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

Saturday, October 06, 2001

RAWA ON THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE
The
Revolutionary Association of Afghan Women was asked for their views on the Northern Alliance, who are being publicized as those who, with western aid, will be the ones to "save" Afghanistan from the Taliban. Here is their reply.
In our opinion there is no difference between Taliban and Northern Alliance. Both are criminal and anti-democratic forces to the marrow of their bone.

Please note that one of the forgotten aspects of the Afghan catastrophe is the role of Rabbani-Masoud & Co (Northern Alliance also called Jehadis) in destroying and looting the country and the death and destitution they brought with them after the fall of the pro-Soviet puppet regime. More importantly hundreds of girls, women and even young boys were raped and a great number of girls committed suicide lest be assaulted by the barbaric Jehadis (Northern Alliance) henchmen. Most of anti-women rules and measures to deprive, suppress and insult them were taken when these Jehadi murderers came to power till 1996 when their brethren-in-creed-Taliban replaced them.

One of Mr.Masoud important ally Rasul Sayyof had stated that Kabul and its citizens were "sin full" and have the color of the "communists" and therefore they should be totally destructed. Cinemas, theaters and other entertainments were banned; compulsory veil for women was announced. And women and school girls couldn't dare to go out due to immanent danger from the Jehadi gunmen and thus educational institutions and many offices were boycotted by females.

Please take a look at some of the reports of those horrible years on our site to get a wider idea about the matter. [These are available at ]

Of course after they (Rabbani-Masoud & Co) lost to the Taliban --who were once praised by Masoud as "our beloved Islamic brothers"-they started to talk about "democracy", "human rights" and even "women rights" just to pose as very "enlightened", "moderate" and "democracy loving" rivals of the Taliban in order to solicit support from the West, a play they are continuing successfully.

The UN unilateral sanctions and the recent approach of the UE [European Union] and the US to the Northern Alliance are nothing but another sinister design to perpetuate the dirty domination of the fundamentalists on Afghanistan. The Jehadis are more evil-minded and treacherous than the Taliban. The only difference is that the former are deceitful enough to conceal their real agenda and face and the latter as the prevailing power don't need much to hide their policies in this regard. However, both are birds of a feather.

The enemy of our Enemy of the Week is still a pack of vicious bastards but, by jing, they're damned useful bastards this week.
posted by Steven Baum 10/6/2001 06:08:20 PM | link

MONEY LAUNDERING BOOK
An
article by Lucy Komisar describes a book about money laundering that hasn't yet been published in the U.S.
A controversial European book that might help authorities track terrorist funding sources remains unpublished and relatively unknown in the United States.

Entitled "Revelation$," it exposes a secret banking system that might be used by terrorists. At the center is a clearinghouse in Luxembourg called Clearstream, which transfers money for international banks and major companies.

Written by a former high-ranking Clearstream official and a French journalist, its publication last February by Les Arenes in Paris triggered the firing of Clearstream's top officials, a judicial inquiry in Luxembourg, and invitations to the authors to address members of the European Parliament and the French parliamentary commission on financial crime and money-laundering.

Authors Ernest Backes -- a former banker who helped design and install the clearinghouse's computerized accounting system in the 1970s -- and investigative reporter Denis Robert described a potential money laundering and tax evasion system that uses unpublished accounts to provide investors with a veil of secrecy.
...
Clearstream and another clearinghouse, Euroclear -- based in Brussels -- transfer titles in 150 million transactions each year, involving more than US$7 billion in assets. At the discretion of Clearstream, clients can open non-published accounts that do not figure in any printed document or record of international financial transactions. When law enforcers ask to see records, they don't exist.

Half of Clearstream's 15,000 accounts are unpublished.
..
Major companies use the secret accounts. Backes discovered non-published accounts of the Dutch agricultural multinational Unilever. The Shell petroleum group had a non-published account in the name Shell Overseas Trading Ltd. The German giant Siemens had four non-published accounts.

Among the international banks with the most secret accounts are: Citibank (271); Barclays (200); Credit Lyonnais (23); and the Japanese company Nomura (12).

There are 2,000 investment companies, banks and subsidiaries of banks -- principally British, German American, Italian, French or Swiss -- with Clearstream unpublished accounts based in tax havens such as the Cayman Islands, which in turn offer local secret accounts -- a double layer of secrecy.
...
The U.S. and other countries have to ask why such a secret system should exist in Clearstream or in Euroclear, the competing house. Why Shell and the Bank of New York, for example, need secret accounts. And why Clearstream -- called one of the "black boxes of financial globalization" by some European judges -- remains a secret.

The current U.S. government look into a money laundering scheme used by many if not most of its corporate paymasters? That's a funny one.
posted by Steven Baum 10/6/2001 10:17:03 AM | link

BUSH IGNORES BIN LADEN INTEL
According to a
Times of India article:
The US administration had very specific information about Osama Bin Laden, his whereabouts, details of his al-Qaeda network and the degree of Pakistani military and security involvement in Afghanistan as far back as March, courtesy of the Russians, but still elected to take no action.

The latest issue of Jane's Intelligence Review, published from London, says that Moscow's Permanent Mission at the United Nations "submitted an unprecedentedly detailed report" to the UN Security Council six months before the American atrocities.

According to Alex Standish, the editor of the Review, the attacks of September 11 were less of an American intelligence failure and more the result of US inaction based on "a political decision not to act against Bin Laden".

The intelligence, said Jane's, included details of Pakistan's crucial aid to the Taliban, which enjoys a reportedly symbiotic relationship with al-Qaeda.

Jane's, which sources its report to a leak "from the highest levels of the UN", said the information also detailed the extent to which the Taliban is involved in drug trafficking.

Standish said that the Russians had not only provided "a listing of all Bin Laden's bases, his government contacts and foreign advisors", but also enough to indicate his whereabouts.

The Russian intelligence report had detailed the precise extent to which Pakistan had built up, nurtured and maintained the Taliban.

It will be interesting to see how this one is spun to blame it on Clinton, seeing he was out of office for three months before it became available. I'm confident that Fox can do it, though.
posted by Steven Baum 10/6/2001 09:23:00 AM | link

Friday, October 05, 2001

FIRE DEPARTMENT HISTORY
Enjoy perusing the online
History of the Fire Department of the City of New York. It only covers up until 1887, though, i.e. the date the book was originally published. I found this while looking for info about the burning of the New York Crystal Palace in 1858, which is thought to have been a deliberate, i.e. terrorist, act. It also led to the formation, in 1865, of a modern firefighting department instead of separate, rival bands of volunteers.
posted by Steven Baum 10/5/2001 05:00:55 PM | link

OUR NEW FRIEND UZBEKISTAN
Uzbekistan joins Pakistan as another U.S. "ally" in the Holy War on Terrorism. Why? It's a convenient staging area for incursions into Afghanistan. It's recent history is
predictably sordid.
The Republic of Uzbekistan, the most populous country of Central Asia, with the largest standing army in the immediate region, gained its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. The government of President Islam Karimov, who came to power in the Soviet period, employs many of the repressive methods of political and social control it inherited from that era.

In the early 1990s, the government decimated Uzbekistan's secular political opposition, arresting and harassing its leaders and prominent members and forcing others into exile. The Uzbek government will not officially register any political parties other than those aligned with the president, and organized political opposition is not tolerated. The state exercises tight control over the media, including through pre-publication censorship. There are no independent news outlets. Journalists critical of the government are routinely threatened by state authorities and have been driven out of the country under threat of arrest. There is no freedom of assembly; police violently disband any attempts at public demonstrations, and arrest the participants. In the past two years, the government has hounded human rights activists who have attempted to expose abuses, subjecting them to threats, beatings, and prison terms. In July 2001 one rights activist died in custody as a result of torture.

Torture is systematic in Uzbekistan. Human Rights Watch has documented how police and agents from the National Security Service (the successor to the Uzbek KGB) hang criminal suspects and political detainees by their feet or wrists, beat them with batons or bottles filled with water, apply electroshock to their bodies, and rape or threaten to rape them. Police torture has resulted in at least fifteen deaths in custody in the past two years alone. The torture often takes place while detainees are held in isolated basement cells for months on end, without access to legal counsel or family. Police frequently torture detainees, or threaten to harm their family members, to coerce self-incriminating statements from detainees or simply to punish them for their suspected activities, particularly in cases of torture of religious Muslim detainees.

Local human rights activists estimate that 7,000 independent Muslims are currently serving terms in Uzbekistan's prisons. Those arrested are typically accused of having religious affiliations-or of having participated in activities-that are tantamount to "anti-state activity" or "attempted subversion of the constitutional order." The state offers no material evidence of subversion, and the grounds for conviction is routinely a defendant's own self-incriminating statement, coerced under torture in police detention and then regularly recanted by the defendant in the courtroom. Those convicted usually receive sentences of fifteen to twenty years of imprisonment.

The campaign against independent Muslims involves all levels of government, down to the community level. Local officials throughout the country closely monitor the religious practices and affiliations of community members.

In a throwback to the darkest days of the Soviet Union, local authorities regularly organize public "hate rallies" to mobilize community pressure against and to intimidate detainees' families. Local government and law-enforcement officials, together with religious leaders from the government-run religious board, gather hundreds of residents and then forcibly bring in the family member, usually the wife or mother of a man accused of "anti-state activity" or "religious extremism." Speakers at the rallies will denounce those targeted as "enemies of the people," demand that they ask for the forgiveness of the president and the people, and call for their arrest or execution.

Saddam Hussein - the Satan of the Century of the Week immediately preceding Osama bin Laden - brutalized segments of the Iraqi populace every bit as much while he was the "friend" of the U.S. during the war with Iran than he did during and after his invasion of Kuwait when he become the Enemy Flavor of the Month. Brutal dictators don't change, although their political expediency does.
posted by Steven Baum 10/5/2001 04:17:34 PM | link

TODAY'S JERRY SPRINGER MOMENT
In a
San Francisco Chronicle article about the pre-attack adventures of some of the hijackers, a stripper remembered one of them as cheap, "He spent about $20 for a quick dance and didn't tip more." Then Samantha, the stripper, upon further reflection, really gives it to the hijacker, "But he wasn't just a bad tipper - he killed people." We now return you to your regularly scheduled lesbian nuns dropping acid.
posted by Steven Baum 10/5/2001 04:01:55 PM | link

KNIGHTLEY ON DISINFORMATION
Philip Knightley - who's written the bible of disinformation, a book entitled
The First Casualty - revisits the topic in a Guardian editorial. He writes of a "depressingly predictable pattern" in which wars are reported in the western media, wherein the first stage is the crisis, the second stage is the demonization of the enemy's leader, the third stage is the demonization of the enemy as individuals, and the fourth stage is atrocities. He revisits a famous third stage incident in Bush the Elder's Gulf War that turned out to be an egregious lie.
Take the Kuwaiti babies story. Its origins go back to the first world war when British propaganda accused the Germans of tossing Belgian babies into the air and catching them on their bayonets. Dusted off and updated for the Gulf war, this version had Iraqi soldiers bursting into a modern Kuwaiti hospital, finding the premature babies ward and then tossing the babies out of incubators so that the incubators could be sent back to Iraq.

The story, improbable from the start, was first reported by the Daily Telegraph in London on September 5 1990. But the story lacked the human element; it was an unverified report, there were no pictures for television and no interviews with mothers grieving over dead babies.

That was soon rectified. An organisation calling itself Citizens for a Free Kuwait (financed by the Kuwaiti government in exile) had signed a $10m contract with the giant American public relations company, Hill & Knowlton, to campaign for American military intervention to oust Iraq from Kuwait.

The Human Rights Caucus of the US Congress was meeting in October and Hill & Knowlton arranged for a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl to tell the babies' story before the congressmen. She did it brilliantly, choking with tears at the right moment, her voice breaking as she struggled to continue. The congressional committee knew her only as "Nayirah" and the television segment of her testimony showed anger and resolution on the faces of the congressmen listening to her. President Bush referred to the story six times in the next five weeks as an example of the evil of Saddam's regime.

In the Senate debate whether to approve military action to force Saddam out of Kuwait, seven senators specifically mentioned the incubator babies atrocity and the final margin in favour of war was just five votes. John R Macarthur's study of propaganda in the war says that the babies atrocity was a definitive moment in the campaign to prepare the American public for the need to go to war.

It was not until nearly two years later that the truth emerged. The story was a fabrication and a myth, and Nayirah, the teenage Kuwaiti girl, coached and rehearsed by Hill & Knowlton for her appearance before the Congressional Committee, was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. By the time Macarthur revealed this, the war was won and over and it did not matter any more.

So what should we make of the stories in the British press this week about torture in Afghanistan? A defector from the Taliban's secret police told a reporter in Quetta, Pakistan, that he was commanded to "find new ways of torture so terrible that the screams will frighten crows from their nests". The defector then listed a series of chilling forms of torture that he said he and his fellow officers developed. "Nowhere else in the world has such barbarity and cruelty as Afghanistan."

The story rings false and defectors of all kinds are well-known for telling interviewers what they think they want to hear. On the other hand, it might be true. The trouble is, how can we tell? The media demands that we trust it but too often that trust has been betrayed.


posted by Steven Baum 10/5/2001 03:43:50 PM | link

THE CARLYLE GROUP
The Carlyle Group - as mentioned in a
recent Chris Floyd item - is a huge investment firm described by Hoover's Online as:
With former US Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci as its chairman, it's no surprise that The Carlyle Group is drawn to defense. Defense and aerospace firms such as United Defense Industries make up a significant share of the world's largest private equity firm's portfolio. Also represented are information technology (Federal Data), health care, real estate, and bottling companies. Since Carlucci joined in 1989, a host of staffers from the Reagan and first Bush administrations have stinted at the company, including ex-Secretary of State James Baker and ex-budget chief Richard Darman. Former President Bush and former UK Prime Minister John Major have also made appearances.
I thought of them while reading an article about suspicious investing before the Sept. 11 attacks, i.e. investments that would seem to have anticipated the market effects of such attacks. The SEC has been investigating the trading patterns of 38 stocks before the attacks, and has been very secretive about it. As a matter of fact, when a trade association for the Canadian securities industry posted a list of the 38 the U.S. demanded that it be removed, and it was. The companies on the list are given in the article.
The list includes the parent companies of American, Continental, Delta, Northwest, Southwest, United and US Airways, as well as Carnival and Royal Caribbean cruise lines, aircraft maker Boeing and defense contractor Lockheed Martin. Several insurance companies are on the list-American International Group, Axa, Chubb, Cigna, CNA Financial, John Hancock and MetLife.

The SEC list also includes several big companies that were tenants in the collapsed Twin Towers of the World Trade Center: investment firms Morgan Stanley, the complex's largest occupant; Lehman Brothers; Bank of America; and the financial firm Marsh & McLennan.

Other major companies listed include General Motors, Raytheon, LTV, WR Grace, Lone Star Technologies, American Express, Bank of New York, Bank One, Citigroup and Bear Stearns.

After reading the list of stocks and the above description of the Carlyle Group, I decided to visit their web site and check out their investment portfolio. It turns out that all the Carlyle Group web sites are currently "being redesigned" including: Funny, that.
posted by Steven Baum 10/5/2001 01:41:18 PM | link

FISK ON THE "70 POINTS"
Robert Fisk discusses the British government's 70 points ostensibly proving that Osama bin Laden is indeed the Hitler of the Century of the Week. Counterpunch provides the list in its entirety.
The Americans are finding it a hard sell in the Middle East, and the British Government's document "proving" Osama bin Laden's responsibility for the 11 September atrocities is unlikely to rally the Arab world to the West's "war on terrorism". Only nine of the 70 points in the document relate to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and these often rely on conjecture rather than evidence. Claiming that "an operation on the scale of the 11 September attacks would have been approved by Osama bin Laden himself" (point 63) is not going to cut much ice in Saudi Arabia or other Gulf states.
...
Arabs studying the British document may be amused to learn that Mr bin Laden runs a holding company called Wadi al Aqiq, which translates as "Valley of the Brown Gem", and Al Themar Al Mubaraka, "The Blessed Fruit", and intrigued by the information that an American warship was attacked by apparent suicide bombers several months before the bombing of the USS Cole in Aden harbor. They will be less impressed by the statement that "on 3 and 4 October, operatives of al-Qa'ida participated in the attack on US military personnel serving in Somalia as part of the operation "Restore Hope". The Americans were in fact attacking the presumed base of a Somali warlord when their helicopters were shot down by gunmen, including some of Mr bin Laden's men.
But all is not lost, Fisk tells us, because the Arab people and many of their leaders are very different groups, with the latter much more willing and able to cooperate than the former.
But as usual in the Arab world, what the people think and what the kings and presidents believe are not necessarily the same thing. Any Gulf emir reading Mr bin Laden's words about "cleansing" the Gulf of Americans will realize that the kings and sultans who invited the Americans are among those Mr bin Laden wants "cleansed". The British Government may feel that Mr bin Laden's remark about "Satan's US troops and the devil's supporters allying with them" refers "unquestionably" to the United Kingdom, but the Saudi royal family knows that the "devil's supporters" undoubtedly alludes to them.
And the censorship attempts continue.
America has meanwhile been expressing its anger at the only free Arab television station, the al-Jazeera channel transmitting from Qatar. The State Department, which only a year ago was praising the station as a bastion of free speech in the Middle East, has now asked the Qatari government to "rein in" al-Jazeera because it is allegedly inciting anti-American sentiments. Al-Jazeera, which interviewed the US Secretary of State Colin Powell only a week ago, just happens to be the only Arab station with correspondents in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
Heaven (whichever one you prefer) forbid should al-Jazeera broadcast the "truth" rather than the "official truth."
posted by Steven Baum 10/5/2001 01:09:09 PM | link

NO LINKS, AND WE DON'T MEAN SAUSAGE
In
an article otherwise full of the usual sorts of speculation, a paragraph's worth of the truth has leaked out.
The FBI has found no links between any of the 19 alleged highjackers or their possible accomplices and any of the 1,000 to 2,000 suspected terrorist sympathizers in this country, including known Al Qaeda supporters, lawmakers were told. The group that conducted the Sept. 11 attacks and anyone who might have helped it operated as a closed unit and there may be other such cells as yet undetected by law enforcement, some members of Congress were told.

posted by Steven Baum 10/5/2001 12:50:31 PM | link

HIGH ON INFINITY
Here's some fine rhetorical swordplay from the fingers of
Marc Cooper. This was even published in a U.S. publication, showing there's still those willing to oppose Ashcroft's Vichyite cadre.
These questions now pale before what seems to be the mushrooming scope of the coming U.S. response. Listening to Bush?s speech before Congress last week, you have to wonder whether Americans - at this emotionally vulnerable moment - are being manipulated into enrolling in an open-ended, multiyear, multibillion-dollar military and security extravaganza that many might soon regret.

As a friend of mine, the wife of a just-retired U.S. ambassador, wrote to me: "Bush committed us to a war with unknown methods, unknown targets, unknown duration, fighting an undefined enemy, and all with an undefined end."

Just what are the real ends and goals of the New War? The Democrats, blown adrift by the winds of war, have proved as worthless as ever in helping to define the national mission. The media - particularly the broadcast media - serve us little better. The TV anchors, from the clueless Judy Woodruff on through to the painfully empty Brian Williams, burrowed so deeply up Bush's rear portal on the occasion of his big speech that you half expected to see them crowing out of the President?s mouth.
...
Whichever faction prevails, one thing is certain: World terror is not about to be vanquished. For starters, the U.S. has just climbed back into bed with the Pakistani military regime after lubing General Musharraf with a new dose of American aid, and after shedding the sanctions we imposed after Pakistan started stroking its newly erected nuclear arsenal. The Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence agency (ISI) as much as incubated the Taliban, and several of Musharraf?s closest army advisers openly swoon over bin Laden, but that?s all forgiven now. Nor are we about to break with Israel, which flaunts a policy of state-sponsored assassination, nor with its blood-soaked Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, whose 1982 invasion of Lebanon won him 17,000 civilian Arab scalps.


posted by Steven Baum 10/5/2001 11:16:28 AM | link

GLOBAL EYE
Chris Floyd's latest
Global Eye column almost makes me weep tears of envy. I'll break more copyright laws than usual by repeating it in its entirety, and state that all profits made from doing so will be donated to a CEO Emergency Relief Fund I'm starting to tide the neediest over in times of crisis.
First, a stipulation: The Sept. 11 attacks on New York City and Washington were almost certainly instigated and carried out by the forces of religious fascism, who alone bear the responsibility for this atrocious crime.

We hope readers will excuse the stupefying obviousness of the above declaration, which wastes their precious time by repeating common knowledge. Unfortunately, in these dicey days you can't be too careful; there are legions of cranially constricted poltroons out there -- some of them in the corridors of power -- who regard anything other than slavish bellowing in praise of the Dear Leader to be an act of treason or an apology for terrorism. Therefore it's necessary to issue these tedious disclaimers to avoid being ranged with "the bad guys" in the increasingly cartoon version of reality being foisted upon a shaken world.

Current Issue News Business Stock Market Internet Opinion Sports The Beat Weekend Travel Guide Archive Search PDF Edition Jobs & Career Classifieds Subscribe E-mail Sign-Up Advertising About Us Friday, Oct. 5, 2001. Page VIII Global Eye--Speech Impediment By Chris Floyd First, a stipulation: The Sept. 11 attacks on New York City and Washington were almost certainly instigated and carried out by the forces of religious fascism, who alone bear the responsibility for this atrocious crime. We hope readers will excuse the stupefying obviousness of the above declaration, which wastes their precious time by repeating common knowledge. Unfortunately, in these dicey days you can't be too careful; there are legions of cranially constricted poltroons out there -- some of them in the corridors of power -- who regard anything other than slavish bellowing in praise of the Dear Leader to be an act of treason or an apology for terrorism. Therefore it's necessary to issue these tedious disclaimers to avoid being ranged with "the bad guys" in the increasingly cartoon version of reality being foisted upon a shaken world. Or as Humphrey Bogart once said, in a not-altogether-dissimilar situation: "My, my, so many guns around town these days, and so few brains."

So just to make it clear: the Global Eye stands on the side of democracy -- you know, that system where countries are led by those who actually receive the most votes from the electorate -- and for liberty, law, tolerance, justice, mercy and truth; just like the "good guys." The Global Eye is against tyranny -- you know, where countries are ruled by leaders who weren't chosen by the people, like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan and that place between Canada and Mexico -- and against oppression, censorship, injustice, terrorism (of both the state and "privatized" varieties) and religious fascism in all its manifestations, from the perverted Islam displayed Sept. 11 to, say, the genocidal Christian Fundamentalism of General Efrain Rios Montt, whose Guatemalan regime killed tens of thousands of people during its Reagan-backed reign in the 1980s.

Of course, examples from almost every religion under the sun could be offered in this regard -- and yes, from atheistic ideologies also, to again restate the painfully obvious -- but you get the idea. Now, having made the abject profession of loyalty and all-around good-guyness currently required for the exercise of free speech, can we move on?

Question of the day: Who benefits most from the looming "war against terror"?

Leaving aside, of course, the intangible benefits that will accrue to us all if Mr. Bush fulfills his vow to "rid the world of evildoers" and "eradicate terrorism" -- stirring promises somewhat undercut by his own secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, who says eradicating terrorism "sets too high a threshold," while adding that, basically, the rest of the world can go hang: "What we are attempting to do is to assure that we can prevent people from adversely affecting our way of life.'' If the evildoers hit Cairo or Kuala Lumpur next time, then that's OK.

Mr. Bush's desire to lift arms-sales restrictions against U.S.-declared sponsors of international terrorism such as Syria and Iran also seems strangely at odds with eradicating terrorism and evil -- but no doubt the grand strategy behind giving weapons to those who give weapons to those who murder in cold blood is part of the super-duper "secret war" that will remain forever hidden from our delicate sensibilities. Or as one top Pentagon planner admitted last week: "We're going to lie about things." Old news, perhaps, but the candor is refreshing.

Then again, maybe releasing the spigot on arms sales to all and sundry is not so strange after all, when considering the question of who benefits. For as The Wall Street Journal reports, some of the biggest financial profits of the new overt-covert conflict will flow to two famous families much in the news these days: the bin Ladens and the Bushes.

The Saudi-based bin Laden family conglomerate, from which the estranged Osama received a $50 million inheritance before falling out over his predilection for blowing up representatives of the family's Western business partners, is intricately tied to the Carlyle Group, a little-known but immensely powerful investment firm stocked with old Reagan-Bush hands -- including the old hands of George Bush Senior.

Carlyle deals in "private equity": buying and shuffling companies in hush-hush trading -- "a high-end business," says The New York Times, "open only to the very rich." Like Old George, who sits on the Carlyle board and rakes it in from the sweetheart deals his comrades cut with their old pals in governments around the world. For Carlyle prefers companies that are state-regulated; two-thirds of its $12 billion in investments are in -- wait for it -- defense and telecommunications companies. Regulated firms, you see, are more amenable to profitable intervention by well-lobbied government officials. None of that "free market" malarkey for these boys!

The Group even put l'il Georgie on the payroll in 1990, when the wee lad was at a loose end before God called him to higher office. Dad found Junior a featherbed on the corporate board of Caterair, an airline-catering company and Carlyle subsidiary.

Carlyle is now one of America's largest defense contractors, "owning companies that make tanks, aircraft wings and a broad array of other military equipment," The New York Times reports. And that means boffo box office when the bombs begin to fall. Even before the attacks, Carlyle Chairman Frank Carlucci, a former Reagan secretary of defense, was jawboning his successor -- and old college classmate -- Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of Carlyle-backed weapons, including the aptly named "Crusader" heavy tank.

The bin Laden group has plowed millions into Carlyle aerospace firms -- the rockets' red glare means lots of long green, don't you know -- and now the cash registers will be ringing from the Persian Gulf to Kennebunkport. No wonder George Senior has twice made the humble hajj to bin Laden HQ in Jeddah.

So yes, it's true: The Sept. 11 attacks were the work of religious fascists, who alone bear the responsibility for that atrocious crime. But the wise man knows how to turn unexpected adversity to his own advantage. Or as Dear Leader Junior put it just the other day: "Through my tears I see opportunity."


posted by Steven Baum 10/5/2001 11:01:25 AM | link

OFFICIAL STRATEGY LEAK
The strategy to be used in the Holy War on Terrorism was detailed in what can only be described as an "official leak" by retired Army General and former Drug Fuhrer Barry McCaffrey.
"We are going to disrupt these people through preemptive attack ... we will deceive them, we will run psyops on them, at selected points and times they will be killed suddenly, in significant numbers, and without warning."

"Tomahawk missiles, 2000 pound laser guided weapons dropped from B2's or F22's at very high altitude, remote control, booby traps, blackmail and at places, small groups of soldiers or SEALs will appear in total darkness, blow down the doors and kill them at close range with automatic weapons and hand grenades," the e-mail message read.

McCaffrey went on to say: "We will find their money and freeze it. We will arrest their front agents. We will operate against their recruiting and transportation functions. We will locate their training areas and surveil or mine them. We will isolate them from their families.

"We will try to dominate their communication function and alternately listen, jam or spoof it. We will make their couriers disappear. If we can find out how they eat, or play or receive rewards, or where they sleep -- we will go there and kill them by surprise."

McCaffrey said the military component would be "a supporting but lesser aspect of a strategy that will be based fundamentally on diplomatic and economic leverage to compel cooperation with international law."

The retired general said there would need to be substantial and costly efforts to reduce the "environmental factors" that feed "extremist madness."

That would include "dramatically increased" international aid to address the poverty of Palestinians, Afghans, Sudanese and others, he said.

Why should this be considered an "official leak"? A military official, when asked about McCaffrey's comments, commented that they were the "insights of a very smart guy." Another official commented that the remarks don't contain any national secrets but do accurately reflect the planned strategy. Anonymous official #2 stated, "It's the plan." Also, given the dressing-down that Orrin Hatch got from Donald Rumsfeld and other administration officials after the former made some remarks the latter considered "official secrets", McCaffrey's comments almost have to be official. Hatch got in trouble for saying not much more than "we know who they are". McCaffrey's remarks are a hell of a lot more detailed than anything Hatch said.
posted by Steven Baum 10/5/2001 10:48:14 AM |
link

STROM THE INFINITELY PROLONGED
Apparently the health of 98-year-old Strom Thurmond has become a matter of "national security." According to an article in
Roll Call:
Congressional reporters are crying foul about a news blackout imposed by the U.S. Capitol Police and Senate officials after Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) fell ill on the Senate floor Tuesday morning.

Within minutes of Thurmond being helped to the floor after complaining of lightheadedness, the viewing galleries were shuttered, television cameras controlled by the Senate were turned off, and a security perimeter was established, forcing reporters to vacate the second-floor hallways and restricting their movements on the East Front plaza.
...
The fact that no visual images were provided during the 20-minute incident again raised questions in some quarters about whether it is proper for Congressional officials to control access to images of the nation's legislature in action.

Viewers of C-SPAN 2 were left in the dark about what was taking place Tuesday morning on the floor, and the Congressional Record makes no reference to the 98-year-old Thurmond's medical emergency except to note that the Senate went into recess at 10:36 AM and "reassembled" at 10:54 AM.

Shades of Uberfuhrer Ashcroft shutting off the cameras when the ACLU testified against the excesses in his anti-terrorism act last week. All of the testimony in favor of it, including his, was made available to the cameras.

If one were cynical, one might conjecture that the GOP doesn't want the public to know if Thurmond dies, because if he does then the South Carolina governor, a Democrat, can appoint a Democrat as his successor. Look for Thurmond to be taking a "long vacation" in the near future, with his long "Weekend at Bernie's" featuring a total press blackout.
posted by Steven Baum 10/5/2001 10:33:44 AM | link

ECONOMIC STIMULUS OR MORE PORK FOR DONORS?
Those notorious Marxist rabblerousers over at
Forbes are joining the "fifth column" of traitors offering aid and comfort to the enemy in times that demand a little more flag wavin' and a little less bitchin'. Michael Noer a.k.a. Trotsky II endangers national security by discussing what solutions the Regime is offering for the economic downturn (that we all really know is Clinton's fault, anyway).
The answer, at least in the short run, seems to be to make vague reassuring noises while pledging billions in taxpayer funds for a poorly thought-out economic "stimulus" package.

Bush visited New York City yesterday for the second time since the Sept. 11 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. After meeting privately with top CEOs, including J.P. Morgan's William Harrison Jr., Kenneth I. Chenualt of American Express and AT&T's C. Michael Armstrong, Bush emerged to announce the need for a further $65 billion to $75 billion in emergency monies to prop up an economy that seems to have lost its legs.

Drastic measures are being taken to ensure continued increases in executive salaries and pensions in these troubled times. After all, if the tens of thousands laid off by many of Shrub's chief campaign contributers don't have someone to look up to, like the CEOs who laid them off, then they might lose all hope.

Having received his marching orders from USAInc, Shrub went back to attempting to pronounce the word "terrorism" as something other than "tourism." Meanwhile, the treasonous Noer wonders about the details.

Not addressed by either Bush or O'Neil is who is going to get these additional billions, or even what exactly they are supposed to do. Some money will undoubtedly go directly into taxpayers' pockets, as part of the plan is to stimulate consumer spending. But Washington, D.C., is still Washington, D.C., and a lot of those billions are likely to head to the home states of powerful senators. Unless the money is very carefully allocated, Bush's stimulus package has the potential to be one of the largest pork barrels in U.S. history.

After all, little or none of this money will go towards rebuilding Manhattan or helping the families of the victims. That's already been taken care of, with Congress earmarking a good chunk of the $40 billion in emergency spending for just that purpose only days after the attacks. Nor will it go towards prosecuting the war on terrorism. Counterterrorism spending was also part of Congress' original $40 billion package. And, unless the situation devolves into a ground war, the war on terrorism is probably going to be unconventional in yet another sense: It will be relatively cheap.

Throw in the $15 billion the Feds are planning to spend bailing out the airline industry, and the total amount of extraordinary government spending could reach $130 billion--or around 1.3% of 2001 gross domestic product. That's not peanuts. Before the terrorist attacks, the entire federal budget for fiscal 2002 was going to be around $2 trillion. Both Republicans and Democrats have admitted that any economic stimulus plan of this scale will mean a return to deficit spending.
...
No one doubts that a certain amount of liquidity needs to be injected into the economy. But $130 billion is too much. And, proposing such spending just three weeks after the attacks is too soon. No one really has a clear idea yet what the long-term economic impact of the attacks is going to be on the economy. Nor do we really know if the attacks were an isolated incident or the beginning of a series of terrorist actions.

Keep in mind that estimates of the direct economic impact of the attacks have gone no higher than $60 billion. And that number--published by the New York tabloids--is little more than an educated guess made on the back of a napkin. A lower number is probably more reasonable. The insurance industry, for example, has estimated that claims resulting from the attacks will total $20 billion. The U.S. has bounced back from equally catastrophic events.

Noer then points out that an important part of Shrub's recovery plan (no, not his 12-step personal recovery thing) is reassuring the American public. He suggests a specific action that should be taken in this regard.
For starters, Bush could muzzle Attorney General John Ashcroft. Almost from the moment the first plane struck the World Trade Center, Ashcroft has been in the public eye, warning of more--and more vicious--attacks. It was Ashcroft who warned of the likelihood of repeat attacks (supposedly in Boston) on Sept. 22. And it has been Ashcroft who has been the most public in talking about biological and chemical threats. This type of talk is hardly going to get consumers back into the shopping malls.
Noer just doesn't realize how important it is to America's recovering of this week's lost innocence that Ashcroft be given near-dictatorial powers.
posted by Steven Baum 10/5/2001 10:18:32 AM | link

THE OTHER SUICIDE BOMBING
Contrast a couple of stories over at the
International News. First, we have the U.S. Senate removing all past limits and curbs on military and other aid to Pakistan.
An amended bill has been forwarded to the Senate to give President Bush extensive powers to waive the remaining sanctions against Pakistan, including complete waiver authority on democracy curbs, Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) restrictions and sanctions under the Brooke Amendment.
Then, we have India contemplating action against terrorist camps in Pakistan.
India's deputy home minister on Wednesday said cross-border military strikes on Muslim guerrilla camps in Pakistan were one of the options in New Delhi's arsenal to combat freedom struggle in Kashmir.

"Striking terrorist camps in PoK (Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir) has always been a possibility. This has been one of the options," I.D. Swami told the private SAB TV network. His comments came two days after a devastating suicide bomb attack by militants at the state legislature in occupied Kashmir left 38 people dead and around 60 injured.

Since Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad Islamic guerrilla force had claimed responsibility for Monday's bombing, Islamabad must hand over its leader to India. "Pakistan has disassociated itself from Jaish-e-Mohammad but Pakistani rulers cannot deny that its leader Masood Azhar is in Pakistan and if they are earnest in fighting terrorism, let this leader be handed over to India so that he is brought to justice." Following the initial claim, Jaish-e-Mohammad distanced itself from the bombing.

So just what happened to punishing "terrorists and those nations who harbor them?" Removing all previous curbs is a funny form of punishment that seems a whole lot more carrot than stick.

A story in the Asian Times tells of Pakistani maneuvering about who's going to lead the upcoming puppet government in Afghanistan.

Behind the scenes horse trading continues apace over the composition of a post-Taliban administration in Afghanistan, with Pakistan expressing its strong objections to the United States to any government formed by a belligerent former monarch or by a volatile, fractious Northern Alliance.

The US is believed to favor a government headed by former king Zahir Shah, with support from the various groups within the Northern Alliance, which is fighting in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban, and which favors India rather than Pakistan.

Initially, Pakistan wanted to cultivate the less radical leadership within the Taliban to replace the hardline hierarchy of Mullah Omar. However, after receiving signals from the US that it would not accept any form of Taliban government, with or without Mullah Omar, the decision-makers within the Pakistani military regime began to scout around for someone with whom they had long-standing connections and who would also be acceptable to the majority of the Afghan factions, as well as to the US.

And they have come up with Syed Ahmed Gialani of the National Islamic Front of Afghanistan, one of the groups within the now defunct seven-member Islamic alliance that fought against invading Soviet forces for 10 years until they left the country in 1989. Gialani remained on the scene in Afghanistan until the emergence of the Taliban in the mid-1990s.

That is, the terrorist harboring nation of Pakistan is not only having restrictions against obtaining U.S. missile technology removed, but also having a say about which puppet is installed in Afghanistan to pave the way for the upcoming oil pipeline.
posted by Steven Baum 10/5/2001 08:37:37 AM | link

Thursday, October 04, 2001

THE STORY BEHIND THE STORY
An item in the
Agribusiness Examiner (via Progressive Review) describes an economic motivation for the Japanese-American internment camps in WWII.
Despite all those historical land ownership restrictions put on the Japanese in California, by 1940 over half of the state's Japanese American population were rooted in the soil. Although there were 5135 Japanese farm operators in 1940, largely because of the 1913 Alien Land Act, only 1295 were land owners. Of the 240,000 acres the Japanese American farmers operated, 80,000 were owned and 160,000 were leased, a combined total of less than three-tenths of one percent of the state's farms. Yet, these farms yielded seven times more dollars that the average California farm as the Japanese planted 75% of their land, while the average state farmer only 25% of their land. apanese American farmers had been producing 90% of the state's strawberry crop, 73% of the snap beans, 75% of the celery, 70% of the lettuce, 60% of the cauliflower, 60% of the spinach, and 50% of the tomatoes. They also grew cantaloupes, carrots, onions, nursery stock, peas, cranberries, radishes and sugar beets.

By the early fall of 1941, the Western Growers and Shippers Protective Association (now the Western Growers Association) in conjunction with the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce were actively engaged in a concerted effort to pressure the U.S. Attorney and the War Department to remove the Japanese from California farming and were urging the state's Congressional delegation to pass a resolution to ban the Japanese from the West Coast. All those efforts came to a successful climax on December 7, 1941.

In early 1942 Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which led to 120,000 west coast Japanese-American citizens being put in concentration camps - let's not euphemize and call them relocation camps - for the duration of WWII. And what did they lose besides several years of personal freedom in the land of the free and the home of the brave?
By August, 1942 they and thousands of other internees who had been confined in some 13 other temporary centers would be transferred to ten isolated California "relocation" camps. Meanwhile, the highly productive and intensely cultivated land that had been quickly confiscated from them, land of which they never would be fully reimbursed, was placed under the jurisdiction of the Farm Security Administration. FSA records indicate that 6,664 pieces of Neisi agricultural property, totaling 258,000 acres, were involved in the seizure process. Property losses alone were later estimated at $400 million, with less than ten percent ever repaid after the war.
Now that's what I call - in the trendy parlance of the anti-gummint crowd pushing Chapter 11 of NAFTA so hard - one hell of a "taking." One of the most shameful events of the last century in this country was not much more than a land grab perpetrated by fanning the flames of racism and fear during a time of war.

The Agribusiness Examiner - which monitors corporate agribusiness from a public interest perspective - is a valuable source for learning of the inevitable sleazy underside of a branch of corporate America that gets away with far too much in the name of "saving the family farm."
posted by Steven Baum 10/4/2001 04:57:42 PM | link

WIRELESS NEIGHBORHOOD FREENET
Moshe Bar got together with over 80 of his neighbors to construct a wireless neighborhood freenet. He began with a rough idea of what was needed and what was indeed possible.
For some time now, I have been enjoying a 10-mbit connection to the Internet, which is more than many mom-and-pop ISPs used to have here in this area until recently. A 10-mbit connection can surely handle about 400-800 private home users as well as some offices during the day. My idea was to create a big private class B network with several subclass C network for every entity (an apartment building, a law firm, a school, or whatever). My proxy server at the entrance from the Internet would know the rules to divert the internal traffic to the internal LAN services like web, mail, news, FTP, etc. I knew that if I put a big enough Linux server as the proxy server, with Quality of Service traffic shaping and redirection rules, than I could just make it work.
He then put up flyers and held a neighborhood meeting on the topic. He explained that while the service would be free, each participant would have to pony up around $300 for a basestation unit. (That's $300 in Israel, where prices are higher than in the U.S., where it'd probably run less than $200.) He then explained what he would offer.
I offered to provide internal DNS and mail, as well as web servers, in a semi-professional management (that is, with air-conditioning and UPS). I also offered to look after the firewalling, proxying, and port-mapping from the real Internet to our Freenet.

In other words, when somebody from the big wild Net wants to reach a web site on the internal Freenet, my Linux box at the border would translate the request and send it to the appropriate server. Since the idea is to centralize all Internet services such as e-mail, Web, Usenet, chat, RealAudio, and others, it becomes a simple matter of mapping incoming (from the Internet) requests to the servers in my labs.

Getting down to hardware and software specifics, he provided:
  • A Linux box (an older Netfinity 3000 with 512-MB RAM and RAID 1) for the connection to the Internet (a 10-mbit connection that I get for free from a telecom company in exchange for some services).
  • A CerfQube that does firewalling and port forwarding as well as NAT by means of simple but powerful ipchains rules. I chose the CerfCube [$379, cheap] because the entire disk image is in EPROM and therefore not write-accessible for crackers and intruders. This highly increases the security of the firewall.
  • A web/mail/Usenet/IRC/bind 9.1 cluster running LVS (Linux Virtual Servers), on 5 rack 1U computers. I chose no-name rack units that have been sitting around idly in my lab. Each has 512 MB of RAM, 18-GB internal disk, and two NICs.
  • An old Compaq Presario with 40-MB RAM and 2-GB disk with Linux 2.4.7 does the firewalling between our little Freenet and the central servers and my personal lab here. Never trust anyone, right?
  • A set of three redundant Compaq wireless base stations in order to provide some backup should one of them fail. Since I am at the center of our Freenet, I need to provide higher availability.
There are further issues such as routing, i.e. whether to have a central antenna powerful enough to allow everyone to peer with a central server, or whether to have a topology of peer-to-peer connections around the neighborhood. There's also security, wherein Moshe requires everyone to use IPsec on top of the fairly easily breakable 801.11b encryption.

All in all, it looks like a fairly easy project to put together in a small neighborhood, and one which can cut down on dependence on mega-telecoms. And, last but not least, it just sounds like a lot of fun.
posted by Steven Baum 10/4/2001 03:27:21 PM | link

MORE OILY STUFF
From a
letter to the NYTimes by Greg Moses.
I want to know why this war was declared within a week of the announcement that Chevron and Texaco had been cleared for merger by the Federal Trade Commission. "ChevronTexaco will have a combined enterprise market value of more than $100 billion, assets of $83 billion, net proved reserves of 11.5 billion barrels of oil equivalent (BOE), daily production of 2.7 million BOE and operations throughout the world," boasts the press release of Sept. 7.

Among the global assets counted in the ChevronTexaco merger is a 45 percent interest in 9 billion barrels of reserves in the Tengiz oil field of Kazakhstan, not very far from Afghanistan. ExxonMobil owns a 25 percent interest in the Tengiz field, bringing total US shares to 70 percent of the recoverable reserves. The Center for Public Integrity reports the area has been of longstanding interest to Vice President Dick Cheney who once served on the Kazakhstan Oil Advisory Board, along with executives from Chevron and Texaco.

As the reflexes of US power flex toward Central Asia during this national emergency, I want to be clear about the interests that direct them. If this is an oil war, why don't they tell us?

Third, I want to know if the rapid transformation of this war into an oil war is connected to the fact that Afghanistan's outlaw government has been blocking plans for a pipeline that would move Central Asia's oil and gas to the coast of the Arabian Sea.

According to a Department of Energy report that was posted on the web in December, 2000: "Afghanistan's significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea." But Afghanistan's potential as a pipeline country lies unfulfilled. As the DOE report explains, "Unocal had previously stressed that the Centgas pipeline project would not proceed until an internationally recognized government was in place in Afghanistan."

"Besides the gas pipeline," says the DOE report, "Unocal also had considered building a 1,000-mile, 1-million barrel-per-day (bbl/d) capacity oil pipeline that would link Chardzou, Turkmenistan to Pakistan's Arabian Sea Coast via Afghanistan. Since the Chardzou refinery is already linked to Russia's Western Siberian oil fields, this line could provide a possible alternative export route for regional oil production from the Caspian Sea. The $2.5-billion pipeline is known as the Central Asian Oil Pipeline Project. For a variety of reasons, including high political risk and security concerns, however, financing for this project remains highly uncertain."

For the moment, I have one more question to ask. I want to know why a top American defense official meeting with NATO defense ministers earlier this week was unable to say who has been identified as mastermind of the World Trade Center massacre of Sept. 11. This puzzles me, because the top defense minister in the United States has been telling me for nearly two weeks that he knows who is behind the attack and that he has evidence in hand. This is the same evidence, presumably, that will soon be used to justify our new war for oil.


posted by Steven Baum 10/4/2001 01:38:37 PM | link

ANOTHER VIEW ON MONEY LAUNDERING
Michael Lynch at
Reason Online presents a view about Following the Money that disagrees with most of what we're hearing.
But "tax havens" should and must be defended. The issues of money laundering, financial privacy, and tax harmonization are very distinct from one another. Many countries considered tax havens are willing to work with law enforcement officials to seize the assets of people who commit crimes that are recognized by all involved. Piloting a plane into a skyscraper full of people is such a crime. What some countries reject is treating all their citizens as criminals, and turning over their financial information to governments. Not a single country on OECD's tax haven hit list stands accused of harboring al Qaeda money. The same can't be said of the U.S. According to The Washington Post, some of the terrorists maintained nine checking accounts at Sun Trust Bank in Florida.

This shows the limits of government snooping. U.S. financial transactions and bank accounts are already heavily monitored, something I know from personal experience. Shortly after I opened a checking account at a Washington, D.C. branch of First Union roughly three years ago, it was frozen by the corporate office because I fit a "criminal profile." I'd opened an account by phone and deposited "large" sums of money in it in a high crime area. The large amount of money was two checks that totaled less than $4,000 and were drawn on First Union accounts. The high crime area was 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, which is almost yelling distance from the White House's West Wing.

The government and banks are so busy snooping on everybody that they catch virtually nobody. Like our intelligence officials who can't analyze all the data they currently collect, U.S. financial snoops are buried under paperwork. Out of 77 million reports that banks filed from 1987 to 1996, the U.S. Treasury Department convicted a mere 580 people of currency transaction violations.

To add a few observations, Lynch's account was frozen because of the Holy War on Drugs, i.e. flagging large deposits in "high crime", i.e. ethnic, neighborhoods has long been a popular method for finding and stocking prisons with low-level drug offenders. It's a whole lot easier than pursuing those in the executive offices who are laundering millions. That is, it's a whole lot easier politically. The Holy War on Drugs has also created criminal networks that exist solely to get their hands on the enormous amounts of money available to those supplying an illegal commodity. And, as I've written about here many times, most of the "terrorist networks" - whether or not we recognize them as such this week - rely on illegal drug sales for much of their funding.
posted by Steven Baum 10/4/2001 11:24:33 AM | link

OPPORTUNISTIC WHORES
Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman write about
Wartime Opportunists, with the most shameless example involving "free" trade.
No one has been more shameless in linking their agenda to the terror attack than U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick. Writing in The Washington Post last week, Zoellick proclaimed that granting fast-track trade negotiating authority to the president -- to assist with the ramming through Congress of a Free Trade Area of the Americas, designed to expand NAFTA to all of the Americas, among other nefarious ends -- was the best way to respond to the September 11 tragedy.

"Earlier enemies learned that America is the arsenal of democracy," Zoellick wrote, "Today's enemies will learn that America is the economic engine for freedom, opportunity and development. To that end, U.S. leadership in promoting the international economic and trading system is vital. Trade is about more than economic efficiency. It promotes the values at the heart of this protracted struggle."

No explanation from Zoellick about how adopting a procedural rule designed to limit congressional debate on controversial trade agreements advances the democratic and rule-of-law values he says the United States must now project.

Zoellick also fails to mention Chapter 11 of NAFTA as being one "of the values at the heart of this protracted struggle."
posted by Steven Baum 10/4/2001 11:10:31 AM | link

ANOTHER MULTINATIONAL THREAT
William Greider writes about another multinational threat to U.S. sovereignty and the safety of U.S. citizens. It's called Chapter 11 of NAFTA, the guarantor of multinational corporate rights over those of citizens of the U.S. and all other signatory countries. What does Chapter 11 allow?
Multinational investors can randomly second-guess the legitimacy of environmental laws or any other public-welfare or economic regulation, including agency decisions, even jury verdicts. The open-ended test for winning damages is whether the regulation illegitimately injured a company's investments and can be construed as "tantamount to expropriation," though no assets were physically taken (as is the case when a government seizes an oil field or nationalizes banks).
...
The most disturbing aspect of Chapter 11, however, is not its private arbitration system but its expansive new definition of property rights--far beyond the established terms in US jurisprudence and with a potential to override established rights in domestic law. NAFTA's new investor protections actually mimic a radical revision of constitutional law that the American right has been aggressively pushing for years--redefining public regulation as a government "taking" of private property that requires compensation to the owners, just as when government takes private land for a highway or park it has to pay its fair value. Because any new regulation is bound to have some economic impact on private assets, this doctrine is a formula to shrink the reach of modern government and cripple the regulatory state--undermining long-established protections for social welfare and economic justice, environmental values and individual rights. Right-wing advocates frankly state that objective--restoring the primacy of property against society's broader claims. A tentative majority on the Supreme Court agrees in theory--the same five who selected George W. Bush as President.

"NAFTA checks the excesses of unilateral sovereignty," Washington lawyer Daniel Price told a scholarly forum in Cleveland. He ought to know, since he was the lead US negotiator on Chapter 11 a decade ago. As for anyone troubled by the intrusions on US sovereignty, he said, "My only advice is, get over it." Price, who heads international practice at Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, a premiere Washington firm, says that contrary to the widely held assumption that suits like Methanex's represent an unintended consequence of NAFTA, the architects of NAFTA knew exactly what they were creating. "The parties did not stumble into this," he said. "This was a carefully crafted definition."

That's right, Chapter 11 of NAFTA allows multinational corporations to trump the decisions of governments. While they can't overturn laws, they can demand tribute such that the laws become useless. And who decides the Chapter 11 complaints? A secret tribunal.
Each side--the plaintiff company and defendant government--gets to choose one of the three arbitrators who will hear the case, then they jointly select the third, who presides. The proceedings are in secret--no public notice whatever--unless both sides agree to disclose the case.
Greider's lengthy article details the origins and history of the ideas and people behind Chapter 11, which makes a mockery out of the old nationalistic cry, "millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!" It's not the gun-wielding terrorists that will bring down the U.S., it's the ones with briefcases.
posted by Steven Baum 10/4/2001 10:48:33 AM | link

BRAY OF THE DAY
"If anything happens, if there is a terror attack, the democrats will have to explain to the American people why they didn't pass this bill."

Former Cheerleader Trent Lott

Lott pinched off this gem on Oct. 2 in regard to delays in passing Czar Ashcroft's ant-terrorism legislation. The delay was due to the White House having backed out of a previously agreed upon detail.

Then, on Oct. 3, the very same Lott blocked the immediate consideration of an aviation security bill, apparently having already worked up a way to "explain to the American people" why he did so if another "terror attack" occurs. Lott was concerned about "federalizing" baggage screeners as well as about several proposed amendments proposing scurrilous and unpatriotic things like bailing out laid off airline workers instead of just their bosses, and performing safety-related repairs to the maintenance starved Amtrak rail network.
posted by Steven Baum 10/4/2001 10:08:54 AM | link

"SECURITY AT THE SOURCE"
There's an old joke about how many legs a dog would have if you called his tail a leg. The answer is four, since calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. So how much censorship is there going to be in the Holy War on Terrorism if you call censorship "security at the source"? The following excerpt (via
Progressive Review) is from a discussion between reporters and various Pentagon functionaries.
But security at the source, getting back to the censorship issue and the review of text and the review of photos and the review of video plate, security at the source is going to be the principal way, as opposed to censorship or security review or something like that, of making sure that the products, before they ever leave the pool, are just fine.
At least they weren't so crass as to insinuate that those who don't practice "security at the source" might become "collateral damage" due to "friendly fire" or some other method of "pacification."
posted by Steven Baum 10/4/2001 09:54:35 AM | link

THE NEW U.N. AMBASSADOR
Sister Laetitia Bordes relates a tale concerning John D. Negroponte, the Shrub-appointed new ambassador to the United Nations.
John D. Negroponte, President Bush's nominee as the next ambassador to the United Nations? My ears perked up. I turned up the volume on the radio. I began listening more attentively. Yes, I had heard correctly. Bush was nominating Negroponte, the man who gave the CIA backed Honduran death squads open field when he was ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985.

My mind went back to May 1982 and I saw myself facing Negroponte in his office at the US Embassy in Tegucigalpa. I had gone to Honduras on a fact-finding delegation. We were looking for answers. Thirty-two women had fled the death squads of El Salvador after the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero in 1980 to take refuge in Honduras. One of them had been Romero's secretary. Some months after their arrival, these women were forcibly taken from their living quarters in Tegucigalpa, pushed into a van and disappeared. Our delegation was in Honduras to find out what had happened to these women.

John Negroponte listened to us as we exposed the facts. There had been eyewitnesses to the capture and we were well read on the documentation that previous delegations had gathered. Negroponte denied any knowledge of the whereabouts of these women. He insisted that the US Embassy did not interfere in the affairs of the Honduran government and it would be to our advantage to discuss the matter with the latter.

Facts, however, reveal quite the contrary. During Negroponte's tenure, US military aid to Honduras grew from $4 million to $77.4 million; the US launched a covert war against Nicaragua and mined its harbors, and the US trained Honduran military to support the Contras. John Negroponte worked closely with General Alvarez, Chief of the Armed Forces in Honduras, to enable the training of Honduran soldiers in psychological warfare, sabotage, and many types of human rights violations, including torture and kidnapping. Honduran and Salvadoran military were sent to the School of the Americas to receive training in counter-insurgency directed against people of their own country. The CIA created the infamous Honduran Intelligence Battalion 3-16 that was responsible for the murder of many Sandinistas. General Luis Alonso Discua Elvir, a graduate of the School of the Americas, was a founder and commander of Battalion 3-16. In 1982, the US negotiated access to airfields in Honduras and established a regional military training center for Central American forces, principally directed at improving fighting forces of the Salvadoran military.

In 1994, the Honduran Human Rights Commission outlined the torture and disappearance of at least 184 political opponents. It also specifically accused John Negroponte of a number of human rights violations. Yet, back in his office that day in 1982, John Negroponte assured us that he had no idea what had happened to the women we were looking for.

I had to wait 13 years to find out. In an interview with the Baltimore Sun in 1996, Jack Binns, Negroponte's predecessor as US ambassador in Honduras, told how a group of Salvadorans, among whom were the women we had been looking for, were captured on April 22, 1981, and savagely tortured by the DNI, the Honduran Secret Police, before being placed in helicopters of the Salvadoran military. After take off from the airport in Tegucigalpa, the victims were thrown out of the helicopters. Four children had been captured with the women. They were turned over to the Salvadoran military and their whereabouts are unknown. Binns told the Baltimore Sun that the North American authorities were well aware of what had happened and that it was a grave violation of human rights. But it was seen as part of Ronald Reagan's counterinsurgency policy.

Now in 2001, I'm seeing new ripples in this story. Since President Bush made it known that he intended to nominate John Negroponte, other people have suddenly been "disappearing", so to speak. In an article published in the Los Angeles Times on March 25, Maggie Farley and Norman Kempster reported on the sudden deportation of several former Honduran death squad members from the United States. These men could have provided shattering testimony against Negroponte in the forthcoming Senate hearings. One of these recent deportees just happens to be General Luis Alonso Discua, founder of Battalion 3-16. In February, Washington revoked the visa of Discua who was Honduras' Deputy Ambassador to the UN. Since then, Discua has gone public with details of US support of Battalion 3-16.

That Negroponte is a lying sack of shit makes him more than qualified to be an honored member of the Shrub regime.
posted by Steven Baum 10/4/2001 09:26:00 AM | link

THE FABULOUS BUSH BOYS
Having already
described the economic mess in which Shrub - who would still be governor there if he hadn't moved on to screw up a larger economy - left Texas, it's time to take a look at the miracles Jeb's been performing in Florida.
Some prophets wait a lifetime or longer to be vindicated. For Larry Fuchs, Florida's former chief tax collector, it took merely two years. Fuchs said in the summer of 1999 that Florida was "functionally bankrupt" and that the next inevitable recession would swiftly prove it. Though some leaders listened, it was mostly to laugh -- none more raucously than Florida's new governor, Jeb Bush, who boasted just a few months ago that he and the Legislature were on track to cutting taxes by a cumulative $6-billion before the end of his term. Instead of expanding the revenue base, as Fuchs urged, they willfully shrank it.

As Fuchs warned, and as reality confirms, nothing but bone and muscle is left to cut now that the economy has soured and terrorist atrocities have cast an even deeper pall over Florida's T-shirt economy. Florida currently ranks 44th in the percent of its personal income spent on public schools, 47th in higher education, 41st in total spending, and 47th in state employees per capita. Now the Legislature must return to Tallahassee to cut this year's already lean budget by at least $1-billion, with even greater reductions looming for fiscal 2003.

Some of the suggestions issuing from agencies can only be described as tragic: Eliminate assistance for medically needy adults, at a time when more people will be out of work and without insurance. Abolish substance-abuse treatment for people on probation, at a time when experience predicts crime will increase. Keep more juvenile offenders in adult prisons, a sure way to waste their lives and cost the state infinitely more money over time. Spend less on child support enforcement, at precisely the time when Florida will need to spend more.

Considering all this, Bush wasn't simply spinning the people of Florida but mocking their intelligence when he tried this week to downplay talk about "cuts" in favor of such euphemisms as slowing the growth in spending. When you have to educate more children for proportionately less money, it's a cut, and to call it anything else raises the question of which is more bankrupt: the budget, or Florida's leadership.
...
Former Gov. LeRoy Collins observed in one of his columns for this newspaper that Florida "finds itself in a very difficult, even inconsistent, position. On the one hand we are spending millions to advertise and encourage people to move here. At the same time we seem blinded to the fact that it will take many more millions to provide the public services these new residents will require." Serving in public office, he went on to say, "has heavier demands than riding in parades and being surrounded by sycophants uttering empty words of praise and agreement."

Bush's administration is staffed too heavily by such sycophants, and by carpetbaggers who knew nothing of Florida when they came here and seem to care nothing about what will become of Florida after they have moved on.

"Moved on" is the key with Jeb as it was with Shrub. Shrub's entire reign as governor in Texas was nothing more than one of a series of carefully calculated moves to get a Bush back in the White House. Everything Shrub did in Texas, that is, everything he did that's left the Texas economy in shambles and ill-equipped to handle a recession, was crass political maneuvering to make him look better as a national candidate. It's just more of the same with Jeb in Florida, who the dynasty sees in the White House in 2008. Everything the Bush sons - including Neil - have ever touched has left everyone but them, their lackies, and their extremely wealthy constituents much less well off financially. They've made out like bandits, though, literally. I'd say "vote the bastards out!", except that this pack of sleazy grifters has apparently found a way around even that corrective mechanism.
posted by Steven Baum 10/4/2001 08:58:34 AM | link

SEC INVESTIGATES
Marcy Gordon (via Democratic Underground) reports of an SEC investigation of some very active stocks before the events of September 11.
The government is investigating trading in shares of 38 companies, including major airlines, cruise lines, General Motors and Raytheon, to determine if people used advance knowledge of the terror attacks to profit.

The Securities and Exchange Commission asked brokerage and investment firms in the United States and Canada to review their records for trading in the stocks to find any unusual patterns from Aug. 27 through Sept. 11, the day hijackers slammed planes into the World Trade Center's towers and the Pentagon.

There was unusually heavy trading in airline and related stocks several days before the attacks, using a market tactic that essentially bets that a stock will decline in value. The SEC list also includes several big companies that were tenants in the collapsed Twin Towers in the heart of New York's financial district: investment firms Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., the complex's biggest occupant, and Lehman Brothers; Bank of America; and the financial firm Marsh & McLennan.
..
The 38 companies also include the parents of major airlines American, Continental, Delta, Northwest, Southwest, United and USAirways as well as cruise lines Carnival and Royal Caribbean, aircraft maker Boeing and defense contractor Lockheed Martin.

In the days before the terrorist assaults, unusually high numbers of put options were purchased for the stocks of AMR Corp. and UAL Corp., the parents of American and United - each of which had two planes hijacked.

A put option is a contract that gives a holder the right to sell an asset at a specified price before a certain date.

Several insurance companies are on the list - American International Group, AXA, Chubb, Cigna, CNA Financial, John Hancock and MetLife. Germany's stock market regulator has said it was looking into the possibility of suspicious short-selling of insurance company shares - including AXA, a big French company whose shares also are traded in the United States - just before the terrorist attacks.

As with put options, investors who engage in short-selling are betting that the price of the stock will fall.

Well heck, shouldn't the "Patriotism Act" also require that all right-thinking Americans who hold stock in those companies reveal their transactions in the weeks before the attacks? The president and his family should set a good example by being the first to do so.
posted by Steven Baum 10/4/2001 08:11:27 AM | link

Wednesday, October 03, 2001

THE GRAHAM CLAN GOES INSANE
Progressive Review tells of the supposedly rational Billy Graham clan joining the Falwell/Robertson axis in blaming secular humanism for recent events. The occasion is an interview with Billy Graham's daughter by ex-sportscaster Briant Gumball:
Gumball: "Why didn't God stop this or do something about this?"

Psycho-Graham: "For years we have told God we didn't want Him in our schools. We didn't want Him in our government and we didn't want Him in our finances and God was being a perfect gentleman in doing just what we asked Him to do. We need to make up our minds-do we want God or do we not want Him. We cannot just ask Him in when disaster strikes."

It almost makes me want to be religious so I can believe in a hell where such crass, opportunistic apologists can be tortured for a couple of eternities. Where the fucking hell in the xtian holy book does it even imply that the al-fucking-mighty gives a steaming rat turd about the silly-ass games of pathetic bean counters? Other than throwing their sorry asses out of the temple, that is.
posted by Steven Baum 10/3/2001 08:51:37 PM | link

FOREWARNED
According to
Brian McWilliams:
Officials at instant-messaging firm Odigo confirmed today that two employees received text messages warning of an attack on the World Trade Center two hours before terrorists crashed planes into the New York landmarks.

Citing a pending investigation by law enforcement, the company declined to reveal the exact contents of the message or to identify the sender.

But Alex Diamandis, vice president of sales and marketing, confirmed that workers in Odigo's research and development and international sales office in Israel received a warning from another Odigo user approximately two hours prior to the first attack.


posted by Steven Baum 10/3/2001 04:47:33 PM | link

ATTACKS CALLED OFF
The tangled web weaved in the Middle East and Central Asia over the last 50 years is catching up with the coalition boys. According to
Jeremy Campbell:
The United States and Britain yesterday called off military strikes against terrorist targets in Afghanistan at the last minute.

Washington officials say today that a severe attack of last-minute cold feet by some key Arab members of the coalition caused President Bush to postpone the operation.

The waverers are Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and Oman, and US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is embarking on an urgent mission today to strengthen nerves in these countries.

Prime Minister Tony Blair is also about to undertake a hasty visit to the region. Saudi Arabia's support is especially vital, because Allied aircraft and commanders need its base facilities.

Two senior US officials have told reporters that until yesterday the Saudis were firm in their offer to provide assistance for strikes, including use of a state-of-the-art command centre at the Prince Royal Sultan Air Force Base.

Then the situation changed. One US official told Knight Newspapers: "That is no longer true. We fear there is something deeper here."


posted by Steven Baum 10/3/2001 04:45:22 PM | link

SECRET WEAPON AGAINST ISLAMIC TERRORISTS
Those wacky folks at
Landover Baptist Church have scooped everybody with their exclusive item about a secret CIA weapon to be used against Osama bin Laden and his Muslim hordes.
A Military source in Washington DC informed a gathering of Christian Pastors last week that America's armed forces have a secret weapon against Muslim terrorists. "Those who practice Islamic Fundamentalism are more terrified of pork than they are of bullets," he said. "If they get near even the oink from swine, they go straight to hell. We'd be fools not to use this against them in combat."

Congress has already outlined a series of proposed military strikes that the Pentagon is taking very seriously. Sources say that plans to load B-1 bombers with bacon, pork chops and pig knuckles are already underway. Hormel Company has graciously donated over 100,000 tons of pig jowls, pickled ham hocks and souse luncheon meat to aid in the war effort. As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld pointed out in a recent Pentagon briefing: "Bacon Bits are ideal for getting into those small, hard-to-reach places those terrorists like to hide in." The NFL donated 150,000 pigskins to bounce off the heads of the terrorists from 32,000 feet. "When them terrorists find out that our boys are dippin' their bullets in pigs grease, they are gonna run like hell!" said Senator Jesse Helms.

They've also supplied a composite sketch of a typical Middle Eastern terrorist to help the folks in Der Homeland.
posted by Steven Baum 10/3/2001 01:01:34 PM | link

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY
The title phrase is the current trendy, hot thing in creationist circles, created (so to speak) and disseminated by such scribblers as Phillip Johnson, Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe and William Dembski.
Frederick Crews reviews this latest variation of straw-grasping in Saving Us From Darwin, an article in the latest NY Review of Books. After reviewing the evidence presented against Darwin and his ("only a") theory in the half dozen latest books by the abovementioned, Crews reviews two recent books dissecting the ostensible dissectors.
Working evolutionists, once they notice that Behe's and Dembski's "findings" haven't been underwritten by a single peer-reviewed paper, are disinclined to waste their time refuting them. Until recently, even those writers who do conscientiously alert the broad public to the fallacies of creationism have allowed intelligent design to go unchallenged. But that deficit has now been handsomely repaired by two critiques: Robert T. Pennock's comprehensive and consistently rational Tower of Babel, the best book opposing creationism in all of its guises, and Kenneth R. Miller's Finding Darwin's God, whose brilliant first half reveals in bracing detail that intelligent design is out of touch with recent research.

As Pennock shows, Behe's analogical rhetoric is gravely misleading. He makes it seem that one exemplar of a molecular structure faces impossible odds against transforming itself into one quite different form while remaining highly adaptive. But evolutionary change, especially at the level of molecules and cells, occurs in vast populations, all but a few of whose members can be sacrificed to newly hostile conditions and dead-end mutations. Antibiotic resistance among bacteria and the rapid evolution of the HIV virus are two common examples that carry more weight than any number of mousetraps and bicycles.

Both Pennock and Miller demonstrate that evolution is not a designer but a scavenger that makes do with jury-rigged solutions and then improves them as opportunities and emergencies present themselves. Typically, the new mechanism will have discarded "scaffolding" elements that were no longer needed. And conversely, a part that may have been only mildly beneficial in one machine can become essential to its successor, which may serve a quite different end. This chain of makeshift solutions is no less true of cilia and flagella than it is of the reptilian jaw that eventually lent two bones to the mammalian middle ear.

As for Dembski, his explanatory filter assumes what it is supposed to prove, that natural causes can't have brought about the "complex specified information" characteristic of life forms. Dembski fails to grasp that Darwinism posits neither chance nor necessity as an absolute explainer of those forms. Rather, it envisions a continual, novelty-generating disequilibrium between the two, with aleatory processes (mutation, sexual recombination, migratory mixing) and the elimination of the unfit operating in staggered tandem over time. Declaring this to be impossible by reference to information theory, as Dembski does with mathematical sleight-of-hand, is just a way of foreclosing the solid evidence in its favor.

By denying that natural selection can generate specified complexity, theorists like Dembski and Behe saddle themselves with the task of de-termining when the divine designer infused that complexity into his creatures. Did he do it (as Behe believes) all at once at the outset, programming the very first cells with the entire repertoire of genes needed for every successor species? Or did he (Dembski's preference) opt for "discrete insertions over time," molding here a Velociraptor, there a violet, and elsewhere a hominid according to his inscrutable will? Miller and Pennock show that both models entail a host of intractable problems.

The proper way to assess any theory is to weigh its explanatory advantages against those of every extant rival. Neo-Darwinian natural selection is endlessly fruitful, enjoying corroboration from an imposing array of disciplines, including paleontology, genetics, systematics, embryology, anatomy, biogeography, biochemistry, cell biology, molecular biology, physical anthropology, and ethology. By contrast, intelligent design lacks any naturalistic causal hypotheses and thus enjoys no consilience with any branch of science. Its one unvarying conclusion- "God must have made this thing"- would preempt further investigation and place biological science in the thrall of theology.

Crews then goes on to aver that the latest crop of creationists have not only failed in the age-old mission of their kind, but have painted themselves and their "science" into a smaller space in the corner than ever.
Even the theology, moreover, would be hobbled by contradictions. Intelligent design awkwardly embraces two clashing deities-one a glutton for praise and a dispenser of wrath, absolution, and grace, the other a curiously inept cobbler of species that need to be periodically revised and that keep getting snuffed out by the very conditions he provided for them. Why, we must wonder, would the shaper of the universe have frittered away thirteen billion years, turning out quadrillions of useless stars, before getting around to the one thing he really cared about, seeing to it that a minuscule minority of earthling vertebrates are washed clean of sin and guaranteed an eternal place in his company? And should the God of love and mercy be given credit for the anopheles mosquito, the schistosomiasis parasite, anthrax, smallpox, bubonic plague...? By purporting to detect the divine signature on every molecule while nevertheless conceding that natural selection does account for variations, the champions of intelligent design have made a conceptual mess that leaves the ancient dilemmas of theodicy harder than ever to resolve.

posted by Steven Baum 10/3/2001 11:13:08 AM | link

BLOWBACK
Third World Traveler is featuring excerpts from Chalmers Johnson's 2000 book Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire. The term is defined in the book as:
The term "blowback," which officials of the Central Intelligence Agency first invented for their own internal use, is starting to circulate among students of international relations. It refers to the unintended consequences of policies that were kept secret from the American people. What the daily press reports as the malign acts of "terrorists" or "drug lords" or "rogue states" or "illegal arms merchants" often turn out to be blowback from earlier American operations.

posted by Steven Baum 10/3/2001 10:24:47 AM | link

REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN
I found a copy of this back in the late 1970s and thought it might prove valuable in light of current events, if only as an entertaining "satire" to help us muddle through these trying times. David Icke's
Tell the Truth Archives has the entirety of the text online. Jon Elliston at ParaScope provides a fine introduction so I don't have to.
It was a classic "black propaganda" operation -- a "top secret" document ghostwritten to appear as though it was authored by the enemy -- perpetrated with the skill of a CIA psywar specialist. Yet the grand disinformation effort known as the Report from Iron Mountain was conceived and written not by some veteran covert operative, but by a cabal of crafty leftist intellectuals who sought to turn the logic of the national security state against itself. Though long ago exposed as a hilarious, highbrow parody of think-tank jargon and realpolitik reasoning, the Report continues to be viewed in some quarters as a leaked official document that exposes a secret government scheme to maintain the "war system" indefinitely.

The plot to prepare, and then "leak" to the public, an alleged government report examining the costs and benefits of shifting the U.S. economy and political system from its Cold War stance, was hatched in 1966 by Victor Navasky, editor of the political satire rag Monocle, and writer Leonard Lewin. Navasky and his staff at Monocle noticed a New York Times story reporting that the stock market had dipped in response to what was termed a "peace scare." The business of America, it increasingly appeared, was war business. The seed of the scheme that grew to become the Report from Iron Mountain was planted, and Navasky and a handful of co-conspirators set about producing a sophisticated satire on the problems of peace, ostensibly authored by a panel of national security experts secretly convened by the government.

Lewin agreed to write the fake study and found a sympathetic publisher in Dial Press, a division of Simon & Schuster, whose editor, E.L. Doctorow, agreed to facilitate the hoax by marketing the Report as a non-fiction book. The cover story begins in Lewin's introduction, where he claims he was asked to disseminate the Report by an unnamed member of the Special Study Group (SSG), a panel of 15 experts from diverse disciplines gathered by the government to examine "the possibility and desirability of peace." The SSG, wrote Lewin, was convened in 1963 at a secret New York facility -- "an underground nuclear hideout for hundreds of large American corporations" -- known as Iron Mountain.

For two and a half years, Lewin wrote, the SSG held secret meetings at this Strangelovian outpost and other sites around the country, to brainstorm on "the nature of the problems that would confront the United States if and when a condition of 'permanent peace' should arrive, and to draft a program for dealing with this contingency." The anonymous specialists took of dim view of a world without war, concluding that "lasting peace, while not theoretically impossible, is probably unattainable; even if it could be achieved it would almost certainly not be in the best interest of stable society to achieve it."

Instead, the Report argued, it is in the "best interest of stable society" to identify and perpetuate the "essential, non-military functions of war." These include the economic stimulus of defense spending and a host of other war-related factors that favor the traditional institutions of social and political control. "The basic authority of a modern state over its people resides in its war powers," the Report says, direly predicting that chaos and disorder would result without the nation-rallying opportunities that armed conflict provides. Absent the national security priorities that empower the military-industrial system, the status quo could expect a major shakeup.

Fun stuff, indeed.
posted by Steven Baum 10/3/2001 09:51:55 AM | link

THOSE ENDEARING LIMEY ECCENTRICS
While the editorial purview of the Daily Torygraph is every bit as enlightening and edifying as that of the War Street Journal, its obituary pages contain some of the finest and most interesting writing you'll find in any newspaper. And thanks to Hugh Massingberd, we don't have to trudge down to the newspaper morgue (or, as was detailed in a recent controversy, down to the microfilm reader to squint at barely readable reproductions) to enjoy these not terribly morbid nuggets. I've got the first two volumes of a series - the first being The Daily Telegraph Book of Obituaries: A Celebration of Eccentric Lives, edited by the aforementioned Mr. Massingberd - that is up to six volumes the last I checked. A fine example of the species is the obituary of British mountaineer Julian "Mo" Anthoine.
Julian Anthoine, who has died aged 50, was one of the best loved characters in modern British mountaineering: his Rabelaisian approach to life sometimes disconcerted even hardened fellow climbers.

He began climbing in the 1950s with a select group of friends known as the Wallasey Mountaineering Club who bacchanals soon became legendary. "Mo" Anthoine was himself the inaugurator of their regular concluding ritual, the so-called "dance of the flaming arsehole" - an exhibition which impressed itself forcibly on anyone who witnessed it.

In August, 1966, after climbing the Old Brenva route on Mont Blanc, Anthoine survived the great storm which swept the mountain and claimed many lives, including those of two of his companions. The other mountaineers were reduced to awed silence by the mischievous manner in which Anthoine, at the height of the gale, pranced around outside the snowhole near the mountain summit and invited the Almighty to "either crank up the wind machine another notch or two or fuck off."

He was in some demand as a stunt man and more than once stood in for merely mortal actors - his short powerful physique passed for that of Jeremy Irons in 'The Mission' and Sylvester Stallone in 'Rambo III'.
...
From 1961 to 1964 Anthoine and his travelling companion - a former boxer - went on a world tour which left a trail of devastation and potential diplomatic incidents across five continents. He returned, slightly chastened, to Britain and enrolled at a teacher training course at Coventry COllege of Education. It was here that he met Jackie Philippe, who he later married.


posted by Steven Baum 10/3/2001 09:28:39 AM |
link

Tuesday, October 02, 2001

PENTAGON AT THE TROUGH
The $20 billion of the $40 billion shoveled by a prostrate Congress at shrub designated for the war boys at the Pentagon is just the beginning of what promises to be a long and noisy feeding frenzy. According to
William Hartung:
Congress is also about to sign off on an $18.4 billion budget increase the Pentagon requested earlier this year, and to approve an additional appropriation of up to $25 billion. Christopher Hellman of the Center for Defense Information has suggested that military spending for fiscal 2002 could hit $375 billion, a $66-billion increase over 2001. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has stated that this year's appropriations will be "just a down payment" toward the major, long-term increases the Pentagon will seek to fight its new kind of war.

It would be one thing if these massive sums were being carefully funneled into projects that can help reduce terrorism or punish those responsible for the recent attacks. But as one defense official told the industry journal Defense News, the new funds "will have nothing to do with rescue and emergency efforts [or] retaliation in response to the Sept. 11 attacks." Instead, he noted, the money will go to the Pentagon's "wish lists for things that we'll have several years from now."

In addition to the quarter trillion dollar missile defense hole money's going to be shoved down until the cows come home, eat a sandwich, have a beer, leave home again, come back, take a nap, have another sandwich and beer, etc., many other boondoggles, white elephants, and black holes are also going to be filled to the brim with patriotic largesse.
Other likely beneficiaries of the new pro-military mood include programs like the scandal-plagued V-22 Osprey aircraft, which has been involved in crashes that have killed at least 30 US military personnel. The program is now likely to get a new lease on life with a little help from influential allies like Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.). Weldon, whose district is home to a Boeing facility that builds V-22s, is likely to argue that its unique ability to fly like a plane or a helicopter will be ideal for getting into tight spots to search out terrorists' hiding places.
If we send enough Ospreys over to Afghanistan, maybe one will crash right on top of Osama bin Laden. Other affronts to the taxpayers include:
Similarly, Lockheed Martin's F-22, which at more than $200 million each is the most expensive fighter plane ever built, will be in a much stronger position to stave off future budget cuts if Congress continues to ramp up Pentagon spending. Reagan administration Pentagon official Lawrence J. Korb has pointed out that the plane is now obsolete, since it was designed to do battle with next-generation Soviet fighter aircraft that were never built. But that won't stop the program's allies in the Georgia and Texas delegations from pressing to keep the $70 billion, 295-aircraft project up and running.

The Crusader artillery system, built by United Defense in the district of House Republican Conference Chairman J.C. Watts (R-Okla.), is also likely to be shored up in the Pentagon's new, cash-rich environment. The Crusader had been singled out for possible elimination by one of the panels involved in Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's defense review on the grounds that it was too bulky to be easily transported to the most likely battlefields of the future. But with so much money now on the table for weapons, who needs to make choices?

Last but not least, look for Congressional advocates of Northrop Grumman's B-2 Stealth bomber, like Norm Dicks (D-Wa.) and Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.), to try and revive the program by seeking funding for up to 40 more of the aircraft, which can fly long-range missions from bases far from the theater of conflict. Costs for the B-2 have clocked in at more than $2 billion per plane.

And since there are limits to even the American taxpayers' gullibility in forgoing food, clothing and shelter for multi-billion dollar welfare payments to the already wealthy, weapons sales to potential future enemies are going to be increased.
In another move that will benefit major weapons manufacturers, the Bush administration is poised to accelerate weapons sales to the Middle East and South Asia, including pending deals to transfer Lockheed Martin F-16s to Oman and the United Arab Emirates; a sale of the Lockheed Martin Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) to Egypt; and possible exports to Pakistan of spare parts for its F-16s, C-130 transport planes, and P-3 surveillance aircraft (all Lockheed Martin products). Just as his father did in the run-up to the 1991 Persian Gulf War, President Bush plans to swap arms sales for political and military support for his war on terrorism.

posted by Steven Baum 10/2/2001 05:20:00 PM | link

WHO DOES THE BAILOUT HELP?
Steven Landsburg explains who the airline bailout helps and who it doesn't help.
Let's be clear about what this bailout will do for the flying public: exactly nothing. It won't keep any planes in the air that wouldn't have been there anyway. Airplanes are flown when it's profitable to fly them, and they're not flown when it's not profitable to fly them. Giving cash to the airlines doesn't change the profitability of any given flight, so it doesn't affect any decision about which flights to offer.

If a given route can generate $100,000 in fares in exchange for $80,000 worth of fuel, labor, and maintenance, somebody will fly that route. If the same route can generate only $60,000 in fares, nobody will fly it. That's equally true whether the owners of the airlines are rich or poor.

What if the airlines go bankrupt? So what if they do? They'll be reorganized, and the profitable flights will continue to be flown-if not by existing carriers, then by new carriers who will step in to fill any breach. All those jumbo jets will still be out there, and as long as enough people want to fly, someone will be flying them.

So, what does the airline bailout accomplish? One thing and one thing only-it enriches the millions of people who own airline stocks at the expense of the millions of others who don't. And in the process, it undermines the very principles that we uphold and our enemies want to destroy.

And what are those principles that are worshipped - at least when the cameras are rolling - by the captains of industry and their sycophants?
There has always been some small risk that an unforeseen disaster-whether natural or man-made-would dramatically reduce the demand for air travel. It is one of the glories of our capitalist system that such risks are borne by precisely those people who are willing to bear them. If you want to participate in this particular risk, you buy airline stocks. If not, you buy stock in something else. That's called freedom of choice, and it's part of what we're fighting to preserve.

The bailout is tantamount to canceling everyone's bets after the wheel of fortune has already been spun. That's unfair to taxpayers who will foot the bill (and don't get to share in the bounty when the airlines have a year of windfall profits). It's also unfair to everyone else. Here's why: Risky investments usually yield high returns; that package is frightening to some investors and attractive to others. But if you start bailing out troubled industries, you reduce both the risk of stock market investing and the high returns that go along with that risk. That limits the range of options available to everyone. The risk-averse are forced (through the tax system) to bear the very risks they were averse to, and the risk-preferring are prevented from shouldering other people's risk burdens and earning a fair reward for their courage.

So just why the hell are they being bailed out?
So, if it won't affect air traffic and it's patently unfair, what's the argument for bailing out the airlines? It's the same as the argument for agricultural subsidies-these guys have a lot of political clout, and they're exploiting it. Period. It's not like they're the only ones who are suffering these days. I'll wager that the average airline investor is hurting a whole lot less than, say, the average New York City taxi driver.
When you give money to poor people, it's called socialism; when you give money to wealthy people, it's called good business.
posted by Steven Baum 10/2/2001 04:51:59 PM | link

FUNNIEST LINE OF THE WEEK
"The single defining moment of Dubya's stage-managed rise to power, for me, was when he was asked which philosopher he admired the most. His answer was "Jesus Christ." At first I thought he was swearing because he couldn't think of an answer."

R. B. Ham


posted by Steven Baum 10/2/2001 02:06:02 PM | link

GOP SANITY
An exchange between Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Wolf "GRRRRRRRR" Blitzer has been repeated at
BartCop. They were discussing possible bio-chemical threats to the U.S., an example of which would be, say, engineering a fungus to attack and kill certain types of plants.
Wolf: So these reports have been out for years.

Chris: Yes, we've had these reports for a number of years now.

Wolf: Well, how come we haven't heard about these before now? Why haven't they been publicized?

Chris: Well, what have you in the media been doing? Going after one scandal after another I think.

Keep in mind that Shays is a Republican.
posted by Steven Baum 10/2/2001 01:58:16 PM | link

QUOTE OF THE WEEK
"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials


posted by Steven Baum 10/2/2001 01:41:47 PM |
link

MONEY LAUNDERING
Chris Floyd (via the Democratic Underground) on the position of this week's "let's stop money laundering" administration a month ago.
Just a few weeks ago, the Bush administration - another group well-watered by the murky flow of offshore capital - announced its withdrawal from international treaty talks on cleaning up the money-laundering swamp. Why on earth did they oppose this strike against terrorism and organized crime? Let's ask Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank - no "left-wing fifth columnist" he: "The answer is, it's in the interests of some of the monied interests to allow this to occur," he told The Nation in June. "It's not an accident; it could have been shut down at any time."

And this week, the Bush administration finally reversed the longstanding conservative appeasement of wealthy murderers, at least in part, by freezing the financial assets of Osama bin Laden and his associates and threatening to, er, bar any foreign countries and banks from U.S. financial markets if they didn't cooperate with investigators. Of course, it took them 13 days to get around to blocking the cash flow of their "prime suspect" - but maybe some of their comfortably entwined High Finance pals needed time to get untangled before the freeze.


posted by Steven Baum 10/2/2001 01:37:19 PM | link

EXPEDIENT PROPAGANDA OR REALITY?
From the
NYTimes:
Before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, the Bush administration was on the verge of announcing a Middle East diplomatic initiative that would include United States support for the creation of a Palestinian state, administration officials said, and it is now weighing how to revive the plan.

The initiative was to have been detailed in a speech by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell at the United Nations General Assembly and represented the first time a Republican administration has backed a Palestinian state.

Senior members of the Bush administration had been critical of former President Clinton's aggressive efforts to broker a Middle East settlement, saying the United States could not impose a peace that the parties did not want. But the plan Secretary Powell was preparing to present included proposals for a comprehensive settlement and an American role in carrying it out.

Given Powell's and candidate shrub's constant criticism of Clinton for attempting to do exactly the same thing, this seems a bit surreal. Although, given that criticism of Clinton's policies was an automatic reaction akin to breathing, there just might be some reality here. One hopes there is.
posted by Steven Baum 10/2/2001 01:23:49 PM | link

THE GORE VICTORY
David Podvin writes about the GOP coup in Florida and D.C. of last December.
According to a source whose previous information has proven to be accurate, the Consortium of news organizations that recounted the presidential votes in the 2000 Florida election was shocked to find that former Vice President Al Gore decisively won the state, and is now concealing the news of Gore's victory from the American people.

The source is a former media executive who previously revealed information that the Bush administration was lying about Clinton staffers having vandalized the White House. That information led me to accuse Karl Rove of manufacturing the "crime". My accusation appeared in an article that was posted by Buzzflash.com on January 28, 2001, and it was confirmed by a General Accounting Office investigative report several months later.

Having previously established credibility as a well-informed and accurate conduit of information, the executive now claims the Consortium is deliberately hiding the results of its recount because Gore was the indisputable winner.

Originally, the Consortium believed that there were three potential outcomes of the recount, any of which would have been acceptable to the participating news conglomerates. The first was a Bush win, which would have resolved the issue. The second was a dead heat/inconclusive result, which would have maintained the status quo. The third was a narrow Gore victory, which would have given die hard Democrats a debate point, but would have simply been another photo finish recount that most Americans would have disregarded as being currently irrelevant.

The Consortium was stunned to discover that the recount revealed Gore won a clear victory. Even after casting aside the controversial butterfly ballots and discarding ballots that were "iffy", Gore decisively won the recount. While the precise numbers are still unavailable, a New York Times journalist who was involved in the project told one of his former companions that Gore won by a sufficient margin to create "major trouble for the Bush presidency if this ever gets out".

Gore's victory was large enough that it became apparent he would win prior to the Consortium recount being fully completed. And contrary to a recent claim by the New York Times, the terrorism of September 11 was not the crucial factor that determined whether to release the results to the American people. Prior to that time, the de facto majority shareholders in the publicly traded New York Times Company reportedly intervened on the side of quashing the recount results and convinced the other participants to shelve the story. The executive claims that the most important decisions at the Times are made by the influential money center banks that exercise actual voting control of a majority of stock. These banks are extremely pro-Bush. In addition to their control of the Times, they have substantial financial clout with the Washington Post Company, Dow Jones and Company, and the Tribune Company. As a result, the banks exert tremendous influence on a majority of the Consortium.

The story of Gore?s victory has been spiked at the highest levels of the media conglomerates that are involved, rather than at the cosmetic steering committee level of the recount project. The Consortium reportedly has received intense pressure from members of the Bush inner circle both in and out of government, but has not been lobbied by representatives of Gore.

The huge disparity between the original recount and the Consortium recount stems from the G.O.P. tactics in Florida. Their strategy was to aggressively contest every pro-Gore ballot, even the obviously valid ones. The Republicans then accused the vote counters of being biased because most of the challenges were resolved in favor of Gore. By using this approach, the Bush partisans successfully intimidated the counters into bending over backwards to show "fairness", resulting in thousands of legitimate Gore votes being disqualified or relegated to a pile of disputed ballots.

I wonder if shrub and his handlers were worrying about this as they were hiding out in Texas waiting for the terrorist strike that would cleanse the public's remaining memories of their coup. During and after the election and the political maneuverings, I was more annoyed than angry about what was obviously happening. If the above is true, I just may be able to hit the "fury" level even with the Effexor.
posted by Steven Baum 10/2/2001 01:08:11 PM | link

HEALTH CARE COMPARISONS
In Every Other Country: Comparing Health Care Systems and Results (via Progressive Review) is a report by the Michigan Universal Health Care Access Network. They don't mince words. Among the conclusions:
By now, if the examples haven't convinced you that the United States is wasting about half the money it puts into health care, nothing will. People who try to claim that "free-market competition" is the best way to control health care costs just don't know the facts. The fact is, the US Medicare program has overhead administrative costs of less than 5%, while the private insurance companies have overhead costs in the 20-25% range. This clearly demonstrates that the efficiency of the marketplace is in this case just a myth.

However, simple inefficiency in administration is inadequate to explain how so much money is wasted in American health care. First off, let's define "waste" in this context. If you don't need to spend money in some particular manner to get good health care, then money so spent is wasted.

Private insurance companies, in addition to overhead expenses, must have profits, so some of the money paid for health care goes to these profits. They also have executive salaries and perks that would not be tolerated in a government agency, salaries and perks that are not needed (as we see in the example of numerous other countries) for purposes of delivering health care, and so this money is also wasted.

But it is not just profits and perks. Private insurance insists on reviewing every procedure, and contesting a great many of them. This takes time, personnel, and money, and is a way of delaying health care, not delivering it. Doctor's offices and hospitals are compelled to carry a matching staff to fill out forms, make and return phone calls. Doctors and nurses find much of their time consumed in the same process. All of this costs money, and this money is wasted, as the administrative conflict is almost entirely unnecessary.

Medicare has no money in its budget to lobby Congress or pay for TV ads during election campaigns. The private health insurance industry uses millions this way. If it does not pay for health care, it is wasted money.

The other big institutional offender is the drug industry. Americans pay the highest prices in the world for drugs. Drug companies use the money for advertising, lobbying, campaign funds for pet politicians, executive salaries and perks, and still have enough left over to report a high rate of profit. This rate of profit is either splendid or obscene, depending on your view of stock profits and prices; it is certainly not necessary to pay the costs of developing and producing drugs. All of the extras above the cost of producing drugs and a reasonable rate of profit is wasted, compared to the practices of most other countries.

It is no secret that when a national health system which buys all the drugs from all the manufacturers for even a small country negotiates prices with drug manufacturers, the result is reasonable drug prices. It is also no secret that when drug companies deal with dozens or hundreds of insurance companies and with the millions of atomized individuals paying out of pocket, ridiculously high drug prices result. That's why Americans increasingly buy drugs from Canada.


posted by Steven Baum 10/2/2001 11:22:48 AM | link

A REAL WAR ON DRUGS
I've been saying for years that the Holy War on Drugs is really a Holy War on People, most of whom are poor and/or members of minority groups. Well, the Holy War on Terrorism is proving me wrong on this one, as reported in the
Sunday Mirror.
POPPY fields which supply the Taliban's multi-billion-pound drugs trade are to be a key target of military strikes in Afghanistan.

The decision has been taken by Tony Blair and President George Bush to stop Osama bin Laden using drugs profits to wage war against the West.
...
Specially-adapted US planes will be used to spray and destroy the poppies, from which opium is produced and processed into heroin.

The US is currently funding the development of a fungus that attacks the roots of opium plants.

While the mental image of the usual rubes and knuckle-draggers dancing in the streets chanting "USA! USA!" after hearing of the destruction of poppy fields is certainly entertaining, I'm more than a trifle fearful of that last bit about developing a fungus to attack the roots of opium plants. There's this tricky process called evolution that makes such plans poster children for the law of unintended consequences. Even if this administration is rampant with mouth-breathers who think that evolution is just another Marxist plot along with income taxes and gun control, there should be some rational people in the chain of command who know otherwise.
posted by Steven Baum 10/2/2001 11:02:35 AM | link

UNITED AIRLINES BUYS LUXURY JETS
Poor, struggling United Airlines has somehow found enough money to send millions to France as a down payment for luxury jets for the extremely wealthy. According to the
NYTimes:
At the same time United Airlines was telling Congress two weeks ago that it might go bankrupt without a bailout, its parent, the UAL Corporation, was wiring $11.25 million to a French airplane manufacturer as a down payment on an order for 30 business jets.

The luxury jets, built by Dassault Aviation at a cost of about $20 million apiece, are part of a new business for UAL, that of selling shares of business aircraft to corporations, celebrities and other wealthy individuals.

The plan calls for United to buy fleets of eight different types of business jets, including those made by American manufacturers, at a cost of $7 million to $40 million each over the next five years and resell shares in them at a profit while earning management fees for flying and maintaining the aircraft.

But critics, including lawmakers in Washington, are angry that United is investing millions of dollars in the new venture when it has announced plans to lay off 20,000 workers and supposedly is fighting for its life. The airline has already received about half of the $802 million that is its share of a $5 billion cash grant to the industry passed by Congress on Sept. 21. United and other carriers are also eligible for $10 billion in federal loan guarantees.

The executive in charge of the operation wastes no time in babbling forth corporatespeak:
"The construction of this business was something that we viewed as a big win-win for everybody," Mr. Oran said, referring to the airline.
External observers beg to disagree.
But many wonder if United can make Avolar a success. Mr. Oran says that United has already created a tremendous amount of value in the venture but Avolar has yet to sell a single share.
...
In addition to Executive Jets, there are several other large companies, including Bombardier Aerospace and Raytheon, that sell shares in private jets that they also manufacture. "I have some real questions whether United can do this at competitive cost levels," said Michael E. Levine, a former airline executive and regulator.

United management has also had a spotty record running its own business. UAL lost $605 million in the first half of this year, far more than any of its competitors, and was on its way to losing nearly $1 billion for the year even before the terrorist attacks.

And what do the ultraliberal Marxists at the investment houses have to say?
"Considering the inherent strength of United's route network, its losses are inexcusable and staggering," said Samuel C. Buttrick, an airline analyst at UBS Warburg in New York.
Ah, but at least the CEOs will be comfy, not having to fly with the likes of those who died on September 11. It'll be costly, however, with a similar executive jet program already running costing a minimum of $500,000 per year for 50 hours of flying. This cost will no doubted be mitigated at the expense of the taxpayers, however, so it'll still be chock full o' win-win synergies.
posted by Steven Baum 10/2/2001 10:37:23 AM | link

THE EVER-VIGILANT SPOOKS
The
Houston Chronicle reports on just part of the well-spent $30 billion spook budget.
Law enforcement officials have closed their investigation into possible connections between terrorist attacks and predictions made by a Garland fifth-grader that World War III was about to begin.

Garland police spokeswoman Stephanie Funk said Monday that FBI agents interviewed the child's teacher and decided no further investigation was warranted.

After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, an elementary teacher in the Dallas suburb told her supervisors that on Sept. 10 a boy had told her World War III would start the next day in the United States and the United States would lose.

That voucher system proposal's sounding better and better.
posted by Steven Baum 10/2/2001 10:17:50 AM | link

LET THEM EAT FLAGS
We find out from the
LA Times what we're now reaping from the rapacious greed sown in the go-go 90s.
Texas' unemployment insurance fund appears headed for insolvency. So does New York's. More than a dozen states have little or no money for extra welfare benefits in case of recession, and the federal program designed to back them up expired over the weekend.
...
Problems range across the spectrum of government programs Americans have come to rely on during economic bad times, such as unemployment insurance, welfare, food stamps and Medicaid. As a result, millions could find their benefits harder to obtain and less generous while state and federal governments scramble to find money to fill in the gaps in these programs.
...
But analysts warn that extra benefits are likely to be overwhelmed by additional needs if the economy further erodes. The reason: Congress and the states have spent much of the last decade scaling back safety net programs.
Despite ample historical evidence of the so-called "business cycle", the go-go boys and girls in the gummint and the private sector thought the fun was going to last forever. And what better thing to do when times are good than double the pay of CEOs, whether or not their companies are performing well, while setting things up so the poor get it good and hard should times become less than good.

I've got no sympathy for those losing their jobs who voted for Shrub and his ilk over the last decade because they were going to "get all those welfare bums off the gummint tit." The great triumph of the GOP over the last 20 years was convincing the middle class, even while they were screwing them hard to make their wealthy paymasters wealthier, that it was the fault of the poor that they weren't also wealthy. I'm sure even some of those getting laid off still believe that it's the fault of those evil liberals who raised the minimum wage that they're now out of work. At least they'll believe that until they have to take a minimum wage job to feed their families.

If the unemployed want to get righteously angry, why don't they fume at the $15 billion that's being tossed at the airline industry for failing to run their companies at a profit and failing to provide adequate security? Corporate America sure as hell hasn't been wasting its bribe money over the last couple of decades. If you're a person unable to find work and you take money from the gummint, then you're a welfare bum; if you're a corporation unable to make a profit and you take money from the gummint, then you're a success story on the cover of Fortune.

By the way, does anyone care to guess where the problems are the worst?

The problems are most extreme in Texas, where officials acknowledged last week that the combination of an employer tax cut supported by then-Gov. George W. Bush last year and a recent jump in jobless benefit claims is draining the state's Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund.

Larry Jones, a spokesman for the Texas Workforce Commission, which administers the fund, portrayed the problem as little more than a technical glitch and asserted that workers' benefits are not threatened. "We choose to operate close to the floor so we don't have money sitting around," he said.

But state officials were forced to reverse course and announce they will raise taxes on employers and divert funds from a jobs training program to address the shortfall. Even with the extra money, several independent analysts said, the state program is unlikely to avoid insolvency.

"They'll never make it," said Phillip Levine, a Wellesley College economist who recently completed a study of unemployment compensation during the last three recessions.

"For 10 years, Texas and a handful of other states have done everything they could not to save any money, and now they're paying the price," Levine said.

On the positive side, it did enable Shrub to move his comic book collection to the White House. Remember the 1996 federal welfare reform law that's been touted as such a rousing, unqualified success? That house of cards is collapsing, as is detailed in a list of the current and future consequences:
  • The 1996 federal welfare reform law imposed a five-year lifetime limit on the right to collect welfare benefits. The aim was to end dependency and force able-bodied adults to work. The measure succeeded in slashing welfare rolls by half, but time is running out for many people as they try to find jobs just as the job market is coming unstuck. As a result, several million poor mothers and others could find themselves without paychecks or welfare payments.
  • Authors of the 1996 law, acknowledging that welfare costs rise in recessions, created a $2-billion federal "contingency" fund to help states through downturns. But they gave the fund a five-year life, which ended Sunday. No one has proposed an extension. States were also supposed to build up recession reserves of their own. But 16 have saved little or nothing and another 10 have only enough to cover six months of benefits in nonrecessionary times.
  • Washington has placed new restrictions on food stamps, which helped millions weather past recessions. The states have followed up with even tighter rules. Among other things, even legal immigrants are now prohibited from receiving government food assistance. Since 1996, the ban has helped cut the food stamp rolls by one-third to 17 million. But it has caused comparatively little pain because of the ease with which most people have been able to find jobs in recent years.
Ah, but at least the unemployed can feast on huge helpings of superpatriotism, confident in the knowledge that the grumbling in their stomachs is nothing compared to that of the millions of refugees that are already being produced by the threat of the guns being produced in lieu of butter.
posted by Steven Baum 10/2/2001 09:45:43 AM | link

Monday, October 01, 2001

THE CUBAN SUBMARINE CRISIS
In William and W. Craig Reed's
Thirteen Days: The Real Story, we find out more about an infamous missile crisis:
Thanks to a NSA Top Secret Codeword project termed BORESIGHT, every Soviet submarine at sea, not only those advancing into Cuban waters, but around the globe, was located and targeted by our own Polaris missiles. Confronted with this sobering reality, Khrushchev had no choice but to back down or face World War Three. This was the secret ace in Kennedy's hand with which he bluffed the Soviet Premier. It was a hell of a strategic poker game, and should not be buried in the graveyard of secret history. The Cuban Submarine Crisis started long before 1962.

posted by Steven Baum 10/1/2001 04:54:01 PM | link

THE UNDERGROUND
Underground Base and Tunnel Links contains a marvelous collection of links to underground tunnels and bases built by the U.S. military, the U.S. gummint, corporations, etc.
posted by Steven Baum 10/1/2001 04:50:18 PM | link

MONEY LAUNDERING HOW-TO
From the wonderful folks at
Dirty Money:
Money Laundering HOW-TO

posted by Steven Baum 10/1/2001 04:37:02 PM | link

HOMELAND SECURITY
Al Martin writes of the latest consolidation of the powers of the police state. He offers details of a proposal about the Office of Homeland Security, a proposal not yet made public.
The Office of Homeland Security will initially be run by former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge. It should be noted that Ridge himself got in trouble a few years ago for praising the efficiency of the Third Reich's civilian administration. Ridge also spoke highly of Mussolini's ability to keep the Italian trains running on time. Now Ridge will be the guy running the Office of Homeland Security.

Although it hasn't been made public yet, there is a proposal being prepared. The Bush administration, however is playing it smart. They're being cautious by whipping up public support first. Later they will announce some of the more sinister activities of this agency.

According to an inside source, the "Office of Homeland Security" will operate three divisions. One will be a plain-clothes division similar to the FBI, which will be called the State Security Division (SSD). Ironically SSD is the same acronym as the former East German Secret Police.
...
By the way, Ridge wants the uniforms of this State Political Police division to be modeled on existing state trooper uniforms - except done in black.
...
This new agency will also operate "with extralegal authority." They will then be able to act under suspension of habeus corpus and under suspension of the right against self- incrimination, the Fifth Amendment privilege, and also the Fourth Amendment privilege.

That power will be in their charter -- they can act in an extra-legal authority, in certain cases, where the security of the "homeland" is "threatened."
...
Ridge will most likely be a political figurehead. He was probably given this job as political payback for Bush. It hasn't been decided yet, but one of the names that has been mentioned (and I certainly hope it doesn't happen) is Barry McCaffrey. If they put that old nazi in charge, watch out! Meanwhile back in the Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, there was a large party of old generals visiting from the Department of Defense and everybody was laughing. They're all interested in seeing what corporations will be getting the new contracts.

By the way, this week's required reading is Sinclar Lewis's It Can't Happen Here.
posted by Steven Baum 10/1/2001 04:11:15 PM | link

TERRORIST SCHOOL
An
item over at Al Martin Raw might be of interest. He writes about the Redstone Arsenal's Hazardous Devices School, located in Huntsville, Alabama. It's sort of a sister school to the School of the Americas (now WHISC) at Fort Benning in Georgia. Martin about the School:
This is the most exclusive explosives school in the United States. It's where firemen, policemen, and municipal bomb squads are trained. It also provides training for the US armed forces, FBI, CIA, as well as foreign army and intelligence personnel. This is the most elite of the munitions schools in the United States and it's part of the Redstone Arsenal complex.

This facility is not run by the US Army or by the military. It is technically run by US State Department employee Ray Funderberg, who's been covertly in charge of it for about twenty years. An added note -- although Funderberg works for the State Department, he dresses in a US Army Colonel's uniform. Official records indicate that he supposedly works for the FBI.
...
This deception at the Hazardous Devices School is really another School of Americas story. The Friendly Colonel is being offered a $12,000 fee per person to fill out the appropriate State department documents to allow people into the United States on green cards for short stays - 30, 60, 90 day stays - and to enlist foreign nationals into this program. What they're doing is using this program as a cover to bring people in to be trained at the explosives school. The US State Department is actually conspiring with foreign arms merchants and the governments they represent to allow hostile foreign nationals to come to the United States using false documents to be trained at this facility.

And what's happening at this happy fun school after the WTC/Pentagon bombings?
A special State Department Internal Security team from the political liability control office was inserted quickly after the incident into the Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville Alabama.

The Demolition School has been shut down, and they are shredding documents as we speak. As a matter of fact they have made an emergency request to the Department of Defense for more shredders.

According to the general on the scene, the way the Feds are handling the situation is that the Redstone Arsenal is now "locked up tighter than a bull's ass in fly season." And there is a mass shredding party going on.

This guy Funderberg has been moved to an undisclosed location, so the media can't find him. And everybody at the Redstone Arsenal that wore a towel on their heads isn't there anymore. According to an on the scene report, the towelheads are reported to be lying low.

Sounds incredible, doesn't it?
posted by Steven Baum 10/1/2001 03:52:30 PM | link

YESTERDAY'S DRUG RUNNERS...
From a
James Ridgeway column from the week of June 20-26, 2001:
Now Bush is in the ungainly position of favoring the Northern Alliance, a Russian-backed resistance group that funds its efforts in part by trafficking in narcotics. "The basic problem is that the U.S. so far has failed disastrously in Afghanistan, and for a decade has had no policy toward Afghanistan other than bin Laden," says S. Frederick Starr, chair of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. "It is legal under U.S.-led UN sanctions to send arms to the Northern Alliance, which is actively exporting drugs, but illegal to send arms to the Taliban, which has stopped drug production."
The drug-running Northern Alliance has become this month's Freedom Fighters, Rebels, Founding Father Equivalents, etc. because they're the largest group opposing the drug-running Taliban in Afghanistan. And how about those Founding Father Equivalents?
The best of them - the Tajik commander Ahmed Shah Massoud - is dead, assassinated by Osama bin Laden's agents two days before the attacks on America. But waiting in the wings to step forward are a collection of butchers and spooks that would frighten off Count Dracula.

Among the more interesting is the Uzbek warlord General Abdul Rashid Dostum, a born turncoat who ruled northern Afghanistan for years on a platform of viciousness and well-timed betrayal.

A former labourer, Dostum rose high by collaborating with the Soviet invaders, then found Allah and joined the mujahideen.

If any of his lieutenants showed too much initiative, Dostum would promptly have them killed. Tying them to two tanks headed in opposite directions was a favourite method. Eventually the Uzbeks could tolerate no more of this fratricidal behaviour and banished him to Turkey.

Now Dostum is back, leading his band of mercenaries in northern Afghanistan and looking for a place, however temporary, in the soon-to-be-announced government which will replace the Taliban.

Alongside him are the leaders of extremist Shi'ite and Sunni Muslim militias whose sole purpose in coming together will be to get within shooting range of one another.

The circus that will ensue if and when they reach Kabul will make the Taliban regime look sane. That's why Afghans, after four years under the rule of those who now call themselves the Northern Alliance, were willing to give the Taliban a chance after they seized Kabul five years ago this month.

Yep, everything sure as hell has changed.
posted by Steven Baum 10/1/2001 02:52:04 PM | link

PAKISTANI TERRORISM
Just yesterday, Pakistani terrorists
killed 29 people in a suicide attack on the state assembly building in Srinigar, the capital of Kashmir. These are the latest of thousands of victims in the Kashmir dispute. They're most likely the victims of the pro-Pakistani Hizbul Mujahideen terrorist organization who, if they're not officially sponsored by Pakistan, are sure as hell harbored by them every bit as much as Osama bin Laden is harbored by Afghanistan.

Pakistan and India, as well as supposedly independent groups in both countries, have been fighting over the Kashmir region since the Maharaja of Kashmir acceded to Indian rule in 1947 as part of the Indian Independence Act of that year. They're also a couple of countries the U.S. has been playing "good guy, bad guy" with over the years, i.e. sort of like with Iraq and Iran over the last couple of decades. As Joe Ronzburg puts it in a column about "blowback":

Michael Klare notes in his book Rogue States and Nuclear Outlaws that the United States has always gone back and forth between India and Pakistan, and in the 1970s it was Pakistan, not India, that was seen as our strategic ally. India allied with the Soviet Union in response, Klare says. With the war in Afghanistan gearing up, Pakistan was seen as even more important -- to facilitate "the secret U.S. effort to aid the Afghan mujahideen."

Of course, Pakistan was also developing a nuclear capability at the time, and Klare says the Reagan administration possessed intelligence in 1986 or 1987 that the country could produce weapons. But the White House purposefully withheld the information from Congress because it would have prompted the automatic cutoff of aid to Pakistan, thwarting the U.S. Cold War effort. Talk about blowback!

So which blowback would you prefer? To have the USSR blow through Afghanistan en route to the Middle East, or to have Pakistan blow up Kashmir or India (or play a role in the proliferation of nuclear weapons)? That's a lot of blowing, and certainly all those options would blow. The point is not that it's easy to know what the answers are, but that while we are using these countries as pawns in our game, they have expectations and needs and concerns of their own. If we don't acknowledge them from the start, then it's likely we'll not anticipate where things get out of hand the next time.


posted by Steven Baum 10/1/2001 01:37:53 PM | link

SHRUB LOCKS UP TEXAS RECORDS
Lucius Lomax tells how Shrub has manuevered to have his six years worth of Texas gubornatorial papers hidden away from the public. All records of previous Texas governors are made available via the Texas Public Information Act, i.e. they're available in their entirety merely for the asking. While still reading comic books in the Texas governor's mansion, Shrub got his GOP cronies to pass legislation to ...
... designate an institution of higher education or alternate archival institution in the state, in lieu of the Texas State Library and Archives, as the repository for the records of the executive office of the governor.
At the time he apparently just wanted to have his records transferred to the Bush the Elder Library here at Texas A&M, and there was ample precedent for this, e.g. LBJ's papers are kept at the LBJ Library in Austin. The huge difference is that now both the Bush Library and the current GOP governor claim that now the records are in the jurisdiction of the Bush Library and not the state of Texas. The pragmatic upshot is that access is now permitted only via the federal Freedom of Information Act rather than the Texas Public Information Act. Lomax tells why this is a big deal.
Who holds title to -- and who holds possession of -- the records of the Bush's gubernatorial administration is particularly important. Although George W. Bush has not been caught in an illicit relationship with an intern, his stay in the White House has already shown him to be vulnerable in the most fundamental aspect of politics: policy. Because of the president's limited public experience prior to 1994, the record of his term in Austin takes on special importance in understanding and influencing, and perhaps redirecting, his present administration. (Imagine the uproar if Bill Clinton had tried to shield his Arkansas gubernatorial records.) The files now held prisoner in College Station include documents related to the imposition of the death penalty, policies toward the environment and toward minorities, health care and welfare reform, as well as a variety of other social issues.

If Bush is permitted to leave his state records in the hands of federal archivists, the benefits to his administration -- at least in political terms -- could well be substantial. For a politician, no news is good news. Under the federal Freedom of Information Act, processing a request for information via federal disclosure can and often does take years. Disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act, on the other hand, typically takes weeks -- and sometimes only days. State archivists say, moreover, they have been informed by National Archives officials that the George W. Bush gubernatorial papers are a low priority for assessment and cataloguing, since the federal archivists' primary responsibility is to finish their work on the papers relating to the career of the first President Bush. "They've said as much," a state official remarked of the federal archivists in College Station. "They're not going to do anything till the end of the presidential administration, at which point [there will be] a George W. Bush Library and then they might process [the gubernatorial records] -- after the presidential records." In the meantime, the Bush papers are in a kind of bureaucratic limbo. Said State Librarian Peggy Rudd: "I think at this point it would be very difficult to determine if something were lost."

The main reason the Texas State Librarian wants to re-obtain the papers is for cataloging purposes. If they're not catalogued, then nothing can be easily found even if they're not hidden behind the FOIA.

Thus Shrub and his handlers have managed to not only keep his Texas gubornatorial records unavailable, but they've also managed to ensure that they're not even catalogued until he leaves the White House. Like Lomax says, can you imagine the length and shrillness of the shrieking had Clinton tried this with even his shopping lists?

Even with the current bootlick GOP governor collaborating with Shrub, it's going to be difficult to keep the records from the public eye.

However, George W. Bush may have already made an error. A war was once fought in the Republic of Texas over an attempt to remove government records from Austin. In the present case, as state archivists have warned, someone is almost certain to sue -- if only to determine who has title to the papers and whether they are to be reviewed and released under the more rigorous state statute, which requires prompt cooperation with open records requests, or treated as documents covered by the more time-consuming federal Freedom of Information Act. (It would certainly be an odd Texas jury, indeed, that could rule that the records of the administration of a Texas governor are not state documents.) As one member of the Library and Archives Commission -- himself a Republican and a lawyer and a Bush appointee -- put it when he was informed of the impasse, "I'll speak only for myself. I would have a serious problem with giving up title, so to speak, to the documents. I'm very willing to work to try and accommodate as much as possible -- but I do believe those [papers] belong to the state. I would not abdicate that responsibility lightly."
And of course there's the inevitable matter of hypocrisy when it comes to Shrub and the GOP.
But there is also another issue: hypocrisy. After years of lecturing the rest of the world about the right of Texans to run their own affairs without interference by the federal government, the president is literally taking refuge in the federal camp.

posted by Steven Baum 10/1/2001 01:00:28 PM | link

EXECUTIVE ORDER #13224
Shrub's handler's cobbled together an
executive order on Sept. 25 entitled "Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threat to Commit, or Support Terrorism." It's quite an open-ended document allowing the government to seize almost any property from anybody, i.e. note the vague "Support" in the title of the document.
posted by Steven Baum 10/1/2001 11:17:11 AM | link

FURTHER HARRIS MALFEASANCE
Katharine Harris, the Florida Secretary of State who figuratively put her ankles behind her ears for one Bush and literally for another, has been found to be every bit as good counting money as counting votes. Florida State Auditor William Monroe recently released a report detailing the various irregularities occurring under Harris.
The review by the auditor general found a number of instances where employees in Harris' department bought first-class or business-class tickets for foreign travel instead of less-expensive coach-class tickets, violations of state travel regulations.

The auditors also found Harris had no procedures for screening personal calls made on state cell phones.

Reviewing expenditures made between July 1, 1999, and March 31, 2001, auditors determined that more than 38 percent of the calls could not be associated with a valid state purpose.

Harris' staff routinely recorded expenditures made by one division as being made by another. For example, expenditures incurred by a Latin American affairs consultant for foreign travel were attributed to the state Division of Elections. Cell phone expenses incurred by Harris' own office were listed as expenditures by the Division of Corporations.

Harris defends her and her department's actions by pointing to her extensive recent first-class air travel at taxpayer expense.
Harris has defended her work, saying she believes her efforts have improved commerce and cultural exchanges with other countries. Since taking office in January 1999, Harris has traveled to Argentina, Brazil, Australia, Venezuela, Mexico, Canada, Panama and Barbados.

posted by Steven Baum 10/1/2001 10:47:32 AM |
link

THE REALITY OF THE "NEW KIND OF WAR"
Douglas Valentine writes about the U.S. military's conception of Bush's "new kind of war."
As stated twelve years ago in the October 1989 Marine Corps Gazette (p. 22-26), Bush's New War will be "widely dispersed and largely undefined; the distinction between war and peace will be blurred to the vanishing point." There will be no "definable battlefields or fronts," and the distinction between "civilian" and "military" will disappear. "Success will depend heavily on effectiveness in joint operations (such as Bush proposes between [Tom] Ridge at Homeland Security and Downing at the Pengagon) as lines between responsibility and mission become very blurred."
Or, as someone else put it, "war is peace." And then there's the propaganda war (as perfected and expounded by Edward Bernays).
According to the Gazette article, success in the New War against undefined suspects will also depend on "psychological operations" manifest "in the form of media/information intervention." One must be "adept at manipulating the media to alter domestic and world opinion..." On the psywar battlefield, "Television news may become a more powerful operational weapon than armored divisions."
Note that this article appeared in the "Marine Corps Gazette" and not in the "Weekly World Worker." As someone else likes to say, "the truth is out there."
posted by Steven Baum 10/1/2001 10:20:12 AM | link

DEFINITIONAL TAP DANCING
An
LA Times article (via Bushwacker) details exactly the sort of definitional funny business I've been predicting would ensue about the word "terrorism." For example, Rep. Porter Goss (R-Florida) does a simply remarkable job of surreally parsing the matter.
The challenge, he said, is coming up with a definition that is wide enough to give law enforcement and U.S. intelligence the latitude they need to prevent further attacks, yet narrow enough to protect the civil liberties of the innocent.

"The trouble is, 'terrorism' is a very broad word, and it lends itself to a lot of mischief for people who would abuse common sense," Goss said.

As an example, he cited the bombings of abortion clinics.

"To me, that's not the kind of terrorism I'm talking about," Goss said. "That's criminal law enforcement. But it would fit most broad definitions of terrorism because the purpose [of such bombings] is to scare people."

Goss contends that it goes against "common sense" and is just downright mischievous to define bombing abortion clinics as "terrorism," and then deep-sixes his entire attempt to excuse his psychotic religious fundamentalist constituents by saying that "that's not the kind of terrorism I'm talking about" and admitting that their purpose "is to scare people."

The articles goes on to offer a working definition of terrorism being considered by Goss and his ilk.

[T]he unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
The writer of the article then joins Goss on the magical mystery tour by stating that "this definition has the virtue of focusing on those who use violence for political causes." Huh? The definition refers to "political and social objectives," which doesn't excuse the anti-abortion taliban on any planet I know of where the sum of two and two is still four.
posted by Steven Baum 10/1/2001 09:39:56 AM | link

BUSH THE ELDER'S SAUDI BOSSES
An
item (via Bushwacker) at Judicial Watch - which seems to be slowly weaning itself from its eight years of Clinton obsession mode - details, in the currently favored jargon, the "links" between Bush the Elder and the bin Laden megafamily of Saudi Arabia (and other parts mideastern).
Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, reacted with disbelief to The Wall Street Journal report of yesterday that George H.W. Bush, the father of President Bush, works for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle Group, an international consulting firm. The senior Bush had met with the bin Laden family at least twice. (Other top Republicans are also associated with the Carlyle group, such as former Secretary of State James A. Baker.) The terrorist leader Osama bin Laden had supposedly been 'disowned' by his family, which runs a multi-billion dollar business in Saudi Arabia and is a major investor in the senior Bush's firm. Other reports have questioned, though, whether members of his Saudi family have truly cut off Osama bin Laden. Indeed, the Journal also reported yesterday that the FBI has subpoenaed the bin Laden family business's bank records.
And it's not like the JW folks are johnny-come-latelies on this issue either.
Judicial Watch earlier this year had strongly criticized President Bush's father's association with the Carlyle Group, pointing out in a March 5 statement that it was a "conflict of interest (which) could cause problems for America?s foreign policy in Middle East and Asia." Judicial Watch called for the senior Bush to resign from the firm then.
They're not mincing words on this one.
"This conflict of interest has now turned into a scandal. The idea of the President's father, an ex-president himself, doing business with a company under investigation by the FBI in the terror attacks of September 11 is horrible. President Bush should not ask, but demand, that his father pull out of the Carlyle Group," stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman.
Imagine how Fox et al. would treat this if, say, Clinton's dentist's cousin knew someone who invested in the Carlyle Group. But, as I've said before, the current "GOP Dictionary" defines "conflict of interest" as "Clinton breathing."
posted by Steven Baum 10/1/2001 09:16:35 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