How Tower Records Committed Suicide
http://www.counterpunch.org/ballinger11012006.html
I cry like a baby every time I read this.--Pete
By LEE BALLINGER
The calamity caused by the liquidation of Tower Records doesn't just consist of the 2700 workers fired and the dozens of small label releases that will lose their most important national outlet. It isn't just that Tower will certainly take down with it some indie labels and distributors to whom it owed a fortune. It certainly isn't just the eight-figure losses each of the major labels will absorb, probably resulting in more firings at those that aren't already pared to the bone.
You're going to feel the demise of Tower too, even if there isn't a Tower anywhere near you. Tower died not because of illegal downloading or any other record biz boogeyman. What killed the chain, in the final analysis, is the breakneck expansion and consolidation of the past 20 years. Although Tower didn't participate in the merger and acquisition of other chains which have led to so many other bankruptcies, it did attempt to spread tentacles coast to coast and continent to continent.
Tower CEO Russ Solomon is revered in the music industry. But why? In the name of profit, Solomon made Tower one of the chains that most avidly championed Tipper stickers and record label lyric screening committees. Combined with the equally crazy campaign to condemn fair use of copyrighted material to the dustbin of history, this shrewd maneuver choked the most exciting record-making climate since the dawn of rock'n'roll. Then he expanded his California business all the way to New York and Tokyo, without managing to figure out how to do anything but lose money.
Now, consider what you'll do for an alternative. Probably, if you're a big music fan, you'll do more ordering from the Internet--meaning a wait of a day to a week before you can hear the music you've paid for.
What you won't be doing is going to your town's record store with the knowledgeable staff . That store doesn't exist any more. Most likely, price competition from the chains drove it out of existence. So what we get out of the process is a temporary set of lowball prices, vastly fewer musical options, and a long-term lack of convenience and absence of expertise.
This phenomena operates throughout our society. It's the reason airlines and oil companies, insurers and drug corporations, even electricity providers, jack up prices and strip down their services. Most of the time, the only people who come out smiling are the financiers, who peel off a part of every dollar in order to hire sometimes great artists to play at their birthday parties.
Tower Records was a poster child for "hip capitalism," a fig leaf term meant to cover a system which justifies itself by providing "competition" that leads to "innovation"--until the reckoning comes and the cartel or monopoly begins to take shape, driving out all not on the inside. The idea that this has made our society wealthy, efficient and convenient is lunacy, as Tower's demise confirms.
Tower Records was a suicide.
The choice we face is whether we'd like our entire society to do the same or whether we will begin working to change it fundamentally.
Lee Ballinger is coeditor of one of CounterPunch's favorite newsletters, Rock and Rap Confidential, where this article originally appeared. He can be reached at: Rockrap@aol.com
For a free copy of the latest RRC issue, email your postal address to: RRC, Box 341305, LA CA 90034 or send an email to: Rockrap@aol.com
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Beltway Bromo-Seltzer
A Sneak Peak at the Baker Commission Report
http://www.counterpunch.org/werther11142006.html
This is absolutely delightful!--Pete
By WERTHER
As we have stated in the past, the reports of government commissions serve their intended purposes best when they act as a cover-up disguised as an exposé. The 9/11 Commission Report is the classic and best-known recent example, with Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton giving bravura performances in pretended gravitas, with only an occasional lapse into imbecility by John Lehman or Jim Thompson. [1] The Robb-Silverman Report, by contrast, was so shakily constructed, and the co-chairmen's dissembling so unconvincing, that their "investigation" should have been accompanied by the music track of "Three Blind Mice."
In the wake of the human and fiscal wreckage of the Iraq fiasco, all Washington trembles in anticipation at the release of the Baker-Hamilton Commission's report on Iraq. Unlike many other commissions, its lucubrations have been held in camera, the method favored by chief Bush family consigliere and fixer James Baker.
A run-down of its other principals should give us a strong indication where this operation is heading. Aside from Baker, there is as co-chairman once again Lee Hamilton, a past master at these performances. As the éminence beige of the Democratic foreign policy apparatus, Hamilton has been participating in high-level cover-ups of government shenanigans stretching back to the Iran-Contra affair.
The rest of the cast consists of: Vernon Jordan, one of Bill Clinton's money men and obviously intended to slap the Wahabbite insurgents of the Black Caucus into line; Ed Meese, faithful purveyor of balderdash for countless decades and a link to the Reaganites; Lawrence Eagleburger, a saturnine Bush family wheel horse and Kissinger liegeman known mainly for his staggeringly immense girth and ability to balance on a cane while juggling a cigarette and an asthma inhaler; Leon Panetta, a professional ward heeler and thief of a 1986 Indiana Congressional election, tasked to corral a spectrum of Democrats roughly bounded by Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer; former Defense Secretary William Perry, representing the interests of the merchants of death; Charles Robb, who began his career as a White House doorman and who symbolically remains one four decades later; ex-Senator Alan Simpson, wise-cracking cowpoke (and member of a disastrous Congressional delegation to Iraq in 1990, whose purpose was to ply Saddam with U.S. taxpayer loot via the Commodity Credit Corporation); and former Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the lone member of the commission with no obvious ties to Beltway monkey business and presumably tapped for the sheer novelty value.
Probably the only reason Baker and Hamilton didn't select Clark Clifford or Paul Nitze to serve on the commission is that these two quintessential Establishmentarians are legally dead. But the leaden predictability of its membership preordains its conclusions.
Given that the rules governing these types of commissions are as ritualized as Noh drama, we believe it is safe to roll out our own projection of what its findings will be. Here, in capsule form, are the Baker-Hamilton report's major findings:
There have been major challenges to stabilizing Iraq, but it remains vital to our interests; precipitate withdrawal risks chaos and a power vacuum (i.e., Iraq has been a colossal screw-up, but we are holding no one accountable. "Our" interests means superior folks like us. Nature abhors a vacuum; too bad it does not abhor drones and aged blowhards).
The next six months will be critical (Where have we heard that before? As we have been in Iraq for over 42 months, there have been at least 7 inflexion points where "the next six months will be critical." These are Fabian tactics).
The Iraq government needs to get its act together (Do tell. But how can the dummy solve problems created by the ventriloquist?).
The Iraq government must be given a timetable/benchmarks/some other euphemism (This finding will challenge the creative writing skills of the commission staff).
We need to strengthen/beef-up/robustify Iraq's army and police forces (No kidding; you geniuses earned your per diems for this? We tried that with a variety of indigenous forces: the ARVN, Hmong, Meo, Coral Gables Cubans, and a host of other Third World paladins now operating chop suey parlors in proximity to CIA front buildings in the Northern Virginia suburbs).
U.S. forces will redeploy to neighboring states (where the ruler has a CIA stipend or the local emir has business interests intertwined with the Bush family. The "deliberate" and "phased" withdrawal means the redeployment will proceed at the speed of the Humboldt Glacier).
The United States must pursue a multilateral approach with its friends/allies/coalition partners/nodding acquaintances in order to bring stability to Iraq (That would be a first; but why, then, has the Executive Mansion resubmitted the nomination of acting UN ambassador John Bolton, who vetoes UN resolutions as maniacally as Grover Cleveland vetoed pension bills? And for the express purpose "as part of a public relations strategy to put the onus on the Democrats for not allowing a vote on his appointment to go to the floor"). [2]
There must be a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. But Israel, our major ally/the only true democracy in the region/the light unto the gentiles, deserves blah blah blah (This is standard boilerplate wherewith the commissioners will simultaneously sound "balanced," yet not risk suffering a boycott against their lucrative consultancies by the Israel lobby).
There will be more in the report, but it will amount to cotton-wool packing, filigree, and cathedral gargoyles.
The politicians will rush to praise the report's sagacity, and heed it, more or less. For the Establishment, which stretches back through Clifford and Nitze, through Henry Stimson, Colonel House, Albert Beveridge, back through the Morgans and the Astors, through the founding of Skull & Bones, and finally alighting on Alexander Hamilton, the prototypical oligarch of the new North American republic, it will be a Bromo-Seltzer after the nightmarish hangover of a failed scion's rebellion against his illustrious father. It will be an assurance, like a bank vault slamming shut, that in Washington, everything will be fundamentally the same for all eternity.
Werther is the pen name of a Northern Virginia-based defense analyst.
[1] Indeed, the session in which then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice writhed on the cruel hook set by commissioner Richard Ben Veniste was a masterpiece of high television drama which connoisseurs of the old Perry Mason series could fully savor.
[2] "U.N. Post Will Test Bush on Pledge for Consensus," The New York Times, 11 November 2006.
http://www.counterpunch.org/werther11142006.html
This is absolutely delightful!--Pete
By WERTHER
As we have stated in the past, the reports of government commissions serve their intended purposes best when they act as a cover-up disguised as an exposé. The 9/11 Commission Report is the classic and best-known recent example, with Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton giving bravura performances in pretended gravitas, with only an occasional lapse into imbecility by John Lehman or Jim Thompson. [1] The Robb-Silverman Report, by contrast, was so shakily constructed, and the co-chairmen's dissembling so unconvincing, that their "investigation" should have been accompanied by the music track of "Three Blind Mice."
In the wake of the human and fiscal wreckage of the Iraq fiasco, all Washington trembles in anticipation at the release of the Baker-Hamilton Commission's report on Iraq. Unlike many other commissions, its lucubrations have been held in camera, the method favored by chief Bush family consigliere and fixer James Baker.
A run-down of its other principals should give us a strong indication where this operation is heading. Aside from Baker, there is as co-chairman once again Lee Hamilton, a past master at these performances. As the éminence beige of the Democratic foreign policy apparatus, Hamilton has been participating in high-level cover-ups of government shenanigans stretching back to the Iran-Contra affair.
The rest of the cast consists of: Vernon Jordan, one of Bill Clinton's money men and obviously intended to slap the Wahabbite insurgents of the Black Caucus into line; Ed Meese, faithful purveyor of balderdash for countless decades and a link to the Reaganites; Lawrence Eagleburger, a saturnine Bush family wheel horse and Kissinger liegeman known mainly for his staggeringly immense girth and ability to balance on a cane while juggling a cigarette and an asthma inhaler; Leon Panetta, a professional ward heeler and thief of a 1986 Indiana Congressional election, tasked to corral a spectrum of Democrats roughly bounded by Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer; former Defense Secretary William Perry, representing the interests of the merchants of death; Charles Robb, who began his career as a White House doorman and who symbolically remains one four decades later; ex-Senator Alan Simpson, wise-cracking cowpoke (and member of a disastrous Congressional delegation to Iraq in 1990, whose purpose was to ply Saddam with U.S. taxpayer loot via the Commodity Credit Corporation); and former Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the lone member of the commission with no obvious ties to Beltway monkey business and presumably tapped for the sheer novelty value.
Probably the only reason Baker and Hamilton didn't select Clark Clifford or Paul Nitze to serve on the commission is that these two quintessential Establishmentarians are legally dead. But the leaden predictability of its membership preordains its conclusions.
Given that the rules governing these types of commissions are as ritualized as Noh drama, we believe it is safe to roll out our own projection of what its findings will be. Here, in capsule form, are the Baker-Hamilton report's major findings:
There have been major challenges to stabilizing Iraq, but it remains vital to our interests; precipitate withdrawal risks chaos and a power vacuum (i.e., Iraq has been a colossal screw-up, but we are holding no one accountable. "Our" interests means superior folks like us. Nature abhors a vacuum; too bad it does not abhor drones and aged blowhards).
The next six months will be critical (Where have we heard that before? As we have been in Iraq for over 42 months, there have been at least 7 inflexion points where "the next six months will be critical." These are Fabian tactics).
The Iraq government needs to get its act together (Do tell. But how can the dummy solve problems created by the ventriloquist?).
The Iraq government must be given a timetable/benchmarks/some other euphemism (This finding will challenge the creative writing skills of the commission staff).
We need to strengthen/beef-up/robustify Iraq's army and police forces (No kidding; you geniuses earned your per diems for this? We tried that with a variety of indigenous forces: the ARVN, Hmong, Meo, Coral Gables Cubans, and a host of other Third World paladins now operating chop suey parlors in proximity to CIA front buildings in the Northern Virginia suburbs).
U.S. forces will redeploy to neighboring states (where the ruler has a CIA stipend or the local emir has business interests intertwined with the Bush family. The "deliberate" and "phased" withdrawal means the redeployment will proceed at the speed of the Humboldt Glacier).
The United States must pursue a multilateral approach with its friends/allies/coalition partners/nodding acquaintances in order to bring stability to Iraq (That would be a first; but why, then, has the Executive Mansion resubmitted the nomination of acting UN ambassador John Bolton, who vetoes UN resolutions as maniacally as Grover Cleveland vetoed pension bills? And for the express purpose "as part of a public relations strategy to put the onus on the Democrats for not allowing a vote on his appointment to go to the floor"). [2]
There must be a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. But Israel, our major ally/the only true democracy in the region/the light unto the gentiles, deserves blah blah blah (This is standard boilerplate wherewith the commissioners will simultaneously sound "balanced," yet not risk suffering a boycott against their lucrative consultancies by the Israel lobby).
There will be more in the report, but it will amount to cotton-wool packing, filigree, and cathedral gargoyles.
The politicians will rush to praise the report's sagacity, and heed it, more or less. For the Establishment, which stretches back through Clifford and Nitze, through Henry Stimson, Colonel House, Albert Beveridge, back through the Morgans and the Astors, through the founding of Skull & Bones, and finally alighting on Alexander Hamilton, the prototypical oligarch of the new North American republic, it will be a Bromo-Seltzer after the nightmarish hangover of a failed scion's rebellion against his illustrious father. It will be an assurance, like a bank vault slamming shut, that in Washington, everything will be fundamentally the same for all eternity.
Werther is the pen name of a Northern Virginia-based defense analyst.
[1] Indeed, the session in which then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice writhed on the cruel hook set by commissioner Richard Ben Veniste was a masterpiece of high television drama which connoisseurs of the old Perry Mason series could fully savor.
[2] "U.N. Post Will Test Bush on Pledge for Consensus," The New York Times, 11 November 2006.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
GATES AND ZBIGGY GET THE TALIBAN GOING
[Interview with former US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski by Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998]
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
Translated from the French by Bill Blum
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
Translated from the French by Bill Blum
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
U.S. shows its complicity in Security Council veto
U.S. Vetoes Security Council Resolution Assailing Israel for Attacks
By WARREN HOGE, New York Times
UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 11 — The United States vetoed a Security Council resolution on Saturday that condemned Israel for its military actions in Gaza and called for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from the area.
The United States ambassador, John R. Bolton, told the Council that the resolution “does not display an even-handed characterization of the recent events in Gaza, nor does it advance the cause of Israeli-Palestinian peace.”
The resolution, introduced by Qatar, the Arab representative on the Council, had been amended during two days of negotiations to meet objections that it was not balanced. But Mr. Bolton said it remained “in many places biased against Israel and politically motivated.”
In the vote, 4 countries abstained — Britain, Denmark, Japan and Slovakia — and 10 were in favor — Argentina, China, Congo, France, Ghana, Greece, Peru, Russia, Qatar and Tanzania.
The original draft had made no mention of Palestinian rocket strikes into Israel and accused Israel of conducting a “massacre” of civilians in its attack at Beit Hanun on Wednesday that killed 18 civilians.
New language was inserted condemning the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel and calling upon the Palestinian Authority to take “immediate and sustained action” to end the rocket fire. But while the resolution named Israel as liable for the attacks on Gaza, it was silent on who or what group was responsible for the attacks on Israel.
In other changes, a reference to “indiscriminate” Israeli violence became “disproportionate” violence, and the words “military assault,” “aggression” and “massacre” were dropped in favor of the general phrase “military operations.”
Another provision had proposed that a new United Nations observer force be sent into the area to monitor a cease-fire, but it was substituted with language suggested by France that called for the creation of “an international mechanism for the protection of civilians.”
Mr. Bolton said the United States considered this “a promise which is unwise and unnecessary and which, at any rate, raises false hopes.”
The resolution that was voted on requested that Secretary General Kofi Annan establish a fact-finding mission to investigate Wednesday’s attack and report back within 30 days and called for the resumption of international efforts to achieve peace by the so-called quartet — the United Nations, the European Union, Russia and the United States.
Israel has apologized for the deaths at Beit Hanun, blaming a “technical error,” and has announced its own investigation of the episode. But it has said it will continue to try to stop militants from launching rockets into Israel from Gaza.
The United States traditionally opposes what it considers one-sided Security Council resolutions on Israel, and Saturday’s vote was the fourth time in three years that Washington had taken such action.
In July the United States vetoed another resolution on Gaza; in March 2004 it vetoed a resolution condemning Israel for killing the Hamas leader, Sheik Ahmed Yassin; and in December 2003 it blocked a measure protesting the construction of the Israeli separation barrier in the West Bank.
Almost all of the 45 nations that spoke during a daylong debate on the Middle East on Thursday condemned Israel. Arab nations are now expected to move for a vote in the 192-member General Assembly, a path they have followed in the past when such measures have failed to pass the Security Council.
Unlike Security Council resolutions, those passed in the General Assembly are nonbinding and largely symbolic. But they generally attract widespread support when Israel, and, by extension, the United States, are the targets.
Jean-Marc de la Sablière, the French ambassador, said he felt the final negotiated text was “a balanced one” and would have sent the right message to both Israel and the Palestinians. He added, “I hope that the fact this text has not been adopted will not renew tensions on the ground.”
By WARREN HOGE, New York Times
UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 11 — The United States vetoed a Security Council resolution on Saturday that condemned Israel for its military actions in Gaza and called for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from the area.
The United States ambassador, John R. Bolton, told the Council that the resolution “does not display an even-handed characterization of the recent events in Gaza, nor does it advance the cause of Israeli-Palestinian peace.”
The resolution, introduced by Qatar, the Arab representative on the Council, had been amended during two days of negotiations to meet objections that it was not balanced. But Mr. Bolton said it remained “in many places biased against Israel and politically motivated.”
In the vote, 4 countries abstained — Britain, Denmark, Japan and Slovakia — and 10 were in favor — Argentina, China, Congo, France, Ghana, Greece, Peru, Russia, Qatar and Tanzania.
The original draft had made no mention of Palestinian rocket strikes into Israel and accused Israel of conducting a “massacre” of civilians in its attack at Beit Hanun on Wednesday that killed 18 civilians.
New language was inserted condemning the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel and calling upon the Palestinian Authority to take “immediate and sustained action” to end the rocket fire. But while the resolution named Israel as liable for the attacks on Gaza, it was silent on who or what group was responsible for the attacks on Israel.
In other changes, a reference to “indiscriminate” Israeli violence became “disproportionate” violence, and the words “military assault,” “aggression” and “massacre” were dropped in favor of the general phrase “military operations.”
Another provision had proposed that a new United Nations observer force be sent into the area to monitor a cease-fire, but it was substituted with language suggested by France that called for the creation of “an international mechanism for the protection of civilians.”
Mr. Bolton said the United States considered this “a promise which is unwise and unnecessary and which, at any rate, raises false hopes.”
The resolution that was voted on requested that Secretary General Kofi Annan establish a fact-finding mission to investigate Wednesday’s attack and report back within 30 days and called for the resumption of international efforts to achieve peace by the so-called quartet — the United Nations, the European Union, Russia and the United States.
Israel has apologized for the deaths at Beit Hanun, blaming a “technical error,” and has announced its own investigation of the episode. But it has said it will continue to try to stop militants from launching rockets into Israel from Gaza.
The United States traditionally opposes what it considers one-sided Security Council resolutions on Israel, and Saturday’s vote was the fourth time in three years that Washington had taken such action.
In July the United States vetoed another resolution on Gaza; in March 2004 it vetoed a resolution condemning Israel for killing the Hamas leader, Sheik Ahmed Yassin; and in December 2003 it blocked a measure protesting the construction of the Israeli separation barrier in the West Bank.
Almost all of the 45 nations that spoke during a daylong debate on the Middle East on Thursday condemned Israel. Arab nations are now expected to move for a vote in the 192-member General Assembly, a path they have followed in the past when such measures have failed to pass the Security Council.
Unlike Security Council resolutions, those passed in the General Assembly are nonbinding and largely symbolic. But they generally attract widespread support when Israel, and, by extension, the United States, are the targets.
Jean-Marc de la Sablière, the French ambassador, said he felt the final negotiated text was “a balanced one” and would have sent the right message to both Israel and the Palestinians. He added, “I hope that the fact this text has not been adopted will not renew tensions on the ground.”
The Terrorists Who Aren't in the News
By Jennifer L. Pozner, AlterNet
Posted on November 11
http://www.alternet.org/story/43182/
This piece was originally published by Newsday.
On Sept. 11, 2006, the fifth anniversary of the terror attacks that devastated our nation, a man crashed his car into a building in Davenport, Iowa, hoping to blow it up and kill himself in the fire.
No national newspaper, magazine or network newscast reported this attempted suicide bombing, though an AP wire story was available. Cable news (save for MSNBC's Keith Olbermann) was silent about this latest act of terrorism in America.
Had the criminal, David McMenemy, been Arab or Muslim, this would have been headline news for weeks. But since his target was the Edgerton Women's Health Center, rather than, say, a bank or a police station, media have not called this terrorism -- even after three decades of extreme violence by anti-abortion fanatics, mostly fundamentalist Christians who believe they're fighting a holy war.
Since 1977, casualties from this war include seven murders, 17 attempted murders, three kidnappings, 152 assaults, 305 completed or attempted bombings and arsons, 375 invasions, 482 stalking incidents, 380 death threats, 618 bomb threats, 100 acid attacks, and 1,254 acts of vandalism, according to the National Abortion Federation.
Abortion providers and activists received 77 letters threatening anthrax attacks before 9/11, yet the media never considered anthrax threats as terrorism until after 9/11, when such letters were delivered to journalists and members of Congress.
After 9/11, Planned Parenthood and other abortion rights groups received 554 envelopes containing white powder and messages like: "You have been exposed to anthrax. ... We are going to kill all of you." They were signed by the Army of God, a group that hosts Scripture-filled web pages for "Anti-Abortion Heroes of the Faith," including minister Paul Hill, Michael Griffin and James Kopp, all convicted of murdering abortion providers, and a convicted clinic bomber, the Rev. Michael Bray. Another of their "martyrs," Clayton Waagner, mailed anthrax letters while a fugitive on the FBI's 10 most wanted list for anti-abortion related crimes.
"I am a terrorist," Waagner declared on the Army of God's web site. Boasting that God "freed me to make war on his enemy," he claimed he knew where 42 Planned Parenthood workers lived. "It doesn't matter to me if you're a nurse, receptionist, bookkeeper, or janitor, if you work for the murderous abortionist, I'm going to kill you."
That's textbook terrorism, defined by the USA Patriot Act as dangerous criminal acts that "appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population" or "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."
Which brings us back to car bomber, McMenemy. According to the Detroit Free Press (the only newspaper in the Nexis news database that reported his crime), he targeted the women's health center because he thought it provided abortions. It doesn't. (oops!) It provides mostly low-income patients with pap smears, ob-gyn care, testing for sexually transmitted diseases, birth control, and nutrition and immunization programs for women and children.
The attack caused $170,000 in property damage and left poor families without health care for a week. But long after Edgerton's water-logged carpets are removed, scorched medical equipment replaced and new doors reopened to the public, a culture of fear will linger among doctors, nurses, advocates and patients across the country, who will worry they could be next. Some frightened workers will quit their jobs; some women will be too scared to get the health care they need.
Every fresh incident of anti-abortion terrorism is a reminder that women's health supporters are not safe in a country where abortion is legal but mobilized zealots believe Jesus has empowered them to kill to prevent women from choosing it.
Is McMenemy a lone nut case, or a member of that network of violent extremists? We don't know, because journalists haven't investigated.
Nor have they reported that just last year, nearly one in five abortion clinics experienced gunfire, arson, bombings, chemical attacks, assaults, stalking, death threats and blockades, according to the 2005 National Clinic Violence Survey. Additionally, 59 percent suffered intimidation tactics such as photo/video surveillance.
Federal efforts to hunt down these terrorists improved with the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act in 1994 and the National Task Force on Violence Against Health Care Providers, established by the Department of Justice in 1998. The feds have taken over McMenemy's case, charging him with arson against a business affecting interstate commerce. Yet as of Oct. 5, no news outlet on Nexis reported this, despite a second AP story.
As we continue national debates on how to keep America safe from terrorism, journalists do us -- and especially women -- no good pretending that the threats come only from radical Muslims outside our borders.
Jennifer L. Pozner is founder and executive director of Women In Media & News, a national media analysis, education and advocacy group. She lectures about women, media, politics and popular culture on college campuses across the country, and can be reached at director@wimnonline.org
Posted on November 11
http://www.alternet.org/story/43182/
This piece was originally published by Newsday.
On Sept. 11, 2006, the fifth anniversary of the terror attacks that devastated our nation, a man crashed his car into a building in Davenport, Iowa, hoping to blow it up and kill himself in the fire.
No national newspaper, magazine or network newscast reported this attempted suicide bombing, though an AP wire story was available. Cable news (save for MSNBC's Keith Olbermann) was silent about this latest act of terrorism in America.
Had the criminal, David McMenemy, been Arab or Muslim, this would have been headline news for weeks. But since his target was the Edgerton Women's Health Center, rather than, say, a bank or a police station, media have not called this terrorism -- even after three decades of extreme violence by anti-abortion fanatics, mostly fundamentalist Christians who believe they're fighting a holy war.
Since 1977, casualties from this war include seven murders, 17 attempted murders, three kidnappings, 152 assaults, 305 completed or attempted bombings and arsons, 375 invasions, 482 stalking incidents, 380 death threats, 618 bomb threats, 100 acid attacks, and 1,254 acts of vandalism, according to the National Abortion Federation.
Abortion providers and activists received 77 letters threatening anthrax attacks before 9/11, yet the media never considered anthrax threats as terrorism until after 9/11, when such letters were delivered to journalists and members of Congress.
After 9/11, Planned Parenthood and other abortion rights groups received 554 envelopes containing white powder and messages like: "You have been exposed to anthrax. ... We are going to kill all of you." They were signed by the Army of God, a group that hosts Scripture-filled web pages for "Anti-Abortion Heroes of the Faith," including minister Paul Hill, Michael Griffin and James Kopp, all convicted of murdering abortion providers, and a convicted clinic bomber, the Rev. Michael Bray. Another of their "martyrs," Clayton Waagner, mailed anthrax letters while a fugitive on the FBI's 10 most wanted list for anti-abortion related crimes.
"I am a terrorist," Waagner declared on the Army of God's web site. Boasting that God "freed me to make war on his enemy," he claimed he knew where 42 Planned Parenthood workers lived. "It doesn't matter to me if you're a nurse, receptionist, bookkeeper, or janitor, if you work for the murderous abortionist, I'm going to kill you."
That's textbook terrorism, defined by the USA Patriot Act as dangerous criminal acts that "appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population" or "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."
Which brings us back to car bomber, McMenemy. According to the Detroit Free Press (the only newspaper in the Nexis news database that reported his crime), he targeted the women's health center because he thought it provided abortions. It doesn't. (oops!) It provides mostly low-income patients with pap smears, ob-gyn care, testing for sexually transmitted diseases, birth control, and nutrition and immunization programs for women and children.
The attack caused $170,000 in property damage and left poor families without health care for a week. But long after Edgerton's water-logged carpets are removed, scorched medical equipment replaced and new doors reopened to the public, a culture of fear will linger among doctors, nurses, advocates and patients across the country, who will worry they could be next. Some frightened workers will quit their jobs; some women will be too scared to get the health care they need.
Every fresh incident of anti-abortion terrorism is a reminder that women's health supporters are not safe in a country where abortion is legal but mobilized zealots believe Jesus has empowered them to kill to prevent women from choosing it.
Is McMenemy a lone nut case, or a member of that network of violent extremists? We don't know, because journalists haven't investigated.
Nor have they reported that just last year, nearly one in five abortion clinics experienced gunfire, arson, bombings, chemical attacks, assaults, stalking, death threats and blockades, according to the 2005 National Clinic Violence Survey. Additionally, 59 percent suffered intimidation tactics such as photo/video surveillance.
Federal efforts to hunt down these terrorists improved with the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act in 1994 and the National Task Force on Violence Against Health Care Providers, established by the Department of Justice in 1998. The feds have taken over McMenemy's case, charging him with arson against a business affecting interstate commerce. Yet as of Oct. 5, no news outlet on Nexis reported this, despite a second AP story.
As we continue national debates on how to keep America safe from terrorism, journalists do us -- and especially women -- no good pretending that the threats come only from radical Muslims outside our borders.
Jennifer L. Pozner is founder and executive director of Women In Media & News, a national media analysis, education and advocacy group. She lectures about women, media, politics and popular culture on college campuses across the country, and can be reached at director@wimnonline.org
Saturday, November 11, 2006
More Fatuous Journalism
GREAT MOMENTS IN THE WASHINGTON POST'S NEVER-ENDING STRUGGLE TO AVOID USING THE WORD 'LIE' WHEN WRITING OF GEORGE BUSH
President's Evasion Raises Truth Issues
- Washington Post headline
President's Evasion Raises Truth Issues
- Washington Post headline
Bush lost but we haven't won
Sam Smith, The Progressive Review
I woke up the morning after the election feeling surprisingly glum. It took me awhile to figure out what was wrong. It certainly wasn't that Bush had lost. That was wonderful. Then it hit me. The trouble was that we hadn't won.
An improvement, yes, but nowhere near the sort of improvement that brings real joy. Then thoughts of the Clinton years came back, when the capital city turned myopically smug and anything not on the agenda was off the table. If you weren't with the program you were only slightly better than a Republican.
The fact that all sorts of issues were ignored, that the social democracy of the New Deal and Great Society was being deliberately undermined and that the country was moving steadily to the right were not meant to be mentioned. The capital had turned into another football stadium.
I wrote about it in my memoirs:
To be sure, it is different this time. The White House is still clearly the enemy and the Congress has some, like John Conyers, Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold, who may be granted some long overdue respect. But the bulk of the Democratic Party remains aground on the reefs of myopic centrism where they were lured by their campaign contributors. Dean Baker of the Prospect gives some of the flavor: "One of the items on the Democrats' '100 hours' agenda is reforming the Medicare prescription drug bill. The bill passed by the Republican Congress prohibited Medicare from offering its own plan. This denied seniors the benefits of Medicare's lower administrative costs and it means that drugs cost almost twice as much as if Medicare bargained directly with the industry and secured the same prices as the Veterans Administration or the Canadian government. The Republicans also added a seemingly gratuitous clause that explicitly prohibited Medicare from negotiating prices with the industry.
During the campaign, the Democrats had promised that they would reform the drug bill to allow Medicare to offer its own drug plan. On NPR this morning, it was reported that the Democrats now are just planning to remove the gratuitous clause prohibiting Medicare from negotiating prices with the drug industry, while not allowing Medicare to offer its own plan.
Removing this prohibition by itself will mean nothing. What would Medicare negotiate over, if it doesn't offer its own plan? This could lead cynics to believe that the Democrats are trying to pull in some of the campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical and insurance industries which have disproportionately gone to Republicans in recent election cycles. Fixing the prescription drug benefit to save seniors and taxpayers money was one of the main promises made by the Democratic Party during the campaign. If they instead pursue a purely symbolic measure, with no practical significance, millions of people who voted for them on Tuesday will rightfully feel betrayed."
What is important at a time like this is that those who truly want a democratic, decent and progressive America have to clearly differentiate themselves from both parties. There needs to be a loud third voice - not so much a political one as a moral and pragmatic one - constantly reminding the political leeches on both sides of the real issues, the real reforms, the real problems. One of the reasons Bush won office originally was because too many members of this third voice - including women's, civil liberties, and environmental groups - had indentured themselves to the Clinton machine and the sound of progress had gone voluntarily silent.
Now is the time not for silence but for the third voice of American politics to become far louder and to be constantly holding a light on a better path than is likely to followed by the new Congress. There must be a clearly visible alternative for everything the cowardly and corrupt center does or refuses to do. Phrases like 'universal healthcare' can not be politely avoided nor can the fact that those who fund both parties are destroying our planet.
We must always remember that while Bush and his capos lost this time we have yet to win.
I woke up the morning after the election feeling surprisingly glum. It took me awhile to figure out what was wrong. It certainly wasn't that Bush had lost. That was wonderful. Then it hit me. The trouble was that we hadn't won.
An improvement, yes, but nowhere near the sort of improvement that brings real joy. Then thoughts of the Clinton years came back, when the capital city turned myopically smug and anything not on the agenda was off the table. If you weren't with the program you were only slightly better than a Republican.
The fact that all sorts of issues were ignored, that the social democracy of the New Deal and Great Society was being deliberately undermined and that the country was moving steadily to the right were not meant to be mentioned. The capital had turned into another football stadium.
I wrote about it in my memoirs:
I realized later that I had stumbled upon the outlines of a new American political fault line. It was so new that it lacked a name, stereotypes, cliches, experts and prophets. In many ways it seemed more a refugee camp than a voluntary assembly, yet, as I thought about it, the more its logic seemed only concealed rather than lacking.On one side were libertarians, blacks, greens, populists, free thinkers, the alienated apathetic, the rural abandoned, the apolitical young, as well as others convinced America was losing its democracy, its sovereignty and its decency. On the other side was a technocratic, media, legal, business and cultural elite centered in New York and Washington. At times it felt as if all of America outside of these two centers had turned into a gigantic, chaotic salon des refuses. Another thing I noticed was that this was about far more than politics. A cultural and class coup was underway, of which the Clinton administration was a part, one that was creating a gated economy and transforming those outside the barriers into pliant, homogenized, multi-nationalized consumers for whom freedom, choice and democracy would atrophy into symbols of only virtual meaning. People like me were traitors to the cause. . .
Increasingly, the words of encouragement that I received came from somewhere other than my home town, a place whose conventional thinking I had happily challenged for nearly thirty years. In the 1960s and 1970s it had been no problem; there had always been plenty of similar voices and I never felt alone. Washington -- like Madison or Berkeley -- possessed a vigorous counterculture ready to strike out, provoke, and outrage and to enjoy every minute of it. Although by the 1980s the voices of protest had greatly dulled, dissent was still fair game as long as one's targets were Reagan or Bush.In the 1990s, however, the Washington establishment simply closed down the marketplace of ideas. This involved not merely Democratic lawyer-lobbyists now pursuing openly the cynical abuse of government they had discreetly enjoyed during the Republican years. It included not merely journalists whose sycophancy towards the powerful was now promiscuously out of the closet. It also included the professional liberal establishment of Washington -- labor, feminist, and environmental leaders whose heady new access to government blinded them to how distant what they had once advocated was from what they were now willing to accept over -- or even in return for -- lunch.For mainstream Washington, there was no longer any politics, only deals. No victories, only leveraged buyouts. No ideology; only brand loyalty. No conservative and liberal, only Coke and Pepsi. . .
To be sure, it is different this time. The White House is still clearly the enemy and the Congress has some, like John Conyers, Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold, who may be granted some long overdue respect. But the bulk of the Democratic Party remains aground on the reefs of myopic centrism where they were lured by their campaign contributors. Dean Baker of the Prospect gives some of the flavor: "One of the items on the Democrats' '100 hours' agenda is reforming the Medicare prescription drug bill. The bill passed by the Republican Congress prohibited Medicare from offering its own plan. This denied seniors the benefits of Medicare's lower administrative costs and it means that drugs cost almost twice as much as if Medicare bargained directly with the industry and secured the same prices as the Veterans Administration or the Canadian government. The Republicans also added a seemingly gratuitous clause that explicitly prohibited Medicare from negotiating prices with the industry.
During the campaign, the Democrats had promised that they would reform the drug bill to allow Medicare to offer its own drug plan. On NPR this morning, it was reported that the Democrats now are just planning to remove the gratuitous clause prohibiting Medicare from negotiating prices with the drug industry, while not allowing Medicare to offer its own plan.
Removing this prohibition by itself will mean nothing. What would Medicare negotiate over, if it doesn't offer its own plan? This could lead cynics to believe that the Democrats are trying to pull in some of the campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical and insurance industries which have disproportionately gone to Republicans in recent election cycles. Fixing the prescription drug benefit to save seniors and taxpayers money was one of the main promises made by the Democratic Party during the campaign. If they instead pursue a purely symbolic measure, with no practical significance, millions of people who voted for them on Tuesday will rightfully feel betrayed."
What is important at a time like this is that those who truly want a democratic, decent and progressive America have to clearly differentiate themselves from both parties. There needs to be a loud third voice - not so much a political one as a moral and pragmatic one - constantly reminding the political leeches on both sides of the real issues, the real reforms, the real problems. One of the reasons Bush won office originally was because too many members of this third voice - including women's, civil liberties, and environmental groups - had indentured themselves to the Clinton machine and the sound of progress had gone voluntarily silent.
Now is the time not for silence but for the third voice of American politics to become far louder and to be constantly holding a light on a better path than is likely to followed by the new Congress. There must be a clearly visible alternative for everything the cowardly and corrupt center does or refuses to do. Phrases like 'universal healthcare' can not be politely avoided nor can the fact that those who fund both parties are destroying our planet.
We must always remember that while Bush and his capos lost this time we have yet to win.
Robert Gates Complicit In Vote Fraud?
BEV HARRIS, BLACK BOX VOTING - Robert Gates was on the board of directors of Vote Here, a strange little company that was the biggest elections industry lobbyist for the Help America Vote Act. Vote Here spent more money than ES&S, Diebold, and Sequoia combined to help ram HAVA through. And HAVA, of course, was a bill sponsored by by convicted Abramoff pal Bob Ney and K-street lobbyist buddy Steny Hoyer. HAVA put electronic voting on steroids.
Vote Here was a company shilling cryptographic solutions and filled with NSA types (another director was Admiral Bill Owens, another crony of Rummy, Perle and Wolfowitz. . .
For some reason, it was decided that I should be investigated in connection with [a reported] "hack" of Vote Here -- never mind that I can't remember how to change the password on my own laptop. Therefore I was interviewed by the Secret Service several times about this. Curiously, they never seemed to ask any questions about Vote Here, only my role in finding the Diebold files and publishing the Diebold memos.
This nonsense eventually culminated in a gag order and a letter from the U.S. Attorney to appear in front of a federal grand jury with information on all the visitors to the Black Box Voting Web site. . .
Attorney Lowell Finley went to bat for me on this. A reporter named George Howland from the Seattle Weekly also got wind of it. When it hit the press, and with Lowell Finley's help, their harassment of me stopped.
Vote Here never sold any voting machines that I can find, but apparently did set up some deals to embed its cryptography into some voting systems. We found memos in the Diebold trash about Vote Here's crypto-crap, and Maryland Director of Elections Linda Lamone shows up in Vote Here-related letters. Sequoia Voting Systems signed an agreement with Vote Here, but it's not clear to me whether they ever did anything about it. . .
I don't know about you, but I'd rather use a paper, pencil, and count by hand at the polling place than have former CIA director Robert Gates fooling around with my vote. But that's just me.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0611/S00178.htm
Vote Here was a company shilling cryptographic solutions and filled with NSA types (another director was Admiral Bill Owens, another crony of Rummy, Perle and Wolfowitz. . .
For some reason, it was decided that I should be investigated in connection with [a reported] "hack" of Vote Here -- never mind that I can't remember how to change the password on my own laptop. Therefore I was interviewed by the Secret Service several times about this. Curiously, they never seemed to ask any questions about Vote Here, only my role in finding the Diebold files and publishing the Diebold memos.
This nonsense eventually culminated in a gag order and a letter from the U.S. Attorney to appear in front of a federal grand jury with information on all the visitors to the Black Box Voting Web site. . .
Attorney Lowell Finley went to bat for me on this. A reporter named George Howland from the Seattle Weekly also got wind of it. When it hit the press, and with Lowell Finley's help, their harassment of me stopped.
Vote Here never sold any voting machines that I can find, but apparently did set up some deals to embed its cryptography into some voting systems. We found memos in the Diebold trash about Vote Here's crypto-crap, and Maryland Director of Elections Linda Lamone shows up in Vote Here-related letters. Sequoia Voting Systems signed an agreement with Vote Here, but it's not clear to me whether they ever did anything about it. . .
I don't know about you, but I'd rather use a paper, pencil, and count by hand at the polling place than have former CIA director Robert Gates fooling around with my vote. But that's just me.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0611/S00178.htm
Army Officer To Be Court Martialed For Refusing To Redeploy
Russell McSpadden - All Headline News News Writer
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7005466456
Seattle, WA (AHN) -Ehren Watada, a first 1st Lieutenant in the U.S. army, will stand before a military court for refusing to redeploy to Iraq, officials of the Army said Thursday.
Watada, a Hawaii native, is charged with missing troop movement and conduct unbecoming of an officer.
Watada, who has called the war in Iraq illegal, failed to redeploy from Fort Lewis in Washington for Iraq on June 22 of this year.
The army officer had previously attempted to resign from the military over his objections to the war but the army refused the motion.
At a peace rally in Seattle last August, Lt. Watada called on other soldiers in the U.S. military to refuse any participation in the war in Iraq.
Prosecutors in a previous hearing showed footage of the August speech, prompting the Army to charge Watada with conduct unbecoming of an officer.
According to Army officials, Watada could face up to six years confinement and dismissal from the military.
The date of the trial is yet to be set.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7005466456
Seattle, WA (AHN) -Ehren Watada, a first 1st Lieutenant in the U.S. army, will stand before a military court for refusing to redeploy to Iraq, officials of the Army said Thursday.
Watada, a Hawaii native, is charged with missing troop movement and conduct unbecoming of an officer.
Watada, who has called the war in Iraq illegal, failed to redeploy from Fort Lewis in Washington for Iraq on June 22 of this year.
The army officer had previously attempted to resign from the military over his objections to the war but the army refused the motion.
At a peace rally in Seattle last August, Lt. Watada called on other soldiers in the U.S. military to refuse any participation in the war in Iraq.
Prosecutors in a previous hearing showed footage of the August speech, prompting the Army to charge Watada with conduct unbecoming of an officer.
According to Army officials, Watada could face up to six years confinement and dismissal from the military.
The date of the trial is yet to be set.
Friday, November 10, 2006
War Crimes Suit Prepared against Rumsfeld
Via Democracy Now
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/09/1444246
The president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Michael Ratner, is heading to Germany today to file a new case charging outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with war crimes for authorizing torture at Guantanamo Bay.
Would Rumsfeld stepping down leave him open to prosecution? In 2004, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a criminal complaint in Germany on behalf of several Iraqi citizens who alleged that a group of U.S. officials committed war crimes in Iraq. Rumsfeld was among the officials named in the complaint. The Iraqis claimed they were victims of electric shock, severe beatings, sleep and food deprivation and sexual abuse.
Germany's laws on torture and war crimes permits the prosecution of suspected war criminals wherever they may be found.
Source...
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/09/1444246
The president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Michael Ratner, is heading to Germany today to file a new case charging outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with war crimes for authorizing torture at Guantanamo Bay.
Would Rumsfeld stepping down leave him open to prosecution? In 2004, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a criminal complaint in Germany on behalf of several Iraqi citizens who alleged that a group of U.S. officials committed war crimes in Iraq. Rumsfeld was among the officials named in the complaint. The Iraqis claimed they were victims of electric shock, severe beatings, sleep and food deprivation and sexual abuse.
Germany's laws on torture and war crimes permits the prosecution of suspected war criminals wherever they may be found.
Source...
THE PARIAH ISSUES
IN KEEPING with the new spirit of bipartisanship, here are some of the major issues that neither party addressed seriously during the campaign and for which neither party has a decent, coherent program. We welcome additions
Climate change
Sustainable living
Restoring constitutional government
Restoring civil liberties
Getting out of Iraq
Ending hostilities against Islam
Palestinian statehood
Ending use of torture
Population growth
Ending the war on drugs
Universal healthcare
Public campaign financing
Instant runoff voting
Climate change
Sustainable living
Restoring constitutional government
Restoring civil liberties
Getting out of Iraq
Ending hostilities against Islam
Palestinian statehood
Ending use of torture
Population growth
Ending the war on drugs
Universal healthcare
Public campaign financing
Instant runoff voting
RNC Chairman Kaput!
A day after he's outed on Larry King
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/44140/
"He’s been on the gerbil wheel, as one of his close friends put it, for well in excess of six years now and he’s tired," said Ken Mehlman soon-to-be-former RNC Chairman, discussing his imminent unemployment.
Most public officials opt for the "spend time with the family," refrain, only Mehlman doesn't have one. If he is indeed gay, as Bill Maher said he was, just yesterday, and if the agenda and candidates he just finished gerbiling for are successful, then he won't ever have one. Not legally anyway.
Fortunately for him, perhaps, he ended up not being all that successful as his candidates took a historically unprecedented pounding on Tuesday.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/44140/
"He’s been on the gerbil wheel, as one of his close friends put it, for well in excess of six years now and he’s tired," said Ken Mehlman soon-to-be-former RNC Chairman, discussing his imminent unemployment.
Most public officials opt for the "spend time with the family," refrain, only Mehlman doesn't have one. If he is indeed gay, as Bill Maher said he was, just yesterday, and if the agenda and candidates he just finished gerbiling for are successful, then he won't ever have one. Not legally anyway.
Fortunately for him, perhaps, he ended up not being all that successful as his candidates took a historically unprecedented pounding on Tuesday.
Australian Report Blasts Music Industry Piracy Claims
AUSTRALIAN - A confidential briefing for the Attorney-General's Department, prepared by the Australian Institute of Criminology, lashes the music and software sectors. The draft of the institute's intellectual property crime report, sighted by The Australian, shows that copyright owners "failed to explain" how they reached financial loss statistics used in lobbying activities and court cases.
Figures for 2005 from the global Business Software Association showing $361 million a year of lost sales in Australia are "unverified and epistemologically unreliable", the report says. . .
The study, which says some of the statistics used by copyright owners are "absurd," will be redrafted after senior researchers disagreed with its conclusions. . .
"Of greatest concern is the potentially unqualified use of these statistics in courts of law," the draft reads. . .
The report, intended as a confidential government briefing, casts doubt on the methodology of some industry piracy studies. . .
Copyright owners often use street-value estimates to calculate losses, but this assumes that every person who bought pirated goods would otherwise have paid for a legitimate item, the report notes.
Article Here...
Figures for 2005 from the global Business Software Association showing $361 million a year of lost sales in Australia are "unverified and epistemologically unreliable", the report says. . .
The study, which says some of the statistics used by copyright owners are "absurd," will be redrafted after senior researchers disagreed with its conclusions. . .
"Of greatest concern is the potentially unqualified use of these statistics in courts of law," the draft reads. . .
The report, intended as a confidential government briefing, casts doubt on the methodology of some industry piracy studies. . .
Copyright owners often use street-value estimates to calculate losses, but this assumes that every person who bought pirated goods would otherwise have paid for a legitimate item, the report notes.
Article Here...
OBAMA CONT'D
From Prorev.com
- So Obama has a reasoned reply. Big deal. Nobody said he was stupid, or enable to craft a good rebuttal. Know a man by his deeds, not his words. And Obama's deeds are pure corporatocracy. Obama is loved because he's a black man who has the accomplishments of white America's ideal savior, and talks like a white intellectual Ivy League nebbish.
If Obama were white, he'd be accurately labeled as the phony suit he is.
- So Obama has a reasoned reply. Big deal. Nobody said he was stupid, or enable to craft a good rebuttal. Know a man by his deeds, not his words. And Obama's deeds are pure corporatocracy. Obama is loved because he's a black man who has the accomplishments of white America's ideal savior, and talks like a white intellectual Ivy League nebbish.
If Obama were white, he'd be accurately labeled as the phony suit he is.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Four Things From The '06 Midterms That Progressives Can Take To Heart
1. The GOP's race-baiting anti-immigrant ads did not save the day for the Republicans in the short-term, but will harm their efforts to build support with Latinos in the long-term.
2. Voter turnout was strong enough to overwhelm a flawed election system and Republican gerrymandering.
3. The election system is still flawed. Now we are in position to begin reforming it for real.
4. Dubya has a press conference after election day at 1 PM ET. There is no time for a breather. The next round starts now.
2. Voter turnout was strong enough to overwhelm a flawed election system and Republican gerrymandering.
3. The election system is still flawed. Now we are in position to begin reforming it for real.
4. Dubya has a press conference after election day at 1 PM ET. There is no time for a breather. The next round starts now.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
THE LOW POST: Not Better Late Than Never
Mass culture turns on the Republicans -- but why?
MATT TAIBBI
Rolling Stone Online Article Here...
Anyone out there see the Letterman-O'Reilly dust-up last week? On the surface it looked like a seminal moment in modern television history, a Godzilla v. Megalon monster epic in which Godzilla was finally toppled just outside the Tokyo city gates. Keeled over, its rubber eyes flitting dumbly against the cardboard landscape, we finally saw the great lizard's vulnerable side. It was almost possible to feel sorry for Bill O'Reilly, who had trotted out on set with the peace-offering of a plastic sword and shield, expecting to make nice with his fellow overpaid TV icon -- but who instead ended up skewered and turned over the video-spit by the end of the segment, with an apple in his mouth and Sumner Redstone's massive billionaire foot wedged firmly in his ass.
For the rest of his days, few people will forget the image of O'Reilly sitting glumly and taking it while some smug ex-weatherman called him a "bonehead" to raucous studio applause. Which is too bad, because Bill O'Reilly wasn't even the dumbest person on the set that day. For that honor my vote goes to Letterman. Here's Letterman's explanation of his initial position on the Iraq war:
I think I sort of felt the way everybody did. We felt like we wanted to do something, because something terrible had been done to us. We did not understand exactly why, all we knew was something terrible, something heinous, something obscene had been done to us. So, while it didn't necessarily make as much sense to go in to Iraq as it did perhaps to go into Afghanistan, I like most everybody else felt like, yes, we need to do something. We need to do something. And as the weeks turned into months, turned into years, and one death became a dozen deaths became a hundred deaths became a thousand deaths, then we began to realize, you know what, maybe we're causing more trouble over there than the whole effort has been worth.
That's a hell of a speech -- back to it in a moment. For now, consider the context in which it was delivered. We are in the last week before midterm elections in George Bush's second term, five years after 9/11, three and a half since the beginning of the Iraq war. By now we can say without much hesitation that the media establishment has turned not only on George Bush, but on the public attack-dogs of his right flank who dominated the national political media for so long. There's no more free lunch for the likes of O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, the latter of whom also took an unusually savage fragging in the national media last week for his attack on Michael J. Fox. That incident basically moved Al Franken into the national mainstream, with even a normally gentle humorist like Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Muke Luckovich (from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution) calling Rush a "big fat idiot" last week.
What's happening is that these talk-radio pit-vipers who for a decade or so had us all wondering, "How the fuck do these guys get away with this stuff?" are now no longer getting away with it -- there's now a mechanism in place in the national media that is poised to savage these guys for the same kinds of tactics that for the last ten years were mostly left to the likes of FAIR and Eric Alterman to bitch about.
And it goes beyond beating on O'Reilly and Rush. All across the media landscape, once-reviled liberal or Democratic figures are being rehabilitated and celebrated by the same national media that, at best, habitually described Democrats as soft on defense or as unelectable political losers throughout most of the Bush years. This process actually began some time ago, around the time the Iraq war really started to go sour; I remember in particular one week in May when Good Morning America had a fuzzy-warm bit on Al Gore's "comeback" and a laudatory piece on the Dixie Chicks on successive days. Could that have happened in 2003? I doubt it. And it's continuing today; Chris Matthews last week called Nancy Pelosi "stylish" and compared her to Joe DiMaggio, of all people, while David Gregory went on the campaign trail with Michael J. Fox for the Today show. Can you imagine NBC news throwing a tow-line to a liberal Hollywood actor before the 2000 presidential elections? 2004? No way. But this year, it's possible.
Last week we also saw Wolf Blitzer, before the war one of the chief cheerleaders for the invasion, finding himself arrayed in an antiwar pose in another Japanese monster-movie debate situation with Lynne Cheney, with whom he had a fierce exchange over the broadcast of unpleasant footage from Iraq. And of course there was Bob Woodward, who a few years ago published one of the all-time Electrolux suck jobs for the administration with Bush at War, reading the writing on the wall and doing a complete about-face in his new book State of Denial, which came out to much fanfare and an uncompromising 60 Minutes segment last month.
Look, there's nothing mysterious about any of this. It's pretty obvious what's going on. We saw this same kind of cultural shift in 1968, after the Tet offensive (an analogy so obvious that even Tom Friedman saw it recently), when the American political establishment soured on the Vietnam War. Despite the conservative propaganda that for decades has insisted that it was the media that lost the war for us in Vietnam, in fact the media didn't turn on the Vietnam war effort until the war was already lost. And the reason the media soured on that war had nothing to do with it being wrong; it had to do with the post-Tet realization that the war was expensive, unwinnable and politically costly. America is reaching the same conclusion now about Iraq, and so, like Dave Letterman, a whole host of people who just a few years ago thought we "had to do something" are now backing off and repositioning themselves in an antiwar stance.
What's dangerous about what's going on right now is that an electoral defeat of the Republicans next week, and perhaps a similar defeat in a presidential race two years from now, might fool some people into thinking that the responsibility for the Iraq war can be sunk forever with George Bush and the Republican politicians who went down with his ship. But in fact the real responsibility for the Iraq war lay not with Bush but with the Lettermans, the Wolf Blitzers, the CNNs, The New York Timeses of the world -- the malleable middle of the American political establishment who three years ago made a conscious moral choice to support a military action that even a three-year-old could have seen made no fucking sense at all.
It doesn't take much courage to book the Dixie Chicks when George Bush is sitting at thirty-nine percent in the polls and carrying 3,000 American bodies on his back every time he goes outside. It doesn't take much courage for MSNBC's Countdown to do a segment ripping the "Swift-Boating of Al Gore" in May 2006, or much gumption from Newsweek's Eleanor Clift to say that many people in the media "regret" the way Gore was attacked and ridiculed in 2000. We needed those people to act in the moment, not years later, when it's politically expedient. We needed TV news to reject "swift-boating" during the actual Swift Boat controversy, not two years later; we needed ABC and NBC to stand up to Clear Channel when that whole idiotic Dixie Chicks thing was happening, not years later; we needed the networks and the major dailies to actually cover the half-million-strong protests in Washington and New York before the war, instead of burying them in inside pages or describing the numbers as "thousands" or "at least 30,000," as many news outlets did at the time; and we needed David Letterman to have his war epiphany back when taking on Bill O'Reilly might actually have cost him real market share.
Take a look again at Letterman's comment last week:
So, while it didn't necessarily make as much sense to go in to Iraq as it did perhaps to go into Afghanistan, I like most everybody else felt like, yes, we need to do something.
Well, that's putting it pretty fucking mildly, wouldn't you say? It's not that Iraq didn't make "as much sense" as Afghanistan -- it didn't make any sense, and anyone with half a brain could have seen that. And Letterman's subsequent reasoning -- that seeing one death turn into dozens and then hundreds and thousands made him reconsider the whole thing -- all that tells you is that this is a person who makes life-and-death decisions without considering the consequences. If the Iraq war was not ever going to be worth 3,000 American lives (and countless more Iraqi lives), then why the hell did we go in in the first place? If you make a decision to fight, you had better not be scared of blood. And if you're suddenly changing your mind about things after you lose a few teenage lives, you're a hundred times more guilty than the guys like Bush who are actually sticking to their guns about this war.
Because Bush and the rest of that crew sent young men to die for something they believed in, fucked-up as their reasoning might be and have been. But these shitheads in the political middle who are flip-flopping right now sentenced teenagers to death for the cause of expediency and careerism. There are young men coming home now without arms and legs because the Wolf Blitzers of the world were too afraid to lose their jobs or piss off advertisers bucking the war hysteria of the times. Remember, CNN and the rest of the networks did great business in the run-up to the war. They had artists cooking up fancy new "America's New War" graphics and they were selling lawn fertilizer and soda and male-enhancement drugs by the metric ton right up to the time when the Saddam statue came down. But the war isn't selling anymore; the war is a bummer. And so these guys are changing their minds.
Are you throwing up yet? Surely that behavior is more shameful than anything coming out of the White House.
This assault on the Republicans that's taking place in the national media right now is partially a reflection of national attitudes, but mostly a matter of internal housecleaning. The members of the Bush administration have proven to be incompetent managers of the American system, and so they are being removed. It's that simple. They screwed up a war that all of these people wanted, turned public opinion against the dumbed-down militarist politics that until recently was good business for everybody. And so they have to go. Mistake any of this for ideology or principle at your peril.
MATT TAIBBI
Rolling Stone Online Article Here...
Anyone out there see the Letterman-O'Reilly dust-up last week? On the surface it looked like a seminal moment in modern television history, a Godzilla v. Megalon monster epic in which Godzilla was finally toppled just outside the Tokyo city gates. Keeled over, its rubber eyes flitting dumbly against the cardboard landscape, we finally saw the great lizard's vulnerable side. It was almost possible to feel sorry for Bill O'Reilly, who had trotted out on set with the peace-offering of a plastic sword and shield, expecting to make nice with his fellow overpaid TV icon -- but who instead ended up skewered and turned over the video-spit by the end of the segment, with an apple in his mouth and Sumner Redstone's massive billionaire foot wedged firmly in his ass.
For the rest of his days, few people will forget the image of O'Reilly sitting glumly and taking it while some smug ex-weatherman called him a "bonehead" to raucous studio applause. Which is too bad, because Bill O'Reilly wasn't even the dumbest person on the set that day. For that honor my vote goes to Letterman. Here's Letterman's explanation of his initial position on the Iraq war:
I think I sort of felt the way everybody did. We felt like we wanted to do something, because something terrible had been done to us. We did not understand exactly why, all we knew was something terrible, something heinous, something obscene had been done to us. So, while it didn't necessarily make as much sense to go in to Iraq as it did perhaps to go into Afghanistan, I like most everybody else felt like, yes, we need to do something. We need to do something. And as the weeks turned into months, turned into years, and one death became a dozen deaths became a hundred deaths became a thousand deaths, then we began to realize, you know what, maybe we're causing more trouble over there than the whole effort has been worth.
That's a hell of a speech -- back to it in a moment. For now, consider the context in which it was delivered. We are in the last week before midterm elections in George Bush's second term, five years after 9/11, three and a half since the beginning of the Iraq war. By now we can say without much hesitation that the media establishment has turned not only on George Bush, but on the public attack-dogs of his right flank who dominated the national political media for so long. There's no more free lunch for the likes of O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, the latter of whom also took an unusually savage fragging in the national media last week for his attack on Michael J. Fox. That incident basically moved Al Franken into the national mainstream, with even a normally gentle humorist like Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Muke Luckovich (from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution) calling Rush a "big fat idiot" last week.
What's happening is that these talk-radio pit-vipers who for a decade or so had us all wondering, "How the fuck do these guys get away with this stuff?" are now no longer getting away with it -- there's now a mechanism in place in the national media that is poised to savage these guys for the same kinds of tactics that for the last ten years were mostly left to the likes of FAIR and Eric Alterman to bitch about.
And it goes beyond beating on O'Reilly and Rush. All across the media landscape, once-reviled liberal or Democratic figures are being rehabilitated and celebrated by the same national media that, at best, habitually described Democrats as soft on defense or as unelectable political losers throughout most of the Bush years. This process actually began some time ago, around the time the Iraq war really started to go sour; I remember in particular one week in May when Good Morning America had a fuzzy-warm bit on Al Gore's "comeback" and a laudatory piece on the Dixie Chicks on successive days. Could that have happened in 2003? I doubt it. And it's continuing today; Chris Matthews last week called Nancy Pelosi "stylish" and compared her to Joe DiMaggio, of all people, while David Gregory went on the campaign trail with Michael J. Fox for the Today show. Can you imagine NBC news throwing a tow-line to a liberal Hollywood actor before the 2000 presidential elections? 2004? No way. But this year, it's possible.
Last week we also saw Wolf Blitzer, before the war one of the chief cheerleaders for the invasion, finding himself arrayed in an antiwar pose in another Japanese monster-movie debate situation with Lynne Cheney, with whom he had a fierce exchange over the broadcast of unpleasant footage from Iraq. And of course there was Bob Woodward, who a few years ago published one of the all-time Electrolux suck jobs for the administration with Bush at War, reading the writing on the wall and doing a complete about-face in his new book State of Denial, which came out to much fanfare and an uncompromising 60 Minutes segment last month.
Look, there's nothing mysterious about any of this. It's pretty obvious what's going on. We saw this same kind of cultural shift in 1968, after the Tet offensive (an analogy so obvious that even Tom Friedman saw it recently), when the American political establishment soured on the Vietnam War. Despite the conservative propaganda that for decades has insisted that it was the media that lost the war for us in Vietnam, in fact the media didn't turn on the Vietnam war effort until the war was already lost. And the reason the media soured on that war had nothing to do with it being wrong; it had to do with the post-Tet realization that the war was expensive, unwinnable and politically costly. America is reaching the same conclusion now about Iraq, and so, like Dave Letterman, a whole host of people who just a few years ago thought we "had to do something" are now backing off and repositioning themselves in an antiwar stance.
What's dangerous about what's going on right now is that an electoral defeat of the Republicans next week, and perhaps a similar defeat in a presidential race two years from now, might fool some people into thinking that the responsibility for the Iraq war can be sunk forever with George Bush and the Republican politicians who went down with his ship. But in fact the real responsibility for the Iraq war lay not with Bush but with the Lettermans, the Wolf Blitzers, the CNNs, The New York Timeses of the world -- the malleable middle of the American political establishment who three years ago made a conscious moral choice to support a military action that even a three-year-old could have seen made no fucking sense at all.
It doesn't take much courage to book the Dixie Chicks when George Bush is sitting at thirty-nine percent in the polls and carrying 3,000 American bodies on his back every time he goes outside. It doesn't take much courage for MSNBC's Countdown to do a segment ripping the "Swift-Boating of Al Gore" in May 2006, or much gumption from Newsweek's Eleanor Clift to say that many people in the media "regret" the way Gore was attacked and ridiculed in 2000. We needed those people to act in the moment, not years later, when it's politically expedient. We needed TV news to reject "swift-boating" during the actual Swift Boat controversy, not two years later; we needed ABC and NBC to stand up to Clear Channel when that whole idiotic Dixie Chicks thing was happening, not years later; we needed the networks and the major dailies to actually cover the half-million-strong protests in Washington and New York before the war, instead of burying them in inside pages or describing the numbers as "thousands" or "at least 30,000," as many news outlets did at the time; and we needed David Letterman to have his war epiphany back when taking on Bill O'Reilly might actually have cost him real market share.
Take a look again at Letterman's comment last week:
So, while it didn't necessarily make as much sense to go in to Iraq as it did perhaps to go into Afghanistan, I like most everybody else felt like, yes, we need to do something.
Well, that's putting it pretty fucking mildly, wouldn't you say? It's not that Iraq didn't make "as much sense" as Afghanistan -- it didn't make any sense, and anyone with half a brain could have seen that. And Letterman's subsequent reasoning -- that seeing one death turn into dozens and then hundreds and thousands made him reconsider the whole thing -- all that tells you is that this is a person who makes life-and-death decisions without considering the consequences. If the Iraq war was not ever going to be worth 3,000 American lives (and countless more Iraqi lives), then why the hell did we go in in the first place? If you make a decision to fight, you had better not be scared of blood. And if you're suddenly changing your mind about things after you lose a few teenage lives, you're a hundred times more guilty than the guys like Bush who are actually sticking to their guns about this war.
Because Bush and the rest of that crew sent young men to die for something they believed in, fucked-up as their reasoning might be and have been. But these shitheads in the political middle who are flip-flopping right now sentenced teenagers to death for the cause of expediency and careerism. There are young men coming home now without arms and legs because the Wolf Blitzers of the world were too afraid to lose their jobs or piss off advertisers bucking the war hysteria of the times. Remember, CNN and the rest of the networks did great business in the run-up to the war. They had artists cooking up fancy new "America's New War" graphics and they were selling lawn fertilizer and soda and male-enhancement drugs by the metric ton right up to the time when the Saddam statue came down. But the war isn't selling anymore; the war is a bummer. And so these guys are changing their minds.
Are you throwing up yet? Surely that behavior is more shameful than anything coming out of the White House.
This assault on the Republicans that's taking place in the national media right now is partially a reflection of national attitudes, but mostly a matter of internal housecleaning. The members of the Bush administration have proven to be incompetent managers of the American system, and so they are being removed. It's that simple. They screwed up a war that all of these people wanted, turned public opinion against the dumbed-down militarist politics that until recently was good business for everybody. And so they have to go. Mistake any of this for ideology or principle at your peril.
Leftist Headed Toward Victory in Nicaragua
By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr. and JILL REPLOGLE
NYT Article...
MANAGUA, Nicaragua, Nov. 6 — Sixteen years after he left power, Daniel Ortega, a former Marxist president and the Sandinista leader who is still regarded as a sworn foe by many in Washington, appeared headed to a victory on Monday in the Nicaraguan presidential election.
Though electoral officials had yet to release final tallies from Sunday’s vote, preliminary results and the country’s electoral watchdog groups all indicated that Mr. Ortega, who had failed three times before to gain the presidency in elections, would win a clear victory.
An Ortega win in a five-way race would be a defeat for the Bush administration, which strongly opposed his election and worked hard to unite a fractious opposition against him with little success. The White House has said it would withdraw aid from an Ortega government.
With about 61 percent of the vote counted, Mr. Ortega had 38.6 percent of the ballots, about 8 points ahead of the second-place candidate, Eduardo Montealegre, a Harvard-educated financier and conservative Washington has openly supported. Final results were not expected until Tuesday, an election official said.
Now 60 years old and balding, Mr. Ortega has maintained he is no longer a Marxist, but more of a pragmatist. He has promised to keep good relations with the United States and chose a former political opponent as his running mate. He has also vowed to help the poor and run a positive campaign around the themes of “peace, love and unity.”
But he maintains close ties to Cuba and to Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, the leftist president who has become a thorn in the side of the United States. Mr. Chávez gave the Ortega campaign significant support by sending subsidized oil to Nicaragua and distributing it through Sandinista politicians.
Mr. Ortega’s expected victory appeared to be another gain for leftists in Latin America, who, despite recent setbacks in Peru and Mexico, have also persuaded voters to abandon conservative governments in Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Bolivia.
Although the results were preliminary, supporters of the Sandinista National Liberation Front party of Mr. Ortega set off fireworks around the city on Monday, and drove around honking horns, shouting victory slogans and waving red and black Sandinista flags. Mr. Ortega had yet to make a statement.
Cuba immediately congratulated Mr. Ortega. “This is good for the people of Nicaragua and for the integration of Latin America,” Foreign Minister Felipe Pérez Roque told The Associated Press on Monday.
Mr. Ortega’s opponents refused to recognize his expected victory until all the votes were counted. The United States took a similar stance. The State Department’s deputy spokesman, Tom Casey, said Monday that the administration would wait to comment until the Nicaraguan electoral council announced who won. He also said it was too early to comment on procedural problems during the voting, noting that several groups of observers planned to file reports.
Mr. Casey said the United States delegation in Nicaragua had remarked on “high turnout and given praise to the Nicaraguan people for their patience and their willingness to show support for this democratic process.”
Mr. Ortega was one of the leaders of the Sandinista rebels that swept to power in 1979, toppling the Somoza dynasty of right-wing dictators friendly to the United States and setting up an authoritarian left-wing government.
With the cold war still driving United States policy, President Reagan imposed sanctions on the country and financed anti-Sandinista guerrillas, known as contras, in part by secretly selling arms to the revolutionary Islamic government in Iran. It was Mr. Ortega who led his Soviet-backed government in a bloody decade-long civil war.
The last time Mr. Ortega ran Nicaragua, he seized private assets and redistributed land to peasants. Capital fled the country, along with many of its business leaders. He vows a different approach this time.
The advertising campaign against the former rebel leader was vicious, showing images from the civil war, women weeping, guns blaring. His opponents lost no chance to remind people of the economic collapse that followed the fighting and the United States embargo.
Mr. Ortega was elected president in 1984 and served from 1985 to 1990, before losing to Violeta Chamorro. He struggled to regain power through the ballot box, but without success, in 1996 and 2001.
This time, however, a change in the election law and a strong throw-the-bums-out sentiment in the country after campaign financing scandals involving President Enrique Bolaños helped carry him to what appears to be a victory.
He was also aided significantly by a change in election rules that allows a candidate to win in the first round with only 35 percent of the vote, so long as he is 5 points above his closest opponent. If Mr. Ortega had not won on the first round, most political strategists predicted he would not have survived a second round, as the splintered anti-Sandinista vote would have united.
As it was, the anti-Sandinista vote seemed split mostly between Mr. Montealegre, with 30.9 percent, and José Rizo, the candidate of the conservative ruling party, who had 22.9 percent, according to the Supreme Electoral Council, the Nicaraguan election authority. Two other candidates, Edmundo Jarquín, a dissident former Sandinista, and Edén Pastora, a former Sandinista who later became a contra rebel, trailed behind.
Results of a quick count carried out by a local monitoring group, Ethics and Transparency, tracked with the official results.
“It’s been a pretty exact count, we can say that Ortega’s triumph is almost sure,” said Carlos Tunnerman, a political analyst and former Nicaraguan ambassador to Washington from 1984 to 1988.
Former President Jimmy Carter, who was in Nicaragua to monitor the election, said the quick count was “among the most definitive I have ever seen.” The count is based on a large, and strategically varied, sample of votes from urban and rural areas and different social strata, explained Mr. Carter and local analysts.
On Sunday night, following the first presentation of results by the election authorities, Mr. Montealegre denounced the early closing of some polling places and problems with the delivery of voter identification cards. He said he would not concede defeat until all votes were counted.
Mr. Carter agreed that there were minor problems with the voting process, but said he did not think they were significant enough to affect the results.
“The likelihood is that those few anomalies, which exist in every election in the world, will not be substantive enough collectively to change the apparent results of this election,” Mr. Carter said.
Electoral observers have said the vote was mostly peaceful and orderly, despite long lines and some angry confrontations among voters who claimed polling stations closed before they could vote.
Observers from the Organization of American States said 2 percent of potential voters were not able to cast ballots, and they estimated turnout around 70 percent, The A.P. reported.
Because the front-runner was a cold-war icon for the left, the race generated interest in the United States. Even Oliver North, a former White House aide to President Reagan, visited to speak against Mr. Ortega. Mr. North was at the heart of what became known as the Iran-contra affair.
But in recent years, American money has flowed into Nicaragua in the form of investments. The country has cheap labor and low crime rates, and recently joined the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
During his campaign, Mr. Ortega emphasized his goal of peace and reconciliation, choosing bright pink as the color for his campaign and adopting the rhythm of John Lennon’s “Give Peace a Chance” for his jingle.
For some, Mr. Ortega and the Sandinistas still conjure up memories of the war and tough economic times. Marlon José Sánchez Padilla, 36, who sold oranges on Sunday outside of a polling station in the town of Nindirí, bitterly recalled his two years of military service in the 1980s. “Many people were mutilated,” he said. “Now he promises the sky, earth and highways, but we don’t believe him anymore.”
Others at the polls on Sunday said it was time to give Mr. Ortega another chance. “It seems that Daniel Ortega has asked for pardon,” said Ninosca Leets, 46, a housewife who said she fled to the United States during the former Sandinista government. “He’s asked for reconciliation. He’s asked for a change, and I think he should be given the opportunity.”
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
NYT Article...
MANAGUA, Nicaragua, Nov. 6 — Sixteen years after he left power, Daniel Ortega, a former Marxist president and the Sandinista leader who is still regarded as a sworn foe by many in Washington, appeared headed to a victory on Monday in the Nicaraguan presidential election.
Though electoral officials had yet to release final tallies from Sunday’s vote, preliminary results and the country’s electoral watchdog groups all indicated that Mr. Ortega, who had failed three times before to gain the presidency in elections, would win a clear victory.
An Ortega win in a five-way race would be a defeat for the Bush administration, which strongly opposed his election and worked hard to unite a fractious opposition against him with little success. The White House has said it would withdraw aid from an Ortega government.
With about 61 percent of the vote counted, Mr. Ortega had 38.6 percent of the ballots, about 8 points ahead of the second-place candidate, Eduardo Montealegre, a Harvard-educated financier and conservative Washington has openly supported. Final results were not expected until Tuesday, an election official said.
Now 60 years old and balding, Mr. Ortega has maintained he is no longer a Marxist, but more of a pragmatist. He has promised to keep good relations with the United States and chose a former political opponent as his running mate. He has also vowed to help the poor and run a positive campaign around the themes of “peace, love and unity.”
But he maintains close ties to Cuba and to Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, the leftist president who has become a thorn in the side of the United States. Mr. Chávez gave the Ortega campaign significant support by sending subsidized oil to Nicaragua and distributing it through Sandinista politicians.
Mr. Ortega’s expected victory appeared to be another gain for leftists in Latin America, who, despite recent setbacks in Peru and Mexico, have also persuaded voters to abandon conservative governments in Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Bolivia.
Although the results were preliminary, supporters of the Sandinista National Liberation Front party of Mr. Ortega set off fireworks around the city on Monday, and drove around honking horns, shouting victory slogans and waving red and black Sandinista flags. Mr. Ortega had yet to make a statement.
Cuba immediately congratulated Mr. Ortega. “This is good for the people of Nicaragua and for the integration of Latin America,” Foreign Minister Felipe Pérez Roque told The Associated Press on Monday.
Mr. Ortega’s opponents refused to recognize his expected victory until all the votes were counted. The United States took a similar stance. The State Department’s deputy spokesman, Tom Casey, said Monday that the administration would wait to comment until the Nicaraguan electoral council announced who won. He also said it was too early to comment on procedural problems during the voting, noting that several groups of observers planned to file reports.
Mr. Casey said the United States delegation in Nicaragua had remarked on “high turnout and given praise to the Nicaraguan people for their patience and their willingness to show support for this democratic process.”
Mr. Ortega was one of the leaders of the Sandinista rebels that swept to power in 1979, toppling the Somoza dynasty of right-wing dictators friendly to the United States and setting up an authoritarian left-wing government.
With the cold war still driving United States policy, President Reagan imposed sanctions on the country and financed anti-Sandinista guerrillas, known as contras, in part by secretly selling arms to the revolutionary Islamic government in Iran. It was Mr. Ortega who led his Soviet-backed government in a bloody decade-long civil war.
The last time Mr. Ortega ran Nicaragua, he seized private assets and redistributed land to peasants. Capital fled the country, along with many of its business leaders. He vows a different approach this time.
The advertising campaign against the former rebel leader was vicious, showing images from the civil war, women weeping, guns blaring. His opponents lost no chance to remind people of the economic collapse that followed the fighting and the United States embargo.
Mr. Ortega was elected president in 1984 and served from 1985 to 1990, before losing to Violeta Chamorro. He struggled to regain power through the ballot box, but without success, in 1996 and 2001.
This time, however, a change in the election law and a strong throw-the-bums-out sentiment in the country after campaign financing scandals involving President Enrique Bolaños helped carry him to what appears to be a victory.
He was also aided significantly by a change in election rules that allows a candidate to win in the first round with only 35 percent of the vote, so long as he is 5 points above his closest opponent. If Mr. Ortega had not won on the first round, most political strategists predicted he would not have survived a second round, as the splintered anti-Sandinista vote would have united.
As it was, the anti-Sandinista vote seemed split mostly between Mr. Montealegre, with 30.9 percent, and José Rizo, the candidate of the conservative ruling party, who had 22.9 percent, according to the Supreme Electoral Council, the Nicaraguan election authority. Two other candidates, Edmundo Jarquín, a dissident former Sandinista, and Edén Pastora, a former Sandinista who later became a contra rebel, trailed behind.
Results of a quick count carried out by a local monitoring group, Ethics and Transparency, tracked with the official results.
“It’s been a pretty exact count, we can say that Ortega’s triumph is almost sure,” said Carlos Tunnerman, a political analyst and former Nicaraguan ambassador to Washington from 1984 to 1988.
Former President Jimmy Carter, who was in Nicaragua to monitor the election, said the quick count was “among the most definitive I have ever seen.” The count is based on a large, and strategically varied, sample of votes from urban and rural areas and different social strata, explained Mr. Carter and local analysts.
On Sunday night, following the first presentation of results by the election authorities, Mr. Montealegre denounced the early closing of some polling places and problems with the delivery of voter identification cards. He said he would not concede defeat until all votes were counted.
Mr. Carter agreed that there were minor problems with the voting process, but said he did not think they were significant enough to affect the results.
“The likelihood is that those few anomalies, which exist in every election in the world, will not be substantive enough collectively to change the apparent results of this election,” Mr. Carter said.
Electoral observers have said the vote was mostly peaceful and orderly, despite long lines and some angry confrontations among voters who claimed polling stations closed before they could vote.
Observers from the Organization of American States said 2 percent of potential voters were not able to cast ballots, and they estimated turnout around 70 percent, The A.P. reported.
Because the front-runner was a cold-war icon for the left, the race generated interest in the United States. Even Oliver North, a former White House aide to President Reagan, visited to speak against Mr. Ortega. Mr. North was at the heart of what became known as the Iran-contra affair.
But in recent years, American money has flowed into Nicaragua in the form of investments. The country has cheap labor and low crime rates, and recently joined the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
During his campaign, Mr. Ortega emphasized his goal of peace and reconciliation, choosing bright pink as the color for his campaign and adopting the rhythm of John Lennon’s “Give Peace a Chance” for his jingle.
For some, Mr. Ortega and the Sandinistas still conjure up memories of the war and tough economic times. Marlon José Sánchez Padilla, 36, who sold oranges on Sunday outside of a polling station in the town of Nindirí, bitterly recalled his two years of military service in the 1980s. “Many people were mutilated,” he said. “Now he promises the sky, earth and highways, but we don’t believe him anymore.”
Others at the polls on Sunday said it was time to give Mr. Ortega another chance. “It seems that Daniel Ortega has asked for pardon,” said Ninosca Leets, 46, a housewife who said she fled to the United States during the former Sandinista government. “He’s asked for reconciliation. He’s asked for a change, and I think he should be given the opportunity.”
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
Monday, November 06, 2006
All You Need Is Love
(...and a small, well-trained army)
By Mickey Z.
07 November, 2006
Countercurrents.org
Warning: This article has not been approved by the Department of Homeland Security. Read at your own risk.
Thomas Jefferson sez: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
In his most recent book, a two-volume set called ³Endgame,² author Derrick Jensen tells of a discussion he had with a longtime activist. "She told me of a campaign she participated in a few years ago to try to stop the government and transnational timber corporations from spraying Agent Orange, a potent defoliant and teratogen, in the forests of Oregon," Jensen writes. All too predictably, the dedicated demonstrators assembled to protest the toxic spraying were, "like clockwork," ignored by the helicopter pilots. Both humans and landscape ended up thoroughly doused with Agent Orange-time and time again. The protest campaign obviously had no effect, so a different approach was taken. "A bunch of Vietnam vets lived in those hills," the activist told Jensen, "and they sent messages to the Bureau of Land Management and to Weyerhauser, Boise Cascade, and the other timber companies saying, 'We know the names of your helicopter pilots, and we know their addresses'
"You know what happened next?" she asked.
"I think I do," Jensen responded.
"Exactly," she said. "The spraying stopped."
******
To me, the following quote reads like poetry...so that's how I'll present it:
Whenever any form of
government
becomes destructive
to these ends,
it is the right of the people
to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new government,
laying its foundation
on such principles
and organizing its powers
in such form,
as to them
shall seem
most likely
to effect
their safety
and happiness
(Thomas Jefferson)
******
In her excellent 1995 book, ³Bridge of Courage,² Jennifer Harbury quotes a Guatemalan freedom fighter named Gabriel, responding to a plea to embrace non-violent resistance: "In my country child malnutrition is close to 85 percent. Ten percent of all children will be dead before the age of five, and this is only the number actually reported to government agencies. Close to 70 percent of our people are functionally illiterate. There is almost no industry in our country-you need land to survive. Less than 3 percent of our landowners own over 65 percent of our lands. In the last fifteen years or so, there have been over 150,000 political murders and disappearances... Don't talk to me about Gandhi; he wouldn't have survived a week here. There was a peaceful movement for progress here, once. They were crushed. We were crushed. For Gandhi's method to work, there must be a government capable of shame. We lack that here."
Repeat after me: We lack that here.
******
Another "poem" of sorts:
You've got to learn
that when
you push people around,
some people push back.
As they should.
As they must.
And as they undoubtedly will.
There is justice
in such symmetry.
(Ward Churchill)
Love is the answer...but as in tennis, sometimes it means "nothing."
Mickey Z. can be found on the Web at: http://www.mickeyz.net.
By Mickey Z.
07 November, 2006
Countercurrents.org
Warning: This article has not been approved by the Department of Homeland Security. Read at your own risk.
Thomas Jefferson sez: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
In his most recent book, a two-volume set called ³Endgame,² author Derrick Jensen tells of a discussion he had with a longtime activist. "She told me of a campaign she participated in a few years ago to try to stop the government and transnational timber corporations from spraying Agent Orange, a potent defoliant and teratogen, in the forests of Oregon," Jensen writes. All too predictably, the dedicated demonstrators assembled to protest the toxic spraying were, "like clockwork," ignored by the helicopter pilots. Both humans and landscape ended up thoroughly doused with Agent Orange-time and time again. The protest campaign obviously had no effect, so a different approach was taken. "A bunch of Vietnam vets lived in those hills," the activist told Jensen, "and they sent messages to the Bureau of Land Management and to Weyerhauser, Boise Cascade, and the other timber companies saying, 'We know the names of your helicopter pilots, and we know their addresses'
"You know what happened next?" she asked.
"I think I do," Jensen responded.
"Exactly," she said. "The spraying stopped."
******
To me, the following quote reads like poetry...so that's how I'll present it:
Whenever any form of
government
becomes destructive
to these ends,
it is the right of the people
to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new government,
laying its foundation
on such principles
and organizing its powers
in such form,
as to them
shall seem
most likely
to effect
their safety
and happiness
(Thomas Jefferson)
******
In her excellent 1995 book, ³Bridge of Courage,² Jennifer Harbury quotes a Guatemalan freedom fighter named Gabriel, responding to a plea to embrace non-violent resistance: "In my country child malnutrition is close to 85 percent. Ten percent of all children will be dead before the age of five, and this is only the number actually reported to government agencies. Close to 70 percent of our people are functionally illiterate. There is almost no industry in our country-you need land to survive. Less than 3 percent of our landowners own over 65 percent of our lands. In the last fifteen years or so, there have been over 150,000 political murders and disappearances... Don't talk to me about Gandhi; he wouldn't have survived a week here. There was a peaceful movement for progress here, once. They were crushed. We were crushed. For Gandhi's method to work, there must be a government capable of shame. We lack that here."
Repeat after me: We lack that here.
******
Another "poem" of sorts:
You've got to learn
that when
you push people around,
some people push back.
As they should.
As they must.
And as they undoubtedly will.
There is justice
in such symmetry.
(Ward Churchill)
Love is the answer...but as in tennis, sometimes it means "nothing."
Mickey Z. can be found on the Web at: http://www.mickeyz.net.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Altered and censored report reveals extent of possible election fraud
REBECCA ABRAHAMS, BRAD BLOG - In September, 2003 Linda Lamone, the Administrator of Maryland's State Board of Elections and President of the National Association of State Election Directors hands over a critical study on the security of the Diebold Election Systems machines that count all of Maryland's votes. . . The original SAIC report, coming in at nearly 200 pages, was reduced, redacted and altered such that the only version the public — or even state officials including the Governor and the full State Board of Elections — would ever be allowed to see was a wholly sanitized 38-page version of the report.
Until now.
For the first time, we've been able to review the complete, much sought-after, unredacted version of the SAIC report which has been kept at bay from Maryland state officials. . . as well as the computer science and security community. . . as well as the election integrity community and public at large since it was originally completed in 2003.
It has been called "The Pentagon Papers of Electronic Voting Systems" by some members of the computer science and security community. . .
Enter the world of electronic voting machines, the 2002 "cure" to 2000's hanging and dimpled chads. . . Diebold and the other manufacturers insist that their machines are safe and secure yet every single cyber security expert and computer scientist has, for years, been screaming into an empty wilderness of media attention, that. . .
- The machines can be hacked, by the implanting of malicious code, at the factory
- The machines can be hacked during transport from the factory
- The machines can be hacked while on "sleepovers" before the election
- The machines can be hacked (in 1 minute with a .50 cent mini bar key) during the election
- These machines can be hacked, at the tabulator, after the election.
What makes this SAIC report, "The Pentagon Papers of Electronic Voting" as some computer experts have described it, so important is that:
It shows, in black and white, that what Diebold says to election officials and voters across the country is not the truth. It shows that there are virtually no security protocols in place for certain Diebold machines and that the recommended security protocols were purposely removed from the publicly released version of the report. It shows that the analyzed Diebold machines were not functional nor secure for use in elections and raises serious doubts that they are ready for the November 7, 2006 midterm elections. . .
Diebold, in return for allowing their super secret, proprietary machines to be examined by the independent laboratory, insisted on two huge concessions from the state of Maryland.
First, SAIC would not be allowed to even look at the source code, the heart and guts of electronic voting machines.
Second, they would be allowed to go through the SAIC Report, line by line, and redact anything and everything that they felt was proprietary, had a potential for security breaches or could provide a roadmap for anyone who wanted to compromise the system.
In other words, whatever they wanted to do with the publicly released version of the report they were allowed to do so.
468 federal seats and countless state and local contests are being decided by Diebold and other similar electronic voting machines. The outcome of these elections will set the direction of our country for at least the next two years.
The issue is whether or not Diebold has implemented the critical changes in its software and hardware called for by the full, genuine un-redacted SAIC Report
Much more, complete with links at http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3719&print=1
Until now.
For the first time, we've been able to review the complete, much sought-after, unredacted version of the SAIC report which has been kept at bay from Maryland state officials. . . as well as the computer science and security community. . . as well as the election integrity community and public at large since it was originally completed in 2003.
It has been called "The Pentagon Papers of Electronic Voting Systems" by some members of the computer science and security community. . .
Enter the world of electronic voting machines, the 2002 "cure" to 2000's hanging and dimpled chads. . . Diebold and the other manufacturers insist that their machines are safe and secure yet every single cyber security expert and computer scientist has, for years, been screaming into an empty wilderness of media attention, that. . .
- The machines can be hacked, by the implanting of malicious code, at the factory
- The machines can be hacked during transport from the factory
- The machines can be hacked while on "sleepovers" before the election
- The machines can be hacked (in 1 minute with a .50 cent mini bar key) during the election
- These machines can be hacked, at the tabulator, after the election.
What makes this SAIC report, "The Pentagon Papers of Electronic Voting" as some computer experts have described it, so important is that:
It shows, in black and white, that what Diebold says to election officials and voters across the country is not the truth. It shows that there are virtually no security protocols in place for certain Diebold machines and that the recommended security protocols were purposely removed from the publicly released version of the report. It shows that the analyzed Diebold machines were not functional nor secure for use in elections and raises serious doubts that they are ready for the November 7, 2006 midterm elections. . .
Diebold, in return for allowing their super secret, proprietary machines to be examined by the independent laboratory, insisted on two huge concessions from the state of Maryland.
First, SAIC would not be allowed to even look at the source code, the heart and guts of electronic voting machines.
Second, they would be allowed to go through the SAIC Report, line by line, and redact anything and everything that they felt was proprietary, had a potential for security breaches or could provide a roadmap for anyone who wanted to compromise the system.
In other words, whatever they wanted to do with the publicly released version of the report they were allowed to do so.
468 federal seats and countless state and local contests are being decided by Diebold and other similar electronic voting machines. The outcome of these elections will set the direction of our country for at least the next two years.
The issue is whether or not Diebold has implemented the critical changes in its software and hardware called for by the full, genuine un-redacted SAIC Report
Much more, complete with links at http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3719&print=1
And Now, Some Documented Foreign Policy Wisdom From The Past...
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
--Article 11 of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the US and Tripoli, 1796
--Article 11 of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the US and Tripoli, 1796
Quote of the Day: Good News Department
"It's the worst political environment for Republican candidates since Watergate."
-GLEN BOLGER, a Republican pollster
In a related story from the NYT:
Editorial
The Difference Two Years Made
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/opinion/05sun1.html?th&emc=th
On Tuesday, when this page runs the list of people it has endorsed for election, we will include no Republican Congressional candidates for the first time in our memory. Although Times editorials tend to agree with Democrats on national policy, we have proudly and consistently endorsed a long line of moderate Republicans, particularly for the House. Our only political loyalty is to making the two-party system as vital and responsible as possible.
That is why things are different this year.
To begin with, the Republican majority that has run the House — and for the most part, the Senate — during President Bush’s tenure has done a terrible job on the basics. Its tax-cutting-above-all-else has wrecked the budget, hobbled the middle class and endangered the long-term economy. It has refused to face up to global warming and done pathetically little about the country’s dependence on foreign oil.
Republican leaders, particularly in the House, have developed toxic symptoms of an overconfident majority that has been too long in power. They methodically shut the opposition — and even the more moderate members of their own party — out of any role in the legislative process. Their only mission seems to be self-perpetuation.
The current Republican majority managed to achieve that burned-out, brain-dead status in record time, and with a shocking disregard for the most minimal ethical standards. It was bad enough that a party that used to believe in fiscal austerity blew billions on pork-barrel projects. It is worse that many of the most expensive boondoggles were not even directed at their constituents, but at lobbyists who financed their campaigns and high-end lifestyles.
That was already the situation in 2004, and even then this page endorsed Republicans who had shown a high commitment to ethics reform and a willingness to buck their party on important issues like the environment, civil liberties and women’s rights.
For us, the breaking point came over the Republicans’ attempt to undermine the fundamental checks and balances that have safeguarded American democracy since its inception. The fact that the White House, House and Senate are all controlled by one party is not a threat to the balance of powers, as long as everyone understands the roles assigned to each by the Constitution. But over the past two years, the White House has made it clear that it claims sweeping powers that go well beyond any acceptable limits. Rather than doing their duty to curb these excesses, the Congressional Republicans have dedicated themselves to removing restraints on the president’s ability to do whatever he wants. To paraphrase Tom DeLay, the Republicans feel you don’t need to have oversight hearings if your party is in control of everything.
An administration convinced of its own perpetual rightness and a partisan Congress determined to deflect all criticism of the chief executive has been the recipe for what we live with today.
Congress, in particular the House, has failed to ask probing questions about the war in Iraq or hold the president accountable for his catastrophic bungling of the occupation. It also has allowed Mr. Bush to avoid answering any questions about whether his administration cooked the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. Then, it quietly agreed to close down the one agency that has been riding herd on crooked and inept American contractors who have botched everything from construction work to the security of weapons.
After the revelations about the abuse, torture and illegal detentions in Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Congress shielded the Pentagon from any responsibility for the atrocities its policies allowed to happen. On the eve of the election, and without even a pretense at debate in the House, Congress granted the White House permission to hold hundreds of noncitizens in jail forever, without due process, even though many of them were clearly sent there in error.
In the Senate, the path for this bill was cleared by a handful of Republicans who used their personal prestige and reputation for moderation to paper over the fact that the bill violates the Constitution in fundamental ways. Having acquiesced in the president’s campaign to dilute their own authority, lawmakers used this bill to further Mr. Bush’s goal of stripping the powers of the only remaining independent branch, the judiciary.
This election is indeed about George W. Bush — and the Congressional majority’s insistence on protecting him from the consequences of his mistakes and misdeeds. Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and proceeded to govern as if he had an enormous mandate. After he actually beat his opponent in 2004, he announced he now had real political capital and intended to spend it. We have seen the results. It is frightening to contemplate the new excesses he could concoct if he woke up next Wednesday and found that his party had maintained its hold on the House and Senate.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
-GLEN BOLGER, a Republican pollster
In a related story from the NYT:
Editorial
The Difference Two Years Made
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/opinion/05sun1.html?th&emc=th
On Tuesday, when this page runs the list of people it has endorsed for election, we will include no Republican Congressional candidates for the first time in our memory. Although Times editorials tend to agree with Democrats on national policy, we have proudly and consistently endorsed a long line of moderate Republicans, particularly for the House. Our only political loyalty is to making the two-party system as vital and responsible as possible.
That is why things are different this year.
To begin with, the Republican majority that has run the House — and for the most part, the Senate — during President Bush’s tenure has done a terrible job on the basics. Its tax-cutting-above-all-else has wrecked the budget, hobbled the middle class and endangered the long-term economy. It has refused to face up to global warming and done pathetically little about the country’s dependence on foreign oil.
Republican leaders, particularly in the House, have developed toxic symptoms of an overconfident majority that has been too long in power. They methodically shut the opposition — and even the more moderate members of their own party — out of any role in the legislative process. Their only mission seems to be self-perpetuation.
The current Republican majority managed to achieve that burned-out, brain-dead status in record time, and with a shocking disregard for the most minimal ethical standards. It was bad enough that a party that used to believe in fiscal austerity blew billions on pork-barrel projects. It is worse that many of the most expensive boondoggles were not even directed at their constituents, but at lobbyists who financed their campaigns and high-end lifestyles.
That was already the situation in 2004, and even then this page endorsed Republicans who had shown a high commitment to ethics reform and a willingness to buck their party on important issues like the environment, civil liberties and women’s rights.
For us, the breaking point came over the Republicans’ attempt to undermine the fundamental checks and balances that have safeguarded American democracy since its inception. The fact that the White House, House and Senate are all controlled by one party is not a threat to the balance of powers, as long as everyone understands the roles assigned to each by the Constitution. But over the past two years, the White House has made it clear that it claims sweeping powers that go well beyond any acceptable limits. Rather than doing their duty to curb these excesses, the Congressional Republicans have dedicated themselves to removing restraints on the president’s ability to do whatever he wants. To paraphrase Tom DeLay, the Republicans feel you don’t need to have oversight hearings if your party is in control of everything.
An administration convinced of its own perpetual rightness and a partisan Congress determined to deflect all criticism of the chief executive has been the recipe for what we live with today.
Congress, in particular the House, has failed to ask probing questions about the war in Iraq or hold the president accountable for his catastrophic bungling of the occupation. It also has allowed Mr. Bush to avoid answering any questions about whether his administration cooked the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. Then, it quietly agreed to close down the one agency that has been riding herd on crooked and inept American contractors who have botched everything from construction work to the security of weapons.
After the revelations about the abuse, torture and illegal detentions in Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Congress shielded the Pentagon from any responsibility for the atrocities its policies allowed to happen. On the eve of the election, and without even a pretense at debate in the House, Congress granted the White House permission to hold hundreds of noncitizens in jail forever, without due process, even though many of them were clearly sent there in error.
In the Senate, the path for this bill was cleared by a handful of Republicans who used their personal prestige and reputation for moderation to paper over the fact that the bill violates the Constitution in fundamental ways. Having acquiesced in the president’s campaign to dilute their own authority, lawmakers used this bill to further Mr. Bush’s goal of stripping the powers of the only remaining independent branch, the judiciary.
This election is indeed about George W. Bush — and the Congressional majority’s insistence on protecting him from the consequences of his mistakes and misdeeds. Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and proceeded to govern as if he had an enormous mandate. After he actually beat his opponent in 2004, he announced he now had real political capital and intended to spend it. We have seen the results. It is frightening to contemplate the new excesses he could concoct if he woke up next Wednesday and found that his party had maintained its hold on the House and Senate.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
U.S.-NATO warplanes raze Afghan village
Worst civilian death toll since 2002
By Robert Dobrow
Published Nov 4
The Islamic holiday of Eid al-Fitr is supposed to be a joyous event, marking the end of the month-long fasting of Ramadan. Literally the “Festival of Breaking the Fast,” it is a time where people dress in their finest clothes, adorn their homes with lights and decorations, give treats to children, and enjoy visits with family and friends.
But for the people of the Panjwayi district in southern Afghanistan, the celebrations turned into a nightmare last week as U.S.-NATO warplanes bombed their village, leaving as many as 85 civilians dead.
Witnesses told reporters that 25 homes were razed in four to five hours of bombing. Abdul Aye, a villager, said 22 members of his extended family were killed.
The civilian death toll, even by conservative estimates, is the largest in Afghanistan since July 2002 when U.S. planes attacked a wedding party, killing 46 and wounding 117.
Five years ago on the day of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, President George W. Bush, in his radio address to the nation, said: “The oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America and our allies. As we strike military targets, we’ll also drop food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan.”
There were no reports amidst the bombed out wreckage of Panjwayi of any food, medicine or supplies having been dropped.
The day after the attack, the occupation forces issued their pro forma “apologies.” NATO Commander Gen. David Richards offered, “In the night, in the fog of war, mistakes were made.”
But to underscore the real message, NATO representative Mark Laity later said: “We have demonstrated that we are strong enough on the combat side to be the winners. After 30 years of fighting, people in the south are nervous of being on the wrong side.” (Our emphasis)
In the past weeks groups like the New York-based Human Rights Watch, International Red Cross, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, and the U.K.-based Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict have condemned U.S.-NATO violence, which is increasingly targeting civilians.
Two days before the Panjwayi attack, more than 30 civilians were killed in a NATO bombing of the village of Zangi Abad. In the first weeks of October, at least 20 civilians were killed in Kandahar and Helmand Province. And on Oct. 23, a young Afghan girl was killed and two children injured when a NATO mortar test fell short of its target, hitting a residential home in the eastern province of Kunar. U.S.-NATO forces routinely test mortars in areas close to civilian populations.
This month marks five years of the Pentagon’s “Operation Enduring Freedom” in Afghanistan. For media which love to mark anniversaries, this fifth anniversary was notably absent from the U.S. press.
In Canada and much of Europe, however, where there is more opposition to the war, media attention has focused on a new report by the Senlis Council, a prominent British-based think tank, on the U.S.-NATO occupation.
“Afghanistan’s people are starving to death,” the report states. “Afghanistan continues to rank at the bottom of most poverty indicators and the situation of women and children is particularly grave. One in four children born in Afghanistan cannot expect to live beyond the age of five, and certain provinces of the country lay claim to the worst maternal mortality rates ever recorded in the world.”
More than 70 percent of the population is malnourished, according to the Senlis Council. Less than a quarter of the people have access to safe drinking water.
Under the guise of fighting the Taliban and bringing democracy and freedom to the people, the U.S. has installed into power a corrupt group of warlords, drug smugglers and gangsters. Human Rights Watch estimates that 60 percent of Afghani legislators have links to warlords. The country has reemerged as the world’s leading source for opium and heroin. “The government has become so full of drug smugglers,” said Abdul Karim Brahowie, Afghanistan’s minister of tribal and frontier affairs, “the cabinet meetings have become a farce.” (Christian Science Monitor, May 13, 2005). Violence against women and girls is pervasive, and is worse than conditions under the old Taliban regime.
Like Iraq, the Afghan intervention was based on a lie. It had nothing to do with democracy and freedom and everything to do with economics—that is, neocolonial, imperialist economics. Afghanistan sits in the center of Central Asia, a region rich with vast gas and oil reserves. Even more importantly for the U.S., it is strategically poised between Russia, China and the Middle East.
At the beginning of the last century, the “Great Game” was the name given to the struggle between British imperialism and tsarist Russia for domination of Afghanistan and Central Asia.
But the “Great Game” ended in 1917 when the Russian Revolution threw out the tsar and put the workers and peasants in power. The Bolsheviks published and nullified the secret imperialist treaties and practiced self-determination for the republics of Central Asia.
Today, 15 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S. military bases dot the region—in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and throughout Afghanistan. Many of these countries are now neocolonies, their natural resources at the mercy of U.S. energy monopolies, their governments some of the worst human rights abusers in the world.
This invasion of Central Asia has been in the works for years. The 9/11 attack gave Washington an easy justification for sending in its troops.
Today the world is witnessing the spectacle of the richest and most powerful nations on the planet trying to occupy and subdue the poorest and weakest. What is remarkable, and should give hope to people everywhere, is that they are failing miserably.
This article is copyright under a Creative Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Page printed from:
http://www.workers.org/2006/world/afghanistan-1109/
By Robert Dobrow
Published Nov 4
The Islamic holiday of Eid al-Fitr is supposed to be a joyous event, marking the end of the month-long fasting of Ramadan. Literally the “Festival of Breaking the Fast,” it is a time where people dress in their finest clothes, adorn their homes with lights and decorations, give treats to children, and enjoy visits with family and friends.
But for the people of the Panjwayi district in southern Afghanistan, the celebrations turned into a nightmare last week as U.S.-NATO warplanes bombed their village, leaving as many as 85 civilians dead.
Witnesses told reporters that 25 homes were razed in four to five hours of bombing. Abdul Aye, a villager, said 22 members of his extended family were killed.
The civilian death toll, even by conservative estimates, is the largest in Afghanistan since July 2002 when U.S. planes attacked a wedding party, killing 46 and wounding 117.
Five years ago on the day of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, President George W. Bush, in his radio address to the nation, said: “The oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America and our allies. As we strike military targets, we’ll also drop food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan.”
There were no reports amidst the bombed out wreckage of Panjwayi of any food, medicine or supplies having been dropped.
The day after the attack, the occupation forces issued their pro forma “apologies.” NATO Commander Gen. David Richards offered, “In the night, in the fog of war, mistakes were made.”
But to underscore the real message, NATO representative Mark Laity later said: “We have demonstrated that we are strong enough on the combat side to be the winners. After 30 years of fighting, people in the south are nervous of being on the wrong side.” (Our emphasis)
In the past weeks groups like the New York-based Human Rights Watch, International Red Cross, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, and the U.K.-based Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict have condemned U.S.-NATO violence, which is increasingly targeting civilians.
Two days before the Panjwayi attack, more than 30 civilians were killed in a NATO bombing of the village of Zangi Abad. In the first weeks of October, at least 20 civilians were killed in Kandahar and Helmand Province. And on Oct. 23, a young Afghan girl was killed and two children injured when a NATO mortar test fell short of its target, hitting a residential home in the eastern province of Kunar. U.S.-NATO forces routinely test mortars in areas close to civilian populations.
This month marks five years of the Pentagon’s “Operation Enduring Freedom” in Afghanistan. For media which love to mark anniversaries, this fifth anniversary was notably absent from the U.S. press.
In Canada and much of Europe, however, where there is more opposition to the war, media attention has focused on a new report by the Senlis Council, a prominent British-based think tank, on the U.S.-NATO occupation.
“Afghanistan’s people are starving to death,” the report states. “Afghanistan continues to rank at the bottom of most poverty indicators and the situation of women and children is particularly grave. One in four children born in Afghanistan cannot expect to live beyond the age of five, and certain provinces of the country lay claim to the worst maternal mortality rates ever recorded in the world.”
More than 70 percent of the population is malnourished, according to the Senlis Council. Less than a quarter of the people have access to safe drinking water.
Under the guise of fighting the Taliban and bringing democracy and freedom to the people, the U.S. has installed into power a corrupt group of warlords, drug smugglers and gangsters. Human Rights Watch estimates that 60 percent of Afghani legislators have links to warlords. The country has reemerged as the world’s leading source for opium and heroin. “The government has become so full of drug smugglers,” said Abdul Karim Brahowie, Afghanistan’s minister of tribal and frontier affairs, “the cabinet meetings have become a farce.” (Christian Science Monitor, May 13, 2005). Violence against women and girls is pervasive, and is worse than conditions under the old Taliban regime.
Like Iraq, the Afghan intervention was based on a lie. It had nothing to do with democracy and freedom and everything to do with economics—that is, neocolonial, imperialist economics. Afghanistan sits in the center of Central Asia, a region rich with vast gas and oil reserves. Even more importantly for the U.S., it is strategically poised between Russia, China and the Middle East.
At the beginning of the last century, the “Great Game” was the name given to the struggle between British imperialism and tsarist Russia for domination of Afghanistan and Central Asia.
But the “Great Game” ended in 1917 when the Russian Revolution threw out the tsar and put the workers and peasants in power. The Bolsheviks published and nullified the secret imperialist treaties and practiced self-determination for the republics of Central Asia.
Today, 15 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S. military bases dot the region—in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and throughout Afghanistan. Many of these countries are now neocolonies, their natural resources at the mercy of U.S. energy monopolies, their governments some of the worst human rights abusers in the world.
This invasion of Central Asia has been in the works for years. The 9/11 attack gave Washington an easy justification for sending in its troops.
Today the world is witnessing the spectacle of the richest and most powerful nations on the planet trying to occupy and subdue the poorest and weakest. What is remarkable, and should give hope to people everywhere, is that they are failing miserably.
This article is copyright under a Creative Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Page printed from:
http://www.workers.org/2006/world/afghanistan-1109/
Freeport, N.Y., targets Latin@ workers and community fights back
Published Nov 4
Romeo Pacheco parked his car in the Staples parking lot next to the Home Depot in Freeport, Long Island, on Oct. 16. Before shopping, he went over to talk to some friends standing on the sidewalk waiting for work. The police arrested him, put him in handcuffs, and confiscated his car.
A few days later, the police grabbed a young Latino man of 18 years by his neck and dragged him into a police car, manacled, while his father looked on in horror. Terrified, he pleaded with the cops to stop hurting him. A third man, Erasmo Sandoval, was arrested a few days later. He told Workers World that he knows of one or two others who were also arrested in the parking lot, all Latinos.
Carlos Canales, lead organizer of the Workplace Project, went to the parking lot on Oct. 24 to investigate these events, and was talking to two day laborers when the police told him to leave. He said he was not seeking work, and was just talking to his friends. The police went to a Staples security guard, asked him to request an arrest, and arrested Canales.
All those arrested must appear before a judge on Nov. 6.
On the same day Canales was arrested, Gustavo Flores, leader of United Day Laborers of Freeport, was roused from his bed at 6:00 a.m. when Freeport housing inspectors entered his home, demanding to know who lived there, and took pictures of the house and its residents. Flores later found out that other Latin@ homes had also been targeted in his neighborhood. This same type of pre-dawn raid caused New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to sue Freeport back in 2002.
History of anti-Latin@ racism
Officials in Freeport, located about 30 miles east of New York City, say the village is one-third Latin@, one-third Black and one-third white. But the percentage of Latin@s is actually larger. Ten years ago, Freeport was dying—stores closing, residents leaving—when Latin@s moved in and revitalized the local economy, buying houses and opening businesses. The local police responded to the influx of Latin@s rudely, harassing and arresting day laborers who congregated at the Home Depot and Dunkin Donuts.
Carlos Canales came to Freeport to protest this police brutality. He helped organize the workers and Freeport residents to demand a legal and protected “shape-up” site.
Freeport police arrested Canales and other workers in 2002. At the time, the village was facing the suit by Spitzer for discriminatory raids on Latin@ homeowners.
Forced into a corner, Freeport Mayor William Glacken agreed to a legal shape-up site: a dilapidated trailer, hidden from public view and administered by Catholic Charities.
Workplace Project and the United Day Laborers of Freeport worked with a support committee, Freeport Community Worklink Center, to make the trailer more visible and democratic. FCWC, a worker-run committee, briefly won the right to administer the shape-up site.
But when Mayor Glacken and several foundations announced that all day laborers in Freeport had to go to the trailer or face arrest, the workers and support committee said no. They were “fired” and Catholic Charities retook the site, ending the worker-run project.
Glacken bullied the Vornado Realty Trust, owner of the property where Home Depot and Staples are located, along with nearly $14 billion in other real estate assets, to put up “no trespassing” signs. The signs went up in September, giving Freeport police the right to arrest workers in the parking lot.
The village of Freeport has clearly mounted a calculated, racist attack on its Latin@ community. The FCWC and the UDLF have secured a lawyer, Fred Brewington, to take this case. They are organizing in the streets and in the churches, and will be protesting on Nov. 6, marching from Dunkin Donuts on Sunrise Highway to the Village Hall, where they will rally outside and then pack the court while the workers face the judge.
The community has been organizing for sanctuary for immigrants and to defend the day laborers. They are preparing to mount a case of discrimination against the village government. As UDLF leader Flores said, “We have had enough!”
This article is copyright under a Creative Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe: wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Page printed from:
http://www.workers.org/2006/us/freeport-1109/
Romeo Pacheco parked his car in the Staples parking lot next to the Home Depot in Freeport, Long Island, on Oct. 16. Before shopping, he went over to talk to some friends standing on the sidewalk waiting for work. The police arrested him, put him in handcuffs, and confiscated his car.
A few days later, the police grabbed a young Latino man of 18 years by his neck and dragged him into a police car, manacled, while his father looked on in horror. Terrified, he pleaded with the cops to stop hurting him. A third man, Erasmo Sandoval, was arrested a few days later. He told Workers World that he knows of one or two others who were also arrested in the parking lot, all Latinos.
Carlos Canales, lead organizer of the Workplace Project, went to the parking lot on Oct. 24 to investigate these events, and was talking to two day laborers when the police told him to leave. He said he was not seeking work, and was just talking to his friends. The police went to a Staples security guard, asked him to request an arrest, and arrested Canales.
All those arrested must appear before a judge on Nov. 6.
On the same day Canales was arrested, Gustavo Flores, leader of United Day Laborers of Freeport, was roused from his bed at 6:00 a.m. when Freeport housing inspectors entered his home, demanding to know who lived there, and took pictures of the house and its residents. Flores later found out that other Latin@ homes had also been targeted in his neighborhood. This same type of pre-dawn raid caused New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to sue Freeport back in 2002.
History of anti-Latin@ racism
Officials in Freeport, located about 30 miles east of New York City, say the village is one-third Latin@, one-third Black and one-third white. But the percentage of Latin@s is actually larger. Ten years ago, Freeport was dying—stores closing, residents leaving—when Latin@s moved in and revitalized the local economy, buying houses and opening businesses. The local police responded to the influx of Latin@s rudely, harassing and arresting day laborers who congregated at the Home Depot and Dunkin Donuts.
Carlos Canales came to Freeport to protest this police brutality. He helped organize the workers and Freeport residents to demand a legal and protected “shape-up” site.
Freeport police arrested Canales and other workers in 2002. At the time, the village was facing the suit by Spitzer for discriminatory raids on Latin@ homeowners.
Forced into a corner, Freeport Mayor William Glacken agreed to a legal shape-up site: a dilapidated trailer, hidden from public view and administered by Catholic Charities.
Workplace Project and the United Day Laborers of Freeport worked with a support committee, Freeport Community Worklink Center, to make the trailer more visible and democratic. FCWC, a worker-run committee, briefly won the right to administer the shape-up site.
But when Mayor Glacken and several foundations announced that all day laborers in Freeport had to go to the trailer or face arrest, the workers and support committee said no. They were “fired” and Catholic Charities retook the site, ending the worker-run project.
Glacken bullied the Vornado Realty Trust, owner of the property where Home Depot and Staples are located, along with nearly $14 billion in other real estate assets, to put up “no trespassing” signs. The signs went up in September, giving Freeport police the right to arrest workers in the parking lot.
The village of Freeport has clearly mounted a calculated, racist attack on its Latin@ community. The FCWC and the UDLF have secured a lawyer, Fred Brewington, to take this case. They are organizing in the streets and in the churches, and will be protesting on Nov. 6, marching from Dunkin Donuts on Sunrise Highway to the Village Hall, where they will rally outside and then pack the court while the workers face the judge.
The community has been organizing for sanctuary for immigrants and to defend the day laborers. They are preparing to mount a case of discrimination against the village government. As UDLF leader Flores said, “We have had enough!”
This article is copyright under a Creative Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe: wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Page printed from:
http://www.workers.org/2006/us/freeport-1109/
Friday, November 03, 2006
Hypocrisy Update: Another Gay Christian/Republican/Neo-Con
From Alternet
Oh, this is rich:
The Rev. Ted Haggard, who resigned as one of the nation's top evangelical leaders, admitted Friday he had contacted male prostitute Mike Jones for a massage and bought drugs from him.
Haggard said he never had sex with Jones and never used the methamphetamine drug he bought.
Haggard spoke to the Denver TV station from inside a car, with his wife, Gayle, in the passenger seat.
Yeah, that's the ticket. The hooker just gave me a massage. I bought the meth, but didn't use it. I didn't inhale!
The sad thing is that Haggard's followers will probably buy all that. After all, they throw millions of dollars at these "spiritual leaders" who are transparent con-men of the worst sort. They support Republicans who pay them lip service but ignore them until the next election rolls around. 'It's all political,' they're saying to themselves now -- part of the Grand Liberal Conspiracy® to tear down people of faith.
Eh, there's one born every minute.
Oh, this is rich:
The Rev. Ted Haggard, who resigned as one of the nation's top evangelical leaders, admitted Friday he had contacted male prostitute Mike Jones for a massage and bought drugs from him.
Haggard said he never had sex with Jones and never used the methamphetamine drug he bought.
He did not name the hotel. "I did call him," Haggard said. "I called him to buy some meth, but I threw it away."
Haggard spoke to the Denver TV station from inside a car, with his wife, Gayle, in the passenger seat.
"I was buying it for me, but I never used it. I was tempted. ...
"He told me about it. I went there for a massage."
Yeah, that's the ticket. The hooker just gave me a massage. I bought the meth, but didn't use it. I didn't inhale!
The sad thing is that Haggard's followers will probably buy all that. After all, they throw millions of dollars at these "spiritual leaders" who are transparent con-men of the worst sort. They support Republicans who pay them lip service but ignore them until the next election rolls around. 'It's all political,' they're saying to themselves now -- part of the Grand Liberal Conspiracy® to tear down people of faith.
Eh, there's one born every minute.
Post-Constitutional America: False Authority Syndrome
These anecdotal stories are indicative of the overall dysfunction in our burgeoning totalitarian security state. That certain "citizens", for lack of a word more descriptive than "consumers", would take an active role in this oppressive security against their fellow citizens chills me to the bone, when it isn't pissing me the fuck off!--Pete
DAVID GAGNE - "Good morning," I smiled at Alisha, handing her my California driver's license and printed-from-the-internet-but-ridiculously-easily-forged Southwest boarding pass.
She smiled at me, checked that the name on my license matched the name on my boarding pass, and used a yellow hi-liter to mark the boarding pass with what looked exactly like a one-inch line. As she handed "my papers" back to me, she paused. She looked me in the eyes. She smiled. And then she said, "I can't see your eyes."
I raised my hand to my face to remove my sunglasses and stopped. She wasn't smiling because she was nice. She was smiling because she was suffering from False Authority Syndrome. The poor child. In the most disarming, rational, peaceful, and kind voice at my command, I said, "You don't need to see my eyes."
"You have to remove your sunglasses, sir."
"No, actually, I don't."
"I can't let you past here with your sunglasses on."
"Yes, you can."
At this point she became obviously frustrated and confused. She looked at me as if I was a freshly-shaved Osama bin Laden in a sports coat and khakis. She became stern. "Take them off, please."
"There's no law that says I can't wear my sunglasses in the airport, ma'am"
"Yes, there is. It's a rule."
"It's not a rule."
"It is. I can't let you pass."
"Yes, you can."
She took my boarding pass and used her yellow hi-liter to turn the line into an X. An X of shame and potential threat. She called to the top-of-the-stairs officer, "Threat alert!"
No, I'm not kidding. Then she let me go up the stairs. At this point I expected to get into an argument with the top-of-the-stairs woman. I didn't care. I had two hours to kill and I wasn't in the mood to be pushed around by the TSA. But surprisingly LeVonda did nothing even remotely antagonistic. In fact she let me get into the extra short special security line. This was a bonus. Instead of standing in the "general" line with the hundreds of non-sunglasses wearing rubes, I got to get into the fast lane.
The fast lane was occupied by a mother and her three children, a very, very tall black man, and a guy that looked like the most average, generic businessman possible. I didn't feel like any of them could in any way be as much of a threat as I was, but I guess you can't judge a book by its cover. We merrily zipped through the metal detector and had our carry-on bags x-rayed. . .
But now a wrinkle. I wasn't allowed to get my bags. A tremendously grumpy guy grabbed my bag, my laptop, my jacket, and my shoes and gave me the double-ultra shakedown. He went through every pocket of my briefcase. He went through my jacket. He looked in my shoes. (He did not, I should note, ask me to remove my sunglasses.) He never smiled. He was a serious TSA. There was a uniformed LAPD officer standing nearby as well, but he looked like he just enjoyed standing there and flexing and wasn't very interested in all of the potential threats to national security that were being given the what-for by the TSA.
The TSA double-security checker was not about to let me get past him. He knew I was a bad guy. I had a water bottle. I wasn't hiding it or anything, I just honestly forgot that liquids are dangerous nowadays. He held it in front of my face like it was a Nazi membership card that he'd found in my blazer. "You know you can't have this, right?"
I almost - almost - said something snarky about how it was cool that he didn't care about my Swiss Army knife or my Leatherman tool. Instead my reply was, "Oh, yeah, right. Sorry about that." I reached for the water bottle, saying, "I'll just chug that now."
You would have thought I pulled an UZI out of my ass at this point. He literally jumped backwards and told me, "Don't come any closer!"
I laughed. I did. I couldn't help it. It was absurd. I looked at the LAPD officer and said, "Is he serious?" The policeman looked at me as if he was very sorry and trying to not laugh himself. He walked a little bit closer towards us but said nothing.
"Dude. It's water. I'll drink it right now."
"I can't let you do that. You have to throw it away."
"What? Why? I'm going to drink it. I'll drink the whole thing. Right
now. Right in front of you."
"You can't do that."
"Why not?"
"It's against the law."
"What law?"
"You can't drink in the security area at the airport."
Now this is where I got mad. "There is no law that says I can't drink water in the security area of the airport." I looked at the cop, "Is there?" The cop said, "I have no jurisdiction where you are. You're not on LA property."
This seemed pretty silly to me. What the hell was he doing there if he wasn't allowed to do anything? But whatever. He was a cool cop and I didn't have any beef with him. I looked back at the TSA guy and said, "Show me the law."
He stared bolts of fire into my skull and said, "I don't have to show it to you. It's the law."
"Uh."
Yes, I really did say, "Uh."
"There's no law, man," I said.
He said - and I swear I am not making any of this up - "It's an SSI and I am not required to show it to you."
"What is an SSI? Are you kidding? This is America. You can't enforce a law without showing it to me. I never voted on any law about drinking water in the security area of the airport. There is no such law." I really, really wanted to ask him if SSI stood for Super Secret Information, but I forgot.
"I can't let you drink this water."
"Fine. Throw it away. I don't care. It's an unopened bottle of water that I am willing to drink right in front of you. But whatever."
"I can't throw it away. You have to throw it away."
I picked up my bags and walked away.
For quite some time I noticed that the person who I assumed to be the top TSA guy was following me around Brookstone. I had a tail I had a pretty good time making him think I was trying to "lose him" for a little while. Then my girlfriend called and I forgot about him and he was gone.
http://www.davidgagne.net/?p=6200
DAVID GAGNE - "Good morning," I smiled at Alisha, handing her my California driver's license and printed-from-the-internet-but-ridiculously-easily-forged Southwest boarding pass.
She smiled at me, checked that the name on my license matched the name on my boarding pass, and used a yellow hi-liter to mark the boarding pass with what looked exactly like a one-inch line. As she handed "my papers" back to me, she paused. She looked me in the eyes. She smiled. And then she said, "I can't see your eyes."
I raised my hand to my face to remove my sunglasses and stopped. She wasn't smiling because she was nice. She was smiling because she was suffering from False Authority Syndrome. The poor child. In the most disarming, rational, peaceful, and kind voice at my command, I said, "You don't need to see my eyes."
"You have to remove your sunglasses, sir."
"No, actually, I don't."
"I can't let you past here with your sunglasses on."
"Yes, you can."
At this point she became obviously frustrated and confused. She looked at me as if I was a freshly-shaved Osama bin Laden in a sports coat and khakis. She became stern. "Take them off, please."
"There's no law that says I can't wear my sunglasses in the airport, ma'am"
"Yes, there is. It's a rule."
"It's not a rule."
"It is. I can't let you pass."
"Yes, you can."
She took my boarding pass and used her yellow hi-liter to turn the line into an X. An X of shame and potential threat. She called to the top-of-the-stairs officer, "Threat alert!"
No, I'm not kidding. Then she let me go up the stairs. At this point I expected to get into an argument with the top-of-the-stairs woman. I didn't care. I had two hours to kill and I wasn't in the mood to be pushed around by the TSA. But surprisingly LeVonda did nothing even remotely antagonistic. In fact she let me get into the extra short special security line. This was a bonus. Instead of standing in the "general" line with the hundreds of non-sunglasses wearing rubes, I got to get into the fast lane.
The fast lane was occupied by a mother and her three children, a very, very tall black man, and a guy that looked like the most average, generic businessman possible. I didn't feel like any of them could in any way be as much of a threat as I was, but I guess you can't judge a book by its cover. We merrily zipped through the metal detector and had our carry-on bags x-rayed. . .
But now a wrinkle. I wasn't allowed to get my bags. A tremendously grumpy guy grabbed my bag, my laptop, my jacket, and my shoes and gave me the double-ultra shakedown. He went through every pocket of my briefcase. He went through my jacket. He looked in my shoes. (He did not, I should note, ask me to remove my sunglasses.) He never smiled. He was a serious TSA. There was a uniformed LAPD officer standing nearby as well, but he looked like he just enjoyed standing there and flexing and wasn't very interested in all of the potential threats to national security that were being given the what-for by the TSA.
The TSA double-security checker was not about to let me get past him. He knew I was a bad guy. I had a water bottle. I wasn't hiding it or anything, I just honestly forgot that liquids are dangerous nowadays. He held it in front of my face like it was a Nazi membership card that he'd found in my blazer. "You know you can't have this, right?"
I almost - almost - said something snarky about how it was cool that he didn't care about my Swiss Army knife or my Leatherman tool. Instead my reply was, "Oh, yeah, right. Sorry about that." I reached for the water bottle, saying, "I'll just chug that now."
You would have thought I pulled an UZI out of my ass at this point. He literally jumped backwards and told me, "Don't come any closer!"
I laughed. I did. I couldn't help it. It was absurd. I looked at the LAPD officer and said, "Is he serious?" The policeman looked at me as if he was very sorry and trying to not laugh himself. He walked a little bit closer towards us but said nothing.
"Dude. It's water. I'll drink it right now."
"I can't let you do that. You have to throw it away."
"What? Why? I'm going to drink it. I'll drink the whole thing. Right
now. Right in front of you."
"You can't do that."
"Why not?"
"It's against the law."
"What law?"
"You can't drink in the security area at the airport."
Now this is where I got mad. "There is no law that says I can't drink water in the security area of the airport." I looked at the cop, "Is there?" The cop said, "I have no jurisdiction where you are. You're not on LA property."
This seemed pretty silly to me. What the hell was he doing there if he wasn't allowed to do anything? But whatever. He was a cool cop and I didn't have any beef with him. I looked back at the TSA guy and said, "Show me the law."
He stared bolts of fire into my skull and said, "I don't have to show it to you. It's the law."
"Uh."
Yes, I really did say, "Uh."
"There's no law, man," I said.
He said - and I swear I am not making any of this up - "It's an SSI and I am not required to show it to you."
"What is an SSI? Are you kidding? This is America. You can't enforce a law without showing it to me. I never voted on any law about drinking water in the security area of the airport. There is no such law." I really, really wanted to ask him if SSI stood for Super Secret Information, but I forgot.
"I can't let you drink this water."
"Fine. Throw it away. I don't care. It's an unopened bottle of water that I am willing to drink right in front of you. But whatever."
"I can't throw it away. You have to throw it away."
I picked up my bags and walked away.
For quite some time I noticed that the person who I assumed to be the top TSA guy was following me around Brookstone. I had a tail I had a pretty good time making him think I was trying to "lose him" for a little while. Then my girlfriend called and I forgot about him and he was gone.
http://www.davidgagne.net/?p=6200
GREAT MOMENTS IN FATUOUS JOURNALISM
Lifted wholesale from Sam Smith's Undernews
Howard Kurtz would have you believe that the big problem with our elections is not ballot boxes that can be rigged but bad exit polling -- SS
HOWARD KURTZ, WASHINGTON POST - If the Democrats capture the House, television anchors won't be able to project that until they are sure the party has locked in a 15-seat gain. . . In the Senate, with fewer seats in play, the math is simpler. If one or two of the most vulnerable Republicans -- in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Missouri -- win decisively, the networks will know fairly early that the Democrats won't be able to reach their magic number of six needed to take control. But even if the Democrats sweep those races -- and hold New Jersey, which is in doubt -- the networks still won't be able to forecast a Democratic takeover until enough votes are counted in Montana, where polls close at 10 p.m. Eastern. . .
The biggest behind-the-scenes change in network coverage involves what has been dubbed the Quarantine Room. Determined to avoid a rerun of recent years, when its exit polls leaked out by early afternoon to the Drudge Report, Slate and other Web sites, a media consortium is allowing two people from each of the networks and the Associated Press entree to a windowless room in New York. All cell phones, laptops and Blackberrys will be confiscated. The designated staffers will pore over the exit polls but will not be allowed to communicate with their offices until 5 p.m.
The consortium, called the National Election Pool, is conducting no surveys for House races. The exit polling will take place for Senate and gubernatorial contests in 32 states with competitive races.
The recent track record with such polling has been pockmarked with failure. There was, of course, the debacle of election night 2000, when the networks used polling data from Florida to prematurely award the presidency, twice, within hours. In 2002, the network consortium's predecessor, Voter News Service, suffered a computer meltdown and pulled the plug on its exit polls. Two years ago, its sample was so skewed that the group's surveys showed Sen. John Kerry beating President Bush well into the night.
WaPo Article...
Howard Kurtz would have you believe that the big problem with our elections is not ballot boxes that can be rigged but bad exit polling -- SS
HOWARD KURTZ, WASHINGTON POST - If the Democrats capture the House, television anchors won't be able to project that until they are sure the party has locked in a 15-seat gain. . . In the Senate, with fewer seats in play, the math is simpler. If one or two of the most vulnerable Republicans -- in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Missouri -- win decisively, the networks will know fairly early that the Democrats won't be able to reach their magic number of six needed to take control. But even if the Democrats sweep those races -- and hold New Jersey, which is in doubt -- the networks still won't be able to forecast a Democratic takeover until enough votes are counted in Montana, where polls close at 10 p.m. Eastern. . .
The biggest behind-the-scenes change in network coverage involves what has been dubbed the Quarantine Room. Determined to avoid a rerun of recent years, when its exit polls leaked out by early afternoon to the Drudge Report, Slate and other Web sites, a media consortium is allowing two people from each of the networks and the Associated Press entree to a windowless room in New York. All cell phones, laptops and Blackberrys will be confiscated. The designated staffers will pore over the exit polls but will not be allowed to communicate with their offices until 5 p.m.
The consortium, called the National Election Pool, is conducting no surveys for House races. The exit polling will take place for Senate and gubernatorial contests in 32 states with competitive races.
The recent track record with such polling has been pockmarked with failure. There was, of course, the debacle of election night 2000, when the networks used polling data from Florida to prematurely award the presidency, twice, within hours. In 2002, the network consortium's predecessor, Voter News Service, suffered a computer meltdown and pulled the plug on its exit polls. Two years ago, its sample was so skewed that the group's surveys showed Sen. John Kerry beating President Bush well into the night.
WaPo Article...
Thursday, November 02, 2006
SamGram: Why is the Military Sacred?
http://prorev.com/2006/11/samgram-why-is-military-sacred.htm
ONE OF THE MOST costly and immoral lies of our culture is that the military is a sacred institution. John Kerry recently bumped into this lie while telling a truth, albeit that, as a practical matter, one shouldn't mention a week before the election, namely that the military has always been a haven for those who couldn't hack it in the civilian economy. "Education. . . if you make the most of it and you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well," said Kerry "If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
You need only watch the military's own recruiting ads to know the importance of the economic harbor. Which is why these ads promise to train you so you'll be able make it in the 'free market' when you go back.
The military is America's largest religion. If in public office, you may no more take its name in vain than those of the lesser gods revered by more modest religions like Christianity.
In fact, the military has a permanent exemption from the strictures of Christianity. Otherwise, instead of going after cohabiting gays, the church's rightwing would be attacking the Pentagon for violating such strictures as:
"The law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore."
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.
"Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' says the Lord. 'But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
"Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."
But none of that matters to the Christian apostates who control the discussion of both religion and the military in our political debates. These frauds have blasphemed their own purported religion and betrayed its fundamental principles. And nowhere is this more apparent than their allegiance to the military, the most un-Christian public institution of our world.
Of course, if you're a Seventh Day Agnostic like your editor, you can get away with saying such things. It is those who seek power but can't quite get the hypocritical rhetoric down who end up in trouble.
Like John Kerry who was taken to the reamers for violating the first law of heroism - let someone else do the talking about what you did - and who now is in trouble for not seeing the military as heroic enough. It's often like that; it's the errant priests who get into real trouble, not the outlanders, the unsalvageable.
And the reason he is in trouble is because not just the GOP spin machine but everyone in public office and the bulk of the media believe one should speak no evil of the military. On no single issue is the media's pretension of objectivity more regularly violated. Its true purpose in this matter is to perpetuate the myth of the sacred role of the warrior.
In fact, as Joseph Conrad noted, the hero and the coward are those who, for one brief moment, do something out of the ordinary. At least the ones we honor, that is. The career firefighter, the inner city grandmother raising six grandchildren whose father is in jail and mother has a lousy job, or the teacher year after year helping to save those who society has preemptively discarded are not treated as sacred, as heroes, or as worthy of special honor during political campaigns and or on the evening news. But killing some Iraqis, or being killed by them: that's the real thing.
That's why you won't hear any politician or commentator quoting Eugene Debs: "I would no more teach children military training than I would teach them arson, robbery, or assassination."
There is also the little problem of winning. If you're going to justify war without concern for its morality, you still are left with the practical problem of victory. Since World War II, America has had no victories save against minor military enemies such as Granada. Even if we were to declare victory against Iraq it would be the military equivalent of Notre Dame defeating St Joseph's Junior High School.
I sometimes fantasize that war will be the slavery of the 21st century, which is to say a concept once widely accepted is turned into the pariah practice it should always have been. For this to happen abolitionism will have to replace pacifism; it is not the good of the resister that is important but rather the evil of the practitioner. We need to demystify the military, pointing out not just its moral weaknesses but its logical fallacies. We should sensibly regard people who walk around with pins on their chests celebrating their life as, at best, somewhat unstable. And we need to remind the media that it can not call itself objective and repeatedly rebuff the voices of peace.
ONE OF THE MOST costly and immoral lies of our culture is that the military is a sacred institution. John Kerry recently bumped into this lie while telling a truth, albeit that, as a practical matter, one shouldn't mention a week before the election, namely that the military has always been a haven for those who couldn't hack it in the civilian economy. "Education. . . if you make the most of it and you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well," said Kerry "If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
You need only watch the military's own recruiting ads to know the importance of the economic harbor. Which is why these ads promise to train you so you'll be able make it in the 'free market' when you go back.
The military is America's largest religion. If in public office, you may no more take its name in vain than those of the lesser gods revered by more modest religions like Christianity.
In fact, the military has a permanent exemption from the strictures of Christianity. Otherwise, instead of going after cohabiting gays, the church's rightwing would be attacking the Pentagon for violating such strictures as:
"The law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore."
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.
"Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' says the Lord. 'But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
"Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."
But none of that matters to the Christian apostates who control the discussion of both religion and the military in our political debates. These frauds have blasphemed their own purported religion and betrayed its fundamental principles. And nowhere is this more apparent than their allegiance to the military, the most un-Christian public institution of our world.
Of course, if you're a Seventh Day Agnostic like your editor, you can get away with saying such things. It is those who seek power but can't quite get the hypocritical rhetoric down who end up in trouble.
Like John Kerry who was taken to the reamers for violating the first law of heroism - let someone else do the talking about what you did - and who now is in trouble for not seeing the military as heroic enough. It's often like that; it's the errant priests who get into real trouble, not the outlanders, the unsalvageable.
And the reason he is in trouble is because not just the GOP spin machine but everyone in public office and the bulk of the media believe one should speak no evil of the military. On no single issue is the media's pretension of objectivity more regularly violated. Its true purpose in this matter is to perpetuate the myth of the sacred role of the warrior.
In fact, as Joseph Conrad noted, the hero and the coward are those who, for one brief moment, do something out of the ordinary. At least the ones we honor, that is. The career firefighter, the inner city grandmother raising six grandchildren whose father is in jail and mother has a lousy job, or the teacher year after year helping to save those who society has preemptively discarded are not treated as sacred, as heroes, or as worthy of special honor during political campaigns and or on the evening news. But killing some Iraqis, or being killed by them: that's the real thing.
That's why you won't hear any politician or commentator quoting Eugene Debs: "I would no more teach children military training than I would teach them arson, robbery, or assassination."
There is also the little problem of winning. If you're going to justify war without concern for its morality, you still are left with the practical problem of victory. Since World War II, America has had no victories save against minor military enemies such as Granada. Even if we were to declare victory against Iraq it would be the military equivalent of Notre Dame defeating St Joseph's Junior High School.
I sometimes fantasize that war will be the slavery of the 21st century, which is to say a concept once widely accepted is turned into the pariah practice it should always have been. For this to happen abolitionism will have to replace pacifism; it is not the good of the resister that is important but rather the evil of the practitioner. We need to demystify the military, pointing out not just its moral weaknesses but its logical fallacies. We should sensibly regard people who walk around with pins on their chests celebrating their life as, at best, somewhat unstable. And we need to remind the media that it can not call itself objective and repeatedly rebuff the voices of peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)