Powered by Blogger

Ethel the Blog
Observations (and occasional brash opining) on science, computers, books, music and other shiny things that catch my mind's eye. There's a home page with ostensibly more permanent stuff. This is intended to be more functional than decorative. I neither intend nor want to surf on the bleeding edge, keep it real, redefine journalism or attract nyphomaniacal groupies (well, maybe a wee bit of the latter). The occasional cheap laugh, raised eyebrow or provocation of interest are all I'll plead guilty to in the matter of intent. Bene qui latuit bene vixit.

The usual copyright stuff applies, but I probably won't get enraged until I find a clone site with absolutely no attribution (which, by the way, has happened twice with some of my other stuff). Finally, if anyone's offended by anything on this site then please do notify me immediately. I like to keep track of those times when I get something right.

Google!


How to blog?

METABLOGGING

Blog Madness
Blog Portal
linkwatcher
Monitor

BLOGS (YMMV)

abuddhas memes
alamut
apathy
arms and the man
baghdad burning
bifurcated rivets
big left outside
boing boing
booknotes
bovine inversus
bradlands
bushwacker
camworld
cheek
chess log
cogent provocateur
cool tools
counterspin
crooked timber
delong
digby
drat fink
drmike
d-squared
dumbmonkey
electrolite
eschaton
estimated prophet
ezrael
fat planet
flutterby!
follow me here
geegaw
genehack
ghost
glare
gmtplus9
hack the planet
harmful
hauser report
hell for halliburton
honeyguide
hotsy totsy club
juan cole
kestrel's nest
k marx the spot
kuro5hin
lake effect
lambda
large hearted boy
leftbanker
looka
looking glass
macleod
maxspeak
medley
memepool
metagrrrl
mike's
monkeyfist
more like this
mouse farts
my dog
norbizness
off the kuff
orcinus
pandagon
pedantry
peterme
philosoraptor
pith and vinegar
plastic
portage
q
quark soup
quiggin
randomwalks
rip post
rittenhouse
see the forest
shadow o' hegemon
sideshow
simcoe
south knox bubba
slacktivist
smudge
submerging markets
sylloge
synthetic zero
talking points
tbogg
twernt
unknownnews
vacuum
vanitysite
virulent memes
whiskey bar
windowseat tv
wood s lot

TECH

Librenix
use perl
rootprompt
slashdot
freshmeat
Ars Technica
32BitsOnline
UGeek
AnandTech
Linux Today
Tom's Hardware
DevShed


"When they say, 'Gee it's an information explosion!', no, it's not an explosion, it's a disgorgement of the bowels is what it is. Every idiotic thing that anybody could possibly write or say or think can get into the body politic now, where before things would have to have some merit to go through the publishing routine, now, ANYTHING." - Harlan Ellison



JOLLY OLD PALS
Old pals Rumsy and Saddam


Other stuff of mild interest to some:
unusual literature
scientific software blog
physical oceanography glossary
computer-related tutorials and texts

Friday, September 14, 2001

HUMAN INTELLIGENCE
A common drumbeat being pounded by many who wish to see more money thrown at the military and intelligence agencies (i.e. themselves) is that a lack of "human intelligence" (or "humint") was and is a big part of the failure to anticipate this tragedy (where "humint" is the use of operatives to infiltrate the enemy rather than supposedly overly relying on high-tech satellite and electronic surveillance). According to which head is shrieking, it's the fault of everyone from the Church Committee in the 1970s for "unilaterally disarming" the spooks to, of course, Clinton for existing.

A David Corn article belies that theory:

Human intelligence against closed societies and secret outfits has long been a difficult, almost impossible, endeavor. Hurling money at it is likely no solution. During the Vietnam War, when resources were unlimited, the CIA failed spectacularly at humint, essentially never penetrating the inner sanctums of the enemy. Its record of infiltrating the Soviet government was unimpressive (and the same goes for China, Cuba and other targets). As for lifting existing restrictions, imagine the dilemmas posed if the CIA actually managed to recruit and pay murderous members of terrorist groups. What would the reaction be, if one of the September 11 conspirators turns out to have had a US intelligence connection?
Ah, if we could only return to those magical days of unlimited spook power in the 60s, which featured such majestic "humint" triumphs as the many failed assassination attempts against Castro.
posted by Steven Baum 9/14/2001 02:53:35 PM | link

A WARNING
From today's
CounterPunch:
German police have confirmed that an Iranian man, while in German custody, phoned US police and the Secret Service several times last week warning that a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center complex was impending. The man also brought his concerns to officials at the Langenen prison in Lower Saxony, where he was being held pending deportation back to Iran. However, according to the Justice Ministry there, his warnings were discarded by both German police and the US Secret Service. Frank Woesthoff, a spokesman for the Justice Ministry, told the Hanover paper, Neue Presse, that the man phoned America "several times," but that he was dismissed as being "mentally unstable."
The Secret Service is an organization that checks out each and every threat against the President, whether or not the source is considered "mentally unstable." Indeed, one could make a case that someone "mentally unstable" would be a greater threat than someone stable. Take John Hinckley, for instance. Now if they haven't got the time or interest to check out such things, why the hell didn't they pass on such things to the CIA or NSA or some other organization that can surely spare a few dollars from their $30 billion plus budget to check out a possibility - however incredible - that would have horrific consequences if genuine? And why the hell should we give another penny to organizations to do things they claim they should be doing but can't due to financial limitations, when they apparently can't or won't do anything with information that jumps up and tries to bite them on the ass?
posted by Steven Baum 9/14/2001 02:33:04 PM | link

MENCKEN
Excerpts from a Dec. 27, 1921 H. L. Mencken column entitled "Who's loony now?" in which he discusses the grudging release of Eugene V. Debs by President Warren G. Harding. Debs had been arrested and imprisoned three years earlier under the Sedition Act of 1916 for protesting the war. Mencken probably wouldn't have agreed with Debs if the latter had stated that the sun rises in the east, but he knew the consequences of attempting to quell peaceful dissent in a supposed democracy.
Unquestionably wrong, both in his naive belief in the Marxian rumble-bumble and in his sentimental opposition to war, he has nevertheless maintained both varieties of his wrongness in a decent, courageous and civilized manner. Such a man, however wrong he may be, is of enormous value to a democracy, if only as a shining example to the ignoble masses of his fellow-citizens. The usual method of propagating ideas under a democracy is that of lying and evasion, bullying and bluster; Debs is fair and polite.

The average citizen of a democracy is a goose-stepping ignoramous and poltroon; Debs is independent and brave. The average democratic politician, of whatever party, is a scoundrel and a swine; Debs is honest and a gentleman. Is the old feloow disliked by right-thinkers and 100-percenters? Is his release denounced by the New York Times, the Rotary Clubs, and the idiots who seem to run the American Legion? Then it is precisely because he is fair, polite, independent, brave, honest and a gentleman.

Turn now to Harding. He had a chance to release Debs promptly, gracefully, with an air. He might have shown a fine and creditable generosity to a defeated antagonist - an old and ill man, no longer capable of any serious damage to anyone or anything. The instincts of a man of decent feelings, of gentle traditions, of civilized training and environment, would have been on the side of doing it. But the instincts of a bounder pulled the other way. They counseled delay, bargaining, petty vengefulness and spitefulness, childish meanness. Debs was offered his liberty if he would recant, turn his coat, shame the thousands who had loyally followed him. He was told that he might get out of prison if he would grovel and dissemble, i.e. if he would do what Dr. Harding did to get into the White House. He refused. At last he has been turned loose. There is no honor in the transaction for anyone save Debs.

Mencken himself was certainly not anti-war, as he indicates in this later passage, although he gives a rather unusual reason for why those who engage in war like it.
Even their arguments against war, now so popular everywhere, will not stand analysis - that is, so long as nationalism seems virtuous to mankind. Great states are made by conquest, not by passing resolutions, and it is necessary to conquest that large numbers of individuals be butchered. Sentimentalists always overestimate the value of these individuals, and their sufferings. Is it a fact of no significance that the overwhelming majority of men who have actually experienced war are in favor of it? These men know that it is by no means as black as it is painted - that for men, as for nations, it is often a great deal more pleasant than hard work, and that the forms of death it presents are vastly more appetizing than those which commonly ovetake a farmer, a policeman or a delicatessan dealer, not to mention poets and philosophers, and their horrible final struggles with general paralysis.

posted by Steven Baum 9/14/2001 10:27:54 AM |
link

Thursday, September 13, 2001

APPLICABLE HISTORY
Some documents that might soon be of more than academic interest:
  • The U.S. Sedition Act of May 16, 1918
  • Wartime Propaganda in WWI: The Committee on Public Information
  • Preventing a Reign of Terror: Civil Liberties Implications of Terrorism Legislation - This is a long article by the conservative Independence Institute written in 1996 apparently to bash Clinton for the antiterrorism legislation he signed into law a few days after the first anniversary of the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. The following is contained in their conclusions:

    The people of the early American republic understood that the surest guaranty of a stable society was not repression from a central government, but the full protection of all civil liberties, and the careful control of centralized power. When the government did overreact--as in the case of the Alien & Sedition laws--the people resisted.

    In this Article, we have discussed a plethora of measures that would chop away at the Constitution; for not one of those measures have its proponents offered evidence that it would have prevented the terrible crime in Oklahoma City. Everything that terrorists do is already illegal. Current laws already provide ample authority for investigations of potential terrorists, including persons who have done nothing more than talk big. Various proposals that are offered as supposed solutions to terrorism--including more spying on peaceful dissidents, more electronic surveillance, trials with secret evidence, felonizing charitable donations to foreign humanitarian causes, and federalizing and militarizing criminal law--will make America more dangerous, not safer. Releasing the federal government from the strict Constitutional rule of law would, in the long run, facilitate state terrorism.

    One wonders if the authors will stick to these conclusions in the upcoming months with an administration they undoubtedly find more ideologically agreeable. I'd bet a lot of money that the members of the GOP that criticized Clinton the loudest for that legislation are going to be screaming the loudest for vastly more draconian measures to restrict the "precious freedoms" they accused Clinton of trying to take away (right after they finish accusing him of having done nothing about terrorism). $20 billion will go a long way towards satisfying every domestic repression fantasy they've ever had.

posted by Steven Baum 9/13/2001 10:43:16 PM | link

COUNTERPUNCHING
Some items from
Counterpunch:
Least credible news footage:

CNN's videotape of Palestinians supposedly dancing in the streets of a West Bank town. CounterPuncher Marcio A. V. Carvalho at the state university of Campinas in Brazil tells us that he and his colleagues had compared this tape with one from 1991 showing Palestinians cheering, and found them to be identical.

America's Greens Rally to Flag, Run for Cover

The Sierra Club, America's oldest green group has abruptly turned off its campaign against the anti-environmental program of the Bush administration. CounterPunch has secured an internal memo in which the club's high command explains to its staff why it is suspending its campaigns. "In response to the attacks on America," the memo goes, "we are shifting our communications strategy for the immediate future. We have taken all our ads off of the air; halted our phone banks; removed any material form the web that people could perceive as anti-Bush, and we are taking other steps to prevent the Sierra Club from being perceived as controversial during this crisis. For now we are going to stop aggressively pushing our agenda and will cease bashing President Bush."
...
What nonsense! Principles are never more important than when it is inconvenient or dangerous to stand up for them.


posted by Steven Baum 9/13/2001 10:03:42 PM | link

THE TRULY BRAVE
Please visit
www.bravest.com for information about how to contribute to the Uniformed Firefighters Association of New York's "Widows and Children's Fund" and forward this to as many people as you can. Over 300 firefighters have perished after entering the buildings - without a thought for their personal safety - in order to save others.
posted by Steven Baum 9/13/2001 04:14:34 PM | link

BRAVE, BRAVE SIR SHRUB
How can you tell when Ari Fleischer is lying? His lips are moving. So after Shrub runs away from Washington for eight hours before "bravely" returning, and is rightly criticized for it, Ari, Karl and Karen have a brainstorming session to create the "real and credible evidence" that Air Force One was a target. After stonewalling for a day as to just what this "evidence" is, they come up with a real screamer. It seems someone called the White House and sinisterly whispered that Air Force One was next, and then added some ultra-super-secret Captain Midnight codewords that should only be known to those in the Inner Sanctum. So we're supposed to believe that a group that's already hit three stationary targets with absolutely no warning has chosen to give warning about another, highly-mobile, souped-up, armed-to-the-teeth target that's also being escorted by heavily armed fighter jets.

And to add a further touch of "realism", Rove claims that his notes indicate that brave Shrub looked up from his comic books several times to demand an immediate return to Washington. That is, Rove had to refer to supposed notes he had taken to recall what the President of the U.S. was demanding on the most historic, memorable day either will undoubtedly ever experience. Right.
posted by Steven Baum 9/13/2001 03:49:27 PM |
link

THE DOCTOR WEIGHS IN
Hunter S. Thompson's take on recent events (via
Progressive Review):
We are going to punish somebody for this attack, but just who or what will be blown to smithereens for it is hard to say. Maybe Afghanistan, maybe Pakistan or Iraq, or possibly all three at once. Who knows? Not even the Generals in what remains of the Pentagon or the New York papers calling for WAR seem to know who did it or where to look for them. This is going to be a very expensive war, and Victory is not guaranteed -- for anyone, and certainly not for anyone as baffled as George W. Bush. All he knows is that his father started the war a long time ago, and that he, the goofy child-President, has been chosen by Fate and the global Oil industry to finish it Now.

He will declare a National Security Emergency and clamp down Hard on Everybody, no matter where they live or why. If the guilty won't hold up their hands and confess, he and the Generals will ferret them out by force . . . OK. It is 24 hours later now, and we are not getting much information about the Five Ws of this thing . . . The numbers out of the Pentagon are also baffling, as if Military Censorship has already been imposed on the media. It is ominous. The only news on TV comes from weeping victims and ignorant speculators. The lid is on. Loose Lips Sink Ships. Don't say anything that might give aid to The Enemy.


posted by Steven Baum 9/13/2001 03:39:57 PM | link

FOR THOSE ASKING "WHY?"
Contrary to the assertions of Shrub and his string-pullers, terrorists aren't simply containers of evil born with an innate desire to destroy the freedoms of the U.S. If this were so, then former cheerleader Trent Lott is dangerously close to becoming one. There are reasons why those who dwell in the Middle East might not think of the U.S. as a bunch of gee-whiz, down-home, crazy galoots interested in nothing more than eating at McDonald's, going to Disneyland, and singing along to "God Bless the USA" ten times a day. When they think of the USA, they usually think of one or more of the following list put together by
William Blum. Perhaps it would help the USA's image if more thoughtful goodwill ambassadors were sent to the Middle East. I'm sure they'd see the error of their perceptions of the USA if we sent, say, someone like conservative commentator Ann Coulter over there to say things like, "We should invade their country, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." If that sort of thing doesn't convince them that they're dealing with the real God's chosen people, then what will?
Most terrorists are people deeply concerned by what they see as social, political, or religious injustice and hypocrisy, and the immediate grounds for their terrorism is often retaliation for an action of the United States, actions such as:
  • The shooting down of two Libyan planes in 1981;
  • the bombardment of Beirut in 1983 and 1984;
  • the bombing of Libya in 1986;
  • the bombing and sinking of an Iranian ship in 1987;
  • the shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane in 1988;
  • the shooting down of two more Libyan planes in 1989;
  • the massive bombing of the Iraqi people in 1991;
  • the continuing bombings and sanctions against Iraq;
  • the bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998;
  • the habitual support of Israel despite its destructiveness and routine torture, and condemnation of Arab resistance to this;
  • the double standard applied to Israeli terrorism, such as the willful massacre of 106 Lebanese at the UN base at Qana in 1996;
  • the continued persecution of Libya, now nearing the end of its second decade;
  • the abduction of wanted men from Muslim countries, such as Malaysia, Pakistan, Lebanon and Albania;
  • the large military and hi-tech presence in Islam's holiest land, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf region.

posted by Steven Baum 9/13/2001 02:33:47 PM | link

UNCLE BEN
For Trent Lott and the rest of the "we're going to have reevaluate our civil liberties" crowd:
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety."

Benjamin Franklin


posted by Steven Baum 9/13/2001 02:29:26 PM |
link

EARLY WARNING?
From a letter to the folks over at
BartCop:
Peter Jennings was interviewing the editor of Jane's yesterday afternoon. Here is what he said: Jane's reported last Friday that an unprecedented terrorist attack against the US was imminent. The attack had been in the planning stages for months, but was fueled by the August 24 statement by Bush, which was interpreted as a change in Middle East policy and infuriated radical Arabs.

Peter Jennings cut the interview short, and no further reference has been made to the report.

I'm willing to bet the budget of Jane's is a whole lot less than that of the CIA, NSA, DIA, etc. The Jane's site is quite the interesting read, for instance an Oct. 20, 2000 article about suicide terrorism:
In the 1980s suicide terrorism was witnessed in Lebanon, Kuwait and Sri Lanka. In the 1990s it had spread to Israel, India, Panama, Algeria, Pakistan, Argentina, Croatia, Turkey, Tanzania and Kenya. With enhanced migration of terrorist groups from conflict-ridden countries, the formation of extensive international terrorist infrastructures and the increased reach of terrorist groups in the post Cold War period, suicide terrorism is likely to affect Western Europe and North America in the foreseeable future.

There are now 10 religious and secular terrorist groups that are capable of using suicide terrorism as a tactic against their governments and/or foreign governments. They are: the Islam Resistance Movement (Hamas) and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad of the Israeli occupied territories; Hizbullah of Lebanon; the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) and Gamaya Islamiya (Islamic Group - IG) of Egypt; the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) of Algeria; Barbar Khalsa International (BKI) of India; the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) of Sri Lanka; the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK) of Turkey; and the Osama bin Laden network (Al Quaida) of Afghanistan.
...
All the suicide terrorist groups have support infrastructures in Europe and in North America. Leaders and members of these groups are known to travel to the West, and key activists live either in Europe or in North America distributing propaganda, raising funds, and in some instances procuring weapons and shipping them to the various theatres of conflict.
...
Terrorist groups learn from one another. Unlike in the 1970s and the 1980s, post-Cold War groups share resources intelligence, technology, expertise and personnel.

However, due to the need to preserve counter-technologies or political rivalry, there is either a lack of co-operation or no co-operation at all between affected countries. For instance, the British do not share counter remote-control bomb technologies against the Provisional IRA (PIRA) with their US counterparts. This is, primarily due to suspicion of access or infiltration of the US military and security industries by PIRA activists and supporters.


posted by Steven Baum 9/13/2001 01:02:50 PM | link

THE COUNTERTERRORIST MYTH
A former CIA officer makes some interesting points in a recent
Atlantic Monthly article, although keep in mind that he's talking about relatively covert actions. If the U.S. decides to bomb Peshwar (which seems likely given what is said in the article) into a pile of rubble, or even mount a land invasion (less likely given the so-called "Powell Doctrine" and the wholly unsuccessful history of attempted land invasions of Afghanistan, e.g. the British and the Soviet Union) then the limitations discussed in the article are moot.
The United States has spent billions of dollars on counterterrorism since the U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, in August of 1998. Tens of millions have been spent on covert operations specifically targeting Usama bin Ladin and his terrorist organization, al-Qa'ida. Senior U.S. officials boldly claim-even after the suicide attack last October on the USS Cole, in the port of Aden-that the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are clandestinely "picking apart" bin Ladin's organization "limb by limb." But having worked for the CIA for nearly nine years on Middle Eastern matters (I left the Directorate of Operations because of frustration with the Agency's many problems), I would argue that America's counterterrorism program in the Middle East and its environs is a myth.

Peshawar, the capital of Pakistan's Northwest Frontier, is on the cultural periphery of the Middle East. It is just down the Grand Trunk Road from the legendary Khyber Pass, the gateway to Afghanistan. Peshawar is where bin Ladin cut his teeth in the Islamic jihad, when, in the mid-1980s, he became the financier and logistics man for the Maktab al-Khidamat, The Office of Services, an overt organization trying to recruit and aid Muslim, chiefly Arab, volunteers for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The friendships and associations made in The Office of Services gave birth to the clandestine al-Qa'ida, The Base, whose explicit aim is to wage a jihad against the West, especially the United States.

According to Afghan contacts and Pakistani officials, bin Ladin's men regularly move through Peshawar and use it as a hub for phone, fax, and modem communication with the outside world. Members of the embassy-bombing teams in Africa probably planned to flee back to Pakistan. Once there they would likely have made their way into bin Ladin's open arms through al-Qa'ida's numerous friends in Peshawar. Every tribe and region of Afghanistan is represented in this city, which is dominated by the Pathans, the pre-eminent tribe in the Northwest Frontier and southern Afghanistan. Peshawar is also a power base of the Taliban, Afghanistan's fundamentalist rulers. Knowing the city's ins and outs would be indispensable to any U.S. effort to capture or kill bin Ladin and his closest associates. Intelligence collection on al-Qa'ida can't be of much real value unless the agent network covers Peshawar.
...
A former senior Near East Division operative says, "The CIA probably doesn't have a single truly qualified Arabic-speaking officer of Middle Eastern background who can play a believable Muslim fundamentalist who would volunteer to spend years of his life with shitty food and no women in the mountains of Afghanistan. For Christ's sake, most case officers live in the suburbs of Virginia. We don't do that kind of thing." A younger case officer boils the problem down even further: "Operations that include diarrhea as a way of life don't happen."

Behind-the-lines counterterrorism operations are just too dangerous for CIA officers to participate in directly. When I was in the Directorate of Operations, the Agency would deploy a small army of officers for a meeting with a possibly dangerous foreigner if he couldn't be met in the safety of a U.S. embassy or consulate. Officers still in the clandestine service say that the Agency's risk-averse, bureaucratic nature-which mirrors, of course, the growing physical risk-aversion of American society-has only gotten worse.
...
Difficulties with fundamentalism and mud-brick neighborhoods aside, the CIA has stubbornly refused to develop cadres of operatives specializing in one or two countries. Throughout the Soviet-Afghan war (1979-1989) the DO never developed a team of Afghan experts. The first case officer in Afghanistan to have some proficiency in an Afghan language didn't arrive until 1987, just a year and a half before the war's end. Robert Baer, one of the most talented Middle East case officers of the past twenty years (and the only operative in the 1980s to collect consistently first-rate intelligence on the Lebanese Hizbollah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad), suggested to headquarters in the early 1990s that the CIA might want to collect intelligence on Afghanistan from the neighboring Central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union.

Headquarters' reply: Too dangerous, and why bother? The Cold War there was over with the Soviet withdrawal in 1989. Afghanistan was too far away, internecine warfare was seen as endemic, and radical Islam was an abstract idea. Afghanistan has since become the brain center and training ground for Islamic terrorism against the United States, yet the CIA's clandestine service still usually keeps officers on the Afghan account no more than two or three years.

Those who use civilian airliners as kamikaze bombers are obviously willing to die for their cause, while CIA operatives apparently balk at becoming incontinent, and even the military prefers the safety of killing anonymously from high above. And the U.S. expects to win such a war?
posted by Steven Baum 9/13/2001 09:56:12 AM | link

CORRECTION
It turns out that a Robert Scheer column
discussed herein recently was incorrect. Scheer claimed that $43 million dollars recently spent by the U.S. on Afghanistan was a "gift" to the Taliban rulers. But, as a CNN report explains:
Warning that Afghanistan is "on the verge of a widespread famine," Secretary of State Colin Powell Thursday announced a $43 million package in humanitarian assistance for the Afghan people.
...
The package includes $28 million worth of wheat from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, $5 million in food commodities and $10 million in "livelihood and food security" programs, both from the U.S. Agency for International Development.
...
Powell said the U.S. aid is administered by the United Nations and non-governmental organizations, and bypasses the Taliban, "who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it."
By the way, it's members of those non-governmental organizations that are currently being held by the Taliban for attempting to proselytize the wrong religion, although the maximum punishment provided for non-Afghans - if found guilty - is deportation. The punishment for Afghans is much more draconian.
posted by Steven Baum 9/13/2001 09:26:08 AM | link

Tuesday, September 11, 2001

STERNER STUFF
A
bit of history on an outfit called the Stern Gang, whose name probably won't float by very often in the river of words we'll be hearing and reading in the near future.
In post-war British-mandated Palestine the words Stern Gang equalled "terrorism" - assassinations, bombings, the full works. Even after independence, mainstream Jews continued to regard these Jewish terrorists as an extremist and ultimately insignificant aberration in the Zionist movement - until that is it was revealed that the Likud foreign minister of the 1970s, Yitzhak Shamir, had been the gang's operations commander.

Avraham Stern formed his Fighters for the Freedom of Israel movement during World War II. A member of the so-called Revisionist wing of Zionism, he rejected any compromises with the British and demanded the creation of a Greater Israel that would occupy all the Jewish territories of the Bible. He regarded Britain as a bigger enemy than Hitler and opposed Jews joining up in the British army to fight Nazism.

Stern even got a message to the Nazis in which he said his movement was "well-acquainted with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its authorities towards Zionist activity inside Germany and towards Zionist emigration plans", and added: "Common interests could exist between the establishment of a New Order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people."

By appointing Shamir Foreign Minister, Prime Minister Menachem Begin had selected the organiser of two famous assassinations: the killing of Lord Moyne, the British Minister representative in the Middle East, in 1944, and that of Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN's special Mediator on Palestine, in 1948. Shamir later went on to become prime minister.

Former U.S. President Ronald Reagan once famously, and wrongly said, that there was no word in Russian for 'peace'. But there is an interesting linguistic twist in Hebrew that neatly captures the dichotomy of a nation which achieved statehood partly through armed action, and then has found itself attacked by the same means.

The word used today in Hebrew to describe a terrorist is 'mekhabbel'. It is used liberally to describe anyone who fights the state with political violence. It is in fact, exactly the same word that Yitzhak Shamir and his clleagues used to describe themselves - with pride - in their armed guerrilla struggle against the British. In those days it was roughly translated as 'saboteur', although the Stern Gang did a lot more than mere sabotage.

The meaning changed from positive 'saboteur' to extremely negative 'terrorist' in the early days of the Israeli state - once the battle for independence had been won and what had been won had to be protected from others seeking to take it away by the same means.


posted by Steven Baum 9/11/2001 04:37:42 PM | link

THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY ...
From a BBC News
profile of Osama Bin Laden, another name you'll undoubtedly be hearing a lot about in upcoming months, although I doubt much of the following will be mentioned:
His power is founded on a personal fortune earned by his family's construction business in Saudi Arabia.

Born in Saudi Arabia to a Yemeni family, Mr Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

The Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

He received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian.

While in Afghanistan, he founded the Maktab al-Khidimat (MAK), which recruited fighters from around the world and imported equipment to aid the Afghan resistance against the Soviet army.

Egyptians, Lebanese, Turks and others - numbering thousands in Mr Bin Laden's estimate - joined their Afghan Muslim brothers in the struggle against an ideology that spurned religion.

After the Soviet withdrawal, the "Arab Afghans", as Mr Bin Laden's faction came to be called, turned their fire against the US and its allies in the Middle East.


posted by Steven Baum 9/11/2001 04:21:28 PM | link

ANOTHER VICTORY IN THE WAR ON DRUGS
From a Robert Scheer editorial entitled
Bush's Faustian Deal with the Taliban:
Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.

Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden.

The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns. How else could we come to reward the Taliban, who has subjected the female half of the Afghan population to a continual reign of terror in a country once considered enlightened in its treatment of women.

What a big, manly, chest-thumping message this was to those naughty, terrorist-harboring rapscallions! Turn over Osama Bin-Laden or we'll give you $43 million! And we mean it!
posted by Steven Baum 9/11/2001 04:11:04 PM | link

THROWING MORE GAS ON THE FIRE
From a recent Alexander Cockburn
piece in the New York Press about Ariel Sharon, a man whose name will undoubtedly be brought up many times in the upcoming weeks as a supposed "antidote" to terrorism.
...[Ariel] Sharon's history as a terrorist, with documented participation in what can be fairly stigmatized as war crimes, goes back to the early 1950s. Here is a brief resume, culled in part from a recent two-part series on Sharon in the well-respected Hebrew-language Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz.

Sharon was born in 1928 and as a young man joined the Haganah, the underground military organization of Israel in its pre-state days. In 1953 he was given command of Unit 101, whose mission is often described as that of retaliation against Arab attacks on Jewish villages. In fact, as can be seen from two terrible onslaughts, one of them very well known, Unit 101's purpose was that of instilling terror by the infliction of discriminate, murderous violence not only on able-bodied fighters but on the young, the old, the helpless.

Sharon's first documented sortie as a terrorist was in August of 1953 on the refugee camp of El-Bureig, south of Gaza. An Israeli history of the unit records 50 refugees as having been killed; other sources allege 15 or 20. Major-General Vagn Bennike, the UN commander, reported that "bombs were thrown" by Sharon's men "through the windows of huts in which the refugees were sleeping and, as they fled, they were attacked by small arms and automatic weapons."

In October of 1953 came the attack by Sharon's Unit 101 on the Jordanian village of Qibya, whose "stain" Israel's foreign minister at the time, Moshe Sharett, confided to his diary, "would stick to us and not be washed away for many years." Israeli historian Avi Shlaim, cited in a petition demanding retribution against Sharon for war crimes, describes the massacre thus:

"Sharon's order was to penetrate Qibya, blow up houses and inflict heavy casualties on its inhabitants. His success in carrying out the order surpassed all expectations. The full and macabre story of what happened at Qibya was revealed only during the morning after the attack. The village had been reduced to rubble: forty-five houses had been blown up, and sixty-nine civilians, two thirds of them women and children, had been killed. Sharon and his men claimed that they believed that all the inhabitants had run away and that they had no idea that anyone was hiding inside the houses.

"The UN observer who inspected the scene reached a different conclusion: `One story was repeated time after time: the bullet splintered door, the body sprawled across the threshold, indicating that the inhabitants had been forced by heavy fire to stay inside until their homes were blown up over them.' The slaughter in Qibya was described contemporaneously in a letter to the president of the United Nations Security Council dated October 16, 1953...from the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Jordan to the United States. On 14 October 1953 at 9:30 at night, he wrote, Israeli troops launched a battalion-scale attack on the village of Qibya in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (at the time the West Bank was annexed to Jordan).

"According to the diplomat's account, Israeli forces had entered the village and systematically murdered all occupants of houses, using automatic weapons, grenades and incendiaries. On 14 October, the bodies of 42 Arab civilians had been recovered; several more bodies had been still under the wreckage. Forty houses, the village school and a reservoir had been destroyed. Quantities of unused explosives, bearing Israel army markings in Hebrew, had been found in the village. At about 3 a.m., to cover their withdrawal, Israeli support troops had begun shelling the neighboring villages of Budrus and Shuqba from positions in Israel. The U.S. Department of State issued a statement on 18 October 1953, expressing its `deepest sympathy for the families of those who lost their lives' in the Qibya attack as well as the conviction that those responsible `should be brought to account and that effective measures should be taken to prevent such incidents in the future.'"

Let us move now to Sharon's conduct when he was head of the Southern Command of Israel's Defense Forces in the early 1970s. The Gaza "clearances" were vividly described by Phil Reeves in a piece in The London Independent on Jan. 21 of this year:

"Thirty years have elapsed since Ariel Sharon, favourite to win Israel's forthcoming election, was the head of the Israel Defence Forces' southern command, charged with the task of `pacifying' the recalcitrant Gaza Strip after the 1967 war. But the old men still remember it well. Especially the old men on Wreckage Street. Until late 1970, Wreckage, or Had'd, Street wasn't a street, just one of scores of narrow, nameless alleys weaving through Gaza City's Beach Camp, a shantytown cluttered with low, two-roomed houses, built with UN aid for refugees from the 1948 war who then, as now, were waiting for the international community to settle their future. The street acquired its name after an unusually prolonged visit from Mr Sharon's soldiers. Their orders were to bulldoze hundreds of homes to carve a wide, straight street. This would allow Israeli troops and their heavy armoured vehicles to move easily through the camp, to exert control and hunt down men from the Palestinian Liberation Army.

`They came at night and began marking the houses they wanted to demolish with red paint,' said Ibrahim Ghanim, 70, a retired labourer. `In the morning they came back, and ordered everyone to leave. I remember all the soldiers shouting at people, Yalla, yalla, yalla, yalla! They threw everyone's belongings into the street. Then Sharon brought in bulldozers and started flattening the street. He did the whole lot, almost in one day. And the soldiers would beat people, can you imagine? Soldiers with guns, beating little kids?'

"By the time the Israeli army's work was done, hundreds of homes were destroyed, not only in Wreckage Street but through the camp, as Sharon ploughed out a grid of wide security roads. Many of the refugees took shelter in schools, or squeezed into the already badly over-crowded homes of relatives. Other families, usually those with a Palestinian political activist, were loaded into trucks and taken to exile in a town in the heart of the Sinai Desert, then controlled by Israel."
...
Sharon also engendered the infamous massacres at Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps. The slaughter in the two contiguous camps took place from 6 at night on Sept. 16, 1982 until 8 in the morning on Sept. 18, in an area until the control of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The perpetrators were members of the Phalange militia, the Lebanese force that was armed by and closely allied with Israel since the onset of Lebanon's civil war in 1975. The victims during the 62-hour rampage included infants, children, women (including pregnant women) and the elderly, some of whom were mutilated or disemboweled before or after they were killed.

To cite only one post-massacre eyewitness account, that of U.S. journalist Thomas Friedman of The New York Times: "Mostly I saw groups of young men in their twenties and thirties who had been lined up against walls, tied by their hands and feet, and then mowed down gangland-style with fusillades of machine-gun fire."

n official Israeli commission of inquiry-chaired by Yitzhak Kahan, president of Israel's Supreme Court-investigated the massacre, and in February 1983 publicly released its findings (without Appendix B, which remains secret). The Kahan Commission found that Ariel Sharon, among other Israelis, had responsibility for the massacre. The commission's report stated: "It is our view that responsibility is to be imputed to the Minister of Defense for having disregarded the danger of acts of vengeance and bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population of the refugee camps, and having failed to take this danger into account when he decided to have the Phalangists enter the camps. In addition, responsibility is to be imputed to the Minister of Defense for not ordering appropriate measures for preventing or reducing the danger of massacre as a condition for the Phalangists' entry into the camps. These blunders constitute the non-fulfillment of a duty with which the Defense Minister was charged."


posted by Steven Baum 9/11/2001 03:07:38 PM | link

QUERY
So just how do you punish supposed "cowards" who are obviously willing to die for their cause? Given recent history, the punishment phase will most likely involve bombing the shit out of Libya, Iraq, etc. until we feel good about ourselves again, while Israel carpet bombs any Palestinians it can find. Yep, that'll stop the killing.
posted by Steven Baum 9/11/2001 02:30:57 PM |
link

Monday, September 10, 2001

20+20
The
nutlog points me to 20 Strange and Wonderful Books and 20 Even Stranger and More Wonderful Books. I'm a real sucker for lists like these, especially when I find them so familiar and agreeable. I'm going to have to do something like this, although I've sort of already done such a thing in a slightly more scattered way.
posted by Steven Baum 9/10/2001 05:24:25 PM | link

FREE MARKETS?
Dean Baker's
An End to Self-Defeating Rhetoric should be mandatory reading for all progressives.
What's the difference between conservatives and progressives? Conservatives support free markets, whereas progressives support government solutions to social problems, right? Wrong. Conservatives like the government every bit as much as progressives do, they just don't advertise this fact. In actuality, conservatives want the government to shape markets in ways that provide profits to corporations and high incomes to rich people, instead of using it to ensure a decent standard of living for everyone.

For example, with regard to airwaves and patents, conservatives expect the government to grant them exclusive rights and arrest competitors. Even in the recent battles over Social Security, conservatives have not been pushing a market solution -- rather they advocate a policy of government-mandated saving, which would put citizens' savings under the control of the financial industry. In all of these instances, conservatives are not pushing for a market solution. Their desired policies require large-scale government intervention in the market. Conservatives conceal this fact in their rhetoric, implying that they simply want the market to be left alone.

On intellectual property rights:
In the case of patents and copyrights, the language of intellectual property rights not only weakens progressives' political grounding, it seriously muddles thinking about the issue. The policy question that needs to be addressed is straightforward: what is the best way(s) to provide incentives for innovative and creative work? Patents and copyrights are one possible mechanism, but not the only mechanism. An enormous amount of innovative work takes place by scientists employed by universities, foundations or the government, where the hope of windfalls from patents would be close to zero. Similarly, a large amount of creative work -- including recorded music, writing, and the video production -- is supported by foundations, universities or other institutions. The earnings from having copyright protection for most of this work are trivial. There is literally no economic evidence to support the case that patents and copyrights are the most efficient means to support innovation and creative work. In other words, this massive government intervention into the market cannot be justified on the basis of any body of economic research.
On "free trade":
But there is no inherent connection between the ends pursued in these trade agreements and anything that can be called "free trade." The major thrust of most of these agreements has been to standardize the laws governing investment in order to facilitate U.S. investment in developing nations. The obvious and intended effect of this foreign investment is to place U.S. workers in direct competition with the lowest-paid labor anywhere in the world.

A "free trade" agreement could just as easily be written to standardize education and licensing standards for professionals. Such an agreement would then put U.S. doctors, lawyers, and accountants in direct competition with the lowest paid professionals throughout the world. Instead of investing to build factories in Mexico or China, hospital chains might pay to support medical education in these countries, with the graduates coming to work in the United States. Since U.S. professionals are paid far higher salaries than professionals even in OECD nations (doctors in the United States earn more than twice the average for doctors in other OECD nations), free-trade pacts of this sort would have the potential for enormous economic gains for the United States, as well as developing nations.

However, trade agreements have done little or nothing to increase the ability of foreign professionals to sell their services in the United States. This is because doctors, lawyers and other professionals have powerful lobbying groups that can prevent this sort of competition.

One could also mention the unfree nature of trucking goods between the U.S. and Mexico under NAFTA. The U.S. trucking industry lobby has restricted the access of Mexican trucks to the U.S. via the "safety" bogeyman. While the rhetoric is free, the reality certainly isn't.

On privatizing social security:

Instead, conservatives are advocating a system of government-mandated savings, where the government forces individuals to invest in some types of funds for their retirement. While this can be done through a centralized system, where the funds would be collected by the government, most proponents of individual accounts envision a system of decentralized accounts, where the government will effectively be requiring workers to place a fixed percentage of their wages on deposit with the financial industry. It is also worth noting that almost every serious proponent of this system also advocates extensive government regulation of these accounts, restricting them to relatively low risk investments. The accounts therefore require a government role even in control of the money.

This system would hand the financial industry tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars in administrative fees each year. It has absolutely nothing to do with a free market. If progressives let the right pretend that it is proposing a market solution for Social Security, they have given away the debate. Both conservatives and progressives are proposing systems in which the government ensures that workers are guaranteed a minimum level of retirement income. The real question is which system does it more effectively.

As Chomsky never tires of pointing out, one of the best ways to restrict debate to a desired range of alternatives is to control the rhetoric used in the debate.
posted by Steven Baum 9/10/2001 04:34:54 PM | link

JOSEPH MITCHELL
Russell Baker
pays homage to Joseph Mitchell - one of the best writers to ever grace the pages of the New Yorker - in the current New York Review of Books. I've touted Mitchell in these pages before and I'll undoubtedly do it again, having been most impressed upon reading the collection Up in the Old Hotel several years ago. While Baker waxes a bit too reactionary for my tastes in the first part of the piece, he's much better when he gets to Mitchell:
Mitchell stopped writing, but through the middle third of the twentieth century he had created a tapestry of New York lives comparable to Charles Dickens's astonishing assortment of Victorian Londoners. To be sure, Dickens's most memorable people were fictional while Mitchell's had all actually lived and breathed, but just as Dickens's fictional Londoners seem more real than life, Mitchell's real New Yorkers seem born to live in novels.

In McSorley's Wonderful Saloon, he produces Charles Eugene Cassell, who operates Captain Charley's Private Museum for Intelligent People in a Fifty-ninth Street basement, admission fifteen cents when he remembers to collect it. Captain Charley brings to mind Dickens's Mr. Venus, the taxidermist in Our Mutual Friend, who has acquired the rascally Silas Wegg's amputated leg bone. Mitchell reports visiting the museum one day to find the Captain "searching for a bone which he said he hacked off an Arab around 9 PM one full-moon night in 1907 after the Arab had been murdered for signing a treaty...."

Like Dickens, Mitchell roamed his city looking for people worth preserving in stories. Dickens found the makings of Sairy Gamp, Mister Bumble, and Gaffer Hexam, who fished the Thames for corpses of men who might have drowned with money in their pockets. Mitchell found Cockeye Johnny, one of New York's several gypsy "kings," and through him learned of the superior cunning of gypsy women and how to operate a classic swindle the gypsies called "bajour"; Commodore Dutch, who for forty years made his living by giving an annual ball for the benefit of himself; and Arthur Samuel Colborne, founder of the Anti-Profanity League, who devoted his life to stamping out cussing in New York, or, as Colborne put it, "cleaning up profanity conditions."

The same issue also carries an interesting piece by Richard Holmes on the latest tomes about James Boswell.
posted by Steven Baum 9/10/2001 04:06:30 PM | link

POTENTIAL ENEMIES APPLY WITHIN
A humorous and thoughtful piece at Alternet by
Ben Cohen (of Ben & Jerry ice cream fame) begins with:
ENEMY WANTED. Serious enemy needed to justify Pentagon budget increase. Defense contractors desperate. Interested enemies send letter and photo or video (threatening, ok) to Enemy Search Committee, Priorities Campaign, 1350 Broadway, NY, NY, 10018.

posted by Steven Baum 9/10/2001 03:51:27 PM | link

PAN AM 103 - LIBYA OR SYRIA?
William Blum
takes a look at the evidence used in the recent trial of the two Libyans in the Netherlands for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988 and concludes:
There is no forensic evidence to support the charge that they placed a suitcase containing the fatal bomb in an Air Malta plane in Malta, tagging it so it would eventually be transferred to Flight 103 in London. No witnesses, no fingerprints. Nothing to tie them to that particular brown Samsonite suitcase. No past history of terrorism.
Blum provides several paragraphs detailing what the prosecution calls evidence, as well as various bits of information not brought up at the trial.

He then offers an alternative theory which was in fact the official version offered up by the U.S. government until the Bush family suddenly needed to protect their oil investments.

There is, moreover, an alternative scenario, laying the blame on Iran and Syria, which is much better documented and makes a lot more sense, logistically, politically, and technically. Indeed, this was the Original Official Version, delivered with Olympian rectitude by the U.S. government- guaranteed, sworn to, Scout's honor, case closed- until the Gulf War came along and the support of Iran and Syria was needed, and Washington was anxious as well to achieve the release of American hostages held in Lebanon by groups close to Iran. The distinctive scurrying sound of backtracking then became audible in the corridors of the White House. Suddenly-or so it seemed-in October 1990, there was a New Official Version: It was Libya, the Arab state least supportive of the U.S. buildup to the Gulf War and the sanctions imposed against Iraq, that was behind the bombing after all, declared Washington.

The two Libyan airline employees were formally indicted in the U.S. and Scotland on November 14, 1991. "This was a Libyan government operation from start to finish," declared the State Department spokesman. "The Syrians took a bum rap on this," said President Bush. Within the next 20 days, the remaining four American hostages were released along with the most prominent British hostage, Terry Waite.

The Original Official Version accused the PFLP-GC, a 1968 breakaway from a component of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), of making the bomb and somehow placing it aboard the flight in Frankfurt. The PFLP-GC was led by Ahmed Jabril, one of the world's leading terrorists, and was headquartered in, financed by, and closely supported by, Syria. The bombing was done at the behest of Iran as revenge for the U.S. shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane over the Persian Gulf on July 3, 1988, which claimed 290 lives.

Blum presents the evidence for the original official theory, which does indeed seem a whole lot more convincing than that for the second official story. He then gets to the question of how the bomb got aboard the aircraft:
One widely disseminated explanation was in a report, completed during the summer of 1989 and leaked in the fall, which had been prepared by a New York investigating firm called Interfor. Headed by a former Israeli intelligence agent, Interfor - whose other clients included Fortune 500 companies, the FBI, the IRS, and the Secret Service - was hired by the law firm representing Pan Am?s insurance carrier.

The Interfor report said that in the mid-1980s, a drug and arms smuggling operation was set up in various European cities, with Frankfurt airport as the site of one of the drug routes. The Frankfurt operation was run by Manzer Al-Kassar, a Syrian, the same man from whom Col. Oliver North?s shadowy network purchased large quantities of arms for the contras. At the airport, according to the report, a courier would board a flight with checked luggage containing innocent items; after the luggage had passed all security checks, one or another accomplice Turkish baggage handler for Pan Am would substitute an identical suitcase containing contraband; the passenger then picked up this suitcase upon arrival at the destination.
...
The report spins a web much too complex and lengthy to go into here. The short version is that the CIA in Germany discovered the drug operation at the airport and learned also that Al-Kassar had the contacts to gain the release of American hostages in Lebanon. He had already done the same for French hostages. Thus it was that the CIA and the German Bundeskriminalamt (BKA, Federal Criminal Office) allowed the drug operation to continue in hopes of effecting the release of American hostages.

According to the report, this same smuggling ring and its method of switching suitcases at the Frankfurt airport were used to smuggle the fatal bomb aboard Flight 103, under the eyes of the CIA and BKA. Because of several warnings, these same officials had reason to suspect that a bomb might be aboard Flight 103, possibly in the drug suitcase. But the CIA, for various reasons, including not wanting to risk the hostage-release operation, told the BKA to do nothing.

At a congressional investigation in December, 1990 - which ended after only one day - a DEA official testified that he had a reservation on flight 103 but had cancelled it due to the warnings.

The remainder of the article details the official and non-official harassment of various people who've attempted to publicize the original official theory over the last decade.
posted by Steven Baum 9/10/2001 03:20:57 PM | link

ANOTHER MORAL AVATAR
Once again a member of the party of morals and family values has been caught with his pants down, and of course you'll hear nothing about it on the "All Condit, All the Time" networks. The original story by John Connolly appears at
WeaselSearch, and you can find a related item at Ampol.
John Fund, the forty-six year old writer on the staff of the Wall Street Journals' editorial page, has staked out a position as a man of integrity. On his frequent appearances on cable and network talk shows, he espouses the position of the right-wing conservatives. He is friends with people in the Bush White House. He is a dear friend of Conservative Grover Norquist. He recently met with Vice President Cheney. During the Clinton presidency he wrote often of the terrible acts committed by Clinton against women. On his appearances on Television evangelist Pat Robertson"700 Club" show, he often condemns those who do not live up to the highest moral standards. This conservative pundit seems to be on television more often, than "I Love Lucy" reruns. Although he portrays himself as a voice of the religious right, the never married Fund has cut a wide swath of sexual relationships through-out the Libertian and Conservative parties. He's a regular right-wing Lothario. He is also a hypocrite.

There is nothing newsworthy about consensual sex between two unmarried adults, even if one of those supposed adults, acts badly. But, when a high profile public person stakes out the moral high ground, that person had better not be standing on quick sand. A few months age, Morgan Pillsbury a twenty-seven year old woman, contacted me with information about her former lover of three years, John Fund. Although, I heard stories of Fund's less than cavalier treatment of women and particularly his Clintonesque treatment of one particular woman, I did not think that information worthy of a story. Amusing gossip yes-newsworthy no. But, the story Morgan told, gave me pause. If her allegations were true, Fund's relationship with her was not only bizarre; it was treacherous and bordered on the perverse. To back up her story of the bad behavior of John Fund, she furnished me with a tape recording she made of a conversation she had with Fund. The tape and conversations with Morgan's' mother, Melinda Pillsbury-Foster and others confirmed Morgan's tale.

Twenty years ago, Melinda and John Fund both worked for the then fledgling Libertian party in California. Fund was the executive director of the local party in Sacramento. Melinda, who at the time was the mother of four children, she would have three more, began sexual relationship with the much younger Fund. Melinda said, "John and I had a sexual relationship for four or five years. When he moved east, we remained friends. It never really ended." Melinda who is still active in the Libertian party went on to say, "Six or Seven years ago, John called and during the conversation he told me, "Melinda if any of your children come east, have them look me up." I didn't realize that he was using me as a dating service!" Last year Melinda learned that not only had Fund been sleeping with Morgan, he was the father of the child she would abort.

Not only had Fund violated his twenty year old friendship with Melinda Pillsbury-Foster, he, much like Congressman Gary Condit (Fund recently wrote a scathing indictment of Condit's behavior) insisted that Morgan keep their three year affair secret.

Morgan was 23 years old the first time then 43 years old Fund, took her to bed. Sounds all too familiar doesn't it? According to Morgan, John Fund was the third man she had been intimate with. She had contacted him when she moved to the New York area after a bad breakup with her previous boyfriend. Instead of receiving consolation from the man who had on occasion been her babysitter back in California, Fund took her to bed. In 1999, confronted with an unplanned and apparently unwanted pregnancy, Fund abandoned Morgan and without attempting to dissuade her, allowed the distraught young women to have an abortion, without any support from him.

Connolly also details how Fund managed to get the story spiked at Talk magazine basically by blackmail. Fund is the chief moralizer for the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal, probably the main print outlet for GOP agitprop. A transcript of the audio can be found at WeaselSearch along with the audio itself.
posted by Steven Baum 9/10/2001 10:07:53 AM | link


Comments?
Archive

LISTS

Books
Software

uPORTALS

cider
crime lit
drive-in
fake lit
hurricanes
os
scripting
sherlock
texas music
top 100
weirdsounds
wodehouse

LEISURE

abebooks
alibris
amazon
bibliofind
bookfinder
hamilton
powells

all music guide
best used cds
cd bargains
second spin
raven's links

ampol
arts & letters
atlantic
art history
attrition
bibliomania
bitch
bizarre
bizarro
bloom country
bob 'n' ed
bob the angry flower
callahan
chile pepper
classical music
cnnsi
crackbaby
cult films
culture jamming
discover
disinformation
dismal scientist
electric sheep
espn
exquisite corpse
feed
fine cooking
fishbowl
fluble
fried society
fry and laurie
hotel fred
hotendotey
hypocrisy network
jerkcity
last cereal
leisure town
logos
london times
mappa mundi
miscmedia
mp3lit
mr. chuck show
mr. serpent
national geographic
new scientist
no depression
not bored
obscure store
onion
on-line books
parking lot is full
pearly gates
phrase and fable
probe
red meat
rough guides
salon
Simpleton
sluggy freelance
spacemoose
spike
straight dope
strenua inertia
suck
superosity
tawdry town
too much coffee man
toon inn
verbivore
vidal index
yes minister
you damn kid





Powered by Blogger