As the political situation in Zimbabwe deteriorates further by the day, I've noticed that the way the mainstream in this country reports it is truly bizarre. It is all a matter of perception, of what the sides "say" is going on, and no one can really sort it out, it's all African after all, and who really understands those people?
Every report I hear on the radio or see on teevee or read in the papers claims that "critics" declare that (for example) some 85 "murders" have taken place, or that Mugabe's forces have done this or that "bad thing," or that "international observers" claim such and such nasty business is going on, or that "the opposition insists" thus and so. Reporters on the scene describe what they see in great and awful detail, and still the anchors of the Zimbabwe desk are skeptics.
"We'll just have to see how this shakes out, thank you."
This is the universal approach of American mass media to the Zimbabwe political crisis, so I think it is fair to assume that it is the result of an industry-wide narrative adoption.
And I've wondered if this will be the pattern for coverage of the American political scene: no truth, just narrative, a narrative that favors McCain -- or rather, favors Power in the abstract -- and is skeptical of his opposition, yet presents everything as what people "say," or "claim," not -- ever -- what actually IS.
An extreme example of Zimbabwe coverage on the NewsHour last night:
[Note: the New Yorker cover illustration above is meant to convey an attitude in the media of detachment, it is not meant to imply that the New Yorker's coverage has been particularly faulty or that there is any particular New Yorker story being criticized here. In fact, the New Yorker has consistently been one of the better news operations on this and many other topics.]
For some time now, Digby has used the "Village" metaphor to describe the collective known as the Washington Press Corps, a metaphor that ultimately comes from a Sally Quinn piece quoting David Gergen from almost a decade ago in which she defended the world she and her colleagues lived and worked in from the Evil That Was Clinton. Gergen supplied the memorable quote:
"We have our own set of village rules," says David Gergen, editor at large at U.S. News & World Report, who worked for both the Reagan and Clinton White House. "Sex did not violate those rules. The deep and searing violation took place when he not only lied to the country, but co-opted his friends and lied to them. That is one on which people choke.
"We all live together, we have a sense of community, there's a small-town quality here. We all understand we do certain things, we make certain compromises. But when you have gone over the line, you won't bring others into it. That is a cardinal rule of the village. You don't foul the nest."
Quinn and Gergen were serious -- it was about SEX after all -- and Digby is overtly satiric in using the metaphor to describe a rotten to the core press corp in DC. And the Village metaphor has spread throughout the blogosphere to describe these decrepit media functionaries (no longer describing a place but merely the denizens thereof).
I have objected and tangled with Digby more than once over her devotion to this metaphor -- it is now pretty much universal in the so-called lefty blogosphere -- because I believe that it is a grossly inaccurate and potentially self-defeating metaphor.
A "Village" has certain -- generally positive -- evocations for most people, and artists have made whole careers out of depicting village values, characters and ways of life. Gergen himself was using the metaphor in a positive way to describe how closely and intimately linked the Washington Press Corps was with one another and with their all-important sources and how the insider linkages are fundamental to the operations of the "Village."
Digby and most of the rest of the so-called lefty blogosphere of course consider the incestuousness and clannishness of the Washington Press Corps and their sources to be a very negative thing, and so their use of the "Village" to describe the same thing David Gergen did is meant as a satiric jab, with a highly negative connotation.
The problem is, despite its universality, it doesn't work.
It doesn't work in part because it doesn't describe reality. Gergen, in other words, was wrong, even deliberately deceptive, in trying to put a positive gloss or spin on the incestuousness of Washington and its many layers of courtiers, eunuchs and functionaries by calling it a "Village."
It's a "Village" in somewhat the way Marie Antoinette's Petit Hameau was.
In other words, a subdivision of a Palace like Versailles.
And the Washington Press Corps is a bunch of powdered and perfumed, bewigged and panniered courtiers.
Sally Quinn -- and David Gergen -- rules her world. Which is silly.
And yet, once the Village metaphor was adopted by Digby it became the standard on the lefty blogs within weeks or months.
Only a few of us hold out for the old fashioned Palace metaphor, which I believe is a far more accurate and telling descriptive of the nature of DC courtier media and "source" incestuousness.
And there's another thing, I think a more important thing than being accurately descriptive with ones metaphors: The Palace Media and its layers of sources, it's go-to eunuchs, functionaries, and gossips, is something that most people can come to revile. Indeed, rebel against. A "Village" metaphor short-circuits the rebellion before it begins and transforms the natural revulsion at the goings on of the Palace and its retainers -- especially when exposed as being as bloodthirsty and corrupt as they truly are -- into a sort of tittery joke. A "Village" metaphor makes them and their evil seem quaint, charming, cute.
And that won't do. It just won't do. How can you do anything about something you think is so 'darling?'
Whereas Storming the Winter Palace has more than a little evocative and powerful meaning.
Obama has issued a statement saying he supports the "compromise" FISA "reform" passed by the House, and he will "work" to remove telecom immunity from it in the Senate, a Senate that already passed the fullthroated domestic surveillance and telecom immunity FISA "reform" the House Leadership worked so hard to "compromise" on.
He's not gonna do shit.
This is what he wants. He knows he's going to ascend to the Peacock Throne, and he's getting ready. He's taking his elevation to the Purple a lot more seriously than the current occupant ever did. Which I guess is a good thing, eh?
But the point is that he is not going to defend and protect the Constitution and the rule of law as he's sworn an oath to do, any more than he chooses to, which in this case, he doesn't.
That's the attitude of a Monarch. And that's what we're going to get. The Republic, it's time to admit, is kaput, an empty husk. And Obama is going to need the powers the Congress is so eager to give the King/Emperor if he is to rule as well as reign.
Admitting as much is very difficult for Americans. Most don't really care one way or another. The Constitution lost its popular constituency long ago. But the notion that the nation is now a monarchical empire, ruled by Imperial Ukase or Rescript, sometimes masked by Congressional "law" (often after the fact), is foreign, and once was resented. But now? Not so much.
How long did it take the Romans to realize their Republic was gone? The forms and institutions endured for hundreds of years after Octavian's advent. But the Roman Republic expired, and the people, for the most part were just as happy it was so.
So it is among Americans, and so it will be if Obama proves to be what he says he's setting out to be: a benign monarch as opposed to Bush, the crazed autocrat.
Who can complain?
Certainly not the Palace Courtiers.
But the question is, what is to be done about it, if anything?
According to the Incrementalists, this reversion into monarchy/autocracy will be halted and turned around in oh, fifty-sixty years, who knows, it took decades after all for the rightists to get to the point where they are today, so it will realistically take as long or longer for so-called progressives to take the country back, but they will. One day. Eventually. Just be Patient.
Revolutionaries -- the handful of them there are -- say "Pshaw!" and demand instant overthrow by masses of People in the Streets.
Neither, in my view, is correct because they haven't clarified to themselves what's actually happened, nor what they want in its stead.
In my view, Incrementalists (Glenn Greenwald being one of the most determined and astute of them) essentially like things the way they are, and like to complain about them and argue about them all the time. But they don't want any real change, nor are they in any way prepared to take any action that might precipitate real progressive change. They want power and influence to be sure, but not to accomplish any real reform or progress, or to -- say -- revive the Republic, but only to operate within the New Empire as antagonists to the King/Emperor. They want their position to become an official position (of antagonism, to be sure) within the Palace. And then, over many years, decades, generations, centuries, their antagonism will serve to mitigate, mediate and modify the worst excesses of the System, a System they fully support. A System which is, in fact, a monarchy and empire, not a self-governing constitutional republic.
The Revolutionaries (of which there are so few, it's almost impossible to name them) simply want something else again. Amy Goodman and the crew at Democracy Now! make a good pitch for what's wrong and what ought to be, but they're not into overthrow as such. They have justified contempt for what "is" -- but even then, they don't name it much more than declaring "corporatist" -- and occasionaly "fascist" and "police state" -- wrong-doing. All of which is fine, but doesn't lead to the Something Else Again the Revolutionaries want.
And everyone's a critic, myself included.
My own perspective is that the reversion to monarchy and empire was inherent in the Constitution the Framers adopted, no matter their arguments to the contrary. "Spin" was not unknown in those days, either. The trend has been toward greater territorial expansion and greater concentration of power in the executive throughout the whole history of the country, and it has culminated, now, in what amounts to a full consolidation of power in the Presidency and its extensions. The Congress does not act to curb that power, it grants more power to the Presidency. The judiciary has taken upon itself to appoint and guide the Presidency almost as if it were in the role of Regent or Confessor, but not to curb it beyond certain modest restraints -- which are typically ignored.
These days, if we want something different than the monarchy/empire we have, we need a different framework than the Constitution; it's that simple.
Achieving that is impossible for Incrementalist. They cannot think that way. What IS requires the Constitution as is, and a Regime as is, and antagonism as is. If there is Change, it is toward solidifying and consolidating and from time to time mitigating, not toward resistance and renewal.
A Different Framework than the Constitution hasn't yet occurred to the Revolutionaries. With the collapse of or abandonment of Communism, there remains very little ideological revolutionary fervor anywhere in the world, Venezuela excepted, but the Bolivarian Revolution is barely understood -- or even noticed -- in the United States. Chavez is just perceived as some vague zambo "enemy." Exactly why isn't known. The only thing that is known is that "he's got our oil." Which means, eventually, the Empire will seize it.
I think most Americans would be comfortable with a benign monarchy, and they're getting comfortable with the notion of Obama on the Throne. Whether it will happen, I can't say, but it's looking more and more likely every day, and it's clear to me that with Obama's FISA statement of yesterday, he fully intends to operate within the current Monarchical/Imperial System without let or hindrance.
McClatchy is doing an important series on the sweeping up of the innocents in the GWOT which is bound to raise some hackles (once heavy crepe veiling and deepest mourning for the Monsignor have passed) among the Palace Courtiers and might just get the perpetrators -- of the series, not the crimes -- a Pulitzer or two.
From today's report on the routine brutality of captive in American military custody:
The brutality at Bagram peaked in December 2002, when U.S. soldiers beat two Afghan detainees, Habibullah and Dilawar, to death as they hung by their wrists.
Dilawar died on Dec. 10, seven days after Habibullah died. He'd been hit in his leg so many times that the tissue was "falling apart" and had "basically been pulpified," said then-Lt. Col. Elizabeth Rouse, the Air Force medical examiner who performed the autopsy on him.
Had Dilawar lived, Rouse said in sworn testimony, "I believe the injury to the legs are so extensive that it would have required amputation."
After Habibullah died, a legal officer for U.S. forces in Afghanistan asked two military police guards at Bagram to demonstrate how they'd chained detainees' wrists above their heads in a small plywood isolation cell.
"Frankly, it didn't look good," Maj. Jeff Bovarnick, the legal adviser for the Bagram detention center from November 2002 to June 2003, said during a military investigation hearing in June 2005.
"This guy is chained up and has a hood on his head," Bovarnick continued. "The two MPs that were demonstrating this took about five minutes to get everything hook(ed) up; and I was thinking to myself, if this was a combative detainee, it must have been a real struggle for them to get him to comply, and the things they must have been doing to make him comply."
The only American officer who's been reprimanded for the deaths of Habibullah and Dilawar is Army Capt. Christopher Beiring, who commanded the 377th Military Police Company from the summer of 2002 to the spring of 2003.
One of the many problems all along has been the absence of field officers in this Great War against innocents. It's not just that few have been charged and convicted of the endless crimes committed in our names, it is that they aren't there at all. Officers are simply absent. They are either holed up in the various palaces or bases seized from the natives, which, until recently, they rarely left. Or they are running around sucking up to their own superiors, sometimes quite openly angling for attention and promotions by... "following orders" which has led to one atrocity after another.
McClatchy is documenting war crimes, in detail, with plenty of names, dates and whatever evidence they can secure. The military, of course, denies everything -- when it isn't completely refusing comment of any kind.
What will eventually happen with this material is anybody's guess. Righteously, the entire regime and all of its enablers, and those in the military who have carried out atrocities and war crimes would face justice of some sort, but we've seen that no such thing even contemplated.
No. They'll get away with it. Indeed, they may be honored, at least some of them.
And We, the People look on in horrified disbelief. The McClatchy series needs to be seen.
What with all the keening and covering with ashes going on at the passing of Msgr. Tim Russert, the Washington Bureau Chief for NBC News and the Moderator of Meet the Press, and long time Catholic Apologist, would-be priest, and potential Monsignor, you'd think the Pope Himself had passed.
What with all the expressions of devotion and belovedness his shade is receiving from the so-called progressive blogosphere, you'd think he was a model of some sort to be emulated. A courtier to be flattered. St. Reagan himself doesn't receive such devotion.
Come on, people. What would you do if Chris Matthews died? Throw yourselves on his funeral pyre?
This is ridiculous.
Tim Russert was an obsequious toady to power, particularly -- nay, almost exclusively -- to Republican Power, in true Palace Courtier fashion, and it was his job of Sunday mornings (although MTP was broadcast on Sunday afternoons for years in my region) to catapult the propaganda, get the weekly Republican talking points out, and interview Republican politicians in as gentle and subservient a manner as possible. It was his job to savage and embarrass Democrats. He set the standard for it. And he was emulated throughout Gasbag Land.
His sudden death was of course a shock, not simply to his colleagues and rivals (assuming he had rivals) but to the world of political junkies in general, who can barely imagine carrying on without the Monsignor to guide them. Russert was the definition of serious political media.
It's apparently impossible to imagine a mainstream political media without him.
What was truly surprising to me, scanning the hundreds or thousands of comments on the lefty blogs on the topic of Russert's passing, was the number of posters who said they "liked" him, and who claimed he was "fair." Clearly, his influence over the way people define basic terms (like "fairness") was tremendous. Of course there were a handful of those who expressed disgust with his on-air behavior and condemned him to the Fires of Hell for What He Did (such as tirelessly promoting the Iraq invasion and occupation, dismissing or denouncing Democrats and other opposition and so on), but most were nearly as obsequious as Russert himself in the throes of his passion for Republican Power.
I stopped watching him a long time ago. This list of posts at Media Matters might help clarify why:
Will pundits who blasted Howard Dean in 2003 over troop-numbers response question McCain's fitness following his Iraq troop-level falsehood? Friday, May 30, 2008
Amid spate of high-profile stories, Russert continues to ignore "the story about Senator McCain and lobbyists and ethics and money" on Meet the Press Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Russert: "[T]he story about Senator McCain and lobbyists and ethics and money -- that continues" -- but not on Meet the Press Friday, May 23, 2008
On Meet the Press, Russert allowed GOP strategist Murphy to falsely claim that "Rubin mischaracterized," "paraphrased" McCain Sunday, May 18, 2008
Exec. producer tells fishbowl DC that Meet the Press "would certainly be open" to interviewing Bob Barr Friday, May 16, 2008
Will Russert offer Libertarian candidate Barr the same Meet the Press platform he gave Nader? Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Russert told Harwood, "Speak for yourself," on the media as McCain's "base" -- but Russert's colleague Matthews has said it too Monday, May 12, 2008
Russert noted media's lack of scrutiny of McCain over Hagee, other issues, but not Russert's own McCain "grace period" on Hagee Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Russert suggested GOP would run ads against Obama featuring "Pledge of Allegiance" charge without noting it's false Sunday, April 20, 2008
On Today, Russert, Mitchell, and Lauer highlight Clinton's tax returns, don't mention McCain's Wednesday, April 9, 2008
On Morning Joe, Russert mischaracterized Democrats' Iraq positions, his own debate question Tuesday, April 8, 2008
and there are many more at the site. Or go through Digby's archives.
It's just appalling.
A modest suggestion: instead of holding up Tim Russert as a model and speculating about who will take his place, how about thinking of this as a teaching moment, rethinking the whole notion of media "vs" pols and, for example, resurrecting the earlier version of Meet the Press in which a panel of journalists grilled the guest under the deft moderation of Lawrence Spivak? Or maybe roundtables in which media representatives are themselves grilled by -- oh, why not? -- bloggers and/or citizens?
Russert was the dominant personality in his trade, and that meant that his particular viewpoint and many of his character traits became accepted as the standard of his profession. We've seen the results.
Thankfully, the recriminations between the Dem candidate partisans are diminishing quickly.
The rank thuggishness displayed by internet personalities like Markos and Aravosis and their toadies now appears to be grossly out of step with their candidate, Senator Obama, and his active reconciliation efforts with the Clinton camp, efforts that seem to be bearing fruit. The poo flinging just might end soon, and that would be great. Devoutly to be wished, as it were.
Meanwhile, something very significant happened in the wake of Obama's picking up enough delegates to become the Democratic presidential nominee (I hate the term "presumptive nominee" and -- at least for now -- refuse to use it).
He's building on Howard Dean's "50 State Strategy" for revivifying what had become a nearly moribund Democratic Party under the aegis of the Clinton - McAuliff "17 State Strategy."
Four years ago, when Dean was vaulted to the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee -- following a failed presidential bid months earlier -- he pledged to rewrite the rules concerning where and how Democrats would compete. In the subsequent months, resources and staff were invested into unconventional and even previously untouched locales. The idea was that the party simply couldn't compete without a margin for error.
But at the time, party insiders, who believed Dean was stripping away important resources from key races, were privately and, on occasion, publicly livid.
Had Clinton won the nomination, I have little doubt that Dean would be out as Party chair and the state and local Democratic infrastructure that Dean has developed would be dismantled in favor of concentrating Party resources in a few states, the strategy that led to two Clinton "victories" -- pluralities, never majorities -- and the loss of Congress to radical Republicans back in the day.
That was one of my beefs with the whole idea of a Clinton Restoration: we'd go backwards in terms of party organization, which would lead, not surprisingly, to loss of gains made over the past few years (as inadequate as they have been, those gains are better than retreat.)
So when Obama and Dean got together the other day and Obama proclaimed his enthusiasm for both Dean and the 50 State Strategy, I was very pleased indeed.
Well. At least he's got enough delegates lined up to take the nomination if they don't change their minds between now and August. Which they are very unlikely to do. But, given the way things have been going this campaign season, nothing would surprise me anymore.
And there is plenty to be troubled about regarding some of the elements of the Obama campaign.
First things first. Let's get it out on the table and out of the way: too many of Obama's most ardent supporters have become disreputable punks. They've been led by people who have become some truly repellant internet characters like Markos and Aravosis and Arianna, and their primary objective has been to trash Hillary and her supporters relentlessly. It long since reached the point of an obscenity. And apparently, no matter what, they cannot let go of their hatred and contempt of The Clintons and anyone (which amounts to almost half the Democratic Party, and pretty much all of the the Republican Party) who does not sing the praises of Obama long and loud enough.
There is no Obama Presidency in January of next year if the Clinton supporters who have been rigorously alienated by Obamaites sit this one out or -- far less likely -- vote for McCain. You don't do a purge until after you've got the Power, but for whatever reason, Obamaites have an urge to purge right now, and they don't care how it affects matters in the future.
All those old white women who support Hillary can just go Cheney themselves, now and forever more.
OK boys. Have it your way. But don't go crying that the Nasty Old Coot Republicans stole your presidency -- because you are doing a fine job fucking it up yourself. Keep it up.
Digby has been one of the saner voices in the blogosphere about what is going on, and she has been relentlessly trashed by Internet Thugs for Obama when she tells the truth. Unfortuantely, in this campaign season, "Truth" is the thing that cannot be told, ever, or the illusion, the gossamer bubble that surrounds the Obama campaign, will burst. She's a CLINTON SUPPORTER!!!!! Get her!!!!
There are and have been plenty of reasons not to support Hillary, primarily her warmongering in my view, but that's apparently too simple for the Internet Thugs for Obama to contemplate. No, they see their mission as one of complete destruction of The Clintons, their Machine, and all their fans and supporters, scorched earth, from here to eternity.
It's insane. It's Stalinist. Oh boy, let's trade one set of Authoritarian Thugs for another. Send the Busheviks into Siberia and bring in the Obamamaniacs -- to complete the task of purging and Autocracy.
Lucky us.
Unfortunately, that's the flip side of the vision of hope and change that Obama has been marketing, in one of the slickest and most appealing presidential campaigns since RFK's in 1968. In the background are all these droogs.
Is that the lesson that we've learned from the constant crisis and thuggery of the Bushevik years? Maybe so. Or is it all more illusion? Is all this implied threat and internet thuggery more apparent than real? It isn't really there, and millions of Americans aren't really and completely alienated from the Obama campaign and he's gonna win by double digits in the fall, and we're gonna be happy again, just you watch.
I guess we're going to find out, aren't we?
There's plenty that Hillary and her campaign did wrong, first on principle: those unrepudiated votes for blood and gore and Empire. She couldn't be my candidate any more than Kerry could. That's very straightforward, and it doesn't require smearing and psy-ops to communicate. She has terrible judgement when it comes to the fundamentals like war and peace and whether the United States should act like the biggest bully on the block.
Hillary is not my candidate, she has never been my candidate. But I have defended her when I thought she was being unfairly smeared by the Obama Droogs.
And THAT made me a "Hillary Supporter!" to be targeted for the purges underway and to come. Defending Hillary from unfair smears was enough. That's not just Stalinist, that's full on Cultural Revolution Maoism.
The key question for me now: If McCain wins in the fall -- which is not beyond the realm of possibility if the wedges driven between Democrats aren't removed (and not by eliminating the dissenters) -- would he be more or less totalitarian? We know he's an authoritarian and wants to become an Autocrat like his mentor Bush. Would he turn into an all out Totalitarian? Could be. He's not running for President, he's running for Commander In Chief and he sees his future like Patton before the Flag. That may mean, to him, that the nation's already tattered and shaken self governing constitutional republic is finally extinguished replaced by a quasi military junta that operates on a distinctly Basic Training model. Yep, that's totalitarianism.
If Obama wins -- and it's an uphill climb, but he's done it before -- does he build on the Bush legacy of civilian authoritarianism and institute his own brand of totalitarianism? Or will he curb the excesses of some of his supporters?
Until now, we've resisted the temptation to post on former White House press secretary Scott McClellan's new book, which accuses the Bush White House of launching a propaganda campaign to sell the war in Iraq.
Why? It's not news. At least not to some of us who've covered the story from the start.
That's just getting warmed up.
After a bit of background history they unleash the big guns. If it got any coverage outside the blogosphere, it would demolish -- forever -- the notion that the White House wasn't fully involved in a propganda operation to foist its war of choice on the American People, the Iraqis, and the World, and it would by itself be sufficient to taint the memory of this repugnant regime for the rest of time. Read the whole thing. But here are a couple of key excerpts:
Here's what happened, based entirely on our own reporting and publicly available documents:
* The Bush administration was gunning for Iraq within days of the 9/11 attacks, dispatching a former CIA director, on a flight authorized by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, to find evidence for a bizarre theory that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the first World Trade Center attack in 1993. (Note: See also Richard Clarke and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill on this point).
* Bush decided by February 2002, at the latest, that he was going to remove Saddam by hook or by crook. (Yes, we reported that at the time).
* White House officials, led by Dick Cheney, began making the case for war in August 2002, in speeches and reports that not only were wrong, but also went well beyond what the available intelligence said at that time, and contained outright fantasies and falsehoods. Indeed, some of that material was never vetted with the intelligence agencies before it was peddled to the public.
* Dissenters, or even those who voiced worry about where the policy was going, were ignored, excluded or punished. (Note: See Gen. Eric Shinseki, Paul O'Neill, Joseph Wilson and all of the State Department 's Arab specialists and much of its intelligence bureau.
The disgraceful spectacle of the White House/Winter Palace and its sychophants in the Media scrambling to cover their own asses at Little Scotty's "revelations" has been very entertaining on one level, but the fact remains that the Truth is yet to be accepted by our nation's power elites, who consistently run from it like the cockroaches they are.
Millions are dead, injured or displaced. Chaos ensues. All for lies. That is the legacy of this putrid period of history.
Mark Slouka over at Harpers slays some of the dragons of Democratic politesse in his outstanding article: Democracy and deference
We need more of this kind of rebelliousness.
You say I’m tilting at human nature? That the race of man loves a lord—and always has? That power (and what good is power if it can’t be abused a little, no?) has always been one of the time-honored perks of success, and that, of all the lies told, the one about all men being created equal is the most patently absurd? Perhaps. But surely one could argue that the American democratic experiment was at least in part an attempt to challenge this “reality,” to establish a political and legal culture from which would emerge, organically, a new sensibility: independent, unburdened by the protocols of class, skeptical of inherited truths. Willing to be disobedient. To moon the lord.
Alas, if that was the plan, it went sideways a long time ago. In today’s America, the majority is nothing if not impressed by power and fame (its legitimacy is irrelevant), nothing if not obedient. As for mooning the lord, the ass to the glass these days is more likely to be the lord’s, and our own posture toward it, well, something short of heroic. Worse yet, should someone decide to take offense, and suggest that it is not the lord’s place to act thusly, he will be set upon by the puckering multitude who will punish him for his impertinence.
Politico's Mike Allen went over to Borders in DC and bought a copy of Little Scotty McClellan's book -- which is to be released next week, hmmm -- and then blared all over creation that Little Scotty is dissing Bush and -- get this -- the Media, and all of a sudden there is massive spin under way to protect and defend the Media and the Busheviks from the dangers of an insider run amok.
Just observe Timmeh's "concern" in the clip above. This is, like, serious as a heart attack.
Propaganda
Permanent campaign
Serious strategic blunder
Insulated from reality
Deceiving
Lie
State of denial
Out of touch
As Meridith says, he's just plain bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter Little Man.
120,000 little white flags and over 4,000 little red flags have been placed on the Capitol Mall in Sacramento; each of the white flags represents at least 5 Iraqis who have perished since the American led invasion of Iraq in 2003; each red flag represents one dead American soldier.
This exhibit runs for five blocks in the median lawn of the Mall. I passed by it today around noon on my way to somewhere else. Bureaucrats were studying the display, and one man, clearly moved by it, stood on the sidewalk and cried. Others were riveted to the acres and acres of little white and red flags, some fluttering so strongly in the wind between the tall buildings they appeared to be screaming out in agony.
The other day while combing the discard book bins at Goodwill, I pulled out what looked like it was probably a high school year book from Hawaii, from, say, sometime in the Fifties or early Sixties. Didn't check it for what it really was until yesterday, and then, I was astonished.
Turns out this yearbook is a yearbook -- well, a record of three and a half years -- of Navy Seabees in the Pacific in World War II, and as such it is one of the most remarkable documents of the War in the Pacific I've ever seen.
What follows are scans of some random early pages of this journal to give you an idea of how these men of the Fifth Naval Construction Battalion saw their experiences in the War, who they were, their dedication, the adversity they knew every day, their triumph. As far as I can tell, this yearbook was produced soon after V-J Day, perhaps as early as September 1945, or possibly as late as sometime in 1946. The men depicted are of my father's generation in many cases (he was drafted in 1944, when he was already middle-aged, and served as a legal officer in the Army Air Corps through its transformation into the Air Force.)
Their basic decency shines through this record. Though we might today criticize some of their commanders' decisions and actions, it is not because we would dispute their humanity or their commitment to building a better world.
What strikes me about this journal most of all is the contrast between these truly amazing, and I think heroic, men in the Pacific from 1942 to 1945 and the sham of "heroism" and "defense of democracy" that the Busheviks have made of our military, and the insults and contempt with which they treat the brave men and women who continue to serve as best they can a corrupt regime, rotten to the core.
There is no comparison. The pride I feel for the SeaBees in their Journal of Two Journeys contrasts so strongly with the shame I feel for what the Busheviks have done to their honor, and the honor of the American People, I can't help but be overcome.
Pissy Pants has sent his envoys over to the Sudan to treat with the genocidal dictator thereof, one Omar Hassan al-Bashir, the Despoiler of Darfur, according to the Washington Post story linked at MSNBC.com, Scourge of All Things Bush and Hillary.
Lucky us.
So, it would seem there are some genocidal dictators it's perfectly acceptable to negotiate with, in Bush World, so long as he or his people are doing the chit-chat; the minute someone else does it or says they will, it's Chamberlainian Appeasement to be denounced at home and in foreign lands.
Got it.
Bashir's government has been accused by Bush of participating in a "genocide" in Darfur, the only U.S. government use of such a strong accusation. Yet Richard S. Williamson's visit to Khartoum follows a series of direct contacts by senior Bush administration officials with the Sudanese president, including Secretaries of State Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice, Rice's deputies, and several special presidential envoys.
Bush has spoken to or exchanged letters with Bashir on numerous occasions, underscoring how White House policy has departed from his pointed public call to shun talks with radical tyrants and dictators. His appointees have also pursued aggressive diplomacy with North Korea and Libya and have even conducted limited business with Cuba, Syria and Iran.
In the case of Sudan, experts are deeply divided about how much the administration's engagement has improved conditions in a country beset for decades by mass violence and famine. It has at least provoked charges of hypocrisy, because Bush recently accused those advocating talks with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other radical figures of "appeasement."
"The Bush administration has spent years not only talking at very senior levels with one of the world's worst tyrants, who is responsible for genocide, but also reportedly offered the regime major concessions in exchange for minor steps and rolled out the red carpet for some of its most reprehensible officials," said Susan E. Rice, who handled Africa policy in the Clinton administration and is a top adviser to the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
Of course the issue isn't "appeasement" at all, it's maintaining power, authority and control over not just the processes of government and diplomacy, but the very act of thinking about them.
Thus, anyone else who does or says something about diplomatic overtures toward foes, real or imagined, is instantly tarred with the "appeasement" brush because that's the means to defend political power over opposition. What the Bush regime does, including appeasing foes (such as by withdrawing bases from Saudi Arabia, overthrowing Saddam, etc, both of which were desired and/or ordered by the Arch Devil Usama) may have nothing at all to do with the rhetoric it uses in pursuit and exerecise of power.
Of course Americans have been witnessing this for years, and they're heartily sick of it. They see Princess McCain trying to pull the same sort of crap.
What's interesting in some ways is that the Washington Post has chosen to call "bullshit" here.
WASHINGTON - If his cell were at Guantanamo Bay, the prisoner would be just one of hundreds of suspected terrorists detained offshore, where the U.S. says the Constitution does not apply.
But Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is a U.S. resident being held in a South Carolina military brig; he is the only enemy combatant held on U.S. soil. That makes his case very different.
Al-Marri's capture six years ago might be the Bush administration's biggest domestic counterterrorism success story. Authorities say he was an al-Qaida sleeper agent living in middle America, researching poisonous gasses and plotting a cyberattack.
That this situation has been going on for six years now, and counting, may come as a surprise to most Americans who remain blithely oblivious to the peril each and every one of them has been in since the Busheviks seized the reins of Imperial Government.
Six years a legal US resident has been held in a military brig without charge?
Indeed.
"Authorities say..." And that's what's at issue here. On the "say so" of The Authorities, including Bush himself, Al-Marri has been held for six years and potentially could be held forever.
To justify holding him, the government claimed a broad interpretation of the president's wartime powers, one that goes beyond warrantless wiretapping or monitoring banking transactions. Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.
And you know what? The Government's claim is that anyone can be rounded up and held prisoner without charge, indefinitely.
Anyone. That means you. That means me.
Al-Marri has been designated the test for this radical, unAmerican proposition.
The government says the president needs this power to keep the nation safe. Al-Marri's lawyers say that as long as the president can detain anyone he wants, nobody is safe.
Well, isn't that the truth.
On June 23, 2003, Bush declared al-Marri an enemy combatant, which stripped him of those rights. Bush wrote that al-Marri possessed intelligence vital to protect national security. In his jail cell in Peoria, however, he could refuse to speak with investigators.
A military brig allowed more options. Free from the constraints of civilian law, the military could interrogate al-Marri without a lawyer, detain him without charge and hold him indefinitely. Courts have agreed the president has wide latitude to imprison people captured overseas or caught fighting against the U.S. That is what the prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba is for.
But al-Marri was not in Guantanamo Bay.
"The president is not a king and cannot lock people up forever in the United States based on his say-so," said Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer who represents al-Marri and other detainees. "Today it's Mr. al-Marri. Tomorrow it could be you, a member of your family, someone you know. Once you allow the president to lock people up for years or even life without trial, there's no going back."
Yes. And this is where we are in this nation right now. Most Americans are oblivious to it because this particular perversion of law and the Constitution does not directly affect them right now. Consequently, what happens to this Scary Muslim Man is of no consequence for them, and furthermore there are lawyers arguing the case before a federal court so what's the problem anyway?
Courts have gone back and forth on al-Marri's case as it worked its way through the system. The last decision, a 2-1 ruling by a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel, found that the president had crossed the line and al-Marri must be returned to the civilian court system. Anything else would "alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic," the judges said.
The full appeals court is reviewing that decision and a ruling is expected soon. During arguments last year, government lawyers said the courts should give great deference to the president when the nation is at war.
"What you assert is the power of the military to seize a person in the United States, including an American citizen, on suspicion of being an enemy combatant?" Judge William B. Traxler asked.
"Yes, your honor," Justice Department lawyer Gregory Garre replied.
So. Really. What's the problem? As long as it is just Scary Arabs and Other Morenos, who cares?
One judge questioned why there was such anxiety over the policy. After all, there have been no mass roundups of citizens and no indications the White House is coming for innocent Americans next.
Why fret?
Another judge said the question is not whether the president was generous in his use of power; it is whether the power is constitutional.
This is why the issue of domestic surveillance as it applies to the FISA "reforms" being hammered out in Congress is so important:
In June 1970 Nixon met with Hoover, Helms, NSA Director Admiral Noel Gaylor, and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) representative Lt. Gen. Donald V. Bennett and told them he wanted a coordinated and concentrated effort against domestic dissenters. To do that, he was creating the Interagency Committee on Intelligence (ICI), chaired by Hoover. The first ICI report, in late June, recommended new efforts in "black bag operations," wiretapping, and a mail-opening program. In late July 1970, Huston told the members of the ICI that their recommendations had been accepted by the White House. (13)
John Dean replaced Tom Huston as White House aide in charge of domestic intelligence, and at his urging, a Justice Department group, the Intelligence Evaluation Committee, was established to study domestic groups, over Hoover's protest. Deteriorating relations between the FBI and the other intelligence agencies, especially the CIA, caused Hoover to fire William Sullivan. At that time, Sullivan was the liaison officer between the FBI and the other intelligence agencies and he strongly favored the expansion of domestic operations.
Second Thoughts Even Helms began to have second thoughts about how large CHAOS had grown, but Nixon made it clear to him that the CIA was a presidential tool he wanted at his disposal. Helms got the message, yet he also understood the growing uneasiness in other government circles. In 1972, the CIA's Inspector General wrote a report that expressed concern about Operation CHAOS in the following way: "... we also encountered general concern over what appeared to be a monitoring of the political views and activities of Americans not known to be or suspected of being involved in espionage ... Stations were asked to report on the whereabouts and activities of prominent persons ... whose comings and goings were not only in the public domain, but for whom allegations of subversion seemed sufficiently nebulous to raise renewed doubts as to the nature and legitimacy of the CHAOS program." (14)
Helms was being squeezed by White House demands to expand Operation CHAOS and the fear that the whole question of domestic operations was going to become public knowledge, as Hoover feared. Helms found himself constantly shoring up one lie with another and then another. He found himself deceiving Congress and lying to the public as well as CIA employees. In March 1971, a group of young CIA executives known as the Management Advisory Group (MAG) protested Operation CHAOS and similar domestic operations by issuing a statement saying, "MAG opposes any Agency activity which could be construed as targeted against any person who enjoys the protection of the U.S. Constitution ... whether or not he resides in the United States." (15)
Helms of course denied the CIA was involved in domestic operations, or using basic American institutions such as the Peace Corps, the business community, or the media as covers for CIA operations. Just a few years later, Oswald Johnston of the Washing ton Star reported that over 35 American journalists, some full-time, some free-lance, and some major media correspondents were on the CIA payroll. And in 1974 the CIA admitted that over two hundred CIA agents were operating overseas posing as businessmen. (16)
The Collapse of the House of Cards The web of deception, misinformation, lies, and illegal domestic activities began to unravel with speed in the summer of 1972 when Howard Osborn, then Chief of Security for the CIA, informed Helms that two former CIA officers, E. Howard Hunt and James McCord, were involved in a burglary at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. The house of cards was about to come crashing down and Helms now wanted to salvage what he could and distance himself from not only Watergate but also the domestic operations. He appointed CIA Executive Director William Colby to handle any investigations into the Agency's domestic operations and began to prepare for the inevitable.
Helms was called to Camp David by President Nixon and subsequently fired. His replacement was James Schlesinger (who would last but a few months). Schlesinger would be replaced in July 1973 by Colby, and Helms would become U.S. Ambassador to Iran to get him as far away as possible. In an effort at damage control, Colby decided that Operation CHAOS and Project RESISTANCE should be terminated.
In 1975 the CIA underwent public investigation and scrutiny by both the Church and Rockefeller committees. These investigations revealed considerable evidence showing that the CIA had carried out its activities with a tremendous disregard for the law, both in the U.S. and abroad.
During the life of Operation CHAOS, the CIA had compiled personality files on over 13,000 individuals including more than 7,000 U.S. citizens as well as files on over 1,000 domestic groups. (17)
The CIA had shared information on more than 300,000 persons with different law enforcement agencies including the DIA and FBI. It had spied on, burglarized, intimidated, misinformed, lied to, deceived, and carried out criminal acts against thousands of citizens of the United States. It had placed itself above the law, above the Constitution, and in contempt of international diplomacy and the United States Congress. It had violated its charter and had contributed either directly or indirectly to the resignation of a President of the United States. It had tainted itself beyond hope.
Of all this, the CIA's blatant contempt for the rights of individuals was the worst. This record of deceit and illegality, implored Congress as well as the President to take extreme measures to control the Agency's activities. However, except for a few cosmetic changes made for public consumption such as the Congressional intelligence oversight committee nothing has been done to control the CIA. In fact, subsequent administrations have chosen to use the CIA for domestic operations as well. These renewed domestic operations began with Gerald Ford, were briefly limited by Jimmy Carter, and then extended dramatically by Ronald Reagan.
Any hope of curbing these illegal activities is scant. Recently, George Bush and current DCI William Webster announced a need to again target political enemies of the U.S. for assassination. It is ironic that Webster, a former Federal Judge, would chose to ignore the limits and constraints placed on the government by the Constitution. During his tenure as Director of the FBI, the bureau was once again involved in the infiltration of groups practicing their constitutional right to dissent against U.S. government policies. Once again, the FBI compiled thousands of files on individuals protesting Reagan's war against Nicaragua and support for the genocidal Salvadoran military. Now, Webster is in a position of perhaps even greater power and, without doubt, would have no qualms about abusing it.
Conclusion Given the power granted to the office of the presidency and the unaccountability of the intelligence agencies, widespread illegal domestic operations are certain. We as a people should remember history and not repeat it. It is therefore essential that the CIA be reorganized and stripped of its covert operations capability. Effective congressional oversight is also an important condition for ending the misuse of the intelligence apparatus that has plagued every U.S. administration since the formation of the CIA. A great deal is at risk our personal freedoms as well as the viability of this society. The CIA must be put in its place. Should we demand or allow anything less, we will remain vulnerable to these abuses and face the risk of decaying into a lawless state destined to self-destruction.
As was the case from the time of the formation of the CIA under president Truman, until the Watergate criminal revelations under president Nixon, we have no idea how extensive or pervasive domestic spying operations are in this country, nor do we really know the intent of this spying, but past history has demonstrated that presidential domestic surveillance operations have one primary goal: to detect and neutralize opposition.
Since sometime in 2001, whether before or after September 11, the Bush regime has been conducting illegal domestic surveillance operations using the many tools at its disposal to gain information on millions of Americans for what purpose we can only guess.
The current FISA "reform" struggle in Congress is over whether that illegal domestic surveillance shall be made legal and over whether the major telecom companies that cooperated in the illegal surveillance shall be immunized for their troubles.
In other words, shall we revert to pre-Watergate domestic surveillance operations and practices or not?
CNBC's report from May 20 is wending its way through the usual channels, raising a few hackles and the hair on the back of more than a few necks, as people begin to ponder how they can afford $4 a gallon to their Monster Trux and SUVs on the road. They were just getting used to paying $120 to fill up, now it's $150, and at $12 a gallon, they're looking at $450 to fill their Guzzler DeLuxe tank.
Lifestyles are changing as we watch.
Well, the price of regualr gas went to $4.17.9 a gallon at the Shell station on the corner, the highest price I've seen so far anywhere in town, and there were plenty of Guzzlers filling up when I passed by this evening. My own discount station down the street is holding the line at $3.99.9 for now, but how much longer will that last? I would bet not through next week, so I'll probably fill up the van, which I only drive once or twice a month, just in case. We have a little Pontiac Sunfire for most driving needs, and I find plenty of excuses not to drive, though I have to do some driving for my job.
Many people have taken to their bikes. So many, in fact, the surface streets are becoming clogged with bicyclists who are fairly unfamiliar with the rules of the road and for the time being are hazards to themselves and others. But I suspect they will sort themselves out quickly enough.
If gas does go to $12, fueled by the collapse of the dollar, massive speculation and bubble fever (because that's what's driving so much of inflation and economic misery right now), what could happen? The strain on the already thoroughly strained economy would potentially trigger a meltdown like we haven't seen since the Great Depression.
There might be no way to prevent that anyway, but the question is, what Americans do about it? For several years now there have been rising rates of foreclosures totalling millions annually, and yet despite some news stories about the plight of foreclosed homeowners, nearly all have simply moved on to who knows where or in what condition. They aren't living on the streets in cardboard boxes or filling the highways in their jalopies. Congress has been loathe and very slow to act. The "housing crisis" gets worse, but nothing really is being done about it (except to bail out the banks) and there is no strong sense of outrage. Not yet. But people have to have some place to live, and I suspect the only thing that's keeping the ranks of the homeless from growing exponentially so far is the overabundance of housing inventory. There's a lot of shuffling going on, but so far not so much complete destitution and dispossession.
Food prices have increased dramatically and are likely to continue to spiral into the stratosphere. People cope as best they can right now by shifting to less expensive foodstuffs, but many have already reached the lower limit, and there is nowhere left to go but to cut back on quantity. That may be a good thing for some folks, but for others it could be deadly.
Household energy prices will continue to rise, squeezing already strapped households even more severely. Something will have to give.
Employment has been flat, wages and salaries flat. In certain sectors, there has been a distinct decline in both wages and employment. This does not bode well for the future.
People on fixed incomes are once again screwed as purchasing power becomes a figment of their imaginations.
Savings -- what savings? -- are wiped out.
So far, our elites have not concerned themselves with this looming crisis because they don't have to. Nothing at all is happening to make their lives any less luxe, and increase in prices so far amounts to little more than the change fallen under the cushions for the rich. Prices rise, prices fall, it makes little difference.
And some prices have fallen so much (such as for homes) that people who have plenty of money are snapping up "bargains" such as they haven't seen in years, decades. Oh joy! Oh rapture!
And the Little People?
Not their time yet.
Not their time.
UPDATE: Whoops! Too late. Went to gas up the van at the discount station down the street this morning thinking they'd still be at $3.99.9 a gallon, regular. But no!
$4.19.9! A 20 cent increase overnight.
The Shell station on the corner is still at $4.17.9 (been there for a week), and the next station down the boulevard is $4.09.9.
UPDATE, LOS DOS: Well. That didn't last long. Regular is now $4.25.9 at the Shell station. Still $4.19.9 at the discount station down the street, and it's now $4.17.9 at the next one further on.
In addition, one 76 station about a mile away is offering diesel #2 at $5.29.9 a gallon.
So, the FISA controversy heats up with the ad buy targeting Chris Carney, Blue Dog of Pennsylvania, put together by Glenn Greenwald and good people at Firedoglake and elsewhere. The point being, of course, to prevent him from following through on his apostasy and voting for the GOP discharge petition in the House which would probably lead to the passage of the Cheney/Rockefeller (ie: Senate) FISA bill which provides immunity to the telecos that broke the law to surveille the American People.
Got that?
Even that's not the technical description of what this is all about, but the ads make it very plain what the problem is: government and corporations have been lawlessly spying on the American People, and congressmembers like Carney are prepared to "make it legal" and absolve the perps for what they have done.
Some in the blogosphere have finally risen up on their hind legs and said, "No!," and they're finally doing something about it besides writing stern letters and blogposts.
Good.
It appears that the GOP has been targeting Carney in just the same way for some time. And there are many Democratic constituencies that seem to think Carney is Teh Bomb. And apparently there have been ads run in his district from various Democratic interest groups thanking him for being such a great guy and doing so much for The People.
Meanwhile, from Radar, which sometimes gets things right, we're hearing about The Last Round Up, and the 8 million or more names on The List -- of dissidents and what have you -- who could well be hauled off to the Halliburton Camps when the Cheney/Bush Regime (or really any regime) declares martial law, suspends the Constitution and rules by decree. Something called "Main Core", been assembling its badboy lists for ages, and is just waiting for the right "Pearl Harbor" moment to strike.
Who's paranoid? What do you mean? Stop saying that!
I was dancing a few years back when it seemed that the locals had driven Rumsfeld out of Taos, where he had a timeshare in a ranch and would periodically sally forth to spread outrage and despair among the populace.
They'd take the Giant Puppets down to the gates of the ranch and chant anti-Rummy chants, and they'd leave curses written on pieces of paper attached to the barbed wire, sometimes they'd even confront the evil little bastard in the flesh.
The Rummys found a local homeowner in financial distress, and bought her out at a steep discount, getting themselves a prime piece of Taos property for a song, and they did some dancing themselves. They are, they say, "frugal."
The evil Rummy and Mrs Rummy.
So the locals continue to protest and chant and carry around their Giant Puppets and have drum circles and express their displeasure at the pollution of their grand high mountain retreat, and the Rummys keep a low profile rather than be pelted with manure and rotten squash and other detritus.
I've been in New Mexico since Friday evening, and out where our place is, it's hi-lo cattle country, real ranches with real livestock and real cowboys, not the poseurs you might see other places. Of course, you go up to Santa Fe, and the situation is dramatically different, poseurs are everywhere, and everybody knows it, and few really care, except that you're not going to hear many kind things said around here about the pseudo-cowfolk (or much of anybody else) in Santa Fe.
We're near the edge of Santa Fe County, only about 45 minutes on an absolutely deserted highway to the Plaza, and the drive is really nice even in the dead of winter, so if the spirit is moved sufficiently, one can take to the road and shortly immerse oneself in the "Fanta Se Experience." I like to visit the galleries. Watch Zozobra burn. Have me a plate of New Mexico meatloaf (stuffed with corn and green chile, you haven't lived until you've had it). But who has time? Not me.
While the house is pretty much complete, the garage is a disaster (the contractors had to knock out parts of the walls to get the right size pine lumber to repair some of the floors in the house), and I just -- today -- found where I could get the right kind of materials to repair the garage. Oh boy! A half-assed job could have been done with contemporary materials, but I wanted something that would match the 100 year old shed, and the place that was recommended really couldn't come up with the right sort of materials. So I've been scouting for other resources, and behold, no more than five miles away, I found just the place. Romero's, of course. They don't have a website. This is New Mexico. Newfangled contraptions may be all the rage in Santa Fe, but when you're out in the country like this, it's best to keep it simple.
Then there's the landscaping. We had somebody doing preliminaries, but strangely, nothing came of it. She... disappeared. Well, she did some work, yes, but discovered it was going to be a little more challenging than she anticipated, and vamoosed.
And wouldn't you know, a neighbor came over one day and said, "You want us to clear your place? We can take care of it in an hour or two, take anything you don't want to the landfill." I said, sure. And sure enough, when I came back, they'd done an excellent job, and I expected they'd want to be paid. No. Not at all. Glad to help. At least I could do was buy them dinner.
We had skunks. Now we have cats. The cats have taken care of the skunk problem. And the cats, so far, aren't a problem themselves. Although the neighbors say it's wise not to get too attached to them because the coyotes come and get em. Ou. Coyotes.
I have seen coyotes in New Mexico, though not near here. Wildlife around here is mostly cottontails and antelope. And road runners. There are so many birds I can't begin to keep track of them all.
And there are cowboys. In the late spring, there's a big rodeo and cowboy gathering. People come from all over. Texas, even.
And on Sunday afternoons, I can listen to "Singing Wire" on the radio, and hear about the Frybread Queen, and Last Train to Hopiland.
Hard not to love this place.
Edit to add that the picture up top is of a carreta at Laguna Pueblo c. 1899
