If you are reading this in Denver, CO, there's an emergency protest outside the Denver Post. Email said starts at 11, didn't give an ending time.
If you are somewhere else, look around. Bet there's one in your area. Or maybe you need to start one?
To me, this was a murderous attack on people who were only bringing humanitarian supplies to desperate people. I happen to admire people willing to do that. And I'm horrified at their murder. Are we going to let this pass in silence?
If there are no Israeli government institutions in your area, targeting the local corporate media is a good idea. Be willing to bet that your local paper is reporting this like the Denver Post ... ie ...long statements direct from Israeli officials giving their justifications ... then maybe down near the end of the piece you might find a paragraph that says 'activists disagree'. In other words, they are directly pushing out the Israeli version of these events.
Which makes them accessories after the fact to the murder of humanitarians, and certainly worthy of a crowd of people with signs outside protesting their involvement.
Monday, May 31, 2010
OMG -- Israelis Murder 16 on Aid Boats.
Israel attacks Gaza aid fleet
The Israelis have now murdered 16 people who's only crime was to try to bring aid to people Israel wants to torture. Anyone could see from videos that the people on these boats were peaceful civilians. Instead, the Israelis storm the ships firing live ammunition. 16 dead.
When does the world say enough? When do Americans decide that we no longer support these murderers with $5 to $10 billion a year of our tax money? Why are we funding murderers and not jobs for Americans?
Israeli forces have attacked a flotilla of aid-carrying ships aiming to break the country's siege on Gaza.
Up to 16 people were killed and dozens injured when troops stormed the Freedom Flotilla early on Monday, the Israeli Army Radio said
The Israelis have now murdered 16 people who's only crime was to try to bring aid to people Israel wants to torture. Anyone could see from videos that the people on these boats were peaceful civilians. Instead, the Israelis storm the ships firing live ammunition. 16 dead.
When does the world say enough? When do Americans decide that we no longer support these murderers with $5 to $10 billion a year of our tax money? Why are we funding murderers and not jobs for Americans?
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Obama's legacy
Sometimes life has a way of intervening while one is making other plans.
Obama didn't plan for his legacy to be the world's worst oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. But it is indeed his legacy. I'm sure he'll try to duck it. But this is Obama's oil spill.
Obama has been in office for a year and half. If he'd wanted to change policies on off-shore drilling, he had time to do so. For instance, a President could well have called for a moratorium if they felt safety issues needed to be reviewed. In fact, we know Obama knows that he could change policies if he wants to, because he's in the process of doing so .... to expand offshore drilling in the Gulf.How many Obamabots realized last election that they were voting for "Drill, Baby, Drill"? The key is to learn the lesson from it.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Dixie
I'm assuming this picture is from the south. It just feels like 'back home' to me. Somehow this just feels like a southern thing to this old boy who's now so very, very happy to live far, far away from the nearest Ammo Barbecue.
Friday, May 28, 2010
An Obey for All Seasons
Ray McGovern has an outstanding open letter to Rep. Obey out on the internet. Very good read, and not too long. You really should click that link and take the minute or two to read it.
There is a bigger picture here. Every time I hear of Mr. Obey, I hear of his progressive past. I hear of the causes he used to fight for. From the Democrat propagandists, this is a part of their image creation. The modern Democratic leader apparently needs a faux-progressive image. But even the more lefty writers always refer to it. Unfortunately, its completely irrelevant.
At some point in my youth, I saw the film of "A Man for All Seasons". Its the story of Thomas More, who was Henry the Eighth's drinking buddy. Henry was having his constant problems with the church, so when an opportunity presented itself, he made his drinking buddy the Archbishop of Canterbury. Problem solved, right? Not quite. Because when More takes up the office, he realizes that he takes up its role in the system. He opposes the King, only to be assassinated.
This is a story of someone taking on a more heroic role by taking on an office. Of a man who does something noble when he probably would not have done so had he stayed merely the King's drinking buddy. With today's Democrats, you see just the opposite. Not only Mr. Obey, but other top leaders in today's Democrat Congress used to be very progressive liberals. Heck, Speaker Pelosi herself used to be a liberal back-bencher, and still represents one of the most left-wing districts in the country in the heart of San Francisco.
But, these people have taken on their offices and they serve the role of that office in today's affairs. Who they used to be is rather irrelevant. Just as the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury used to be Henry the Eighth's drinking buddy ended up being irrelevant to their relations.
The leadership of the Democratic party serves big money. Period. That's it. Nothing else matters. The key thing to realize is that if they didn't, they would not hold that office. To get the office, they had to swear off their earlier lefty views. I don't know if they hold some secret skull-and-bones-like ceremony where the candidates are forced kneel in their underwear and forswear their lefty past. I kinda doubt it. But the image is a good symbolism of what must occur.
If Chairman Obey did not at some point let it be known that he would be a perfect servant of big money, he would not be in his position of chairing the most powerful committee in the Congress. If Speaker Pelosi did not at some point let it be known that she would be a perfect servant of big money, then she would not be the Speaker of the House.
What they used to say, even if they used to believe it, does not matter today. We have to see them as the people that they are today, executing the offices that they hold today.
The really sad thing is that both Obey and Pelosi represent very progressive left wing districts. These are the districts that should be sending our fighters to the Congress. These are the districts that should be the bastions of fire-brand lefties who put forth our views and fight the fights that must be fought. Instead, two total sell-outs to war and corporate profits hold these two seats.
These two districts are important to our cause. These are strategically important districts because they should give us relatively safe lefty seats. They should give us safe seats which can embolden politicians to speak out on lefty issues, knowing that the people of their districts support them. These representatives from these districts should be our warriors and our champions, they should be our spokespeople and our leaders. They should be the loudest voices putting forth what we believe and what we care about. That the representatives of these districts are instead the very people shepherding war funding through the Congress is our major blow to our cause. Not only because the wars continue, but because of the the silence that results from the progressive voters in these districts not being represented in this Congress.
If the left has any strategic sense at all, it has to try to win these two seats back. Strong independent campaigns in these two districts, with massive grassroots support, should be in there trying to win those seats. Not campaigns for show or for public education. Real, serious, play-to-win campaigns. And if the left in this country can only muster a few thousand volunteers to go door to door, then these are the two seats that should be the targets of whatever puny efforts we can muster politically these days.
We need these seats for our voices to be heard. A very pleasant side effect is that a lefty political rebellion that took out either the Speaker of the House or the Chair of the Ways and Means committee would be a shot heard round the world for lefty politics.
When was the last time we had a Speaker who wasn't rich?
There is a bigger picture here. Every time I hear of Mr. Obey, I hear of his progressive past. I hear of the causes he used to fight for. From the Democrat propagandists, this is a part of their image creation. The modern Democratic leader apparently needs a faux-progressive image. But even the more lefty writers always refer to it. Unfortunately, its completely irrelevant.
At some point in my youth, I saw the film of "A Man for All Seasons". Its the story of Thomas More, who was Henry the Eighth's drinking buddy. Henry was having his constant problems with the church, so when an opportunity presented itself, he made his drinking buddy the Archbishop of Canterbury. Problem solved, right? Not quite. Because when More takes up the office, he realizes that he takes up its role in the system. He opposes the King, only to be assassinated.
This is a story of someone taking on a more heroic role by taking on an office. Of a man who does something noble when he probably would not have done so had he stayed merely the King's drinking buddy. With today's Democrats, you see just the opposite. Not only Mr. Obey, but other top leaders in today's Democrat Congress used to be very progressive liberals. Heck, Speaker Pelosi herself used to be a liberal back-bencher, and still represents one of the most left-wing districts in the country in the heart of San Francisco.
But, these people have taken on their offices and they serve the role of that office in today's affairs. Who they used to be is rather irrelevant. Just as the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury used to be Henry the Eighth's drinking buddy ended up being irrelevant to their relations.
The leadership of the Democratic party serves big money. Period. That's it. Nothing else matters. The key thing to realize is that if they didn't, they would not hold that office. To get the office, they had to swear off their earlier lefty views. I don't know if they hold some secret skull-and-bones-like ceremony where the candidates are forced kneel in their underwear and forswear their lefty past. I kinda doubt it. But the image is a good symbolism of what must occur.
If Chairman Obey did not at some point let it be known that he would be a perfect servant of big money, he would not be in his position of chairing the most powerful committee in the Congress. If Speaker Pelosi did not at some point let it be known that she would be a perfect servant of big money, then she would not be the Speaker of the House.
What they used to say, even if they used to believe it, does not matter today. We have to see them as the people that they are today, executing the offices that they hold today.
Sir Thomas More: I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos.
The really sad thing is that both Obey and Pelosi represent very progressive left wing districts. These are the districts that should be sending our fighters to the Congress. These are the districts that should be the bastions of fire-brand lefties who put forth our views and fight the fights that must be fought. Instead, two total sell-outs to war and corporate profits hold these two seats.
These two districts are important to our cause. These are strategically important districts because they should give us relatively safe lefty seats. They should give us safe seats which can embolden politicians to speak out on lefty issues, knowing that the people of their districts support them. These representatives from these districts should be our warriors and our champions, they should be our spokespeople and our leaders. They should be the loudest voices putting forth what we believe and what we care about. That the representatives of these districts are instead the very people shepherding war funding through the Congress is our major blow to our cause. Not only because the wars continue, but because of the the silence that results from the progressive voters in these districts not being represented in this Congress.
If the left has any strategic sense at all, it has to try to win these two seats back. Strong independent campaigns in these two districts, with massive grassroots support, should be in there trying to win those seats. Not campaigns for show or for public education. Real, serious, play-to-win campaigns. And if the left in this country can only muster a few thousand volunteers to go door to door, then these are the two seats that should be the targets of whatever puny efforts we can muster politically these days.
We need these seats for our voices to be heard. A very pleasant side effect is that a lefty political rebellion that took out either the Speaker of the House or the Chair of the Ways and Means committee would be a shot heard round the world for lefty politics.
Cromwell: I have evidence that Sir Thomas, while he was a judge, accepted bribes.
The Duke of Norfolk: What? Goddammit, he was the only judge since Cato who didn't accept bribes! When was there last a Chancellor whose possessions after three years in office totaled one hundred pounds and a gold chain?
When was the last time we had a Speaker who wasn't rich?
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Blind, Dumb, Invisible Hand
Why "markets" should not be allowed to rule the world. Or probably shouldn't even be allowed to choose the local dog-catcher.
From The Eurozone's Self-Inflicted Crisis by Mark Weisbrot.
Duh!
Who's bright idea was it to put "markets" in charge? Markets are probably useful things as a means of enabling trade. I kinda like that I can buy something with money instead of trying to acquire the two chickens and a health insurance policy that my auto mechanic might otherwise request.
But promoting "markets" from a useful tool to the supreme arbiter of all human affairs was obviously a really stupid idea.
From The Eurozone's Self-Inflicted Crisis by Mark Weisbrot.
To make it worse, “the markets” can’t seem to decide what they want from these governments in order to love them again. Two weeks ago the Euro was plummeting because the financial markets wanted more blood: they wanted Greece, Spain, Portugal, and the other currently victimized countries of Europe (Italy and Ireland) to commit to more spending cuts and tax increases. Then they got what they wanted, and within a day or two, the Euro started crashing again because “the markets” discovered that these pro-cyclical policies would actually make things worse in the countries that adopted them, and reduce growth in the whole Eurozone.
Duh!
Who's bright idea was it to put "markets" in charge? Markets are probably useful things as a means of enabling trade. I kinda like that I can buy something with money instead of trying to acquire the two chickens and a health insurance policy that my auto mechanic might otherwise request.
But promoting "markets" from a useful tool to the supreme arbiter of all human affairs was obviously a really stupid idea.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Gary Swing - Green Party - CO -1
The Coalition Against War Spending has issued a call against more war funding and asked for support for this statement.
There is a list of Congresspeople and candidates who have endorsed this position. Go look to see if there's one in your district.
There is in mine ... CO -1, Denver, CO
Gary Swing, Green Party endorsed with this statement.
The Democratic incumbent for this district, Dianne DeGette has not endorsed. And she has not opposed funding for the Afghan war. When back in her very liberal district, she talks like she opposes these wars. But, she never does anything about it. And when the war funding needs a vote, she's been a ready vote for the Democratic leadership in favor of escalating the Afghan war. She certainly wouldn't endorse this statement, and she'd never really oppose war funding and mean it and stick with it.
This is her statement on the latest 'New Afghanistan policy' from her congressional website.
She tries to talk anti-war, but the key to the statement is her support for the war in Afghanistan and more war funding. Only conditioned by her review to make sure that we are efficiently killing the people of Afghanistan.
This picture probably looks like a lot of other districts. A Democrat faux-liberal that talks lefty but is really a sure vote for war money when they need it. But there are usually other names on the ballot that might take a different position. If people really want the wars to end, its time to abandon the fake-Democrats who won't end them, and to instead vote for the candidates that say they really will go to Congress and vote to end these wars.
This is the key question. The writers of the Constitution put the power of the purse in the hands of Congress and particularly the House of Representatives. If someone asked them today how to end these wars, they would simply point out that they gave the Congress the power to end any such war by making sure that the Congress had control of the money.
Do you want a vote for more war money in Congress? Or do you want a vote for no more war money in Congress? The choice is likely clearly before you on the fall ballot. And if it isn't, maybe its time to get a campaign started where you live and make sure there is a solid vote against the war on the ballot in every district in this country.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost Americans over $1 trillion in direct costs, and over $3 trillion altogether.
At a time when our national debt exceeds $13 trillion, we can no longer afford these wars.
It's time for Congress to reject any funding except to bring all our troops safely home.
There is a list of Congresspeople and candidates who have endorsed this position. Go look to see if there's one in your district.
There is in mine ... CO -1, Denver, CO
Gary Swing, Green Party endorsed with this statement.
"I endorse your statement, though I would change the word 'our' to 'American' or 'U.S.' I don't have any troops. If I did, they certainly wouldn't be killing the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. I support an end to all foreign wars, a permanent ban on the stationing or deployment of U.S. troops outside of U.S. territory, closure of all overseas bases, prosecution of American war criminals, and transition to non-offensive national defense of U.S. territory."
The Democratic incumbent for this district, Dianne DeGette has not endorsed. And she has not opposed funding for the Afghan war. When back in her very liberal district, she talks like she opposes these wars. But, she never does anything about it. And when the war funding needs a vote, she's been a ready vote for the Democratic leadership in favor of escalating the Afghan war. She certainly wouldn't endorse this statement, and she'd never really oppose war funding and mean it and stick with it.
This is her statement on the latest 'New Afghanistan policy' from her congressional website.
“I am pleased that President Obama has laid out a clear strategy to end the war in Afghanistan. It is in our national security interest to stabilize the country and prevent terrorists from using Afghanistan as a base for terrorist activity. Accelerating the recruitment and training of Afghan security forces will allow Kabul to take control and responsibility for its own security more quickly. Unfortunately, these goals were long-delayed when the previous Administration was distracted by a war in Iraq.
“Before I agree to support funding the President’s increased troop levels in the 2011 budget, I will closely examine the efficacy of his plan to ensure that it is stabilizing Afghanistan, and preparing the country to defend itself.”
She tries to talk anti-war, but the key to the statement is her support for the war in Afghanistan and more war funding. Only conditioned by her review to make sure that we are efficiently killing the people of Afghanistan.
This picture probably looks like a lot of other districts. A Democrat faux-liberal that talks lefty but is really a sure vote for war money when they need it. But there are usually other names on the ballot that might take a different position. If people really want the wars to end, its time to abandon the fake-Democrats who won't end them, and to instead vote for the candidates that say they really will go to Congress and vote to end these wars.
This is the key question. The writers of the Constitution put the power of the purse in the hands of Congress and particularly the House of Representatives. If someone asked them today how to end these wars, they would simply point out that they gave the Congress the power to end any such war by making sure that the Congress had control of the money.
Do you want a vote for more war money in Congress? Or do you want a vote for no more war money in Congress? The choice is likely clearly before you on the fall ballot. And if it isn't, maybe its time to get a campaign started where you live and make sure there is a solid vote against the war on the ballot in every district in this country.
Lexicalist - Peace and War
Progressive Review had a link to an interesting web site called Lexicalist.
This website monitors a lot of blogs and other 'chatter' on the internet, and then can report back on the how often words are used. Somehow this only focuses on America.
For example, I typed in "Peace" and "War"
Peace
Words per time used ..... 1 in 12,456
increasing / decreasing ..... same as last month
highest age group ..... 55+ declines steadily with age
highest gender ..... male (51.1%)
highest state ..... N.Dakota (7.9%)
War
Words per time used ..... 1 in 10,492
increasing / decreasing ..... 17% more than last month
highest age group ..... 55+ declines more steeply with age than "Peace"
highest gender ..... male (67.0%)
highest state ..... W.Virginia (4.9%)
Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace,
This website monitors a lot of blogs and other 'chatter' on the internet, and then can report back on the how often words are used. Somehow this only focuses on America.
For example, I typed in "Peace" and "War"
Peace
Words per time used ..... 1 in 12,456
increasing / decreasing ..... same as last month
highest age group ..... 55+ declines steadily with age
highest gender ..... male (51.1%)
highest state ..... N.Dakota (7.9%)
War
Words per time used ..... 1 in 10,492
increasing / decreasing ..... 17% more than last month
highest age group ..... 55+ declines more steeply with age than "Peace"
highest gender ..... male (67.0%)
highest state ..... W.Virginia (4.9%)
Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace, Peace, peace, peace, peace,
Hello Mr. Taliban
Interesting nugget from the CIA worldfactbook web page on Afghanistan.
The population of Afghanistan as decreased by 4,000,000 people since Dr. Brezizenski started the war with the Soviet Union there.
There are 4,000,000 fewer people in Afghanistan today. Wow!
All these wars might be good for some people in Moscow and Washington, but they sure as heck aren't good for the people of Afghanistan.
BTW, since Afghanistan is now part of the US empire, they get to have a census this summer. I wonder if they are just going to let each regional warlord report how many people he rules so he gets that much of the US money that flows into the central government. Or, if they are going to have Afghan census workers knocking on the doors and saying "Hello Mr. Taliban, I'm with the Afghan government and we'd like to ask you a few questions verifying your numbers and your consumer preferences."
The population of Afghanistan as decreased by 4,000,000 people since Dr. Brezizenski started the war with the Soviet Union there.
There are 4,000,000 fewer people in Afghanistan today. Wow!
All these wars might be good for some people in Moscow and Washington, but they sure as heck aren't good for the people of Afghanistan.
BTW, since Afghanistan is now part of the US empire, they get to have a census this summer. I wonder if they are just going to let each regional warlord report how many people he rules so he gets that much of the US money that flows into the central government. Or, if they are going to have Afghan census workers knocking on the doors and saying "Hello Mr. Taliban, I'm with the Afghan government and we'd like to ask you a few questions verifying your numbers and your consumer preferences."
Check for your nearest lifeboat
Iran, Sun Tzu and the dominatrix By Pepe Escobar
Pepe Escobar is usually an interesting writer. And one who's far too unread in the US. Today, he's striking an eerily similar theme to my recent posts, but on a completely different topic- Iran and sanctions and yet more war.
Of course, at all times remember that this whole debate/crisis is about a nuclear weapons program that Iran supposedly has but about which no one can ever offer any real proof that they have.
Yep, that's a pretty nice description of American diplomacy these days. A few years ago I went back and read William Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich". Its an interesting read. Especially the chapters on how Hitler 'negotiated' during the crisis over the Rhineland, Austria and Czecoslovakia before WWII began. If you go read a description of those negotiations, don't be surprised if they sound eerily familiar.
And a second thought on this. Do you notice how Clinton as Obama's Secretary of State sounds absolutely identical to Rice as Bush's Secretary of State? Are you getting the change you voted for? Hint, if not, vote for a different party in November.
But back to the parts of Mr. Escobar's piece that caught my eye.
which, after a description of the details of the current situation with the Security Council, leads to this ...
Mr. Escobar sounds about as confident about the long-term future of American diplomacy as I sound about the short to medium term future in Afghanistan. Mainly that its time for anyone in danger to start thinking about grabbing an early spot in the lifeboats. Because you can dang well bet that the people in charge of these disasters haven't provided nearly enough lifeboats.
It gets worse, or better, depending on your point of view.
Who's all for a GLOBAL POLITICAL AWAKENING? Here, Here! Everyone, all together, three cheers for a GLOBAL POLITICAL AWAKENING! Whooo - HOOOO! Sounds better than what we got now. At least to a American worker bee who's been told by corporate America that he's no longer needed.
This is a fascinating little nugget buried at the bottom of this story. The first is that this very well-informed and plugged-in strategist of the militarists and corporate elite says that the political awakening HAS ALREADY OCCURRED!
Sitting at the bottom of the US propaganda bubble, its awfully hard some times to tell what's going on. One is constantly blasted with news of their supposed victories, denied any news of defeats unless they can't be hidden, and generally told that the rest of us have lost and that there is no alternative to the mighty power of wall street.
Yet, here's one of their leading strategists saying that the worldwide political awakening has already occurred. What an American leftist can only dream about occuring someday, we are being told that this is a world wide reality.
I suppose Prof. Brzenski thinks that I should view this as bad news. He certainly seems to be presenting it as bad news to his elite audience. But, to view it as bad news, I have to believe a long and complicated threat that says that what's bad for "America" is bad for me, and that what's bad for Exxon or Goldman Sachs or GE or the rest of the mega, originally American corporation, or even a British corporation like BP, is bad for "America".
Therefore, a global challenge of a politically awakened world to the rule by force of the Exxons and GEs and Goldman Sachs and the BPS of the world is supposed to be bad for me. Thus, I am supposed to be willing to hand over all of my money in taxes, and then either go die myself or send my children to go die to make sure that the rule of the world by Exxons and Goldman Sachs of the world can continue uninterrupted.
As a free citizen, I disagree. And I view a globe full of politically awakened people to be a very good thing. The predominant pattern of human history has been dominant leaders using an unawakened world population to fight and work for the enrichment of these elite, dominant leaders. One can only hope that an awakened world would someday stop doing that.
The fascinating thing is that the elites seem to be flailing hopelessly in dealing with all of these challenges. In fact, they seem committed to a course of certain stupidity.
After all, the empire is massing all of its available troops in Afghanistan. And, even then it finds itself so short of fighting strength that it can only manage a desperate hail mary type operation to turn the tide of a war that currently has insurgents attacking the perimeters of the empires major bases. When you can't control a poor country of 29,000,000, does it really seem to be wise to be expanding and escalating a war into a bigger and richer nation of Pakistan (178,000,000 people) and threaten to start a new war with Iran (68,000,000 people with the 17th richest economy in the world).
If you're a bully, perhaps you should take note of the fact that the scrawny, underfed poor kid is giving you a tougher fight than you expected, and not start fights with crowds of bigger kids who are in better shape?
Back to the quote from Sun Tsu. Let your enemies make their own mistakes, then don't correct them.
Every where you look, it starting to look like 'head for the lifeboats' time. And maybe to start thinking about what sort of world we can have after this Titanic finally sinks and the new world of a globally awakened populace takes charge.
Pepe Escobar is usually an interesting writer. And one who's far too unread in the US. Today, he's striking an eerily similar theme to my recent posts, but on a completely different topic- Iran and sanctions and yet more war.
Of course, at all times remember that this whole debate/crisis is about a nuclear weapons program that Iran supposedly has but about which no one can ever offer any real proof that they have.
Let's face it: Hillary Clinton is one hell of a dominatrix.
...
She framed the drive towards sanctions as "an answer to the efforts undertaken in Tehran over the last few days". Wait a minute. Immediately after a genuine - and fruitful - mediation on a very sensitive dossier by two emerging powers - and honest brokers - in the multipolar world, Brazil and Turkey, Washington and its two European Union allies at the Security Council, France and Britain, torpedo it. Is this what passes for global "diplomacy"?
Yep, that's a pretty nice description of American diplomacy these days. A few years ago I went back and read William Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich". Its an interesting read. Especially the chapters on how Hitler 'negotiated' during the crisis over the Rhineland, Austria and Czecoslovakia before WWII began. If you go read a description of those negotiations, don't be surprised if they sound eerily familiar.
And a second thought on this. Do you notice how Clinton as Obama's Secretary of State sounds absolutely identical to Rice as Bush's Secretary of State? Are you getting the change you voted for? Hint, if not, vote for a different party in November.
But back to the parts of Mr. Escobar's piece that caught my eye.
China and Russia pull a Sun Tzu
Ancient Chinese military general, strategist, philosopher and author of The Art of War, Sun Tzu said, "Allow your enemy to make his own mistakes, and don't correct them." China and Russia, both master strategists, are applying this maxim with panache regarding the US.
which, after a description of the details of the current situation with the Security Council, leads to this ...
So we have come to a situation whereby a real, Iran-approved nuclear fuel swap is on the table at the International Atomic Energy Agency while an offensive towards sanctions on Iran is ongoing at the UN. Who is the real "international community" going to trust? Erdogan could not have put it better; "This is the time to discuss whether we believe in the supremacy of law or the law of the supremes and superiors ..."
Most of all, what the developing world sees is the past - US, France, Britain, Germany - fighting against the advance of the future - China, India, Brazil, Turkey, Indonesia. The global security architecture - policed by a bunch of fearful, self-appointed Western guardians - is in a coma. The "Atlanticist" West is sinking Titanic-style.
Mr. Escobar sounds about as confident about the long-term future of American diplomacy as I sound about the short to medium term future in Afghanistan. Mainly that its time for anyone in danger to start thinking about grabbing an early spot in the lifeboats. Because you can dang well bet that the people in charge of these disasters haven't provided nearly enough lifeboats.
It gets worse, or better, depending on your point of view.
At a recent Council on Foreign Relations speech in Montreal, luminary Dr Zbigniew "let's conquer Eurasia" Brzezinski warned that a "global political awakening", along with infighting among the global elite, was something to be deeply feared. The former US national security adviser remarked that "for the first time in all of human history mankind is politically awakened - that's a total new reality - it has not been so for most of human history".
Who do these politically awakened upstarts such as Brazil and Turkey think they are - daring to disturb "our" rule of the world? And then uninformed Americans keep asking themselves "Why do they hate us?" Because, among other reasons, unilateral to the core, Washington does not hesitate to lift its middle finger even to its closest friends.
Who's all for a GLOBAL POLITICAL AWAKENING? Here, Here! Everyone, all together, three cheers for a GLOBAL POLITICAL AWAKENING! Whooo - HOOOO! Sounds better than what we got now. At least to a American worker bee who's been told by corporate America that he's no longer needed.
This is a fascinating little nugget buried at the bottom of this story. The first is that this very well-informed and plugged-in strategist of the militarists and corporate elite says that the political awakening HAS ALREADY OCCURRED!
Sitting at the bottom of the US propaganda bubble, its awfully hard some times to tell what's going on. One is constantly blasted with news of their supposed victories, denied any news of defeats unless they can't be hidden, and generally told that the rest of us have lost and that there is no alternative to the mighty power of wall street.
Yet, here's one of their leading strategists saying that the worldwide political awakening has already occurred. What an American leftist can only dream about occuring someday, we are being told that this is a world wide reality.
I suppose Prof. Brzenski thinks that I should view this as bad news. He certainly seems to be presenting it as bad news to his elite audience. But, to view it as bad news, I have to believe a long and complicated threat that says that what's bad for "America" is bad for me, and that what's bad for Exxon or Goldman Sachs or GE or the rest of the mega, originally American corporation, or even a British corporation like BP, is bad for "America".
Therefore, a global challenge of a politically awakened world to the rule by force of the Exxons and GEs and Goldman Sachs and the BPS of the world is supposed to be bad for me. Thus, I am supposed to be willing to hand over all of my money in taxes, and then either go die myself or send my children to go die to make sure that the rule of the world by Exxons and Goldman Sachs of the world can continue uninterrupted.
As a free citizen, I disagree. And I view a globe full of politically awakened people to be a very good thing. The predominant pattern of human history has been dominant leaders using an unawakened world population to fight and work for the enrichment of these elite, dominant leaders. One can only hope that an awakened world would someday stop doing that.
The fascinating thing is that the elites seem to be flailing hopelessly in dealing with all of these challenges. In fact, they seem committed to a course of certain stupidity.
After all, the empire is massing all of its available troops in Afghanistan. And, even then it finds itself so short of fighting strength that it can only manage a desperate hail mary type operation to turn the tide of a war that currently has insurgents attacking the perimeters of the empires major bases. When you can't control a poor country of 29,000,000, does it really seem to be wise to be expanding and escalating a war into a bigger and richer nation of Pakistan (178,000,000 people) and threaten to start a new war with Iran (68,000,000 people with the 17th richest economy in the world).
If you're a bully, perhaps you should take note of the fact that the scrawny, underfed poor kid is giving you a tougher fight than you expected, and not start fights with crowds of bigger kids who are in better shape?
Back to the quote from Sun Tsu. Let your enemies make their own mistakes, then don't correct them.
Every where you look, it starting to look like 'head for the lifeboats' time. And maybe to start thinking about what sort of world we can have after this Titanic finally sinks and the new world of a globally awakened populace takes charge.
More between the lines
Latest news from Afghanistan ....
Taliban admit Kandahar attack from the Independent (UK)
I love the wording of that headline. Like the headline writer expects the Taliban to be ashamed of kicking our rears. They 'admit' it. More likely they jumped up and down and shouted it at the top of their lungs.
This post goes with the one below. So read it as well.
Then, think about Gen. McCrystals quote in that post. And then think about this. The insurgents in Afghanistan have launched three major attacks on NATO/US installations in a week. That's as close as McCrystal is going to get to having the guerrillas come out in the open and fight the battle that a US general who was trained to fight the Soviets in a massive tank battle in central Europe wants.
Three times in the last week, the guerrilla have massed themselves for a major attack on a NATO installation.
Its one thing for guerrillas to sneak up outside a base, fire off a couple of mortar rounds, and then run away before there's a response. You'd think a mighty empire that rules the world could control the perimeter around its massive major bases well enough to stop this, but it still happens.
The key words in that paragraph are how they tried to 'storm the northern perimeter'. Think about that. They are trying to openly launch ground assaults on the perimeter of a major base that holds 20,000 NATO troops and civilians.
Gen. McCrystal? Are you there? You say you want an open battle against the guerrillas. Well, they are at the northern perimeter right now and it looks like they want to come fight you as well.
This is not good for a guerrilla war. When the guerrillas stop hiding in caves and instead come out and openly attack your major bases at the airfields of Kabul and Kandahar, that's usually a sign of the beginning of the end. That's Tet Offensive time, and a sign that our fantasies about convincing the Afghan people to become model western consumer/slaves are coming to an end.
Read between the lines when dealing with propaganda. Especially with military propaganda that comes from a military that openly states it wages information wars and tries to control information. When you hear that the guerrillas who are always described as cowards who are too afraid to fight are instead massing and attacking NATO/US bases with impunity, pay very close attention. This is not news from a victorious army.
Note also how these are becoming NATO bases. Can't tell the US people that US bases are being attacked and in some places captured. So, suddenly the spin machine starts to call them all 'NATO' bases. If this war continues to go downhill, watch how much this becomes a 'NATO' war in the US media.
If they put the US brand on this war, then that says they think they are winning and they want to claim the glory for themselves. That's how Afghanistan was for years. But, when they start to pull the US brand away from this war, that tells you they don't want the brand name tarnished by what's to come.
PS ... if you like observing how the propaganda works, note how this same attack was portrayed in the LA Times. U.S. troops, Afghan police sweep through Taliban stronghold
In the US papers, the attack on a major base of 20,000 soldiers/workers becomes just a minor little footnote in an article that describes yet another victory and successful operation for our brave troops. We actually sent 400 or so troops and police out of their forts into an Afghan town in the daylight. This is a major victory worthy of a major LA Times article ... and the detail that our major base in the area was attacked is reduced to mere footnote.
That single sentence 2nd paragraph is weird. It has the smell of a remnant of a larger paragraph that didn't clear the censors. If all the writer wanted to say was that one sentence, then it makes more sense attached to the end of the previous paragraph. I wonder what was cut from that 2nd paragraph?
Funny, other reporters got more details. But in the US, they can't be mentioned apparently. In fact, its highly likely that this LA Times reporter who was out with the troops in the daytime was staying inside this major base of 20,000 people when it was attacked that night. I'm just guessing, but I doubt that this American propaganda artist, who openly walks around with US troops, just checked into a local Taliban bed and breakfast to get a room.
But, we certainly aren't allowed any eyewitness details that he might have experienced. Instead we get the vague excuse from a NATO officer that no more details are available. Meanwhile, the article goes back to the 28 of 30 paragraphs the describe our victorious troops actually out in an Afghan city.
But even in the LA Times, note how they are pulling the US brand away from this. Especially when its a defeat or a setback. Now its just a base housing 'foreign' troops that was attacked, and that its NATO officers that they associate with this base. One would get the impression that this was a completely separate fight, involving few if any US troops, and unconnected with our great victory.
Instead, after a day when 400 soldiers and police, who have to be heavily armed and travel in a large force to even walk the streets, tried to hand out candy bars to win the local hearts and minds, their base was attacked that night with an attack that tried to storm their perimeter.
Yeah, we're winning, right? Its just a lot harder to tell what's going on if you read propaganda organs like the LA Times.
Taliban admit Kandahar attack from the Independent (UK)
I love the wording of that headline. Like the headline writer expects the Taliban to be ashamed of kicking our rears. They 'admit' it. More likely they jumped up and down and shouted it at the top of their lungs.
The Taliban have claimed responsibility for an assault with rockets, mortars and automatic weapons on Kandahar airport, Nato's biggest base in southern Afghanistan, in the third major attack on the military in six days. Several coalition troops and civilian employees were wounded.
This post goes with the one below. So read it as well.
Then, think about Gen. McCrystals quote in that post. And then think about this. The insurgents in Afghanistan have launched three major attacks on NATO/US installations in a week. That's as close as McCrystal is going to get to having the guerrillas come out in the open and fight the battle that a US general who was trained to fight the Soviets in a massive tank battle in central Europe wants.
Three times in the last week, the guerrilla have massed themselves for a major attack on a NATO installation.
The Saturday night attack against Kandahar base was the second ground assault on a major NATO installation this week. Officials said a number of soldiers and civilians were wounded but gave no figures. They said there were no confirmed deaths among the more than 20,000 people who live and work at the base.
Militants unleashed rockets and mortars about 8pm and then tried unsuccessfully to storm the northern perimeter of the base, about 300 miles southwest of Kabul. One of the rockets hit a shop-lined boardwalk where soldiers socialize in the evenings.
Its one thing for guerrillas to sneak up outside a base, fire off a couple of mortar rounds, and then run away before there's a response. You'd think a mighty empire that rules the world could control the perimeter around its massive major bases well enough to stop this, but it still happens.
The key words in that paragraph are how they tried to 'storm the northern perimeter'. Think about that. They are trying to openly launch ground assaults on the perimeter of a major base that holds 20,000 NATO troops and civilians.
Gen. McCrystal? Are you there? You say you want an open battle against the guerrillas. Well, they are at the northern perimeter right now and it looks like they want to come fight you as well.
This is not good for a guerrilla war. When the guerrillas stop hiding in caves and instead come out and openly attack your major bases at the airfields of Kabul and Kandahar, that's usually a sign of the beginning of the end. That's Tet Offensive time, and a sign that our fantasies about convincing the Afghan people to become model western consumer/slaves are coming to an end.
Read between the lines when dealing with propaganda. Especially with military propaganda that comes from a military that openly states it wages information wars and tries to control information. When you hear that the guerrillas who are always described as cowards who are too afraid to fight are instead massing and attacking NATO/US bases with impunity, pay very close attention. This is not news from a victorious army.
Note also how these are becoming NATO bases. Can't tell the US people that US bases are being attacked and in some places captured. So, suddenly the spin machine starts to call them all 'NATO' bases. If this war continues to go downhill, watch how much this becomes a 'NATO' war in the US media.
If they put the US brand on this war, then that says they think they are winning and they want to claim the glory for themselves. That's how Afghanistan was for years. But, when they start to pull the US brand away from this war, that tells you they don't want the brand name tarnished by what's to come.
PS ... if you like observing how the propaganda works, note how this same attack was portrayed in the LA Times. U.S. troops, Afghan police sweep through Taliban stronghold
In the US papers, the attack on a major base of 20,000 soldiers/workers becomes just a minor little footnote in an article that describes yet another victory and successful operation for our brave troops. We actually sent 400 or so troops and police out of their forts into an Afghan town in the daylight. This is a major victory worthy of a major LA Times article ... and the detail that our major base in the area was attacked is reduced to mere footnote.
Hours later, insurgents launched a rocket, mortar and ground attack on the main base used by foreign troops, at Kandahar's air field a few miles east of Kokaran. Explosions wounded several troops and civilian workers, said Capt. Scott Costen, a North Atlantic Treaty Organization spokesman at the base. Costen said he could not provide details on the attack, the number of wounded or any insurgent casualties.
But the attack seemed similar to an insurgent assault Wednesday on the sprawling U.S. base at Bagram, north of Kabul.
That single sentence 2nd paragraph is weird. It has the smell of a remnant of a larger paragraph that didn't clear the censors. If all the writer wanted to say was that one sentence, then it makes more sense attached to the end of the previous paragraph. I wonder what was cut from that 2nd paragraph?
Funny, other reporters got more details. But in the US, they can't be mentioned apparently. In fact, its highly likely that this LA Times reporter who was out with the troops in the daytime was staying inside this major base of 20,000 people when it was attacked that night. I'm just guessing, but I doubt that this American propaganda artist, who openly walks around with US troops, just checked into a local Taliban bed and breakfast to get a room.
But, we certainly aren't allowed any eyewitness details that he might have experienced. Instead we get the vague excuse from a NATO officer that no more details are available. Meanwhile, the article goes back to the 28 of 30 paragraphs the describe our victorious troops actually out in an Afghan city.
But even in the LA Times, note how they are pulling the US brand away from this. Especially when its a defeat or a setback. Now its just a base housing 'foreign' troops that was attacked, and that its NATO officers that they associate with this base. One would get the impression that this was a completely separate fight, involving few if any US troops, and unconnected with our great victory.
Instead, after a day when 400 soldiers and police, who have to be heavily armed and travel in a large force to even walk the streets, tried to hand out candy bars to win the local hearts and minds, their base was attacked that night with an attack that tried to storm their perimeter.
Yeah, we're winning, right? Its just a lot harder to tell what's going on if you read propaganda organs like the LA Times.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Hail Mary
In American football, a 'hail mary' is a last second and desperate long pass attempt at the end of game by a team that needs to score immediately or else lose the game.
Results of Kandahar offensive may affect future U.S. moves by By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post
That sounds like a classic 'hail mary' to me.
Lets see, how did the trial run for this in the great metropoltian area of Marjan go. The US troops met greater resistance than expected, took control of the area slower than expected. Then, after they did seem (or at least claim) to take control, they had a hard time convincing Afghan officials to go there and take up posts. And at last account most of the villagers still seem sympathetic to what we call the Taliban, and are mainly just keeping their heads down until we leave.
Which will probably be when this offensive meets greater than expected resistance and we proclaim a great victory of the pacification of the greater Marjan metropolitan area and pull the troops from there over to Kandahar.
In a system where you know you don't get honest facts about what is going on, and the military clearly states that they wage media and psychological warfare to control information, you have to read between the lines. When you do that with Afghanistan, the picture is very worrisome.
Our major Bagram airbase outside the capital of Kabul is under attack. Last month I saw another story about a US base occupied by insurgents. Meanwhile, we seem to be launching a desperate hail mary offensive. Since such plays are only called when defeat is imminent, what does that say about the situation in Afghanistan?
The one thing the Pentagon is not short of is people who've studied lots of military strategy. Its easy to think that an inexperienced Obama is launching a bad hail mary offensive that a more experienced military commander would have avoided. But that's not how things work in 21st century America. The US military wouldn't give up a golf course unless they wanted to, much less turn over control of military operations to a civilian. So, this plan is undoubtably coming from those many people in the Pentagon who've studied lots of military strategy.
If those guys and gals are doing that, and they are not dumb, then the war in Afghanistan is much more desperate than it seems.
Given the flood of propaganda that we all get blasted with about our brave and wonderful troops and all the victories that they win, it seems incredible to think that we might be on the verge of losing the Afghan War. But, that's what this plan in Kandahar seems to indicate. Its definitely a 'hail mary' of a military plan.
If you like military strategy, you should read this article. Its hilariously funny. Although I'm certain that this important propaganda writer at one of the American government's lead propaganda organs didn't mean it to be so.
For just one example of many ....
Since Kandahar is a largely Pashtun city, if they are 'correcting imbalances that favor one tribal group', then these councils aren't going to be very 'representative' of all the Pashtun's who live there.
But that's not as good as ...
Uh, dude, guerrillas have known not to do that since at least "Lawerence of Arabia". And this is from the US military's leading genius on fighting a guerilla war. Or at least the propaganda says that. If that's true and this is what he's saying, then maybe I'll have to take back that part back about the Pentagon having lots of people who know military strategy.
[edit 5-24] ... from the story above. As this was being published, the guerrillas were coming out and offering just such a fixed battle when they tried to launch a ground assault on the perimeter of the Kandahar base housing 20,000 NATO soldiers/workers. There is of course one time when the guerrillas do come out in the open and fight. And that's when they've been building their strength for years and now feel strong enough to come out and fight ... and win. This is the final stage of a guerrilla war, when the guerrillas come out of hiding, show the true numbers that they've recruited, and march to take Saigon or Damascus. Gen. McCrystal might be having one of those times when you are sorry you get what you asked for.
Results of Kandahar offensive may affect future U.S. moves by By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post
The Obama administration's campaign to drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan's second-largest city is a go-for-broke move that even its authors are unsure will succeed.
The bet is that the Kandahar operation, backed by thousands of U.S. troops and billions of dollars, will break the mystique and morale of the insurgents, turn the tide of the war and validate the administration's Afghanistan strategy.
There is no Plan B.
That sounds like a classic 'hail mary' to me.
Lets see, how did the trial run for this in the great metropoltian area of Marjan go. The US troops met greater resistance than expected, took control of the area slower than expected. Then, after they did seem (or at least claim) to take control, they had a hard time convincing Afghan officials to go there and take up posts. And at last account most of the villagers still seem sympathetic to what we call the Taliban, and are mainly just keeping their heads down until we leave.
Which will probably be when this offensive meets greater than expected resistance and we proclaim a great victory of the pacification of the greater Marjan metropolitan area and pull the troops from there over to Kandahar.
In a system where you know you don't get honest facts about what is going on, and the military clearly states that they wage media and psychological warfare to control information, you have to read between the lines. When you do that with Afghanistan, the picture is very worrisome.
Our major Bagram airbase outside the capital of Kabul is under attack. Last month I saw another story about a US base occupied by insurgents. Meanwhile, we seem to be launching a desperate hail mary offensive. Since such plays are only called when defeat is imminent, what does that say about the situation in Afghanistan?
The one thing the Pentagon is not short of is people who've studied lots of military strategy. Its easy to think that an inexperienced Obama is launching a bad hail mary offensive that a more experienced military commander would have avoided. But that's not how things work in 21st century America. The US military wouldn't give up a golf course unless they wanted to, much less turn over control of military operations to a civilian. So, this plan is undoubtably coming from those many people in the Pentagon who've studied lots of military strategy.
If those guys and gals are doing that, and they are not dumb, then the war in Afghanistan is much more desperate than it seems.
Given the flood of propaganda that we all get blasted with about our brave and wonderful troops and all the victories that they win, it seems incredible to think that we might be on the verge of losing the Afghan War. But, that's what this plan in Kandahar seems to indicate. Its definitely a 'hail mary' of a military plan.
If you like military strategy, you should read this article. Its hilariously funny. Although I'm certain that this important propaganda writer at one of the American government's lead propaganda organs didn't mean it to be so.
For just one example of many ....
U.S. civilian officials are simultaneously trying to wrest control from local power brokers and to correct imbalances that favor one tribal group. They plan to set up 10 administrative districts, each with a representative council and money to spend.
Since Kandahar is a largely Pashtun city, if they are 'correcting imbalances that favor one tribal group', then these councils aren't going to be very 'representative' of all the Pashtun's who live there.
But that's not as good as ...
"I actually think the U.S. military would love to find an enemy that was dug in on a piece of terrain, that we could establish a D-Day and we could attack with no civilians around," McChrystal said,
Uh, dude, guerrillas have known not to do that since at least "Lawerence of Arabia". And this is from the US military's leading genius on fighting a guerilla war. Or at least the propaganda says that. If that's true and this is what he's saying, then maybe I'll have to take back that part back about the Pentagon having lots of people who know military strategy.
[edit 5-24] ... from the story above. As this was being published, the guerrillas were coming out and offering just such a fixed battle when they tried to launch a ground assault on the perimeter of the Kandahar base housing 20,000 NATO soldiers/workers. There is of course one time when the guerrillas do come out in the open and fight. And that's when they've been building their strength for years and now feel strong enough to come out and fight ... and win. This is the final stage of a guerrilla war, when the guerrillas come out of hiding, show the true numbers that they've recruited, and march to take Saigon or Damascus. Gen. McCrystal might be having one of those times when you are sorry you get what you asked for.
Leaps in Logic
Sometimes, you see the most incredible leaps of logic in order to keep the propaganda line going.
Probe concludes torpedo sank South Korea ship: report from Reuters.
For instance, spot the leap in logic in this small enclosed space of one sentence.
Ok, so they identified the torpedo as being of German orgin. That's the fact part, established by analysis of the explosive traces and metals found.
But, the only conclusion drawn from this is that North Korea must be trying to hide its involvement.
Huh?
Notice also the writing style where they try to connect the fact to the incredible leap of logic as tightly as possible. All in the same sentence with barely even a slight pause and the comma before rushing into the part you aren't supposed to think about very closely. From fact to fantasy without even a pause for breath.
What's obvious about that is that the official being quoted has made up his mind in advance that North Korea did this and he's adjusting his theories as he goes to maintain that conclusion. Ok, the official is an unidentified South Korea official (vaguely sourced quotes are always a indicator of propaganda), so I can maybe understand that attitude from them. But, for a reputable newswire to publish such an unsupported conclusion as the only possibility as to what's occurred? C'mon man.
I'm not saying North Korea didn't do this. Just pointing out that to go from saying the torpedo was from Germany to saying that its obvious that North Korea did this and they are only trying to cover their tracks is an incredible leap of logic.
Don't know what happened out there. But surely there are other possibilities that fit these facts as least as loosely as that theory does.
Now, read the post right below this one and ask this question. Would I be ok here since I've already link to government propaganda in order to show the incredible way logic leaps within it. Or since, I'm being critical of government propaganda, would this Obama 'communications czar' require that I link to still more government propaganda in order to counter-balance my critique of the original propaganda?
Under that proposal, I would of course be required to link to the identical Republican and Democrat statements that say that of course the presence of a German (aka NATO) torpedo indicates North Korean (non-NATO) involvement, and that we need to simultaneously strike North Korea and raise the defense budgets by $100 billion dollars and pay for a new trillion dollar Strategic Torpedo Defense Initiative because of this dastardly deed. And oh yeah, completely give up the last of our freedom because of the horrible threat North Korea poses to our very existence. At least I could try to have fun by searching for the incredibly tiny differences between Democrats and Republicans on an issue like North Korea.
Such a tangled web. Freedom is always much simpler.
Probe concludes torpedo sank South Korea ship: report from Reuters.
For instance, spot the leap in logic in this small enclosed space of one sentence.
The metallic debris and chemical residue appear to be consistent with a type of torpedo made in Germany, indicating the North may have been trying to disguise its involvement by avoiding arms made by allies China and Russia, Yonhap quoted the official as saying.
Ok, so they identified the torpedo as being of German orgin. That's the fact part, established by analysis of the explosive traces and metals found.
But, the only conclusion drawn from this is that North Korea must be trying to hide its involvement.
Huh?
Notice also the writing style where they try to connect the fact to the incredible leap of logic as tightly as possible. All in the same sentence with barely even a slight pause and the comma before rushing into the part you aren't supposed to think about very closely. From fact to fantasy without even a pause for breath.
What's obvious about that is that the official being quoted has made up his mind in advance that North Korea did this and he's adjusting his theories as he goes to maintain that conclusion. Ok, the official is an unidentified South Korea official (vaguely sourced quotes are always a indicator of propaganda), so I can maybe understand that attitude from them. But, for a reputable newswire to publish such an unsupported conclusion as the only possibility as to what's occurred? C'mon man.
I'm not saying North Korea didn't do this. Just pointing out that to go from saying the torpedo was from Germany to saying that its obvious that North Korea did this and they are only trying to cover their tracks is an incredible leap of logic.
Don't know what happened out there. But surely there are other possibilities that fit these facts as least as loosely as that theory does.
Now, read the post right below this one and ask this question. Would I be ok here since I've already link to government propaganda in order to show the incredible way logic leaps within it. Or since, I'm being critical of government propaganda, would this Obama 'communications czar' require that I link to still more government propaganda in order to counter-balance my critique of the original propaganda?
Under that proposal, I would of course be required to link to the identical Republican and Democrat statements that say that of course the presence of a German (aka NATO) torpedo indicates North Korean (non-NATO) involvement, and that we need to simultaneously strike North Korea and raise the defense budgets by $100 billion dollars and pay for a new trillion dollar Strategic Torpedo Defense Initiative because of this dastardly deed. And oh yeah, completely give up the last of our freedom because of the horrible threat North Korea poses to our very existence. At least I could try to have fun by searching for the incredibly tiny differences between Democrats and Republicans on an issue like North Korea.
Such a tangled web. Freedom is always much simpler.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Obama's direct attack on free speech
Obama Czar Wants Mandatory Government Propaganda On Political Websites
You will be force fed your government propaganda. If you dare to turn off Faux News or CNN and choose to try to get your news elsewhere, the Obama administration likes the idea of 'mandates' to force every political blog to link to government information that they insist that you see.
Welcome to Obamaland. Regardless of whether this becomes law or not, they've told you what they want. Like Bush saying he'd love to be a dictator, eventually their true desires slip out. Obama would really love a law requiring that every political website give his point of view.
I keep saying 'Please stop voting Democrat'. Or Republican for that matter. You are killing us and our country by doing so.
Why does a democracy have a 'communications czar' anyways?
Since we have to have budget cuts to pay for Obama's wars and the Wall Street bailouts and the Bush tax cuts that are now guarded by Democrats, couldn't we at least cut the 'communications czar' before taking away Social Security and Medicare? How about a 'czar reduction plan'? We got many more czars in this country than any democracy should have? Shouldn't we be able to save some money by getting rid of a few?
Disturbing audio has emerged of White House information czar Cass Sunstein, who in a previous white paper called for banning “conspiracy theories,” demanding that websites be mandated by law to link to opposing information or that pop ups containing government propaganda be forcibly included on political blogs.
You will be force fed your government propaganda. If you dare to turn off Faux News or CNN and choose to try to get your news elsewhere, the Obama administration likes the idea of 'mandates' to force every political blog to link to government information that they insist that you see.
Welcome to Obamaland. Regardless of whether this becomes law or not, they've told you what they want. Like Bush saying he'd love to be a dictator, eventually their true desires slip out. Obama would really love a law requiring that every political website give his point of view.
I keep saying 'Please stop voting Democrat'. Or Republican for that matter. You are killing us and our country by doing so.
Why does a democracy have a 'communications czar' anyways?
Since we have to have budget cuts to pay for Obama's wars and the Wall Street bailouts and the Bush tax cuts that are now guarded by Democrats, couldn't we at least cut the 'communications czar' before taking away Social Security and Medicare? How about a 'czar reduction plan'? We got many more czars in this country than any democracy should have? Shouldn't we be able to save some money by getting rid of a few?
Obama's Tiananmen?
Student Strike at University of Puerto Rico Enters 28th Day
University students in Puerto Rico are on strike. The administration and the government of Puerto Rico are trying to cut funding. And of course, as one would expect under Obama's rule, the cuts are aimed at students and staff .... and especially at poor students who get financial aid.
The students and staff are on strike, and have shut down the university's campus' across the island. There is only one American response to such an act. The campus' have been surrounded by armed riot police, and the riot police are using starvation to try to end the strike. Wall street's riot police are at it again.
Most parents urge their children to study. American parents in Puerto Rico are reduced to trying to throw bread and water in to their children over the fences. The video includes film of the riot police attacking a parent who wants the students to have some food and water. Welcome to Obama's America ... parents trying to throw food and water to their children, and being grabbed and arrested by riot police for doing so.
As someone who watched Obama's riot police outside his coronation convention here in Denver, this isn't a surprise. This is the Democratic response to any who protest rule by wall street and for wall street. Obama's riot police are at work again.
In Puerto Rico, they are trying to organize a general strike to support the students. Too bad the rest of America can't learn from that. The best thing to do would be to join the strike, and to do similar to protest our own university cuts, fee hikes and privatizations. Puerto Rico isn't the only place where wall street's depression is being used to attack the democratic idea of public education. Apparently the decedents of the Sons of Liberty now have to learn from Puerto Ricans how to defend their democracy.
And make no mistake. An attack on the idea of public education at all is a direct attack on democracy. Democracy can not survive with an uneducated public. Which is why public education has been under direct attack for at least the last 30 years.
At some point, Americans will have to choose what's more important to them. Wall Street? Or democracy? Its rapidly appearing as if we can't have both.
University students in Puerto Rico are on strike. The administration and the government of Puerto Rico are trying to cut funding. And of course, as one would expect under Obama's rule, the cuts are aimed at students and staff .... and especially at poor students who get financial aid.
The students and staff are on strike, and have shut down the university's campus' across the island. There is only one American response to such an act. The campus' have been surrounded by armed riot police, and the riot police are using starvation to try to end the strike. Wall street's riot police are at it again.
Most parents urge their children to study. American parents in Puerto Rico are reduced to trying to throw bread and water in to their children over the fences. The video includes film of the riot police attacking a parent who wants the students to have some food and water. Welcome to Obama's America ... parents trying to throw food and water to their children, and being grabbed and arrested by riot police for doing so.
As someone who watched Obama's riot police outside his coronation convention here in Denver, this isn't a surprise. This is the Democratic response to any who protest rule by wall street and for wall street. Obama's riot police are at work again.
In Puerto Rico, they are trying to organize a general strike to support the students. Too bad the rest of America can't learn from that. The best thing to do would be to join the strike, and to do similar to protest our own university cuts, fee hikes and privatizations. Puerto Rico isn't the only place where wall street's depression is being used to attack the democratic idea of public education. Apparently the decedents of the Sons of Liberty now have to learn from Puerto Ricans how to defend their democracy.
And make no mistake. An attack on the idea of public education at all is a direct attack on democracy. Democracy can not survive with an uneducated public. Which is why public education has been under direct attack for at least the last 30 years.
At some point, Americans will have to choose what's more important to them. Wall Street? Or democracy? Its rapidly appearing as if we can't have both.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Feingold -- Why the Finanical Reform Bill doesn't go far enough
Why the Finanical Reform Bill doesn't go far enough by Sen. Russell Feingold.
A very good article, as far as it goes. Like most Democrats, Mr. Feingold seems at best to tiptoe around the edges of the problem. But, at least unlike most of the other Wall Street Democrats, he at least seems to see that there is a problem.
Close. But the real problem is that as there are fewer and fewer big banks it becomes easier and easier for them to operate as complete crooks and rig the system.
If the mafia controls one of fifteen local trash companies, you can (maybe) choose not to do business with them. But, when they control the only trash company that will pick up your trash, then you have no choice. And of course, they know this too which is why they set it up that way so they can masssively overcharge you and rip you off.
That's today's 'financial' system. If you think of it as being the mafia, you've got it about right. They just don't speak with Italian accents and hang out at the local meat shop. But, they operate in exactly the same way.
Take a look back at the Goldman Sachs hearings a short while back. Mr. Feingold's statement refers to GS's legitimate way of making money. But, what was really happening was that GS was not only making big fees supplying money to companies, but then they were secretly working behind their customers backs to bet against them in the markets. It was a rigged game. Companies and individuals who thought they were hiring GS to work for thier interests instead were really playing in a world where GS was using its enormous financial clout to make sure they failed ... as long as they did so in such a way that GS made even more money.
That's not a case of 'gee, its unfortunate that money didn't get allocated properly in a market with big consolidated banks.' Instead that's a case where the big consolidated banks are using their financial clout to screw you coming and going. You'd be better off dealing with Tony Soprano.
Feingold's ok, but I like Thomas Jefferson better.
The banks do have 'issuing power' today in the form of the private Federal Reserve. And, its kind of a quaint little distinction anyways when the banks today own the whole damn government.
A very good article, as far as it goes. Like most Democrats, Mr. Feingold seems at best to tiptoe around the edges of the problem. But, at least unlike most of the other Wall Street Democrats, he at least seems to see that there is a problem.
Banks have a very special role in our free market system; they are rationers of capital. When fewer and fewer banks are making more and more of the critical decisions about where capital is allocated, there is an increased risk that many worthy enterprises will not receive the capital needed to grow and flourish.
Close. But the real problem is that as there are fewer and fewer big banks it becomes easier and easier for them to operate as complete crooks and rig the system.
If the mafia controls one of fifteen local trash companies, you can (maybe) choose not to do business with them. But, when they control the only trash company that will pick up your trash, then you have no choice. And of course, they know this too which is why they set it up that way so they can masssively overcharge you and rip you off.
That's today's 'financial' system. If you think of it as being the mafia, you've got it about right. They just don't speak with Italian accents and hang out at the local meat shop. But, they operate in exactly the same way.
Take a look back at the Goldman Sachs hearings a short while back. Mr. Feingold's statement refers to GS's legitimate way of making money. But, what was really happening was that GS was not only making big fees supplying money to companies, but then they were secretly working behind their customers backs to bet against them in the markets. It was a rigged game. Companies and individuals who thought they were hiring GS to work for thier interests instead were really playing in a world where GS was using its enormous financial clout to make sure they failed ... as long as they did so in such a way that GS made even more money.
That's not a case of 'gee, its unfortunate that money didn't get allocated properly in a market with big consolidated banks.' Instead that's a case where the big consolidated banks are using their financial clout to screw you coming and going. You'd be better off dealing with Tony Soprano.
Feingold's ok, but I like Thomas Jefferson better.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
The banks do have 'issuing power' today in the form of the private Federal Reserve. And, its kind of a quaint little distinction anyways when the banks today own the whole damn government.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Obama loves the war in Iraq too.
Iraq violence set to delay US troop withdrawal from the Guardian.
Here's what no Democrat wants to admit. From the day he took office, Obama has followed the same policy on Iraq as Bush.
Bush and the generals always promised a withdrawal. Bush always promised a withdrawal of some troops at some future date. The date was always dependent on some future milestone, usually an election of some sorts. Bush always said that some day in the future the Iraqis will be dancing around with purple ink on their fingers, and that will be the sign that Iraq has now 'stabilized' and that we can withdraw some, but not all of our troops.
For all of his faux anti-war rhetoric back in the primaries, Obama has continued exactly the same policy in Iraq. Obama promised exactly the same troop drawdowns as Bush, and the milestone that Obama was always pointing too was this recent round of elections. It took a long time for this to occur. First the elections were postponed from last summer (always a sign of a free and democratic country). Then they were finally held in March. And now there's been a long round of playing games with the election results, disqualifying candidates only after they won, and negotiations for a coalition.
But, the milestone is finally here. The Iraqis have formed their new government, and so now its time for the US to finally start withdrawing some troops..... Not!
It turns out that Obama has run exactly the same con Bush always ran. Now that the milestone is passed, suddenly we are told that the security situation is still dangerous and that we still have to keep all of our young Americans in Iraq.
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
What people have to wake up to is the fact that the Democrats have supported this war completely from the beginning. The Democrats voted to authorize this war. The Democrats regularly all line up and vote to fund this war. The Democrats have religiously protected war funding from any opposition since they took control of Congress in 2006. And Obama has firmly supported this war since taking office.
And now Obama has taken a page straight from the Bush playbook and is now announcing that because the CIA's candidate (Allawi) hasn't taken control of the country in the 'free' elections we've allowed them, that suddenly we have to keep a hundred thousand or more Americans in Iraq ... until the next mythical milestone/withdraw date that they come up with next. The message seems to be that American troops will stay until the Iraqis 'freely' decide to put the CIA's man back into power.
The Democrats have only been an 'anti-war' party for two brief periods of their nearly 200 years of existence as a political party. During the height of popular rebellion against the Vietnam war, the Democrats became anti-war from 1972-76. Then, when the party hacks retook control of their party, they changed the rules to ensure that this doesn't happen again (see 'super-delegates' for an example). The only other time the Democrats were anti-war was when they opposed Lincoln's call for the Civil War since the Democrats were the party of the slave owners.
The Democrats are not and have only rarely been an anti-war party.
Are the American people finally ready to wake up to the fact that the Democrats love these wars just as much as the Republicans. The war in Afghanistan has been massively escalated. A year of drone strikes has killed some 700 civilians and expanded the war to Pakistan. Now, Obama seems to want to use the Times Square dud bomb as an excuse to put 'boots on the ground' in Pakistan. And the threats to start a war with Iran haven't even slowed down as the (D)'s trade places with the (R)'s in the White House. One could seemingly make a 'morphing' video of SOS Hillary and SOS Rice doing the same saber rattling towards Iran. And his promises to withdraw some, but not all, troops from Iraq are now being revealed as a fraud. And least we somehow seem to have avoided a war with Yemen.
If the American people are sick of these wars, they have to start voting for someone besides Democrats or Republicans.
The White House is likely to delay the withdrawal of the first large phase of combat troops from Iraq for at least a month after escalating bloodshed and political instability in the country.
Here's what no Democrat wants to admit. From the day he took office, Obama has followed the same policy on Iraq as Bush.
Bush and the generals always promised a withdrawal. Bush always promised a withdrawal of some troops at some future date. The date was always dependent on some future milestone, usually an election of some sorts. Bush always said that some day in the future the Iraqis will be dancing around with purple ink on their fingers, and that will be the sign that Iraq has now 'stabilized' and that we can withdraw some, but not all of our troops.
For all of his faux anti-war rhetoric back in the primaries, Obama has continued exactly the same policy in Iraq. Obama promised exactly the same troop drawdowns as Bush, and the milestone that Obama was always pointing too was this recent round of elections. It took a long time for this to occur. First the elections were postponed from last summer (always a sign of a free and democratic country). Then they were finally held in March. And now there's been a long round of playing games with the election results, disqualifying candidates only after they won, and negotiations for a coalition.
But, the milestone is finally here. The Iraqis have formed their new government, and so now its time for the US to finally start withdrawing some troops..... Not!
It turns out that Obama has run exactly the same con Bush always ran. Now that the milestone is passed, suddenly we are told that the security situation is still dangerous and that we still have to keep all of our young Americans in Iraq.
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
What people have to wake up to is the fact that the Democrats have supported this war completely from the beginning. The Democrats voted to authorize this war. The Democrats regularly all line up and vote to fund this war. The Democrats have religiously protected war funding from any opposition since they took control of Congress in 2006. And Obama has firmly supported this war since taking office.
And now Obama has taken a page straight from the Bush playbook and is now announcing that because the CIA's candidate (Allawi) hasn't taken control of the country in the 'free' elections we've allowed them, that suddenly we have to keep a hundred thousand or more Americans in Iraq ... until the next mythical milestone/withdraw date that they come up with next. The message seems to be that American troops will stay until the Iraqis 'freely' decide to put the CIA's man back into power.
The Democrats have only been an 'anti-war' party for two brief periods of their nearly 200 years of existence as a political party. During the height of popular rebellion against the Vietnam war, the Democrats became anti-war from 1972-76. Then, when the party hacks retook control of their party, they changed the rules to ensure that this doesn't happen again (see 'super-delegates' for an example). The only other time the Democrats were anti-war was when they opposed Lincoln's call for the Civil War since the Democrats were the party of the slave owners.
The Democrats are not and have only rarely been an anti-war party.
Are the American people finally ready to wake up to the fact that the Democrats love these wars just as much as the Republicans. The war in Afghanistan has been massively escalated. A year of drone strikes has killed some 700 civilians and expanded the war to Pakistan. Now, Obama seems to want to use the Times Square dud bomb as an excuse to put 'boots on the ground' in Pakistan. And the threats to start a war with Iran haven't even slowed down as the (D)'s trade places with the (R)'s in the White House. One could seemingly make a 'morphing' video of SOS Hillary and SOS Rice doing the same saber rattling towards Iran. And his promises to withdraw some, but not all, troops from Iraq are now being revealed as a fraud. And least we somehow seem to have avoided a war with Yemen.
If the American people are sick of these wars, they have to start voting for someone besides Democrats or Republicans.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Obama's War Drums
The war drums are beating loudly. An incompetent bomber in Times Square appears to be leading to yet another round of war, death, destruction, maiming, torture and murder.
Of course, we've been bombing Pakistan for a year and a half now.
US Killed 700 Civilians in Pakistan Drone Strikes in 2009
So, if we are going to escalate and prove how tough we are over this sputtering amateur dud of a bomb, we have to do more that just our usual going and killing a few hundred (or a few thousand) innocent civilians in retaliation.
U.S. Urges Action in Pakistan After Failed Bombing
Does 'Sorry' cover murdering innocent people? Apparently so. If only Charlie Manson had figured that out, he could probably be Secretary of State today.
Of course, these post-bomb escalations almost always involve the US trying to use them to do what it had already been trying to do. In this case, its apparently the war-loving Obama's administration's wet dream to have American soldiers on the ground fighting in Pakistan.
Of course, on the 'sunday news shows', you can't just declare war. You also have to say you are going to take rights away from people. That's the only way to get the approval of such corporate opinion monitors as Tim Russert and Wolf Blitzer.
And of course no mention of how all the domestic spying and torture and video cameras on every corner didn't do a lick of good in preventing this attempt. Instead, only cries that we must all give up even more of our basic rights as free Americans in order to make sure that this never happens again.
Israel of course can't stand it if they hear other war drums beating and not be beating their own.
Of course, as time passes, we always start to learn that the previous war drums and war plans weren't all they were cracked up to be.
And the wars we've already started keep adding to their running tolls of death, destruction, maiming and murder.
Quick pop quiz. Point out how the Obama administration sounds any different from Bush. Doesn't it seem like one could make a 'morphing' video that goes back and forth between SOS Hillary beating the war drums and SOS Rice beating the war drums without, shall we say, a beat being missed between them.
Isn't everyone glad they voted for the candidate that was against the wars in the last election? The big question is this. Will the people who oppose these wars, and that's some 70% of the American people according to the pollsters, will they vote Democrat again? Or will they vote for some real anti-war party further down the ballot?
If you keep voting for people who back and fund and continue the wars, then the wars will continue.
Clinton: Pakistan Officials ‘Harboring’ Bin Laden
'Consequences' if Pakistan car bomb link - Hillary Clinton
US Threatens Pakistan Over Times Square BombOf course, we've been bombing Pakistan for a year and a half now.
US Killed 700 Civilians in Pakistan Drone Strikes in 2009
So, if we are going to escalate and prove how tough we are over this sputtering amateur dud of a bomb, we have to do more that just our usual going and killing a few hundred (or a few thousand) innocent civilians in retaliation.
U.S. Urges Action in Pakistan After Failed Bombing
“We are saying, ‘Sorry, if there is a successful attack, we will have to act’ ” within Pakistan, one of the American officials said.
Does 'Sorry' cover murdering innocent people? Apparently so. If only Charlie Manson had figured that out, he could probably be Secretary of State today.
Of course, these post-bomb escalations almost always involve the US trying to use them to do what it had already been trying to do. In this case, its apparently the war-loving Obama's administration's wet dream to have American soldiers on the ground fighting in Pakistan.
That issue has been a source of growing tension between the countries. Pakistani officials, already alarmed by the increase in American drone aircraft attacks against militants in northwestern Pakistan, have been extremely sensitive about any hint that American ground troops could become involved in the fight. And attempts by the United States to increase the presence of Special Operations forces there even in an advisory or training role have been met with great resistance by the Pakistanis.
Of course, on the 'sunday news shows', you can't just declare war. You also have to say you are going to take rights away from people. That's the only way to get the approval of such corporate opinion monitors as Tim Russert and Wolf Blitzer.
Holder Backs a Miranda Limit for Terror Suspects
Be careful not to get whiplash if you are trying to follow along at home. For in this story the AG is now saying that this incompetent bomber is now part of a complicated plot based in, you guessed it, Pakistan. Pay no attention to the minor detail that just a few days ago officials were telling us with great certainty that the bomber worked alone. After all, its obvious to everyone that it took weeks of sophisticated 'terrorist training' for this bomber to try to strap together propane tanks and fireworks.And of course no mention of how all the domestic spying and torture and video cameras on every corner didn't do a lick of good in preventing this attempt. Instead, only cries that we must all give up even more of our basic rights as free Americans in order to make sure that this never happens again.
Israel of course can't stand it if they hear other war drums beating and not be beating their own.
Deputy PM: Israel ‘Primed’ for War With Iran
Of course, as time passes, we always start to learn that the previous war drums and war plans weren't all they were cracked up to be.
Pentagon Doubts Grow on McChrystal War Plan
And the wars we've already started keep adding to their running tolls of death, destruction, maiming and murder.
At Least 126 Killed in Attacks Across Iraq
Quick pop quiz. Point out how the Obama administration sounds any different from Bush. Doesn't it seem like one could make a 'morphing' video that goes back and forth between SOS Hillary beating the war drums and SOS Rice beating the war drums without, shall we say, a beat being missed between them.
Isn't everyone glad they voted for the candidate that was against the wars in the last election? The big question is this. Will the people who oppose these wars, and that's some 70% of the American people according to the pollsters, will they vote Democrat again? Or will they vote for some real anti-war party further down the ballot?
If you keep voting for people who back and fund and continue the wars, then the wars will continue.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Obama still supports offshore drilling
Obama repeated his support for offshore drilling as the crisis in the Gulf Coast continues after a British Petroleum oil rig exploded and oil has spread throughout the Gulf and reached landfall.
And you thought you voted against "Drill, baby, drill"
OIL SPILL UPDATE
BBC - The US Coast Guard says five times as much oil as previously thought could be leaking from a well beneath where a rig sank in the Gulf of Mexico last week.
Rear Admiral Mary Landry said 5,000 barrels (210,000 gallons) a day were now thought to be gushing into the sea 50 miles (80km) off Louisiana's coast.
A third leak had also been discovered at the site, Adm Landry said.
One fire-fighting expert told the BBC the disaster might become the "biggest oil spill in the world".
"Probably the only thing comparable to this is the Kuwait fires [following the Gulf War in 1991]," Mike Miller, head of Canadian oil well fire-fighting company Safety Boss, told BBC World Service.
"The Exxon Valdez [tanker disaster off Alaska in 1989] is going to pale [into insignificance] in comparison to this as it goes on."
If US Coast Guard estimates are correct, the slick could match the 11m gallons spilt from the Exxon Valdez within less than two months.
It now seems inevitable that Louisiana's coastline will be hit and at least another two states could be affected.
Drill, baby drill. No matter what, we can't let anything get in the way of oil company profits. Who cares if we just lost the Louisiana wetlands for a generation. Drill, baby, drill.
But hey, you can't say Obama isn't doing anything.
FEDS CANCEL LUNCHEON CELEBRATING OIL RIG SAFETY
It was to be a celebration, but a federal agency in charge of offshore drilling has postponed next week's annual luncheon in Houston, which was to extol the safety record of offshore oil drilling....
Last year, BP America, operator of the deep-water rig that exploded and sank last week, was among the luncheon's winners, cited for "outstanding dedication and leadership in promoting improved medical care and evacuation capabilities for offshore facilities."
Drill, baby, drill. Obama still supports off-shore drilling.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Not News in America
And nowhere on that CNN page will you find this story .....
Oaxaca: Paramilitaries Ambush International Aid Caravan, Two Dead from Global Indymedia.
Terrorists attack a group of peaceful people who are bringing food, water and medicine to people under siege. Terrorist attack and kill two. And if you watch CNN, you'll never know it happened.
Oaxaca: Paramilitaries Ambush International Aid Caravan, Two Dead from Global Indymedia.
San Juan Copala, Oaxaca - On April 27th at about 2:50pm, people believed to be paramilitaries affiliated with the ruling party of Oaxaca ambushed an international aid caravan en route to San Juan Copala. At least two people are reported dead.
The caravan was carrying food, water, and other basic necessities to San Juan Copala, which has been subject to a paramilitary blockade that has prevented anyone from entering or leaving the community since January. In addition to carrying much-needed supplies, the caravan was meant to accompany teachers who were returning to classes after paramilitaries denied them access to the community nearly five months ago. The caravan included representatives from the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca (APPO), Section 22 of the teachers union, the Center for Community Support Working Together (CACTUS), Oaxacan Voices Constructing Autonomy and Liberty (VOCAL), two reporters from the Mexican magazine Contralinea, and international observers from Belgium, Finland, Italy, and Germany.
San Juan Copala has been under constant siege from pro-government paramilitaries since it declared itself autonomous following the 2006 peaceful uprising that shook the state and nearly drove the governor out of office. One such paramilitary organization, the Union for the Well-being of the Triqui Region (UBISORT), warned that the caravan could be in danger if it attempted to enter San Juan Copala. UBISORT leader Rufino Juárez Hernández told press that shoot-outs were a constant occurrence in the region, and that his organization would not be held responsible for “what could happen” to the caravan.
Demonstrations of solidarity in Mexico and internationally have begun to show their rejection of this paramilitary attack. People are encouraged to spread information and hold demonstrations at Mexican embassies and consulates.
Terrorists attack a group of peaceful people who are bringing food, water and medicine to people under siege. Terrorist attack and kill two. And if you watch CNN, you'll never know it happened.
News in America
Mr. Whitney gives an excellent account of how Sen. Levin interrogated Goldman Sachs Executives. A very good read.
Through persistent questioning, which bordered on hectoring, Levin was able to prove his central thesis:Obviously an important story. We are in the midst of the worst downturn since the Great Depression. Now finally there's an important hearing revealing at least a bit of the fraud that led to the downturn.
1. That Goldman puts its own interests before those of its clients.
2. That Goldman knowingly misled it clients and sold them "crap" that it was betting against.
3. That Goldman made billions trading securities that pumped up the housing bubble.
4. That Goldman made money trading securities that triggered a market crash and led to the deepest recession in 80 years.
The hearings lasted for 8 hours and included interviews with seven Goldman executives.
Now, lets see what importance CNN puts on this story. Here's a composite for their website the day after this hearing. I've circled this story in red.
Does CNN want to know its viewers thoughts on this? No. The poll question on the day after this hearing is whether we should be afraid of space aliens?
The real question is whether we should be afraid of CNN?
I wish I could tell you whether CNN showed these important hearings live. But I can't. I've used the parental blocking controls on my TV system to block CNN, FauxNews, MSNBC and the whole lot from my home. A vast improvement to my TV system that I would recommend to everyone.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
What Really Triggered the Financial Crisis?
What Really Triggered the Financial Crisis? by Mike Whitney via Counterpunch.org
What triggered the financial crisis? Theft. Pure plain and simple theft. Whenever you take great masses of money away from people in the economy, the economy suffers. It doesn't matter if its taxes that do this or theft and fraud.
Fraud helped to deliberately build a housing bubble that sucked away the money Americans had stored in their one major family investment. Housing prices were boosted by allowing people with liar loans to increase demand. This was of course obviously going to be only temporary, as eventually the liar loan homes were bound for foreclosure. Speculators made money on the rising market, and further boosted prices. Meanwhile, wall street took those liar loans and magically converted them to AAA rated securities that they sold to suckers from around the world. Those too were always destined for collapse as the the liar loans were certain to default.
People made billions from this. Then they made more money when they took your tax dollars to cover the losses. Sure, they are paying it back, largely from ever higher fees charged to you which of course are not constrained under any 'finance reform' bill. But, at best, that bailout money was gone from the American people for the last year, and thus we've lost the opportunity cost of how much better off we might all be today if we'd spent those trillions of dollars in economy stimulus and job creation and stabilizing the housing market by subsidizing homeowners instead of banks.
A trillions got sucked out of the asset sheets of American families and ended up as Wall Street profits and bonus checks. Steal that much at once, and the economy stutters and sputters like a choking lawn mower engine. That's what happens when that much wealth is stolen.
Well, that's my take. Sparked by Mr. Whitney saying in the first line that most people don't know what caused the crisis. His article is excellent as usual, and includes this bit ....
What triggered the financial crisis? Theft. Pure plain and simple theft. Whenever you take great masses of money away from people in the economy, the economy suffers. It doesn't matter if its taxes that do this or theft and fraud.
Fraud helped to deliberately build a housing bubble that sucked away the money Americans had stored in their one major family investment. Housing prices were boosted by allowing people with liar loans to increase demand. This was of course obviously going to be only temporary, as eventually the liar loan homes were bound for foreclosure. Speculators made money on the rising market, and further boosted prices. Meanwhile, wall street took those liar loans and magically converted them to AAA rated securities that they sold to suckers from around the world. Those too were always destined for collapse as the the liar loans were certain to default.
People made billions from this. Then they made more money when they took your tax dollars to cover the losses. Sure, they are paying it back, largely from ever higher fees charged to you which of course are not constrained under any 'finance reform' bill. But, at best, that bailout money was gone from the American people for the last year, and thus we've lost the opportunity cost of how much better off we might all be today if we'd spent those trillions of dollars in economy stimulus and job creation and stabilizing the housing market by subsidizing homeowners instead of banks.
A trillions got sucked out of the asset sheets of American families and ended up as Wall Street profits and bonus checks. Steal that much at once, and the economy stutters and sputters like a choking lawn mower engine. That's what happens when that much wealth is stolen.
Well, that's my take. Sparked by Mr. Whitney saying in the first line that most people don't know what caused the crisis. His article is excellent as usual, and includes this bit ....
So how do the shadow banks make so much money by increasing leverage?
Here's how it works: There are three houses on the block; all of them are identical and all of them are the same price, $100,000 each.
Harry buys the first house and pays cash, $100,000 on the barrelhead.
Joe buys the second house and puts 10 per cent down, in other words, he pays $10,000.
Frank, who works for a big chiseling hedge fund on Wall Street, buys the third home and puts 0.0 per cent down; so he has zero equity.
12 months later the value of all three homes has gone up 10 per cent; so now they are all worth $110,000. That means:
Harry has made a measly 10 per cent on his investment.
Joe has made 100 per cent on his investment.
And chiseling Frank has made $10,000 pure profit.
This simple breakdown is intended to help people grasp the real purpose behind securitization and derivatives trading, which is not to make markets operate more efficiently or to "disaggregate" (spread) risk (as the proponents of "innovation" say). It is simply to peddle garbage assets which are balanced on minuscule slices of capital. It's a shyster's dream-come-true; capitalism without capital.
All Wall Street's profit's derive from some variation of this low-capital, high-risk schema.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
The War Prayer
Samuel Clemons, aka Mark Twain, once wrote a little fictional piece titled The War Prayer. It is set at the time of the beginning of a war. Its the Sunday before the regiments leave the next day. All the volunteers are sitting in the church in their uniforms, and the reverend issues forth a passionate prayer for victory for the faithful.
Mark Twain envisions this response, as the Lord Almighty sends a humble messenger to the church to say the following.
Mark Twain envisions this response, as the Lord Almighty sends a humble messenger to the church to say the following.
"God's servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two -- one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him Who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this -- keep it in mind. If you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor's crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.
"You have heard your servant's prayer -- the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it -- that part which the pastor -- and also you in your hearts -- fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. the *whole* of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory--*must* follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!
"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.
(*After a pause.*) "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits!"
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
---------------------------------------
Twain apparently dictated it around 1904-05; it was rejected by his publisher, and was found after his death among his unpublished manuscripts.
bits and pieces
During the second World War, the German people were told of the victorious German armies advance on the city of Stalingrad. Then they were told of victories in the fighting in Stalingrad. They were told of nothing but victories until one day they had to be told of the surrender of the encircled German Sixth Army at Stalingrad.
I'm not saying that Afghanistan is Stalingrad. But its a useful reminder that what you hear from the authorities about a war isn't always the whole truth.
One thing though, its probably never a good thing when the rebels of an insurgent war take over the bases of the empire. Generally, guerrillas don't like to mass in the open except when they are attacking. For guerrillas, occupying a fixed known place like a formerly enemy base usually isn't a good idea. One gets the impression in this article that the rebels aren't exactly cowering in a cave afraid of American airpower.
Taliban moves onto abandoned U.S. base
Of course, since this is from the AP, the piece is littered with official quotes and statements that all is well. That this is just a part of a planned change in strategy.
The Soviets in Afghanistan always had a problem extending their influence beyond the 'major population centers'. For most of this war, the US has pretty much stayed to the cities as well. Its only since Obama's surge that they've been trying to adopt a strategy of pushing out and actually trying to control the country.
I guess this is the end of that strategy.
One interesting question about that quote above is this? Why are those bases difficult to defend? That doesn't sound like a victorious army now does it.
When you are watching scenes of victorious Marines conquering fictional cities, sometimes it helps to pick up on some of the bits and pieces. And its always interesting to see how the propaganda artists announce a sudden defeat after telling everyone constantly of victories.
I'm not saying that Afghanistan is Stalingrad. But its a useful reminder that what you hear from the authorities about a war isn't always the whole truth.
One thing though, its probably never a good thing when the rebels of an insurgent war take over the bases of the empire. Generally, guerrillas don't like to mass in the open except when they are attacking. For guerrillas, occupying a fixed known place like a formerly enemy base usually isn't a good idea. One gets the impression in this article that the rebels aren't exactly cowering in a cave afraid of American airpower.
Taliban moves onto abandoned U.S. base
The footage showed armed men walking through the former U.S. base, which was strewn with litter and empty bottles, and sitting atop sandbagged gun positions overlooking the steep hillsides and craggy landscape. Fighters said they recovered fuel and ammunition. But a U.S. spokesman said ammunition had been evacuated and the fuel handed over to local residents.
“We don’t want Americans, we don’t want Germans or any other foreigner. We don’t want foreigners, we want peace. We want Taliban and Islam — we don’t want anything else,” one local resident said on the tape.
Another man identified by Al-Jazeera as a local Taliban commander said the militants intended to use the base for attacks on U.S. forces.
Of course, since this is from the AP, the piece is littered with official quotes and statements that all is well. That this is just a part of a planned change in strategy.
The pullout last week of the remaining 120 U.S. soldiers from the Korengal was part of a strategy announced last year by the top U.S. and NATO commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, to abandon small, difficult-to-defend bases in remote, sparsely populated areas and concentrate forces around major population centers.
The Soviets in Afghanistan always had a problem extending their influence beyond the 'major population centers'. For most of this war, the US has pretty much stayed to the cities as well. Its only since Obama's surge that they've been trying to adopt a strategy of pushing out and actually trying to control the country.
I guess this is the end of that strategy.
One interesting question about that quote above is this? Why are those bases difficult to defend? That doesn't sound like a victorious army now does it.
When you are watching scenes of victorious Marines conquering fictional cities, sometimes it helps to pick up on some of the bits and pieces. And its always interesting to see how the propaganda artists announce a sudden defeat after telling everyone constantly of victories.
Monday, March 29, 2010
The Lobby, the Left, and Political Power
One often sees comments about how the 'Israel lobby' runs US foreign policy... at least with regards to Israel. I think its useful to dig a little deeper than that. Not because I doubt the statement, but because thinking and observing the details of 'how' they do this is a useful guide to the left as to how it can gain influence.
The 'lobby' (that's the shorthand I'll use) has political power from two different actions it can take. The first is that it is a reliable supplier of money and some volunteers to its 'friends' in Congress. But, to me its real power stems from its second action, which is the way it comes in hard against anyone it deems an opponent in congress. Get on the lobby's bad side, and a congressperson will find themselves with either a tough primary or general election challenge with the 'lobby' aggressvely financing that campaign and whipping up lots of voluteers and people for that campaign. The latter is used both to remove people who aren't friends, but also to serve as an object lesson for any others who dare to cross them.
So, for a member of Congress, the choice is either to side with the 'lobby' and recieve some support, or to oppose the lobby and face an opponent who is getting massive support.
Meanwhile, there is no active strong political force on the other side. Even though congress votes nearly unamiously for every resolution the lobby puts forward, I can't think of a single case where anyone has paid a political price for voting in favor of Israel. This makes the political calculation pretty much of a no-brainer for any professional politician in congress. Vote with the lobby and get some support and little or no opposition. Vote against the lobby, and you might get a little activist support, but then also face very well financed opposition. Given that political equation, its little wonder that most professional politicians support the lobby.
There are lessons here that go far beyond Israel and the US policy towards that little nation. This is an example of how to both build and weild political power in America today.
In contrast, its obvious that the left has zero political power in America. On Israel, its views aren't even considered in Congress. And on issues like the health care debate, the left didn't even have the political power to get a symbolic hearing on 'single-payer'. No politician in Washington feels the slightest trepidation about stiffing the left on any issue. All of this are signs that the left has zero political power today.
To me, this is quite understandable since in my lifetime the left has practiced two political strategies that have led them to this point. One was a tendenancy to withdraw completely from 'electoral politics'. This of course leaves the left with no friends in politics and no opponents who are wary of the left's political power. Withdrawing from electoral politics clearly and obviously leads to having zero political power.
The other political strategy is one of backing the Democrats at all times. The last election is a classic case of this. Lets look just at the issue of 'health care' as a curent example which is on people's minds. The two leading Democrats both said they favored health care reform that looked a lot like the bill that passed. Hillary had a plan that openly supported 'mandates' forcing people to become customers of the health insurance companies. Since 'mandates' didn't poll well, Obama expressed opposition to this detail, but still supported the same sort of 'reform' that left the health insurance companies in charge of health care. Neither candidate expressed any support for a 'single-payer' sort of solution.
Yet, the voting block of 'leftist' voters in this country strongly supported both Obama for President and the Democrats in Congress. The two presidential candidates from the left who supported other solutions than this pro-health insurance company plan got negligible numbers of votes. 0.68% (according to this wikipedia post .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008)
Today, you can hear many voices from the left complaining about this health care plan, but where were they on election day? Lining up to vote Democrat apparently.
Given those results, its no wonder that the Democrats didn't pay any attention to the left on health care. Those professional politicians were given a choice between supporting lobbyists who promised them lots of financing in future elections versus some leftists who couldn't even muster 1% of the vote.
However, in terms of the views of American citizens, Progressive Review gives these poll results (originally from Yes Magazine) http://prorev.com/obamabehind.htm
* 64% believe the government should provide national health insurance coverage for all Americans, even if it would raise taxes.
* 55% favor one health insurance program covering all Americans, administered by the government, and paid for by taxpayers.
Yet, on election day these majority blocks of American voters directly supported candidates who opposed these views. The eventual political result from that was inevitable. All that's left now is the whining of the people who say this is what they want but who instead voted Democrat.
So, now compare the tactics of the 'lobby' and its resulting political power in Washington with the tactics of the left and its resulting lack of political power. What you see in Washington is no accident. Its just the direct reflection of the amounts of political power that each group has in America today.
The left needs to learn a lesson here. The left needs to adopt political tactics and strategy that lead it towards greater political power. Having the politically suicidal tactics of either withdrawing from politics or of actively supporting those who oppose the left is clearly not working.
So, instead of just complaining about the power of the lobby, watch closely how they have achieved their political power. Most writing doesn't seem to do this, and instead just complains about the lobby as if it was some natural force that's beyond any human intervention. This isn't true. The left can clearly build its political power in the same way.
The one difference is that any leftist effort will need to concentrate more on mobilizing grassroots power and less on money. That's a natural given where the left's strengths lie. Any leftist political effort is going to have to concnetrrate on grassroots power and using that power to defeat well-funded opponents. But that's a detail in tactics, and not a real strategic concern. In terms of strategy, the question is just one of how to use the resources available.
In terms of strategy, the left needs to concentrate on helping its freinds and in opposing its enemies. And especially the left needs to stop supporting its enemies just because there's a (D) after their name.
In terms of Israel, the left needs to start making congress people pay a price for their support of atrocious Israeli actions. The interesting thing is that they don't have to win elections themselves in order to do this. The left simply needs to run independent campaigns that take votes away from the Democrats. Since the left is in a very weak state politically, it probably needs to find just a few campaigns to focus its resources on and build from there. Find Democrats who represent progressive districts but who stiff those voters on Israel, support for the wars, defense budgets, wall street bailouts, health care and other issues. Then run independent (or third party) campaigns that deliberately try to cause the defeat of those Democrats.
Then, once the left has suceeded in retiring some its targets from Congress, go back and make this point to other congresspeople that there is indeed a price to pay for actions like their unquestioning political support for Israel.
If the left can make politicians more afraid of the wrath of the left than of the wrath of the lobby, then this policy (and many others) will start to change.
So, don't just talk about 'the lobby' and how powerful it is. Understand how it became powerful and what to do to try to counter-balance that power.
Or, just remember the old Kennedy family motto .... Don't get mad. Get even.
Its time for the left to start getting even with some Democrats by deliberately causing their defeats.
The 'lobby' (that's the shorthand I'll use) has political power from two different actions it can take. The first is that it is a reliable supplier of money and some volunteers to its 'friends' in Congress. But, to me its real power stems from its second action, which is the way it comes in hard against anyone it deems an opponent in congress. Get on the lobby's bad side, and a congressperson will find themselves with either a tough primary or general election challenge with the 'lobby' aggressvely financing that campaign and whipping up lots of voluteers and people for that campaign. The latter is used both to remove people who aren't friends, but also to serve as an object lesson for any others who dare to cross them.
So, for a member of Congress, the choice is either to side with the 'lobby' and recieve some support, or to oppose the lobby and face an opponent who is getting massive support.
Meanwhile, there is no active strong political force on the other side. Even though congress votes nearly unamiously for every resolution the lobby puts forward, I can't think of a single case where anyone has paid a political price for voting in favor of Israel. This makes the political calculation pretty much of a no-brainer for any professional politician in congress. Vote with the lobby and get some support and little or no opposition. Vote against the lobby, and you might get a little activist support, but then also face very well financed opposition. Given that political equation, its little wonder that most professional politicians support the lobby.
There are lessons here that go far beyond Israel and the US policy towards that little nation. This is an example of how to both build and weild political power in America today.
In contrast, its obvious that the left has zero political power in America. On Israel, its views aren't even considered in Congress. And on issues like the health care debate, the left didn't even have the political power to get a symbolic hearing on 'single-payer'. No politician in Washington feels the slightest trepidation about stiffing the left on any issue. All of this are signs that the left has zero political power today.
To me, this is quite understandable since in my lifetime the left has practiced two political strategies that have led them to this point. One was a tendenancy to withdraw completely from 'electoral politics'. This of course leaves the left with no friends in politics and no opponents who are wary of the left's political power. Withdrawing from electoral politics clearly and obviously leads to having zero political power.
The other political strategy is one of backing the Democrats at all times. The last election is a classic case of this. Lets look just at the issue of 'health care' as a curent example which is on people's minds. The two leading Democrats both said they favored health care reform that looked a lot like the bill that passed. Hillary had a plan that openly supported 'mandates' forcing people to become customers of the health insurance companies. Since 'mandates' didn't poll well, Obama expressed opposition to this detail, but still supported the same sort of 'reform' that left the health insurance companies in charge of health care. Neither candidate expressed any support for a 'single-payer' sort of solution.
Yet, the voting block of 'leftist' voters in this country strongly supported both Obama for President and the Democrats in Congress. The two presidential candidates from the left who supported other solutions than this pro-health insurance company plan got negligible numbers of votes. 0.68% (according to this wikipedia post .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008)
Today, you can hear many voices from the left complaining about this health care plan, but where were they on election day? Lining up to vote Democrat apparently.
Given those results, its no wonder that the Democrats didn't pay any attention to the left on health care. Those professional politicians were given a choice between supporting lobbyists who promised them lots of financing in future elections versus some leftists who couldn't even muster 1% of the vote.
However, in terms of the views of American citizens, Progressive Review gives these poll results (originally from Yes Magazine) http://prorev.com/obamabehind.htm
* 64% believe the government should provide national health insurance coverage for all Americans, even if it would raise taxes.
* 55% favor one health insurance program covering all Americans, administered by the government, and paid for by taxpayers.
Yet, on election day these majority blocks of American voters directly supported candidates who opposed these views. The eventual political result from that was inevitable. All that's left now is the whining of the people who say this is what they want but who instead voted Democrat.
So, now compare the tactics of the 'lobby' and its resulting political power in Washington with the tactics of the left and its resulting lack of political power. What you see in Washington is no accident. Its just the direct reflection of the amounts of political power that each group has in America today.
The left needs to learn a lesson here. The left needs to adopt political tactics and strategy that lead it towards greater political power. Having the politically suicidal tactics of either withdrawing from politics or of actively supporting those who oppose the left is clearly not working.
So, instead of just complaining about the power of the lobby, watch closely how they have achieved their political power. Most writing doesn't seem to do this, and instead just complains about the lobby as if it was some natural force that's beyond any human intervention. This isn't true. The left can clearly build its political power in the same way.
The one difference is that any leftist effort will need to concentrate more on mobilizing grassroots power and less on money. That's a natural given where the left's strengths lie. Any leftist political effort is going to have to concnetrrate on grassroots power and using that power to defeat well-funded opponents. But that's a detail in tactics, and not a real strategic concern. In terms of strategy, the question is just one of how to use the resources available.
In terms of strategy, the left needs to concentrate on helping its freinds and in opposing its enemies. And especially the left needs to stop supporting its enemies just because there's a (D) after their name.
In terms of Israel, the left needs to start making congress people pay a price for their support of atrocious Israeli actions. The interesting thing is that they don't have to win elections themselves in order to do this. The left simply needs to run independent campaigns that take votes away from the Democrats. Since the left is in a very weak state politically, it probably needs to find just a few campaigns to focus its resources on and build from there. Find Democrats who represent progressive districts but who stiff those voters on Israel, support for the wars, defense budgets, wall street bailouts, health care and other issues. Then run independent (or third party) campaigns that deliberately try to cause the defeat of those Democrats.
Then, once the left has suceeded in retiring some its targets from Congress, go back and make this point to other congresspeople that there is indeed a price to pay for actions like their unquestioning political support for Israel.
If the left can make politicians more afraid of the wrath of the left than of the wrath of the lobby, then this policy (and many others) will start to change.
So, don't just talk about 'the lobby' and how powerful it is. Understand how it became powerful and what to do to try to counter-balance that power.
Or, just remember the old Kennedy family motto .... Don't get mad. Get even.
Its time for the left to start getting even with some Democrats by deliberately causing their defeats.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Have a Nice World War, Folks
Have a Nice World War, Folks By John Pilger via ZNet
Pilger's in fine form in this piece.
Elections are coming. The question is, are most Americans going to vote again to continue to support this war? Maybe in 2008 they had the excuse of being fooled by Obama and the Democrats. But, in 2010, there is no doubt that a vote for either the Democrats are the Republicans is a vote for more war. There are usually other names on the ballot. And if not, you can usually put one there. Or at worst organize a write in campaign.
There's this belief somehow that the American people don't support the slaughter and the detentions and the torture. That belief is bolstered by the great lengths gone to in order to both hide what is going on as well as to cover it with explanations and lies. All of this leads to the belief that the American people wouldn't support these wars deliberately.
But, at some point, the people will have voted in support of these wars too many times for that belief to continue.
Here is news of the Third World War. The United States has invaded Africa. US troops have entered Somalia, extending their war front from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Yemen and now the Horn of Africa. In preparation for an attack on Iran, American missiles have been placed in four Persian Gulf states, and "bunker-buster" bombs are said to be arriving at the US base on the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
In Gaza, the sick and abandoned population, mostly children, is being entombed behind underground American-supplied walls in order to reinforce a criminal siege. In Latin America, the Obama administration has secured seven bases in Colombia, from which to wage a war of attrition against the popular democracies in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Paraguay. Meanwhile, the secretary of "defense" Robert Gates complains that "the general [European] public and the political class" are so opposed to war they are an "impediment" to peace. Remember this is the month of the March Hare.
According to an American general, the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is not so much a real war as a "war of perception". Thus, the recent "liberation of the city of Marja" from the Taliban's "command and control structure" was pure Hollywood. Marja is not a city; there was no Taliban command and control. The heroic liberators killed the usual civilians, poorest of the poor. Otherwise, it was fake. A war of perception is meant to provide fake news for the folks back home, to make a failed colonial adventure seem worthwhile and patriotic, as if The Hurt Locker were real and parades of flag-wrapped coffins through the Wiltshire town of Wooten Basset were not a cynical propaganda exercise.
Pilger's in fine form in this piece.
Elections are coming. The question is, are most Americans going to vote again to continue to support this war? Maybe in 2008 they had the excuse of being fooled by Obama and the Democrats. But, in 2010, there is no doubt that a vote for either the Democrats are the Republicans is a vote for more war. There are usually other names on the ballot. And if not, you can usually put one there. Or at worst organize a write in campaign.
There's this belief somehow that the American people don't support the slaughter and the detentions and the torture. That belief is bolstered by the great lengths gone to in order to both hide what is going on as well as to cover it with explanations and lies. All of this leads to the belief that the American people wouldn't support these wars deliberately.
But, at some point, the people will have voted in support of these wars too many times for that belief to continue.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The successful capture of a fictional city.
The Siege of the Fictional City of Marja by Gareth Porter via Counterpunch.org
Hey, if you need a propaganda victory, what's better than making up a fictional city that you can go 'seige' and 'capture'?
So, we are using close to 100,000 troops and billions of our tax payer dollars to make a fictional city safe for 'freedom'. I guess that makes sense to our rulers, since the last thing they want is real 'freedom' anywhere. Notice how quickly they extend things like the Patriot Act. No, its obviously safer to only allow 'freedom' in the fictional cities they create for propaganda victories.
Which only goes to prove that no one at ABC News, Time magazine or the WaPo knows how to use Google Maps or Google Earth. In today's information age, aerial photographs of a region like this are available to anyone who cares to go look.
Which just shows that they don't care. Their job is to spread the propaganda. Five minutes of fact checking by pulling up Google maps isn't part of that job. This article thus gives a nice list of 'news' outlets where propaganda is more important than facts.
For weeks, the U.S. public followed the biggest offensive of the Afghanistan War against what it was told was a "city of 80,000 people" as well as the logistical hub of the Taliban in that part of Helmand. That idea was a central element in the overall impression built up in February that Marja was a major strategic objective, more important than other district centres in Helmand.
It turns out, however, that the picture of Marja presented by military officials and obediently reported by major news media is one of the clearest and most dramatic pieces of misinformation of the entire war, apparently aimed at hyping the offensive as a historic turning point in the conflict.
Marja is not a city or even a real town, but either a few clusters of farmers' homes or a large agricultural area covering much of the southern Helmand River Valley.
"It's not urban at all," an official of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), who asked not to be identified, admitted on Sunday. He called Marja a "rural community".
"It's a collection of village farms, with typical family compounds," said the official, adding that the homes are reasonably prosperous by Afghan standards.
Hey, if you need a propaganda victory, what's better than making up a fictional city that you can go 'seige' and 'capture'?
So, we are using close to 100,000 troops and billions of our tax payer dollars to make a fictional city safe for 'freedom'. I guess that makes sense to our rulers, since the last thing they want is real 'freedom' anywhere. Notice how quickly they extend things like the Patriot Act. No, its obviously safer to only allow 'freedom' in the fictional cities they create for propaganda victories.
The same story said Marja was "the biggest town under Taliban control" and called it the "linchpin of the militants' logistical and opium-smuggling network". It gave the figure of 125,000 for the population living in "the town and surrounding villages". ABC news followed with a story the next day referring to the "city of Marja" and claiming that the city and the surrounding area "are more heavily populated, urban and dense than other places the Marines have so far been able to clear and hold."
The rest of the news media fell into line with that image of the bustling, urbanised Marja in subsequent stories, often using "town" and "city" interchangeably. Time magazine wrote about the "town of 80,000" Feb. 9, and the Washington Post did the same Feb. 11.
Which only goes to prove that no one at ABC News, Time magazine or the WaPo knows how to use Google Maps or Google Earth. In today's information age, aerial photographs of a region like this are available to anyone who cares to go look.
Which just shows that they don't care. Their job is to spread the propaganda. Five minutes of fact checking by pulling up Google maps isn't part of that job. This article thus gives a nice list of 'news' outlets where propaganda is more important than facts.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Who are you?
Every Violent Act in 2010 Superbowl Ads
A compendium of the violence in the Super Bowl ads. Worth watching. And worth thinking about what this says about America. When corporations want to spend millions to get the attention of American consumers, they obviously feel that violence is the way to do it.
Of course, in the midst of all of this, they had a bunch of old hippies shouting to this same audience.
"Well, who are you? (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
I really wanna know (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
Tell me, who are you? (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
'Cause I really wanna know (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
Who the heck are you, are you?"
Who are we? Indeed.
A compendium of the violence in the Super Bowl ads. Worth watching. And worth thinking about what this says about America. When corporations want to spend millions to get the attention of American consumers, they obviously feel that violence is the way to do it.
Of course, in the midst of all of this, they had a bunch of old hippies shouting to this same audience.
"Well, who are you? (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
I really wanna know (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
Tell me, who are you? (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
'Cause I really wanna know (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
Who the heck are you, are you?"
Who are we? Indeed.
Monday, February 8, 2010
In case there are any guerrilas who haven't heard ....
Planned Afghan assault to send 'strong signal': McChrystal
The US has been loudly announcing an offensive in Afghanistan for a month now. Just in case any guerrillas had missed the message, General McCrystal held a press briefing to make it absolutely clear that we would be attacking ... soon.
Yep, in a guerrilla war, where the biggest problem is that the enemy can just fade away back into the population or the mountains, the thing to do is to loudly announce a major assualt for a month in advance. Yep, that's certain to catch those evil Taliban guerrillas by surprise.
If defeating the enemy is your goal, these announcements are the height of stupidity. So, what this tells us is that defeating the Taliban is not the goal. What then might be the purpose of this horrible operational security?
1. Propaganda for the home front. The military has gotten a lot of front page news trumpeting an offensive that hasn't yet occurred. Easy victories for the media warriors since no one is fighting yet.
2. To convince all the rebels to leave, and thus allow the US and Afghans to seize this province without a fight. Note, in the fine print of these stories, the probably real reason for this offensive is disclosed. Helmand is one of the leading poppy/opium production areas in the country. What this is all about is taking control of what is a undoubtably a very lucrative province from one warlord and giving it to one of Karsai's enemies. Maybe they feel if they loudly announce this invasion in advance, there'll be less resistance and we are likely to lose fewer American soldiers in this noble fight to make sure one warlord controls the opium instead of another.
Of course, what's likely really happening is that the resistance is getting plenty of warning to establish safe houses, caves, supply caches, weapons dumps etc in order to serve a later fight. Most likely we'll soon see video of heroic American troops advancing without opposition to seize some city in this province. Months later, we'll hear how a base just blew up from tunnels that were dug beneath the site back before we ever invaded. Or maybe they just won't tell us that story at all.
The US has been loudly announcing an offensive in Afghanistan for a month now. Just in case any guerrillas had missed the message, General McCrystal held a press briefing to make it absolutely clear that we would be attacking ... soon.
"The commander of foreign forces in Afghanistan said Sunday a major offensive will send a "strong signal" and clear insurgents from their southern stronghold, as residents fled ahead of the assault.
A huge force of US Marines leading NATO and Afghan soldiers is expected to launch the offensive -- said by commanders to be the largest assault against Taliban-led militants since the war began -- in Helmand province within days."
Yep, in a guerrilla war, where the biggest problem is that the enemy can just fade away back into the population or the mountains, the thing to do is to loudly announce a major assualt for a month in advance. Yep, that's certain to catch those evil Taliban guerrillas by surprise.
If defeating the enemy is your goal, these announcements are the height of stupidity. So, what this tells us is that defeating the Taliban is not the goal. What then might be the purpose of this horrible operational security?
1. Propaganda for the home front. The military has gotten a lot of front page news trumpeting an offensive that hasn't yet occurred. Easy victories for the media warriors since no one is fighting yet.
2. To convince all the rebels to leave, and thus allow the US and Afghans to seize this province without a fight. Note, in the fine print of these stories, the probably real reason for this offensive is disclosed. Helmand is one of the leading poppy/opium production areas in the country. What this is all about is taking control of what is a undoubtably a very lucrative province from one warlord and giving it to one of Karsai's enemies. Maybe they feel if they loudly announce this invasion in advance, there'll be less resistance and we are likely to lose fewer American soldiers in this noble fight to make sure one warlord controls the opium instead of another.
Of course, what's likely really happening is that the resistance is getting plenty of warning to establish safe houses, caves, supply caches, weapons dumps etc in order to serve a later fight. Most likely we'll soon see video of heroic American troops advancing without opposition to seize some city in this province. Months later, we'll hear how a base just blew up from tunnels that were dug beneath the site back before we ever invaded. Or maybe they just won't tell us that story at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)