needle exchange program, which creates an unsavory link between Pelosi and homeless junkies).

But what bothers me most about this is that Pelosi isn't liberal. Even the mainstream and quasi-liberal press are painting her as a lefty. She's not. Near as I can figure, she's just another checkbook Democrat, for sale to the highest bidder, like our pal Gray Davis. That article above describes all sorts of Pelosi sleaziness, and points out that her "liberal record" is more of campaign necessity than of ideological conviction.

Posted by Jake at 09:59 PM | Comments (1)

November 17, 2002

Speed Rant

I have an article past due for Destroy All mag that I have yet to begin. I should really be working on that, but I have this mini-rant building up that won't be denied. So I'm trying and experiment here (whee!!), an attempt to write a quick screed without going back and editting. Stopwatches are go!

There's a new conservative argument floating around now, that I've seen several times and always in the same format: "You liberals just don't get it!" Well, that's how it always starts. It is most recently tied to "we didn't see the 9-11 attacks coming." And that's pretty much where the argument ends. The implication is that we should have taken some sort of military action before 9-11 to prevent the terrorist attacks, even if we didn't have condemning evidence that the attacks were coming. And therefore, we should do something now (i.e. bomb Iraq) because we don't have perfect evidence. Good thinkin'.

It's quite interesting when your lack of evidence becomes proof that you should act on that, uh, lack of evidence. I say, why start with Iraq? I mean, we have even less evidence that we are going to face an attack by Iran. Let's start there. Wait, it would be even more unexpected if we were attacked by France. Let's attack France. No! Hawaii! Those native Hawaiians are sending coded Al Qaeda messages via hula dances! Bomb Hawaii!

I'm also amused at Conservatives lack of understanding of the left. Somehow, no matter what your stance, in the eyes of conservatives, we are all Clinton-loving Democrats. Doesn't matter if you're a moderate Democrat soccer mom, a radical enviornmentalist, or an anarchist revolutionary, somehow we all want Al Gore in the White House in 2004.

Hmm. 6 minutes. Not bad, I guess.

Posted by Jake at 09:51 PM | Comments (0)

November 15, 2002

Watched

Yesterday (well, this morning, technically), I posted a link to a pretty decent column about portions of the proposed Homeland Security Act which will allow the government to gather data about all your business activity, all your consumer activity, all your official documents and any images of you on surveillance cameras into one consolidated file, and store these files on you with similar files about other American citizens. Cuz, y'know, any of us could be terrorists.

Found a little more info on the subject from Calpundit. This plan is called "Total Information Awareness", and is the brainchild of John Poindexter. The Iran-Contra affair was also Poindexter's idea. Y'know, illegally selling missiles to a totalitarian regime in Iran so we could illegally give the profits to a ruthless terrorist army in Nicaragua. Next time Poindexter has an idea, maybe he should just keep his damn mouth shut about it.

Anyhow, Poindexter is now the head of a subdivision of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) called the "Information Awareness Office".

But frankly, this whole article is just leads up to me posting the IAO's logo:

Creepy, ain't it?

Posted by Jake at 09:41 AM | Comments (5)

Yesterday's News Today

Well, all of this could have been cutting edge, if I'd've had the time to post them this morning. My actual paid workload has jumped up several notches, so the blog will not be top priority for a while.

White House Wages Stealth War on Condoms- slimy motherfuckers. Presumably to appease crazed Christian moralists, Bush is filling federal public health positions with doctors that believe that abstinence is the only way to prevent AIDS.

Daschle Criticizes Bush Terror Plan- the new version of Bush's Homeland Security bill tosses out a planned investigation into the flaws that brought about 9-11. The White House has been opposing this very reasonable measure for quite some time now. My personal theory is that they oppose this investigation because Bush wants us to believe that the USA Patriot Act corrected any of the intelligence problems that might have allowed the 9-11 attacks, and that an investigation will show very little correlation between the new governmental powers granted by the Patriot Act and the pre-9-11 errors.

House Approves Domestic Security Bill- Congressional Republicans tossed in a few corporate welfare measures into the Homeland Security Act. It "would reverse an earlier measure and allow American companies that have moved offshore in order to evade taxes to contract with the Homeland Security Department. It would also extend protection against liability suits for airline screening companies and many other businesses that contract with the department, and adds a similar provision protecting the makers of smallpox vaccines."

Torie, Meet John- either the Defense Department is unaware that the Government has hired propaganda masters The Rendon Group, or the Defense Dept. is lying to reporters again. I'm guessing the latter. And while we're at it, here's an older article with some background info on Rendon.

For whom the Liberty Bell tolls- rich UK investor class explains how citizens all over the world have lost civil rights in the wake of 9-11. Note the handy chart.

Blair broadcasts message to Iraq- Tony Blair broadcast a message over Iraqi radio to Saddam Hussein and "warned the Iraqi leader he would be disarmed by force if he failed to co-operate with United Nations weapons inspectors." Good going, Tony. He didn't already know that.

Catch 'em- animated cartoon by Mark Fiore about the new CIA "assassinate terrorists" strategy.

Microsoft giveaway drowns out India's open-source software movement- Bill Gates donates $40 million to India in hopes that it will prevent the country from using free, open-source software like Linux. Like you don't already have enough money, gotta try to milk more from people who make $400 a year. Asshole.

Carmakers savor GOP rule- auto companies in the U.S. hope that the new Republican Congress will help them by easing back on environmental regulations and giving them big tax breaks.

Afghanistan: Police Beat Students in Hospital- I'm so glad we went into Afghanistan and made it into a peaceful democrac-- did that article say that police beat students, put them in the hospital, and then went to the hospital to beat them some more?

You Are a Suspect- "If the Homeland Security Act is not amended before passage, here is what will happen to you: Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as 'a virtual, centralized grand database.' To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you — passport application, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance — and you have the supersnoop's dream: a 'Total Information Awareness' about every U.S. citizen," says conservative columnist.

Forget Radio: Video Games, TV Ads Are Where You'll Hear New Music- insightful MTV News piece about the rise of non-radio means of promoting music. New artists allowing their songs to be featured in TV commericials is sometimes paying off big as consumers dash off to buy that song from the Volkswagen ad or whatever. Doesn't explicitly say it, but is part of a growing trend of symbiotic advertising (e.g. "Halle Berry, who stars in the new James Bond movie--which premiers nation-wide this weekend!!--wears Cover Girl makeup").

Posted by Jake at 01:07 AM | Comments (1)

November 13, 2002

The President Does Something Right

Who'd'a thunk it?

Bush Takes on Christian Right Over Anti-Islam Words

"'Some of the comments that have been uttered about Islam do not reflect the sentiments of my government or the sentiments of most Americans,' Bush told reporters as he began a meeting with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

"'By far, the vast majority of American citizens respect the Islamic people and the Muslim faith. After all, there are millions of peaceful-loving Muslim Americans,' Bush said.

["peaceful-loving"?]

"'Ours is a country based upon tolerance ... And we're not going to let the war on terror or terrorists cause us to change our values.'"

Bush did not identify conservative Christian leaders as his target, but White House officials said he was prompted by the anti-Islamic remarks of some of them, particularly religious broadcaster Pat Robertson, who reportedly said this week Muslims were 'worse than the Nazis.'"

This actually took a little courage on the part of the president. The Christian Right is a powerful force in American politics, and most Republicans bow down to their will in order to harness that power. To publicly dress down one of their icons in defense of a group that is fairly unpopular in the U.S. right now, that's the right thing to do. Never would've expected that of ol' W.

Of course, I presume that he did it with the goal of not further enraging the foreign Muslims he's attempting to entreat to support a U.S. war on Iraq. But it's something.

Posted by Jake at 10:26 PM | Comments (4)

Fisking the UN Resolution

The Institute for Public Accuracy, a left-wing "please interview this list of alternative experts about current events issue X" organization, has put together a very lengthy and thorough analysis of the recent UN resolution against Iraq. They put together a team of 10 experts, pundits and activists who focus on issues like US foreign policy, the UN, international law, terrorism, nuclear weapons, and civil rights. I don't think any of them have a kind word to say about the resolution, but it'll give you tons and tons of context.

Check it out.

Posted by Jake at 12:09 PM | Comments (0)

Assholes in Power

Richard Perle is the head of the Defense Policy Board, a civilian panel which advises the president/Pentagon/DoD about, well, everything.

He is also ruthless, arrogant, and a complete asshole.

He has been pushing really, really hard for war with Iraq. He came up with a plan to overthrow Saddam Hussein with just 40,000 troops (a plan that was laughed at by anyone with military leadership experience), and generally just shoves and taunts his way to success.

His latest moves:

In an interview with the UK Guardian, Perle states that UN inspections will not work, that inspection team leader Hans Blix is the wrong man for the job, and more or less says that anyone in Iraq who might have information about Iraq's weapons capabilities should be shipped out of the country for interrogation. The fact that he believes in assassinating Saddam Hussein should come as a surprise to no one.

In that same interview, Perle also lambasted all of Europe for losing its "moral compass" (cuz, y'know, there's nothing more morally upright that dropping bombs on innocent folks). Typically, he takes the point of view that anyone opposed to war, an Iraqi invasion or US imperial aims in the Middle East is doing so because they are Saddam-Hussein-lovers.

And here's an unrelated article about more manipulative assholes. The article begins as a somewhat humorous story about a Harvard student hired to do radio parodies of Saddam Hussein in Arabic, but evolves into a story of U.S. psyops, propaganda, and the secretive role played by the shadowy Rendon Group.

Posted by Jake at 09:57 AM | Comments (0)

Quip

I'm not much of a Moby fan (well, I do like his cover of "That's When I Reach for My Revolver"). But occassionally his tongue-in-cheek humor appeals to me, and I admit, I do like that he speaks out on political and social issues more than is "safe" for a famous musician.

Apparently Moby just recorded a PSA for PETA asking people to not eat turkeys for Thanksgiving dinner (Moby's a vegetarian). In his online journal, he discusses the situation, and concludes with this fun bit:

"if you wouldn't personally be able to kill something, you probably shouldn't be eating it. unless it's a mime. sweet, tasty mimes....mmmm...."

Posted by Jake at 09:40 AM | Comments (2)

November 12, 2002

Amazing Breakthroughs in Weird

Normally I try to focus on news and commentary that is important, or at least snide and ironic. But August over at Xoverboard has a story that is so completely bizarre and strange, that I felt the need to link to it.

"This is one of those stories where the story itself is weird enough, and then suddenly there's a seperate story inside it that's even weirder. Except this is beyond weird. This is something that I legally am required to provide an advance warning: if you try to read this post more than two or three consecutive times, your head will simply explode."

I can't really tell you what it's about, because it has layers. This story is at least three layers of crazy, maybe more. Read it all, and at least click on the second link.

Posted by Jake at 10:01 AM | Comments (3)

November 11, 2002

Grapevine

US will attack without approval- The Bush administration states clearly that if Iraq gives the tiniest signs of "non-compliance" with the new UN resolution on disarmament and inspections, the U.S. won't bother conferring with the U.N. about how to respond, "the United States with like-minded nations will go and disarm him forcefully." So the nation's of the world spent weeks and weeks drawing up a fair and peaceful resolution-- why exactly?

Next Target: Iran- columnist Eric Margolis argues somewhat compellingly that the war on Iraq is all about preparing for a subsequent war with Iran, a country that poses more regional opposition to U.S. power than does Iraq. Sounds a little far-fetched at first, but Margolis is a very knowledgable fellow, and I give him more leeway than other pundits.

The Mid-Term Elections: Giving Bush a Free Ride Spelled Ruin- bit of an "I told you so" essay to the Democrats from Ralph Nader. Well, it's actually more of an analysis of Democratic weaknesses that led to their recent loss, but I can't imagine he doesn't cackle madly to himself about it when no one's looking.

Bechtel Vs. Bolivia- "Two years ago, rioters protesting increased water rates forced a U.S. company in Bolivia to pack its bags and leave. Now, in a harbinger of the loss of local control through globalization, the corporation is striking back in secret proceedings." If anyone reading this works for Bechtel, kill yourself.

Fourteen PR Groups Work on PR for PR- you make this stuff up folks.

Iran bans adverts for US products- that don't sound good.

A Big Fat Thanks to Record Execs (pdf)- Rolling Stone magazine buys a full page ad in the NY Times to bash the record industry's anti-consumer practices, attacks on file-trading and attacks on internet radio (of course, RollingStone.com has its own webcast...).

Posted by Jake at 11:35 PM | Comments (0)

Second Verse

I have read quite a few articles lately about the Nov. 5 elections being a "mandate" for one thing or another: for the Republicans, for a war on Iraq, for George W. Bush, etc.

I already mentioned this once, but let's do it again.

The Nov. 5 elections were not a mandate for anything. According to the Center for Voting and Democracy, voter turnout last week was about 39%. Most races were won or lost by a slim margin. So let's say that the Republican candidates were favored, generally, 55-45. So [pulls out calculator] that means that about 20% of the electorate voted Republican, while about 80% didn't.

I'd say that this vote was a mandate for the feelings of frustration and powerlessness among the American people, 61-39, if anything.

[edit]

The original version of this entry stated that the average voter turnout was 37%, when the correct number was 39%. I've made the appropriate changes.

Posted by Jake at 11:01 AM | Comments (3)

November 09, 2002

Conspiracy Newz

Not sure how reliable any of these stories are, but on their face they seem somewhat credible. Take em with a grain of salt.

Russia Seeks Regime Change To Prevent Iraq War- the usually knowledgeable Stratfor claims that Russian intelligence operatives are working with pro-Russian Iraqi military officers to overthrow Saddam Hussein before the U.S. has a chance to invade. The reason? Because an Iraq war would hurt the Russian economy.

US troops saw Afghan slaughter, claims TV documentary- makers of a British Channel 5 documentary about the massacre of captured Taliban soldiers claim that they have evidence that U.S. special forces members were there watching at the time. The filmmakers also claim that two Afghan eyewitnesses to the American presence have been killed in the past two days.

Voting Machines - A High Tech Ambush- Joe Stalin once said that it didn't matter who cast the votes, just who counted them. Two American reporters have launched an investigation into the voting machine industry. They found that Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel has long-standing ties to the nation's largest vote machine companies. In fact, he resigned from the board of one such company the year before he was elected to the Senate, the very same company who's machines counted the votes in that election...

Posted by Jake at 11:54 AM | Comments (0)

November 08, 2002

Lotsa Stuff

US Urges Benazir to Back Musharraf- I've been arguing for months now that Pakistan poses a much greater threat to the U.S. than does Iraq. Pakistan has a significant number of anti-American militant Muslims, an unpopular secular dictatorial leader, and a military that possesses nuclear weapons. While I'm not actively worried about an atomic attack from Pakistan, things don't look pretty over there right now. Well, not for Americans anyway.

War, Simplified- an attempt to define "The Bush Doctrine." Good stuff. Also slyly mentions Bush's "he tried to kill my daddy" comment, which reminds me of this article...

A Case Not Closed- 1993 article exploring the alleged Iraqi plot to assassinate George H.W. Bush. Quite frankly, the evidence is pretty shaky, resting mainly upon the confessions of two suspects while in custody of the Kuwaiti police. The Kuwaiti police are known for torturing suspects till they're willing to confess to just about anything. So maybe they were tortured into revealing the truth, or maybe they were tortured into simply saying what the Kuwaitis wanted them to.

Bush Lies, Media Swallows- why don't the press ever point out when government officials are lying? "Part of the reason is deference to the office and the belief that the American public will not accept a mere reporter calling the President a liar. Part of the reason is the culture of Washington--where it is somehow worse to call a person a liar in public than to be one. A final reason is political. Some reporters are just political activists with columns who prefer useful lies to the truth."

Drug Industry Poised to Reap Political Dividends- "Few industries campaigned harder than pharmaceutical manufacturers to elect Republicans to the new Congress, and few industries are better positioned to reap the rewards of the election returns." Scumbags.

CEOs Under Fire Match Game- can you match the disgraced (and possibly incarcerated) corporate CEO to the lie he told before his downfall?

Posted by Jake at 09:17 AM | Comments (0)

War and War and War and War

Well, the White House has finally done it. They've gotten the UN Security Council to approve their latest draft of a resolution against Iraq. You can read the text of it here. And you can read about how it is full of loopholes that would give the U.S. justification to invade here and here.

This is, of course, what the Bush administration has been pushing for months. In their most fervent dreams, they would have gotten the UN to agree to an international invasion of Iraq right away. In their more realisitic dreams, they would have gotten a resolution which said that if Saddam Hussein fought the weapons inspectors, that a UN coalition would invade Iraq. But what they've gotten instead will still suit their purposes just fine: a document arrived at through patient diplomacy that is still vague enough to arguably justify a US invasion of Iraq.

News reports tell us that George W. decided that the U.S. should overthrow Saddam Hussein back in November of 2001 (I posted a link to the article on the blog some months back. If someone can find it for me, I'd appreciate it). And overthrowing Saddam Hussein has been part of official U.S. policy since 1998's Iraq Liberation Act, long long before we had reports about rebuilding chemical weapons plants or anything, before the (false) rumors that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11 or the anthrax attacks.

So why is everyone going along with this farce? The entire UN negotiation process was initiated by the U.S. to create a minutely reasonable excuse for the U.S. to achieve its foreign policy goal. If Iraq makes even the tiniest slip-up or shows the tiniest resistance to weapons inspectors, the U.S. can now argue that this new UN resolution clears it to attack. And attack we will.

Posted by Jake at 08:54 AM | Comments (0)

November 07, 2002

It Could Happen

Posted by Jake at 10:30 PM | Comments (0)

Our Top Stories Tonite

US Braces for Retaliation After Yemen Assassination- Wait a goddam minute. The recent CIA attack on Al Qaeda members in Yemen has actually increased the chances that my ass is going to get blown up? Who's side are those motherfuckers at the CIA on?

Low Turnout Is a Tacit Vote for Status Quo- before anyone starts claiming that the recent Republican victory is a "mandate" for anything, remember that voter turnout was abyssmally low. Here in California it looks to have been below 45% of eligible voters. So a little more than half of the little less than half of the US population that bothered to vote favored the Republicans. Which means that maybe 26% of Americans favored the Reps while around 74% didn't.

The Sniper Pundits- how conservative pundits are using the DC sniper to flog all of their enemies. The worst is a quote near the end, where a conservative columnist gleefully wonders if the situation is a "threefer," allowing him to smear blacks, Muslims and homosexuals (were Muhammad and Malvo an "item"?) all at once.

Foreign Journalists Blocked from Chechnya- " A little-noticed government directive signed on October 11 has made it much more difficult for foreign journalists to visit Chechnya ... the directive does not specify how foreign journalists can obtain the necessary permission to enter Chechnya or for what period of time it would be issued." How convenient.

What the 2002 Election Means for Tech- title explains it pretty well.

Tinfoil Hats Uncover the Wellstone Conspiracy- the same people who want more evidence that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction don't need evidence to "know" that Sen. Paul Wellstone was assassinated by American conservatives. Or something. Actually, the article does some interesting analysis of how the public tends to inflate the importance of public officials who are the center of conspiracy theories.

Technology Beyond Product Placement- "Marketers Study New Opportunities in Video Games, Long-Form Ads, and TV-on-Demand." Great, new advances in the field of Making People Buy Shit They Don't Want or Need.

Wanted: Scum- classified ad looking for a PR professional who will try to smear consumer rights, animal rights and environmental organizations for a new corporate front group called Tarnish the Halo. The company behind this new effort seems to be Berman & Co., read their PR Watch dossier.

Posted by Jake at 10:58 AM | Comments (3)

November 06, 2002

That Electiony Thing

Now that the Republicans have increased their Congressional numbers, the White House can push an even more right-wing agenda:

• oil drilling in the Alaska wildlife refuge
  
• appoint conservative judges and justices
  
• increase tax cuts for the rich
  
• cut business regulations
  
• pass "faith-based" social-services
  
• "overhaul Medicare"
  
• extend "welfare reform"
  
• privatize social security
  

I went in to vote yesterday, mainly for the ballot initiatives. Here in California, we actually have a smattering of direct democracy, where citizens can vote certain proposed laws into effect. While there, I took the time to vote against all the incumbents. I also voted for Pat Wright for Lieutenant Governor because:

• he's not a Democrat or a Republican (he's a Libertarian)
  
• and because his title in the election booklet is "ferret legalization coordinator." Which is fucking hilarious. If you're going to vote for someone who's not going to win, always consider voting for the funniest losing candidate.
  

As for the big one, state governor, the main choice for most Californians was the choice between the Corrupt Guy and the Incompetent Corrupt Guy. Well, that's not true. The main choice was Going Out to Vote or Staying Home and Not Bothering. As I understand it, Not Bothering won by a margin of about 60 to 40.

I think Tom Tomorrow really pegged the Democratic election strategy in his latest comic, and why they lost:

"Maybe if we give George Bush everything he wants for the rest of his term, the voters will like us better. And then we might be able to hang onto our jobs a little longer."

Spineless, spineless idiots.

Everyone here understands that the United States is not a democracy, right?

Even technically speaking. The United States is a republic, a state where representatives make policy decisions in the government. We elect these representatives, so the U.S. is a democratic republic.

But even that doesn't work. I read a quote the other day (can't remember who by) which said "In the 1980s, capitalism defeated communism. In the 1990s, it defeated democracy too." That pretty much sums it up.

The only people who stand much of a chance of winning elections are people with access to huge amounts of money. And the holders of these sums of money don't give it out for free; to them, every campaign contribution is an investment that will pay off in steep dividends. Nearly every viable candidate is bought and sold before the public has any say in the process. Nearly every third, fourth and fifth party candidate has no real chance of winning (yes, there is the occassional aberration like Jesse Ventura). And once in office, more and more politicians seem to dedicate themselves primarily to amassing more money for the next election and paying out the dividends to last election's financial backers.

The United States is a very thinly veiled oligarchy (well, plutocracy if we want to use all our big words at once). To our benefit (sort of), the oligarch power is restrained by a very complex set of bureaucratic rules. The lucrative (relative to most countries) economy and omnipresent consumerism makes these abuses more bearable. And, I'm sad to say, most Americans seem to have bought into the Horatio Alger myth that their fate could change from poverty to riches at any moment, that at any moment they could go from assistant janitor to CEO of a major corporation. In other words, Americans are willing to accept inequality and exploitation, because they hope that one day, they might be the ones at the top doing the exploiting.

Wake up, America. You, reading this post right now. You are not going to be rich or famous. Ever. EVER! Once people starting getting that painful truth through their thick skulls, maybe we'll see a little real dissent and progress.

I'll leave y'all with a handy little quote from our dearly-departed pal Frank Zappa:

"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre."

First person to say "if you don't like it, why don't you move?" gets a free punch in the mouth.

Posted by Jake at 10:55 AM | Comments (1)

November 05, 2002

Zippy

The New Old Slavery- slavery is back. Or maybe it never left. Fuck.

The Election- first-hand accounts of shady election goings-on on election day. Worst so far: anonymous flyers posted in African-American neighborhoods in Maryland, reminding the residents to go out and vote "November 6," the day AFTER voting takes place.

The Unofficial Official Simulator- ever wanted to ask Dick Cheney or Skeletor Rumsfeld a question? This is about as close as you're going to get.

More U.S. Homes Have Outhouses Than TiVos- if that don't define the term "fun fact"...

Posted by Jake at 11:15 PM | Comments (4)

There and Back Again

I'm back.

Nice vacation, but now I have a backlog of work and responsibilities to take care of. Once I've whittled those down to size (or perhaps slightly before that), I will once again fill this space with righteous syllables.

Posted by Jake at 11:26 AM | Comments (1)

October 29, 2002

Can't Stay Away

Hopefully my last post till I leave.

War and peace- a really good blog entry by Tom Tomorrow about war, anti-war, the media, politics, deception and human rights. It's also full of links to other excellent--and scary--news articles.

Journalist Cronkite warns against potential war- ancient journalistics touchstone Walter Cronkite warns that a war on Iraq could lead to WWIII. Also has a fun quote about low voter turnout and a lack of political knowledge among citizens- "That means we don’t have a democracy. We’ve got an oligarchy here, not a democracy. Our democracy is in some danger if we don’t concentrate on educating the populace."

Making a Killing: The Business of War- 11 part series by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists about privately-owned military companies and their role in promoting war (full series not available till Nov. 20). Yes, you should be scared.

Posted by Jake at 01:51 PM | Comments (0)

Interlude

The poor get worked
The rich get richer
The world gets worse
Do you get the picture?
The poor gets dead
The rich get depressed
The ugly get mad
The pretty get stressed
The ugly get violent
The pretty get gone
The old get stiff
The young get stepped on
Whoever told you that it was all good lied
So throw your fists up if you not satisfied

J-Live , Satisfied

Posted by Jake at 01:15 PM | Comments (0)

Hiatus

I'm out of town for the next buncha days. I might bring my laptop with me and do an entry or two, or I might say "fuck work" and leave the laptop in its cage at the homestead. If ya need news and blogs, go check m'links.

Posted by Jake at 08:02 AM | Comments (0)

LMB Playlist 10-28-02

Atari Teenage Riot- Revolution Action
Eminem- Lose Yourself
Cursive- The Martyr
J-Live- Satisfied?
Attrition- Cage
The Catheters- Nothing
Venetian Snares- Dollmaker
Jake on the sniper coverage
Scapegoat Wax- Almost Fine
Against Me- Baby, I'm an Anarchist
Interpol- NYC
Jefferson Airplane- White Rabbit
Mindless Self Indulgence- Bitches
The Liars- Mr. Your on Fire Mr.
Deseparacidos- Happiest Place on Earth
Jake on SUVs and anal rape
Refused- New Noise
Public Enemy- Son of a Bush
Bill Hicks- Hooligans
Tiger Army- Incorporeal
Mr. Lif- Home of the Brave
Flogging Molly- Devil's Dance Floor
Jake on Russia v. Chechnya
Prince- Kiss
The Yeah Yeah Yeahs- Mystery Girl
The Magnetic Fields- Let's Pretend We're Bunny Rabbits
System of a Down- War

Posted by Jake at 08:00 AM | Comments (1)

October 28, 2002

Islam vs. Islam

I have some answers to some questions I asked in an LMB entry on Friday about the DC sniper. The mainstream media mentioned that he had converted to Islam after the Gulf War, and then implied a link to Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam organization. Although they use much of the same terminology and both call their members "Muslims," the two religions, Islam and Nation of Islam are very different, which begs the question "which kind of Muslim was John Muhammad?"

This is an important question to ask. If Muhammad was a "regular" Muslim, some of the speculation about his ties to anti-American Islamic fundamentalist groups like Al Qaeda would be reasonable. If Muhammad was a Nation of Islam Muslim, then his motives might be better traced to black militants in the United States.

We have a few answers. Farrakhan held a press conference this weekend where he admitted that John Muhammad was a member of the Nation of Islam since 1997. He also said that if Muhammad is guilty of these crimes, that he will be kicked out of the NOI.

My main concern in all this is that the sniper's link to "Islam" is just one more piece of imprecise evidence to support the widespread belief that "Muslims are violent," the sort of stereotype that is not very helpful to your average Muslim, American or otherwise. If John Muhammad was not a member of the Islamic faith, then maybe that piece of "evidence" can be excised. Or maybe it would be too late.

But honestly, I don't know if there are any religious, or political motivations for this crime. Didn't the sniper's note to the cops demand a $10 million payment to stop his killing spree? In the final analysis, was this all about making a buck?

Posted by Jake at 09:59 AM | Comments (4)

Global Unity

A few weeks back, I posted a link to the satirical Buy Bush a PlayStation 2 Campaign website. The site argued that President Bush simply needed the catharsis of video game warfare to cool his bloodlust would, and then the nations of the world could breathe a sigh of relief.

Well guess what?

The Campaign has been a success. Real live human beings donated enough money to buy a PS2 and the realistic military game "SOCOM: U.S. Navy Seals". But money kept pouring in, and they now have almost enough to buy the more appropriate "Conflict: Desert Storm" video game, and an extra joystick so that Dick Cheney can play too.

I'm not sure what to say about all that.

Hooray?

Posted by Jake at 09:46 AM | Comments (0)

October 25, 2002

Hitting the Trifecta

Gaaaahhh!!!

Marines Ordered into Colombia

"Two battalions of US Marine Jungle Expeditionary Forces have recently received deployment orders for insertion into Colombia this coming February, 2003."

It's from Narco News, and they usually know their stuff.

It's currently estimated that the U.S. will be attacking Iraq sometime in January. It's also unlikely that the U.S. will be completely out of Afghanistan by February. Meaning that the U.S. will be running operations in (at least) three countries simultaneously.

"We here at the Office of Homeland Security can't actually make you safer since our military is constantly invading and infuriating all kinds of unstable foreigners! But with our new National Valium Program, you won't care!"

Posted by Jake at 02:53 AM | Comments (2)

October 22, 2002

Port Authority

Remember the "dockworkers' strike" that happened several weeks ago here on the California coast that ended with Bush ordering the workers to return to their jobs? David Bacon does (all quotes below from Bacon's article)

"On the surface, it seems incomprehensible why the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), made up of shipping and stevedoring companies, would need a federal order to open the gates of the closed terminals. After all, they'd shut them themselves, and could have opened them at any time during the 10 days they'd locked out their own employees. Even at the end of that period, the workers had accepted a Department of Labor proposal that they go back to their jobs for 30 days, under their old labor agreement."

So there's common knowledge error #1 about this conflict. We've been told over and over that it was a strike, when in reality it was a lockout. The work stoppage is 100% the fault of the PMA, not striking workers. According to the PMA, they locked the workers out because they claim that the workers had organized a "slowdown," not quite a strike, but a lesser strategy employees can use against their employers. However, "according to the Journal of Commerce, 30 percent more cargo was crossing the docks than last year -- the greatest volume in history. In fact, the speedup on the docks was so strong that the accident rate shot up, costing the lives of five longshoremen since January. When the union told its members to work at a safe speed, the PMA called it a slowdown."

While Bacon is clearly a pro-labor journalist, he usually takes the good with the bad. Obviously the "working safer" explanation could be a lame excuse by the union, but if it were, Bacon would usually call them on it. So I'm going to buy Bacon's version of events, that the accusations of "slowdown" were false.

So what was this conflict all about?

"The PMA wanted two things. It sought a guarantee that the workers could be forced to continue unloading ships through the next two months, the peak of the shipping season, when the goods traveling from the sweatshops of the eastern Pacific Rim are en route to stores for the Christmas rush. And it wanted the union made so vulnerable that it would be unable to put any pressure on employers during negotiations and forced to accept a settlement on the association's terms.

For the PMA, the Taft-Hartley injunction is a step in a well-ordered campaign that has unfolded with inexorable precision since last spring. And its success in using the power of the federal government to tilt the collective-bargaining process completely in employers' favor should be a wake-up call to every union in the country. If it succeeds on the West Coast docks, the same strategy will appear in bargaining in industry after industry. Unions that are already suffering from declining membership will see their power to bargain drastically eroded as well."

Oh yeah. Class warfare.

Posted by Jake at 09:39 PM | Comments (1)

October 21, 2002

Well I'll Be Damned

Guess I won't be doing my radio show today. I can't get down to the studio because SOMEONE STOLE MY CAR BATTERY.

How wierd is that?

Looks like someone pried one of the windows to the side, unlocked the doors, and then made off with a handful of CDs and my battery. I'm not too upset, mainly because I know how much worse it could have been. The car's still there, no windows smashed, the car stereo still in the dash, just lost a bunch of CDs I never listened to anyway. Don't know how much car batteries cost these days. Last time I bought one I think it was 50 or 60 dollars.

I'm just grumbly irritated, but mostly baffled.

How much money you gonna make selling a very used Honda car battery?

Posted by Jake at 02:00 PM | Comments (0)

Morning Satire

Bush Accuses Iraq of Hiding Nuclear Weapons in North Korea

The real president Bush is mad because he didn't think of it first.

Posted by Jake at 10:11 AM | Comments (0)

Absentee Blogger

Hey folks.

Sorry LMB has been a little scant lately. Not only are work deadlines suddenly drawing close, but I've spent the past week trying to fight off a fairly nasty cold. Not a fun combo, and this coming week looks to be just as busy (although hopefully not as germ-ridden). I'll probably manage to pop off a few entries, but I'll post some of my recommended substitutes, as seems to be the norm among political blog folk:

Cursor (Read Cursor every day. Seriously)
Dack
Common Dreams NewsCenter
Politics in the Zeros

And I suppose now would be the perfect time for a media critic like myself to write about the irresponsible press and the public panic they have induced via their coverage of the DC sniper. But I don't have the time, and it should be perfectly obvious, right?

[edit]

But I will find time to do my radio show Monday, although due to the cold it'll probably be mostly music. Kill Radio has finally moved into our new home, and it's pretty sweet. I'll probably rebroadcast my interview with Garrick in the next two or three weeks.

Posted by Jake at 12:41 AM | Comments (2)

October 16, 2002

Ground Rules

It might surprise some of you to find that I rarely argue with people about politics.

I feel that if you get to the point of "arguing" with someone, both parties are probably so attached to their points of view that no one is going to convince anyone of anything. If your "argument" is really more of a debate or discussion, that's fine, either of you might learn something. But if you're just yelling at each other while not budging an inch, then you're really both wasting your time.

Which is why I just state my opinion, and leave it at that.

One key aspect of "arguing" about an issue is that each side will find their most compelling train of thought or piece of evidence that supports their position, and insist that this one portion of the debate is the most (or only) crucial factor. And of course, each side will seek to minimize or ignore their oppoenents' strongest case.

Example: abortion arguments. Pro-choice people say "women should have control over their own bodies," but ignore their opponents "abortion is murder" arguments. And vice-versa. Which of course doesn't really lead to any increased understanding for anyone. Many of America's long-standing political arguments continue unabated because they have a lot of complicated, messy, grey areas. If they didn't, they would've been resolved already.

Lately I've been seeing a similar trend of highlight/ignore in agruments (especially among bloggers) about the war on Iraq. So I'm setting up some rules. If you argue about the war without following these rules, I'm not going to bother reading it.

If you are arguing in favor of the war- it's fine for you to go on and on about Saddam Hussein's atrocities and how the world would be a better place without him. But you must then justify the massive loss of innocent Iraqi life that is bound to come from an US invasion. And, for extra bonus points, explain why the US should invade Iraq for the good of the Iraqi people when those same people seem to oppose a US invasion (extras special bonus points if you find evidence that the Iraqi people actually do support an invasion).

If you are arguing against the war- go ahead and talk about the probable casualties that will come with the war, but make sure to explain how the Iraqi people living under a tyranny is a good thing (or is better than the U.S.-instituted government that will come later).

Of course, alternate and more complex arguments are available, but these are the two most common and most irritating that I have seen.

And anyone--ANYONE--who says something like "it is a sad fact that people die in war" is off the team.

Posted by Jake at 11:33 PM | Comments (7)

October 14, 2002

Happy Columbus Day

If you're reading this site, there's a good chance that you've read Howard Zinn's book A People's History of the United States. And if you have, this won't be anything new to you.

Zinn went back to the primary documents, Christopher Columbus' personal diaries, and the writings of Bartolome de Las Casas, a priest who lived among Columbus and his men in the New World. And the results aren't pretty for anyone who is a fan of Columbus.

Some relevant passages from an article Zinn wrote on the subject:

In his quest for gold, Columbus, seeing bits of gold among the Indians, concluded there were huge amounts of it. He ordered the natives to find a certain amount of gold within a certain period of time. And if they did not meet their quota, their arms were hacked off. The others were to learn from this and deliver the gold.

[...]

But Columbus could not obtain enough gold to send home to impress the King and Queen and his Spanish financiers, so he decided to send back to Spain another kind of loot: slaves. They rounded up about 1200 natives, selected 500, and these were sent, jammed together, on the voyage across the Atlantic. Two hundred died on the way, of cold, of sickness.

And we have a national holiday to commemorate this guy's first day in the New World.

On a similar theme, we have today's column by our pal Geov Parrish. Maybe, at least one day a year, Americans can spend a little time thinking about the country's past and present relations with the Native people living here.

I've got a bigger, broader take on this that I'm writing, I'll try to post it tomorrow.

Posted by Jake at 11:38 PM | Comments (6)

Daily Assortment

Was today a holiday? I'm self-employed and work out of my apartment, so I lose track of holidays, weekends, weekdays, and other markings of the passage of time.

Nike Asks Supreme Court to Overturn Calif. Ruling- the Nike corporation claims that it has the First Amendment right to lie to consumers about its business practices.

Clean Lies, Dirty Wars- "The media in their enthusiasm had labeled Desert Storm a 'clean war.' The years I've spent as a weapons system analyst told me otherwise, as did Desert Storm veterans I'd interviewed, who spoke of civilian slaughter and brought home photographs of blackened corpses melted by depleted uranium--bodies nicknamed 'crispy critters' by soldiers. And so I set out to uncover the dirty lie."

Reuters, Your Bias is Showing- quick blog entry by Politics in the Zeros that shows two nearly identical stories by the Reuters news agency, but with telling differences...

Iraqi Opposition Appalled by Occupation Plan- Iraqi dissidents aren't real pleased with the Bush administration's "after we kill Saddam Hussein, let's turn Iraq into a U.S.-run military state for a while" strategem.

Activists crash TRL- "Eight NYU students crashed the stage of [MTV's extremely popular show] Total Request Live yesterday, disrupting the show with an anti-war demonstration and angering Limp Bizkit’s Fred Durst. The students, clad in white T-shirts with the words 'No war on Iraq' stenciled in green and orange spraypaint, hit the stage two separate times, interrupting the broadcast." The kids are alright.

Sharon Calls for Palestinian Change- Israeli PM Ariel Sharon calls on the Palestinian people to overthrow Yasser Arafat, because evidently his leadership is the cause of all Palestinian suffering, not the Israeli bullets and bombs.

White House Keeps a Grip on Its News- Ari Fleischer is an asshole.

Fleischer is Met with Protest- 1500 people protest Ari Fleischer, because he is an asshole.

Posted by Jake at 10:07 PM | Comments (0)

October 13, 2002

Land of Make-Believe

As I've said many times now, I believe that this coming Iraq war is all about the US gaining control of more of the Middle Eastern oil supply, and about forcing US-friendly regimes/policy throughout the region. I think that all of the talk about "weapons of mass destruction" and "violations of UN resolutions" is just a smokescreen to cover up the unpleasant truth.

Yet I can't help but get caught up in some of the smokescreen arguments, because no one is talking publicly about the actual motivation. So I just have to spout off this one rant about the weapons inspections.

The main sticking point about weapons inspectors in Iraq is "unfettered access" to Saddam Hussein's presidential palaces. Maybe he's got WMD there, maybe he doesn't. Either way, his refusal to allow total access is understandable. How enthusiastic would US officials be if they were forced to allow inspectors to investigate the Pentagon, or the White House?

So let's say that this is indeed a limitation, one that can't be overcome.

I'd say send the inspectors in to investigate Iraq to the best of their ability. Let them make a full report about any WMD they have found and destroyed throughout the country.

Then, if Bush is still worried, go bomb the presidential palaces.

I'm not crazy about bombing, but you've gotta admit, it would save lives. This strike would destroy 8 large compounds and their inhabitants. The alternative is the Bush war, which will destroy the entire nation.

Posted by Jake at 01:10 AM | Comments (0)

Iraq War, You Are Cleared for Take-Off

As I'm sure you've heard, earlier this week, Congress went ahead and gave President Bush authority to use force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." Many people are upset about this. I used to be one of them, but I came to realize weeks and weeks ago that there was no way that a majority of Congressmen would choose to oppose this bill, in the face of severe White House pressure and under the threat that they would have to face accusastions of "being un-American" during their next election campaign. I eventually moved into a state of glum acceptance, because I didn't see any other alternative. Kinda makes you think about American democracy, a system in which no government official gives a fuck what you think.

I suppose there's still the off-chance that some sort of fancy UN negotiating could still prevent this war. I have never believed that this conflict had anything to do with Iraq's weapons, but the US has presented this as its prime justification. If Iraq fully cooperates with US demand, that justification for attack vanishes. At that point, the US has to choose whether it wants to attack anyway and lose all credibility and respect, or re-think their plans. Re-thinking their plans could result in a new, non-war strategem, or might simply mean that that the US fabricates an all new justification.

And just for fun:

CIA Feels Heat on Iraq Data- "Senior Bush administration officials are pressuring CIA analysts to tailor their assessments of the Iraqi threat to help build a case against Saddam Hussein, intelligence and congressional sources said."

U.S. Has a Plan to Occupy Iraq, Officials Report- "The White House is developing a detailed plan, modeled on the postwar occupation of Japan, to install an American-led military government in Iraq if the United States topples Saddam Hussein, senior administration officials said today. The plan also calls for war-crime trials of Iraqi leaders and a transition to an elected civilian government that could take months or years."

White House Seen Resisting Inquiry- Congress is trying to pass a bill that would create "an independent commission to investigate government failures surrounding last year's terrorist attacks," but the White House seems to be trying to delay or derail this bill. I don't think this is a sign of a "Bush knew" conspriacy, I just think it's part of the Bush administration's knee-jerk secrecy strategy. Bush could've taught Nixon a thing or two about secrets and deception.

Posted by Jake at 01:01 AM | Comments (1)

October 10, 2002

I Like the Funny

National Organization to Shoot Bill O'Reilly Into the Sun- "We are a group of people with a common goal for the common good. To shoot Fox News celebrity Bill O'Reilly into the sun. We do not wish any harm to Mr. O'Reilly, we simply feel that he could better serve mankind in a rocket ship, on a collision course with the center of our solar system."

The Buy Bush a PlayStation 2 Campaign- "Without the catharsis that video games provide, Bush has no way of fulfilling his militaristic fantasies other than actually fighting wars. Our course of action is clear, my friends: We must help this man, and in so doing, help those whose lives will be affected by a full-scale invasion."

Posted by Jake at 01:05 PM | Comments (0)

Bleak Milestone

Happy Birthday, "Get Your War On!"

Don't miss the book tour.

Posted by Jake at 12:09 PM | Comments (0)

Abortion Mysteries

There's a news story out today that seems pleased to announce that U.S. abortion rates dropped about 11% between 1994 and 2000 (the most recent data). The headline: Abortion Rate Drops Significantly.

But a bit later in the article, we find that the abortion rate jumped up about 25% for women below or near the poverty line.

The article focuses on the overall drop rather than the more specific increase in abortions. It suggests that the drop is due to "fear of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases and more open discussion with youngsters about sex."

I haven't studied the subject much, but I would think that a drop in abortion rates might have something to do with Americans' limited access to abortion services. According to Choice USA, "in 86 percent of the counties in the United States, there is no doctor who provides abortions."

And I thought that this lack of access was increasing due to a surge in mergers between Catholic and secular churches in the 1990s. About half of these merged hospitals do not provide abortion or other reproductive health services.

As a side note, the AP article quotes "Kathryn Kolbert," a professor for whom I was a teaching assistant in 2000.

Posted by Jake at 10:19 AM | Comments (0)

October 09, 2002

Fuck Santa Monica

The city council of L.A. beach community Santa Monica passed two laws yesterday which to try to drive out the city's homeless population.

The laws will more or less make it against the law for charity organizations to feed the homeless, and it will prohibit anyone from sitting or lying in a doorway from 11pm-7am.

The law's backers have convinced themselves that somehow depriving the homeless of food and a place to sleep is in everyone's best interest. But honestly, it's about the business/tourism district of town wanting all those icky people to go away.

Posted by Jake at 05:03 PM | Comments (2)

October 08, 2002

Rerun

I'll just steal these links from Politics in the Zeros.

Military analysts at Stratfor predict that "A military coup attempt against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is imminent, according to STRATFOR sources in Caracas and the United States. The attempt could be launched within days or even hours."

This claim is further backed up by a reporter at Narco News, who claims "I'd say that a coup attempt is very likely, a successful coup attempt is very much less likely, but still a possibility."

This would make the second attempted overthrow of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez in the past 6 months. You can read about the first attempt in my Stray Bulletins article here

Posted by Jake at 05:29 PM | Comments (0)

Counter-Revolutionaries

Jesus fucking Christ!

Police Foil White Plot to Recapture South Africa

Near as I can figure, South African police have arrested twelve white men who are allegedly part of a massive plot to return the nation to apartheid rule. I can't tell if this is just a handful of men with huge ambitions, or if there are actually thousands of men involved in a real live conspiracy.

The latest setback came on Friday when the police dug up a cache of guns, grenades and homemade bombs in the red earth of a farm near Modimolle, deep in the Boer heartland of Limpopo province.

It included 16 ammonia-nitrate cylinder bombs, time switches, chemicals, and thousand of rounds for various firearms, including shotguns, rifles and 9mm pistols.

Not a huge arsenal but significant, the police said, because it was intended to supply a rightwing conspiracy to take power through terror and to re-establish white minority rule in South Africa.

The alleged plot was breathtaking in its ambition. A few thousand men were to seize radio and television stations, assassinate cabinet ministers and expel hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of black people.

[...]

According to court documents, the conspiracy was to spring apartheid-era killers from jail, blow up dams, destroy the state's computer network and seize military bases.

A report intercepted by the police known as "document 12" shopwed how 3,772 men would initiate a five-phase plan.

The Western Cape was to be given to "coloureds", people of mixed race, in exchange for their collaboration and "all important traitors" were to be eliminated.

"Blacks and Indians will be told to leave the country. The 'push' action will be used by attacking blacks and Indians who refuse to leave. For the 'suck' action, food will be provided on the roads to motivate them to move," the document stated.

Posted by Jake at 12:23 AM | Comments (1)

October 06, 2002

From the American Frontlines

Lots of anti-war protests took place across the U.S. today. I was at the L.A. rally/march in Westwood, seemed like a good turn-out. I am absolutely terrible at estimating crowd size, but I'm guessing that it was around 5000-6000 people. I was the guy with the homemade "No Blood for Empire" sign taped to the front of my shirt, and the pics of Rumsfeld and Skeletor taped to my back.

Some rally photos:

San Francisco, CA
Chicago, IL
Nashville, TN
New York, NY
Austin, TX
Asheville, NC
Salt Lake City, UT
Seattle, WA
Los Angeles, CA
Portland, OR
Fresno, CA
Corvallis, OR
Atlanta, GA

That's all I can find for now. According to protest organizers Not In Our Name, more than two dozen events were planned for the days between October 5-7, so I'll keep adding photo links as they become available.

[edit]

IndyMedia is trying to catalog all of this weekend's peace protest news at this link

[/edit]

Sadly, I imagine most news stations will limit their coverage of the event to 60-90 seconds that will run something like this:

• shot of well-dressed reporter in front of mass of people with signs. She says something about people opposed to the "so-called 'invasion of Iraq'"
  
• shot of guy leading the rally shouting into a microphone, something like "we're here to tell George Bush to say NO to war!" Or "we're here to say 'no blood for oil!'"
  
• shot that pans over crowd while reporter repeats the police estimate of crowd size.
  
• brief soundbite given by the least sane and least coherent person at the entire rally, "Bush is an imperialist Hitler threatening our liberties and coated in blood. The Trilateral Commission...! Argh! The spiders!! The spiders!!!"
  
• shot of the more attention-hungry protesters shouting at the camera, audio on mute.
  
• "Back to you in the studio, Mark."
  
• "Thanks Sally. In other news, the president announced that he's going to attack Iraq no matter what anyone says, and won't be satisified until Saddam Hussein is dead."
  
• "That's right, Mark. In a speech at the White House today, Bush claimed that he would pummel Iraq until he is able to strut around the White House wearing Saddam Hussein's bleached skull as a codpiece."
  

Posted by Jake at 09:03 PM | Comments (3)

October 04, 2002

Garrick on LMB Radio

Just got off the phone with Garrick Ruiz, a member of the International Solidarity Movement, those folks from around the world who went into the Occupied Territories to try to prevent the Israeli army from killing Palestinians. As you may be aware, I have his email reports from his trip posted here.

Anyhow, Garrick is going to join me on my show next Monday, October 14, 2-4pm. We'll talk about his experiences in Palestine. Tune in, go to KillRadio.org that day and listen to our webcast.

If you've got a question to ask Garrick, email me and I'll be sure to ask Garrick during the program.

Posted by Jake at 04:25 PM | Comments (1)

Angry at Fear

I know some extremely bright and reasonable people who support the U.S. war on Iraq. They feel that Saddam Hussein does have weapons of mass destruction, and that he might use them against the United States. They don't know if he is likely to do that, but they are unwilling to take that chance. In their minds, attacking Iraq will remove Saddam Hussein and any potential threat he might pose to us here in America. And since he is a bad man, the people of Iraq will certainly be better off. Anyone who disagrees with this position is either naive for trusting Saddam Hussein not to attack, or they "hate America," or they are needlessly letting the Iraqi people suffer under a tyrant when America could go set them free.

To me, their arguments are based upon one thing: fear.

They are afraid that they might be attacked by Saddam Hussein, possibly an attack as horrifying as the attacks of September 11. And a war against Iraq, which will be just another television program to most Americans, will eliminate this fear.

"But what about all the innocent Iraqis who will die?" you might ask them. To which many reply matter-of-factly, "people die in war." People also die in murder. And in lynching. And in genocide. The "people die in war" argument is absolutely un-fucking-acceptable.

I'm angry. I'm angry that so many Americans would be willing to allow the killing of thousands of strangers just so that these Americans don't have to feel afraid anymore. The lives of their loved ones are unimaginably precious, and the lives of strangers are worth less than nothing.

So here you go. Feel free to continue to support a war on Iraq, a war on your own fear. But I want you to read a few things first. These are the people who will die. These are the people who may soon become orphans or widows. Feel free to call for war, once you know on whom the bombs will rain.

Letters from Iraqi High School Students to American Students

Reflections from Iraq- peace activist from New Orleans brings medicine to Iraq, talks with the people there.

Voices in the Wilderness Photo Galleries- pictures of the people of Iraq.

Sorry folks, I'm really not a fan of self-righteous screeds like this, but I'm at the end of my rope. These peace activists returning from Iraq have really brought the message home to me. I've been ranting for months about injustice and death and war, but it's a different thing to read a letter from a teenage boy and his love of soccer, and then think "will he still be alive when the bombs drop next month? Or the month after? Or the month after that?"

I'll probably interview one of these returning activists on my radio show in the next couple of weeks. It might change a few minds, and it might not. And even if those minds are changed, will it make a difference?

Inside me there's little but a battle between fury and despair. And the battleground is so, so tired.

Posted by Jake at 02:06 PM | Comments (2)

Jake's Position Statement

I am opposed to the proposed U.S. war on Iraq.

The main reason I am against this war is that it will likely cause terrible death and destruction. The first Gulf War killed over 100,000 Iraqis and left their country in a shambles from which they have still not recovered eleven years later.

In addition, there is the possibility of much more far-reaching consequences. The aftermath of such a war could possibly bring civil war, strife or destabilization to other countries in the region, like Turkey or Iran. During Gulf War I, Iraq attacked Israel in an attempt to draw both that nation and other Arab countries into the fray. It is likely that he would do so again, and perhaps this time Israel would not be so restrained. Which means that there is a chance that the invasion of Iraq could bring about World War Three.

Any plan that has such potential for catastrophic loss needs to have an extremely important justification. I can find no such justification for this plan.

The Bush administration's primary given reason for this attack is that Saddam Hussein has, or seeks to obtain, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The evidence of this is extremely flimsy, as no weapons inspectors have checked Iraq since 1998. Having examined all of the public evidence they have cited, I can only conclude that Iraq may have some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, but with very few effective means of delivering those weapons to enemies. Iraq does not seem to have any nuclear capabilities. One report claimed that if another country gave Iraq some uranium or plutonium, that Iraq could perhaps have a nuclear bomb within a matter of months. However that same report concluded that it was unlikely that any country would aid Iraq in this way. Without outside help, the report stated that Iraq would probably be unable to develop a nuclear weapon for at least five years.

Even if Iraq did have these weapons, that does not mean that the nation is necessarily a threat. Many nations around the world have some weapons of mass destruction, and no one seems particularly worried. After 12 years of media demonization, the American public seems content with "he has weapons of mass destruction" and "Saddam Hussein is evil" to consider him a threat. But Saddam Hussein seems primarily concerned with maintaining his own power. Using any of his weapons against the United States would be his downfall, because the Americans would not hesitate to retaliate. This U.S. attack would result in more destruction of his country, possibly his removal from power, and possibly his death.

And finally there has been some talk of the possibility that Saddam Hussein would give some of his weapons of mass destruction to terrorists who could then use them against the United States. Again, this seems unlikely because Saddam wants to stay in power. Most terrorist groups in the Middle East are Islamic fundamentalists who want to replace all secular governments with Islamic ones. Saddam Hussein's government is secular. Giving these weapons to the terrorists would be aiding potential enemies. Could he choose to ally himself with them against a greater foe, the United States? Perhaps. Could a terrorist-sympathizer in Iraq with access to these weapons give them to terrorists? Sure. Are these possibilities justification for war? I don't think so.

Perhaps there is other, secret evidence that the White House has which proves Iraq's danger more clearly? I don't know. It seems that if they did, they would present it to the public or at least publicly refer to it. They have been struggling to sell this war to the American people for months, and if they had this secret evidence, they surely could have used it in some way to be more persuasive.

So looking at the "weapons of mass destruction" argument, I find it extremely unconvincing. A dictator that may or may not have chemical and biological weapons, who would probably not use them against the United States unless he was under extraordinary circumstances, does not seem like much of a threat to me. Even more persuasive was the fact that, until the U.S. began trying to rally their support, none of the countries in the Middle East-- not even Iraq's neighbors-- were particularly concerned about Iraq or its weapons. If they live next-door and have no fears of Iraq, why should Americans when they're 10,000 miles away?

Given the flimsiness of this evidence, I conclude that it can't possibly be the real reason that the Bush administration wants to attack Iraq. I cannot believe that any world leader would look at the current dossier and feel that an attack on Iraq was more important than any other conflict or issue. Therefore this public reason must be a smokescreen to hide another reason for this attack, a reason that would not be acceptable to the American people.

So what is that reason? It's obvious that the sole goal of the Bush administration is "regime change" in Iraq. But why do they want that? The most popular theories I've read are: domestic politics; oil and control. "Domestic politics" argues that the sole reason the Bush administration wants to attack Iraq is to boost Bush's popularity and increase the chances that Republicans will win in the upcoming Congressional elections. "Oil" argues that this is simply the latest military venture to secure cheap oil for the U.S. I think that the best argument is "control," with the other two playing significant sub-roles.

In my opinion, the U.S. goal is to attack Iraq as the first step in trying to radically reshape regional politics in the Middle East. This concept is being tossed around by ultra-conservatives who have Bush's ear. I've read about it in terms of "democracy" and "defeating tyranny". I've also heard it referred to as "empire" and "Pax Americana".

In other words, given the importance of Middle Eastern oil to global politics, the United States government will take the steps necessary to turn all of the governments in the region into regimes that will do what the United States wants them to. This not only gives the US access to all the oil it needs, it also gives the country some leverage in deciding which other countries get how much oil for their own needs.

So that is my final stance. I oppose the war on Iraq because:

• it will kill many people;
  
• it will further destroy a ravaged country;
  
• it will destabilize much of the Middle East, possibly causing even more death and destruction;
  
• throwing the lives of millions into chaos to maintain one nation's global supremacy is utterly wrong.
  

Posted by Jake at 11:07 AM | Comments (4)

What They Want

I'll be printing a more comprehensive Iraq war piece momentarily, but I'll first address a question I raised some days ago.

Since some conservatives have been talking about the goal of a war on Iraq being to bring democracy to the people there, I wondered why no one was asking the Iraqis what they wanted. That's what democracy is, after all, people having a say in their rule (well, in a real democracy they actually do the ruling, but anyway). So if anyone was truly concerned about democracy and the Iraqi people, they'd find out what the Iraqis wanted, and do that. Perhaps they would want the U.S. to help liberate them from the rule of Saddam Hussein. Or, perhaps they wouldn't.

I haven't found any direct answers to that question yet, but I have seen evidence that they don't want war made upon them.

For example, we have this Toronto Sun article, Iraqi Children Live in Fear of Bombings. Or this article from the NY Times, in which Iraqis on the street tell the reporter that they will fight American troops with stones and knives if they have to. The reporter concludes that while many fear and hate Saddam Hussein, they hate and fear the United States more.

The reason I pursue this question is because I find it to be the only reasonable and morally justifiable argument that I've seen in favor of a war on Iraq. Obviously the U.S. has no plans to bring real democracy to Iraq, they will want to install a new government that is friendly to U.S. interests. But they will probably want the new government to kind of look like a democracy to make it seem legitimate to the world and to the American people. And part of me thinks that even a sham democracy must be better than living in a dictatorship. We haven't got a clear answer for the question, but it looks like the Iraqi people might prefer continuing to live under Saddam Hussein than a violent U.S. war that brings them a sham democracy. And if we actually care about what democracy means, we should respect that.

Posted by Jake at 09:55 AM | Comments (2)

October 03, 2002

Today's Iraq War News

Bush Gets Strong Backing on Iraq- Congress seems to support the use of force in Iraq.

U.S. Losing Iraq Battle at the U.N.- the UN Security Council seems unwilling to draft a new "let inspectors in 'or else'" resolution for Iraq.

Iraq,UN Strike Deal on Inspectors' Return- Iraq agrees to allow free access to weapons inspectors, except some limits on their access to Saddam's presidential palaces. Which was enough of an excuse for the US to bomb back in 1998.

Bush: Iraq Force May Be Unavoidable- i.e. "I really, really want to attack Iraq!"

U.S., British Jets Strike Iraq Zone- the US & UK bombed Iraq again on Wednesday.

A Case Not Closed- every once in a while you hear that Saddam Hussein tried to kill (well, ordered someone else to kill) former president George H.W. Bush. This 1993 article examines the evidence of this claim, and finds it questionable at best.

The President's Real Goal in Iraq- you really should read this one. Argues that two US national security documents lay out quite clearly the hidden US agenda in Iraq.

Posted by Jake at 09:33 AM | Comments (2)

Jake's Spooky Psychic Powers

Iraqi vice president Taha Yassin Ramadan suggested today that the U.S. and Iraq avoid war by staging a duel between Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush.

Which I actually suggested back in August.

[cue spacey theremin music of mystery]

Why risk the lives of thousands when we can stick the tyrannical monsters in the ring and let em duke it out. Show it on pay-per-view and it'll help the economy. My poll showed that Americans preferred a chainsaw duel to war about 92 to 5.

Posted by Jake at 09:22 AM | Comments (0)

October 02, 2002

Meet the Targets

Just found this post on the LA IndyMedia site.

"A series of e-mails that Loyola School of Law, New Orleans, Professor Bill Quigley has sent back from Iraq. He has been there on a Voices in the Wilderness delegation since Sept. 21. I hope they inspire us all to work harder for peace."

Bill Quigley went to Iraq with members of Voices in the Wilderness, a group that has been fighting against the U.S. sanctions on Iraq since their inception. They came to bring medicine to the stricken nation. What follows are six emails from Jordan and Iraq from September 11 through September 30.

Go read em.

Since some of you aren't the type to follow links, I'll post the passage that moved me the most.

While we were waiting in the lobby to leave, a man about 25 or 30 came up to us and introduced himself to us. He said his name was Adil Hameed Raheem, an English teacher and translator ... He had tears in his eyes. Then he reached into his satchel, and pulled out a small color picture of a little blue eyed girl with dark hair and a ribbon around her head. This was his daughter, he said, and he wanted us to have the picture and the words on the back. On the back, her father had printed:

"Dear US administration mems. I am Sala Adil. I am 8 months. I am iraqi. I would be very grateful if you let me live peacefully away of bombing and sanctions like all the children of the world. Sala."

Posted by Jake at 08:52 PM | Comments (0)

The Battle for Peace

If you have been a reader of this site for any length of time, I'd imagine that you share my opposition to a U.S. war on Iraq (anyone else would've left already). So maybe you want to get involved in fighting against this damn war and maybe saving some lives. I'm not optimistic about our chances, but it's certianly a worthwhile goal.

Your first, and easiest way of getting involved is this handy petition organized by Michael Moore. Basically, it says "I pledge to never vote again for any Democratic candidate for public office who has voted in favor of George Bush's war in Iraq." Could be a nice kick in the pants for Democrats to pose some opposition. And if not, you got to scare a Democrat, and that's fun in itself. But you might say to yourself "Jake, I want to oppose this war in Iraq, but I don't want to vote for a Republican next election if the Democratic candidate voted for war!" Then don't. The petition is public, your vote is private, your rep ain't gonna find out. Politicians lie to us all the damn time, I feel no qualms about lying back every now and again.

Next, you've got a proposal by Barry Deutsch to have a one-day mass letters to Congress/letters to the editor/blog postings binge opposing the war in Iraq. He's calling it the Open Letters BlogBurst.

Then, you've got a series of nationwide protests coming up this weekend, October 6-7. You can get a list of them here. If there isn't one near you, feel free to start one yourself.

Or if you're in it for the long haul, you can read about the direction of the peace movement and a number of its core organizations here, in a good column from our pal Geov Parrish.

And remember, you're not alone in this. Among people calling up their Congressmen, the majority seem to oppose the war on Iraq. And just this weekend in London, 150,000-450,000 Britons marched in the streets to oppose the war (although our friends at FAIR point out that the U.S. media chose to ignore the story of the largest protest in London in a decade).

"First, they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win."
- Gandhi

Posted by Jake at 12:46 AM | Comments (0)

Bastards, Heroes and Fools

Defense Reporters Organize To Address Coverage- starting with the Gulf War, the U.S. military has gone to amazing lengths to control media coverage of its wars to control its image, with great success. Now, a group of American journalists has formed the organization Military Reporters and Editors, which will fight these government restrictions on reporting and access. Good luck, MRE.

In a related story, a BBC correspondent in Afghanistan ran into a rarely seen example of military image control. Some of the U.S. soldiers showed him laminated cards that they had been given with suggested answers to give to frequently asked journalist questions.

Substance Wasn't Uranium- another press debacle. Several days ago, the press reported that two men had been detained in Turkey for trying to smuggle 33 pounds of uranium into Syria, certainly a panic-inducing story in these days when weapons of mass destruction are on everyone's minds. Then the press corrected itself, that the men only had 5 ounces of uranium. And now today, they corrected themselves again, the substance wasn't even uranium, but some strange mix of other metals.

CF&M Heads Anti-Label PR Push for Biotechs- this November, the people of Oregon will vote on a ballot initative called Measure 27. Measure 27 would require all products that contain genetically-engineered ingredients to be labelled as such. Not surprisingly, a number of big biotech firms and food manufacturers are fighting the bill through sneaky propaganda. They have hired the PR firm of Conkling Fiskum & McCormick for $4.6 million to form the Coalition Against the Costly Labeling Law. Their goal, as implied by the name, is to convince Oregon voters that the law will simply raise the price of food without doing them any real service.

CNN Headline News Chief Offers 'Cool' Info, and Fast- the head of CNN's sister channel Headline News (very, very brief news reports) is bragging about how "edgy" and "out there" his network is, in order to attract viewers from the covetted 18-34 year old audience. He "compared his morning news readers to disc jockeys on a zany morning radio show and said announcers were working in slangy expressions such as 'whack,' 'ill' or 'sick.'" I can't wait to see this news hipness move on to the pundit-fight shows. "Dude, that militant Islamic fundamentalism is whack, yo!"

Beware al-Qaida, Branch Is On to You- Law enforcement officials in Michigan tried to spread the word that Al-Qaeda members may be engaged in telemarketing in the U.S.-- after reading about the story in the parody newspaper "The Onion." That's some nice footwork, boys.

Posted by Jake at 12:04 AM | Comments (0)

September 30, 2002

No Show

Sorry, no LMB radio show today. I got bidness to take care of.

Posted by Jake at 09:34 AM | Comments (0)

September 28, 2002

Hot Damn! Or, Jake Steals Code

I have just added a little search engine dealy over on the right hand side of the site. It says "search LMB," but technically it searches everything on this StrayBulletins.com domain. Giving thanks where it's due, I found out about it via Bob at Politics in the Zeros, who found it on John Robb's Radio Weblog, who in turn copied it from Glenn Fleishman's 802.11b Networking News site. Thanks fellas!

You could do the same thing to your own site using the html code found here and swapping the "jrobb.userland.com" with your own site's domain name.

Posted by Jake at 04:29 PM | Comments (0)

An Audio History of Iraq

Interesting perspective I haven't yet seen in the media, a radio interview with the author of the book "A History of Iraq." It's about 39 minutes long, and was done by NPR, so don't expect many hard-hitting questions.

It makes me feel good to see that an expert on Iraqi history has come to conclusions similar to my own about the reasons for, and potentially disastrous consequences of a U.S. war on Iraq. Maybe I know what I'm talking about after all.

Posted by Jake at 03:10 PM | Comments (0)

Old Skool Propaganda

The folks at PR Watch dug up this amazing American propaganda film from World War II about the Japanese-American internment camps, called "A Challenge to Democracy" (hey, no snickering).

While you might expect such a film to be one that seeks to prove that the camps are nice places to live and that the rights of these Americans are not being violated, the film seems to walk many fine lines. It seems to simultaneously want to show that these camps are quiet, spartan communties, while emphasizing that the internees are working hard while there , and that Japanese-Americans are as patriotic as all other Americans. It's a wierd mix that seems to be trying to assure white America that these camps aren't prisons, that they're not costing the taxpayers too much money, and that most Japanese-Americans are fine, decent folks. Interestingly, the movie makes virtually no effort to explain why, if Japanese-Americans are fine, decent folks, that they needed to be taken from their homes and placed into camps surrounded by guards and barbed-wire. Maybe they were saving that part for the sequel.

You can watch the 18-minute video online, or download it to your computer.

It's amazing on several different levels.

It's a first-hand historical document. You get to see footage of what the internment camps were like, and you get to see how the U.S. government chose to present this footage for their own benefit.

It also presents a number of facts (unless they were lies, of course) about the nature of these camps. People worked at the camps, for wages much lower than they would've gotten back in their real lives, the camps had elections for community council representatives, etc. What I found most amazing was a brief scene about Japanese-American soldiers, going off to war, and then returning to visit their families being held in these internment camps.

Then you've got your darkly ironic angle, watching the governmental doublespeak, the darkest of which are the creative word definitions. The forced removal of Japanese-Americans from their homes and placement into government-controlled communities was an "evacuation." And they weren't "internment camps," as we call them today. They were "relocation centers."

I'll list some of the best lines here, but I highly recommend watching the film, or at least reading the commentary at the linked page above.

"Evacuation: more than 100,000 men, women and children all of Japanese ancestry removed from their homes in the Pacific coast states to wartime communities established in out-of-the-way places. Their evacuation did not imply individual disloyalty, but was ordered to reduce a military hazard at a time when danger of invasion was great."

"The evacuees are not under suspicion. They are not prisoners. They are not internees. They are merely dislocated people. The unwounded casualties of war."

"Americanism, taught in the schools and churches and on the playgrounds, loses much of its meaning in the confines of a relocation center."

"Relocation of evacuees [from the camps into the outside world] is not being carried out at the expense of national security. Only those evacuees whose statements and whose acts leave no question of their loyalty to the United States are permitted to leave."

"The Americanism of the great majority of America's Japanese finds its highest expression in the thousands who are in the United States Army, almost half of them are in a Japanese American combat team ... Hundreds of them volunteered while they were in relocation centers ...They know what they're fighting against and they know what they're fighting for -- their country and for the American ideals that are part of their upbringing -- democracy, freedom, equality of opportunity regardless of race, creed, or ancestry."

Posted by Jake at 03:05 PM | Comments (3)

September 27, 2002

Phone Calls for Peace

Left-wing radio show Democracy Now! aired a report today with results of an informal study about U.S. public opinion regarding a war on Iraq. DN! reports that of the 26 Senators' offices they were able to contact, that "22 reported an overwhelming majority - in some cases up to 99 percent -- of constituents opposed war in Iraq."

You can listen to their radio report here if you have RealPlayer. Actually, the piece is editted very badly, but if you stick it out, you'll probably get the information you need. I'll just paste the press release that I received about this news story below.

---

*** DEMOCRACY NOW EXCLUSIVE ***

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 27, 2002

CONGRESS OVERWHELMED WITH ANTI-WAR CALLS FROM "THE SILENCED MAJORITY"

Republican and Democratic Senate offices report "overwhelming" opposition from their constituents to war with Iraq. This comes as Congress prepares to pass a war resolution granting President Bush sweeping powers to invade Iraq.

The national news radio show Democracy Now! conducted an informal survey on Thursday of 70 Republican and Democratic Senate offices.

Of the 26 offices which responded to our inquires, 22 reported an overwhelming majority - in some cases up to 99 percent -- of constituents opposed war in Iraq; three said the response was split and just one office

Among the findings:

Democrats
* Wisconsin Sen. Herb Kohl: Aides say they are receiving 1,000-2,000 calls per week with the overwhelming number opposed to an attack on Iraq.

* Washington Sen. Patty Murray: Over 5,000 letters and phone calls were received last week on Iraq, aides say. Only about 100 came from constituents who supported an attack.

* California Sen. Dianne Feinstein: Staff in her San Francisco office reported about 200 calls a day with 99 percent of the callers opposing the war.

* New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman: The D.C. office has been receiving at least 1,300 calls a day with about 70 percent opposed to war.

Republicans
* North Carolina Jesse Helms: Staff declined to give figures but said the "majority is against" when it comes to calls on Iraq.

* Nebraska Charles Hegal: According to aides, constituents favor diplomacy over war at a rate of 5 to 1.

* Virginia John Warner: About 150 constituents a day are calling into the D.C. offices. "A very small minority supported military action," said one aide.

"It's extraordinary that, as Senators work with the Bush Administration to draft a war resolution, their constituents are expressing overwhelming opposition an attack against Iraq," said Amy Goodman, the host of Democracy Now! "Unfortunately we are hearing very little about this in the media. These calls represent the silenced majority, not the silent majority."

Democracy Now is a daily nationwide news show based in New York. It is broadcast on over 130 public radio and television stations around the country.

Listen to the Democracy Now report at: http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20020927.html

For more information visit:
http://www.democracynow.org

Contact:
Mike Burke, Democracy Now! Producer
(212) 431-9090
mike@democracynow.org

Posted by Jake at 12:52 PM | Comments (2)

The Unstoppable Ari Fleischer

In a press conference Wednesday at the White House, AP reporter Ron Fournier asked Bush's press secretary a question about an apparent contradiction between two recent statements Bush had made. Fleischer responded, but didn't really answer the question. So Fournier asked again. Fleischer again responded without answering. Fouriner asked again. And again. And again.

According the folks at Cursor, Fournier asked the question six times before giving up. According to the count done by Media Whores Online, Fournier asked fourteen times. And in the end, Fleischer never really did answer the question.

What was the question?

"The President said, 'the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington, and not interested in the security of the American people.' Did he mean to say that the Senate is not interested in the security of the American people, or did he misspeak?"

Bravo Ari, bravo.

Incidently, I saw a poll about this issue on CNN.com that really pissed me off. It went something like this.

Who is politicizing the war against Iraq?
Republicans, Democrats, or Neither

Where's the "Both" option, motherfuckers? They're politicians! Politicizing things is what they do!

Posted by Jake at 12:34 PM | Comments (2)

September 26, 2002

Stuff You Don't Need to Know

I've been having some debates with folks lately about copyright law and intellectual property. Contrary to common perception, copyright was not enacted for the sake of artists. It was first enacted for the sake of society.

Here you go, Britain's first copyright law, the Statute of Ann, 1710:

An act for the encouragement of learning, by vesting the copies of printed books in the authors or purchasers of such copies, during the times therein mentioned.

I. Whereas printers, booksellers, and other persons have of late frequently taken the liberty of printing, reprinting, and publishing, or causing to be printed, reprinted, and published, books and other writings, without the consent of the authors or proprietors of such books and writings, to their very great detriment, and too often to the ruin of them and their families: for preventing therefore such practices for the future, and for the encouragement of learned men to compose and write useful books.

In other words "if artists and writers can't make enough money from their work to survive, then they won't be able to create art or write books. And that would be bad." Over time, the concept that copyright law existed to benefit society was replaced with the concept that copyright law existed solely for the benefit of the copyright holder.

We might want to think about the modern state of intellectual property. Are we fine with copyright existing for personal gain, or would we want to return to a system that is aimed at helping out the public?

My general thought on the subject is "fuck copyright," but then, I don't have to make my living through my art.

Posted by Jake at 10:35 PM | Comments (2)

Bombing Cavalcade

For a country we're not at war with, we certainly seem to bomb Iraq a lot. It looks like we've already bombed Iraq twice this week. I think that makes like the 37th U.S. bombing raid on Iraq this year.

Iraq is claiming that the latest target was a civilian airport, and that the U.S. attack was a terrorist act. The Pentagon is saying that it was a mixed civilian/military airport, but that there was nothing but military business going on there. Since I don't trust either government, I'm guessing that the middle ground is most likely: a mixed airport with mixed activity and mixed bomb-induced destruction.

Posted by Jake at 04:10 PM | Comments (2)

September 25, 2002

No Pimp Zone

Some excellent stuff here.

Maybe you've heard about the feud between Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly and rapper Ludacris. Here's a really good and really funny article about the whole thing from the folks at soundbitten.

If you're unfamiliar with the story, it basically goes like this: Bill O'Reilly, presumably light on material for that day's program, lashed out at Pepsi because it had hired Ludacris as a spokesperson. O'Reilly trotted out all the tired old white, conservative anti-rap cliches about demeaning women and promoting violence (cuz Hollywood movies don't do that sort of thing), and Pepsi actually caved in and fired Ludacris.

This article is good stuff. Not only does it skin O'Reilly to the bone (exposing a number of prominant lies that O'Reilly tells to promote his folksy, "workin man" image), but points out his stupidity, hypocrisy, etc. It paints a kinder portrait of Ludacris. It concedes that some of the charges against his lyrics are accurate (misogynist, violent, pro-drug), but points out that there's a difference between singing about your own life and saying "hey kids, go out there, smoke weed and smack them bitches!"

I think I was most impressed with the article's two-quote opener:

"I was single for a long time. I was all over the world covering wars and met thousands of women."
-- Bill O'Reilly
Playboy interview, May 2002

"I've got ho's in different area codes."
-- Ludacris
"Area Codes"

Go read it.

Posted by Jake at 01:20 PM | Comments (0)

Jake in Print

My old article about the US-Russia nuclear treaty is getting printed in FAIR's magazine Extra. Yay me. I spiffed up the Stray Bulletins site to coincide with the publication.

If you've stumbled across my site because of that article: hey, how ya doin? Welcome aboard.

Posted by Jake at 11:56 AM | Comments (0)

Struggle

Training Hussein's Opposition- US might spend $92 million for "military training for up to 10,000 members of the Iraqi opposition." I'm not sure who this opposition is, but it seems to be the Kurds of northern Iraq. And not surprisingly, Turkey is pretty pissed off about this, because they fear that highly-trained Kurds in Iraq could aid the Kurdish separatists in Turkey. As I've been saying for months, a war with Iraq could lead to a civil war in Turkey, and a situation in which the U.S. is fighting to free the Kurds in Iraq and helping to suppress them in Turkey.

Palestinians Raise Nonviolent Ruckus Over Israel's Moves- thanks to Israel's latest attack on Yasser Arafat, even Palestinians who hate the man have rallied to his cause. Y'know folks, I think that in the U.S. war on terrorism, we should take a good long look at what Israel has done in their war on terrorism, and do the opposite, cuz their tactics don't seem to have led to much success.

Posted by Jake at 11:51 AM | Comments (1)

Media Nooz

Alleged 'Bumfights' Video Makers Arrested in Calif.- you might've heard about these guys. These lovely entreprenuers would pay homeless people to fight each other while they filmed it, and then sold the videotapes on the internet. What was most disturbing to me was a skit they called "Bum Hunter," like the TV show "Crocodile Hunter," where they would sneak up on sleeping homeless people, torment them, scare the shit out of them, tie them up, etc. But then they paid the people they'd just fucked with, so that makes it okay, right? Anyhow, these assholes might be going to jail. Good riddance.

Fox News Channel Called Anti-Islam- the news isn't so interesting as the reader responses. Got this link from a public relations industry news site. The article itself is about an accusation by the Council on American-Islamic Relations which claims that the Fox News Channel is biased against Muslims. But then the PR professionals who read this site went nuts, arguing in the reader feedback section that Fox News is not biased, and that Muslims and Arabs want to destroy us all. Which shocks me, because for the right price, I'm sure that all of these self-righteous anti-Muslims would take the CAIR on as a client and likewise decry Fox News.

Union Says Paper Won't Practice What It Preaches- possibly just slander by opposing L.A. media outlets, but... Alternative newsweekly the LA Weekly, which frequently takes editorial stands in favor of unions and labor rights seems to be fighting fiercely to prevent their advertising staff from joining a union. The paper argues that they are only concerned about their employees, that they think a union is not in their best interest. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, every goddam attempt by an employer to stop their workers from unionizing!

School Newspaper Takes Heat in DeKalb- this year's first edition of Blue and Gold, the newspaper of Chamblee High School in Georgia, had an article and an editorial that were critical of new school district superintendent Johnny Brown. Claiming that the papers had "factual errors," Brown ordered that the undistributed copies of the Blue and Gold be removed from the campus. Thankfully, Brown's assistant lets us know that "We didn't confiscate papers. We took up papers that hadn't been distributed yet. There's a big difference." That's a relief! For a minute there I thought a school official was abusing his power and silencing his critics!

Anyhow, it seems a good time to point out that students in American schools really have no right to self-expression. According to the law, school pricipals have the right to control just about anything which "disrupts the learning environment," a term so broad it can mean anything from publishing "disruptive" news articles to wearing "disruptive" clothing to saying "disruptive" things.

Posted by Jake at 11:45 AM | Comments (0)

Das Dossier

More on the UK report about Iraq's weapons capabilities.

Sifting the Old Claims from New and Suspicions from Assertions of Fact- UK Guardian closely examines the claims of the dossier and asks knowledgeable experts what they think about each allegation.

Blair's Dodgy Dossier- a much more cynical examination of the dossier.

The Dishonesty of This So-Called Dossier- Robert Fisk points out that there are two miserable conclusions that can be drawn from this report. On the one hand, the UK report could be false propaganda designed to justify a war with Iraq. On the other hand, it could be true, in which case Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction, the economic sanctions against Iraq were a complete failure, and over half a million Iraqi children died for no good reason.

And while we're debunking things, you can read this piece which examines Al Gore's recent "anti-Iraq war" speech, and discovers that Gore's actual stance was less "anti-war" and more "let's attack Iraq later."

Posted by Jake at 11:16 AM | Comments (0)

September 24, 2002

I (Don't) Want My DTV!

It's always fun to watch political folks flip-flop, lie, or otherwise try to reconcile two policies they support which exactly contradict each other. While FCC chair Michael Powell talks a good game about letting the market rule the airwaves, the FCC has recently mandated that all new televisions come equipped with digital tuners by 2007. Digital tuners will be for DTV signals, that allegedly will have better picture and all that. It'll also add around $250 to the cost of each television set.

But wait, there's more!

House Representative Billy Tauzin (who is firmly in the entertainment industry's pocket) has proposed a DTV bill to Congress that would eliminate all analog TV broadcasts by 2007. Meaning that if you want to watch television in 2007, you will have to go out and buy a brand new DTV. And if you want to videotape anything off the television, you will need to go out and buy a new DTV-compatible VCR.

Is the quality of DTV that much higher? No. Prof. Russ Neuman of the Annenberg School for Communication did a study several years ago where he set two televisions at one end of a room, one DTV one regular TV. He had people come in at what would be regular viewing distance, and see if they could tell which was which. For the most part, they couldn't.

(I wish I had documentation for the above, but I don't. Neuman was a professor of mine when I attended ASC, and he described the experiment to us during a class lecture. I have been unable to find the report on the internet, but if I do, I'll will post the link here.)

But back to the legislation. Why is this happening? Is it just a big government giveaway to television and VCR manufacturers, to give them a big sales boost come 2007? Perhaps, but there's more to it than that.

It's called a "broadcast flag". It's a small code that can be embedded into a DTV signal that prevents your home VCR from recording a program, and/or sending it to your friends over the internet. Tauzin's vision of DTV makes wide use of broadcast flags.

So that's it. The TV and movie industry, afraid they won't get your dollars because you might conceivably record their programming off the television, have bought legislators to tell you that you have to spend extra money on a new television and new VCR that will actually limit your viewing options. Fuckers.

For more detail, you can read this report from the Consumer Federation of America.

Posted by Jake at 11:11 AM | Comments (1)

Post-War Iraq

The Day After- NY Times reporter in Iraq speculates on uprising and upheaval in Iraq after a successful U.S. invasion.

The Fifty-first State?- reporter James Fallows talks to several dozen "spies, Arabists, oil-company officials, diplomats, scholars, policy experts, and many active-duty and retired soldiers" about what happens after the U.S. defeats Iraq.

A 'Liberated' Iraq Could End Up Like Weimar Germany- shorter, more concise draft of the Fallows article above.

Posted by Jake at 10:40 AM | Comments (0)

Snowballing, Getting Bigger

AOL-Time Warner, which owns CNN, and Disney, which owns ABC-TV, are talks about spinning off and merging their news divisions. In other words, CNN and ABC News would be the same thing.

There's no guarantees that this will happen, and the article above claims that the idea only "got a lukewarm reception last week at an AOL Time Warner board meeting."

Posted by Jake at 10:35 AM | Comments (0)

The Usual

Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction- The Assessment of the British Government- 55-page report from the UK. I read the relevant portions looking for new evidence about Iraq's weapons. Pretty much all the new information is a series of allegations, backed up only with the claim that they came from "secret intelligence" sources. There are satelite photographs of alleged chemical weapons and rocket factories, but they could be pictures of elementary schools for all I know.

Ghostwriting the Law- Mother Jones profiles the stealthy American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a pro-business lobby group that helps in "drafting business-friendly bills for state legislators across the country."

Bringing the War Home- how the U.S. military's domestic violence prevention programs fail miserably.

The Audacious Courage of Mr. Blair- Monthy Python's Terry Jones ruthlessly mocks Tony Blair and his support for the war on Iraq. He "praises" Blair's "courage" to do whatever the White House wants, despite the fact that it makes him look like a foolish lapdog.

Not-So-Rosie Outlook: Her Behavior of Late Has People Talking- Really insulting article about celebrity Rosie O'Donnell. Examines the tough journalistic question of whether or not her recent "uncouth" behavior is due the fact that she's a lesbian.

Posted by Jake at 10:29 AM | Comments (0)

Iraq Iraq Iraq

Yeah, not even 24 hours have passed since I said that I was going to cut back on Iraq-related entries, and I'm already posting another Iraq entry.

Heard an interesting argument yesterday on KPFK's Daily Review radio show. The host of the show rotates, and yesterday's was Ian Masters, who I think is great, very knowledgable, very insightful. Masters was interviewing journalist Eli Lake about his recent New Republic article about a conflict between the CIA and the Pentagon over who gets to advise the president about Iraq. But the discussion shifted to a broader debate about US power, democracy and human rights.

First of all, Lake claims that the Bush administration is working on an assumption that Muslim dictatorships and Muslim terrorism are inextricably linked. And since finding and destroying terrorist cells is difficult, the administration will instead destroy these governments and replace them with democracies. So in a sense, the region-wide instabilities (instabilities that could potentially overturn dictatorships and replace them with democracy-like regimes) that a war against Iraq could cause are not an unwanted side-effect for the White House, but the actual policy goal.

Lake then goes on to pose this question: why does the Left, which is opposed to tyranny and oppression, oppose the use of the U.S. military to democratize Iraq and possibly the rest of the Middle East? He suggested his own answer about knee-jerk anti-war sentiment and a distrust of American government that he implied was misplaced. Not a bad argument, although I disagree with many of the assumptions upon which it's based.

First of all, let's bolster Lake's initial theory about the White House's goal of fighting terrorism by fighting Middle Eastern tyranny with this article, The Real Foe Is Middle Eastern Tyranny. It's written by a member of the influential conservative think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute. The facts that the AEI is taking this position, and that it frequently contributes to American policy, supports Lake's argument that the White House does indeed hold this view.

First of all, I disagree with this viewpoint, that somehow Middle Eastern dictatorships are responsible for what we call terrorism (once upon a time, the term "terrorism" meant "brutal governmental oppression, " in which case these dictatorships would be very responsible for terrorism). These terrorist organizations seem to function fine without governmental sponsors. I get the impression that they are frequently funded by wealthy elites within some of these repressive countries, but not necessarily by governments.

So let's take on Lake's question to Lefties. And if the U.S. military was truly setting out to do what he claims they are out to do, that would be a very good debate. Is it morally acceptable to use force to remove dictators? Do other nations have the right to interfere in another country's affairs that way? Will the eventual regime change justify the inevitable death count?

But I think that those questions become moot in this case here. I don't think that the U.S.' goal is to replace the Middle Eastern tyrannies with democracies. I think that'd be just another cover story. I think that the goal would be to replace the Middle Eastern tyrannies with America-friendly regimes, democratic or not. The U.S. has a long history of supporting governments, no matter how democratic or despotic, that are amenable to U.S. interests. For PR reasons, I imagine that the U.S. would want these new Middle Eastern regimes to look like democracies, because that helps justify the intervention.

But there's still some valid questions in there for anti-war folks. Would even a sham democracy be better for the people of Iraq than life under Saddam Hussein? Would the destruction of war justify this regime change?

But an important question that I don't think anyone is asking is "what do the people of Iraq want?" As far as I know, no one's asking them. If you did ask, I imagine the first thing they'd say is "end the sanctions," the ones that are depriving them of much-needed food and medicine. But apart from that, I don't know what they would want. Frankly, it's a possibility that they support Saddam Hussein. Much the way that Americans rallied around George W. Bush in a time of crisis, maybe the Iraqi people have done the same.

So here's the Jake Sexton Might-Help-But-Certainly-Won't-Solve-the-Problem Iraq Policy:

End the sanctions against Iraq
Begin an international weapons embargo to the entire Middle East
Find out what the people of Iraq would want us to do, and see if we can help

Posted by Jake at 10:12 AM | Comments (1)

September 23, 2002

News Buffet

Here's another medley of news links. And I think I'm going to try to have fewer entries about Iraq in the future. With the time and energy I'm spending on Iraq, I'm surely missing dozens of other important subjects.

Unveiled: the Thugs Bush Wants in Place of Saddam- who gets to be the new head of Iraq once the U.S. grinds Hussein to dust? Our front-runners are two military strongmen and an alleged corporate crook.

Still a Few Dots to Connect in Iraq Domino Theory- so U.S. policy in the Middle East is now "reverse domino theory"?

The News Dissector and the President- Danny Schecter "the news dissector", behind the scenes at a presidential press conference. Revealing, I recommend giving it a look.

The Operation Was a Success (But the Patients Died)- correction of news articles I did not see. The New England Journal of Medicine published a new study about the treatment of prostate cancer, and the US media got the story wrong. While the media announced that surgical removal of cancerous prostates saved lives, the study actually concluded that there was there was "no significant difference between surgery and watchful waiting in terms of overall survival." Or, as this article puts it "if I were to say, 'Listen we have a great new procedure for people with inoperable brain cancer ... we're going to cut off every one's head and then I can absolutely guarantee that you won't die of brain cancer,' that wouldn't prove very much, would it?"

See the Mike Tyson Spot Fox Pulled Off the Air- the Fox Sports Net cable channel recently ran a commercial for their program "The Best Damned Sports Show Period" which was quickly removed because of its controversial content. It showed boxer Mike Tyson singing lullabies to a baby he held cradled in his arms as he rocked it back and forth; apparently the ad was supposed to show to what lengths athletes would go to appear on the BDSSP. But the public seemed to think that having a convicted rapist holding a baby was perhaps not the best of ideas (now that I write these words, I think I'm one of those people). But, thanks to modern technology, you can view this absurd and wildly inappropriate commercial through the wonders of streaming video.

Posted by Jake at 11:20 AM | Comments (0)

September 22, 2002

Ambushed

Even though I know that the folks at the Fox News Channel are assholes, even though I know that they love televising conflict, even though I'm sure they are drooling over the jump their ratings will see if war breaks out in Iraq, I was still astounded by a piece I saw on their network this weekend.

It began as a regular Fox News segment, as the host announced that it would be a discussion between former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, and Weekly Standard reporter Stephen Hayes. I figured this was going to be the typical cable TV "shouting heads" format, where two guys who will never, ever agree, pretty much keep stating how they're right and the other guy's wrong. I decided to watch to see if Ritter had anything new to say, but presuming that I'd pretty much heard all of his arguments.

But the debate/interview quickly turned into an anti-Ritter hit squad that was truly shocking to see.

They start off with Hayes presenting a bombshell from his latest news article, an allegation that Scott Ritter had been paid $400,000 from an Iraqi-American to make pro-Iraqi propaganda. So before we're even a minute into this piece, the focus has moved from Ritter's favorite subject, whether or not Iraq has nuclear weapons, to the subject of whether or not he is a traitor to the United States.

Ritter managed to rebutt fairly successfully that he had borrowed the money from an American citizen to make a documentary that was receiving praise for its objectivity. I can't verify too much of that claim, except that Ritter's movie is indeed a documentary, called "In Shifting Sands," about the UN weapons inspections and the effects of sanctions against the people of Iraq. I tried to find an objective source for a movie review, but I failed. Looking for more information about this fellow who backed Ritter's movie, I found several conservative websites which claimed that he had "extensive ties to Saddam Hussein's government," but none of the articles spelled out what these ties were.

So all we have for certain is that some dude who was born in Iraq loaned (or maybe gave) Scott Ritter a chunk of money to make a documentary. But too late, the smear's already out of the bag.

But already we've lost sight of anything that matters. We're now talking about Ritter himself, not about Iraq and its weapons. Which is the point, I suppose. Ritter finds himself in a lose-lose situation: if he ignores the accusations against him, he loses credibility. If he defends himself, he loses the chance to talk about Iraq and its weapons.

Then the "fair and balanced" host began gently grilling Ritter about his "change of stance" about Iraq, formerly saying that it was a threat, and now saying it was disarmed. I have already commented on this argument in a previous LMB entry, so I won't repeat it here.

Then, the host invites another person to join in via videoscreen. I didn't catch the name or affiliation of this other person, but I think she was another Fox News reporter. The first words out of her mouth (as I try to accurately quote her from memory) were, "Isn't it true that you applied to join the CIA, but failed because of lie detector problems? So why should we believe anything you have to say?"

Like I said, hit squad.

The grilling continued, with all three critics badgering Ritter, and Ritter trying to defend and/or counterattack. I couldn't stand to watch too much more of it. I changed the channel, and resumed flipping around the dial. I stopped by Fox News again. The interview was still going on. I aimlessly flipped around some more. Fox News again. Still with the Ritter-bashing. All told, I would guess that the interview was like 10-15 minutes long, which is quite a lot of time for one of these 24-hour news channels to keep with a single subject.

I'm not saying this as some kind of Ritter-worshipper or something. He seems reasonable, rational and credible to me. He's certainly not above criticism, but I haven't found much that seemed justified. One potentially valid criticism came from a recent interview with British weapons inspector Greg Goldin. Ritter has been frequently claiming that Iraq's chemical and biological weapons are no threat because they have a shelf-life: biological weapons deteriorate into uselessness after 3 years, and chemical weapons after 5. However Goldin argues, correctly, that Ritter is no biological or chemical weapons expert. Ritter was sort of the police detective of the weapons inspectors, not the biologist or the chemist. Goldin claims that Ritter's figures for weapon shelf-life are completely false. As I am also neither a biologist or chemist, I can't verify either Ritter's or Goldin's claims.

I'm a little embarassed now, as I realize that I don't know how to conclude this entry. That's alright, just stay with me and we'll figure something out.

How about "what else could we expect from the Fox News Channel?" Or "that's what you get when you publicly oppose American war plans"?

Or maybe even "Fox News drinks pee-pee"?

Yes, that'll do nicely.

Posted by Jake at 10:20 PM | Comments (1)

U.S. vs. Inspections

Just a few days ago, I threw a fit about U.S. opposition to UN weapons inspectors returning to Iraq without a strong UN "or else" resolution.

But after days of no mainstream media outlets focusing on this story, I decided to track it to the source, a statement made by Colin Powell to Congress (specifically, the House Committee on International Relations). While the initial news reports seem to be correct, Powell's speech is not worded so dynamically:

"Many United Nation members, including some on the Security Council, want to take Iraq at its word and send inspectors back in without any new resolution or new authority. It's a recipe for failure, and we will not support that."

Couple that with a few other choice phrases sprinkled throughout:

"We must not believe that inspectors going in under the same conditions that caused their withdrawal four years ago is in any way acceptable or will bring us to a solution to this problem."

"If inspectors do go back in because the UN feels it is appropriate for them to do so, they go back in under a new regime with new rules."

All of this adds up to "inspectors without a tough, new UN resolution is unacceptable, and the only acceptable plans are inspectors with a tough, new UN resolution, or unilateral U.S. 'action' to 'defend our country' and 'our interests' (i.e. military force)."

Perhaps the long, indirect nature of Powell's statement explains the lack of media coverage. Not exactly soundbite-friendly.

Maybe this entry was completely unnecessary, but sometimes I feel the need to back up my kuh-razy claims with as direct evidence as I can muster.

Posted by Jake at 07:54 PM | Comments (0)

September 21, 2002

Cops vs. Free Speech

"Thousands" of protesters plan to take to the streets of Washington, DC this coming week to protest at an annual meeting of the IMF and World Bank. Well, they will if the police let them.

Let's see, how to summarize...

The World Bank and IMF are international loan/aid institutions that are frequently criticized for doing more harm than good to the poor struggling countries they seek to help. Jake's nutshell analysis: the IMF and WB loan money to impoverished countries on the condition that they restructure their economies in such a way that it makes them more attractive to foreign investors. These "structural adjustments" usually involve the elimination of social programs, workers' rights, and environmental regulations. For more thorough criticisms, you can read the Anti-Capitalist Convergence's critique, and a more conservative argument from the anti-IMF/WB organization 50 Years Is Enough. But probably the best evidence that the IMF and WB are a bad idea is that Argentina, now currently facing economic armageddon, followed every IMF and WB recommendation to the letter.

Anyhow, large protests are planned against the IMF/WB for Sept. 25-29 in DC. But now the DC police are discussing legal manuevers to shut down the protests before they begin. Their rationale for this is a series of allegations (which are not backed up by evidence in the news article cited) that protesters plan acts of civil disobedience and vandalism. One bit of evidence is a page on an anarchist website about an "anarchist scavenger hunt" which would award points for acts like breaking a McDonald's window or hitting a CEO. The page's author, Infoshop.org webmaster Chuck0, says that the page was a joke. I'm inclined to believe him, as I don't see how the awarding of abstract "points" would really encourage an anarchist (or anyone else) to do get themselves into dangerous situations which could land them in jail.

Hard to say whether the police actually believe that these protests pose a threat to the city, or if they're simply hyping the danger so they can prevent the protests and save themselves the trouble of dealing with it. The former is simply sloppy police work: if you think someone's going to commit a crime, you search for evidence and arrest the prepetrator, you don't shut down the events where these crimes might take place. And the latter is an assault on free speech because policing a mass protest is such a pain in the ass: closing streets; setting up road blocks; making sure the protesters don't get violent; trudging around in heavy helmets and body armor all day, just so that a bunch of punk kids can yell about some obscure group of bureaucrats and call you a "pig"? Why bother when you can avoid all the trouble with a couple of white lies?

Posted by Jake at 06:39 PM | Comments (2)

September 19, 2002

And Then the Universe Imploded

Absolutely un-fucking-believable.

"But in Washington, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell testified before a congressional panel that the United States will block any attempt to send U.N. weapons inspectors back to Iraq without a new mandate from the U.N. Security Council."

Here, paragraph 15.

I'm going to go bang my head against a wall repeatedly, then go to bed.

Goodnight, all.

[edit]

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

[edit]

(I suppose I should give credit where it's due. I got this cite from This Modern World, who in turn got it from Xoverboard)

[edit]

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!

Posted by Jake at 09:27 PM | Comments (5)

Sneaky

Wonder why this isn't getting more coverage.

US Sends Forces to Wage Secret War in Horn of Africa- Apparently the U.S. is going to send troops into Yemen to fight/capture Al Qaeda members there: "it was revealed yesterday that 800 US troops and an unknown number of special forces personnel had been dispatched to Djibouti, the tiny African nation that faces Yemen across the Gulf of Aden. The assault ship Belleau Wood is also in the area and could be used as a platform for troops." (although Yemen denies the whole thing)

Posted by Jake at 05:09 PM | Comments (0)

Untruthful Press Jerks

You see an awful lot of "Lying Bastards" and "Media Bastards" on this site, but not all that much in the field of "Lying Media," bastard or otherwise. Lately I'm more of the opinion that the journalists themselves aren't doing much lying, they're simply repeating the lies that they've been told without bothering to check on the facts.

They could attend a press conference where Dick Cheney said "Look out! Osama bin Laden is right behind you!" and they would write "at today's press conference, Vice President Dick Cheney stated that Osama bin Laden was right behind us," without so much as turning their heads to look and see for themselves whether or not the statement was true.

A really good journalist might go so far as to check with an opposing Democrat for a counter-quote, "Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said that he didn't know if Osama bin Laden was hiding behind the press corps, but that he was strongly opposed to all the same things that Republicans are strongly opposed to."

Whatever you want to call it, I did manage to find many examples of poor journalism-- negligence or outright lies, you decide.

First off we have some straight press criticism from FAIR alleging that a recent ABC News report by Peter Jennings on the reintroduction of wolves into Idaho was very misleading and inaccurate. According to FAIR, the story had a very strong moralistic tone, sadly decrying an abusive federal government's efforts to force life changes on local people who wanted nothing to do with it. Except that apparently, the people of Idaho seem to have no problem with the wolves. You can read Peter Jennings' response to the criticism of his story, in which he more or less admits it: the story was never meant to be about the reintroduction of the wolves, but about the struggles between federal government and individual rights. In other words, he was completely unconcerned with getting the story right, he just wanted to use his version of events as an illustration to the point he was trying to make.

A few weeks back, I wrote about an erroneous news story alleging that the National Education Agency was sympathetic to Al Qaeda, that was picked up and gleefully repeated by America's conservative pundits. Now Spinsanity has a follow-up piece showing even more journalistic fraud in the initial fraudulent story, and how pundits and journalists are continuing to pretend that this fiction is truth.

The LA Times reports that a government commission has found that "Madison Avenue-style advertising aimed at 'selling' America to Middle Eastern audiences isn't likely to work and could backfire. While the lying bastards of the PR industry report the exact opposite finding, that these efforts need more money.

I wrote earlier this week about the fictional terror threat in Florida. Virtually every allegation of wrong-doing against these fellows had been debunked, and now I think the very final accusation has now bit the dust. A toll-booth worker in Alligator Alley, Florida stated in a sworn affadavit that one of the three non-terrorists sped through her lane without paying the toll. Now police have a video tape of the lane which shows definitively that the man did indeed pay the toll. Amusingly, the toll booth attendant has now changed her sworn affadavit to say that "a toll may have been paid."

But many cable journalists have learned never to let the truth get in the way of a good story. After the three men were found innocent of anything relating to terrorism, local law enforcement tossed around the possibility that the men had said suspicious things in public on purpose as a prank or hoax. Then the officers seemed to abandon that theory, because there was no evidence to support it. But the press held that story tight, and debated endlessly whether or not these men should be punished for their "sick joke."

This entire story is based upon one woman's memory of what she thinks she overheard from a conversation among some men at a nearby table in a restaurant. She claims they made some menacing (if you interpret them in a certain way) comments about 9/11, while the men claim that they didn't say a word about the date. And from that, the media concludes that these men played a mean-spirited joke on an innocent patriotic woman. That's some of the worst journalism you could possibly imagine.

Posted by Jake at 05:08 PM | Comments (5)

Quality Assortment

World Support for War Recedes- Yay!

Saddam's Nukes are a Western Myth- columnist Eric Margolis argues persuasively that Iraq does not have nuclear weapons.

Senate to Vote on Iraq Resolution Before Election- "Senate Democratic leaders on Tuesday agreed to vote before the midterm elections on a resolution supporting action against Iraq, dropping their complaints that they were being rushed to judgment before the Bush administration had fully made its case."

I really don't understand the Democrats. Are they intentionally trying to lose in this upcoming Congressional election? As KPFK commentator Ian Masters has been saying, "voting on this war before the election turns it into a referendum on patriotism." Meaning that anyone who wants to get re-elected will have to vote in favor of the war or face an electoral opponent who will smear them as un-patriotic and soft on terrorism. Which ends up playing into the hands of the Republicans anyway, because the American public seems to feel that Republicans handle war situations better than Democrats.

Number of Gay TV Characters Plummets- not that there were many to start off with. Last TV season, the major networks had 20 gay characters in 16 different series. This coming season there will be 9 gay characters in 8 different series. Also mentions the possiblity of the creation of a gay cable TV channel.

Special Weapons Primer: Nuclear Weapons- do you really want to decide for yourself whether or not Iraq has nuclear weapons, and examine the evidence personally? Well, you'll probably want to read this first, a relatively easy-to-understand, step-by-step explanation about what is needed to create nuclear weapons. By the Federation of American Scientists, an organization of scientists dedicated to ending the arms race.

Group May Estimate Effects of Tax Cuts- Republicans in Congress lobby for the use of Enron-style kwazy accounting methods in reports by the Congressional Budget Office.

Rumsfeld Makes Case for War- Skeletor Rumsfeld speaks before the Congress about how Saddam Hussein is bad. LA Times prints a misleading sub-head for the article based on Rumsfeld's testimony. "Congress: Iraqi regime is world's greatest threat, he tells lawmakers. U.N. remains unconvinced" says the LAT. Rumsfeld's actual words, "No terrorist state poses a greater and more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." What the hell is a "terrorist state?" Anything you want it to be, really, which makes the sentence meaningless.

AJC Launches Pro-Israel Ads- the American Jewish Committee has prepared 30-second commercials to air in the U.S. to rally support for Israel. It praises Israel's government as democratic and its protection of the rights of its citizens, trying to draw parallels between Israeli society and American society. But I found it disturbing that the ad seeks to drum up U.S. support by claiming that it is "America's only real ally in the Middle East." The ad continues with that sort of thread, that Israel is good and the other Middle Eastern nations suck. I also couldn't help but snicker at the ad's conclusion. With the U.S. itching for war with Iraq, and Israel sending tanks into Arafat's compound, who could disagree that the U.S. and Israel have "shared visions of peace for the future"?

Rumsfeld Indicates Nuclear Status Key to Pre-Emption Policy- Stratfor analyzes recent statements by Rumsfeld and surmises that the new U.S. "pre-emptive attack" policy is not about making sure that no "evil" nations have nuclear weapons, but is about preventing non-nuclear nations (like Iraq) from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Posted by Jake at 03:59 PM | Comments (0)

Idol in Chains

My mom was a big fan of the summer TV series "American Idol." She's always had great respect and fondness for folks with a talent for singing.

We were discussing the show, and my mom mentioned that the finalists for this show were "set for life," meaning that with this publicity and their singing skills, they were certain to become successful recording artists. "I don't know," I said, and speculated that to even join in the musical competition that they probably had to sign all kinds of legally binding documents giving up their rights. I figured that the finalists had it even worse, that they'd probably had to sign contracts giving American Idol-owned recording labels all rights to their works.

Looks like I was right.

Posted by Jake at 03:44 PM | Comments (0)

Inspections

Inspectors Face a Daunting Task If They Are Allowed In- overview of the responsibilities of any UN weapons inspections team in Iraq.

Inspections Map- map of Iraq that shows the locations of some of the past, and allegedly current, nuclear, biological and chemical weapons sites.

Saddam Does Not Have "Weapons of Mass Destruction"- slightly technical article which argues that the term "weapons of mass destruction" only applies to nuclear weapons, not to biological or chemical weapons.

Spy Scandal Has Reduced America's Control of Mission- pretty much what the headline says. The weapons inspectors who left Iraq in 1998 committed acts of espionage for the U.S. government. To make sure that doesn't happen again, the new U.N. weapons inspections will not have much contact with Americans.

UN to Upset Bush's War Plans with One-Year Deadline for Iraq- the plans for careful and thorough weapons inspections of Iraq wouldn't have much evidence about Iraqi WMD for at least a year. Which pushes the war back by a year, provided that Saddam Hussein continues to talk with the weapons inspectors and doesn't do anything that pisses George W. off too bad.

Posted by Jake at 03:32 PM | Comments (0)

September 18, 2002

Ma Salaama

(I think that means "goodbye" in Arabic)

I've posted Garrick's final Report from Palestine. By now he should be on his way back to Los Angeles. I imagine he will write a few reflections upon his trip, and I will post those on the RfP page as Garrick sends them to me.

I'm sure that soon after his return, Garrick will be giving many presentations and doing many interviews here in Los Angeles, and beyond. I will also keep you informed of these presentations and media appearances.

Garrick's email address is at the bottom of every message, feel free to write him a note. I think the man deserves a lot of praise. He voluntarily spent months and months in a goddam war zone, with the sole goal of trying to help people that he felt needed help. Whether or not you agree with his politics, whether or not you support the Palestinians, you've got to admit that that our world could use a lot more of Garrick's kind of compassion and courage.

Posted by Jake at 04:52 PM | Comments (2)

Ruckus

Today Nike is holding their annual shareholders meeting, which they will be webcasting live.

Two anti-sweatshop activist friends of mine, Jim Keady and Leslie Kretzu, will be attending the meeting. They've had some Nike stock donated to them, which entitles them to speak at the meeting. Jim and Leslie have spent months and months living with and talking to Nike's factory workers in Indonesia, and will probably have some interesting things to say to the company's board of directors. Could be interesting.

The meeting starts at 1pm EST, and you can view the webcast here. You have to register with the Nike investor site to watch, but I just put in an email address I never use, and registered as "Reba McEntire."

For more on Jim & Leslie's work, you can check their site Educating for Justice.

Posted by Jake at 09:02 AM | Comments (0)

September 17, 2002

Roundup

Respiratory Ills Plague Ground Zero Workers- more and more of the rescue workers from the WTC clean-up are coming down with serious respiratory problems.

Cronies in Arms- top members of the Bush administration are corporate criminals. But you already knew that.

Anti-Land Mine Group: India, Pakistan Lay Massive Number of Mines Along Border- sigh. Yeah, laying down massive amounts of land mines, that always has cheery outcomes.

Drop the Bomb: Why War Talk Is Cheap- Ted Rall's vain plea to eliminate the use of aerial bombardment in warfare. Makes a kind of sense though.

Posted by Jake at 08:13 PM | Comments (1)

Power, Profit, War

Larger Aim in Iraq: Alter Mideast- what I've been saying for a few weeks, while trying to not sound like a crackpot. Since the weapons of mass destruction and "Saddam is bad" arguments for attacking Iraq are not very persuasive, there had to be some other reason. And that reason seems to be "if the U.S. can get Saddam Hussein out of power, it could completely reshape the balance of power in the Middle East in the U.S.' favor." The article only quotes "experts" on foreign policy, which undermines the idea that this is the "real" plan of the Bush administration, but still makes a decent case.

Iraq Attack Could Cost $200 billion- estimated war costs run between $100-$200 billion.

Iraq Attack May Deal Blow to World Economy- like the headline says.

Crude Tumbles as Iraq Bows to Pressure- oil prices drop when it looks like war is temporarily averted.

Saddam-less Iraq Could Be Key Player in Oil Market- argues that unlike others have theorized, Iraq could not surpass Saudi Arabia as the world's predominant oil power. The map depicted is interesting as well.

The Fire Sale- how the U.S. is bribing many national governments in exchange for their support of an invasion of Iraq.

Posted by Jake at 08:51 AM | Comments (3)

Mindbending for Fun and Profit

America Plans PR Blitz on Saddam- "The Bush Administration is to launch a multimillion-dollar PR blitz against Saddam Hussein, using advertising techniques to persuade crucial target groups that the Iraqi leader must be ousted. The campaign will consist of dossiers of evidence detailing Saddam’s breaches of UN resolutions, and will be launched this week at American and foreign audiences, particularly in Arab nations sceptical of US policy in the region ... The campaign ... will initially receive over $200 million." Yeah, I can't think of any better uses for that money.

Pepsi Marketing Looks to Outer Space- "Pepsi-Cola Co. is negotiating a deal for what could be one of the highest-profile promotions in marketing history: an unprecedented $35 million program that would award the winner a ticket to ride on the Russian Soyuz space shuttle."

Posted by Jake at 08:40 AM | Comments (0)

September 16, 2002

Check. Mate?

Iraq Accepts Inspectors, UN Mulls Next Move

and

U.S. Calls Iraq Offer Tactic That Will Fail

We'll just have to see how this goes. At the UN last week, Bush more or less aid that the U.S. would go to war with Iraq if that country wouldn't allow weapons inspectors back into the country with no conditions. Iraq now says that it will do that. And the White House says that Iraq's offer is just another trick.

Why would Iraq suddenly allow inspectors back into the country? Only two probable reasons: 1) Saddam Hussein fears that the war will force him from power, or 2) it's just another trick to buy time and try to derail the U.S. momentum. Either way, I fear that the U.S. government is going to try to find any flaw, real or imagined, in Iraq's compliance and use it as an excuse to attack.

Posted by Jake at 11:24 PM | Comments (0)

Assorted Assortment

Can Anyone Out There See Me?- profound post 9/11 comic strip.

CD Players Glued Shut to Stop Piracy- Hee hee. "A US record company has issued reviewers with portable CD players that are glued shut to prevent two new albums from being pirated online before their official releases."

Inside Radio- report from last week's National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) meeting in Seattle, and the corresponding protests.

The President's Iraq Ultimatum, as Delivered to the United Nations General Assembly- more news parody from WhiteHouse.org. Amazing how accurate fiction can be.

Posted by Jake at 11:17 PM | Comments (1)

Calling Blog Tech Geeks

Something I don't understand about this software I'm using, maybe someone with more know how can help me out.

What is XML? What does it mean to "syndicate" someone's blog, and why would you want to do that?

If you have a answers, please post a comment, or send me an email.

Thanks.

Posted by Jake at 12:09 PM | Comments (4)

Pollsters of Babel

Interesting poll was taken lately, less for its results than that it was done at all. In multi-ethnic California, where 40% of the population is non-white, a post 9-11 poll was taken in 12 different languages. The results claim that unlike many white Americans, who seem to be putting the WTC attack behind them, that ethnic minorities in California are facing serious decreases in their quality of life and feelings of safety.

I don't have much faith in polls, but it's good to see that someone's bothering to pay attention to the opinions of people who can express themselves more fully and accurately in non-English languages.

Posted by Jake at 12:04 PM | Comments (0)

Chomp

The Bush Administration Explained- biting satirical history of the Bush administration, with toungue so far in-cheek the author is probably tasting his wallpaper. Sarcastic and reference-heavy, reminds me of old-skool Dennis Miller (maybe I'm dating myself here, but I can actually remember back when Dennis Miller was funny).

Posted by Jake at 11:58 AM | Comments (0)

More Ritter Bashing

Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter is on a mission to avert the U.S. war on Iraq, and replace that plan with one to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq. As you might expect, Ritter is now being slandered as an apologist for Saddam Hussein, a traitor, etc. The kindest of these attacks is that perhaps Ritter is "inconsistent". Hard to say if the media is just shallow, or if they're intentionally making him look bad.

The anti-Ritter arguments only work if you force the facts into a particular frame. In 1998, Ritter quit the UN weapons inspection team because he felt that the U.S. was maniuplating the team for their own political ends. At the time, he warned that the U.S. should take the issue of Saddam's weapons seriously. And now, in 2002, Ritter is saying that there is no evidence the Iraq has these weapons, and that the U.S. should not attack Iraq.

So the shallow readings are:

• "First you say Iraq has these weapons, now you say they don't. Why are you suddenly backtracking, you traitorous Hussein-worshipping dog?"
  
• "How can you think that Hussein has these weapons, and yet oppose our plan to kill him, ravage the entire country, and kill thousands of innocent people?"
  
• "You used to 'get up Saddam's nose' and now you're 'picking fights with Bush.' Who's side are you on?"
  

#1- That's not what Ritter is saying. Ritter's claims are a bit more subtle than that, and what newsman worth his salt is going to bother with details? In 1998, he said that Iraq was 90-95% disarmed. Today, he says that there is no evidence that Iraq has these weapons because no inspectors have visited the country in 4 years. "Does not have" and "there is no evidence" are not synonyms. In addition, Ritter points out (although the media frequently ignores) the fact that many chemical and biological weapons naturally break down. Ritter has said that most of these substances are no longer dangerous after about 3 years, which means that unless they've made new chemical and biological weapons, the ones they had when he left Baghdad in 1998 are probably gone.

#2 Ritter supports a war on Iraq if they have WMD. He doesn't support one if there isn't. And since he doesn't think there's enough evidence to justify a war, he wants to send weapons inspectors back into Iraq.

#3 Typical "you're with us or you're against us" bullshit. Either you want war on Iraq and all of its related consequences, or you hate America and love Saddam Hussein. No grey areas like concern for human life, or wanting weapons inspectors instead of war, or fear that a war will have terrible future consequences. There's only war and treason.

Those are the mild arguments against Ritter. Here's a Ritter interview with Time Magazine in which they practically call him an agent of Iraq. Although Ritter gets in this nice rebuttal:

Time- Some on the right call you the new Jane Fonda, and joke about what you'll call your exercise video.

Ritter- (Long pause?) Those on the right who say that disgrace the 12 years of service I gave to my country as a Marine. I love my country. I'll put my record of service up against anyone, bar none. If they want to have an exercise video then why don't they come here and say it to my face and I'll give'm an exercise video, which will be called, "Scott Ritter Kicking Their Ass."

You go, Scott!

Posted by Jake at 11:53 AM | Comments (1)

Everyone Gets It Wrong

As you probably heard, there was a terrorism scare in Florida this weekend, which ended up amounting to nothing. Heavy "breaking news" coverage of the event blew things way out of proportion, but then so did just about everyone involved with the situation. Remember folks, the facts you hear in "breaking news" type stories usually turn out to be about 80% false. Truth doesn't fully reveal itself till the dust has settled.

The story is this: a woman in a restaurant in northern Georgia overheard the conversations of three men sitting near her. She claims she heard one man say "Do you think we have enough to bring it down?" and another reply "If we don't have enough to bring it down, I have contacts and we can get enough to bring it down." She also claims that one of them said "if Americans were sad on 9/11, wait until 9/13." All three men were Muslims, at least two of them were of Arabic descent (I haven't been able to ascertain the third man's ethnicity).

The woman called the police, thinking that she'd just heard three Muslim terrorists discussing their plans to blow up Miami (I presume she overheard them mention their travel destination, but I haven't seen it explicitly mentioned in news articles). The police came and detained the men, handcuffing them and keeping all three in separate police cars overnight. They searched the men's car, and closed down 20 miles of a major Florida highway. They found nothing. The police then began to hypothesize that this was a hoax planned by the three men, or that they had been playing a trick on the woman at the restaurant. Then, realizing that there wasn't even evidence of that, let the men go.

The fuller story now coming out is that three Muslim medical students were driving to Miami to begin internships at a hospital there. The students claim that their "bring it down" conversation at the restaurant was about having a car shipped down to Miami for the length of the internship. The men deny that they said anything about 9/11.

Sadly, the students' internships have been cancelled. The hospital claims that they have received a number of racist, threatening phone calls and emails since the news stories hit.

So there you go, one woman's paranoia has fucked up the careers of three innocent men. I guess I can't blame her too much, she was acting out of fear. But unfortunately, fear destroys common sense. Common sense might've said "why would three terrorists sit here in a public restaurant and discuss their plans to blow up Miami in English?" Or "the phrase 'bring it down' can mean a whole lot of different things?"

Well, what's done is done, and the men claim that they bear no ill will towards the woman.

Posted by Jake at 10:27 AM | Comments (1)

September 15, 2002

A Rose By Any Other Name...

Turok is the name of an unpopular comic book which became a fairly popular video game franchise. It's about a member of a fictional Native American tribe who somehow or another has to fight off an army of dinosaurs and aliens to save the Earth. It's produced by Acclaim Entertainment, Inc.

To help publicize the release of a new Turok game, the London office of Acclaim launched the My Name Is Turok contest. Five winners were selected from 10,000 entrants to legally change their names to "Turok" for a full year. The prize: £500, an X-Box video game system, and all of the Turok games. By my estimation, that can't be more than $1000 total.

But Acclaim USA (with help from their PR firm, the HighWater Group) did them one better, with their Turok Labor Day contest. Basically, parents expecting to give birth to a child around the Labor Day holiday could pre-register as possible winners. The first entrant to give birth to a baby on 9-1-02, and willing to name their newborn child "Turok" (and agree not to change it for a full year) could win a $10,000 savings bond.

Posted by Jake at 02:31 PM | Comments (0)

MTV Get Off the Air!

Radically political rap group Public Enemy has reconstituted itself, and is putting out records and playing live shows. They also filmed a video for their new song "Gotta Give the Peeps What They Need," but there's a good chance most folks will never see it.

According to a statement/column by PE's Chuck D, MTV is refusing to air the video until changes are made to certain political lyrics and images.

Specifically, MTV said that they wouldn't play the video till all auditory and visual references to Mumia Abu-Jamal and H. Rap Brown were removed from the video (the song's chorus contains the lyric "Free Mumia and H. Rap Brown," and at one point shows images of the two men's faces).

D's article does not tell what reason MTV gave to explain their request for the edits. He angrily presumes that it's racism on the part of network executives who are only too happy to rake in the cash when a black artist makes a mindless hit song, but when a black artist has something to say, will tell them to shut up. I think it's safer to say that MTV fears that controversy could in some way hurt their profit margin, and would rather go without the PE video than risk offending viewers (and therefore potentially advertisers) who may not like PE's opinion about these two men.

According to D, after some battle with the network, MTV backed down and said that they could include the names and images of the two men, but they had to remove the word "free" from the lyric. Which of course turns a political call for action into the random recitation of two names. From the article, it seemed as though the band would still refuse to make the demanded change.

See the video for yourself here.

Posted by Jake at 12:32 AM | Comments (1)

September 14, 2002

Jake on the Radio Today

Alright, I should be doing my Lying Media Bastards radio show today on killradio.org from 3-5pm PST. If there are any changes or complications, I will post here.

Posted by Jake at 11:07 AM | Comments (0)

Gimme My Radio

Gotta love those radio pranksters. They're broadcasting insightful anti-Clear Channel parody programming up in Seattle during the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) conference. Read the story here. I'm told that the fellas behind this are the culture-jamming band Negativland.

You can hear their parody programs here. I highly recommend you do, they're pretty damn brilliant.

Also, I think I'm going to be broadcasting on Kill Radio this afternoon, since some of these microbroadcasters might be rebroadcasting our signal. I think I'll play some of the Negativland tracks. Unless I repost here otherwise, I think I'll be on from 2-4pm PST today.

Posted by Jake at 10:09 AM | Comments (0)

The Economics of War

Don't Mention the O-Word- Economist magazine article that highlights the oil-related effects of a U.S. conquest of Iraq (well, in their words "the opening up of that country's enormous reserves of oil"). Speculates that if Iraq produced and sold huge amounts of oil, it could wrest control of the oil market away from Saudi Arabia, and weaken or destroy the OPEC oil cartel. And since any leader of Iraq after Saddam Hussein (whether that leader was U.S.-friendly or not) would need huge amounts of cash to rebuild the country, it is likely that they would break ranks with OPEC and try to sell as much oil as possible. So we can put "destruction of OPEC" down as another potential reason for the Iraq invasion.

What War Would Do to the Economy- In a nutshell, "a short and decisive conflict could provide a boost. A long one has the potential to spark a global recession."

Posted by Jake at 09:53 AM | Comments (0)

Napster's New Pimp?

Before rigor mortis sets into the corpse of Napster, one-time king of the file-sharing world, others are looking to pick at its bones.

Porn company Private Media has made Napster an offer to buy its brand name and website to create some sort of legal porn file-trading service.

Oh how the smug and mighty have fallen. Makes me giggle.

Posted by Jake at 09:39 AM | Comments (0)

One More

Oh yeah, meant to post this article too.

How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them- "The US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological wea pons of mass destruction ... up until March 1992."

Guess that was a gentler, simpler time, when it was okay to use chemical weapons on enemies, or your own people.

Posted by Jake at 12:51 AM | Comments (0)

Rerun

I want to repeat something I wrote in an earlier post because I think it's important, and might have gotten lost in the avalanche of text I brought down.

In Bush's speech to the UN on Thursday, he issued a series of ultimatums to Iraq, ultimatums which Saddam Hussein is unlikely to agree to:

• "immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material."
  
• "immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions."
  
• "cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions."
  
• "release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions."
  
• "immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

I think that this was Bush's primary reason for speaking to the U.N. Not to get multilateral support, not to get weapons inspectors into Iraq, but to issue ultimatums which would go unheeded and give the U.S. a "justifiable" reason to invade Iraq.

[edit]

I'm not sure how binding his words are, but Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz says that Iraq "[does] not accept Bush's conditions".

[/edit]

And on an unrelated note, I also want to remind everyone that the U.S. is selling weapons to both India and Pakistan despite the fact the two countries were on the verge of nuclear war earlier in the year (last two paragraphs). That's kinda not right.

Posted by Jake at 12:35 AM | Comments (0)

The Smoking Herring

According to USA Today (yeah, surprised me too), George W. Bush decided that Saddam Hussein needed to be overthrown about 10 months ago.

Let's add one more story to that. It makes sense that if you were the president, pondering whether or not another nation posed a threat to the U.S., you would order a National Intelligence Estimate, which combines all of the data from the various national intelligence agencies into a single document, a single analysis. The U.S. has not issued one of these reports for Iraq for two years.

Just about every news commentator seems to be missing the point. They all argue that Bush's plan doesn't make sense, that he needs more evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction before attacking, that weapons inspectors would make more sense as a means of eliminating these weapons, that the U.S. needs international support for this campaign.

The point is this: Whether or not Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, Bush wants to attack Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Really, it seems like the only reasonable conclusion. Given the lack of evidence, and lack of attempts to even investigate Iraq, I don't see how anyone could reasonably say "Iraq poses a real threat to the United States."

And if there is no evidence that Iraq poses a real threat to the U.S. (I'll call this the "WMD reason"), yet the U.S. seems determined to attack, there must be some other reason. And the fact that the WMD reason continues to be presented as the true reason, implies that the true reason(s) for the attack would not be seen as acceptable to Americans, or possibly anyone else on the globe.

So what is this reason? I'm working on that. It's safe to say that any U.S. policy regarding the Middle East is going to be largely based upon oil. However I think that the reason is probably complicated enough that it will seem implausible to most folks (if the reason was obvious, everyone would already know).

In my opinion, the most plausible of the implausible explanations can be found in articles like this. Far-right pundits and advisers who seem to have Bush's ear have been pushing for a U.S. campaign to radically alter power relations in the Middle East, in which the first step is to put a U.S.-friendly leader in charge of Iraq and its oil supply.

Yeah, I'm sure that sounds far-fetched to a lot of you. I'll keep digging and try to find out what's going on. It's what I do.

I say that the WMD debate is a red herring which distracts us all from looking at what's going on behind the scenes, especially from trying to figure out what Bush is up to.

Posted by Jake at 12:20 AM | Comments (0)

September 13, 2002

Forgetful Me

With all of the 9-11 stuff, I forgot to mention that I had posted more reportbacks from Garrick. He says he'll be leaving Palestine for the States sometime next week. I'll keep y'all posted of his speaking and media engagements so you can hear his grim tales.

Posted by Jake at 12:09 PM | Comments (0)

Lick Your Television

Brave new cross-corporate marketing partnership- NBC television and Baskin-Robbins ice cream.

Now you can buy ice cream flavors inspired by popular NBC programs.

Like the "Will & Grace" "Rocky Road of Romance" ("Chocolate ice cream loaded with almonds and miniature marshmallows"), or the "Ed" "Stuckey Bowled Over Brownie" ("Hometown chocolate fudge ice cream loaded with fudge brownie pieces and walnuts"). Or my favorite, a "Fear Factor Sundae," "a scoop of Cookies 'n Cream ice cream with an eerie drizzle of lime slime, topped with crushed cookies and gummy spiders."

Mmmm, mediocrity...

Posted by Jake at 10:20 AM | Comments (0)

Daily Iraq News Flurry

Observers: Evidence For War Lacking- Bush Administration releases report with "proof" that Iraq has WMD and is linked to terrorists. Experts read report and say "where's the beef?"

Backing on Iraq? Let's Make a Deal- Can't say I'm surprised. "After struggling for months to talk other nations into helping oust Saddam Hussein, President Bush is beginning to use terms they might find easier to understand: cash, weapons, business deals and favors. Bush's speech Thursday at the United Nations marked the start of intense behind-the-scenes negotiations to see what inducements will help convert countries that so far have been balking, at least publicly, at joining the anti-Hussein campaign."

The Speech Bush Should Give- what George W. might have said in his UN address if he were compulsively honest.

Hawks Hit by a Rhetorical Ricochet- argument that neo-conservatives in and around the White House pushed too far when they talked up the Iraq attack as Step One of reshaping the entire Middle East.

CNN's Hatchet Job on Scott Ritter- Scott Ritter, one of the last UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq, has been lobbying hard, talking to anyone who will listen, to say that the US has no evidence to support the coming Iraq war. Understandably, the US news media has to try to smudge his credibility.

Posted by Jake at 08:57 AM | Comments (0)

September 12, 2002

Irony. War. And an Idea.

A couple of articles by Robert Fisk with a few creepy tidbits.

Fisk points out that the missiles used to destroy Palesitnian homes in Beit Jala and the planes that destroyed the WTC were both manufactured by Boeing (can we freeze their assets or declare them enemy combatants or something?)

Actually, dark humor aside, that whole article is a very good reflection on the present, and recent past. One interesting dichotomy Fisk brings up: the US wants everyone to know that the 9-11 terrorists were Arabs, but doesn't want to talk about what's going on in Arab nations. Arab countries don't want to talk about the terrorists' ethnicities, but want everyone to know about the dire situations facing many Arab countries.

But now we get to the scary bit. Fisk watched Bush's speech at the UN and notes that towards the end, Bush said "The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people.'' Which sounds like empty rhetoric, but which Fisk's memory turns into a grim omen:

Before President Reagan bombed Libya in 1985, he announced that America "had no quarrel with the Libyan people.'' Before he bombed Iraq in 1991, Bush the Father told the world that the United States "had no quarrel with the Iraqi people''. Last year Bush the Son, about the strike at the Taliban and al-Qa'ida, told us he "had no quarrel with the people of Afghanistan". And now that frightening mantra was repeated. There was no quarrel, Mr Bush said – absolutely none – with the Iraqi people. So it's flak jackets on.

Folks, I'd like to tell you that we all need to band together, and bravely say that we need to organize a massive anti-war resistance to stop this war.

But I don't feel that hope. It seems to me that Bush will launch this war even if he and his warhawk buddies are the only beings on Earth who support it.

Hmm, but every war needs soldiers...

Jake's Open Letter to All U.S. Soldiers

Dear Members of the U.S. Military,

It seems to me that George W. Bush wants war with the nation of Iraq, to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Virtually no one on Earth thinks that Iraq is a threat, and nearly everyone agrees that invading Iraq may very well have extremely dangerous consequences: more war; more terrorism; more weapons of mass destruction; economic crisis; death.

By law, you all are under the command of the President of the United States, but in your hearts, I imagine you all are in the military to protect the people of this country-- your friends, your family-- and to fight for principles like freedom and justice.

I'm afraid that the wishes of the President are in direct opposition to the well-being of the people of the United States these days.

So I'm asking you, if President Bush orders you to this insane war with Iraq, don't go.

I'm not talking about revolt or mutiny. Just don't get on the ship, don't get on the plane, don't endanger the lives of your fellow Americans by letting this war go forward.

I don't know how to stop this war. If I did, I would do it. But I do know that without you, it can't start.

Just don't go.

Sincerely,

Jake Sexton.

Posted by Jake at 10:36 PM | Comments (1)

Quickie

US FCC to Begin Rewriting Media Ownership Limits

Yeah, sounds like a good idea. Why settle for only 6 corporations controlling the U.S. media when we could have 5, or 3?

Bastards.

Posted by Jake at 10:15 PM | Comments (0)

Doublespeak Until Death

Found out this morning that George W. Bush wrote a letter to the editor of the NY Times yesterday. Well, more accurately someone in the Bush White House wrote a letter and Bush signed his name to it (probably in crayon). I read only a few sentences and started composing a letter of reply that I hoped the NYT would print.

Dear President Bush,

You lying sack of shit.

Then I realized that the Times wouldn't print that. So I tried again. But each time I tried, I found I was unable to write more than a few sentences without calling the president a lying sack of shit. So I gave up.

Anyhow.

"Bush's" letter, gallingly titled "Securing Freedom's Promise," will blow your mind. Nearly every sentence is not only false, but is almost the complete opposite of the truth. It's mainly a bunch of tripe about how the U.S. is peaceful, that free trade will lift everyone out of poverty, how-- hell, I can't even stand to talk about it any more. The damn thing made me so angry I damn near went into convulsions.

And we also saw Bush's speech to the United Nations making his case against Iraq. And the White House also released a report to the UN outlining their argument for war against Iraq. The main thrust of both is that Iraq has broken many UN resolutions. It's a valid point, but it's blatant hypocrisy, as the US has violated many UN resolutions, and so has its pal Israel.

Bush's arguments then follow the usual "Saddam is bad," "we have a couple of pieces of flimsy evidence that he might have dangerous weapons" and "we have no evidence that Saddam is linked to terrorism, but he's linked to terrorism" pattern.

Most seriously, Bush's speech laid out a series of ultimatums, many of which Saddam Hussein is unlikely to honor (e.g. "immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material," "cease persecution of its civilian population," "return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait"). This was one of my fears. Now that Bush has issued his "or else" decrees, with a little extra, undeserved credibility because of the UN's presence, Bush has his rationale for war. "We tried diplomacy," he can say after Saddam refuses, "no we have no choice but to go in and use force."

All of this on the 9-11 anniversary, where Bush could clothe his crusade in the shrouds of the dead. He was able to give his drooling bloodlust a sacred graveyard solemnity, with the brave colors of Old Glory flapping majestically behind.

Posted by Jake at 10:05 PM | Comments (0)

September 10, 2002

Jake's Official 9/11 Post

I’m not going to pretend to know what to say here.

I’ll just tell one brief tale.

In the hours and days following the terrorist attack, I was glued to the internet, and watched many a conversation flow via email lists and bulletin boards.

It was ugly out there. Real ugly.

Anger, hate, bloodlust, vengeance. Calls for the death of the “sand niggers” and “towel heads.” Normally rational people suddenly announcing that they were going to join the army so that they could kill some Arabs. One memorable message saying that the U.S. and Russia should line up all their nuclear weapons and incinerate everything from Marrakesh to New Delhi.

And there was fear. Lots and lots of fear. Some who were certain that Los Angeles was going to be hit next, that same day. A man said that we should organize a citizen patrol to guard the local reservoir, because maybe the terrorists were going to put anthrax or smallpox in the water supply. A fellow who thought that it would be a miracle if he were still alive by Thanksgiving.

I suppose I was better equipped mentally to deal with the terrorist attacks and its fallout than many. Some years previous I’d done research and writing about Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Afghanistan and the Taliban. Not extensively, but enough to have a decent understanding of the situation. Enough to know who bin Laden was and what his grudges were against the United States. Enough to know (well, believe) that another imminent terrorist attack against the U.S. was unlikely. Enough to know that a U.S. assault on Afghanistan was a possibility.

What I saw most clearly, though, was a direct parallel between the behavior of the angry, fearful Americans, and the terrorists.

The terrorists, furious with the U.S. government and its treatment of the people of the Middle East, attacked the citizens of the U.S., as though the government and its people were one and the same. They killed thousands of people who’d maybe never even met a Muslim, let alone oppressed one, when their real grievance was with a handful of policy-makers.

And some of the angry and scared Americans I saw were making similar generalizations. I saw them calling for the deaths of all Afghans, all Arabs, or all Muslims, confusing the actions of a murderous few with a much larger group. Just as very few Americans set U.S. foreign policy, very few south and central Asians have committed terrorist atrocities.

People around me were calling for the blood of many. And when I argued that killing the innocent should be avoided, they said that I was on the side of the terrorists. That was a low point.

I realized that the people who were the most irrational, the ones who called out most fiercely for war, the ones who were most utterly fucking terrified, were the ones who were the least informed.

This stayed with me. The most fearful were the ones who had the least knowledge.

It’s something I’ve been doing for years, learning things and then teaching what I’d just discovered to others. Back in high school I was often sort of an unofficial teaching assistant, quickly absorbing the day’s lesson in math or physics or history, and then helping out my classmates who hadn’t caught it on the first try.

I’m still doing it, I suppose, but I’ve switched from the classroom to the newsroom. I do my best to figure out what the hell’s going on in this crazy world of ours, and then pass my opinion along. Not everyone has the time, energy or resources to research every little thing like I do, so I try to help fill that gap.

I’d stopped writing back in 1999, just too many things to juggle in my life. But then I saw these terrified folks last September, and realized that maybe if they’d had some of the facts in advance, maybe they wouldn’t have been so frightened, maybe they could have coped a little easier. It was a sort of kick in the pants that got me to resume this self-appointed task, to learn and to teach, in my own particular way.

Well, while we're on the topic of what drives me, I’ll go one step further. I have three main goals through all my writings and political activism:

1) get people to really see and think about the world around them;
2) get people to really think about what kind of world they’d like to live in;
3) get people to take action, any action, that will make the real world a little more like their ideal world.

That’s it. No matter what your beliefs or goals or passions, there’s probably something you can do move them closer to reality. And you’re probably going to have to do it yourself, because no one else is going to.

There you go.

We now return you to the sound and fury already in progress.

Posted by Jake at 11:44 PM | Comments (5)

War on Terror: The First Year

[This article was originally printed in the 9/11/02 edition of Eat the State!. They've actually done a bit of editting and improved it. So I'm using their version instead of my original]

This is not a 9/11 retrospective that reminds us about national heroes, reflects on the psyche of the nation, or tells how celebrities are coping with last year's tragedy. You can get all that and more if you turn your television on any time this month (the channel won't matter).

There were two obvious outcomes of the attacks the subsequent war on terror: thousands of people were killed in NYC, DC, and Pennsylvania; and the US unseated the Taliban from Afghanistan. But many aspects of the stimulus and the response have been forgotten in the shuffle. Here are a few.

Environmental disaster in NYC. The transformation of two enormous skyscrapers into a mountain of rubble and an immense cloud of dust endangered the lives of many New Yorkers. Modern buildings are filled with all sorts of materials that human beings should not inhale: asbestos, mercury, lead, concrete dust, ground glass, and who knows what else. Even today, New Yorkers are finding significant levels of asbestos, mercury and lead floating about.

The EPA seemed reluctant to do anything about the toxic cloud, but under public pressure, eventually agreed to clean up the residences in lower Manhattan. What long-term effects the pollution might have on the health of the people living in the area is unknown.

"Anti-Terrorism" Worldwide. After George W. Bush announced the beginnings of a War on Terrorism, many other national governments realized that they could also cry "terrorism" and use it as an excuse for violent conflict with unruly portions of their population. We saw Israel crack down on the Occupied Territories, Russia crack down on rebels in Chechnya, China crack down on the Uighur rebels in Xinjiang, India cracked down on militants in Kashmir, the Philippines cracked down on terrorist/thug group Abu Sayyaf, and Colombia cracked down on its Marxist rebels. Most of these rebel groups would claim that they are fighting for freedom against a repressive government, while of course those governments claim that the rebels are terrorists. Either way, the US is currently looking the other way while these governments bring in the big guns. Had the American "war on terrorism" not happened, it is unlikely that these nations would have used this additional force in their battles.

Afghanistan: Aftermath. Afghanistan was a nation already impoverished and torn to bits by both the Soviet invasion of the 1980s, the civil war between the mujahadeen warlords in the early 1990s, and the battles between the Taliban and the warlords in the later 1990s. While Hamid Karzai was given the Afghan presidency, the position held little power. The real power belonged to these warlords. The US has managed to keep the warlords peaceful for the most part, but this peace seems to be rapidly deteriorating as the warlords begin to again fight each other for power. With last week's assassination attempt upon Karzai, perhaps this peace is drawing to a close.

As though that wasn't bad enough, there are now reports that the Taliban and Al Qaeda may be regrouping for an attempt to reclaim their territory once the summer heat recedes. Also, under the warlords' rule, the heroin trade has skyrocketed.

India-Pakistan. The US attack relied heavily upon Afghanistan's neighbor to the south, Pakistan. This new close relationship terrified Pakistan's biggest enemy, India, and increased tensions tremendously. When Kashmiri militants attacked the Indian parliament, India and Pakistan teetered on the brink of war--a conflict made more frightening by the fact that both nations have nuclear weapons. Somehow, that barely-averted crisis seems to have slipped from everyone's minds--so much so, that no one is complaining that the United States is currently selling weapons to both India and Pakistan.

Attack on immigrants' rights in US. Almost immediately after the hijacked planes crashed, the FBI and INS began rounding up as many as 2,000 Arabs, South Asians, Muslims, and Sikhs and held them secretly for extended periods of time, denying many of them contact with their families, or even lawyers. Some were held on no charges. These detentions were illegal. None of these detainees have been publicly alleged to have any connection to the 9/11 attacks, Al Qaeda, or any terrorist organizations. Most of them were found guilty of some sorts of violations of immigration laws and were deported. Scores remain imprisoned, many remaining in isolation.

Civil Liberty Erosion. Soon after the terrorist attacks, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act. Many members of Congress admitted that they approved the bill without even reading the 342-page document first. The new law, and subsequently adopted regulations based upon it, greatly expanded the powers of law enforcement, in some ways to scary degrees. Law enforcement's restrictions on surveillance and searches have been relaxed. Public access to government information is being limited.

The Bush administration has also fabricated an entirely new legal term, "enemy combatant." In the past, persons being held by law enforcement or the government had to be classified as suspects, arrestees, or prisoners of war. Each of these terms are attached to laws which determine how they are to be treated, how long they shall be held, etc. Since "enemy combatant" is not a legal term, there are no such laws about their rights and treatment. The Bush administration argues that it can classify individuals, even American citizens, as "enemy combatants," and hold them as long as they like with no evidence and no charges, and with no access to courts, lawyers, or any outside contact. Others being held as "material witnesses" face similar conditions.

Revival of Bush's Political Career. Just prior to the terrorist attacks, George W. Bush's popularity was down to 51%. Only days afterwards, his approval rating jumped up to 90%, the highest numbers that Gallup polls have ever recorded for a sitting president. Politically, the terrorist attacks were a windfall to Bush, who then could get nearly anything he proposed passed through the Congress.

Iraq Attack. Immediately after 9/11, the Bush administration tried to link the terrorist attacks to Saddam Hussein. They failed. Now the White House alleges that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, is developing further weapons, intends to make those weapons available to terrorists, and that a "regime change" is necessary for the safety of the United States. There is virtually no evidence to support these claims (that Iraq has these weapons, or that Hussein must be removed). Nearly every day there is a new story that makes it seem like the White House is backing away from war, and another that makes it look like a US war with Iraq is inevitable.

Budget Deficit. Thanks to Bush's massive tax cut and the skyrocketing of military expenditures, an estimated $170 billion surplus will become by year's end a $165 billion deficit. Just in time for a sagging economy. Yay!

General Destabilization of Central/Southern Asia. Afghanistan is still in chaos since the fall of the Taliban. The Northern Alliance, long an ally of the Russians, now rules northern Afghanistan. Pakistani "president" Gen. Pervez Musharraf has strengthened his dictatorship, but the Islamic militants in his country are angry that he aided the US against the Taliban (in fact, Pakistan's version of the CIA was a staunch ally of the Taliban since its inception). Iraq might be invaded by the US. Israel and Palestine are still locked in guerrilla war. The US and Saudi Arabia are falling out since neo-conservatives inside the US claimed that that nation is a threat. And tensions between Pakistan and India over Kashmir remain unresolved.

US Troops Abroad. The US not only has troops in Afghanistan, but also in a number of other countries with regard to the "war on terrorism." Thousands of US soldiers recently returned from the Philippines after training Filipino soldiers. More than 100 US soldiers were training the army in the former Soviet province of Georgia, which just announced for the first time ever that it would join Soviet efforts to attack Chechen rebels. Another few hundred are in Yemen, training Yemeni soldiers. The United States armed forces are now active in over 60 countries around the world.

Anthrax. Anthrax-tainted mail infected more than 20 people and killed five of them in the weeks following 9/11. While the anthrax spores have been determined to be of military grade and to have a US source, the investigation has lagged. The culprit(s) behind this crime have still not been found.

Camp X-Ray. The United States is still holding hundreds of detainees from the battles in Afghanistan in camps at Guantanamo Bay marine base in Cuba. Are they members of Al Qaeda? Are they members of the Taliban? Are they dangerous anti-American terrorists? Who knows? All we're told is that they're "enemy combatants" (see above).

Where's Osama? What happened to Al Qaeda? Probably the most important question to ask, what happened to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden? No one knows where bin Laden is, or whether or not he's alive or dead. Therefore we can't really say whether or not the "war on terrorism" has been a success or a failure, because we just don't know. And with the Bush Administration's focus having shifted from "preventing terrorism" to "eradicating evil" to, well, whatever it is now, it no longer seems to matter whether the War On Terror is successful. It just is. And, should the Bush Administration's vision take root, it will continue to be.

Posted by Jake at 11:40 PM | Comments (3)

Two Laws

Around the time that George W. was running for president, a group of mothers wrote an open letter to his mother Barbara Bush, asking why when her son did drugs it was considered a "youthful indiscretion," but when their own kids did drugs they were sent to prison. The obvious answer is "duh, because the Bush family is rich and powerful and yours isn't." But of course, these mothers weren't asking a question, they were trying to make a point.

And now we see George W.'s niece, Jeb Bush's daughter, Noelle Bush, undergoing court-mandated drug rehab, and found with crack cocaine. We see the press giving Ms. Bush the same sort of biased-towards-the-rich treatment as this AP story puts it, she was found with a "0.2-gram rock" that "tested positive for cocaine in a police field test." Come on, if this were your average Joe, or someone poor or dark-skinned, the article would read "was found with a big ol' hunka crack."

Posted by Jake at 05:36 PM | Comments (0)

September 09, 2002

Better Living Through Homicidal Chemistry

About a month ago, I wrote several blog entries about a rash of murders at Ft. Bragg, NC.

Out of the blue today, I remembered that I had run across an article which could possibly explain why a number of soldiers in the same small city would suddenly kill their wives. So I hunted it down. Here ya go.

Apparently just prior to returning home from Afghanistan, the killer soldiers were taking an anti-malaria drug called Lariam (or mefloquine). The drug's manufacturer said that its side effects can include anxiety, aggression, suicidal thinking, hallucinations, and paranoid or psychotic reactions.

Sigh. Be all that you can be.

Posted by Jake at 10:54 PM | Comments (2)

Palestine

A new report from our pal Garrick in Palestine. Actually, it's more like half a report; he abruptly has to leave before he's said all that much.

Posted by Jake at 10:38 PM | Comments (0)

Corporate Colonization

This one sounds too ludicrous to be true, but it's from the quasi-reputable Associated Press:

Town Gets Sponsored Police Cars- "This Florida Panhandle town is getting new police cars for only $1 each, but there's a catch. The cars will be festooned with corporate sponsorship logos similar to those on race cars."

Corporations sponsoring cops. Surely there's no conflict of interest there.

Can't wait for the inevitable, "this racist police beating brought to you by Snapple!"

And in other treacherous advertising news:

Marketers Explore Product Placements in Music- to de-jargonize it, rap record label Island Def Jam is talking with Hewlett-Packard about a deal in which Island Def Jam would get money for its artists inserting the names of Hewlett-Packard products into their song lyrics.

Posted by Jake at 11:07 AM | Comments (0)

Curiouser and Curiouser

Agence France-Presse (AFP) recently printed a brief article which quoted American warhawk Richard Perle's comments in an Italian business newspaper, Il Sole 24 Ore:

"'Mohammed Atta met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad prior to September 11. We have proof of that, and we are sure he wasn't just there for a holiday,' Perle told Italy's business daily Il Sole 24 Ore.

"'The meeting is one of the motives for an American attack on Iraq.'"

I see. The Bush administration, which wants war with Iraq so badly that it can taste it, finally has a smoking gun linking 9/11 to Saddam Hussein. And instead of having Bush or Rumsfeld or Powell take this evidence to the NY Times or CNN or the UN, they have Richard Perle make vague reference to it in an Italian business daily.

Sounds... unlikely.

Also, Donald Rumsfeld recently went before the US Congress to brief them on all the "evidence" that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. But his presentation seemed to be a bit... lacking. Said Rumsfeld, "There are three issues here. There is the issue of what we know. There is the issue of what we don't know. And there is the issue of what we don't know we don't know."

We can get a probably more complete version of his presentation in this briefing he gave to members of NATO around the same time:

"There are no knowns."

"There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns - that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know but there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know.

"So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns.

"And each year we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns."

Presumably at this point, Donald Rumsfeld and the March Hare gently took the sleeping Dormouse and stuffed him into a teapot.

Posted by Jake at 10:21 AM | Comments (1)

Why They Hate Us: Just a Reminder

Swiped these two articles from Cursor. As I am fond of saying, read Cursor every day. Seriously.

‘A Greedy Bully’- Foreign Journalists Say Regard for the U.S. Abroad Has Dropped- a mild article in which ABC News quotes interviews with foreign journalists about foreign public opinion about the United States (it's always a little irritating when the media ask a "respected representatives" of a country to tell us what the people in that country think rather than actually asking the people of that country). However this article tends to focus on one rather whiny criticism, that the US government doesn't take other nations' interests into consideration when making decisions. That makes it sound like they're just pouting because America hurt their feelings.

Drain the swamp and there will be no more mosquitoes- article by Noam Chomsky about "why they hate us." And his answer is that "what they hate is official [U.S.] policies that deny them the freedoms to which they too aspire."

[edit]

Sigh. A local paper from near where I grew up in San Diego is printing "community remembrances" of 9/11. This one from 14-year old Janell Peske:

"The events of Sept. 11 didn't change my everyday life as much as it changed my goals for the future"

"I would like to attend the U.S. Air Force Academy and become a pilot. After visiting ground zero and Washington, D.C., with a school group, I realized how much I had taken for granted as a citizen here and discovered that I, we, my generation, need to defend our freedom and rights so that nothing, not even terrorism, can stop these United States from dominating." [emphasis mine]

Sigh.

Posted by Jake at 09:59 AM | Comments (1)

We Collude, We Decide

Mildly interesting debacle on Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor last week.

On September 3, Bill O'Reilly interviewed Pat Roush on his show (partial transcript at the preceding link). 17 years ago, Roush's daughters were kidnapped and have been held in Saudi Arabia ever since. Things start to get tricky here.

O'Reilly managed to arrange an off-camera interview of Roush's two daughters via Saudi Arabia's Foreign Affairs Adviser Abel Al-Jubeir. Al-Jubeir flew the two girls to London, where they were interviewed by O'Reilly Factor producer Stacey Hocheiser. O'Reilly then interviewed Hocheiser about the interview, in which she claimed that the daughters "don't want to see their mother and they don't want to come to the United States."

O'Reilly then "interviewed" Roush in typical O'Reilly "I appreciate your opinion but I'm right and you're wrong" style, essentially telling Roush that she was too emotional and that her kids had made their choice to stay in Saudi Arabia and that she just needed to deal with it. He then interviewed Dria Davis, another woman who'd been kidnapped and held in Saudi Arabia who managed to escape. O'Reilly managed to gloss over the part where Davis said "They're probably scared to death. My father threatened me. He told me that he'd kill me if I ever said anything," which would have been a possible alternative explanation for why the Roush girls would decry their mother and state that they wanted to stay in Saudi Arabia.

What turned me on to this whole story was an editorial in the Wall Street Journal by William McGurn. After receiving criticism of the interview, O'Reilly invited McGurn onto his show to discuss it. McGurn was very critical, accusing O'Reilly of "stabbing an American mother in the back," and "colluding with the Saudis" in such a way that helped derail efforts to get the daughters back to the United States, charges which seem to be fairly accurate. In response, according to McGurn's editorial, O'Reilly "became unglued and screeched 'liar!'" And McGurn's not some arch-liberal, he's a WSJ columnist who refers to the Fox News Channel as a "national treasure."

So, in conclusion, Bill O'Reilly's a dick.

Posted by Jake at 09:47 AM | Comments (0)

Tube-Fearing Man

Just read a transcript of Sunday's Meet the Press interview with Dick Cheney. Cheney laid out damning new evidence about Iraq's efforts to acquire The Bomb:

"...Aluminum tubes... the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge. And the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly enriched uranium, which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb."

Quake and shudder, ladies and gentlemen. Iraq is trying to acquire aluminum tubes.

Well, let's try to be as accurate as we can. Cheney references a Sunday morning NY Times article on the subject. According to the article:

"Speaking on condition of anonymity, the officials said that in the past 14 months, Iraq had attempted to purchase thousands of special aluminum tubes they believe were to be used in devices to enrich uranium."

Okay, so according to an unnamed government official, Iraq is trying to acquire "thousands" of "special" aluminum tubes. Tubes that some government officials think could be used to build a centrifuge. Which could be used to enrich uranium. Which could be used to build a nuclear bomb.

Did a little Yahoo search for "aluminum tubes." Apparently they can be used to construct gliders, telescopes, mynah bird aviaries, windchimes, cigar cases, car radiators, camping furniture, and bicycle frames.

Aluminum tubes- our no-longer-misunderstood friends!

Posted by Jake at 01:45 AM | Comments (3)

September 08, 2002

Just for Fun

For the discriminating culture jammer:

Sticker Shock Project

Posted by Jake at 09:54 PM | Comments (0)

That Bastard. That Motherfucking Bastard.

As I've mentioned in LMB in the past, one of the incidents that helped galvanize US support for the Gulf War was a fabricated story about Iraqis killing newborn infants and stealing incubators from Kuwaiti hospitals. Our pals in the news media didn't notice that this story was bullshit till it was too late and the war was done.

It wasn't the only pre-Gulf War lie. More on the topic here.

And the new lies are upon us.

There was an AP article on Friday which stated:

"Satellite imagery shows unexplained construction at several sites of interest to U.N. inspectors seeking entry to Iraq to look for evidence that Baghdad is developing nuclear weapons, the inspection team's leader said Friday.

"French physicist Jacques Baute, the leader of the U.N. nuclear inspection team, said in a telephone interview that reviews of commercial satellite images since 1999 show 'some buildings that have been reconstructed ... and some new buildings (that) have been erected,' at sites his team had visited in the past.

"Without identifying them, Baute, based at the International Atomic Energy Organization in Vienna, described the sites as having potential 'dual-use capabilities,' meaning they could potentially be locations for both civilian and military nuclear programs. He did not further specify what sort of facilities his team viewed from the photos."

This certainly makes it look as though Iraq may be up to something shady. Tony Blair brought it up at a press conference in Texas on Saturday. President Bush riffed off of Blair saying "I don't know what more evidence we need."

Turns out it's not true, of course.

After the AP printed the article above, the IAEA released a press statement to correct its erroneous slant:

"With reference to an article published today in the New York Times, the International Atomic Energy Agency would like to state that it has no new information on Iraq's nuclear programme since December 1998 when its inspectors left Iraq. Only through a resumption of inspections in accordance with Security Council Resolution 687 and other relevant resolutions can the Agency draw any conclusion with regard to Iraq's compliance with its obligations under the above resolutions relating to its nuclear activities."

So in other words, the IAEA has no new evidence that supports either the AP's or Bush's arguments that Iraq is working on nuclear weapons.

A Bush official has since admitted that Bush had "misstated" the report.

Please spread this far and wide. There is not evidence that Iraq is getting nuclear weapons. But these sorts of disinformation can stick around.

And perhaps we've already seen the biggest lie of all? Bush's repeated claims that no decisions have been made, that war is not inevitable, when, according to this article, "the United States has begun the massive military build-up required for a war against Iraq, ordering the movement of tens of thousands of men and tonnes of matériel to the Gulf region."

I think that the next step in this ludicrous sideshow will be George and Tony going to the UN with their "evidence," and demanding that the UN send weapons inspectors into Iraq immediately. And if Iraq refuses to allow the inspectors in, or raises any sort of fuss once the inspectors enter, the US and UK will use it as an excuse to attack.

Of course, if you're Saddam Hussein, there isn't much incentive to let weapons inspectors into the country. Since 1998, Iraq has said that they won't allow inspections unless the UN agrees to then lift the sanctions on the country. Y'know, the ones that have killed over a million Iraqis.

(Remember, sanctions that kill more people than a half dozen Hiroshoma bombs aren't a "weapon of mass destruction." They're "diplomacy")

Frankly, the war on Iraq has been on in slow motion for a decade now.

[edit]

Just read the full text of the Bush-Blair Texas press conference. Check out how Bush signs off:

"I'm honored to be the president. And so long as I am the president, I'm going to work hard to make America safe and the world more peaceful."

Didn't someone say that irony died on September 11?

Posted by Jake at 09:51 PM | Comments (35)

September 07, 2002

How Convenient

"U.S. military investigators concluded that an American airstrike that killed dozens of Afghan civilians at a wedding party was justified because the plane had come under fire."

and

"An internal army investigation on Friday cleared Israeli soldiers who killed 12 Palestinians in three incidents last week."

Funny how that works.

Posted by Jake at 12:42 AM | Comments (2)

September 06, 2002

Clear Channel Smash!

Damn, talk about throwing your weight around!

Clear Channel's Radio Pacts Irk Labels- the most open mainstream news article I've seen about payola (i.e. record labels paying radio stations to play certain songs). The "independent promoters" mentioned in the article are middlemen. To make this payoloa legal, the record labels have to pay "independent promoters" who then pay the radio stations to play the labels' songs. Looks like Clear Channel stations and the promoters are colluding to rip off the record labels. Which wouldn't bother me at all, if I didn't hate Clear Channel and bullies in general.

Posted by Jake at 12:02 PM | Comments (3)

Boycott the Media Memorial

Y'all wanna join me in a media boycott for 9/11?

We all know what's going to happen. Every media outlet everywhere is going to swamp us with retrospectives. Beautifully tragic video montages of smoky skyscrapers and dashing firemen, with softly triumphant music wafting in the background. Images of a defiant president Bush, grim photos of Osama bin Laden and anonymous cheering Arabs. Slow motion shots of grieving women turning to cry on a loved one's shoulder. Incongrous shots of a man in an expensive suit all covered in ash, maybe helping out a more blue-collar-looking person near Ground Zero. Lofty talk about Freedom and Liberty, with no mention of how it's being taken from us. Eulogies and wan rhetoric about how the whole world changed, about healing, and American determination and the American spirit.

Join me on September 11 in leaving the goddam television off. And maybe write your local TV stations and tell them you're not going to watch their sentimental tripe, just to let them know that they're losing audience.

And while we're at it, would all of my fellow writers and bloggers and pundits do me a favor and quit talking about Ann Coulter? She's a ravenous opportunist who feeds on attention, any attention. Every time you point out her newest fanatical hyperbolic quote, it's like giving her a foot massage while dumping money into her pockets. Cut it out.

Posted by Jake at 09:32 AM | Comments (3)

You Have the Right to... Oh Wait, No You Don't

I'm just gonna go ahead and reprint this AP article:

Some of the fundamental changes to Americans' legal rights by the Bush administration and the USA Patriot Act following the terror attacks:

* FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.

* FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests.

* FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

* RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

* FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

* RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

* RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

---
You might want to print this out and keep a copy with you at all times, to remember what you are and aren't allowed to do anymore.

Posted by Jake at 09:18 AM | Comments (0)

Conservative Smear

Conservative pundits and politicians play to win. With the exception of the hard-hitting Democrats James Carville and Paul Begala on CNN's Crossfire TV show, conservatives usually mop the floor with their centrist-liberal opponents in public debates. Occassionally, the conservatives win by playing dirty.

Among many, many targets, conservatives have the National Education Agency in their crosshairs. Why? Because conservatives want to eliminate public education and replace it with privatized education. Y'know, cuz the free market makes everything better (and when your kid's school pulls an Enron on you, and your child is educationless, well, that's just the market correcting itself). And conservatives are currently having a field day smearing the NEA with a story that just ain't true.

The conservative story is that the NEA has suggested that American teachers use lesson plans that blame America for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This makes the teachers and the NEA look awful, as most Americans find the concept (that America was anything other than a complete and utter victim that day) to be downright repulsive. Apparently this one misleading article by the Washington Times (above) was the origin for this myth, and conservatives don't want to let it go, true or false.

What's the real story? Apparently an affiliate of the NEA, the NEA Health Information Network posted links to several dozen potential lesson plans about 9/11 designed by various teachers around the country, presumably to help any teacher think about how they should present the issue to their students. Exactly one of these lesson plans contained these "blame America" sections. Unfortunately, the lesson plan is no longer available at the given URL, so I can't even tell if it does blame America for anything. From the quotes I've been able to find from the Washington Times piece and Spinsanity, it appears that it's more of an anti-racism/anti-discrimination/pro-tolerance lesson based on terrorism and the 9/11 attacks.

So therefore, because an NEA-affiliated website linked to a lesson plan which encourages teachers to tell children that racism is bad, the NEA is obviously a bunch of pro-terrorist traitors who hate America. And therefore, all schools should be privatized so that rich kids can get a quality education and everyone else can go rot.

Posted by Jake at 12:05 AM | Comments (0)

September 05, 2002

Jake's Multimedia Empire

Well, I apparently have acquired a new gig as a political columnist for the punk magazine Destroy All Monthly (no, it doesn't have a website). My life is wierd.

The magazine is like 80% ads for punk albums, and the rest is mostly music reviews and interviews with bands. The mag's editor wants it to become an open forum, eventually printing pieces by left-wing crazies like myself alongside right-wing crazies like... I dunno. Somebody. Henry Kissinger maybe.

So it's not that this guy's out to indoctrinate the masses, he's just big into freedom of speech. I dig that.

Sounds like a good opportunity to reach out and touch some eyeballs, the magazine has a circulation of like 35,000 here in California, and I can rant about whatever I want for 1200-1300 words. First topic: Iraq.

No, I'm not getting paid for it. Which is pretty punk, I suppose.

Posted by Jake at 06:29 PM | Comments (1)

Garrick's Plea

A Los Angelan named Garrick is in Palestine right now, and I have been printing his emailed reports here on the website (well, here actually). He sent me another email a few days back, but it's not really a report, so I'm not sticking it up on the Reports page. Here it is:

Hello all,

I'd like to urge you all to read the call for the International Solidarity Movement's next campaign this fall, located below. I'd like to urge anyone who can to come and join in this extremely important campaign. The attacks of Israeli settlers on olive farmers and the Israeli military assaults against the trees themselves are one of the most brutal forms of economic warfare waged by the Israelis against the Palestinians. There is a great desire on the part of many Palestinians I have talked to personally for internationals to participate in the olive harvest at the hottest spots to try and lessen the amount of violence. Who would ever think that harvesting olives could mean risking your life? But here in occupied Palestine that's exactly what it means if your land is near an Israeli colony/settlement or a settler road.

This campaign is extremely important and if there is any way that any of you could participate it would be a very important way both to show your support for the Palestinian people and get to see Palestine under occupation for yourself. With the added bonus that much of your time will likely be spent in smaller villages where international visitors are few and far between. Breaking the isolation people feel in these villages is also extremely important. Please check out the websites below for more info and of course feel free to contact me directly for more information.

Garrick

For more details about the program, check the International Solidarity Movement website, and for detailed info on how to get involved, check here.

Posted by Jake at 05:51 PM | Comments (0)

You're Either With the Pop Stars, or You're With the Terrorists

Sigh.

Entrepreneurial GENIUSES at work here.

After massive, MASSIVE hype about the bland singing competition program "American Idol" has become a national obsession. The winner of the contest was announced yesterday. Someone named "Kelly," I think.

In a masterpiece of exploitative timing, Fox has managed to get their new star invited to sing the national anthem at the memorial service at the Lincoln Memorial on 9/11. Six days before her first single is released.

Whoever said that "the world changed after 9/11" sure as hell wasn't in marketing.

Posted by Jake at 05:42 PM | Comments (0)

Good News and Ad News

Okay, that's possibly the worst pun I've ever used as an entry title.

I've come across the second example that advertisers are seeking to overcome America's commercial-savvy by creating their own programing (the first example was mentioned here). This article is about the clothing company Aeropostale, and its new advertising campaign. Aeropostale will air a two and a half minute "short film" on MTV (built up with 30 second teaser ads in the weeks leading up to the film's debut):

"In the film, six teens drive around in a convertible, but the action centers on a shy boy and girl getting to know each other in the back seat. At one point, a magical storm of red petals encircles them, and the boy reaches up to pull some of them out of the girl's hair. She then tucks them in her pocket. Unlike sexually provocative ads from competitor Abercrombie & Fitch, the spots are intended to portray an 'innocence,' said Julian Geiger, chairman-CEO, Aeropostale."

Three more such movies are planned. The idea behind them is that TV audiences just don't give the same attention to commercials that they used to, and therefore advertisers need to better integrate their marketing with programming. They're calling it "content-commerce convergence". Make sure to add it to your jargon dictionary.

Actually, I guess it's not a very new trend. American radio and television programming was born as advertiser-created entertainment like Texaco Star Theater and the Goodyear TV Playhouse and the Crisco Ain't Them Negroes Funny Variety hour (okay, I made that last one up). I haven't researched it much, but I think programming control shifted from the sponsors to the networks themselves in the wake of the Quiz Show scandal of the 1950s.

And in other advertising news, the NY Times is claiming that politicians are no longer depending on TV ads to get their message out. In fact, if this article is to be believed, the difficulties of reaching voters through TV are so great that some politicians and their staff members are planning to do door-to-door canvassing! Get ready to slam some doors in some faces! Much more satisfying than yelling at the advertisements on your deaf TV set.

Posted by Jake at 05:35 PM | Comments (3)

Cannibals Guarding the Nursery Room

Although it is the job of the US Attorney General to enforce the nation's laws, it seems pretty evident that current AG John Ashcroft is trying to realize his conservative political views by selective enforcement of said laws.

The latest example of this is his appointment to the National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women (NACVAW)- both of his new appointees are members of an organization that has actively lobbied to undermine the power of the Committee.

New appointee Nancy M. Pfotenhauer is the president of the Independent Women's Forum (IWF), and appointee Margot Hill is on the board of directors of the IWF. The IWF is basically against everything that mainstream feminism supports, and campaigns to eliminate virtually all feminist legislation, including the Violence Against Women Act which established the NACVAW. Says the IWF on the NACVAW, the law "will do nothing to protect women from crime" but would "perpetuate false information, waste money and urge vulnerable women to mistrust all men."

Appointing someone to head a committee based on the Violence Against Women Act when that someone is opposed to the Violence Against Women Act? Why, that's as crazy as appointing someone to the head of the FCC who feels that the FCC shouldn't regulate the broadcast media!

Posted by Jake at 05:06 PM | Comments (0)

September 04, 2002

I'm with the Banned

Here's some strange news: Greece has banned video games. If you are found playing video games within the nation's borders, you can face fines from 5000-75,000 euros (1 euro pretty much equals 1 dollar) and 1-12 months in jail. Why? Apparently, it's an attempt to ban electronic gambling. Since the Greek government can't tell the difference between gambling games and non-gambling games, they went and banned all electronic games. An English translation of the law can be found here, and you can sign a petition opposing the law here.

And here's an interesting article about a form of movie censorship here in the US. Maybe you've heard of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). It's an independent organization, founded and funded by the major motion picture studios. The MPAA is most famous for rating movies' content, giving their opinion of how old you should have to be to see the movie. Nearly every movie released in the US faces the MPAA board, who judge the movie primarily based upon its use of violence, sexual imagery, and naughty language.

The MPAA has amazing control over the movie industry in the United States, because most movie theaters refuse to show movies that have not been given an MPAA rating, and also refuse to show movies that receive the most mature of ratings, NC-17 (no one under 17 years of age admitted).

Meaning that if you are a film director, and you're movie gets an NC-17, you're fucked. Instead of having your movie show on thousands of screens nationwide, you'll be lucky to have it seen on hundreds. The same goes for films aimed at younger audiences. If you made a film for kids or teenages, you'll need to have a rating of 'PG-13' or lower. If your film's ratings are too high, you can re-edit the film, trying to cut out the "objectionable" scenes, and re-submit it to the MPAA. Films sometimes go through this process for months, scooping out the meat until all that's left is a hollow, offense-less shell.

The MPAA has virtual veto power over which films will receive wide release, and which will not. And the board of the MPAA is made up of the chairmen and presidents of the seven largest US movie studios (Disney, Sony, MGM, Paramount, 20th Century Fox, Universal and Warner Bros.). Indie films are reviewed by the CARA, which is essentially the same thing (in fact, the MPAA and CARA share a mailing address).

See where I'm going with this?

The article above argues that the MPAA/CARA discriminates against indie films due to its relationship with the big studios. But even worse, the MPAA seems to discriminate against films that don't hold to a bizarre, quasi-Puritan standard of values. It's okay to show graphic sex and incredible violence, just so long as the film lets you know that these things are bad (except for violence against "bad guys." That's perfectly fine). If you don't want to follow their rules, fine, but you'll get an NC-17 and your film's reach and profits will be cut drastically. Which means that if you want to have a successful film, you probably have to abide by their standards.

But it's not censorship. Heavens no.

Posted by Jake at 01:01 PM | Comments (0)

You're Fired

British Prime Minister Tony Blair continues to back the US plans to attack Iraq, even though the British people seem staunchly opposed to such a policy.

If Blair keeps on with this, it seems like there's a good chance he's going to lose the next election.

Since 9/11 this seems somewhat common, a world leader is forced to choose between what the US wants, and what his people want. While you certainly don't want to make the US an enemy, you also want to remain in office. Rock and a hard place.

Posted by Jake at 12:19 PM | Comments (1)

September 03, 2002

Fed Up

Couple of articles that take the Bush administration to task on Iraq:

The Munich Analogy Does Not Hold Up This Time- columnist points out that Rumsfeld's "Saddam as Hitler/Iraq as Nazi Germany" analogy just doesn't work.

How Low Can We Go?- angriest anti-Iraq-war editorial I've seen yet in a mainstream newspaper. Dares to ask the question(s) "Invade Iraq? Are you nuts?" (Incidently, a good 60% of the article is made of sentences ending in question marks).

And, if this article is to be believed, nearly half of all Americans think that we have too much freedom. Which, if you're an American who thinks that freedom is pretty keen, should scare you shitless. Maybe Americans believed Bush when he said that the terrorists hate us because they hate freedom, and said to themselves "damn, then let's get ridda all this freedom!"

Or maybe the poll is wrong. Either way.

Posted by Jake at 09:43 PM | Comments (0)

Hardest Workin' Man in the Presidency cont.

According to "collector of modern presidential arcana" Mark Knoller:

• "Bush has spent a whopping total of 250 days of his presidency at Camp David (123 days), Kennebunkport (12) and his Texas ranch (115)."
  
• "Bush has spent 42 percent of his term so far at one of his three [above] leisure destinations."
  
• "To date, the president has devoted far more time to golf (15 rounds) than to solo news conferences (six)"
  

Posted by Jake at 01:58 PM | Comments (0)

Deportations

Some weeks back, I wrote about a court case in which the Israeli government was considering deporting some Palestinians merely because those Palestinians were relatives of suicide bombers. I condemned such policies as colelctive punishment and the opposite of justice. Well, the court has made a decision, but it's not exactly what you think.

The court ruled that 2 of the 3 men that the government wanted deported can be sent away, but that the third man could stay. The decision basically says that it's nice and legal to deport the relative of a terrorist, if that relative had helped out with the terrorism. The court found that 2 of the men had "aided [the terrorist] in carrying out attacks by helping him hide from Israeli security forces and by moving bombs."

While that's better than collective punishment, it does seem to be an end-run around regular law enforcement channels. You can now deport/punish someone with some evidence that they might be aiding a relative with terrorist acts instead of having a trial to prove that the suspect was involved in aiding and abetting a terrorist.

Posted by Jake at 01:25 AM | Comments (0)

Squirmy Squirmy

Gotta admit, I enjoy watching these evil motherfuckers in the White House have to backtrack and perform all manner of verbal ninjistu when things don't go their way.

The media is making a big deal out of the fact that last week, VP Dick Cheney said that the US should invade Iraq post-haste, while Secretary of State Colin Powell said this weekend that weapons inspectors should be sent into Iraq. The press is gossiping about this as evidence that there is a "split" in the Bush administration.

Of course, for anyone who's been paying attention, this split has been quite evident since at least the spring of 2001. It's been obvious that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld enjoy talking tough and threatening people while Powell preferred diplomacy. Pre-9/11, there were quite a few cases of Powell doing his diplomatic thing abroad, and then face embarassment as his cohorts in Washington shot their mouths off (at the time, I wondered if this was a ploy to get Powell to quit, to keep undercutting him until he left the Bush administration out of frustration).

But White House flak Ari Fleischer would have us believe that there is no split on White House policy towards Iraq. And that Bush's goal is now, and has always been, to have weapons inspectors back in Baghdad. Which is, of course, a load of horseshit.

Bush has been calling for a "regime change" since at least May 2002, as you can see in this press briefing by Ari Fleischer.

Ari makes one good point about US-Iraq policy, although he doesn't mean to make a good point, he means to dodge a question. A journalist asks "What is the President's rational for invading Iraq?" to which Ari answers that Bush is simply carrying out the US-Iraq policy set by Bill Clinton when he signed the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998.

And he's right. According to Section 3 of the Act:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

(Although the very last section of the Act says that "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces")

Is there going to be a war in Iraq? I don't know. It seems as though the Bush administration might be dialing down its aggression, and hiding its defeat by re-writing history. And hey, if they're willing to call off this war, they can call themselves the princes of peace and blame all the war-mongering on me personally, if they want.

Posted by Jake at 01:03 AM | Comments (0)

September 02, 2002

Working Vacation

It takes quite a bit of gall for an acting president to quit office for month-long vacations whenever they damn please. Of course, President Bush told us that his time in August would be spent on a "working vacation." And boy, did he burn the midnight oil, spending last month on photo-ops, a sham economic summit, and lots and lots of fundraising for his political cronies.

Bush participated in nearly a dozen fundraisers for Republicans running for state governorships or Congressional seats, raising nearly $9 million for their November election campaigns. Which brings Bush's summer fundraising total up to 22 events taking in about $51 million, and his year-to-date total up to around $110 million. He's doing all this while on the job, and using Air Force One to get from place to place.

[edit]

And apparently, even as the vacation ends, Bush isn't done stumping for cash. On Thursday, he'll be in Kentucky raising money for two Republican House candidates.

Posted by Jake at 06:30 PM | Comments (1)

September 01, 2002

National Association of Bastards

According to US government policy, the airwaves used to broadcast television and radio signals are a public resource, like oxygen or a national park. Yet most of these TV and radio frequencies are handed over to huge corporations to do with as they see fit, which usually means the creation/transmission of entertainment programming as a means of creating advertising revenue. In other words, the public resource is being used primarily for the private profit of some of the world's wealthiest.

In the US, the TV and radio industry has their own lobby group, the National Association of Broadcasters. And the NAB is having a large conference September 12-14 in Seattle, Washington. And a number of activists who are interested in more democratic, public-oriented media are going to be on hand to old a counter-conference, and to protest the NAB meeting as well.

If the protest or counter-conference interest you, you can get more info here at the Cascadia Media Alliance website. The counter-conference runs from Sept 9-14.

I won't give anything away, but I think you might be hearing some Kill Radio in Seattle that week...

Posted by Jake at 07:49 PM | Comments (0)

August 30, 2002

[Anything But "Don't Cry for Me, Argentina"]

Znet has printed an absolutely excellent article about Argentina since its economic meltdown last December, Micropolitics and the Cooking-Pot Revolution in Argentina. Even if you know little or nothing about the country, it's worth a look.

First of all, the article paints a pretty vivid picture of the street protests that broke out when things reached their boiling point, and also of the current situation in which most Argentinians find themselves. Second, it gives a thorough history of the country's political and economic breakdown. And third, it does what many news articles about modern Argentina don't: talk about the new "micropolitics" out in the streets.

This last bit is a fascinating development, and a cause for hope or fear, depending on your outlook. The Argentinian people, with nothing but white-hot scorn for their government, have spontaneously organized their own neighborhood councils, doing the work that needs to get done without waiting for higher powers to do it, or waiting for official approval from the powers that be.

"Survival dictates new forms of sociability. In many areas it is the assemblies that carry out communal buying of essential goods, run crèches, maintain canteens in schools, prevent evictions of non paying tenants or mortgage holders, negotiate with electricity and gas companies and run vegetable gardens. Staying at home is not a good option. Formerly unknown neighbours act as kind of proxy family, intervening constantly to help the worse-off to overcome 'limit situations' such as the suspension of electricity or not having enough coins to take a bus to the hospital. In my neighbourhood, an occupied house plays the role of social centre, Saturday night disco and even cinema. The only real cinema in the area has long been sold and turned into an evangelical church, while the “multiplexes” of the shoppings are now out of reach. The need to travel on foot or on bicycle has meant the forced discovery of neighbourhoods that were previously little more than dormitories for their inhabitants.

"The very geography of Buenos Aires seems to have been transformed by the events of December. Groups of people are huddled together on every street corner. The variations of work-shopping-blockbusters-home have been replaced by variants of home-assembly-canteen-march-party.

Perhaps to speculate as to the ultimate outcome of the movement is to miss the point, given its almost conscious rejection of final aims or goals, and the lack of any impulse to form stable political institutions or parties."

In some ways it's not pretty, and it's certainly not guaranteed to succeed. But unlike a lot of other social structures, it seems pretty damn human.

Posted by Jake at 03:25 PM | Comments (0)

EU vs. U$

The European Union and the United States have been fighting a legal battle inside the courts of the WTO. The EU claims that a certain US tax break for American businesses is a violation of the spirit of free trade, and wants the right to retaliate with economic sanctions. And the WTO agrees, probably to the tune of about $4 billion. Thank Bill Clinton and George W. for that.

I wrote about this conflict about a year ago as part of a larger article on the US' relation to "free trade." For all its preaching about free trade, the US violates it on a pretty regular basis. I think the concluding paragraphs of my article sum it up pretty well:

The US does not care about free trade. Never has. The only thing the US has cared about is winning. And under the US-defined version of free trade, it usually does win. And when the US finds that it (or corporations within its borders) may lose out, they simply ignore the rules.

I'm not writing this to say "the US should stop the hypocrisy and follow its own rules." I'm writing this to say that the US does not have rules.

This nation sees rules as sets of restrictions that we can sometimes trick other countries into following. Nothing more, nothing less. All of the talk of "free trade" and globalization are just schemes, attempts to trick other nations into following rules that will deluge the coffers of US corporations with money.

Posted by Jake at 02:58 PM | Comments (1)

Long Hard Road Towards Justice

In 1984, a Union Carbide (now Dow) pesticide factory in Bhopal, India had a deadly gas leak, which killed 3000 people outright, and led to the eventual deaths of as many as 10,000 more. 120,000 people from the region still have serious health problems due to the toxic exposure.

Actually, those numbers fluctuate wildly, depending on who's figures you look at (although they're always in the thousands or tens of thousands). Some discussion of that here.

The Indian government charged then-Union Carbide chairman Warren Anderson with "culpable homicide," blaming the massive death on Anderson's cost-cutting measures which decreased plant safetey. But Anderson jumped bail and fled to the United States, where he's been hiding out for nearly two decades.

Then, for reasons unknown, the Indian government took Anderson's case back to court, arguing that the charge should be downgraded from "culpable homicide" to "negligence." And since the US-India extradition treaty does not cover negligence, Anderson would never legally have to face the Indian court.

A number of Indians and several American women began a hunger strike to oppose any change in the charge (a daily diary of American hunger strikers Jodie Evans and Diane Wilson can be found here. To raise awareness of the issue, Wilson snuck onto a Dow chemical plant in Texas, hung a large banner reading "Dow: Responsible for Bhopal" on the side of a tall smokestack, and then chained herself to that same smokestack. Wilson was dragged off the tower by a SWAT team, and might face a year in prison. Police also arrested a photojournalist outside the plant for taking pictures of Wilson's action, because those pictures contained Dow's "proprietory technology."

Bhopal.net claims that more than 1000 others worldwide joined in the hunger strike.

Our tale ends with two bits of good news:

1) The Indian court upheld Anderson's culpable homicide charges, meaning that he can still be legally extradited.

2) Greenpeace and The Daily Mirror UK actually tracked Anderson down at his home in The Hamptons, and handed him a copy of the arrest warrant. (Read The Mirror's account here. Check the fun photo). India claims that they never filed for extradition because they couldn't find Anderson's address. Now they have it. If extradited and convicted, Anderson could face 10-20 years in prison. Might not sound like much for that many deaths, but he's 80 years old, and he'd spend the rest of his life in jail.

Obviously, none of this brings the dead back to life or breathes health back into the sick. But human beings seem to have a strong drive for, or maybe even need for, justice. Look at how many people went to these great lengths to try to achieve it in this case, to make a man face the consequences of his actions. Hopefully this man will be tried and convicted, and the people of Bhopal can feel the relief of justice served.

Posted by Jake at 10:22 AM | Comments (0)

The Horror, The Gall

Ethnic Cleansing by Starvation- a new report by the US Agency for International Development (USAID), finds that "one in five Palestinian children under the age of five now suffers from chronic or acute malnutrition," which actually "surpasses rates of child malnutrition in Somalia and Bangladesh."

Investor Tax Cut Push Becomes Campaign Tactic- intriguing backroom political dealing. Republicans in Congress have introduced a tax cut bill that will greatly favor the rich (no surprise there). But they know that the bill will pass the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, and die in the Democrat-controlled Senate. And the Republicans admit that this doomed bill is part of a larger strategy for the upcoming Congressional election campaigns in November. The Republicans can campaign as the Men Who Tried to Cut Your Taxes, and demonize the Democrats as the Men Who Stole Your Money. Clever fellows, those Republican devils.

'The Green al-Qaeda?'- article about anti-environmental organizations' attempts to link environmentalists to terrorists, both in the public mind and in federal law. For more info on ploys by anti-environmental folks, check out the CLearinghouse on Environmental Advocacy and Research (CLEAR) and their monthly newsletter CLEAR View.

It's an Ad, Ad, Ad World- Lengthy, thorough Time Magazine article about new, sneaky advertising practices. "As conventional methods lose their punch, more marketers are going undercover to reach consumers." Keep your wits about you, ladies and gentlemen.

Lobsters, Caviar and Brandy for MPs at Summit on Starvation- this article is simultaneously one of those cute/indignant pieces about hypocrisy, and a character assassination attempt. With sensationalistic verve, the article jarringly compares the opulent accomodations for the delegates of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in South Africa, with the grinding poverty of the rest of South Africa. And while I appreciate the author pointing out an injustice, I have to wonder if the whole article is not just one big ideologically-based attack on environmentalists and the UN. The article is from Rupert Murdoch's The Sun tabloid newspaper, and Murdoch is well-known for pushing his conservative views through his media properties (e.g. Fox News Channel). And as you might imagine, billionaire tyrant Rupert Murdoch might not be a fan of the sustainable development and other attempts to save the environment.

Actually, that last bit is worth some reflection. Ad hominem attacks really piss me off (e.g. "I think abortion should be legal." "Oh yeah, well you smell like poop!"). A person's inner qualities and the merits of that person's arguments have nothing in common. The fact that delegates to this UN summit are acting hypocritical has nothing to do with the idea that the humankind should probably revamp its agricultural, technological and consumer practices in such a way that we don't suck the planet dry of all its resources. The best analogy I've come up with to point out the goofiness of ad hominem attacks is this one:

- Jake publicly states that you shouldn't eat arsenic.
- Newsweek publishes secret photos of Jake eating a big ol' arsenic sandwich.

Does this mean that eating arsenic is okay? No. My dietary habits have nothing to do with the biochemical interaction between certain poisons and the human body.

But then again, if we lived in a world without ad hominem attacks, Rush Limbaugh would never have gotten on the radio, and he would've died in the gutter years ago.

Posted by Jake at 12:54 AM | Comments (0)

Selective Neglect and Censorship

Project Censored is the name of an organization and the yearly report it produces about American news media. PC sifts through huge amounts of American news media looking for articles about vitallly important issues that got very little attention. PC implies that these "underreported" stories have been "censored," presumably by pressure from elite business, media and political players. PC picks out 25 of these to create the Top 25 Censored News Stories of the year.

The yearly PC report has become something of an event among lefty folks. On the one hand, it serves to both publicize works of important journalism. But on the other, it almost celebrates the futility of such journalistic efforts. Why not recognize the most important journalistic stories that successfully crossed over from the alternative press to the mainstream instead?

In addition, how the hell do you decide what stories go on this list? How do you decide which topics are more important than others? How "censored" does something have to be to make the list? Isn't all of this highly subjective?

Anyhow, flaws and all, the Project Censored list is always worth a look to learn about important stories and trends that you may not have otherwise read about. The entire list is here, with the top ten stories summarized thoroughly and the remaining 15 just listed. If you want to read the actualy stories, the San Francisco Bay Guardian has links to most of them here. And finally, the SFBG also compiled a list of top censored story from the Bay Area as well.

Posted by Jake at 12:06 AM | Comments (1)

August 29, 2002

Safety in Numbers

As you must be aware if you've read LMB for any length of time, I do not put much faith in the accuracy of polls and surveys. Apart from my disbelief that the opinions of 1000 people can be representative of another 290 million, I also know how easy it is to manipulate data, question phrasing, and sample selection to pretty much make a poll say whatever you want. But today on CNN's Headline News channel, I heard a news story about a poll that was just plain wrong.

The real, accurate story is here. It is about a poll taken by the Automobile Association of America, asking American travelers how confident they are that airline travel is safe. When the poll was taken on October 25, 2001, 33% of the people were "confident." The most recent version of the poll, taken just days ago, found that 75% of the respondents were "confident."

But that's not the story Headline News told. Headline News told us over and over and over again that this new poll showed that "people were confident that new airline security measures were keeping them safe."

No, it didn't.

If we go ahead and assume that the poll results are valid, the poll simply tells us that more Americans feel that airlines are safe then did a year ago. The poll has no data to explain why they feel this way. Perhaps it is because of the security measures, perhaps it's because they feel that the "war on terrorism" has eliminated those pesky terrorists, perhaps they're just more relaxed about everything because they've started drinking heavily. Or perhaps it's because of another reason entirely.

Personally, I'd guess that Americans feel safer on airplanes these days because, unlike the time of the first poll, no one has hijacked a plane and flown it into a national landmark in the past several weeks.

The point is that the poll tells us --AT BEST-- about the number of people who feel safe on planes, and NOTHING ELSE. If AAA wants to know why people feel safer, they'll have to ask that question on a subsequent poll.

And let's keep in mind that besides providing emergency automotive services, AAA also makes money via it's travel agency, and therefore might have a vested interest in the public thinking that the public thinks traveling is safe.

Posted by Jake at 10:55 PM | Comments (2)

Eureka

I finally figured out who will benefit most from the US war on Iraq.

These guys.

God bless America.

Posted by Jake at 02:25 AM | Comments (2)

Well Duh

Corruption 'Rampant' in Two-Thirds of Countries

Frankly, I think that number is a little low.

Posted by Jake at 02:22 AM | Comments (0)

August 28, 2002

Prankster-iffic!

God bless the pranksters.

Perhaps you've heard about the RIAA and its inreasingly intrusive attempts to prevent folks from trading mp3s of popular songs on the internet.

This morning, anonymous hackers broke into the RIAA's website and replaced it with a sly parody. The new, altered page announced a new stance by the RIAA that now accepted the free trading of mp3s. In fact, the hackers even uploaded a number of mp3 files for users to download themselves, from the RIAA's own website. Pretty sweet.

Also saw a number of great satirical news articles today:

Memo From Attorney General Ashcroft to the News Media Concerning National Security Order No. 1-545-7b

Me Crush Middle-Class Tax Hike

Vice President Cheney Details Diabolical Iraqi Schemes Necessitating the Wholesale Invasion of the Arabiac World

Posted by Jake at 06:20 PM | Comments (0)

August 27, 2002

Cheney 25:17*

So Dick Cheney is laying down the law about Iraq. In a recent speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Cheney argued that Saddam Hussein constituted a "mortal threat" to the United States, that "risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action" ("action" meaning "attack," of course), and that waiting to attack Hussein will just increase the chances that he will have nuclear weapons when the US does decide to attack.

Of course, the one thing he didn't do was provide the tiniest shred of proof that Iraq is a threat to the United States, let alone a "mortal" one that would destroy the nation.

He also tells the audience that he disagrees with grim predictions that an attack on Iraq would destabilize the region and impede the war on terrorism:

"Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region. When the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace. As for the reaction of the Arab "street," the Middle East expert Professor Fouad Ajami predicts that after liberation, the streets in Basra and Baghdad are "sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans." Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of Jihad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart. And our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced, just as it was following the liberation of Kuwait in 1991."

Cheney then stops his prognosticating, but I presume he would've gone on to talk about rainbows and kittens and gumdrops and beautiful fairy princesses and the children of the world holding hands, singing tra la la la la.

While major public figures are now speaking out against the war (like Brent Scowcroft and Norman Schwarzkopf), their opposition is fairly specific; if the Bush administration can "sell" the Iraqi threat to the American people, or come up with a battle plan that will incur fewer US casualties, then this opposition will lift. But the unreasonable rationale for attack is only one of my concerns. I'm afraid that a war on Iraq will kill many Iraqis, some Americans, and profoundly fuck up southern and central Asia.

Successfully deposing Saddam Hussein could cause a secession by the Kurds of northern Iraq, potentially inviting a civil war between the Turks and it's Kurdish population that would also want to secede (check this map). And since the US is an ally of Turkey, the US could get drawn into a Turkish civil war. The Shi'a Arabs in southern Iraq might also secede, or maintain their quasi-autonomous status. Shi'ites are generally more fundamentalist and militant than other Muslims, which could result in more religious terrorism in the region, and against the United States. On top of this chaos, the US is still trying to hold Afghanistan together, and does not seem to be that successful. Does the US really want to be an occupying force in two nations simultaneously?

I don't want to be all doom and gloom here. The ideal outcome would be one where Saddam Hussein was overthrown, and a peaceful democratic coalition government were put in its place with little need for US involvement. However, I'm not an optimist. I feel it more likely that the US would occupy Iraq for an extended period of time, and give control over the country to any Iraqi who would sign lucrative oil deals with US petroleum companies, and generally carry out the US' will. Either the US could tie the nation together through brute force, or have it's little puppet regime in Baghdad while the rest of the country struggles on its own.

I'm planning on writing a Stray Bulletins article summing up the reasons I think this war on Iraq is a bad idea, including an examination of the war hawks' rationale. But for the most part, I've given up on that line of questioning. I don't think that the Bush administration is actually worried about Saddam Hussein attacking the US with WMD. I think that is a fictional cover story they have created to distract us all. No one with any knowledge of Iraq is concerned about these weapons, including the CIA and FBI. Unless Bush and Rumsfeld have access to intelligence that the CIA can't access, there's no good reason to fear these weapons.

So what is the real reason that the US is attacking Iraq? I've heard many explanations: to gain Republican political advantage for the November Congressional elections; to get Iraq's oil; because Israel wants us to; to break the spirit of the "Islamists"; to demonstrate American strength; to distract everyone from the failures of the war on terrorism; as a personal vendetta by W. to avenge his father; or because the White House is filled with fucking loonies. Bush & co. want this war, and they'll make up any old cover story to get it.

Unfortunately, Bush has an awful lot riding on this war. After so much tough talk and bluster, he would look very foolish if he were forced to back down. So he might not, despite the opposition of nearly every nation on Earth, despite the lack of public support, despite the lack of support from his own political party, despite the breach of international law, despite the carnage it will cause.

Now I'll leave you with three sound clips I really think you should listen to.

In 1964, Congress voted on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that would authorize the president to use military force in Vietnam. At the time, the government claimed that US ships had been attacked by Vietnamese ships, and that our nation needed to retaliate. Congress lined up to vote their support.

Two senators spoke out against this resolution, and the following are audio recordings of the fiesty Sen. Wayne Morse, who was one of the few Congressional voices of wisdom that preceded a bloody and terrible war. As the current White House demands similar unquestioning support for Congress in another complex war with only flimsy allegations as evidence, I think it's mandatory that we take a listen to these:

Clip 1
Clip 2
Clip 3

Posted by Jake at 10:15 PM | Comments (1)

Sad Truth

Posted by Jake at 03:53 PM | Comments (0)

Radio Sawa

The LA Times printed this article yesterday about Radio Sawa. Radio Sawa, AKA the Middle East Radio Network, is essentially a mild US propaganda effort aimed at making young Muslims and Arabs like the United States.

You can give Radio Sawa a listen yourself at the link above. Frankly, it sounds almost no different from American pop radio, except that most of the songs are in Arabic. I was unable to make myself listen to more than 3 songs in a row before having to shut it off (Madonna's "True Blue." Yuck). About 25% of Radio Sawa's broadcast is dedicated to news programming, which Sawa's DJs insist is unbiased, non-propagandistic, and based solely on facts.

The LAT article is aimed at pointing out Radio Sawa's successes, and to give lip service to the station's critics.

I became pretty suspicious of the article's claims about Radio Sawa when I noticed that one sign of Sawa's popularity was a poll of 100 kids living in Amman, Jordan (42%, or 42 of them, said that Sawa is the station they listen to most). Polling 100 people in one city is meaningless. So if we can't rely on that data, who can we find out what Arabs and Muslims really think of Radio Sawa?

I figured a good way to find out would be to look at how the Arab and Muslim press covered Radio Sawa.

And to a large extent, they don't.

One article from the Jerusalem Post that is pretty thorough, pointing out that the brains behind this operation is Norman Pattiz who runs Westwood One, one of the nation's largest radio networks. However, the Post article seems to take at face value Sawa's claims that it is unbiased.

Egypt's Al-Ahram Weekly has an article which looks at Sawa in broader terms of propaganda efforts, and brings up a concern expressed in several of the articles: the US is making a huge effort to make the Arabs know about the United States and its people, but makes no effort to get to know these same Arabs.

The Star of Jordan has an article a bit more critical of Sawa, focusing on its propaganda goals. Specifically, it points out that Radio Sawa's news uses the point of view that Palestinians fighting Israel are terrorists, rather than the more common view that they are resisting oppression.

The closest thing we have to an examination of Sawa's potential news bias is an analysis by one of the founders of Electronic Intifada, which obviously has a teensy bit of bias itself. The author compares one day's news coverage on Radio Sawa with one day's coverage on the BBC, and he concludes that Sawa is indeed biased. Read the article and decide for yourself.

Beyond those articles, I had trouble finding any mention of Radio Sawa in the Arab press at all. Which leads me to theorize that Radio Sawa is not as popular as it would like us to think it is.

Good thing it only cost $35 million to set up. And could cost another $160 million if the government decides it wants Sawa to compete with Al-Jazeera.

Posted by Jake at 03:44 PM | Comments (6)

Has-Been Parade

Dumb story.

New "reality" TV show called "Celebrity Boot Camp," where "former military drill instructors will put several famous faces through a version of military training."

So who are these "celebrities"?

• Traci Bingham (she was on Baywatch)
  
• Coolio (was on his way to being a rap superstar, I don't know what happened to him)
  
• David Faustino (played "Bud" on TV's "Married with Children")
  
• Kato Kaelin (once lived in OJ Simpson's guest house)
  
• Lorenzo Lamas (B-move actor, once star of TV soap "Falcon Crest")
  
• Fabrice Morvan (the guy from Milli Vanilli that didn't die)
  
• Tiffany (teen pop idol in the early 1980s)
  
• Vitamin C (one-hit wonder)
  
• Barry Williams ("Greg" on "The Brady Bunch")
  
• Nikki Schieler Ziering (Playboy centefold)
  

What is it with Americans? Why do they love to see their former celebrities humiliated?

Posted by Jake at 03:00 PM | Comments (0)

August 23, 2002

This is CNN

CNN is coming under a bit of fire these days. First of all, it has for months been losing audience to the Fox News Channel. Second, there is a bit of controversy about it's airing of the al-Qaeda tapes. Third, it's been (perhaps unknowingly) broadcasting interviews with celebrities that are actually ads for the pharmaceutical industry.

The first bit is well-documented. The Fox News Channel is gaining ground on CNN, and may surpass it. Which does link a bit into the next item.

CNN spent $30,000 to buy 250 hours of video of what are allegedly al-Qaeda training exercises. I haven't seen any of the footage, so I can't judge their validity. It just makes me think that a wave of people are going to try to sell fake al-Qaeda tapes to the media in the wake of the CNN coverage.

Originally, CNN claimed that they hadn't paid money for the tapes, but then said that they had, "blaming an interntal miscommunication" for the error. In response, Fox News took out a full-page ad in the NY Times to bash CNN's credibility, based upon this change of story. And this is perhaps in response to a series of ads that CNN took out in media and journalism trade mags "citing a recent study by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in which Americans rated CNN the most believable TV news source. The ad declares 'America decided' that CNN was the most trusted name in news, tweaking Fox's 'we report, you decide' slogan."

And finally, recent stories tell that a number of celebrities have gone on TV interviews to talk about their personal lives, mentioning their medical problems and the treatments that cured them. But they were actually getting paid by the companies that manufactured those treatments. The NY Times claims to have broken the story this week, but today's Cursor points out that Salon broke the story about a month ago.

Anyhow, one of the media outlets that showed some of these interviews was, you guessed it, CNN (unfortunately for them, the same day they broadcast an interview with actress Kathleen Turner, it was reported by the NY Times that she was being paid by Amgen and Wyeth to talk about her bouts with arthritis). So, CNN has publicly announced its new policy "will tell viewers about the stars' financial ties to corporations". Self-serving or not, I think that's great. The policy seems to only be in relation to medical issues, but I'd love it if they had a disclaimer down at the bottom listing all their corporate ties: "endorses Pepsi, makes films for Paramount, owns stock in AOL-Time Warner, owns a Porsche dealership" etc.

Posted by Jake at 10:36 AM | Comments (2)

August 22, 2002

Cops vs. Protesters

George W. was in Portland today to give a speech about how Saddam Hussein is the devil and forest fires can be elimintated by eliminating forests. And to raise $1 million for Oregon senator Gordon Smith.

Protesters were on hand to oppose him (the reported numbers varied from "hundreds" by the AP to "2000-4000" by the protesters. Take it all with a grain of salt). And, as is often the case in these things, cops let loose with their batons, pepper spray and rubber bullets. The police always claim that someone threw something at them, and instead of trying to apprehend that evil-doer, they decide that the crowd needs to be dispersed.

Now, plenty of multimedia:

News reports at Portland Independent Media Center- note: DO NOT click on any of the stories in all capitals on the right-hand side of the screen. Some jerk has posted a bunch of crazy html that will crash your system with an overload of dirty pictures. But trolls aside, this is a good example of what the Indymedia sites are good at: up-to-the-minute coverage of protests.

Slideshow of protest pics from AP/Yahoo

Watch a Quicktime movie of protesters getting gassed.

Posted by Jake at 10:30 PM | Comments (0)

Bank Robbers

"Some will rob you with a six-gun and some with a fountain pen."
- Woody Guthrie

The LPC Group is a company that distributes books published by small, independent publishers. LPC more or less sells these books on consignment; bookstores take the books, and when the books are sold, the store and the consigner (okay, I don't know the technical term) split the money (it's a little more complicated than that, but you get the idea). LPC performed this service for around 100 small publishers.

In the spring of 2002, LPC had a large outstanding loan with Bank One, owing the bank $2.7 million. LPC received a $1.2 million consignment check, $1 million of which belonged to some 85 of its publisher clients.

Bank One took the money.

To repay LPC's debt, Bank One took $1 million that did not even belong to LPC.

And it gets worse.

According to See Sharp Press, Bank One (and several other LPC creditors) are claiming that they deserve legal ownership of the independent publishers' inventories of books. These publishers did not take out any loans, and do not owe any money to Bank One or these other creditors, yet the creditors are trying to take their property.

I am familiar with two of these 85 publishers, See Sharp Press and Common Courage Press. Both publish a wide variety of radical political commentary; if you've read a book by Noam Chomsky, it was probably a Common Courage book.

Anyhow, if you want to find out how to help Common Courage Press, click here. If you want to know how to help See Sharp Press, click here.

Or if you're one of those impatient types, you can email the president of Bank One by clicking here (remember, these things tend to be more effective if you are polite in tone. But if you can't handle that, remember that "scumfuck" is one word).

Posted by Jake at 09:26 PM | Comments (1)

Garrick the Prolific

Another report from Garrick today.

Posted by Jake at 04:53 PM | Comments (0)

would. you. like. to. play. a. game. ?

Earlier this month, the US military played some wargames to test out some new military tactics, keep their senses sharp, etc., costing around $253 million and involving 13,000 troops.

The fellow who played the part of Saddam Hussein, I mean, "commander of the enemy forces," has told the Army Times that the game was rigged. Although you'd think the military would want their opponent to be as tough and wily as possible, to make sure that US tactics and training were indeed effective, the "enemy commander" says "'We were directed... to move air defences so that the army and marine units could successfully land,' he said. 'We were simply directed to turn [air defence systems] off or move them... So it was scripted to be whatever the control group wanted it to be.'"

And, according to the article above, he still managed to beat a lot of US ass.

But okay, let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe this wasn't meant to be a realisitic simulation, maybe it was meant as an experiment to see if certain types of tactics would work in certain situations, and that's why they dictated what the "enemy" would do.

I'd feel a lot more comfortable with that version of events if the US didn't engage in rigged tests in other arenas. For example, missile defense.

In January 2002, the US Navy tested an anti-missile weapon of the kind that could one day be used in Bush's prized National Missile Defense. It hit it's target, but the target was rigged. Instead of the target missile being the same size and shape of commonly used missiles, it was five times longer and one-third wider than normal missiles. And the anti-missile still managed to miss the warhead, it's real target.

And another missile test was rigged, and failed, in July 2001. And a number of tests in the 1990s were also rigged, some of which succeeded, and some of which failed.

When America pretends, it kicks ass! Bush just has to hope that his enemies play along...

Posted by Jake at 04:51 PM | Comments (0)

Garrick 8-21

Another new report from Garrick from the Occupied Territories. He calls it "Reflections on Peace."

Last time Garrick reported, I emailed him a few questions I had about the wording he used, and a couple of minor points about Palestine. Our exchange follows. The parts with the ">" are me, the rest are Garrick.

> a few questions from your latest report.
>
> 1) when you say 'martyr,' what exactly do you mean? do you mean anyone
> killed by israelis, people fighting the israelis who've been killed, or
> something else?

When I say martyr I mean anyone who has died either in struggle with the
Israelis or been killed by the Israelis. This is how Palestinians use it so it
could be someone actively fighting or someone who was assassinated or someone killed or someone who engaged in a "martyr operation" or suicide bombing.

> 2) 'fighter' means someone a palestinian who is fighting the occupation,
> correct?

Yes, by this I mean someone who is engaged in armed struggle against the IDF.

> 3) i've seen u.s. and israeli poll data which claims that the majority of
> palestinians support suicide bombing attacks on israel. that seems to run
> counter to the first-hand experience of you and tamara. what is your take
> on that?

I think its difficult to say. My experience is that the majority of people
don't actively support suicide bombings but almost everyone understands why
they happen. I think most people are just trying to survive.

Posted by Jake at 01:17 AM | Comments (0)

Bad News

I’m not even sure where to start with this article. It’s biased, misleading, and written so badly that it’s confusing.

The article is titled “Latinos Give Bush High Job Approval Rating, Poll Shows” with the tagline “Politics: Support could boost GOP in the fall elections, national survey indicates.”

The article then gives poll statistics, not about the president’s approval rating mentioned in the title, but about whether or not, if given the chance to vote again, Latinos would vote for Gore or Bush. So we're slightly confused before we've gotten anywhere. Even stranger, although the headline implies that people favor Bush, these numbers in this poll indicate that fewer Latinos would vote for Bush today than would have a year ago (from 54% to 50%), and more would vote for Gore (from 28% to 35%).

When we get down to the fourth paragraph, we finally get to see the job approval ratings mentioned in the title, 68%. Then it says that approval ratings for Republican Congressmen is 42%, while approval for Democratic Congressmen was 54%. So the article’s tagline, "Support could boost GOP in the fall elections, national survey indicates," also seems incorrect. The survey indicates that Latinos prefer the Democratic candidates to the Republican ones.

Now factor into all this that the poll was taken by the “business-backed Latino Coalition,” which “is trying to position itself as a more conservative alternative to traditional, Democratic-leaning Latino civil rights organizations.”

So what does that leave us with? Frankly, nothing.

Posted by Jake at 01:05 AM | Comments (0)

Betrayals

Paul Krugman of the NY Times had a good critical piece about George W. lately, pointing out that the facades and reality are drifting further and further apart.

In Krugman’s article, he makes reference to a scheme to prevent US veterans from getting medical care. This VA memo orders directors to stop publicizing VA services. The fewer veterans that know that they are entitled to health care, the fewer veterans will make use of the service, and the more money the government will save.

Being a pacifist, I have no love for soldiers. But I am also against people being used, tricked or exploited, and I feel that a lot of US soldiers are people who are being duped. Many are folks who legitimately love their country and want to protect it, but are misled by the government into thinking that blowing up target A and killing "enemy" B will serve that goal (or, of course, they join the military because they’re poor and need the money). As the chickenhawk database shows us, folks who never have--and never will--face bombs or bullets order these folks into battle, sometimes for the flimsiest or most immoral of reasons.

And this article here is an example of these folks in the military being exploited even further. Let me try to summarize:

US soldiers have their travel expenses paid by the military. In the olden days, soldiers were able to apply for vouchers or cash up front to pay for their trips, but in 1998, the military instituted a new system. All of a soldier’s travel purchases must now be charged on a Government Travel Card (GTC), an interest-free charge card issued by Bank of America to each and every soldier. Applying for these cards has been made mandatory by the military. After charging their purchases, soldiers must apply for reimbursements by the government. And what is happening is that these reimbursements are coming late (or error-ridden, or not at all), soldiers are unable to pay off their GTCs on time, and their credit ratings are being destroyed. To avoid credit damage, some of these soldiers are taking on other, non-interest-free credit cards to pay off their GTC bills, going into real debt to pay off their government-incurred debts.

The article above describes the problems with this system, and points out that it might actually be unconstitutional in two different ways. And remember, you can't pin this one on Bush. It's a late 90s thing, making this one squarely a Clinton deal.

And just for fun- “The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is threatening to subpoena Attorney General John Ashcroft because the Justice Department has rejected a committee request to reveal how it is using new anti-terrorism powers to monitor Americans.”

Wheeee!!

Posted by Jake at 01:00 AM | Comments (0)

Media Gnuz

GlaxoSmithKline Must Remove Ad Claim- GlaxoSmithKline is a giant pharmaceutical company that manufacturers (and markets. Don’t forget marketing) the anti-depressant drug Paxil (not to be confused with Prozac. Or Zoloft. Or Effexor, Serzone or Celexa). Recently a number of Paxil users took GSK to court because its advertisements state “Paxil is non-habit-forming.” The judge in the case has ruled against GSK, demanding that the company remove the phrase from all its advertising. In other words, Paxil is addictive.

Unsurprisingly, advertisers bitched about the decision, arguing that it was a somehow a betrayal of the American people or something.

As a completely unrelated aside, recent studies show that around 80% of the effects of anti-depressant medication are completely illusory.

Cox Launches Ad-Supported Video-On-Demand Service- I’ll admit I don’t completely understand this article. Near as I can figure, Cox Communications, the fifth-largest cable company in the US, has decided to create a Video On Demand (VOD) service. Usually this term is used to mean a service that would allow a viewer at home to choose to watch any program or movie they want, on their television, at any time. This sounds wonderful, no having to adjust your schedule to that of a television programmer, no need to limit your entertainment choices to the few options selected by a cable company.

But it appears that this Cox service is actually going to deliver nothing but infomercials and long-form ads disguised as entertainment: “Coke's Diet Coke will use FreeZone to launch a series of five-minute vignettes about a 20-year-old woman's experience as a production assistant on an independent film. Sony's Epic label will highlight new artists such as Good Charlotte and Howie Day, showcase new projects by established artists such as Tori Amos, as well as video biographies, music videos and other content.”

At this point, I feel it would be irresponsible not to point out that the band mentioned above, Good Charlotte, sucks.

Journalists Behaving Badly- The sneering sensationalists of Fox News Channel are upset with the Baltimore Sun newspaper. Back in December, Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera filed some reports from Afghanistan that were factually inaccurate and self-serving. BS (interesting initials) columnist David Folkenflik pointed this out (Folkenflik actually won a journalism prize for his story pointing out that Geraldo was full of shit. Talk about setting your standards low). Ever since, Fox News is refusing to give any information or access to the Baltimore Sun because “the Baltimore Sun does not want to be fair to Fox News." Waah waah. Take your ball and go home, you babies.

CNN Chief Claims US Media 'Censored' War- Executive vice-president and general manager of CNN International Rena Golden says "Anyone who claims the US media didn’t censor itself is kidding you. It wasn’t a matter of government pressure but a reluctance to criticise anything in a war that was obviously supported by the vast majority of the people."

And finally, I am utterly baffled by the existence of “Business Reform” magazine, “the premiere Christian business magazine in the country.” For those of you who enjoy Fortune and the Economist, but are frustrated by the lack of references to the crucifixion, I suppose. This issue’s cover story: Enron: A Biblical Look at the Largest Bankruptcy in U.S. History

I’m no Biblical scholar, but in my mind, this one passage eliminates the need for any Christian business mags at all: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

Posted by Jake at 12:40 AM | Comments (1)

Will They or Won't They?

As ever, more contradictory news about Iraq.

International relations analysts Stratfor argue that the Bush administration is backing down from their plan to invade Iraq.

But we can also read about new US plans to propagandize Western Europe and the Middle East in an effort to “build international support among foreign opinion leaders for a war against Iraq.” That doesn't sound like a change of policy, that sounds like a postponement.

And Rumsfeld continues to talk up the war, by, sigh, comparing Saddam Hussein to Hitler. Guess he's never heard of Godwin’s Law, “the law that states that once a discussion reaches a comparison to Nazis or Hitler, its usefulness is over."

Hey, you wanna do me a favor? For months now I've been referring to Donald Rumsfeld (in my mind, anyway) as "Skeletor," after the skull-faced villain on the old He-Man cartoon.

See the resemblance? I'm sure it's the cheekbones.

And the penchant for evil.

Anyhow, if you want to plant a little ray of demented sunshine into the life of Jake Sexton, at some point during the next couple of days, refer to Donald Rumsfeld as "Skeletor Rumsfeld," or "Donald 'Skeletor' Rumsfeld," or "Secretary of Defense Skeletor." Just randomly toss it into a conversation, or an email, or a blog entry. I'd like to make the nickname stick.

Posted by Jake at 12:21 AM | Comments (2)

August 20, 2002

News Bits

Israeli Court Bans Use of 'Human Shields'- talked about this last week. Step in the right direction.

A moment of deep hope- Geov Parrish interviews food, water and anti-globalization activist Vandana Shiva.

Cry For Peace- article that takes on the complexity of the conflict in Colombia, but somehow manages to explain the intricacies simply and succintly.

Posted by Jake at 12:11 AM | Comments (0)

August 18, 2002

Forgiveness

The LA based alt-weekly New Times has been on a crusade* this past year to expose the pedophile priests in Los Angeles, and to crucify* LA Cardinal Roger Mahony for covering up this abuse for decades. They've given Mahony so much coverage, it almost seems like a vendetta. But their acusations are usually backed up with evidence, so it looks like they are fighting the good fight.

How widespread was the problem of church child abuse? So bad that the Roman Catholic church had established a sort of pedophile priest treatment center in New Mexico, near the town of Jemez Springs. The New Times story about this "retreat" is very thorough, and very damning.

Even worse, it seems that this "therapy" camp for pedophile priests was a sham. The NT article basically accuses the Roman Catholic Church of using the Jemez Springs center as a place to store corrupt priests after they'd been accused of molesting young boys before shipping them off to minister to a new flock. Needless to say, these priests do not leave "cured" of their desires, and often move to a new, unsuspected church, and assault and ruin the lives of more young people. Wonder what Jesus would have to say about that.

Near as I can figure, the Jemez Springs camp opened in 1947 as a ministry to help troubled priests. The founder seems (emphasis on "seems") to have intended it as a place to help priests who found their faith crumbling after viewing the grim face of war. I don't know at what point it became a sexual predator waiting cavalcade, but the NT article cites pedophile priest James Porter to the camp in 1967 (after he had molested at least 30-40 children). Meaning that the Roman Catholic church in the US has been aware of a problem of priests molesting children for at least 35 years.

Possibly the most disturbing passage from the article: "The retreat used to invite the local kids to come use the pool during the summer," recalls Jay Nelson, 50, of Albuquerque, who spent summers as a child at his family's vacation cabin near Jemez Springs. "They'd tell the parents, "Send them down. We'll watch them.'"

*religious puns only midly intended.

Posted by Jake at 01:58 PM | Comments (0)

A Public Service

This isn't news. But it could be helpful.

You're walking down the street, and you come to a busy intersection. You want to cross the street, so you push one of those little buttons mounted on the traffic light pole. The button presumably tells the traffic signal that a pedestrian wants to cross the street, so it throws a red light up to stop opposing traffic, the little "Walk/Don't Walk" display changes in your favor, and you cross the street.

Today, a fellow named Joe asked me "do you think it matters how many times you press the button?" Which is a good question. I know that when I want to cross a street, I hit this button like 50 times, figuring that I can "trick" the light into thinking that there's a huge mob of pedestrians desperate to cross the street, and that that will make the light change faster. But this strategy is based on no knowledge. I don't know how street lights work. Will pushing the button more frequently make the light change quicker? How about pushing it harder? Or holding it down?

So I took it upon myself to find the answer, and share it with the masses.

And I found it in an old issue of the Christian Science Monitor:

"Press the button as many times as you want," Boston's [director of transportation Chuck] Morelli says. "It doesn't do any good to press a lot of times. It just takes one firm press."

Crosswalk lights run on a cycle. When the button is pressed, it signals the mechanism that pedestrians want to cross. So the next time it reaches the end of the traffic-light cycle (but not before), it will light the "walk" signal.

City transportation departments determine how long pedestrians must wait. At intersections with lots of traffic but few pedestrians, the crosswalk may be programmed to light every two or three cycles. If pedestrian traffic is heavy, the crosswalk may light after each cycle, and stay on longer.

In other words, crosswalk buttons are not vulnerable to repeated presses, or harder presses. It's almost more like a switch than a button. Push it once, and your own your way to fame and fortune (well, however much fame and fortune you're going to find on the other side of the street).

Funny that you've received this information from a guy in Los Angeles, the most anti-pedestrian city on Earth.

Posted by Jake at 01:58 AM | Comments (1)

August 17, 2002

New Report from Garrick

Another installment of Reports from Palestine from Garrick. Tamara has returned to the States and, unless she feels like writing up some memoirs or concluding thoughts, we probably won't have any additional reports from her. I will, however, try to post any announcements about presentations and media appearances she may be giving as I hear about them.

I also emailed Garrick a few clarification questions. He uses the term "martyr" a few times during this email, which I infer means "Palestinian who has been killed by Israelis," but I'm not 100% sure if that's what he means; normally when I think of the word "martyr," I think of someone who intentionally died for a cause, while for Garrick (and possibly the Palestinians) intent does not seem to be a factor.

He also uses the term "fighter," which I infer from Tamara's recent presentation here in L.A. means "someone involved in the Palestinian resistance movement."

Posted by Jake at 11:16 AM | Comments (0)

Taping Down the Panic Button

Summer just wouldn't be summer without a media-fabricated fear trend. Last summer, Americans were warned that we would be eaten by sharks if we went to the beach. However there were actually fewer international shark attacks in 2001 than there were in 2000, while the number of US shark attacks was roughly the same. But sensationalistic news coverage of shark attacks increased, and so did fear of sharks.

This summer we see a similiar trend with regards to kidnapping. The fear is that a parent will turn their attention away from their child for a moment, and an evil stranger will grab the kid and run off (even though the vast, vast majority of abductions are committed by one of the child's parents). George W. Bush recently claimed that 58,000 kids are kidnapped by non-family members every year. However, the National District Attorneys Association claims that there are only 4000 kids are kidnapped by non-family members every year, and of those, only 200 are kidnapped by strangers. And a 1999 FBI report claims that between 3200-4600 kids are abducted by non-family members every year. I'm real curious where Bush got his numbers.

Obviously, that is too high a number for anyone to feel comfortable with. But by my fumbly calculations that puts the odds at around 1 in 18,000 that your kid would be kidnapped by a non-family member in the US, and around 1 in 370,000 that a child would be kidnapped by a stranger (simply using 2000 census data, there are around 74 million Americans under the age of 18).

But for some reason, mounds of statistics don't seem very convincing to parents afraid that they might forever lose their little Johnny or Suzie. Fear is the mindkiller.

[Most of these links stolen from Busy Busy Busy]

Posted by Jake at 02:25 AM | Comments (0)

August 16, 2002

I Got Mine

I have travelled three weeks into the future to bring you this Fortune magazine article from September 2, 2002. Fear my spooky powers!

Fortune mag did a study comparing the gains and losses of investors regarding the recent stock market crash. They found that most investors lost 70-90% of their stock value. But the top execs from the failing companies? They made "obscene" amounts. Yes, a magazine called "Fortune," about getting rich by investing, actually used the word "obscene" to describe the wealth these people were making.

Using very specific parameters, Fortune found that these execs made "roughly $66 billion. Of that amount, a total haul of $23 billion went to 466 insiders at the 25 corporations where the executives cashed out the most."

Stockholders should take note. It's generally assumed that CEOs are hired by stockholders to protect their interests. But now it looks like CEOs and stockholders might have the same goals (getting rich), but that their means of achieving these goals may conflict with each other. Instead of seeing CEOs as strong workhorses, plowing the fields for their benefit, shareholders might want to look at CEOS more like live cobras, held at arm's length.

[edit]

I found this article at the PR Watch website. They just added a new messageboard to their site, and it seems as though the PR Watch researchers are very involved with it. Meaning that if you have questions about the PR industry you'd like answered, you have pretty direct access to two experts, if you want it.

Posted by Jake at 10:24 AM | Comments (1)

Thought Is Weakness

Infuriating quote from warhawk Richard Perle regarding a US invasion of Iraq:

"The failure to take on Saddam after what the president said would produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on terrorism."

Gives us a little insight into the conservative mind. Single-minded dedication is strength, changing your mind is weakness. Weakness invites attack and defeat. Therefore we must go forward with our initial plan, even if it turns out to be a terrible idea.

Therefore we should never question the president, because it could possibly create a "collapse of confidence," leading to weakness and inevitable destruction. Democracy is weakness, obedience is strength.

Actually, that whole article I linked to above is pretty good, about many Republicans coming out to oppose Bush's Iraq invasion. Including Henry "Let's Bomb the Living Fuck Out of Southeast Asia to Beat the Commies" Kissinger. When Kissinger tells you your war campaign is going to be too destructive, that's saying something.

Posted by Jake at 09:48 AM | Comments (1)

August 15, 2002

Jesus Fucking Christ!

Okay, this has got to be the most blatantly pre-staged, self-serving, propagandistic photo-op in the history of mankind:

Courtesy of the Associated Press, but I found it at FoxNews.com, of course.

Notice how it's taken from a low angle, making Bush appear larger and more powerful? And how his head his nearly in line with the heads of the other presidents, as though he too were a great historical figure? And how the stone head of George Washington seems to be looking down at W. with solemn agreement?

On the Fox News site, that pic was accompanied by the headline "'I Don't Want Our Hands Tied'", and the tagline "Bush urges Congress to pass Homeland Security bill without bureaucratic strings attached."

[edit]

I did a little poking around the 'net, and found that this particular photo was taken by Ken Lambert of the Associated Press, formerly of the Washington Times. Interestingly, I found an essay by him about photojournalism and politicians, with this interesting quote:

"By far, the worst thing photographers can do is get lazy and accept a 'photo op,' capturing only what is spoon-fed to them by a political staff. Regardless of which party is in the White House, this happens often, because political events there can be like Hollywood productions."

You got lazy, Ken, you got played.

Posted by Jake at 01:01 PM | Comments (4)

National Corporate Radio

Some of my fellow Kill Radio DJs are part of a comedy troop called "The People Who Do That." They have a live act-- part skit, part play-- called "National Corporate Radio" that parodies NPR. It's scathing. I saw them perform it several months ago, going in with moderate expectations, and coming out reallly, really impressed. Mocks NPR, Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Christians, Tolkien-fans, the media, the internet, but mostly the "war on terror."

They are back for a 3rd (I think) run at the tiny New Stage Theatre in Hollywood. Here's what they've got to say:

Here it comes: it's the premiere of The People Who Do That's New and
Improved National Corporate Radio, the one-hour one-act that lambasts NPR and
confronts the so-called "War on Terror." We've updated much of the script to
address recent developments, such as the implosion of the economy, the joy of
spying on your neighbors, and the imminent invasion of the rogue nation of
Iceland. Risk appearing on one of Ashcroft's lists and attend:

Saturday, August 17, 24, 31; September 7
8:00 pm
at The Next Stage Theatre, 1523 N. La Brea #208
(upstairs above the Lava Lounge)
Tickets are $7.00.
Make your reservation now through our Info Hotline, (818)502-2804.

Good stuff folks, check it out.

Posted by Jake at 11:15 AM | Comments (2)

News Soup

Mideast Immigrants' Effect Weighed- the Center for Immigration Studies, an American anti-immigration think-tank, is trying to drum up support for limitations on immigration by issuing reports about how many Arabs and Muslims have been moving to the US in recent years. Then they're letting racism and fear of terrorism do the rest.

The article isn't that bad, looking at many sides of the issue, but the headline and opening paragraphs look at the CIS report as if it were an objective scientific study. For people just skimming through their morning paper and might not read the whole article, the damage has been done.

The War We Couldn't Report- Canadian journalists Mike Vernon and David Common describe the barriers to reporting on the Afghan war erected by the US military.

Group Accuses U.S. Justice Official of Securities Fraud- "The U.S. Justice Department official in charge of cracking down on corporate corruption was sued on Wednesday for alleged securities fraud." Sweet.

Fox Cancels Visit with Bush to Protest Mexican's Execution- "President Vicente Fox called off a visit due later this month to US President George W. Bush's Texas ranch in protest at the execution of a Mexican citizen convicted of killing a Texas police officer. The cancellation is 'a show of unequivocal repudiation of the execution of Mexican Javier Suarez Medina,' said a statement read to the press late Wednesday by presidential spokesman Rodolfo Elizondo."

Heard about this story on KPFK earlier this week. As a Mexican citizen, Medina had the legal right to aid by the Mexican consulate in the US. When the consulate heard that a man who was possibly a Mexican citizen had been arrested in Texas, they called the police station to find out for sure. Apparently, the officers there lied to the consulate 3 or 4 times, claiming that the man had no ID, that he was Cuban, or that he was Colombian. Appeals filed arguing that Medina's rights had been violated and that he deserved a new trial were denied, and Medina was executed.

It's frustrating that the only way the US has to "punish" cops who violate people's rights is to let the suspect go free. This leads to cases in which the guilty are released, and then everyone blames "the system" in which criminals get off on technicalities. Why can't we just punish the cops who break the rules?

Posted by Jake at 09:20 AM | Comments (0)

More on the Iraq Puzzle

I imagine you'll be as baffled as I was by this headline:

US Begins Push for Humanitarian Aid in Iraq

Wait, that country the US is desperate to bomb? Are we trying to line up the aid groups first so that weapons manufacturers can make sure that their cluster bombs look more like the food packages? What's going on?

Basically, the US is offering up 5 grants totaling $6.6 million to US-based international aid organizations to "cover areas such as medical care, relief for refugees, shelter, water supply, sanitation, as well as longer-term issues, such as education and landmines."

Two other interesting points:

"A US official said he believed the State Department's proposal was the first time the government had offered money to humanitarian agencies working in Iraq and that it was part of a new push to set up relief networks within Iraq, working in co-operation with the Iraqi opposition, who are key to Washington's plans for regime change."

And

"One former government official with experience of working in humanitarian operations insisted the proposals should not be seen as linked to the war planning, but rather as a State Department decision to allow US organisations to help the Iraqi people."

That article is quickly followed by this one, Aid Agencies Wary of US Aid for Iraq.

"US humanitarian agencies this week were divided over whether to accept US government funds to set up relief networks inside Iraq, fearing that they might be facilitating a US military attack."

Posted by Jake at 09:05 AM | Comments (0)

Human Shields Revisited

Remember when I wrote about "human shields" this weekend?

"Palestinian witnesses said 19-year-old Nidal Abumuhsein was forced at gunpoint [by Israeli sodliers] to try and get the senior Hamas militant to surrender. They said the Israeli army gave him a protective flack jacket and a sniffer dog. When he knocked on the door he was killed by a burst of bullets."

And if that wasn't disturbing enough, that quote above ends with claims by the witnesses that the bullets "came from the soldiers, not the house." As usual, I can't verify that one way or the other.

Posted by Jake at 08:57 AM | Comments (1)

August 14, 2002

The Real Reason for the Iraq Attack?

I have finally read the first reasonable sounding explanation for a US attack on Iraq, via Stratfor:

"Despite the divisions it is causing, the Bush administration is not abandoning its strategy because it sees a successful campaign against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as a prime way to shatter the psychological advantage within the Islamist movement and demonstrate U.S. power."

(presumably with the broader goal of defeating Islamic terrorism against the United States)

There's no way of telling if Stratfor is correctly reading the minds of the Bush administration, but this explanation certainly makes more sense than the "Iraq might have chemcial and biological weapons" explanation. Unfortunately that's as much info as I can get from Stratfor without paying to subscribe to their site. Which, sigh, I might have to do one of these days.

So there you go.

Ask yourself, is "shatter[ing] the psychological advantage within the Islamist movement and demonstrat[ing] U.S. power" a desirable goal? Would a US invasion of Iraq be the best way to accomplish that goal? Would potential blowback from the attack offset the benefits? Discuss.

Posted by Jake at 05:58 PM | Comments (3)

LMB Reader Poll #1

US-Iraq Conflict

Which of these battles would you prefer? US carpet-bombs Iraq, killing thousands of civilians US covert operations destabilize Iraq, ousting Hussein but leaving the nation in chaos George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Saddam Hussein locked in a room with chainsaws

Current Results

Posted by Jake at 12:52 PM | Comments (3)

Ashcroft Must Go. Now.

Remember "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla? Looks like he never actually had a dirty bomb plot, and there isn't much evidence against him for anything. All we've got is intelligence allegations that he met with two al-Qaida members back in March. But he's still in prison. Cuz he's a "material witness," or an "enemy combatant," or "because Bush said-so" or something.

A federal judge claims that the US has "mistreated a U.S. citizen, Yaser Esam Hamdi, by detaining him for months without charges or access to a lawyer." Cuz he's an "enemy combatant" or "material witness" or "dirty A-rab" or something.

And don't think they'll be the last ones. Attorney General John Ashcroft has quietly announced that he'd like to build "camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be 'enemy combatants'". Of course, there is no legal definition for "enemy combatants." It's a term that the Bush administration created to justify their shady treatment of terror suspects. Could you be an enemy combatant? Sure, why not?

But not every views the police state with fear. For some, it is a lucrative business opportunity! Just ask Dick Cheney's Halliburton corporation, will receive $37.3 million to build new prison cells at Guantanamo Bay, where the Afghan "enemy combatants" are held. And increased detention of immigrants is like money in the bank for private prison companies like Wackenhut and the Corrections Corporation of America.

Cheer up, America! You'll be rich or in jail in no time!

Posted by Jake at 10:52 AM | Comments (3)

Selective Memory

A couple of pervasive factual errors are passing through the mainstream media these days, and FAIR has written a couple of articles about them.

The first is the myth that Saddam Hussein threw the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq back in 1998. Actually, the inspectors left voluntarily because it looked as though the US military was planning to throw a cluster bomb party, and everyone on the ground in Iraq was invited.

Might seem like a minor point, but the error helps support the "can't trust Saddam, weapons inspections don't work, we've gotta bomb Iraq" point of view. There is also apparently a bit of snide allusions to Saddam accusing the UN inspectors of being spies, which most Americans would assume are just lies by the Iraqi leader. They're not. The UN inspectors were actually spying for the US. If this fact were more widely known, maybe Iraq's reluctance to let inspectors into the country would make more sense.

The second error going around is the Myth of the Generous Offer, discussed by FAIR's Seth Ackerman. This is the story that at the Camp David peace negotiations, Israel's Ehud Barak had offered Yassir Arafat a wonderful deal that would give the Palestinians virtually everything they wanted, and Arafat had refused and broken off negotiations. I had long heard comments from lefty folks that Barak's offer was not nearly so wonderful as it looked on the surface, and this article simply explains what the offer really was. To summarize:

• Israel would withdraw from the Gaza strip;
  
• Israel would give up a part of the Negev Desert, a small area that contains a toxic waste dump;
  
• Israel would annex a number of "strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining 'security control' over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government";
  
• the annexed sections would include fertile regions with important sources of water;
  
• "The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons";
  
• "Palestinians living in their new 'independent state' would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will";
  
• "Israel would also retain a network of so-called 'bypass roads' that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank";
  
• "Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military."
  

Posted by Jake at 10:29 AM | Comments (0)

Just Two More

Kill the Corporation- "In his influential work on injustice and revolt, Barrington Moore pointed out that criticism of oppressive systems most often targets individual elites who violate approved standards. Criticism of the entire class of elites come less often. But 'only the most radical forms of criticism have raised the question whether kings, capitalists, priests, generals, bureaucrats, etc., serve any useful social purpose at all.'"

Dow Action Diary: Day 25- "On July 17, activist Diane Wilson began a hunger strike in front of the gates of the Dow Chemical/Union Carbide corporation in Seadrift, Texas. She hopes to call attention to the plight of victims of 1984's industrial accident in Bhopal, India where, to date, Dow has still not cleaned up the derelict factory or adequately compensated the victims and survivors. Supporting Diane are Jodie Evans and other members of the group UnReasonable Women. What follows are excerpts from the daily emails Jodie and others send to the hundreds of supporters also on hunger strikes around the world in support of the victims of Bhopal."

Posted by Jake at 12:39 AM | Comments (0)

Chutzpah

Jesus, what balls!

There's a mildly humorous saying that "the definition of chutzpah is a child who murders his parents and then pleads for the mercy of the court because he's an orphan."

These ex-Enron execs also define the word. The company went bankrupt because they ran it into the ground. They were fired for their actions, and now they want to collect their multi-million dollar severance packages (a federal investigation also revealed today that, as we've all known for a while, Enron manipulated energy prices for profit).

It's times like these when I wonder why we don't tar and feather these motherfuckers.

That probably sounds like I'm kidding. I'm not. These men don't fear the law. Let them fear angry mob justice. Let them realize that despite their money and power, that they can feel the force of a fist just like any other man. And let them realize that there are many, many fists that would love to prove that fact, time and time again.

Instead, they walk around with impunity, flaunting the riches they've gained through clever, "legal" theft.

They should FEAR us.

They should spend every waking moment drenched in cold sweat, knowing that we are much more powerful than they are, and we could take back what's ours without warning.

We could eat them alive.

[Jake takes off 'revolutionary zealot' hat, puts on sly, good-natured Mark Twain mustache]

And if we tar and feather these corporate bastards instead of beating or lynching them, they walk away humiliated, but physically unharmed. Mostly.

This was America's birth. About a year ago, I read a good book called A People's History of the American Revolution (no, not the Zinn book, but one inspired by it). What amazed me was how rebellious and militant these American colonists were against those who abused their economic or political power. When these abuses were too much to bear, throngs of people would go to the home of a politician, scare him half to death with threats and burning effigies, and force him to resign. When merchants raised prices past the breaking point, the masses would break in, take what they needed, sometimes leaving what they considered a fair price for the goods they had taken. And of course, those seen as traitors would sometimes be brushed with warm tar and sprinkled with goose feathers.

Yeah, I know, the idea of mob justice raises just as many problems as it could potentially solve. But you've got to admit, there is something attractive about the idea.

Posted by Jake at 12:15 AM | Comments (0)

August 13, 2002

Baghdad in the Summer, When It Sizzles

Good article here by Leah Wells of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation about the time she spent in Iraq last summer.

She claims that it got up to 140 degrees Farenheit at one point, but that just doesn't seem possible.

The article is not about chemical weapons, it's not about Saddam Hussein, it's about the people of Iraq and how they try to live their lives under oppression and deprivation. I interviewed Leah on my radio show some months back on this very topic, and the jerks who's show followed mine managed to erase the only recording I had of it. Okay, I'm still bitter about that, but much of the material she spoke of in the interview shows up here in her editorial. Give it a read.

Posted by Jake at 10:26 PM | Comments (0)

Those Damn Red Commie Terrorist Union Members

This issue has been getting a lot of coverage in left-wing media like Pacifica radio or Z magazine, but I haven't seen it anywhere else otherwise.

Bush Threatens Dockers' Right To Strike

First of all, this article is by David Bacon, an excellent reporter and photojournalist. He usually writes about labor issues from the point of view of the workers, painting them in vivid colors so that the reader sees them as real people.

But the story at hand is troubling. West coast dockworkers ("longshoremen") from the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) is in difficult negotiations with their employers. It is possible that the workers will strike en masse, shutting down imports into much of the United States. Might sound severe, but it's about the only power that workers have when dealing with employers.

Enter George W. He has threatened to:

• "invoke the Taft-Hartley Act, under which striking longshoremen would be ordered to return to work for 90 days."
  
• "place the union under the Railway Labor Act, instead of the National Labor Relations Act," which gives the government the power to order an end to any strikes and to impose contracts on workers.
  
• "replace striking longshoremen with Navy personnel in the huge cargo cranes that load and offload the giant shipping containers."
  

In other words, the Bush administration is willing to go to great lengths to deprive the longshoremen of their rights to strike, and therefore negotiate contracts. I imagine they'll try to blame it on terrorism, somehow.

Posted by Jake at 10:18 PM | Comments (1)

With One Voice

A Traitor To Their Class- on one hand, this article is a dull analysis of a recent editorial by Al Gore. On the other hand, it looks at an interesting journalistic phenomenon, noting that "whenever the media is united in disapproval of something, you can be sure that its consensus reveals more about the press than the subject of its disapproval."

Posted by Jake at 12:26 AM | Comments (0)

Fraud is a Right, Not a Privilege

Found this news snippet very interesting. You kind of have to work your way backwards to find the interesting part.

1) An advertising agency (Ogilvy and Mather) has hired a lobbying firm (Hill and Knowlton) to oppose a new bill in Congress
2) Bill would prevent this specific ad agency from handling the $150 million a year White House anti-drug ad campaign.
3) Bill was proposed in Congress because this ad agency has, in the past, defrauded the White House anti-drug campaign (they paid a settlement of $1.8 million to avoid a civil suit).

In other words, a company that stole money from the US government has hired lobbyists to pressure the US government into giving the thieves another crack at it. And actually, since both the ad agency and their new lobbying partners are owned by the same company, you could say that the theives' accomplice is trying to talk the government into giving the thieves another chance. Business as usual, I suppose.

The only other information I can find on this topic at all is a 2-year old CNN article when these allegations against O&M first surfaced.

Posted by Jake at 12:21 AM | Comments (0)

August 11, 2002

Conflicting Evidence

On one hand, we have George W. seeming to deny that his war on Iraq is inevitable, as even Republicans in Congress oppose the plan.

On the other hand, we see the W. may have received new attack plans from Gen. Tommy Franks that would involve fewer troops, EMP weapons, psychological warfare and a whole lot of luck. And a strong column here that argues quite persuasively that the US will invade Iraq in early November.

Posted by Jake at 01:14 AM | Comments (0)

August 10, 2002

US vs. Global Justice (again)

U.S. Ties Military Aid to Peacekeepers' Immunity- "The Bush administration, making use of a provision of the new antiterrorism law, warned foreign diplomats this week that their nations could lose all American military assistance if they became members of the International Criminal Court without pledging to protect Americans serving in their countries from its reach."

[edit]

And-

U.S.: 'Hague Invasion Act' Becomes Law- I referred to this law proposed in Congress back in June, the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002. It contains one interesting clause which grants the US military the "right" to invade the Netherlands to free any American servicemen that might be held for trial in the International Criminal Court.

On August 3, President W. signed the bill into law.

Grrr...

Posted by Jake at 03:18 PM | Comments (0)

Bush Backs Down Slightly

Bush Calls Iraq an 'Enemy Until Proven Otherwise'- Does this guy live on a golf course? During yet another impromptu press conference during a golf game, Bush claimed that there were no immediate plans and was no timetable for attacking Iraq. If true, it's a good sign that this war isn't necessarily going to happen. But of course, it could just as easily be a blatant lie.

Actually, I am a bit heartened lately. Major US newspaper editorials have come out against the attack on Iraq, or at least call for the president to explain why such an attack is necessary. Nearly all letters to the editors of these papers also oppose a war on Iraq. And, of course, most military members of the Bush administration also oppose the war on Iraq (for strategic, not moral reasons, of course).

And now the creepy Operation TIPS program that was supposed to go into effect this month has now been postponed until Congress returns in September, and will probably be scaled down.

One of the more insidious parts of the program was to recruit people like cable repairmen and utility employees, people who often enter individual's homes when they're not there, to do some snooping; this was a clever way to get around the need to, y'know, obey the 4th Amendment. Why should the police gather evidence to get a search warrant when you can send in Joe the plumber? Anyhow, it looks as though the new version of TIPS will probably eliminate this portion due to public outcry.

Granted, TIPS still looks to be a government-organized network of domestic spies and informants who are supposed to keep an eye on their fellow Americans. What do all those bumper stickers say, "United We Stand"?

Posted by Jake at 10:59 AM | Comments (0)

Garrick 8-10

New email report from Garrick, in the West Bank town of Qalqilia. Among other things, he writes about Israeli soldiers using Palestinians as "human shields" (well, perhaps more accurately, "involuntary negotiators"), a practice I heard about during the massive invasion of Jenin earlier in the year. Basically, when attempting to confront or capture Palestinian #1, Israeli soldiers threaten Palestinian #2 into going into #1's house or wherever and bring him out. If #1 was indeed dangerous, #2 could be killed. More likely, #1 reacts more favorably to #2 than he would to Israelis with rifles at the ready, and possibly #1 comes out peacefully.

While that may sound like a better situation than Israelis bursting in and causing violence, in Garrick's tale 1) the soldiers threatened to demolish #2's house if he didn't act as their representative, and 2) once #1 came out peacefully, the soldiers shot him.

Garrick's report reminded me of a previous article I'd written about that term back in the 1990s about "human shields." Garrick's report refers to the "forced point-man" version of human shields, and mine referred to a political spin used to describe bombing deaths.

During the US/NATO war on Yugoslavia/Serbia, the US crafted the devious "human shield" story. It would go something like this:

1) US/NATO planes bomb what appears to be a civilian area and kill innocent civilians. This makes their army look negligent at best.
2) US/NATO, without supplying evidence to back up their claims, states that the area was not a civilian area, but a "legitimate military target."
3) US/NATO, without supplying evidence to back up their claims, states that if any civilians were killed in the bombing attack, that they must have been put there by enemy forces as "human shields."
4) US/NATO now appear to be victims of an unjust PR ploy, while the enemy is both guilty of deception and responsible for the massacre.

If you can set your morals aside, this plan is a brilliant propaganda manuever. The US/NATO have somehow managed to not only dodge the appearance of incompetence, but to make their enemies look even more monstrous than before.

Anyhow, the story I wrote about this can be found here, second article down. It's about how this "human shield" theory played out during a bombing raid gone wrong in the town of Korisa.

Posted by Jake at 10:48 AM | Comments (0)

August 09, 2002

The Comedy of Despair

New page of Get Your War On cartoons.

Go read them NOW, at least strip #4. The last panel will rip out your heart and eat it with a spoon.

Posted by Jake at 12:36 PM | Comments (0)

More Clear Channel

Might not be news to you if you keep an eye on Clear Channel, but here's a new article by Eric Boehlert (wow, I spelled that right on the first try!) of Salon who's been doing a great job tracking the radio behemoth.

Radio's titan hits the skids- "After replacing a high-profile exec, Clear Channel, the 800-pound gorilla of the entertainment industry, suddenly faces a lot of banana peels."

Posted by Jake at 10:16 AM | Comments (0)

What Does the Billboard Say?

I was very pleased to see this billboard on La Cienega Blvd., near the monstrous Beverly Center shopping mall yesterday.

As that area of Los Angeles is so saturated with billboards, and it's done in a style similar to many other fashion ads, it will probably be quickly forgotten by the Angelenos driving by. But it's an ad for Sweatshop Watch, and the campaign to boycott the clothing company Forever 21. Long story short, workers for Forever 21 worked long hours in poor conditions and didn't get paid what they were promised. So the workers, some of whom were fired for speaking out, are fighting back.

More info here.

Posted by Jake at 09:58 AM | Comments (0)

A Picture is Worth a 1000 Retractions

From the Indianapolis Star:

"A photo that accompanied a story on Page B1 on July 31 misrepresented the truth. The photograph, of a boy said to be getting a vaccination at the Marion County Health Department, was staged. The nurse in the photograph did not give the boy a shot, as was depicted and written in the photo caption. The boy was there for a different procedure and was asked to be photographed as if he were getting a vaccination."

"Such distortion of the truth is a violation of our policy on ethics and of our commitment to readers to always be honest in our delivery of the news. The Star apologizes for the misrepresentation and the bad judgment that led to it."

Posted by Jake at 09:49 AM | Comments (0)

August 08, 2002

Assorted Media Criticism

Conspiracy-Free Conformity - How the Mainstream Smears Dissident Output- interesting piece by the folks at Media Lens in the UK. Examines book reviews by British journalist/book review types. Recent reviews of books by left-wing dissidents John Pilger, Noam Chomsky, and Harold Pinter have all received remarkable similar criticism from the reviewers: their worldviews are too "black and white," and they are very angry. But do these criticism say more about the books' authors, or more about the people writing the reviews...?

Fending Off The Threat Of Peace- media critic Norman Solomon on the media's efforts to keep the war drum's a-bangin'.

Murky Water for Clear Channel- final story in a Wired magazine series about radio giant Clear Channel. The first was about CC's homogenization of national radio. The second was about CC's efforts to maintain the illusion of local radio stations. And the third is about CC's financial and legal troubles.

Posted by Jake at 05:22 PM | Comments (2)

Axis of Justice Online

I've mentioned here before that I've been organizing a small political activism section of the Ozzfest concert tour this year, on behalf of System of a Down and former Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello. Well, we finally got a small website up about the section, which we've been calling the "Axis of Justice," a riff on George W's "Axis of Evil."

Mainly the page is just a list of contact info for the various groups that have/will work(ed) the booth. You can check it out at AxisOfJustice.org. I'd appreciate it if you did.

Posted by Jake at 04:17 PM | Comments (10)

Anti-Terrorism vs. Human Rights

A few days back I wrote about the US State Dept.'s attempt to quash a human rights abuse lawsuit by Indonesians against Exxon-Mobil.

I found a copy of the State Department's letter to the judge explaining why the case should not go forward. Some highlights:

"[the lawsuit] may also diminish our ability to work with the Government of Indonesia on ... efforts to promote human rights in Indonesia."

Right. We have to prevent lawsuits that would punish human rights abusers so that we can promote human rights. Gotcha.

"The litigation's potential effects on Indonesia's economy could in turn adversely affect important United States interests."

If multinational corporations find out that they can be punished for violating human rights in Indonesia, they might pull out of Indonesia, harming its economy. And an unstable economy could lead to an unstable society, which could lead to an unstable government, which could utterly destabilize the entire south Pacific. This argument takes up a fairly large portion of the 6 page letter.

"A decision in favor of the plaintiffs might encourage secessionist activities in Aceh and elsewhere in Indonesia."

Most revolutionary movements in world history have hung balanced upon the decisions of civil lawsuits.

"This lawsuit could potentially disrupt the on-going and extensive United States efforts to secure Indonesia's cooperation in the fight against international terrorism."

This is the only claim in the letter that really holds up. The lawsuit could embarass the Indonesian government, and make them hostile towards the US. And if the allegations of government torture or rape are proven true, the US is legally obligated to not cooperate with them militarily. I don't think they'd restrain themselves that way, but allegedly the US government has laws which prevent it from providing military aid to nations that engage in human rights abuses. Which would probably mean that the international arms trade would have to stop completely.

"The United States is actively seeking to assist Indonesia in reform efforts aimed at ending the kinds of abuses alleged by this litigation. Through improved training and support of security personnel ... these programs are designed to establish a higher degree of professionalism and respect for individual rights."

American trained killers will teach Indonesian trained killers to be nice.

"An adverse effect on human rights objectives is also possible if the GOI [Government of Indonesia] were to turn down U.S. companies bidding for new contracts in response to the suit. Working side-by-side with U.S. firms, Indonesian companies and government agencies see the advantages of modern business practices, anti-corruption, efficiency and effectiveness."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[wipes away tear]

"Increasing opportunities for U.S. business abroad is an important aspect of U.S. foreign policy ... [this lawsuit] could prejudice the Government of Indonesia and Indonesian businesses against U.S. firms."

Justice served is bad for business. And what's bad for business is bad for US foreign policy.

Posted by Jake at 10:30 AM | Comments (0)

August 07, 2002

Stupid

Sigh.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has asked that all of this year's incoming freshmen read "Approaching the Qur'an: The Early Revelations", a book about the Qur'an/Koran and the Islamic religion. Given that the US is embroiled in conflict with Muslim nations and cultures, and that 1/6 of the world's population is Muslim, seems like a reasonable request.

Unless, of course, you're a Christian fundamentalist or a right-wing ideologue.

Sadly, there has been a backlash against the book choice. The main charges: the book is biased; Islam is evil; "it's the religion of our enemy."

To appease these folks, UNC now asks the students to read the book and write a one-page paper about it, or to write a one-page paper explaining why they chose to not read the book. That's a very fair and free way to handle the situation.

The debate sinks to disgustingly ignorant lows with our favorite right-wing gasbag, Bill O'Reilly, who compares the Qur'an to Hitler's "Mein Kampf".

Hell, even if you hate Muslims and the Qur'an, doesn't it still make sense to read it? These aren't soldiers going off to war, these are young people going to college, allegedly to learn and understand the world. And even if they were soldiers, how is it a bad idea to learn more about your "enemy"? Evidently ignorance and faith are the best weapons of war.

Posted by Jake at 05:22 PM | Comments (1)

New Lows

At this rate, parody will be extinct within just a few years.

Several years ago, there was a comedy skit on the TV show "Saturday Night Live" that paroided the popular "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" game show. In the skit, refugees in Kosovo competed for a meal in "Who Wants to Eat?" Satiric newspaper "The Onion" followed suit with their fictional Russian show "Who Wants to Eat a Meal?"

Back in reality, Argentina--the nation that has plunged into poverty because it did what the IMF told it to--has a TV gameshow that could be called "Who Wants a Job for Six Months?":

"Broadcast five days a week, the hourlong program known as 'Human Resources' pits two unemployed people in a contest to win a guaranteed six-month work contract. They relate their life stories and answer questions that test their ability to perform the duties they are seeking. Then viewers vote by telephone to decide which of the two should get the coveted job.

"'The audience's behavior is predictable and always very human,' said Mr. Ibarra, the host. 'They automatically vote for the person who they think needs the job the most. So the man with a disabled child, the woman who has children but no husband, is preferred over the person who is not quite as bad off.'"

"On Monday, that proved to be the case. When the votes were tallied and displayed with a flourish on an electronic screen, Ms. Rueda, the single mother, had received 52 percent of the vote, to 48 percent for Ms. Bravo."

"Crestfallen, Ms. Bravo was consoled by members of her family, who rushed from the audience to hug and kiss her, and then gamely walked over to congratulate the victor, who was holding her infant son and smiling broadly. The two young women embraced, and both began to cry."

[Thanks to David34]

Posted by Jake at 02:57 PM | Comments (0)

Jackals Show Jackals How It's Done

The British are coming!! The British are coming!!

Apparently Alastair Irvine, son of a British adviser to Tony Blair, is sitting in an southern California jail, awaiting trial on charges related to stalking. The British tabloid press has come out to cover the scandal, and they're not fucking around.

Posted by Jake at 02:55 PM | Comments (0)

INTERNATIONALS BRUTALIZED AND ARRESTED

Just got this urgent email from Garrick:

Hello all,

Below is a press release about 2 Palestinians and 9 internationals arrested today near Nablus. 4 of the internationals are from the International Solidarity Movement, the organization I'm working with. The number for the Israeli consulate in LA is:

(323) 852-5500

(Sorry, don't have the numbers for other locations but I got this one by entering "Los Angeles Israeli Consulate" in a search engine so I'm sure the same could be done elsewhere.)

I would suggest people call and demand that the two Palestinians and 9 internationals be released immediately. It's looking like they are likely to be deported very quickly so if you can make the call today please do so. As always feel free to call if you want more info.

Garrick

International Solidarity Movement
August 7, 2002

For immediate release

INTERNATIONALS BRUTALIZED AND ARRESTED BY MILITARY
FOLLOWING NON-VIOLENT DEMONSTRATION

[NABLUS] Internationals and Palestinians have been
brutalized and arrested following a non-violent
protest at the Huwara checkpoint near Nablus.

Adam Shapiro (USA) and an unknown Palestinian man
were being held in a jeep on a settler road. Half of the
demonstration group decided to stay and block the
jeep from leaving with the innocent civilians. Half
decided to march back peacefully chanting and singing.

Those that stayed where attacked by settlers and
settler police. The peace activists were thrown into
thorn bushes and Huwaida Arraf (USA) was thrown so
hard she hit her head and was left unconscious for a
short time.

The group, which retreated, was assured by the
military that they would be allowed to retreat but
then were attacked by the military and arrests were
made. At this time the soldiers focused in on
individuals and began beating and taking people from
the group. They have taken Palestinians Ahmad Omar
Abdel Aziz 19 and Walid Ata Baker 37 a glass factory
worker.

French nationals Pierre Coulon, Anne-Cecele Alligne,
Benoit Granet, Phillipe Armaug, Satuima
Armaug-Khimoum, Americans Adam Shapiro, Javier
Cortez, and Charles Williams, and Irish national Salah Afifi
have been taken to the Ariel settlement police
station.

For more information in Nablus contact:

Huwaida (USA) 067 473 308
Susan (USA) 055 829 680
Jon (USA) 058 781 646 / 067 429 663
Sal (UK) 067 486 159
Alissandro (ITALY) 050 265 114
Thomas Sommer (FRANCE) 050 314 886

Posted by Jake at 09:08 AM | Comments (0)

Inquiring Minds Want to Know

Columnist/cartoonist Ted Rall compiles an extensive list of questions still unanswered since 9/11.

Posted by Jake at 08:08 AM | Comments (0)

August 06, 2002

Garrick in Palestine

A new report from Garrick as he works with the Red Crescent in the West Bank. Includes an amazing account of the attempts of their ambulance to simply pick up a man with appendicitis and bring him to the hospital, while running the gauntlet of Israeli security checkpoints.

Posted by Jake at 09:40 PM | Comments (0)

Israeli Crackdown

New Israeli Rules Adopted in Wake of More Attacks- Israel prohibits any Palestinians from leaving their own city. Meaning that if you work outside your hometown, you can't work.

Israeli Court Upholds Right to Destroy Homes Without Warning- "The Israeli Supreme Court today upheld the military's right to demolish the homes of Palestinian terror suspects without warning."

Israel Faces Court Test of Deportation Plans- Israel is testing a new policy in which it deports the family members of suicide bombers, even if those relatives had nothing to do with the attacks.

It's maddening. The concept of "justice" seems deeply ingrained into human beings, the idea that a person should be punished and rewarded in relation to the morality of their actions. If someone works hard, they should be paid well, or earn the respect of their peers. If someone exploits others, that person should be punished in some way. Punishing someone who has done nothing wrong is the definition of injustice. And that is what Israel is doing here, punishing the innocent.

Of course, I understand the Israeli point of view as well. They simply want security. Until they feel safe, "justice for the Palestinians" will rank much lower on their list of priorities than "not getting blown up while buying groceries."

As I've said before, I don't see any way out of this circle of violence and retaliation and repression except Israel's withdrawl from the Palestinian territories. Israel has most of the power in this situation.

Posted by Jake at 09:21 PM | Comments (0)

US & Exxon vs. Human Rights

Eleven villagers from Aceh, Indonesia have filed a lawsuit against Exxon-Mobil, claiming that the company "paid and directed Indonesian security forces that carried out murder, torture and rape in the course of protecting the company's operations in the 1990s."

But, the US State Dept. is trying to block the suit because a decision against Exxon-Mobil "would . . . risk a potentially serious adverse impact on significant interests of the United States, including interests directly related to the on-going struggle against international terrorism".

Right. In order to destroy terrorism, we must protect people who order murders, tortures and rapes (okay, people who are alleged to have...).

Basically, the argument is that this case would force the US court system to judge the actions of the Indonesian government, and US wants to make Indonesia an ally in the war on terrorism. This trial could strain relations between the two countries. In addition, the military ties that the White House wants to have with Indonesia are prohibited so long as the country violates human rights standards, and this court case would likely prove that Indonesia is still abusing human rights.

Posted by Jake at 09:02 PM | Comments (0)

Media News

In Surreal Development, Bush Administration Routes TIPS Calls to TV Show "America's Most Wanted"- headline kinda says it all. Operation TIPS, the Bush administration's proposed spy-on-your-neighbors agency, is having its phone banks staffed by the people of the Fox TV network's "America's Most Wanted" TV show.

News Media's Improved Image Proves Short-Lived- new poll shows that Americans distrust the mass media. Shocking. Startling. Of course, I don't know how trustworthy any polls are.

Clear-Cutting the Radio Forest- first of three Wired magazine articles exploring the practices of the Clear Channel radio monopoly.

'Good Mornin' (Your Town Here)'- second of three articles about Clear Channel.

Posted by Jake at 08:22 PM | Comments (0)

Sandtrap Diplomacy

George W. Bush tackled foreign policy while in the midst of a vigorous golfing session this Sunday:

“Before starting his game yesterday, Mr. Bush, his driver in his left gloved hand, took time to condemn an overnight suicide bombing of a bus in Israel that killed at least nine. ‘I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers,’ Mr. Bush said on the first green of Cape Arundel, at 6:15 a.m. ‘Thank you. Now watch this drive.’"

“Without the slightest pause, Mr. Bush turned to his game — and hit his first ball into the rough.”

[Thanks to Dack]

Posted by Jake at 05:52 PM | Comments (0)

August 05, 2002

After the Wedding Party

Detailed report about the US attack on the wedding party in Hajibirgit, Afghanistan several weeks ago. Seems likely to be true, but nearly all of reporter Robert Fisk's facts for the story come from eyewitness testimony of villagers, and is therefore possibly suspect.

Posted by Jake at 07:19 PM | Comments (0)

August 04, 2002

Scum

The cell phone company Sony Ericcson has launched an advertising campaign for their new phone/camera device that is really pushing the boundaries of deception and intrusion into everyday life.

The company has hired 120 actors and actresses to "play tourists and ask passers-by to take their picture" using the phone/camera.

Sony Ericcson's director of Marketing Communications and Making Jake Wince Deparment said that these actors "won't make any secret of the fact they work for the company, if asked." Which is good, because any time a tourist asks me to take their picture, here in the Los Angeles/Hollywood area, I ask them what electronics company they work for.

I'm trying to decide whether it's better or worse than the attempt to get London cabbies to insert plugs for Siemens brand phones into their conversations with their passengers back in the late 1990s (fourth article down).

And still in misleading, but much less scummy news: NBC's fluffy mix of friendly news and interviews known as the Today Show managed to postpone airing its film critic's negative review of the new Austin Powers movie until a week after it was released.

Posted by Jake at 03:07 PM | Comments (0)

August 03, 2002

Police State Fun

If you're not already, get familiar with the term "material witness." A material witness is a person who allgedly has important information about a crime, but might flee before investigators can obtain this information. According to US law, the police have the right to detain material witnesses without many rules or limitations.

For example, the Department of Justice rounded up and detained around 1200 immigrants after the 9/11 attacks. Instead of being held as criminals, or brought in for brief periods to be questioned, they were held as material witnesses. Which meant that many of these people were simply picked up off the street and thrown in a prison cell with no explanation, no access to legal counsel, and no contact with their families. Eventually some access was granted. Many of the detainees were deported. According to the DoJ, 147 still remain, 74 of whom are being held for violations of immigration law.

The level of secrecy surrounding the detentions was also disturbing, but that may be coming to an end. Nearly a year after these detentions began, a judge is ordering the DoJ to at least release a list of names of the people they detained.

Yes, yes, I understand that the US is in a scary situation and terrorists must be found to protect our safety. But people being captured by law enforcement and held in secret prisons is pretty scary too.

Along similar lines we have the case of James Ujaama, a Denver resident who was detained by police just last week. There isn't too much information on his case because the authorities won't release it. His home was searched by police, and the warrant claimed that Ujaama was conspiring to support international terrorism. But he has not been charged with any crimes, he is being held as a material witness. He has been shipped off to Virginia as for a federal grand jury investigation of Abu Hamza al-Masri, a suspected Al Qaeda recruiter in London.

Then, there were some sensationalist news reports that Ujaama was being investigated for a plot to poison a water supply, but the FBI has reported that he is not suspected of any such thing (thanks Fox News!).

And to help fuel this controversy a bit further, Ujaama was the webmaster for StopAmerica.org, a website dedicated to harsh criticism of American foreign policy. Surely some people will see this as proof of Ujaama's guilt, and others will see it as proof that Ujaama is the victim of political repression.

And finally, we move to the UK. This article from the UK Observer shows a clever media ploy by MI5 (sort of the equivalent of the FBI) to circumvent its own laws.

1) Reporters ask the British government about its detention of Arabs without charges or trial
2) MI5 agents "talk to journalists on condition of anonymity."
3) Reporters write stories using the anonymous interviews
4) "MI5 then uses the reports of its own briefings as independent corroboration of the need for internment."

Handy, innit?

Thanks to Michael Novick, Statewatch and "Anonymous" for these leads.

Posted by Jake at 09:59 AM | Comments (0)

August 01, 2002

Nothin' Proper About Ya Propaganda

Recently, the US Council on Foreign Relations met to discuss the US' "public diplomacy" plan: its efforts to convince the rest of the world that the US is actually very nice. The report received some press attention, but O'Dwyer's PR Daily points out that even this press coverage is a masterwork of PR: despite the news reports which politely mentioned that more work had to be done, the report basically said that all of the US propaganda efforts have failed. The fact that the press didn't point this out was the PR genius.

The CFR report goes into great detail explaining what the US has done in public diplomacy, and outlines an extensive plan for future public diplomacy. Read the whole thing here.

Some highlights:

• "In Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Turkey and Pakistan, 44 percent to 53 percent said they believe the Western value system has a negative influence on the Islamic value system."
  
• "Many in the Muslim world do not believe the U.S. military action in Afghanistan is morally justifiable-well over half of Turks, two-thirds of Kuwaitis, and 80 percent or more in Pakistan and Indonesia"
  
• "few of those polled by Gallup in the Muslim world believe that western nations respect Arab/Islamic values-only six percent of Iranians, six percent of Indonesians and 13 percent of Saudis believe this."
  
• "negative attitudes toward the United States and its policies are more intense in the Middle East, where many people do not trust what we say because they feel our words are contradicted by our policies, particularly our tolerance for the autocratic regimes that are our friends in the region."
  
• "Fully 85 percent of Germans, 80 percent of French, 73 percent of British and 68 percent of Italian respondents say the United States is acting in its own interests in the fight against terrorism, while very few feel the United States is taking into account the interests of its allies."
  
• "there is little doubt that stereotypes of the United States as arrogant, self-indulgent, hypocritical, inattentive, and unwilling or unable to engage in cross-cultural dialogue are pervasive and deeply rooted."
  
• "at the root of these negative attitudes is our perceived lack of empathy for other people's pain and hardship and the tragic plight throughout the developing world. The pervasive sense of despair and hopelessness in developing countries-in the face of America's unprecedented affluence-leads, to be sure, to envy and a sense of victimhood, but also to the anger and mistrust that accompany such feelings."
  

Is it just me, or are these perceptions and attitudes highly accurate?

The CFR report calls for the illusion of "two way" communication between the US and other nations/peoples, and the creation of a huge public diplomacy apparatus including government, the private sector, diplomats, ambassadors, and a to-be-created non-profit Corporation for Public Diplomacy.

As I've said before, I don't see how this can possibly work. It's the "who are you gonna believe, me, or your own eyes?" syndrome. The world sees the US acting in ways counter to its stated principles. They're supposed to pretend those things didn't happen because they saw a clever ad on TV?

Posted by Jake at 01:09 PM | Comments (0)

Nooz

First, you market the disease... then you push the pills to treat it- typical coporate villainy from the pharmaceutical industry. Good quote:

The modus operandi of GlaxoSmithKline - marketing a disease rather than selling a drug - is typical of the post-Prozac era. "The strategy [companies] use - it's almost mechanised by now," says Dr Loren Mosher, a San Diego psychiatrist and former official at the national institute of mental health. Typically, a corporate-sponsored "disease awareness" campaign focuses on a mild psychiatric condition with a large pool of potential sufferers. Companies fund studies that prove the drug's efficacy in treating the afiction, a necessary step in obtaining FDA approval for a new use, or "indication". Prominent doctors are enlisted to publicly affirm the malady's ubiquity, then public-relations firms launch campaigns to promote the new disease, using dramatic statistics from corporate-sponsored studies. Finally, patient groups are recruited to serve as the "public face" for the condition, supplying quotes and compelling stories for the media; many of the groups are heavily subsidised by drugmakers, and some operate directly out of the offices of drug companies' PR firms.

In a related story, how drug companies try to extend their patents to postpone competing with generics.

The Corporate Scandal Sheet- I've been meaning to write a full-fledged article about the current corporate armageddon, but the story is so darned plain: companies lying to either hide their losses or to inflate their profits. That's about the size of it. But still, this here's a good chart explaining what companies are in trouble, and why.

The Loyal Opposition: Talking Iraq With The 'Prince of Darkness'- The Nation magazine's David Corn recounts a recent conversation with Bush warhawk (or chickenhawk) Richard Perle about the US invasion of Iraq. Perle, announcing that the military knows nothing about making war, describes his own war plan of taking Iraq with 40,000 troops by taking over northern and southern Iraq and cutting off Hussein's access to oil; Hussein would then presuambly fall from power because he had no money to back it up. Corn then ran this proposal by some military strategists, who poked many a hole in it.

Posted by Jake at 12:39 PM | Comments (0)

Escape from Fort Bragg

There's been another murder at Ft. Bragg. This time a soldier was the victim, not the killer. There isn't much information, but the police allege that the soldier was killed by a teenager, as part of a conspiracy with the soldier's wife to get insurance money. The wife has been arrested, and the police are searching for the teen.

This makes the fifth murder involving US soldiers at Fort Bragg in 6 weeks. The most complete article I can find on the subject is from their local paper, Wife Deaths Set Alarms at Fort Bragg (although it doesn't include this latest murder). The only explanation that anyone can offer for this is that perhaps perhaps the stress of military life/Special Operations/service in Afghanistan pushed them over the edge. I'm just starting to wonder if there's something in the water.

Posted by Jake at 09:01 AM | Comments (0)

July 31, 2002

The Narcoterrorism Sideshow

Attorney General John Ashcroft gave a speech at the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) Twentieth Anniversary Conference on Tuesday, in which he announced a "shocking" link between drug trafficking and terrorism. According to Ashcroft, "nearly one third of the organizations on the State Department's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations appear also on our list of targeted U.S. drug suppliers." Not surprisingly, "Ashcroft did not elaborate on which terrorist groups are suspected of being involved in drug-trafficking. Justice Department officials would not comment on what organizations are on the drug trafficking list, except to say that Al Qaeda was one of them."

First of all, this is another infuriating example of the Bush administration making claims, and then refusing to provide the public with the evidence that could prove or disprove their claims. Are terrorists making money off of the drug trade, or is this just an opportunistic ploy by the Justice Department? We'll never know until we see their data.

Frankly, I am pretty sure that it is at least partially true. But it angers me because it is so intentionally misleading and manipulative. There are many definitions of "terrorism," and Ashcroft is exploiting this ambiguity.

To most Americans, "terrorism" means "Islamic militants out to kill Americans." In this context, Ashcroft's claims should be deeply troubling. However, "terrorist" as defined on the State Department's list includes a terrorists who don't give a damn about Islam, or the United States. While I'm sure most Americans would support an intensified drug war that protected them from Islamic terrorists, I don't think they would support an intensified drug war that protected the governments of Peru or Sri Lanka from their guerrilla enemies.

By allowing the issue to be confused in the minds of Americans, "drugs" becomes entwined with "terrorism," allowing the US military and drug interdiction agencies pretty much carte blanche to operate as they see fit in the entire Western Hemisphere, Middle East, and Southeast Asia-- so long as they can claim it had something to do with drugs or terrorism. Not a bad little scam.

Posted by Jake at 09:15 PM | Comments (0)

Now You See It...

On July 1, a US helicopter attacked a wedding party in Afghanistan, killing and wounding many. The Afghan population was outraged, and investigations into the attack were set in motion. The official US account was that the US plans had been fired upon, and the planes had simply returned fire.

The UN concluded its investigation this weekend, claiming that there was no evidence to back up the US story. In fact, the UN report suggests that US troops went into the site of the attack and removed evidence of the carnage.

The UN was to release the report to the public on Tuesday, but then abruptly changed its mind, allgedly due to pressure from the US and Afghan governments. The UN now says that the report will now be an "internal document," only shown to the US and Afghan governments.

No, nothing fishy there.

Posted by Jake at 08:20 PM | Comments (0)

Chickens, Hawks and the Dogs of War

It seems that damn near everybody out there is against this upcoming war on Iraq except the crackheads of the Bush administration and the Pentagon. But not all of them. Interestingly, the ones most rabid for war are the ones who have never served in the military.

A person who strongly favors war policies is known as a "hawk." A civilian who will never see a battlefield who strongly favors war policies is known as a "chickenhawk."

Enter the Chickenhawk Database, a list of America's most prominent warmongers, and the ways they avoided risking their own lives in combat.

Go see how Rush Limbaugh got out of Vietnam. I dare ya.

Posted by Jake at 05:43 PM | Comments (0)

Frame Ups

Some of you folks might remember the G8 protests in Genoa back in 2001. The two most striking events were the killing of militant protester Carlo Giuliani, and the brutal police raid on a building where many protesters were staying during the G8 meetings. The raid was of an area where it seemed no activists were breaking the law or acting violently, and the Italian police went in and busted heads. Journalists captured footage and photos of sleeping activists being attacked, and of the pools of blood left behind. The police then justified their assault by claiming that they'd found molotov cocktails inside.

Well guess what?

One of those police officers recently confessed that he planted the bombs there himself, under orders from his supervisor (who is also under investigation for his behavior during the G8). This officer's confession, the investigation of his superior, and the claims of the activists that they had been nonviolent all along, all start to form a pattern. If I weren't as skeptical as I am....

Scandal Not to Blame- I'm not one to trust the editorials of the business press, but this one does make some good points. First, it compares today's economic and political situation (mainly regarding big business and the stock market) to that of the the late 1920s and 1930s. Secondly, it points out that the various accounting frauds are not what caused the stock market to tank. These recent failed companies didn't fail because of their schemes, they created the schemes because they were failing. It may seem like a minor point, but it's not, although my brainpower at 2am is not going to be able to convince anybody of that.

Posted by Jake at 01:43 AM | Comments (0)

Working Overtime

What the fuck is this about???

In the last 6 weeks, 4 US soldiers from Ft. Bragg have killed their wives.

Fucking astounding.

I-- no.

Maybe--- no.

I don't know what to say, this just blows my mind.

At one point, the article tries to rule out domestic violence as one of the causes of death, because "there had been no deaths attributable to domestic abuse by Fort Bragg personnel in two years." And if we properly re-phrase that, "two years ago, one of our soldiers beat his wife to death."

Jake's Tips for Fort Bragg Soldiers Who Feel the Need to Kill Their Wives

Step 1- shoot yourself in the face.
Step 2- repeat Step 1 until urge passes.

I suppose this would be the time to say something angry and snide like "what else would you expect from professional killers?" but my heart's not in it. The fury and indignation have passed, and now I'm just sad.

Posted by Jake at 01:29 AM | Comments (2)

July 30, 2002

Tamara Back in the US

Tamara, one of the authors of the Reports from Palestine here on this site, will be returning to the US soon. She will be giving a talk and presentation about her experiences in Palestine soon after, here in Los Angeles. Details of that event follow:

From the West Coast...to the West Bank
presented by Los Angeles Jews for a Just Peace

"Join us for Tamara's first public speaking engagement, just one week after leaving the occupied Palestinian territories. She is the only Jewish activist from the Los Angeles area to join in this year's International Solidarity Movement's Freedom Summer, where she spent six weeks under fire inRamallah,Gaza and Jenin. A founding member of LA Jews for a Just Peace,Tamara will give an eye-witness account from the other side of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, bringing stories and pictures of the Palestinian people, scenes rarely seen or heard in the U.S. media."

WHEN: THURSDAY, AUGUST 8th at 7:00 PM
WHERE: WORKMEN'S CIRCLE
1525 SO. ROBERTSON BLVD.
(4 blocks south of Pico)
Los Angeles, CA

$5.00 suggested donation
Refreshments served
For more information contact: LA JEWS FOR A JUST PEACE (LA-JJP)
khesed-ve-din@lycos.com or call: 323-769-5282

I'll also try to get Tamara into the Kill Radio studio for an interview in the near future as well.

Posted by Jake at 02:57 PM | Comments (0)

July 28, 2002

Bastardos de Medios Que Mienten

Porque su lo demandado...

LMB en Español.

La traducción automático no es perfecto, pero optimistamente es bueno bastante.

Posted by Jake at 01:38 PM | Comments (32)

Putting Two and Two Together

1) The surprising, idiotic announcement on Wednesday that George W. Bush still supports investing Social Security funds in the stock market.

2) That same Wednesday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average jumps nearly 500 points.

Wall Street needs more suckers to stay afloat, and the president has just promised to deliver millions of them.

Posted by Jake at 01:30 PM | Comments (1)

July 27, 2002

Water, Water Everywhere, and Every Drop for Sale

Just read this article.

Stop the Corporate Takeover of our Water.

On average, a human being can survive about 3 days without water. And across the country, across the globe, corporations are attempting to turn water from a public, mandatory resource into a commodity they can sell to those who can afford it.

Don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but this is going to become a major issue, if not a major crisis. It already has in other nations: there have already been massive popular uprisings against attempts to privatize water in Ecuador and Bolivia. If millions face the possibility of dying of thirst when water is in plain sight, they will take what they need by force.

Posted by Jake at 01:12 AM | Comments (0)

Too Late for Clever Titles

Just one of those fun hypocrisy things.

The Indian government is planning to buy a missile defense system from Israel. This development worries the United States. One State Dept. official claims that the missile defense system "could be destabilizing." Other members of the State Dept. worry that this sale would "send a message" to Russia and China. A Pentagon official worries that the sale could violate a regional arms control treaty, the 1987 Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).

Strikingly similar to the US, isn't it? A national missile defense system that could destabilize the region and violates existing missile treaties? But surely the US will not run into such troubles with their missile system. Because we're America. And we're different... somehow.

And a free appalling bonus!

"Meanwhile, the administration advised Congress this week that it intends to sell arms to Pakistan and India."

Yes, two nations that were on the brink of nuclear war scant months ago, and the US is selling weapons to both sides.

Posted by Jake at 01:00 AM | Comments (0)

July 26, 2002

Free License to Hack, Thanks Congress!

I mentioned in a recent LMB post that the RIAA and MPAA want the legal right to hack into your computer with the help of Congress. Well, the bill to do it, the "Peer to Peer Piracy Prevention Act" was introduced into the House today by Rep. Howard Berman.

But honestly, I think that the bill is doomed to failure because of poor wording, as pointed out in this article, and in more depth in this discussion on Kuro5hin. To have the right to hack people's systems, there are three requirements:

• you must be a copyright-holder
  
• your victim must use "peer to peer" file-trading programs like KaZaA or Limewire
  
• you must notify the Department of Justice what kind of technology you are going to use in your hack.
  

That's it. You can hack completely legally with just a tiny bit of preparation.

Write some text. Copyright it. You're now a copyright holder. If the above bill passes, you now have the authority to do all kinds of hacking, so long as you can argue that you were trying to "impair" the "unauthorized distribution" of your copyrighted material.

There are some restrictions about what you can and can't do in your hacking (e.g. can't cause more than $50 in damages, can't actually delete files), but the bill makes it hard for you to get in trouble for breaking these rules; your victims can't sue you unless you do more than $250 in damages (?), and they get approval from the Attorney General.

So if anyone with a modicum of sense in Congress reads this bill, I don't think it'll get passed, because in some ways it becomes a loophole for all hackers, not just RIAA/MPAA ones. But I don't know how tech-savvy the House is...

Posted by Jake at 10:21 AM | Comments (3)

Ripe for Pillage

George W. Bush might be getting his desired fast track/trade promotion authority, which would let him negotiate and approve international trade treaties all by his lonesome.

Y'know, those free trade deals that tend to send American workers to the unemployment office, foreign farmers to the urban slums, and corporate executives to vacation on their yachts in the Virgin Islands?

It's not a death blow for anti-globalization folks, but it gives them less leverage in opposing corporate-centered free trade.

Posted by Jake at 09:50 AM | Comments (0)

July 25, 2002

To My Blog Homies

Wired Magazine's website wrote an article about our pal Dack. Not about his impressive weblog about the war on terrorism, but about his hobby of creating short animated movies of stick figures being decapitated.

Our pal Brian of Blowback and his wife just had a cute baby boy. Go bask in his newborn splendor! Bask, I say!

Posted by Jake at 01:03 PM | Comments (0)

Palestine Update

More from Garrick & Tamara in the Occupied Territories.

Posted by Jake at 12:56 PM | Comments (0)

July 24, 2002

Biggest Bastard Takes Hit

The world's largest media conglomerate, AOL-Time Warner, is now publicly admitting that the company is under investigation by the SEC. Not surprisingly, the allegations are that AOL-TW made profits and hid losses through shady business deals and fraudulent accounting.

Posted by Jake at 10:32 PM | Comments (0)

Recording Industry Joins Axis of Evil

In the weeks following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, corporate bullshit artists stormed Congress and tried to force their agenda onto the nation, making up crazy reasons why giving their industry huge tax breaks and dissolving all regulation would protect America from terrorism. It was literally sickening, the eternally greedy driving their fangs into the necks of a population to grief-numb to notice.

Two of these attempts struck me as particularly nauseating. The first was a garment industry push for a government crackdown on bootleg t-shirts (because fraudulent name-brand goods might, could potentially, theoretically, may be linked to groups that fund Osama bin Laden's terrorist network).

And the second disgusting 9/11 lobby effort has come back, and might get passed.

In mid-October 2001, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) attempted to have the USA Patriot Act amended to make it legal for the RIAA to hack into your computer. The amendment would have exempted the RIAA from harsh anti-hacker penalties if it were attempting to stop people from trading copyrighted mp3 files over the internet. Go read the text of the proposed amendment. It'll make ya mad.

What a bunch of fuckers.

Anyhow, the amendment was denied, but the RIAA, in conjunction with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), has re-introduced the idea into the US House of Representatives.

According to the Cnet article on the issue, "the draft bill doesn't specify what techniques, such as viruses, worms, denial-of-service attacks, or domain name hijacking, would be permissible. It does say that a copyright-hacker should not delete files." Which pretty much means they could do whatever the hell they wanted.

All these organizations need to hack you up is a "reasonable basis" to believe that you are pirating music or movies. And if they were wrong, or do your system significant damage, you can't sue them without the permission of the US Attorney General. And you could only do that if they did more than $250 in damages.

Do I even have to point out how warped this proposed bill is? The analogy these big corporate copyright-holders use is to compare piracy to theft. Using that example, this law would give a victim of theft the right to break into the house of anyone the victim had "reasonable basis" to believe had stolen their goods, and smash up their house.

All of this is based upon the idea that the record industry is in serious trouble, and that file-trading hurts them. But musician Janis Ian has penned this quality article which refutes a number of RIAA claims, and argues that file-trading is actually good for musicians. But perhaps most importantly, Ian attacks the RIAA claim that they represent musicians. They don't. They represent record labels. Labels and artists do not always share interests. Ian also lists a number of ways that the RIAA could help artists out if they really did care about them.

Anyhow, the geniuses/shills behind this corporate hacker bill are Reps. Howard Berman and Howard Coble. Go get em.

Posted by Jake at 10:20 PM | Comments (0)

That Clever Idiot Box

A fucking hysterical parody of a prime-time TV schedule from our pals at The Onion:

On TV Tonight

My favorites are the Game Show and SciFi networks' programs for the 9 o'clock hour.

Posted by Jake at 09:41 PM | Comments (5)

Media Bastard Roundup

Bastards, fools, and jerks.

Publisher Apologizes for Headline- publisher of New Jersey tabloid The Trentonian apologizes for the rude title his paper gave an article about a fire at a psychiatric hospital: "Roasted Nuts".

Reporters Plunge into Their Own Stories- the story of a local TV news reporter who intentionally drove car into a river to do a "news story" informing viewers how to escape from their car if they drive into a river.

Audits of Media Time and Space Find Many Ad Units Are Displaced- I just like the title of this one. I'm sure these problems will be taken care of once Stephen Hawking's ad agency opens its doors.

President is Keeping His Messages Front and Center- interesting piece about the verbatim repetition of key political phrases by the Bush administration (e.g. "no child left behind," "responsible leadership," "kill em all, and let God sort em out." Okay, he doesn't say that last one. In public). While modern politicians are known for "staying on message"-- choosing a theme for the day and refusing to deviate from it by even the tiniest bit-- Bush's team seems to be taking it to new levels. One example of this is the new administration ploy of sticking Bush in front of a backdrop adorned with the day's slogan.

The article also argues that such repetitive slogans are effective, and cite Bush's use of the slogans as the cause of John McCain's withdrawl from the Republican primaries in South Carolina. But if memory serves, McCain largely withdrew due to a sneaky anti-McCain smear campaign. It was never directly traced back to the Bush campaign, but...

PR Watch has come out with their latest issue, and they have posted some of its articles on their site, all on the theme of corporate attempts to sell the government and the public on the idea of "corporate social responsibility." Y'know, the idea that big corporations like Enron, Adelphia, WorldCom, and AOL-Time Warner can reofrm themselves and don't need government regulation to function properly in society.

PR Watch articles:
Rio+10, Environment Zero
Ketchum (the UN's PR Firm) Tackles Corporate Responsibility
Corporate Social Responsibility and the Crisis of Globalization

And don't forget to check out the new Corporate Responsibility Newswire Service. Actually, do forget. It's hideously boring, just a bunch of self-serving press releases from our favorite corporate citizens.

Posted by Jake at 09:40 PM | Comments (0)

Garrick on the Radio

Garrick is scheduled to be interviewed on KPFK's Morning Show today. The show runs from 7-9am PST. Click here to listen.

Posted by Jake at 07:20 AM | Comments (0)

New Report from Garrick

Garrick Ruiz reports about last night's Israeli attacks and assassination. It's scary, and if you're the sort of person who doesn't like to cry at work, you might want to wait till you get home to read it.

Posted by Jake at 12:35 AM | Comments (0)

July 23, 2002

Onward Corporate Soldiers

I really don't know what to make of this article. From O'Dwyer's PR Daily:

"An army of mercenaries funded by U.S. companies is in the hunt for Osama bin Laden, says Los Angeles PR counselor Ed Lozzi. Publicizes Texas Rep. Ron Paul's call for U.S. 'privateer' force. 'That's how we won the Revolutionary War,' says the PR exec."

Huh?

Maybe this article is nothing. It's the word of one man, a PR man, which is the reason O'Dwyer's picked it up. Maybe this is some crazy fellow who's trying to gain some free publicity by telling wild lies about his private army.

Or, maybe there are 1000 foreign soldiers, running around Afghanistan with guns, accountable to no one but the men who sign their paychecks.

Honestly, my money's on #1.

Posted by Jake at 10:50 PM | Comments (2)

Justice Possibly Served

Back in the 1980s, around 65,000 citizens of El Salvador were killed by their own government.

Two generals who helped preside over this decade of blood were tried for their crimes in a Salvadoran court in 2000, and were acquitted.

Today, in a Florida court, those two generals were found guilty. The suit was brought by three Americans who were tortured in El Salvador, and the judge's decision orders former Generals Carlos Eugenio Vides Casanova and Jose Guillermo Garcia to pay their victims nearly $55 million. Odds are they don't have that kind of money, but still...

And our pal Dack reminds us:

"The generals carried out America's El Salvador policy so well that they both received the Legion of Merit, the highest honor our government can bestow on foreign dignitaries. General Vides Casanova also received a letter of commendation from President Reagan."

Any way we can carpet-bomb the past? Can we nuke the Reagan Years back to the Stone Age?

[This message brought to you by the LMB Needs a Time Machine Fund]

Posted by Jake at 10:38 PM | Comments (0)

Powder Keg

I get tired of saying the same things over and over.

Afghanistan is in trouble.

Hamid Karzai, the alleged president of the country, has little power or popularity.

The warlords of the Northern Alliance do have power. And greed and ambition.

Now, to make things worse, the US is paying off the warlords in exchange for their promise not to overthrow the Afghan government. That don't sound good.

And, finally, Tajiks and Pashtuns in western Afghanistan are killing each other.

I am not looking forward to tomorrow's news.

Posted by Jake at 10:22 PM | Comments (0)

Jargon Sluts Break Paradigms

The two things advertisers love most:

- new, fancy buzzwords
- fucking with your head.

The NY Times website, nytimes.com, has refused an ad proposal from Sony Electronics. Jargon went flying, and shady advertising schemes were exposed.

"Features by Sony" was a proposal to create a number of articles written by freelancers, paid for by Sony, and then placed on a number of popular websites (e.g. People.com, InStyle.com, MovieFone.com, AOL Music, NationalGeographic.com). These articles would be a series of "lifestyle vignettes" that feature Sony products.

Websites and other publications usually have no problem with this sort of practice-- they call such paid-for articles "advertorials"-- but they usually include a "this article is a paid advertisement" statement at the top or bottom. Sony wanted the websites to forgo this practice. NYTimes.com declined this offer from Sony. And the jargon began to erupt.

Said a Times spokesperson, "advertorial content must be clearly labeled to distinguish it from editorial content, and we were unable to agree upon a program ... that would meet these advertising acceptability guidelines."

And the marketing schemers ( Interpublic Group's Universal McCann, and WPP's Young & Rubicam):

• "We're breaking paradigms here."
  
• "We consider ourselves a content provider."
  
• "content integration"
  
• "reader-based"
  
• "We're trying to blur the line between the advertising and editorial boundary."
  

So basically, Sony and its ad minions are reverse engineering product placement. Instead of approaching a media work in progress and trying to insinuate attention for your prodcut into that work, the advertisers are coming up with an idea to display their products, and are creating media to wrap around the ads. And part of this plan is to trick you into thinking that your favorite online magazines are providing you with the articles you enjoy, when they are actually advertisements.

And as a sidenote, it's also fun to note the targets (and the advertiser's names for the targets) listed in the article: "Alphas (early adopters and technology influencers); Gen Y; Families; Young Professionals; Small Office/Home Office; and Zoomers, (ages 55 plus)."

Posted by Jake at 10:00 PM | Comments (1)

July 22, 2002

Advances in Post-Modernism

DJ Spooky is writing a novel (last paragraph of article). It's called "Flow My Tears, the DJ Said," based on the Phillip K. Dick novel "Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said."

"My novel is a remix of the book" says Spooky.

I have no idea how to respond to that.

Posted by Jake at 10:49 AM | Comments (0)

Morning News Assault

Protesting Women Seize another Chevron Facility- I posted an article last week announcing that the Nigerian women occupying a ChevronTexaco facility had agreed to withdraw. Shortly after that article, the Nigerian women changed their minds, deciding that the oil company was unlikely to hold up their end of the bargain. The prolonged occupation then ended a few days later. It seems that the success of this first takeover by Itshekiri women is now being emulated by women from other ethnic groups seeking similar redress. Around 3000 Ijaw women took over an oil facility on Friday, demanding the same sort of company concessions as the Itshekiri: jobs for their sons; housing and eletrification projects; and more environmental protection from the damages of oil extraction. The article also predicts that another takeover can be predicted by the region's third-largest ethnic group, the Urhobos, in the near future.

U.S. Mulls Military's Domestic Role- the Posse Comitatus Act was a law passed in the late 1800s barring the US military from being involved in national law enforcement (except in extreme circumstances). In a recent interview with Tom Ridge, it came out that President Bush wants Congress to review that law, presumably with an eye towards eliminating or softening it. Ridge says that it is "very unlikely" that such a thing would happen. My guess is that either this is a real concern on W's mind, or it was a media ploy to make other Bush attacks on civil rights seem more palatable by comparison.

U.S. Moves to Undermine New Torture Treaty- the U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) has, after 10 years of negotiations, hammered out what looks like a workable treaty on the prohibition of torture by national governments. The current draft of the treaty seems acceptable to many countries, and would create an international prison monitoring system to make sure that inmates were not being tortured. Unfortunately, the US is now calling for re-opening the negotiations on the treaty, a step that will most likely destroy the treaty's fragile international support.

Mike Barnicle was a columnist for the Boston Globe for 25 years, before he was fired for making shit up in his columns. Seriously, he just made up quotes, and then sometimes made up people to say them. I'm flipping through the channels on TV this weekend, and there's Mike Barnicle doing commentary on a talk news show. Who the hell let this guy on the air? And then I come to find that he's still a columnist, now over at NY Daily News. The above article contains the latest Barnicle column fib accusation. Granted, I don't know how reliable the article is, as it comes from a newspaper gossip column.

Coke to Treat Options as the Real Thing- one of those non-confession confessions. One of the ways that big corporations have been using creative accounting is to pay their executives in stock options. The options have real cash value, but the company doesn't have to list it as an expense. This then makes their profit and revenue figures appear higher. The article above is about the Coca-Cola company's decision to start counting stock options as expenses. While it's commendable that they're going to start doing the right thing, it's also a quiet admission that they've been doing the wrong thing for quite some time.

Posted by Jake at 10:33 AM | Comments (0)

Measure Twice, Cut Once

We all hear quite a bit about the current corporate firestorm underway here in the US. Luckily our government is stepping in to make new laws to protect America's most vulnerable, Financial Investors.

Some of these corporate shenanigans are related to another article I recently read about how California public schools are likewise cooking the books to look more impressive (or less appalling). Which will now cause me to put on my Social Scientist Ranting Hat.

The problem is mistaking your statistics for reality. For example, you can't look at a chart or table and find the number for "How Well Enron Is Doing," or "How Successful Is My Child's School." Instead, what you do see are a series of measurements, like "Third Quarter Revenues" or "Student Drop-Out Rate." Sometimes that one measurement is synonymous with the question, sometimes you look at a series of measurements and interpret an answer. "Hmm, Enron's revenues are up while they're costs are down, they must be doing well. And my daughter's school has a high drop-out rate and low per capita GPA, so it must be doing poorly."

But your measurements don't always answer the questions you thought they would. For example, when children are in school, we want them to learn. To find out if they are learning, we give them tests. Test scores are allegedly a measurement of How Well Children Are Learning. But in reality, test scores often really measure How Well Children Cram The Night Before the Test, How Well Children Guessed at Correct Answers, or How Well Children Copy Answers Off of the Smart Kid's Paper. If kids truly wanted to learn, tests might be a good measurement of how well they have learned their lessons. But most kids in school generally want to hang out with their friends, play sports and flirt. The only reason they care about grades is that their parents will get mad at them if they don't. Therefore many kids will simply try to figure out how to play the grade system to maintain decent grades while indulging in their favored pursuits.

Now we move to phase 2, where we look at the goals of the people making the measurements. Corporate CEOs make big dollars for keeping stock prices high. They do this by presenting investors with measurements that show that the company is not only successful, but is becoming more successful by the day. One way to provide these measurements is to improve the efficiency and income of the company. The other, simpler way is to use "creative accounting." Is it particularly suprising that the "fake numbers" option is fairly popular?

The calculation of personal profit has a way of muddling even the most straight-forward of mathematical formulas.

[Big Stray Bulletins article on the corporate corruption epidemic is on the way]

Posted by Jake at 01:42 AM | Comments (0)

July 20, 2002

All the News That's Fit to Eventually Print

From today's NY Times- Flaws in U.S. Air War Left Hundreds of Civilians Dead

Well duh.

To quote Blowback's commentary on this article:

"Now that operations are winding down, the New York Times seems to think that news of Afghan civilian casualties is finally fit to print. Too bad they couldn't be bothered to report on it back when air raids were being carried out across the country on a daily basis."

I guess my first question regarding this article is about its headline: were the killings of Afghan civilians really a "flaw" in the eyes of the US military? I'm not saying that the US intentionally killed all these Afghan civilians, I'm saying that I don't think they care. Generals draw up a list of military targets, and then attack from the air. If those targets are near civilian populations and civilians get killed, that's too bad. "Collateral damage."

That's the conclusion of a report by University of New Hampshire professor Marc Herold. Herold's report attempted to document the number of Afghan civilians killed in the US air war by tabulating the death counts in newspaper reports from around the world. Not the most scientific study, but it seems to be the most reasonable guess we have. Herold's estimate was that between 3000-3400 Afghan civilians were killed by US bombs between Oct. 7, 2001 and March of 2002.

Another good report, Strange Victory, comes to a lower total, estimating that 1000-1300 civilians were killed by bombing (this study claims to use a method similar to Herold's, but "applies a stricter criteria to screen these sources and correct for likely reporting errors and distortions"). But they also attempted to calculate the number of Afghan civilians who starved to death due to the US attacks cutting off vital food supplies to the impoverished population, and estimates that between 3200 and 18,000 Afghans died due to starvation and easily treatable illness between mid-September and mid-January.

A few weeks ago I was thinking about the Rolling Stones song "Sympathy for the Devil," which for some reason, I'd always thought was about Death, the Grim Reaper. But it takes only a moment to realize that I was obviously wrong, and it's actually about the Devil. I suppose there's a difference between the two, but looking at these numbers makes me sadly favor Evil over Death.

Posted by Jake at 10:35 PM | Comments (0)

July 19, 2002

Quality Assortment

- I've been told that the band "The Vines," who are currently being hyped as "the new Nirvana," are one of the worst live bands ever seen by man.

- Our pal Leah Wells has a nice article here about a peace education program she's helped develop based on the core principles of Islam (which is, despite popular Western belief, what the religion is supposed to be about) that she will be teaching in Aceh, Indonesia in the coming months. You may remember Leah from my radio show, where I interviewed her about the visit she made to sanctions-crushed Iraq.

- And I found an article on a Canadian Fox-owned rock radio station about the Axis of Justice, a small political activism tent I've been organizing for the monster Ozzfest heavy metal concert tour. Yes, by trade I'm a political activism coordinator for rock bands. I have a strange life.

Posted by Jake at 12:34 AM | Comments (2)

July 18, 2002

More from Palestine

Two new reports from Garrick, one from Tamara. Go check em out.

This means that they're both doing (relatively) okay, and that the Palnet shut-down hasn't effected their ability to send out their email reports.

Posted by Jake at 10:37 AM | Comments (0)

July 17, 2002

Blinded Me with Science

Two common journalistic problems in two different articles about the same topic.

The problems: poor coverage of scientific issues, and misleading/erroneous headlines.

The topic: a new study by the Kaiser Family Foundation about the portrayal of public health policy issues on TV medical dramas (authored by Joe Turow, a University of Pennsylvania professor who was one of my advisors for my Master's thesis). The above link takes you to the press release about the study, the full text of the study can be found here.

First we have an article from CNN.com (although we should note that reports on CNN.com are frequently different from those broadcast on the CNN network), "Study: TV dramas shape health attitudes". The opening paragraph reads:

Prime-time television dramas based on hospital staff and their patients aren't just helping Americans unwind at the end of the day, they are shaping attitudes about health care, according to a study released Tuesday.

And now we jump down to the 3rd to last paragraph (17 of 19):

The study did not venture to guess exactly how these shows might be shaping public opinion.

So apparently the report tells us how these TV shows shape public opinion by not telling us how these TV shows shape public opinion. Great. Or, to put it more accurately, this article doesn't know what it's talking about.

I skimmed through the study. It basically examines what health issues are discussed on TV medical dramas (like "ER"), and in what ways. It would be similar to do a study looking through the works of Shakespeare and counting up how many times the topic of love was discussed. Turow's study doesn't really talk about how these depictions of health topics influence the general public. The study makes some vague claims that these shows might cause viewers to think more about these policy issues, or perhaps discuss them with friends, but nothing more specific than that.

We've got another article on this topic by the Reuters news service caled "Hospital TV Shows Evenhanded on Policy Issues". While this title is much more accurate, it is still somewhat misleading.

The study found that most of the policy issues discussed on these programs presented both sides of the issue, and therefore were "even-handed." However the study also found that certain issues were discussed frequently, while others were discussed very rarely. 78% of the topics discussed were "ethical issues," which dealt with the morality of specific patient treatment policies (e.g. "should doctors give free needles to drug addicts"); only 9% were "resource issues," which dealt with the broader institutions of medical organizations, business and government (e.g. debates about Medicaid). So while the individual debates depicted are even-handed, the coverage of the American medical system is not.

Interestingly, about the last half of the article is about an HMO trade organization working to get more positive depictions of the health insurance industry into television and movies. And 4 of the articles 13 paragraphs are criticisms of the negative portrayal of HMOs in TV and movies, with very little rebuttal by the TV and movie people.

The "wrong headline" error occurs fairly regularly, with an article's opening lines being directly contradicted by the article's conclusions. This is a problem because not everyone reads every article all the way to the end. This way, an article can be techinically correct, yet still mislead a reader. Add this to the fact that many reporters seem unable to correctly interpret the results of any scientific studies, and you get a lot of people walking around misinformed.

Posted by Jake at 09:15 AM | Comments (2)

July 16, 2002

Tamara is Okay

Earlier today I posted an article about the closing of Palestine's primary internet provider, and wondered if this would prevent Tamara and Garrick from sending back any more email reports from the West Bank and Gaza.

Shortly after posting that, I received another email report from Tamara, so it looks like she will still be able to contact us. However she wrote after a hard day's work as a medic, and she felt that her report was probably of poor quality due to her exhaustion. I thought it was fine, but she asked that no one post it around. So I'll honor her wishes and wait for her to send a revised version.

Posted by Jake at 03:55 PM | Comments (0)

Mini News Roundup

Justice for Bhopal -- Corporate Crimes and Their Bodycount- Three Indian activists (and according to an email I just received, one Texan) "are on hunger strike in New Delhi, ready to fast to the death in protest of proposed Indian government actions that would essentially eliminate the responsibility of Union Carbide and Dow Chemical (which acquired Carbide in 2001) to provide any further restitution for the approximately 150,000 surviving victims of the 1984 Bhopal disaster."

[You can send a letter of support for the strikers to the Indian Embassy in the US by clicking here]

Deal to End Nigeria Oil Protest- over 600 Nigerian women occupy an oil terminal and force ChevronTexaco to aid their struggling communities through the odd strategy of threatening to get naked.

The Minutes Waltz and a Skeptical Press Corps- it has been revealed that George W. Bush may have been involved in corporate scandals of his own back in the early 1990s while he was on the board of Harken Energy Corp. To deflect this, Bush has cleverly said that critical reporters need to go look at the minutes of Harken's board meetings from 1994 for answers, while also saying that he has no way of making Harken release those records. Thanks to our pals at Cursor, maybe YOU can. You can call Harken's CEO Mikel Faulkner and ask him to release the records at 817-424-2424.

Read Cursor every day. Seriously.

Posted by Jake at 09:39 AM | Comments (0)

Irrationale

The Bush Administration wants to attack Iraq. America's Western allies don't want the US to attack Iraq. America's Middle Eastern enemies don't want the US to attack Iraq. America's Middle Eastern allies don't want the US to attack Iraq. And now, even Iraqi dissidents in exile don't want the US to attack Iraq.

I still have yet to hear a single credible reason for why the US should invade Iraq. The only reasons I can think of are financial (re: oil) and political (re: boost Bush/Republican popularity), and neither of those strike me as justifications for mass destruction and risking the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans and millions of Iraqis.

Granted, I've always been suspicious of this exile group, the Iraqi National Congress. They strike me as the standard issue Western-friendly intellectuals that the US frequetnly installs as replacement leaders for regimes they don't like. Do the members of the INC have the greater good of Iraq at heart, or are they out for their own personal power? INC leader Ahmed Chalabi hasn't lived in Iraq since the late 1950s, how popular would he be among his people if the INC successfully took control of the country? Chalabi doesn't even seem popular among other Iraqi dissident groups. About the best thing I can say about him for sure is that he is anti-Saddam Hussein.

In addition, it is my understanding that Saddam Hussein is still popular in Iraq. The people hate his repressive policies, but they see him as a brave man standing up to their evil American attackers; the US still bombs Iraq fairly regularly, and maintains brutal economic sanctions against the country. Attacks on the homeland will do wonders for a leader's popularity. Remember how popular Bush was before 9/11? And after? Imagine if the US was attacked semi-regularly for 10 years straight. Imagine how popular Bush would be then. He could eat human babies on live television and still hold down a 60% approval rating.

So, to sum up: attacking Iraq is a dumb idea.

Posted by Jake at 08:51 AM | Comments (0)

Enemy

Well, I don't know if we'll be getting any more email reports from Garrick and Tamara in Palestine, the Israeli army has shut down Palestine's main internet provider, Palnet. According to Palnet's manager Samir Sabri, Israeli Defense Forces entered the Palnet office in Ramallah and apparently arrested all six employees there without giving a reason. This cuts off about 70% of the Occupied Territories from internet access. Much of the area is still under curfew and can't even leave their own homes.

Of course to militant Israelis, this plan makes sense. You must stop your enemy. And since you don't know which of the millions of Palestinians are technically your enemy, so you must assume that all of them are your enemy. And enemies must be destroyed.

Posted by Jake at 08:27 AM | Comments (0)

Stupid Stupid Stupid

PBS, America's half-assed version of public television, is adding a character to the South African version of its educational children's TV show Sesame Street (known as "Takalani Sesame" in South Africa), an as yet-unnamed female muppet that is HIV positive. While that may sound funny at first, it actually seems quite reasonable when you realize that 1 in 9 South Africans is HIV positive. Sadly, in South Africa , an HIV positive muppet is probably the equivalent of an American muppet that doesn't celebrate Christmas.

Now comes the stupid part.

Six members of the US House of Representatives wrote a letter to the president of PBS which stated "hello, we're six morons." Well, not literally. Literally, it stated that they were concerned about the "age-appropriateness" of teaching the show's 2-4 year old audience about AIDS, and more or less warn that they don't want this character to appear in US versions of the show.

Let's tip our caps to these rocket scientists of the Potomac:

Rep. W. J. "Billy" Tauzin of Lousiana (shown on page, holding fish)
Rep. Joe Barton of Texas (below the .gif of barbed wire)
Rep. Richard Burr of North Carolina
Rep. Charles "Chip" Pickering of Mississippi
Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida
Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan (wedged awkwardly between radio DJs in photo)

I've taken the liberty of writing up a letter that you can send to these representatives to express your feelings about their stance on the issue. Ahem.

Dear Rep. ________,

No one gives a fuck about your opinions regarding South African puppet shows.

Sincerely,

[your name here]

The Clever Six's letter to PBS apparently had some small threat involved, asking how much money PBS was spending on this new character. Congress always has this sort of power over public TV and radio, because they hold the purse strings. Conservatives often make such threats against PBS and NPR when they get "too liberal."

Which leads me to my second sample letter.

Dear Rep. ________,

Government officials like yourself have your salaries paid by hard-working Americans like me. I am writing to ask how much of your taxpayer-funded time you have spent writing letters about puppets. As a citizen, I would like you to reimburse me, and the rest of the American people, for this time you have wasted while on the clock. I feel strongly about the issue of puppet-oriented letter-writing, and I truly believe that it does not belong in a governmental workplace.

Please send my portion of the national puppet-letter tax refund to the address below.

Sincerely,

[your name here]
[your address here]

Posted by Jake at 02:13 AM | Comments (1)

July 15, 2002

From Palestine

I've altered the "Garrick in Palestine page to include reports from another LA activist named Tamara, who's also in the Occupied Territories right now. So now the page is called "Reports from Palestine". If you are passing around the URL for the page, please use www.straybulletins.com/palestine in the future, although the previous URLs will continue to work.

Anyhow, today brings us a new report from Garrick, and a new report from Tamara (although all of Tamara's reports are probably new to you).

Posted by Jake at 10:25 AM | Comments (0)

July 14, 2002

The War

I'm probably due to write a "Jake Looks Back at the War on Terrorism" piece around now, but Ted Rall has summed up about 80% of what I would've said in this piece here. While something certainly should have been done in the wake of September 11, the Bush plan seems to have made Americans less safe, and fucked up a good portion southwestern and central Asia.

And, the latest news in fatherland security, the US government is looking to recruit 4% of the US population to spy on the other 96%. So if you're a nosy, gossipy type that wants to set the Feds on people you dislike, go ahead and sign up

Posted by Jake at 11:33 PM | Comments (0)

Pranks

Media activists in Seattle re-wrapped hundreds of copies of the Seattle Times with their own 4-page fake front page, entitled the Seattle Crimes. The new covers parodied local politics, primarily racial inequality and police impropriety. You can read .pdf versions of the Crimes here and here.

Posted by Jake at 11:17 PM | Comments (0)

July 13, 2002

US and UN Declare Truce

U.N. Passes Deal on War Crimes Court

After doing its best to disrupt/destroy the new International Criminal Court by threatening to get a whole lot of Balkan people killed, the US has finally agreed to a compromise. Instead of continuing to demand that all US soldiers be exempt from international law forever, it accepted the UN offer to grant the US a one-year exemption, which could then be renewed each and every year that the Security Council decides to do so.

This frees up the US to commit genocide or crimes against humanity this year. Better hurry up fellas, the clock's ticking! Only 364 more killin' days till the Security Council rubber stamps a renewal!

Posted by Jake at 02:02 PM | Comments (0)

Coca-Cola Combats, Creates Rumors

An article on O'Dwyer's PR Daily announced that the Coca-Cola company had created a new page on its website to "debunk or refute" false rumors about Coke products. Given the fact that there are only three main categories of rumors, and that the first of the three is "Middle East Rumors," I think it's safe to say that the goal of this new page is to try to placate Middle Eastern Coke consumers who might be contemplating a boycott of the brand (there has been a lot of talk in Muslim nations lately about boycotting large American companies as a way of making a statement about US support of Israel). The Middle East page basically plays up Coke's good works in Arab countries, and denounces claims that Coke "contributes profits to Israel," or that "Coca-Cola runs ads that promote violence against Muslims."

But frankly, I'm much more intrigued by the rest of the "rumors" that Coke tries to debunk. A number are related to the negative health effects of Coca-Cola. And, not suprisingly, Coke chooses to try to misdirect and confuse readers into concluding that Coca-Cola is, in fact, as healthy as garden full of vegetables. No, caffiene is not addictive (although they admit that people who stop drinking Coke can experience withdrawl symptoms). No Coca-Cola does not cause dehydration, because it contains water (although the caffiene acts as a diuretic, causing the body to lose lose water). Strangely, this page does not even do a good job of providing false answers. I think the average reader would notice that frequently the response doesn't really answer the question.

All Coke's rumor management efforts are more amusing due to their current attempts to create false rumors about their new product Vanilla Coke ("oh boy, here he goes with the Vanilla Coke again").

As part of a fairly lame advertising ploy, Coke is trying to spread a rumor on the internet, via their slightly anonymous site VCoke Lounge, that there is some sort of conspiracy or scandal behind Vanilla Coke. We're supposed to believe that the anonymous site creator is a Fox Mulder of the beverage world, and we're supposed to be intrigued by his mysterious tale of a secret formula and Coke's attempts to quash it. They might want to think about re-tooling that site, because that "mysterious tale" is boring as fuck.

Evidently if you email the site, you are informed that it is indeed a fictional story used by Coke for marketing purposes.

The only good part of the site is the message board, where most visitors blast the site, Vanilla Coke's flavor, and marketing in general. My favorite post is the one entitled "Advertising Execs should all be rounded up and slaughtered".

Thanks to Jeremy for furthering my "Vanilla Coke is evil" fixation.

Posted by Jake at 01:53 PM | Comments (1)

July 11, 2002

Garrick in Palestine 7/11/02

Read Garrick's latest report from Palestine here. Read all of his past reports here.

Posted by Jake at 09:54 AM | Comments (0)

July 10, 2002

Get Your Land Mine Removal On

One of my favorite comics in the post-9/11 world is Get Your War On. Take your favorite "fractured take on modern life" comic strip, and then expose it to the most brutal extremes of fury, confusion, grief and despair. Those primal forces would crush that comic into the bleak, bitter, gleaming genius that is Get Your War On. It's like gnawing on your own heart while being tickled.

Of course, I have a taste for dark humor. Other folks might find it distasteful and repugnant. It's all those things.

Anyhow, GYWO is being published in book form (previously it was just a web comic), which I normally wouldn't catch my eye much. But when I heard that its author David Rees was donating all the book's profits to organizations removing landmines from Afghanistan, I figured I should drop a check in the mail (okay, click and type in credit card numbers).

So if you wanna buy the book and stop Afghans from having their limbs accidently blown off by hidden explosives, click here. Or you could just give your money straight to the landmine people. I'm fine either way.

Posted by Jake at 08:40 PM | Comments (0)

Shams Revealed

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is a late night TV program on the Comedy Central cable channel (a joint venture of Time-Warner and Viacom) that is a mix of news parody and celebrity interviews. The show frequently excels in clever, offbeat humor, although I don't like many of their "special reports," which usually mock eccentric, everyday people behind their backs.

The Daily Show for 7/9/02 featured an interview with CNN's White House correspondent John King. Stewart interviewed King about Bush's recent speech about corporate crime, and King made a number of revelations that made me wonder if he knew that he was on television.

First of all, King gave a brief description of his role in Bush's speech. Evidently King and many other Washington reporters were nowhere near Bush as he spoke. They were watching his speech on TV in a "filing room," presumably where they could write and film their commentary (although I don't know if King writes his own reports or not). This should strike everyone as odd that the man who is supposed to be telling me about this event from first-hand experience watched it on TV, just like the rest of us do. He also briefly described the filing room, and it sounded a little on the posh side.

Second, he mentioned that Bush made a rare appearance in the filing room, and the reporters actually got to ask him a couple of questions. Wait, you're a news reporter for one of the largest news outlets in the world, covering the Bush administration and you rarely get to ask questions of President Bush? What the hell good are you? You know who else watches Bush's speeches on TV and doesn't get to ask him questions? Me, and 99% of America.

And finally, when Stewart asked King if it was frustrating how Bush was able to announce his reform plans in a staged event with little external input ("like a CEO announcing his company's new soft drink," I believe was Stewart's line), King matter-of-factly described it as part of the "marketing" of issues. Wait, you're just going to accept that these parlor games are just the way things are, and only bother exposing them in off-hand comments on a talk show? You fucking jerk, exposing these guys is your job! You probably went to journalism school, I'm sure you've heard about serving the public, keeping an eye on those in power, the Fourth Estate, comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.

But of course, that's my righteous indignation based upon idealistic fantasy. John King is a television news reporter. He has a powerful position, and I'm sure he's very comfortable himself. The more power and wealth you have, the more unlikely you are to take actions that might upset that. I imagine that King is always balancing his actions between the news that will garner him acclaim for his journalistic skills, while carefully skirting the stories that will anger the politicians he depends on for access.

That's the best report I can do from memory. I hope to get my hands on a tape or transcript of the interview so I can write a more thorough entry.

Posted by Jake at 08:24 PM | Comments (0)

July 08, 2002

Stabbing at News

Our pals at Fox News are airing a new television "newsmagazine" this week, called "The Pulse", starring the best and brightest from the Fox News Channel.

The show will be anchored by the smarmy, condescending Ken doll Shepard Smith, with special investigative segments by wannabe action hero Geraldo Rivera, and commentary by the smug, arrogant, "I'm too busy condemning you to listen to what you have to say" posterboy Bill O'Reilly.

Near as I can figure, "The Pulse" is going to be the broadcast equivalent of food poisoning.

Posted by Jake at 05:10 PM | Comments (0)

July 07, 2002

More from Garrick

A new dispatch is up over at the Garrick in Palestine page.

Posted by Jake at 11:34 AM | Comments (1)

July 04, 2002

A Waste of Gunpowder and Sky

"I've spent a lifetime defending the flag and the law. Maybe I should have battled less - and questioned more."

-Captain America

Posted by Jake at 12:08 AM | Comments (0)

July 03, 2002

Garrick In Palestine (cont.)

L.A. activist Garrick Ruiz is currently in the Occupied Territories, and he's sending regular reports back from the area. I've been posting them here in the weblog, but I decided they needed more space than the average blog seems to allow. So I made a new page here on the Stray Bulletins site solely for his missives.

Check out Garrick In Palestine, the website.

Posted by Jake at 06:05 PM | Comments (0)

July 02, 2002

A Pox on All Our Houses

According to a new report by the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the AIDS epidemic is much, much worse than anyone predicted. How much worse? The report's most staggering figure is that between 2000 and 2020, 68 million people could die of AIDS in the world's 45 most affected countries (more summary stats here).

That's more than two Californias. The Black Death that decimated Europe in the mid-1300s killed about 25 million people. Dead.

We all know what it's like to have a loved one die, the pain, the chaos, the upheaval, not just for the immediate family, but extending in long ripples outward. Multiply that by 68 million, mainly in countries where people are dirt-poor, where a lost relative not only brings grief, but might bring your own death sentence as well.

You can read the whole report here.

Posted by Jake at 09:57 PM | Comments (0)

Casualties in the War on Multilateralism

I wrote a series of LMB entries back in May about Jose Bustani, the head of the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, and the (successful) US efforts to get him thrown out of office. The US claims that they wanted Bustani gone because they didn't like his "management style." Seriously, that's about the most detailed explanation they gave.

A more reasonable explanation is that Bustani's OPCW could possibly inspect Iraq for chemical weapons, and give the US one less rationale for attacking Iraq in the near future.

Mother Jones magazine has an interview with Bustani, the first I've seen since his ouster. He talks about his experience, the current state of the OPCW, and the US battle against all international cooperation.

Posted by Jake at 05:23 PM | Comments (0)

... or Forever Hold Your Peace

You may have already heard about yesterday's US bombing of an Afghan wedding. Estimates state that 40 people were killed, and 100 were wounded.

People with a good memory will recall that this is not the first time that the US has bombed an Afghan wedding. This is actually the THIRD TIME the US has bombed an Afghan wedding since November. This seems to be due to an Afghan wedding tradition of firing guns into the air in celebration. Nearby US pilots then decide that they are under attack, and unleash hell. On one hand, you could say that the Afghans should learn and discontinue this tradition. On the other hand, you could say that they can do whatever the hell they want in their own damn country and that the US should stop dropping bombs on them.

Of course, that's if you accept the US explanation in the first place. Distrust of military spokespeople is very healthy.

Posted by Jake at 05:12 PM | Comments (0)

July 01, 2002

Rogue State Strikes Again

As mentioned several times in this blog, the US is trying to destroy the International Criminal Court. The latest attempt by the US to do is crossing the line between distasteful to inhuman.

The US is currently involved in the UN peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. The US threatened to use its Security Council powers to veto proposals to renew the Bosnia mission, and is also threatening to withdraw its troops from the mission. Then the US backed off slightly, agreeing to let the mission continue 3 more days. But unless the US desires are met and its soldiers are made immune to prosecution by the ICC.

Without US involvement, the mission could collapse, and conflicts in the region could resume.

So cuz the US doesn't want any limitations placed upon it whatsoever, it's willing to risk the lives of a few million people in Eastern Europe.

"Why do they hate us?" Cuz our leaders are scum.

Posted by Jake at 11:12 PM | Comments (1)

Garrick in Palestine pt. 2

Another report from L.A. activist Garrick Ruiz in Palestine:

Hello all,

Sorry for the abrupt ending to my update yesterday. My access to email has been sporadic and the group was leaving and I didn't realize it untill the last minute. I will try to add some stuff I couldn't get in the last message but first I want to tell you about today. I'm back in Jerusalem now but we had a very eventful day in Ramallah. We had planned a trip which has now been postponed untill tomorrow. Instead, we heard that the Israeli army was rounding up men in the Al-Amari refugee camp in Ramallah. We walked over there from the Ramallah hospital, about a 10 minute walk.

I've heard about this practice, I've even seen pictures, but nothing prepares you for seeing it first hand. I've come to the conclusion that the IDF must look to the nazis to inform their actions. A refugee camp, a place where people have been refugees from their homes in what is now Israel for 54 years and never allowed to return home. And in this camp we witnessed the army going from house to house rounding up every man between the ages of 15 and 50. Simply arresting all of them and taking them to a field where they were held for hours. Some had shade but others did not, and it is hot here in the middle of the day. At least 90 degrees. Supposedly they had some water and a little bit of bread but they were held there for hours and hours waiting to be interrogated for no other reason than that they lived in the camp. We were not allowed to get close enough to actually talk to the prisoners and check on their status. Some of our group did manage to talk to a few at about 2:00 pm who said they had been in the field since 5:00 am waiting. They did not manage to communicaate with anyone who had been interrogated so we do not know what means the Israelis were employing but it was not likely to be very pleasant. One of the soldiers fired in the air a few feet away from us to scare us. Bastards! We later heard the explosion as the army blew up a grocery store in the camp. I've never heard such a loud explosion before. Luckily the kids in the camp warned us so most of us had our ears covered and avoided any possible damage to our ears. Apparently a food store is a threat to Israeli security. The soldiers absolutely refused to give us their names or unit number or any other type of information and had none of this on their uniforms (which is a violation of international law [as if simply being an occupying military force for 35 years was not a violation of international law]). We asked them if they weren't doing anything wrong why wouldn't they tell us who they were. They had no answer. They also really didn't like us taking pictures, again if they weren't doing anything wrong whats wrong with taking some pictures? The worst part about it is that one of the people who we were with who lives here told us that as far as these types of situations go this was not that bad. To me it was one of the most horrible scenes I have ever witnessed personally.

After we left the camp (which was extremely hard to do not knowing what was going to happen to the hundreds of men we saw) we caught a ride back to Jerusalem and are preparing for another excursion tomorrow. I am working with an affinity group of 10 people, All from the US except for 1 Canadian. I think we are actually majority Jew which is really excellent. It is really good to know that there are so many Jews who oppose the racist, fascist policies of Israel.

If people would like more info on what's happening here please try the Palestine Independent Media Center or the International Solidarity Movement Website.

Once again I need to cut this short. Just so all of you know I'm not communicating either by phone or email what our plans are for future travels because we don't want either to be intercepted by the military and have that not allow us to get to our destination. I will get another update out as soon as I am able.

I urge everyone, particularly those of you in the US to fight back against Bush's agenda. We heard about his speech calling on the Palestinians to elect new leadership. There are many problems with Arafat and the PA but only Palestinians can determine a leadership for Palestinians, he has no say on the subject. Tell him that. Organize demonstrations, letters, phone calls, whatever. But untill the flow of weapons from the US is cut off things will not change here. There is very little hope that Israel will stop its fascism without pressure.

As I learned before the Palestinians are an amazing people where else would a woman invite us all into her house and offer us coffee while soldiers are going door to door in the refugee camp she lived in and probably her husband and sons had already been rounded up (We had to decline). Where else would a people so opressed by Jews be so happy to see Jews here in solidarity and understand so well that Israel despite its claims does not represent the Jewish people as a whole. Hope all is well. Interesting times here and many more to come I'm sure. I have many other stories, hopefully I will report them soon.

Love, rage and solidarity from occupied Palestine,

Garrick

Posted by Jake at 12:27 AM | Comments (4)

June 29, 2002

Live from Palestine

My friend Garrick Ruiz is a dedicated activist who's a hell of a lot braver than I'll ever be. He's currently in the Occupied Territories. He traded Los Angeles for a warzone, with the simple goal of helping desperate people, and bringing their stories back to the US. He staunchly opposes the Israeli occupation of Palestine. His belief is not based upon speculation or some kind of "anti-American" agenda, it's based on experience; he was already in Palestine earlier this year, before Ariel Sharon's re-invasion of the area, and Garrick's seen what the occupation has done.

When he can find access to a computer, Garrick is writing reports and sending them back to a bunch of us Americans via email. I don't think he'd mind me sharing. I'll post these on the site when I receive them.

Because Garrick's already been to Palestine and back once, I'm not too worried about his safety. But I know I should be. I hope he makes it back in one piece.

- Jake.

Update 6/29

Hello all,

I haven't had computer access for several days. We have been in Ramallah for almost three days now. Ramallah has been under curfew for seven days. What that means is that everyone in the city and its a pretty big city has to stay in their houses 24 hours a day. The Israeli military lifts the curfew every few days for a few hours at a time and people must scramble to purchase basic supplies such as food. Of course no one other than store owners (and them for only a few hours every few days) can work so there is very little income throughout the city. We have been staying at Sheikh Zaid hospital, the main hospital in Ramallah and the major trauma center in the west bank. People may have read the reports about this hospital having to bury 21 people in two mass graves in the parking lot back in April because the bodies kept piling up inside the hospital and the army would not allow a lifting of curfew even to bury the dead. Those graves are still there the families of those murdered by the Israelis have decided to leave the graves there as a symbol of the brutality of the Israeli military and a testament to the martyrdom of their loved ones.

Yesterday many of us walked to a village outside of Ramallah called Diribziya. Curfew is absolute for Palestinians but we as internationals can get away with a lot more. We walked with another group of people from the International Solidarity Movement who are staying in the village to help out with a summer camp for children. People in the village were worried the army would try something to prevent the camp from happening or intimidate the participants and so they requested an international presence. This walk was unbelievable. It was about 20 kilometers or about 12 miles there and back. Along the way we saw many ways in which the military destroys Palestinian infrastructure. Simply driving their tanks, APCs and bulldozers over roads tears them up. But in many places they have deliberately destroyed roads or created roadblocks so that people cannot get through. The worst of these was blocking the road connecting Diribziya and something like 30 other villages to Ramallah. It was a series of ditches, earth emankments, barbed wire and boulders toatlly blocking access. These villages are very dependent on commerce with Ramallah and so you can imagine the negative effects this has on supplies and such, not to mention the fact that it further cuts Palestinians off from each other in their own country.

I'm really sorry to interrupt this message. I have to go. There is much more to report. Suffice it to say that the situation here is unbelievably bad. gunfire and shellfire are regular here and Ramallah is not nearly the worst from everything we have heard. I will write more when I can.

Garrick

Posted by Jake at 09:40 AM | Comments (0)

June 28, 2002

The Rise of Cartoon Journalism

In the days before the camera, any attempts to visually document news events had to be done via illustrations and drawings. And in the past several months, I have run across many examples of unique modern journalists doing the same thing, telling their stories via words and drawings, be they realistic or cartoonish.

The first example I found of this was Joe Sacco's graphic novel Palestine. (you can read some fragments of "Palestine" here and here. Just keep clicking "next"). Sacco went to Palestine for a number of weeks to document what he saw, meet the people and tell their stories. Interestingly, Sacco seems to have no interest in making anybody look like a good guy, even himself. He is the central character, and tells of his experience in the Occupied Territories, and retells the stories that people told him.

Next, I stumbled across cartoonist and columnist Ted Rall's To Afghanistan and Back: A Graphic Travelogue. Rall went to Afghanistan during the US attacks there, wrote some columns and drew some cartoons. I read some sample pages of the book I found on the net, and it seemed good, but I haven't been able to find those links again.

And most recently, I came across War News Illustrated. To my knowledge there have only been three strips in this series so far, one about Sept. 11, one about the US attacks on Afghanistan, and one about the aftermath in Afghanistan.

And to a lesser extent, I suppose you could add The Comic Strip of Neoliberalism and Addicted to War to that list. Actually, I guess I'd consider those two to be comic education rather than comic journalism.

Sacco and Rall's works of documenting a warzone reminds me another man who reported from warzones, a photojournalist named Kevin Carter. His tale always makes me think of some of the more soulful issues of journalism. What's more important, telling the world the tales of the suffering, or helping out a single sufferer within arm's reach?

Posted by Jake at 12:41 AM | Comments (0)

June 27, 2002

Flag Flag Flag

My last bit about the American flag and Pledge of Allegiance for awhile. Or until it gets crazy again. Meaning I'll probably be writing about it again within several hours.

One "specialist in church-state law" says that the "under God" portion of the Pledge of Alleigiance might be Constitutional after all (second to last paragraph), that it might be considered a "ceremonial deism," a phrase that was once religious but by now has lost all meaning. Like "God damn it," I suppose.

And finally, one last bit of flag stuff: Pride and Grief for Sale, a gallery of tactless and crude attempts to use the American flag to make a buck.

Posted by Jake at 11:55 PM | Comments (0)

June 26, 2002

This Flag Thing

Sigh. This is getting out of control, and I'm sure it will only get worse. The Pledge of Allegiance thing. It's the top story on all the newscasts, the topic of debate on pundit arena combat, and already the beginnings of a new electoral strategy by conservatives. And I really resent the fact that I'm going to have to set aside time writing about important issues to clear up this nonsense.

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, that serves 9 Western states (California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska and Hawaii)(and, interestingly, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands) made a decision today that the "1954 Act," which added the words "under god" to the Pledge of Allegiance, violated the Establishment Clause of the of the US Constitution, and that therefore forcing kids to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school is therefore unconstitutional as well.

And frankly, it is. The Pledge basically has three parts:

1) pledging allegiance to the flag
2) pledging allegiance to the republic
3) declaring to no one in particular that the US is "under God," "indivisible," and chock-full of justice and liberty.

The "under God" portion is religious. We all know that it refers to the Christian god, although supporters argue that it doesn't specifically say. I suppose there are many ways you could interpret "one nation, under God," to me it seems to mean that the nation is being watched by God, or is the only nation recognized by God, or that the laws of the republic are subservient to the laws of God. Requiring kids to make this statement about the relationship between the state and God seems to be religious, which therefore violates the Establishment Clause.

Of course, the spin of the media-politician nexus doesn't appear to be "one of thirteen Federal Circuit courts has found that forcing kids to say the Pledge of Allegiance violates the separation of Church and State." Focusing on the controversy and potential outrage, their spin is more like "the Supreme Court says that its wrong to be American." And many folks do not, and will not ever believe the facts to be otherwise.

(it's also amusing to note that the original Pledge was written by a socialist, one of the political factions most widely hated by folks who think the Pledge is keen)

I always found it pretty ridiculous that American schools forced kids to take a loyalty oath every morning. To a piece of striped cloth ("Hail to thee, poly-cotton blend, I am thy servant! Command me, and thy will be done!"). Once I gave the issue some thought in school, I stopped saying the Pledge. Not out of anti-Americanism, or defiance, but because I didn't see the point. I still don't.

I think some conservatives are arguing that we need kids to say the Pledge because they need to learn about patriotism and loyalty to their nation. Saying a bunch of words by rote because someone tells you to does not instill such values.

But I'll bet you already knew that.

Posted by Jake at 08:37 PM | Comments (1)

Now, On to the Important Stuff

This guy spells out almost exactly what I think about Bush's recent speech about Palestine. Either Bush's demands that Palestine reform itself into the semblance of a modern nation while fragmented, impoverished and under military occupation is either the stupidest thing ever said by a politician, or an obvious green light to the hawks in Israel. I'm thinking it's the latter.

Heard a very good segment on Democracy Now! this morning about the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on the government and on doctors themselves. Pretty much everyone on the program was a critic of pharmaceutical advertising to the public, and the attempts by pharma sales reps to court and seduce doctors into thinking better of their products. One guest was a representative of the drug industry. To his credit, he stayed on message: "we need marketing and sales reps to get information out to doctors about new drugs." Unfortunately, it was his only message and was easily deflated by the doctors: "yeah, but the information you're giving out is biased."

Two articles about Africa's involvement in this week's G8 summit. Some African leaders are trying to sell the West on an aid package they call Nepad. This article claims that the Nepad plan is all about making poor Africans beg before powerful Western overlords who hold all the cards. This article argues that not only is Nepad a "a sell-out of Africa's legitimate aspirations for social, environmental and economic justice," but that it will fail to help develop Africa as well.

Posted by Jake at 08:26 PM | Comments (0)

Priorities

Pledge Declared Unconstitutional

"A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and cannot be recited in schools."

But holding people in prison indefinitely on no charges is still A-Okay!

Posted by Jake at 11:55 AM | Comments (0)

June 25, 2002

Radio Ritalin

Okay, here's another big mess to unravel.

On May 29, the Clear Channel-owned Seattle radio station "The Beat 95.7" changed its name and format. Now it was "Quick 96". While The Beat had been an R&B station, Quick 96 would be something new: a station that solely played 7 second snippets of songs (mainly country, Top 40, and "adult contemporary"), 462 "songs" an hour. Fans of The Beat were outraged. The rest of the radio world was baffled, amused or angered.

The new format lasted two days. The station then became KJR, "super hits of the 60's and 70's" ("the Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, Linda Ronstadt").

I'm not 100% sure what to make of this. It seems obvious that the Quick format was either:

a) a publicity stunt
b) a terrible mistake that programmers rectified quickly
c) a method of driving away unwanted listeners to prepare for the "superhits" format

"A" seems like a very likely answer, but I would't write off "C". R&B stations often have a large African-American audience. And for the most part, advertisers don't want African-American audiences, they want white audiences, because of the generalization that white folks, on average, have more money than black folks. Perhaps the betrayal of The Beat listeners was intentional, to make way for an all white, 60s rock-luvin audience.

Lucky (?) for us, we now have another chance to observe and learn.

On June 21, the Clear Channel-owned Seattle radio station "Star 105.9" changed its name and format. Now it's "Quick 106" (note how the title bar on the page says "Quick96.com". That's how I first stumbled onto case #1). Star 105.9 was one of those "easy-listening/music you're allowed to listen to in your office cubicle" formats. And of course, Quick 106 is broadcasting the same 7 seconds format as Quick 96. I believe the station is still broadcasting the Quick format (at least that's what I heard when I tried to "tune in" on the station's website).

Anyone live in Seattle and want to turn on 105.9 FM and tells us what's on? Are they still broadcasting sonic shrapnel, or have they whipped out their new surprise format?

[edit]

According to this comment on ClearChannelSucks.org, 105.9 has already made the changeover to 105.9 The River and is playing bland classic rock, a la KJR-FM. Although The River site doesn't explicitly tell us that it's the same station we've been discussing, the frequency is the same and the site is registered to Clear Channel (as according to Internic).

Posted by Jake at 01:48 PM | Comments (0)

June 24, 2002

Ari Spins, Fred Whines

Nice article here by Wasington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz.

News reporters have deadlines that they have to meet when turning in stories. And knowing this, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer has been holding press conferences about touchy subjects at around 5pm, too late for reporters to write and turn in a story about it. By the next day, the story is less timely, less relevant, and receives less coverage in the paper. He's been doing this about a number of anti-environmental policies enacted lately.

The second half of the article above also talks about conservative pundit and Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes. Lately Barnes has been ranting about the lack of conservative reporters. How to solve this grave concern? Donate money to the Institute on Political Journalism, a summer class for aspiring journalists that focuses on conservative economics and journalistic ethics. And is run by Fred Barnes.

Posted by Jake at 11:19 PM | Comments (1)

Violations of Masculinity, Nachos and a Big Gulp

In the past week, I saw three different television commercials for two similar stores that followed a particular, unusual theme. I found it bizarre, bizarre enough to research it. But as you can tell from this site, it doesn't take much to get me to leap into research mode.

The commercials were for two convenience store chains (I'm not sure how general that term is. Convenience stores are 24-hour shops that primarily sell alcohol, soda, cigarettes and snack foods), 7-11 and AMPM. The main difference between the two is that AMPMs are attached to gas stations (ARCO gas stations. ARCO, short for Atlantic Richfield Company, a subsidiary of British Petroleum).

Commercial #1 I'd seen for the first time several months ago. A young guy, perhaps 17, is in a parked car, eating snack foods with his girlfriend. He asks her to go in to the AMPM and buy him more stuff to eat. She tells him to do it himself, and he says "but I've already been in there three times today! It's embarassing!" Cut away to a voiceover telling you to buy nachos or something. Then we see that the guy is putting on a disguise to go back into the store: his girlfriend's furry pink sweater and large, feminine sunglasses. He so loves AMPM that he'll dress up like a woman. Tee-hee.

Commercial #2 has a guy sitting in a parked car with a large cup of 7-11 soda in his lap, between his legs. His friend opens the door and sits down in the passenger seat. He places his own cup of soda in his own lap between his own legs. But his cup is twice as big as his friend's. The two exchange glances at each other's soda cups. An oh so subtle play on comparative penis size. We are clearly supposed to identify with the first guy, feeling inadequate because his cup is smaller.

Commercial #3 has two guys sitting in a parked car, with one guy eating some kind of chips. After finishing all the chips in his hand, he begins licking his fingers. After licking several fingers, the hand is wrenched violently away, and we see that the hand actually belonged to his friend. His friend had been holding the chips, and the chip-eating-guy had starting licking his male friend's fingers (to the ladies out there unfamiliar with male-male relationships, licking another man's fingers is usually considered inappropriate among friends).

So we've got three commercials here for convenience stores and convenience store products that all center around violations of the general concept of masculinity: cross-dressing; inadequate penis size; and quasi-homosexual physical contact. What the fuck is going on here?

Interestingly, there is a method to this homoerotic madness. I managed to find this press release on the 7-11 website regarding their new advertising campaign. Some interesting quotes:

"We’re emphasizing the ‘crave’ factor in these new spots,” said 7-Eleven marketing vice president Bob Merz."

"'7-Eleven satisfies your urges; sometimes you’ve just got to have a Big Gulp or a Slurpee or a hot dog. We're conveying that with ads that are clever and surprising, and relevant to our audience,' said GSD&M President Roy Spence. '7-Eleven’s core customer base is young, on-the-go, adventurous and predominantly male. They'll appreciate the humor, but more important, they’ll know we understand them.'"

And, while not relevant to the discussion at hand:

"...constants in the campaign remain the 'Oh Thank Heaven' tagline framed by a new audio 'Slurp … aaah' mnemonic device.

Mnemonic device? Clever bastards.

And if we pop over to the AMPM Franchising site, we can download a brochure entitled Too Much Good Stuff, which explains why you would want to own your own AMPM franchise. On page 10 of the brochure, under the topic of "Marketing Support," there is this revealing quote:

"...the 'too much good stuff' theme has uniquely positioned us as a place where you can give in to your urgent wants and indulge."

So there's our explanation. Convenience stores operate under the assumption that their customers are not making their purchases based upon need or logic, but upon cravings, wants and desires. Which makes sense, because nearly all of the products at a convenience store are unhealthy, and could be bought at other stores for lower prices. And since the customers are primarily young males (according to the 7-11 press release), it makes sense to show male characters giving into their cravings for soda and snacks, cravings so intense that they violate the norms of masculinity or of platonic male-male relationships*. And since we're dealing with heady topics like desire and urges, it makes sense that we see somewhat sexually-charged behavior like cross-dressing and finger-sucking.

If you wanted to take it further, I'm sure you could deepen the analysis to say something about a tendency towards homosexuality in young men, or links between food and sexual desire, but I'm not going there.

*Well, that doesn't totally work. Commercial #2 is not about violating norms. It actually implies that giving into your cravings more fully makes you more masculine: buying more soda gives you a larger penis. Therefore in that case, giving in to your desires is completely in line with masculinity.

[edit]

Well. That's an hour of my life I'll never get back.

Posted by Jake at 10:21 PM | Comments (4)

LMB Playlist 6-24-02

This was my first show at the new, temporary home of Kill Radio, courtesy of LA's Independent Media Center. It was beautiful. I'm up on the top floor of the building, the sun is shining through tall, open windows, a cool breeze is blowing in, I have a great view of MacArthur Park, its trees and lake, a view as near to the horizon as the haze will allow, the sidewalks below alive with people, and I'm spending this time playing some of my favorite music and speaking my mind. There are worse ways to spend a summer afternoon.

Playlist
Against Me!-What We Worked For
Beat Junkies w/Chris Lowe and Large Professor- CT to NY (Uncut Action)
Pulp- Common People (live)
Nikka Costa- Everybody Got Their Something
Powerman 5000- Megatronic
Paris- What Would You Do?
The Plugz- Hombre Secreto
Covenant- Theremin
Rage Against the Machine- Mic Check
The White Stripes- Little Room
Black Rebel Motorcycle Club- Rifles
Bad Religion- Entropy
The Vandals- Anarchy Burger
Tiger Army- Incorporeal
The People Who Do That- Let's Roll
Gary Jules- Mad World
Justin Sane- The Worst Case Scenario Survival Handbook
Blackalicious- Alphabet Aerobics
Pearl Jam- Soon Forget
The Distillers- LA Girl (live)
Bill Hicks- Hooligans
Nine Inch Nails- Ringfinger
Los Villains- Killing Fields
Eddie Def- Universal Noisemaker
Soggy Bottom Boys- I Am a Man of Constant Sorrow
The Slackers- Married Girl
Nine Inch Nails- A Warm Safe Place (drum and bass mix)

Posted by Jake at 08:53 PM | Comments (0)

Two Way Street

Hello Mr. and Ms. Reader.

You'll notice that each entry on this page has a little link marked "comment" down at the bottom. You can click on those and post your responses to anything I have written here. Please make use of them. Tell me what you like, or hate, correct me when you think I'm wrong, or post additional info to flesh out the topics I'm discussing. Let's get our interactive on.

Also, feel free to email me with question and comments and such. But I'd REALLY appreciate it if you sent me links to news articles you think would interest me. I've got a jillion email addresses, but let's stick to jake@straybulletins.com or jake@killradio.org.

Thanks much,

Jake.
LMB Consumer Relations Dept.

Posted by Jake at 01:30 AM | Comments (0)

Tear It Down, Build It Back New

In the wide world of politics, news and activism, it's very easy to cocoon yourself with the comforting words of the like-minded. You know what you believe, you have your interpretation of how the world works, and everyone around you feels the same way. Spending too much time in this state can make you forget how you arrived at these conclusions in the first place. The people who are the sharpest thinkers and debaters are the ones who throw themselves headlong into areas where their thoughts are not common, and they are forced to defend themselves over and over.

At the very least, I think it's good to expose one's self to jarring, well-thought out points of view that threaten your own every now and again.

Blog superstar Brendan O'Neill recently posted an article that does some pretty decent challenging of left-wing thoughts and causes (although many times on his site, he points out that terms like "left" and "right" to describe political views are out-of-date and not particularly helpful anymore). O'Neill's article explains why he doesn't support human rights, isn't an environmentalist, isn't an anti-capitalist, anti-war, or a multiculturalist. Honestly, I think some of his explanations misrepresent the -ism that he is saying he opposes, but there's some good, challenging points that I don't usually hear lefties refuting.

Posted by Jake at 01:20 AM | Comments (1)

June 22, 2002

Viva la Maquila!

If you've managed to find your way to this site, I imagine you've frequently asked yourself this question (let's face it, we all have):

"I'm a wealthy American investor looking to enter the lucrative 'Let's Exploit the Mexicans' industry. Where can I find this information? Where are the newsletters that meet my needs"?

So glad you asked.

Just hop on over to MaquilaMarket.com.

Find out which exploitative maquiladora factory is right to manufacture your company's useless crap. Learn all about cheap real estate in the poorest sections of Mexico. Read about how the bylaws of NAFTA guarantees you hefty profits made off the backs of brown-skinned people you never cared about in the first place. Discover where you can find luxury accomadations near (but not too near) your new factories. And sign up for their free newsletter about the latest financial crises in Mexico that will crush the souls of the nation's poorest and have you laughing all the way to the bank.

MaquilaMarket.com (not to be confused with the Maquila Solidarity Network, Global Exchange or Sweatshop Watch)

Posted by Jake at 05:10 PM | Comments (0)

All the Security Risk Fit to Print

Ever since the WTO protests in Seattle, it's been par for the course for the authorities to view demonstrators, no matter what their cause or tactics, as a threat to be nullified*. While this makes a certain amount of ignorant sense, these tactics have now escalated: law enforcement don't just see activists as a threat, in Canada, they even see journalists as a threat.

Three Canadian journalists, Dan Rubenstein of Vue Weekly, Pamela Foster of Upstream Journal, and photojournalist Elaine Briere were denied entry to the recent G-8 summit in Kananaskis, Alberta because they are "security risks." All three have tried to get further information from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), but they won't give out any. But, they helpfully point out that the journalists can apply to find out why their applications for press credentials were denied by filling out a form and waiting 30 days. As the G-8 summit begins June 26 (and the "security risks" first heard about their rejection June 20), that won't help much.

What the hell is Canada thinking? Maybe they've been listening to this guy.

The whole thing reminds me of this depressing and profound Frank Zappa quote:

"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre."

*Just want to use this opportunity to remind you all about a convenient historical re-write done by the media in this country. Anytime there's a major protest these days, you'll hear the newscaster say something about police response to the violence, and cite the violence of the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle. In fact, that order is exactly backwards. I have read literally hundreds of first-hand accounts of the Seattle protests, and the police began shooting tear gas and rubber bullets at protesters some hours before the "violent" anarchists began their vandalism spree. In the usual version of the story, it was the anarchists smashing windows that sparked, um, "zealous" police response.

Police struck first, chaos ensued; quite frankly, the term "police riot" is probably the most appropriate. But instead of a tale of out-of-control cops lashing out at largely peaceful protesters, the common-knowledge story then became one in which exceedingly violent demonstrators destroyed the city and law enforcement had to crack down to stop it. This new story has became the rationale for excessive, pre-emptive, and questionably legal police tactics dealing with large-scale protests ever since.

Thanks, mass media!

Posted by Jake at 04:27 PM | Comments (1)

RIAA vs Internet Radio (cont.)

The short version:

The US Copyright Office is currently trying to figure out how much in royalty payments internet radio/webcasting organizations should have to pay to artists and record labels for the songs they play. All of this sounds mundane, until you discover that the decision of this office has the potential to decimate nearly all internet radio.

Anyhow, a Copyright Office committee, known as the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) put together a list of suggested royalty rates back in February. In May, the Copyright Office rejected these suggestions, and put together their own plan that they just released this past week.

I won't bore you with the details (you can do that yourself, here), but while the rates are lower than those suggested by CARP, they are still pretty high. High enough that come Sept. 1, when royalties will be due retroactively to 1998, most internet broadcasters will probably file for bankruptcy. All that will be left standing will be major radio stations that also happen to webcast, or private "stations" set up by the record labels themselves, who can play songs from their own catalog without paying fees.

Which, in my analysis, is the whole point. This isn't about "fair market value" of the songs played as the record industry claims. It's not about money, it's about control. Eliminating all but the huge business players maintains a similar status quo to the broadcast radio world. No one rocks the boat, and the professionals quietly rake in their money.

As y'all may know, I'm an internet broadcaster myself. I have a show on Kill Radio, a mix of music and political commentary. So obviously I have a vested interest in this. My thoughts on the subject are 1) copyright is nonsense, 2) we're a non-profit station, why should the record industry make money off of us? 3) we're actually giving free exposure to these bands, providing a service, 4) most for-profit webcasters seem willing to pay royalties, just at rates small enough that their stations can survive.

But the story is still being written. At least two Congressmen have declared that these new rates are unfair (with a battle cry of "Viva el small businessman!"), and may attempt to override the Copyright Office decision via legislation.

For more information than you ever thought possible on this topic, check out the Radio And Internet Newsletter. It's very biased in favor of webcasters, but it's still very informative and pragmatic.

In a way, I almost hope that the record industry succeeds on all its current legal fronts. If they managed to wipe out webcasters, file-trading on the internet, kids copying CDs on their computers, etc., they might have to acknowledge that their low sales aren't due to all these evil outside forces, but because the music they're selling is crap.

Posted by Jake at 03:50 PM | Comments (1)

June 21, 2002

U-S-A!! U-S-A!!

Talk about paranoid.

In the three zillionth attempt to derail the International Criminal Court, the US has announced that it will not take part in any UN peacekeeping actions unless all US troops that participated would be permanently exempt from prosecution by the ICC.

From the rational anti-ICC point of view, the ICC is dangerous because enemies of the US could use it for their own political ends, accusing innocent American military personnel of war crimes.

From the irrational anti-ICC point of view, anyone who suggests that the US should follow any sort of rules whatsoever is an enemy of the United States.

From the rational, impartial point of view, what the hell's the big deal? The ICC pretty much prosecutes people who commit acts of genocide. Is it really asking that much that Americans agree not to commit genocide?

In other news, the Bush managed to turn a plan to help African and Caribbean nations fight AIDS into a boon for US-based multinational corporations.

Bush has pledged $500 million to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS from mother to child (the article has a typo, it's "million," not "billion"). Sounds good at first.

First of all, it's interesting to note that the money will only be used to fight mother-to-child AIDS transmission. This is due to Bush's crazed Christian conservative, sex=hellfire stance.

But more importantly, the money is not being sent to the "Global Fund" to fight AIDS, a group that would buy cheap, generic AIDS drugs for the sick. Instead, most of this money is likely to be spent on expensive patented AIDS drugs from US pharmaceutical giants. The difference in price is not a small thing; generic AIDS drugs can cost less than 25% of name brand price. Using the money to buy generics would make it stretch a lot further.

So not only will the money do much less good, but it will end up in the pockets of the US elites of the drug industry.

But I suppose the fact that Africans can get generic AIDS drugs at all is a step forward. Even back in 1999, the US was threatening South Africa with trade sanctions if they tried to manufacture generics to treat their 3 million+ HIV-infected citizens.

Posted by Jake at 12:11 AM | Comments (1)

June 20, 2002

Cops vs. Women

I first heard about the story of María Teresa Macias on Monday's edition of Democracy Now!. You can give it a listen by clicking here.

It's just your average, everyday story of American sickness. María Teresa Macias took her children and left her psychopathic, abusive husband. The husband stalked her, tormented her, eventually killed her, and then killed himself. Familiar as any other story in the newspaper these days.

But the primary way that this story differs is the extent to which the police could have prevented Macias' murder, but didn't. Between 1994 and her death in 1996, Macias called the Sonoma County sheriffs over 20 different times for help, and to report her ex stalking, harassing and threatening to kill her. Most of those calls were made in the last three months of her life as her ex-husbands threats became more frightening and serious. Both Macias and some of her friends told the police that the psycho was going to kill her. And police did nothing. And then he did kill her.

It appears that the sheriffs, for whatever reason, didn't take Macias' reports seriously. They didn't even bother to write many of her reports down, so that even if a cop did want to do his job properly, he didn't have the records to do so. Even when the police found the ex violating the restraining order, they didn't do much about it. It seems their attitude was that Macias was just a hysterical woman and they just had to humor her, because they figured that the husband would never follow through on his threats.

After her death, Macias' mother, with the help of a women's rights group called the Purple Berets, filed a lawsuit against the sheriff's department, claiming that they had violated Teresa Macias' right to equal protection under the law. They argued that the sheriffs had discriminated against Macias as a woman, a latina, and a victim of domestic violence.

Don't know if those claims are accurate or not, but it seems sure that police incompetence and negligence cost a woman her life.

There's a mildly happy ending to this. Sonoma County agreed to pay Macias' mother and her three children $1 million. They admitted no wrongdoing or guilt. "'We don't believe the sheriff's department in any way discriminated against Macias, but we do believe it's in the best interest of everyone involved, including the children, to bring closure to the case,' said Paul Kelley, vice chairman of Sonoma County Board of Supervisors."

Maybe the Sonoma sheriffs will take domestic violence reports a little more seriously now. Maybe.

Posted by Jake at 11:40 PM | Comments (0)

Faith, Hope, Love, and Muslim Bashing

Prominant Southern Baptist preacher Rev. Jerry Vines spoke at a convention of his church where he called the Islamic prophet Muhammad a "demon-possessed pedophile", and argued that the Christian god Jehovah was superior to Allah, because "Jehovah's not going to turn you into a terrorist."

*cough coughABORTIONCLINICBOMBERScough cough*

One of our nation's unintentionally leading funnymen, Rev. Jerry Falwell, stuck up for Vines, possibly because he can really sympathize with saying dumb, controversial shit in public.

But I'll admit, the only reason I wrote anything about this "news" is because it involved Jerry Falwell slightly, therefore granting me license to post this picture of a fully-clothed Jerry Falwell on a waterslide.

Posted by Jake at 11:05 PM | Comments (8)

June 19, 2002

Media Potpourri

Exporting Enron- Enron's US divisions are in bankruptcy, but the company still continues its shenanigans on the international stage. And it's trying to get US taxpayer money to do it.

Court Jousters- conservative lawyers working behind-the-scenes paving the legal way for the Bush administration's more Constitutionally-questionable actions.

EPA Says Toxic Sludge is Good for Fish- yeah. Cuz toxic sludge dumped into the Potomac River (by the Army no less) forces fish to flee the area, and therefore aren't caught by fishermen. I'd put a dark-humored analogy here to point out how ludicrous this argument is, but it's just too easy.

Posted by Jake at 09:48 AM | Comments (0)

June 18, 2002

New Stray Bulletins Article

Finished writing an article about the recent Bush-Putin nuclear arms treaty, and posted it on the Stray Bulletins site.

Check out The Treaty That Wasn't.

Posted by Jake at 11:56 PM | Comments (0)

War Is [Upleasant]

The US Marines evidently deserve partial script credit for the new John Woo movie "Windtalkers." They got to tell the filmmakers to delete several scenes from the movie that were "un-Marine", or more accurately, which showed Marines doing naughty things.

Like digging gold fillings out of enemy corpses' mouths and killing unarmed soldiers with flame-throwers.

Why would the directors bow to the pressure of the Marines? Cuz the Marines controlled military equipment that the filmmakers wanted/needed to use as props and sets for the film. And why would the Marines lend them equipment? To help make a movie that glorified the Marines.

So now everybody's happy.

Posted by Jake at 11:36 PM | Comments (0)

The Dumb Crusade

Earlier this week, George W. Bush declared a new doctrine of "pre-emptive self-defense" (a policy in violation of international law, if anyone cares) and authorized the CIA to use lethal force to remove Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.

This plan to invade Iraq has been visible to the naked eye for months now, and I've yet to hear a truthful and compelling reason why, apart from "we would like to have their oil." Well, I have heard one new reason why (in the article discussed below), "Donald Rumsfeld is very interested in getting rid of Saddam Hussein because he wants to reduce the amount of money required to keep troops in the Persian Gulf to patrol Saddam Hussein."

Hell, I don't know what else I can say about this that I haven't already said several hundred times. I'm opposed to an attack on Iraq. It'll kill a lot of innocent Iraqis. It'll kill a lot (okay, some) American soldiers. It'll make Arabs hate the US more. It'll make the region more unstable. There's no guarantee that Iraq will be any better under a new leader than it was under Saddam Hussein. If the invasion was coupled with a plan to help rebuild Iraq and institute a stable, democratic, Iraqi-centered government, maybe I could support it.

So yeah, here're some links.

Iraq and Ruin- interesting at least because it is a mainstream news article that analyzes other mainstream news articles. Pretty much debunks most of the "Iraq's gonna get your momma" stories. Ends on the creepy note that even the military is not real keen on attacking Iraq because (among several reasons) Saddam might turn chemical and biological weapons on the US troops. Thanks George, we were all dying to see the sequel to "Gulf War Syndrome".

"The Reckoning: Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussein". The interview imparts more information about the internal politics of Iraq than I've heard in, well, ever. She describes Iraq as a prison constructed by Saddam and guarded by his efficient army of thugs. If Saddam is deposed, the country will likely turn into a civil war along ethnic and tribal lines. There is also some interesting description of Iraq as a tribal society, and what that means.

Posted by Jake at 09:49 PM | Comments (1)

As Seen from Above

I will try to make this a weekly feature for the weblog.

The Tyndall Report is a weekly publication which documents how much time the American television news spends on particular topics each week. In other words, it's a way to see what the mainstream media think is important this week, or at least what they're telling most Americans to think is important.

Tyndall Report June 8, 2002

(I'm assuming that all of the "2001" dates on the page are typos, and really refer to 2002).

Posted by Jake at 01:20 PM | Comments (0)

June 17, 2002

Patterns in the Rubble

So, what did Israel's recent re-occupation of the Occupied Territories really accomplish?

If you really want to know, read this. It's a very long and thorough analysis of the events that took place, and the status of Palestinian-Israeli-American politics and interrelationships since the incursions.

Posted by Jake at 04:38 PM | Comments (0)

Coke vs. Water. For Real

If you've been a longtime reader of LMB, you might remember my comments about Coca-Cola's attempt to replace water as the world's most popular drink. Well, there's another battle going on between Coke and water, and it's not half as pretty.

In the Indian town of Palchimada there is a Coca-Cola factory that is stealing and contaminating all the water in the area. The factory is pumping out hundreds of thousands of liters of groundwater daily and is depriving thousands of locals of drinking water. And the water that Coke is not pumping away is becoming contaminated and undrinkable.

And apparently, Coke is stealing water from at least two other areas nearby two other factories.

The folks at CorpWatch are hoping that you can help them take action and pressure Coke into behaving in a non-homicidal way. You can click here and send a free fax to Coca-Cola's CEO, the appropriately named Douglas Daft.

Posted by Jake at 03:35 PM | Comments (2)

Just Another Day in Hollywood

I'm not big on turning blogs into diaries, but I feel compelled to document this.

Friday, June 14, 2002

7am- wake up tired.

7am-8am- search net for interesting news articles for RATM.com.

8am-1:20pm- call activist groups, organize presentation for 2pm meeting re: Ozzfest's "Axis of Justice" political activism tables

1:20pm-2:20pm- battle traffic to the Westside for meeting.

2:20-4pm- meet with System of a Down's Serj Tankian about Axis of Justice. Serj is amazingly friendly. His phalanax of managers are very hip and very good at pretending to be friendly (before I leave I check my neck for fang marks). I manage to convince members of an internationally famous metal band and a handful of music industry mercenaries to watch a short, powerful documentary about Nike's exploitation of its Indonesian workforce. Take that, forces of evil.

4pm-8pm- goof off, play mildly commie/rebel-oriented video game Red Faction, eat Zankou Chicken.

8pm-9pm- voyage with Candice & Jeremy through creepy parts of downtown LA's wherehouse district for a performance of "interactive machine art."

11pm- show finally starts. My favorite machines: Shower of Fire and The Respirator. More pics at Seemen.org

12:30-1:30- meal at Palms Thai, home of Thai Elvis. These sort of things don't even strike me as surreal anymore. The salty fish fried rice is so salty that it makes me want to throw things. Thai Elvis sings "Happy Birthday" twice.

late am- bed.

Posted by Jake at 01:45 PM | Comments (2)

June 16, 2002

KillRadioInFlux.org

Kill Radio has been evicted from its original home in a tiny, stuffy office on the corner of Hollywood and Sunset Blvds, and has temporarily moved into the office of the LA Independent Media Center. Things are going to be crazy for a while. Due to space, time, and, well, security constraints, the programming schedule might jump around, die, shimmy around, and otherwise behave strangely. I've offered to share my show's slot with late-night DJs who don't feel safe walking around with a heavy crate of LPs at 3am in a once-crack-infested neighborhood. So I might be on the webwaves tomorrow afternoon, or I might not.

BUT, the upside of all this is that this temporary shacking up will result in a permanent shacking up in what looks like an excellent new space come September. Over in Echo Park, it'll be a large storefront shared by Kill Radio and LA IMC. With the extra space we can fulfill more of our community service goals: hold meetings; let activist organizations use the space; concerts; film screenings; guest speakers; etc. I'm excited about it, but the next three months might be sucky for the station. Please bear with us, and we'll do the best that we can.

Posted by Jake at 01:43 AM | Comments (0)

He Can't Even Get a Police State Right

The US Justice Department is arguing that George W. should have the power to imprison American citizens who have not been convicted of a crime for as long as he wants. It's one of those "we've got to destroy freeom in order to protect freedom" sort of things.

I'm not sure what to make of the specific case, Jose "Dirty Bomb" Padilla. We are constantly forced to rely on the unreliable Bush administration for information. Many of the announcements about terrorists and attacks these days are hyper-exaggerated tales told at a particular time for a specific domestic political purpose, and after that goal is achieved, the truth slowly trickles out. This story began as "we just caught a guy who was going to nuke America" to "a month ago, we caught a guy who was talking about planting a bomb mixed with radioacitve materials. Pretty soon it will probably be downgraded to "we heard about a guy who once thought about firecrackers while walking through a mud puddle."

But back to the legal stuff. The guy's not a foreign soldier, he's a US citizen, and saying that you can just imprison him because you want to violates his rights. But honestly, it's not his rights I'm that concerned about. I'm concerned about my rights. If there's a precendent that the president can just throw one American citizen in jail, that means he can do it to another. And maybe you trust and love president Bush, and "know" that he would never abuse this power. But it wouldn't end with Bush, this precedent and power would follow the presidency. Even if you trust Bush, are you sure you can trust the next president? Or the next?

And finally, y'know how 17 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian? Well, guess which Middle Eastern nationality is not on the new racial profiling list of visiting Arabs and Muslims?

Posted by Jake at 01:27 AM | Comments (0)

Not Evil, Just Misunderstood

As soon as I post this link, I will rush to the hospital for treatment of severe smirk-related trauma.

At a conference for the radio and recording industry, the CEO of Clear Channel's radio division denies that his company is "evil".

He doesn't say that in a figurative or metaphorical way. The article is filled with direct quotes like "The evil intentions attributed to Clear Channel are not true at all" and "because we are leading change, we are perceived as evil."

Is Clear Channel "evil"? I certainly believe that they are bastards. But I can't call them "evil" because CC's actions are so utterly overshadowed by the dark lords of the Monsanto company.

Posted by Jake at 12:41 AM | Comments (0)

June 15, 2002

Bringin' the Funny

I'm quite fond of this fake news article:

REMAINING U.S. CEOs MAKE A BREAK FOR IT-
Band of Roving Chief Executives Spotted Miles from Mexican Border

And this one is very funny too, but not so much for its satire but for its form. Read it, you'll see.

GREENPEACE WILL NOW OPPOSE EVERYTHING

Thanks to Satire Wire

And you're going to be hard-pressed to beat our man Dack in the category of Succint Political Humor in the Form of a Tiny Multimedia Webpage

Posted by Jake at 11:13 AM | Comments (2)

Dirty Lungs

Does anyone remember when EPA bigwig Eric Schaeffer resigned, claiming that the Bush administration was trying to destroy the agency? Here's what he was talking about.

The US Environmental "Protection" Agency (EPA) has proposed reforms to the Clean Air Act that will make it easier for industry to continue polluting. And the plan's backers are barely even trying to put a positive spin on this. First, they make the unconvincing claim that the current regulations actually prevent some companies from upgrading their machinery so that it would be more pollution-free. Then they make the stronger argument that more pollution means lower electric bills for all. Yay!

It drives me crazy. Pollution is what economists call an "externality": when you can get someone else to foot the bill for something that gives you profit. Imagine if no factories had smokestacks, if all the smoke and air pollution that a factory produced was confined to the building. The companies would have to put in high-powered air filters to keep the air breathable, hire someone to clean the used filters, and cart away all the filtered dust and smoke particles. Or they'd have to buy their employees oxygen tanks and goggles so they could work in that environment. Imagine the colossal expense they'd rack up. But instead, they pump all that shit into the air, into our lungs, damaging our bodies, and they pocket the change. Fucked up? Hell yeah.

Posted by Jake at 11:00 AM | Comments (3)

June 14, 2002

Overpreparing

State troopers in Seattle are randomly searching ferry passenger's cars. Evidently the searches are voluntary, but if you refuse, the captain of the ferry can refuse to let you on the boat. Which kinda makes it mandatory. Best explanation of this pretty blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment comes from Washington State Patrol Capt. Glenn Cramer: "This is a special-needs time."

Then I read this article and figured that it was too ludicrous to be true. Then I researched it, and it is indeed true.

Perhaps you remember the US withdrawing from the International Criminal Court treaty, the one that would try those accused of war crimes anywhere in the world. The US supported a version of the treaty that made all Americans exempt from the court, but pulled out when they discovered that they would not be above the law.

So the US did one better. The US Congress introduced the American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2001, which vowed that the US would in no way cooperate with the ICC. And even further, claimed that the US had the right to "use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release from captivity of any person ... who is being detained or imprisoned against that person's will by or on behalf of the International Criminal Court" (Section 8, paragraph a). Which the Dutch have interpretted to mean (I think correctly) that the Act would give the president the right to invade the Netherlands to free Americans accused of war crimes from The Hague.

But, if I understand my legislation process correctly, it appears that both the House and Senate versions of this bill were sent to committee in May 2001, and were never actually voted on.

Posted by Jake at 02:05 AM | Comments (0)

Blessed Are the Cheesemakers

Over in Chicago, there's an artist named Stu Helm. He does a lot of stylish and colorful drawings and comics ranging from the political to the sexual to the bizarre. He has been creating art under the nickname "King VelVeeda" for 13 years now.

Enter the folks from Kraft. Kraft manufactures Velveeta Pasteurized Prepared Cheese Product (I don't know what's in Velveeta, but I couldn't help but notice that the word "cheese" is almost non-existent on the Velveeta website). And Kraft is not happy that the trademark of their wholesome quasi-cheese is being "diluted" by the King and his "unsavory" art. So they're suing him. They also filed a restraining order against KV, preventing him from using his nickname in any way. Meaning that the vast majority of his work must be censored and hidden, because he signed the works under his psuedonym. Check his site, CheesyGraphics.com, and see how many of KV's works have been replaced by "THIS ARTWORK IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE TO LOOK AT, COURTESY OF KRAFT FOODS."

"Diluting a trademark" and "doing irreprable harm" are phrases that turn up in Kraft's legal documents. Who do they think they're kidding? I'm guessing that the amount of business that Kraft is losing due to KV is close to zero dollars. Perhaps a blind schizophrenic on crack might mistake comic book drawings for cheese product, but I don't think that's a very important demographic for Kraft.

Big business has spent a lot of time here in the US playing up the idea of "frivolous lawsuits" and "tort reform," pretending that half of America is filing crazed lawsuits against big companies, wasting the time and money of the courts (and therefore taxpayers). But looks like they're not exempt from their own frivolity.

Posted by Jake at 01:42 AM | Comments (1)

June 13, 2002

Chavez Coup II?

The US embassy in Venezuela has issued a travel warning to Americans in Venezuela, citing the "unstable political environment and unpredictable security situation." Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez was just victim of a coup attempt in April, in which some folks believe the US played a hand. Wonder if the Venezuelan embassy knows something that the rest of us don't.

Posted by Jake at 06:52 PM | Comments (2)

Preaching to the Unconvertable

Odd news here, Ralph Nader recently spoke at a policy meeting of powerful Republican figures, urging them towards a more populist agenda.

On one hand, Nader was clever. While many cynics decry the Republicans as the party of Big Business, many Republicans see their party of one of individual liberty and traditional cultural values. Nader challenged these power brokers to focus on the true Republican ideals rather than a pro-corporate agenda.

It's doubtful that his meeting will have any impact on those he spoke to, and fairly likely that the Democrats will use this meeting as an opportunity to "prove" that Nader was in cahoots with the Republicans to defeat Al Gore in 2000.

Posted by Jake at 06:50 PM | Comments (0)

June 12, 2002

Jake's Other News Project

Sometimes I find good news links that I don't bother posting here. That's because I help run another website, and post news links and bits of commentary there, and don't feel inclined to do it all over again for my personal site. So I'll go ahead and plug the other site, it's got lots o' news and such. Updated with 3+ articles everyday.

It's the Rage Against the Machine website. Click on "News," then "Current Events." Or I suppose you could just click here, but it's not as pretty.

Posted by Jake at 09:19 AM | Comments (0)

Putting the "B" in LMB

Brand spanking new website: ClearChannelSucks.org

I'll quote part of their FAQ here, about why they created the site:

• Clear Channel is currently guilty of anti-competitive behavior. They are using their position as the largest owner of radio stations, the largest concert promoter, and largest outdoor signage company to stifle competition.
  
• We believe "vertical integration" of differing markets to be good for corporate profits but bad for the consumer and competitors. We believe that, for example, Clear Channel unfairly gives its stations rights to promotional tickets for concerts promoted by its concert promotion wing, SFX, over third party stations.
  
• We believe radio was better before the enactment of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which deregulated radio and removed the limitations on the number of stations a corporation could own. Radio was one of the last broadcast mediums to truly maintain a local presence, and despite what Clear Channel will say to the contrary, we do not believe centralization of radio resources leads to better radio.
  
• We believe that dominant concentration of any market in any one entity's hands is a bad thing. This is not limited to radio or concert promotion, but we felt we should fight one battle at a time.
  

I have to disagree with part of #2, because Clear Channel is hemoraging money. Maybe we'll get lucky and the company will collapse on itself.

Posted by Jake at 09:13 AM | Comments (0)

Afghan Politics Update

The evolving story of Afghanistan.

What Lies in Afghanistan's Future? Prospects for the Loya Jirga- Members of the Afghan Women's Mission dissect the recent history of Afghanistan and look glumly towards the future.

Disillusioned Delegates Walk Out of Loya Jirga- 60-70 delegates (out of 1500-1700) of the Loya Jirga meeting to create a new Afghan government have left. They claim that they have no real say in many of the important decisions, and are appalled that the warlords are being included in the discussions.

Afghans Protest Over US Manipulation of Summit Influence at Loya Jirga- the US seems to have encouraged former Afghan king Zahir Shah to withdraw as a potential Afghan leader. Many of the loya jirga delegates are upset that a foreign country is influencing the course of their conference.

Gangsters, Murderers and Stooges Used to Endorse Bush's Vision of "Democracy"- from Robert Fisk. That title kinda speaks for itself.

And this one is interesting too, USA Today Berlin bureau chief Steve Komarow is in Afghanistan keeping a daily journal of his experiences at the loya jirga.

Posted by Jake at 09:05 AM | Comments (0)

June 11, 2002

Feel Free to Obey Our Scary Orders

According to columnist Max Robins, the media giant Clear Channel has sent a memo out to all of its employees asking them to donate a percentage of their salaries to Clear Channel's political action committee. Presumably this PAC will lobby Congress to give up its current concerns about media monopolies. While the memo says that employees are free to decline this funding opportunity, the employees seem scared that they will be punished for not supporting the PAC.

No text article for this, you'll have to listen to the segment on NPR's On the Media.

Bonus fun: Read the Clear Channel Creed!

Posted by Jake at 01:39 AM | Comments (3)

Bush on the War Path

I could easily delve into these articles and get my analyze on, but I think that all the facts point in a pretty simple direction.

1) Bush announces that US will strike first at hostile groups or nations with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons

2) Bush tells West Point Graduates that the US will fight for "human liberty" against "terrorists and tyrants" and for "free and open societies on every continent."

3) Bush tells conservative International Democrat Union that US must strike first against terrorists and "oppose the new totalitarians with all our power."

Okay, what's the common theme here? First of all, they all use and misuse lofty rhetoric about freedom and liberty. Second, all of them talk about striking first at enemies. Third, all of them include "hostile nations with chemical, nuclear or biological weapons" in that enemies list.

Hmm, sounds kinda like... Iraq. Tyrannical leader, hostile nation, and brimming over with nukes, anthrax and nerve gas, according to secret, nonexistent US evidence.

No one in the Middle East seems particularly concerned about Iraq as a threat. Hell, just about no one in the world sees Iraq as a threat. Except the US. Frankly, no one seems to know if Iraq does indeed have any WMD (weapons of mass destruction), although I'm sure Saddam Hussein would love to have some. Maybe we'd know for sure if Iraq had any such weapons if the US hadn't intentionally tried to fuck up the weapons monitors. But if the weapons inspectors had come back and said that Iraq was clean, the US would lose its already paper-thin rationale for invading the country.

So that's it. Just more "we've got to attack Iraq" talk. Excuse me, we never say "Iraq," we say "Saddam Hussein." Because there is only one person living in all of Iraq, and he's evil, so it's okay to indiscriminately bomb and starve the whole country, because he's the only person we'll hurt.

And as a final note, I noticed that in the first article above, they quote military expert Michele Flournoy. That's the first time I can ever remember a news outlet asking a woman about military issues.

Posted by Jake at 01:31 AM | Comments (0)

It's Cheney's Fault

This is an interesting factoid that fell through the cracks.

These days, the press are attacking Bush's incompetence on terrorism, the CIA's incompetence on terrorism and the FBI's incompetence on terrorism.

But...

"On May 8, 2001, the president charged Mr. Cheney with overseeing a 'national effort' to coordinate all federal programs for responding to domestic attacks in league with a new Office of National Preparedness at the Federal Emergency Management Agency."

"That day the vice president went on CNN to explain his duty. After noting that 'one of our biggest threats as a nation' may include 'a terrorist organization overseas,' Mr. Cheney said: 'We need to look at this whole area, oftentimes referred to as homeland defense. The president's asked me to take on the responsibility of overseeing all of that, reviewing the plans that are out there today.'"

So basically, as of May 2001, it was Cheney's job to bring the CIA, FBI and federal government all into line on the issue of terrorism.

Posted by Jake at 01:10 AM | Comments (0)

Straight Cowards

Slaying at Gay Bar Probed as Hate Crime- Four to six skinheads snuck up on two gay men in a Riverside bar parking lot and stabbed them in the back with knives. The victims were armed with packets of vacation photos.

What a bunch of fucking cowardly scum. Tell ya what, skinheads, you want to prove your hetero superiority, do it right. Go down to the nearest gay gym, leave your weapons at home, find the biggest roid-pumping gay bodybuilder you can find, wait till he's facing you, then clock him.

Posted by Jake at 01:03 AM | Comments (0)

June 10, 2002

Listen to Today's Show

I'll be broadcasting my interview with Justin Sane of Anti-Flag. We talk a bit about Justin growing up, politics, music, what punk means, the war on terrorism, activism, etc. He's a good, smart fella.

And since some of you folks tuning in will surely be punk fans, I'll make sure to open and close the show with some tunes of that variety (although I would have done that anyway).

The show starts at 2pm PST on KillRadio.org. Or just click here to listen. You need RealPlayer to listen.

And if you miss it, don't worry, I'll rebroadcast it in a few weeks, and put a link to the audio file too.

Posted by Jake at 12:33 AM | Comments (1)

June 08, 2002

Afghanistan: Big Fucking Mess

Poor Afghanistan.

Back in 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to prop up a pro-USSR president, beginning several decades of destruction.

Actually, that might not be entirely true.

According to then US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, the US got involved in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviets did with the hope that it would draw the Soviet Union into the region and give the USSR its own "Vietnam war." So either the US helped foment a civil war in Afghanistan for its own Cold War ends, or Brzezinski is making shit up to write himself into the pages of history. Hard to say.

Anyhow, the Soviets fought the US-backed Mujahadeen for over a decade before conceding defeat. Then the Mujahadeen began fighting for power amongst themselves, grinding the country to dust in the process.

In the late 1990s, the Pakistan-backed Taliban militia began to grow and conquer in Afghanistan. They managed to beat back the Mujahadeen warlords, who now joined together into a force we call the "Northern Alliance" to fight their common enemy, the Taliban.

After the terrorist attacks on the US in 2001, the US invaded Afghanistan and drove the Taliban from power (more or less).

Which brings us up to the present. Afghanistan is officially ruled by interim president Hamid Karzai, who is best known for, well, wearing a little fuzzy hat. His government has little money, no police force, and only a small national guard to try to control a chaotic, quasi-feudal nation. The warlords rule, and everyone knows it.

So begins Afghanistan's Loya Jirga. The Loya Jirga is a summit meeting of hundreds of Afghan representatives who will try to crib together a new government and constitution. The Times (UK)'s grim prediction:

"What is likely to unfold is a week of bewildering allegiances, treachery, and backroom deals between warlords who should not be there, local militiamen who have bribed and intimidated themselves onto the floor, and a Loya Jirga assembly that some monitors claim will produce a pre-determined outcome favoured by the United States — a result that would enrage the already disaffected majority Pashtuns."

Read the Times article. It's a good window into the impossibly complex and ruthless world of Afghan politics, and explains why victory over the Taliban didn't necessarily improve the life of anyone in Afghan (well, maybe the lives of the warlords).

Posted by Jake at 01:13 AM | Comments (6)

... and I Did Not Speak Out Because I Was Not a Muslim

"Let's start with the blindingly obvious. No prospective terrorist is going to register with John Ashcroft's program to fingerprint Middle Eastern and Muslim visitors, let alone provide the INS with continuing details of their movements inside the country. Only the law-abiding folks are going to do that. Ashcroft's latest assault on freedom and decency seems less like an effective law enforcement tool than a handy compendium of names and addresses to round up new residents once the camps are ready to open."

So begins "You have the right to remain silent" by my pal Geov Parrish.

Other highlights of the article include: the fact that the anthrax-laced mail case of 2001 has still not been solved; the folly of racial profiling (focuses police attention on physical characteristics, not criminal behavior); the claim that John Ashcroft has probably thought that jailing all Americans would be a good way to fight terrorism; that all of the (unconstitutional) expanded law enforcement powers have yet to charge a single person with a terrorism-related crime; and the battle cry that we must begin the fight to reclaim our eroding civil liberties right now.

Posted by Jake at 12:22 AM | Comments (0)

June 07, 2002

Insight Through the Barrel of a Pixelated Gun

I have always found that the bastardized, marginalized genres of entertainment are the ones with the most opportunity for subversion. If you're not a fan of science fiction, you wouldn't know that a huge number of sci-fi novels are about violent overthrow of governments (oppressive ones, of course). Comic books like The Invisibles and Preacher assault mainstream cultural and religious values. Horror movies like Dawn of the Dead ruthlessly mock consumer culture and make eerie statements about the human capacity for violence.

It goes on. Transgressive social commentary can be found in gangsta rap, punk rock, public access television, even personal websites.

I'm not saying that these entertainment forms are always rebellious and insightful. Probably 90% of the time, they're crap. But it seems to me that since the mainstream turns up its nose at these "immature" or "low" forms of culture, that the authors of these projects can get away with saying bold, controversial things without facing harmful consequences.

Which is why I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised to find bits of radical political philosophy buried in a sci-fi video game. I shouldn't have been, but I was.

In most ways, Deus Ex, originally released in 2000, was both a video game and sci-fi cliche. It's 50 years in the future (yawn), and you are a bionically enhanced (yawn) secret agent (yawn) fighting terrorists (yawn) in a Blade Runner- type cyberfuture (zzzzz...).

So after you complete some missions for your UN anti-terrorist task force, you begin getting clues that you are working for the wrong side. Your character realizes that the "terrorists" are actually working to counteract the oppressive plans of your employers at the UN.

It wasn't till my character ended up in a Hong Kong bar plying a barkeep for information that I realized that something unusual was going on. Every time the bartender spoke, you could choose a response from several provided for you and your character would reply. The conversation was made up of these exchanges. I barely noticed when my search for clues had turned into a debate about the nature of democracy... Yes, while the bartender was arguing for safety and security, my character was offering counterarguments for the freedom of man like he was Locke or Rousseau instead of a sci-fi action hero.

The conversation eventually ended, and my character again began shooting at villains and sneaking into enemy strongholds. But I continued to be impressed that the game had snuck this intellectual discourse into the middle.

And I would be even more impressed by the game's conclusion. The game approaches climax as your hero has managed to enter the inner sanctum of the villains, Area 51. But you are given three different options on how to conclude the game, none of which is "correct" or better than the others, each of which will radically change the life of every person on Earth.

One of your allies tells you that you should simply kill the main villain. Once destroyed, both you and this ally can use the powerful resources of Area 51 to rule Earth from the shadows, corrupt elites giving the illusion of freedom to the masses. People would have order and security, but not power or self-determination.

Another ally is an advanced AI, poweful enough to control every electrical and telecommunication network on Earth. It wants you to flip some switches to give it access to the world, which it will then rule with cold computer efficiency. It offers you the chance to merge with its systems, so that its efficiency will be tempered by human sensibilities. Basically, it proposes benevolent totalitarianism. Order and security, tinged with fear and powerlessness.

And finally, a third ally instructs you to utterly destroy Area 51. The base is a hub of all the world's communications and electricity. Destroying the base will lead to a "new dark age," but one in which people will not be controlled by plutocrats or dictators. People will create their own societies, not on a global scale, but on a local scale that they can actually comprehend. Technocide for democracy.

"My god," I realized, "this video game is forcing me to think about the nature of government, and which form I think is the best: the corrupt corporate 'democracy' of the modern era; totalitarianism; or anarchy!"

Beat that, Pac-Man!

Each choice has its own ending, which concludes with an interesting and appropriate literary quote.

• Totalitarianism: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."- Voltaire
  
• Corrupt democracy: "Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heaven."- John Milton, Paradise Lost
  
• Anarchy: "Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth, follow only beauty, and obey only love."- Kahlil Gibran
  

Of course I had to try all three finales to see what happened. But what was my first choice? What would Jake the Super-Cyborg have done if forced to choose among the three?

Area 51 was atomized in a cataclysmic fusion reaction. Electric lights winked out across the globe, as final radio transmissions fuzzed out into static, and then silence. No guarantees, no happy promises. Just rebirth, and the opportunity to build my own world, our own world, from the ground up, with our own hands.

Posted by Jake at 12:31 PM | Comments (1)

June 05, 2002

Rebels Rock the Mic

Just finished recording an interview with guitarist/frontman Justin Sane, of the Pittsburgh punk outfit Anti-Flag. I'll be airing the interview this coming Monday, June 10, around 2pm.

Anti-Flag are good fellas, making your world a better place, whether you like it or not, sucka!

(sorry, I watched "Undercover Brother" last night).

I'll rebroadcast the interview some weeks later (once Kill Radio finds a new space. We're being evicted June 15. Wheeee!!!!), and I'll make the audio file of the interview available on this site soon. And sometime after that, I'll post a transcript to the upcoming Interviews section of the Stray Bulletins site. I'll also transcribe my previous interview with Jim Keady and Leslie Kretzu of the anti-sweatshop organization Educating for Justice.

My previously scheduled interview with Peter Hart of FAIR is being postponed until Kill Radio has a new home.

Posted by Jake at 03:24 PM | Comments (1)

Willful Ignorance

Although most of us have forgotten about radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, he is still going on strong, still listened to by millions of Americans on hundreds of radio stations. Rush is not stupid, but his arguments usually are. I studied Limbaugh against my will for nearly a year and a half as a grad student. He is funny, and his main persuasive tactic is his humor. Take an opponent's viewpoint, exaggerate it wildly, and mock it. That's Limbaugh in a nutshell.

Now that even George W. is kinda/sorta recognizing the existence of global warming, one of Limbaugh's favorite environmental issues to bash, Rush has to confront this change of heart. Rush's conclusion: maybe global warming is happening, but human beings aren't causing it. What's Limbaugh's evidence to support this conclusion? "There are too many scientists out there whom I implicitly trust that have proven to me these predictions are basically apocalyptic doom and gloom based on raw emotion" and "We do not have that kind of power ... to say that we can outdo what the sun does is absolute folly."

That's it. Rush's evidence is "some scientists told me so" and a statement about the power of human technology based on nothing.

This isn't even really an issue folks. Even the conservative, business-friendly Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report on global warming concedes that humans are causing it.

I have no problem with people raising questions about scientific research methods or conclusions. If a report is wrong, then it's wrong, and everyone should know. But the vast majority of the public skepticism on this topic is corporate-funded flak disguised as legitimate scientific disagreement.

I really can't understand Rush's reasoning behind saying what he does. I can't believe that he really believes that humans have no effect on the environment. Is he on the payroll of the oil companies? Does he own stock in air-conditioning? I really want to know.

Posted by Jake at 03:09 PM | Comments (0)

June 04, 2002

Cut Loose - Footloose

There is a hip new dance among young people these days, known as the C-walk (see the C-walk in action). The dance is being banned by LA high school principals because the "C" stands for "Crip", the notorious LA street gang.

Reading the article, the Crip Walk was apparently used as a form of gang sign a decade ago, but seems to be just another dance by now (much the way that "Coca-Cola" no longer contains coca products). None of the principals can name any actual trouble or violence that the dance has caused, but they are banning it just the same. School administrators are absolute geniuses at cracking down on behaviors that are not themselves dangerous, but that are symbolic of real problems that principals are powerless to influence.

In other news, LA principals will soon be banning the Electric Slide (due to the physical dangers of high-voltage), and the Robot (to prevent attacks from cyborgs).

Posted by Jake at 04:36 PM | Comments (1)

HOT STEAMY SEX!!

Even as a young male who enjoys looking at beautiful, scantily-clad women, I find Maxim magazine offensive. Something about the photos they use that crosses the line between "marvel at my sexiness" and "imagine me in a dirty, dirty porno movie." It's just kinda icky.

The magazine has also seemed personally insulting. Maxim tries to present itself as the epitome of all things male, but I'd like to think that being a man has little to do with lying to women for sex, DVD players and knowing which cocktail is hip this month.

Apparently I'm not the only one to feel this way about Maxim; former Maxim editor Dave Itzkoff also finds the magazine repellent. He has written a piece that's sort of a confessional, explaining the utter shallowness of the magazine, its creation and its goals during his tenure. I found this quote pretty much summed up the article:

"Now, belatedly, I understand the dilemma its success has raised, one that cuts right to the heart of this industry: Is a magazine supposed to engage, enlighten and edify its readers, or is it only intended to distract them as they flip from one advertisement to the next?"

US media in a nutshell.

Posted by Jake at 04:23 PM | Comments (1)

A Beautiful Dream

"Peace for the World, Pretzels for Bush"

- German protest sign

Posted by Jake at 12:41 AM | Comments (0)

Big Media and Its Discontents

One of the problems I have with a lot of left-wing political argument is that it divides the world too neatly into "us" and "them" categories. Big Media Big Targets shows how messy some of the divisions really are. It documents a strange alliance between the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) union and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) so they can battle giant broadcast conglomerates. The Recording Industry vs. the broadcast industry? I want ringside seats for this one.

This recording/broadcast schism is based upon payola. Quite literally, record companies pay fellows called "independent promoters" to bribe radio stations to play certain records. And if you're not bribing the radio stations, your bands won't get played. This is not cynicism or some wild-eyed conspiracy theory. This is standard operating procedure in the music industry. And apparently the recording industry has just about had its fill of having to pay to get their records heard...

Pilfering from Publishers documents a large bank's attempts to take money from small, independent publishers in seeming violation of all law and common sense. It also discusses a new strategy by the giant Borders bookstore chain; sounds like the big company is shifting its responsibilities for sales and market research onto the publishers themselves. If you are a publisher and your company's business is dependent on a chain like Borders, you are likely to take on this extra responsibility-- even if the company is charging you over $100,000 for te privilege.

And to examine the complete opposite end of the spectrum, here is a bit of reflection about Idle Kids, a new independent anarchist bookstore in Detroit and the nature of DIY itself. Look at me: I'm a writer, a journalist, a radio DJ, an activist, and an artist. Never had any training for any of these things, I never asked for anyone's permission. Didn't know what the hell I was doing at first, I had to make it up as I went along, learning as I stumbled.

Doing what you didn't think you were able not only makes you feel like a more powerful and capable human being, but it awakens you to the truth that maybe "real" "official" reporters or politicians or artists are not special or superior. They are no better than you or I. Go get 'em.

Posted by Jake at 12:35 AM | Comments (0)

June 02, 2002

Comfort, Ignorance and Redundancy

Meet the Press: The Corruption of Journalism in Wartime by columnist and cartoonist Ted Rall is a nice piece of media criticism.

Rall was in Afghanistan reporting on the US war back in the fall of 2001. He describes his fellow press corps members as largely ignorant of the region they were covering, and relying upon press conferences by generals that no one could trust. He talks about pampered TV reporters who threw money around, both compromising their stories and driving up prices for local goods & services. He also tells of a reporter who's work he admired, who watched his every report of civilian casualties excised from his articles by editors state-side who considered such description of suffering "redundant."

Posted by Jake at 06:31 PM | Comments (0)

May 31, 2002

Lying Till the Bitter End

Over ten years later, the PR flak behind a story that helped bring a nation to war is STILL lying about it.

Remember "Nayirah"?

She was the 15-year old Kuwaiti girl who testified before Congress in 1990 that, while volunteering at a hospital, invading Iraqi soldiers had stormed in, torn newborn babies out of incubators, thrown the babies onto the floor to die, and shipped the incubators back to Baghdad. The story helped win support for the US war on Iraq that still hasn't really ended.

Funny thing is that Nayirah had never been to that hospital in her life. And she happened to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US. And she'd been coached to say what she did by a PR firm that had been hired by the exiled Kuwaiti royal familly.

The PR industry news site O'Dwyer's PR Daily recently ran a story about the PR exec who coached Nayirah, Lauri Fitz-Pegado and a new PR account that she is working on. But the article heavily focused on Fitz-Pegado's role in the fraudulent Nayirah testimony.

Surprisingly, Fitz-Pegado responded to the article (must be in her PR blood to fight off negative perceptions) that the Iraqis had indeed stolen the incubators, as proven in a report by Kroll and Associates. She concludes her letter:

"I have always found it mind boggling that more attention has been paid to discrediting the observations of Nayirah Al-Sabah, simply because of her connection to the invaded Government of Kuwait in 1990, than to the Iraqi atrocities she and others described, which in the ensuing decade have been widely substantiated.

"I would hope that your publication, O'Dwyer's, would see fit, over ten years later, to discontinue the perpetuation of misinformation about these events, my role, or my mindset or intentions. In fairness, I hope you publish this letter in full or at least correct the public record in your next issue."

Which makes it all the more galling when you read a counter-reply posted by PR Watch's Sheldon Rampton. According to Rampton, the Kroll study was commissioned by the Kuwaiti government, implying a bias or false conclusions to that report. He then follows up by citing thorough reports by ABC News, Amnesty International, and human rights group Middle East Watch which concluded that there was no evidence to support the incubator story, or that it was a hoax altogether.

And in other nauseating PR news, the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles has hired a PR firm which has also done work for Enron, Dr. Laura, and Riverside county after Riverside police killed Tyisha Miller by shooting her 27 times.

The world is a nice place, but I wouldn't want to live there.

Posted by Jake at 11:18 AM | Comments (0)

May 30, 2002

Smoke on the Water

I'm not making this up.

Nico Water- the bottled water that's spiked with nicotine.

Yeah.

When you get over being stunned by that, you can read this fun debate about the pros and cons. Remember, it's not a drug, it's a "supplement."

Posted by Jake at 10:57 PM | Comments (0)

"Time is Money" is Clever PR

I noticed yesterday that several news websites had picked up a story with a strange mathematical formula at the top:

I ignored it till a friend forwarded me the whole story. The above formula is new equation by ecconomist professor Ian Walker, of Warick Univeristy in England. The "W"= your hourly wage, the "t"= your tax rate, and the "C"= your local cost of living. Plug in the numbers and you can calculate "V", how much an hour of your time is worth in hard currency. Gleeful news editors could now print this press release verbatim, with cute headlines like "Time Really Is Money".

This whole story baffled me. First of all, the formula doesn't exactly work (it presumes that all money paid in taxes is lost, when most folks do receive some return on their tax money in the form of public services). But more importantly, why was this story getting printed at all? This is not new scholarship, it's a simple economic principle called "opportunity cost." I learned about it in junior high school. At any given moment, you could be out making money, or doing something that won't make you money. Simple as that. So why is this news?

After a bit of digging (especially in non-American sources), I found out another angle on this formula. If you read the CNN article above, you'll notice a "How much is your time worth?" link. The link takes you to a simple web form that will calculate how much your time is worth per hour and per minute, how much it "costs" you to brush your teeth and make dinner.

And of course, the telling thing is where the calculation site is located: the website for Barclaycard, a UK-based credit card line offered by financial conglomerate the Barclays Group. And if we look at our UK news coverage, we learn that Barclaycard commissioned Prof. Walker to come up with the formula in the first place.

The whole thing appears to be a news hook for a new Barclaycard ad campaign that focuses on "helping you make the most of your time." Like I've said, half the job of public relations is to disguise advertising as news.

And the other half is to make "unpleasant" news disappear altogether.

Posted by Jake at 12:36 PM | Comments (2)

Mild Surprise

In what is surely one of the signs of Armageddon, something unthinkable happened this morning: a major American TV news station interviewed Noam Chomsky. Chomsky is world-famous, his books are best-sellers, and he is one of the most cited authors on planet Earth. But most Americans have never even heard of the guy. Why? Because his main body of work consists of scathing assaults on corporations and the US government, backed up by libraries full of evidence.

Well, that, and because he's not good on television.

So this morning, at 8:33am EST, CNN's "American Morning with Paula Zahn" aired a short debate between the anarchist Noam Chomsky and the far-right Bill Bennett.

Go ahead and give it a look for its historical significance, but as debates go, it's not particularly interesting.

Posted by Jake at 10:07 AM | Comments (1)

May 29, 2002

Stray Bulletins: It Has Begun

I have finally gotten my newsletter/column Stray Bulletins off the ground. While I enjoy LMB and the freedom it gives me to rant and rave, Stray Bulletins is about facts and analysis. It's my attempt to cover neglected news stories, critique mainstream media reporting, and to give some much needed context to important stories. For those of you who are familiar with my work, it's basically the extension (and hopefully refinement) of my old e-zine NewsWatch.

So you can go read my first installment of Stray Bulletins, Venezuela and the Micro-Coup. I finished writing the story weeks ago, but held back on posting it until I could fix up the design on the SB website. But much time passed, and I'm still muddling my way through html and SSI and php and other techno-drudgery, and finally said "fuck it! I'm putting it up!" The site will soon include multiple news articles, essays, interviews (from the LMB show), book reviews, and maybe another weblog.

And finally, I'm going to have a weekly e-mailing with important news clippings (links and brief summaries to them, anyway). If you want to sign up for that, drop an email to subscribe@straybulletins.com.

Posted by Jake at 05:12 PM | Comments (1)

Lotsa News

Found a whole heap of important news stories already today, and I've only been awake for two hours. Let's get started.

The True Purpose of Welfare Reform- a NY Times article which actually bothers to look at the failings of 1996's Welfare Reform Act. Cynical as I am, I read the title and assumed that the article would be about the hidden agendas, politicking, and exploitation which were the real goals of welfare reform. But it's not. The title refers to the author's conclusions about what must really be done to make welfare help people. It's not the muckraking article I wanted, but it's still good.

U.S. Tells Teen Girls Worldwide to Just Say No- another attempt by the Bush administration to push conservative Christian sexual values on the whole planet. The White House is refusing to pay its promised amount to the UN Population Fund, demanding that the UN's family planning education efforts teach abstinence. Despite research that shows that teaching birth control does more to prevent disease and unwanted pregnancy. That's some good thinking there, fellas.

The Judi Bari Bombshell- In 1990, two Earth First! environmental activists were injured when a bomb blew up their car. With no evidence, local police announced that the two had probably blown themselves up. The two activists took the Oakland police and FBI to court, and that case has recently been shining light on the dirty tricks of the two "law enforcement" organizations.

Trash for Cash- Bill Black was one of the people who helped expose the largely forgotten S&L scandals of the 1980s (which cost American taxpayers literally hundreds of billions of dollars), and helped prosecute the offenders. Here is an interview with this corporate crime expert about the Enron scandal.

And just to take the edge off, got a couple of amusing stories to add:

Startled Marines Find Afghan Men All Made Up to See Them- "British marines returning from an operation deep in the Afghan mountains spoke last night of an alarming new threat - being propositioned by swarms of gay local farmers."

BUSHS ALLGEMEINBILDUNG: Gibt es Schwarze in Brasilien?- a German news article (explained in English here, skip down near the bottom where Carville says "Now it's time for a look") which claims that during the recent European summit, George W. Bush asked Brazilian president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, "do you have blacks, too?" National Security advisor Condoleezza Rice had to "remind" George W. that Brazil not only does have a black population, but probably has more blacks than any nation outside of Africa.

I should give credit where it's due, nearly all of these links were stolen from Cursor, Common Dreams, Alternet, and This Modern World.

Posted by Jake at 09:16 AM | Comments (0)

God Bless the Pranksters

Who says political activism can't be fun?

A group known as the Yes Men has pulled off another hoax which makes me kinda tingly. The joys of mischief.

The Yes Men are primarily known for their website, www.GATT.org. GATT is the name of the treaty that preceded the WTO, and GATT.org is an incredibly sly parody of the WTO's website. So sly that it has fooled many into thinking that it was the real WTO site. Which is where the fun begins.

On several different occassions, trade groups and the media have confused the parody with the real thing, and contacted the site, asking WTO representatives to speak on camera or to give lectures. The Yes Men were happy to oblige, and attended several conferences on trade, giving satirical speeches highlighting the destructive nature of "free trade" through gross exaggeration. Sometimes it took months for the conference organizers to realize that they'd been tricked.

Which brings us to the latest prank. The Yes Men posted a new press release to the fake WTO site, announcing that the WTO was disbanding. It claimed that after rigorous study, that the WTO found that it did more harm than good, and would reconstitute itself as the TRO (Trade Regulation Organization). The TRO would not organize itself along the principles of global trade, but along the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

There was no widespread duping this time, as with the lectures, but the press release did fool one member of the Canadian Parliament. MP John Duncan asked his fellow parliamentarians about what effects the transformation from WTO to TRO would have on Canadian lumber exports. When it was pointed out that he had been asking questions based on a pointed fraud, he presumably felt like an ass.

Honestly, I'm starting to feel that parody, satire and humor are more effective means of persuasion than facts these days. Maybe I ought to give up on journalism and let my inner Loki run wild.

Posted by Jake at 12:37 AM | Comments (0)

May 28, 2002

I Love the Smell of Neutrons in the Morning

Two more reasons to fear for your life:

1) India-Pakistan-Kashmir crisis. According to columnist Eric Margolis (one of the few reporter/columnist/pundit types I trust), India and Pakistan are on the verge of war, possibly of the nuclear variety. And this column here reminds us that any warfare between the two nations could easily draw in both Russia and China, both nuclear powers themselves. Meaning that about 3 billion of the world's roughly 6 billion people could be trying to kill each other (or be transformed into human slag) in the near future.

There's a decent recap of the Kashmir conflict here. But my understanding of the conflict is as follows. Pakistan claims that most Kashmiris do not want to be part of India, and they are right. And India claims that Pakistan is inciting Kashmiri militants to attack India, and they are right. Ain't no good guys, just a bunch of crazy people with guns.

2) Mini-Nukes. Geroge W. and company are looking to create smaller (about 1/3 the power of Hiroshima) nuclear weapons, ones that wouldn't destroy a whole city and could "feasibly" be used in a military conflict. Bush's 2003 budget sets aside $15 million for the creation of a "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator"; basically, a bomb that could burrow under the ground and then explode. These are called "bunker busters," and would allegedly be used to destroy underground "hardened bunkers."

All sorts of fun problems with that. First and foremost, who the hell is Bush planning to use those on? The current US enemy seems to be "international terrorism," and those folks seem to hang out in apartments, desert tents, and US flight schools. Doesn't seem like nukes are really necessary there.

Such weapons are also illegal under US law. The US agreed not to use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear countries back in 1978, and Congress banned research on these sorts of weapons back in 1994. No worries, all that can be circumvented with clever wording. Weapons manufacturers aren't doing new research, they're modifying and re-packaging old weapons. Brilliant.

And the third is that pesky "deadly radiation" thing. To contain the nuclear fallout, the bomb would have to get down to a depth of around 300 feet-- and the current generation of burrowing bombs only get down about 12. But even then, I can't imagine that patches of nuked dirt will be entirely safe either.

Posted by Jake at 03:21 PM | Comments (2)

No Comment

"President Bush, facing television cameras at a news conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday, announced that the two would meet with media representatives as part of his effort to convince Russia of 'the important role of the free press in building a working democracy.'"

"When the meeting happened a while later, it was a Kremlin gathering of a few news media figures who were given four minutes to make presentations to the presidents: two minutes for an American newspaper owner and two minutes for a Russian journalist. Participants said Bush and Putin thanked them without responding to the issues they raised. Although the event was meant to highlight support for a free press, news media coverage was not permitted."

(emphasis mine, thanks to Blowback)

Posted by Jake at 02:51 PM | Comments (0)

May 27, 2002

TiVo Owns You

The TiVo is a popular brand of DVR (Digital Video Recorder) that is hoping to replace the VCR as the consumer standard. They automatically record TV programs to a hard drive rather than to a cassette tape. However, as time passes, the device and its corporate creators seem increasingly devious.

First of all, TiVo keeps rather quiet the fact that you need to pay a $12.95 monthly fee for your TiVo to work (on top of the $200-$600 for the device itself). Secondly, the device makes decisions about what to record based upon your stated preferences; others may see this as a boon, I see it as kinda creepy. Third, TiVo collects data about what you watch. According to the latest revision of their privacy policy, TiVo does not use personal individual viewing info, it sort of tosses all of the data into a big pile and looks at broad patterns rather than specific users. However, TiVo was using misleading privacy policy statements only a year ago, so it's hard to say if they're telling the truth this time or not.

All of which leads us to the current story: the TiVo company is now accepting money from sponsors to make a user's TiVo device record specific programs and advertisements. Amusingly, TiVo's slogan "TV, your way" is turned on its head. Doesn't matter if you asked to record these shows or not, they're being saved to your TiVo's hard drive, and you can't delete them until a week later.

Angry TiVo users are calling this "spam television," which seems a really good analogy. TiVo defends its actions by saying that if you don't want to watch the sponsored programs, you don't have to. Email spammers say the same thing. It's true, but that doesn't make it any less irritating.

What's really going on here is TiVo's attempt to make itself into a quasi-network. When a TV network plans a night of television programming, they try to choose shows that will keep viewers tuned in for a whole night. With the invention of TV remotes and hundreds of cable channels, viewers rarely do so. But if TiVo users trust that their recorder is going ahead and recording shows that they will like, it can slip in sponsored shows that fit the sponsor's favored demographics.

I'll probably write a long essay someday about new media technologies and the changing business strategies that accompany them, but I imagine that it will put a lot of you to sleep. I find it all fascinating, but I'm a geek.

Posted by Jake at 09:18 PM | Comments (0)

Radical Gelatin

On today's LMB radio show I will be playing the new release by punk/activist/lecturer Jello Biafra, The Big Ka-Boom Part One. It was recorded back in November 2001, and is a collage of Jello's thoughts and reactions to the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent "war on terrorism."

The show will also feature my usual mix of punk, hiphop, and various alternative musics, as well as a healthy dose of my own weekly commentary.

Tune in, 2-4pm PST at KillRadio.org

Posted by Jake at 01:12 PM | Comments (0)

May 25, 2002

Art vs. Violence

Guerilla art.

Without warning, without asking, individuals comandeer a piece of public space and alter it, hoping that their environmental edit will impact some human brains.

The image above is a guerilla art project by four people who go by the psuedonym P4. Their goal is specific: to get people to actually talk about the issue of rape, and to get them to do something about it.

On April 16, they created 100 of these signs and placed each one in a Portland neighborhood where a rape had occurred. One sign for each rape. Although P4 admits that the placement and dates are not 100% accurate due to imprecise crime data, community response to the action seems fairly positive.

P4 plans to put up 200 such signs this coming Monday. Their actions will continue to escalate, and they hope that others will do similar art actions in their own towns.

Lots of folks simply watch the world go by, leaning on the "what can one person do?" crutch to maintain their comfortable sense of impotence. Maybe one person can't change anything. But maybe four people can.

Have you got three friends?

Posted by Jake at 10:17 PM | Comments (1)

May 24, 2002

Symbolic Sham #485703854

Grabbing the major headlines today was the nuclear disarmament treaty signed by George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin. Unfortunately, most media outlets failed to remark upon how useless the treaty actually is.

The Christian Science Monitor got the story right with its article "Little Fine Print, and Lots of Loopholes". Basically, the treaty says that both the US and Russia will each have a maximum of 2200 long-range missiles with attached nuclear warheads by December 31, 2012 (down from the roughly 7000 that each currently has).

The first thing to note is how skimpy the treaty is. 475 words, 2-3 typed pages. I think I've had longer grocery lists. Seems a little too brief to plan, well, much of anything.

My biggest concern is that there is no timetable other than that final due date. Meaning that both countries could keep the exact same amount of active nuclear missiles up until maybe a month before the deadline, and then go on a mad warhead-removal spree (or however long it would take to remove the warheads. I'd try to estimate better, but I imagine that a Yahoo search for "how long will it take to removal a warhead from a nuclear missile" is going to have Secret Service men knocking on my door in the morning). And since the treaty is up for termination or removal on December 31, 2012, the Christian Science Monitor points out that techinically, the treaty only calls for each country to have cut their armed missiles back to 2200 for a single day.

Perhaps the most misleading aspect of the treaty is that it does not call for the destruction of nuclear warheads. Both nations could detach the warheads, and keep thousands in storage "just in case." Which, note members of the disarmament group Peace Action, would make it much easier for terrorists to get their hands on a nuclear device. Seems a reasonable point: warheads sitting on a shelf in storage are much easier to steal than warheads attached to the top of tall missiles hidden in secure silos.

And finally, either nation can withdraw from the treaty altogether just by giving 90 days notice.

But, the LA Times, NY Times, and CNN make little to no mention of the huge and obvious flaws in this treaty (although all of them took time to note that the pact was signed in a "ornate," "golden," "silk-bedecked" throne room at the Kremlin). Both the NY Times and CNN have a single paragraph repeating a criticism along the lines of Peace Action's, and the Washington Post article seemed slightly more skeptical of the treaty and of the whole Bush-Putin meeting.

I imagine that the story carries such weight because of its symbolic nature. The two former superpowered enemies, sitting down at a table to sign a disarmament pact, pacts that have become synonymous with peace. If viewed right, it is a lovely moment to think about the end of the Cold War, and the beginnings of world peace.

In reality, it is just another PR move in the name of global politicking. Bush wants his National Missile Defense shield, but was criticized for the potential violation of the US' Anti-Balistic Missile treaty with the USSR/Russia. Putin gave the thumbs-up to the US withdrawal from the ABM treaty in return for a sham disarmament treaty, and hopes to curry favor with the US. Which could result in, perhaps, US sponsorship in Russia joining the World Trade Organization, or the removal of various US restraints on Russian imports.

Just your average, everyday mutual back-scratching under a dovish camouflage.

Posted by Jake at 05:09 PM | Comments (1)

May 23, 2002

Remember Kids, Advertisers Are Fucking Scum

"By the way, if anyone here is in advertising or marketing, kill yourself."
- Bill Hicks

The clever folks at Sumaato Advertising are using Denver's homeless population as billboards.

Sumaato has printed out a bunch of "humorous" laminated signs for homeless people to hold while panhandling, each with the slogan "Sumaato Advertising Works" printed at the bottom.

Yes humor. Nothing like making light of destitution, hunger, exposure and mental illness by tagging it with wit like "I'm a little short on my Porsche payment. Can you spare a dollar?" and "Last Year I was a Dot.Com CEO."

On the plus side, this advertising campaign seems destined to fail. Sumaato is looking for businesses that will hire them for their marketing services. And what businessman even looks at a homeless person these days?

Posted by Jake at 10:16 AM | Comments (2)

May 22, 2002

Shared Vision

Posted by Jake at 10:31 PM | Comments (0)

Bush Administration Descends Into Madness

Man, the "Bush Knew" controversy has really rattled the White House.

FBI chief Robert Mueller says that "there will be another terrorist attack. We will not be able to stop it."

Dick Cheney says that another terror attack on the US is "not a matter of if, but when" (while taking a break from voting down a bill to offer low-interest loans to displaced workers trying to make their mortgage payments. Way to go, Dick!).

Donald Rumsfeld says that it is inevitable that terrorists are going to get their hands on nuclear weapons.

It's inevitable? We can't stop it? Well fuck it! If there's nothing we can do, I say we liquidate the whole US military budget and buy cookies! Let's buy cookies for all 6 billion human beings on this planet. If we're going out, we're going out with the taste of chocolate chips fading on our tongues!

And how is George W. responding to this crisis? By calling North Korea's Kim Jong Il a "pygmy" at a closed-door session of Republican senators.

So what's with all the craziness? We can buy into the explanation of former Secretary of State Madeliene Albright, who claims that Bush's foreign policy team suffers from "untreated bipolar disorder". Or we can read the explanation from Ari Fleischer buried deep into a few of the articles that the warnings are simply to "avert complacency" on the part of the public. Which explains the situation much better. Except for that "pygmy" comment.

But I don't even buy Ari's complacency explanation. Seems to me that this is just the cheap version of the "wag the dog" phenomenon. Back when Clinton faced scrutiny for his affair with his intern, he launched a few dozen cruise missiles at Afghanistan and the Sudan. Many people thought that he did so solely to draw attention away from his own political controversy. Is it so hard to believe that the Bush administration would try to scare Americans with fictional terrorist threats to accomplish the same goal?

But what's even crazier is the way that the US has chosen to fight against terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic explicitly designed to strike blows at enemies that you couldn't defeat in a typical army vs. army battle. Tradicional military systems are vulnerable to terrorism because of the ways that both armies and terrorist actions are structured. Terrorism is like attacking a man wearing a bullet-proof vest by hitting him in the head. The vest doesn't protect the head.

So how does the US choose to fight a battle in which traditional militaries are vulnerable and ineffective? By spending billions of dollars on the traditional military.

Posted by Jake at 10:29 PM | Comments (0)

May 21, 2002

Quality Television

Local television news is nearly always bad. Really, really bad.

Tonight, on LA's UPN 13 (a station owned by international conglomerate News Corp. and affiliated with the Viacom-owned UPN network), I saw a promo for the station's 10 o'clock nightly newscast.

First, they were going to do a segment about "prince of darkness" Ozzy Osbourne, and the popularity of his (decidedly un-dark) MTV reality sitcom "The Osbournes."

Then, they would do a piece on "what it's really like to be a rock groupie."

Then, in a vague attempt to link it to the previous stories, an exclusive interview with "Satan-inspired" serial killer David "Son of Sam" Berkowitz.

Then finally, a puff piece about a stuntwoman for the action series "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."

All of which left me wondering "did anything happen in Los Angeles today?"

But after a bit of thought, it all made sense.

1) May is a "sweeps month." During May (and, I think, November), TV networks check their ratings, and calculate how much to charge advertisers based upon that month's ratings. So they tend to show the most sensationalistic programs they can, to artificially inflate viewership and ad revenue.

2) The show which directly preceded the newscast was "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." The show frequently features supernatural or demonic creatures, and the focus on Ozzy as "prince of darkness" seems keyed into that. Obviously the program directors thought that they could retain some of the Buffy viewers by manufacturing a connection between the two shows. It also helped promote Ozzy's show, which airs on MTV. The same corporation owns both MTV and UPN.

3) Rock groupies, sex & sensationalism, self-explanatory.

4) Son of Sam, claims the devil made him do it, and I guess tries to link back to the Buffy/Ozzy/demons & darkness thing. Not news in any way shape or form, Berkowitz is in prison and hasn't killed anyone in 25 years.

5) And the interview with the Buffy stuntwoman is also self-explanatory. Local news stations, starved for funding and content, will often do "news" pieces about other shows and personalities on their network.

Shoddy journalism or clever business? You decide.

(Special thanks to this chart)

Posted by Jake at 10:03 PM | Comments (0)

Power Steals the Spotlight

The media watch group FAIR frequently examines guestlists for major news programs on TV. Their latest study (well, actually, they just commissioned the report. The study was done by a German media analysis company called Media Tenor International), "Power Sources" looks at the race, gender and political persuasion of the guests on the Big Three TV networks' nightly newscasts.

(ou might want to look at the easy-to-read charts for the study)

Some of the main findings:

• 92% of the people interviewed on TV news were white
  
• 86% were men
  
• 75% were Republicans
  
• 17% were members of the Bush administration
  
• business representatives were 35 times more likely to be interviewed than members of organized labor (see yesterday's weblog entry about labor)
  

And since this study was done by independent analysts, you can't really blame the results on FAIR's left-wing bias.

Obviously, those numbers look mighty skewed.

Let's look at the racial breakdown with the help of a handy little graph I stole:

(US Census 2000)

Compare those stats to the results of the FAIR/Media Tenor study:

Whites: 92%
Blacks: 7%
Latinos: 0.6%
Asian: 0.2%
Native American: 0.008%

Given the fact that white Americans are pretty ignorant of the way that other people in the country live (check this excellent article on the subject, "Misperceptions Cloud Whites' View of Blacks"), one must wonder whether or not white-dominated news coverage causes or is caused by such ignorance.

So the interesting question to ask is why these biases exist. While the folks at FAIR would usually argue that it's about corporate or conservative bias, Media Tenor suggests a different reason: cuz these are the people in power.

They make this claim first regarding the Republican dominance of interviews; since the current administration is Republican, it makes sense that interviews with governmental officials would result in more Republican interviews than Democratic ones. Of course, to verify this argument, we'd have to look at an identical study done during the Clinton administration.

But overall, that argument makes a lot of sense. Perhaps the media aren't biased, they're just interviewing the people who control the society. And those people are conservative white men, many of whom work for big business.

See, it's not the media who are racist, sexist and classist. It's society.

Sigh.

Posted by Jake at 06:21 PM | Comments (0)

May 20, 2002

Labor Day

You ever get tired of conservative colleagues bitching about the "liberal media?" Here's a way to stop that.

Conservative: The media is liberal
You: Could you hand me the "Labor" section of the newspaper?
C: What?
Y: Every newspaper has a business section. If the media is so liberal, why isn't there a labor section?
C: YARGH! I am defeated!

Or something like that. Every newspaper has a whole section devoted to stocks and bonds and corporate takeovers, but no sections about unions or strikes.

So to rectify this situation, I have decided that I'm going to try to devote one day's worth of entries each week for labor news. But one better, check out this site- www.labourstart.org. LabourStart (American readers, note the extra "u") is a great site about labor struggles all over the world. If you want news about a strike or a union or a boycott, this is where you should start.

Another good news source for the non-conservative side of the economy is a magazine called Dollars and Sense ("the magazine of economic justice"). Basically, it's like your newspaper's business section, but from a more progressive, pro-worker point of view.

I was happily surprised to discover that their website is now current (they used to publish their back issues like 7 months after the fact), with articles from their current issue online. Including the latest episode of a comic that D&S calls "Primer," but who's author Nick Thorkelson calls "The Comic Strip of Neoliberalism".

"Neoliberalism" is the fancy-pants, yet more precise term, for what many folks call "globalization": the attempt to remove all laws and regulations which inhibit corporate profits.

Thorkelson's strips are brief, dense examinations of the ways in which neoliberalism harms average people from many nations, and the movements which fight back against the globalizers. I highly recommend checking them out.

Posted by Jake at 08:16 PM | Comments (0)

Today on LMB Radio

On today's Lying Media Bastards webcast, I'll be interviewing activist and educator Leah Wells, from the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. We'll be talking about the US sanctions (and upcoming war) on Iraq. Leah has seen the effects of the sanctions with her own eyes during her visit to Iraq in the summer of 2001. Should be a good, interesting show.

Hope you'll tune in.

Monday, May 20, 2002
2-4pm PST
www.killradio.org

Posted by Jake at 10:56 AM | Comments (0)

May 18, 2002

Death Star Jr.

The release of the latest Star Wars movie makes for a groovy excuse to post a link that is otherwise not "newsworthy."

United Space Command Vision for 2020 (you'll need Adobe Acrobat to read it).

It's a pamphlet by the Space Command branch of the US armed forces (bet you didn't know we had one of those, did you?). Basically, it is a proposal for how the US should use outer space as a military tool. The authors of the pamphlet hope that these ideas can be implemented by the year 2020. The pamphlet was released in 1997, so you can't blame any of it's craziness on right-wing warhawks currently in the White House.

It makes for interesting reading and word games as you try to puzzle out military jargon. Jump ahead to page 11, "Global Engagement." It calls for "limited space-based Earth strike weapons." Yes, the US armed forces want to be able to shoot missiles or lasers or something from orbit and hit any location they choose on the globe. That's the kind of shit that James Bond villains strive for (note the cute little pamphlet cover, depicting lightning bolts raining down Zeus-like onto enemies).

And it makes sense, if you buy into the whole "we can only protect America if we control everyone and everything on planet Earth" logic employed by the US military.

Posted by Jake at 08:58 PM | Comments (0)

May 17, 2002

Local Boy Makes Good

"After a teenager in Covington, Washington, turned his father in for growing marijuana, local TV news reporters and daily newspapers fell all over themselves calling him a hero."

So begins "Dope", a nice bit of media and social commentary by journalist and sex columnist Dan Savage.

Savage points out many flaws in the "druggies bad, cops good" coverage (for example, the very real possibility that the pot-smoking father was using the drugs for his numerous medical conditions), but then shifts from the specific to the general. How does the media cover drug-related issues? What are the realities of drugs, addiction and drug-prevention programs?

For the record, I don't smoke pot, do drugs, or even drink alcohol. It's easy to imagine that anyone who criticizes US drug policy is doing so for self-serving reasons, that they want to get high in peace. I'm not one of those people. I've got no problem with folks using any controlled substances, provided that they don't harm other people in the process (and frankly, nearly any form of drug addiction is bound to harm someone you're close to).

Savage discusses D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education), a program that tries to teach kids not to use drugs. I had it when I was in school. It was basically a bunch of anti-drug propaganda mixed with role-playing exercises that kinda/sorta/didn't teach kids how to resist peer-pressure. At my schools, DARE was always taught by a police officer who came to campus. The most amusing aspect of DARE to me was that the most hardcore stoners on campus would always befriend the DARE officer, who was always amazingly oblivious to the fact that his new pals weren't taking his lessons to heart.

What always bothered me about DARE is that they weren't honest. They didn't just say "this drug makes you feel these things, but does this damage to your body, so think carefully." That method treats kids like human beings with brains in their heads, so we can't be having that. Instead, they try to sell fishy-sounding exaggerations about how one puff on a joint will inevitably turn you into a crack whore; and when you suspect that someone's trying to trick you, you don't pay much attention to what they have to say.

Here is something that most of the non-drug-using folks in America don't seem to realize: people who use drugs are usually very aware of the negative effects of what they are doing, and choose to do it anyway. Just like some folks eat fatty foods, skydive, or play professional football. There is potential health danger in all of these activities, but for whatever personal reasons, some people choose to do them just the same.

There's a lot of ground to cover on this topic, and I won't do it here. Read Savage's article, it's long and covers many of the important points.

Posted by Jake at 11:58 AM | Comments (0)

News, Patriotism, Wankerism

In an interview with a non-American news program (the UK's BBC Newsnight), CBS news anchor (guy who reads teleprompter) basically admitted what we all know: US reporters practiced the art of "self-censorship" following the terrorist attacks for fear of being attacked for being unpatriotic.

He argued "It's unpatriotic not to stand up, look them in the eye, and ask the questions they don't want to hear - they being those who have the responsibility, the ultimate responsibility - of sending our sons and daughters, our husbands, wives, our blood, to face death."

Of course, no one can remember Dan Rather being very patriotic.

On another fun note, I just heard the term "milatainment" for the first time.

And on a potentially positive note, Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz argues that "in a single day, the capital's media climate has been transformed". He claims that reporters have abruptly recovered from their bout with timidity and are asking Washington officials the tough questions again since the "Bush Knew" story hit.

Of course, reporters almost never ask the tough questions (if you want to see a guy who really asks government officials the tough questions, check out Russell Mokhiber's "Ari & I" column, documenting his brutally blunt questions posed to White House spokesman Ari Fleischer).

So after months of lethargic and fawning coverage of the US government, the media are roused from their stupor by the only phenomenon that could work such astounding magic: a scandal.

Posted by Jake at 11:23 AM | Comments (0)

May 16, 2002

Bush Knew Something. Kinda.

Man, conspiracy theorists are gonna go apeshit over this.

As it's now been widely reported, George W. Bush was warned about plane hijackings a month before the September 11 terrorist attacks. There are tons of articles on the subject, so I'll just link to this one from Reuters (via Common Dreams). Just look at that headline: "White House Admits: Bush Knew of Hijacking Threat Before Sept 11". They knew something! And they admit it! They're evil! Right?

Well, let's look and see exactly what we've got here.

This appears to be one of those occassions where the headline promises but does not deliver. If we trust the words of Ari Fleischer (and we can't), the president had been informed that "Osama bin Laden could be plotting to hijack U.S. aircraft," "hijackings in the traditional sense, not suicide bombers, not using planes as missiles."

So that's it. All we have is a claim that the president received an intelligence briefing that there might be an attempted hijacking. Does the story go deeper? Who knows? Right now, that's all the info we've got.

There are those, of course, who feel that the plot goes much deeper. It wasn't al-Qaeda who planned this attack, it was the Bush administration itself! His presidency was a joke and his poll numbers were atrocious, so he staged the whole attack because it would rally the American people behind him!! Or maybe it was Israeli's secret service, the Mossad, staging the attack to increase US support for Israel against Palestinian terrorism!! Or maybe both of them working in tandem!! With the Mole People and the Reverse Vampires!!

I know many radical political activists who are quick to believe accusations against the usual evil-doers, even if there isn't much evidence to support the newest accusations. Let's face it, the US government has and does do evil things to people all around the world on a regular basis. US corporations rape and pillage the planet in the name of profit. US politicians lie and cheat and shovel our tax money into the pockets of the rich. But the fact that they're capable of committing such treachery doesn't mean that they are necessarily guilty of each act of treachery that comes along.

I'm a skeptic. That means that I pretty much only believe in things I have reasonable evidence to support. So while I'm sure there are some who are interpretting this new "revelation" about Bush's foreknowledge of hijacking possiblities as proof positive that he was invovled in the grisly plot, I won't believe it unless you've got evidence.

Posted by Jake at 05:30 PM | Comments (1)

May 15, 2002

Lies and Compassion

Assorted newslinks.

Welcome to the Information War- columnist states the obvious, that the US media is simply parrotting the lies and misleading tales told by US military officials instead of doing investigations themselves. Good stuff.

Heresies in Pursuit of Peace: Thoughts on Israel/Palestine- article by Starhawk, a figure who's become fairly influential among lefty activists. Excellent article which examines the Israel-Palestine conflict, and Jewish support for Israel's actions, through the lenses of religion and Jewish history.

Posted by Jake at 09:48 AM | Comments (0)

Tossing Old Theories

Okay, as more news becomes available, it looks like the simpler theories win out over the more complex ones.

Yesterday, I theorized that the White House's claims that Cuba had biological weapons was part of simple business competition between the US and Cuban biotechnology industries. But today, it looks like the simple "charged rhetoric for domestic politicla reasons" might have been the right answer all along.

Note the title of this article, "Bush Plans to Tighten Sanctions on Cuba, Not Ease Them" (note: this is a NY Times article, reprinted on the Common Dreams website. I would've linked to the original, but nytimes.com requires that you register with their service to view their articles. Registration is free, but...). The article states quite plainly that GW Bush is going to speak at a fundraiser on Monday, where he will outline his tough stance on Cuba. The fundraiser is for the re-election campaign of W's brother, Florida governor Jeb Bush.

It's also fun to note that the "we have evidence that Cuba's got bioweapons" has been downgraded by White House spokesman Ari Fleischer to "we have concerns."

Posted by Jake at 09:33 AM | Comments (0)

May 14, 2002

Collect 'Em, Trade 'Em, Swap 'Em with Your Very Bitter Friends

Just ran across these anti-war trading cards. "American Crusade 2001+ Trading Cards" are a parody of the scarily patriotic "Enduring Freedom/Desert Storm" trading cards put out by the Topps company. I'll just give you a warning: if you have even the tiniest bit of respect for elected leaders, the media, or the US anti-terror efforts, you will at some point be offended by these cards. But if that were the case, I'm not sure why you would be visiting my site in the first place.

Posted by Jake at 11:38 AM | Comments (0)

Nice Work if You Can Get It

A brief article about contracts of network news anchors gives a couple of interesting facts. Mainly, that these anchors like Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings make about $7 million a year. Which, by the author's math, works out to a wage of $3,365 an hour to read news off a teleprompter.

And Tom Brokaw can't even pronounce shit properly.

Posted by Jake at 10:26 AM | Comments (0)

Malkovich on a Rampage

At a recent appearace at Cambridge Union (some sort of high-fallutin' debate society, nears as I can tell), actor John Malkovich announced that he wanted to shoot (and presumably kill) journalist Robert Fisk. Despite the fact that Fisk is a very talented and knowledgable journalist, he's come to be known for his criticism of Israel's occupation. Or, according to his hate mail, for his "dangerous" "psychotic" "hate-peddling" "anti-semitism."

I'm certainly hoping that it stops here, that venomous letters and irreverant, off-the-cuff death threats are where it ends. But I do have a seed of fear that it will only escalate.

Posted by Jake at 10:13 AM | Comments (0)

Slandering the Competition

After a bit more research, I have a new theory on the "Cuba's got bioweapons" charges by the US (fun fact: the US made the same allegations back in 1999, but didn't seem very panicky about it).

First of all, it seem fairly likely that this announcement was timed to undermine the efforts of Jimmy Carter's visit to Cuba. Not a grand theory, but it's got potential.

Let me slowly ramble my way towards a theory.

The Asst. Secretary of State who made the allegations about Cuba claimed that "Cuba has provided dual-use biotechnology to other rogue states". "Dual-use" is an insidious term. It means that some item, object or product can be used for both military and non-military purposes. A sharp knife can be used to chop vegetables, or to stab your neighbor in the eye. Chlorine can be used to purify water, or as a poisonous gas. Doing a search for "dual-use technology," I also found out that a "switch" for device that treats people with kidney stones can also be used as a "trigger" for a nuclear bomb.

I did a little research, I was surprised to learn that Cuba has a thriving biotech industry. Virtually any device or chemical used to treat or study diseases can also likely be used to create biological weapons. After all, a petri dish full of anthrax spores can be considered a biological weapon. Meaning that if anyone in Cuba sold anyone in a "rogue state" virtually anything related to biology or pharmaceuticals, then they probably did sell "dual use biotechnology." But I don't know how worried we should be about that.

So, the theory: the US, which also has a powerful biotechnology industry, made these claims as part of a plan to dominate its business rival. The US government has now linked the Cuban biotech industry to terrorism. This might result in still more sanctions against Cuba or Cuban biotech, or might be just enough slander to cause other nations to not do business with Cuban biotech.

Just a theory.

Posted by Jake at 10:01 AM | Comments (0)

May 13, 2002

Trust Us, We're Hypocrites

Last week, the US tried to add Cuba to its "naughty" list, with claims that Cuba has biological weapons. It's a little maddening, this constant barrage of "Yes, we have evidence. No, you can't see it" announcements made by the US government. As investigative reporter I.F. Stone was fond of saying, "governments lie." Which means that when the US government makes these kinds of claims, we should be skeptical. And when the target government, in this case Cuba's Fidel Castro, denies that the charges are true, we should also be skeptical.

I am not an expert on Cuba, but I am very skeptical that they are developing bioweapons. They are a tiny country that is still struggling mightily to overcome the deacades-long US embargo. I'm not trying to paint them as noble Communist superheroes, it just seems to me that their priorities lie elsewhere. It seems more likely to me that these statements were made for political reasons, possibly domestic. It is well-known that there is a valuable voting bloc of Cuban-Americans (mainly in Florida), most of whom are rabidly, insanely, sometimes violently anti-Castro. My official guess is that someone in the administration is sucking up to Cuban-American voters in anticipation of November's elections there, or is trying to prevent any relaxation of sanctions against Cuba (I am not sure is such legislation is pending or not).

So as the US hides its evidence that Cuba has biological weapons, evidence that the United States is developing biological weapons is coming to light. Citing newly declassified documents, the Sunshine Project (an anti-bioweapons group) has found that the US Naval Research Laboratory proposed to create bacteria and fungi that could eat and destroy "matériel" (which near as I can figure, means "stuff": roads, machines, fuel), and that a lab at a Texas Air Force base is proposing the same thing (You can see .pdf scans of the above documents here and here). While these devices aren't directly harmful to people (although it's not hard to imagine indirect harm or even death caused by such weapons), they are easily illegal, both under international laws (treaties signed by the US back in the early 1970s) and under US federal law. Meaning that if either of these projects got funding, anyone who worked on them could face life in prison.

So invisible evidence that US "enemies" are developing bioweapons is cause for concern, but mounting, tangible evidence that the US is developing such things is no big deal. Because America is Good®.

Posted by Jake at 06:02 PM | Comments (0)

Talks Loud, Says Nothing

I'm not usually the type to read the New Republic magazine, but I did stumble upon a pretty decent piece on their site that was a critique of the nightly news on the three main American TV networks, NBC, ABC and CBS.

Author Rob Walker doesn't critique them from a political point of view, but more from a quality point of view. Walker watched 3 weeks' worth of coverage on the Big Three, and finds that they are pretty uninformative. He concludes that the main goal of these news broadcasts seems to be to pile on the melodrama and inform viewers just enough that they feel outraged in some way. The coverage doesn't have to be accurate or detailed, just imply that members of the audience should be filled with righteous indignation about... something or other.

Posted by Jake at 05:34 PM | Comments (0)

May 11, 2002

Jenin Massacre Part II

Our friends at Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) have published a report on the same topic as my own regarding the assault on Jenin, but they have done it in a much more thorough and concrete way. It's called What Happened in Jenin?, and looks at the media's examination of "was it a massacre?" and compares it to human rights groups' examinations of "were human rights violated?" As there is no agreed upon definition of "massacre," the second question seems to be the wiser one to ask.

They've also put a new article on their website about Fox News talkshow host Bill O'Reilly and how he plays fast and loose with facts (and figures) on his show.

I should mention that I interned at FAIR one summer back in 1999. And FAIR's Peter Hart has agreed to come chat with me on the Lying Media Bastards show sometime in the next few weeks. I'll keep you posted.

Posted by Jake at 12:06 AM | Comments (0)

May 10, 2002

Jake Infects Ozzfest

Media sun-god-of-the-moment Ozzy Osbourne will be headlining a heavy metal rock tour this summer featuring many forgettable hard rock acts. It will be immensely popular, and I am playing a part in transforming a small portion of it from album sales and teen-oriented marketing ploys into a haven for radical grassroots political activism. Even though it's the worst of the many titles I suggested, it will most likely be called the "Axis of Justice," and each tour stop will feature different local organizations fighting the good fight on such issues as racism, corporate globalization, sweatshops, independent media, political prisoners, and the environment. The plan was originally envisioned by myself and former Ozzfest-participants The Unnamed Chris Cornell and Rage Against the Machine project, and the dream is being kept alive by current Ozzfest headliners System of a Down.

And who's footing the bill for this tiny activist carnival? Ozzfest, the World Wrestling Federation (WWF), and media conglomerate Clear Channel.

Subversion is one of my great joys in life.

Posted by Jake at 11:56 PM | Comments (0)

Man Behind Curtain Staples Curtain Shut

Finally, the US has a KGB of its very own.*

The Office of Homeland Security is a newly created "agency" (more on that term later) which is dedicated to protecting the US from foreign/terrorist attacks. On one hand, if you are trying to stop enemies from successful attacks, the highly secrective nature of the OHS makes sense. On the other hand, I do not trust these motherfuckers one bit. People have to earn my trust, and conducting your activity in the shadows, hidden from sight while shrouded in scraps of Constitution will not endear you to my heart.

Even the title of the office puts me off, sets terms like gulag and lebensraum running through my head like a horde of writhing insects.

The Electronic Privacy and Information Center (EPIC), sort of a computer-oriented version of the ACLU, recently filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requesting information about the Office of Homeland Security's plans for a national identification system. EPIC then filed a lawsuit against the OHS, seeking "expedited release" of the documents in question.

The Justice Department (apparently on intimate terms with the works of Franz Kafka) is arguing that the OHS is not subject to FOIA requests because it is not an "agency". What is it then? No one seems to know, or if they do, they're keeping quiet about it.

The DOJ is also arguing that the OHS is like the National Security Council (top secret advisors to the president on "security issues"). The NSC has been found legally exempt from FOIA requests in the past, and therefore the OHS is too, goes the argument. EPIC plans to continue its fight, claiming that freeing this information is important because "every aspect of daily life is going to be influenced in some way by the policies emanating from that office."

Well, I know I'm going to bed feeling safer tonight because a top-secret group of super-powerful patriots are around to "protect" the "homeland."

* Now I must respond to those of you who cynically answered the question that began this entry with replies of "what about the FBI?" or "what about the CIA?"
1) The FBI is just not as efficient as the KGB. Once the FBI has more of those secret wiretaps in place and has the laws on "coerced confessions" relaxed, then they can give those Rooskies a run for their money.
2) The CIA is (technically) not allowed to act on American soil. The USA PATRIOT Act untied their hands a bit, and now they are allowed to share information and plans with the FBI. But it still seems that the CIA is too busy forging alliances with dictators, military strongmen, and drug lords in Third World countries to focus its attentions on the American people.
3) The police vary from location to location, running the gamut from somewhat helpful to corrupt bastards to oppressive motherfuckers. But I don't think they have the national unity to challenge the KGB.
4) If you said something about FEMA, the ATF or black helicopters, nothing that I say or do is going to frighten you. Just hunker down in your mud-encrusted wilderness shack and clench that hunting rifle tight.

Posted by Jake at 12:25 AM | Comments (0)

May 09, 2002

Plain Vanilla PR

I hope this will be the last post I make about Vanilla Coke. If it isn't, y'all might want to think about an intervention.

An earlier article I linked to implied that Coca-Cola had failed in its attempt to get the Today Show to help promote its new product by broadcasting live from the site of the first vendor to receive a shipment of Vanilla Coka. But apparently, Coca-Cola was completely successful. They even managed to get chipper Katie Couric to take a sip and say "I like it." Amusingly, the article notes that Today co-stars Matt Lauer and Ann Curry also took sips, but made no comment about the flavor.

Posted by Jake at 10:12 AM | Comments (0)

May 08, 2002

John Stossel: Bastard Among Bastards

I'm just going to steal this off of PR Watch's site. It's about pro-business propagandist and "journalist" John Stossel. He's been caught lying, manipulating facts, and outright making shit up to create "controversial" "people who aren't conservatives are wrong"-type news segments and specials for the ABC network. But ABC keeps his ass on the payroll and keeps putting him on the air.

Organic Foods Vindicated, But So What?

Last year ABC-TV's John Stossel got caught inventing nonexistent scientific studies so he could pretend that organic foods contain as many pesticides as conventionally-grown produce. Now Consumers Union has done a real scientific study, published in a peer-reviewed journal, which shows (surprise, surprise) that Stossel was dead wrong and organic foods contain substantially fewer pesticide residues. The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a long-time apologist for agribusiness, is pooh-poohing the result. "So what?" says ACSH's Gilbert Ross. "The health risks associated with pesticide residues on food are not at all established." The Associated Press put its own bizarre spin on the story, headlining its report, "One-quarter of organic produce contains pesticides". AP's lead paragraph warns, "Think organic fruits and vegetables are free of pesticides? Think again." The story waits until the third paragraph before mentioning that 75 percent of conventionally-grown produce contain pesticide residues, as compared to only 23 percent for organic produce. Source: New York Times, May 8, 2002

Posted by Jake at 03:28 PM | Comments (2)

May 07, 2002

The Cola Wars Redux

If you'll remember, I threw a fit some weeks back when an announcement that new "Vanilla Coke" was only one month away from its debut was considered "news" on CNN Headline News. Well, more on that.

According to my favorite source about the mindwarping industry, Coca-Cola will begin its PR blitz about Vanilla Coke tomorrow, May 8. They're trying to trick people into thinking that the arrival of a new flavor of carbonated sugar water is an historic event that they should give a shit about. They've picked out a little cafe in Pomfret, Conneticut called the Vanilla Bean Cafe, to be the first recipient of the new flavor. Coca-Cola tried to get the Today show's spunky Katie Couric to broadcast the show live from there. That's half the PR industry in a nutshell, attempting to turn news into advertising. And that's the nice half of the PR industry.

The article also prognosticates further, telling of PepsiCo's challenge to Vanilla Coke: Pepsi Blue. It tastes like berries or something.

And I finally found some information that I couldn't find back when I wrote my entry about Coca-Cola vs. water (and man, it was killing me that I couldn't find it). Pepsi, Coke's main rival, does indeed have its own brand of bottled water: Aquafina.

Posted by Jake at 04:53 PM | Comments (1)

May 06, 2002

Mannah of Death

Merciful Zeus!

Remember how the US showed that it cared for the Afghan people it was bombing by dropping care packages of food to them? Remember the ludicrous, tragic irony you felt when it turned out that the food drop packages looked just like the cluster bombs the US was dropping? Well, it's time for you to get re-acquainted with that feeling.

It turns out that the food was more of a danger than an aid. When the packages hit the ground from such a high altitude, the plastic wrapping frequently ruptured, and the food inside spoiled. Meaning that if Afghans ate the food from the ruptured packages, it would make them sick. About 63% of 500 food packages examined in an informal study contained spoiled food.

So not only was the US bombing Afghanistan, not only was it dropping bombs in the guise of food, but they were apparently also dropping food poisoning in the guise of food as well.

That's just one example in the article above of how the US humanitarian aid drop was a colossal failure--a clusterfuck, if you will. Of course, that's kind of the point, as the goal of the airdrop was never to feed the Afghans, but to give the illusion that the US was handling the potential starvation crisis facing the nation due to US attacks.

Posted by Jake at 11:12 PM | Comments (0)

May 05, 2002

Jake in Print

The excellent Seattle zine/newspaper Eat the State! just printed one of my articles. I was surpised to discover this, because I wrote the article back in the fall of 2001. I suppose that since the article wasn't particularly time-sensitive that they held off on printing till they had the space.

[Jake notices that Eat the State is not over in the links section to the left and rectifies the error]

Anyhow, the article is called "The Golbalization of Censorship" and is about corporate bastards trying to shut down important investigative journalists.

I've actually written a number of articles for ETS over the years. ETS does some damn excellent work, and I highly recommend them. Editors Geov Parrish, Maria Tomchick and Troy Skeels (and a large volunteer cast) deserve all the kudos you can throw their way.

[edit]

Hell, while I'm at it, I may as well link to my article archive. I wrote/editted a zine/newsletter called NewsWatch for about 3 years back in the late 1990s. A lot of the articles were quite good, some were merely okay, and there are probably a few that were downright bad. Overall I'm pretty proud of that work, and should be reviving it in a new, better-titled publication later this week.

Posted by Jake at 08:00 PM | Comments (0)

Market Fundamentalism vs. Heliocentrism

Well, that title doesn't exactly work, but I can't think of a better (well, cleverer) one.

Trying to make an analogy between the Catholic Church's refusal to accept Galileo's theory that the Earth revolved around the sun, and conservative capitalists' refusal to consider the idea that the "free market" might not be perfect. This analogy falls apart a bit, because the Church's refusal was reasonable. If you look up in the sky, you see what clearly appears to be the sun moving in an arc from horizon to horizon; using one's own experience, believing that the sun is stationary while the earth cruises around it is stupid. But using your own experience, it is stupid to think that "free market capitalism" is perfection achieved.

Last week I linked to an article called Log Cabin to White House? Not Any More by a fellow named Will Hutton. It is evidently the first of a series of articles based upon his new book "The World We're In" (I'd post a link, but I think it's only available in Britain right now).

This latest article is called "What Europe can teach Uncle Sam". While last week's article was about the illusion of success and class mobility in the United States, this week's article is about how the illusion of American-style corporate success. Essentially, Hutton argues that while many think that the predatory, profits-first-and-only strategem of most American corporations is proving to be less successful than the more future-oriented, principle-driven of corporations of Europe. Makes sense, in a way. How can you expect your company to be "the best" when your absolute only concern is maximizing profits for shareholders? Doesn't that mean that you neglect every other aspect of the business?

Interesting points, but they're all based on the idea of corporate reform, which is kind of like putting a band-aid on a train wreck.

Posted by Jake at 06:52 PM | Comments (0)

May 04, 2002

Linguistic Drift and the War of Vocabulary

Recent Israel-Palestine events have reminded me about words, about the maintenance and drift of meaning. Words can shape thought, thought shapes action, and action shapes the world. So it is inevitable that people will fight to control words.

The first incident was just a reminder to me. You may have heard about it, Texas Congressman Dick Armey said that he believes that "the Palestinians should leave" Palestine.

First of all, as this entry is about words, I have to snicker at the Congressman's name. "Dick Armey." Heh. Sorry.

Okay, Rep. Armey said in the interview linked to above that, basically, he thought that the Israelis should keep all the land they currently control (he didn't specify if that meant the areas that Israel "officially" controls, or all of the Occupied Territories which it controls in reality) and that they shouldn't give any of it up for peace. He then commented that maybe a Palestinian state could be carved out of some other Arab nation(s) to give to the Palestinians.

First, a the minor point: this is what Britain did for the Jews, carved out a piece of land to give to them, and it resulted in more tha 50 years of war and conflict. Repeating the process with the Palestinians is perhaps not a good idea.

But here's the larger point: forcing a racial group to migrate out of your country is ethnic cleansing! A violation of the Geneva Convention! A war crime!

That's where my introduction about words and language fits in. Most people, well, American people anyway, have come to think that the term "ethnic cleansing" means "genocide." We think of the Holocaust, or race-based slaughter, or rape camps. But forced migration can be just as effective at "cleansing" your region of a particular ethnicity. That forced migration is a method of ethnic cleansing can either heighten your digust for Armey's plan, or decrease your horror of ethnic cleansing if it includes actions as "tame" as making people move away from their homes.

In Armey's defense (did I really just say that?), he issued a retraction/apology/excuse on his website. He claims that he meant that Israel shouldn't give up any territory to the Palestinians until the terrorist attacks on Israel end. Go ahead and read the interview transcript and see if you get that message.

On to item #2, the Jenin "massacre." War of words again. During the Israeli seige on Jenin, the media was barred from entry, but eyewitnesses claimed that a "massacre" was going on, that the Israeli army was knee-deep in slaughter. Now that Jenin is kind of open to the public again, everyone is asking the question "was there really a massacre in Jenin?" Israelis say there was no massacre. Palestinians insist there was. Journalists count bodies and weigh evidence. Human rights organizations try to piece together history. But all in the name of seeing if that one word applies.

How many people do you have to kill before it's a "massacre"? The number killed in Jenin seems to jump around every day. Tuesday it's 200, the next week it's 40, the next day it's 50. Hell, the Boston Massacre which helped launch the American Revolution only resulted in 5 deaths. But I suppose the great strides made in our death technology, has had an inflationary effect on our lexicons of the macabre. What makes a massacre these days?

Who cares? It seems clear that Israeli soldiers killed dozens of innocent Palestinians and destroyed the homes of hundreds. I'm just fine with journalists telling me what happened and not bothering to give the events a proper "title."

But of course, this isn't about journalism or titles, it's a political battle. If the world thinks that Israel massacred Palestinians, there might be an increase of pressure against the Israeli government. If the world thinks that Palestinians made false claims about a massacre, the world might side more with Israel.

Again, who cares? Israel has clearly killed hundreds in its recent incursion, increased Palestinian hatred of Israelis, decreased its own security, destroyed the Palestinian infrastructure, and has proven that it is not interested in a fair, peaceful settlement. Both Sharon and much of the Israeli populace actually favor Dick Armey's plan.

"Massacre." "Incursion." "Terror." A rose by any other name would smell as much of corpse rot and bone dust.

Posted by Jake at 12:42 AM | Comments (0)

May 02, 2002

In a Nutshell

I'm working my way through an article titled "A Tale Of Two 'Massacres' - Jenin And Racak". However, the article seems to be less about these two mass murders and more about the media itself. There's a very good quote about eight paragraphs in which really sums up the way that the mainstream media cover war and military action. It refers to the "game" inherent in the relationship between the media and the government:

One of the most important rules of the game is that the media present the U.S. and British governments as fundamentally benign and well-intentioned, so freeing them to wage war for 'humanitarian' reasons. This is a kind of fixed canvas on which world events must be painted. The illusion is maintained by overlooking crimes committed by us and our allies; by taking a moral motivation for granted, ignoring any possibility that corporate power might play a role in driving foreign policy; by presenting crimes as 'mistakes'; by demonising enemies as lethal threats and then justifying massive violence against them as regrettable but unavoidable; by employing language that softens and blurs the emotional impact of our atrocities on the public mind. The last is extremely important - in politics, as in everyday life, our emotional reaction to events largely depends on how we label them: the phrase 'genocidal massacre' fills us with horror in a way that 'human rights abuses' does not.

I read the article on the Znet website, but the article seems to be affiliated with Media Lens. However, I couldn't find it on the Media Lens site. So if you want to read the piece, check Znet, if you want to read more Media Lens, or give them props, go to the ML site.

Posted by Jake at 09:46 AM | Comments (0)

May 01, 2002

An Imploding Monolithic Crew of Bastards By Any Other Name...

Just a brief item here. Enron is trying to reorganize itself as a small company with a new name. I really can't wait to find out the new name. They'll probably follow the corporate trend of choosing names that don't really mean anything, but sound cutting edge and classy, something like Fleetan, or Xector or Naltic. I'm kinda hoping they go with a "truth in advertising" type name, like Pyramid Scam Inc., You Are All Our Bitches Co., or Legalized Criminal Enterprises, Int'l.

Posted by Jake at 11:16 PM | Comments (0)

Help a DJ Out?

As it mentions over on the left-hand side there, I have an internet radio show. Well, all of internet radio is currently in jeopardy thanks to some fun new Congressional legislation. This is allegedly an issue about paying proper royalties to artists and record companies, but it seems to me that the goal is for record companies to wipe out all internet radio that is not a) huge or b) owned by them.

The short version is that the US Copyright Office is trying to figure out how much internet broadcasters should have to pay artists, composers and record labels in royalties for playing their songs. The proposal that the USCO will be deciding on (by May 21) will effectively bankrupt most internet broadcasters. These rates are very high, due to the fact that webcasters are expected to pay royalties to the record companies (not just the artists), something that radio broadcasters do not. This is based upon the lie that webcasts are "perfect copies" of the record labels' recordings, and that the labels need to be compensated for that because people could "steal" the songs. You ever listen to a webcast? Most are done via RealPlayer, and the sound quality is poor. No one pirates from streams, especially when getting free music off the internet in other ways is so incredibly easy.

And if this law goes into effect, webcasters will owe royalties retroactive to 1998. And since internet radio doesn't make much (well, any) money, most stations will go under as soon as they are forced to pay.

If you wanna help out, you American folks can easily send a fax to your Congressmen by filling out your name and address here. If you're an American and want to go the extra mile, you can find out all the ways you can fight the power here. Or learn about the situation and figure out your own action plan here.

I'd appreciate it if you did me the favor of at least clicking on that first link and sending the quick fax. Honestly, Kill Radio has a small enough listener base that we can probably survive a detrimental decision, but it won't be pretty. And knowing my fellow DJs, they'll probably want to rebel against the copyright law until we get shut down in a raid by the FCC, or a SWAT team from Sony Music or something.

Posted by Jake at 09:26 PM | Comments (0)

The Good Stories

The Village Voice looks at the US verbal war on Iraq, and proposes that the common "Saddam Hussein gassed his own people" line might actually be untrue.

What Is A Terrorist?- media critic Jeff Cohen points out that the US has deemed many men who fit the dictionary definition of "terrorist" to be, well, not terrorists.

Posted by Jake at 10:02 AM | Comments (0)

Jake's Head Explodes 2

Onto the next outrage.

Israel has been blocking UN attempts to send investigators into Jenin to see if there was indeed a massacre there. No real surprise there, Israel is trying to maintain its image internationally, and evidence that they were executing civilians might harm that. Not surprising, just evil. Israel presented a list of requirements to the UN before it would allow any investigators in. The crazy demand:

"The investigation should not reach any conclusions"

Go back and make sure you read that right. I know I had to.

Yes, before Israel will allow the UN to investigate, the UN must promise that it's investigation will not have any findings. After that, I imagine Israel will throw the UN a big party where no one will be allowed to eat the food, and all of the presents will be empty.

What a bunch of motherfuckers. Just say "no." Don't make up bullshit requirements and hope that the UN will go away. Act like a human being and accept the consequences of your actions. But I guess I can't expect that much, because these decisions were made by politicians, not human beings.

Posted by Jake at 09:55 AM | Comments (0)

Jake's Head Explodes

Unfortunately, no words or character strings are going to express how flabbergasted, disgusted and outraged these following news bits have made me.

Beers Asks Congress for Nearly $600M Propaganda Budget

The article summary on that page reads "Propaganda czar Charlotte Beers wants $600 million for research to figure out why the perception of the U.S. is 'misunderstood' or 'skewed' in the Muslim world, focus groups in Russia, and a probe of Europeans about anti-Americanism and their views about missile defense."

Okay, to give a little context, Charlotte Beers is a public relations executive who has taken on the US campaign to try to counter anti-American sentiment around the world, particularly in the Middle East, through advertising campaigns. A fool's errand basically. It's one of those "what are you going to believe, me, or your own eyes?" things. No amount of slick magazine ads or television commercials are going to cause Afghans to forget that their nation is a bombed-out husk thanks to the US, Iraqis to forget that they're starving under US sanctions, Palestinians to forget that they're occupied by US-supported Israelis, or other Middle Easterners to forget that they live under repressive, corrupt regimes that the US supports because their desert home swims on a sea of petroleum.

So now, Beers wants an even larger amount of US taxpayer money to poll "disaffected populations" in the Middle East and South Asia to find out why they dislike Americans. Open a fucking history book, Charlotte, cost ya maybe $30 at a local bookstore. They don't hate the US because of "misperceptions" or "ineffectively targetted messages," they hate the US because its policies have caused or increased their suffering!! And now I'm so angry that I'm using exclamation points!! I hate exclamation points!!

Bottom line: the US is going to spend around $600 million to tell lies that no one is going to believe anyway. Maybe if that money was used to feed or house the suffering people in these areas they might be more willing to believe that the US has goodwill towards them.

"Public diplomacy." "Public relations." "Propaganda." All the same thing, self-serving lies which keep the wool over your eyes.

Posted by Jake at 09:45 AM | Comments (0)

Disclaimer

On my other Lying Media Bastards website I have a link to the website Media Whores Online. Granted, they have a great site name and great slogan ("The site that set out to bring the media to their knees-- but found they were already there"), but I can't wholeheartedly endorse them. So I'm putting a bit of a disclaimer here, and I may go ahead and remove the link to them altogether in the near future.

They often have good material, uncovering acts of journalistic negligence, immorality, spin and distortion. But ideologically, they seem to basically be a hit squad for the Democratic party. They criticize Republicans mercilessly, cheer liberals when they can, and then bash anyone further to the left of Clinton (lately that's meant attacks on Ralph Nader and Michael Moore). But just as bad as their support for liberals is their homemade jargon. Whenever possible, MWO (and a large number of other weblog authors, by the way) replace the names of actual people/shows/organizations with derogatory soundalike nicknames. If you're not familiar with their nicknames, the website becomes increasingly opaque and insane. Examples include: Tucker Carlson = Tucker "the Sucker"; William Safire = William Safliar; Fox News = Faux News.

Of course, I wouldn't mind so much if the nicknames were funnier. That's just the type of guy I am.

Posted by Jake at 01:45 AM | Comments (0)

Fake News

It's not real but it's funny.

Remarks by the President Regarding His Private Meetings with Saudi Arabiac Crown Prince Abdullah

[edit]

Hell, while we're at it, there is also hi-larious fake news at The Ironic Times, Satire Wire, and Pocho.com.

Posted by Jake at 01:29 AM | Comments (0)

April 29, 2002

Bill Moyers on Media

Bill Moyers seems to be a good guy. He's dedicated the past couple of decades of his life to journalism and documentaries that focus on governmental fraud, corporate abuse, and the threats posed by both to democracy (he worked for the Johnson Administration back in the 1960s, and I'd like to think that his work ever since has been in atonement). While his work doesn't usually stray into "radicalism," it is thoroughly grounded in an honest belief that people matter, and that the people of a democratic nation ought to be in control of that nation. He gets a thumbs-up from me.

Last week, Moyers' PBS show "NOW with Bill Moyers" covered the issue of concentrated corporate ownership of the media. Looks like some good stuff. You can read the transcripts on the page link above. Personally, I'm most interested in the segment on tyrannical radio conglomerate Clear Channel.

And if you want to watch something that will pummel you until the tears no longer come, find a copy of his documentary "Facing the Truth". It's about South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, an organization that allowed South Africans to confront their tormentors face to face in the wake of apartheid's dissolution. About as powerful as television gets.

Posted by Jake at 10:33 AM | Comments (1)

Bring Me the Head of Horatio Alger

One of the aspects of American culture that keeps the poor from rebelling much against the rich is the belief in social and economic mobility in the US. No one phrases it that way, but basically everyone thinks that if they are just lucky enough or work hard enough, that they too can be rich. People aren't too worried about inequality because they think that they might get to be the ones benefitting from that inequality someday.

Well, turns out that that belief in social mobility isn't true. You might have guessed that from looking around your own life, but author Will Hutton has evidence that America is not the land of opportunity it pretends to be.

This article measures the ways in which the poor and middle class do not become rich in many different ways, but probably the most damning stats come from a study of the US vs France, Britain, Germany, Italy and three (unnamed) Scandanavian countries.

• The US was last in percentage of workers moving from the poorest 20 percent to the second-poorest 20 percent of the population
  
• lowest in number of workers moving from the poorest 40 percent into the richest 60 percent
  
• highest in the number of workers unable to keep full-time jobs
  
• highest in likelihood that workers would move from a richer bracket to a poorer one
  

This article is evidently an excerpt from a longer book by Will Hutton called, "The World We're In." I think I'll have to give it a look.

Posted by Jake at 10:22 AM | Comments (0)

April 28, 2002

Keen Foresight

I was down in San Diego today and saw the headline of local paper the North County Times that read "Bush May Be Planning Attacks on Iraq." It has been absolutely crystal clear that Bush plans to attack Iraq for months!!. The US was trying to fabricate links between Iraq and the Septmeber 11 attacks since day one!! Dick Cheney toured the Middle East specifically to drum up support for a war in Iraq back in February!! The only reason that the US has gotten involved in the latest Israel-Palestine conflict is because every Arab leader that Cheney visited told him that they couldn't even think about Iraq until the Israel-Palestine situation cooled down!! In fact, you could argue that a significant part of ALL US foreign policy in 2002 has been created with the sole intention of attacking Iraq!!

You'd think that the headlines editor would read a newspaper every once in a while.

Posted by Jake at 05:49 PM | Comments (0)

Bustani Speaks

I've posted several articles in the past several weeks about the US' attempts to undermine/destroy a prominant anti-chemical weapons organization by trying to force its director-general out of office. The US appears to have succeeded in its aim. So here's one more, perhaps the final article on the topic. Here is the text of OPCW head Jose Bustani's statement to the OPCW member states, trying to fend off the US attack.

Posted by Jake at 05:35 PM | Comments (0)

April 27, 2002

A Cancer Stick by Any Other Name

Everyone's favorite tobacco and snack food giant Philip Morris has decided to change its name to Altria. "Snack foods" you ask? Philip Morris owns Nabisco (although it seems likely that the two companies will diverge so that the negative image of tobacco doesn't harm the food businesses).

And damn do they have a snappy and uplifting slogan: "Altria -- where people and performance make a difference." They certainly make a difference to the 430,000 Americans who die each year from smoking, and to the shareholders who split the $90 billion a year they make in sales.

Note: I found this article via the nice folks at PR Watch, but I highly recommend the occasional reading of the advertising, marketing and public relations imdustry publications. They don't expect average folks like you and me to read them, so they speak openly of their strategies. Granted, there might be a lot of jargon, or coverage of seemingly insignificant events in the industry, but you can often find little nuggets of perspective in articles at some of the following sites: Advertising Age, AdWeek, BrandWeek, American Demographics (my personal favorite, it's about how advertisers see you and how they hope to con you into buying their products), and O'Dwyer's Public Relations Daily (the latest news on professional lying).

Posted by Jake at 01:56 AM | Comments (1)

April 25, 2002

If You're Not Angry, You're Not This Guy

"Just Get Out!" is a very good article just written by columnist Gabriel Ash about the Israel-Palestine conflict. But rather than just facts, interpretations and apt analogies, this article is overflowing with passion and fury. The author is outraged, he's anguished, he's tormented. He's had his full of lies and bullshit, he's can't stand to see any more death and suffering, and whoever is responsible is going to face the brunt of this guy's verbal onslaught.

A choice passage:

"Call the army home. Call the occupation off. And get out of the Occupied Territories. Just get out!

"Don't mumble about how 'difficult' or 'complex' the situation is. It isn't. You are the oppressor. You are the occupier. You park your tanks on plundered land. You fill your swimming pools with stolen water. You kill and destroy in order to inherit. So don't bullshit about 'the situation.' Just get out!

"Stop abusing people. Stop abusing language. Stop spinning your own moral cocoon. Stop turning your country and your people into a metaphor of evil. Just get out!

"Don't wait for Bush. Don't wait for Arafat. Don't wait to negotiate with the mythical Palestinian leader who will finally accept your dominion. There is nothing to negotiate about. Just get out!"

Posted by Jake at 06:39 PM | Comments (0)

Brand New Ancient Things

The "Saudi peace plan" (as it's coming to be known) has been getting a lot of positive press lately. The interesting thing, according to Noam Chomsky, is that a plan nearly identical to this one was brought to the UN and approved by virtually every nation on Earth back in January of 1976.

It's one snippet from a pretty good interview. Check it out.

Posted by Jake at 06:31 PM | Comments (0)

April 24, 2002

US vs. Diplomacy

And here's the conclusion to the US' attempts to destroy weapons inspections so that no one can impede their plans to invade Iraq for having weapons of mass destruction, whether they have them or not.

It's a very good article, explaining the many illegal tactics used by the US government to have an effective chemical weapons inspector fired. It also gives some detail about a failed US attempt to have a nuclear weapons inspector fired, and a successful effort to have a knowledgable (and pro-Kyoto Protocol) scientist removed from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: George W. Bush is going to get us all killed.

Posted by Jake at 10:24 AM | Comments (3)

Easy to Ignore

Just read today that ten million people went on strike in India on April 16. Sounds like bankers, insurance office workers, coal miners, and longshoremen all held a one day strike to protest government policies which could cut their wages and make their jobs much less stable.

I'm trying to figure out whether the US media covered this story and I somehow missed it, or if the media just didn't bother covering it. Because in my opinion, when 10 million people do something, that's news.

Posted by Jake at 10:19 AM | Comments (0)

April 23, 2002

Coca-Cola vs. Hydrogen and Oxygen

Don't ask any questions, just go read this. It's about the eternal struggle: Coca-Cola's attempts to oust water as the world's most popular beverage.

Seriously. The Coca-Cola company feels that it is in competition with water, that every glass of water someone drinks is a glass of Coke that they're not drinking. Never mind the fact that water is necessary for a person's health and survival, and that the caffiene in Coke actually dehydrates you. In a way, Coke is anti-water.

Can't wait till they spike the resevoirs with Coke, and drain the oceans and replace them with bubbly cola.

Oh, and "high water incidence" is the best phrase in the history of mankind.

[Edit]

Actually, Coca-Cola is not opposed to all water, just water not purchased from one of its subsidiaries. Their 2001 Annual Report boasts that "three of our water brands, Dasani, Ciel and Bonaqua each achieved sales of over 100 million unit cases for the year." If you've lost track, Dasani is the water that will "restore balance to your body, mind and spirit," not to be confused with its rival Naya, the water you're supposed to drink when you go skydiving on your extreme mountain bike.

Coca-Cola doesn't mind if you buy their water instead of bottles of Coke, but they are opposed to drinking relatively-free tap water (as evidenced by the H2NO project described in the original link).

Posted by Jake at 12:42 PM | Comments (2)

April 21, 2002

Venezuelan Coup

Just last weekend, the president of Venezuela was overthrown, a new president was installed, the new president was kicked out, and the old president was reinstated. It all took about 4 days. I am in the process of writing a comprehensive article about the chaos. I hope to have that one done sometime this coming week.

Posted by Jake at 11:16 PM | Comments (0)

Fun with Ambiguity

Two bombs killed 14 and injured 50 in the Philippine city of General Santos this Sunday. Given that my last post here was about how the alleged Philippine terrorist group Abu Sayaff was more a group of thugs than a group of terrorists, I should either be coming up with fanciful theories to maintain that I'm right, or backpedal madly and admit that I was wrong. Truth is, I don't know if I'm right or wrong yet.

Someone called a General Santos radio station, claimed to be an Abu Sayaff member and claimed that his group was responsible for the attack. Unfortunately, no one can verify if the caller's claims are true or not. Might have been them, might have been one of the other two rebel groups in the nation. Might have been Abu Sayaff turning to political terrorism, might have been Abu Sayaff trying to increase their scary image by blowing things up (or by taking credit for someone else's terror).

Either way, it still seems more reasonable to me that the 3000+ US troops are in the Philippines to aid the governent's fight against the rebel groups than the idea that they are there to help the Philippine government to take care of a small bandit/terrorist(?) cell of around 60 people.

Posted by Jake at 10:53 PM | Comments (0)

April 19, 2002

The War on Rebellion. I Mean Terrorism

Some months back, the US sent several hundred of its soldiers to the Philippines to train that nation's soldiers to fight terrorists. The terrorist target was a rebel group called Abu Sayaff.

Even the mainstream American press has described Abu Sayaff not as a terrorist organization, but a group of thugs and bandits who kidnap innocent people and hold them for ransom. While certainly frightening and violent, they clearly seem to be something other than terrorists.

And today it was announced that the US was sending an additional 2700 soldiers to join the 660 soldiers already there. Again, the stated goal is training and "joint military exercises." 3300+ US troops in the Philippines to train thousands of Filipino soldiers to fight a group of maybe 60 kidnappers. Since this makes no logical sense, we've got to take a look underneath.

In my bewilderment about these developements, I almost missed the important paragraph right near the article's end:

"The New People's Army, or NPA — the armed wing of the Maoist Communist Party of the Philippines — claims it and a Muslim separatist group, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, will be the next targets of the expanded U.S. war on terrorism after the Abu Sayyaf. Philippine defense officials have repeatedly denied the claim."

Okay, now things are starting to make more sense. The kidnappers claim to be terrorists, giving the US a rationale for coming to the Philippines' aid. Then they train a bunch of Filipino soldiers to fight the real threat to the nation's power structure, the Maoist and Muslim militants. "Philippine defense officials" may deny that they will turn their anti-terrorism sights towards these groups, but it's about the only explanation that makes any sense.

A number of American Filipino organizations are pretty pissed off about the US involvement in the Philippines, and are organizing to protest it on April 20. Unfortunately, the information that I have does not say where (it looks like either the Bay Area or Washington, DC, I can't tell from the email). But if you want more info, it does give a phone number: Campaign Hotline - 415-820-1557

Posted by Jake at 01:14 AM | Comments (0)

Military Intelligence

Here's a mystery. You've probably heard about the US dropping bombs on Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. Killed four, wounded eight.

Now, this is just the latest in what seem like extremely common accidents caused by the US military. Accidentally bombing someone, accidentally shooting someone, "friendly fire." Are US servicemen that incompetent? I mean, this seems to happen A LOT. The only other possibility I can think of is that maybe the US military is so huge that although these events are very rare, but multiply the rarity times the immense number of troops in the field and you've got a lot.

Posted by Jake at 12:47 AM | Comments (0)

April 17, 2002

US vs. Weapons Inspections (and Iraq)

Here's a companion piece to yesterday's article about the US asaulting the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

If you read the entry prior to this one, you'll see how the US attempting to maintain its "Iraq might have weapons of mass destruction" mantra by trying to remove a very effective chemical weapons inspector from his post. Now we've got this article here about how the Defense Department and CIA tried to dig up incriminating facts about the UN's head nuclear weapons inspector, Hans Blix. Again, I say that making sure that there are no deadly weapons around is a good thing, and that trying to remove anti-nuke safeguards so that the US can blow the bejeezus out of Iraq is, in my opinion, a bad call. Did I say bad call? I meant to say utter fucking stupidity.

And just to keep us up to date on our long acronyms, the UN Special Commission that was in charge of searching for weapons of mass destruction in the late 1990s (before they were thrown out) went by the acronym "UNSCOM." It looks as though a new monitoring agency might replace UNSCOM, the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). Now we're all equally enlightened.

Posted by Jake at 10:45 PM | Comments (0)

April 16, 2002

Better Living Through Chemical Warfare

The real news story that bothered me today was this one.

The short version is that the US government is trying to get Jose Bustani, head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) fired from his job. The OPCW is one of the most successful disarmament agencies in history and has done great things under Bustani's leadership. In the past five years he has overseen the destruction of 2 million chemical weapons, 2/3 of the world's chemical weapons facilities (I admit, that number seems a little fishy. Surely there are secret facilities that can't have factored into that statistic), and increased the number of countries who prohibit chemical weapons from 87 to 145. Sounds like the man is doing some great work. So why does the US want to get him fired?

Poor Bustani does not understand politics, or has chosen not to let political considerations influence his judgement. For example, made the ludicrous effort to send weapons inspectors to facilities in the US. While this is perfectly rational and egalitarian, the US government has shown time and time again that it feels that it is above the law and will not tolerate attempts to hold it accountable to international rules (for example, just last week the International Criminal Court came into being. The US opposed it because the Court would not make US citizens immune from its prosecution).

But Bustani is not under fire for his "arrogance" in expecting the US to live up to its part of the treaty agreements. You see, Bustani's agency is so well-known for its impartiality and fairness, it looks as though Iraq may agree to allow OPCW inspectors into the country to search for chemical weapons. If the inspectors can verify that there are no chemical weapons in Iraq, the US rationale for invading Iraq crumbles. For some reason, George W. seems hell-bent on invading Iraq and has trotted out the flimsy excuse that Iraq has "weapons of mass destruction." If Bustani and the OPCW can disprove that excuse, George W's evil schemes are foiled.

Of course, that's not how the US tells it. They accuse Bustani of a poor "management style," "financial mismanagement," "bias," and "ill-considered initiatives." The US seems to be the only country that feels this way though. The US asked Brazil to recall him; they refused. They proposed a vote of no confidence; they lost. In May 2000, Bustani was elected unanimously to continue his work of the OPCW. And yet the US may get its wish just the same.

Apparently, the US holds many of the purse-strings for the OPCW, and will force another vote on Bustani this coming Sunday. The US seems poised to demand that Bustani resign or it will allow the OPCW to wither and die. Sad. Sounds like Bustani was doing a good job of keeping Sarin, VX and mustard gases out of my lungs. The US makes my lungs a little more vulnerable, and some months from now will probably turn Iraq into an even smokier, more desolate hell-slum of doom. Granted, they might oust Saddam Hussein, but there's no guarantee that the new boss'll be any better than the old boss.

This seems like a good time to mention a little historical footnote. Remember back in 1998 when Saddam Hussein accused the UN weapons inspectors of being spies? And then the US used his expulsion of the inspectors as a pretense to bomb Iraq some more? Well guess what! It turns out that the weapons inspectors were spying on Iraq! (check the old article here. And the final icing on the cake in that story is that American journalists found out that the inspectors were spying on Iraq in October of 1998, but chose not to publish that information until January of 1999. If they'd printed the story when they first learned of it, the US might not have bombed Iraq again, and many people might not have died.

Posted by Jake at 11:22 PM | Comments (2)

What the hell?

Managed to see two bits of absurdity within mere minutes on CNN's Headline News. First, their little text news ticker announced "Just one month till Coca-Cola begins shipping Vanilla Coke." That's news?! Okay, one could make an argument that when Vanilla Coke becomes available that it could be considered a news story (although that's a bit of a stretch). But to announce that there's one month to go before questionably newsworthy events take place? Wonder how much Coke paid CNN for that bit.

The other fun news was White House spokesman Ari Fleischer's claim that the US had nothing to do with the recent coup in Venezuela. Okay, such denials, true or false, are to be expected. But then Fleischer makes this absurd claim that "The tradition, the history in the last 20 years in Central America and South America has been a tradition of democracy, thanks in great part to the United States' efforts". Actually, the history of the region is much more a tradition of dictatorship, death squads, sham democracies. But he's right, that this tradition of oppression and death is "in great part to the United States' efforts.

Dear God! I have to turn off the TV or I'll spend the rest of my days documenting their craziness. A US politician is demanding that the US start drilling for oil in the Alaskan wildlife preserve. Why? Because it will "send a message to Saddam Hussein that we don't need his oil." Well, it will send him that strong message until the estimated 6 month supply of Alaskan oil is depleted, and then we'll send him a message that we do need his oil, will he pretty please give us some? Although now that he's been properly threatened, maybe Venezuela's Hugo Chavez will now start giving the US better oil deals.

Posted by Jake at 01:50 PM | Comments (0)

April 15, 2002

Here're some fun little news snippets

Fox News Licks Boots

Last week, George W. began using a new term to describe Palestinian terrorists. He made the change from calling them "suicide bombers" to "homicide bombers." Tres clever. While there seem to be obvious rhetorical reasons for making such a change, let's face it: Bush's incompetence with both the English language and public speaking make it just as likely that this was a slip of the tongue as a devious political manuever.

Anyhow, enter Fox News. Like dutiful robots, they immediately changed their own language to match Bush's. They too have decided to switch to the "homicide bomber" phrase. Fox News producer Dennis Murray tries to explain that the change is not due to it's rabid conservative slant, but because there was "growing unease about how accurate the [suicide bomber] term" was. Sure there was. If there's one thing that Fox News prizes above all else, it's accuracy. Well, accuracy and smug, condescending grins.

"Homicide bomber" is for the most part a redundant term. Bombers explode bombs. Bombs kill people. Killing people is homicide. Granted, it's possible that a bomb could explode and not kill anyone. I suppose you'd call them an "incompetent bomber." A bomber who kills himself (or herself as is now occasionally the case) is somewhat unique, as in previous years, the goal of bombing was to hurt your enemies and not yourself. Therefore adding "suicide" to the front of "bomber" seems accurate and appropriate. But to make everyone happy, how about "suicidal, homicidal bombers"?

Oh, and one more fun snippet from our Fair and Balanced Fox friends.

From an unnamed Fox News senior Vice President, November 28, 2001:

"Let's not get sidetracked worrying about the plight of Afghans this winter, or how many children are undernourished. We can help that country as soon as they cough up the guys who killed 5,000 Americans. When in doubt, take a look at the WTC collapsing."

Right.

You can find that quote here, about halfway down the page.

Posted by Jake at 09:42 AM | Comments (0)

April 14, 2002

Day One

Day One of the ranting and wankery (rankery?) that is weblogging.

It really is sad that I consider myself a media critic (well, journalism-type media), yet can't get myself to absorb any of said media to critique these days. Mainstream news is so bad at present that it makes me want to goudge my eyes out with a crayon. But hopefully I can stomach enough of the crap to make some nice points here and there in this quasi-journal.

Saw UK Independent reporter Robert Fisk give a speech yesterday. While I thought it would mainly be a presentation about the Middle East, to my happy surprise it was actually more of a presentation about the ways in which Western journalists (are forced to) cover the Middle East. The official title of his talk was "9/11: Ask who did it, but don't ask why!" Fisk pointed out that when he asks "why" questions about Midde East politics and/or terrorism, people think he's a criminal. And when he begins to answer those "why" questions, people think he's Lucifer's big brother. Probably the most interesting portions of Fisk's speech were his examples of how journalists use and abuse language to avoid asking or answering "why" questions. The Occupied Territories aren't "occupied," they're "disputed." Israeli soldiers aren't "assassinating" suspected terrorists, those men were "victims of targetted killings." And of course, Israeli soldiers never "kill" innocent civilians, those civilians are "caught in the crossfire."

Fisk seemed to conclude that many journalists are quite capable of doing the thorough and informative type of coverage that, well, he does, but he thinks that journalists stick to safer ways of telling stories fearing reprisal. While it makes some logical sense--why write stories that get you death threats?--it does seem a bit skimpy as a theory. He also proposed that the West's near-unconditional support for Israel was based upon it's symbolism. He argued that the creation of Israel was seen as a healing, as a move towards peace in the years following the Second Great War. After the nation had been imbued with mythical qualities in the minds of Americans and Europeans, movements against the Jews there were subtly equated with Nazism. Therefore any movement against Israel is seen as an attack on peace and a replaying of WWII. While both theories make some intuitive sense, I find the first (about journalists) a bit weak, and the second a bit of a stretch.

Anyhow, I'd highly recommend attending one of Fisk's speeches if he comes to your town. And if he doesn't, there is an online version of his April 13 speech at USC available at here. This video feed starts after Fisk has been speaking for a couple of minutes about how he was beaten by grief-mad refugees on the Afghan-Pakistan border last year, but I imagine you'll catch on to his train of thought pretty quickly.

I also plan on airing the audio version of this speech on my Lying Media Bastards radio show as soon as Kill Radio is up and running again. I'll also be interviewing some activists who have recently returned from the Occupied Territories and Iraq in the coming weeks. When we're not plagued with anti-technological spasms, my show's on Mondays, 2-4pm PST.

Posted by Jake at 02:24 PM | Comments (0)