Thursday, July 22, 2004
more boots, more bullets, but less basic before baghdad
the nytimes quotes a deputy commander of army recruiting command as saying that army recruiting stations have "experienced a downward production trend."
In what critics say is another sign of increasing stress on the military, the Army has been forced to bring more new recruits immediately into the ranks to meet recruiting goals for 2004, instead of allowing them to defer entry until the next accounting year, which starts in October.
As a result, recruiters will enter the new year without the usual cushion of incoming soldiers, making it that much harder to make their quotas for 2005. Instead of knowing the names of nearly half the coming year's expected arrivals in October, as the Army did last year, or even the names of around one in three, as is the normal goal, this October the recruiting command will have identified only about one of five of the boot camp class of 2005 in advance.
excellent. general hagenbeck, a personnel commander working with PERSCOMM went on to say the army would offset this shortage by adding 1,000 recruiters to the streets of america and would "expand the role of private civilian contractors."
ok...given the existing shortfalls in troop strength and the long haul we're looking at in terms of keeping our 700+ worldwide bases adequately staffed, how's that parking-lot recruiting scene from fahrenheit 911 gonna look in 2005 once we've depleted this year's class of entrants?...bet it'll go down a lil bit different:
1. the uniformed army recruiters approach "the mark", do the light chit-chat, look resplendent in his dress uniform, brag about neck-width until...
2. the "private civilian contractors" swoop down in black vans, masked and armed to the teeth. with a flash-bang, a quick slip of the hood over their new "grunt" and a tight tug of the zip-ties...
insta-recruit! very effective. good plan, PERSCOMM.
meanwhile, over at the business section of the washpost a headline reads: Running Low on Ammo: Military Turns to Overseas Suppliers to Cover Shortages.
good fucking job, guys.
the washpost quotes marcus corbin, an analyst for the center for defense information:
"The big complex programs don't do any good if there aren't bullets for the rifles."
holy shit. marcus corbin is a genius. he should be running the defense department, just step right in for rumsfeld.
but it's not as simple as all that. the headline suggests that we are literally running out of ammo in the field, that some soldier will hear the dreaded "click" of the hammer on empty and reach his belt to find nothing but empties. that isn't the case -- we have plenty of rounds to go around...
The military has a stockpile of 1 billion rounds but resists dipping into it except for extraordinary emergencies. "We have a good-sized stockpile" that we keep as "our trump card," Izzo said.
extraordinary emergencies...? as in, we have a land-based attack here at home? i can see why a red-dawn scenario prompts officials to keep a reserve here stateside, but...
who would fire those rounds in the event of such an emergency? aren't the majority percentages of NG and reservists overseas...? what would we do? throw bullets at our attackers???
no, they're doing the right thing by keeping our ammo here where we can reach it. the army has outsourced the gap in production to a company a lot closer to the front, where those bullets will be more readily available. the company...?
israeli military industries!
The Army's use of an Israeli company for ammunition supplies has raised concerns among some in Congress. Insurgents in Iraq could use the Israeli purchases as a recruiting tool, said Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), a member of the House Armed Services Committee. "It would be utilized by those who wish us ill," Abercrombie said. "To me it seems a very serious issue."
huh. now, i'm not prepared to enter the fray over our support for israel in regards to their "foreign policy", but it sure makes sense -- that an iraqi, insurgent or not, might just go over the edge when it's gone beyond american proxies for israeli soldiers despoiling his nation, and has escalated to the point where the israeli GDP is directly benefiting from the rounds tearing through his flesh. ruh-roh...
here's the last few tidbits from the post article:
1. Abercrombie said he was also concerned that the military should not depend on foreign suppliers to address critical war needs. "We need to keep the manufacturing base here and if that costs a little more money, so what?" he said. "If defense is worth having, it's worth paying for."
2. Other U.S. commercial ammunition makers could help fill the gap but cannot break existing contracts with private sector clients or foreign militaries.
3. The Army has refused to disclose the size of the contracts with Winchester or Israeli Military Industries but acknowledges they are paying a premium of 15 to 20 percent that it attributes to start-up costs, testing and the lower production rate. "With that kind of cost differential, did we really need" this ammunition immediately, given the Army's stockpile, asked Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee. Weldon estimated that the government is paying a significantly higher premium on the bullets.
that higher premium will be passed on to us. and i don't mean only in higher taxes, either. the awarding of contracts to arms-manufacturers operating in a bottom-line corporate fashion (and often on a "cost-plus" basis) will cost us in american lives. sure, it won't be direct cause-and-effect. we won't hear the click of an empty chamber followed by a murmured "oh shit" with much frequency in this engagement...
but we are gonna pay a premium, for sure.
| In what critics say is another sign of increasing stress on the military, the Army has been forced to bring more new recruits immediately into the ranks to meet recruiting goals for 2004, instead of allowing them to defer entry until the next accounting year, which starts in October.
As a result, recruiters will enter the new year without the usual cushion of incoming soldiers, making it that much harder to make their quotas for 2005. Instead of knowing the names of nearly half the coming year's expected arrivals in October, as the Army did last year, or even the names of around one in three, as is the normal goal, this October the recruiting command will have identified only about one of five of the boot camp class of 2005 in advance.
excellent. general hagenbeck, a personnel commander working with PERSCOMM went on to say the army would offset this shortage by adding 1,000 recruiters to the streets of america and would "expand the role of private civilian contractors."
ok...given the existing shortfalls in troop strength and the long haul we're looking at in terms of keeping our 700+ worldwide bases adequately staffed, how's that parking-lot recruiting scene from fahrenheit 911 gonna look in 2005 once we've depleted this year's class of entrants?...bet it'll go down a lil bit different:
1. the uniformed army recruiters approach "the mark", do the light chit-chat, look resplendent in his dress uniform, brag about neck-width until...
2. the "private civilian contractors" swoop down in black vans, masked and armed to the teeth. with a flash-bang, a quick slip of the hood over their new "grunt" and a tight tug of the zip-ties...
insta-recruit! very effective. good plan, PERSCOMM.
meanwhile, over at the business section of the washpost a headline reads: Running Low on Ammo: Military Turns to Overseas Suppliers to Cover Shortages.
good fucking job, guys.
the washpost quotes marcus corbin, an analyst for the center for defense information:
"The big complex programs don't do any good if there aren't bullets for the rifles."
holy shit. marcus corbin is a genius. he should be running the defense department, just step right in for rumsfeld.
but it's not as simple as all that. the headline suggests that we are literally running out of ammo in the field, that some soldier will hear the dreaded "click" of the hammer on empty and reach his belt to find nothing but empties. that isn't the case -- we have plenty of rounds to go around...
The military has a stockpile of 1 billion rounds but resists dipping into it except for extraordinary emergencies. "We have a good-sized stockpile" that we keep as "our trump card," Izzo said.
extraordinary emergencies...? as in, we have a land-based attack here at home? i can see why a red-dawn scenario prompts officials to keep a reserve here stateside, but...
who would fire those rounds in the event of such an emergency? aren't the majority percentages of NG and reservists overseas...? what would we do? throw bullets at our attackers???
no, they're doing the right thing by keeping our ammo here where we can reach it. the army has outsourced the gap in production to a company a lot closer to the front, where those bullets will be more readily available. the company...?
israeli military industries!
The Army's use of an Israeli company for ammunition supplies has raised concerns among some in Congress. Insurgents in Iraq could use the Israeli purchases as a recruiting tool, said Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), a member of the House Armed Services Committee. "It would be utilized by those who wish us ill," Abercrombie said. "To me it seems a very serious issue."
huh. now, i'm not prepared to enter the fray over our support for israel in regards to their "foreign policy", but it sure makes sense -- that an iraqi, insurgent or not, might just go over the edge when it's gone beyond american proxies for israeli soldiers despoiling his nation, and has escalated to the point where the israeli GDP is directly benefiting from the rounds tearing through his flesh. ruh-roh...
here's the last few tidbits from the post article:
1. Abercrombie said he was also concerned that the military should not depend on foreign suppliers to address critical war needs. "We need to keep the manufacturing base here and if that costs a little more money, so what?" he said. "If defense is worth having, it's worth paying for."
2. Other U.S. commercial ammunition makers could help fill the gap but cannot break existing contracts with private sector clients or foreign militaries.
3. The Army has refused to disclose the size of the contracts with Winchester or Israeli Military Industries but acknowledges they are paying a premium of 15 to 20 percent that it attributes to start-up costs, testing and the lower production rate. "With that kind of cost differential, did we really need" this ammunition immediately, given the Army's stockpile, asked Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee. Weldon estimated that the government is paying a significantly higher premium on the bullets.
that higher premium will be passed on to us. and i don't mean only in higher taxes, either. the awarding of contracts to arms-manufacturers operating in a bottom-line corporate fashion (and often on a "cost-plus" basis) will cost us in american lives. sure, it won't be direct cause-and-effect. we won't hear the click of an empty chamber followed by a murmured "oh shit" with much frequency in this engagement...
but we are gonna pay a premium, for sure.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
dwindling numbers in IN national guard
this is alarming. doubly so, given the devastation in parts of indiana and its neighboring states this last week -- how many troops, i wonder, are available for all that clean-up if they're struggling to keep the rosters full in iraq?
excerpts:
Almost two-thirds of Indiana National Guardsmen in a battalion that spent a year in Iraq chose not to re-enlist when their service time expired.
[...]
Over the past 21 months, the service contracts of 102 soldiers in the 1st Battalion of the 152nd Regiment expired. Of those, 32, or less than one-third, chose to re-enlist.
The unit typically keeps 85 percent of its members, a sergeant in charge of retaining members said.
"What killed us was the stop-loss," [he] said. "There wasn't a whole lot we could do."
the article cites figures that indicate that by spring 2003, over 93% of the IN sample battalion (1st of the 152nd) was deployed in iraq.
93%. of a sample national guard battalion...
so, on any given sunday:
just how safe should hoosiers feel here at home when they're being protected by less than 10% of their active units...?
homeland (in)security, anyone?
i mean, i thought fighting terrorism wasn't supposed to be a "law enforcement" matter anymore, but it seems more the case each day that we're leaving it all just to local cops and rescue. why can't the war on terrorism be pre-emptive here at home? or at least, preventative?
| excerpts:
Almost two-thirds of Indiana National Guardsmen in a battalion that spent a year in Iraq chose not to re-enlist when their service time expired.
[...]
Over the past 21 months, the service contracts of 102 soldiers in the 1st Battalion of the 152nd Regiment expired. Of those, 32, or less than one-third, chose to re-enlist.
The unit typically keeps 85 percent of its members, a sergeant in charge of retaining members said.
"What killed us was the stop-loss," [he] said. "There wasn't a whole lot we could do."
the article cites figures that indicate that by spring 2003, over 93% of the IN sample battalion (1st of the 152nd) was deployed in iraq.
93%. of a sample national guard battalion...
so, on any given sunday:
just how safe should hoosiers feel here at home when they're being protected by less than 10% of their active units...?
homeland (in)security, anyone?
i mean, i thought fighting terrorism wasn't supposed to be a "law enforcement" matter anymore, but it seems more the case each day that we're leaving it all just to local cops and rescue. why can't the war on terrorism be pre-emptive here at home? or at least, preventative?
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
(more) confessions of a reformed naderite
well, not confessions exactly. i've already poured out my soul to you, and it seems you've forgiven me. but i think nader might have some confessions of his own to make, even if he doesn't quite know it yet. the ego is a tricky thing -- very good at delusion and denial.
if you haven't seen the transcript of the recent conversation between nada and salon editor david talbot today, go read the whole thing. it's priceless. here are some of my favorite bits:
Nader: [on salon's piece "Strange Alliance: Why Is Rupert Murdoch's Media Empire Publishing Ralph Nader's Latest Tome?"]...I mean, this one doesn't even pass the laugh test. Where's your banking done? Do you know any major publisher that isn't owned by a pig conglomerate?
Talbot: Rupert Murdoch is not a typical media mogul. You and I know what his agenda is and what his impact has been on American politics and culture.
Nader: Hey, wait a minute! If he had censored my book, you would've written an article saying, "Hey, now we can prove that these conglomerate CEOs are censorious and anti-democratic because they rejected Nader's book!" Six of one, half dozen of the other. You had it both ways, didn't you?
Talbot: You of all people, Ralph, know -- because we quoted you on this very subject -- what an unusual and unusually noxious role Mr. Murdoch has played in the American media landscape. And for you, of all people, to deny that and say, "Oh he's just another run-of-the-mill media mogul" is disingenuous.
Nader: Wait, wait, let me clarify this. Give me a few seconds, will you? Number one, I've gone after Murdoch mercilessly in my speeches; number two, we've challenged his acquisitions when he tried to own the papers in Boston and New York and so forth. So that wasn't just talk. And his messing around with China and kowtowing to China.
But to follow your principle would be for me to say, "I don't want anything to do with NBC. It's owned by a pig company called GE. And I certainly don't want anything to do with MSNBC because it's owned by both GE and Microsoft." They are worse than Rupert Murdoch, and I will tell you why -- Rupert Murdoch does not produce death-dealing weapons and sell them to dictatorships
[...]
Talbot: Well, you and I will have to agree to disagree on the uniquely noxious role that Rupert Murdoch plays in the American media.
Nader: Well, let me trap you. Will you let me trap you? What if your brilliant Salon articles were reported on Murdoch's television programs -- would you object to that? Would you? What if they said, "Salon reported today etc., etc.," and they carried your message to millions of people that you don't reach. Would you object to that?
Talbot: This is different. He is paying you a good advance to publish your book because he has political interests in what you're doing in the presidential campaign.
Nader: He's paying me money to fight the likes of him and everyone else!
aha, that pesky ego! talk about traps.
so, let me get this straight. rupert murdoch is paying nada, not to hoist nada as a battle flag against kerry and the dems. nope, rupert murdoch is paying nada to fight rupert murdoch.
hmmm. right. that makes sense.
not at all. but let's move on. this is another great tidbit:
Talbot: Why are these conservative groups helping you then?
Nader: Because they're mischievous, that's why! They want to get their name in the paper and trick people like Salon.
oh, those pesky, mischevious neocons! aren't they cute.
there's also the fantastic moment when talbot calls nada on having lost his progressive perspective and nada responds,
OK, now I've flushed you out. Now you've come out. I'm an expert in flushing out bias, prejudice and prejudgment. And you've demonstrated all three.
you know what? you really should just read it all for yourself. it's extraordinary.
it's really so exciting, isn't it? the repugs are gonna push back elections, fight democracy with fear, and fight kerry with nader. and nader...hero of consumers everywhere, advocate of the people...is going to play right into it.
once again, i ask -- where are you thomas f. zorn, white house ethics advisor?!** i've got someone for you who needs an appointment pronto!
***
**UPDATE:: there's not much out there about the myth, the man, the ethicist tom zorn -- no speeches, no lectures or interviews. but! if you want to get in touch with mr. zorn and ask him directly what the hell he's doing to earn his 124K a year on the WH payroll, here's tom's most recent published contact information:
Office of Government Ethics
ATTN: Thomas F. Zorn, Deputy Director
Suite 500
1201 New York Avenue
Washington, DC 20005-3917
tel :: 202.456.5336
email :: tfzorn@oge.gov
here's a sample letter you can cut/paste into your email for thomas zorn. or feel free to modify it to your taste...
Dear Mr. Zorn,
I'm writing as a concerned American citizen. I'm concerned because the administration currently in residence at the White House seems to be experiencing some serious lapses in ethical thinking and action.
I wonder exactly what it is that you do at the White House every day as the President's Ethics Advisor -- the person responsible for seeing to it that the White House conduct itself morally. Why aren't you helping our President and his cabinet make better choices?
George W. Bush and his Administration's practices of consistently witholding and distorting information, exploiting the fear of the American people post-9/11, and creating policy to please the corporations that bankroll him are unconscionable.
Mr. Zorn, I urge you to step up to the plate and tell the President the truth, that he's acting unethically -- that lying and fearmongering do not comply with the standards that someone of his position is sworn to uphold.
Sincerely,
ethics is hard. but really, really fun. i'm sure tom wants to hear from you -- so don't delay.
| if you haven't seen the transcript of the recent conversation between nada and salon editor david talbot today, go read the whole thing. it's priceless. here are some of my favorite bits:
Nader: [on salon's piece "Strange Alliance: Why Is Rupert Murdoch's Media Empire Publishing Ralph Nader's Latest Tome?"]...I mean, this one doesn't even pass the laugh test. Where's your banking done? Do you know any major publisher that isn't owned by a pig conglomerate?
Talbot: Rupert Murdoch is not a typical media mogul. You and I know what his agenda is and what his impact has been on American politics and culture.
Nader: Hey, wait a minute! If he had censored my book, you would've written an article saying, "Hey, now we can prove that these conglomerate CEOs are censorious and anti-democratic because they rejected Nader's book!" Six of one, half dozen of the other. You had it both ways, didn't you?
Talbot: You of all people, Ralph, know -- because we quoted you on this very subject -- what an unusual and unusually noxious role Mr. Murdoch has played in the American media landscape. And for you, of all people, to deny that and say, "Oh he's just another run-of-the-mill media mogul" is disingenuous.
Nader: Wait, wait, let me clarify this. Give me a few seconds, will you? Number one, I've gone after Murdoch mercilessly in my speeches; number two, we've challenged his acquisitions when he tried to own the papers in Boston and New York and so forth. So that wasn't just talk. And his messing around with China and kowtowing to China.
But to follow your principle would be for me to say, "I don't want anything to do with NBC. It's owned by a pig company called GE. And I certainly don't want anything to do with MSNBC because it's owned by both GE and Microsoft." They are worse than Rupert Murdoch, and I will tell you why -- Rupert Murdoch does not produce death-dealing weapons and sell them to dictatorships
[...]
Talbot: Well, you and I will have to agree to disagree on the uniquely noxious role that Rupert Murdoch plays in the American media.
Nader: Well, let me trap you. Will you let me trap you? What if your brilliant Salon articles were reported on Murdoch's television programs -- would you object to that? Would you? What if they said, "Salon reported today etc., etc.," and they carried your message to millions of people that you don't reach. Would you object to that?
Talbot: This is different. He is paying you a good advance to publish your book because he has political interests in what you're doing in the presidential campaign.
Nader: He's paying me money to fight the likes of him and everyone else!
aha, that pesky ego! talk about traps.
so, let me get this straight. rupert murdoch is paying nada, not to hoist nada as a battle flag against kerry and the dems. nope, rupert murdoch is paying nada to fight rupert murdoch.
hmmm. right. that makes sense.
not at all. but let's move on. this is another great tidbit:
Talbot: Why are these conservative groups helping you then?
Nader: Because they're mischievous, that's why! They want to get their name in the paper and trick people like Salon.
oh, those pesky, mischevious neocons! aren't they cute.
there's also the fantastic moment when talbot calls nada on having lost his progressive perspective and nada responds,
OK, now I've flushed you out. Now you've come out. I'm an expert in flushing out bias, prejudice and prejudgment. And you've demonstrated all three.
you know what? you really should just read it all for yourself. it's extraordinary.
it's really so exciting, isn't it? the repugs are gonna push back elections, fight democracy with fear, and fight kerry with nader. and nader...hero of consumers everywhere, advocate of the people...is going to play right into it.
once again, i ask -- where are you thomas f. zorn, white house ethics advisor?!** i've got someone for you who needs an appointment pronto!
***
**UPDATE:: there's not much out there about the myth, the man, the ethicist tom zorn -- no speeches, no lectures or interviews. but! if you want to get in touch with mr. zorn and ask him directly what the hell he's doing to earn his 124K a year on the WH payroll, here's tom's most recent published contact information:
Office of Government Ethics
ATTN: Thomas F. Zorn, Deputy Director
Suite 500
1201 New York Avenue
Washington, DC 20005-3917
tel :: 202.456.5336
email :: tfzorn@oge.gov
here's a sample letter you can cut/paste into your email for thomas zorn. or feel free to modify it to your taste...
Dear Mr. Zorn,
I'm writing as a concerned American citizen. I'm concerned because the administration currently in residence at the White House seems to be experiencing some serious lapses in ethical thinking and action.
I wonder exactly what it is that you do at the White House every day as the President's Ethics Advisor -- the person responsible for seeing to it that the White House conduct itself morally. Why aren't you helping our President and his cabinet make better choices?
George W. Bush and his Administration's practices of consistently witholding and distorting information, exploiting the fear of the American people post-9/11, and creating policy to please the corporations that bankroll him are unconscionable.
Mr. Zorn, I urge you to step up to the plate and tell the President the truth, that he's acting unethically -- that lying and fearmongering do not comply with the standards that someone of his position is sworn to uphold.
Sincerely,
ethics is hard. but really, really fun. i'm sure tom wants to hear from you -- so don't delay.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
MISSING IN ACTION :: thomas f. zorn, white house ethics advisor
they're just trying to scare us. just trying to keep us too afraid to enter the polling stations. it's a bluff, they'd never...
that's what i've been telling myself, anyway.
you've all heard by now, i'm sure, that tom ridge and the folks over at the department of homeland security, bless their hearts, are seeking the authority to delay election day, based on their projection that
bin Laden and his top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, [are] overseeing attack plans from hideouts along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in "an effort to disrupt the democratic process."
(source: mtv news)
it seems that, despite this grave threat to our "democratic process", the threat level will remain at yellow, or elevated.
very few people can wear yellow. it's one of those colors that tends to make most complexions look very washed-out. maybe that's why yellow also tends to be a euphemism for cowardly. which is what ridge and his pals are. cowardly bullies, looking to strike unsubstantiated fear into the hearts of ordinary Americans who, unfortunately, tend to be dragged kicking and screaming to the polls come election time anyway, even when we're at a nicer threat color than yellow.
as mtv news reported,
Several government figures involved in this matter have expressed some doubt about the need for a drastic measure such as postponing the election. Representative Jane Harman (D-California), a ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said on CNN's "Late Edition" that plans to postpone the election are "excessive, based on what we know," and that they were based on "more chatter about old threats, which were the subject of a press conference by Attorney General [John] Ashcroft and [FBI] Director [Robert] Mueller six weeks ago.
"[Ridge] sounded more like an interior decorator talking about what more we can do under the shade of yellow," Harman said.
Other senators have reportedly questioned whether the timing of a private briefing given to Senators by CIA and FBI officials on Thursday was politically motivated, given that it took place two days after John Kerry announced his running mate. Ridge denied the allegation, calling it the "wrong interpretation."
um, excuse me but, wrong interpretation my ass.
we all know that it's exactly the right interpretation, and that it means that dubya, ridge and all the cronies have finally stooped to the new low we've been dreading. i know i for one have been hearing the whispers for weeks, but i somehow had deluded myself into denial of what was inevitably on its way.
according to the washpost, george w. bush's "ethics advisor", a man named thomas f. zorn, makes $124,166 a year. that's a pretty nice friggin' salary, if you ask me.
so where the heck is he?!?!?
hellooooo ethics advisor!! are you out there?!?! we need you!!! the raiders in the oval office are U.S.C., or as my friend would say -- up shit's creek -- and now find themselves in dire need of some ethical advisement.
| that's what i've been telling myself, anyway.
you've all heard by now, i'm sure, that tom ridge and the folks over at the department of homeland security, bless their hearts, are seeking the authority to delay election day, based on their projection that
bin Laden and his top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, [are] overseeing attack plans from hideouts along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in "an effort to disrupt the democratic process."
(source: mtv news)
it seems that, despite this grave threat to our "democratic process", the threat level will remain at yellow, or elevated.
very few people can wear yellow. it's one of those colors that tends to make most complexions look very washed-out. maybe that's why yellow also tends to be a euphemism for cowardly. which is what ridge and his pals are. cowardly bullies, looking to strike unsubstantiated fear into the hearts of ordinary Americans who, unfortunately, tend to be dragged kicking and screaming to the polls come election time anyway, even when we're at a nicer threat color than yellow.
as mtv news reported,
Several government figures involved in this matter have expressed some doubt about the need for a drastic measure such as postponing the election. Representative Jane Harman (D-California), a ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said on CNN's "Late Edition" that plans to postpone the election are "excessive, based on what we know," and that they were based on "more chatter about old threats, which were the subject of a press conference by Attorney General [John] Ashcroft and [FBI] Director [Robert] Mueller six weeks ago.
"[Ridge] sounded more like an interior decorator talking about what more we can do under the shade of yellow," Harman said.
Other senators have reportedly questioned whether the timing of a private briefing given to Senators by CIA and FBI officials on Thursday was politically motivated, given that it took place two days after John Kerry announced his running mate. Ridge denied the allegation, calling it the "wrong interpretation."
um, excuse me but, wrong interpretation my ass.
we all know that it's exactly the right interpretation, and that it means that dubya, ridge and all the cronies have finally stooped to the new low we've been dreading. i know i for one have been hearing the whispers for weeks, but i somehow had deluded myself into denial of what was inevitably on its way.
according to the washpost, george w. bush's "ethics advisor", a man named thomas f. zorn, makes $124,166 a year. that's a pretty nice friggin' salary, if you ask me.
so where the heck is he?!?!?
hellooooo ethics advisor!! are you out there?!?! we need you!!! the raiders in the oval office are U.S.C., or as my friend would say -- up shit's creek -- and now find themselves in dire need of some ethical advisement.
we're back. well, sort of...
"we" have been moving lately from the bowelry of nyc to the halls of justice in washington.
c-u-l-t-u-r-e-s-h-o-c-k.
there's been a ton of things to order, pack, reorder and unpack. and there's been a lot in the news too, not least of all rumors of a sphere-wide "blogger burn-out" before the election and the predicted shuttering of a number of the best blogs out there...
will thebigwedding meet the same fate? possibly. longevity and constancy are the hardest when you're working alone, with possibly no readers. but as i've told my friends, the blog is already up there and gets re-cached by google, so it'll always be there for me to return to. i've gotten past the set-up phase: formatting templates, typography, and not sucking. that was the hard part.
here's excerpts from a recent post by billmon, the proprietor of the excellent whiskey bar blog. billmon has returned to the blogosphere ( thank god! ) after a hiatus ( never again, please! ) of a few weeks and explains how painful those weeks were. he recounts the blogger-jones that kept nagging for more of his time, at the expense of his professional life, his kids and his dog.
This blogging thing is very strange - weirdly addictive once you start doing it, but easy to avoid when you're not doing it, if that makes any sense...
...All I know is that for the better part of the past two weeks, whenever I even thought about firing up Movable Type and banging out some random thoughts, an unpleasant sensation would come over me and a very strong, very clear voice in my head would say something like: "Why don't you go do something else, instead?" And I would have an overwhelming urge to do just that...
...It was almost as if I'd been put through some kind of Skinnerian aversion therapy - like that horrific scene from A Clockwork Orange, where the guys in the lab coats pump Alex full of drugs, clip his eyelids open, and force him to watch movies of war atrocities and other senseless butchery, all to the sounds of his favorite symphony, Beethovan's immortal 9th.
Which, come to think of it, isn't such a bad metaphor for what we've all been forced to endure for the past couple of years...Up until the past few weeks, however, blogging has been a cure - or at least a placebo - for existential dread and political despair, not a source of it. But then, for some reason I lost the desire, or at least the will, to keep talking...
...I don't know if I'll be able to regain my previous level of blogging productivity. Even without comment threads to moderate, frequent daily posting may be more than I can handle. But I'm going to try - in hopes that no matter what happens, like the last man in William Faulkner's Nobel acceptance speech, "there will still be one more sound: that of his puny, inexhaustible voice, still talking."
some people "think to talk" in life. i believe i am one of those who "talks to think". and that probably won't change, no matter how "puny" i feel. that said, you can be sure i'll be back here to do some more thinking things through. maybe not today. i have to find an apartment. but soon.
welcome back, billmon.
| c-u-l-t-u-r-e-s-h-o-c-k.
there's been a ton of things to order, pack, reorder and unpack. and there's been a lot in the news too, not least of all rumors of a sphere-wide "blogger burn-out" before the election and the predicted shuttering of a number of the best blogs out there...
will thebigwedding meet the same fate? possibly. longevity and constancy are the hardest when you're working alone, with possibly no readers. but as i've told my friends, the blog is already up there and gets re-cached by google, so it'll always be there for me to return to. i've gotten past the set-up phase: formatting templates, typography, and not sucking. that was the hard part.
here's excerpts from a recent post by billmon, the proprietor of the excellent whiskey bar blog. billmon has returned to the blogosphere ( thank god! ) after a hiatus ( never again, please! ) of a few weeks and explains how painful those weeks were. he recounts the blogger-jones that kept nagging for more of his time, at the expense of his professional life, his kids and his dog.
This blogging thing is very strange - weirdly addictive once you start doing it, but easy to avoid when you're not doing it, if that makes any sense...
...All I know is that for the better part of the past two weeks, whenever I even thought about firing up Movable Type and banging out some random thoughts, an unpleasant sensation would come over me and a very strong, very clear voice in my head would say something like: "Why don't you go do something else, instead?" And I would have an overwhelming urge to do just that...
...It was almost as if I'd been put through some kind of Skinnerian aversion therapy - like that horrific scene from A Clockwork Orange, where the guys in the lab coats pump Alex full of drugs, clip his eyelids open, and force him to watch movies of war atrocities and other senseless butchery, all to the sounds of his favorite symphony, Beethovan's immortal 9th.
Which, come to think of it, isn't such a bad metaphor for what we've all been forced to endure for the past couple of years...Up until the past few weeks, however, blogging has been a cure - or at least a placebo - for existential dread and political despair, not a source of it. But then, for some reason I lost the desire, or at least the will, to keep talking...
...I don't know if I'll be able to regain my previous level of blogging productivity. Even without comment threads to moderate, frequent daily posting may be more than I can handle. But I'm going to try - in hopes that no matter what happens, like the last man in William Faulkner's Nobel acceptance speech, "there will still be one more sound: that of his puny, inexhaustible voice, still talking."
some people "think to talk" in life. i believe i am one of those who "talks to think". and that probably won't change, no matter how "puny" i feel. that said, you can be sure i'll be back here to do some more thinking things through. maybe not today. i have to find an apartment. but soon.
welcome back, billmon.
Sunday, July 04, 2004
the patriot's act :: michael moore's recipe for the proud american
happy fourth of july.
mike moore wrote this oped in today's la times. he asks: what's a proud american? a silent one?
moore makes clear the real stigmatization that open questioning brings in the greater valleys of our country -- at work, at church, or in the home. the threat of retribution fielded by neighbors, employers, sometimes family...
but i live in downtown new yawk city. i can buy a pair of bikini panties with our flag on em right down the block. if i turn the corner, i can pick up a red-white-and-blue "rabbit" for $50.00. my block tranny is wearing stars & stripes tights. and they are too tight. so, i don't exactly know what moore is talking about...
here's an excerpt of moore's piece. you can read it in its entirety here.
For too long now we have abandoned our flag to those who see it as a symbol of war and dominance, as a way to crush dissent at home. Flags are flying from the back of SUVs, rising high above car dealerships, plastering the windows of businesses and adorning paper bags from fast-food restaurants. But these flags are intended to send a message: "You're either with us or you're against us," "Bring it on!" or "Watch what you say, watch what you do."
Those who absconded with our flag now use it as a weapon against those who question America's course. They remind me of that famous 1976 photo of an anti-busing demonstrator in Boston thrusting a large American flag on a pole into the stomach of the first black man he encountered. These so-called patriots hold the flag tightly in their grip and, in a threatening pose, demand that no one ask questions. Those who speak out find themselves shunned at work, harassed at school, booed off Oscar stages. The flag has become a muzzle, a piece of cloth stuffed into the mouths of those who dare to ask questions.
[...]
If you are one of those who love what President Bush has done for this country and believe you must blindly follow the president to deserve to fly the flag, you should ask yourself some difficult questions about just how proud you are of the America we now inhabit:
Are you proud that one in six children lives in poverty in America?
Are you proud that 40 million adult Americans are functional illiterates?
Are you proud that the bulk of the jobs being created these days are low- and minimum-wage jobs?
Are you proud of asking your fellow Americans to live on $5.15 an hour?
Are you proud that, according to a National Geographic Society survey, 85% of young adult Americans cannot find Iraq on the map (and 11% cannot find the United States!)?
Are you proud that the rest of the world, which poured out its heart to us after Sept. 11, now looks at us with disdain and disgust?
Are you proud that nearly 3 billion people on this planet do not have access to clean drinking water when we have the resources and technology to remedy this immediately?
Are you proud of the fact that our president sent our soldiers off to a war that had nothing to do with the self-defense of this country?
If these things represent what it means to be an American these days — and I am an American — should I hang my head in shame? No. Instead, I intend to perform what I believe is my patriotic duty. I can't think of a more American thing to do than raise questions — and demand truthful answers — when our leader wants to send our sons and daughters off to die in a war.
[...]
Let's create a world in which, when people see the Stars and Stripes, they will think of us as the people who brought peace to the world, who brought good-paying jobs to all citizens and clean water for the world to drink.
In anticipation of that day, I am putting my flag out today, with hope and with pride.
| mike moore wrote this oped in today's la times. he asks: what's a proud american? a silent one?
moore makes clear the real stigmatization that open questioning brings in the greater valleys of our country -- at work, at church, or in the home. the threat of retribution fielded by neighbors, employers, sometimes family...
but i live in downtown new yawk city. i can buy a pair of bikini panties with our flag on em right down the block. if i turn the corner, i can pick up a red-white-and-blue "rabbit" for $50.00. my block tranny is wearing stars & stripes tights. and they are too tight. so, i don't exactly know what moore is talking about...
here's an excerpt of moore's piece. you can read it in its entirety here.
For too long now we have abandoned our flag to those who see it as a symbol of war and dominance, as a way to crush dissent at home. Flags are flying from the back of SUVs, rising high above car dealerships, plastering the windows of businesses and adorning paper bags from fast-food restaurants. But these flags are intended to send a message: "You're either with us or you're against us," "Bring it on!" or "Watch what you say, watch what you do."
Those who absconded with our flag now use it as a weapon against those who question America's course. They remind me of that famous 1976 photo of an anti-busing demonstrator in Boston thrusting a large American flag on a pole into the stomach of the first black man he encountered. These so-called patriots hold the flag tightly in their grip and, in a threatening pose, demand that no one ask questions. Those who speak out find themselves shunned at work, harassed at school, booed off Oscar stages. The flag has become a muzzle, a piece of cloth stuffed into the mouths of those who dare to ask questions.
[...]
If you are one of those who love what President Bush has done for this country and believe you must blindly follow the president to deserve to fly the flag, you should ask yourself some difficult questions about just how proud you are of the America we now inhabit:
Are you proud that one in six children lives in poverty in America?
Are you proud that 40 million adult Americans are functional illiterates?
Are you proud that the bulk of the jobs being created these days are low- and minimum-wage jobs?
Are you proud of asking your fellow Americans to live on $5.15 an hour?
Are you proud that, according to a National Geographic Society survey, 85% of young adult Americans cannot find Iraq on the map (and 11% cannot find the United States!)?
Are you proud that the rest of the world, which poured out its heart to us after Sept. 11, now looks at us with disdain and disgust?
Are you proud that nearly 3 billion people on this planet do not have access to clean drinking water when we have the resources and technology to remedy this immediately?
Are you proud of the fact that our president sent our soldiers off to a war that had nothing to do with the self-defense of this country?
If these things represent what it means to be an American these days — and I am an American — should I hang my head in shame? No. Instead, I intend to perform what I believe is my patriotic duty. I can't think of a more American thing to do than raise questions — and demand truthful answers — when our leader wants to send our sons and daughters off to die in a war.
[...]
Let's create a world in which, when people see the Stars and Stripes, they will think of us as the people who brought peace to the world, who brought good-paying jobs to all citizens and clean water for the world to drink.
In anticipation of that day, I am putting my flag out today, with hope and with pride.
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
FILM :: the corporation : the pathological pursuit of profit and power
canadian film-makers jennifer abbot and mark achbar have put together an excellent film, the corporation, which opens this summer in over 40 cities. the film is based on joel balkan's book by the same name.
the movie will never get the attention that fahrenheit 9/11 does, obviously, but it might just be the better of the two. it certainly gets beyond the current administration and sticks it to the larger "armies" at work. and it will bunch up the jodhpurs of my friends over at billionaires for bush -- no doubt they will hit the streets in protest.
the flick covers not only the historical infancy of the corporate model, but reviews the concept of "legal person" and the pathology of commerce.
their site also has some so-so interactive tutorials that match you to existing knowledge bases, organizations, and other content/resources based on your responses to their personality quiz. hell, the utility correctly inferred from my answers that viewing ads does in fact "make me sick".
| the movie will never get the attention that fahrenheit 9/11 does, obviously, but it might just be the better of the two. it certainly gets beyond the current administration and sticks it to the larger "armies" at work. and it will bunch up the jodhpurs of my friends over at billionaires for bush -- no doubt they will hit the streets in protest.
the flick covers not only the historical infancy of the corporate model, but reviews the concept of "legal person" and the pathology of commerce.
their site also has some so-so interactive tutorials that match you to existing knowledge bases, organizations, and other content/resources based on your responses to their personality quiz. hell, the utility correctly inferred from my answers that viewing ads does in fact "make me sick".
Friday, June 25, 2004
confessions of a (reformed) naderite
i admit it. i liked him. for a while.
but i've seen the light.
the truth is, i saw the light long before now -- i never actually ended up voting for nader in 2000. i "compromised" by voting for gore on the working families party platform.
but i did go to the "ralph nader super rally" at madison square garden in 2000. and i did write an article about it for a progressive web outlet.
i got over nader pretty quick, and since 2000 i've thought of him as a majorly egotistical, minorly interesting political blip.
but the latest out of nader is unconscionable. not only that, it's dangerous.
take these bits and pieces from the web-sphere as the timeline to the end of my "fairy-tale" with this "prince":
1. nader's got right-wing groups campaigning for him all over the country.
2. nader is welcoming that help.
3. nader completely dumped the greens, who worked their butts off for him in 2000.
4. nader's cynicism has made me turn on my own idealism.
and that really pisses me off.
| but i've seen the light.
the truth is, i saw the light long before now -- i never actually ended up voting for nader in 2000. i "compromised" by voting for gore on the working families party platform.
but i did go to the "ralph nader super rally" at madison square garden in 2000. and i did write an article about it for a progressive web outlet.
i got over nader pretty quick, and since 2000 i've thought of him as a majorly egotistical, minorly interesting political blip.
but the latest out of nader is unconscionable. not only that, it's dangerous.
take these bits and pieces from the web-sphere as the timeline to the end of my "fairy-tale" with this "prince":
1. nader's got right-wing groups campaigning for him all over the country.
2. nader is welcoming that help.
3. nader completely dumped the greens, who worked their butts off for him in 2000.
4. nader's cynicism has made me turn on my own idealism.
and that really pisses me off.
Thursday, June 24, 2004
we should have just re-buried eisenhower
the supplication of the u.s. media to the altar of ronald reagan was clearly misguided. we all know ronnie to be a liar, a cheat, and a puppet to higher-parties. but it's still hard to throw shit in the face of such a *nice* man...
...yeah, just ask a nicaraguan.
nonetheless, it's easier to pierce the pimple of the reagan administration by holding it up to earlier presidents, and not just clinton or bush. you know...
...men who seemed like leaders.
thebigwedding secret-agent scats faxed in this reminder of the real republican party of the united states. the one that believes in the general concept of "history", and not that we'll all "just be dead" either way. right, shrub? sit up and pay attention...
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
we must begin thinking beyond the bush-kerry dyad. instead, let us focus on the 22nd century and what it will take for any human to see it.
| ...yeah, just ask a nicaraguan.
nonetheless, it's easier to pierce the pimple of the reagan administration by holding it up to earlier presidents, and not just clinton or bush. you know...
...men who seemed like leaders.
thebigwedding secret-agent scats faxed in this reminder of the real republican party of the united states. the one that believes in the general concept of "history", and not that we'll all "just be dead" either way. right, shrub? sit up and pay attention...
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
we must begin thinking beyond the bush-kerry dyad. instead, let us focus on the 22nd century and what it will take for any human to see it.
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
HEAD :: the economies of "losing" and "getting"
on salon:
enormous bouncers calvin and benjamin are interviewed cheerfully waiting on line at 4:30am to get their copies of my life signed by bill clinton. they talked about seeing clinton campaigning in queens in the 90's and feeling that he was "in touch with the people's needs".
and the quote of the week:
when asked how he felt about clinton's personal issues, benjamin said,
We got people losing heads, and they're worried about someone getting head? Come on!
| enormous bouncers calvin and benjamin are interviewed cheerfully waiting on line at 4:30am to get their copies of my life signed by bill clinton. they talked about seeing clinton campaigning in queens in the 90's and feeling that he was "in touch with the people's needs".
and the quote of the week:
when asked how he felt about clinton's personal issues, benjamin said,
We got people losing heads, and they're worried about someone getting head? Come on!
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
update :: paul rieckhoff
we got an email from our favorite amherst college vet, paul rieckhoff, who delivered the weekly democratic radio address a few weeks back. paul, a platoon leader in iraq, has been putting sticks together to keep the fire burning -- not the one in arlington cemetary, but the one in our hearts. he's putting together a new organization, operation truth, with the aim of revitalizing the political wing of the veterans' community and fighting for the rights of our deployed servicemen and women.
Ampro,
Let me give you an update:
Here is what I am up to next:
The response to my speech and recent press appearances has been tremendous. I am in the process of creating a non-profit, non-partisan organization that will serve as the aggressive voice of truth for the public dialogue from here forward. Soldiers speaking out for soldiers.
We were there. Other Veterans of Iraq and I will drive our stories and experiences to the public for the sake of bringing first-person, truth to the issues surrounding the war in Iraq. We will present our experiences (and those of our families) honestly, in order to educate and inform the American public.
The soldiers experiences, frustrations and concerns have yet to be brought out in a strong and passionate manner. The American people primarily get their information about the war from under-informed, overly-biased sources. We will give them the truth from the horses mouth--warts and all.
We will be extremely active and visible-doing op/eds, radio/TV, an aggressive internet strategy, speaking etc.
Check out my website for more info at www.paulrieckhoff.com.
We welcome any and all advice and/or support you would be willing to give. Please spread the word and let people know about what we are doing.
Thanks.
Paul.
paul is keeping his scheduled loaded, with appearances this week at the nyc screening of farenheit 9/11, as max cleland's guest at the premiere of cleland's new film strong at the broken places, and on al franken's air america radio show. that's a pretty heavy schedule.
you can contact paul with questions or comments at his site.
| Ampro,
Let me give you an update:
Here is what I am up to next:
The response to my speech and recent press appearances has been tremendous. I am in the process of creating a non-profit, non-partisan organization that will serve as the aggressive voice of truth for the public dialogue from here forward. Soldiers speaking out for soldiers.
We were there. Other Veterans of Iraq and I will drive our stories and experiences to the public for the sake of bringing first-person, truth to the issues surrounding the war in Iraq. We will present our experiences (and those of our families) honestly, in order to educate and inform the American public.
The soldiers experiences, frustrations and concerns have yet to be brought out in a strong and passionate manner. The American people primarily get their information about the war from under-informed, overly-biased sources. We will give them the truth from the horses mouth--warts and all.
We will be extremely active and visible-doing op/eds, radio/TV, an aggressive internet strategy, speaking etc.
Check out my website for more info at www.paulrieckhoff.com.
We welcome any and all advice and/or support you would be willing to give. Please spread the word and let people know about what we are doing.
Thanks.
Paul.
paul is keeping his scheduled loaded, with appearances this week at the nyc screening of farenheit 9/11, as max cleland's guest at the premiere of cleland's new film strong at the broken places, and on al franken's air america radio show. that's a pretty heavy schedule.
you can contact paul with questions or comments at his site.
grassroots grow in brooklyn
salon today reports on the brooklyn-based council of pakistan organization (which next month will be re-named the council of people organization).
copo was founded right after september 11, 2001 by a pakistani muslim shop owner named mohammed razvi, whose male muslim customers were being rounded up in droves by the fbi. muslim families had no idea where their husbands/brothers/sons had gone, and many were lacking the english-speaking and -reading skills to find them.
razvi was joined in his efforts to help by indian hindi graduate student jagajit singh, a former political organizer in india who, after 9/11, was looking for something to do that would make a difference for his community.
razvi and singh's effort to help families find their loved ones has bloomed into a full-fledged community organization, drawing in cooperation and support from muslims and hindus alike, as well as the neighboring orthodox jewish community.
razvi and singh have put significant effort into drawing in and integrating the young people of each community in the area, hoping that children who play basketball together will "have a harder time hating each other as they grow older."
they've found much to be hopeful about. as razvi says:
"Young people, they want results that are positive and fast," he says. "They are truthful and they are radical. They want change for the better."
read salon's article here.
| copo was founded right after september 11, 2001 by a pakistani muslim shop owner named mohammed razvi, whose male muslim customers were being rounded up in droves by the fbi. muslim families had no idea where their husbands/brothers/sons had gone, and many were lacking the english-speaking and -reading skills to find them.
razvi was joined in his efforts to help by indian hindi graduate student jagajit singh, a former political organizer in india who, after 9/11, was looking for something to do that would make a difference for his community.
razvi and singh's effort to help families find their loved ones has bloomed into a full-fledged community organization, drawing in cooperation and support from muslims and hindus alike, as well as the neighboring orthodox jewish community.
razvi and singh have put significant effort into drawing in and integrating the young people of each community in the area, hoping that children who play basketball together will "have a harder time hating each other as they grow older."
they've found much to be hopeful about. as razvi says:
"Young people, they want results that are positive and fast," he says. "They are truthful and they are radical. They want change for the better."
read salon's article here.
Monday, June 21, 2004
CAPTION ?
trent, proprietor of spacerook.com, posted this photo on a dailykos comment thread regarding the depletion of the non-renewable "snark reserves". he requested assistance in captioning the photo...
...some of dk's readers obliged. their captions include:
"If I just close my eyes, it will be over soon."
Bush: "Thanks again for choosing the GOP above America and working on my campaign. That was a pretty nifty trick I pulled with you and your illegitimate black kid, huh? Heh, heh."
Halitosis: Bush's Secret Weapon!
Bush: "I mean, who really gives a damn about torturing prisoners anyhow, right John? John?"
"If I close my eyes, I can pretend he's Reagan."
submit your own in comments. or, just think them to yourself.
| 
...some of dk's readers obliged. their captions include:
"If I just close my eyes, it will be over soon."
Bush: "Thanks again for choosing the GOP above America and working on my campaign. That was a pretty nifty trick I pulled with you and your illegitimate black kid, huh? Heh, heh."
Halitosis: Bush's Secret Weapon!
Bush: "I mean, who really gives a damn about torturing prisoners anyhow, right John? John?"
"If I close my eyes, I can pretend he's Reagan."
submit your own in comments. or, just think them to yourself.
Sunday, June 20, 2004
get your mini iRaq in any color
this "campaign" is appearing in a number of cities. so are "bush = theocracy" posters in my nyc neighborhood.
caption :: 10,000 Iraqis killed. 773 U.S. soldiers killed.
wanna see my playlist?
| caption :: 10,000 Iraqis killed. 773 U.S. soldiers killed.
wanna see my playlist?
THIS IS A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT :: veterans' attorney representation amendment (H.R. 3492)
Know a Veteran? Disabled Veteran? Know a Serviceman?
Did you know a disabled veteran can't hire a [private] attorney until his claim is in the appeal process, usually two to three years after the initial filing -- delaying the claim another 2 to 3 years for a total of 4 to 6 years -- unless the attorney will represent them for free or for a maximum of $10. Veterans should have the right to choose who is going to represent them.
Write your congressman. Your local congress reprepresentative might also co-sponsor the bill. The amendment allowing attorney choice is: H.R.3492, Title: To amend title 38, United States Code, to allow claimants for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to pay fees for attorney services during any stage of the Department of Veterans Affairs claims process.
Bill Sponsor: Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] (introduced 11/17/2003)
Cosponsors: 12
Rep Burton, Dan - 11/17/2003 [IN-5]
Rep Christensen, Donna M. - 11/17/2003 [VI]
Rep Garrett, Scott - 11/17/2003 [NJ-5]
Rep Hoekstra, Peter - 11/17/2003 [MI-2]
Rep King, Steve - 11/17/2003 [IA-5
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. - 11/17/2003 [IL-16]
Rep Miller, Jeff - 11/18/2003 [FL-1]
Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. - 1/20/2004 [CO-4]
Rep Myrick, Sue - 11/17/2003 [NC-9]
Rep Peterson, John E. - 11/17/2003 [PA-5]
Rep Souder, Mark E. - 11/17/2003 [IN-3]
Rep Wilson, Joe - 11/17/2003 [SC-2]
Latest Major Action: 1/6/04
Write to see if you can get your representative involved.
Here's the online petition you can sign in support of the amendment. You can refer to the petition in your letter to your representative.
This should not be a political issue; it should be a bipartisan issue. Political party affiliation should not be holding this bill back.
thanks to ohioan walt kozlowski for tipping thebigwedding on this bill. walt welcomes questions for further information on the amendment's progress.
JOKE OF THE MOMENT :: the hand-clap heard round the world
this is making the webrounds. it is slightly amusing, if only it were true. and if it is in fact true in some parts of iraq, i would we were hearing it in the news and not at the virtual water-cooler.
Three Marines were driving up the highway between Basra and Baghdad when they came upon an Iraqi insurgent who was badly injured and unconscious. On the opposite side of the road was an injured American soldier who was semi-conscious.
As the Marines gave both men first-aid they asked what had happened. The American G.I. said, "I was moving north along the road when I ran into this guy. We both pointed our guns at each other and I said, 'Saddam Hussein is an asshole!'...
Then he yelled, 'George Bush is an asshole!'...
...Then we were just standing there shaking hands when a truck hit us."
ba-dum-bum.
| Three Marines were driving up the highway between Basra and Baghdad when they came upon an Iraqi insurgent who was badly injured and unconscious. On the opposite side of the road was an injured American soldier who was semi-conscious.
As the Marines gave both men first-aid they asked what had happened. The American G.I. said, "I was moving north along the road when I ran into this guy. We both pointed our guns at each other and I said, 'Saddam Hussein is an asshole!'...
Then he yelled, 'George Bush is an asshole!'...
...Then we were just standing there shaking hands when a truck hit us."
ba-dum-bum.
Saturday, June 19, 2004
QUOTE OF THE WEEK :: dwight d. eisenhower
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
-- excerpt from president dwight d. eisenhower's farewell address to the nation, jan. 1961.
Friday, June 18, 2004
gawker's trend watch
if the trend of the 1990's was rich white people getting away with everything, according to gawker, the new hot trend is rich white people going to jail.
so said cosmetics mogul evelyn lauder when she addressed hunter college's graduating class last week.
lauder -- who is herself a graduate of hunter -- told the bright-eyed and bushy-tailed grads:
"On Sunday night, as I was throwing out our newspapers, my husband said, 'Don't throw out the business section - there's got to be somebody we know who is under investigation.' And, sure enough, there on the front page, was someone else, another acquaintance who was cited for something. We seem to know a lot of people who are in jail, out of jail, about to go to jail, deserve to be in jail, and that is not acceptable."
frankly, and all tongue in cheek aside, lauder herself really seems a good model for rich white people...
...doing good things. maybe she'll spark a trend.
...maybe.
| so said cosmetics mogul evelyn lauder when she addressed hunter college's graduating class last week.
lauder -- who is herself a graduate of hunter -- told the bright-eyed and bushy-tailed grads:
"On Sunday night, as I was throwing out our newspapers, my husband said, 'Don't throw out the business section - there's got to be somebody we know who is under investigation.' And, sure enough, there on the front page, was someone else, another acquaintance who was cited for something. We seem to know a lot of people who are in jail, out of jail, about to go to jail, deserve to be in jail, and that is not acceptable."
frankly, and all tongue in cheek aside, lauder herself really seems a good model for rich white people...
...doing good things. maybe she'll spark a trend.
...maybe.
alternet :: not afraid to be green
salon lists a new report from the CDC that tobacco use is down among teens in an unprecedented drop. this is good news, for sure. but salon has reported only the aspects of the CDC news that any mainstream media is -- the parts the CDC listed in their press statement. salon writes:
"...Smoking among U.S. high school students has fallen to about one in five -- the lowest level in at least a generation -- in a drop-off the government attributes to anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette taxes."
what a crock of shit. it's not the taxes that are doing it, stupid. any kid can buy a carton of smokes online for $20.00. it's easier than ordering ritalin from a canadian pharmacy. and sure, t.v. commercials and PSAs are fun kitsch and all, and plenty of kids will do whatever david schwimmer tells them to...
but that's not what's done the trick. what's done the job is making adults responsible and liable for the age restrictions that the government have deemed requisite to allowing americans to continue their ritual communion with lung cancer, liver failure, and heart disease. shop-keepers, parents, teachers, etc. but mostly the shop-keepers...
alternet presents corollary data from the u.s. centers for disease control report that mainstream salon is ignoring:
Why More Kids Smoke Marijuana Than Cigarettes
The biennial Youth Risk Behavior Survey, released May 21 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, contained a bombshell:
More U.S. teens are now smoking marijuana than smoke cigarettes.
That's right. Among high school students, current use -- defined as use within the last 30 days -- is now higher for marijuana than for cigarettes. According to the CDC, 21.9 percent of teens reported smoking cigarettes within the last month, while 22.4 percent smoked marijuana.
There is a lesson here, but one that policymakers won't want to hear: If the idea is to stop teen substance use, the approach we've used with tobacco works better than the approach we've taken with marijuana. That means regulation of adult use, rather than prohibition. In the decade from 1993 to 2003, the percentage of teens reporting current cigarette use dropped by nearly one third, from 30.5 percent to 21.9 percent.
For marijuana, despite a marginal, statistically insignificant decrease last year, the long-term trend has been heading in the opposite direction. Past-month marijuana use has risen nearly five percentage points since 1993, when it was just 17.7 percent. Even more alarming, the number of kids smoking marijuana before age 13 went up from 6.9 percent in 1993 to 9.9 percent last year.
Why is teen cigarette smoking dropping so impressively, while marijuana use remains essentially stuck at high levels?
Two words: "We Card."
If you've been in just about any store that sells cigarettes in the last few years, you've seen the signs: "Under 18, No Tobacco. We Card." The We Card campaign is a voluntary effort...Americans made it clear we don't like cigarettes being sold to kids, and legislators in many states responded with tough laws. Merchants who sell cigarettes to youths under 18 can face stiff fines and, in many jurisdictions, can lose their license to sell tobacco.
We have no such control of marijuana dealers, who are unlicensed and completely unregulated. Efforts to stamp them out haven't even put a minor crimp in marijuana's availability: For two and a half decades running, between 82 and 90 percent of teens have told the Monitoring the Future survey that marijuana is "easy to get."
so...when it's us who are the parents of kids who are just rolling in "easy to get" dope, what do we want to happen? it's a tough question...
i just pledged $30.00 to a school-kid participating in an american cancer society / stop smoking walk. that's the cost of about a carton. but worth it. given the choice, i'd rather see a late teen with a legal joint in their hands than a marlboro. the difference is profound. if you're not sure for yourself, you can start your research with alternet. they're one of only a few progressive outlets that stand up each week to keep the "drug war" in the spotlight.
| "...Smoking among U.S. high school students has fallen to about one in five -- the lowest level in at least a generation -- in a drop-off the government attributes to anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette taxes."
what a crock of shit. it's not the taxes that are doing it, stupid. any kid can buy a carton of smokes online for $20.00. it's easier than ordering ritalin from a canadian pharmacy. and sure, t.v. commercials and PSAs are fun kitsch and all, and plenty of kids will do whatever david schwimmer tells them to...
but that's not what's done the trick. what's done the job is making adults responsible and liable for the age restrictions that the government have deemed requisite to allowing americans to continue their ritual communion with lung cancer, liver failure, and heart disease. shop-keepers, parents, teachers, etc. but mostly the shop-keepers...
alternet presents corollary data from the u.s. centers for disease control report that mainstream salon is ignoring:
Why More Kids Smoke Marijuana Than Cigarettes
The biennial Youth Risk Behavior Survey, released May 21 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, contained a bombshell:
More U.S. teens are now smoking marijuana than smoke cigarettes.
That's right. Among high school students, current use -- defined as use within the last 30 days -- is now higher for marijuana than for cigarettes. According to the CDC, 21.9 percent of teens reported smoking cigarettes within the last month, while 22.4 percent smoked marijuana.
There is a lesson here, but one that policymakers won't want to hear: If the idea is to stop teen substance use, the approach we've used with tobacco works better than the approach we've taken with marijuana. That means regulation of adult use, rather than prohibition. In the decade from 1993 to 2003, the percentage of teens reporting current cigarette use dropped by nearly one third, from 30.5 percent to 21.9 percent.
For marijuana, despite a marginal, statistically insignificant decrease last year, the long-term trend has been heading in the opposite direction. Past-month marijuana use has risen nearly five percentage points since 1993, when it was just 17.7 percent. Even more alarming, the number of kids smoking marijuana before age 13 went up from 6.9 percent in 1993 to 9.9 percent last year.
Why is teen cigarette smoking dropping so impressively, while marijuana use remains essentially stuck at high levels?
Two words: "We Card."
If you've been in just about any store that sells cigarettes in the last few years, you've seen the signs: "Under 18, No Tobacco. We Card." The We Card campaign is a voluntary effort...Americans made it clear we don't like cigarettes being sold to kids, and legislators in many states responded with tough laws. Merchants who sell cigarettes to youths under 18 can face stiff fines and, in many jurisdictions, can lose their license to sell tobacco.
We have no such control of marijuana dealers, who are unlicensed and completely unregulated. Efforts to stamp them out haven't even put a minor crimp in marijuana's availability: For two and a half decades running, between 82 and 90 percent of teens have told the Monitoring the Future survey that marijuana is "easy to get."
so...when it's us who are the parents of kids who are just rolling in "easy to get" dope, what do we want to happen? it's a tough question...
i just pledged $30.00 to a school-kid participating in an american cancer society / stop smoking walk. that's the cost of about a carton. but worth it. given the choice, i'd rather see a late teen with a legal joint in their hands than a marlboro. the difference is profound. if you're not sure for yourself, you can start your research with alternet. they're one of only a few progressive outlets that stand up each week to keep the "drug war" in the spotlight.
atrocities in iraq :: in their own words
dick cheney REALLY wants to stop talking about the iraq - al qaeda connection. okay, okay...
let's give dick a break and go back to something that's not as "sexy" or "flashy" as today's headlines that the media are "being so lazy" with:
the white house - torture connection.
the washpost has had this page up for a while, with links to the taguba report, new prison photos, and sworn testimony of abu ghraib prisoners taken by the u.s. in january 2004.
let's bring this back into the mix. what's wrong, dick? you thought we were gonna let you off the hook with something soft...? like what...?
the coverage of just one of thirty-eight dead presidents?
| let's give dick a break and go back to something that's not as "sexy" or "flashy" as today's headlines that the media are "being so lazy" with:
the white house - torture connection.
the washpost has had this page up for a while, with links to the taguba report, new prison photos, and sworn testimony of abu ghraib prisoners taken by the u.s. in january 2004.
let's bring this back into the mix. what's wrong, dick? you thought we were gonna let you off the hook with something soft...? like what...?
the coverage of just one of thirty-eight dead presidents?
kerry goes for working girls
today candidate kerry proposed raising the minimum wage to $7 an hour by 2007, and said the raise would benefit working women most.
right on. it's about f*ing time. the minimum wage hasn't been raised since 1997, when it went up only 40 cents. really -- it's true! only 40 cents! and inflation has virtually eliminated that increase.
according to inc,
The nearly seven years without an increase is the longest such stretch since the Fair Labor Standards Act, which sets the federal minimum wage, went into effect in 1938.
kerry's co-sponsoring a bill with ted kennedy, which calls for the increase to happen gradually.
"just a ploy to catch votes!", squeaks my inner cynic.
"he'll never see it through!", moans the depressive in my brain.
"$7 is still crap wages", the realist says wisely.
but for now i'm telling all those voices to can it. at least it's somethin'.
| right on. it's about f*ing time. the minimum wage hasn't been raised since 1997, when it went up only 40 cents. really -- it's true! only 40 cents! and inflation has virtually eliminated that increase.
according to inc,
The nearly seven years without an increase is the longest such stretch since the Fair Labor Standards Act, which sets the federal minimum wage, went into effect in 1938.
kerry's co-sponsoring a bill with ted kennedy, which calls for the increase to happen gradually.
"just a ploy to catch votes!", squeaks my inner cynic.
"he'll never see it through!", moans the depressive in my brain.
"$7 is still crap wages", the realist says wisely.
but for now i'm telling all those voices to can it. at least it's somethin'.
larry king doesn’t wear depends
dick cheney might want to start. he seems to be pooping out crap at quite an uncontrollable rate.
salon’s war room today noted that cheney’s latest is accusing the media of being "lazy". well dude, we’ve all been saying that for months. but cheney’s gripe isn’t about the media’s lack of attention to dick and bush’s constant screwy behavior -- he’s mad that the media seems to be:
...making too much of the 9/11 commission's staff report that disputes the administration's claims about the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida. Some members of the press are "often lazy, often report what someone else in the press said without doing their homework," Cheney said.
you know what i have to say to that mr. cheney?
wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah.
cry me a river.
| salon’s war room today noted that cheney’s latest is accusing the media of being "lazy". well dude, we’ve all been saying that for months. but cheney’s gripe isn’t about the media’s lack of attention to dick and bush’s constant screwy behavior -- he’s mad that the media seems to be:
...making too much of the 9/11 commission's staff report that disputes the administration's claims about the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida. Some members of the press are "often lazy, often report what someone else in the press said without doing their homework," Cheney said.
you know what i have to say to that mr. cheney?
wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah.
cry me a river.
Thursday, June 17, 2004
why is randi rhodes the only one using the phrase "stand-down order"?
yesterday, the new york times quoted the 9/11 commission’s summary of the military, faa and other agencies’ actions on the morning of 9/11 (emphases are my own):
"On the morning of 9/11, the existing protocol was unsuited in every respect for what was about to happen..."
The report, they said, suggests - though it does not say explicitly - that a more organized response by the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, might have allowed fighter pilots to reach one jetliner and shoot it down before it flew into the pentagon, more than 50 minutes after the first of the hijacked planes crashed into the World Trade Center in New York.
Instead, the report finds, an emergency order from Vice President Dick Cheney authorizing the hijacked planes to be shot down did not reach pilots until the last of the four commandeered jetliners had crashed into a field in western Pennsylvania, after a struggle between terrorists and passengers aboard that plane.
okay. so. my first question is, why didn’t the order get there? did cheney give it too late? was the chain of command just a mess? what the hell happened guys?!
cut to today’s nyt and it seems that’s what everyone else wants to know too (again, all emphases are my own).
"...even many months afterward, the events of Sept. 11, 2001, were still not fully understood by NORAD officials. In May 2003, the [9/11 commission] staff report said, NORAD officials gave incorrect accounts of how NORAD's northeast air defense sector tracked Flight 93 and the other three jetliners hijacked that day, American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 and United Airlines Flight 175.
...fighters were scrambled from Otis Air Force base on Cape Cod, Mass., after it became clear that hijackings were under way, but the fighters were miles away from New York by the time the towers were hit...
in fact, there was a set of fighter jets orbiting washington while all of this was going on, and they would certainly have time to take down the plane headed to the pentagon, but according to the times:
...they had not been told that they were authorized to shoot down an aircraft, contrary to what Vice President Dick Cheney thought at that time. In fact, the report noted, "the Langley pilots were never briefed about the reason they were scrambled" and did not know that the vice president had ordered that a Washington-bound hijacked jet be shot down.
salon gives the rundown on the timeline in cheney’s bunker. here’s my own timeline, based on my extrapolations:
10:02 a.m. -- cheney's command post received word that a hijacked plane (united flight 93) was heading for washington.
10:03 a.m. -- united flight 93 crashed in the pennsylvania countryside
salon: but the white house was unaware of the crash and was told the plane was still bearing down on washington.
between 10:10 a.m. and 10:15 a.m. -- a military aide said the aircraft was 80 miles out. cheney was asked for authority to shoot down the plane. cheney issued the order.
minutes later -- the military aide reported that the plane was 60 miles out. cheney was asked for authorization again. again, he said yes.
right about the same time -- white house deputy chief of staff joshua bolten suggested that cheney contact bush to confirm his authorization. cheney called the president and got the confirmation.
just then (10:16 - 10:18 a.m.) -- cheney's group was told that a plane was down in pennsylvania. the group wondered if it had been shot down at cheney's direction.
10:30 a.m. – the bunker began receiving reports of another hijacked plane, five to 10 miles out. cheney issued yet another order to engage the aircraft. it turned out to be a medevac helicopter.
now here’s what confuses me and, frankly, freaks me out. according to salon:
In most cases, the commission said, the chain of command in authorizing the use of force runs from the president to the secretary of defense and from the secretary to military commanders. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was briefed by Cheney at 10:39 a.m. that he had been authorized by Bush to instruct fighters to shoot down hijacked planes.
um...ok...so, then:
1. what the hell was cheney doing issuing orders without talking to the president?
2. where was bush when cheney made the decision that he was going to have to make the call?
3. where was rumsfeld at 10:02? why didn’t cheney talk to him?
4. why the hell did no order make it to the fighter jets?
see? this is the kind of thing that keeps me awake in bed, shivering at night.
| "On the morning of 9/11, the existing protocol was unsuited in every respect for what was about to happen..."
The report, they said, suggests - though it does not say explicitly - that a more organized response by the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, might have allowed fighter pilots to reach one jetliner and shoot it down before it flew into the pentagon, more than 50 minutes after the first of the hijacked planes crashed into the World Trade Center in New York.
Instead, the report finds, an emergency order from Vice President Dick Cheney authorizing the hijacked planes to be shot down did not reach pilots until the last of the four commandeered jetliners had crashed into a field in western Pennsylvania, after a struggle between terrorists and passengers aboard that plane.
okay. so. my first question is, why didn’t the order get there? did cheney give it too late? was the chain of command just a mess? what the hell happened guys?!
cut to today’s nyt and it seems that’s what everyone else wants to know too (again, all emphases are my own).
"...even many months afterward, the events of Sept. 11, 2001, were still not fully understood by NORAD officials. In May 2003, the [9/11 commission] staff report said, NORAD officials gave incorrect accounts of how NORAD's northeast air defense sector tracked Flight 93 and the other three jetliners hijacked that day, American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 and United Airlines Flight 175.
...fighters were scrambled from Otis Air Force base on Cape Cod, Mass., after it became clear that hijackings were under way, but the fighters were miles away from New York by the time the towers were hit...
in fact, there was a set of fighter jets orbiting washington while all of this was going on, and they would certainly have time to take down the plane headed to the pentagon, but according to the times:
...they had not been told that they were authorized to shoot down an aircraft, contrary to what Vice President Dick Cheney thought at that time. In fact, the report noted, "the Langley pilots were never briefed about the reason they were scrambled" and did not know that the vice president had ordered that a Washington-bound hijacked jet be shot down.
salon gives the rundown on the timeline in cheney’s bunker. here’s my own timeline, based on my extrapolations:
10:02 a.m. -- cheney's command post received word that a hijacked plane (united flight 93) was heading for washington.
10:03 a.m. -- united flight 93 crashed in the pennsylvania countryside
salon: but the white house was unaware of the crash and was told the plane was still bearing down on washington.
between 10:10 a.m. and 10:15 a.m. -- a military aide said the aircraft was 80 miles out. cheney was asked for authority to shoot down the plane. cheney issued the order.
minutes later -- the military aide reported that the plane was 60 miles out. cheney was asked for authorization again. again, he said yes.
right about the same time -- white house deputy chief of staff joshua bolten suggested that cheney contact bush to confirm his authorization. cheney called the president and got the confirmation.
just then (10:16 - 10:18 a.m.) -- cheney's group was told that a plane was down in pennsylvania. the group wondered if it had been shot down at cheney's direction.
10:30 a.m. – the bunker began receiving reports of another hijacked plane, five to 10 miles out. cheney issued yet another order to engage the aircraft. it turned out to be a medevac helicopter.
now here’s what confuses me and, frankly, freaks me out. according to salon:
In most cases, the commission said, the chain of command in authorizing the use of force runs from the president to the secretary of defense and from the secretary to military commanders. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was briefed by Cheney at 10:39 a.m. that he had been authorized by Bush to instruct fighters to shoot down hijacked planes.
um...ok...so, then:
1. what the hell was cheney doing issuing orders without talking to the president?
2. where was bush when cheney made the decision that he was going to have to make the call?
3. where was rumsfeld at 10:02? why didn’t cheney talk to him?
4. why the hell did no order make it to the fighter jets?
see? this is the kind of thing that keeps me awake in bed, shivering at night.
fascinating :: what happens when you break ranks with the repugs
secret agent scats wired in this quick note from new orleans, where he is a groomsman at the longest catholic wedding ever put on record.
Jonah Goldberg is positioning himself for a future falling out with Sullivan and giving the nod to the wingers to let loose the hounds. It will be interesting to see how far they go in making Sullivan pay for his ostensible treachery to Bush and what Sullivan's audience will do. We may have another David Brock in the making.
If so, this is great news. Taken together with Tony Blankley's recent cartoonishly anti-Semitic comments it looks as though the Right is reverting to form. All of the '90's category mishmash that gave guys like Sullivan a career is coming to an end as the reactionary wing of the party increasingly kicks it old-school. The more they make being a social conservative a necessary concomitant of being an economic conservative the more constituents they lose. When you take off that genteel cosmopolitan David Brooks/Andrew Sullivan mask to reveal Michael Savage then you've just lost the center.
Now if they could just alienate Drudge somehow.
- wired in by scats
| Jonah Goldberg is positioning himself for a future falling out with Sullivan and giving the nod to the wingers to let loose the hounds. It will be interesting to see how far they go in making Sullivan pay for his ostensible treachery to Bush and what Sullivan's audience will do. We may have another David Brock in the making.
If so, this is great news. Taken together with Tony Blankley's recent cartoonishly anti-Semitic comments it looks as though the Right is reverting to form. All of the '90's category mishmash that gave guys like Sullivan a career is coming to an end as the reactionary wing of the party increasingly kicks it old-school. The more they make being a social conservative a necessary concomitant of being an economic conservative the more constituents they lose. When you take off that genteel cosmopolitan David Brooks/Andrew Sullivan mask to reveal Michael Savage then you've just lost the center.
Now if they could just alienate Drudge somehow.
- wired in by scats
Sunday, June 13, 2004
i have no mouth, and i must scream
harlan ellison's short story was an influence for the interrogation scene in the matrix when neo's mouth is welded shut by the agents of the matrix. i haven't found a good pic of the mouth-melt, but when i do i'll post it here...
i thought of neo while reading talking points memo this morning. josh marshall looks into a houston chronicle editorial that takes the bush WH to task for its blatant and obvious deceptions in the abu ghraib "cover-up" ** and the justice department memos regarding "international treaty obligations" on torture. here's the bit i liked most from josh:
[all emphasis mine]
[the Houston Chronicle]
...The memos were obviously concocted to defend acts that are clearly beyond the bounds of a civilized nation.
The memos support the view that the prisoner abuses uncovered at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were not merely the grave mistakes of a few soldiers, but resulted from policies formed at the highest levels of government. They strengthen concerns about how detainees at Guantanamo and in Afghanistan are being treated.
[Josh Marshall]
As I suggest today in The Hill, I think we're actually pretty far past that point.
We're like contestants on Wheel of Fortune with a long phrase spelled out in front of us with maybe one or two letters missing. We know what the letters spell. It's obvious. We just don't have the heart to say it out loud.
anyone want to buy a vowel? no...? why not...?
cause you don't want to solve the puzzle?
** i know, a lot of people in my family aren't ready for the word "cover-up" because of its depressing result -- that our shared values with regard to the rest of the world are being ignored. fine, fine...we needn't call it that. no need. the WH isn't covering up anything at this point. they are lying directly and with relish right to our own faces. and that works. the blatancy of their deception is a tactic, pulled from the principles of Skull & Bones, the prince, and the art of war: that ambiguity, inconsistency, the suggestion of secrecy in your communications, and disregard for the conventional wisdom of the day will all mightily off-set your opponent's strength. he will be left wondering if you are in fact serious in your engagement, he will underestimate your wit, and will balk in his execution...
an example of this tactic is employed by inferior chess-players when they realize they've sat with a master. knowing a loss is certain, one can effectively "draw out" the loss in order to...
1. buy time to stay in the game and avoid an ego-bruising quick defeat.
2. hope your opponent will become flustered by your play and error on his advantage.
3. force your opponent to uselessly squander his mental energies in what would be an otherwise easy win. even though you will ultimately perish, you will have caused him frustration and possibly weakened his play for the next player to face him (who is now your ally and your only hope for redemption).
what's the tactic?
do not play to win. play as a child would. do not take every piece, retreat when the play calls an advance. but do it with a straight face. remain engaged in your visage. make him question the match in its entirety. strip him of his usual and comfortable victory.
| i thought of neo while reading talking points memo this morning. josh marshall looks into a houston chronicle editorial that takes the bush WH to task for its blatant and obvious deceptions in the abu ghraib "cover-up" ** and the justice department memos regarding "international treaty obligations" on torture. here's the bit i liked most from josh:
[all emphasis mine]
[the Houston Chronicle]
...The memos were obviously concocted to defend acts that are clearly beyond the bounds of a civilized nation.
The memos support the view that the prisoner abuses uncovered at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were not merely the grave mistakes of a few soldiers, but resulted from policies formed at the highest levels of government. They strengthen concerns about how detainees at Guantanamo and in Afghanistan are being treated.
[Josh Marshall]
As I suggest today in The Hill, I think we're actually pretty far past that point.
We're like contestants on Wheel of Fortune with a long phrase spelled out in front of us with maybe one or two letters missing. We know what the letters spell. It's obvious. We just don't have the heart to say it out loud.
anyone want to buy a vowel? no...? why not...?
cause you don't want to solve the puzzle?
** i know, a lot of people in my family aren't ready for the word "cover-up" because of its depressing result -- that our shared values with regard to the rest of the world are being ignored. fine, fine...we needn't call it that. no need. the WH isn't covering up anything at this point. they are lying directly and with relish right to our own faces. and that works. the blatancy of their deception is a tactic, pulled from the principles of Skull & Bones, the prince, and the art of war: that ambiguity, inconsistency, the suggestion of secrecy in your communications, and disregard for the conventional wisdom of the day will all mightily off-set your opponent's strength. he will be left wondering if you are in fact serious in your engagement, he will underestimate your wit, and will balk in his execution...
an example of this tactic is employed by inferior chess-players when they realize they've sat with a master. knowing a loss is certain, one can effectively "draw out" the loss in order to...
1. buy time to stay in the game and avoid an ego-bruising quick defeat.
2. hope your opponent will become flustered by your play and error on his advantage.
3. force your opponent to uselessly squander his mental energies in what would be an otherwise easy win. even though you will ultimately perish, you will have caused him frustration and possibly weakened his play for the next player to face him (who is now your ally and your only hope for redemption).
what's the tactic?
do not play to win. play as a child would. do not take every piece, retreat when the play calls an advance. but do it with a straight face. remain engaged in your visage. make him question the match in its entirety. strip him of his usual and comfortable victory.
Saturday, June 12, 2004
amcop takes it to the rim...again.
dawkins over at american coprophagia is keeping up the fight to keep the media spin-cycle on "low". i know, i know, it's been like a goddamn week off what with reagan being buried for longer than he ever was an A-LISTer in hollywood. but we need to scroll back through the old posts, summon the archives, and read the may headlines one last time before chucking them in the recycling...
let's just not forget that iraqis are still being tortured, american youth are still dying uselessly, and the administration is still working 24/7 to steal a 2nd election.
don't forget.
here's an excerpt of dawkins' post on the valerie plame outing and the usual suspects:
A Leaker Theory
Here's a weird thought that just occurred to me while reading the Washington Post article about the investigation into the Plame leakers.
Novak said his source was two senior administration officials. One presumes by now that the White House did the leaking/smearing/intimidating intentionally. One would also assume that, in doing so, they'd be cagey enough not to leave any paper trails through the White House. One might presume that Novak was/is/might have been along for this tricky-leaking mission.
They've already said it's not Rove. They've said it's not Libby.
What..."senior administration officials"...are not Rove and Libby and would not get caught up in a White House paper sweep, but who are still "senior" and involved enough to have been up on what's going on?
Is there any chance that our dearly departed pals Ari Fleischer or Karen Hughes -- presumably knowledgeable about the Wilson predicament, interested in the affairs of the White House, but not actually on the premises -- could be part of this?
could be. but i'm voting that it's colonel mustard with the candlestick in the powder-room...
i love murder mysteries.
| let's just not forget that iraqis are still being tortured, american youth are still dying uselessly, and the administration is still working 24/7 to steal a 2nd election.
don't forget.
here's an excerpt of dawkins' post on the valerie plame outing and the usual suspects:
A Leaker Theory
Here's a weird thought that just occurred to me while reading the Washington Post article about the investigation into the Plame leakers.
Novak said his source was two senior administration officials. One presumes by now that the White House did the leaking/smearing/intimidating intentionally. One would also assume that, in doing so, they'd be cagey enough not to leave any paper trails through the White House. One might presume that Novak was/is/might have been along for this tricky-leaking mission.
They've already said it's not Rove. They've said it's not Libby.
What..."senior administration officials"...are not Rove and Libby and would not get caught up in a White House paper sweep, but who are still "senior" and involved enough to have been up on what's going on?
Is there any chance that our dearly departed pals Ari Fleischer or Karen Hughes -- presumably knowledgeable about the Wilson predicament, interested in the affairs of the White House, but not actually on the premises -- could be part of this?
could be. but i'm voting that it's colonel mustard with the candlestick in the powder-room...
i love murder mysteries.
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land, and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, "thus far and no farther." If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good, but overly bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, "if I repent anything, it is likely to be my good behavior."
-- Edward Abbey
Thursday, June 10, 2004
GET*YOUR* WAR*ON :: damn good, every time
david rees has added a bit more interactivity to his lo-fi comic, get*your*war*on, in the form of links to articles relevant to the subject of each installment...
his most recent page of the red-and-white links to background on nyt's judith miller choke, a profile of iraqi "he might support U.S. occupation, but still thinks they're fucked" activist kanan makiya, the new sudan crisis, analyzed through the lens of the rwandan genocide of 1994, and human rights watch's documentation of torture, abuse, and murder by uzbekistan's police force.
hey...a little something for everyone, no?
rees is a genius. the moment i first saw his strip in fall 2001, i wanted to win the lottery and buy the rights to his brain. but he published his first tome before i could get off a single pick-six. but from a critical standpoint, i wonder if this new ingredient doesn't set off the original flavor of his soup. the new installment's writing is not as pithy as before. his average words per frame on this new page is way up than before; til now, it's been rees's economy of language, laden with periodic bursts of comic diatribe from his office-worker drones, that has been principal to GYWO's brand of humor.
from a graphical standpoint, the interwoven links detract from the overall scheme of the strip. it looks messy and the text of the links engage the reader in a way that distracts from the characters themselves. in the new material the complexity of topics is definitely up, and rees's effort to provide background on them is smart. but i personally would recommend making the links to any articles the strip themselves, but code the mouse rollover so it presents info about the article linked to -- source, author, one-line summary. a click on the strip itself would open the article in a new page. another alternative is to list articles linked to at the bottom of the page, with short descriptions there.
GYWO is now in print in each issue of rollingstone magazine. the strips there, devoid of cool hyper-clickyness, always get the job done in a clean, succinct and funny manner. rees has proven he can do it...
i just realized what get*your*war*on has always reminded me of...i knew it looked familiar. rees is working in the same vein graphically as max cannon's red meat, a mainstay of the washington city paper, and other local rags...
i'm always hesitant to repost the work of others directly here, but max cannon held a contest among his readers in which they could create their own strips using the static character templates (similar in many ways to GYWO) of his strip. the finalists can be seen here. here's my favorite among them, by whohah:
| his most recent page of the red-and-white links to background on nyt's judith miller choke, a profile of iraqi "he might support U.S. occupation, but still thinks they're fucked" activist kanan makiya, the new sudan crisis, analyzed through the lens of the rwandan genocide of 1994, and human rights watch's documentation of torture, abuse, and murder by uzbekistan's police force.
hey...a little something for everyone, no?
rees is a genius. the moment i first saw his strip in fall 2001, i wanted to win the lottery and buy the rights to his brain. but he published his first tome before i could get off a single pick-six. but from a critical standpoint, i wonder if this new ingredient doesn't set off the original flavor of his soup. the new installment's writing is not as pithy as before. his average words per frame on this new page is way up than before; til now, it's been rees's economy of language, laden with periodic bursts of comic diatribe from his office-worker drones, that has been principal to GYWO's brand of humor.
from a graphical standpoint, the interwoven links detract from the overall scheme of the strip. it looks messy and the text of the links engage the reader in a way that distracts from the characters themselves. in the new material the complexity of topics is definitely up, and rees's effort to provide background on them is smart. but i personally would recommend making the links to any articles the strip themselves, but code the mouse rollover so it presents info about the article linked to -- source, author, one-line summary. a click on the strip itself would open the article in a new page. another alternative is to list articles linked to at the bottom of the page, with short descriptions there.
GYWO is now in print in each issue of rollingstone magazine. the strips there, devoid of cool hyper-clickyness, always get the job done in a clean, succinct and funny manner. rees has proven he can do it...
i just realized what get*your*war*on has always reminded me of...i knew it looked familiar. rees is working in the same vein graphically as max cannon's red meat, a mainstay of the washington city paper, and other local rags...
i'm always hesitant to repost the work of others directly here, but max cannon held a contest among his readers in which they could create their own strips using the static character templates (similar in many ways to GYWO) of his strip. the finalists can be seen here. here's my favorite among them, by whohah:
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
NOT WANTING IT BAD ENOUGH :: john kerry & smarty jones
if there is only one thing ronald reagan can teach us, it's:
"WIN ONE FOR THE GIPPER."
that's all john kerry has to remember in regards to president reagan. jfk's "suspension" of his campaign is exactly NOT THAT. he was a fool to use that word when all he needed to do was pay a little respect to reagan and imply (subtly) that no party should capitalize on the memory of one of the people's servants.
but he went ahead and said it. and now even smart people are freaking out about it. fer christ's sake...
but it again raises the question we each ask silently -- alone in the darkest, most secret parts of our minds -- for fear of disrupting the shit-eating, poll-reading grins on most democrats' faces these days...
...i whisper at night, in bed:
wanda, over at words on a page asks that question too. she wonders...
Why do I consistently get the feeling that Kerry just does not want this bad enough? Yes, it is sad that former President Reagan has died. A day, maybe two of mourning is appropriate. But suspending your campaign? Not that he's been doing any hot and heavy campaigning to begin with.
I don't know what concerns me more, that Kerry doesn't seem to have the passion needed to ignite those undecided voters, or that this man is what primary voters chose over a man like Howard Dean. What is wrong with Democrats? Do they think that Bush is so bad, voters will just jump ship and either vote for the only alternative or not vote at all? Clearly they are underestimating the fierce loyalty of Bush's supporters. Kerry or someone from his campaign needs to get on the internet and read some of the Blogs for Bush. Maybe then they will realize, Bush has a very strong base, and they aren't going anywhere. As for the un-decideds, they aren't just undecided, they are unconcerned, as well. Odds are most of them wont' bother to vote.
...indeed.
wanda has it right. republicans are a loyal lot, more so than their democrat counterparts in the middle and working classes -- anyone here a Reagan Democrat?...anyone? don't be shy.
and it is reagan's greatest soundbite that kerry needs study. the one that will be most remembered by tomorrow's americans -- no, no...not "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." it's reagan's greatest line that holds the key to exactly what mr. kerry has to surmount and topple if he wants to not only win this election, but ground the ship of the modern conservative movement -- of which ronnie is "the godfather".
look to the gipper, john. or at least rent the movie and have an aide summarize it for you.
...many republicans will do whatever it takes, no matter how dastardly, to "win one for the gipper."
*****
yeah. and on another note, kerry should watch that tape of smarty jones at belmot until it's seared on the oily sheen of his mind. that horse didn't seem to want it badly enough either. i lost $25,000 on that ride. oh well. whatcha gonna glue? i mean, oh my bad...no, "whatcha gonna do?"
| "WIN ONE FOR THE GIPPER."
that's all john kerry has to remember in regards to president reagan. jfk's "suspension" of his campaign is exactly NOT THAT. he was a fool to use that word when all he needed to do was pay a little respect to reagan and imply (subtly) that no party should capitalize on the memory of one of the people's servants.
but he went ahead and said it. and now even smart people are freaking out about it. fer christ's sake...
but it again raises the question we each ask silently -- alone in the darkest, most secret parts of our minds -- for fear of disrupting the shit-eating, poll-reading grins on most democrats' faces these days...
...i whisper at night, in bed:
"john, what the fuck are you doing? do you even WANT to be president anymore?!?!?"
wanda, over at words on a page asks that question too. she wonders...
Why do I consistently get the feeling that Kerry just does not want this bad enough? Yes, it is sad that former President Reagan has died. A day, maybe two of mourning is appropriate. But suspending your campaign? Not that he's been doing any hot and heavy campaigning to begin with.
I don't know what concerns me more, that Kerry doesn't seem to have the passion needed to ignite those undecided voters, or that this man is what primary voters chose over a man like Howard Dean. What is wrong with Democrats? Do they think that Bush is so bad, voters will just jump ship and either vote for the only alternative or not vote at all? Clearly they are underestimating the fierce loyalty of Bush's supporters. Kerry or someone from his campaign needs to get on the internet and read some of the Blogs for Bush. Maybe then they will realize, Bush has a very strong base, and they aren't going anywhere. As for the un-decideds, they aren't just undecided, they are unconcerned, as well. Odds are most of them wont' bother to vote.
...indeed.
wanda has it right. republicans are a loyal lot, more so than their democrat counterparts in the middle and working classes -- anyone here a Reagan Democrat?...anyone? don't be shy.
and it is reagan's greatest soundbite that kerry needs study. the one that will be most remembered by tomorrow's americans -- no, no...not "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." it's reagan's greatest line that holds the key to exactly what mr. kerry has to surmount and topple if he wants to not only win this election, but ground the ship of the modern conservative movement -- of which ronnie is "the godfather".
look to the gipper, john. or at least rent the movie and have an aide summarize it for you.
...many republicans will do whatever it takes, no matter how dastardly, to "win one for the gipper."
*****
yeah. and on another note, kerry should watch that tape of smarty jones at belmot until it's seared on the oily sheen of his mind. that horse didn't seem to want it badly enough either. i lost $25,000 on that ride. oh well. whatcha gonna glue? i mean, oh my bad...no, "whatcha gonna do?"
Monday, June 07, 2004
HOLY CRAP 3 :: "The Son of Holy Crap"
thebigwedding secret-agent scats has wired another installment of his highly-lauded "Holy Crap" series...
scats:
Boy is THIS GUY is way "off message"...Didn't he get the memo from Rove that it's the media and not the policies that are losing the war?
[EXCERPTS :: ALL EMPHASIS MINE]
Rumsfeld fears U.S. losing long-term fight against terror
THE SUN-TIMES
June 6, 2004
BY ROBERT BURNS
The United States and its allies are winning some battles in the terrorism war but may be losing the broader struggle against Islamic extremism that is terrorism's source, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Saturday.
The troubling unknown, he said, is whether the extremists -- whom he termed "zealots and despots" bent on destroying the global system of nation-states -- are turning out newly trained terrorists faster than the United States can capture or kill them.
"It's quite clear to me that we do not have a coherent approach to this," Rumsfeld said at an international security conference.
The Pentagon chief usually lauds the efforts of U.S. troops, denounces terrorist networks and urges other countries to join the effort to stop terrorist acts.
"What you have is a civil war in that religion where a small minority are trying to hijack it," he said.
After meeting with Foreign Minister M. Morshed Khan in Dhaka, the capital, Rumsfeld told reporters the two had spoken about Iraq and Afghanistan but not the specifics of peacekeeping in those countries. Rumsfeld also had talks with Prime Minister Khaleda Zia and senior generals.
U.S. defense secretaries rarely visit Bangladesh, but Rumsfeld wanted to draw attention to the mostly Muslim nation as a model of the moderate Islamic country that denounces terrorism. While thousands of anti-American protesters took to the streets of Dhaka on Friday, there was no sign of hostility when Rumsfeld's entourage drove through the capital Saturday.
so...Why does Donald Rumsfeld hate America?
Now, either Rummy is just figuring out now that his policies are moronic when everyone who passed high school civics knew they were stupid in Oct. of 2001, or he's condescendingly lying to foreigners to con them into supporting moronic policies. Even worse, lying in such a way that shows that he knows what a decent policy might look like. Now Aristotle once defined "evil" as someone who knows the right thing to do, but does the wrong thing anyway. So if Rumsfeld continues to support current policy then that would make him.....?
(hint: starts with an "evil", ends with an expletive of your choosing)
However, on the most charitable interpretation, assuming Rumsfeld's not THE FUCKING ANTICHRIST, then he actually believes the crap he's spewing. In which case he's admitting that he's been wrong the entire time....
Should we really let someone who was that wrong for that long and at such cost keep running things?
Should we give him another chance when the stakes are this high?
Is it probable that he'll get anywhere near right on the second go 'round?
Remember: if you answer in the negative to any of the above, then "the terrorists will have won".
-posted by scats
| scats:
Boy is THIS GUY is way "off message"...Didn't he get the memo from Rove that it's the media and not the policies that are losing the war?
[EXCERPTS :: ALL EMPHASIS MINE]
Rumsfeld fears U.S. losing long-term fight against terror
THE SUN-TIMES
June 6, 2004
BY ROBERT BURNS
The United States and its allies are winning some battles in the terrorism war but may be losing the broader struggle against Islamic extremism that is terrorism's source, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Saturday.
The troubling unknown, he said, is whether the extremists -- whom he termed "zealots and despots" bent on destroying the global system of nation-states -- are turning out newly trained terrorists faster than the United States can capture or kill them.
"It's quite clear to me that we do not have a coherent approach to this," Rumsfeld said at an international security conference.
The Pentagon chief usually lauds the efforts of U.S. troops, denounces terrorist networks and urges other countries to join the effort to stop terrorist acts.
"What you have is a civil war in that religion where a small minority are trying to hijack it," he said.
After meeting with Foreign Minister M. Morshed Khan in Dhaka, the capital, Rumsfeld told reporters the two had spoken about Iraq and Afghanistan but not the specifics of peacekeeping in those countries. Rumsfeld also had talks with Prime Minister Khaleda Zia and senior generals.
U.S. defense secretaries rarely visit Bangladesh, but Rumsfeld wanted to draw attention to the mostly Muslim nation as a model of the moderate Islamic country that denounces terrorism. While thousands of anti-American protesters took to the streets of Dhaka on Friday, there was no sign of hostility when Rumsfeld's entourage drove through the capital Saturday.
so...Why does Donald Rumsfeld hate America?
Now, either Rummy is just figuring out now that his policies are moronic when everyone who passed high school civics knew they were stupid in Oct. of 2001, or he's condescendingly lying to foreigners to con them into supporting moronic policies. Even worse, lying in such a way that shows that he knows what a decent policy might look like. Now Aristotle once defined "evil" as someone who knows the right thing to do, but does the wrong thing anyway. So if Rumsfeld continues to support current policy then that would make him.....?
(hint: starts with an "evil", ends with an expletive of your choosing)
However, on the most charitable interpretation, assuming Rumsfeld's not THE FUCKING ANTICHRIST, then he actually believes the crap he's spewing. In which case he's admitting that he's been wrong the entire time....
Should we really let someone who was that wrong for that long and at such cost keep running things?
Should we give him another chance when the stakes are this high?
Is it probable that he'll get anywhere near right on the second go 'round?
Remember: if you answer in the negative to any of the above, then "the terrorists will have won".
-posted by scats
Saturday, June 05, 2004
DRESSING DAD :: father's day is just around the corner
the good people at cafe press have released this line of shirts just in time for father's day. imagine dad, out on the golf-course, or running a company 10k "turkey trot" in one of these...
click here to check out available designs.
Friday, June 04, 2004
UPDATE :: cheney, rumsfeld on abuse trial witness list
thanks to commenter skunky spliffmeister: the lost article is up at the miami herald website.
it's also back up at salon...
not as exciting as we might have hoped -- they're basically on a big "catch all" list of potential witnesses. but you can check out the story here.
| it's also back up at salon...
not as exciting as we might have hoped -- they're basically on a big "catch all" list of potential witnesses. but you can check out the story here.
why i still love salon
okay, for starters, you don't have to subscribe to read it. common misconception. yes, you have to watch a little commercial. yes, it's kind of annoying. but think about all the commercials you watch on tv and don't even think about (or maybe you do, but you get where i'm going with this).
i've heard the complaints -- salon has gone too mainstream, etc. but folks, i urge you to give them another chance. they cover stuff that's not being covered in other easily-accessible media sources. and they've got good things to say. and there's something for everyone.
they've got pundits: sidney blumenthal's regular column is fantastic; arianna huffington is good too.
they've got average joe columnists: joe conason says what you think but haven't articulated yet; heather havrilesky is your guilty (but still lefty) pleasure on everything pop culture for early morning easy listenin'; cary tennis writes an advice column for the feminist majority.
salon's editorial staff writes consistently pertinent, interesting and well-written stories. today check out you gotta fight, for your right, to go solar. the first story in a series on the environment in the 21st century.
and their ap wires are the best. here are three of today's highlights:
#1: south dakotan sworn in as new house member
33-year-old democrat stephanie herseth was sworn in yesterday to replace republican bill janklow (who has been charged with manslaughter in a reckless driving incident -- don't you just wish we could catch the shrub in a "reckless warring" incident and replace him too?).
#2: sharon fires two ministers ahead of vote
sharon fired two "hardline" cabinet ministers yesterday, dismissals that will take effect 48 hours before sunday's major cabinet meeting -- giving sharon a one vote majority on his proposal to pull out of gaza. there's more details too -- go read it.
#3: kerry: bush has created "backdoor draft"
kerry has characterized the white house's plan to keep soldiers for longer tours than originally expected as a "backdoor draft". a bush spokesperson responded that kerry's condemnation was "an insult to the wonderful volunteer service we have in the military and the wonderful people we have serving." of course.
and finally, they have the funnies! comic animator (read: lo-fi genius) mark fiore puts the slick black back in your morning coffee as you get ready to drive to work.
by the way, there's a wire that has gone "missing" on salon this morning. the headline is "cheney, rumsfeld on abuse trial witness list", but the link goes to an error page. i'm looking into it, but if anyone finds more info, please post it to the comments...
| i've heard the complaints -- salon has gone too mainstream, etc. but folks, i urge you to give them another chance. they cover stuff that's not being covered in other easily-accessible media sources. and they've got good things to say. and there's something for everyone.
they've got pundits: sidney blumenthal's regular column is fantastic; arianna huffington is good too.
they've got average joe columnists: joe conason says what you think but haven't articulated yet; heather havrilesky is your guilty (but still lefty) pleasure on everything pop culture for early morning easy listenin'; cary tennis writes an advice column for the feminist majority.
salon's editorial staff writes consistently pertinent, interesting and well-written stories. today check out you gotta fight, for your right, to go solar. the first story in a series on the environment in the 21st century.
and their ap wires are the best. here are three of today's highlights:
#1: south dakotan sworn in as new house member
33-year-old democrat stephanie herseth was sworn in yesterday to replace republican bill janklow (who has been charged with manslaughter in a reckless driving incident -- don't you just wish we could catch the shrub in a "reckless warring" incident and replace him too?).
#2: sharon fires two ministers ahead of vote
sharon fired two "hardline" cabinet ministers yesterday, dismissals that will take effect 48 hours before sunday's major cabinet meeting -- giving sharon a one vote majority on his proposal to pull out of gaza. there's more details too -- go read it.
#3: kerry: bush has created "backdoor draft"
kerry has characterized the white house's plan to keep soldiers for longer tours than originally expected as a "backdoor draft". a bush spokesperson responded that kerry's condemnation was "an insult to the wonderful volunteer service we have in the military and the wonderful people we have serving." of course.
and finally, they have the funnies! comic animator (read: lo-fi genius) mark fiore puts the slick black back in your morning coffee as you get ready to drive to work.
by the way, there's a wire that has gone "missing" on salon this morning. the headline is "cheney, rumsfeld on abuse trial witness list", but the link goes to an error page. i'm looking into it, but if anyone finds more info, please post it to the comments...
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
MT. BUSHMORE :: the 3 stooges plan a trip to post 9/11 nyc
--( l. to r. )-- larry, curly, moe.
if bush had bothered to make it to the 9/11 hearings in nyc this month, they might have been worth watching. nothing substantive happened. and until he and the highest leadership prioritize this inquiry...
nothing ever will.
Monday, May 31, 2004
DEFENDING THE HONOR OF A LADY :: the grey lady, lady liberty, and the ladies of our military and their families
ok, ok...
everyone is RIGHT. the nytimes is filled with their share of jokers, jesters, crooks, and not-so-hot fact-checkers. yup. they sure did fuck up.
but there's still great stuff in it, innit? here's excerpts of two great nyt pieces from the long weekend. i love you grey lady, you are the most articulate girl i know... [ALL EMPHASIS MINE]
from sunday's magazine:
IDEA LAB:
A Really Open Election
By CLIVE THOMPSON
This fall, as many as 20 percent of American voters will be able to cast their ballots on A.T.M.-style electronic voting machines. North Carolina officials recently learned that a software glitch destroyed 436 e-ballots in early voting for the 2002 general election. In a Florida state election this past January, 134 votes apparently weren't recorded -- and this was in a race decided by a margin of only 12 votes. Since most of the machines don't leave any paper trail, there's no way to determine what actually happened.
Electronic voting has much to offer, but will we ever be able to trust these buggy machines? Yes, we will -- but only if we adopt the techniques of the "open source" geeks.
One reason it's difficult to trust the voting software of companies like Diebold is that the source code remains a trade secret. A few federally approved software experts are allowed to examine the code and verify that it works as intended, and in some cases, states are allowed to keep a copy in escrow. But the public has no access, and this is troublesome. When the Diebold source code was accidentally posted online last year, a computer-science professor looked at it and found it was dangerously hackable. Diebold may have fixed its bugs, but since the firm won't share the code publicly, there's no way of knowing. Just trust us, the company says.
But is the counting of votes -- a fundamental of democracy -- something you want to take on faith? No, this problem requires a more definitive solution: ending the secrecy around the machines.
First off, the government should ditch the private-sector software makers. Then it should hire a crack team of programmers to write new code. Then -- and this is the crucial part -- it should put the source code online publicly, where anyone can critique or debug it. This honors the genius of the open-source movement. If you show something to a large enough group of critics, they'll notice (and find a way to remove) almost any possible flaw. If tens of thousands of programmers are scrutinizing the country's voting software, it's highly unlikely a serious bug will go uncaught. The government's programming team would then take the recommendations, incorporate them into an improved code and put that online, too. Already, Australians have used the open-source strategy to build voting software for a state election, and it ran like a well-oiled Chevy. A group of civic-minded programmers known as the Open Voting Consortium has written its own open-source code.
But if our code were open, wouldn't cyberterrorists or other outlaws be able to locate flaws and possibly rig an election? Well, theoretically -- except that it's highly unlikely that they could spot an error that escaped thousands and thousands of scrutineers. Indeed, it may be far easier to infiltrate a private-sector company and tamper with its software. Diebold, after all, kept quiet about the bugs it found in its programs -- including one that subtracted more than 16,000 votes from Al Gore in a single Florida country during the initial vote counting in the 2000 election. Open-source enthusiasts, by contrast, are precisely the sort of people you'd like to see inspecting the voting code; they're often libertarian freaks, nuttily suspicious of centralized power, and they'd scream to the high heavens if they found anything wrong.
From the classification of documents to the refusal to name detainees, the Bush administration's actions show a high regard for secrecy. In essence, it's hiding its code, too. Inside such closed systems, nasty things can happen, as we're learning to our chagrin. Perhaps a blast of open-source candor is exactly what America needs right now.
Clive Thompson writes frequently for the magazine about science and technology.
and from today's national section:
THE WAR AT HOME:
For Soldiers Back From Iraq, Basic Training in Resuming Life
By MONICA DAVEY
FORT RILEY, Kan. — Lt. Col. Dan McClure struts up and down the auditorium in his camouflage fatigues, every bit the drill sergeant he was for years: tormenting any poor soul whose cellphone dares to ring, anyone with the unfortunate rank of lieutenant, anyone blond.
At other incongruous moments on this morning, the gruff officer turns gentle, sounding oddly like Oprah.
Colonel McClure, now an Army chaplain, is here to warn the hundreds of soldiers before him who had returned five days earlier from Iraq, their uniforms still mildewed from the months away, that whatever they think right now, coming home may not be as easy as it seems. After the first embraces with cameras clicking, the homecoming parties, life may get complicated in unimagined ways.
You may find yourself driving your tiny Honda too fast down the center of a Kansas highway, the way you did with your Humvee in Iraq, he tells them. You may get claustrophobic at Wal-Mart, or shaky when a car backfires or a bright light flashes. While you crave sex, your wife may crave conversation. And you will surely get "dumb question No. 3" from those who never set a boot in Iraq: Did you shoot anyone over there?
Colonel McClure, who did two combat tours in Vietnam, shares his own crass retort: "I don't know. I never went to look." But as laughter seeps through the rows, he turns sensitive again. Never answer the shooting question, he advises, because it will only prompt another: How did it feel?
"Don't let them get to that follow-up question," he warns the soldiers, now silent. "That one hurts."
At Fort Riley, this is the last stop before home for soldiers returning from Iraq. Mandatory "debriefs" like this one, to be conducted for thousands of soldiers in training rooms and auditoriums at bases across the country, are a novelty for the United States military. The sessions were begun in response to a spate of deaths at Fort Bragg, N.C., in 2002, when four soldiers were charged with killing their wives in unrelated cases. The sessions reflect the realization that for soldiers and their families, the burdens and sacrifices of deployment go far beyond fighting overseas and waiting at home.
As these re-entry sessions show, coping with war is a long-term struggle, a way of life, falling hardest on a sliver of American society: the men, women and children of the military class, hundreds of thousands of them, many clustered in and around bases like Fort Riley.
"Ladies need affection," Colonel McClure announces. "Take a lesson, gentlemen. Learn an adjective or two. That's conversation."
It used to be that soldiers cleaned their weapons and left for a long vacation almost as soon as they got back from a war zone. But misery can follow them home. Post-traumatic stress has left its mark on generations of veterans. This is why soldiers returning from Iraq must now undergo 10 days of counseling on something that most of them think will be the easiest job of all: going home.
"No matter who you are, or how happy you are to have him home, or how many times you've been through this, all of this is a big adjustment for anyone," said First Sgt. Colleen Shanklin, a reservist whose husband, Curtis, returned a few weeks back.
[soldier Curtis Shanklin's] e-mail messages from Iraq, she said on a recent afternoon, were more forthcoming than his words are now. At first he sat glued to CNN, in what Sergeant Shanklin, 43, described as "his silent mode."
...But that's today. For some, the long-term problems — marital problems, isolation, depression — have just not set in yet.
There are isolated indications of trouble. Eight soldiers who survived Iraq committed suicide back home, said Martha Rudd, an Army spokeswoman. For example, in March, three weeks after Chief Warrant Officer William Howell returned to Fort Carson, Colo., he shot himself dead. At Fort Campbell, Ky., Specialist Jeremy Seeley, newly back from Iraq, apparently poisoned himself in a motel room, his family said. Also in March, Sgt. James K. Pitts, recently back to Fort Lewis, Wash., from Iraq, was charged in April with murder, accused of drowning his wife in a bathtub.
The Miles Foundation, a nonprofit group in Connecticut that deals with abuse in the military, says that the number of reports it receives about domestic violence and sexual abuse has soared since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began. Before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, the agency got about 75 calls from military families reporting abuse each month; now, it receives 150 calls a week.
Most of all, the moods of new veterans may be changeable. As more soldiers are sent to Iraq for repeat tours, the stress grows more complicated. Experts on veterans' issues say public attitudes also affect how well soldiers and their families cope with resuming ordinary lives. In recent weeks, with mounting rebel insurgencies, a growing scandal over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, and the beheading of an American in Iraq, the polls have shown support for President Bush's policy slipping.
"The soldiers all want to know if there's support from home," Dr. John H. Rennick, a psychiatrist and a major in the Army Reserve, said. "That was part of what happened to them coming home from Vietnam. There was such a division of opinion and waning support after a while — a sense of futility took over among some people."
In the small Kansas towns that surround and depend on Fort Riley, support shows no signs of sinking. As stateside bases go, Fort Riley is typical: home to 11,000 soldiers in infantry, mechanics, maintenance and medical units and a training ground for National Guard and Reserve units from around the Midwest. About 3,700 soldiers from the base are in Iraq; an additional 4,000 have returned from there. Thirty-seven soldiers have died there, nearly all since President Bush declared major combat over in May 2003.
But in private, some people acknowledge that their relationships have changed. Spouses say soldiers are quiet, aloof. Soldiers find spouses clingy or too independent after so much time on their own. Children seem different; the youngest do not even recognize their parents. For the predeployment newlyweds — one Fort Riley couple met on the Internet and married a week before he left — coming home can be truly strange.
Sergeant Shanklin has had visits from some of his younger soldiers. Some complain that their children disobey them. Others struggle with anger at how their wives spent money while they were gone.
The far more serious problems — combat flashbacks, panic attacks — cannot be solved with flowers or dates, Colonel McClure, the chaplain, acknowledges. Talking helps, he tells the soldiers. Call your buddies, he says, but if symptoms persist, call a doctor.
Christa Dannenberg, 20, had never lived alone until her husband, Staff Sgt. Robert Dannenberg, went to Iraq in March 2003, six months after they married. By the time he returned last July...it was odd to have him back. "I had to initiate every conversation," Ms. Dannenberg said. "It was like he wasn't there. He wouldn't talk."
Sergeant Dannenberg, 23, said he had not even noticed his own silence; it was all a blur. "I guess I just thought she had a lot to tell me," he said. "You get that way in the desert."
Not long ago, Sergeant Dannenberg and 700 other soldiers were ordered to return to Iraq.
this piece is the first in an nyt series on soldiers at home. stay tuned, for sure.
happy memorial day.
| everyone is RIGHT. the nytimes is filled with their share of jokers, jesters, crooks, and not-so-hot fact-checkers. yup. they sure did fuck up.
but there's still great stuff in it, innit? here's excerpts of two great nyt pieces from the long weekend. i love you grey lady, you are the most articulate girl i know... [ALL EMPHASIS MINE]
from sunday's magazine:
IDEA LAB:
A Really Open Election
By CLIVE THOMPSON
This fall, as many as 20 percent of American voters will be able to cast their ballots on A.T.M.-style electronic voting machines. North Carolina officials recently learned that a software glitch destroyed 436 e-ballots in early voting for the 2002 general election. In a Florida state election this past January, 134 votes apparently weren't recorded -- and this was in a race decided by a margin of only 12 votes. Since most of the machines don't leave any paper trail, there's no way to determine what actually happened.
Electronic voting has much to offer, but will we ever be able to trust these buggy machines? Yes, we will -- but only if we adopt the techniques of the "open source" geeks.
One reason it's difficult to trust the voting software of companies like Diebold is that the source code remains a trade secret. A few federally approved software experts are allowed to examine the code and verify that it works as intended, and in some cases, states are allowed to keep a copy in escrow. But the public has no access, and this is troublesome. When the Diebold source code was accidentally posted online last year, a computer-science professor looked at it and found it was dangerously hackable. Diebold may have fixed its bugs, but since the firm won't share the code publicly, there's no way of knowing. Just trust us, the company says.
But is the counting of votes -- a fundamental of democracy -- something you want to take on faith? No, this problem requires a more definitive solution: ending the secrecy around the machines.
First off, the government should ditch the private-sector software makers. Then it should hire a crack team of programmers to write new code. Then -- and this is the crucial part -- it should put the source code online publicly, where anyone can critique or debug it. This honors the genius of the open-source movement. If you show something to a large enough group of critics, they'll notice (and find a way to remove) almost any possible flaw. If tens of thousands of programmers are scrutinizing the country's voting software, it's highly unlikely a serious bug will go uncaught. The government's programming team would then take the recommendations, incorporate them into an improved code and put that online, too. Already, Australians have used the open-source strategy to build voting software for a state election, and it ran like a well-oiled Chevy. A group of civic-minded programmers known as the Open Voting Consortium has written its own open-source code.
But if our code were open, wouldn't cyberterrorists or other outlaws be able to locate flaws and possibly rig an election? Well, theoretically -- except that it's highly unlikely that they could spot an error that escaped thousands and thousands of scrutineers. Indeed, it may be far easier to infiltrate a private-sector company and tamper with its software. Diebold, after all, kept quiet about the bugs it found in its programs -- including one that subtracted more than 16,000 votes from Al Gore in a single Florida country during the initial vote counting in the 2000 election. Open-source enthusiasts, by contrast, are precisely the sort of people you'd like to see inspecting the voting code; they're often libertarian freaks, nuttily suspicious of centralized power, and they'd scream to the high heavens if they found anything wrong.
From the classification of documents to the refusal to name detainees, the Bush administration's actions show a high regard for secrecy. In essence, it's hiding its code, too. Inside such closed systems, nasty things can happen, as we're learning to our chagrin. Perhaps a blast of open-source candor is exactly what America needs right now.
Clive Thompson writes frequently for the magazine about science and technology.
and from today's national section:
THE WAR AT HOME:
For Soldiers Back From Iraq, Basic Training in Resuming Life
By MONICA DAVEY
FORT RILEY, Kan. — Lt. Col. Dan McClure struts up and down the auditorium in his camouflage fatigues, every bit the drill sergeant he was for years: tormenting any poor soul whose cellphone dares to ring, anyone with the unfortunate rank of lieutenant, anyone blond.
At other incongruous moments on this morning, the gruff officer turns gentle, sounding oddly like Oprah.
Colonel McClure, now an Army chaplain, is here to warn the hundreds of soldiers before him who had returned five days earlier from Iraq, their uniforms still mildewed from the months away, that whatever they think right now, coming home may not be as easy as it seems. After the first embraces with cameras clicking, the homecoming parties, life may get complicated in unimagined ways.
You may find yourself driving your tiny Honda too fast down the center of a Kansas highway, the way you did with your Humvee in Iraq, he tells them. You may get claustrophobic at Wal-Mart, or shaky when a car backfires or a bright light flashes. While you crave sex, your wife may crave conversation. And you will surely get "dumb question No. 3" from those who never set a boot in Iraq: Did you shoot anyone over there?
Colonel McClure, who did two combat tours in Vietnam, shares his own crass retort: "I don't know. I never went to look." But as laughter seeps through the rows, he turns sensitive again. Never answer the shooting question, he advises, because it will only prompt another: How did it feel?
"Don't let them get to that follow-up question," he warns the soldiers, now silent. "That one hurts."
At Fort Riley, this is the last stop before home for soldiers returning from Iraq. Mandatory "debriefs" like this one, to be conducted for thousands of soldiers in training rooms and auditoriums at bases across the country, are a novelty for the United States military. The sessions were begun in response to a spate of deaths at Fort Bragg, N.C., in 2002, when four soldiers were charged with killing their wives in unrelated cases. The sessions reflect the realization that for soldiers and their families, the burdens and sacrifices of deployment go far beyond fighting overseas and waiting at home.
As these re-entry sessions show, coping with war is a long-term struggle, a way of life, falling hardest on a sliver of American society: the men, women and children of the military class, hundreds of thousands of them, many clustered in and around bases like Fort Riley.
"Ladies need affection," Colonel McClure announces. "Take a lesson, gentlemen. Learn an adjective or two. That's conversation."
It used to be that soldiers cleaned their weapons and left for a long vacation almost as soon as they got back from a war zone. But misery can follow them home. Post-traumatic stress has left its mark on generations of veterans. This is why soldiers returning from Iraq must now undergo 10 days of counseling on something that most of them think will be the easiest job of all: going home.
"No matter who you are, or how happy you are to have him home, or how many times you've been through this, all of this is a big adjustment for anyone," said First Sgt. Colleen Shanklin, a reservist whose husband, Curtis, returned a few weeks back.
[soldier Curtis Shanklin's] e-mail messages from Iraq, she said on a recent afternoon, were more forthcoming than his words are now. At first he sat glued to CNN, in what Sergeant Shanklin, 43, described as "his silent mode."
...But that's today. For some, the long-term problems — marital problems, isolation, depression — have just not set in yet.
There are isolated indications of trouble. Eight soldiers who survived Iraq committed suicide back home, said Martha Rudd, an Army spokeswoman. For example, in March, three weeks after Chief Warrant Officer William Howell returned to Fort Carson, Colo., he shot himself dead. At Fort Campbell, Ky., Specialist Jeremy Seeley, newly back from Iraq, apparently poisoned himself in a motel room, his family said. Also in March, Sgt. James K. Pitts, recently back to Fort Lewis, Wash., from Iraq, was charged in April with murder, accused of drowning his wife in a bathtub.
The Miles Foundation, a nonprofit group in Connecticut that deals with abuse in the military, says that the number of reports it receives about domestic violence and sexual abuse has soared since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began. Before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, the agency got about 75 calls from military families reporting abuse each month; now, it receives 150 calls a week.
Most of all, the moods of new veterans may be changeable. As more soldiers are sent to Iraq for repeat tours, the stress grows more complicated. Experts on veterans' issues say public attitudes also affect how well soldiers and their families cope with resuming ordinary lives. In recent weeks, with mounting rebel insurgencies, a growing scandal over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, and the beheading of an American in Iraq, the polls have shown support for President Bush's policy slipping.
"The soldiers all want to know if there's support from home," Dr. John H. Rennick, a psychiatrist and a major in the Army Reserve, said. "That was part of what happened to them coming home from Vietnam. There was such a division of opinion and waning support after a while — a sense of futility took over among some people."
In the small Kansas towns that surround and depend on Fort Riley, support shows no signs of sinking. As stateside bases go, Fort Riley is typical: home to 11,000 soldiers in infantry, mechanics, maintenance and medical units and a training ground for National Guard and Reserve units from around the Midwest. About 3,700 soldiers from the base are in Iraq; an additional 4,000 have returned from there. Thirty-seven soldiers have died there, nearly all since President Bush declared major combat over in May 2003.
But in private, some people acknowledge that their relationships have changed. Spouses say soldiers are quiet, aloof. Soldiers find spouses clingy or too independent after so much time on their own. Children seem different; the youngest do not even recognize their parents. For the predeployment newlyweds — one Fort Riley couple met on the Internet and married a week before he left — coming home can be truly strange.
Sergeant Shanklin has had visits from some of his younger soldiers. Some complain that their children disobey them. Others struggle with anger at how their wives spent money while they were gone.
The far more serious problems — combat flashbacks, panic attacks — cannot be solved with flowers or dates, Colonel McClure, the chaplain, acknowledges. Talking helps, he tells the soldiers. Call your buddies, he says, but if symptoms persist, call a doctor.
Christa Dannenberg, 20, had never lived alone until her husband, Staff Sgt. Robert Dannenberg, went to Iraq in March 2003, six months after they married. By the time he returned last July...it was odd to have him back. "I had to initiate every conversation," Ms. Dannenberg said. "It was like he wasn't there. He wouldn't talk."
Sergeant Dannenberg, 23, said he had not even noticed his own silence; it was all a blur. "I guess I just thought she had a lot to tell me," he said. "You get that way in the desert."
Not long ago, Sergeant Dannenberg and 700 other soldiers were ordered to return to Iraq.
this piece is the first in an nyt series on soldiers at home. stay tuned, for sure.
happy memorial day.
Saturday, May 22, 2004
atrocities in iraq :: in our own words
of course, you have heard by now that a u.s. military judge found florida national guard sgt. camilo mejia guilty of desertion yesterday; the guilty finding, and mejia's ongoing attempt to reverse his sentence as a conscientious objector, is a huge blow to dissidents within our armed services. and given predictions of the new military draft, his conviction should serve as a warning to all americans, male or female, between the ages of 18 and 31...
...as in, us.
camilo mejia returned to the u.s. in october 2003 on a two-week leave. during his time home he reported to friends, families, and national guard higher-ups that he had borne witness to a number of combat-related and prison-related atrocities by u.s. forces; when he was to report for duty, he didn't. instead, he spent the winter "hiding out" in the boston and new york areas.
here's a bit of the reporting out there about camilo's case : [all emphasis my own]
from the mercury news.
...the military judge, Col. Gary Smith, would not let Mejia turn the court-martial into a trial on the conduct of the war itself, refusing to allow him to call witnesses on international law or to hear evidence of alleged mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners or detainees...[Mejia] claimed the way the war is being conducted violates international law. He refused to return to his outfit after coming home to the U.S on leave last year.
But jurors rejected the University of Miami student's contention that he was entitled to abandon his duty because he had been in the military longer than the eight years that regulations say a non-citizen can serve in the Florida National Guard. Mejia holds dual citizenship in Costa Rica and Nicaragua.
Mejia, a staff sergeant and well-liked squad leader in the Miami-based Charlie Company of the First Battalion of the 124th Infantry Regiment, took the witness stand in his own defense earlier this week. He said the deaths of young innocents in the conflict turned him against the war and into a conscientious objector.
In October, Sergeant Mejia legally left his unit, the First Battalion, 124th Infantry, for a brief furlough in the United States to look into a Guard rule that foreign citizens may not serve more than eight years, a term he had fulfilled. Sergeant Mejia is a dual citizen of Nicaragua and Costa Rica and a permanent resident of the United States.
from the guardian.uk:
Sergeant Mejia, 28, the first combat veteran from Iraq to apply for the status of a conscientious objector, was sentenced to 12 months in prison with demotion to the lowest class of private and pay reduced by two-thirds to $795 a month. He was led from the clapboard court in handcuffs to an undisclosed location. His lawyer, Louis Font, said he would appeal.
The severity of the sentencing came as little surprise to Sgt Mejia or his supporters who had been bracing themselves for exemplary punishment. The soldier had been instructed on the eve of his trial to get his records and belongings in order in case he was sent to prison. "I knew the consequences of my actions, but I believed strongly in what I did," he said before sentencing.
In an emotional address...the sergeant described the violence he had experienced during his service at Ramadi, and its effects. "Anybody could be the enemy and you lose your perspective. Maybe your friend was shot, or you are scared, and you lose perspective on the value of life.
"I respect this court but from the bottom of my heart I sit here a free man. When I am behind bars - if you put me behind bars - I will be a free man as well because my actions and my belief against the war have set me free," Sgt Mejia said.
After he was led away his mother, Maritza Castillo, told reporters: "One year in prison is nothing compared to having it on your conscience that you participated in an immoral and illegal war."
Sgt. Mejia's lawyers had hoped to introduce experts on the Geneva convention and international law for his defence, but the judge, Colonel Gary Smith, refused.
Instead defence lawyers that, as a holder of Nicaraguan and Costa Rican passports, Sgt Mejia was exempted from returning to Iraq by military regulations setting a cap of eight years on the time non-citizens can be required to serve in the army.
They said that when he left his unit last October, during a leave of absence in the US, he believed he had served his time. "Sgt. Mejia had an honest and reasonable belief that, since he was now a conscientious objector, he would not be required to return to Iraq," his lawyer said. "In truth the command wanted Sgt Mejia back in Iraq whether or not he should have been in the service. Sgt. Mejia's command turned its back on him."
Sgt Mejia, the son of upper middle class parents who had been active in Nicaragua's revolution, was an unlikely recruit to the US military. He enlisted in 1995 after moving to the US as a teenager. Sceptical at the outset of the war, his opposition deepened during his stay in Ramadi.
sgt. mejia is currently facing 12 months hard labor, a pay-cut to $800 a month and a less-than-honorable-discharge (which, ok...i guess that's not a surprise)...but, his mom says it's ok, and that's all that matters. his appeal for conscientious objector's status continues this week.
in regards to mejia's case, army prosecutor capt. a. j. balbo argued that mejia had deserted his post, while his unit remained in hazardous conditions: "He enjoyed all the benefits of military, just not the duty," Balbo said. "The defense says he accomplished all of his missions. Except the most important one - showing up." another official reported that enlistment wasn't a self-serving proposition, as troops can't "come and go as they like."
yeah. sucks to be in the army, don't it boys? at least the private contractors can come and go as they please, AND they can keep working in their iraqi prison M.I. units while they're being investigated for torture and sexual humiliation.
sure sucks to be wearing a uniform. you'll find yourself disgraced for life. seems private security is the only way to go anymore. *sighs*
thebigwedding agent scats passed along the following interview conducted by paul rockwell of the sacramento bee. marine staff sgt. jimmy massey shares many of the not-so-fuzzy-feelings that sgt. mejia reports, and that are undoubtedly common among our young u.s. troops.
[excerpts] :: [all emphasis my own]
Atrocities in Iraq: 'I killed innocent people for our government'
By Paul Rockwell -- Special to The Bee - (Published May 16, 2004)
"We forget what war is about, what it does to those who wage it and those who suffer from it. Those who hate war the most, I have often found, are veterans who know it."
-- Chris Hedges, NY Times reporter and author of "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning"
***
For nearly 12 years, Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey was a hard-core, some say gung-ho, Marine. For three years he trained fellow Marines in one of the most grueling indoctrination rituals in military life - Marine boot camp.
The Iraq war changed Massey. The brutality, the sheer carnage of the U.S. invasion, touched his conscience and transformed him forever. He was honorably discharged with full severance last Dec. 31 and is now back in his hometown, Waynsville, N.C.
When I talked with Massey last week, he expressed his remorse at the civilian loss of life in incidents in which he himself was involved.
Q: You spent 12 years in the Marines. When were you sent to Iraq?
A: I went to Kuwait around Jan. 17. I was in Iraq from the get-go. And I was involved in the initial invasion.
Q: What does the public need to know about your experiences as a Marine?
A: The cause of the Iraqi revolt against the American occupation. What they need to know is we killed a lot of innocent people.
Q: What experiences turned you against the war and made you leave the Marines?
A: I was in charge of a platoon that consists of machine gunners and missile men. Our job was to go into certain areas of the towns and secure the roadways. There was this one particular incident - and there's many more - the one that really pushed me over the edge. It involved a car with Iraqi civilians. From all the intelligence reports we were getting, the cars were loaded down with suicide bombs or material. That's the rhetoric we received from intelligence. They came upon our checkpoint. We fired some warning shots. They didn't slow down. So we lit them up.
Q: Lit up? You mean you fired machine guns?
A: Right. Every car that we lit up we were expecting ammunition to go off. But we never heard any. Well, this particular vehicle we didn't destroy completely, and one gentleman looked up at me and said: "Why did you kill my brother? We didn't do anything wrong." That hit me like a ton of bricks.
Q: He spoke English?
A: Oh, yeah.
Q: Baghdad was being bombed. The civilians were trying to get out, right?
A: Yes. They received pamphlets, propaganda we dropped on them. It said, "Just throw up your hands, lay down weapons." That's what they were doing, but we were still lighting them up. They weren't in uniform. We never found any weapons.
Q: You got to see the bodies and casualties?
A: Yeah, firsthand. I helped throw them in a ditch.
Q: How many times were you involved in checkpoint "light-ups"?
A: Five times. There was [the city of] Rekha. The gentleman was driving a stolen work utility van. He didn't stop. With us being trigger happy, we didn't really give this guy much of a chance. We lit him up pretty good. Then we inspected the back of the van. We found nothing. No explosives.
Q: The reports said the cars were loaded with explosives. In all the incidents did you find that to be the case?
A: Never. Not once. There were no secondary explosions. As a matter of fact, we lit up a rally after we heard a stray gunshot.
Q: A demonstration? Where?
A: On the outskirts of Baghdad. Near a military compound. There were demonstrators at the end of the street. They were young and they had no weapons. And when we rolled onto the scene, there was already a tank that was parked on the side of the road. If the Iraqis wanted to do something, they could have blown up the tank. But they didn't. They were only holding a demonstration. Down at the end of the road, we saw some RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) lined up against the wall. That put us at ease because we thought: "Wow, if they were going to blow us up, they would have done it."
Q: Were the protest signs in English or Arabic?
A: Both.
Q: Who gave the order to wipe the demonstrators out?
A: Higher command. We were told to be on the lookout for the civilians because a lot of the Fedayeen and the Republican Guards had tossed away uniforms and put on civilian clothes and were mounting terrorist attacks on American soldiers. The intelligence reports that were given to us were basically known by every member of the chain of command. The rank structure that was implemented in Iraq by the chain of command was evident to every Marine in Iraq. The order to shoot the demonstrators, I believe, came from senior government officials, including intelligence communities within the military and the U.S. government.
Q: You fired into six or ten kids? Were they all taken out?
A: Oh, yeah. Well, I had a "mercy" on one guy. When we rolled up, he was hiding behind a concrete pillar. I saw him and raised my weapon up, and he put up his hands. He ran off. I told everybody, "Don't shoot." Half of his foot was trailing behind him. So he was running with half of his foot cut off.
Q: Well, I appreciate you giving me the information, as hard as it must be to recall the painful details.
A: That's all right. It's kind of therapy for me. Because it's something that I had repressed for a long time.
Q: And the incident?
A: There was an incident with one of the cars. We shot an individual with his hands up. He got out of the car. He was badly shot. We lit him up. I don't know who started shooting first. One of the Marines came running over to where we were and said: "You all just shot a guy with his hands up." Man, I forgot about this.
Q: You mention machine guns. What can you tell me about cluster bombs, or depleted uranium?
A: Depleted uranium. I know what it does. It's basically like leaving plutonium rods around. I'm 32 years old. I have 80 percent of my lung capacity. I ache all the time. I don't feel like a healthy 32-year-old.
Q: Were you in the vicinity of of depleted uranium?
A: Oh, yeah. It's everywhere. DU is everywhere on the battlefield. If you hit a tank, there's dust.
Q: Did you breath any dust?
A: Yeah.
Q: And if DU is affecting you or our troops, it's impacting Iraqi civilians.
A: Oh, yeah. They got a big wasteland problem.
Q: Do Marines have any precautions about dealing with DU?
A: Not that I know of...If an enemy vehicle gets hit, the area gets contaminated. Dead rounds are in the ground. The civilian populace is just now starting to learn about it. Hell, I didn't even know about DU until two years ago. You know how I found out about it? I read an article in Rolling Stone magazine. I just started inquiring about it, and I said "Holy s---!"
Q: Cluster bombs are also controversial. U.N. commissions have called for a ban. Were you acquainted with cluster bombs?
A: I had one of my Marines in my battalion who lost his leg from an ICBM.
Q: What's an ICBM?
A: A multi-purpose cluster bomb. They are used everywhere. Now if you talked to a Marine artillery officer, he would give you the runaround, the politically correct answer. But for an average grunt, they're everywhere.
Q: Cluster bombs are anti-personnel weapons. They are not precise. They don't injure buildings, or hurt tanks. Only people and living things. There are a lot of undetonated duds and they go off after the battles are over.
A: Once the round leaves the tube, the cluster bomb has a mind of its own. There's always human error. It's starting to leak out about the civilian casualties that are taking place. The Iraqis know. I keep hearing reports from my Marine buddies inside that there were 200-something civilians killed in Fallujah. The military is scrambling right now to keep the raps on that. My understanding is Fallujah is just littered with civilian bodies.
Q: I would like to go back to the first incident, when the survivor asked why did you kill his brother. Was that the incident that pushed you over the edge, as you put it?
A: Oh, yeah. Later on I found out that was a typical day. I talked with my commanding officer after the incident. He came up to me and says: "Are you OK?" I said: "No, today is not a good day. We killed a bunch of civilians." He goes: "No, today was a good day." And when he said that, I said "Oh, my goodness, what the hell am I into?"
Q: Your feelings changed during the invasion. What was your state of mind before the invasion?
A: I was like every other troop. My president told me they got weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam threatened the free world, that he had all this might and could reach us anywhere. I just bought into the whole thing.
Q: Did the revelations that the government fabricated the evidence for war affect the troops?
A: Yes. I killed innocent people for our government. For what? What did I do? Where is the good coming out of it? I feel like I've had a hand in some sort of evil lie at the hands of our government. I just feel embarrassed, ashamed about it.
Q: What happened with your commanding officers? How did you deal with them?
A: There was an incident. On the outskirts of Karbala, we had a morning meeting on the battle plan. I was not in a good mindset. All these things were going through my head - about what we were doing over there. I was holding it all inside. My lieutenant and I got into a conversation. The conversation was striking me wrong. And I lashed out. I looked at him and told him: "You know, I honestly feel that what we're doing is wrong over here. We're committing genocide."
He asked me something and I said that with the killing of civilians and the depleted uranium we're leaving over here, we're not going to have to worry about terrorists. He didn't like that. He got up and stormed off. And I knew right then and there that my career was over. I was talking to my commanding officer.
Q: What happened then?
A: After I talked to the top commander, I was kind of scurried away. I was basically put on house arrest. I didn't talk to other troops. I didn't want to hurt them. I didn't want to jeopardize them.
I want to help people. I felt strongly about it. I had to say something. When I was sent back to stateside, I went in front of the sergeant major. He's in charge of 3,500-plus Marines. "Sir," I told him, "I don't want your money. I don't want your benefits. What you did was wrong."
It was just a personal conviction with me. I've had an impeccable career. I chose to get out. And you know who I blame? I blame the president of the U.S. It's not the grunt. I blame the president because he said they had weapons of mass destruction. It was a lie.
Paul Rockwell (rockyspad@hotmail.com) is a writer who lives in Oakland.
| ...as in, us.
camilo mejia returned to the u.s. in october 2003 on a two-week leave. during his time home he reported to friends, families, and national guard higher-ups that he had borne witness to a number of combat-related and prison-related atrocities by u.s. forces; when he was to report for duty, he didn't. instead, he spent the winter "hiding out" in the boston and new york areas.
here's a bit of the reporting out there about camilo's case : [all emphasis my own]
from the mercury news.
...the military judge, Col. Gary Smith, would not let Mejia turn the court-martial into a trial on the conduct of the war itself, refusing to allow him to call witnesses on international law or to hear evidence of alleged mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners or detainees...[Mejia] claimed the way the war is being conducted violates international law. He refused to return to his outfit after coming home to the U.S on leave last year.
But jurors rejected the University of Miami student's contention that he was entitled to abandon his duty because he had been in the military longer than the eight years that regulations say a non-citizen can serve in the Florida National Guard. Mejia holds dual citizenship in Costa Rica and Nicaragua.
Mejia, a staff sergeant and well-liked squad leader in the Miami-based Charlie Company of the First Battalion of the 124th Infantry Regiment, took the witness stand in his own defense earlier this week. He said the deaths of young innocents in the conflict turned him against the war and into a conscientious objector.
In October, Sergeant Mejia legally left his unit, the First Battalion, 124th Infantry, for a brief furlough in the United States to look into a Guard rule that foreign citizens may not serve more than eight years, a term he had fulfilled. Sergeant Mejia is a dual citizen of Nicaragua and Costa Rica and a permanent resident of the United States.
from the guardian.uk:
Sergeant Mejia, 28, the first combat veteran from Iraq to apply for the status of a conscientious objector, was sentenced to 12 months in prison with demotion to the lowest class of private and pay reduced by two-thirds to $795 a month. He was led from the clapboard court in handcuffs to an undisclosed location. His lawyer, Louis Font, said he would appeal.
The severity of the sentencing came as little surprise to Sgt Mejia or his supporters who had been bracing themselves for exemplary punishment. The soldier had been instructed on the eve of his trial to get his records and belongings in order in case he was sent to prison. "I knew the consequences of my actions, but I believed strongly in what I did," he said before sentencing.
In an emotional address...the sergeant described the violence he had experienced during his service at Ramadi, and its effects. "Anybody could be the enemy and you lose your perspective. Maybe your friend was shot, or you are scared, and you lose perspective on the value of life.
"I respect this court but from the bottom of my heart I sit here a free man. When I am behind bars - if you put me behind bars - I will be a free man as well because my actions and my belief against the war have set me free," Sgt Mejia said.
After he was led away his mother, Maritza Castillo, told reporters: "One year in prison is nothing compared to having it on your conscience that you participated in an immoral and illegal war."
Sgt. Mejia's lawyers had hoped to introduce experts on the Geneva convention and international law for his defence, but the judge, Colonel Gary Smith, refused.
Instead defence lawyers that, as a holder of Nicaraguan and Costa Rican passports, Sgt Mejia was exempted from returning to Iraq by military regulations setting a cap of eight years on the time non-citizens can be required to serve in the army.
They said that when he left his unit last October, during a leave of absence in the US, he believed he had served his time. "Sgt. Mejia had an honest and reasonable belief that, since he was now a conscientious objector, he would not be required to return to Iraq," his lawyer said. "In truth the command wanted Sgt Mejia back in Iraq whether or not he should have been in the service. Sgt. Mejia's command turned its back on him."
Sgt Mejia, the son of upper middle class parents who had been active in Nicaragua's revolution, was an unlikely recruit to the US military. He enlisted in 1995 after moving to the US as a teenager. Sceptical at the outset of the war, his opposition deepened during his stay in Ramadi.
sgt. mejia is currently facing 12 months hard labor, a pay-cut to $800 a month and a less-than-honorable-discharge (which, ok...i guess that's not a surprise)...but, his mom says it's ok, and that's all that matters. his appeal for conscientious objector's status continues this week.
in regards to mejia's case, army prosecutor capt. a. j. balbo argued that mejia had deserted his post, while his unit remained in hazardous conditions: "He enjoyed all the benefits of military, just not the duty," Balbo said. "The defense says he accomplished all of his missions. Except the most important one - showing up." another official reported that enlistment wasn't a self-serving proposition, as troops can't "come and go as they like."
yeah. sucks to be in the army, don't it boys? at least the private contractors can come and go as they please, AND they can keep working in their iraqi prison M.I. units while they're being investigated for torture and sexual humiliation.
sure sucks to be wearing a uniform. you'll find yourself disgraced for life. seems private security is the only way to go anymore. *sighs*
thebigwedding agent scats passed along the following interview conducted by paul rockwell of the sacramento bee. marine staff sgt. jimmy massey shares many of the not-so-fuzzy-feelings that sgt. mejia reports, and that are undoubtedly common among our young u.s. troops.
[excerpts] :: [all emphasis my own]
Atrocities in Iraq: 'I killed innocent people for our government'
By Paul Rockwell -- Special to The Bee - (Published May 16, 2004)
"We forget what war is about, what it does to those who wage it and those who suffer from it. Those who hate war the most, I have often found, are veterans who know it."
-- Chris Hedges, NY Times reporter and author of "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning"
***
For nearly 12 years, Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey was a hard-core, some say gung-ho, Marine. For three years he trained fellow Marines in one of the most grueling indoctrination rituals in military life - Marine boot camp.
The Iraq war changed Massey. The brutality, the sheer carnage of the U.S. invasion, touched his conscience and transformed him forever. He was honorably discharged with full severance last Dec. 31 and is now back in his hometown, Waynsville, N.C.
When I talked with Massey last week, he expressed his remorse at the civilian loss of life in incidents in which he himself was involved.
Q: You spent 12 years in the Marines. When were you sent to Iraq?
A: I went to Kuwait around Jan. 17. I was in Iraq from the get-go. And I was involved in the initial invasion.
Q: What does the public need to know about your experiences as a Marine?
A: The cause of the Iraqi revolt against the American occupation. What they need to know is we killed a lot of innocent people.
Q: What experiences turned you against the war and made you leave the Marines?
A: I was in charge of a platoon that consists of machine gunners and missile men. Our job was to go into certain areas of the towns and secure the roadways. There was this one particular incident - and there's many more - the one that really pushed me over the edge. It involved a car with Iraqi civilians. From all the intelligence reports we were getting, the cars were loaded down with suicide bombs or material. That's the rhetoric we received from intelligence. They came upon our checkpoint. We fired some warning shots. They didn't slow down. So we lit them up.
Q: Lit up? You mean you fired machine guns?
A: Right. Every car that we lit up we were expecting ammunition to go off. But we never heard any. Well, this particular vehicle we didn't destroy completely, and one gentleman looked up at me and said: "Why did you kill my brother? We didn't do anything wrong." That hit me like a ton of bricks.
Q: He spoke English?
A: Oh, yeah.
Q: Baghdad was being bombed. The civilians were trying to get out, right?
A: Yes. They received pamphlets, propaganda we dropped on them. It said, "Just throw up your hands, lay down weapons." That's what they were doing, but we were still lighting them up. They weren't in uniform. We never found any weapons.
Q: You got to see the bodies and casualties?
A: Yeah, firsthand. I helped throw them in a ditch.
Q: How many times were you involved in checkpoint "light-ups"?
A: Five times. There was [the city of] Rekha. The gentleman was driving a stolen work utility van. He didn't stop. With us being trigger happy, we didn't really give this guy much of a chance. We lit him up pretty good. Then we inspected the back of the van. We found nothing. No explosives.
Q: The reports said the cars were loaded with explosives. In all the incidents did you find that to be the case?
A: Never. Not once. There were no secondary explosions. As a matter of fact, we lit up a rally after we heard a stray gunshot.
Q: A demonstration? Where?
A: On the outskirts of Baghdad. Near a military compound. There were demonstrators at the end of the street. They were young and they had no weapons. And when we rolled onto the scene, there was already a tank that was parked on the side of the road. If the Iraqis wanted to do something, they could have blown up the tank. But they didn't. They were only holding a demonstration. Down at the end of the road, we saw some RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) lined up against the wall. That put us at ease because we thought: "Wow, if they were going to blow us up, they would have done it."
Q: Were the protest signs in English or Arabic?
A: Both.
Q: Who gave the order to wipe the demonstrators out?
A: Higher command. We were told to be on the lookout for the civilians because a lot of the Fedayeen and the Republican Guards had tossed away uniforms and put on civilian clothes and were mounting terrorist attacks on American soldiers. The intelligence reports that were given to us were basically known by every member of the chain of command. The rank structure that was implemented in Iraq by the chain of command was evident to every Marine in Iraq. The order to shoot the demonstrators, I believe, came from senior government officials, including intelligence communities within the military and the U.S. government.
Q: You fired into six or ten kids? Were they all taken out?
A: Oh, yeah. Well, I had a "mercy" on one guy. When we rolled up, he was hiding behind a concrete pillar. I saw him and raised my weapon up, and he put up his hands. He ran off. I told everybody, "Don't shoot." Half of his foot was trailing behind him. So he was running with half of his foot cut off.
Q: Well, I appreciate you giving me the information, as hard as it must be to recall the painful details.
A: That's all right. It's kind of therapy for me. Because it's something that I had repressed for a long time.
Q: And the incident?
A: There was an incident with one of the cars. We shot an individual with his hands up. He got out of the car. He was badly shot. We lit him up. I don't know who started shooting first. One of the Marines came running over to where we were and said: "You all just shot a guy with his hands up." Man, I forgot about this.
Q: You mention machine guns. What can you tell me about cluster bombs, or depleted uranium?
A: Depleted uranium. I know what it does. It's basically like leaving plutonium rods around. I'm 32 years old. I have 80 percent of my lung capacity. I ache all the time. I don't feel like a healthy 32-year-old.
Q: Were you in the vicinity of of depleted uranium?
A: Oh, yeah. It's everywhere. DU is everywhere on the battlefield. If you hit a tank, there's dust.
Q: Did you breath any dust?
A: Yeah.
Q: And if DU is affecting you or our troops, it's impacting Iraqi civilians.
A: Oh, yeah. They got a big wasteland problem.
Q: Do Marines have any precautions about dealing with DU?
A: Not that I know of...If an enemy vehicle gets hit, the area gets contaminated. Dead rounds are in the ground. The civilian populace is just now starting to learn about it. Hell, I didn't even know about DU until two years ago. You know how I found out about it? I read an article in Rolling Stone magazine. I just started inquiring about it, and I said "Holy s---!"
Q: Cluster bombs are also controversial. U.N. commissions have called for a ban. Were you acquainted with cluster bombs?
A: I had one of my Marines in my battalion who lost his leg from an ICBM.
Q: What's an ICBM?
A: A multi-purpose cluster bomb. They are used everywhere. Now if you talked to a Marine artillery officer, he would give you the runaround, the politically correct answer. But for an average grunt, they're everywhere.
Q: Cluster bombs are anti-personnel weapons. They are not precise. They don't injure buildings, or hurt tanks. Only people and living things. There are a lot of undetonated duds and they go off after the battles are over.
A: Once the round leaves the tube, the cluster bomb has a mind of its own. There's always human error. It's starting to leak out about the civilian casualties that are taking place. The Iraqis know. I keep hearing reports from my Marine buddies inside that there were 200-something civilians killed in Fallujah. The military is scrambling right now to keep the raps on that. My understanding is Fallujah is just littered with civilian bodies.
Q: I would like to go back to the first incident, when the survivor asked why did you kill his brother. Was that the incident that pushed you over the edge, as you put it?
A: Oh, yeah. Later on I found out that was a typical day. I talked with my commanding officer after the incident. He came up to me and says: "Are you OK?" I said: "No, today is not a good day. We killed a bunch of civilians." He goes: "No, today was a good day." And when he said that, I said "Oh, my goodness, what the hell am I into?"
Q: Your feelings changed during the invasion. What was your state of mind before the invasion?
A: I was like every other troop. My president told me they got weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam threatened the free world, that he had all this might and could reach us anywhere. I just bought into the whole thing.
Q: Did the revelations that the government fabricated the evidence for war affect the troops?
A: Yes. I killed innocent people for our government. For what? What did I do? Where is the good coming out of it? I feel like I've had a hand in some sort of evil lie at the hands of our government. I just feel embarrassed, ashamed about it.
Q: What happened with your commanding officers? How did you deal with them?
A: There was an incident. On the outskirts of Karbala, we had a morning meeting on the battle plan. I was not in a good mindset. All these things were going through my head - about what we were doing over there. I was holding it all inside. My lieutenant and I got into a conversation. The conversation was striking me wrong. And I lashed out. I looked at him and told him: "You know, I honestly feel that what we're doing is wrong over here. We're committing genocide."
He asked me something and I said that with the killing of civilians and the depleted uranium we're leaving over here, we're not going to have to worry about terrorists. He didn't like that. He got up and stormed off. And I knew right then and there that my career was over. I was talking to my commanding officer.
Q: What happened then?
A: After I talked to the top commander, I was kind of scurried away. I was basically put on house arrest. I didn't talk to other troops. I didn't want to hurt them. I didn't want to jeopardize them.
I want to help people. I felt strongly about it. I had to say something. When I was sent back to stateside, I went in front of the sergeant major. He's in charge of 3,500-plus Marines. "Sir," I told him, "I don't want your money. I don't want your benefits. What you did was wrong."
It was just a personal conviction with me. I've had an impeccable career. I chose to get out. And you know who I blame? I blame the president of the U.S. It's not the grunt. I blame the president because he said they had weapons of mass destruction. It was a lie.
Paul Rockwell (rockyspad@hotmail.com) is a writer who lives in Oakland.
