Think Happy Thoughts

Just a short post today while I work on the essay I'll publish in a day or two. Arthur Silber, a writer whose work I very much respect, is posting again after being sidelined due to some personal setbacks and health issues. Despite his recent troubles I believe his latest essay to be one of his stronger efforts in months.

Reading Material

Hello friends, its been a while huh? I've been somewhat overwhelmed lately with life's demands and, try as I might, there was just no putting them aside. Things are finally back in alignment to a large degree and I can feel my energy returning to the point where thinking and writing is again feasible.

Ok, enough of that. It's time to get back to the subject nearest and dearest to my heart: my country's fucked up foreign and domestic policies. Today I came across an essay on TomDispatch.com which is without question one of the most important sources for information that's generally downplayed or ignored in the mainstream media. This particular essay was penned by Chalmers Johnson whose trilogy on American Empire, Blowback [written before 9/11 yet remarkably prescient], The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemisis: Fall of the American Republic are simply must reads for anyone who gives a damn about this country and where it's headed.

Johnson reviews The Matador's Cape, America's Reckless, Response to Terror by Stephen Holmes--itself a review of several books by various neo-cons explaining away the shit-pile they helped construct. What I found most striking about this essay was a quote Johnson includes from Andrew Bacevich, writer of The New American Militarism, about our prospects under possible Democratic leadership in 2008:

"None of the Democrats vying to replace President Bush is doing so with the promise of reviving the system of checks and balances…. The aim of the party out of power is not to cut the presidency down to size but to seize it, not to reduce the prerogatives of the executive branch but to regain them."

Encouraging isn't it? Read on.

The American Dream

It's nice to see that George Carlin is still at the top of his game.

Osama Said...

Well it seems that Osama bin Laden's latest taped missive has the moderators over at Second City Cop Blog in a tizzy. As is generally the case over there whenever the brain trust puts their heads together to think over an important issue, the resultant "analysis" is never remotely in context with reality. The Bin Laden tape shows scant improvement in this regard. In their post of 8 September 2007 ["Osama Tape"] they jump down the Democrat's throats for alleged acts of "aid and comfort" to the enemy. The following is my post on that thread which is unlikely to see the light of day since I've been effectively banned from there due to my recurrent "thought crimes". Enjoy.

*****************************************

"People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there."—Osama bin Laden

Well…he certainly seems to have his facts straight. I mean the world IS following very closely the events in Iraq, and since the beginning has opposed our actions there. Check the polls if you still harbor doubts. Point 1: Osama

“…after several years of tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped”--OBL

Hmmm, yes it would also appear that our murderous occupation has indeed been “very bad” for the people of Iraq seeing as how it has reduced much of the country to rubble and killed perhaps 1 million of TWSNBN*. Oh, it also has killed over 3000 American cannon fodder and promises to add many more—in addition to the thousands who have been maimed and psychologically scarred for life. That counts as a tragedy doesn’t it? It would also appear from polls of American opinion across the political spectrum that most Americans are against our continued presence there. Point 2: Osama.

“Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning”—OBL

Wow! Osama is even hip to the bipartisan nature of American Empire, that there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two wings of the Business Party when it comes down to fundamentals. Both wings believe America to be uniquely qualified to violate the sovereignty of other nations at will in order to promote “democracy” [at gun point] where we find it lacking. The fact that these “failed states” also happened to be the source of stupendously profitable natural resources is the merest coincidence of course. Point 3: Osama.

“On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there”—OBL

Yep, I’m afraid he’s right again SCC. Bush asked for a supplemental budget of 100 billion dollars to continue the imperial campaign in Mesopotamia and the “opposition” party gave him an extra 24 billion for the surge. This of course was AFTER the public, in an anti-war fever voted the Democrats to the majority in the House and Senate. The first thing Pelosi did upon assuming power in the House was to take the impeachment of Bush and the draw down of US forces in Iraq off the agenda. The Democrats rode a wave of anti-war sentiment to power in the November 2006 mid-term elections and promptly voted for every funding increase or appropriation Bush asked for in prolonging the assault on Iraq. How’s that for “representative democracy” at work? Point 4: Osama.

It's really bad when THIS guy makes more sense than you do SCC. On second thought, scratch that...you've never made much sense when the subject is US foreign policy. Let's examine the following example:

“Every single time the democrats beat the drum to surrender in the War on Terror, Osama bin Laden himself pops up to remind everyone just what is at stake”—SCC

What’s at stake SCC? What was at stake in March of 2003? Osama and Saddam were oil and water. Secular Iraq would not tolerate Al Qaeda, in fact did not tolerate it. There was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. None, nada. There were no WMD in Iraq, as the UN weapons inspectors had long ago confirmed. Saddam had been effectively disarmed during Desert Storm and further weakened by the murderous sanctions regime maintained by the Clinton administration. It’s important to recall that conditions in Iraq during this time approached genocide, killing as many as 5000 children per month. The first two directors of the UN Oil-For-Food program, Dennis Halliday, and Hans von Sponeck resigned in protest over the issue followed soon after by Jutta Burghart, the director of the UN World Food Program. All realized how radically the sanctions violated the UN Charter as it sought to punish the Iraqi people for Saddam’s crimes [committed with US assistance]. When we invaded Iraq it posed a threat to no one, not her neighbors and least of all the US. This would help explain why Arab nations weren’t flocking to join in—not even Iran or Kuwait both of which suffered at Saddam’s hands in the past [the former with US assistance].

Here’s what’s at stake SCC: our democracy [such as it is] and the prospects for peace on earth. The US can continue down its present course of militarism and conquest in increasing isolation as a rogue state thus marshalling the world against it OR it can help restore respect for international law and the treaties and institutions that ensure peace. The solution is quite simple. If we wish to stop the spread of terrorism then we must stop committing acts of terror ourselves on an unprecedented scale. If we support the rule of law then we must no longer lead the world in violations of international law.

Sorry SCC, you’re all wet again.


* Those Who Shall Not Be Named, thus TWSNBN. This refers to the estimated 700,000 to 1 million Iraqis who have perished as a result of America’s invasion of their country. SCC finds the unwelcome implications of these numbers so distressful that any mention of them sends the moderators into apoplectic rage. As a result of their peculiar sensibilities regarding this matter I agreed to forevermore refer to the Iraqi dead as TWSNBN in my correspondence with them.

Boo!

Fox News is at it again folks. They've dusted off the war drums and have been banging away with an ever increasing tempo as the window of opportunity for assaulting another nation posing no threat to us closes on the disasterous Team Bush administration. As was the case during the lead up to the assault on Iraq, Fox News is braying at the head of the media pack now calling attention to the Iranian "threat" looming over the horizon. There is even speculation that Karl Rove's sudden departure from Team Bush was the result of losing a power struggle with the Prince of Darkness, aka Dick Cheney, who has been pushing hard for war on Iran. Rove, arguably the most intelligent member of Team Bush, was said to be insistent that given our present difficulties in Iraq, an attack on its neighbor--with perhaps four times its population--was sheer madness. It would appear that the Prince has prevailed. And not a moment too soon as far as the war mavens at Fox are concerned.

Who Is IOZ?

...This is. I discovered this blog courtesy of Arthur Silber and have now included it on my link list. Enjoy.

War Porn for Rue St. Michel

Recently the Lair had a visit from "Rue St. Michel" [see comments section of the "Obama-Bad-Ass" post], a fellow Chicago police officer whose political leanings are, to put it mildly, considerably to the right of yours truly. The following clip I found courtesy of The Red Stater Dennis Perrin and I thought immediately of the Rue-ster whose ravings I encourage you to read if, for nothing else, their sheer entertainment value. Nothing excites Rue more than American Empire making the world safe for “democracy and freedom”.

Remember When...

...a senator by the name of Wayne Morse of Oregon had the courage to speak truth to power? This courageous man would be one of only two senators who refused to sign on to Lyndon Johnson’s Gulf of Tonkin resolution “justifying” the radical US escalation of its assault on Vietnam. Recently on Dennis Perrin’s blog I happened upon the following You Tube clip from the new DVD “War Made Easy”.

Arthur Silber Returns

It is with great pleasure that I can report that Arthur Silber has returned to posting on his indespensible blog, "Once Upon A Time..." and is in excellent form. Arthur’s work has had a powerful influence upon my still-developing world view and perhaps only that of Noam Chomsky surpasses it. I am deeply in his debt. Unfortunately, Arthur is not in good health and is of precarious financial status so there is the real possibility that he may not write for much longer. But enough of that, for in the here and now Arthur has left a treasure trove of powerful writing on political and cultural issues pertaining not only to the United States in the age of Empire, but of the West in general that will no doubt stand the test of time.

Let’s reflect on the issues he raises in this recent post regarding the state of denial among progressives who cling relentlessly to the fallacy that somehow, some way the Democrats Will Save Us. He calls this essay appropriately enough, “Blinded by the Story: Liberals and Progressives as Political Creationists”.

Support The Troops Damnit!

The following savage satire comes to you via former SNL and Daily Show funnyman A. Whitney Brown courtesy of Dennis Perrin.

Obama-Bad-Ass

Everyone by now has a take on Barack Obama's chest-thumping routine regarding Pakistan so I may as well throw in my two cents. The following was a post of mine that didn't see the light of day over at the SCC Blog in the "Obama Steps in it Again" thread from 2 August 07. Lately I've noticed that my posts don't appear over there when my positions flout conventional wisdom as was the case with the post below:

“Hillary's people have to be licking their chops. First, they berated Obama as a foreign policy lightweight for saying that he'd meet with enemy states like Iran or North Korea despite that fact that they have, time and again, violated UN sanctions and International Law”—SCC

Obama steps in it? Steps in what? The Barockstar is merely playing the game fellas. Hillary plays it as well. As representatives of the Business Party’s milder wing, both The Hillerator and Barockstar must demonstrate to the owners of our plutocracy (corporations and major investors) that they will keep their eye on the prize. You see guys, the Bushistas have fucked things up royally. Let’s briefly revue how they’ve run the imperial train off the rails:

--Iraq is “lost”, that is to say it cannot be profitably exploited by the USuk energy corporations after what has to be the most inept occupation in history.

--The illegal USuk invasion/occupation has managed in fact to do the precise opposite of what its planners envisioned—increased the influence and prestige of Iran in the region.

--The Bushistas have repeated the fundimental mistake of the Vietnam War in attempting to conduct a war of imperial conquest with volunteers instead of mercenaries. Though an attempt to get around this obstacle has been made with the increased use of private contractors (i.e mercenaries) there simply aren’t enough of them to overcome the Iraqi resistance.

--The US Army is nearly broken. Yep, that happens when you try to get around the fact that you just can’t find enough cannon-fodder to enlist, so you just keep rotating the same troops through over and over and over again. Futhermore, it is bankrupting the Treasury and drowning the nation in foreign debt.

--As a result of the above, the US is unable to slap Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and others who defy the Hegemon (and its corporations) back in line with a quick invasion like back in the good old days. We’re spread too thin.

The Democrats have to show that THEY are the better managers of Pax Americana thus the tough talk from Barockstar, it’s the only card they have since they share the same imperial values. Obama-Bad-Ass is speaking directly to a particular audience when he sprouts off about Pakistan—namely elites. He means to reassure the owners of our society that a Democratic victory in ’08 will not lead to a constriction of America’s aggressive foreign policy. Look at where both The Hillerator and Barockstar converge on the issues: (1) both agree to leave the possibility of a nuclear strike on Iran, a major violation of the UN Charter—just the threat—“on the table”; (2) both have no intention of removing US troops from Iraq or the region as they staunchly support the continuing construction of the largest US embassy in the world right in the heart of illegally occupied Baghdad, as well as the 14 massive permenant bases also undergoing construction in strategic locations throughout Iraq—all of which ensures US control of ACCESS to the vital and stupendously profitable energy resources of Iraq.

An attack on Pakistan is indeed madness SCC—we can’t subdue Iraq let alone the nation you’ve described—but Barockstar knows this. As he and Hillerator jockey for position as Imperial America’s Chief Manager, they use code-speak for the audience that counts which roughly translates as follows: We won’t let you down like those other fools, just give us the power and we’ll bring home the bacon.

-Coldtype

Scared Yet?

It takes a fairly strong constitution these days to seriously investigate the state of the American Experiment as we now find it. I’m often struck by the sheer indifference of so many Americans to what may very well be the last days of this nation’s nominal republic. At first I was tempted to attribute the phenomenon to the characteristic self-absorption for which we Americans are famous, however, further reflection revealed to me another possibility—fear. Many of us are afraid to look too closely at just how much damage the Bushites have done to the country, and threaten to do to the rest of the world. To do so would challenge on a fundamental level what we have been raised from birth to believe about America as a beacon of freedom and defender of democracy.

As Americans we are accustomed to thinking of Other Places where the rule of law goes unacknowledged or where the writ of habeas corpus is held in such trivial esteem as to be non-existent. Certainly OUR president would never authorize the domestic wire-tapping of American citizens without a court order as required by law. Surely there is a LEGITIMATE explanation for why our elected officials ratified the radical and Orwellian-titled legislation known as the Patriot Act which so fundamentally undermines our Bill of Rights without bothering to READ IT first.

I sometimes feel as though I’ve awaken from a bad dream only to discover that yes…both houses of congress did in fact pass the terrifying Military Commissions Act of 2006—virtually without debate. In a stroke, extraordinary powers were granted to the President the likes of which the founders never intended for his office as Amnesty International’s report on this legislation makes plain.

The Unitary Executive

The founders understood that there existed no greater threat to the republic than the unchecked power of an Executive who would be King. As a precaution they unambiguously enshrined in our Constitution critical checks and balances designed specifically to separate the powers of government into clearly delineated spheres from which neither institution could come to dominate and thus draw to itself the power of Cesar. The Bushites would change all of that. Legislation such as the Patriot Act which serves to undermine our Bill of Rights and the Military Commissions Act which so radically challenges James Madison’s separation-of-powers concept and basic tenants of liberty such as habeas corpus goes a long way towards completing their project.

The Bush administration has aggressively pursued its “unitary executive” theory since its first days in office but following 9/11 and the subsequent “war on terror” this agenda has taken on a heightened urgency. In brief, the unitary executive theory posits that the president enjoys far greater authority over regulatory agencies (originally conceived and designed to be independent of politics) such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) than has heretofore been acknowledged. Furthermore, according to its proponents, the Executive has tremendous leeway in his interpretation of legislation passed by Congress and its applicability to his chosen course of action.



Let’s turn now to the subject of this post, one George W. Bush. Recently the good people at Consortium News.com (Robert Parry, et al) had a psychological profile of our Commander-in-Chief drawn up and folks, the results are frightening.

The Power of Translation

How many times have you heard that famous quote attributed to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in which he is alleged to have threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”? Too many to count I bet. Well folks that’s how propaganda works. First you properly demonize the enemy in the minds of the cowering masses (he/they/it is a sponsor of terrorism, general hater of goodness, etc), then take his words and twist them into new meanings that further serve the objective of identifying him as an existential threat to survival and thus a legitimate target of attack in “self-defense”. There is a saying—coined by the Nazis over 70 years ago—that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes “Truth”.

You are likely to be as fascinated as I was by the following revelations in an article from Anti-War.com about those famous words by Ahmadinejad and how they have managed, like Saddam’s WMD before them, to take on a life (and new meaning) of their own.

I Wonder Why They Hate Us So Much?

My apologies friends. This is really no way to conduct a dialog, I know. Two months without a word. Let me attempt an explanation. The demands of work and family have left me with very little in the tank for creative blogging of late and those few moments I have had in front the keyboard haven’t produced anything worthy of publishing. Frankly I was exhausted both physically and mentally, however, the time away has helped me to refocus and has rejuvenated my spirits.


Now that I‘ve gotten that out of the way, let’s turn to the purpose of this post courtesy of Dennis Perrin.



PS. I can't promise that there won't spells in the future where I don't post for a few day's or so but NEVER AGAIN will it be anywhere near 2 months!

Barockstar Dreams

Senator Barack Obama recently descended upon the University of Iowa campus in Iowa City on gilded wings before an audience of worshipful supporters, whereupon he thrilled the crowd with empty platitudes. One member of the crowd, however, was not so thrilled. Present among the multitude was one Paul Street, who long ago helped expose the Barockstar as a progressive poseur. Here now is his take on those proceedings.

When "Lib-Tards" Strike Back...

…The “He-Men” cry foul. It seems that the moderators over at the Second City Cop blog have their panties all tied up in knots over some responses I posted in the “Slapping A Lib-Tard” thread from 17 April 2007. They can dish it out but when it comes to taking it…well you know the rest. I’ve taken the liberty of reposting my censored responses as well as the SCC moderator’s final snit-fit wherein he justifies his decision to censor them.

Let’s first enjoy the SCC moderator’s penetrating “analysis” of my first response on the thread:


Ah, our favorite softball returns, spouting the tired liberal cliches:

coldtype said...SCC I haven't researched the matter thoroughly but I'm convinced that the above words are your most ridiculous to date.

and yet, you make the blanket accusation. how very typically liberal - no research, and yet an opinion. nice to see you haven't changed.

So your answer to the case of a single madman going on shooting spree on campus is to arm college freshmen. Listen, the days of the six-shooter on every hip are long over and shall never return--for good reason. Americans of the 19th century had the good sense to begin the process of disarmament after witnessing some of their communities dissolve into chaos and terror.

we didn't advocate arming freshmen - we advocated a sensible Concealed Carry policy as duly authorized by state law - if you qualify, you can carry. and actually, the days of the six shooter on the hip are retuning with a vengence. as of today, FORTY states have some form of concealed carry permitted within their boundaries. upwards of a dozen have reciprocal agreements that permit their qualified citizens to carry firearms across state lines. so not only are you way off base, you're completely wrong - again. and we'd really like to see which communities you describe as "dissolv[ing] into chaos." we can't find any. in fact, in most frontier towns, firearms were expected to be owned. all that Hollywood BS you see about the outlaws riding into town to shoot it up? never happened. most times homesteaders and townspeople were civil war vets who weren't about to take any shit from outlaws. so until you can come up with some actual historical evidence, we'll assume the rest of your argument is bullshit, too.

I didn't think it would be necessary to point this out here of all places but oh well: POLICING IS A STATE FUNCTION! We agree as members of a CIVILISATION to not presume to take the law into our own hands--which possession of a concealed weapon both implies and encourages.

and the state was where in this case? minutes away? hours? how long does it take to kill 30+ and wound another 20+? we enter into a social contract to abide by laws and rules. but what happens when the rules are disregarded? how long is the state allowed to respond? what is the acceptable threshhold of dead bodies for you liberals? the state failed, not only by not responding instantaneously, but by preventing citizens from defending themselves in an appropriate and legal manner.

Every citizen does not qualify as a police officer (for this is surely what you imply) and cannot be expected to possess the training and decision making skills that constitues a police officer.

BWAHAHAHAHA. find where we said everyone has to be a police officer. you are so full of shit you have to present an "argument" we never made. every citizen doesn't have to qualify as a police officer, just as a MARKSMAN - or at the bare minimum, a qualified user of a firearm. and what the hell decision has to be made in this case? to return fire or not? to protect the lives of fellow students, teachers and self or let everyone be slaughtered? you want to talk about ridiculous words? read your last paragraph - you are truly softer than baby shit.

The Virginia Tech tragidy was a random, isolated incident, something analogous to the crash of an airliner--not a pandemic. We don't seriously consider banning air travel when a plane goes down and, for the same reason, we shouldn't give way to the chimerial hysteria of the gun-nut lobby on those rare occasions when a madman with a gun makes himself known.

ah, but when an airliner goes down, there are hearings to determine where the error lies or cause of crash originated. in this case, VT officials declared the campus a gun free zone and in 2005, actually initiated disciplinary proceedings against a student who was authorized by the state to carry a weapon and did so on a state supported campus. so the obvious error in this case is that gun bans didn't work and the offender disregarded signs to that effect. as to your "isolated incident" argument, tornadoes are isolated incidents, yet we still have sirens, run drills and people build storm shelters. again we ask, what is the acceptable level of dead bodies for you when the state fails in its "duty" to the citizenry?

Stay safe.

we will - we're armed - all the time.


To which I responded…

Research complete. They WERE the most ridiculous words you’ve ever published, surpassing even your claim that the US never sought imperial possessions abroad (to which my response prompted the TLC Rule).

“you know what your problem is? You and your ilk are too willing to surrender your individual rights and liberties to the nanny state. you expect the state to solve all your problems. you fail to realize that the state is subservient to the citizen, not the other way around. we are the state. the state gains its power from the CONSENT of the governed. and we maintain that consent by remaining armed, plain and simple”-SCC (aka “The Wild Bunch”)

“Wow! Where do I begin with this classic? Really SCC, you’ve outdone yourselves. Let’s see…

You and your ilk are too willing to surrender your individual rights and liberties to the nanny state”-SCC

We are? I thought it was the Left leading the charge against Team Bush’s warrantless wiretaps of American citizens and the suspension of Habeas Corpus for “enemy combatants”? [You walked into that one and I just couldn’t resist]

“you fail to realize that the state is subservient to the citizen, not the other way around. we are the state. the state gains its power from the CONSENT of the governed.”-SCC

Could have fooled me. The last time I checked 70% of the citizens of this country wished to see US forces withdrawn from Iraq yet Congress just approved—with bipartisan support—a supplemental bill increasing funding for the Team Bush “surge” to the tune of 124 billion dollars. This amount by the way was MORE than Bush asked for. Furthermore, most Americans by an overwhelming margin would like to see our disastrously inefficient health care system overhauled and replaced by a socialized system more in line with that of Canada, Cuba, and many countries of Western Europe. Not likely to happen anytime soon, something about it being…”politically unfeasible”.

So it would appear that the so called “democracy deficit” (the disconnect between public policy and public opinion) in this country is as broad as ever. Our government most certainly operates with the consent of elites, but of THE PEOPLE I’m not so sure.

What was that? OOOOOH! You weren’t referring to issues of ACTUAL democracy, just the “crisis” facing gun nuts and their “right” to carry assault weapons! My bad.

“ah, but when an airliner goes down, there are hearings to determine where the error lies or cause of crash originated”-SCC

Thanks for stealing my line. Yes, airline disasters, tornadoes, and such are isolated incidents that require RATIONAL responses SCC, thus no one in a position of real influence will seriously consider the “insights” from the gun nut lobby when drafting a response to the Virginia Tech tragedy.

Stay safe.

I then followed up with a response to some of the other posters (we’ll call them minnows) on the thread who were mighty offended as well:

Now for the minnows…

“F*** Y*** Coldtype! I'm sure you would feel differently if it was one of your loved ones. Go change your name to Coldfuckface!” -4/17/2007 12:45:00 PM

No. My opinion wouldn’t change in the least. There is nothing that will convince me that we would be a safer society if MORE of us were armed. This is already the most violent society in the industrialized world. Sorry simple one, but more guns is not the answer. And I happen to like my name.

“This guy just shot up your school killing 32 innocent people and based on fuking ethics you won't realese his grades and journals, typical liberal bullshit” -4/17/2007 01:16:00 PM

Not “liberal bullshit”, just ethics and the right to privacy—the same ones that you and I enjoy (for now). So, for example, if you were to confide in a mental health professional you’d have every right to expect those conversations to be kept private. There are of course exceptions to these rules.

“Add a crazy Korean kook to this soup and you get spontaneous combustion” -4/17/2007 02:06:00 PM

Hmmm. I wonder what his race had to do with it. Perhaps Koreans have a proclivity for madness that I was unaware of.

“Instead of gun control issues, how about shutting down our borders completely. This goof moved to the U.S. in 1992 from South Korea. Now he is responsible for the biggest masacre in history!” -4/17/2007 02:10:00 PM

Ahhh! There’s the answer…xenophobia. Your last statement would no doubt come as a profound shock to Native Americans, European Jews, and the natives of East Timor.

“Another immigrant has fucked up this country” -4/17/2007 02:12:00 PM

No. That responsibility lies with a guy living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave Washington, DC. I believe he’s from Texas.

“Because there are bad people in the world”-Murphy40pct

I know that Murph, and while the random nutjob with a gun is disturbing I’m far MORE concerned with the truly dangerous among us—in Washington—where the nuclear annihilation of millions of Iranian people who pose no threat to us is “on the table”.

“Hey Mr. Soft-As-Shit
Not every policeman qualifies as police material-just ask the family of Rondayle White” -4/17/2007 04:23:00 PM

Hi Dip-Shit. Demonstrate that you actually know something about the Rondayle White incident before you presume to comment upon it. That’s all folks.

Stay safe.

To these responses from me the SCC moderator huffed and puffed:


Sorry coldtype, but we aren't publishing your drivel today. You fail to address any of our arguments save the conclusion and take up too much space doing that. We addressed (and destroyed) your entire response piece by piece. We pointed out your specious claims and requested you back them with facts - you failed miserably and declined to cite even a single example to back your assertions. You insist on tying in your Bush Derangement Syndrome to every single post. You continue to attribute the argument that you want to defend to our posts rather than address the facts we actually present. Frankly, we're sick of it. And as you have no expectation of actually being published here, we're going to fulfill that expectation. You can go cry about censorship all you want and whine to the universe at large, but congratulations on being part of the 3% of comments that never make it to the site.
4/18/2007 01:33:00 AM

AWWWWWW!

Not Fit To Print

Recently, Edward S. Herman and David Peterson penned a brief essay outlining the latest UN resolution (essentially authored by the US) which denies Iran the means (thus the right) of defending itself from the depredations of aggressor nations, in this instance the US, UK, and Israel—not only the resolution’s chief sponsors but, paradoxically, the only nations that have launched attacks and maintain occupations in the Mid-East region. Not coincidentally, these three nations also threaten Iran with destruction.

What makes the Herman/Peterson essay remarkable, however, are not necessarily its contents which merely retraces some of the steps leading to the present “crisis”, but the peculiar reactions to it among newspaper editors across the nation. You see Herman and Peterson can’t seem to get it published anywhere in the mainstream.

Although they have submitted this piece to editors at all of the mainline newspapers for space on their op-ed pages, none to date have deemed it worthy of further dissemination. This circumstance is most curious given the fact that Herman and Peterson’s voices were among the most prescient detractors during the lead-up to the criminal assault on Iraq. This during a period, I remind you, when the corporate mainstream media served as a bullhorn for the Team Bush fabrications of the Iraqi “threat” to the US—indeed the world. One would think given the mainstream media’s appalling performance four years ago that it would leap at the opportunity to present the warnings of those who got it right back then, but such is not to be for it seems that some things are just not fit to print.

Hmmm. I'm thinking of a word...

Recently from ABC News International:

The U.S. Navy on Tuesday began its largest demonstration of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by a pair of aircraft carriers and backed by warplanes flying simulated attack maneuvers off the coast of Iran.The maneuvers bring together two strike groups of U.S. warships and more than 100 U.S. warplanes to conduct simulated air warfare in the crowded Gulf shipping lanes.The U.S. exercises come just four days after Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines who Iran said had strayed into Iranian waters near the Gulf. Britain and the U.S. Navy have insisted the British sailors were operating in Iraqi waters.U.S. Navy Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl said the U.S. maneuvers were not organized in response to the capture of the British sailors nor were they meant to threaten the Islamic Republic, whose navy operates in the same waters.He declined to specify when the Navy planned the exercises.Aandahl said the U.S. warships would stay out of Iranian territorial waters, which extend 12 miles off the Iranian coast.Overall, the exercises involve more than 10,000 U.S. personnel on warships and aircraft making simulated attacks on enemy shipping with aircraft and ships, hunting enemy submarines and finding mines."What it should be seen as by Iran or anyone else is that it's for regional stability and security," Aandahl said. "These ships are just another demonstration of that. If there's a destabilizing effect, it's Iran's behavior."

* * * * *

Imagine if you will, the naval foces of a foreign power conducting exercises 13 miles off the eastern coast of the United States which incompassed 2 carrier battle groups. Imagine further that the foreign power in question has, for the past four years, invaded and occupied Canada. In response to American protests regarding the provocative nature of these latest actions a spokesman for the foreign power responds that:

“What it should be seen as by the US or anyone else is that it’s for regional stability and security. These ships are just another demonstration of that. If there’s a destablilizing effect, it’s America’s behaviour”. The spokesman concludes his comments with a warning that continued US support for the Canadian “insurgents” may invite harsh reprisals in the near future.

Oh yes!…Chutzpah.

Ying & Yang

Before and after. Truth and deceit. Actions and consequences. It’s funny how most things in the universe follow the expected flow of nature. For example, if I stub my toe on something immovable I can be reasonably assured that pain will shortly follow. Likewise, it would not be of particular note if, as a result of my consistently not going to work, I were fired from my job. Or, even better, were it demonstrated that I was chronically incompetent in my duties at work one would reasonably expect my employer to seek my separation. In other words, certain actions (or inactions) have expected consequences.

What if I were to tell you, however, that I have found an example of the opposite being true? Would you believe that there is a realm where incompetence and venality are rewarded with wealth and praise? The world of political punditry is just such a place gentle reader. Jebediah Reed of Radar Online.com has just chronicled the divergent fortunes of eight political commentators—four who accurately predicted the consequences of America’s illegal invasion of Iraq four years ago, and four who sang its praises to the tune of riotous applause. Behold “The Iraq Gamble” and learn, as I have, that pigs do fly.

To Surge Or Not To Surge

A few days ago an essay appeared on TomDispatch.com that was penned by Anthony Arnove, a terrific historian, in which he lays out a compelling case for immediate American withdrawal from Iraq. Arnove’s essay summarizes themes he explores in greater detail in his indispensable book, Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal, which I highly recommend. A critical element of Arnove's analysis is his juxtaposition of the crisis in Darfur and our collective interpretation of the disaster there, and the continuing carnage in Iraq in which our government plays a direct hand. Read on.

Scott Ritter, Vindicated

I ran across this conversation between the vilified former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter and Robert Scheer of Truth Dig today and thought I’d share it with you. I think you’ll find it rather fascinating.

Corporate Media: the Playthings of Power

Rarely are we afforded the opportunity to see cataloged in all of its craven glory the appalling performance of the corporate media during the lead up to the US/UK (USuk) assault on Iraq. Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) has just completed a devastating revue of the mainstream media’s reporting in the months leading up to, during, and immediately following the USuk invasion. FAIR covers reporting during the critical period from 1 September 2002 thru 31 May 2003, a time when most Americans were skeptical of the Team Bush rationale for war without UN sanction, yet still vulnerable to the (false) implications of a Saddam/Al Qaeda link peddled to media lapdogs by senior Bush officials.

At just the time when the American public (to say nothing of soon-to-be-slaughtered Iraqis) needed the Fourth Estate to subject the Team Bush assertions (WMD, Iraqi connivance in the 9/11 attacks) to critical analysis, the highly credulous media uncritically reported the justifications for war from official sources—with the near total exclusion of articulate anti-war voices. In short, what the public needed were actual journalists, however, what it got instead were stenographers.

Blum Musings

It’s always with great anticipation that I open an e-mail from William Blum. Without fail his insights manage to lift my spirits and infuse me with renewed energy with which to forge ahead, serving not only to inform but inspire as well. So, without further ado, I present Blum’s latest Anti-Empire Report.

The Red Son Strikes Again

Its been far too long since I last posted work from Dennis Perrin of the The Red State Son blog. This latest bit of satire on leading Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is priceless.

War Drums

Suddenly it seems like fall/spring 2002/03 all over again. The Bush administration and its stenographers in the MSM are at it again--this time of course with a new target, a new "threat" to our very exsistence. Media pundits are falling all over themselves to see who can top the other in reporting--with out challenge--the assertions of Bush officials regarding the fictional threats Iran poses to this country and the world.

I should be used to this routine by now but no matter how often I'm exposed to the spectacle of Team Bush lies and distortions dutifully reported in the MSM as "news" I am still shocked and amazed at the sheer chutzpah required of our leaders and media elites to think it possible to pull this one over on us yet again. Read the latest from Phyllis Bennis on Team Bush's manufactured "crisis" with Iran and see if you too don't feel a sense of dejavu.

Brother Can You Spare a Dime?

We've covered this ground before but it's always important to return to this theme from time to time. I recently came across an essay by one of my favorite social commentators, Michael Parenti. In this article Parenti explores some of the back ground factors driving the persistent misery throughout the global South and how the First World nations contribute to that condition. Read on.

I know its been quite a while since my last post but unfortunately circumstances beyond my control have conspired to rob me of what little time I have for some of the research that goes into this blog. Things are now settling down somewhat so you can expect more frequent posts in the future. Stay safe.

The Cowards Are Comming!

While I’m not at all optimistic, I’m still fascinated by the Democrats who now control both houses of Congress. Despite the fact that for the first time in over a decade they have within their power the ability to control the agenda, Democrats remain curiously sluggish about opening detailed investigations into the justifications for and conduct of the assault on Iraq. Oh certainly, some have drafted non-binding resolutions that do little more than tell Bush that he’s been a very bad boy, but nothing with actual teeth that would halt the slaughter and perhaps lead down the path to impeachment has appeared on the radar.

It makes me wonder how Democrats interpreted the results of the mid-term elections. Did they take from that experience somehow that the public was at ease with the FACT of the war in Iraq just not its execution? That’s the only explanation that I dare voice for their steadfast refusal to actively investigate the Bush administration. Try as I might, however, I cannot escape the knowledge that many of these same actors on the Democratic side of the isle were complicit in the Team Bush decisions during the run-up to war. Furthermore, it doesn’t stretch credibility to assume that the Democrats simply don’t care what the public desires given the long history of bipartisan support for policies that directly contradict the public will.

Recently at TomDispatch.com the work of two ACTUAL journalists (as opposed to the stenographers to which we are accustomed in the MSM) is presented, which lays out the clearest case I’ve yet seen for opening congressional investigations into the conduct of the Bush administration. Read this piece by David Swanson and Jonathan Schwarz and then ask yourselves if these Democrats serve the republic.

Nemesis Rising

Just a short post today. I feel this is a good time to introduce the work of one of America's most important scholars. Chalmers Johnson is a retired professor of Asian Studies at the University of California San Diego, and served from 1968 to 1972 as a consultant to the Office of National Estimates of the CIA.

Dr. Johnson has just completed the third work of his trilogy on American Empire which began in 2000 with Blowback, followed shortly by The Sorrows of Empire. His latest book, Nemesis: Last Days of the American Empire, gets a preview at TomDispatch.com. So without further ado...

Firm Opposition

Looks like things are pretty much working out the way I figured they would now that the Democrats are in charge. I can detect no perceptible reduction in speed as our country hurdles towards the cliff. I still find myself in conversation with people gushing over the new congress and how the Dems are going to put a stop to the maddness in Iraq--all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Now I just smile and nod.

Dennis Perrin over at the Red State Son blog posts on this unwarranted enthusiasm among progressives in his critique of Virginia Democratic Senate nominee James Webb's speech last night and, depressingly, the fawning reaction to it.

To The Victor Go The Spoils

Recently over at the Second City Cop blog I found myself in the midst of a flame war over, you guessed it, the Team Bush war crimes in Iraq. In this instance the point of contention was whether or not the US occupation of Iraq is imperial in nature. Remarkably there are still at this late stage people who cling to belief that US designs on Iraq were not exploitative from the outset. No evidence appears strong enough to convince these die-hards otherwise.

I know it's useless presenting yet more evidence but I'll make the effort anyway. The following article was written by Antonia Juhasz, visiting scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies and chronicles the clear planning and foresight that went into the Team Bush decision to invade Iraq. Juhasz's investigation reveals that the popular perception of the Bush adminstration having occupied Iraq without a plausible plan for success is quite mistaken. Many of the neo-con wet-dreams are rapidly nearing fruition in the region. For example, the Middle East Free Trade Agreement is on fast track and, far more ominously, the Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) that allows for the virtual theft of Iraq's critical oil resources is firmly in place. I trust you will find The Spoils of War a fascinating read.

Barockstar

So it has officially begun. Soon everywhere you turn Barackomania will overwhelm your senses. Any day now "liberals" will swear that Senator and now presidential candidate Barack Obama has a secret cure for cancer.

Our disfunctional republic has long embraced the useful fiction of a two party political system. Completely ignored by those who adhere to this belief is the voluminous record of bipartisan support for the most reactionary, corporate-friendly policies of this and previous administrations from welfare "reform" to "free-trade" agreements to our current depredations in Iraq. As I've stated here and elsewhere, there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties on fundimental issues. Check the record.

Obama is but the latest in a long line of hustlers distracting the public from the fact that neither party remotely supports its positions on critical issues, as polls have long revealed. A quick perusal of the polling links on this site will make this plain.

Paul Street has a proud record of pointing this stuff out as he did late last year when the first rumblings of an Obama run for the White House began. In his latest post, Street revisits this theme with some added comments on mainstream liberals in general. Read on.

The Corporate Welfare Chronicles

Today's installment of the Corporate Welfare Chronicles features the latest outrage from "our" elected public servants in service to Big Oil. What's most frustrating about this Public Citizen report is that many of the members of Congress voting Big Oil its most recent sweetheart deal are lame-ducks--they have already been voted out of office and are serving out what remains of their terms (they end in January). Loyal to fault, however, to their true constituents these bought and paid for corporate shills ensure that the fat-cats of Big Oil will encounter no impediments to their record-breaking profit margins in the near future.

Problems? What Problems?

It's always facinating to me when the mainstream "liberal" media tackles the most pressing isssue concerning our country today, namely our illegal occupation of Iraq at the cost of tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars per day from our treasury. One who shares in this wonder is Paul Street, a frequent contributer to journals of progressive opinion. What follows is an example of what the mainstream media is not--a platform from which one speaks truth to power. Read on.

A Real Journalist Revisited: The Price of Courage

Its been far too long since my last post. My apoligies, but I found myself in a "perfect storm" of sorts which has kept me from posting since the 22nd of November. First I changed internet providers, then my system crashed, followed immediately by work becoming extremely busy.
Enough about my problems.

I was inspired to post today after comming across an article by Robert Parry, a journalist who helped break the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan administration back in the 80's. Parry pays tribute to Gary Webb, the late San Jose Mercury News journalist who had the temerity to connect the dots between the CIA trained and funded Contra terrorists and the emergence of the crack cocaine epidemic on the west coast.

A question for my fellow police officers out there: ever feel like you're running in place as far as the "war on drugs" are concerned? Robert Parry goes a long way towards explaining why. Reflect on the price Gary Webb paid in exposing this obcenity the next time the mainstream corporate media pats itself on the back about its vaunted "integrity".

Onward Soldiers

So you thought our forces were mired in a quagmire of Team Bush's choosing in Iraq? According to a recent article in the The New Yorker by Seymour Hersh, if "Vice" President Dick Cheney has his way Iran, a nation with three times the population of Iraq and with a viable military infrastructure, is next.

Censoring The Unpalatable Truth

Recently the moderator on the SCC blog refused to publish my response to a True Believer in the "Hidden Homicides?" thread who described those of us, particularly in law enforcement, who held principled objections to the US war of aggression in Iraq as "cowards".

This Super-Patriot then went on to challenge us to tell returning veterans, "that they did not accomplish anything to help the Iraqis". To this I reasonably responded that the opinions of American veterans were entirely irrelevant to the issue. What should concern us is what do Iraqis think of our (unasked for) "assistance"? According to recent polls of Iraqi public opinion--not much. Frankly, most Americans aren't overjoyed either.

What prompted this challenge alert, however, was the moderator's amazing rationale for censoring my post after I alluded to the number of Iraqis killed as a result of the US invasion, destruction, and occupation of the rubble that is now Iraq. His explanation serves as an instructive example of what happens when conventional wisdom is challenged by clear evidence to the contrary within a highly regimented intellectual culture. Particularly in a culture were propaganda has become the unassailable Truth.

Challenge Alert #2

For those who have not been following this soap opera, it has long been my habit when discussing or writing about the number of Iraqi civilian dead as a result of the March 2003 US invasion of that country to reference the peer-reviewed mortality survey conducted by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in 2004 and, most recently, in October of 2006. Both reports were published in the highly respected British scientific journal, the Lancet. Their latest estimate published on October 11, 2006 places the number of Iraqi civilian deaths as a result of the US invasion at 655,000 deaths in excess of what would have occurred had the US not invaded the country. The SCC moderator and other apologists for Team Bush war crimes, however, prefer the useful fictions reported by the British research group Iraq Body Count (IBC), which has consistently under reported Iraqi civilian deaths as a result of the invasion by at least a factor of six. What follows is the SCC moderator's stunning reply to my post:

"We aren't publishing your comment for a couple of reasons, first of which is we said to STOP publishing the bullshit numbers from the Lancet". He then goes on to remind me that he has provided me with information regarding a website (IBC) "that is non partisan and mostly accurate".

What a startling admission on your part SCC. You are in essence stating that you are qualified to pass judgment on the work of leading epidemiologists whose work has been published in a respected peer-reviewed scientific journal (Lancet).

I am happy to report that I was quite aware of the IBC and its work well before I ever became aware of the Second City Cop blog.

Are you aware that the IBC has no epidemiologists on its staff?

Are you aware that the IBC uses primarily western media reports from the conflict zone to determine their estimations?

Are you at all aware of the background and experience level of the distinguished scientists who conducted the study published in the Lancet?

In what way are you qualified to dismiss as "bullshit" the work of the following: Dr. Les Roberts PhD, Dr. Shannon Doocy PhD, and Dr. Gilbert Burnham MD of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; and Dr. Riyadh Lafta of Al Mustansiriya University Baghdad? These were the authors of the Lancet report, and they have conducted similar studies in war zones as far flung as Kosovo, Darfur, and the Congo using the standard accepted methodology in each example--cross-sectional cluster sample surveys.

This is what John Sloboda, co-founder and director of the IBC admitted to David Edwards of Media Lens in an e-mail on 14 January 2006,

" Our work is, and always has been, to systematically record civilian deaths reported by two or more recognized media sources which conform to the basic criteria set out in our methodology. (My emphasis)
This means that deaths unreported in these media are not in our data base. We have always publicly acknowledged that our numbers must underepresent (sic) the true figure".

Need I remind you SCC that the vast majority of western media personnel are, for obvious safety reasons, restricted almost exclusively to the Green Zone and have almost no independent access to the rest of the country.

SCC, I have enough respect for the intelligence and innate curiosity of the Second City Cop blog community to trust that they can determine for themselves whether or not the following series from Media Lens qualifies as competent journalism. They provide their correspondence not only with the director of the IBC and the authors of the Lancet report, but with other leading epidemiologists in the field as they investigated the validity of the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health report which was published in the Lancet to such controversy.

As investigators, most of us are comfortable with the process of sifting through evidence to determine the path to the truth. I ask you to approach the material that follows as though you were investigating a crime. Are the witnesses credible? What does the evidence suggest? Think independently.

Part I and Part II cover the initial western media response to the first report published in 2004 (that 100,000 figure).

The April 10, 2006 report features the challenge of IBC's methodology by journalist John Pilger and a leading epidemiologist.

The October 18, 2006 report covers the release of the updated Lancet study (that 655,000 figure) and its methodology.

The October 31, 2006 report featured Lancet report co-author Dr. Les Robert's response to questions about his work and that of his colleagues on the study.

Last but not least, I leave it to you the reader to judge for yourself the worth of the Lancet Report and draw your own conclusions.

SCC, the rest of your statements regarding the cost of the war, Iraqi public opinion (see link above), and my "attempts to tie Saddam's atrocities to the political winds of the 80's", will be addressed in turn. Stay safe.

I Told You So

Sadly it appears that the fears and suspicions of progressives are being realized as the "opposition" party prepares to take the reins in Washington. Paul Craig Roberts explains.

In related news, Justin Raimondo explores the neo-con dilemma as the Disaster in Mesopotamia continues to unfold in a pattern long predicted.

Last but not least, I would like to recommend a book written by former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, a 22 year veteran of that agency. Scheuer led a task force at CIA charged with capturing and/or killing Osama Bin Laden at a time when the Bush administration considered the terrorist (and former client) a low priority. His book is Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. As the following excerpt makes clear, misrepresenting the valid grievances and consequences of massive Muslim populations living under US-backed tyrannical regimes as "islamo-fascism" will only deepen and prolong the misery that Team Bush ( with bi-partisan support) has unleashed.

Scheuer further expands on this theme in the following interview with Harper's Ken Silverstein back in August of this year.

Challenge Alert #1

Response to "Doubter":

In the "Let The Games Begin" thread of the Second City Cop blog, a poster going by the "Doubter" handle, wrote the following in response to my position that Bush administration policies such as warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, the blatant violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions regarding prisoners of war, and the ubiquitous "signing statements" the president attaches to legislation--in effect declaring that he will submit to laws as he sees fit--posed a clear threat to the Constitution and the rule of law:

"Wiretaps. The federal courts have already decided that the NSA wiretaps are legal . In Re. Sealed Case. The court not only rebuked the FISA court for its excesses--it noted that the FISA court 'may have exceeded the constitutional bounds'--but ruled that the president had 'inherent authority' under the Constitution to conduct needed surveillance without obtaining a warrant"

What "excesses" he refers to in regards to the FISA court--the court Team Bush bypassed in route to the illegal wiretapping of Americans--is a complete mystery to me. It would likely be a mystery to most legal scholars who've written extensively on the matter as well. For example, read the following essay which originally appeared in the August 10, 2006 issue of the New York Review of Books by David Cole, Professor of Law at Georgetown University on how the US Supreme Court "struck back".

When you finish that piece, read this essay by former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega and I think you will see why Bush scrambled to sponsor legislation granting retroactive immunity (again with critical bi-partisan support) for those responsible for clear violations of federal law and the Geneva Conventions.

The Challenger Series

I've been tossing around in my head a new concept for the Lair that will allow me to continue posting introductions to the work of various progressive writers, while occasionally responding to the assertions of posters and the moderators on that great sounding board better known here as the Second City Cop blog. These "challenge alerts", will comprise my detailed response to challenges from over there that will likely require more space than the SCC moderators are likely to allow. Often the alert will tie into the general theme of the post that day, but sometimes not. The inaugural challenge alert will follow shortly.

Free Trade Fantasies

Recently, a poster on my favorite antidote to writer's block, the Second City Cop blog, wrote a gushing endorsement of Vietnam's recent acceptance of a "free trade" agreement with the US. The fact that these neo-liberal "globalization" schemes have left utter devastation in their wake wherever they have been imposed is clearly beyond the awareness of this anonymous poster, which no doubt generalizes to a large portion of the American public.

What a wonderful opportunity this is to introduce to you a very important contributor to this debate! Noam Chomsky has been writing, virtually non-stop, on American foreign and domestic policy for 40 years--all while (simultaneously) forging groundbreaking discoveries in the field of linguistics. As perhaps America's foremost dissident, Chomsky has suffered the slings and arrows that befalls anyone who walks against the flow of the stampeding herd. A virtual icon in Europe, Latin America, and Asia, much of Chomsky's work is studiously ignored (or vilified) in the country of his birth. As the author of over 80 books and thousands of articles and essays which have appeared in many of the leading academic journals and publications of popular opinion, Chomsky is listed in the Arts & Humanities Index as number 7 behind a short list that includes Freud, Marx, and Jesus, as the most cited intellectuals alive (or dead).

It would behoove you to read carefully Chomsky's analysis of the "free trade" phenomenon, then in its infancy when he wrote this essay back in 1993. The subject of his attention was the North American Free Trade Agreement which at the time had been ravishing the Mexican economy for nearly a year. By the following year, the Mexican economy had completely collapsed and led directly to the spectacle of millions of Mexicans flowing north of the Rio Grande in order to survive. The strictures of NAFTA virtually de-populated the countryside as the local oligarchy transformed their land holdings to agro-export crops better suited to the American market and not for local consumption. Millions faced starvation. Naturally, worker protections evaporated overnight as the NAFTA treaties virtually outlawed unions.

Most Americans are only dimly aware of what Chomsky details in his essay, Notes of NAFTA: The Masters of Man. It's time for that to change, most critically because if Team Bush and its principal supporters amongst the owners of our society have their way, we will all get a taste of what has befallen Mexico, Argentina, Haiti, (soon Vietnam) and a host of other nations that have accepted (with little public input) neo-liberalism's chilly embrace.

In a related speech from 1997, Chomsky sketches a broader outline of the neo-liberal agenda, what it ultimately holds in store for this country, and how it relates to the so-called free-trade agreements. The speech was titled, Market Democracy in a Neo-Liberal Order: Doctrines and Reality, and is perhaps the best summation of the so-called globalization phenomenon that I have yet to encounter. Think of it the next time a frothing neo-con extols the virtues of "globalization".

The Aftermath

I've had so much fun amusing myself reading the lamentations of GOP supporters throughout the blogsphere that I've neglected my own site. What an interesting turn of events! None of what occurred to the GOP on Tuesday came as much of a surprise to those who've been paying close attention to the poll figures over the past nine months or so, but for the True Believers who had insisted that those poll numbers were liberal distortions and not truly reflective of public sentiment, well... no amount of tissue can stem the flow of their tears.

As I stated in my "Election Time" post, a Democratic majority in one or both houses of Congress is not cause enough to celebrate. What follows are observations along this theme from some of the leading progressive voices in the US--one of whom may be new to you.

As always, the Lair welcomes analysis from Tom Englehardt whose blog is linked on this site. Read his latest missive on the" fall of the New Rome" as Bush The Decider's Outlaw Empire Meets the Wave.

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting covers the post-election debate among the news readers and pundits of the corporate media who desperately tried to put the results in "proper perspective" for us rubes.

Finally, I'd like to introduce you to Professor Brian Leiter (PhD, JD Univ. of Michigan, AB Princeton), whose blog the Leiter Reports, is now on my link list. Leiter holds the Baker Chair in Law at the University of Texas and is also a professor of Philosophy there. He has been a visiting professor of law at Yale and is currently serving in that capacity at the University of Chicago Law School. I think you will find his Post-Mortem Election Thoughts as informative as I did. I strongly encourage you to explore his blog further. Enjoy.

Paul Street On The Kerry "Controversy"

How could I possibly have missed this?

Election Time!

No, the choices aren't great, but there can be no question about the urgent need to send a message to the dangerous reactionaries who are hurdling this nation towards the precipice. Hold your nose and vote, but don't stop there. Those whom we elect to serve us must do just that--serve us rather than kneel at the altar of corporatism.

Merely exchanging one group of corporate shills for another will do little to alter our nation's course. In his latest essay, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) founder Jeff Cohen demonstrates why a "victory" by the Democrats on Tuesday will not be cause for voters with progressive values to pat themselves on the back. The battle will only have just begun. Remember, the big guns still hold the high ground in Washington. Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Finance, the major media corporations, and the "defense" industry, among a host of other well financed special interests groups have battalions of lobbyist with which to seduce the new arrivals. If they succeed, then all we will have managed to accomplish on Tuesday is exchange the deck chairs on the Titanic. There is a great deal of work to be done. Read on.

A Response To "Old Grey Guy"

On November 2nd at the Second City Cop blog under the post, "We Couldn't Have Said It Better", the moderator(s) fell all over themselves in praising a post by a Vietnam War veteran and retired Chicago Police officer who blogs under the "Old Grey Guy" moniker. The target of Old Grey's attack was frequent SCC Blog contributor Leftisthebest, who, like yours truly, has often been the target of abuse on that site for ( to borrow from Orwell) "thought crimes" , i.e espousing positions which flaunt conventional wisdom regarding American foreign and/or domestic policy.

Lefty had the temerity to point out that most of the desk-warriors in Congress and Bush's administration who've sent America's sons and daughters off on various imperial ventures around the globe, have never served in the armed services. And of those who did "serve", many, like The Decider, managed to land cushy state-side National Guard assignments during the Vietnam War.The focus of my response will be on this issue of the Vietnam conflict for it seemed to dominate the thread after Old Grey's diatribe.

Let's begin with the moderator's estimation of Old Grey's comments that they "couldn't have said it better". That struck me as rather odd because immediately after reading this veteran's comments, another narrative became apparent to me. It went something like this:

The people of Vietnam posed the exact same threat to America in 1961 (the year the US began its assault on South Vietnam) that the people of Iraq posed to this country in 2003--that is to say none at all. It thereby stands to reason that the US assault on Vietnam and the bordering nations of Indochina was--like the war of aggression in Iraq--unjustified and fundamentally immoral.

How about that? Sound better? Sure does to me. Furthermore, what I have just written reconciles with the historical record.

Let me first be perfectly clear. I have nothing against those who served in Vietnam. Most of those young men were draftees and, like soldiers everywhere, went where they were told to go and killed whom they were told to kill. The American servicemen in Vietnam were in many ways as much victims of our government's criminal policy as those they had been sent to slaughter. Almost.

The servicemen may have my sympathy, but I have an abiding respect for those who refused to partake in America's imperial adventure in southeast Asia. These young men understood at the time that their nation had neither the right or the competence to decide--by force of arms--how another people should organize their society. It takes moral courage to resist the State, particularly where the elite classes and their institutions have determined that acts of aggression and the war crimes that follow are in the "national interest".

It's important to recall that between 2 to 3 million Vietnamese would perish during the 21 year US assault on that country--17% of the population. An equivalent ratio of American deaths would have represented 25 million souls. More ordinance was dropped on this Third World country, than in both the European and Pacific theaters of the Second World War combined. All that because the people of this largely agrarian, peasant society, refused to submit to Western colonialism.

A Brief History

After a bloody struggle that would span a century, the Vietnamese finally broke free of their shackles following their defeat of the French Army on May 7, 1954 at Diem Bein Phu. But did America, the self-proclaimed champion of self-determination for all people, acknowledge and accept the hard-earned liberation of the Indochinese? Of course we know the answer don't we Old Grey Guy? The Eisenhower administration moved at once to undermine the 1954 Geneva Peace Accords--specifically Chapter III Articles 16 through 19. These Accords called for general elections to be held in 1956 which would re-unify the northern and southern provinces of Vietnam--at the time temporarily divided along the 17th parallel. It was clear to all that the irredeemably corrupt regime of Ngo Dinh Diem stood no chance of winning a popular election (Diem along with his cohorts had collaborated with the French colonials for decades). Likewise, it was equally clear which party had the support of the overwhelming majority of the population; the same force that resolutely resisted the French occupation for over half a century--the National Liberation Front (NLF).

Diem frankly warned Eisenhower that if he didn't assist in halting the '56 elections, then the communists (NLF) would win in a landslide, for he was completely devoid of popular support. The masses had fully embraced the domestic platform of the NLF which included a massive land reform program and a more equitable distribution of the nation's rich natural resources. It was readily apparent that, left to their own devices, the people of Vietnam would have organized a society based upon socialist principles. For the Cold Warriors of the Eisenhower administration, however, that would just never do.

Here's the part where you come in Old Grey Guy.

You were not "defending America" during your tour in Vietnam Old Grey. Was the NLF planning to row their canoes across the Pacific and launch an attack on California? How would a Third World, agrarian society without benefit of a navy or air force, invade, conquer, and occupy the most powerful nation in all of recorded human history?

No Old Grey, what you were doing was "draining the swamp". What does that mean? Well, you see it was understood by the American architects of the war (much like the French before them) that the NLF relied on massive support from the peasants in the southern provinces of Vietnam (particularly the countryside) in order to survive and conduct operations. What does one do when the overwhelming majority of the population supports the "enemy"? It was lost on no one but the American public that the southern peasants of Vietnam and the NLF were one and the same. No guerrilla movement can survive much less succeed without a powerful undercurrent of popular support.

"To kill the mosquitos one must first drain the swamp", or so the saying goes. The "mosquitos" in our example were of course the NLF, and the "swamp" were the peasants of South Vietnam--their base of support. This explains why you and your fellow soldiers concentrated all of your efforts on controlling the "swamp". Massive US exercises such as Operation Wheeler Walla (of which the My Lai massacre was but a small footnote) were designed to herd the peasants into "pacification camps"--or if we are to accept their conventional definition--concentration camps. This was the ultimately unsuccessful attempt by US planners to deny the NLF its lifeline--the people themselves. So in essence Old Grey, you were "defending" South Vietnam from its own population.

I read your words with a mixture of sadness and pity Old Grey. Sadness because it was clear that you were used by your government like toilet paper in pursuit of elite interests that never concerned you or most Americans for that matter. That sadness, however, turned to pity when I realized that you still believe, and will likely go to your grave believing, that you were defending your country.

Although it will probably make no difference, I'll state the obvious:

No!

The NLF in the South, and the NVA in the North were defending their country from foreign aggressors, of which you were one. The Vietnamese had a long history of fighting off invaders before you arrived in 1965 Old Grey. The French before us, the Japanese before them (briefly taking over from the Frogs during WWII), and the Chinese (for millennia) before them all.

Did the NLF, the only force defending the peasants of the South, launch an attack on the United States of America? Pure nonsense. Did the NLF/NVA take on all comers in defense of their sovereignty? You bet. Wouldn't we? How would you respond Old Grey, to the presence of foreign troops on American soil, "standing up" leaders of their choosing to manage our affairs. Would you turn the other cheek to the spectacle of those same troops turning our wives, daughters, and sisters into their "comfort whores" to pass the time (tell us all about Da Nang buddy). How many of your children would you bury before you took up arms against the forces of another power, whose unrequested attempts to "help" us, require that they "kill us to save us"?

I was also fascinated by your blistering attack on those you condemn as "unpatriotic" for their opposition to the war in Vietnam and now in Iraq. What makes your position so fascinating is that you are genuinely oblivious to the fact that neither of these countries posed a threat to your own. Would anyone be sympathetic to similar complaints from say, a German soldier who served his nation faithfully during the atrocities in Poland in '39 through the siege of Stalingrad in '44? Or for a Russian soldier's fulminations about the lack of support on the home front during his rampage through Afghanistan? Somehow I doubt it.

It is a testimony to the level of our society's indoctrination that a sizable portion of the American public note no sense of irony when the very people responsible for the most aggressive foreign policy in our nation's history, claim to be peacemakers.

Other Voices

I couldn't help but notice Old Grey, that you cast doubt on the accounts of Kerry and other veterans who admitted that they either witnessed or participated in war crimes during the Vietnam War. I'm curious to know what your reaction is to this series of stories on just that very subject by Deborah Nelson and Nick Turse of the Los Angeles Times. Stay safe.

Someone You Should Know

When I began this blog, one of my promises was to share access to the writing of those whom I respect and admire though their work is often marginalized due to its ideological "inappropriateness". One such writer is Dennis Perrin whose blog, Red State Son, is included on my link list as "The Red One". Perrin has written everything from sketch comedy, to ad copy, to full scale autobiographies. His specialty is political and social commentary which is invariably infused with not only penetrating insight but great humor as well.

Read his blog entry of 30 October 06 (Ass Kicked Conclusion) about the state of America's Democratic "opposition" party and I believe you'll be hooked as I was long ago. Bookmark his blog, or pass through to him from here. Either way you can't go wrong.

A Good Read

I recently finished a very good book by Fairness and Accuracy In Media (FAIR) founder Jeff Cohen in which he recounts his misadventures in the media mainstream. Cohen freely admits that he was naive to believe he could effectively carve out space for progressive viewpoints on mainstream cable news, however, the insights he gained from observing the news "process" from the inside was invaluable.

In his book, Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media, Cohen recounts his experiences as a producer and occasional on-air pundit for CNN, FOX News, and finally (and most disastrously) MSNBC. What Cohen would run up against was the brick wall that protected the interests of corporate power from scrutiny or debate on the public airwaves. This book is a must-read for those who are curious about how the Fourth Estate, which so prides itself as the institution no democracy can do without for it speaks truth to power, so miserably failed us during the lead up to aggression in Iraq.

In Plain English For Slow Learners

I am consistently amazed by the display of willful ignorance on the part of a few of my fellow Chicago police officers running the popular Second City Cop Blog (see link list). Known simply as "SCC" in their posts, they never fail to respond to any challenge to approved conventional wisdom on US foreign or domestic policy with hysterical rants that are always short on analytical content but high in entertainment value.

In one of their latest posts (Whine, Whine, Whine) they rise valiantly in defense of the Prince of Darkness himself, "Vice" President Dick Cheney who let it slip in a recent interview that the Bush administration's legitimizing of torture and the suspension of habeas corpus in the ongoing War On A Tactic was something to celebrate. These are desperate times for neo-cons and their ardent supporters who can all read polls. No matter how the administration spins it, their policy in Iraq is an abysmal failure (to say nothing of an unconscionable crime) and Americans are finally fed up with it. This both angers and frightens the True Believers such as SCC who have invested so much of themselves emotionally in the neo-con global quest for hegemony--a quest that ultimately will be denied them since it is now abundantly clear that (1) most Americans are unwilling to go along, and (2) despite America's military might, that alone is not enough to force this agenda down the throats of the global South.

So what's a neo-con to do? Well of course, turn up the "terror" volume. There is nothing left to cling to so this will just have to do. In a credit to The Dear Leader, SCC turns in a tour de force. If I were less informed, their "arguments" would no doubt have me hiding under my computer. To be so ill-informed this late in the game, however, requires a tremendous degree of will-power. One must studiously ignore the voluminous public record that confirms Iraq played no hand in the 9/11 atrocities--that in fact secular Saddam Hussein and fundamentalist Al Qaida were implacable enemies. That intelligence analysts had warned in advance that an unprovoked attack on Iraq would transform that country into a seething cauldron of resentment of everything American. That America's hyper-aggression in the Middle East has served to make this already volatile region even more combustible. Lets compare and contrast the neo-con fantasy world illustrated by SCC in which America is virtually under siege, with the reality of a country under actual US occupation.

Iraq

The Iraqi WMD "threat", which had been the original justification for the US invasion without UN Security Council authorization and in defiance of international law, has long been exposed as cynical fraud played upon a frightened American public in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Next, after WMD were nowhere to be found (as UN inspectors had long maintained), the rationalization for the invasion and occupation of sovereign Iraq became the promotion of "democracy" at the barrel of M-16s. Tom Engelhardt, whose indispensable blog TomDispatch.com has long been one of my inspirations, will take it from here with two essays that should put to rest any further doubts you may have about the abject failure of Bush's policy in Iraq and the moral depravity of his apologists. Read Engelhardt's "Playing the Numbers Game With Death in Iraq", then (most importantly) "Truths of a Lost War". Afterwards, when you re-read SCC's "analysis" in the Whine, Whine, Whine post--try not to laugh.

For Those Still In Doubt

Mohamed Elbaradei, the 2005 Nobel laureate and Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has recently warned that up to 30 nations could possess the means to produce nuclear weapons in a relatively short period of time. What does this say about the alleged "Leader of the Free World"? I recall a time when the US at least paid lip service to its obligation to rid the world of this threat to humanity. It was understood that if other nations were to feel secure and thus refrain from developing nuclear weapons themselves, then the major powers which possessed nuclear armaments would work to reduce and ultimately eliminate their own stockpile.

That all of course went out the window when Bush and his merry band of neo-crazies took power. At once the Bush administration withdrew America from its Salt II treaty obligations with Russia in order to increase and improve upon our weaponized nuclear stockpile--in direct violation of both the letter and spirit of that treaty which had been to seek the elimination of all nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States (NSS) introduced to the world the concept of "preemption". This remarkably provocative concept declared America's "right" to challenge any potential rival to her military supremacy with attack. The 2002 NSS put the world on notice that America reserved to itself alone the right to intervene in the affairs of other nations when its interests were threatened irrespective of the UN Charter and its treaty obligations to the rule of law.

In March 2003, the Bush administration launched an unprovoked attack against a virtually defenseless Iraq on fabricated pretexts as a demonstration of its willingness to follow its words with deeds. What was lost to no one, however, was the fact that of the so-called axis of evil nations (Iran, North Korea, & Iraq), only Iraq--the weakest--was attacked and destroyed. Those with a credible deterrent to US aggression such as North Korea, a declared nuclear power with massed artillery aimed at South Korea and American forces there, and Iran, a viable nation state with the means to utterly disrupt commercial traffic through the Persian Gulf, were not attacked.

As the IAEA's Elbaradei has reasonably implied, US foreign policy has made the world considerably less secure as other nations scramble to obtain a nuclear deterrent to the American hegemon. Thanks Mr. President.

Kevin Tillman Breaks His Silence

The brother of slain former Arizona Cardinal Pat Tillman has broken his silence. As many of you will recall, in 2002 Pat Tillman walked away from a multi-million dollar NFL contract in order to do what he felt was his patriotic duty and enlisted into the Army to defend his country. Tragically Tillman was killed in a friendly-fire incident which the Army clumsily attempted to cover-up. Needless to say this back-fired in a major way.

What Kevin has to say about the lies and deceptions from our government that ultimately led to Pat's death as well as scores like him is finally beginning to dawn upon the general US population thankfully at last. In other words, we are beginning to see our own government in same light from which the rest of the world views it. Better late than never.

As you read Kevin's powerful indictment of the criminal Bush administration, keep in mind that he too was an Army Ranger who believed the veracity of the fictional threats to our nation as deeply as his brother had.

More Voices in the Wilderness

I must apologize for the dearth of postings lately but I must attend from time to time with That Which Pays The Bills, more commonly known as the Job. That said I managed to find some encouraging words from dissidents on both sides of the Atlantic and would like to share them with you.

As you are no doubt aware by now the Bush administration finds its back against the wall--a wall now crumbling around it--over its Iraqi debacle. Daniel Ellsberg, the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers, conveys his regrets about not exposing the deceptions of the Johnson administration during the lead up to the Vietnam war much sooner than he had. Ellsberg recognized, too late, that exposure of government malfeasance must be placed before concerns for one's career, public standing, or personal loyalties--even imprisonment--with so much at stake. Over 58,000 US troops and perhaps as many as 3 million Vietnamese would die as a result of American aggression in Indochina. If the American public had been informed of the true nature of its government's role in the impending slaughter back in 1961 when the assault on the peasants of South Vietnam began in earnest, then scores of people would still be alive.

Ellsberg acknowledges this as his failure for he had access to information that could have changed the course of history but did nothing about it. Likewise, there are men and women today who had full knowledge of the Bush administration's lies and deceptions during the lead up to aggression in Iraq but chose to quietly resign in protest rather than provide firm evidence--before the invasion--of what they knew: 1) Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction; 2) Iraq was not a party to the 9/11 atrocities; 3) Iraq posed no credible threat to its neighbors, much less the United States. Their reticence has led directly to the deaths over 650,000 Iraqis and nearly 3,000 US soldiers. At this very moment the Bush administration is finalizing plans for an unprovoked attack on Iran--likely after the November mid-term elections. Ellsberg's essay, "The Next War" is an open letter to those in our government with access to information to have the courage to do what he failed to do 40 years ago--expose a sitting administration's deceptions before the rivers of blood flow from an unnecessary and immoral war.

Other Voices

I would be remiss if I did not include William Blum's latest ruminations on the current state of American Empire. Please consider the implications of his words carefully.

On the other side of the pond, reverberations are now being acutely felt in the halls of power and influence amongst our British allies in the Disaster in Mesopotamia. Matthew Parris explains their dilemma.

The Crossroad

I recently came across an essay by Tom Engelhardt whose essential blog, TomDispatch.com, is an invaluable resource for those seeking alternatives to the corporate media for information. What troubles Engelhardt here is what has also been my obsession since Bush launched the war of aggression in Iraq, namely, the degradation of the US republic and the threat this poses not only to Americans but the world at large.

Many independent thinkers and iconoclasts whom I deeply respect have sat before Engelhardt's tape recorder over the years and this installment brings many of them back with important insights at a time when our republic faces its greatest threat since the Civil War.

Pension Fadeout

The following essay from Jack Rasmus, an long time union advocate, should serve as a cautionary tale for those of you in the public sector who may be unaware that your pension as you now know it is under serious threat.

Gilbert Achcar on Image and Reality in Mid-East

So much garbage passes for information in the mainstream corporate press here in the US that we Americans can be forgiven if we're often the last to know when our government's latest foreign policy initiative is found to have been constructed on a foundation of sand. The debacle in Iraq is only the most recent example, but there have been countless others. As I intimated in my first post on this blog (Maiden Voyage Sep. 06) one of my goals is to provide a place where alternative perspectives on US policy in the post 9/11 era can be explored and hopefully debated. Clearly such is not the case with regard to the Free Press (regardless of its pretensions) which has largely served as the Bush Administration's echo chamber.

Political scientist and activist Gilbert Achcar, who is of Lebanese decent and teaches at the University of Paris VIII, provides analysis of the Middle East that, try as I might, I've never seen reproduced in my local Chicago Sun-Times or Chicago Tribune (or for that matter anywhere in the mainstream). Much of what Achcar discusses here would be common knowledge if we had the benefit of an actual independent media seeking to help us make informed decisions. Of course, the key ingredient for such an outcome would be information as opposed to the accustomed propaganda that served us all so well during the lead up to aggression in Iraq.

I suggest you read Achcar's comments with the full knowledge that the Bush administration has every intention of launching a strike against Iran sometime after the November mid-term elections.

Dancing Through Minefields

It seems that our Dear Leader has found yet new ways of threatening our security with his reckless foreign policy. So intent are the Bush "neo-cons" on checking any challenge to US hegemony, that they would risk an accidental nuclear conflict with Russia.

In further troubling news, it seems Team Bush has assembled a "Wack Iran" lobby to help drum up support for yet another war of aggression against a nation that poses no threat to us.

Last but not least, Robert Parry explores the Bush administration's "solution" to the current FUBAR status that is US policy in the Middle East.

A Time To Worry

November 7th, 2006 may be the day future historians point to when marking the death of the American Republic. Sound improbable? Then perhaps you haven't been paying attention. The mid-term elections will be held on that fateful day and I hope you'll take them seriously.

The Bush administration will either get a mandate to radically alter the DNA of our republic, or a clear message from the American people that his "unitary executive " theory, which destroys the separation of powers that defends our liberty, and a foreign policy that threatens World War III, cannot be reconciled with their values or interests.

Read this carefully and worry.