Parodies Lost

News Analysis: 9/11 -- "We Are Changed Forevermore"...Right?

Part 1: The Immediate Aftermath

"We are changed forevermore." Thus spoke Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) on that day that still defies description. He wasn’t alone in that assessment. David Payne, senior vice president and general manager of CNN.com, which is going to show a live stream of the day’s events beginning at 8:30 a.m. on CNN Pipeline, said, "In many ways and to many people, it was the day that changed everything."

Who can forget French President Jacques Chirac proclaiming, “We are all Americans?” One day later, in Le Monde, Jean Marie Colmbani, wrote an article entitled, “We Are All Americans,” in which she said, “In this tragic moment...the first thing that comes to mind is this: We are all Americans! We are all New Yorkers, just as surely as John F. Kennedy declared himself to be a Berliner in 1962 when he visited Berlin.” And she reminded the people of France that the United States was the country “to whom we owe our freedom.”

In numerous small ways, the world reached out to Americans. Rebecca Sulock, in her blog, wrote of being in Europe at the time, and what happened after 9/11.  “The rest of the trip we were showered with goodwill and sympathy: Switzerland, Italy, Spain, and France. The old woman who ran a hotel in Florence hugged us close when we first arrived. ‘We are all Americans,’ she said, crying.   A businessman trying to get home had to stop in Athens overnight and had dinner in a local taverna. When the owner realized he was an American, he told everyone to stand up and raise their glasses. The he said, “"Shoulder to shoulder, until justice is done."

Remember that day. Remember how you felt. Did the world feel like it had just shifted on its axis, and nothing would ever be the same again? In the days and weeks following 9/11, did your eyes tear up when you drove down a street and saw American flags on virtually every home? Were you an emotional leaf in the wind tossed between rage and fear, vengeance and compassion? Did you think you were changed forevermore? Had 9/11 changed everything?

So much has been written about that day that the mass of data, anecdotes, theories, and analyses threaten to overwhelm understanding. Amazon.com lists 208,149 books. The five-year retrospective has already begun, and it will continue for...well, as long as the American people have the stomach for it. The airwaves, print, and the internet are flooded with stories; it’s great news from their perspective—emotional, historical, traumatic.

The president is going to make a prime-time speech, and the Republicans have already resurrected Osama Bin Laden and the 9/11 legacy. The soccer moms pollsters used to track with assiduous care are now security moms. It’s not crass politics—it’s simply politics.

But was it the day that changed everything?  How does one approach this subject, then, in a way that’s non-partisan, yet political; that seeks to understand what has happened over the past five years without being side-tracked by evidence that supports every theory, including that the government itself was responsible for the attacks?

First, by limiting its scope to the attitudes, emotions, values, and beliefs of the American people, and to a lesser extent, politicians. Second, by relying on literally hundreds of survey research results rather than trying to determine whose vested interest is consciously or unconsciously distorting history. Third, by acknowledging the best pollsters acknowledge how difficult it is to understand the “why” because we ourselves don’t often understand our own reactions and emotions, but if poll after poll shows similar results, we can have some confidence in the findings. And finally, by examining behavior.

In his book, Strangers to Ourselves, Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious, University of Virginia psychologist Timothy Wilson has argued that while we may have difficulty figuring out what’s going on inside our own unconscious, we can gather clues from our behavior.

Obviously, the answer to the above question and to Senator Hagel’s statement is a simple “no.” Of course everything didn’t change. But that’s not very helpful when one tries to understand what did change and how it’s influencing American life and the political process.

The Public Faces A New World

In an article in Roll Call, Karlyn H. Bowman, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote, that polls taken immediately after 9/11 give a good indication of how Americans react. “A deeply religious nation found prayer a source of comfort. A deeply patriotic nation displayed the flag and sang the national anthem. A generous nation donated to relief funds. A majority of men and women in Gallup's September 14-15 poll said they cried.”  (Note:  I received an updated version of Ms. Bowman's report that may not be up on the site yet; this report is a summary of a multitude of polls taken at the time and after.)


A study, publicly funded by the National Science Foundation, and privately by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Russell Sage Foundation, also demonstrated significant shifts in public attitudes. People saying that their fellow citizens are helpful rose 21 points to 67%; in terms of being fair, attitudes rose 12 points to 63%. Attitudes towards the military, the government, religion, and corporations rose to their highest levels in nearly three decades. And 97% (up 7 points) said they would rather be citizens of the U.S. than any other country.

In a recent interview, Caroll Doherty of the Pew Research Center compared 9/11 to the 60s and 70s, when there was a significant decline in people’s trust in government and institutions. “That’s an interesting counterpoint,” he said, “to this extraordinary change in public attitudes almost across the board on almost every subject to do with politics and even religion in the fall of 2001.” He noted that confidence in government and the media soared to an unusually high degree. “It was very unusual.”

But even that apparently simple data about trust in government is open to interpretation.  Certainly after 9/11, many more people believed that Washington would do what’s right, but as Bowman says, “it’s not clear what exactly that meant."  Two questions asked by ABC News in early January 2002 suggest the uptick was limited to national security and the war on terrorism.

Doherty said that there was a feeling of common unity and purpose in the immediate aftermath that seems to have lingered in some ways. He cited the recent British foiling of the terrorist plot. “Polls show people don’t mind the hassles and new security measures,” he said. “What’s happened is that 9/11 has changed the mindset. We didn’t get a spike in terrorism worries because people now see this is the world in which we live.” Even though 62% believe that the chance of a terrorist attack in the U.S. is at least as great as pre-9/11, “they don’t panic....There’s a sense that this is life today.”

In a January 2002 PublicAgenda/Pew Charitable Trust poll, 87% thought Americans would appreciate their country more, people would become more caring and thoughtful towards one another, and America’s elected officials would put politics aside and do what was right for the country. In addition, significant percentages of people thought these attitudes would last for a long time.

Leadership in Government

President Bush basked not only in the glow of increased approval from his fellow citizens, but from expressions of support and solidarity from around the world.  President Roosevelt had achieved an 84% approval rating after Pearl Harbor. President Bush’s rating climbed to 90% and by mid-July 2002, an ABC/Washington Post story described his approval as “...the longest, highest run of presidential job approval since modern polling began in the late 1930s.”

Even Congress and the media were perceived more positively by the public to a degree that Caroll Doherty of Pew calls “unusual.”  He also cites their international polling that showed strong support for the U.S. as well as a sense that America might now understand what it was like to live under the threat of terrorism. “There was great support in our early surveys,” he said.

A New Internationalism

One of the major shifts in American attitudes was a greater appreciation of the world outside our borders. Doherty said that people were looking outward, more interested in getting engaged in the world, much more aware of foreign news, and paying attention to overseas events “in ways they never had before.” In October 2001, “61% said to prevent future attacks, Americans should be active in world affairs. There was strong support for our alliances; there was really a lot of common views on these subjects.”

Politicians were quick to realize that the platform had shifted. According to a July 15, 2006 Washington Post article, presidential candidates realized that their international experience, once considered virtually irrelevant, was now a major factor. "We essentially transformed our [Democratic] convention into a VFW meeting," said Democratic strategist David Axelrod. "That would not have happened if not for 9/11."

Being tough on terrorism was a critical criterion. Just being tough was essential. Would you be willing to do what it takes to protect us? Are you willing to use the military to take out these terrorists? John Edwards, Kerry’s VP candidate thinks those factors still hold today. "I think 9/11 made national security/foreign policy a dominant issue in presidential races," he said. "I think Iraq changed the criteria by which people evaluate what matters."

Part II: How Did It All Change Back

There are people for whom 9/11 irrevocably changed their worlds; nothing will ever be the same. Most are relatives or friends of the thousands who died, but many are simply Americans for whom something was shattered or altered or simply changed ... for some there are positive aspects while for others there are only the negatives.

The New Normal

For America as a whole, it seemed in the immediate aftermath that the dramatic changes in attitudes might actually be signifying a new political paradigm.  But what’s striking is how quickly we returned to normal, although not quite the normal of before.  Bill McInturff, of Public Opinion strategies, calls it "the new normal."

McInturff said, "It didn't take America five years to recover.  It was like a year."

Trust in government soared to 64% after the attack.  By the summer of 2002, it had returned to it's traditional 30%.  In December of 2001, Gallop found that 71% of Americans said religion was more important in American life.  By March, according to a Pew Research poll, that number had dropped to 37%.

One key to why attitudes so quickly reverted is that, despite all the rhetoric, behavior had never shifted that dramatically.  For all the calls to stockpile food and water, 30% told Harris Interactive pollsters that they considered it; the reality is that 9% did.  By early March, 2002, Gallup found that number jumped to all of 13%--statistically almost meaningless.

What people reported is that they way they felt changed dramatically, not their day-to-day lives.  Just over 50% told Fox News/Opinion Dynamics in late 2001 and early 2002 that their lives had changed in a lasting way, but 3/4 of those said it changed their feelings, not their behavior.  When behavior fails to change, attitudes often regress to their former state.

Thus we find that the number who reported feeling depressed or had trouble sleeping declined fairly quickly.  By March and September of 2002 Gallup found that smaller numbers had flown the flag, prayed more than usual, cried, or called loved ones “in the past two weeks” than had done so immediately after 9/11.

Karlyn Bowman, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said in a recent interview, "There was a temporary spike and people felt a little bit better about government after 9/11, but all those numbers have reverted to where they were before."

Bowman notes that people have accepted that terrorism is a real possibility in their lives, but they've incorporated that into their daily lives.  The fear is worse in large cities, but, by and large, "they don't panic." 

As noted in the previous article, Caroll Doherty of Pew Research said in an interview that the country has changed in ways we may not even recognize.  He noted how little attention Bush and Gore paid to foreign policy in the 2000 presidential election.  "That's not going to happen in the future.  The landscape has changed so much since then."

He also has found that people are showing more interest and engaging earlier in the 2006 mid-term elections that is normal, and that there's more of a national and international focus than usual. 

Bowman also cites "a level of pessimism in American that's just not warranted, say, by the economic indicators."  People expect another attack, and they see the world as more dangerous. 

Ironically, they still seem optimistic about their children's future.  "What's profoundly affected is the view of the present," she said.  That pessimism is reflected in how people view the war on terror.  A 2005 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll found that 24% believed the war on terror would be won in our lifetimes; 62% said it would not.  Moreover, over 3/4 of Americans told Gallup in July 2002 that today's world is the most dangerous in the respondent's life. 

When asked if people think life in the U.S. will ever completely return to normal, i.e., pre 9/11, 62% said no.

Civil Liberties vs. Security

In a Los Angeles Times poll taken in September of 2001, 61% of Americans said we'd have to give up some civil liberties to curb terrorism.  By July 2005, in a PRSA/Pew poll, that number dropped to 40% with 53% disagreeing.  The reality is that Americans are torn about this issue.  Both Doherty and Bowman said that while there is great concern about government scrutinizing American's behavior, there's this sense that it may be acceptable -- just as long as "they leave me alone." 

Bowman, however, notes that there has been a rise in concern about civil liberties, and she attributes it to the return of suspicion about government, the reduced fears of terrorism, and that some Americans have found certain government actions "objectionable."

But public attitudes are complicated and unstable on this issue.  For example, in May of 2006, an ABC News/Washington Post survey found that almost half of Americans believed that the government wasn't doing enough to protect privacy.  Yet over 50% in a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll at the same time said they'd be willing to give up some personal freedom to reduce the threat of terrorism.

It's U.S. vs. The World

As noted before, Americans are more aware and more concerned about international opinion than at any time in recent history.  While there has been support for America's military activities, the public wants the administration to take a cooperative stance with America's allies. A majority of Americans and nearly half of Republicans say that it should be a top foreign policy priority to improve our relations with our allies. The Pew Research Center conducted a poll with the Council on Foreign Relations and found that, by 49%-37%, "the public believes that the nation's foreign policy should strongly take into account the interests of U.S. allies, rather than be based mostly on the national interests of the United States."

At the same time, AEI's Bowman warns that it's difficult to get to the heart of this issue.  Clearly people are aware that our image has suffered, and they think it would be better for us to have a more positive image, but she doesn't believe we have enough data to state conclusively how important this is for Americans.  Further, she says that "there's a real question in the survey research community and among political scientists about whether we're seeing a new isolationism in the U.S. based on our awareness that we're not very well liked."

The Return to Partisanship and Divisiveness

According to a September 7 article in the New York Times, a big part of the “new normal,” is the resurgence of political divisions on national security questions.  The coming together of Americans in a sense of national unity just after 9/11 has been buried amidst the deeply partisan views over Mr. Bush’s conduct of the war on terror and in Iraq.  A recent New York Times/CBS News poll found wide disagreement between the parties on a host of issues from the war in Iraq to airport security.

David Broder and Dan Balz, in a July 16 Washington Post article, entitled, "How Common Ground of 9/11 Gave Way to Partisan Split," wrote that the spontaneous outpouring bipartisanship "was quickly swallowed up by a resurgence of partisan differences among voters and politicians."  Ironically, issues of national security no longer held Americans together but created a "new fault line" that's split the parties.

President Bush has seen his ratings drop from the stratosphere to below sea level, apparently stuck below 40% approval.  The challenges to his strategies in Iraq, the growing insurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the failure to capture Osama bin Laden, the accusations of manufacturing evidence to support the Iraqi invasion, the questions of torture and secret prisons -- all have taken their toll.

Part of what has caused the divisiveness is the lack of clarity of America's strategic focus.  Michael Hirsch wrote in Newsweek that the War on Terror is losing its focus.  "What began as a crystal-clear fight against a small, self-contained group of murderers has become a kind of murky, open-ended World War III in which the identity of the enemy is less certain and our allies seem to grow less reliable."

Even the Bush Doctrine of spreading democracy to the Arab world has been called into question and held up as a reason for the failure of our military endeavors.  Jed Babbin, the former deputy undersecretary of defense in the administration of George H.W. Bush recently cited as "a strategic error in focusing on democracy as the weapon to counter radical Islam and terrorism."  He said that it's irrelevant if the Arab states are democracies as long as they don't threaten our security.  "By making the establishment of democracy in Iraq a precondition to other action, the president has given control of the pace and direction of the war to the enemy."

The public sees what is happening.  In a Washington Post/ABC news poll taken in August, almost 90% said that politics is just as partisan -- or worse -- than it was pre-9/11.  Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) has said he hoped that 9/11 would make us less partisan, but "we are more divided and more partisan than I've ever seen us."

Why?

How could the spirit of unity that sustained us through the aftermath of 9/11 have dissipated so quickly, leaving scars but so little nobility behind?  Pew's Doherty acknowledges that it's hard to understand why things changed so quickly.  "Some of it is inevitable," he said.  "It's very difficult to keep that spirit.  After all, people are human beings and prone to disagree."

On the other hand, he also has no question that the Iraqi War was a major factor in breaking the bonds, citing the plummeting Presidential approval ratings.

Broder and Balz take a similar view.  They believe that the return to "national rancor and partisan conflict" was inevitable.  There were deep divisions in the country after the 2000 presidential elections that hadn't healed, and, as they say,  "In a 50-50 America, the lust for political advantage overwhelmed calls for consensus and cooperation."

Finally, Republicans and Democrats have long disagreed about the use of American force in the world, and the role we should play as the sole super-power.  Those disagreements may have been covered over just after 9/11, but they remain deep and divisive.

In balance, what we've learned from 9/11 is how little we really understand ourselves or the world around us.

Technorati Tags: 9/11, terrorism, Bush, Iraq
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

Guantanamo: President Admits Problems; Journalists Ousted; Rumsfeld Again Under Cloud

The U.S. terrorist prison at Guantanamo continues to be the central character in an absurd play. 

Discerning U.S. policy is made no easier by news released yesterday from a variety of sources. President George Bush, in a news conference acknowledged that controversies at the prison had damaged U.S. reputation abroad and should be shut down. 

Also yesterday, The Guardian reported that journalists were expelled from Gitmo after an article in The Charlotte Observer reported on military conversations the brass would have just as soon not seen in print. 

As if that were not enough, Salon ran an extensive article: “Interviews with high-ranking military officials shed new light on the role Rumsfeld played in the harsh treatment of a Guantánamo detainee.” 

Bush Admits Problems

Reuters reported that the president admitted that Gitmo makes it difficult for the U.S. to claim the high ground on human rights issues.  He said, "No question, Guantanamo sends, you know, a signal to some of our friends -- provides an excuse, for example, to say, 'The United States is not upholding the values that they're trying encourage other countries to adhere to’.”  But he also said that there was no plan for relocating prisoners.  Some are considered dangerous and need be dealt with by the courts, and there’s a fear that if others are sent back to their countries, they could be arrested and tortured.

There was no information about the obvious implication that many detainees are not dangerous although they’ve been held for years without charge.

Another problem Bush cited is an upcoming Supreme Court ruling about the proper forum for hearing these cases.  The Court is expected to rule within the next few weeks on whether prisoners charged of war crimes can be tried before special military tribunals.  Of the 460 prisoners still held there, 10 are scheduled to be tried before these tribunals.  “According to the Pentagon, 287 detainees have left Guantanamo. That includes 192 who have been released and 95 who were transferred to the custody of other governments,” Reuters reported.

Journalists ordered out of Guantanamo

While the president was expressing concern about America’s image abroad, The Guardian reported that the military ordered all journalists to leave Gitmo “amid unprecedented criticism of the camp and follows yesterday's publication of one of the most frank media reports, by the Charlotte Observer, yet to have emerged from the tightly controlled base.”

It has always been difficult for journalists to get access to the prison camp, needing permission from the US military's joint task force and office of military commissions.   The situation took a turn for the worse after the Observer article reported on “scenes of officials discussing harsh treatment of detainees, including a planned operation to forcibly strip British detainee Ahmed Errachidi and put him in a new uniform.”

In trying to explain the expulsion of reporters, the Pentagon admitted that they were having problems coordinating the various military groups who could approve media visits.  It also blamed reporters for demanding access to the camp since the three suicides last Saturday.

Miami Herald executive editor Tom Fiedler told the Guardian that expelling journalists was not the way to diffuse criticism of conditions at the camp.   

"Government should operate as transparently as possible," he said. "It is in the best interests of the administration for there to be independent corroboration of their claim that the detainees are well treated.  They need to allow access there otherwise they are asking the world to take their word for it, and right now their credibility is severely strained."

What Did Rumsfeld Do And When Did He Do It?

Ironically, Salon ran a story today, based on interviews with high-ranking military brass, that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld “was personally involved in the late 2002 interrogation of a high-value al-Qaida detainee known in intelligence circles as ‘the 20th hijacker.' " He also communicated weekly with the man in charge of the interrogation, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the controversial commander of the Guantánamo Bay detention center.

At the same time, another prisoner, Mohammed al-Kahtani, was treated to what Army investigators have called “degrading and abusive treatment” based on interrogation plans approved by the Defense Secretary.   “Kahtani was forced to stand naked in front of a female interrogator, was accused of being a homosexual, and was forced to wear women's underwear and to perform ‘dog tricks’ on a leash. He received 18- to 20-hour interrogations during 48 of 54 days.”

In early 2005, Rumsfeld “expressed puzzlement” that he could have had anything to do with the abusive treatment, but, this week, Salon received the December 20, 2005 Army inspector general’s report which includes transcripts with Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt and Gen. James T. Hill.  These transcripts offer new evidence on the role that Rumsfeld and Miller in developing protocols for prisoner treatment and interrogation. 

According to Salon, Schmidt discussed “the open-ended policies Rumsfeld approved, and that the apparent lack of supervision of day-to-day interrogations permitted the abusive conduct to take place. ‘Where is the throttle on this stuff?’ asked Schmidt, an Air Force fighter pilot, who said in his interview under oath with the inspector general that he had concerns about the length and repetition of the harsh interrogation methods. ‘There were no limits.' "   He also compared the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo to that at Abu Gharib prison in Iraq.   

So the world is left with a president who acknowledges that the prison at Gitmo should be closed but has no plan to do so, with the expulsion of journalists — the only independent sources of information at the prison, and continued allegations of Rumsfeld’s involvement in questionable interrogation methods.

Technorati Tags: Bush, Guantanamo prison, terrorists, Rumsfeld, torture, media
Add to: | Technorati | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

Update: Americans See Bush Threat & Concerns Raised About Abuse of Power

[Note:  This is an update from the previous article, below]

A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken the day after news was released of the massive NSA collection of American telephone records showed a majority of Americans supporting the effort. However, a Newsweek web exclusive posted Saturday, May 13th paints a different picture.

In a poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International of 1,007 adults aged 18 and older between May 11 and 12 by telephone found very different results. A majority of Americans (53 percent) think the NSA's program "goes too far in invading people's privacy," while 41% believe it's necessary to fight terrorism.

An AP analysis issued late this afternoon asked the question, "Is Bush Overreaching?" Newsweek asks the question, "Has the Bush administration gone too far in expanding the powers of the President to fight terrorism?"

Despite assurances from the president that American's rights are “fiercely protected,” and that “we’re not mining or trolling through the personal lives of innocent Americans,” 57 percent of Americans aren't buying it, agreeing that administration has “gone too far in expanding presidential power.” Thirty-eight percent think the Administration’s actions are appropriate. The poll also found that Bush's popularity continues to linger at the lowest in his presidency, at 35 percent, with Iraq being his biggest problem: 86 percent said Iraq and information revealing the way in which the decision was made to go to war account for most of their low opinion of the president.

In virtually every area, Bush fairs poorly.

• Rising gas prices: 17 percent approve.
• Federal budget deficit: 19 percent approve.
• Immigration policy: 25 percent approve.
• Handling of taxes: 39 percent approve.
• State of the Country: 71 percent are dissatisfied.
• The New Congress: 52 percent want to see Democrats in control vs. 35 percent for Republicans.
• Presidential Race: Half want a Democrat while only 31 percent want a Republican.
• Who can better bring about the changes the country needs: Democrats over Republicans by 53 to 30 percent.

The AP story notes, "President Bush has made broad use of his executive powers: authorizing warrantless wiretaps, collecting telephone records on millions of Americans, holding suspected terrorists overseas without legal protections. His administration even is considering using the military to patrol the U.S. border." Bush has consistently told Congress that he will ignore legislation if he thinks it will "interfere with his constitutional authority."

The technique he's perfected is to issue hundreds of statements when signing bills into law that claiming that he has the right to ignore provisions of the bill he feels interferes with his presidential powers. Because he has not vetoed any bill sent to him, Congress has had no way to challenge these statements where they can be resolved in the courts. This technique is how he has ignored laws requiring him to give reports to Congress about how the Patriot Act is being implemented and about a ban on torture. A number of political analysts have expressed grave concern about his actions.

"The president apparently believes, based on a number of recent statements and policy directives, that anything he approves is automatically legal," said Stephen Cimbala, a Pennsylvania State University professor who studies national security issues. "I do think the president has pushed the envelope," said Georgetown University political scientist Stephen J. Wayne. "He seems so determined for another act of terrorism not to occur on his watch that he has forgotten the constitutional protections that most Americans value as highly as they value their security."

As if things weren't looking bleak enough for the president, it turns out that, by a wide margin, Americans think better of former President Bill Clinton than they do of him. A poll of 1021 adult Americans conducted May 5-7 by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN found that Bush didn't win in a single category: Handling the economy, Clinton beat Bush by a 2 to 1 margin (63 vs. 26 percent); solving the problems of ordinary Americans went to Clinton 62 to 25 percent; foreign affairs, Clinton 56 percent vs. Bush at 32 percent; taxes, Clinton 51 vs. 35 percent; handling national disasters, 51 Clinton, 30 percent Bush; who has divided the country more went to Bush with 59 percent vs. Clinton's 27 percent. Bush can take heart that he and Clinton were statistically tied on two issues: honesty and handling national security.

There seemed to be no good news for the president today.

Technorati Tags: Bush, NSA, phone records, Republicans, privacy, CIA, domestic surveillance, Clinton, gas prices, homeland security, Iraq, terrorism
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

J'Accuse: The West & Arabs to the Palestinians: Drop Dead

In the 1890s, Alfred Dryfus, a Jew and a French officer, was wrongly convicted of espionage in yet another wave of French anti-Semitism.  It wasn't until Emile Zola published his famous editorial, "J'Accuse" (I accuse), condemning the French government for railroading Dryfus, that he was released.

So today, J'Accuse the west, the western media, and the Arab states of complete indifference to the chaos going on in the territories or using that mess for their own ends.  After two days of stories about violence in Gaza and the West Bank, using feeds from Yahoo.com, there was nothing in <i>The Washington Post</i>, <i>The New York Times</i>, or <i>USA Today</i>, and nothing listed in the top stories at the networks, Fox, MSNBC, Salon, Reuters, or even Diablog or memeorandum. 

Civil war may be breaking out in the territories, but it's not worth the media's time.  Had Israel been conducting raids in the territories, it'd have been front page news everywhere. 

The exceptions were <i>The Los Angeles Times</i> and CNN.  The <i>LA Times</i> focused on the fact that Hamas is in complete disarray, not only being snubbed by its so-called Arab allies but also being pressured by the Arab states to reach some accommodation with Israel.  Egypt supposedly is trying to broker talks between the two sides.

But where is the clear voice from the Arab world that the Palestinians have to clean up their mess?  Where is the kind of aid the Palestinians need to relieve the suffering of their people?  Where is a combined Arab effort to intervene in the chaos?  Where are the voices from Western nations offering to broker peace, to impose peace, to engage in something other than silence and occasional blame directed at Israelis?  What we're getting are words -- and empty words at that.

Meanwhile, gunmen still roam the West Bank and Gaza while Hamas and Fatah fiddle.

According to Palestinian analyst Talal Okal, "The question is really where they can go from here.  It looks like a dead end — but one that could drag down everyone else along with them."

Hamas is in complete disarray, with Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh being endplayed by Hamas thugs and unable to form a working government. "Several Hamas ministers are said to have nearly come to blows with aides who refused to carry out their bidding, or did so half-heartedly."

CNN, citing an AP report,  had an extraordinary story this morning:  President Jahmoud Abbas said that he "has the authority to remove the newly elected Hamas government from power..."  Hamas' response: 

"We will go, but we will not recognize the Palestinian political regime. We will not participate in any new election and we will go underground as we did before and we will not adhere to any commitments, any truce, by anyone. Being ousted from power will have a heavy price for everyone. We hope not to reach that."

The great failure of the Israelis is the lack of a strategic plan to address the pan-Arab insanity, but it's tough to create a plan in the midst of such blatant hypocrisy on the part of Arabs and Western governments.

The Arabs want Israelis pushed into the Mediterranean.  Anyone who fails to understand that is either blind, naive, or just plain anti-Semitic.  The only true democracy in the Middle East, the only true ally of the U.S., Israel gets no real support from anyone.

For years, the world has been crying crocodile tears about the fate of the poor Palestinians.  Now, when, more than ever, the Palestinians need help, the silence is deafening.  I worry for the fate of Israel in the face of Western policy incompetence and lunatics such as the leadership of Iran.  I don't trust calls for peace among the Arab nations, because whenever Israel makes concessions, the Arabs just raise the bar.

But to allow the situation in the territories to deteriorate where Israel has no choice but to retake Gaza is the height of immorality and hypocrisy on the part of the West and Arabs.  On second thought, perhaps that's the game plan?  Let Israel take care of the mess - again - and then the world can comfortably go back to blaming the Jews.

There are no depths so low that people will not sink in their disregard for their fellow human beings.

Technorati Tags: Palestinians, Israel, Hamas, Fatah, civil_war, Arabs, The West, media, Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |
Add to: |

British Cabbie Saves England By Denouncing Terrorist

An unknown English cabbie deserves the thanks of a greatful nation for alerting police to an obvious terrorist he was taking to the airport.  According to BBC News yesterday (alas the link has died, so you'll just have to trust me,) Harraj Mann (an obvious alias) asked the cabbie to play a subversive and terrorist theme song on the radio -- The Clash's "London Calling".  It contains the line, "War is declared and battle come down," which everyone knows is Al-Qaeda code for "Kill the infidels, women and children first." 

Also note, you can rearrange the words to say, "Come down and battle.  War is declared."  These terrorists are so stupid!

Always alert, the cabbie called the police who arrested Mr. Mann after he boarded the plane at the airport.  It's not clear what happened to him in detention, but rumors are that he was brutally tortured by being forced to listen to Barry Manilow records for six hours.  In addition, he said later he was questioned under the Terrorism Act, all 400 pounds of it.  The weight, he told reporters, was almost worse than the Barry Manilow songs.

He finally broke down and revealed all.

The problem was that all he could reveal was that he was a mobile phone salesman of Indian origin.  Despite the torture, they could get no more out of him, so they released him.

A police spokesperson said that "it was not just the music Mr. Mann requested, but the 'overall impression' he gave that aroused the taxi driver's suspicion."

When asked what that impression was, she said, "Safety is paramount and we respond to concerns from members of the public in the way they would expect us to."  Since news of this near disaster hit the streets, the police have been flooded with calls from concerned citizens about suspicious-looking people in their neighborhoods, on busses, trains, in their backyards, and outhouses. 

The cabbie, contacted by this intrepid reporter, showed no remorse for fingering the wrong man.  "Hey," he said, "he didn't look like no bleedin' Englishman.  He wasn't white.  For all I know, he coulda been a bleedin' Arab.  Plus, I hate that fucking song.  Serves him right for having such bad taste in music."

It is rumored (rumoured in England) that Prime Minister Tony Blair is going to award the cabbie the county's highest terrorist honor:  "The Golden Garter of Gandalf." 

This reporter will stay on the story as more information breaks, or until he can come up with more rumors to spread.

<i>Technorati tags:</i>

<a href=http://technorati.com/tag/England rel="tag">England</a>,

<a href=http://technorati.com/tag/Terrorism rel="tag">Terrorism</a>,

<a href=http://technorati.com/tag/Satire rel="tag">Satire</a>,

<a href=http://technorati.com/tag/Music rel="tag">Music</a>,

Rumsfeld-Fight Terrorists with Ink

In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Defense Secretary Donald "Don't shoot 'til you see their bloodshot eyes" Rumsfeld called on the military to drop buckets of ink on terrorists so they'd be easier to spot and shoot.  (He didn't comment on whether he advised Cheney to spill ink on Harry Whittington, the friend he shot.)

O.k., not really.  He did call for a more effective communications campaign to combat terrorism.  Duh?  "Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today's media age, but for the most part we, our country, our government, has not," he told the assembled deep thinkers, who scratched their chins and nodded sagely.

His idea is to continue to buy coverage in Muslim newspapers.  We also have to stop being reactive.  He wants a 24-hour media operation to pump out good news about America.  And who's to blame?  The media, of course, for hampering such initiatives.

As a public relations expert, Rummy makes a lousy Defense Secretary.  He's right that we're getting our brains battered in the battle for world & U.S. public opinion, but he doesn't have a clue how to wage that war. 

Like too many people, he equates media with public relations or communications, which is, how do we put this delicately...dumber than a bucket of hair.  There's a great PR saying, "You can't sell from an empty wagon," and that describes our situation.

First, you have to understand the audiences you're trying to reach, how receptive they are to your messages, what are their needs, issues, fears, and desires.

Second, you have to break down their barriers--I call it "The Disarming Prelude"--through empathy, respect, honesty, and even acknowledging the legitimacy of some of their concerns.  Only when you begin to lower the level of intensity and negativity, only when you give them a chance to voice their concerns and see that you take them seriously, will people then listen and maybe consider your point of view.

Third, you have to offer something credible and real.  Denial and rejection--even if correct--won't work when people are already convinced you're doing something wrong.

Fourth, you have to walk your talk.  Peter Drucker once said, "Policy is what you do, not what you say."  Look at what we're doing & our policy, at best, looks like the Keystone Kops chasing the Road Runner and squashing Wiley Coyote on the way.

I could drone on forever.  In fact, I think I have.  But, Mr. Rumsfeld, it's old hat to blame the media for your problems.  Pick a new target.  Blame someone new--like liberals.

In Jamesons Veritas

Scenes from the Oval Office, ii

I know it's been a long time since my last post, but I've been dodging gov't agents, moving daily from house to house.  The problem is that I only have one house, so it's kind of hard to fool them.  One day I had to pretend to be a lamp, holding a light bulb in my mouth and some stupid fed tried to turn me on by twisting my nose.  Finally, he decided the bulb was bad...my only regret is that I abhor violence.  Otherwise, there'd be little pieces of federal agent all over my floor...but then my bride would make me clean it up and I hate the sight of blood & body parts.

Where was I?  Oh, the secret Bush tapes.  Last time, the Pres was hear a startling truth about Canadians. (If you didn't read the first installment, shame on you.  Scroll down!)

Bush:  The Canadians?  (Big, really big yawn.)  What's so cool about them.  I can't even remember who's their Queen.

Rummy:  They have a Prime Minister, sir.

Bush:  Don't fool me, you sidewinder you.  That woman, what's her name...

Cheney:  You mean Queen Elizabeth?

Bush:  Yeah, Betsy.  She's still the queen of Canada, right.

Cheney:  Yes, sir. 

Bush:  So what's the big deal?

Rummy:  Sir, this is ultra, mega, alpha to omega top secret.

Bush:  Am I cleared for that?

Cheney:  I'm afraid not sir.

Bush:  Aw, shucks, guys, come on.  You know you can trust me.

Rummy (to Cheney):  You spilled the beans.

Cheney (to Rummy):  I thought it was you.

Bush:  Hey, am I or am I not the president?

Cheney:  Well...

Rummy:  Sir, it turns out that the Canadians have massive quantities of natural gas just ripe for the picking. 

Bush:  Well, that's great.  We can kiss those camel...riders goodbye then, right?

Cheney:  But it's their gas and it's difficult to extract without causing a lot of environmental damage.

Bush:  Environemtle...what?

Cheney:  It'll mess up the land.

Bush:  My land?

Cheney:  No, sir.  This is Canada, not Texas.

Bush:  So?  Go get it then.  Won't bother me.

Rummy:  The Canadians are willing to play ball with us sir.

Bush:  Jesus...oops, sorry Lord.  Look, guys, my baseball days are over. 

Rummy:  I mean they want to be cooperative, but their environmentalists are raising Cain over this.

Cheney:  They've suggested a secret plan...

Bush:  Ooooo...I love secret plans. Like our secret plan to invade Iraq?

Rummy:  That got leaked, sir.

Bush:  What?  Find that pisser and have him taken to a location in a country where they know how to deal with anti-Americans.

Rummy:  We're working on that, sir.  The point is, the Canadians think it would be a lot easier if we just invaded the part of Canada that has all this gas, they'll surrender, we'll pay them trillions in reparations, and when we've taken all the gas, we'll give them the land back.

Bush:  Hmm.  Think it'll work.

Cheney:  Sir, they're Canadians.

Bush:  Oh, right.  North of here, aren't they?

Cheney:  For the most part.

Bush:  Well, what do you need from me?

Cheney:  Just sign this paper sir.

Bush:  Darn it, I hate signing all these papers.  Do I have to read it first?

Cheney:  No, sir.  Just sign.

Bush:  O.k., that's better.  Reading is such a bore.  Except the Bible of course, which I read every day.

Rummy:  We know that sir.  That's why we love you.

Bush:  O.k., it's signed.  Now what do I do?

Cheney:  Just go back to reading your Bible, sir.

Bush:  Great.  I'm just getting to the good part where God turns Lot's wife into a pillar of salt.  You know, I wonder if I prayed hard enough, would he turn Hillary into a pillar of salt?

Cheney:  Worth a try, sir.

Bush:  Maybe I'll call Pat Robertson.  He seems to have God's ear.

Rummy:  You do that, sir. 

Bush:  That's all gentlemen.  I have presidential work to do.

And that's the truth.

"War Footing"

Regarding President Bush's handling of the war on terrorism and the invasion of Iraq, "Something is missing in the Bush administration's approach, and in manifests itself in a number of inadequate and sometimes even feckless steps that fail to produce a determined effort, a coherent strategy, or a rallied nation."  Written by a head-in-the-sand liberal?  Anti-Bush, anti-war activist?  Try R. James Woolsey, President Regan's CIA director, who notes, "Even among those of us who support...President Bush...there persists a pervasive disquiet. [Emphasis added.]

Thus begins the Foreword to one of the most disturbing--even terrifying--books on the state of the world today, War Footing, by Frank J. Gaffney, former assistant secretary for defense for international security policy under President Reagan and founder of the Center for Security Policy. 

Some books startle you from the beginning, shaking you out of complacency into a new understanding.  Others build slowly, often reminding you of what you've already read, but by putting the various links together in new ways, leave you shaken, distressed, and muttering, "I never thought about it that way before."  War Footing is in the latter category.  Whatever one's political philosophy--and there's enough in the book to offend everyone--I can't imagine anyone rejecting Gaffney's opening argument that this book is "your owner's manual for the War for the Free World."  Whether one accepts the entire thesis or not, this is a serious, must-read book for anyone concerned about what's going on in the world--we ignore it at our own peril.

No one escapes Gaffney's criticism:  the administration's strategic myopia and pathetic attempts at public diplomacy, the Defense Department's refusal to understand the nature of the enemy, the State Department's undermining of administration policy, corporations who knowingly do business with countries supporting terrorist activities, and the entire country for refusing to take concrete steps that could be implemented quickly and relatively painlessly to end our suicidal dependence on foreign oil.

Making a clear distinction between the majority of Muslims who pose no threat, Gaffney identifies what he calls "the new totalitarians," Islamofascists, and compares them and their goals with those of Hitler, Stalin, and other fascists determined to create a new world order--one in which Americans aren't welcome. 

War Footing is not a dense, policy wonk's dissertation, although there are times one wishes he'd written the thousand-page companion--it is, as he describes, a manual.  At 270 pages, he sets out ten specific steps that need to be taken immediately if we are to survive the coming decades.   

At the same time, he examines the world, region by region, exposing the growing Islamofascist threat.  It shouldn't be news to anyone that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is a dictatorial thug who has done everything, including killing wannabe voters, to rig the current election.  And yet, in the Saturday, December 10th Washington Post, the failure of his efforts--and our billion-dollar a year support became clear with the following headline: "Banned Islamic Movement Now the Main Opposition in Egypt." 

If it were only Egypt, perhaps one could relax, but there is literally no world area that, in one way or another, is immune from the Islamofascists or in league with them to thwart American interests.  One might take exception to some of Gaffney's claims, but if he's only fifty percent right, America is woefully unprepared--both to confront the problems overseas and manage them at home.  In the same edition of the Post was a disquieting report that our crisis communications systems are no better than they were pre-9/11.  More billions wasted.

Gaffney--and the considerable group of experts with whom he collaborated--fall well into the conservative arena, and, as a hard-core liberal, I found myself at times frustrated with some of the rhetoric.  (I'm reassured by the fact that hard-core conservatives will be just as frustrated by his criticisms of the administration and big business.)   But there's no question that Russia and China continue to act against our interests around the world, that the Saudis continue to spread and fund the most virulent form of Islamic extremism, that Pakistan, Turkey, and Egypt are at risk of being taken over by the Islamofascists, that demographic, economic, and immigration problems in Europe threaten that continent's future viability...and that America isn't having the kind of open, honest dialogue necessary to fully understand and respond to the real world.   

It is a Good Day to Die

Warning!  Do not, I repeat, do not read the first section of The Washington Post today if you have a weak stomach.  Fool that I am, the front page wasn't enough, so I kept going.  By the time I finished the columns, I felt like Chief Dan George in Little Big Man, whose tag line was "It is a good day to die." 

What a mess we've created for ourselves.  (Well, I'm not responsible.  I'm an innocent.  Plus I blog which means I'm going my part to befoul the netwaves with blather and useless opinion.)

We start with the ever more weird VP Dick Cheney deciding that American values don't apply to the CIA.  Seems the Bush Bubble Machine wants to except the CIA from a legislative measure endorsed by 90 Senators (so some Republicans must have agreed) that would bar inhumane treatment to prisoners accused to terrorist activity.  Of course, it'll require "a presidential finding that 'such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack.'  But the precise applicability of this section is not clear..."  Yeah, like Bush says, "I find that beating the shit out of these guys is vital to protection of the United States."

I understand the emotional response of wanting to beat up people who want to kill you.  After all, from an evolutionary sense, we're only about an hour from some caveman who crawled out, picked up a stick and thought, "Ughuh, mngushush rushushmum." (Translation, "Hey, I bet I can bean someone with this stick.)

But that's why we have a Constitution, Bill of Rights, and are a nation of laws--specifically to prevent us from letting our primitive rage overcome what we intellectually know is wrong.

Moving on, conservatives are working themselves into a whirling dervish frenzy over Supreme Court nominee, Meirs.  It'd be laughable if it was so pitiful.  No discussion about her total lack of qualifications--she ain't conservative enough. 

Daddy's Little Girl:  An 8 year old bagged the first bear of Maryland's hunting season.  Gosh it's great to be an American where even little girls can learn the manly art of killing.  She had to miss a day of school, but, hey, where can you learn life's real lessons except with a gun in your hand.  Hell with school.

And regarding the Mesopotamia (thanks to John Stewart's "The Daily Show"), the new continues to make one proud to be an American.  Bomb kills 16 more in hotel.  "The attack was one of the most complex and coordinated that insurgents have launched in Baghdad. Using rockets, small-arms fire and three suicide bombs, they killed at least 16 people and wounded 22, according to government officials, police and witnesses."  Sigh.  But at least we're winning the "body count" war.  Shudder.  Now if we could only find places for the thousands made homeless by our war to bring democracy to Iraq. 

And for those who think I'm just another pointy-headed liberal, today's column by Richard Cohen offers a depressing realization that the Democrats have seem to have lost any moral compass when it comes to our international affairs, ceding the territory to the Republicans, who, for all their faults, at least believe they're spreading Democracy.  They may only be spreading terrorism, but at least they have some moral compass.  They stole it from the Democrats & the Dems never even noticed.

Oh there's more...the Israel/Palestinian peace process breaking down, conservatives attacking Bush, coral dying in the Caribbean because of higher temperatures...oh well.  At least it's raining outside.  I can take some consolation from that.

Iraqi Elections: The Truth Revealed

It's happening even as I write this on Monday, October 17th, a day that will forever live in infamy.  If we think Pearl Harbor was bad, just wait.  I have it from sources close to the Oval Office that this election in Iraq has nothing to do with approving a flawed constitution that's going to have to be revisited in about an hour.  These sources are so good that if I even told myself who they, some prosecutor would haul me in front of a grand jury.

It has nothing to do with finding a just distribution of power.

It has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction....wait, how'd that get in here?

It has nothing to do with peace in the middle east.

But...and sit down while you read this--it's for your own protection...the reason we invaded Iraq?  The conspiracists were right, they just weren't bizarre enough in their delusions.

It was all about oil, but not in the way you think.  Why invade a country you can't manage after the war?  The Bush Bubble Machine knew full well they could win the war but could never win the peace.

Why create a constitutional process that would send Thomas Jefferson running off into the wilderness?  You can't take action against something you don't understand & that makes no sense.

Why allow the Iraqis to put all that Islamic religious stuff in the constitution?  Doesn't matter if that's not what the votes about.

Ladies and Gentlemen of America.  Since the vote is going to be "yes," get ready to welcome the 51st state in the United States of America--Iraq.  It's brilliant.  It's so simple.  We don't have to buy their oil any more--it'll be ours.   The terrorists will be totally confused.  The Great Satan will not only be in their midst, we'll have military bases all over the 51st state, the FBI will establish large bureaus, and, in no time, the terrorists will pick on someone else...like Urkmanistarian.

I for one would tip my hat to the administration...if I had a hat.

A Pox On All Your Houses

Where have you been, boy?  You haven't posted in ages.

I'll tell you, I'm just fed up.  I've had it with lunatics crawling out of cracks of the foundation of the world--on all sides--liberals, conservatives, libertarians, religious nuts, environmental nuts, health nuts, and walnuts.

Little testy, aren't we?

Testy?  Testy?  I'm French Fried, except some goof ball foodies are telling me that french fries cause cancer.  Of course, they don't tell me that I'd have to eat 10,000 a day for 10,000 days to increase my cancer risk by .000000000001%. 

What moron said "extremism in the pursuit of normalcy is no vice?"

I don't think that's the correct quote. 

Hey, whose blog is this?

Sorry.

It's just getting too easy to make fun of everyone and it isn't as much fun anymore. 

• Big deal, they dumped the head of FEMA today.  How could Bush have appointed him in the first place?  Half the countries in the world are trying to send aid, and these bozos are spending their time trying to focus blame on state and local officials.  One good thing, though--anyone who says racism isn't alive & well in the U.S. is either dead or a racist.  Wonder what Clarence Thomas is thinking right now?
• Our world image has sunk so far, we're like a 3rd world country.  People can't believe we'd let our own citizens wallow in despair.  Foolish foreigners. 
• Iraq?  Are they kidding?  We can't win, we can't leave, the Iraqis are killing each other.  Hell the Palestinians are killing each other.  Afghanistan is a total mess. 
• Health care?  Forget medicare & medicaid.  I know why 45-50 million Americans don't have health insurance--they can't afford it.  We're affluent by anybody's standards, but I'm self-employed & anywhere from 15 to 20% of our monthly budget goes to health care costs!   And that's more than most people make in a month.

Well, there you go, typical liberal whining.

You're right. 

• Enviroids & Health Nazis:  It's still the same old scare and confuse, find that hot button that will cause all the skinny little libs living in terror to write big checks.  Let's put labels on soda because sugar isn't good for you.  ARGGGHHHHH.  The same chemical that's going to give me cancer if I eat a potato chip happens to occur naturally in fruits, vegetables, nuts (no, not the health nuts--the kind that grow on trees) but the health nazis never mention that. 
• Pesticides on food--give me a break.  Better yet, give the American people a break.  There's no risk.  None.  Effectively zero.  Try to tell people that and they get angry.  It's like when they conducted the health studies after Times Beach, Three Mile Island, and Love Canal.  Guess what?  There was no increase of illness.  Response.  Rage, disbelief, lawsuits.  Oh sure, believe your ambulance chasing lawyer with his boxcar of bought and paid for docs who'll confirm anything he wants.
• The Democratic Agenda:  "Hey, guys, we gotta get a consultant to help us talk good like the Republicans do."  No wonder we lose year after year.  Is there a Democrat out there with an original idea.  We've ceded to the compassionate conservatives (talk about an oxymoron) the very values that once made Democrats proud.  That lack of philosophical substance is why John Edwards is going to be the chief justice of the Supreme--God help us--Court.

You mean John...

Hey, it's my blog, beanbag.  that was a joke.

Sorry.  I'm not good at history.

You want more on Democrats and liberals?  Regulate, regulate, regulate...sounds like regurgitate, regurgitate, regurgitate.  Sure, companies and industries have made tons o' mistakes, but the solution is isn't to brand them all devils to gain voter support & campaign contributions and impose idiotic regulations that wind up costing us more money.  Grrrrr.  Has anyone in in the Democratic party ever met or talked with a scientist.  For that matter, has any Republican? 

And just plain old human beings. 

• Parents deny vaccines to their kids because of completely erroneous claims that they can cause autism.  Wait a minute, though.  Whom do they sue when their kids get so sick, they're either permanently injured or they die?  Wow.  Conundrum.
• A poll in 2000 found that 84% of people believe that God performs miracles.  41% believe the Bible is totally accurate.  28% believe witches have real power. 12% of people think Joan of Arc was Noah's wife. 
• Of non high school graduates, 58% believe God created human beings pretty much as we are within the last 10,000 years.  If I were God, I'd be pretty pissed.  Look at us--physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually, we've just barely crawled out of caves.  About half believe in angels & 1/4 in possession by demons.  Gadfry Daniels, let me out of here.

You got any more?

I got tons more.  Wait a minute, who are you and what the hell are you doing on my blog?

Oops...sorry gotta go.

Wait...hey, come back.  Who was that masked man?

All The News That's Fit to Puke

Good morning, Mr. & Ms. America.  News flash:  Bush Backs Intelligent Design.  According to the Washington Post, the president calls for open dialogue in our schools--"both sides should be properly taught," said the Ivy League graduate.  Congressman Barney Frank responded, "People might cite George Bush as proof that you can be totally impervious to the ffects of Harvard and Yale education."

I'm willing to accept that some religious people fear that evolution is a threat to their religion, although I don't agree.  But I'm not willing to give the Prez that leeway.  The religious right is on the move & that, Mr. & Ms. America is not good for U.S.  The creationists cite all the holes and problems with evolution.  Hey, go study quantum physics if you want to see holes & problems & confusion & theories that even physicists admit they don't understand except through mathematical formulae.  But they're still scientific theories, i.e., they can be tested.  Creationism cannot be tested, therefore, it's not a scientific theory.  Post Hoc Propter, ergo cogito sum.

Page Two:  If they wont talk, beat them to death.  Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush was beat to death in prison by Americans because he wouldn't tell them how to pronounce his last name.  Since the CIA was involved, it's all classified, so I won't say anything for fear of the same treatment.

Page Three:  Another day, another few dead Americans and Iraqis.  Not to mention fuel rationing in the country with the second largest oil reserves in the world.  Yup, we're winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.  It's just their guns that hate us. 

Page Four:  Goodnight Mr. & Ms. America.  And God help us all.

The Big Lie in Politics

It's as old as the Republic itself--the big lie.  In fact, it's probably as old as government.  I bet the guys in togas walking into Socrates's cell with a cup of hemlock told him it was a new flavor of Gatorade.  And he probably believed them.

For ages, the administration has been telling us that Iran (which in Farsi means, "the evil empire") was five years away from having THE BOMB.  Oops, seems they were wrong. 

According to the Washington Post, "a major U.S. intelligence review has projected that those nasty Persians are no where near that goal.  According to our own spooks, Iran is 10 years away from being able to make a nuclear bomb.

Contrast that with administration claims offered with no proof.

Does this mean that Iran isn't trying to build one?  Personally, I wouldn't trust them with a book of matches--one of those confiscated by the overzealous airport officials who will let me bring a sharp-pointed fountain pen onto a plane but not a book of matches.  Go figure.

Wouldn't it be sweet if we had an administration that thought the truth was something more than a commodity to be used as a bargaining chip?  It's Democrats & Republicans.  They do their 180 degree spin depending on whether they're in power or not.  It wouldn't be so bad except for the moral outrage that accompanies the latest proclamations. 

Let's see, who's thinking of running in 2008 who would be an honest politician?  Hold on, give me a minute, will you, this isn't easy.  Let me go do some research, & I'll get back to you on this one.

The State of the Union According to Me

My fellow Americans, I come before you today to deliver an unauthorized and unrequested "State of the Union."  It follows no set format.   Anyone seeking a logical flow will be frustrated.  It's my blog & I'll wander if I want to.

It may seem that our government officials were scraped from the underside of the barrel, but a little historical perspective may help.  Throughout our short history, we've elected some of the dumbest, larcenous, and venal people to national, state, and local offices.  They've robbed us blind, destroyed our infrastructures, ignored serious issues, squeezed more swine into barrels, sent young people off to die in stupid wars, allowed outrageous levels of poverty, despair, and hopelessness.

So, don't feel too bad.  It could be worse.  Wait a minute!  Maybe it is worse.  So what, you'd rather live somewhere else? 

Have Americans ever understood what citizenship means?  John Kennedy (speaking of sleazebags who have been reincarnated into heroes) at least had the good sense to proclaim, "Ask not what your country can do for you.  Ask what you can do for your country."   Silly boy.  Ask rich old people to even consider sharing some of their social security welfare with others & they grow apoplectic. 

A good friend of mine (conservative Republican) who's one of the most decent people I've ever met recently said to me, "there's nothing anyone can do to fix the mess this country & world is in, so I'm just going to worry about me & my family & friends."  Out of a sense of hopelessness, she's spun a cocoon around her & hopes to emerge as a butterfly someday and not a gypsy moth.

And everyone hates us!  Well, not everyone.  Tony Blair thinks we're pretty cool.  It's not a new phenomenon although Bush & Co. have taken the hatred to levels never before imagined.  And the weird thing is that I really do believe that Bush believes that spreading democracy is a good thing (Christian democracy, of course.  Muslims, Hindus, Janes, Jews, et. al need not apply.)  But I wouldn't make the same claim about some of the people around him.  For a time when we were dumping billions on the Egyptians (mid- to late 90s), they loved Americans.  Well, except for the terrorists.  They don't love us anymore. 

Even the French hate us, and, contrary to popular opinion, they do remember and are grateful that we saved their butts in two world wars in the last century.  It's just that we treat other countries like vassals, and while their military might is more like military maybe, they're still a proud people & deserve to be treated with respect.

Whoa.  Respect.   The State of the Union has deteriorated to the point where polite discourse means you don't physically beat the crap out of your opponent--anything else is fair game.  Whatever happened to the Golden Rule?  Isn't that a Christian thing?  So how come the right-wing Christians are the least likely to apply the Golden Rule?  And how come the left-wing radicals have twisted it to read, "Do it to others before they do it to you?"

Economically, the state of the union is very confused.  Remember Truman's famous statement, "Somebody find me a one-handed economist so I won't keep getting, 'On the one hand..."  Well, perhaps I paraphrase, but you get the idea.  Economists can't figure out why long-term bond rates are languishing.  They don't understand why the stock market has both feet stuck in very thick mud.  They don't understand the effects of globalization on the U.S. economy.  And I don't understand anything. 

Health care:  Shame on all of us.

Civil Rights:  Shame on all of us.

Environment:  Shame on all of us.

Energy Alternatives:  Shame on the oil companies who just happen to have populated the current administration.  And, of course, shame on us.  Come on, people, SUVs?

Foreign Policy:  Do we have one?

In a nutshell, then, my fellow Americans, is the State of the Union.  The best one can say is, "It's been worse."  Of course, one can also say, "And it could get a lot worse."

I'd leave for Canada, but have you seen their health care system?  And their snow?  And they're too goddamned polite.  So I guess I'm stuck here.  But I'm going to be respectful about it.

In Jameson's Veritas.

Abu Ghraib Lies Just Go Rollin' Along

So, let's try to get this straight about the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.  General Geoffrey "Stick it to 'em at Guantanamo" Miller was sent to Iraq in May of last year to look into prison abuse at Abu Ghraib.  He comes back and tells the Senate Armed Services Committee, "I saw nothink!  I hear nothink!  I tell no one nothink!"  (Those are not direct quotes.)

In fact, according to today's "Chicago Tribune", he told the senators he never even briefed old Defense Sec Rumsfeld or his aides, including a certain Paul Wolfowitz.  That makes sense to me.  Rummy's got a lot on his plate.  He's the Secretary of Defense for crying out loud.  Give the guy a break.  I mean, think of all he has to do.  (Did you ever wonder what guys like that do besides go to meetings all day?  Really.  Anything he wants to do he's got to get 25,352 six star generals to agree with and implement, who, in turn have to win the support of 354,367 five star generals, and so on down the line.  Sad, when you think about it.)

BUT WAIT!  Three months after Miller's Senate testimony, kaboom, he gives a statement to lawyers in which he says, "Following our retun in the fall, I gave an outbrief to both Dr. Wolfowitz and Secretary Cambone."  But Cambone told the Senate he'd never been briefed by Miller.

And Wolfowitz, now head of the World Bank (phew!) wouldn't comment to the Tribune.  Well, rumour had it that he told them to suck lead pencils, but they'd never print that.

Ah, brings back the good old days of Watergate.  What did Rummy know & when did he know it?  And does he give a shit how his policies have eroded America's image abroad--not to mention our own self image? 

But the Bush Bubble Machine has perfected the ability to defer and deflect.  Lies and deceit don' bother them.  They just blame it on the media, democrats, and Big Bird.

Anyone take odds that Miller won't be brought up on perjury charges?

Intelligence? In Praise of Ignorance

Here's a shocker.  Intelligence  on the weapons of infinite destruction in Iraq sucked.  In fact, in today's Washington Post, someone called Colin Powell before he was about to address the UN, saying, in effect, "Uh, maybe you shouldn't go out that far on the limb, Colin, old boy."

If only the truth were known about intelligence, people wouldn't be so upset about a few minor errors by the CIA, FBI, et al.

As a student of history, spending countless hours in dusty backrooms of deserted libraries, I have uncovered the truth about many historical "facts."  I share them with you today so you'll be better able to evaluate today's "intelligence."

• Columbus:  Discover America?  Baloney.  Like he wanted to find a place with a bunch of guys running around in loin cloths and carrying bows & arrows.  He was after gold, riches, fame, fortune, and beautiful Indian (Asian) women with whom to cavort.  He'd never have left Spain had he known where he was going to wind up.
• Scholars have spent more time dissecting, evaluating, deconstructing, and reconstructing James Joyce's Ulysses in a vain attempt to understand "what the hell is he writing about?"  What they don't know is that Joyce was dyslexic.  He thought he was writing a children's book about a little engine that could.
• Old George Washington has been long lionized for his valiant crossing of the Delaware to attack the English in New Jersey.  Actually, he thought he was already in New Jersey.  He wanted to cross the Delaware to get into Delaware and get the hell away from the Brits--I mean, he'd lost every battle he'd ever had with them.
• Patrick Henry?  He was gagged when he was about to be hung.  People recorded him saying "Give me liberty or give me death."  What he really said according to unimpeachable sources standing near him was, "Give me a libation; I can't catch my breath."
• Talk about ignorance.  Lee ordering the final attack at Gettysburg.  Excuse me?  Bobby, send 15,000 men against the entire Union army up a one mile hill completely exposed?  Made Custer look like a bloody genius a few years later.

So, my friends, let us not seek intelligence.  It's a myth propagated by those who want to continue to drain our hard earned cash into their government coffers.  Rather, seek enlightenment.  A new found friend on another site, Gonzo Marx, put it brilliantly citing a lyric from a Rush song (we old guys always think of Tom Rush, the folk singer, but i think he means some other group), "In a world of hammers, everything fits."

Torture: The New American Pastime

"A Poem for A New America"

I must admit that baseball's boring, Basketball's no fun.

Hockey's just one step away from using gattling guns. 

Football's too demented, Tennis & Golf?  Passe;

There's really only one sport left that says, "the American way."

Torture- there's a man's game, although it's hard to see.

It's not the kind of spectacle they'd broadcast on TV.

But even so, one can fantasize just what it would be like

To burn a little human flesh or puncture it with a spike.

Don't balk!  The Romans did it, and we should emulate

The lessons that they left behind that made them truly great.

Americans--you've become girlie-men, you flinch at tough decisions,

Like poking someone's eyeballs out or making deep incisions

With rusty blades or bayonettes.  How 'bout stripping them nude?

That way, we can taunt their religion.  Fuck 'em if they think were rude.

I'm proud to be an American, cause it means I can own a gun,

And if people don't think it's right, I can shoot them just for fun.

So in a Reuter's article today, our best friends, the British, accuse us of major human rights violations.  "Grave human rights violations," in fact, "against prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan and Iraq."  Big deal.  If they weren't guilty, they wouldn't be there, and since they're guilty, they're fair game.

The British!  Bah.  They lost their empire and now they're play spoilsport because we're finally enjoying ours.

Being Smart in Iraq: James Fallows

April's Atlantic Monthly  has a celebration of the obvious written by James Fallows, one of the true Renaissance reporters around these days.  His article, "Getting Out Right," can only be read in full if you subscribe, so I'll outline his points.  Most them fall into the category of "Mr. President, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, if this is too tough for you, I suggest entering the 'No Diplomat Left Behind' program offered by the Kuwaiti Embassy."

80 billion + 20 billion + 34 billion

So, the president wants 80 billion more for Iraq.  O.k., given that we don't have a clue what we're doing there, how to fix it, and how to get out, the military probably does need more money.  Hell, the troops at least should have armored vehicles and body armor.

But the cute part is that this mere 80 billion won't show up as part of the deficit.  Nor will any increased costs for the Bush social security solution. 

If you think about it, it's a brilliant way to balance the budget, and I for one, think the president deserves a round of applause.  (Hear anything?)  If you don't put costs into a budget, you can't be accused of overspending.  No wonder he crushed Kerry.  (He did, didn't he?  After all, he has a mandate.)

Now if I can only figure out how to do that with our family budget...not sure how, but there's got to be a way.

Wait...I thought I heard a discouraging word from a Democrat.  Nah, must have been the wind.  Never mind.  Well, good luck with balancing your own budget.