Democrats losing ways....

Emma Goldman over at Notes on the Atrocities has been critiquing the Democratic Party’s national election strategies—or lack thereof--and her remarks have got me thinking of something I first read online (sorry, I can't remember the link). It has provided me with the most sensible explanation ever since for the Democrats’ often baffling actions.

The assumption underlying most liberal criticism of the Democratic Party (including Emma's) is that it wants to "win elections," not merely "stay in power."

A subtle distinction, admittedly, but a critical one.

In a two-party system, staying in power--as the minority party--is a given, no matter how badly you represent constituents. All you have to do is please enough voters and avoid offending too many, hence, a “middle-of-the-road” strategy is favored. The “fringes” are expendable: too far right, they’ll vote Republican anyway; while the left has traditionally been shunned in this country for fear of losing the center. Even the risk of severely alienating voters--as has come to pass with the left--is considered worth it because the disgruntled voters often fail to vote for either party, thereby hurting none.

This theory might sound idiotic at first. But if the Democrats’ real goal is to keep the campaign contributions rolling in and hang on to their jobs—as apparatchiks, candidates and, when possible, elected officials--the secret is to avoid distancing too many voters and--most important--don't upset donors, who tend toward the conservative. It doesn't matter if you always come in second place. In fact, in some ways it's preferable.

As perpetual runners-up, the heat’s off. Look what the media and the Republicans put President Clinton through! When the reins are not in your hands, you don't have to expend so much effort. It's not your fault when things go wrong, you can blame the other guy. And you can even use your second-place status as a campaign tool to raise more money.

Money is the key to understanding the Democrats' insistence on nominating milquetoast candidates and constantly advancing disappointing, middle-of-the-road campaign strategies. Since the ascendance of the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Party has been a money-making machine, not a party. Keeping the principals in power and cash is the machine’s main goal, winning elections is secondary.

That’s not to say that individual candidates don’t want to win--lord knows, Lieberman and Gephardt are ambitious. Or that some, like Dean, are even idealistically motivated. But they are at the mercy of a party whose main purpose is to perpetuate its machinery and keep the gravy train rolling.

Threats to a woman's right to choose....

From the N.Y. Times:

MIAMI, May 14 — Gov. Jeb Bush has asked a court to appoint a guardian for the fetus of a developmentally disabled rape victim...

[...]

At issue is whether appointing a guardian for a fetus could force a woman to maintain a pregnancy if the interests of the guardian for the fetus conflicted with the interests of a mother or her representative. In a 1989 case, the Florida Supreme Court declared that it was "clearly improper" to appoint a guardian for a fetus. In the current case, neither the woman nor anyone caring for her has sought to abort the fetus.

[...]

Critics say the governor actions are intended to keep the issue in the courts until the woman is in the third trimester of her pregnancy and can no longer obtain an abortion.

"Our take on this is that this woman's needs, her desires and her interests need to take precedence," said Bebe Anderson, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, an advocacy group. " If she is incompetent, someone else should represent her and her interests alone and make that decision for her."

[...]

Religious groups praised the governor's actions.

"If a guardian is appointed, there would be a clear recognition that there is a human being occupying that womb," said Brian Fahling, senior trial lawyer for the American Family Association's Center for Law and Policy. "The governor has the constitutional duty to uphold the right to life."

On a local level, for the past two days a group called, "Justice for All," --a misnomer if ever there was one-- has invaded the University of California, San Diego, campus with a 20' by 9' triple-sided display of huge, lurid, color photos showing what they claim are aborted fetuses.

The obviously well-funded, anti-choice nonprofit, based in Wichita, KS, says it is not religiously subsidized--a ludicrous claim. Apparently, the group travels the college-campus circuit with its foot soldiers and shockingly offensive and misleading exhibit. It gets its foot in the door on state-funded campuses through the ruse of being "invited" by the local affiliate and thrives on controversy. It would like nothing better than for the university to kick it off the premises so that it could then scream "First Amendment Rights" and initiate a high-profile lawsuit. (Already happened with the University of Texas and perhaps others.)

What sickens me about this extreme Right group--in addition to its stand on a woman's right to choose--is the way it hides behind Constitutional protections that you know it would dismantle if it ever achieved its ultimate goal of an American theocracy.

Jeb Bush story here.

Put Tenet's feet to the fire...!

The 9/11 survivors and their loved ones deserve the truth.

WASHINGTON, May 14 — Seven months after telling Congress he would do so, George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, has yet to provide the names of agency officials responsible for one of the most glaring intelligence mistakes leading up to the attacks of Sept. 11, according to Congressional and agency officials.

Soon after the attacks, the mistake emerged, showing that the Central Intelligence Agency had waited 20 months before placing on a federal watch list two suspected terrorists who wound up as hijackers.

Had the information about the two hijackers been promptly relayed to other agencies, the government might have been able to disrupt, limit or possibly even prevent the terrorist attacks, intelligence officials and Congressional investigators said.

The N.Y. Times article says that two agency leaders responsible for tracking Al Queda in 2000, when the CIA failed to put the 2 suspects on the watch list have actually been promoted!

Full story here.

First apply for American citizenship....

Then join the Republican Party and get in tight with Bush, Cheney, et al. Haven't you noticed whose getting the Iraqi contracts?

Mr. Henderson, a South African entrepreneur, thought last week that he had lined up everything he needed to start Air Baghdad, the first commercial air service into and out of Iraq since the war.

Mr. Henderson had flight approval from American military commanders to operate his first route between Baghdad and Amman, Jordan. He had a plane and crew. Because armed gangs are attacking and killing road travelers with increasing frequency, he had throngs of customers ready to pay one-way fares of $650. He even had insurance from Lloyd's of London.

But just as the first passengers were ready to board his 50-seat commuter plane last Thursday, Air Baghdad was grounded. The decision boiled down to this: he was moving too early to make a profit and might get a jump on his competitors. [Emphasis mine.]

But, hey, no worries about Bechtel, Halliburton or the others....

Full story here.

Pro-choice does not equal progressive....

It turns out that pro-choice Democratic women elected with bundles of checks from thousands of contributors to Emily's List, the high-profile feminist national PAC, have been voting less-than-progressively on non-Choice issues.

...In the 107th Congress, for example, Dianne Feinstein (CA) and Hillary Clinton (NY) voted against bankruptcy protection for the poor. Who knew? Emily's List also helped finance the election of Senator Debbie Stabenow (MI) so that she could vote against food safety and for the nuclear industry; for Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both from Washington State, who cast numerous votes for Fast Track and nuclear subsidies as did now-former Senator Jean Carnahan (MO) who also voted to open ANWR for oil drilling.

The votes of several women who were first elected with the support of Emily's List should put them in good standing with the Republican right. Once in Congress, Blanche Lincoln (AR) and Mary Landrieu (LA) were 'delisted' for violating their agreement with Emily's List and casting ballots against abortion choice. A glance at their voting records, however, gives ample evidence that their support from a "liberal" and "progressive" PAC, as founder and president Ellen Malcolm describes Emily's List, was always questionable. Mary Landrieu, who bragged during the 2002 election cycle that she voted with President Bush 74% of the time, cast votes against food and workplace safety, against fuel economy standards, and in favor of the John Ashcroft confirmation and federal subsidies for nuclear power. Blanche Lincoln voted against campaign finance reform, against food and workplace safety, against consumer bankruptcy protection, against fuel economy standards, but for nuclear power and Fast Track. By the next election each had a well established name in her state, and voters returned both of these women to Washington without the support of the PAC that had helped place them in Congress to begin with.

According to this piece on Common Dreams, it seems that Emily's List does not track any aspect of candidates' agendas beyond reproductive rights, and therefore sometimes ends up endorsing the less progressive candidate in a race merely because she is a female.

As a one-time contributor to Emily's List, I am dismayed.

Westinghouse story is false....

Well, I couldn't verify the Westinghouse allegation (see below) made at On the Fritz, because it's bogus.

And yes, I knew the photo was a fake. Puhleeze.

It seemed such an apt visual comment, however, and it really cracked me up. I love hyperbole. The problem is, there's a fine line between it and downright falsehood.

[Note: added on 5/20: The photo was a great sight gag, but I'm taking it down. It's slowing this site's load time tremendously....]

Revolting.....

In every sense of the word.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate voted Thursday to suspend taxes on stock dividends for three years, restoring the centerpiece of President Bush's economic plan in a package of tax cuts that is still half the size he wanted.

"It would encourage investment, it would encourage jobs, it would encourage growth," Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., said just before Vice President Dick Cheney cast the tie-breaking ballot in the 51-50 vote to abolish dividend taxes in 2004, 2005 and 2006....[Emphasis mine.]

Cheney stands to gain around a cool quarter of a million dollars each year, by most estimates, if the plan he cast the tie-breaking vote on becomes law.

How's that for democracy?

The two Democrats, Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Zell Miller of Georgia, who gave Republicans the edge they needed for passing this today should be booted come next election.

Full story here.

Vinnell a CIA front...?

This brief article in today's Times/U.K. says the target of Monday's terrorist bombing in Saudi Arabia may be a CIA front.

AS BEFITS a company that has been accused of being a CIA front, of recruiting “executive mercenaries” and attempting to overthrow the Prime Minister of a Commonwealth state, the Vinnell Corporation kept a low profile in Riyadh.

Its discreet security fooled nobody, however: the bomb attack was the second it has suffered in eight years. In 1995 seven people were killed....

According to the article, Vinnell was brought to Saudi Arabia in the 1970's to train Saudi troops to guard oil fields. Since then, it has helped the Saudis increase their National Guard strength from 26,000 troops to around 70,000. Vinnell employees were even seen fighting alongside Saudi troops in the 1991 Gulf War. (I didn't know Saudi troops fought in that war.)

Meanwhile, the article says, on the other side of the globe in the early 1980's, two Vinnell employees were embroiled in a failed attempt to overthrow Maurice Bishop, the left-wing Prime Minister of Grenada. Soon after that, a former employee was implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal.

CIA front or not, it doesn't exactly sound like a company with clean hands.

Information in the NY Times is just as damning. It identifies Vinnell as "a Virginia subsidiary of Northrop Grumman." (Here). Northrop, a "$25 billion global defense enterprise" (by its own self-description) is anything but an innocent noncombatant in the Middle East.

A fact Vinell employees seemed cognizant of. A Northrop spokesperson said in the NY Times article, that the compound in Saudi Arabia was referred to as "Camp Vinnell" on the company website.

Thus, contrary to the way Bush officials are trying to spin this latest attack, Vinnell employees were aware that they lived on the front lines of the "battle against terrorism" in Saudi Arabia.

There's more.

[Note added on 5/20: the following regarding Westinghouse is false, a bogus posting. See post on 5/15....] According to On the Fritz, Westinghouse--a Northrop affiliate--just won a multibillion dollar contract to provide "infrastructure redevelopment" for post-war Iraq--despite the fact it has little or no experience in the large-scale construction field. (I haven't been able to independently verify this yet. I'll keep you posted.)

Not in any way to justify terrorism, but these connections shed quite a different light on Monday's bombings, don't they?

(Thanks also to Common Dreams.)

Wag the dog real-life....

If you haven't read elsewhere that the famous Jessica Lynch "rescue" was a staged media event, check out this Guardian/U.K. story.

Jessica Lynch became an icon of the war. An all-American heroine, the story of her capture by the Iraqis and her rescue by US special forces became one of the great patriotic moments of the conflict. It couldn't have happened at a more crucial moment, when the talk was of coalition forces bogged down, of a victory too slow in coming.

Her rescue will go down as one of the most stunning pieces of news management yet conceived. It provides a remarkable insight into the real influence of Hollywood producers on the Pentagon's media managers, and has produced a template from which America hopes to present its future wars.

Via Common Dreams.

S.D. Tribune update....

Remember the astroturfing incident involving the San Diego Union Tribune, discussed here on and on This Modern World on 5/9?

Well, I never heard a word from the UT, despite the fact I emailed and faxed a letter to them. But the link to Steven Zasueta's "letter to the editor," --which was actually written by someone at the GOP's Team Leaders Action Center website-- has been killed. Whether this was done in response to public consternation or simply due to the passage of time, I guess I'll never know.

How to win friends and influence people....

BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 13 — United States military forces in Iraq will have the authority to shoot looters on sight under a tough new security setup that will include hiring more police officers and banning ranking members of the Baath Party from public service, American officials said today.

Full story in the N.Y. Times here via Common Dreams.

What next, Saudi Arabia...?

I have been struck in recent days by the increasingly critical tone adopted by U.S. media and the Bush administration toward Saudi Arabia.

According to This Modern World, (here), CNN has finally been emphasizing that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis. (About time!)

Then there's this disapproving tone (echoed throughout the nation's media) in today's N.Y. Times:

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, May 14 — The United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia charged today that some weeks before the car bombs of Monday night, American intelligence operatives picked up signs of an imminent terrorist attack and urged the Saudi government to improve security at foreign compounds here, but got little or no response.

Reflecting what some officials said was increasing American frustration with the Saudi efforts against terrorism, the ambassador, Robert W. Jordan, praised Crown Prince Abdullah and Prince Saud al-Faisal, the foreign minister, for their "sincere" vows of a crackdown on military groups. But he also said that "executing the plan to provide additional security is another matter, and I think there's some ways to go on that, quite frankly."

[...]

Even the White House, which has tried in recent months to repair relations with the kingdom, said today that Saudi efforts to combat terrorism remain inadequate, despite some recent improvements.

"Repair relations with the kingdom"?

Since when? Is this not the same Bush administration that facilitated the evacuation of bin Laden's family by air out of the United States in the days following 9/11 when all civilian aircraft were supposedly grounded? The same administration that has been bedding down with the Saudi royal family since before the time of G.W.'s daddy?!

Have I missed something? Or is "repair relations with the kingdom" yet another White House phrase slipped manipulatively into press releases to re-write reality in preparation for another Machiavellian twist?

I would worry if I were a member of the Saudi royal family--who, by the way, are denying that the kingdom failed to heed U.S. requests for greater security. The U.S. has decided to close its Saudi military bases. And now, nonessential American personnel have been ordered out of the country because, again from the Times:

"Saudi Arabia is now one of the fronts in the battle against terrorism," an aide quoted the [American Ambassador Robert Jordan] as telling them. "Innocent civilians and children don't belong on battlefields."

That's damned right, they don't. And just where, by definition, do terrorists' battlefields lie?

Eight Americans were killed in Monday's attack, out of a total of 29 - 34 victims--depending on the news source. (Breaking news, as reported here yesterday, erroneously placed the death toll in the 90's.) As tragic as 8 violent deaths are, they are negligible compared to the nearly 6,000 slain on 9/11 by Saudi hijackers. And we didn't tell Americans to leave Saudi Arabia then.

Just what exactly does the Bush regime have in store for the Saudi Kingdom?

Complete N.Y. Times story on the administration's irritation here.

The face of our future...?


If we U.S. citizens do not oust Bush and the NeoCons from power and replace them with leaders willing to address the root causes of terrorism--the war between Israel and the Palestinians, dire poverty throughout much of the Third World, the out-of-control arms industry, the widening gulf between the globe's haves and have-nots, the proliferation of despotic, repressive regimes, and so on--this will become our daily reality.

And it will increasingly take place on U.S. soil.

Don't believe me? Look at Israel. If ever there were a lesson against using force to respond to terrorism, Israel is it.

Yet what other response does Bush offer?

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, May 13 — The death toll rose to at least 90 today in the three suicide attacks against residential compounds and a business in the Saudi capital, according to news reports quoting the State Department.

[...]

Mr. Bush called the bombings "despicable acts committed by killers whose only faith is hate." The crowd of 7,000 at the Indiana State Fairgrounds roared its approval when he said, "The United States will find the killers, and they will learn the meaning of American justice."

And people applauded....

The U.S. electorate's mindless adulation of Bush more and more evokes images of Nazi Germany's devotion to Hitler.

If we don't stop the Republican juggernaut, we are all going to learn the bitter meaning of "American justice."

Lessons continue apace in San Diego: ballooning government budget deficits; massive lay-offs of school administrators, teachers and others; libraries cutting their hours; social services disappearing; businesses closing. And all we hear from Washington are drums of war and tax-cuts for the wealthy.

Complete story of the Saudi Arabian bombings here.

Two views of the situation in Iraq....

The mainstream view, promoted by President Bush on May 1st and embraced by Americans who seek no further for their news than Fox or ABC:

"In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country," the president told some 2,000 sailors and airmen aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln some 100 miles off the American coast. "In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment "

(Full story here.)

Alternate view, believed by the rest of the world, including Americans who are more discerning in their choice of news sources:

You have only to step inside Saddam Hussein's old palace complex - where coalition officials trying to rebuild Iraq are based - to see that the task is way beyond them.

When the civilian administration of the ORHA (Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance) first arrived there, it was said there was only one working shower for 800 people. The situation has improved a little now, but they work in sweltering offices and sleep five or six to a room.

There are no telephones on the desks, and the real world of looted buildings and car thefts outside the palace is a distant prospect. No one is allowed out without an escort of soldiers....

According to the Telegraph/U.K. story, Barbara Bodine, the (recalled) U.S. official in charge of Baghdad, was unaware for 24 hours after the event that US soldiers had shot dead more than a dozen Iraqi protesters in Fallujah a fortnight ago. Likewise:

More than a month after the fall of Baghdad, the city still has no authority - no mayor and practically no police on the streets - while looters continue to pillage government buildings and honest folk keep their daughters at home for fear they will be abducted by armed thugs.

(Complete Telegraph story here.)

Which one do you believe?

NPR concludes their Graham crusade....

Well, I woke up to what I hope is the final NPR story on Billy Graham's religious revival here in San Diego.

The closing night was last night. True to form, NPR's local affiliate covered the event in a reverential, dare I say "worshipful?" tone. They devoted 3 or more minutes to the story (I didn't actually time it--it seemed even longer!) and once again inflated the numbers of attendees.

NPR introduced the story saying, "a quarter of a million attended," neglecting to qualify, "over the four days." Yet, NPR numbered last night's crowd at only 54,000.

So, according to NPR's coverage, there was a capacity crowd the first night (70,000, according to Qualcomm's website); 46,000 the second night; not sure Saturday night, so let's be kind and say 70,000; then 54,000 last night. That's maximum 240,000--IF it was a capacity crowd on Saturday, which I doubt. And that's not accounting for people who attended multiple nights. It's possible, though again, doubtful, that the same 70,000 attended each night.

There again, maybe NPR was consulting the local ultra-conservative San Diego Union Tribune for their crowd estimates. The U.T. numbered the attendance at 270,000 over the 4 days--a true miracle, considering the stadium can't hold that many people.

The U.T.'s tone was positively awed. It opened:

His handshake is still firm. His spirit still strong. So don't look for the Rev. Billy Graham to retire anytime soon.

"I'm going to retire when the Lord says retire," the 84-year-old evangelist said....

The U.T. labeled the event, in which "men, women and children prayed and praised in Mission Valley," probably the "largest Christian event in county history," and praised attendees for leaving behind clean parking lots.

What a tribute.

The U.T. reporter said that after he delivered his sermon, Graham bid farewell to San Diego. "I probably will not preach another sermon in San Diego, but I'll see you in heaven."

Not me, you won't.

Complete story, if you can stomach it, here.

If they say it's true, it must be so....

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - The American general who commanded the Iraq war issued a statement Sunday saying Saddam Hussein's Baath Party "is dissolved," ordering the political organization that ruled the country for 35 years to cease existence immediately.

The message from Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of coalition forces, was read over U.S.-controlled Information Radio on Sunday afternoon.

If it's so simple, why don't they just declare "Peace between Israel and the Palestinians IMMEDIATELY"? Or, "The recession is over NOW"?

And have they forgotten that many upper-level Baath government and party leaders, including Hussein and his sons themselves, remain at large?

Moreover, party membership or affiliation was required for many, if not most white-collar jobs in Iraq. American officials have already been putting Baath leaders back in positions of power--like re-appointing Hussein's personal physician, Muhammad al-Rawi, to his former post as president of Baghdad University, the largest in the country.

AP story here, via My Way.

More from the Center for Cooperative Research report....

It's not that I don't trust you to read it....It's just that it's a long report and the last two paragraphs summarize so well why it's important:

It's doubtful that the Independent Commission investigation will look critically at what Bush did on 9/11 and why he did it. Despite the contradictory reports, no one in the mainstream media has yet demanded clarification of the many obvious inconsistencies and problems of the official version. Anyone even asking questions has been quickly insulted as anti-American, accused of bashing the president in a time of war, or branded a conspiracy nut. Only a few relatives of the 9/11 attacks have been able to raise these issues publicly. For instance, Kristen Breitweister told Phil Donahue: "It was clear that we were under attack. Why didn't the Secret Service whisk [Bush] out of that school? ... [H]e is the commander-in-chief of the United States of America, our country was clearly under attack, it was after the second building was hit. I want to know why he sat there for 25 minutes." [Donahue, 8/13/02] But so far, few have listened to their concerns.

Because the media has failed in its role to ask these questions, much less attempt to answer them, it is now the responsibility of ordinary Americans - of you, of me, and the people we know - to gather the information, look for answers, and sound the alarm.

Once again, full report here.

Is this a bad joke...?

Read the Center for Cooperative Research piece first, then imagine Bush winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

OSLO (Reuters) - A Norwegian parliamentarian nominated President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair for the Nobel Peace Prize on Thursday, praising them for winning the war in Iraq.

'Sometimes it's necessary to use a small and effective war to prevent a much more dangerous war in the future,' Jan Simonsen, a right-wing independent in Norway's parliament, told Reuters.

I guess it proves that anybody can be nominiated.

Full story here.

Why aren't we impeaching this guy...?


Not only did Bush and his NeoCon cronies lie about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and links to bin Laden (remember him?) resulting in a war that has slain thousands, maimed tens of thousands and cost billions of dollars and counting.

They also lied about alleged threats on 9/11 to the White House and Air Force One--giving Bush an excuse to hide out in Louisiana and Nebraska all day and avoid D.C. until 10 hours after the WTC and Pentagon attacks.

In fact, according to this report posted yesterday on the Center for Cooperative Research website, the numerous media and official accounts of Bush's actions on 9/11 are riddled with disinformation, omitted details, fudged timing and more. Obvious attempts to rewrite the story, making Bush look better, continue to this day.

And here's one $64 million question...

If high-placed U.S. government officials knew by 8:48 a.m. on 9/11 that:

...three commercial airplanes had been hijacked. They knew that one plane had been flown deliberately into the World Trade Center's North Tower; a second plane was wildly off course and also heading toward Manhattan; and a third plane had abruptly turned around over Ohio and was flying back toward Washington, DC.

So why, at 9:03 a.m. - fifteen minutes after it was clear the United States was under terrorist attack - did President Bush sit down with a classroom of second-graders and begin a 20-minute pre-planned photo op? No one knows the answer to that question. In fact, no one has even asked Bush about it.

The entire piece provides a detailed timetable of the president's actions immediately before and after the 9/11 attacks, and is a MUST READ. Seriously, if you read only one thing this blog points to, read this one.

And much thanks to This Modern World for being first blog to point out the article.

Graham update II....

NPR numbers for attendees at the last 2 nights of Billy Graham's religious revival at San Diego's Qualcomm Stadium:

First night, capacity crowd. That would be 70,000, according to Qualcomm's website.

Last night, 46,000.

That's 24,000 below capacity...and it was a Friday night.

Does it mean anything?

There are still 2 nights to go....

S.D. Union Tribune astroturfed...!

I am a bit surprised the editors of our local mouthpiece for the Republican Party failed to catch that this letter (scroll down: it's by Steven Zasueta) is a verbatim suggested email from the GOP Team Leaders Action Center website. In other words, all Zasueta had to do was click a mouse button--the GOP Team Leaders site even provides relevant editors' names and email addresses.

You'd think, loyal party members that they are, the editors would be up on these things.

Thanks to This Modern World, the UT editors are now the laughingstock of blogdom. As well they should be. On May 5, Tom Tomorrow posted the letter here --and alerted readers to be on the lookout. That's 3 days before the UT published Zasueta's letter.

Too bad the UT editors don't read This Modern World.

I've fired off a letter to the editors--that I composed myself. Let's see if they even acknowledge it....

Yeah, Bush really cares about the troops....

That's why he slept like a baby while keeping the crew of the Abraham Lincoln at sea an extra 18 hours.

Pentagon officials said yesterday that an aircraft carrier waited within sight of San Diego last week while President Bush slept aboard, instead of heading straight to port after 10 months at sea.

A Pentagon official said the USS Abraham Lincoln made "lazy circles" 30 miles at sea and took 20 hours to cross a distance that could have been covered in an hour or two. But that official and others said the carrier was slowed to ensure it reached the dock at the time that had been promised, about 9 the next morning.

As usual, Democrats are trying to make political hay out of the delayed revelations behind Bush's $1 million publicity stunt, but the media-savvy Republicans are one-upping them with ease.

A Republican leadership aide on Capitol Hill said the questions being raised by Democrats were "uncomfortable," but noted that the discussion "at least means they're not talking about Medicare or the economy."

Several senior Democrats agreed that the dispute is a loser for them. "It was live on CNN for four hours," a Senate Democratic strategist said. "You can't pay enough for that. Who cares about a few stories later?"

One Democrat moaned yesterday as he watched cable news programs replay hours of footage of Bush on the carrier, with audio about Democratic complaints. "I'm watching him get high-fived and buzz the tower again," the Democrat said. "The White House should have thought of this controversy themselves."

Have you ever seen a more pathetic, ineffectual bunch of politicians than our current Democratic "leadership"? If the stakes weren't so high and the outcome so tragic for us all, it would be hilarious.

From a May 8 Washington Post story via Common Dreams.

Israel arrests & deports peace activists....

You can't see me, but I'm sitting here shaking my head in disbelief and sorrow. This story just seems to keep getting worse.

Today, Israel cracked down on the activities of foreign nationals in the Palestinian territories, targeting the group, International Solidarity Movement (ISM), to which Americans Rachel Corrie and Brian Avery, and British national, Thomas Hurndall, all belonged.

As you know, I've blogged a lot about ISM activists. They have suffered several deaths in the past two months at the hands of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). In March, Corrie was run down and killed by an IDF bulldozer. Then in April, Hurndall was shot by an IDF sniper (he remains in a coma) and Avery came under heavy machine gun fire and was seriously wounded in the face.

So far, no Israeli soldiers have been held accountable for the deaths or injuries.

Today, about 22 (!) IDF jeeps surrounded ISM's offices in the village of Beit Sahour and soldiers entered and confiscated six computers, numerous disks and other equipment and arrested three activists. One, Christine Razowsky, 28, is from Chicago; the other foreigner, an Australian woman, works for the New York-based Human Rights Watch. The third woman is Palestinian.

An article in the Israeli newspaper, HaAretz, referred to ISM as a "pro-Palestinian organization," which in Israel and elsewhere is tantamount to labeling them "terrorists." The arrested foreigners are being deported on charges of illegally entering a restricted military zone.

The Israelis are justifying their actions by saying that two British men involved in a recent suicide bombing on a Tel Aviv pub, Mike's Place, posed as ISM volunteers while in the Gaza Strip.

ISM vehemently denies this. From a recent ISM press release:

...There is no connection. They never tried to infiltrate ISM. They never contacted the ISM. They could have attended a memorial service for Rachel Corrie in Rafah that was open to anybody. As far as we know, the reports of them attending a demonstration sponsored by ISM are wrong. However, that too would have been open to the public.

As a policy, ISM requires two days of training for all of its activists. This functions as a screening in addition to training in non-violent peaceful resistance and orientation to the ISM guidelines. All of our groups function by consensus. This process discourages any individuals from acting impulsively. We know our activists, and none have engaged in or have been accused of engaging in, any aggressive, confrontational, or illegal activity.

General Yaalon of the Israeli Army gave an order on the eve of the Jewish festival of Passover to remove ISM from the West Bank and Gaza. This order long preceded the bombing in Tel Aviv. The Israeli army wants us to leave because we are providing witness to the atrocities committed by the Israeli army... [Emphasis mine.]

So, the bombing of Mike's Place gave Israelis the pretext to crack-down on ISM. On a much larger scale but in the same manner, 9/11 gave Bush his excuse to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein--an objective advanced for more than a decade by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle and others at the Project for the New American Century.

Also like the American neocons to whom they have close ties, the Israelis plan further measures to militarize civic administration and stifle dissent. From an article in today's HaAretz:

In a further move to clamp down on foreign activity in the territories, the IDF is to take over control of the entry of foreign nationals into the Gaza Strip, Israel Radio reported Friday.

According to the report, individuals who are not Israeli or Palestinian must request personal authorization to visit Gaza from the army, which has taken over all administrative procedures relating to entry to the Strip.

In a separate measure, Israel has demanded that all foreign nationals entering the Gaza Strip sign a waiver exempting Israel from any responsibility should they be killed or injured, a move that has hitherto been restricted to Israelis.

Amnesty International on Friday condemned the demand, saying that it was "categorically opposed to any attempt to get people to sign away their rights."

[...]

The [Amnesty International] site also said that several of Amnesty delegates, who had refused to sign the waivers, were prevented from entering Gaza on Friday.

I wonder when Attorney General Ashcroft will require American anti-war demonstrators to sign waivers before being allowed to protest....

Israel's fear and loathing of suicide bombers are both real and justified. What I don't understand is how they can possibly believe that their increasingly draconian measures are going to do anything but encourage more Palestinian martyrs.

Media Manipulation 101....

Take a look at today's print copy of the N.Y. Times.

Front page, center, is a photo and below it a story about the rage of Iraqi citizens over the appointment of a senior Baath Party member to be minister of health, entitled, "Hussein Loyalists Rise Again, Enraging Iraqis." (Online here.)

In the right-hand column, traditionally reserved for the day's most important story, is a piece entitled, "New U.S. Concerns on Iran's Pursuit of Nuclear Arms." It begins:

WASHINGTON, May 7 — The Bush administration is concerned that Iran has stepped up its covert nuclear program, and the government is now seeking broad international support for an official finding that Tehran has violated its commitment not to produce nuclear weapons, officials said today.

The officials said that the United States was pressing nations that sit on the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which oversees peaceful nuclear programs, to declare that Iran has violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which it has signed.

Such a finding could lead to punitive action by the United Nations, adding pressure on Iran, which is already nervous about American troops in Iraq, the officials said.... [Emphasis mine.] (Online here.)

Note, even the language employed by U.S. officials and reported in the Times mimics that which led up to our invasion of Iraq.

Not only that, the language is downright misleading. "New concerns?" What exactly is new? Bush, Rumsfeld and others have been openly gunning for Iran ever since the tide of battle turned against the outgunned, overrun Iraqis. "Seeking broad international support" from organizations like the I.A.E.A. and the U.N.? Since when? The Bush junta not only told these institutions they were irrelevant, they rolled right over them to invade Iraq.

Please. Don't parrot government press-releases and call it news.

Regarding the first story, I am not at all surprised that the Bush administration is appointing Baath Party loyalists to high positions in Iraq. Are you? Expect it to become the norm. It suits Bush's aims and besides, what's the alternative? Appoint inexperienced Shiites and sit back and wait for an Islamic revolution?

Overall, this latest development simply confirms that our invasion of Iraq was not about introducing democracy to the Middle East, freedom for Iraqis, or weapons of mass destruction. And to ensure that not too much attention is given to this somewhat embarrassing fact, we have column right. Oh no! Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction. We have to do something!

Nuclear proliferation and an impending war against Iran will distract Americans from a host of major problems on the home front. News of mass-layoffs--teachers, city employees, workers in the private sector--are buried deep, if reported at all. Decimation of social programs, the collapse of infrastructure, rising prices and falling incomes, failing health and no health-insurance. All of it receives scant, if any, attention, in this carefully cultivated hysterical climate.

And that's just fine, because it works in favor of Bush's re-election! Which--along with the wealthy making money hand-over-fist--is what it's all about.

Some good news for a change...!

From today's N.Y. Times:

...Three years after selling the Jim Henson Company and its Muppets to a German media company for $680 million, Mr. Henson's family said yesterday that it was buying it back for a fraction of that amount.

The deal, valued at $89 million in cash and assets, gives the children of Mr. Henson, who died in 1990 at age 53, control of the company behind what is perhaps the most famous troupe of puppets in history.

The purchase, from faltering EM.TV & Merchandising, of Munich, is expected to be approved by U.S. and international regulators.

Apparently, Mr. Henson's children have been sadly watching from the sidelines as EM.TV's financial decline prevented it from pursuing its originally grand plans for the Muppets. All five of the Henson siblings are to have seats on the new board overseeing the puppets.

The buyback covers Kermit, Miss Piggy, Gonzo, the Fraggles and dozens of others, but not Elmo, Cookie Monster, Bert, Ernie and other famous residents of Sesame Street, who EM.TV & Merchandising sold two years ago to the nonprofit, Sesame Workshop, of New York.

Gary E. Knell, president of the Sesame Workshop, is said to be pleased by the sale, "It would have been the worst thing that could have happened had the Henson franchise ended up in the hands of people who didn't value them. It would have dumbed down the franchise...no one cares more about the future of the Muppets than the family."

Full story here.

WTC towers' strength NOT tested for fire....

This from today's New York Times:

Federal investigators studying the collapse of the twin towers on Sept. 11, 2001, say they now believe that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the government agency that built the towers, never performed the fundamental tests needed to determine how their innovative structures would perform in a fire. [Emphasis mine.]

The preliminary finding, if it holds up, will undermine decades of public assurances by the Port Authority that the twin towers met or exceeded the requirements of New York City's building code, and therefore would be structurally safe in a large fire....

Not only that, it could make the Port Authority decision makers guilty of criminal homicide.

Not surprisingly, people are scrambling for cover.

The Port Authority has long maintained that it is not legally obligated to comply with the city and state's building codes, but has always insisted that it nonetheless did so in all its major construction, including the trade center.

"I would stress," Mr. Trevor added, "that none of the people who were involved in the making of those decisions at that time are currently working for the Port Authority."

One of those people, Guy Tozzoli, who oversaw all major aspects of the World Trade Center for the Port Authority at the time of its construction, said that his memory was imperfect, but that he thought full-scale tests on the floors and their supports most likely had not been done.

"I don't remember that being done, to be honest with you," Mr. Tozzoli said. "I know there was testing of the fireproofing material. But you are asking a different question. Whether we built a truss and tested that? I'm inclined to say no."

Many yesterday found that startling, even unthinkable.

Indeed.

The story also reports that fireproofing was inadequate; it was being upgraded at the time the towers were attacked.

Full story here.

Scariest man in America...?

You be the judge....
Here.

Graham update....

NPR this morning said "hundreds of thousands" are expected at Qualcomm Stadium for Billy Graham's appearances over the next 4 days.

But the stadium only holds, maximum, 70,000, I thought....I wondered if I'd gotten the capacity numbers wrong.

But, no, shortly after the NPR reporter confirmed them.

So, a capacity crowd every night times 4 would be 280,000. Technically, then, "hundreds of thousands" is correct, though highly misleading. Some --many?-- of those attendees will be repeats.

It's kinda of the opposite of what the media does for peace demonstrations. Then, they'll call a quarter of a million marchers, "thousands." Here, they make sure they count every head, now and again, 4 times.

And, can you ever imagine the media adding up the numbers of peace demonstrators over a multi-day event, and announcing that as the total number to the public? In your dreams!

The driver of the shuttle I take to work everyday told a passenger this morning that someone he knew had flown into town just to see Graham. "We'll be there tonight!" he said, adding that he's taking off work for it.

Not only do I feel like I'm living in the wrong town, I'm living in the wrong universe.

Working-class Republicans....

You gotta admit, the Right knows how to organize. How to motivate activists to work--or at least, vote--against their own self-interests.

My brother, 57, is a case in point. All his working life he's busted his balls selling cars. Not the most esteemed profession, I know, but he's given it his all. And he's got a laundry list of stress-related health problems to prove it.

In fact, both he and his wife are suffering from a variety of serious health ailments. Yet the last time I checked, he still had no employer-paid health-insurance; instead, he was paying out-of-pocket for Blue Cross or some similar high-premium limited-coverage plan.

I don't think he's ever accrued in one year more than two week's paid vacation--and that's working since he was in his early 20's for the same employer. Who's done quite nicely, thank you very much, off the sweat and tears of my brother and others like him.

Nor has either of my brother's two sons earned a college-degree--at least in part due to no money to spare for college tuition.

So, does my brother support progressive politics? Does he vote for a candidate who promises healthcare reform or represents the interests of workers like him? Is he in favor of tax-reform to make corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share?

No. Not only has he been a staunch Republican since he cast his first presidential vote for Nixon, he is a devoted fan of such Right-Wing luminaries as Rush Limbaugh. He vehemently despises Bill Clinton and adores G.W. And, though we haven't dared broach the topic, I assume he's gung-ho pro-war. After all, he and his wife signed the papers for their first-born son to enlist in the Marines when he was just 17.

My nephew hasn't been the same since he was discharged--early, for some unnamed health reason. Now 33, he drifts across the country from menial job to menial job, embittered, no friends, fascinated with all sorts of war weaponry and spouting Right-Wing ideology, distorted historical points of view and reactionary Catholic dogma.

That's right, religion has long played a role in my brother's conservative stance. Doesn't it always? As I stroll the state university campus where I work, I see more religious and conservative political fliers than I ever see progressive tracts. Just now, for instance, there's a huge banner dominating the central quad advertising Billy Graham's mission to San Diego.

Graham and his entourage have reserved Qualcomm Stadium for the next 4 days. That's San Diego's football stadium--baseball, too, until construction on the controversial downtown ballpark is completed. A 166-acre, open-air amphitheater that holds between 66 and 70 thousand people.

Imagine. They're expecting that many people daily to attend Graham's religious revival....Will they come?

Judge for yourself: out of the blue yesterday, a woman who was assisting me on the phone at a local medical clinic burst out, in a whiny, nasal, 5-year-old tone, "I really wanna go!"

Not sure whom she was addressing, thinking she was wanting to leave for the day her wonderful phone-answering job as it was almost 5 p.m., I responded, "Long day, huh?"

"Ahhh, no," she said, as if on cue. "Actually, I was talking about something else...Billy Graham, you know, is going to be at Qualcomm this weekend? And I really wanna go!" (whiny voice again). She then proceeded to regale me with details of the televangelist's scheduled appearance.

Afraid to have the message to my doctor go mysteriously missing--I'd waited ten minutes on-hold already just to get a person on the line--I let her prattle on. But I was annoyed.

Among other things, I wanted to ask, "Does what you're doing here constitute witnessing for Jesus? Are you earning brownie points in heaven for making me, a captive audience, uncomfortable and irritated? And getting paid for it?"

In the end, my self-interest, namely, wanting to get my message through intact, won out. I didn't confront her.

Which brings me back to my original point. How does the Right win over so many working-class voters when they consistently, systematically and unceasingly work against workers' interests?

Conservative leaders have done everything in their power these past 20+ years to sink every social program that has ever benefited working people, while at the same time shipping almost every living-wage, blue-collar job overseas and making a fortune in the bargain. Never mind! They still own the devoted loyalty of those selfsame workers.

At the rate we're going, not my brother, the phone operator, nor the woman I work with--who is vehemently against the clerical union that represents our interests in negotiations with the Goliathan University of California system--will ever achieve the vaunted American Dream. Republicans--and, to a lesser degree, Democrats--have made sure of that.

Instead, they will labor harder and harder, chipmunks on a treadmill, probably through their dying days without pensions and social security, to hold onto whatever financial high ground they've managed to sandbag. Meanwhile, the rich will sip Martinis and look on from the safety of their gated communities as the rising waters of the Global Economy engulf and drown us all.

But, hey, you gotta admit: the Right knows how to draw a crowd.

The emperor has no clothes....

It looks like the Germans are about to get slammed for telling it like it is....

THE strained relations between Germany and the United States took a turn for the worse yesterday after a senior Berlin diplomat was reported to have told Foreign Ministry colleagues that America was turning into a “police state”.

The comments of Jürgen Chrobog, the State Secretary, reported in the German Focus magazine, threatened to disrupt intense diplomatic efforts to repair the relationship between Gerhard Schröder, the Chancellor, and President Bush.

According to the article, there have been only two (!) telephone conversations between Bush and Schroder since the Chancellor won the German election last September, and only a few sparse words have been exchanged at summits.

Way to go, Bush! You show 'em that the most powerful military force in the history of the planet is under the petulant command of a man with the emotional development of a five-year-old. (Or does that comparison slight five-year-olds?)

Complete story here in the Times/UK.

Can you believe this...?!

From The Independent, UK, via Common Dreams:

The parents of a British peace activist who was shot in the head by Israeli troops came under fire themselves as they traveled to the spot where their son was critically injured.

Anthony and Jocelyn Hurndall were in a British diplomatic convoy entering the town of Rafah in the Gaza Strip when Israeli soldiers at a checkpoint fired a shot, which passed narrowly over the top of their vehicles.

The incident on Saturday afternoon took place despite the Israeli Army being given notice of the journey on at least three occasions – the last minutes before the convoy arrived. [Emphasis mine.]

If this doesn't convince you that the Israeli Defense Forces are out of control, I don't know what will.

The two British cars were identifiable by their white diplomatic plates. They were passing through the checkpoint "very, very slowly," in broad daylight. The convoy came to an immediate stop, but it was not until British Defense attaché, Colonel Tom Fitzalan-Howard, had stepped from one of the cars with his hands in the air to talk with the soldiers inside the tower, that they were able to proceed.

Remember: the Israelis shot the 21-year-old British son of these two people, downing him with a high-velocity bullet as he moved towards two frightened Palestinian children three-and-a-half weeks ago. He still lingers in a coma in an Israeli hospital.

Full story here.

SARS virus found to be robust....

This from today's L.A. Times online:

The virus that causes SARS can survive in the environment much longer than researchers had suspected, the World Health Organization said Sunday, suggesting that halting transmission of the disease may be harder than they thought.

Research from laboratories around the world, posted on the WHO's Web site, indicates that the SARS coronavirus can persist on public surfaces for a day or longer and in feces from infected people for as long as four days — much longer than the coronaviruses that cause the common cold. It can survive even longer at low temperatures. And one commonly used detergent does not kill the virus as readily as researchers had hoped.

"This is the first time we have had hard data on the survival of the virus," said Dr. Klaus Stohr of the WHO, which is based in Geneva. "Before, we were just speculating."

Stohr cautioned that the full meaning of the findings will not become clear until researchers learn how much virus is necessary to trigger an infection. That the virus can persist for hours on, say, handrails in a bus station may not be important if there is not enough of the virus present to produce disease.

As of Sunday, SARS has sickened more than 6,300 people worldwide and killed at least 449--none in the U.S. Cases seem to be declining in Hong Kong and China; the latter having tripled the amount of money targeted for the disease to $725 million over the weekend. But authorities are concerned about the situation in Taiwan, where the spread of the disease seems to be accelerating.

Complete story here.

Concern for women's rights in Iraq....

Remember how, prior to the invasion of Afghanistan--way back when--the Bush administration cited the Taliban's repression of women and girls as an important reason to invade the country?

Well, women's rights seem to have played no role in the Bush administration's grand designs for Iraq.

Now that we've "liberated" the country, women find themselves in a more precarious position than ever as Islamic fundamentalists of all persuasions use the ensuing power-vacuum to slug it out in a brutal power-struggle.

Iraqi women, formerly among the most liberated in the region, are watching the rise of fundamentalism with dread.

"I want to move freely, live a joyful life out in the open," said Nimo Din'Kha Skander, the owner of the salon [Nimo's]. Nimo's is small but well known; Ms. Din'Kha Skander likes to recall how Saddam Hussein's second wife had her hair done there.

"I don't want a government of religion," Ms. Din'Kha Skander continued. Religion, she said, is "a private thing."

From this and other articles, I get the distinct feeling we just pulled the rug out from under the very Iraqis--in the upper and middle classes-- who were the strongest proponents of gender equity.

The article blames, among other things, the constraints and privations of the U.N.-sponsored sanctions for creating a generation more socially and religiously conservative than their parents.

Suha Turaihi, a retired diplomat who served in India, elaborated: "For 20 years they didn't travel — they were not exposed to Western values as we were. They are children of wars and embargo."

So, while talk of "traditional values" falls on the young's more receptive ears, women in the story put their hope in Iraq's diverse cultures and religions, believing no single group could easily monopolize power. (Unless under a dictator?)

Ironically, they also count on U.S. repression.

Criticizing Americans for mismanaging the postwar occupation and being slow to restore public services, one woman says,

"We are used to having coups and revolutions. But usually people who stage them take over the country afterward."

Ah, what fertile ground for Jeffersonian democratic ideals!

Full story here.

And by the way, what ever happened to those imperiled Afghani women and girls? Especially the ones unlucky enough to reside outside the boundaries of American control in and around Kabul?

We don't hear much about them from the Bush administration anymore, do we?

This just in...!

Jennifer Miller and Circus Amok will be performing this Tuesday! May 6th, at Galapagos, in Williamsburg (Brooklyn), NY.

Miller will join actress and peace activist, Janeane Garofalo, Lee Gough, of Military Families Speak Out, and John Kim, of Veterans for Peace, and others. Music provided by The Trachtenberg Family Slide Show Players, Danny Kelly and John Dyer, with sound & visual art by April Koester and DJ Andrew.

You lucky New Yorkers! I have wanted to meet Miller since seeing her in the film, "Juggling Gender," at the San Francisco Lesbian and Gay Film Festival in the early 1990's. To quote a promo for the film:

...Miller [is] a lesbian performer who lives her life with a full beard. Miller works as a performance artist, circus director, clown and as the "bearded lady" in one of the only remaining sideshows in America. In public she is often mistaken for a man, an experience she handles with the wit and intelligence that characterize her stage performances. Her lifestyle suggests the impossibility of defining anyone as truly feminine or masculine...

She is truly awesome!

The event is sponsored by Peace Williamsburg to raise funds for Madre, a feminist non-profit organization dedicated to building real alternatives to war and violence through a people-to-people exchange of direct relief and understanding.

Remember: Tuesday May 6. Galapagos, in Williamsburg (Brooklyn), NY, 80 N. 6th Street. Showtime: 7:30 - 11:00p.m. $8.

Be there!

More about Circus Amok here.

Israeli soldiers kill British journalist....

I am stunned that the mounting toll of foreigners killed by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) gets such short shrift in the U.S. media.

I have come to expect an appalling level of callousness when it comes to Palestinian deaths; after all, Americans have long de-humanized Palestinians, seeing them all as terrorists. This level of ignorance and prejudice is particularly unforgivable considering that the Israeli army's deadly toll on Palestinians is perpetrated with American foreign-aid dollars.

But I would have thought when the Israelis started shooting American, Danish and British peace activists and now a British journalist--not to mention, running down 21-year-old American, Rachel Corrie, with a bulldozer--the American media might have changed its tone. So far, it seems not. The coverage remains sparse and surprisingly forgiving.

The latest death was reported by Agence France Presse (via Common Dreams):

British television journalist James Miller died after being shot by Israeli troops in the southern town of Rafah in the Gaza Strip.

An Israeli army spokesman expressed "regret" at the death, but pointed out that the man had "taken great risks by being in a virtual war zone."

Miller, 35, was hit as he was filming a stand-up segment as part of a documentary he was making on the army's destruction of hundreds of homes of militants in the Palestinian territories.

Complete story here.

The standard--one might say, reflexive--IDF routine is apparent here. The Isreali military spokesperson expresses regret and claims "it was a mistake," or is "under investigation." Then the victim is blamed. Invariably, the attitude seems to be, put yourself in the path of my bullet, and your death is your fault, for my right to pull the trigger is inalienable.

Just how many "mistakes" need to happen before the actions are viewed as premeditated policy?

According to Agence France Presse, Miller's death brings to 3,207 the number of people killed in Israel and Palestine--2,419 Palestinians and 729 Israelis--since September, 2000.

You remember what happened then? On September 28, Ariel Sharon--then Israel's opposition leader, not yet prime minister--took a 34-minute stroll at the most disputed site in Jerusalem, what Jews call the Temple Mount and Palestinians the Haram as-Sharif mosque complex. He made sure to bring along some 1,000 armed soldiers and police officers, forestalling any pretext that he didn't know exactly what a provocation his actions represented. The resultant riots involved hundreds of Palestinians civilians and Israeli law enforcement forces and evolved into what is now called the Al Aqsa Intifada.

Sharon made the most of the havoc he had ignited, bringing down a government and parlaying a law-and-order platform into two consecutive terms as Israeli prime-minister.

Many of those killed by Israeli forces in the ensuing carnage have been children. The International Press Center (IPC) website, sponsored by the Palestinian State Information Service (SIS) says the following about the children killed and the IDF excuse that their deaths are mistakes:

...You find that “mistakes” are positively littering the Palestinian landscape. Israel may cling to the fallacy that the IDF is the most moral army in the world, but as the number of child deaths approaches 400, it is surely the most error-prone.

In the first Intifada, Israeli journalist Amira Hass calculated that a child was killed by the IDF every two weeks. In the current Intifada, that figure has climbed to three and a half every week. That’s seven every two weeks — an escalation of 700%. Careless, careless, careless.

Of course, it is absurd to try to continue categorizing this number of slain children as accidents. To use Amira Hass again, an IDF soldier rather gives the game away in her now famous Ha’aretz interview: “12 and up, you’re allowed to shoot ,” he said. “That’s what they tell us.”

Full piece here.

For those who don't know, Amira Hass is an Israeli reporter who lives and works in the occupied territories and whose work regularly appears in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz. For samples, go here.

And a prophet of another sort....

Lacanian-Marxist philosopher, Slavoj Zizek, from Slovenia, is the subject of a profile by Rebeccca Mead in The New Yorker, on sale now. Three quotes bear repeating here (transcribed by hand):

"You probably saw the movie 'Minority Report,' in which people are arrested before they commit the crime," [Zizek] said. "Why does this sound familiar? This is the new model for international relations. The U.S. knows in advance who will attack you."

Like, I suspect, many of Zizek's quotes, this works both in the facetious sense, and--judging from the information Bush is trying to suppress in the 9/11 report--the factual sense.

Then, invoking the manipulation inherent in the "war on terror":

"The terrorist attack is taken for granted, but endlessly postponed," he said. "The true catastrophe is that we are living under a permanent threat of catastrophe."

Finally, in reference to what he calls the "creeping social change" this has brought about, illustrated by, among other things, the fact that "torture has become a legitimate subject of conversation," Zizek observed,

"It is not that the ends justify the means; the end is the means themselves."

Very interesting guy. But you've got to buy or borrow the magazine to read more.

War prophets profit....

How many in the Bush administration have links to the oil industry?

ExxonMobil, the world's biggest privately owned oil group and a target of street protesters, celebrated May Day by reporting the largest quarterly corporate profits in history at $7.04bn (£4.4bn).

[...]

Fadel Gheit, oil analyst with New York brokerage Fahnstock & Co, said groundbreaking profits had been driven by the Iraq war and strikes in Venezuela and Nigeria. "They [Exxon] had a very strong wind in their sail and they happened to have a very big sail....

That $7.04bn is in comparison to $2.09bn last year. More than three times the pleasure! And they're not the only one.

However, analysts say the record first-quarter profits will not be repeated because oil prices have already started to fall as the conflict in Iraq comes to an end.

Awww...but no worries: they can always start a war in another oil-producing nation!

Story here via Common Dreams.

Second thoughts....

On my strong criticism of the Hyde AIDS bill, passed yesterday.

I remain outraged that conservatives have attached religiously-braided strings to the money, especially in a nation founded on the principle of separation of church and state.

That said, the amount of aid approved deserves recognition. Depending on reports, it either doubles or even triples the amount the U.S. formerly budgeted to fight AIDS worldwide. And it will be going to a variety of programs, even to those that distribute condoms.

What peeves me, however, is the amount of adulation being showered on the administration for doing, in part only, the right thing for a change. The thing which, in reality, should have been done decades ago.

The lack of context and criticism in the media coverage illustrates a disturbing trend, in which an extremely conservative administration--in this case, Bush's--deviates slightly in its overwhelmingly reactionary path and is praised to the heights for its "bi-partisanship" or its "defiance" of party radicals, or its largess. When in reality, what Congress (and Bush) did yesterday only looks good by comparison to their normally abysmal record.

The rest is government and corporately-owned media spin.

Religious conservatives: 34; Women's reproductive freedom: 1.

Still, it makes you more hopeful....

UNITED NATIONS - Two American women angered by the U.S. decision to stop funding the U.N. population agency said Thursday their grassroots campaign has so far raised $1 million for the agency, money that will go to helping women in poor nations.

More than 100,000 people - the vast majority Americans - have contributed to their campaign, which began in October, after President Bush blocked $34 million for the U.N. Population Fund last year, accusing the agency of tolerating abortions and forced sterilizations in China.[Emphasis mine.]

Jane Roberts, a retired teacher from California, and Lois Abraham, a lawyer from New Mexico, are still a long way from their stated goal of raising the entire $34 million that has been withheld. But media mogul Ted Turner's United Nations Foundation, created to manage his $1 billion gift to the U.N., announced it would match the campaign's donations with 25 cents to the dollar, up to a total of $250,000. Moreover, 200 letters with contributions arrive every day.

The women plan to take the campaign worldwide, starting in Europe on May 7.

Complete story here via Common Dreams.

Will they get away with it...?

The following is from Newsweek, via Common Dreams:

Even as White House political aides plot a 2004 campaign plan designed to capitalize on the emotions and issues raised by the September 11 terror attacks, administration officials are waging a behind-the-scenes battle to restrict public disclosure of key events relating to the attacks.

Astonishingly, the Bush administration is not only blocking efforts to release an 800+-page report, prepared by a joint congressional inquiry into the intelligence and law-enforcement failures that preceded 9/11, they're seeking to reclassify materials that are already widely disseminated.

Like the now famous July, 2001, Phoenix-FBI memo reporting that Middle Eastern nationals might be enrolling in U.S. flight schools. The article quoted one intelligence official as saying, just because something has been inadvertently released, doesn't make it unclassified.

And they impeached Clinton for his verbal quibbling!

According to Newsweek, the administration's motives for keeping the report under wraps could be to avoid political embarrassment (No...!) or merely in response to the ingrained culture of secrecy that permeates the highest levels of the White House. (Why not both?) Whichever, the two congressional members who oversaw the report--Democratic Sen. Bob Graham and Republican Rep. Porter Goss--are said to be really mad and they're preparing a letter of complaint to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Oh yeah, that will solve the problem.

The real question is, will the electorate let Bush conceal his administration's failings vis-a-vis 9/11, and at the same time re-elect him when he cynically plays on the terrible event's strong emotions?

...The White House is delaying the Republican nominating convention, scheduled for New York City, until the first week in September 2004-the latest in the party's history. That would allow Bush's acceptance speech, now slated for Sept. 2, to meld seamlessly into 9-11 commemoration events due to take place in the city the next week. [This makes me physically ill....]

Some sources who have read the still-secret congressional report say some sections would not play quite so neatly into White House plans. One portion deals extensively with the stream of U.S. intelligence-agency reports in the summer of 2001 suggesting that Al Qaeda was planning an upcoming attack against the United States-and implicitly raises questions about how Bush and his top aides responded. One such CIA briefing, in July 2001, was particularly chilling and prophetic. It predicted that Osama bin Laden was about to launch a terrorist strike in the coming weeks, the congressional investigators found. The intelligence briefing went on to say: The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.

Newsweek sources claim Bush himself was present at that briefing.

It will come as no surprise that some administration officials are expressing regret that the sensitive material was ever provided to Congress in the first place. Yep, this is an administration that believes strongly in checks and balances!

We have got to make sure that Bush does not win a second term.

Complete story here.

Looks like my skepticism was warranted after all....

The House passed, by a 375-41 vote, the Hyde bill that I talked about yesterday, which would more than double U.S. contributions to the worldwide fight against AIDS. But not without Conservative's tacking on two amendments.

The House approved, 220-197, an amendment by Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., requiring that one-third of funds spent on prevention go to abstinence programs. ``It's important that we not just send them money, but we send them values that work,'' said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., a supporter of Pitts' proposal.

And....

The House approved an amendment by Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., to strengthen protections for religious groups. Smith and others said that Catholic groups, which object to condom distribution, care for one-fourth of AIDS victims worldwide.

The White House even issued a statement supporting language that would ``prioritize the abstinence component of the ABC [Uganda's AIDS program] approach.''

So, yesterday's L.A. Times story, claiming wide support in the House only if the amendments were left off, was misleading, to say the least.

And, Bush's "rare defiance of the social conservatives within his own party," emphasized in yesterday's N.Y. Times article, was a downright lie.

From what I'm reading, Bush and his Right-Wing fundamentalist cronies haven't changed their AIDS agenda at all. They've simply agreed to give more money to the fight against a worldwide epidemic that is devastating Africa and other third-world nations--and which, in the 1980's, decimated the Gay community.

And being very self-congratulatory about it. Look at these quotes:

``So much of what we do is really unimportant and trivial, but not today,'' said Hyde, R-Ill., chief sponsor of the measure...

``We are doing probably the greatest thing that we have done since I have been in Congress,'' said Rep. Donald Payne, an eight-term Democrat from New Jersey.

More money is good--don't get me wrong. Also, don't try to tell me the zebra is changing his stripes when all he's really doing is rolling around in the mud.

Whole story here.

Only in San Diego....

In NPR's pledge-drive this morning, they were hyping a challenge grant for matching funds from "Gays and Lesbians for Programming Excellence," while at the same time an announcer was enthusiastically promoting the president's visit to San Diego and scheduled speech this evening. The reporter was waxing nostalgic about a night he spent on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln where Bush is to give the speech and also sleep the night.

I am surprised....

I woke up this morning to news that the U.S. will be closing its military bases in Saudi Arabia.

Wow....That act alone, had it been accomplished without war, would have done more to protect Americans from future terrorist attacks from Arab radicals than anything Bush has done to date.

Of course, there has been a war. And, some rumors suggest the U.S. might relocate its military bases from a temporary home in Qatar to Iraq. The Bush administration is denying those rumors. So we'll see.

In the meantime, we'll also see if the unpopular Saudi regime can stand on its own.

Whoo-whoo...!

You've probably all seen this one by now....

BAGHDAD - The retired general overseeing Iraq's postwar reconstruction said on Wednesday that his fellow Americans should beat their chests with pride at having toppled Saddam Hussein without destroying the country's assets.

"We ought to be beating our chests every day. We ought to look in a mirror and get proud and stick out our chests and suck in our bellies and say: 'Damn, we're Americans!'," Jay Garner told reporters.....

Funny, no mention of the Iraqi National Museum....The next quote clarifies the Bush administration's priorities--if there was ever any doubt.

"I was planning on the oilfields [sic] being torched, a huge humanitarian crisis and a monumental reconstruction task, " he said.

"There is no humanitarian crisis ... and there's not much infrastructure problem here, other than getting the electrical grid structure back together."

No humanitarian crisis? Not much infrastructure problem? (Odd sentence infrastructure, though.) Obviously, all these guys ever cared about was damage to their precious oil fields.

One more thing: hasn't humanity evolved beyond the chest-beating stage?!

I wish we could round up all these smug, selfish, Right-Wing, homophobic, nationalistic, fundamentalist chauvinist types--of all religious and national stripes--so hellbent on fighting bombing torturing poisoning drilling polluting surveilling hoarding and hypocritically forbidding, give them an empty, lifeless planet of their own, and let them go at one another to their little hearts content, while leaving the rest of us to live our lives honorably, generously, sustainably and in peace!

Or, at the very least, I wish that Bush had accepted Hussein's pre-war challenge to a duel and the war had ended there.

Article here. Thanks to Common Dreams and This Modern World.

ABC's con't....

I just read the L.A. Times story on the Hyde AIDS bill, and it also took the line that Bush is opposing his conservative base on this one. The article says the bill has wide House support, as long at the proposed amendments (re: abstinence set-asides and religious exemptions) are left off.

Hmmmm...maybe my skepticism is misplaced here. Or maybe this is yet another instance of the lapdog press licking the hand that feeds them. Either way, this will be one bill to watch as it makes its way through Congress.

L.A. Times story here.

Let's all recite our ABC's now....

In a N.Y. Times story on a House bill, sponsored by Rep. Henry J. Hyde, R-Illinois, that would triple American global AIDS spending to $15 billion over the next 5 years, sending money to prevention and treatment programs in 12 African nations, Haiti and Guyana, the reporter makes it sound like President Bush has uncharacteristically put saving the lives of AIDS sufferers ahead of religious dogma.

WASHINGTON, April 29 — In rare defiance of the social conservatives within his own party, President Bush today urged Congress to fight AIDS internationally with a $15 billion plan that advocates condom use and in effect permits money to go to groups that promote abortion.

Read between the lines, though, and it becomes clear Bush hasn't had a sudden change of heart.

...he [Bush] was careful to make one of his central arguments in the biblical language of Christian conservatives, many of whom have taken on fighting AIDS as a moral cause.

"When we see a plague leaving graves and orphans across a continent, we must act," Mr. Bush said. "When we see the wounded traveler on the road to Jericho, we will not — America will not — pass to the other side of the road."

The president still strongly supports the conservatives' position that abstinence is the only cure for AIDS. He has not backed down from federal government policy, in effect since Reagan's presidency, that prevents U.S. AIDS money from going to international groups that promote abortion. In fact, Congressional conservatives plan to amendment the Hyde bill to set aside a third of the money for abstinence programs and to exempt religious groups from having to hand out condoms.

Here's the heart of the Conservative's AIDS prevention plan, modeled on Uganda's "A.B.C. Campaign," and endorsed in the Hyde bill:

...First, abstain. If you can't abstain, be faithful. And if you can't be faithful, use a condom.

Sounds more like catechism than an endorsement of what the mainstream medical establishment has concluded is the most effective means of preventing the spread of AIDS: responsible condom use.

So, why did the reporter open with such a deceptively upbeat lead? Maybe the answer lies in the article's final paragraph:

Congressional aides who have visited humanitarian groups in Africa said today that the amendments — and the administration's commitment to make sure that AIDS money does not mingle with money for family planning — had little to do with how the groups actually operated. They acknowledged that the last-minute haggling was entirely driven by American domestic politics.

While I firmly believe in the final sentence, I'd hate to put my faith--and the lives of potential AIDS sufferers--in the hands of "Congressional aides." We've seen this administration's track record on truth-telling regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

As a reporter, I interviewed AIDS workers from Africa in the early 1990's. One person told me of a Catholic priest, in a remote parish--I can't remember the country--who was counseling his parishioners to destroy condoms because it was a sin to use them.

At the time, health worker after health worker from Africa was telling me how they had solid AIDS education and prevention programs in place, the local population was receptive to the message of condom-use, but there were no condoms. They were too expensive and beyond the reach of poverty-stricken African health budgets.

How many people died of AIDS on account of the priest who made piles of hard-to-get condoms and burned them?

Conservative in Congress, preaching abstinence, opposing condom distribution and de-funding abortion, have blood on their hands.

Meanwhile, in China....

BEIJING, April 30 — In a live, televised news conference today the new acting Mayor of Beijing called the SARS epidemic severe and uncontrolled as he sought to convince a panicky public that the battle against the dangerous, fatal new disease is effectively joined at last.

[...]

Beijing imposed stringent quarantine measures only in the last week, as the reported number of confirmed SARS cases in Beijing was zooming 10 days ago from below 350 to 1,440 today, not including a similar high total of suspected cases.

About 9,000 city residents have been put in isolation because of possible exposure to the infection, officials reported this morning.

The city's public health agencies were overwhelmed by the sudden, initially denied outbreak and still are unable to perform vital analysis of how fast the virus is spreading and where.

For the whole story, go here.

WHO lifts Toronto travel advisory....

TORONTO, April 29 — Citing an ebb in the SARS epidemic here, the World Health Organization today lifted a week-old advisory urging travelers to delay all nonessential visits to Toronto.

The decision was welcomed with sighs of relief from Canadian officials, who had lobbied hard for the reversal and disputed the W.H.O. contention that Toronto had been a source of cases outside Canada. They argued that the advisory unnecessarily damaged the Canadian economy and its international image.

But the reversal of an advisory declared only last Wednesday raised questions about the W.H.O.'s decision-making process and whether it had given in to intense pressure from a country with enormous sway in the agency's parent organization, the United Nations.

What do you think? Me, I suspect that lifting the advisory won't make a whole lot of difference, at this point. People who would have heeded it are unlikely to suddenly feel safe to visit. And those who visit now, probably would have gone before.

Full story here.

Again...?

FALLUJA, Iraq, April 30 — United States soldiers opened fire here today on marchers protesting a clash late Monday night in which 15 anti-American demonstrators were reported killed by American troops. The city's mayor and hospital officials said two protesters were killed in today's incident and 14 were wounded.

A United States Army officer said soldiers in a convoy passing the demonstrators were shot at, and then returned fire. There was no immediate indication of any American casualties.

About 1,000 residents marching down Falluja's main street stopped today in front of a battalion headquarters of the United States Army's 82nd Airborne Division, in a compound formerly occupied by Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. The demonstrators were carrying signs condemning Monday night's shooting. [Emphasis mine.]

I was surprised to find out that the Americans have occupied the former Baath Party headquarters in Falluja. Now, isn't it simple common sense that when you've invaded a country to "liberate" it from a generally unpopular regime and you're trying to reassure the populace that you are definitely not there to replace that regime or occupy their country, you would distance yourself in every way possible from the regime? Like, for instance, not setting up your command center in their former headquarters ?

Of course, you also would avoid shooting unarmed demonstrators. But what do I know?

Judging from the following quote, Lt. Col. Tobin Green, commander of the Second Squadron of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment, which is taking over from the 82nd Airborne in Falluja (and getting off to a smashing start), is an ardent follower of our fearless national leader.

"The evildoers are deliberately placing at risk the good civilians," Colonel Green told The Associated Press. "These are deliberate actions by the enemy to use the population as cover."

Yes, and your's and the president's vocabulary and worldview have not evolved since the second grade.

I'm sure Colonel Green will quickly grasp the complexity of the sensitive, volatile situation and we can expect a vast improvement in the upcoming days.

Full story here.

Just who exactly is a "good" American...?

The anniversary is fast approaching of another peace demonstration in which innocent protestors were shot dead by soldiers poorly trained at crowd control....

The facts are these: On May 4, 1970, Kent State University students rallied to protest President Nixon's decision to expand the Vietnam conflict into Cambodia. Poorly trained Ohio National Guard troops were called to the campus, where, after some mild skirmishing with the students, they fired without warning, killing four and wounding nine. Only one of the casualties had been harassing the Guard; another had been on her way to class when she was shot and killed.

David Kirby's op-ed in today's Christian Science Monitor, goes on to talk about pro-war sentiment--and hypocrisy--during times of national crisis.

A nationwide Gallup telephone poll taken on May 13 and 14 [1970] found that 58 percent of the respondents thought the students responsible for the deaths while only 11 percent blamed the National Guard (31 percent had no opinion).

This antiprotestor sentiment wasn't a momentary aberration, either: Five years later, in a federal civil trial against the guardsmen and the politicians who sent them onto the campus, the jury voted 9 to 3 for the defendants, a decision later reversed on appeal.

[...]

Many of my clients [Kirby was a draft counselor then] hated the war, but just as many thought American boys should answer the call proudly - other American boys, that is. These young men were pro-war, but they didn't relish going to battle themselves...Nowadays, media images and selective memories make it seem as though most people who lived through that time were opposed to the war. Back then, it didn't seem that way at all.

Curiously, recent revelations show that the very architects of the Vietnam war were opposed to it.

In 1995, former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara confessed in his memoirs that he had known the war was wrong.

And from Michael Beschloss's "Reaching for Glory: The Secret Lyndon Johnson Tapes, 1964-1965," we learn that, very early in the war, Johnson confessed, "I don't think it's worth fighting for, and I don't think we can get out."

I seriously doubt history will show similar doubt or regret on the parts of Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Perle. One of the scariest things about these guys is how absolutely cocksure of themselves they are. Like crusaders throughout history, they genuinely believe "God" is on their side.

Kirby concludes powerfully, in words that could just as well apply to today.

Who was the "good American" in 1970? We may tell ourselves differently now, but the truth is it was someone who thought the cowards with blood on their hands in the White House were swell fellows.

It's easy to blame our political leaders for the things we don't like. But we need to remember that these leaders take their cues from the public that keeps them in office, a public that, in this case, said the war was OK and that anybody who opposed it was wrong. Indeed, anybody who merely attended college on a campus where protests occurred ran the risk of being shot dead walking to class.

(Thanks, Chad, for the heads-up on this...!)