As we have noted before, a wise anti-terrorism program would eliminate the costly protection of eminently replaceable figures like George Bush and most of the Congress and assign better security to the irreplaceable like fine musicians, poets, chefs, and scientists.
But that's not how things are done in this war on terror in which an
inordinate amount of funds are spent on protecting the people who
approve the spending of inordinate amount of funds. They are, and
rightfully so given their policies, scared. The devil take the rest of
us.
Thus yesterday the occupants of the White House and the U.S. Capitol were massively evacuated while the mayor of Washington, just a few blocks away, wasn't even told what was going on.
AP - At the Capitol, lawmakers, tourists and reporters raced out of the building, dodging the speeding motorcades of Latin American leaders who had been meeting with members of Congress. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., was hustled to a secure location. Police, rushing to get House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi out of the building, lifted her out of her shoes.
Armed security officers raced through the Capitol shouting for people to leave. "This is not a drill!" some yelled as they moved people away from the building. "There's a plane coming," warned another.
WONKETTE - Reporting on today's mass hysteria at the Capitol has done little to clarify whether Hill denizens behaved like bored middle school students during a fire drill (Fox's contention) or if they ran away like little girls scared of some huge symbolic penis. One Wonkette operative reports that "the goddamn cops on the 2nd floor of the cannon building were basically yelling at us to run out of the building.... i tried walking, which just got me yelled at even more."
A second operative writes that others were also above the whole
"running" thing: About 5 minutes before the all clear was signaled,
Brownback and his staff started walking back. A police officer tried to stop him, but Brownback blew him off with 'don't bother me' type of hand wave and continued on. We think our operative my be confusing the "don't bother me" type hand wave with the "Fuck it, I know I'm going to heaven" one. Either way: very smooth. . .
A former FEMA official is saying on Fox News that "the word 'running' is probably inappropriate. . . we have to figure out what language to use in the future." On the other hand, Sen. Lautenberg says that someone came into the hall and yelled, "Come on, you only have two minutes!" and that they did run. Far. "I saw a lot of very tired people. I must tell you, a very heavy woman running next to me."
Our favorite eyewitness description comes from Suzanne Malavaux,
however, who gives this appropriately deadpan account:
"One man told me this is not a joke, and he said run, get off of the
grounds. . . and then the tone changed. At that point, I yelled, I
asked him do we go inside or get off the grounds? We wanted
clarification, and then he started yelling, get out of here, get off of
the grounds, run. And that is when we started moving rather quickly. For what it's worth, the video on CNN shows at least one woman going somewhere between a canter and gallop.
JOE STRUPP, EDITOR & PUBLISHER - "I was standing outside the Senate floor waiting for them to wrap up a vote, and the police said to exit the building," said Anne Gearan of The Associated Press. "Then they started yelling louder and louder so everyone left." She said some people were running, but most veteran journalists calmly walked. "They pulled us down to the park across from [nearby] Union Station, and I didn't hear anyone panic.". . .
(Article here...)
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Dr. Hager's Family Values
by AYELISH MCGARVEY
[from the May 30, 2005 issue of The Nation]
Late last October Dr. W. David Hager, a prominent obstetrician-gynecologist and Bush Administration appointee to the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), took to the pulpit as the featured speaker at a morning service. He stood in the campus chapel at Asbury College, a small evangelical Christian school nestled among picturesque horse farms in the small town of Wilmore in Kentucky's bluegrass region. Hager is an Asburian nabob; his elderly father is a past president of the college, and Hager himself currently sits on his alma mater's board of trustees. Even the school's administrative building, Hager Hall, bears the family name.
When Hager's nomination to the FDA was announced in the fall of 2002, his conservative Christian beliefs drew sharp criticism from Democrats and prochoice groups. David Limbaugh, the lesser light in the Limbaugh family and author of Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging Political War Against Christianity, said the left had subjected Hager to an "anti-Christian litmus test." Hager's valor in the face of this "religious profiling" earned him the praise and lasting support of evangelical Christians, including such luminaries as Charles Colson, Dr. James Dobson and Franklin Graham, son of the Rev. Billy Graham.
Back at Asbury, Hager cast himself as a victim of religious persecution in his sermon. "You see...there is a war going on in this country," he said gravely. "And I'm not speaking about the war in Iraq. It's a war being waged against Christians, particularly evangelical Christians. It wasn't my scientific record that came under scrutiny [at the FDA]. It was my faith.... By making myself available, God has used me to stand in the breach.... Just as he has used me, he can use you."
Up on the dais, several men seated behind Hager nodded solemnly in agreement. But out in the audience, Linda Carruth Davis--co-author with Hager of Stress and the Woman's Body, and, more saliently, his former wife of thirty-two years--was enraged. "It was the most disgusting thing I've ever heard," she recalled months later, through clenched teeth.
According to Davis, Hager's public moralizing on sexual matters clashed with his deplorable treatment of her during their marriage. Davis alleges that between 1995 and their divorce in 2002, Hager repeatedly sodomized her without her consent. Several sources on and off the record confirmed that she had told them it was the sexual and emotional abuse within their marriage that eventually forced her out. "I probably wouldn't have objected so much, or felt it was so abusive if he had just wanted normal [vaginal] sex all the time," she explained to me. "But it was the painful, invasive, totally nonconsensual nature of the [anal] sex that was so horrible." (more here...)
[from the May 30, 2005 issue of The Nation]
Late last October Dr. W. David Hager, a prominent obstetrician-gynecologist and Bush Administration appointee to the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), took to the pulpit as the featured speaker at a morning service. He stood in the campus chapel at Asbury College, a small evangelical Christian school nestled among picturesque horse farms in the small town of Wilmore in Kentucky's bluegrass region. Hager is an Asburian nabob; his elderly father is a past president of the college, and Hager himself currently sits on his alma mater's board of trustees. Even the school's administrative building, Hager Hall, bears the family name.
When Hager's nomination to the FDA was announced in the fall of 2002, his conservative Christian beliefs drew sharp criticism from Democrats and prochoice groups. David Limbaugh, the lesser light in the Limbaugh family and author of Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging Political War Against Christianity, said the left had subjected Hager to an "anti-Christian litmus test." Hager's valor in the face of this "religious profiling" earned him the praise and lasting support of evangelical Christians, including such luminaries as Charles Colson, Dr. James Dobson and Franklin Graham, son of the Rev. Billy Graham.
Back at Asbury, Hager cast himself as a victim of religious persecution in his sermon. "You see...there is a war going on in this country," he said gravely. "And I'm not speaking about the war in Iraq. It's a war being waged against Christians, particularly evangelical Christians. It wasn't my scientific record that came under scrutiny [at the FDA]. It was my faith.... By making myself available, God has used me to stand in the breach.... Just as he has used me, he can use you."
Up on the dais, several men seated behind Hager nodded solemnly in agreement. But out in the audience, Linda Carruth Davis--co-author with Hager of Stress and the Woman's Body, and, more saliently, his former wife of thirty-two years--was enraged. "It was the most disgusting thing I've ever heard," she recalled months later, through clenched teeth.
According to Davis, Hager's public moralizing on sexual matters clashed with his deplorable treatment of her during their marriage. Davis alleges that between 1995 and their divorce in 2002, Hager repeatedly sodomized her without her consent. Several sources on and off the record confirmed that she had told them it was the sexual and emotional abuse within their marriage that eventually forced her out. "I probably wouldn't have objected so much, or felt it was so abusive if he had just wanted normal [vaginal] sex all the time," she explained to me. "But it was the painful, invasive, totally nonconsensual nature of the [anal] sex that was so horrible." (more here...)
The Religious Right - An Anti-American Terrorist Movement
Thu, 12 May 2005 18:50:30 -0500
Summary:
Author: “To even attempt to understand the religious right, which many are now naming “Dominionism”, one must grasp the mental duress it holds on its followers. I should know; I was one of them. Axiomatic in the worldview of the fundamentalist, born-again Christian is: “I have the truth, I’m right; you don’t have the truth, you’re wrong.” As a result, critical thinking, research, or intellectual freedom of exploration are not only unnecessary, they are dangerous and potentially heretical.”
[Posted By Ryz]
By Carolyn Baker
Republished from Information Clearing House
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"
When I was in college, I wrote a research paper that changed my life forever. I had grown up in a fundamentalist Christian family living in the buckle of the Bible Belt where I was fed a steady diet of racism and Cold War anti-communism. My grandfather had been a member of the Klan in the 1920s, and as a high school student, I was saving money to join the John Birch Society. Most personally detrimental to me, however, was the denigration by my high-school-educated parents of higher education. “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing,” they exhorted from the Book of Proverbs in the Old Testament. And, when I insisted on attending college, they reminded me incessantly that the wisdom of man is foolishness in the eyes of God. However, getting an education from a fundamentalist, Bob Jones University-like institution would be acceptable. I did not attend Bob Jones, but almost miraculously, given the fact that I was attending a similar institution, I started to think critically, and therefore, from their perspective, my parents’ caveat that “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” was validated.
In the second semester of my freshman year, I chose to write a research paper on race. It was 1964, and that summer, the Congress would pass the Civil Rights Act. Throughout my high school years, Martin Luther King was becoming a household word, and few people in my world held anything but contempt for the “colored communist sympathizer.”
As I reflect on my innocence at that age, but more importantly, my thirst for knowledge, I recall the hours of reading and research invested in the topic. Specifically, I set out to discover if African Americans were genuinely equal with whites. Pathetically, I was actually seeking evidence for the humanity of blacks. On the one hand, that I needed to research the topic in order to grasp that African Americans were my brothers and sisters was tragic, but on the other hand, that particular research project at that particular time in my life opened one door and closed another permanently, forever, and there was no turning back. I didn’t get an A on the paper, but it launched for me a journey of social justice that I have been on ever since. (more...)
Summary:
Author: “To even attempt to understand the religious right, which many are now naming “Dominionism”, one must grasp the mental duress it holds on its followers. I should know; I was one of them. Axiomatic in the worldview of the fundamentalist, born-again Christian is: “I have the truth, I’m right; you don’t have the truth, you’re wrong.” As a result, critical thinking, research, or intellectual freedom of exploration are not only unnecessary, they are dangerous and potentially heretical.”
[Posted By Ryz]
By Carolyn Baker
Republished from Information Clearing House
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"
When I was in college, I wrote a research paper that changed my life forever. I had grown up in a fundamentalist Christian family living in the buckle of the Bible Belt where I was fed a steady diet of racism and Cold War anti-communism. My grandfather had been a member of the Klan in the 1920s, and as a high school student, I was saving money to join the John Birch Society. Most personally detrimental to me, however, was the denigration by my high-school-educated parents of higher education. “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing,” they exhorted from the Book of Proverbs in the Old Testament. And, when I insisted on attending college, they reminded me incessantly that the wisdom of man is foolishness in the eyes of God. However, getting an education from a fundamentalist, Bob Jones University-like institution would be acceptable. I did not attend Bob Jones, but almost miraculously, given the fact that I was attending a similar institution, I started to think critically, and therefore, from their perspective, my parents’ caveat that “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” was validated.
In the second semester of my freshman year, I chose to write a research paper on race. It was 1964, and that summer, the Congress would pass the Civil Rights Act. Throughout my high school years, Martin Luther King was becoming a household word, and few people in my world held anything but contempt for the “colored communist sympathizer.”
As I reflect on my innocence at that age, but more importantly, my thirst for knowledge, I recall the hours of reading and research invested in the topic. Specifically, I set out to discover if African Americans were genuinely equal with whites. Pathetically, I was actually seeking evidence for the humanity of blacks. On the one hand, that I needed to research the topic in order to grasp that African Americans were my brothers and sisters was tragic, but on the other hand, that particular research project at that particular time in my life opened one door and closed another permanently, forever, and there was no turning back. I didn’t get an A on the paper, but it launched for me a journey of social justice that I have been on ever since. (more...)
Friday, May 13, 2005
ACCU POLL INSTALLS IRV ABILITY
IRV, or Ranked-Choice-Voting, is about the only thing that will renew my faith in electoral politics, sullied after November-December 2000, and completely destroyed after the California faux recall - not to mention the engineered 2004 elections. I would add proportional representation to the mix, but for that to be viable we must actually establish parties outside the corporate duopoly of the Republicrat Party --Pete
ACCU POLL INSTALLS IRV ABILITY
(Article here)
[ROB RICHIE, FAIR VOTE - Accu Poll has a very small share of the market, but seems to be making a very serious push in states around the country. It's a real breakthrough to have it touting the fact that its equipment is ready to run instant runoff voting elections.]
Accu Poll Inc. a developer of direct recording electronic voting
systems, today announced receipt of certification under the 2002 Federal Election Commission voting system standards. As a result, Accu Poll becomes the first vendor of an end-to-end voting system featuring a voter verified paper audit trail to be certified under the more stringent 2002 standards.
Version 2.5 includes new features such as Instant Runoff Voting,
electronic VVPAT audio review, early voting support, encrypted election results as well as additional enhanced security features.
[Note: we hold to the view that any paper ballot emanating from such a machine should be placed in an optical scan machine for a second computerized count. A "verified paper trail" is only useful when someone notices something wrong. In California, for example, simply adding two votes at every machine could produce a statewide difference in tally of 150,000 votes]
ACCU POLL INSTALLS IRV ABILITY
(Article here)
[ROB RICHIE, FAIR VOTE - Accu Poll has a very small share of the market, but seems to be making a very serious push in states around the country. It's a real breakthrough to have it touting the fact that its equipment is ready to run instant runoff voting elections.]
Accu Poll Inc. a developer of direct recording electronic voting
systems, today announced receipt of certification under the 2002 Federal Election Commission voting system standards. As a result, Accu Poll becomes the first vendor of an end-to-end voting system featuring a voter verified paper audit trail to be certified under the more stringent 2002 standards.
Version 2.5 includes new features such as Instant Runoff Voting,
electronic VVPAT audio review, early voting support, encrypted election results as well as additional enhanced security features.
[Note: we hold to the view that any paper ballot emanating from such a machine should be placed in an optical scan machine for a second computerized count. A "verified paper trail" is only useful when someone notices something wrong. In California, for example, simply adding two votes at every machine could produce a statewide difference in tally of 150,000 votes]
LATINO BOYCOTT IN ARIZONA
Is this a glaring generalization, or does it seem that Hispanics understand the power of their numbers better than most?--Pete
YVETTE ARMENDARIZ, ARIZONA REPUBLIC - Organizers of an economic boycott asking Hispanics not to go to work or spend money on Tuesday say the day was a success, drawing thousands of people in support. Although businesses around the Valley for the most part did not come to a stop, Hispanics gave up lunching out or shopping in support of the boycott. The boycott was a response to dozens of measures pending in the state Legislature that propose restrictions on undocumented immigrants.
Hispanics who could afford it or believed it was worth missing a day of pay showed up at rallies instead of work. "It couldn't have gone any better. It was more than I expected," said organizer Elias Bermudez, executive director of Centro de Ayuda (Center of Help), which assists immigrants in filling out immigration and tax documents. . .
Several restaurants, carwashes, construction companies and golf courses reported higher absenteeism. Some, such as Baja Fresh Downtown, closed for the day. Lombardi's Restaurant at Arizona Center limited its menu to salads and pastas because of a reduced kitchen crew.
Some roofing companies were crippled by the boycott. An office worker who answered the phone at Catalina Roofing and Supply in Phoenix said none of the company's 160 roofers showed up for work Tuesday.
At San Tan Roofing and Superstition Carpentry in Gilbert, half of the
company's 150 roofers and 400 of its 700 framers didn't show up for
work, Chief Financial Officer William McGlothlin said. Ninety percent of the company's workforce is Hispanic. (Azcentral Article)
YVETTE ARMENDARIZ, ARIZONA REPUBLIC - Organizers of an economic boycott asking Hispanics not to go to work or spend money on Tuesday say the day was a success, drawing thousands of people in support. Although businesses around the Valley for the most part did not come to a stop, Hispanics gave up lunching out or shopping in support of the boycott. The boycott was a response to dozens of measures pending in the state Legislature that propose restrictions on undocumented immigrants.
Hispanics who could afford it or believed it was worth missing a day of pay showed up at rallies instead of work. "It couldn't have gone any better. It was more than I expected," said organizer Elias Bermudez, executive director of Centro de Ayuda (Center of Help), which assists immigrants in filling out immigration and tax documents. . .
Several restaurants, carwashes, construction companies and golf courses reported higher absenteeism. Some, such as Baja Fresh Downtown, closed for the day. Lombardi's Restaurant at Arizona Center limited its menu to salads and pastas because of a reduced kitchen crew.
Some roofing companies were crippled by the boycott. An office worker who answered the phone at Catalina Roofing and Supply in Phoenix said none of the company's 160 roofers showed up for work Tuesday.
At San Tan Roofing and Superstition Carpentry in Gilbert, half of the
company's 150 roofers and 400 of its 700 framers didn't show up for
work, Chief Financial Officer William McGlothlin said. Ninety percent of the company's workforce is Hispanic. (Azcentral Article)
THE PRICE OF COVERING THE WAR HONESTLY
[From a speech given by photojournalist Molly Bingham at Western
Kentucky University last month. Bingham, a Louisville native, was
detained in 2003 by Iraqi security forces and held in Abu Ghraib prison from March 25 to April 2, 2003. Eighteen days after her release, she returned to Iraq to pursue stories for The New York Times, The Guardian of London and others.]
...Recent actions indicate that the U.S. military will detain and/or kill any journalist who happens to be caught covering the Iraqi side of the militant resistance, and indeed a number of journalists have been killed by U.S. troops while working in Iraq. This behavior at the moment seems to be limited to journalists who also happen to be Arabs, or Arab-looking, but that is only a tangential story to what I'm telling you about here. . .
Dexter Filkins, who writes for The New York Times, related a
conversation he had in Iraq with an American military commander just before we left. Dexter and the commander had gotten quite friendly, meeting up sporadically for a beer and a chat. Towards the end of one of their conversations, Dexter declined an invitation for the next day by explaining that he'd lined up a meeting with a "resistance guy." The commander's face went stony cold and he said, "We have a position on that." For Dexter the message was clear. He cancelled the appointment.
And many American journalists often refer to those attacking Americans or Iraqi troops and policemen as "terrorists." Some are indeed using terrorist tactics, but calling them "terrorists" simply shuts down any sense of need or interest to look beyond that word, to understand why indeed human beings might be willing to die in a violent struggle to achieve their goal. Pushing them off as simply "insane, wild Arabs" or "extremist Muslims" does them no service, but even more, it does the U.S. no service. If we as Americans fail to understand who attacks us and why, we will simply continue on this same path, and continue watching from afar as a war we don't understand boils over...(more)
Kentucky University last month. Bingham, a Louisville native, was
detained in 2003 by Iraqi security forces and held in Abu Ghraib prison from March 25 to April 2, 2003. Eighteen days after her release, she returned to Iraq to pursue stories for The New York Times, The Guardian of London and others.]
...Recent actions indicate that the U.S. military will detain and/or kill any journalist who happens to be caught covering the Iraqi side of the militant resistance, and indeed a number of journalists have been killed by U.S. troops while working in Iraq. This behavior at the moment seems to be limited to journalists who also happen to be Arabs, or Arab-looking, but that is only a tangential story to what I'm telling you about here. . .
Dexter Filkins, who writes for The New York Times, related a
conversation he had in Iraq with an American military commander just before we left. Dexter and the commander had gotten quite friendly, meeting up sporadically for a beer and a chat. Towards the end of one of their conversations, Dexter declined an invitation for the next day by explaining that he'd lined up a meeting with a "resistance guy." The commander's face went stony cold and he said, "We have a position on that." For Dexter the message was clear. He cancelled the appointment.
And many American journalists often refer to those attacking Americans or Iraqi troops and policemen as "terrorists." Some are indeed using terrorist tactics, but calling them "terrorists" simply shuts down any sense of need or interest to look beyond that word, to understand why indeed human beings might be willing to die in a violent struggle to achieve their goal. Pushing them off as simply "insane, wild Arabs" or "extremist Muslims" does them no service, but even more, it does the U.S. no service. If we as Americans fail to understand who attacks us and why, we will simply continue on this same path, and continue watching from afar as a war we don't understand boils over...(more)
PENSIONS OF UNITED WORKERS SLASHED BY COURT DECISION
[The math on this indicates that the average United current or retired employee stands to lose $5300 a year as a result of this decision]
BBC - A US bankruptcy judge has approved plans by United Airlines to terminate its employees' pension plans. The troubled US carrier said it would save about $645m a year, in what would become America's largest corporate pension default. United plans to transfer responsibility for its four defined-benefit plans to the US government's pension agency.
Employees could lose thousands of dollars a year from their pensions when they are assumed by the US Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. Some 120,000 current and retired United employees are covered by the pensions. "Thousands of retirees will be severely impacted by the ruling," said a spokesman for the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. They have already seen their retirement medical costs skyrocket because of United's bankruptcy. . . and now will have reduced pensions. It's a devastating blow."
Workers have vowed to strike if their pensions are terminated. But Jake Brace, United's chief financial officer, said the company was doing what was necessary for its long-term survival. "The judge ruled that we did not violate the contract, so we did not violate the law and they (the unions) have no right to strike," he said.
In January, pilots and flight attendants at United agreed to accept pay cuts worth $310m a year to help the carrier emerge from bankruptcy protection.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/business/4535403.stm
AP - United's effort to dump its pensions is being watched closely by the rest of the industry, where record fuel costs, the lowest fares since the early 1990s and stiff competition have caused large airlines to post billions of dollars in losses. A successful move by United to get out from under its pension obligations, following a step taken by US Airways Group in February, would clear the way for similar actions elsewhere.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/10/business/air.php
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE - It's been a rough ride for workers at United Airlines over the last five years. Nearly 40,000 United workers -- including 9,000 in the Bay Area -- retired, quit or were laid off as the troubled airline slashed its workforce. . .
Employees who once owned big chunks of the airline's parent company, UAL Corp., through an employee stock ownership plan lost their stock when the company went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization in 2002. Moreover, they have conceded $2.5 billion a year in wages and benefits to United, which says it needs even more stringent cost-containment to emerge from bankruptcy.
SF Gate Article
BBC - A US bankruptcy judge has approved plans by United Airlines to terminate its employees' pension plans. The troubled US carrier said it would save about $645m a year, in what would become America's largest corporate pension default. United plans to transfer responsibility for its four defined-benefit plans to the US government's pension agency.
Employees could lose thousands of dollars a year from their pensions when they are assumed by the US Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. Some 120,000 current and retired United employees are covered by the pensions. "Thousands of retirees will be severely impacted by the ruling," said a spokesman for the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. They have already seen their retirement medical costs skyrocket because of United's bankruptcy. . . and now will have reduced pensions. It's a devastating blow."
Workers have vowed to strike if their pensions are terminated. But Jake Brace, United's chief financial officer, said the company was doing what was necessary for its long-term survival. "The judge ruled that we did not violate the contract, so we did not violate the law and they (the unions) have no right to strike," he said.
In January, pilots and flight attendants at United agreed to accept pay cuts worth $310m a year to help the carrier emerge from bankruptcy protection.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/business/4535403.stm
AP - United's effort to dump its pensions is being watched closely by the rest of the industry, where record fuel costs, the lowest fares since the early 1990s and stiff competition have caused large airlines to post billions of dollars in losses. A successful move by United to get out from under its pension obligations, following a step taken by US Airways Group in February, would clear the way for similar actions elsewhere.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/10/business/air.php
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE - It's been a rough ride for workers at United Airlines over the last five years. Nearly 40,000 United workers -- including 9,000 in the Bay Area -- retired, quit or were laid off as the troubled airline slashed its workforce. . .
Employees who once owned big chunks of the airline's parent company, UAL Corp., through an employee stock ownership plan lost their stock when the company went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization in 2002. Moreover, they have conceded $2.5 billion a year in wages and benefits to United, which says it needs even more stringent cost-containment to emerge from bankruptcy.
SF Gate Article
Thursday, May 12, 2005
‘Foreign Fighters’ On a ‘Rampage’; U.S. Media On a Roll
May 12, 2005
POSTED BY: Chris Shumway, NewStandard
http://newstandardnews.net/alivewires/mideast/content/?show_item=1800
An AP dispatch this morning bears the headline "Iraqi Insurgents Go on Rampage, Kill 60." The article describes a string of suicide bombings that were unleashed Wednesday as US forces were in the midst of a major offensive against insurgents in western Iraq, near the Syrian border.
My issue here isn't whether or not the insurgents went on a rampage. It appears that they did. Rather, the bigger question is whether the AP, or any other US mainstream media outlet, applies the same standards when describing violent, offensive actions on the part of warring factions?
I don't recall the AP using a similar headline while US forces were attacking Fallujah last November. During that battle, US forces attacked hospitals, killed thousands of people (how many civilians, we'll probably never know), and drove maybe 100,000 - 200,000 people from their homes.
Was that not a rampage? Certainly the scale of the attack was far bigger than that of Wednesday's suicide bombings.
The AP article also includes this astonishing passage, which has actually become customary for US mainstream media:
...evidence obtained from captured insurgents confirmed the presence of foreign fighters in the area.
Foreign fighters? Aren't the 1,000 or so US troops conducting the offensive "foreign fighters?" I don't think any of them are Iraqi-born, nor are they from neighboring countries. So why does AP simply repeat US military statements or comments about "foreign fighters" in Iraq? Aren't the soldiers who make such statements also foreign fighters? And what exactly is the "evidence" they've obtained? The AP doesn't say.
Perhaps AP could at least rewrite the article to read: "The US military, which itself is fighting on foreign soil, says evidence obtained from captured insurgents confirmed the presence of other foreign fighters in the area who have taken up arms with the insurgency."
Hey, here's a thought: What if all the foreign fighters left Iraq?
POSTED BY: Chris Shumway, NewStandard
http://newstandardnews.net/alivewires/mideast/content/?show_item=1800
An AP dispatch this morning bears the headline "Iraqi Insurgents Go on Rampage, Kill 60." The article describes a string of suicide bombings that were unleashed Wednesday as US forces were in the midst of a major offensive against insurgents in western Iraq, near the Syrian border.
My issue here isn't whether or not the insurgents went on a rampage. It appears that they did. Rather, the bigger question is whether the AP, or any other US mainstream media outlet, applies the same standards when describing violent, offensive actions on the part of warring factions?
I don't recall the AP using a similar headline while US forces were attacking Fallujah last November. During that battle, US forces attacked hospitals, killed thousands of people (how many civilians, we'll probably never know), and drove maybe 100,000 - 200,000 people from their homes.
Was that not a rampage? Certainly the scale of the attack was far bigger than that of Wednesday's suicide bombings.
The AP article also includes this astonishing passage, which has actually become customary for US mainstream media:
...evidence obtained from captured insurgents confirmed the presence of foreign fighters in the area.
Foreign fighters? Aren't the 1,000 or so US troops conducting the offensive "foreign fighters?" I don't think any of them are Iraqi-born, nor are they from neighboring countries. So why does AP simply repeat US military statements or comments about "foreign fighters" in Iraq? Aren't the soldiers who make such statements also foreign fighters? And what exactly is the "evidence" they've obtained? The AP doesn't say.
Perhaps AP could at least rewrite the article to read: "The US military, which itself is fighting on foreign soil, says evidence obtained from captured insurgents confirmed the presence of other foreign fighters in the area who have taken up arms with the insurgency."
Hey, here's a thought: What if all the foreign fighters left Iraq?
Power of Nightmares re-awakened
I have written in past blogs about the myth al-Qaeda's organizational strength and its purpose in the New Crusades. It now seems that the excellent series concerning this myth, "The Power Of Nightmares", will finally see world-wide theatrical release. It has been persona non grata here in the Nation of Righteous Holy Crusaders since its first airing in the autumn of 2004, and while we were hoping for DVD release, this is certainly a wonderful first step.--Pete
By Adam Curtis
Writer, Producer and Narrator, The Power of Nightmares
The Power of Nightmares - first screened in Autumn 2004 and repeated last week on BBC Two - questions whether the threat of terrorism to the West is a politically driven fantasy and if al-Qaeda really is an organised network.
The BBC has been inundated with correspondence, some critical much of it very positive. Viewers were invited to put their questions to the writer of the series, Adam Curtis. Here he responds to some of those correspondents, chosen to represent a broad selection of your questions.
I know you have already been asked, but PLEASE, PLEASE, release the series on video or DVD
Peter Grant, London
The problem is that the films are full of archive film and music from a multitude of sources. The reason my series are normally not released on DVD is that it is prohibitively costly and a nightmare - no pun intended - to clear the rights.
But so many people have now asked for the series to be released in this form that I think it probably will happen.
I have sat through your documentary tonight. I hope your programme is shown again following the next terrorist attack. You sound like the hedgehog who claims that cars won't hurt you!!!! I'm amazed!!!!!!!
Iain Foster, Portsmouth
In the face of much more tangible threats in the past - like the IRA, the Soviet Union and even Nazi Germany - British governments did not encourage the people to behave like hedgehogs.
Why roll up into a ball now in the face of what is a serious but in no way an overwhelming threat to our nation and our freedoms?
The programmes did not say that there was no threat. What they argued was that although there is a serious threat of terrorism from some radical Islamists, the nightmare vision of a uniquely powerful hidden organisation waiting to strike our societies is an illusion.
The question the series tried to answer was why contemporary politicians and other elites, like the media, want you to feel frightened - to behave and feel like a hedgehog trapped on a motorway - when the reality and the scale of the threat is actually very different. (more...)
By Adam Curtis
Writer, Producer and Narrator, The Power of Nightmares
The Power of Nightmares - first screened in Autumn 2004 and repeated last week on BBC Two - questions whether the threat of terrorism to the West is a politically driven fantasy and if al-Qaeda really is an organised network.
The BBC has been inundated with correspondence, some critical much of it very positive. Viewers were invited to put their questions to the writer of the series, Adam Curtis. Here he responds to some of those correspondents, chosen to represent a broad selection of your questions.
I know you have already been asked, but PLEASE, PLEASE, release the series on video or DVD
Peter Grant, London
The problem is that the films are full of archive film and music from a multitude of sources. The reason my series are normally not released on DVD is that it is prohibitively costly and a nightmare - no pun intended - to clear the rights.
But so many people have now asked for the series to be released in this form that I think it probably will happen.
I have sat through your documentary tonight. I hope your programme is shown again following the next terrorist attack. You sound like the hedgehog who claims that cars won't hurt you!!!! I'm amazed!!!!!!!
Iain Foster, Portsmouth
In the face of much more tangible threats in the past - like the IRA, the Soviet Union and even Nazi Germany - British governments did not encourage the people to behave like hedgehogs.
Why roll up into a ball now in the face of what is a serious but in no way an overwhelming threat to our nation and our freedoms?
The programmes did not say that there was no threat. What they argued was that although there is a serious threat of terrorism from some radical Islamists, the nightmare vision of a uniquely powerful hidden organisation waiting to strike our societies is an illusion.
The question the series tried to answer was why contemporary politicians and other elites, like the media, want you to feel frightened - to behave and feel like a hedgehog trapped on a motorway - when the reality and the scale of the threat is actually very different. (more...)
Ahnuld's Pah-pu-lah-rih-ty slipping?
TINA FEY - California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's popularity has been slipping in recent months as residents slowly begin to realize they elected Arnold Schwarzenegger to be their governor.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bldailyfeed3.htm
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bldailyfeed3.htm
THE MEDIACRACY
JOURNALISM 101 (click for LA Times article)
WHEN a president who has done more to destroy democracy and freedom in our country than any of his predecessors goes abroad and talks about the need for democracy and freedom elsewhere in the world, it is good to consider his credentials as well as his rhetoric. One way to do this is to quote someone a bit skeptical of the president, something much of the media doesn't seem to bother with much these days.
Most of all, it's probably not a good idea to leave it to the Russian
premier to point out some of the ironies involved or to a Dutch student to ask President Bush, "I have a question. . . concerning the terrorism. . . And you made many laws after 9/11, many - many laws and many measures. And I'm wondering, will there be a time when you drop those laws and when you decrease the measures?"
The LA Times, to its credit, did report the question and Bush's
response:
"'Look,' Bush replied, 'a free society such as ours, obviously, must
balance the government's most important duty, which is to protect the American people from harm, with the civil liberties of our citizens. And every law we passed that was aimed to protect us in this new era of threats from abroad and the willingness for people to kill without mercy has been scrutinized and, of course, balanced by our Constitution.
"The president explained that Congress was reviewing the Patriot Act, the controversial measure that gives law enforcement agencies greater power to conduct surveillance and share information. He told her that the Sept. 11 attacks had changed his nation's mind-set, resulting in the need for different laws.
"'I mean, it was more than just an attack; it was a whole mind-set,' he said. 'And that's why your question is really relevant - did that
mind-set, did that change of attitude cause us to then begin to take away certain civil liberties, and I would argue it did not.'
"Bush's co-host at the event, Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, wondered if the young woman was satisfied.
"'You're convinced by the president?' he asked amid laughter.
WHEN a president who has done more to destroy democracy and freedom in our country than any of his predecessors goes abroad and talks about the need for democracy and freedom elsewhere in the world, it is good to consider his credentials as well as his rhetoric. One way to do this is to quote someone a bit skeptical of the president, something much of the media doesn't seem to bother with much these days.
Most of all, it's probably not a good idea to leave it to the Russian
premier to point out some of the ironies involved or to a Dutch student to ask President Bush, "I have a question. . . concerning the terrorism. . . And you made many laws after 9/11, many - many laws and many measures. And I'm wondering, will there be a time when you drop those laws and when you decrease the measures?"
The LA Times, to its credit, did report the question and Bush's
response:
"'Look,' Bush replied, 'a free society such as ours, obviously, must
balance the government's most important duty, which is to protect the American people from harm, with the civil liberties of our citizens. And every law we passed that was aimed to protect us in this new era of threats from abroad and the willingness for people to kill without mercy has been scrutinized and, of course, balanced by our Constitution.
"The president explained that Congress was reviewing the Patriot Act, the controversial measure that gives law enforcement agencies greater power to conduct surveillance and share information. He told her that the Sept. 11 attacks had changed his nation's mind-set, resulting in the need for different laws.
"'I mean, it was more than just an attack; it was a whole mind-set,' he said. 'And that's why your question is really relevant - did that
mind-set, did that change of attitude cause us to then begin to take away certain civil liberties, and I would argue it did not.'
"Bush's co-host at the event, Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, wondered if the young woman was satisfied.
"'You're convinced by the president?' he asked amid laughter.
NURSES KICK ARNOLD'S BUTT
http://www.laboreducator.org/miltact.htm
HARRY KELBER, LABOR EDUCATOR - Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger may have made a major political blunder when he called the California Nurses Association a "special interest" and sought to block the independent union’s successful sponsorship of legislation to reduce the RN-patient ratio in the state's hospitals.
Schwarzenegger infuriated CNA members when he pointed at a group of
protesting nurses in the audience at one of his fund-raisers and told
the crowd they were "special interests" and he was always "kicking their
butts." His remarks were also meant for the state's teachers, police and
firefighters who have good reasons to oppose him. . .
CNA has led the fight against the "Great Arnold" by using guerrilla
tactics that caused his public approval rating to plummet from 65% to
43% - and it's still dropping. RNs have dogged each of some forty of the
governor's fund raising and media events, evoking his anger and
frustration.
For example, at the Ritz-Carlton in San Francisco on April 5, some 5,000
RNs, teachers, firefighters and police circled the hotel and made it a
media circus that dominated the news for three days and left 500 to 600
seats at the fund-raiser empty, while creating beautiful footage of the
governor sneaking into the back of his own event. At various
fund-raisers, a light plane has been a frequent uninvited guest, towing
a banner through the skies that read "California is not for sale."
HARRY KELBER, LABOR EDUCATOR - Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger may have made a major political blunder when he called the California Nurses Association a "special interest" and sought to block the independent union’s successful sponsorship of legislation to reduce the RN-patient ratio in the state's hospitals.
Schwarzenegger infuriated CNA members when he pointed at a group of
protesting nurses in the audience at one of his fund-raisers and told
the crowd they were "special interests" and he was always "kicking their
butts." His remarks were also meant for the state's teachers, police and
firefighters who have good reasons to oppose him. . .
CNA has led the fight against the "Great Arnold" by using guerrilla
tactics that caused his public approval rating to plummet from 65% to
43% - and it's still dropping. RNs have dogged each of some forty of the
governor's fund raising and media events, evoking his anger and
frustration.
For example, at the Ritz-Carlton in San Francisco on April 5, some 5,000
RNs, teachers, firefighters and police circled the hotel and made it a
media circus that dominated the news for three days and left 500 to 600
seats at the fund-raiser empty, while creating beautiful footage of the
governor sneaking into the back of his own event. At various
fund-raisers, a light plane has been a frequent uninvited guest, towing
a banner through the skies that read "California is not for sale."
TRICK OF THE WEEK: DID THEY EACH HAVE IPODS?
WASHINGTON POST PHOTO CAPTION - President Bush and Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Bakenende listen to their national anthems.
How to End the War
By Naomi Klein, In These Times
Posted on May 10, 2005.
http://www.alternet.org/story/21980/
Editor's Note: The following essay is adapted from remarks made at the National Teach-in on Iraq sponsored by the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C. The teach-in was held on March 24, the 40th anniversary of the first teach-in on the Vietnam War, which was held at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The central question we need to answer is this: What were the real reasons for the Bush administration’s invasion and occupation of Iraq?
When we identify why we really went to war—not the cover reasons or the rebranded reasons, freedom and democracy, but the real reasons—then we can become more effective anti-war activists. The most effective and strategic way to stop this occupation and prevent future wars is to deny the people who wage these wars their spoils—to make war unprofitable. And we can’t do that unless we effectively identify the goals of war.
When I was in Iraq a year ago trying to answer that question, one of the most effective ways I found to do that was to follow the bulldozers and construction machinery. I was in Iraq to research the so-called reconstruction. And what struck me most was the absence of reconstruction machinery, of cranes and bulldozers, in downtown Baghdad. I expected to see reconstruction all over the place.
I saw bulldozers in military bases. I saw bulldozers in the Green Zone, where a huge amount of construction was going on, building up Bechtel’s headquarters and getting the new U.S. embassy ready. There was also a ton of construction going on at all of the U.S. military bases. But, on the streets of Baghdad, the former ministry buildings are absolutely untouched. They hadn’t even cleared away the rubble, let alone started the reconstruction process.
The one crane I saw in the streets of Baghdad was hoisting an advertising billboard. One of the surreal things about Baghdad is that the old city lies in ruins, yet there are these shiny new billboards advertising the glories of the global economy. And the message is: “Everything you were before isn’t worth rebuilding.” We’re going to import a brand-new country. It is the Iraq version of the Extreme Makeover.
It’s not a coincidence that Americans were at home watching this explosion of extreme reality television shows where people’s bodies were being surgically remade and their homes were being bulldozed and reconstituted. The message of these shows is: Everything you are now, everything you own, everything you do sucks. We’re going to completely erase it and rebuild it with a team of experts. You just go limp and let the experts take over. That is exactly what “Extreme Makover: Iraq” is.
There was no role for Iraqis in this process. It was all foreign companies modernizing the country. Iraqis with engineering Ph.D.s who built their electricity system and who built their telephone system had no place in the reconstruction process.
If we want to know what the goals of the war are, we have to look at what Paul Bremer did when he first arrived in Iraq. He laid off 500,000 people, 400,000 of whom were soldiers. And he shredded Iraq’s constitution and wrote a series of economic laws that the The Economist described as “the wish list of foreign investors.”
Basically, Iraq has been turned into a laboratory for the radical free-market policies that the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute dream about in Washington, D.C., but are only able to impose in relative slow motion here at home.
So we just have to examine the Bush administration’s policies and actions. We don’t have to wield secret documents or massive conspiracy theories. We have to look at the fact that they built enduring military bases and didn’t rebuild the country. Their very first act was to protect the oil ministry leaving the the rest of the country to burn—to which Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld responded: “Stuff happens.” Theirs was an almost apocalyptic glee in allowing Iraq to burn. They let the country be erased, leaving a blank slate that they could rebuild in their image This was the goal of the war.
The Big Lie
The administration says the war was about fighting for democracy. That was the big lie they resorted to when they were caught in the other lies. But it’s a different kind of a lie in the sense that it’s a useful lie. The lie that the United States invaded Iraq to bring freedom and democracy not just to Iraq but, as it turns out, to the whole world, is tremendously useful—because we can first expose it as a lie and then we can join with Iraqis to try to make it true. So it disturbs me that a lot of progressives are afraid to use the language of democracy now that George W. Bush is using it. We are somehow giving up on the most powerful emancipatory ideas ever created, of self-determination, liberation and democracy.
And it’s absolutely crucial not to let Bush get away with stealing and defaming these ideas—they are too important.
In looking at democracy in Iraq, we first need to make the distinction between elections and democracy. The reality is the Bush administration has fought democracy in Iraq at every turn.
Why? Because if genuine democracy ever came to Iraq, the real goals of the war—control over oil, support for Israel, the construction of enduring military bases, the privatization of the entire economy—would all be lost. Why? Because Iraqis don’t want them and they don’t agree with them. They have said it over and over again—first in opinion polls, which is why the Bush administration broke its original promise to have elections within months of the invasion. I believe Paul Wolfowitz genuinely thought that Iraqis would respond like the contestants on a reality TV show and say: “Oh my God. Thank you for my brand-new shiny country.” They didn’t. They protested that 500,000 people had lost their jobs. They protested the fact that they were being shut out of the reconstruction of their own country, and they made it clear they didn’t want permanent U.S. bases.
That’s when the administration broke its promise and appointed a CIA agent as the interim prime minister. In that period they locked in—basically shackled—Iraq’s future governments to an International Monetary Fund program until 2008. This will make the humanitarian crisis in Iraq much, much deeper. Here’s just one example: The IMF and the World Bank are demanding the elimination of Iraq’s food ration program, upon which 60 percent of the population depends for nutrition, as a condition for debt relief and for the new loans that have been made in deals with an unelected government.
In these elections, Iraqis voted for the United Iraqi Alliance. In addition to demanding a timetable for the withdrawal of troops, this coalition party has promised that they would create 100 percent full employment in the public sector—i.e., a total rebuke of the neocons’ privatization agenda. But now they can’t do any of this because their democracy has been shackled. In other words, they have the vote, but no real power to govern.
A Pro-democracy Movement
The future of the anti-war movement requires that it become a pro-democracy movement. Our marching orders have been given to us by the people of Iraq. It’s important to understand that the most powerful movement against this war and this occupation is within Iraq itself. Our anti-war movement must not just be in verbal solidarity but in active and tangible solidarity with the overwhelming majority of Iraqis fighting to end the occupation of their country. We need to take our direction from them.
Iraqis are resisting in many ways—not just with armed resistance. They are organizing independent trade unions. They are opening critical newspapers, and then having those newspapers shut down. They are fighting privatization in state factories. They are forming new political coalitions in an attempt to force an end to the occupation.
So what is our role here? We need to support the people of Iraq and their clear demands for an end to both military and corporate occupation. That means being the resistance ourselves in our country, demanding that the troops come home, that U.S. corporations come home, that Iraqis be free of Saddam’s debt and the IMF and World Bank agreements signed under occupation. It doesn’t mean blindly cheerleading for “the resistance.” Because there isn’t just one resistance in Iraq. Some elements of the armed resistance are targeting Iraqi civilians as they pray in Shia mosques—barbaric acts that serve the interests of the Bush administration by feeding the perception that the country is on the brink of civil war and therefore U.S. forces must remain in Iraq. Not everyone fighting the U.S. occupation is fighting for the freedom of all Iraqis; some are fighting for their own elite power. That’s why we need to stay focused on supporting the demands for self-determination, not cheering any setback for U.S. empire.
And we can’t cede the language, the territory of democracy. Anybody who says Iraqis don’t want democracy should be deeply ashamed of themselves. Iraqis are clamoring for democracy and had risked their lives for it long before this invasion—in the 1991 uprising against Saddam, for example, when they were left to be slaughtered. The elections in January took place only because of tremendous pressure from Iraqi Shia communities that insisted on getting the freedom they were promised.
The Courage to be Serious
Many of us opposed this war because it was an imperial project. Now Iraqis are struggling for the tools that will make self-determination meaningful, not just for show elections or marketing opportunities for the Bush administration. That means it’s time, as Susan Sontag said, to have “the courage to be serious.” The reason why the 58 percent of Americans against the war has not translated into the same millions of people on the streets that we saw before the war is because we haven’t come forward with a serious policy agenda. We should not be afraid to be serious.
Part of that seriousness is to echo the policy demands made by voters and demonstrators in the streets of Baghdad and Basra and bring those demands to Washington, where the decisions are being made.
But the core fight is over respect for international law, and whether there is any respect for it at all in the United States. Unless we’re fighting a core battle against this administration’s total disdain for the very idea of international law, then the specifics really don’t matter.
We saw this very clearly in the U.S. presidential campaign, as John Kerry let Bush completely set the terms for the debate. Recall the ridicule of Kerry’s mention of a “global test,” and the charge that it was cowardly and weak to allow for any international scrutiny of U.S. actions. Why didn’t Kerry ever challenge this assumption? I blame the Kerry campaign as much as I blame the Bush administration. During the elections, he never said “Abu Ghraib.” He never said “Guantanamo Bay.” He accepted the premise that to submit to some kind of “global test” was to be weak. Once they had done that, the Democrats couldn’t expect to win a battle against Alberto Gonzales being appointed attorney general, when they had never talked about torture during the campaign.
And part of the war has to be a media war in this country. The problem is not that the anti-war voices aren’t there—it’s that the voices aren’t amplified. We need a strategy to target the media in this country, making it a site of protest itself. We must demand that the media let us hear the voices of anti-war critics, of enraged mothers who have lost their sons for a lie, of betrayed soldiers who fought in a war they didn’t believe in. And we need to keep deepening the definition of democracy—to say that these show elections are not democracy, and that we don’t have a democracy in this country either.
Sadly, the Bush administration has done a better job of using the language of responsibility than we in the anti-war movement. The message that’s getting across is that we are saying “just leave,” while they are saying, “we can’t just leave, we have to stay and fix the problem we started.”
We can have a very detailed, responsible agenda and we shouldn’t be afraid of it. We should be saying, “Let’s pull the troops out but let’s leave some hope behind.” We can’t be afraid to talk about reparations, to demand freedom from debt for Iraq, a total abandonment of Bremer’s illegal economic laws, full Iraqi control over the reconstruction budget—there are many more examples of concrete policy demands that we can and must put forth. When we articulate a more genuine definition of democracy than we are hearing from the Bush administration, we will bring some hope to Iraq. And we will bring closer to us many of the 58 percent who are opposed to the war but aren’t marching with us yet because they are afraid of cutting and running.
© 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/21980/
Posted on May 10, 2005.
http://www.alternet.org/story/21980/
Editor's Note: The following essay is adapted from remarks made at the National Teach-in on Iraq sponsored by the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C. The teach-in was held on March 24, the 40th anniversary of the first teach-in on the Vietnam War, which was held at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The central question we need to answer is this: What were the real reasons for the Bush administration’s invasion and occupation of Iraq?
When we identify why we really went to war—not the cover reasons or the rebranded reasons, freedom and democracy, but the real reasons—then we can become more effective anti-war activists. The most effective and strategic way to stop this occupation and prevent future wars is to deny the people who wage these wars their spoils—to make war unprofitable. And we can’t do that unless we effectively identify the goals of war.
When I was in Iraq a year ago trying to answer that question, one of the most effective ways I found to do that was to follow the bulldozers and construction machinery. I was in Iraq to research the so-called reconstruction. And what struck me most was the absence of reconstruction machinery, of cranes and bulldozers, in downtown Baghdad. I expected to see reconstruction all over the place.
I saw bulldozers in military bases. I saw bulldozers in the Green Zone, where a huge amount of construction was going on, building up Bechtel’s headquarters and getting the new U.S. embassy ready. There was also a ton of construction going on at all of the U.S. military bases. But, on the streets of Baghdad, the former ministry buildings are absolutely untouched. They hadn’t even cleared away the rubble, let alone started the reconstruction process.
The one crane I saw in the streets of Baghdad was hoisting an advertising billboard. One of the surreal things about Baghdad is that the old city lies in ruins, yet there are these shiny new billboards advertising the glories of the global economy. And the message is: “Everything you were before isn’t worth rebuilding.” We’re going to import a brand-new country. It is the Iraq version of the Extreme Makeover.
It’s not a coincidence that Americans were at home watching this explosion of extreme reality television shows where people’s bodies were being surgically remade and their homes were being bulldozed and reconstituted. The message of these shows is: Everything you are now, everything you own, everything you do sucks. We’re going to completely erase it and rebuild it with a team of experts. You just go limp and let the experts take over. That is exactly what “Extreme Makover: Iraq” is.
There was no role for Iraqis in this process. It was all foreign companies modernizing the country. Iraqis with engineering Ph.D.s who built their electricity system and who built their telephone system had no place in the reconstruction process.
If we want to know what the goals of the war are, we have to look at what Paul Bremer did when he first arrived in Iraq. He laid off 500,000 people, 400,000 of whom were soldiers. And he shredded Iraq’s constitution and wrote a series of economic laws that the The Economist described as “the wish list of foreign investors.”
Basically, Iraq has been turned into a laboratory for the radical free-market policies that the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute dream about in Washington, D.C., but are only able to impose in relative slow motion here at home.
So we just have to examine the Bush administration’s policies and actions. We don’t have to wield secret documents or massive conspiracy theories. We have to look at the fact that they built enduring military bases and didn’t rebuild the country. Their very first act was to protect the oil ministry leaving the the rest of the country to burn—to which Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld responded: “Stuff happens.” Theirs was an almost apocalyptic glee in allowing Iraq to burn. They let the country be erased, leaving a blank slate that they could rebuild in their image This was the goal of the war.
The Big Lie
The administration says the war was about fighting for democracy. That was the big lie they resorted to when they were caught in the other lies. But it’s a different kind of a lie in the sense that it’s a useful lie. The lie that the United States invaded Iraq to bring freedom and democracy not just to Iraq but, as it turns out, to the whole world, is tremendously useful—because we can first expose it as a lie and then we can join with Iraqis to try to make it true. So it disturbs me that a lot of progressives are afraid to use the language of democracy now that George W. Bush is using it. We are somehow giving up on the most powerful emancipatory ideas ever created, of self-determination, liberation and democracy.
And it’s absolutely crucial not to let Bush get away with stealing and defaming these ideas—they are too important.
In looking at democracy in Iraq, we first need to make the distinction between elections and democracy. The reality is the Bush administration has fought democracy in Iraq at every turn.
Why? Because if genuine democracy ever came to Iraq, the real goals of the war—control over oil, support for Israel, the construction of enduring military bases, the privatization of the entire economy—would all be lost. Why? Because Iraqis don’t want them and they don’t agree with them. They have said it over and over again—first in opinion polls, which is why the Bush administration broke its original promise to have elections within months of the invasion. I believe Paul Wolfowitz genuinely thought that Iraqis would respond like the contestants on a reality TV show and say: “Oh my God. Thank you for my brand-new shiny country.” They didn’t. They protested that 500,000 people had lost their jobs. They protested the fact that they were being shut out of the reconstruction of their own country, and they made it clear they didn’t want permanent U.S. bases.
That’s when the administration broke its promise and appointed a CIA agent as the interim prime minister. In that period they locked in—basically shackled—Iraq’s future governments to an International Monetary Fund program until 2008. This will make the humanitarian crisis in Iraq much, much deeper. Here’s just one example: The IMF and the World Bank are demanding the elimination of Iraq’s food ration program, upon which 60 percent of the population depends for nutrition, as a condition for debt relief and for the new loans that have been made in deals with an unelected government.
In these elections, Iraqis voted for the United Iraqi Alliance. In addition to demanding a timetable for the withdrawal of troops, this coalition party has promised that they would create 100 percent full employment in the public sector—i.e., a total rebuke of the neocons’ privatization agenda. But now they can’t do any of this because their democracy has been shackled. In other words, they have the vote, but no real power to govern.
A Pro-democracy Movement
The future of the anti-war movement requires that it become a pro-democracy movement. Our marching orders have been given to us by the people of Iraq. It’s important to understand that the most powerful movement against this war and this occupation is within Iraq itself. Our anti-war movement must not just be in verbal solidarity but in active and tangible solidarity with the overwhelming majority of Iraqis fighting to end the occupation of their country. We need to take our direction from them.
Iraqis are resisting in many ways—not just with armed resistance. They are organizing independent trade unions. They are opening critical newspapers, and then having those newspapers shut down. They are fighting privatization in state factories. They are forming new political coalitions in an attempt to force an end to the occupation.
So what is our role here? We need to support the people of Iraq and their clear demands for an end to both military and corporate occupation. That means being the resistance ourselves in our country, demanding that the troops come home, that U.S. corporations come home, that Iraqis be free of Saddam’s debt and the IMF and World Bank agreements signed under occupation. It doesn’t mean blindly cheerleading for “the resistance.” Because there isn’t just one resistance in Iraq. Some elements of the armed resistance are targeting Iraqi civilians as they pray in Shia mosques—barbaric acts that serve the interests of the Bush administration by feeding the perception that the country is on the brink of civil war and therefore U.S. forces must remain in Iraq. Not everyone fighting the U.S. occupation is fighting for the freedom of all Iraqis; some are fighting for their own elite power. That’s why we need to stay focused on supporting the demands for self-determination, not cheering any setback for U.S. empire.
And we can’t cede the language, the territory of democracy. Anybody who says Iraqis don’t want democracy should be deeply ashamed of themselves. Iraqis are clamoring for democracy and had risked their lives for it long before this invasion—in the 1991 uprising against Saddam, for example, when they were left to be slaughtered. The elections in January took place only because of tremendous pressure from Iraqi Shia communities that insisted on getting the freedom they were promised.
The Courage to be Serious
Many of us opposed this war because it was an imperial project. Now Iraqis are struggling for the tools that will make self-determination meaningful, not just for show elections or marketing opportunities for the Bush administration. That means it’s time, as Susan Sontag said, to have “the courage to be serious.” The reason why the 58 percent of Americans against the war has not translated into the same millions of people on the streets that we saw before the war is because we haven’t come forward with a serious policy agenda. We should not be afraid to be serious.
Part of that seriousness is to echo the policy demands made by voters and demonstrators in the streets of Baghdad and Basra and bring those demands to Washington, where the decisions are being made.
But the core fight is over respect for international law, and whether there is any respect for it at all in the United States. Unless we’re fighting a core battle against this administration’s total disdain for the very idea of international law, then the specifics really don’t matter.
We saw this very clearly in the U.S. presidential campaign, as John Kerry let Bush completely set the terms for the debate. Recall the ridicule of Kerry’s mention of a “global test,” and the charge that it was cowardly and weak to allow for any international scrutiny of U.S. actions. Why didn’t Kerry ever challenge this assumption? I blame the Kerry campaign as much as I blame the Bush administration. During the elections, he never said “Abu Ghraib.” He never said “Guantanamo Bay.” He accepted the premise that to submit to some kind of “global test” was to be weak. Once they had done that, the Democrats couldn’t expect to win a battle against Alberto Gonzales being appointed attorney general, when they had never talked about torture during the campaign.
And part of the war has to be a media war in this country. The problem is not that the anti-war voices aren’t there—it’s that the voices aren’t amplified. We need a strategy to target the media in this country, making it a site of protest itself. We must demand that the media let us hear the voices of anti-war critics, of enraged mothers who have lost their sons for a lie, of betrayed soldiers who fought in a war they didn’t believe in. And we need to keep deepening the definition of democracy—to say that these show elections are not democracy, and that we don’t have a democracy in this country either.
Sadly, the Bush administration has done a better job of using the language of responsibility than we in the anti-war movement. The message that’s getting across is that we are saying “just leave,” while they are saying, “we can’t just leave, we have to stay and fix the problem we started.”
We can have a very detailed, responsible agenda and we shouldn’t be afraid of it. We should be saying, “Let’s pull the troops out but let’s leave some hope behind.” We can’t be afraid to talk about reparations, to demand freedom from debt for Iraq, a total abandonment of Bremer’s illegal economic laws, full Iraqi control over the reconstruction budget—there are many more examples of concrete policy demands that we can and must put forth. When we articulate a more genuine definition of democracy than we are hearing from the Bush administration, we will bring some hope to Iraq. And we will bring closer to us many of the 58 percent who are opposed to the war but aren’t marching with us yet because they are afraid of cutting and running.
© 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/21980/
Conspiracy Theory Rock (animation)
This thoroughly entertaining ripoff of School House Rock sends a hippy through the sausage factory of media consolidation; but it'll send those of a certain age group straight back to a thousand Saturday Mornings. Alas, it did its job too well. LiP writes: "[It] only aired once on Saturday Night Live before it was cut from the episode, and omitted from all future rebroadcasts. Evidently...[it] hit a little too close to home." SNL is owned by NBC which is owned by General Electric which, well, just watch the video.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Ireland Faces Big Chill as Ocean Current Slows
By Jonathan Leake
The Sunday Times, Ireland
Sunday 08 May 2005
Climate change researchers have detected the first signs of a slowdown in the Gulf Stream - the mighty ocean current that keeps Ireland and Europe from freezing.
They have found that one of the "engines" driving the Gulf Stream - the sinking of supercooled water in the Greenland Sea - has weakened to less than a quarter of its former strength. The weakening, apparently caused by global warming, could herald big changes in the current over the next few years or decades. Paradoxically, it could lead to Ireland, Britain and northwestern Europe undergoing a sharp drop in temperatures.
Such a change has long been predicted by scientists but the new research is among the first to show clear experimental evidence of the phenomenon.
Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, hitched rides under the Arctic ice cap in Royal Navy submarines and used ships to take measurements across the Greenland Sea.
"Until recently we would find giant 'chimneys' in the sea where columns of cold, dense water were sinking from the surface to the seabed 3,000 metres below, but now they have almost disappeared," he said.
"As the water sank it was replaced by warm water flowing in from the south, which kept the circulation going. If that mechanism is slowing, it will mean less heat reaching Europe."
Such a change could have a severe impact on Ireland, which lies on the same latitude as Siberia and ought to be much colder.
Wadhams and his colleagues believe, however, that just such changes could be well under way. They predict that the slowing of the Gulf Stream is likely to be accompanied by other effects, such as the complete summer melting of the Arctic ice cap by as early as 2020 and almost certainly by 2080.
This would spell disaster for Arctic wildlife such as the polar bear, which would be likely to go extinct in the wild.
Wadhams's submarine journeys took him under the North Polar ice cap, using sonar to survey the ice from underneath. He has measured how the ice has become 46% thinner over the past 20 years.
The results from these surveys prompted him to focus on a feature called the Odden ice shelf, which should grow out into the Greenland Sea every winter and recede in summer.
The growth of this shelf should trigger the annual formation of the sinking water columns. As sea water freezes to form the shelf, the ice crystals expel their salt into the surrounding water - making it heavier than the water below.
However, the Odden ice shelf has stopped forming. It last appeared in full in 1997.
"In the past we could see nine to 12 giant columns forming under the Odden shelf each year. In our latest cruise, we found only two and they were so weak that the sinking water could not reach the seabed," said Wadhams.
He disclosed the findings at a meeting of the European Geosciences Union in Vienna and will shortly publish further details.
The exact effect of such changes is hard to predict because currents and weather systems take years to respond and because there are two other areas around the north Atlantic where water sinks, helping to maintain circulation. Less is known about how climate change is affecting these.
However, Wadhams suggests the effect could be dramatic. "One of the frightening things in the film The Day After Tomorrow showed how the circulation in the Atlantic Ocean is upset because the sinking of cold water in the north Atlantic suddenly stops," he said.
"The sinking is stopping, albeit much more slowly than in the film - over years rather than a few days. If it continues, the effect will be to cool the climate of northern Europe."
One possibility is that Europe will freeze; another is that the slowing of the Gulf Stream may keep Europe cool as global warming heats the rest of the world - but with more extremes of weather.
The Sunday Times, Ireland
Sunday 08 May 2005
Climate change researchers have detected the first signs of a slowdown in the Gulf Stream - the mighty ocean current that keeps Ireland and Europe from freezing.
They have found that one of the "engines" driving the Gulf Stream - the sinking of supercooled water in the Greenland Sea - has weakened to less than a quarter of its former strength. The weakening, apparently caused by global warming, could herald big changes in the current over the next few years or decades. Paradoxically, it could lead to Ireland, Britain and northwestern Europe undergoing a sharp drop in temperatures.
Such a change has long been predicted by scientists but the new research is among the first to show clear experimental evidence of the phenomenon.
Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, hitched rides under the Arctic ice cap in Royal Navy submarines and used ships to take measurements across the Greenland Sea.
"Until recently we would find giant 'chimneys' in the sea where columns of cold, dense water were sinking from the surface to the seabed 3,000 metres below, but now they have almost disappeared," he said.
"As the water sank it was replaced by warm water flowing in from the south, which kept the circulation going. If that mechanism is slowing, it will mean less heat reaching Europe."
Such a change could have a severe impact on Ireland, which lies on the same latitude as Siberia and ought to be much colder.
Wadhams and his colleagues believe, however, that just such changes could be well under way. They predict that the slowing of the Gulf Stream is likely to be accompanied by other effects, such as the complete summer melting of the Arctic ice cap by as early as 2020 and almost certainly by 2080.
This would spell disaster for Arctic wildlife such as the polar bear, which would be likely to go extinct in the wild.
Wadhams's submarine journeys took him under the North Polar ice cap, using sonar to survey the ice from underneath. He has measured how the ice has become 46% thinner over the past 20 years.
The results from these surveys prompted him to focus on a feature called the Odden ice shelf, which should grow out into the Greenland Sea every winter and recede in summer.
The growth of this shelf should trigger the annual formation of the sinking water columns. As sea water freezes to form the shelf, the ice crystals expel their salt into the surrounding water - making it heavier than the water below.
However, the Odden ice shelf has stopped forming. It last appeared in full in 1997.
"In the past we could see nine to 12 giant columns forming under the Odden shelf each year. In our latest cruise, we found only two and they were so weak that the sinking water could not reach the seabed," said Wadhams.
He disclosed the findings at a meeting of the European Geosciences Union in Vienna and will shortly publish further details.
The exact effect of such changes is hard to predict because currents and weather systems take years to respond and because there are two other areas around the north Atlantic where water sinks, helping to maintain circulation. Less is known about how climate change is affecting these.
However, Wadhams suggests the effect could be dramatic. "One of the frightening things in the film The Day After Tomorrow showed how the circulation in the Atlantic Ocean is upset because the sinking of cold water in the north Atlantic suddenly stops," he said.
"The sinking is stopping, albeit much more slowly than in the film - over years rather than a few days. If it continues, the effect will be to cool the climate of northern Europe."
One possibility is that Europe will freeze; another is that the slowing of the Gulf Stream may keep Europe cool as global warming heats the rest of the world - but with more extremes of weather.
Ireland Faces Big Chill as Ocean Current Slows
By Jonathan Leake
The Sunday Times, Ireland
Sunday 08 May 2005
Climate change researchers have detected the first signs of a slowdown in the Gulf Stream - the mighty ocean current that keeps Ireland and Europe from freezing.
They have found that one of the "engines" driving the Gulf Stream - the sinking of supercooled water in the Greenland Sea - has weakened to less than a quarter of its former strength. The weakening, apparently caused by global warming, could herald big changes in the current over the next few years or decades. Paradoxically, it could lead to Ireland, Britain and northwestern Europe undergoing a sharp drop in temperatures.
Such a change has long been predicted by scientists but the new research is among the first to show clear experimental evidence of the phenomenon.
Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, hitched rides under the Arctic ice cap in Royal Navy submarines and used ships to take measurements across the Greenland Sea.
"Until recently we would find giant 'chimneys' in the sea where columns of cold, dense water were sinking from the surface to the seabed 3,000 metres below, but now they have almost disappeared," he said.
"As the water sank it was replaced by warm water flowing in from the south, which kept the circulation going. If that mechanism is slowing, it will mean less heat reaching Europe."
Such a change could have a severe impact on Ireland, which lies on the same latitude as Siberia and ought to be much colder.
Wadhams and his colleagues believe, however, that just such changes could be well under way. They predict that the slowing of the Gulf Stream is likely to be accompanied by other effects, such as the complete summer melting of the Arctic ice cap by as early as 2020 and almost certainly by 2080.
This would spell disaster for Arctic wildlife such as the polar bear, which would be likely to go extinct in the wild.
Wadhams's submarine journeys took him under the North Polar ice cap, using sonar to survey the ice from underneath. He has measured how the ice has become 46% thinner over the past 20 years.
The results from these surveys prompted him to focus on a feature called the Odden ice shelf, which should grow out into the Greenland Sea every winter and recede in summer.
The growth of this shelf should trigger the annual formation of the sinking water columns. As sea water freezes to form the shelf, the ice crystals expel their salt into the surrounding water - making it heavier than the water below.
However, the Odden ice shelf has stopped forming. It last appeared in full in 1997.
"In the past we could see nine to 12 giant columns forming under the Odden shelf each year. In our latest cruise, we found only two and they were so weak that the sinking water could not reach the seabed," said Wadhams.
He disclosed the findings at a meeting of the European Geosciences Union in Vienna and will shortly publish further details.
The exact effect of such changes is hard to predict because currents and weather systems take years to respond and because there are two other areas around the north Atlantic where water sinks, helping to maintain circulation. Less is known about how climate change is affecting these.
However, Wadhams suggests the effect could be dramatic. "One of the frightening things in the film The Day After Tomorrow showed how the circulation in the Atlantic Ocean is upset because the sinking of cold water in the north Atlantic suddenly stops," he said.
"The sinking is stopping, albeit much more slowly than in the film - over years rather than a few days. If it continues, the effect will be to cool the climate of northern Europe."
One possibility is that Europe will freeze; another is that the slowing of the Gulf Stream may keep Europe cool as global warming heats the rest of the world - but with more extremes of weather.
The Sunday Times, Ireland
Sunday 08 May 2005
Climate change researchers have detected the first signs of a slowdown in the Gulf Stream - the mighty ocean current that keeps Ireland and Europe from freezing.
They have found that one of the "engines" driving the Gulf Stream - the sinking of supercooled water in the Greenland Sea - has weakened to less than a quarter of its former strength. The weakening, apparently caused by global warming, could herald big changes in the current over the next few years or decades. Paradoxically, it could lead to Ireland, Britain and northwestern Europe undergoing a sharp drop in temperatures.
Such a change has long been predicted by scientists but the new research is among the first to show clear experimental evidence of the phenomenon.
Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, hitched rides under the Arctic ice cap in Royal Navy submarines and used ships to take measurements across the Greenland Sea.
"Until recently we would find giant 'chimneys' in the sea where columns of cold, dense water were sinking from the surface to the seabed 3,000 metres below, but now they have almost disappeared," he said.
"As the water sank it was replaced by warm water flowing in from the south, which kept the circulation going. If that mechanism is slowing, it will mean less heat reaching Europe."
Such a change could have a severe impact on Ireland, which lies on the same latitude as Siberia and ought to be much colder.
Wadhams and his colleagues believe, however, that just such changes could be well under way. They predict that the slowing of the Gulf Stream is likely to be accompanied by other effects, such as the complete summer melting of the Arctic ice cap by as early as 2020 and almost certainly by 2080.
This would spell disaster for Arctic wildlife such as the polar bear, which would be likely to go extinct in the wild.
Wadhams's submarine journeys took him under the North Polar ice cap, using sonar to survey the ice from underneath. He has measured how the ice has become 46% thinner over the past 20 years.
The results from these surveys prompted him to focus on a feature called the Odden ice shelf, which should grow out into the Greenland Sea every winter and recede in summer.
The growth of this shelf should trigger the annual formation of the sinking water columns. As sea water freezes to form the shelf, the ice crystals expel their salt into the surrounding water - making it heavier than the water below.
However, the Odden ice shelf has stopped forming. It last appeared in full in 1997.
"In the past we could see nine to 12 giant columns forming under the Odden shelf each year. In our latest cruise, we found only two and they were so weak that the sinking water could not reach the seabed," said Wadhams.
He disclosed the findings at a meeting of the European Geosciences Union in Vienna and will shortly publish further details.
The exact effect of such changes is hard to predict because currents and weather systems take years to respond and because there are two other areas around the north Atlantic where water sinks, helping to maintain circulation. Less is known about how climate change is affecting these.
However, Wadhams suggests the effect could be dramatic. "One of the frightening things in the film The Day After Tomorrow showed how the circulation in the Atlantic Ocean is upset because the sinking of cold water in the north Atlantic suddenly stops," he said.
"The sinking is stopping, albeit much more slowly than in the film - over years rather than a few days. If it continues, the effect will be to cool the climate of northern Europe."
One possibility is that Europe will freeze; another is that the slowing of the Gulf Stream may keep Europe cool as global warming heats the rest of the world - but with more extremes of weather.
From The Onion, Click on image for larger picture http://www.theonion.com/infograph/index.php?issue=4119
Scientology Losing Ground To New Fictionology (satire)
From The Onion, http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4119
LOS ANGELES—According to a report released Monday by the American Institute of Religions, the Church of Scientology, once one of the fastest-growing religious organizations in the U.S., is steadily losing members to the much newer religion Fictionology.
"Unlike Scientology, which is based on empirically verifiable scientific tenets, Fictionology's central principles are essentially fairy tales with no connection to reality," the AIR report read. "In short, Fictionology offers its followers a mythical belief system free from the cumbersome scientific method to which Scientology is hidebound."
Created in 2003 by self-proclaimed messiah Bud Don Ellroy, Fictionology's principles were first outlined in the self-help paperback Imaginetics: The New Pipe-Dream Of Modern Mental Make-Believe.
Fictionology's central belief, that any imaginary construct can be incorporated into the church's ever-growing set of official doctrines, continues to gain popularity. Believers in Santa Claus, his elves, or the Tooth Fairy are permitted—even encouraged—to view them as deities. Even corporate mascots like the Kool-Aid Man are valid objects of Fictionological worship.
"My personal savior is Batman," said Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Greg Jurgenson. "My wife chooses to follow the teachings of the Gilmore Girls. Of course, we are still beginners. Some advanced-level Fictionologists have total knowledge of every lifetime they have ever lived for the last 80 trillion years."
"Sure, it's total bullshit," Jurgenson added. "But that's Fictionology. Praise Batman!"
While the Church of Fictionology acknowledges that its purported worldwide membership of 450 billion is an invented number, the AIR report estimates that as many as 70 percent of the church's followers are former Scientologists.
Church of Scientology public-relations spokesman Al Kurz said he was "shocked" when he learned that Fictionology is approaching the popularity of his religion.
"Scientology is rooted in strict scientific principles, such as the measurement of engrams in the brain by the E-Meter," Kurz said. "Scientology uses strictly scientific methodologies to undo the damage done 75 million years ago by the Galactic Confederation's evil warlord Xenu—we offer our preclear followers procedures to erase overts in the reactive mind. Conversely, Fictionology is essentially just a bunch of make-believe nonsense."
Hollywood actor David McSavage, who converted to Fictionology last year, attempted to explain.
"Scientology can only offer data, such as how an Operating Thetan can control matter, energy, space, and time with pure thought alone," McSavage said. "But truly spiritual people don't care about data, especially those seeking an escape from very real physical, mental, or emotional problems."
McSavage added, "As a Fictionologist, I live in a world of pretend. It's liberating."
A tax-exempt organization, the Church of Fictionology stands poised to become a great moneymaking power if it continues to grow at its current rate—a situation Kurz called "outrageous."
"In recruiting new members, Fictionology preys on the gullible with fanciful stories and simple-minded solutions," Kurz said. "Fictionology is depriving legitimate churches of the revenue they need to carry out charitable works worldwide—important charitable works like clearing the planet of body-thetan implants."
LOS ANGELES—According to a report released Monday by the American Institute of Religions, the Church of Scientology, once one of the fastest-growing religious organizations in the U.S., is steadily losing members to the much newer religion Fictionology.
"Unlike Scientology, which is based on empirically verifiable scientific tenets, Fictionology's central principles are essentially fairy tales with no connection to reality," the AIR report read. "In short, Fictionology offers its followers a mythical belief system free from the cumbersome scientific method to which Scientology is hidebound."
Created in 2003 by self-proclaimed messiah Bud Don Ellroy, Fictionology's principles were first outlined in the self-help paperback Imaginetics: The New Pipe-Dream Of Modern Mental Make-Believe.
Fictionology's central belief, that any imaginary construct can be incorporated into the church's ever-growing set of official doctrines, continues to gain popularity. Believers in Santa Claus, his elves, or the Tooth Fairy are permitted—even encouraged—to view them as deities. Even corporate mascots like the Kool-Aid Man are valid objects of Fictionological worship.
"My personal savior is Batman," said Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Greg Jurgenson. "My wife chooses to follow the teachings of the Gilmore Girls. Of course, we are still beginners. Some advanced-level Fictionologists have total knowledge of every lifetime they have ever lived for the last 80 trillion years."
"Sure, it's total bullshit," Jurgenson added. "But that's Fictionology. Praise Batman!"
While the Church of Fictionology acknowledges that its purported worldwide membership of 450 billion is an invented number, the AIR report estimates that as many as 70 percent of the church's followers are former Scientologists.
Church of Scientology public-relations spokesman Al Kurz said he was "shocked" when he learned that Fictionology is approaching the popularity of his religion.
"Scientology is rooted in strict scientific principles, such as the measurement of engrams in the brain by the E-Meter," Kurz said. "Scientology uses strictly scientific methodologies to undo the damage done 75 million years ago by the Galactic Confederation's evil warlord Xenu—we offer our preclear followers procedures to erase overts in the reactive mind. Conversely, Fictionology is essentially just a bunch of make-believe nonsense."
Hollywood actor David McSavage, who converted to Fictionology last year, attempted to explain.
"Scientology can only offer data, such as how an Operating Thetan can control matter, energy, space, and time with pure thought alone," McSavage said. "But truly spiritual people don't care about data, especially those seeking an escape from very real physical, mental, or emotional problems."
McSavage added, "As a Fictionologist, I live in a world of pretend. It's liberating."
A tax-exempt organization, the Church of Fictionology stands poised to become a great moneymaking power if it continues to grow at its current rate—a situation Kurz called "outrageous."
"In recruiting new members, Fictionology preys on the gullible with fanciful stories and simple-minded solutions," Kurz said. "Fictionology is depriving legitimate churches of the revenue they need to carry out charitable works worldwide—important charitable works like clearing the planet of body-thetan implants."
Iraqi Resistance Report
Friday, 6 May 2005. from: "charlievictor" charlievictor@btinternet.com
Ramadi. Fighting erupted between a US patrol and Iraqi Resistance fighters armed with light machine guns and rocket launchers, killing four US troops, wounding two and burning one Humvee. US forces imposed a curfew and launched a campaign of searches, arresting six local people claiming they were involved.
An Iraqi Resistance martyrdom fighter drove an explosives-laden car into a US military column destroying one Bradley armoured vehicle and disabling one Humvee. Nine US troops killed and four wounded. US forces encircled the area and prevented any journalist or Iraqi citizen from approaching the area.
Fallujah. Masked Iraqi Resistance fighters with medium machine guns and hand grenades ambushed a US foot patrol leaving six US troops dead and two wounded. US forces encircled the area and launched a campaign of raids on several houses and shops.
Hit. Iraqi Resistance with rockets and mortars, mounted a violent bombardment of the US `Ayn al-Asad base with a a direct hit on a barracks in which US troops slept, killing six US troops and wounding 22. US forces returned fire with heavy artillery in the direction of the incoming rounds, killing an entire family made up of a husband, wife, and four children. The Resistance made no mention of any casualties in their ranks as a result of the US fire, but said the US attack on the civilian house was designed to produce hostility towards the Resistance among the local population, who "understand the dirty tricks and plots of the Jews," a reference to the Zionist practice in south Lebanon and occupied Palestine of deliberately battering civilian areas to turn local opinion against Resistance fighters.
Baghdad. An Iraqi Resistance bomb exploded by a passing US foot patrol going to snoop on mosques during Friday congregational prayers. US forces with translators surround mosques and monitor sermons and if any seem to encourage worshippers to oppose the occupation of their country, US troops or Iraqi puppets storm in and arrest the preacher from the pulpit. The bomb killed three US troops and seriously wounded four. The blast was described as "extremely powerful," shattering glass in nearby houses and leaving a big crater in the unpaved road. US forces encircled the area, imposed a curfew on the neighborhood and evacuated the bodies of their dead and wounded.
Iraqi Resistance forces bombarded the US occupation and puppet "government" HQ in the Republican Palace area of Baghdad - known to the invaders as the "green zone" with six powerful Tariq rockets targeted on the former area of the Arch of Triumph where the offices of the new puppet "Ministers" are clustered. The attack left dead and wounded Americans and Iraqi stooges. A puppet police source said, "we laid out a security plan to protect the members of the [puppet] "government" from such attacks, preparing shelters for them underground to protect them from these attacks. Today they spent half an hour during and after the bombardment in the shelters." US forces encircled the bombarded area, not allowing journalists to approach.
The Iraqi puppet police found the bodies of 17 members of the puppet police and "Iraqi national guard" abducted several days ago while doing "official duties", all shot in the back of the head, execution style. The Resistance Army of the Partisans of the Sunnah [Prophet's Practice], announced its responsibility for the execution of the 17 members of the puppet police and "national guards" and called the dead "apostates from the religion of God working to block the path of the Resistance in its battles with the occupation."
Iraqi puppet forces found 14 bodies, their hands tied and their eyes blindfolded, in Kasrat Wa`tish, 10km from where 17 bodies of the puppet "national guard" were found earlier. According to a forensic medical report by al-Yarmuk General Hospital in Baghdad, the 14 dead ranged in age between 29 and 43 years. They were Sunni prominent personalities and disappeared two days ago. Survivors of the massacre declared the event took place at dawn 5 May 2005, when puppet `shock troop police" members of the Shi`i chauvinist collaborationist Badr Brigadesraided the vegetable market and led away the victims to an unknown location.
Suwayrah. An Iraqi Resistance martyrdom fighter drove an explosives-laden car into a vegetable market killing at least 22 people and wounding 45.
Tikrit. An Iraqi Resistance martyrdom fighter drove an explosives-laden car into a bus carrying puppet policemen to their place of work killed seven puppet policemen and
wounded 15.
Khalis. Iraqi Resistance fired 10 mortar rounds into the US base causing many enemy dead and wounded and ignited two fires in the base. Sirens wailed inside and US helicopters prowled the air, then evacuated the dead and wounded.
Mosul. A high explosive Iraqi Resistance roadside bomb went off as a US column passed on its way to the main American base destroying one Humvee, killing four US troops and wounding three.
Najaf. Fighting broke out between the Jaysh al-Mahdi militia loyal to Shi`i religious leader Muqtada as-Sadr, mobilized throughout southern Iraq, and US occupation troops and their puppet police and "national guard" stooges. The fighting erupted because US occupation troops backed by puppet troops and police surrounded the tomb and mosque of the Imam Abi Talib during Friday prayer services. The Americans and their stooges blocked the worshippers inside the mosque from leaving after prayers to prevent them joining a rally called by the al-Mahdi militia to demand the release of al-Mahdi prisoners. When the al-Mahdi insisted on going ahead with their protest despite the armed presence of the American invader troops, Iraqi puppet forces opened fire on the protesters, killing two al-Mahdi militiamen. Two US troops were killed in the fighting.
Two hours later US occupation forces stormed the ancient mosque in Najaf and the area known as the "home" of the Imam Abi Talib where his tomb is located. This attack prompted Muqtada as-Sadr to issue a general call to arms of the al-Mahdi militia and to prepare for what he called a "protracted battle" against the occupation and its helpers. The Sadr movement were massing their militia in preparation to go to Najaf to join the fighting.
Shi`i "government ministers" in the puppet regime and Shi`i religious leaders headed to the home of Muqtada as-Sadr to convince him to back down from his call to arms.
Four al-Mahdi militiamen attacked a US Bradley armoured vehicle parked near the Shi`i Husayniyah place of worship with RPG7 rocket-propelled grenades destroying the Bradley and killing five US troops. US occupation troops surrounded the Shi`i holy city of Najaf, with a large number of military vehicles and giant armored vehicles.
American occupation troops prevented journalists from Baghdad from entering Najaf, setting a precedent for further preventing news coverage in the country. Keeping journalists out was an ominous sign, suggesting that the US harbored evil intent towards the city of Najaf and its residents. Not only did US forces prevent journalists from getting into Najaf, they also broke the reporters' cameras and tape recorders.
Massive US military columns headed towards the city of Najaf backed by Apache and Black Hawk helicopters. American troops already in the area of the city had sealed off Najaf. Within the city unusual movements were underway as Jaysh al-Mahdi militiamen deployed in the streets and lanes of the city in numbers not been seen since the battles of Najaf last year.
Kufah. Shi`i religious leader Muqtada as-Sadr addressed a number of his followers and commanders in the al-Mahdi militia in the grand mosque in al-Kufah. As-Sadr told his followers that occupation violation of the truce signed with the al-Mahdi, would be a signal for an attack by the al-Mahdi on occupation forces and whoever is siding with them - in an allusion to the puppet police and "Iraqi national guard."
The Shi`i religious leader as-Sadr directed a message to the members of the new "shadow government," saying "if you go back to fighting we will go back to fighting, and if you violate, we will defend ourselves." As-Sadr warned his followers that the first spark would set everything ablaze.
Basrah. After fighting broke out between US invaders and the al-Mahdi militia loyal to Shi ` religious leader Muqtada as-Sadr, the commander warned British invader troops and the Iraqi puppet police against attacking the militia in Basrah.
As of Monday, 1,224 members of the US military have died as a result of hostile action, according to the US defence department.
Ramadi. Fighting erupted between a US patrol and Iraqi Resistance fighters armed with light machine guns and rocket launchers, killing four US troops, wounding two and burning one Humvee. US forces imposed a curfew and launched a campaign of searches, arresting six local people claiming they were involved.
An Iraqi Resistance martyrdom fighter drove an explosives-laden car into a US military column destroying one Bradley armoured vehicle and disabling one Humvee. Nine US troops killed and four wounded. US forces encircled the area and prevented any journalist or Iraqi citizen from approaching the area.
Fallujah. Masked Iraqi Resistance fighters with medium machine guns and hand grenades ambushed a US foot patrol leaving six US troops dead and two wounded. US forces encircled the area and launched a campaign of raids on several houses and shops.
Hit. Iraqi Resistance with rockets and mortars, mounted a violent bombardment of the US `Ayn al-Asad base with a a direct hit on a barracks in which US troops slept, killing six US troops and wounding 22. US forces returned fire with heavy artillery in the direction of the incoming rounds, killing an entire family made up of a husband, wife, and four children. The Resistance made no mention of any casualties in their ranks as a result of the US fire, but said the US attack on the civilian house was designed to produce hostility towards the Resistance among the local population, who "understand the dirty tricks and plots of the Jews," a reference to the Zionist practice in south Lebanon and occupied Palestine of deliberately battering civilian areas to turn local opinion against Resistance fighters.
Baghdad. An Iraqi Resistance bomb exploded by a passing US foot patrol going to snoop on mosques during Friday congregational prayers. US forces with translators surround mosques and monitor sermons and if any seem to encourage worshippers to oppose the occupation of their country, US troops or Iraqi puppets storm in and arrest the preacher from the pulpit. The bomb killed three US troops and seriously wounded four. The blast was described as "extremely powerful," shattering glass in nearby houses and leaving a big crater in the unpaved road. US forces encircled the area, imposed a curfew on the neighborhood and evacuated the bodies of their dead and wounded.
Iraqi Resistance forces bombarded the US occupation and puppet "government" HQ in the Republican Palace area of Baghdad - known to the invaders as the "green zone" with six powerful Tariq rockets targeted on the former area of the Arch of Triumph where the offices of the new puppet "Ministers" are clustered. The attack left dead and wounded Americans and Iraqi stooges. A puppet police source said, "we laid out a security plan to protect the members of the [puppet] "government" from such attacks, preparing shelters for them underground to protect them from these attacks. Today they spent half an hour during and after the bombardment in the shelters." US forces encircled the bombarded area, not allowing journalists to approach.
The Iraqi puppet police found the bodies of 17 members of the puppet police and "Iraqi national guard" abducted several days ago while doing "official duties", all shot in the back of the head, execution style. The Resistance Army of the Partisans of the Sunnah [Prophet's Practice], announced its responsibility for the execution of the 17 members of the puppet police and "national guards" and called the dead "apostates from the religion of God working to block the path of the Resistance in its battles with the occupation."
Iraqi puppet forces found 14 bodies, their hands tied and their eyes blindfolded, in Kasrat Wa`tish, 10km from where 17 bodies of the puppet "national guard" were found earlier. According to a forensic medical report by al-Yarmuk General Hospital in Baghdad, the 14 dead ranged in age between 29 and 43 years. They were Sunni prominent personalities and disappeared two days ago. Survivors of the massacre declared the event took place at dawn 5 May 2005, when puppet `shock troop police" members of the Shi`i chauvinist collaborationist Badr Brigadesraided the vegetable market and led away the victims to an unknown location.
Suwayrah. An Iraqi Resistance martyrdom fighter drove an explosives-laden car into a vegetable market killing at least 22 people and wounding 45.
Tikrit. An Iraqi Resistance martyrdom fighter drove an explosives-laden car into a bus carrying puppet policemen to their place of work killed seven puppet policemen and
wounded 15.
Khalis. Iraqi Resistance fired 10 mortar rounds into the US base causing many enemy dead and wounded and ignited two fires in the base. Sirens wailed inside and US helicopters prowled the air, then evacuated the dead and wounded.
Mosul. A high explosive Iraqi Resistance roadside bomb went off as a US column passed on its way to the main American base destroying one Humvee, killing four US troops and wounding three.
Najaf. Fighting broke out between the Jaysh al-Mahdi militia loyal to Shi`i religious leader Muqtada as-Sadr, mobilized throughout southern Iraq, and US occupation troops and their puppet police and "national guard" stooges. The fighting erupted because US occupation troops backed by puppet troops and police surrounded the tomb and mosque of the Imam Abi Talib during Friday prayer services. The Americans and their stooges blocked the worshippers inside the mosque from leaving after prayers to prevent them joining a rally called by the al-Mahdi militia to demand the release of al-Mahdi prisoners. When the al-Mahdi insisted on going ahead with their protest despite the armed presence of the American invader troops, Iraqi puppet forces opened fire on the protesters, killing two al-Mahdi militiamen. Two US troops were killed in the fighting.
Two hours later US occupation forces stormed the ancient mosque in Najaf and the area known as the "home" of the Imam Abi Talib where his tomb is located. This attack prompted Muqtada as-Sadr to issue a general call to arms of the al-Mahdi militia and to prepare for what he called a "protracted battle" against the occupation and its helpers. The Sadr movement were massing their militia in preparation to go to Najaf to join the fighting.
Shi`i "government ministers" in the puppet regime and Shi`i religious leaders headed to the home of Muqtada as-Sadr to convince him to back down from his call to arms.
Four al-Mahdi militiamen attacked a US Bradley armoured vehicle parked near the Shi`i Husayniyah place of worship with RPG7 rocket-propelled grenades destroying the Bradley and killing five US troops. US occupation troops surrounded the Shi`i holy city of Najaf, with a large number of military vehicles and giant armored vehicles.
American occupation troops prevented journalists from Baghdad from entering Najaf, setting a precedent for further preventing news coverage in the country. Keeping journalists out was an ominous sign, suggesting that the US harbored evil intent towards the city of Najaf and its residents. Not only did US forces prevent journalists from getting into Najaf, they also broke the reporters' cameras and tape recorders.
Massive US military columns headed towards the city of Najaf backed by Apache and Black Hawk helicopters. American troops already in the area of the city had sealed off Najaf. Within the city unusual movements were underway as Jaysh al-Mahdi militiamen deployed in the streets and lanes of the city in numbers not been seen since the battles of Najaf last year.
Kufah. Shi`i religious leader Muqtada as-Sadr addressed a number of his followers and commanders in the al-Mahdi militia in the grand mosque in al-Kufah. As-Sadr told his followers that occupation violation of the truce signed with the al-Mahdi, would be a signal for an attack by the al-Mahdi on occupation forces and whoever is siding with them - in an allusion to the puppet police and "Iraqi national guard."
The Shi`i religious leader as-Sadr directed a message to the members of the new "shadow government," saying "if you go back to fighting we will go back to fighting, and if you violate, we will defend ourselves." As-Sadr warned his followers that the first spark would set everything ablaze.
Basrah. After fighting broke out between US invaders and the al-Mahdi militia loyal to Shi ` religious leader Muqtada as-Sadr, the commander warned British invader troops and the Iraqi puppet police against attacking the militia in Basrah.
As of Monday, 1,224 members of the US military have died as a result of hostile action, according to the US defence department.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)