15.5.07
Falwell dead
False TV evangelist Jerry Falwell has died at the age of 73.
Normally, I try not to rejoice when people - even evil ones like Falwell - die. But in Falwell's case, I'll say this: good riddance.
Falwell was a liar, deceiver, and human scum, a condition seen most clearly when he blamed "pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America" in part for 9/11.
Falwell didn't give a shit about Jesus or his message. His main motivation in life was to force or dupe others to adhere to his antediluvian ideology of control and persecution, targeting everyone who did not share his views. Indeed, anyone who actually tried to live the ideals of Jesus, as presented in the Bible, would have been a prime target for Falwell and his cohort of true-believing allies and minions.
So, so long, Falwell. It's a new dawn in America.
False TV evangelist Jerry Falwell has died at the age of 73.
Normally, I try not to rejoice when people - even evil ones like Falwell - die. But in Falwell's case, I'll say this: good riddance.
Falwell was a liar, deceiver, and human scum, a condition seen most clearly when he blamed "pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America" in part for 9/11.
Falwell didn't give a shit about Jesus or his message. His main motivation in life was to force or dupe others to adhere to his antediluvian ideology of control and persecution, targeting everyone who did not share his views. Indeed, anyone who actually tried to live the ideals of Jesus, as presented in the Bible, would have been a prime target for Falwell and his cohort of true-believing allies and minions.
So, so long, Falwell. It's a new dawn in America.
14.5.07
Marine officers: No need to investigate civilian deaths
Several Marines on trial for the killings of two dozen Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005 have claimed that there is no need to investigate civilian deaths in combat situations:
Civilian deaths that occur during combat do not need to be investigated, a Marine lawyer testified Saturday at a hearing for an officer charged in the killings of 24 Iraqis in the town of Haditha.
"There isn't an automatic law-of-war violation if you have collateral damage," said Lt. Col. Kent Keith, a judge advocate for the 2nd Marine Division.
...
Over the past four days, Marines have testified in court that they saw no need to investigate the killings.
One more step towards the "kill-'em-all," no-one-is-innocent, "collateral damage" mentality among the soldiers on the ground, a mentality which already surfaces from time to time among various American leaders.
Of course, the only way to determine whether soldiers have broken any laws of war is to... conduct an investigation. So what these defendants are arguing is that their word is simply enough. We say we didn't act illegally or immorally - therefore, we didn't.
And if other people - for example, the victims' families - say otherwise, it's all lies:
Capt. Jeffrey Dinsmore testified Friday that the Haditha town council had circulated a flier demanding an investigation into the deaths and outlining allegations that Marines deliberately targeted civilians, but he dismissed the flier as propaganda.
Remember: when victims try to get their side of the story heard, it's just "propaganda."
Several Marines on trial for the killings of two dozen Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005 have claimed that there is no need to investigate civilian deaths in combat situations:
Civilian deaths that occur during combat do not need to be investigated, a Marine lawyer testified Saturday at a hearing for an officer charged in the killings of 24 Iraqis in the town of Haditha.
"There isn't an automatic law-of-war violation if you have collateral damage," said Lt. Col. Kent Keith, a judge advocate for the 2nd Marine Division.
...
Over the past four days, Marines have testified in court that they saw no need to investigate the killings.
One more step towards the "kill-'em-all," no-one-is-innocent, "collateral damage" mentality among the soldiers on the ground, a mentality which already surfaces from time to time among various American leaders.
Of course, the only way to determine whether soldiers have broken any laws of war is to... conduct an investigation. So what these defendants are arguing is that their word is simply enough. We say we didn't act illegally or immorally - therefore, we didn't.
And if other people - for example, the victims' families - say otherwise, it's all lies:
Capt. Jeffrey Dinsmore testified Friday that the Haditha town council had circulated a flier demanding an investigation into the deaths and outlining allegations that Marines deliberately targeted civilians, but he dismissed the flier as propaganda.
Remember: when victims try to get their side of the story heard, it's just "propaganda."
30.4.07
Success
The War of Terror has been a huge success, according to the State Department.
Oddly, the United States - without whose activities none of the terror in Iraq would be taking place - did not make the list. That's one of the perks of being the judge, jury, and executioner, I suppose.
The War of Terror has been a huge success, according to the State Department.
Oddly, the United States - without whose activities none of the terror in Iraq would be taking place - did not make the list. That's one of the perks of being the judge, jury, and executioner, I suppose.
23.4.07
Yeltsin dead
Boris Yeltsin is dead. He was 76.
He was also one of the 20th century's great thieves, handing away the former Soviet Union's wealth to a handful of gangsters and cronies.
Perhaps his tombstone can read "Here lies the man who fucked up Russia".
Boris Yeltsin is dead. He was 76.
He was also one of the 20th century's great thieves, handing away the former Soviet Union's wealth to a handful of gangsters and cronies.
Perhaps his tombstone can read "Here lies the man who fucked up Russia".
Yeltsin, when alive and drunk
18.4.07
Instead of playing in a carefree manner, children look at one of the thousands of former human beings that have turned up recently in Iraq (photo lifted from Antiwar.com)
Baghdad bombs kill almost 200
The final death toll may well be over 200 by the time all the bodies are collected. Thank god for "The Surge" - one can only wonder how many more would have been dead without it.
Two hundred people dead. That's like six Virginia Tech shootings, in one go. But you won't be seeing candlelight vigils - or even anything that might actually be an effective response - marking these bombings here in the US. At most, perhaps a shopper somewhere will pause before a television in the window of an electronics store at the mall and feel bad for a moment, before resuming their more important matters.
We have gotten to the point where "only" 33 people killed - one VT - is a "good day" in Iraq. This would be a major success, at this point, for the US in Iraq - getting the daily death toll down to a point that, over here, causes the media and the public to convulse and engage in yet another round of "soul-searching" and "debate", at least until some other shiny object appears.
Meanwhile the children of Iraq keep getting treated to images like the one above. Real dead people, not the fake pixellated or film versions kids here are weaned on almost from the cradle onward. But, as we are witnessing, both seem to do a good enough job in preparing children to grow up and do the business of shooting, stabbing, blowing up, or otherwise killing off their appointed "bad guys".
This is what America has set into motion. America - not just Bush, Cheney, the Republicans or any of the other easy targets. No, America put these people in charge and allowed them to carry out whatever plans they had for Iraq. And now America has no clue about how to even begin fixing what it has broken.
15.4.07
Betrayal in the time of Stalin
A sad and awful chapter in the history of the PCI:
Three hundred Italian Communists who fled to Russia to avoid persecution by the Fascists ended up in Stalin's Gulag, dying in front of Soviet firing squads, many of them falsely denounced by their Italian comrades as Trotskyites or worse.
A sad and awful chapter in the history of the PCI:
Three hundred Italian Communists who fled to Russia to avoid persecution by the Fascists ended up in Stalin's Gulag, dying in front of Soviet firing squads, many of them falsely denounced by their Italian comrades as Trotskyites or worse.
12.4.07
The failure of the media
Gary Kamiya at Salon has an interesting in-depth article analyzing the failure of the media in coverage leading up to and during the early part of the Iraq war.
I don't share Kamiya's cautious optimism, though, concerning whether or not the media has learned any "lessons" from this episode of shameful coverage of and often outright connivance with the Bush administration. We need look only as far as the NY Times, which Kamiya holds up as an example of a media outlet that has improved, to see fluff propaganda pieces on the "Iranian menace" by a major peddler of bullshit the first time around (Michael Gordon).
Plus ca change, as some might say.
(Link via Antiwar.com)
Gary Kamiya at Salon has an interesting in-depth article analyzing the failure of the media in coverage leading up to and during the early part of the Iraq war.
I don't share Kamiya's cautious optimism, though, concerning whether or not the media has learned any "lessons" from this episode of shameful coverage of and often outright connivance with the Bush administration. We need look only as far as the NY Times, which Kamiya holds up as an example of a media outlet that has improved, to see fluff propaganda pieces on the "Iranian menace" by a major peddler of bullshit the first time around (Michael Gordon).
Plus ca change, as some might say.
(Link via Antiwar.com)
11.4.07
The end of the story
Kurt Vonnegut has died from injuries he recently suffered. He was 84.
He'll be missed.
(Unfiltered Pall Mall pack for tribute purposes only.)
10.4.07
British military looks into the future
The Guardian has an article about a British Ministry of Defence report that looks at some "key risks and shocks" that the UK's military establishment thinks it might face in the near future.
Reports like this are more interesting for what they say about how the people in charge of the sources of power see the present rather than the future. Prediction, or as the MoD prefers to call it, "probability-based" assessment, is a notoriously difficult business. The report, as presented by the article, is kind of a mixed bag. Some points raised are genuinely interesting, such as projections for new weapons and demographic changes.
Others are confusing. Why, for example, should "information chips" wired directly to the brain be a possible risk to Britain's military? Do they foresee "counter-counter-insurgency" chips being peddled at the local greengrocers? And the references to Marx are preposterous - if the middle classes are projected to take on the role of a revolutionary proletariat that would... be nothing at all like Marx's analyses of the revolutionary potential of the lower/working class. Marx and Engels recognized that other classes could be revolutionary in certain circumstances (like the French Revolution) - where, specifically, does Marx fit into all this?
Other "strategic" risk assessments sound like the authors have drunk a little too deeply from the right-wing Kool-aid well. Consider this analysis of trends in "Islamic militancy":
Tension between the Islamic world and the west will remain, and may increasingly be targeted at China "whose new-found materialism, economic vibrancy, and institutionalised atheism, will be an anathema to orthodox Islam".
China has already had problems with its Muslim minority in its western provinces. Still, the idea that "Islamic world" will turn against China because of its "materialism", "economic vibrancy," and even "institutionalised atheism" is pretty far-fetched, and the only people who would come up with such a scenario are those who have bought into the whole "the-terrorists-hate-us-becaue-we're-free" bullshit line.
Now if China began invading countries to, say, prop up favored clients, like the USSR did in Afghanistan, or for contradictory but ultimately self-serving reasons, like the US has done in Iraq, then the "Islamic world" might not be too happy, and its "atheism" and "materialism" might become issues. But in that case we would be dealing more with the form that grievances would be aired rather than the grievances themselves. The majority of the people in the Middle East - and the "Islamic world" in general - simply hate imperialism and people from the West interfering in their lives.
Another curious part to this report is the idea of
"declining news quality" with the rise of "internet-enabled, citizen-journalists" and pressure to release stories "at the expense of facts".
There is a debate going on as to whether or not such vehicles as blogs contribute positively or negatively to the general social and political debate (see, for example, this rather elitist view of blogs as platforms that poison "real" political debate by someone who is apparently a "left-wing neoconservative"). I don't want to get into that issue right now, although my opinion is that such "internet-enabled, citizen-journalists", in general, have the beneficial effect of forcing an increasingly insular and unaccountable mass-media to do a better job when it comes to reporting. In any event, it is interesting to note that the MoD, an organization currently engaged in a war of aggression in Iraq sold on blatant lies helpfully peddled by much of the media and against the overwhelming opinion of the British public, can complain about "declining news quality" and the lack of "facts" in news coverage. What exactly are they talking about?
Full report, if I can find it, and other thoughts, if I feel like, later.
The Guardian has an article about a British Ministry of Defence report that looks at some "key risks and shocks" that the UK's military establishment thinks it might face in the near future.
Reports like this are more interesting for what they say about how the people in charge of the sources of power see the present rather than the future. Prediction, or as the MoD prefers to call it, "probability-based" assessment, is a notoriously difficult business. The report, as presented by the article, is kind of a mixed bag. Some points raised are genuinely interesting, such as projections for new weapons and demographic changes.
Others are confusing. Why, for example, should "information chips" wired directly to the brain be a possible risk to Britain's military? Do they foresee "counter-counter-insurgency" chips being peddled at the local greengrocers? And the references to Marx are preposterous - if the middle classes are projected to take on the role of a revolutionary proletariat that would... be nothing at all like Marx's analyses of the revolutionary potential of the lower/working class. Marx and Engels recognized that other classes could be revolutionary in certain circumstances (like the French Revolution) - where, specifically, does Marx fit into all this?
Other "strategic" risk assessments sound like the authors have drunk a little too deeply from the right-wing Kool-aid well. Consider this analysis of trends in "Islamic militancy":
Tension between the Islamic world and the west will remain, and may increasingly be targeted at China "whose new-found materialism, economic vibrancy, and institutionalised atheism, will be an anathema to orthodox Islam".
China has already had problems with its Muslim minority in its western provinces. Still, the idea that "Islamic world" will turn against China because of its "materialism", "economic vibrancy," and even "institutionalised atheism" is pretty far-fetched, and the only people who would come up with such a scenario are those who have bought into the whole "the-terrorists-hate-us-becaue-we're-free" bullshit line.
Now if China began invading countries to, say, prop up favored clients, like the USSR did in Afghanistan, or for contradictory but ultimately self-serving reasons, like the US has done in Iraq, then the "Islamic world" might not be too happy, and its "atheism" and "materialism" might become issues. But in that case we would be dealing more with the form that grievances would be aired rather than the grievances themselves. The majority of the people in the Middle East - and the "Islamic world" in general - simply hate imperialism and people from the West interfering in their lives.
Another curious part to this report is the idea of
"declining news quality" with the rise of "internet-enabled, citizen-journalists" and pressure to release stories "at the expense of facts".
There is a debate going on as to whether or not such vehicles as blogs contribute positively or negatively to the general social and political debate (see, for example, this rather elitist view of blogs as platforms that poison "real" political debate by someone who is apparently a "left-wing neoconservative"). I don't want to get into that issue right now, although my opinion is that such "internet-enabled, citizen-journalists", in general, have the beneficial effect of forcing an increasingly insular and unaccountable mass-media to do a better job when it comes to reporting. In any event, it is interesting to note that the MoD, an organization currently engaged in a war of aggression in Iraq sold on blatant lies helpfully peddled by much of the media and against the overwhelming opinion of the British public, can complain about "declining news quality" and the lack of "facts" in news coverage. What exactly are they talking about?
Full report, if I can find it, and other thoughts, if I feel like, later.
30.3.07
Anabasis for the 21st century
William Lind offers us an interesting scenario involving US and UK forces in Iraq:
If the above scenario [the events related in Anabasis] sounds familiar, it should. America now has an army, not of 10,000 but of more than 140,000, deep in Persia (which effectively includes Shiite Iraq, despite the ethnic difference). We are propping up a shaky local regime in a civil war. Our local allies are of dubious loyalty, and the surrounding population is not friendly. Our lines of communication, supply and retreat all run south, to Kuwait, through Shiite militia country. They then extend on through the Persian Gulf, which is called that for a reason. If those lines are cut, many of our troops have only one way out, the same way Xenophon took, up through Kurdish country and Asia Minor (now Turkey) to the coast.
What is the chance that could happen?
Perhaps not the most likely scenario, but one to keep in mind nonetheless. I also can't help but wonder if the Iranian leadership has taken into account these possibilities when deciding upon short- and long-term strategies.
William Lind offers us an interesting scenario involving US and UK forces in Iraq:
If the above scenario [the events related in Anabasis] sounds familiar, it should. America now has an army, not of 10,000 but of more than 140,000, deep in Persia (which effectively includes Shiite Iraq, despite the ethnic difference). We are propping up a shaky local regime in a civil war. Our local allies are of dubious loyalty, and the surrounding population is not friendly. Our lines of communication, supply and retreat all run south, to Kuwait, through Shiite militia country. They then extend on through the Persian Gulf, which is called that for a reason. If those lines are cut, many of our troops have only one way out, the same way Xenophon took, up through Kurdish country and Asia Minor (now Turkey) to the coast.
What is the chance that could happen?
Perhaps not the most likely scenario, but one to keep in mind nonetheless. I also can't help but wonder if the Iranian leadership has taken into account these possibilities when deciding upon short- and long-term strategies.
Grand theft, and bloody murder
How is the new $125 billion supplmental bill linked to the proposed Iraq hydrocarbons law? Richard Behan lays out the case:
The supplemental appropriation package requires the Iraqi government to meet a series of “benchmarks” President Bush established in his speech to the nation on January 10 (in which he made his case for the “surge”). Most of Mr. Bush’s benchmarks are designed to blame the victim, forcing the Iraqis to solve the problems George Bush himself created.
One of the President’s benchmarks, however, stands apart. This is how the President described it: “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.” A seemingly decent, even noble concession. That’s all Mr. Bush said about that benchmark, but his brevity was gravely misleading, and it had to be intentional.
The Iraqi Parliament has before it today, in fact, a bill called the hydrocarbon law, and it does call for revenue sharing among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. For President Bush, this is a must-have law, and it is the only “benchmark” that truly matters to his Administration.
Yes, revenue sharing is there-essentially in fine print, essentially trivial. The bill is long and complex, it has been years in the making, and its primary purpose is transformational in scope: a radical and wholesale reconstruction-virtual privatization-of the currently nationalized Iraqi oil industry.
If passed, the law will make available to Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco, and Royal Dutch/Shell about 4/5’s of the stupendous petroleum reserves in Iraq. That is the wretched goal of the Bush Administration, and in his speech setting the revenue-sharing “benchmark” Mr. Bush consciously avoided any hint of it.
The legislation pending now in Washington requires the President to certify to Congress by next October that the benchmarks have been met-specifically that the Iraqi hydrocarbon law has been passed. That’s the land mine: he will certify the American and British oil companies have access to Iraqi oil. This is not likely what Congress intended, but it is precisely what Mr. Bush has sought for the better part of six years.
It is why we went to war.
If the hydrocarbons bill passes, the result will be one of the single largest cases of theft in the history of the human race. An injustice on this scale will virtually ensure major instability in the region for the rest of our lives.
And the Bush administration has already sacrificed the lives of tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of people to make this theft possible. If it succeeds, there will be many more added to that list.
(Via)
How is the new $125 billion supplmental bill linked to the proposed Iraq hydrocarbons law? Richard Behan lays out the case:
The supplemental appropriation package requires the Iraqi government to meet a series of “benchmarks” President Bush established in his speech to the nation on January 10 (in which he made his case for the “surge”). Most of Mr. Bush’s benchmarks are designed to blame the victim, forcing the Iraqis to solve the problems George Bush himself created.
One of the President’s benchmarks, however, stands apart. This is how the President described it: “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.” A seemingly decent, even noble concession. That’s all Mr. Bush said about that benchmark, but his brevity was gravely misleading, and it had to be intentional.
The Iraqi Parliament has before it today, in fact, a bill called the hydrocarbon law, and it does call for revenue sharing among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. For President Bush, this is a must-have law, and it is the only “benchmark” that truly matters to his Administration.
Yes, revenue sharing is there-essentially in fine print, essentially trivial. The bill is long and complex, it has been years in the making, and its primary purpose is transformational in scope: a radical and wholesale reconstruction-virtual privatization-of the currently nationalized Iraqi oil industry.
If passed, the law will make available to Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco, and Royal Dutch/Shell about 4/5’s of the stupendous petroleum reserves in Iraq. That is the wretched goal of the Bush Administration, and in his speech setting the revenue-sharing “benchmark” Mr. Bush consciously avoided any hint of it.
The legislation pending now in Washington requires the President to certify to Congress by next October that the benchmarks have been met-specifically that the Iraqi hydrocarbon law has been passed. That’s the land mine: he will certify the American and British oil companies have access to Iraqi oil. This is not likely what Congress intended, but it is precisely what Mr. Bush has sought for the better part of six years.
It is why we went to war.
If the hydrocarbons bill passes, the result will be one of the single largest cases of theft in the history of the human race. An injustice on this scale will virtually ensure major instability in the region for the rest of our lives.
And the Bush administration has already sacrificed the lives of tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of people to make this theft possible. If it succeeds, there will be many more added to that list.
(Via)
28.3.07
Blast from the past
Norm Geras, Marxist supporter of the war on Iraq and one of the more mendacious and hypocritical commentators on The Left, back in the heady days of July 2003:
Tomorrow I’ll be posting, and posting long, on the predominant left and liberal response to the war in Iraq.
Meanwhile here is an example of the genre by Gary Younge. Money quote: ‘Neither [Bush nor Blair] has a clue how to rebuild the country they have just destroyed’.
That’s the country, note, not the regime.
Yeah... that stupid Gary Younge and his statement that Bush and Blair had no clue what they were doing and had completely fucked up Iraq - what the hell was he thinking? Not like the serious, True Leftist, humanist Norman Geras.
And Geras' link to James Lileks - priceless. What a fucking git.
Norm Geras, Marxist supporter of the war on Iraq and one of the more mendacious and hypocritical commentators on The Left, back in the heady days of July 2003:
Tomorrow I’ll be posting, and posting long, on the predominant left and liberal response to the war in Iraq.
Meanwhile here is an example of the genre by Gary Younge. Money quote: ‘Neither [Bush nor Blair] has a clue how to rebuild the country they have just destroyed’.
That’s the country, note, not the regime.
Yeah... that stupid Gary Younge and his statement that Bush and Blair had no clue what they were doing and had completely fucked up Iraq - what the hell was he thinking? Not like the serious, True Leftist, humanist Norman Geras.
And Geras' link to James Lileks - priceless. What a fucking git.
26.3.07
Biofuels: Just say no
Sorry, hippies - biofuels are bad for the environment. George Monbiot:
Since the beginning of last year, the price of maize has doubled. The price of wheat has also reached a 10-year high, while global stockpiles of both grains have reached 25-year lows. Already there have been food riots in Mexico and reports that the poor are feeling the strain all over the world. The US department of agriculture warns that "if we have a drought or a very poor harvest, we could see the sort of volatility we saw in the 1970s, and if it does not happen this year, we are also forecasting lower stockpiles next year". According to the UN food and agriculture organisation, the main reason is the demand for ethanol: the alcohol used for motor fuel, which can be made from maize and wheat.
...
Already we know that biofuel is worse for the planet than petroleum. The UN has just published a report suggesting that 98% of the natural rainforest in Indonesia will be degraded or gone by 2022. Just five years ago, the same agencies predicted that this wouldn't happen until 2032. But they reckoned without the planting of palm oil to turn into biodiesel for the European market. This is now the main cause of deforestation there and it is likely soon to become responsible for the extinction of the orang-utan in the wild.
But it gets worse... A report by the Dutch consultancy Delft Hydraulics shows that every tonne of palm oil results in 33 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, or 10 times as much as petroleum produces. I feel I need to say that again. Biodiesel from palm oil causes 10 times as much climate change as ordinary diesel.
Monbiot's excellent point that ethanol is currently made from wheat and maize - i.e., food - does not seem to trouble many "eco-friendly" types. It is rather disturbing that burning food to power the personal vehicles of wealthy Westerners, while at the same time many poorer, browner people around the world starve, is somehow seen as a "progressive" or "enlightened" thing to do.
The problem of alternative fuels - or, more accurately, our future energy sources - is a very real one. But biofuels are not the answer. At the risk of sounding like I have my head too far into the clouds, or up my ass, as the case may be, I would point out that we already have a clean and plentiful source of energy, one that will last for the next 2 billion or so years: the sun. All of this money that is going in to support research down the dead-end of biofuels would be much better spent finding ways to harness all this energy that is being beamed directly to us 24 hours a day. This entails a) improving collection methods and b) improving storage capacity. These are substantial problems, to be sure, but certainly not insurmountable ones - provided that we allocate resources to overcoming them.
Instead, we get billions spent on invading and destroying countries in the Middle East and on the "fraud" (to use Monbiot's terminology) of biofuels (which are strongly backed by big oil - something that should immediately raise suspicion).
Sorry, hippies - biofuels are bad for the environment. George Monbiot:
Since the beginning of last year, the price of maize has doubled. The price of wheat has also reached a 10-year high, while global stockpiles of both grains have reached 25-year lows. Already there have been food riots in Mexico and reports that the poor are feeling the strain all over the world. The US department of agriculture warns that "if we have a drought or a very poor harvest, we could see the sort of volatility we saw in the 1970s, and if it does not happen this year, we are also forecasting lower stockpiles next year". According to the UN food and agriculture organisation, the main reason is the demand for ethanol: the alcohol used for motor fuel, which can be made from maize and wheat.
...
Already we know that biofuel is worse for the planet than petroleum. The UN has just published a report suggesting that 98% of the natural rainforest in Indonesia will be degraded or gone by 2022. Just five years ago, the same agencies predicted that this wouldn't happen until 2032. But they reckoned without the planting of palm oil to turn into biodiesel for the European market. This is now the main cause of deforestation there and it is likely soon to become responsible for the extinction of the orang-utan in the wild.
But it gets worse... A report by the Dutch consultancy Delft Hydraulics shows that every tonne of palm oil results in 33 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, or 10 times as much as petroleum produces. I feel I need to say that again. Biodiesel from palm oil causes 10 times as much climate change as ordinary diesel.
Monbiot's excellent point that ethanol is currently made from wheat and maize - i.e., food - does not seem to trouble many "eco-friendly" types. It is rather disturbing that burning food to power the personal vehicles of wealthy Westerners, while at the same time many poorer, browner people around the world starve, is somehow seen as a "progressive" or "enlightened" thing to do.
The problem of alternative fuels - or, more accurately, our future energy sources - is a very real one. But biofuels are not the answer. At the risk of sounding like I have my head too far into the clouds, or up my ass, as the case may be, I would point out that we already have a clean and plentiful source of energy, one that will last for the next 2 billion or so years: the sun. All of this money that is going in to support research down the dead-end of biofuels would be much better spent finding ways to harness all this energy that is being beamed directly to us 24 hours a day. This entails a) improving collection methods and b) improving storage capacity. These are substantial problems, to be sure, but certainly not insurmountable ones - provided that we allocate resources to overcoming them.
Instead, we get billions spent on invading and destroying countries in the Middle East and on the "fraud" (to use Monbiot's terminology) of biofuels (which are strongly backed by big oil - something that should immediately raise suspicion).
22.3.07
Dems to vote to fund war
The Democrats in the House will foolishly vote tomorrow to continue funding the war in Iraq, to the tune of $125 billion.
You can read all of the impassioned pleas and convoluted explanations from "anti-war liberals" on how voting to fund the war is really, magically and cunningly, an anti-war move. All the big-hitters have lined up on the side of funding the war: for example, Atrios, Kos (who thinks that the "particulars of the bill matter little") and the patronizing David Sirota, who would like to lecture us about how it's "radical" and "progressive" to fund wars of aggression, cave in to pressure, and ignore the voices from the "Professional Protest Industry".
The whole rationale behind supporting this monstrous bullshit is that Bush, the boy emperor, is sure to veto the bill because it supposedly places restraints on him (the whole provision for troop readiness) and it includes a deadline for beginning the redeployment of US soliders from Iraq. A veto would look good politically for the Dems (a huge concern for Kos - as if the Dems "looking good" will help the Iraqis and US soldiers who will be dying over the next year-and-a-half, thanks to this money). And even if he doesn't veto it, we are further informed, then we have a deadline for the first time that is "The Law".
But what if Bush doesn't? What if he takes the money and runs? In view of Bush's record with signing statements, the Democrats' reasoning is incredibly foolish and their strategy is flawed. If the bill, giving the president $125 billion to spend any way he sees fit, arrives at the Oval Office desk even with provisions attached, what is to prevent Bush from signing it, with statements attached to the effect that the guidelines and deadlines are merely "advisory" - as he has done before?
Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."
How smart will the Democrats look then, having just decided to continue funding a war they supposedly oppose?
In fact, constitutionally, Bush - as the commander-in-chief, will have a leg to stand on if he ignores Congressional attempts to dictate the deployment or redeployment of military forces or assess their "readiness". No, Congress' power is the purse - they could have chosen not to fund the war, but cravenly they decided against this option. Congress also could have retained war-making powers to itself - but, as we all know, it felt like giving these to the executive was the best thing to do. Once you give away power - and money, I might add - there's no telling when you'll see them again.
Congress will continue funding the war - thanks entirely to "anti-war" Democrats, and Bush will sign their bill and simply ignore the parts he doesn't like - kind of like how Democrats seem to ignore history.
The Democrats in the House will foolishly vote tomorrow to continue funding the war in Iraq, to the tune of $125 billion.
You can read all of the impassioned pleas and convoluted explanations from "anti-war liberals" on how voting to fund the war is really, magically and cunningly, an anti-war move. All the big-hitters have lined up on the side of funding the war: for example, Atrios, Kos (who thinks that the "particulars of the bill matter little") and the patronizing David Sirota, who would like to lecture us about how it's "radical" and "progressive" to fund wars of aggression, cave in to pressure, and ignore the voices from the "Professional Protest Industry".
The whole rationale behind supporting this monstrous bullshit is that Bush, the boy emperor, is sure to veto the bill because it supposedly places restraints on him (the whole provision for troop readiness) and it includes a deadline for beginning the redeployment of US soliders from Iraq. A veto would look good politically for the Dems (a huge concern for Kos - as if the Dems "looking good" will help the Iraqis and US soldiers who will be dying over the next year-and-a-half, thanks to this money). And even if he doesn't veto it, we are further informed, then we have a deadline for the first time that is "The Law".
But what if Bush doesn't? What if he takes the money and runs? In view of Bush's record with signing statements, the Democrats' reasoning is incredibly foolish and their strategy is flawed. If the bill, giving the president $125 billion to spend any way he sees fit, arrives at the Oval Office desk even with provisions attached, what is to prevent Bush from signing it, with statements attached to the effect that the guidelines and deadlines are merely "advisory" - as he has done before?
Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."
How smart will the Democrats look then, having just decided to continue funding a war they supposedly oppose?
In fact, constitutionally, Bush - as the commander-in-chief, will have a leg to stand on if he ignores Congressional attempts to dictate the deployment or redeployment of military forces or assess their "readiness". No, Congress' power is the purse - they could have chosen not to fund the war, but cravenly they decided against this option. Congress also could have retained war-making powers to itself - but, as we all know, it felt like giving these to the executive was the best thing to do. Once you give away power - and money, I might add - there's no telling when you'll see them again.
Congress will continue funding the war - thanks entirely to "anti-war" Democrats, and Bush will sign their bill and simply ignore the parts he doesn't like - kind of like how Democrats seem to ignore history.
11.3.07
8.3.07
Warmongering Democrats
Here you go, antiwar voters - your options for the next presidential election. Unprovoked nuclear war, anyone?
- Hillary Clinton, speaking at an AIPAC conference in January:
“U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal,” Clinton told the crowd. “We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons, and in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table.”
- John Edwards, offering his wisdom via satellite at the Herzliya conference in January:
"Iran must know that the world won’t back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."
Never mind the "update" at the top of the article - Edwards qualification was a mealy-mouthed equivocation delivered to a timid interviewer. But pay attention to the praise Edwards heaped upon war criminal Ariel Sharon - someone this craven should not be allowed to clean the levers of power, much less operate them.
- And finally, we come to the Democrats' great hope, Barack Obama - also, funnily enough, speaking to an AIPAC conference earlier this month:
"The world must work to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."
Obama, as Raimondo points out, also sermonizes about how the US "should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests". That's great. And what happens if the case should somehow, strangely, oddly, arise that America's
security interests are at odds with Israel's "security interests"?
There are two things connecting all of these statements. The first is the recurrent use
of the phraseology involving "options" being on "tables". Are these clowns handed the same talking points by the same people before speeches? The second thing in common is that they were all delivered before right-wing, pro-Israel audiences. What is it about delivering addresses before this kind of crowd that requires threats of unprovoked nuclear attack to be made?
And just to show that it's not just about Iran, here's Senator Carl Levin, looking for any reason to attack Syria:
“These weapons (in Iraq) are coming from a state which doesn’t recognize Israel either, just like Iran doesn’t, we’ve got to try to stop weapons coming into Iraq from any source, they’re killing our troops. I agree with the comments about trying to stop them coming in from Iran. I think we have to stop them going to the Sunni insurgents, as well as to the Shia, and I was just wondering, does the military have a plan, if necessary, to go into Syria, to go the source of any weapons coming from Syria.”
New US Intel Chief J. Michael McConnell answered that there is already an attempt to stop the flow of weapons, and also that most of the weapons being used are already in Iraq.
Levin appeared annoyed, and said that we need to take action “on all fronts.”
The Democrats were voted in to get America out of a war - and now these schemers are looking already to the next one.
Syria, Iran, it doesn't matter. No wonder they've been utterly ineffective at doing anything substantive to stop the war in Iraq - they really don't give a damn.
Here you go, antiwar voters - your options for the next presidential election. Unprovoked nuclear war, anyone?
- Hillary Clinton, speaking at an AIPAC conference in January:
“U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal,” Clinton told the crowd. “We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons, and in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table.”
- John Edwards, offering his wisdom via satellite at the Herzliya conference in January:
"Iran must know that the world won’t back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."
Never mind the "update" at the top of the article - Edwards qualification was a mealy-mouthed equivocation delivered to a timid interviewer. But pay attention to the praise Edwards heaped upon war criminal Ariel Sharon - someone this craven should not be allowed to clean the levers of power, much less operate them.
- And finally, we come to the Democrats' great hope, Barack Obama - also, funnily enough, speaking to an AIPAC conference earlier this month:
"The world must work to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."
Obama, as Raimondo points out, also sermonizes about how the US "should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests". That's great. And what happens if the case should somehow, strangely, oddly, arise that America's
security interests are at odds with Israel's "security interests"?
There are two things connecting all of these statements. The first is the recurrent use
of the phraseology involving "options" being on "tables". Are these clowns handed the same talking points by the same people before speeches? The second thing in common is that they were all delivered before right-wing, pro-Israel audiences. What is it about delivering addresses before this kind of crowd that requires threats of unprovoked nuclear attack to be made?
And just to show that it's not just about Iran, here's Senator Carl Levin, looking for any reason to attack Syria:
“These weapons (in Iraq) are coming from a state which doesn’t recognize Israel either, just like Iran doesn’t, we’ve got to try to stop weapons coming into Iraq from any source, they’re killing our troops. I agree with the comments about trying to stop them coming in from Iran. I think we have to stop them going to the Sunni insurgents, as well as to the Shia, and I was just wondering, does the military have a plan, if necessary, to go into Syria, to go the source of any weapons coming from Syria.”
New US Intel Chief J. Michael McConnell answered that there is already an attempt to stop the flow of weapons, and also that most of the weapons being used are already in Iraq.
Levin appeared annoyed, and said that we need to take action “on all fronts.”
The Democrats were voted in to get America out of a war - and now these schemers are looking already to the next one.
Syria, Iran, it doesn't matter. No wonder they've been utterly ineffective at doing anything substantive to stop the war in Iraq - they really don't give a damn.
7.3.07
27.2.07
Target: NYC!!!
No, not by bicyclists or cartoon characters. No, it's much worse: Iranians.
"We're concerned that Iranian agents were engaged in reconnaissance that might be used in an attack against New York City at some future date," Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly told NEWSWEEK.
I'd recommend to Commissioner Kelly and his crack police team that they guard against the possibility of unmanned drones flying over the city and spraying something evil over everyone. Because, as we all know, Iraq had some pretty fucking rocking drones before the war, and they had to have gone somewhere.
This is beyond laughable. Thank you, Mark Hosenball and Newsweek, for covering this important story and helping to whip up patriotic hate-frenzy against Iran The Enemy Which Must Be Attacked Right Now. If you're not getting a check from the administration, you should be.
No, not by bicyclists or cartoon characters. No, it's much worse: Iranians.
"We're concerned that Iranian agents were engaged in reconnaissance that might be used in an attack against New York City at some future date," Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly told NEWSWEEK.
I'd recommend to Commissioner Kelly and his crack police team that they guard against the possibility of unmanned drones flying over the city and spraying something evil over everyone. Because, as we all know, Iraq had some pretty fucking rocking drones before the war, and they had to have gone somewhere.
This is beyond laughable. Thank you, Mark Hosenball and Newsweek, for covering this important story and helping to whip up patriotic hate-frenzy against Iran The Enemy Which Must Be Attacked Right Now. If you're not getting a check from the administration, you should be.
26.2.07
Little pots of money
Gonna be busy over the next few days, with deadlines approaching, crime fighting, and what not. So, sadly for you, my hordes of dedicated readers, light posting till then.
Seymour Hersh's new piece is getting a lot of play, for good reason. One quick thing to point out related to a recent post on this blog is this little insight:
The Pentagon consultant added that one difficulty, in terms of oversight, was accounting for covert funds. ?There are many, many pots of black money, scattered in many places and used all over the world on a variety of missions,? he said. The budgetary chaos in Iraq, where billions of dollars are unaccounted for, has made it a vehicle for such transactions, according to the former senior intelligence official and the retired four-star general.
So there was a method to the "madness" after all. Shipping all that nice, untraceable cash to a war zone makes perfect sense - if you're planning on doing things that don't bear a great deal of oversight (like, to take just one completely random example, financing death squads).
The fuckheads in the Bush administration are in way over their heads and are going to get played - on your dime and with a lot of dead people left in their wake. Just as short-sighted American interference in Afghanistan helped lead to the rise of OBL and The Al Qaida Phenomenon, the US government now is paving the way for some bad shit to roll through a few years down the line.
Anyway... try this for surreal distraction. Goes well with peanut butter:
Gonna be busy over the next few days, with deadlines approaching, crime fighting, and what not. So, sadly for you, my hordes of dedicated readers, light posting till then.
Seymour Hersh's new piece is getting a lot of play, for good reason. One quick thing to point out related to a recent post on this blog is this little insight:
The Pentagon consultant added that one difficulty, in terms of oversight, was accounting for covert funds. ?There are many, many pots of black money, scattered in many places and used all over the world on a variety of missions,? he said. The budgetary chaos in Iraq, where billions of dollars are unaccounted for, has made it a vehicle for such transactions, according to the former senior intelligence official and the retired four-star general.
So there was a method to the "madness" after all. Shipping all that nice, untraceable cash to a war zone makes perfect sense - if you're planning on doing things that don't bear a great deal of oversight (like, to take just one completely random example, financing death squads).
The fuckheads in the Bush administration are in way over their heads and are going to get played - on your dime and with a lot of dead people left in their wake. Just as short-sighted American interference in Afghanistan helped lead to the rise of OBL and The Al Qaida Phenomenon, the US government now is paving the way for some bad shit to roll through a few years down the line.
Anyway... try this for surreal distraction. Goes well with peanut butter:
21.2.07
How stupid is we?
Matt Taibbi once again considers what passes for news here in America:
On the same day that Britney was shaving her head, a guy I know who works in the office of Senator Bernie Sanders sent me an email. He was trying very hard to get news organizations interested in some research his office had done about George Bush's proposed 2008 budget, which was unveiled two weeks ago and received relatively little press, mainly because of the controversy over the Iraq war resolution. All the same, the Bush budget is an amazing document. It would be hard to imagine a document that more clearly articulates the priorities of our current political elite.
Not only does it make many of Bush's tax cuts permanent, but it envisions a complete repeal of the Estate Tax, which mainly affects only those who are in the top two-tenths of the top one percent of the richest people in this country. The proposed savings from the cuts over the next decade are about $442 billion, or just slightly less than the amount of the annual defense budget (minus Iraq war expenses). But what's interesting about these cuts are how Bush plans to pay for them.
Sanders's office came up with some interesting numbers here. If the Estate Tax were to be repealed completely, the estimated savings to just one family -- the Walton family, the heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune -- would be about $32.7 billion dollars over the next ten years.
The proposed reductions to Medicaid over the same time frame? $28 billion.
It's way past time for a "sensationalist" press who will deal with shit like this head-on - and by "sensationalist," I mean a press who will actually cover it.
Matt Taibbi once again considers what passes for news here in America:
On the same day that Britney was shaving her head, a guy I know who works in the office of Senator Bernie Sanders sent me an email. He was trying very hard to get news organizations interested in some research his office had done about George Bush's proposed 2008 budget, which was unveiled two weeks ago and received relatively little press, mainly because of the controversy over the Iraq war resolution. All the same, the Bush budget is an amazing document. It would be hard to imagine a document that more clearly articulates the priorities of our current political elite.
Not only does it make many of Bush's tax cuts permanent, but it envisions a complete repeal of the Estate Tax, which mainly affects only those who are in the top two-tenths of the top one percent of the richest people in this country. The proposed savings from the cuts over the next decade are about $442 billion, or just slightly less than the amount of the annual defense budget (minus Iraq war expenses). But what's interesting about these cuts are how Bush plans to pay for them.
Sanders's office came up with some interesting numbers here. If the Estate Tax were to be repealed completely, the estimated savings to just one family -- the Walton family, the heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune -- would be about $32.7 billion dollars over the next ten years.
The proposed reductions to Medicaid over the same time frame? $28 billion.
It's way past time for a "sensationalist" press who will deal with shit like this head-on - and by "sensationalist," I mean a press who will actually cover it.
Italian government falls
Prodi's broad coalition in Italy has collapsed*. The trigger was a failed vote on Italy's participation in the NATO Afghanistan force and the construction of a new US military base in Vicenza.
Various commentators will have their opinions, and much of the blame is already being levelled at Rifondazione, the communist party in Prodi's government. Communists always make good punching bags, it is true, but a good portion of the blame should be assigned to Prodi himself and, especially, Massimo D'Alema, the foolish (ex-) foreign minister.
First, D'Alema was the one who made the vote into a vote of confidence when it wasn't intended as such. Naturally, the far-right, led by the reprehensible and criminal Berlusconi, happily picked up on this when the vote failed. Second, and much more important, D'Alema's reasoning behind both Italy's Afghanistan venture and the US base is deeply flawed and, considering the Italian public's overwhelming anti-war position, unsustainable.
As long as countries like Italy keep their soldiers in Afghanistan, the US can continue to devote its resources and attention elsewhere (like Iraq and, increasingly likely, Iran). Propping up the US in Afghanistan - in which it has had a military occupation for nearly 6 years already, with deteriorating conditions and nothing like the promises that were made before the invasion - enables the Bush administration to interfere elsewhere in the world and maintain a damaging and unworkable policy there.
D'Alema's contention that rejecting the base "expansion" (actually, the construction of different facilities in a different part of the city) would have been a "hostile act" towards America is laughable and, to put it as nice as I can, rather stupid. It might have been a "hostile act" towards the Bush administration's arrogance and hubris - certainly not a bad thing - but not towards the United States, whose ever-increasing network of bases around the world enables it to engage in increasingly despotic imperialistic behavior. Such an eventuality is not good for the victims themselves, not good for Italy, and also not good for Americans.
D'Alema and Prodi were in a position to deliver leadership, actually represent the Italian public and contribute (in a small way, to be sure) to reigning in America's overinflated and increasingly dangerous ambitions. But they chose not to do this. The danger now is that Berlusconi will take over the government again, and they will have contributed to this potential outcome in no small measure.
*One part of this article is rather disingenuous. The author makes it seem like the "Machiavellian" Giulio Andreotti was one of the string-pulling communist wreckers by placing his betrayal of the government in between two paragraphs fingering the far-left for the government's collapse, when in fact Andreotti is a member of the Christian Democrats.
Prodi's broad coalition in Italy has collapsed*. The trigger was a failed vote on Italy's participation in the NATO Afghanistan force and the construction of a new US military base in Vicenza.
Various commentators will have their opinions, and much of the blame is already being levelled at Rifondazione, the communist party in Prodi's government. Communists always make good punching bags, it is true, but a good portion of the blame should be assigned to Prodi himself and, especially, Massimo D'Alema, the foolish (ex-) foreign minister.
First, D'Alema was the one who made the vote into a vote of confidence when it wasn't intended as such. Naturally, the far-right, led by the reprehensible and criminal Berlusconi, happily picked up on this when the vote failed. Second, and much more important, D'Alema's reasoning behind both Italy's Afghanistan venture and the US base is deeply flawed and, considering the Italian public's overwhelming anti-war position, unsustainable.
As long as countries like Italy keep their soldiers in Afghanistan, the US can continue to devote its resources and attention elsewhere (like Iraq and, increasingly likely, Iran). Propping up the US in Afghanistan - in which it has had a military occupation for nearly 6 years already, with deteriorating conditions and nothing like the promises that were made before the invasion - enables the Bush administration to interfere elsewhere in the world and maintain a damaging and unworkable policy there.
D'Alema's contention that rejecting the base "expansion" (actually, the construction of different facilities in a different part of the city) would have been a "hostile act" towards America is laughable and, to put it as nice as I can, rather stupid. It might have been a "hostile act" towards the Bush administration's arrogance and hubris - certainly not a bad thing - but not towards the United States, whose ever-increasing network of bases around the world enables it to engage in increasingly despotic imperialistic behavior. Such an eventuality is not good for the victims themselves, not good for Italy, and also not good for Americans.
D'Alema and Prodi were in a position to deliver leadership, actually represent the Italian public and contribute (in a small way, to be sure) to reigning in America's overinflated and increasingly dangerous ambitions. But they chose not to do this. The danger now is that Berlusconi will take over the government again, and they will have contributed to this potential outcome in no small measure.
*One part of this article is rather disingenuous. The author makes it seem like the "Machiavellian" Giulio Andreotti was one of the string-pulling communist wreckers by placing his betrayal of the government in between two paragraphs fingering the far-left for the government's collapse, when in fact Andreotti is a member of the Christian Democrats.
19.2.07
Time for "congestion charges" in the US
When I see reactions like this to "Red Ken" Livingstone's "congestion charge" for driving in certain areas of London, my confidence in the wisdom of this policy only increases:
Michele Weininger, a businesswoman from west London, said: "Ken Livingstone has a built-in hatred for people on this side of London. He calls us toffs. What he doesn't realise is that this area is mixed. We voted against this. The riff-raff voted Ken Livingstone in. But we are not riff-raff here. We are decent people."
Yes, Michele, you toff - and now you're going to be a little poorer while you drive around doing your "decent" things.
It is past time for a similar policy in our larger urban centers in the US. I'm thinking particularly of New York (and specifically Manhattan) and San Francisco - both are relatively small in size, making it easy for riff-raff (and, surprisngly, decent people as well) to get around on foot, bike or public transport, as long as the streets are not clogged up with toffs driving their cars everywhere.
Oh, and we might think of taxing the rich while we we're at it.
When I see reactions like this to "Red Ken" Livingstone's "congestion charge" for driving in certain areas of London, my confidence in the wisdom of this policy only increases:
Michele Weininger, a businesswoman from west London, said: "Ken Livingstone has a built-in hatred for people on this side of London. He calls us toffs. What he doesn't realise is that this area is mixed. We voted against this. The riff-raff voted Ken Livingstone in. But we are not riff-raff here. We are decent people."
Yes, Michele, you toff - and now you're going to be a little poorer while you drive around doing your "decent" things.
It is past time for a similar policy in our larger urban centers in the US. I'm thinking particularly of New York (and specifically Manhattan) and San Francisco - both are relatively small in size, making it easy for riff-raff (and, surprisngly, decent people as well) to get around on foot, bike or public transport, as long as the streets are not clogged up with toffs driving their cars everywhere.
Oh, and we might think of taxing the rich while we we're at it.
A "surge" of their own
Looks like "The Insurgents" have launched their own "surge":
Two U.S. soldiers were killed and 17 wounded when insurgents launched a coordinated attack on an outpost north of Baghdad on Monday in what appeared to be one of the biggest such assaults in months.
Four years later, still "bringing it on". Happy, President Bush?
Looks like "The Insurgents" have launched their own "surge":
Two U.S. soldiers were killed and 17 wounded when insurgents launched a coordinated attack on an outpost north of Baghdad on Monday in what appeared to be one of the biggest such assaults in months.
Four years later, still "bringing it on". Happy, President Bush?
18.2.07
Administration ponders what may have - but probably didn't - go wrong
I have to admit that I had my doubts about whether Tony Snow would be able to replace - really replace - the inimitable Scotty McClellan as Bush's chief mouthpiece. But reading the following exchange with the press removed a lot of the doubt:
"What went wrong?" the reporter reasonably asked.
Snow replied: "I'm not sure anything went wrong."
Not bad. The method is irrefutable and shows a subtle understanding of the complexities of meaning and communication: when faced with a hostile question, just shift into that mode where words no longer have the meanings that you and I usually assign them. Cut the tie between signifier and signified and make any word mean whatever you want. Don't bother trying to refute stuff using "facts" and "arguments," because in that case you've already accepted your tormentor's codes, rules, and a host of taken-for-granted assumptions. No, simply act like you don't even speak the same language as your interlocutor and dodge the whole game.
But he's still not quite there yet:
But you have -- it is pretty clear that some of the other assessments were wrong, and you deal with it.
Well, damn. So something went wrong after all. It must be hard sometimes, keeping everything straight. Thankfully, just "assessments" were at fault, though - the hundreds of thousands of deaths, disintegrating country, and deadly capital city must have been all part of the plan.
I have to admit that I had my doubts about whether Tony Snow would be able to replace - really replace - the inimitable Scotty McClellan as Bush's chief mouthpiece. But reading the following exchange with the press removed a lot of the doubt:
"What went wrong?" the reporter reasonably asked.
Snow replied: "I'm not sure anything went wrong."
Not bad. The method is irrefutable and shows a subtle understanding of the complexities of meaning and communication: when faced with a hostile question, just shift into that mode where words no longer have the meanings that you and I usually assign them. Cut the tie between signifier and signified and make any word mean whatever you want. Don't bother trying to refute stuff using "facts" and "arguments," because in that case you've already accepted your tormentor's codes, rules, and a host of taken-for-granted assumptions. No, simply act like you don't even speak the same language as your interlocutor and dodge the whole game.
But he's still not quite there yet:
But you have -- it is pretty clear that some of the other assessments were wrong, and you deal with it.
Well, damn. So something went wrong after all. It must be hard sometimes, keeping everything straight. Thankfully, just "assessments" were at fault, though - the hundreds of thousands of deaths, disintegrating country, and deadly capital city must have been all part of the plan.
9.2.07
Personality Crisis
New York Dolls, 1973:
Johansen/Thunders or Strummer/Jones? It's a difficult decision - but I think I know who I would take.
New York Dolls, 1973:
Johansen/Thunders or Strummer/Jones? It's a difficult decision - but I think I know who I would take.
US Senators: true Financial Panthers
Funny how things like this work:
US senators' personal stock portfolios outperformed the market by an average of 12 per cent a year in the five years to 1998, according to a new study.
...
A separate study in 2000, covering 66,465 US households from 1991 to 1996 showed that the average household's portfolio underperformed the market by 1.44 per cent a year, on average. Corporate insiders (defined as senior executives) usually outperform by about 5 per cent.
Of course, with the way things are going, you don't need a Financial Panther, senatorial or otherwise, to know where to invest.
(NYT link via Max)
Funny how things like this work:
US senators' personal stock portfolios outperformed the market by an average of 12 per cent a year in the five years to 1998, according to a new study.
...
A separate study in 2000, covering 66,465 US households from 1991 to 1996 showed that the average household's portfolio underperformed the market by 1.44 per cent a year, on average. Corporate insiders (defined as senior executives) usually outperform by about 5 per cent.
Of course, with the way things are going, you don't need a Financial Panther, senatorial or otherwise, to know where to invest.
(NYT link via Max)
7.2.07
Free money
Of course, such a thing doesn't exist - but America's first viceroy of Iraq, "Jerry" Bremer, acted like it does:
In a hearing before the chief House oversight committee, Democrats on Tuesday demanded answers from Paul Bremer, who headed the Coalition Provisional Authority, Iraq's first post-occupation government, and oversaw the disbursement of $12bn in cash in reconstruction funds in the months after the invasion.
...
Mr Waxman took Mr Bremer to task for the manner in which US officials disbursed $20bn (?15.5bn, £10.2bn), including $12bn in cash, in Iraq between March 2003 and June 2004. Mr Waxman said that, in a 13-month period, the US government had shipped 360 tonnes of cash to Iraq. "Who in their right minds would send 360 tonnes of cash into a war zone? But that's exactly what [this government] did."
One official from the provisional authority described an environment awash with $100 bills, said a memo released by Mr Waxman's office. "One contractor received a $2m payment in a duffel bag stuffed with shrink-wrapped bundles of currency." In some cases, cash was stored in unguarded sacks in Iraqi ministry offices.
Ok - so the Dems are all over Bremer, and by extension his boss in the White House, for incompetence and, quite probably, corruption and financial malfeasance. Good, right?
Actually, compare the tone of that article with one by Dana Milbank on the same hearings:
But Bremer proved unexpectedly agile at shifting blame: to administration planners ("The planning before the war was inadequate"), his superiors in the Bush administration ("We never had sufficient support"), and the Iraqi people ("The country was in chaos -- socially, politically and economically").
And Democrats, after 12 years in the minority, were out of practice. Instead of going after Bremer's greatest vulnerabilities -- his autocratic management style and his "de-Baathification" of Iraq -- Democrats instead chose a strange focus for the hearing: the failure to account for $8 billion of cash payments three years ago. After nearly five hours of questioning, the lawmakers failed to find a smoking gun: It wasn't U.S. taxpayer money, it was a pittance compared with U.S. spending in Iraq, there was no hard evidence of fraud, and the episode had been investigated two years ago.
...
Republicans could hardly believe their luck. "Nobody took him on," exulted Tom Davis (R-Va.), who surrendered the chairman's gavel to Waxman last month. "We thought they'd be all over him for de-Baathification."
Leaving aside the reprehensible justifications that appeared there - apparently, it was ok to throw away the money (a mere "pittance"), because it was Iraqi money, not good American money - the fact that the Dems went into this with nothing other than the charges and with no new evidence to pin anything on Bremer is fucking lame, because, as noted in Milbank's article, this charge is two years old.
We don't need a rehash of stuff that happened two years ago. Try doing something useful: actually hold these cretins responsible, get the soldiers out of Iraq, and prevent them from going into Iran.
Of course, such a thing doesn't exist - but America's first viceroy of Iraq, "Jerry" Bremer, acted like it does:
In a hearing before the chief House oversight committee, Democrats on Tuesday demanded answers from Paul Bremer, who headed the Coalition Provisional Authority, Iraq's first post-occupation government, and oversaw the disbursement of $12bn in cash in reconstruction funds in the months after the invasion.
...
Mr Waxman took Mr Bremer to task for the manner in which US officials disbursed $20bn (?15.5bn, £10.2bn), including $12bn in cash, in Iraq between March 2003 and June 2004. Mr Waxman said that, in a 13-month period, the US government had shipped 360 tonnes of cash to Iraq. "Who in their right minds would send 360 tonnes of cash into a war zone? But that's exactly what [this government] did."
One official from the provisional authority described an environment awash with $100 bills, said a memo released by Mr Waxman's office. "One contractor received a $2m payment in a duffel bag stuffed with shrink-wrapped bundles of currency." In some cases, cash was stored in unguarded sacks in Iraqi ministry offices.
Ok - so the Dems are all over Bremer, and by extension his boss in the White House, for incompetence and, quite probably, corruption and financial malfeasance. Good, right?
Actually, compare the tone of that article with one by Dana Milbank on the same hearings:
But Bremer proved unexpectedly agile at shifting blame: to administration planners ("The planning before the war was inadequate"), his superiors in the Bush administration ("We never had sufficient support"), and the Iraqi people ("The country was in chaos -- socially, politically and economically").
And Democrats, after 12 years in the minority, were out of practice. Instead of going after Bremer's greatest vulnerabilities -- his autocratic management style and his "de-Baathification" of Iraq -- Democrats instead chose a strange focus for the hearing: the failure to account for $8 billion of cash payments three years ago. After nearly five hours of questioning, the lawmakers failed to find a smoking gun: It wasn't U.S. taxpayer money, it was a pittance compared with U.S. spending in Iraq, there was no hard evidence of fraud, and the episode had been investigated two years ago.
...
Republicans could hardly believe their luck. "Nobody took him on," exulted Tom Davis (R-Va.), who surrendered the chairman's gavel to Waxman last month. "We thought they'd be all over him for de-Baathification."
Leaving aside the reprehensible justifications that appeared there - apparently, it was ok to throw away the money (a mere "pittance"), because it was Iraqi money, not good American money - the fact that the Dems went into this with nothing other than the charges and with no new evidence to pin anything on Bremer is fucking lame, because, as noted in Milbank's article, this charge is two years old.
We don't need a rehash of stuff that happened two years ago. Try doing something useful: actually hold these cretins responsible, get the soldiers out of Iraq, and prevent them from going into Iran.
6.2.07
Your tax dollars at work
Via the Antiwar blog comes this story, sure to bring a tear to the eye of even the most jaded and cynical snake-oil peddler:
President Bush yesterday asked Congress for an additional $6.4 billion to develop ways of defeating roadside bombs in Iraq -- nearly double what has been provided since 2003 -- in the hopes of reviving an effort once billed as the "Manhattan Project" of the war but which has failed to stop the insurgents' weapon of choice from becoming even deadlier.
Yes - $6.4 BILLION for the sole purpose of combatting IEDs - homemade bombs that are stuffed in soda cans or, as the Antiwar writer put it, in a "dead dog's belly" . But wait - it gets better:
The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization... has received $6.7 billion in taxpayer dollars since 2003, for the sole purpose of eliminating the threat of so-called improvised explosive devices.
Yes - $6.4 BILLION (making a total of $13.1 BILLION) going to a group that goes by the preposterous name" Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization", for the sole purpose of combatting home-made bombs. I think I can be excused for failing to have confidence in a project with a sub-Inspector Gadget moniker.
The program has ballooned into a massive organization employing thousands of private contractors, and is based in a northern Virginia office complex where some of the largest defense industry firms have their Washington operations.
Follow the money, indeed. "Supporting the troops" has never been so profitable.
Via the Antiwar blog comes this story, sure to bring a tear to the eye of even the most jaded and cynical snake-oil peddler:
President Bush yesterday asked Congress for an additional $6.4 billion to develop ways of defeating roadside bombs in Iraq -- nearly double what has been provided since 2003 -- in the hopes of reviving an effort once billed as the "Manhattan Project" of the war but which has failed to stop the insurgents' weapon of choice from becoming even deadlier.
Yes - $6.4 BILLION for the sole purpose of combatting IEDs - homemade bombs that are stuffed in soda cans or, as the Antiwar writer put it, in a "dead dog's belly" . But wait - it gets better:
The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization... has received $6.7 billion in taxpayer dollars since 2003, for the sole purpose of eliminating the threat of so-called improvised explosive devices.
Yes - $6.4 BILLION (making a total of $13.1 BILLION) going to a group that goes by the preposterous name" Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization", for the sole purpose of combatting home-made bombs. I think I can be excused for failing to have confidence in a project with a sub-Inspector Gadget moniker.
The program has ballooned into a massive organization employing thousands of private contractors, and is based in a northern Virginia office complex where some of the largest defense industry firms have their Washington operations.
Follow the money, indeed. "Supporting the troops" has never been so profitable.
5.2.07
The time is coming...
George Galloway makes rabble-rousing speeches in Parliament and prophecies of Blair's doom so that I don't have to.
Sadly, you'll never see a Democrat with this kind of fire taking on our dim-witted war criminal president.
George Galloway makes rabble-rousing speeches in Parliament and prophecies of Blair's doom so that I don't have to.
Sadly, you'll never see a Democrat with this kind of fire taking on our dim-witted war criminal president.
4.2.07
No one is spared
Joel Beinin has a piece in the local rag on free speech, hatemongering, and having an honest look at Israel/Palestine.
Beinin's book, Was the Red Flag Flying There?, an examination of the socialist and communist parties' involvement in the foundation and early life of Israel, remains one of the more interesting studies of the Israel-Palestine conflict - at least if you're interested in leftist politics and its failures (kind of redundant, I know).
I think I can sum up Beinin's conclusions by saying that the flag wasn't so much red as a very, very light pink - almost a white flag, in fact.
Joel Beinin has a piece in the local rag on free speech, hatemongering, and having an honest look at Israel/Palestine.
Beinin's book, Was the Red Flag Flying There?, an examination of the socialist and communist parties' involvement in the foundation and early life of Israel, remains one of the more interesting studies of the Israel-Palestine conflict - at least if you're interested in leftist politics and its failures (kind of redundant, I know).
I think I can sum up Beinin's conclusions by saying that the flag wasn't so much red as a very, very light pink - almost a white flag, in fact.
3.2.07
"Genuine success"
Matt Taibbi on "The Surge":
I was in Tal Afar's "genuine success" story over the summer. It was such a success story that the city's neurotic, hand-wringing mayor, Najim Abdullah al-Jubori, actually asked American officials during a meeting I attended if they could tell President Bush to stop calling it a success story. "It just makes the terrorists angry," he said.
...
After that meeting, the unit I was with -- MPs from Oklahoma on a personal security detail, guarding a colonel who was inspecting police stations in the area -- went to a precinct house in one of Tal Afar's "safe" neighborhoods. There I found five American soldiers huddling in a room about the size of a walk-in closet, hunched over a pile of MRE wrappers and PlayStation cassettes. They seldom ever left that room, they explained. Occasionally they would have to go out and fight whenever someone started shooting at the police station (a regular occurrence, they said)...
Such success - so why does Matt Taibbi hate America so much?
Matt Taibbi on "The Surge":
I was in Tal Afar's "genuine success" story over the summer. It was such a success story that the city's neurotic, hand-wringing mayor, Najim Abdullah al-Jubori, actually asked American officials during a meeting I attended if they could tell President Bush to stop calling it a success story. "It just makes the terrorists angry," he said.
...
After that meeting, the unit I was with -- MPs from Oklahoma on a personal security detail, guarding a colonel who was inspecting police stations in the area -- went to a precinct house in one of Tal Afar's "safe" neighborhoods. There I found five American soldiers huddling in a room about the size of a walk-in closet, hunched over a pile of MRE wrappers and PlayStation cassettes. They seldom ever left that room, they explained. Occasionally they would have to go out and fight whenever someone started shooting at the police station (a regular occurrence, they said)...
Such success - so why does Matt Taibbi hate America so much?
31.1.07
Fear
Their infamous appearance on SNL from 1981 - hurry and watch it before some network executive gets afraid and has it pulled down:
Their infamous appearance on SNL from 1981 - hurry and watch it before some network executive gets afraid and has it pulled down:
Now for something simply pathetic...
I laughed. I cried.
Is this how easy it is in America these days to cause havoc and mayhem in a major urban area? To cause supposedly sane city administrators and police to hyperventilate? Does it really take just a small group of people to throw up some flashing lights that look like a character from a cartoon show about talking food?
How's this for stupidity:
"It [the flashing cartoon character] had a very sinister appearance," [Massachusetts' Attorney General Martha] Coakley told reporters. "It had a battery behind it, and wires."
Remember that, kids: batteries + wires = DANGER. Get rid of your iPods before they explode!
You can tell Fight Club came out before 9/11 and our national enfeeblement of any mental, moral and intelligence capabilities. Blowing up buildings would be absolute overkill these days. Bicycles in New York... cartoon characters in Boston... Iranians in Iran... all sources of unimaginable horror.
Why are Americans so scared of everything?
I laughed. I cried.
Is this how easy it is in America these days to cause havoc and mayhem in a major urban area? To cause supposedly sane city administrators and police to hyperventilate? Does it really take just a small group of people to throw up some flashing lights that look like a character from a cartoon show about talking food?
How's this for stupidity:
"It [the flashing cartoon character] had a very sinister appearance," [Massachusetts' Attorney General Martha] Coakley told reporters. "It had a battery behind it, and wires."
Remember that, kids: batteries + wires = DANGER. Get rid of your iPods before they explode!
You can tell Fight Club came out before 9/11 and our national enfeeblement of any mental, moral and intelligence capabilities. Blowing up buildings would be absolute overkill these days. Bicycles in New York... cartoon characters in Boston... Iranians in Iran... all sources of unimaginable horror.
Why are Americans so scared of everything?
Death and glory
The US's newest glorious victory in its Middle East adventure was probably anything but:
There are growing suspicions in Iraq that the official story of the battle outside Najaf between a messianic Iraqi cult and the Iraqi security forces supported by the US, in which 263 people were killed and 210 wounded, is a fabrication. The heavy casualties may be evidence of an unpremeditated massacre.
A picture is beginning to emerge of a clash between an Iraqi Shia tribe on a pilgrimage to Najaf and an Iraqi army checkpoint that led the US to intervene with devastating effect. The involvement of Ahmed al-Hassani (also known as Abu Kamar), who believed himself to be the coming Mahdi, or Messiah, appears to have been accidental.
Smells like... victory.
The US's newest glorious victory in its Middle East adventure was probably anything but:
There are growing suspicions in Iraq that the official story of the battle outside Najaf between a messianic Iraqi cult and the Iraqi security forces supported by the US, in which 263 people were killed and 210 wounded, is a fabrication. The heavy casualties may be evidence of an unpremeditated massacre.
A picture is beginning to emerge of a clash between an Iraqi Shia tribe on a pilgrimage to Najaf and an Iraqi army checkpoint that led the US to intervene with devastating effect. The involvement of Ahmed al-Hassani (also known as Abu Kamar), who believed himself to be the coming Mahdi, or Messiah, appears to have been accidental.
Smells like... victory.
23.1.07
"Feminine virtue"
What's the deal with the new old idea of chastity as a virtue?
It just needs to be dispatched really fast - there is no physiological evidence for women and men having different needs from congress (our kind, not the American kind), only circumstantial evidence, which is indivisible from the social conditioning that creates it.
Right, as the kids used to say, on.
Be very, very suspicious when someone tries to sell a certain type of behavior as "human nature" or, even more dodgily, limited to only a certain sector thereof.
What's the deal with the new old idea of chastity as a virtue?
It just needs to be dispatched really fast - there is no physiological evidence for women and men having different needs from congress (our kind, not the American kind), only circumstantial evidence, which is indivisible from the social conditioning that creates it.
Right, as the kids used to say, on.
Be very, very suspicious when someone tries to sell a certain type of behavior as "human nature" or, even more dodgily, limited to only a certain sector thereof.
No shame
Joe Lieberman, the most shameless and cynical senator in American history, has a yuk-yuk moment with General "Surge" Petraeus:
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) asked Army Lt. Gen. David H . Petraeus during his confirmation hearing yesterday if Senate resolutions condemning White House Iraq policy "would give the enemy some comfort."
Petraeus agreed they would, saying, "That's correct, sir."
Of course, as we all know, "giv[ing] the enemy some comfort" is a big part of how the US Constitution defines "treason".
What a piece of shit. How stupid was the electorate of Connecticut to elect this fuckhead for another 6 years?
It surely can't be long before Lieberman appears in the Senate chamber making vague, but threatening, accusations and waving around a list of "known Islamists" working in the State Department.
Joe Lieberman, the most shameless and cynical senator in American history, has a yuk-yuk moment with General "Surge" Petraeus:
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) asked Army Lt. Gen. David H . Petraeus during his confirmation hearing yesterday if Senate resolutions condemning White House Iraq policy "would give the enemy some comfort."
Petraeus agreed they would, saying, "That's correct, sir."
Of course, as we all know, "giv[ing] the enemy some comfort" is a big part of how the US Constitution defines "treason".
What a piece of shit. How stupid was the electorate of Connecticut to elect this fuckhead for another 6 years?
It surely can't be long before Lieberman appears in the Senate chamber making vague, but threatening, accusations and waving around a list of "known Islamists" working in the State Department.
Alternate energy sources
I can't believe that wood chips made it into a U.S. president's State of the Union Address.
Why does anyone still take this clown seriously?
I can't believe that wood chips made it into a U.S. president's State of the Union Address.
Why does anyone still take this clown seriously?
20.1.07
How low?
Bad Brains in 1982. H.R. demonstrates why he was such a fantastic frontman:
Bad Brains in 1982. H.R. demonstrates why he was such a fantastic frontman:
New low for American "justice"
Having hit rock bottom, they've somehow managed to keep digging. You have to wonder what would not be acceptable to Bush and his friends. According to a new proposal, "suspected terrorists" may be imprisoned or put to death based on hearsay evidence and "coerced" (i.e., obtained through torture) testimony:
The Pentagon has drafted a manual for upcoming detainee trials that would allow suspected terrorists to be convicted on hearsay evidence and coerced testimony and imprisoned or put to death.
According to a copy of the manual obtained by The Associated Press, a terror suspect's defense lawyer cannot reveal classified evidence in the person's defense until the government has a chance to review it.
What this proposal is, is not so much codifying any kind of procedural norms as it is enshrining the lack of any rules whatsoever on the treatment of desginated "enemies". This is another plank in the edfice of our rising American despotism.
People in the military have already begun speaking out against this disgusting bit of "justice". Can we get a unified Congressional stance against it as well?
Having hit rock bottom, they've somehow managed to keep digging. You have to wonder what would not be acceptable to Bush and his friends. According to a new proposal, "suspected terrorists" may be imprisoned or put to death based on hearsay evidence and "coerced" (i.e., obtained through torture) testimony:
The Pentagon has drafted a manual for upcoming detainee trials that would allow suspected terrorists to be convicted on hearsay evidence and coerced testimony and imprisoned or put to death.
According to a copy of the manual obtained by The Associated Press, a terror suspect's defense lawyer cannot reveal classified evidence in the person's defense until the government has a chance to review it.
What this proposal is, is not so much codifying any kind of procedural norms as it is enshrining the lack of any rules whatsoever on the treatment of desginated "enemies". This is another plank in the edfice of our rising American despotism.
People in the military have already begun speaking out against this disgusting bit of "justice". Can we get a unified Congressional stance against it as well?
Engels the stockbroker
What would Friedrich Engels think of NASDAQ's proposed takeover of the London Stock Exchange?
An Engels' biographer thinks he would have welcomed it as a smashing idea (smashing capitalism, that is).
Personally, I'm not entirely convinced about the basis of the author's argument (WARNING: discussion involving Marx follows - any "Internet Leftists" who have lost their way and stumbled onto this site may want to run away). No doubt Marx and Engels (a) recognized the strengths and power of capitalism and (b) understood the historical circumstances around its beginnings and development. They had an understanding of the larger structures in history, whatever their flaws.
However, that doesn't mean that they would have adopted a passive attitude to any and all developments, a kind of fatalist "it-will-turn-out-alright-in-the-end" attitude. No, there was also an important place for the action of the individual in the writings of Marx and Engels, no matter how constrained by historical circumstances.
I'm not sure how far the author intended it, but the "inevitability of capitalism's demise" premise seems the guide the article. Perhaps the biography would clarify this point.
What would Friedrich Engels think of NASDAQ's proposed takeover of the London Stock Exchange?
An Engels' biographer thinks he would have welcomed it as a smashing idea (smashing capitalism, that is).
Personally, I'm not entirely convinced about the basis of the author's argument (WARNING: discussion involving Marx follows - any "Internet Leftists" who have lost their way and stumbled onto this site may want to run away). No doubt Marx and Engels (a) recognized the strengths and power of capitalism and (b) understood the historical circumstances around its beginnings and development. They had an understanding of the larger structures in history, whatever their flaws.
However, that doesn't mean that they would have adopted a passive attitude to any and all developments, a kind of fatalist "it-will-turn-out-alright-in-the-end" attitude. No, there was also an important place for the action of the individual in the writings of Marx and Engels, no matter how constrained by historical circumstances.
I'm not sure how far the author intended it, but the "inevitability of capitalism's demise" premise seems the guide the article. Perhaps the biography would clarify this point.
19.1.07
Choose your King...
...As Poison Idea once invited us to do. It's come to light recently who The King (no, not Jesus, the other The King) himself chose:
AP/White House photo
Via Max comes this story about how The King offered Nixon the chance to make him a special agent. Elvis' letter in part:
Dear Mr. President.
First, I would like to introduce myself. I am Elvis Presley and admire you and have great respect for your office. I talked to Vice President Agnew in Palm Springs 3 weeks ago and expressed my concern for our country. The drug culture, the hippie elements, the SDS, Black Panthers, etc. do NOT consider me as their enemy or as they call it The Establishment. I call it America and I love it. Sir, I can and will be of any service that I can to help The Country out. I have no concern or Motives other than helping the country out. . . .
I can and will do more good if I were made a Federal Agent at Large. . . . Sir, I am staying at the Washington Hotel, Room 505-506-507. . . . I am registered under the name of Jon Burrows. I will be here for as long as it takes to get the credentials of a Federal Agent. I have done an in-depth study of drug abuse and Communist brainwashing techniques and I am right in the middle of the whole thing where I can and will do the most good. . . .
Respectfully, Elvis Presley
The drugs I can understand, but how did he become acquainted with Communist brainwashing techniques?
...As Poison Idea once invited us to do. It's come to light recently who The King (no, not Jesus, the other The King) himself chose:
AP/White House photo
Via Max comes this story about how The King offered Nixon the chance to make him a special agent. Elvis' letter in part:
Dear Mr. President.
First, I would like to introduce myself. I am Elvis Presley and admire you and have great respect for your office. I talked to Vice President Agnew in Palm Springs 3 weeks ago and expressed my concern for our country. The drug culture, the hippie elements, the SDS, Black Panthers, etc. do NOT consider me as their enemy or as they call it The Establishment. I call it America and I love it. Sir, I can and will be of any service that I can to help The Country out. I have no concern or Motives other than helping the country out. . . .
I can and will do more good if I were made a Federal Agent at Large. . . . Sir, I am staying at the Washington Hotel, Room 505-506-507. . . . I am registered under the name of Jon Burrows. I will be here for as long as it takes to get the credentials of a Federal Agent. I have done an in-depth study of drug abuse and Communist brainwashing techniques and I am right in the middle of the whole thing where I can and will do the most good. . . .
Respectfully, Elvis Presley
The drugs I can understand, but how did he become acquainted with Communist brainwashing techniques?
Smoke, mirrors and poppets
Or mirages, as Glen Ford might say. Ford's newest piece on Obama should - but almost certainly won't - inject a little bit of common sense into the debate around and hopes for his presidential run and the new "ascendency" of the Democrats in general.
In at least one important respect, Ford's article is like Comrade Max's recent post that started the whole tempest-in-a-teacup among the "Internet Left": there's an underlying admonition to these "leftists" to remove your head from your ass. You're happy that the Dems won? That's great - but keep some perspective on matters. Actually, try a lot of perspective.
Effective is not the same thing as empowered. The Democratic party was there a long, long time before any of these clearinghouse websites were even gleams in the eyes of their comfortable middle-class founders, it has its own history, and that history only overlaps a tiny, tiny bit with yours.
Most important: what are you actually getting from your elected "servants"?
Or mirages, as Glen Ford might say. Ford's newest piece on Obama should - but almost certainly won't - inject a little bit of common sense into the debate around and hopes for his presidential run and the new "ascendency" of the Democrats in general.
In at least one important respect, Ford's article is like Comrade Max's recent post that started the whole tempest-in-a-teacup among the "Internet Left": there's an underlying admonition to these "leftists" to remove your head from your ass. You're happy that the Dems won? That's great - but keep some perspective on matters. Actually, try a lot of perspective.
Effective is not the same thing as empowered. The Democratic party was there a long, long time before any of these clearinghouse websites were even gleams in the eyes of their comfortable middle-class founders, it has its own history, and that history only overlaps a tiny, tiny bit with yours.
Most important: what are you actually getting from your elected "servants"?
18.1.07
US bombs drifting overhead
Sigue Sigue Sputnik video for "Love Missle F1-11":
Sigue Sigue Sputnik video for "Love Missle F1-11":
So was it about oil?
Of course it was - you're not still doubting that, are you?
A draft of a new law on oil is supposed to the Iraqi cabinet this week. Few details are available but according to some flak in the government, this proposed legislation will "achieve the highest benefit for Iraqis". Let's not make any bets about how high the benefit will be for the oil companies.
This article, and most of the others on the wires right now, are pretty lightweight. For background, here are two investigative articles published over the past week:
But let's not simplify things: it wasn't all about oil. Even among the "shifting sands" of a "desert country" like "Mesopotamia", to adopt some of the condescending bullshit terms media types love to apply to Iraq, there are other forms of wealth besides oil - and some special concerns have become familiar with them.
Of course it was - you're not still doubting that, are you?
A draft of a new law on oil is supposed to the Iraqi cabinet this week. Few details are available but according to some flak in the government, this proposed legislation will "achieve the highest benefit for Iraqis". Let's not make any bets about how high the benefit will be for the oil companies.
This article, and most of the others on the wires right now, are pretty lightweight. For background, here are two investigative articles published over the past week:
But let's not simplify things: it wasn't all about oil. Even among the "shifting sands" of a "desert country" like "Mesopotamia", to adopt some of the condescending bullshit terms media types love to apply to Iraq, there are other forms of wealth besides oil - and some special concerns have become familiar with them.
17.1.07
Plan 9 Channel 7
Hilarious video from The Damned for the song "Plan 9 Channel 7":
Not as funny as Black Panthers with their toasters, but not everyone can rise to that level of genius.
Hilarious video from The Damned for the song "Plan 9 Channel 7":
Not as funny as Black Panthers with their toasters, but not everyone can rise to that level of genius.
16.1.07
Blah blah blah
(Apologies to Husker Du)
What a fucking loudmouth. Other people may have glowing bullshit to spew about Gilliard - if that's what you want, go read them.
First of all, as Comrade Max points out, however you choose to define "Internet Left", Gilliard is not the only member of it. Neither is Kos. Come in out of this solipsistic little bubble, man.
But let's leave aside exaggerated self-importance: this one line tell you everything you need to know about where this post is going:
The "Internet Left" has done more in three years than any of the groups you hail as heroes from the 1960's did in 10 years.
Really? Like what? How far has the "Internet Left", in these three glorious years, been successful in stopping this fucking war in Iraq? Helping out the lower class, or even the middle class? Placing any kinds of checks on the increasingly open authoritarian and imperial (we can't say "fascist" - that wouldn't be "serious") Bush presidency? You fucking ponce.
I'm serious - what achievements does this veritable Red Army have under its belt? If this is a reference to helping elect Democrats to office, big fucking deal. I remember what the Democrats were doing when they weren't in power (these are just some examples from the past three awesome years, which I refer to forthwith as Years 0-2 of the Inter Left Era (ILE) - don't get me started on the Leftist paradise that was the Clinton era):
- Supporting and enabling the Iraq war. More Democratic senators supported the 2002 Congressional blank check to Bush than opposed it. If these 28 schemers had joined with those opposing it, the authorization would have failed 52-48. If there had been the same party discipline among the Democrats as among the Republicans (only Chafee voted against it), we wouldn't be where we are today.
But, of course, we can't even frame this in terms of "party loyalty", because opposition to the war wasn't a Democratic position. And this "Internet Left" that Gilliard wants to put on a pedestal was also divided (notwithstanding opposition by Kos and Gilliard), with many flat-out supporting it. Try, for example, reading Matthew Yglesias' pro-war bullshit from 2002 and 2003 - oh, wait, you can't, because he has purged them all from the public domain).
- Support of the 2005 bankruptcy bill. A total of 73 Democratic representatives voted for this gift to the credit card industry. And you want to talk about the working class "slowly being screwed"? I suppose doing it rather quickly, on the other hand, is pretty alright.
- How about the 19 Democrats who voted for cloture on the debate concerning Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, the last chance the Democrats had to keep this hard-right nutjob from fucking things up for the next 30 years?
You'll have to excuse me if I'm less than impressed by the triumphalist tone extolling the "Internet Left's" achievements when they boils down to bullshit like this.
Treating the fact that the "Internet Left" helped elect Democrats to office as a major accomplishment makes a mockery of the "strengths" that Gilliard cites: no leaders and "empower[ing] people to act on their own or with others". Is this supposed to be serious? Indicative of this confusion, which revolves around treating the "Internet Left" as some kind of independent political force rather than the unpaid (and, let me predict, in the final analysis, unappreciated) proxy of the Democrats, is this incredible statement:
I think what you resent about the "Internet Left" is that they get things done. The Greens can't get past the city council level. Chris Bowers got millions of dollars to win races. Which might actually change people's lives and not end up in a circle jerk discussion.
What "races"? Why not come clean and tell us that Bowers was a shill for the Democrats? This is a joke, and a particularly cruel one. Buy a fucking clue.
As for the dig at Marx: Fuck you. Seriously - fuck off.
But to show that even clueless wankers like this, caught up in the liberal flipside of conservative/neocon delusion and denial of history, have a sense of humor, I'll end with this:
You [Comrade Max] laud these groups, but forget what they did. They [e.g., the SDS and the Black Panthers] shifted the discussion on the left from civil rights to toasters. They embraced the consumer economy and sought to perfect it, while the working class was slowly being screwed.
Yeah - those Black Panthers really were into toasters.
(Apologies to Husker Du)
What a fucking loudmouth. Other people may have glowing bullshit to spew about Gilliard - if that's what you want, go read them.
First of all, as Comrade Max points out, however you choose to define "Internet Left", Gilliard is not the only member of it. Neither is Kos. Come in out of this solipsistic little bubble, man.
But let's leave aside exaggerated self-importance: this one line tell you everything you need to know about where this post is going:
The "Internet Left" has done more in three years than any of the groups you hail as heroes from the 1960's did in 10 years.
Really? Like what? How far has the "Internet Left", in these three glorious years, been successful in stopping this fucking war in Iraq? Helping out the lower class, or even the middle class? Placing any kinds of checks on the increasingly open authoritarian and imperial (we can't say "fascist" - that wouldn't be "serious") Bush presidency? You fucking ponce.
I'm serious - what achievements does this veritable Red Army have under its belt? If this is a reference to helping elect Democrats to office, big fucking deal. I remember what the Democrats were doing when they weren't in power (these are just some examples from the past three awesome years, which I refer to forthwith as Years 0-2 of the Inter Left Era (ILE) - don't get me started on the Leftist paradise that was the Clinton era):
- Supporting and enabling the Iraq war. More Democratic senators supported the 2002 Congressional blank check to Bush than opposed it. If these 28 schemers had joined with those opposing it, the authorization would have failed 52-48. If there had been the same party discipline among the Democrats as among the Republicans (only Chafee voted against it), we wouldn't be where we are today.
But, of course, we can't even frame this in terms of "party loyalty", because opposition to the war wasn't a Democratic position. And this "Internet Left" that Gilliard wants to put on a pedestal was also divided (notwithstanding opposition by Kos and Gilliard), with many flat-out supporting it. Try, for example, reading Matthew Yglesias' pro-war bullshit from 2002 and 2003 - oh, wait, you can't, because he has purged them all from the public domain).
- Support of the 2005 bankruptcy bill. A total of 73 Democratic representatives voted for this gift to the credit card industry. And you want to talk about the working class "slowly being screwed"? I suppose doing it rather quickly, on the other hand, is pretty alright.
- How about the 19 Democrats who voted for cloture on the debate concerning Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, the last chance the Democrats had to keep this hard-right nutjob from fucking things up for the next 30 years?
You'll have to excuse me if I'm less than impressed by the triumphalist tone extolling the "Internet Left's" achievements when they boils down to bullshit like this.
Treating the fact that the "Internet Left" helped elect Democrats to office as a major accomplishment makes a mockery of the "strengths" that Gilliard cites: no leaders and "empower[ing] people to act on their own or with others". Is this supposed to be serious? Indicative of this confusion, which revolves around treating the "Internet Left" as some kind of independent political force rather than the unpaid (and, let me predict, in the final analysis, unappreciated) proxy of the Democrats, is this incredible statement:
I think what you resent about the "Internet Left" is that they get things done. The Greens can't get past the city council level. Chris Bowers got millions of dollars to win races. Which might actually change people's lives and not end up in a circle jerk discussion.
What "races"? Why not come clean and tell us that Bowers was a shill for the Democrats? This is a joke, and a particularly cruel one. Buy a fucking clue.
As for the dig at Marx: Fuck you. Seriously - fuck off.
But to show that even clueless wankers like this, caught up in the liberal flipside of conservative/neocon delusion and denial of history, have a sense of humor, I'll end with this:
You [Comrade Max] laud these groups, but forget what they did. They [e.g., the SDS and the Black Panthers] shifted the discussion on the left from civil rights to toasters. They embraced the consumer economy and sought to perfect it, while the working class was slowly being screwed.
Yeah - those Black Panthers really were into toasters.
