Lies!

Well.

Here's something you won't see in the major mainstream media in this country:

How the Pentagon planted a false story

By Gareth Porter

Asia Times

WASHINGTON - Senior Pentagon officials, evidently reflecting a broader administration policy decision, used an off-the-record Pentagon briefing to turn the January 6 US-Iranian incident in the Strait of Hormuz into a sensational story demonstrating Iran's military aggressiveness, a reconstruction of the events following the incident shows.

The initial press stories on the incident, all of which can be traced to a briefing by deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs in charge of media operations, Bryan Whitman, contained similar information that has since been repudiated by the navy itself.

Then the navy disseminated a short video into which was spliced the audio of a phone call warning that US warships would "explode" in "a few seconds". Although it was ostensibly a navy production, Inter Press Service (IPS) has learned that the ultimate decision on its content was made by top officials of the Defense Department.

The encounter between five small and apparently unarmed speedboats, each carrying a crew of two to four men, and the three US warships occurred very early on Saturday January 6, Washington time. No information was released to the public about the incident for more than 24 hours, indicating that it was not viewed initially as being very urgent.

The reason for that absence of public information on the incident for more than a full day is that it was not that different from many others in the Gulf over more than a decade. A Pentagon consultant who asked not to be identified told IPS he had spoken with officers who had experienced similar encounters with small Iranian boats throughout the 1990s, and that such incidents are "just not a major threat to the US Navy by any stretch of the imagination".

Just two weeks earlier, on December 19, the USS Whidbey Island, an amphibious warship, had fired warning shots after a small Iranian boat allegedly approached it at high speed. That incident had gone without public notice.

With the reports from Fifth Fleet commander Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff in hand early that morning, top Pentagon officials had all day Sunday, January 6, to discuss what to do about the encounter in the Strait of Hormuz. The result was a decision to play it up as a major incident.

And so on.

Of course we've sensed this story is a fraud from day one, and we've listed all the reasons why: unarmed Iranians, doing nothing threatening, bogosity of the verbal "threat", PissyPants in the Gulf showing off, etc., etc. It was obvious from the beginning. And the walkback from the military was an exercise in NewSpeak-DoubleSpeak such as we rarely see even from them. The military that has such a tenuous relationship with the concepts of "fact" and "truth."

Yet when the story was placed in the Major Media, they ALL ran with it (even McClatchy) without an iota of skepticism. The Pentagon says -- we repeat verbatim. Yes, SIR!

Of course the Blogosphere was alive with "Gulf of Tonkin!" allusions from the moment the story broke. Skepticism was fundamental in that realm, while the Major Media had none at all.

And over the course of Emperor SmartAss's Progress through the Gulf, Major Media pounded the drums of belligerence, adding flashes and flourishes even as the story was falling apart.

And, as is so often the case, the Iranian Devil Enemy released their own version of events, which showed nothing particularly untoward, and our military, while continuing to bluster and fulminate, essentially acknowledged that the Iranians had it right, there was no particular worry about the incident as it happened, and everyone went on about their business as usual. BUT the Iranians ARE EVIL and MUST BE destroyed. Yadda, yadda.

And here, Gareth Porter comes up with a highly plausible scenario of what happened, how, and why. Which we will never see detailed in our own media, because that media, of course, was an active partner and participant in the fraud, as they have been throughout the Bushevik era of Misery and Destruction. It is what they do.

My question is two-fold: Why, after all the horrendous lies the Regime and its Pentagon handmaidens have told, do the Major American Media still, uncritically accept and repeat just about everything the propaganda mills churn out, and why do the American People continue to fall for it?

What will it take to completely discredit the White House and Pentagon Propaganda Ministries and the Media Outlets that continue to unquestioningly serve them?

Ratfuck!

What has this Race Thing between the Dem candidates been all about, anyway? Disrespecting civil rights leaders, Martin Luther King, Jr., Obama and Hillary going after one another hammer and tong, Big Dog spoiling for a fight, Jesse Jackson, Jr. throwing his considerable Chicago clout around, leaders on the left of us, leaders on the right proclaiming this or that Truth to be Self-Evident, and the rest of y'all are gonna burn in hell.

Come on.

It's a ratfuck. Right out of the sinister right wing playbook. It should be obvious to anyone who's experienced it before (Missus Clinton, have you forgotten?) Big Dems fall for it every time, I don't know why, but they do; and the field troops follow right along uncritically and unthinkingly. And they seem to be powerless to resist anything negative about the other candidate that shows up in the New York Times. It's like catnip. There's a slam story about Obama, Clinton, or the Nameless One from The South Somewhere in the Times? Time for the partisans to parade it around in triumph, proof! proof I tell you, that the Other Guy/Gal Sucks.

Our Rovian pals on the other side know that Dems can't resist ratfucking -- and some of those Rovians are playing on Dem teams this cycle, you mark my words.

Dems have got to buck up and just say no to this shit. Or are they, like the Bourbons and the Bushes, incapable of learning? At least, for the moment, Clinton and Obama have agreed to bury the hatchet only half-way in one another's backs.

Progress!

(Pssst! Haven't you heard? McCain still has a Black Baby. Shhhh!)

Language!

On the Rectification of Names

Tsze-lu said, "The ruler of Wei has been waiting for you, in order with you to administer the government. What will you consider the first thing to be done?"

The Master replied, "What is necessary is to rectify names."

"So! indeed!" said Tsze-lu. "You are wide of the mark! Why must there be such rectification?"

The Master said, "How uncultivated you are, Yu! A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve.

If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things.

If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.

When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish.

When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded.

When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot.

Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect."

(Analects XIII, 3, tr. Legge)

We live in an age of euphemism. "Harsh interrogation techniques" = torture; "controversial theory" = anything the Regime doesn't approve of or believe in; "provocation" = anything the Regime fears (like blue speedboats in the Straits of Hormuz) and so on.

Yesterday, one of our favorite bloggers, Glenn Greenwald, offered up a real doozie, proposing that an investigation of a complaint to the Human Rights Commission in Alberta, Canada, was "tyranny" on its face. Much arm waving and running around shouting about Free Speech and whatnot then ensued.

And yet at no point was the case that the investigation was "tyranny" or "tyrannical" ever made. Much like the Busheviks have long done with "9/11" and their various Enemies, merely associating the incident in Alberta with the term "tyranny" in the same post was enough to get all the First Amendment junkies up in arms and hollering about suspension of civil rights and what have you.

As I said at Glenn's place, and I'll say it here, the investigation of a complaint is not on its face tyrannical.

Glenn's issue was with the proliferation of Anti-Hate Speech law in Europe and Canada and how it criminalizes various forms of unpopular political speech, and how, in the end, criminalization of political speech of any kind under the authority of the state is by definition tyranny.

But the case he used to illustrate his point had nothing to do with criminalized speech, political or otherwise. And an argument can be made that criminalizing certain kinds of speech (political or otherwise) is not necessarily tyrannical, either.

In a democratic system, the people can choose, through their representatives or directly, to limit and/or prohibit certain forms of speech they deem dangerous to the public welfare. Arguments can and should continue over whether the prohibition or limitation is right or wrong, but the decision is not on its face tyrannical.

In the case in question, nothing was occurring except an investigation of a complaint brought by a citizen against another citizen. There was no criminal complaint by government, nor in fact any obligation of the citizens to cooperate with the investigation. Apparently the fact that this investigation was being conducted at all, by a quasi-independent commission and not by a government agency, was sufficient to trigger an automatic response among some people, without ever investigating what was really going on.

Rectification of names becomes necessary.

And we see this sort of thing everywhere. Few things and events and actions are named properly or honestly, and so people act irrationally. That may in fact be the intent of people and institutions in positions of power and influence -- who, in other words, have the naming power -- but if it is, it has a highly negative cumulative effect, as Confucius warned more than 2,500 years ago.

There is a legitimate question about whether More Speech is the appropriate corrective to Speech the public doesn't like or doesn't want to hear. There is a legitimate question about whether the vaunted Marketplace of Ideas is in any way a free and fair, open and accessible forum for presentation, debate and discussion of issues and ideas.

Some people assume that the Confucian Rectification of Names that heads this post is a form of propaganda, in that when a new ruler comes into power it is incumbent upon that ruler (in the manner of the Busheviks) to alter the language, essentially renaming things, in order to secure and extend the ruler's power. But Confucius is saying the point is to correctly name things, so as to ensure domestic peace and justice. The implication is that over the course of the previous reign, naming had become a matter of artifice and euphemism and that in turn led to tumult, lawlessness and injustice. The point of Rectifying names is to return matters to their correct names so as to restore peace and justice.

We're actually long past the point at which our language should be rectified. Since the Gingrich Revolt, our names for things have become more and more bizarre, euphemistic, and inappropriate, to the point where very little has any real or agreed upon meaning.

In the blogosphere, "Progressive", is perhaps the most obvious and obnoxious example of a name that needs Rectification, in part thanks to the absurdity of Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" now making the rounds of the wingnut welfare agencies.

When there is so much confusion of basic terminology, nothing can be carried on to success.

OMG! What if he wins?!

The Huck Effect [Nod to Eli at FDL for the idea]

David Sirota waxes intrigued by the Mike Huckabee candidacy.

"The uncool subject is class," author Bell Hooks once wrote. "It's the subject that makes us all tense." What an understatement, considering the two leading "change" candidates in the latest presidential polls.

Barack Obama is contending for the Democratic nomination as a candidate who avoids focusing on economic class. He asks us to believe — nay, to "hope" — that the interests of Wall Streeters underwriting his campaign can somehow be "brought together" with the interests of workers harmed by corporate America's wage, job and pension cutbacks.

By contrast, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is competing for the Republican nomination on a call for proletarian solidarity. Next to John Edwards (D), he is the "classiest" presidential candidate, explicitly deriding "plutocracy" and "the Club for Greed" that he correctly says runs Washington.

"There's a great need in this country to elect someone who reminds [voters] of the guy they work with, not the guy who laid them off," Huckabee thunders.

Well. "Thunders." That's a bit of hyperbole. For a Populist demagogue, Huckabee is as mild-mannered and slick as they come. But that's as may be. His comment resonates with a lot of Regular Folks, moreso than some of the Progressive nostrums heard on the Democratic side.

It seemed self-evident early on that your Presidential contest would be between Hillary and Mitt, Mitt winding up the winner after beating Hillary like a rented mule. The two of them, it seemed obvious, were the Corporate Choices to offer the Public, and as we have seen in the past, once those choices are made in the boardrooms, the American People go along with them with more or less enthusiasm, few (muffled) complaints, and the Republican pulls out a victory, even if that Republican is running as a Democrat. Mitt would win because it's still a Man's World, and Hillary Is Shrill and Nobody Likes Her. Tweety would have his aneurysm if Hillary pulled out a victory, and we can't have that.

From a Leftist perspective, both Hillary and Mitt are "Moderate" Republicans anyway. Hillary was a Goldwater Republican back in the day, never forget, and Mitt was the twice elected governor of The People's Republic of Taxachussetts. These candidates are nothing like the Socialists or Reactionaries they're made out to be. Both serve corporate interests (she from a legal perspective, he from inside the boardroom itself). Neither really has much of a Common Touch, but then the Bushevik years have shown that one isn't really necessary. Bullheadedness seems to serve quite well.

But on the way to the nomination, both of the Corporate candidates ran into not quite as subdued and apathetic a Public as their handlers had told them to expect.

Mitt is falling down the rathole fast, as St. John McCain surges and thumps his chest and Hayseed Huckabee goes about his business overthrowing the bounden tenets of Republican Corporate Misrule. He's got the Good Republican Upper Crust all in a lather, too.

Meanwhile, the Democrat's own Populist candidate, John Edwards (no Sainthood for him) finds the going slippery to say the least, as he faces constant harrassment from his own Party and the Liberal Media who are intent on his prompt withdrawl from the race. Which he refuses to do.

And in the Democratic Party race, the Corporate blessing has shifted between Hillary and Barack, depending on who showed the greatest staying power and who could build the biggest Movement.

Barack has the Movement Thing down, but Hillary is far from out of the game. She is nothing if not tenacious. And her squeaker victory in New Hampshire after her disappointing showing in Iowa demonstrated there's some life in her campaign yet.

Over on the R side, Huckabee's Iowa victory is contrasted with his relatively poor showing in NH, which is taken as a sign that crusty New Englanders are not about to put up with Huckabee's Southern backwoods hick ways. Oh no, not them. They believe in Evolution. And Huckabee doesn't.

But Huckabee does such a great sales job, they say, and he's getting the job done for cheap, too (Mitt has spent how many millions of his own money? Wow. And here I thought John Kerry was going out there by lending his campaign $6 million, which was paid back, from his substantial fortune in 2004).

Huckabee keeps getting shown the door in the Republican contest, but he won't leave, and somewhat the same thing is happening with John Edwards on the Democratic side, though the Democrats are somewhat crueler about it (John Kerry, could you be more obvious a shill?), and the Media is intent on making Edwards go away by shunning him, whereas they at least give Huckabee a podium from time to time -- only to mock him and deride him and call him names and denounce his supporters after he's finished speechifying.

But Huckabee just keeps on keeping on, playing his bass and rocking the house, delivering his little Evangelical homilies and firing up class issues and resentments long dormant in Republican circles.

While he's focusing on attracting Republican votes for the nomination, he's obviously trying to pitch his appeal to Democratic Evangelical Populists as well by tapping in to their own class issues and resentments, and curry their favor with high-flown phrases about Christian Charity and all that.

If he's successful at his efforts, Democratic Corporate Progressives will have to recalibrate their own appeal if they intend not to lose to this hick from Arkansas, whose pitch to Americans in general is simplicity itself: "You've been done wrong, and I'm gonna fix it."

We might be looking at an upset here...

Then what will we do?

Shut It Down!

Wearing Orange today helps people identify one another in the constant (and often seemingly futile) effort to undo some of the damage done to the Republic since the installation of the Bushevik Autocracy.

Identification and mutual recognition may be all we can accomplish right now, as apparently the Bushevik regime has no interest in accommodating the Will of the People regarding Guantánamo or anything else -- barring a major uprising against their rule, which isn't going to happen.

But just the knowledge that one is not alone in the struggle can be a powerful force.

Wear Orange today.

Meteor Blades writes about it as powerfully and eloquently as anyone on the planet.

WTF?!

The Pentagon has a well-known problem when it comes to basic concepts like, you know, Truth and such. Of course the American People understand that the Pentagon is engaged in War on Their Behalf, and the constellation of Enemies against which the Pentagon wages War includes the Devil Regime of Iran (a regime which has been At War With Us since 1979. If Rick Santorum says it, it's got to be True!) Psychological warfare and Information Operations (which includes fabrications and lies) are part of the arsenals marshaled against Our Enemies, and so, from time to time, the Pentagon, at the direction of its civilian superiors or on its own, trash-talks the Enemy du jour, and comes up with lies and fabrications and misdirection in order to make its point.

We all understand this. Don't we?

So. Over last weekend, there was an Incident in the Gulf, during which some Iranian vessels dashed to and fro near American warships entering the Strait of Hormuz. Apparently the Iranians asked the warships identity, which, surprisingly enough, was provided. The Iranian speedboats then sped away.

As it so happens, His Imperial Smartass was then planning to Go To The MiddleEast, to direct his Little Brown Brothers in the fine art of Negotiations. Given the tensions of the times, no such Progress Through the Realm can be made without threatening the various Enemies thereabouts, and so, it seemed meet to create an International Incident, rattle the sabers, beat the wardrum a time or two, just to let the Devils in Tehran know who's The Boss.

Except that within hours the story coming out of the Pentagon fell apart, and the Incident turned out to be far less interesting, let alone "provocative," than Pentagon and the Imperial State Security Apparatus was saying. The Pentagon itself admitted as much, even as His Imperial Mischief Maker was in the region going on about how the Devils in Tehran were trying to force his Peaceloving Self to bomb the shit out of them.

What's curious here is that apparently the Pentagon came up with this Incident and characterized it as Threatening and Provocative and appended some dreadful radio transmission of someone saying something drôle into a microphone to enhance the Threat Posed by the speeding speedboats. The Pentagon even claimed, apparently falsely, that the Iranians were so Threatening and Provocative that the Imperial Warships were about to fire on them. The Imperial State Security Apparatus then ran with this clumsy fabrication, throwing down gauntlet after gauntlet, and the American media uncritically reported as fact what the Pentagon and the ISSA were telling them about Deviltry from the Perfidious Enemy.

But Doubts immediately arose, and "Gulf of Tonkin" was heard in the land. (The Gulf of Tonkin Incident -- which never happened -- was the shameful precipitating excuse for the American air war against North Vietnam.) And shortly the Pentagon backed off its claims about Threats, but still insisted on denouncing the Provocations of Iran, though this obviously didn't quite mean War. The ISSA and the Imperial Motorcade in the Territories apparently didn't get the message right off, and kept throwing its hissies over Iranian Perfidy, and issued more of its boilerplate threats against Tehran.

Meanwhile the Iranians release their own tapes which seem to show that there was no Incident at all, it was a purely routine encounter that happens -- without any gnashing of teeth or rending of garments -- every day.

Ahem.

Glenn has more.

Can we stop this dangerous nonsense now?

O-Bama, Hey-Bama, Bama-Bama, O!

Bama-Hay, Bama-O, Ba-ma!

One of the things that's bothered me about the Obama campaign -- which on the whole has pleased me a great deal -- is the growing messianic quality of it. In American politics, any messianic politician is a potential danger to our ruling classes, and one who will be watched very carefully. If he rises too high in messianic fervor, he will be "taken care of." As they say.

I hate to be so cynical, but that has been our history. Again. And again. And again.

Of course, Obama's personal safety has been a concern of many for as long as he has been running for the Presidency. This nation has a long and shameful history of dealing with Uppity Negroes (and Women, but we'll get to that in another post) that everybody knows and nobody wants to talk about. Whether Obama is immune due to his African as opposed to his American Negro heritage, remains to be seen. Up till very recently he's taken more grief for his supposed religious heritage and upbringing and his Muslim name than for his race. Some would call that Progress. I laugh. I laugh to scorn. No, it's a substitution. Because Muslims are the sub-humans du jour, calling him a Muslim is a way to avoid calling him an N-word. At some point, you've got to recognize the equivalence of the slurs. They are the same damb thing.

But I was watching some of the coverage of the Obama campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire and New Jersey, and I was struck by how much Mr. Obama is coming across as a Preacher now, and how passionate his devotees are. They seem to be in a kind of religious ecstacy, and Obama seems to be encouraging their fervent belief -- in him, yes, but in his Message, even more than him. Oh man.

You just know where this is leading, and it's not necessarily a good place. It ought to be a good place. But we've been down this path before. And it frequently doesn't turn out well.

Hillary's "upset" victory in New Hampshire may have put a temporary damper on Obamamania, but I don't expect it (or her, for that matter) to squash his campaign, or in fact affect it in any substantial way. I have the feeling he believes he's got the formula that works, and she's still trying to find one.

Paul Rosenberg has an interesting discussion of the populist appeal of Barack Obama's campaign over at Open Left (h/t bystander), and he posits something I think is true: Obama himself and his policy prescriptions are in a classic Progressive mold, at least to the extent that he makes any specific proposals -- which has long been noted he doesn't much. But Obama's presentation is fully Populist, in the long tradition of American Populism. This is somewhat at variance with Obama's supporter demographic which tends to skew strongly toward the elites. (Reminds me a lot of Dean supporters. I don't think I ever saw such a collection of PhDs, LLDs, MDs, JDs, and other assorted Doctors of This and That, and all kinds of other professionals, concentrated in one campaign in my life. They were, by no means, your Ordinary Joe SixPacks.)

On the other hand, John Edwards, who is running as fully a Populist campaign as one can run these days, doesn't seem to have the personal appeal that Obama does, and so, despite Edwards's policy prescriptions that most closely reflect the needs and aspirations of America's 80%, his campaign seems to be faltering. Media neglect is only part of the problem Edwards faces.

According to some statistics, it is Hillary who is actually attracting the more or less Populist leaning voters. Rosenberg gets into this aspect, too, but it has been heavily mentioned in most of the analysis of the New Hampshire Democratic vote.

But back to my original point: Messianic campaigns tend not to turn out well in America.

Let's hope Obama's is an exception.

How Dare You!

Over at Glenn Greenwald's Place, there's quite a discussion going on about the DogAwful treatment Hillary received from the media (especially from Tweety Matthews and his handful of acolytes and devotees) and their current state of stupefied bewilderment that the voters of New Hampshire chose Hillary over Barack in the primary yesterday.

Matthews fully deserves every bit of the criticism he's getting today, yet he's said to be lashing out at the voters of NH for their betrayal. After all, the polls all said that Obama was in the lead, perhaps way in the lead, and when the results came in, nobody on the air could believe it. "Betrayal" is only half the problem. These voters apparently didn't even listen to the crap being spewed by the high and the mighty Media News Stars.

David Brooks on PBS was apoplectic. He said over and over he "didn't believe it." Voters were "defying the polls." Defying him, as he had only that day anointed Obama on the pages of the NY Times, and all over Wingnutistan, "President Obama" was the lead story after Iowa. Well, the voters may or may not have ideas of their own.

How. Dare. They.

If I dare hope anything from the coming maelstrom it is that Our Media Stars get the comeuppance they have so richly earned.

Pitchforks and torches sound pretty good right now...

HILLARY!!!!!!

I have only one thing to say:

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!!

Oh gawd.... we're in for it now.

Dems in Disarray! Stalwart Repubs Choose Mac!

This is so funny, watching and listening to the coverage of the NH primary. Hillary might win! Which means, of course, the Democrats are in Disarray, as always.

And McCain's decisive Victory means the Rs are hitting on all cylinders again. Goo-bye Mitt, Goo-bye Huck.

Make it stop.

St John v Obama!

The Conventional Wisdom is jelling fast around a general election contest between St John McCain and the New Kid in Town, Barack Obama. The alleged collapse of the Hillary and Mitt campaigns has opened the way for something else altogether. The Crotchety, Crusty, Old Warrior against the Young, Untested, Charming, Inspirational Organizer. Now this is a contest our Media Stars can get into.

Brooksie opens the door:

Both Barack Obama and John McCain attract independents. Both have a candor that appeals to voters and media-types alike. Both ask their audiences to serve a cause greater than self-interest. Both offer a politics that is grand and inspiring.

But they are very different men. Their policies obviously conflict, but their skills, world views and moral philosophies set them apart, too. One man celebrates communitarian virtues like unity, the other classical virtues like honor.

Obama’s great skill is his ability to perceive and forge bonds with other people. Everybody who’s dealt with him has a story about a time when they felt Obama profoundly listened to them and understood them. One of mine came a few years ago.

I was writing columns criticizing the Republican Congress, but each time I’d throw in a few sentences slamming the Democrats, subconsciously trying to make myself feel good. One morning I got an e-mail message from Obama that roughly said: David, if you want to critique us, fine. But you’re just throwing in those stray sentences to make yourself feel good.

I felt like a bug pinned down in a display case.

The key to the quote is the last line, and it helps explain why Media Stars are captivated by Obama. He nails them -- in a way they like. The other candidates, particularly Hillary and John Edwards -- criticize the Media, but so what? Everybody does, and with the same tired old complaints about "bias" and "obsession" and whatnot, who cares? Brooksie reveals why Obama does so well with the Media and why they listen to him: he "knows their heart." It's not about what they do. It's how they feel.

Powerful insight.

This could be a lesson for all the blogospheric Media Critics. Fret less about what the Media Stars DO and write, and pay more attention to how they FEEL. Maybe they'll start to change their ways. Then again, maybe not.

And Brooksie has this to say about St John:

McCain’s weakness is that he flies by the seat of his pants. If elected, he will have to live in the cocoon of the White House and build an organized and predictable administration. As a pilot, he got used to taking off from aircraft carriers. But as president, he’ll be the guy steering the aircraft carrier.

And who does that remind us of? And the nation wants more of that? We've already had eight years of seat of the pants piloting; how has that worked out? Do we really want to maintain the status quo, more bloodshed, more debt, more despair -- because it's been so good to us so far?

Brooksie may not have realized what he was writing there, just feeling the moment and all, but we should not forget. Ever.

The Obama Surge (as they say) is breathtaking, his crowds are huge, his presence (at least when he is "on") is electrifying. Sounds Dean-ish to me, but Dean was never able to translate the Performance into votes. As has been pointed out, young people said they'd turn out for Dean in Iowa, but ultimately they didn't do it, and there was no real post-mortem to figure out why.

Obama, on the other hand, has not only marshalled the young, he is drawing them into the game by the truckload, and they are going out and casting their votes. Is it because they know now what the consequences are for not participating and they don't want to make the same mistake twice? Or is it something else?

Obamamania?

Could be. Mostly, Americans just want the Bushevik nightmare over.

The Times tries to posit and equivalent Youth Appeal between the Codger and the RockStar, but the result is an ugly piece of fiction at best. The equivalence is found at Dartmouth where some hundreds turn out for St John, while some thousands turn out for Obama. See? Youth Appeal! Well, nobody showed up for Rudy! and John Edwards only draws an older crowd, so nobody needs to pay attention to him. Hillary? Hillary who?

But still, there might be some merit:

Mr. Obama challenges young people daily, urging them to prove pundits wrong by turning out in vast numbers. Booming applause greets his words.

“It would be such a shame after seeing the great turnout in Iowa if we weren’t working as hard as we could to make sure that story continues, because I think that was the biggest story out of Iowa,” Mr. Obama told an audience on Monday. “That transcends any individual candidate.”

The precise alchemy of this attraction is uncertain, as often is true in politics. It owes perhaps to Mr. Obama’s youthful look and multicultural persona, his soaring words and a message tinged with liberal politics and talk of uniting partisans.

“It’s not something he’s doing.” Professor Bafumi said. “It’s something he’s being.”

Being or Doing? You decide.

While the Codger plots and plans and makes much of the fact that his Surge in Iraq has saved American lives, the New Kid is working the Kenya Problem to save African lives and maybe a whole lot more. If he can pull it off, what's to stop him from going all the way to the White House besides Mr. Testy Flyboy, whose legendary Anger Management problems will likely get us into four more wars before he keels over from his stroke in the White House Bunkers if he's elected. Then one supposes St John's VP, Rudy! (wouldn't he have to pick him for "balance?"), would inherit the Autocracy and start speaking from balconies and such.

Do Americans want that? No. Obviously not. But will they elect Barack Obama in November?

That remains to be seen. First he's got to get the Democratic nomination; then he has to survive the pack of media hyenas that will dog his every word and act; then of course there will be the endless brickbats, maybe poorly aimed, from the R candidate (and if it is McCain, they'll probably stink to high heaven, too); and then of course he'll have to dodge the resurgent racism of the outraged Confederacy -- which is by no means confined to the South.

If he can get through that, sure. The People will happily elect him. Now the question will be: will their votes be counted?

The questions never end.

On the other hand, even if they reject St John's warmongering and temper tantrums and all the rest of the baggage McCain will bring to the election, would the American People really reject him when the chips are down? Could they?

Great expectations....

Kristol!

Now Columnizing at the New York Bloody Times -- and what a refreshing change he is!

Let's deconstruct, shall we?

Our title is:

President Mike Huckabee?

Pretty fancy, eh? Of course we realize there must be a joke in there somewhere, as no one of the Neo-conman persuasion is about to say anything supportive about their least favorite Populist candidate, Pastor-Governor Mike Huckabee, a scary and dangerous man in their eyes.

But let's go on:

Thank you, Senator Obama. You’ve defeated Senator Clinton in Iowa. It looks as if you’re about to beat her in New Hampshire. There will be no Clinton Restoration. A nation turns its grateful eyes to you.

Ah yes. The ritual Republican Establishment's hat tip to their favorite Democrat(sic) candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, Colored Man, for trouncing their other favorite Democrat(sic) candidate, SheDevil, HILLARY!!!! Who Kristol rightly recognizes would represent a Restoration in the White House, rather than preserving the status quo (as if the Bush interlude were empty somehow?)

Mmkay. What else? Let's look to this part:

But gratitude for sparing us a third Clinton term only goes so far. Who, inquiring minds want to know, is going to spare us a first Obama term? After all, for all his ability and charm, Barack Obama is still a liberal Democrat. Some of us would much prefer a non-liberal and non-Democratic administration. We don’t want to increase the scope of the nanny state, we don’t want to undo the good done by the appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, and we really don’t want to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory in Iraq.

Ah yes, here we go. The ritual denunciations of Democrat(sic) policies and personnel. Have to get in those Talking Points -- ie: "liberal Democrat," "nanny state," "undo the good," "snatch defeat from the Jaws of Victory." (Oh, that's a good one, Billy-Baby. Warms me to my cockles, it does.) But there's that bit about Roberts and Alito that doesn't seem to fit. No Dem can do anything about them, too late, yanno? Shoulda done something before, but didn't. How can a Dem president "undo" their "good?" Our Friend doesn't say. Nor can one really surmise. Hmmm. Well, we'll let that stew for a bit.

Let's go on:

For me, therefore, the most interesting moment in Saturday night’s Republican debate at St. Anselm College was when the candidates were asked what arguments they would make if they found themselves running against Obama in the general election.

The best answer came, not surprisingly, from the best Republican campaigner so far — Mike Huckabee. He began by calmly mentioning his and Obama’s contrasting views on issues from guns to life to same-sex marriage. This served to remind Republicans that these contrasts have been central to G.O.P. success over the last quarter-century, and to suggest that Huckabee could credibly and comfortably make the socially conservative case in an electorally advantageous way.

Yes, it's always appealing when Kristol personalizes things thisaway. "For Me..." he says, while your mileage may vary. How very kind of him. What are the Republican arguments against Obama?

Well, of course! Huckabee has it mastered: you start by going after him with the traditional wingnut crap, Guns, God, Gays, and Abortion. That's at he root of Republican Success for 25 years and you don't throw it away, no sir. One presensts ones Social Conservative cred first and foremost when attacking a Dem candidate. It's Campaigning 101. Yes? And? Is there something more?

Why yes. Yes, there is:

Huckabee went on to pay tribute to Obama for his ability “to touch at the core of something Americans want” in seeming to move beyond partisanship. And, he added, Senator Obama is “a likable person who has excited people about wanting to vote who have not voted in the past.” Huckabee was of course aware that in praising Obama he was recommending himself.

You compliment the Dar... er... Dem, to show how well-bred you yourself are, to put the lie to the notion that you're just a hick from the sticks and don't know how to behave in polite company. (This is very Bushian, don't you think? There's hardly been a President more adored by the Neo-conmen, has there?) It's a Southern Strategy all its own -- lavish with praise while adjusting the knife in the back. No one does it better. Anything more?

Sure. Mention the setting:

I was watching the debate at the home of a savvy, moderately conservative New Hampshire Republican. It was at this moment that he turned to me and said: “You know, I’ve been a huge skeptic about Huckabee. I’m still not voting for him Tuesday. But I’ve got to say — I like him. And I wonder — could he be our strongest nominee?”

That Local Color adds so much, and it allows Kristol to introduce the notion that Average Republicans are giving Huckabee a Second Look. ("But I'm still not voting for him, ew.") As if the Snake Handling Wing of the Republican Party did not represent the Average? Oh, come on.

More:

He could be. After the last two elections, featuring the well-born George Bush and Al Gore and John Kerry, Americans — even Republicans! — are ready for a likable regular guy. Huckabee seems to be that. He came up from modest origins. He served as governor of Arkansas for more than a decade. He fought a successful battle against being overweight. These may not be utterly compelling qualifications for the presidency. I’m certainly not ready to sign up.

Kristol owes me (and many more) a new wireless keyboard now. After all these Aristocrats in office or running for office, We're Ready For A Regular Guy??? Give me a break! Jeeze, just what was that bull roar you've been selling us all these years about how regular George FUCKING Bush is? How much we wanna have a Beer with him, remember? It was just Sales Talk?

OK. Now ya got me fired up.

Next:

Still, as the conservative writer Michelle Malkin put it, “For the work-hard-to-get-ahead strivers who represent the heart and soul of the G.O.P., there are obvious, powerful points of identification.” And they speak to younger voters who are not yet committed to the G.O.P. In Iowa, Huckabee did something like what Obama did on the Democratic side, albeit on a smaller scale. He drew new voters to the caucuses. And he defeated Mitt Romney by almost two to one, and John McCain by better than four to one, among voters under 45.

He can Do An Obama, capturing the Young and New Voters, very important if Republicans cared about expanding the participation in elections, which they do not, but leave that aside for the moment. He mentions Malkin. Yeee. I'm sure that appeals to the snake handler in all of us. He mentions Mitt and his defeat in Iowa. He mentions St. John and his defeat in Iowa. Obviously we're talking Giant Killer here (watch out Obama, Huck gonna gitcha! Boo!)

And:

Now it’s true that many conservatives have serious doubts about Huckabee’s positions, especially on foreign policy, and his record, particularly on taxes. The conservative establishment is strikingly hostile to Huckabee — for both good and bad reasons. But voters seem to be enjoying making up their own minds this year. And Huckabee is a talented politician.

His campaigning in New Hampshire has been impressive. At a Friday night event at New England College in Henniker, he played bass with a local rock band, Mama Kicks. One secular New Hampshire Republican’s reaction: “Gee, he’s not some kind of crazy Christian. He’s an ordinary American.”

Ah. Now we see. The Conservative Establishment has Issues with the man, Important, Serious Issues. And he'd better Listen Up, or else. But for now let him be the Rock Star Wannabe. Everybody can relate. (Another dig at Obama's Rock Star Status, yes?)

Then:

In general, here in New Hampshire he’s emphasized social issues far less than in Iowa (though he doesn’t waffle when asked about them). Instead he’s stressed conservative economic themes, seamlessly (if somewhat inconsistently) weaving together a pitch for limited government with a message that government needs to do more to address the concerns of the struggling middle class. This latter point seems to be resonating, as headlines in local papers announce an increase in the national unemployment rate amid speculation about a coming recession.

"Seems to be resonating..." Cough. [Edwards] Cough. Recession. Heh. Heh. Sheepish Grin. Maybe we're gonna need the Preacher Man. OOOOOu. Maybe. Just to get us through the coming Shit Storm....

But then, he just lets it all flounder:

Some Democrats are licking their chops at the prospect of a Huckabee nomination. They shouldn’t be. For one thing, Michael Bloomberg would be tempted to run in the event of an Obama-Huckabee race — and he would most likely take votes primarily from Obama. But whatever Bloomberg does, the fact is that the Republican establishment spent 2007 underestimating Mike Huckabee. If Huckabee does win the nomination, it would be amusing if Democrats made the same mistake in 2008.

So. It's really about Democrats and the Bloomberg boomlet. Er... eh? How so, Billy? Oh, I see. Strategery!! Of course. If it is a Huckabee/Obama contest in the end (which it probably won't be, but that's another issue), Kristol has a plan. Daffy Duck-ish, to be sure, but a Plan nonetheless. Run Bloomberg to siphon votes away from Obama and Huck wins! YAY! But what does that do for Kristol? Hmmm.

Has his self-awareness kicked in enough for him to realize that no matter which way the coming election goes, his days are numbered? He's only got one day a week at the Times. Nobody watches FOX any more. The Weekly Standard never had any readership to speak of.

Talk about Doom.

Have a nice day, Billy.

Ch-ch-ch-changes!

OK. So this election is about Change. Everybody agrees. Hillary. Huck. Mitt. Barack. St. John and John. All of them. All the papers. All the news shows, too. No more SameOldSameOld; this time it's too important to let the Past get in the way of Our Bright New Future.

OK. I'm down with that.

Trouble is, are we gonna get any Ch-ch-changes, or... horrors... are we gonna go through 1968 again, when everybody was up in arms about everything, demanding Changes right and left... and blood flowed in the streets, cities burned, assassins' bullets flew.

We got Change, all right.

We got Nixon.

[Note: Blogger bloggered up on me, the rest of this post was lost somewhere in the ether.... Oh well!]

Buick!

--When Better Automobiles Are Built, Buick Will Build Them.

Image from Plan 59, visit and enjoy!

The idea that Hillary represents the Status Quo has taken hold in the Democratic Primary Shuffle, and I find it silly and somewhat offensive on its face. I don't know whether Democratic voters in New Hampshire are responding to it, but I hope not.

Hillary cannot be the Status Quo Candidate no matter how hard she tries to position herself as the Wingnut Dem for President. In case nobody noticed, she's a Dame, and right off the bat there's your all important Change. She's not a representative of the Status Quo at all; instead, she's offering a pretty straightforward Restoration.

And how realistic is that?

Can we go back to the Good Times of the Clinton Era? Not very likely. Were the Bourbons able to re-establish the French Monarchy after the Napoleonic Era? They tried, got overthrown. And much of the Change imposed by the Revolution and Napoleon remained after Louis XVIII was enthroned, and it's still coursing through the French body politic.

I've written about this before: the Busheviks are the Revolutionaries, the Radicals, the Agents of Change in our country and the world, not the Dems. The point of their Revolution is to establish, once and for all, the Universal Primacy of Corporate Power, to assert that Power domestically and throughout the world, and to accumulate whatever wealth, 
real estate, goods, and chattel they can seize. They have been massively successful.

Not much of that Bushevik success is going to be undone by any Democratic candidate, win or lose. The changes brought about by the Revolutionaries are mostly permanent. But all the Dem candidates, Obama included, want to Restore a pre-Bushevik America, one that harkens back to another -- supposedly Better -- day. 


Hillary's Restoration would of course harken to the Clinton Era; 
Barack and Edwards seem to want to go further back, Edwards harkening to the LBJ War on Poverty period, Obama going back to the Kennedy Era of high flown rhetoric and passionate patriotic dedication.

Realistically, we can't go back, whatever else happens. We can only go forward. For reasons that only they know, the leading Democratic candidates all see "going forward" as a means to restart the clock at 2001, a do-over as it were, to "get right" what the Busheviks have so badly fucked up.

Of course events have a way of intervening. We are apparently on the cusp of a historic economic disaster which none of the candiates of either party are addressing in any way. They know it's looming, but they choose to do nothing at this time, preferring to wait for events to unfold before they even suggest that action can occur.

We could be about to learn that our entire economy has been "Enronized" during the Bushevik years, and there is nothing we can do about it. Much as Californians learned there was nothing they could do about the looting of their state's economy by the Enron Boys and their fellow travellers when time was. Democrats have been eager enablers throughout.

Hillary is not a Status Quo candidate, she's a Restoration candidate, as are all the Democrats running except Kucinich -- but he's a Hobbit, and that as they say is that. No Presidency for him!

What would happen, I wonder, if the Democratic candidates were advocates of Real Change?

Who?

I haven't really gotten behind anybody for the Democratic nomination this cycle. To say the choices have been uninspiring (despite Obama's nearly constant eloquence) is an understatement. Like many Americans, I find the Democratic field just doesn't move me much, in part because the election process has been so corrupted and compromised, and in part because of the criminal inability of the Democratic Congressional "Leadership" to advocate for and push and fight for legislation to protect and defend the Constitution in the interests of the People of the United States of America.

If Congress can't do it and won't, why should we expect any Democratic President to do more? What is there in any of these candidates that would lead me to believe that they would steamroll over Republican obstructionism, that they would bitchslap and jail corporate lobbyists and corruptors, that they would bring the Busheviks to justice, that they would use all those Autocratic Powers the Congress has yielded to the Presidency for the Good of the People?

In the post Iowa Caucus analysis presented by the mass media, there was practically no mention of the man who came in a strong second to Barak Obama: John Edwards. Throughout the campaign, Edwards has been largely absent from media coverage, except when the media mavens could find an "angle," such as his wife's cancer treatment, to beat him over the head with (cf: Katie Couric's patronizing and hostile interview). Nearly all the analysis focused on the "fight" between Obama and Hillary, and any mention of Edwards was in passing.

Then, as I posted day before yesterday, Political Experts were reported (on NPR) as saying that the Edwards campaign was not long for this world, indeed was expected to fold shortly. Money is the issue, and according to the Experts, Edwards doesn't have any left.

There was no back up, no named Expert, no substantiation to this report, and I couldn't find anything on the news summaries I was looking at to support any such conclusion. Of course, throughout the campaign, there was an underlying media (and Establishmentarian) contempt for Edwards. No Democratic Populist had received anything but contempt from mainstream American media for generations. In my view, Edwards is a very muted Populist, but even that is enough to earn a candidate emnity from the corporate sector. Viz: Huckabee's backhanded media evisceration.

Populists can't get a break.

Populism, especially Southern Populism, has a rough-edged reputation in this country that needs to be highlighted and discussed, and the merits of the policies and programs proposed by Populist candidates of both parties need to be heard and considered, but that's not happening in the mass media. Instead, Huckabee and Edwards are being shown the door by their Media Betters.

There isn't much better coverage of the Populist candidates in the alternative media, either -- except that their mistreatment by the Big Media is subject to discussion in the alternative media, whereas the existence of John Edwards (especially) is barely mentioned in the Big Media. Huckabee can be mentioned, and even flattered to an extent (he is a Republican, after all, and Big Media has a cultural necessity to suck up to Republicans), but his actual policy prescriptions (like those of Ron Paul, who isn't considered a Real Republican) cannot be revealed in Polite Company.

The Edwards campaign on the other hand is simply set aside as if it were irrelevant.

The Media Conversation is between Obama and Hillary.

Elizabeth Edwards is left to battle it out with Media Harpies like the Coultergeist and Tweety.

Yet Edwards himself may be the most Progressive of the top Democratic candidates. The question is whether it is possible for any Populist/Progressive Presidential candidate to break through the Palace barricades.

Tormento!

Storm issues to deal with. Sheesh, what a mess. Cleanup is gonna take a while. We're just lucky to have electricity right now. Lots of folks in this neighborhood don't.

Hope the folks in Southern California get through tomorrow safe.

Stay warm and dry.

(Note: The picture is not of Casa Ché, thank goodness, but it is not far away. Trees are down all over the place, travel hazardous, electricity service spotty, much street flooding, more rain tomorrow, but less wind.)

John Hoo?

I just heard a mention of John Edwards on NPR's "Morning Edition". It's one of the very few mentions of Edwards there has been since the Iowa Caucusi last night, where he finished a decent second to Barack Obama, and just ahead of Hillary Clinton.

The mention this morning was brief and amounted to noting that Political Experts "don't expect the Edwards campaign to last much longer."

No mention of who these Experts are, nor how they come to such a conclusion. Such is the state of politcal reporting in the United States.

I've done a quick search through news sources this morning, and all the mentions (of which there are relatively few) of him are positive, show no sign of immanent collapse of his campaign, do not even hint he's giving up.

But.

He is rigorously ignored, almost as ignored as Ron Paul the Anti-War Republican.

And Political Experts have declared his campaign doomed -- if not already dead.

Hillary!

I have a hard time getting too worked up about the results of the Iowa caucuses last night. Despite all the expectations management that went into it, the results seem to reflect what polls were showing pretty well, unlike 2004 when the polls were unable to tap into John Kerry's rise until nearly end of the campaign.

This time around, the polls were clearly and consistently tracking Obama's growing lead over Edwards and Clinton, but the reporters were consistently misstating what the polls were showing by claiming a "too close to call" neck and neck horse race where there really wasn't one.

The same was true on the Republican side. Huckabee had held a significant lead for a long time; Romney and the rest were playing catch up at best, and yet the campaign reporters stuck to the narrative that it was "too close to call, anything could happen."

So, in the end, Obama won and Huckabee won, and Hillary -- in case you didn't know -- lost. According to the high paid analysts, this was a tremendous loss for La Clinton, but she will survive to battle it out with her rivals in other primaries and caucusi throughout the land, and she may still become the Democratic nominee, it all depends on factors we can't know yet.

As for John Edwards, who came in a strong second (actually a near tie for second between Hillary and Edwards): "John Who?"

The only "John" who matters in the media expectations game is St. John McCain, who, despite Huckabee's clear victory in the Iowa Republican caucuses, is now considered the Favorite (again) and his 12% or 13% is considered Outstanding, because he "beat expectations."

So did Ron Paul, at around 10%. In fact, that surprises the heck out of me, because I didn't think that Paul could draw above the mid-single digits in Iowa. Wrong I was.

But Ron Paul is the Crazy Uncle in the attic and cannot be mentioned in Polite Company; he's the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican Party, hardly a serious candidate at all. Never mind the millions of dollars he keeps raising, and never mind his strong showing in Iowa. The question I have about Ron Paul is never answered: who are the Republicans supporting him?

Edwards must have offended his press bus about as much as Hillary offended hers. Glenn Greenwald offers a typically superb dissection of the Clinton Campaign Bus Affair over at his place. But the issue here is that Hillary was covered by the media, incessantly and obsessively, whether or not the press bus "liked" her. Edwards was barely covered at all and is obviously loathed by the media claque. It's amazing that Edwards did as well as he did in Iowa given the nearly complete media blackout of his campaign.

But that should be a lesson to us, shouldn't it?

For decades, the media has treated the serious process of elections with a kind of disdain and throw away contempt that is ugly and brutal and destructive to the political well-being of the Nation. Campaigns are covered as horse races almost exclusively, and there is one master narrative of the campaign horse race: Too Close To Call. Right up to the very last minute when this or that candidate -- no matter what the polls are showing -- is "favored" by the media and allowed to break free of the pack.

That's the Narrative, but it's been obvious through many election cycles that the media chooses its favorites (St. John, for example) who they stick with throughout the campaign, unless they decide to dump their favorite (like they did Howard Dean) for someone else (ie: Bush).

The coverage (or lack of it) can and does strongly influence outcomes, but it doesn't have to. Outcomes can be influenced almost as strongly by grassroots activism. Outcomes can also be bought by high flying bazillionaires and corporate sponsors.

But more and more, lately, outcomes appear to be predetermined in that Shadowy Powers That Be choose the candidates the electorate is allowed to consider; then, through various means, those Powers determine which candidate will be allowed to win. In 2000, Bush was selected by an out of bounds and out of control Supreme Court, for example. In 2004, on the other hand, the "selection" may or may not have been made by voters. We have no way of knowing thanks to the pervasiveness of unverifiable vote recording and vote counting machines. And of course voter suppression in key states is all important for control of outcomes.

Is the contempt and disdain so typical of media coverage of the election process due to their underlying knowledge that the process is a sham and corrupted to the point where almost nothing they say about it has any real effect? Do they have this knowledge? I don't know. But you can see in the coverage of any election night that the reporters are bored, they want it over with, and they will not tolerate waiting for an outcome. Do they know who the winner is, or who the winner is supposed to be? Why not just say so and move on?

Hillary has been declared the Big Loser in Iowa. But strangely, her third place (well, statistical tie for second, but who's counting?) finish was all but predicted by polls taken in January of last year.

From the Daily Iowan, Jan 22, 2007:

Iowa snubs Hillary

by Brittney Berget - The Daily Iowan

With national polls indicating Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., are the leading contenders for Democratic presidential nomination, the 2008 elections could be on the track to see either the first black or female candidate.

But early state polls show that Iowans aren't as willing to embrace Rodham Clinton. The Research 2000 Iowa Poll shows that Obama and former Sen. John Edwards are tied at the top with 22 percent of the votes, and Rodham Clinton - who announced her official candidacy on Jan. 20 - in fourth with 10 percent. Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack came in third in the poll.

Some experts believe Rodham Clinton's relative lack of popularity may have to do with her being a woman.

"Iowans have been hesitant in the past in terms of supporting a woman candidate," said Arthur Miller, a UI professor of political science. Rodham Clinton "is quite controversial, and women just haven't done as well as men do in past elections here in Iowa."

Experts say Edwards' high Iowa numbers - which are inconsistent with his share in the national polls - stems from his success in the state in the 2004 election season, during which he placed a surprising second during Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses.

Strange, innit? The top three Democratic candidates all gained support during the year, but what was predicted by polling a year ago pretty much came to pass after strenuous campaigning, tens of millions of dollars raised and spent, endless ads, endless meetings with voters, endless containers of bad coffee, endless prattle, endless dialogue, endless bullshit.

Yet nothing really changed.

Iowa Stubborn, indeed.

Iowa!

Got nothin' to say about Iowa.

Look. I was born there. I knew Eulalie Shinn. Didn't like her. Glad I'm gone. Don't miss it a bit.

After what they pulled in 2004, Iowa can go hang for all I care. And freeze what's left.

Grrr.

(But if Edwards pulls this off, I'll laugh and laugh and laugh at all the pundits everywhere. Heh.)

Kenya!

NPR and most of the other "news" outlets have been running with a consistent media spin on the situation in Kenya that follows a narrative of 'tribal rivalries,' 'ancient animosities,' and 'brutal African Natives.'

Very little is said about the bogus election of Mwai Kibaki that has triggered the revolt and the bloodshed. Instead, we're treated to endless beard-tugging over all this ethnic struggle among the Uncivilized Savages. Been going on for hundreds of years. They're just that way. Pity.

No mention of the proxy war going on next door in Somalia (which sometimes spills over into Kenya.) No mention of the United States' interference in Kenyan affairs (GWOT and all that, dontchaknow). It's as if there is only one media narrative that explains all "unrest" in all uncivilized countries, all the time. Ethnic rivalries that have been "just below the surface" for hundreds of years. The idea that something actually happened (a rigged election for example) that caused this outbreak of violence is simply impossible.

And there is an assumption that Kibaki is the legitimate president because he was "elected," and Condi Rice calls him up.

Nothing at all about the opposition and their very legitimate complaints. No, just like the Bloomberg campaign, everyone must come together and go forth in unity.

Beggars belief. 

But Kibaki and Musharraf and who knows how many others are simply following the Bush-Cheney example, aren't they?

They just brazen it out.

(Note: the video was made by some Norwegian [Danish?] kids on safari in Kenya this spring. Cute, innit?)

Collegiate!

Juan Cole says that Barney Rubin's exegesis of the Pakistan situation is like a college course on the matter, and I agree.

Go read it. All of it. And the comments. It's more than you ever wanted to know. And maybe half as much as you're going to need.

While you're over there, be sure to read everything else Rubin has written and linked to.

Give ya cold chills.

Rancid!

My Man Chris Floyd has year-end screed up at his place from the Guardian's John Pilger that takes the progressivism of Britain's New Labour to task for rancidity  and general betrayal.

It's worth a look. Especially in the context of America's descent into Fascist Autocracy.

You think we've got it bad here? Hah. Britain has long since Crossed Over The Line. Blame it on Tony Blair. Blame it on a complaisant Labour Party. Blame it on the weather.

Pilger says:

Britain is now a centralised single-ideology state, as secure in the grip of a superpower as any former eastern bloc country. The Whitehall executive has prerogative powers as effective as politburo decrees. Unlike Venezuela, critical issues such as the EU constitution or treaty are denied a referendum, regardless of Blair's "solemn pledge". Thanks largely to a parliament in which a majority of the members cannot bring themselves to denounce the crime in Iraq or even vote for an inquiry, New Labour has added to the statutes a record 3,000 criminal offences: an apparatus of control that undermines the Human Rights Act. In 1977, at the height of the cold war, I interviewed the Charter 77 dissidents in Czechoslovakia. They warned that complacency and silence could destroy liberty and democracy as effectively as tanks. "We're actually better off than you in the west," said a writer, measuring his irony. "Unlike you, we have no illusions."

For those people who still celebrate the virtues and triumphs of liberalism - anti-slavery, women's suffrage, the defence of individual conscience and the right to express it and act upon it - the time for direct action is now. It is time to support those of courage who defy rotten laws to read out in Parliament Square the names of the current, mounting, war dead, and those who identify their government's complicity in "rendition" and its torture, and those who have followed the paper and blood trail of Britain's piratical arms companies. It is time to support the NHS workers who up and down the country are trying to alert us to the destruction of a Labour government's greatest achievement. The list of people stirring is reassuring. The awakening of the rest of us is urgent.

To which I can only say, Indeed.

Our own Progressive Movement (however you may define it) isn't much better off.

A question for the New Year:

Why has there been so little Real Progress, and why has there been so much ethical and moral backsliding for so many years?

Boy Bhutto!

I was struck by the vehemence of Bilawal Bhutto Zardari's statement upon assuming the (co-)chairmanship of the Pakistan People's Party:

"As my mother always said: 'Democracy is the BEST revenge!'"

Leave it to the young.

His statement should become a Progressive slogan.

And according to the Times of India, Bilawal is hawt.

There you are then.