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, March 08, 2003

WHAT HE SAID
Atrios sums it up well. The context is some non-warbloggers jumping off the warwagon, with Atrios wondering why the hell it took them so long. I've lost track of the number of times I've used the word "cynical" in reference to the Cabal's transparent agitprop.
hate to say it, but...what took you so long? Not bashing Kevin, really, but I've just been absolutely confused by the fact that so many intelligent reasonable people were unable to see this for the cynical deceptive enterprise that it was from the beginning.

Remember, back in the summer when the Iraq chatter started heating up in the media we would have Rumsfeld saying things like "why is everyone talking about Iraq? There are no plans for Iraq!" Then Andy Card mentioned the post-labor day marketing rollout. Suddenly we had the patriotism of people like Max Cleland being questioned. At every step, explosive new exciting evidence of Just How Dangerous Saddam Really Is was just around the corner. At each new unveiling, it was always conjecture at best and more generally lies and deception.

The worst part of all of this were the deliberate attempts to link Saddam Hussein to the events of 9/11. Nice way to exploit the deaths of 3000 people. I've been informed by readers that Republican congressmen have been telling their constituents during town hall meetings that there is "secret evidence" that Hussein was behind 9/11. Well, if Hussein was behind 9/11 why the hell is it secret and more importantly why the hell haven't we fired a missle up his ass yet?

Each step deception. Each step cynical exploitation. Each step complete incompetence. How the hell could ANYONE be on board with this?


posted by Steven Baum 3/8/2003 11:22:33 PM | link

INSIDE THE SHADOW CIA
AmPol has scanned in a 1992 Spy Magazine by John Connolly about the Wackenhut Corporation, which also had a lucrative prison privatization thing going on with Dubya during his Texas governor years. An entertaining side note is George Wackenhut, the founder of the corporation, once having called Bush I "pink".
posted by Steven Baum 3/8/2003 11:05:49 PM | link

AFGHANISTAN BACK ON TOP
The
2002 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report - an official U.S. government document signed by none other than G. W. Bush - tells us that Afghanistan has quickly recovered from the Stalinist grip of the Taliban, at least in the area of opium production. Note how the report attempts to absolve U.S. figurehead Karzai (and therefore the U.S.) of any responsibility for opium cultivation having increased from 1,685 to 30,750 hectares in 1 year. But, you see, it's only a matter of time before all the decrees signed by Karzai - whose U.S.-owned ass has to be protected by U.S.-hired mercenaries 24 hours a day even in Kabul - have all the warlords quivering in their boots and immediately switching to growing daisies. Note also the comment about the poppy growing being a "risk-avoidance reponse to continuing drought conditions and lack of credit, farm inputs, and markets for other agricultural products." This can be roughly translated as "the Cabal's mealy-mouthed lip service about rebuilding Afghanistan is utterly belied by their continuing willingness to spend yet more billions on bombing yet more big rocks into smaller rocks (along with yet more non-Taliban civilian noncombatants), and unwillingness to spend a sawbuck to rebuild any part of the civilian infrastructure." This also bodes well for the future of Iraqi infrastructure, except of course the components needed to move that black, slippery stuff around to maximize the rate of return for Dick Cheney's pals.
Despite strong statements by President Karzai in January 2002; an Afghan government-led, British-supported eradication campaign in spring 2002; and alternative livelihoods assistance that has begun to flow to the poppy growing areas, Afghanistan’s 2002 opium cultivation was 30,750 hectares, according to the U.S. estimate. The UNODC estimated that more than twice as much land in Afghanistan was sewn to poppy. The U.S. estimate for poppy cultivation is up from the 2001 level of 1,685 hectares. The low 2001 level was a one-year deviation from a decade of high-level opium production and was the result of the Taliban poppy ban. By the time Hamid Karzai became head of the then-Interim Government in December 2001, however, the poppy crop reflected in the 2002 cultivation figures was already in the ground. Afghan farmers continued to cultivate poppy as a risk-avoidance response to continuing drought conditions and lack of credit, farm inputs, and markets for other agricultural products. Afghanistan returned to its former position as the world’s largest producer of illicit opium. Also contributing to the increase was the chaotic situation in Afghanistan following the fall of the Taliban in late 2001, and the limited enforcement reach of the new government.

During 2002, the Afghanistan Interim Authority (AIA), followed by the Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan Government (TISA), took several important first steps to control its enormous drug problem. On January 17, 2002, President Karzai issued a decree banning cultivation, production, processing, illicit trafficking, and abuse of narcotics drugs. He issued further decrees in September and October, which designated Afghanistan’s National Security Council (NSC) as the body responsible for drug control, established within the NSC a Counternarcotics Department (CND), and named its Director. International drug control coordination meetings were held in Kabul in July and October, resulting in the formation of five working groups headed by line ministries to implement the five subject areas of the national drug control strategy currently in draft. With this drug control architecture in place, Afghanistan is in a good position to carry out the goals and objectives of the 1988 UN Drug Convention, to which it is a party. Unfortunately, the new government’s excellent intentions and initial organizational successes in Kabul had no real short-term effect on opium production in the countryside. Effective steps to reduce opium production in Afghanistan remain a challenging future task for the new government, assisted by the international community. Help with developing alternative livelihoods for Afghanistan’s opium farmers will be crucial to the success of any opium crop reduction strategy.


posted by Steven Baum 3/8/2003 10:29:22 PM | link

WTO SCHEMES
Lori Wallach writes of the latest schemes of the WTO vis a vis GATS.
...
When most people think about trade, they conjure up images of ships ferrying steel beams and sacks of coffee between nations and of agreements about cutting tariffs and quotas on trade in goods. In reality however, today's "trade agreements," such as the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the 1995 World Trade Organization (WTO), have little to do with trade. Instead, they focus on granting foreign companies new rights and privileges within the boundaries of other countries. They attempt to constrain federal, state and local regulatory policies, and to commodify public services and common resources -- such as water -- into new tradable units for profit.

The leaked documents reveal negotiations that will expand the scope of General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS,) one of the 21 pacts enforced by the WTO. The "GATS-2000" talks are promoted by the United States and European nations on behalf of multinational service sector conglomerates. Up for grabs at the negotiating table is worldwide privatization and deregulation of public energy and water utilities, postal services, higher education and state alcohol distribution controls; a new right for foreign firms to obtain U.S. Small Business Administration loans; elimination of a list of specific U.S. state laws about land use, professional licensing and consumer protections; and extreme deregulation of private-sector service industries such as insurance, banking, mutual funds and securities.
...
Think of GATS as a Trojan Horse. Appealingly dubbed a "trade agreement," it actually contains a massive attack on the most basic functions of local and state government. You might ask what the GATS provision creating a new right for corporations to establish a "commercial presence" within another country has to do with cross-border trade. The answer: nothing. The terms allow a foreign firm to set up subsidiaries in other countries or acquire local companies under more favorable terms than their domestic competitors get. For instance, once a service sector is covered under GATS, governments may not limit the number or size of service providers, meaning that applying zoning rules on beach front development or limits on concessions in national parks to foreign firms would be forbidden. This is why many people consider GATS to be a backdoor attempt to revive the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), a radical investment pact that was killed by public opposition in 1998.

The GATS not only promotes privatization of public services, but it makes reversing failed privatization experiments extremely difficult for national, state and local governments. Under GATS, if cities seek to bring a privately operated utility back into the public realm, they only can do so if the U.S. government agrees to compensate all WTO countries for their companies' lost business opportunities. For example, Atlanta just reversed a disastrous water privatization involving a French company. If the United States agrees to Europe's GATS-2000 demands to subject water to GATS disciplines, such reversals could only occur if compensation was offered not just to that company but to all WTO signatory countries. The secret European document also revealed a demand to include retail electricity services under GATS, which would mean that privatization nightmares like California's energy deregulation would be nearly impossible to fix.
...


posted by Steven Baum 3/8/2003 03:09:53 PM | link

HUSSEIN KAMAL
Counterspin Central has discovered that Hussein Kamal's testimony - should it be true - is even more damaging to the Cabal's Iraq invasion obsession than Newsweek let on.
Thanks to Abu Aardvark, I was able to downlaod and print out a copy of Hussein Kamal's interview with UNSCOM. You all know about the Newsweek story that resulted from uncovering this document. What Newsweek DIDN'T reveal, however, is some other very damaging information to the case for a war with Iraq. In particular, Kamal discredits a major source for the Bush administration's "knowledge" about Iraq's nuclear weapons program. And, Kamal confirms, conclusively, that Iraq was deterred from using chemical weapons during the Gulf War.
...

posted by Steven Baum 3/8/2003 01:41:44 PM | link

FORGERIES
Anyone care to bet how soon some Cabal toadie floats a trial balloon claiming Saddam produced
the forgery?
Secret documents detailing attempts by Iraq to buy uranium for nuclear warheads from Niger are forgeries, the UN's nuclear watchdog agency says.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Friday his investigators and independent document examination experts have determined the letters and other written material are "not authentic."

The forgeries were sold to an Italian intelligence agent by a con man some time ago and passed on to French authorities, but the scam was uncovered by the IAEA only recently, according to United Nations sources familiar with the investigation. The documents were turned over to the IAEA several weeks ago.

In fact, the IAEA says, there is no credible evidence that Iraq tried to import uranium ore from the Central African country in violation of UN resolutions.

"Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents, which formed the basis for the reports of these uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger, are, in fact, not authentic," Mr. ElBaradei told the UN Security Council Friday.

"We have also concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded," he said.

The story of the moment is that some evil "con man" outsmarted the combined U.S. and British intelligence community, although the storytellers are still free to further divulge which specific evil and mad genius was indeed the "con man".
...
The forgeries were the work of a con man who simply saw an opportunity to make some money, the sources say.

There is no evidence that the forgeries were part of a dirty tricks operation by the United States or any other government to discredit Iraq, even though U.S. and British officials said the documents supported their case against the Baghdad regime.
...

That is, the "intelligence" community has shown that they're either incompetent suckers or incompetent schemers although, given that the Cabal probably still hasn't cleaned out all of the occasionally honest people in the agencies, it's more likely that someone did notice but was trumped with a threat of immediate dismissal (and probably worse) by Rumsy et al.
posted by Steven Baum 3/8/2003 01:18:29 PM | link

PRESSED FOR TIME
The
Washington Post recounts some Presidential press conference history, including a brief review of "all" the ones held thus far by the Cabal. There is, of course, a comparison to his predecessor.
...
At the same point in their presidencies, President Bill Clinton had held 30 solo news conferences (that is, without a foreign leader at a twin lectern)...
At which point the usual suspects will chime in with something like, "Well sure, that egomaniacal glory-hog Clinton just couldn't wait to get his face on TV one more time", at which point we offer the rest of the sentence:
...and Bush's father had held 58, according to research by Martha Joynt Kumar, a Towson University political science professor who specializes in presidential communication.
...
We then learn how the string-pullers don't want the figurehead having to take a test without already knowing the answers.
...
Communications director Dan Bartlett said this White House uses news conferences more sparingly than other types of presidential events, because "if you have a message you're trying to deliver, a news conference can go in a different direction."

"In this case, we know what the questions are going to be, and those are the ones we want to answer," Bartlett said. "We think the public will see the thought and care and attention he's given to a lot of the different questions that are being asked about the diplomatic side and the military side and the potential post-Iraq issue. These are all legitimate questions that he has answers for and wants to talk about."
...

And apparently the Cabal does know what the questions are going to be, more or less, although that's not terribly surprising given the current herd of sheep in reporter's clothing masquerading as the fourth estate.

Then we read some riotously funny comments about the Cabal's deep concern that the "theatre" aspect of the press conferences drowns out the "substance" of the answers.

...
"The president thinks that sometimes East Room news conferences are more about the reporters and the theater of the moment and less about the substance of the answers," a senior administration official said. "So his inclination is to hold more, informal news conferences where the answers are the story and not lengthy questions on live TV."
...
Finally, we learn about the Deep Thoughts of the figurehead preceding a press conference.
...
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer echoes that sentiment, telling reporters that Bush "has been having his fun thinking about who's going to be dressed how, how the hair is going to look."
"Did you see the hair on that bitch!"
posted by Steven Baum 3/8/2003 12:55:02 PM | link

MOYERS INTERVIEWS HEDGES
The comments section at
Atrios points me to a Bill Moyers interview with Chris Hedges about the upcoming escalation of the ongoing war with Iraq. He speaks of the vast gap between the reality of war and the First and Second Bush Cabal's invention of a surreal Action Happy Fun Time War.
...
HEDGES: Well, I don't think you can justify unleashing 3,000 precision-guided missiles in 48 hours because Saddam Hussein is a torturer. Which he is. And I covered that whole withdrawal of the Iraqi forces from Northern Iraq. I was not only in the subterranean bowels of the Secret Police Headquarters where we found not only documentation but videotapes of executions. Horrible torture centers. People being— you know where the meat hooks were still sort of fastened into the ceiling of soundproof rooms.

And then these mass graves. We were digging up as many as a thousand, 1,500 people. But that does not give you a moral justification to carry out what is, quite candidly, indiscriminate attack against civilians. That's what's going to happen when you drop this number of high explosive devices in an urban area.

MOYERS: Does the inevitability of civilian casualties make this war illegitimate?

HEDGES: Well, I think the war is illegitimate not because civilians will die. Civilians die in every conflict. It's illegitimate because the administration has not, to my mind, provided any evidence of any credible threat. And we can't go to war just because we think somebody might do something eventually.

There has to be hard intelligence. There has to be a real threat if we're going to ask our young men and women to die.

Because once you unleash the "dogs of war" and I know this from every war I've ever covered, war has a force of its own. It's not surgical. We talk about taking out Saddam Hussein. Once you use the blunt instrument of war, it has all sorts of consequences when you use violence on that scale that you can't anticipate. I'm not opposed to the use of force. But force is always has to be the last resort because those who wield force become tainted or contaminated by it. And one of the things that most frightens me about the moment our nation is in now, is that we've lost touch with the notion of what war is.
...
MOYERS: Tell me, having covered the first Gulf War, what the men and women who are about to go into Iraq are going to experience.

HEDGES: Well, the ones who are up on the front line are — especially as they prepare to go into battle — are going to have to come face-to-face with the myth of war. The myth of heroism, the myth of patriotism. The myth of glory. All those myths that have the ability to arouse us when we're not in mortal danger.

And they're going to have to confront their own mortality. And at that moment some people will be crying, some people will be vomiting. People will not speak much. Everyone will realize that from here on out, at least until the fighting ends, it will be a constant minute-by-minute battle with fear. And that sometimes fear wins. And anybody who tells you differently has never been in a war.

MOYERS: And yet you say in your book that the first Gulf War, that we made war fun.

HEDGES: For those who weren't there. You know the — I was with the U.S. Marine Corps and they hated CNN. They hated that flag-waving, jingoism that dominated the coverage on, or dominated so much of the coverage…all those abstract terms that create the excitement back home become obscene to those who are in combat.

MOYERS: You say also in the book that the first Gulf War made war more fashionable again.

HEDGES: Right.

MOYERS: What do you mean by that?

HEDGES: Well, it was you know so much of commercial news has not become an extension of the entertainment industry. And the war became entertainment. The Army had no more candor than they did in Vietnam. But what they perfected was the appearance of candor. Live press conferences. And well-packaged video clips of Sidewinder missiles hitting planes or going down chimneys. You know this kind of stuff.

It's— and the fact that they covered up death. Not only the death of our own. But the death of tens of thousands of Iraqis who were killed. They were nameless, faceless phantoms. When we the victims, if you watch the news reports carefully, were our young men who were out in the desert having to sort of bathe out of a bucket and eat MRE's.

So it was completely mythic, or mendacious narrative that was presented to us. And I was a little delayed getting back to New York because I was a prisoner with the Iraqi Republican Guard. But I remember landing into New York and even then the mood was that we'd just won the Super Bowl.

And it frightened me and it disgusted me. And it wasn't because I didn't believe that we shouldn't have gone into Kuwait. I believe we had no choice. But I certainly understood that we, as a nation, had completely lost touch with what war is. And when we lose touch with what war is, when we believe that our technology makes us invulnerable. That we can wage war and others can die and we won't — then eventually, if history is any guide, we are going to stumble into a horrific swamp.
...
HEDGES: Our whole civil society is being torn apart. Once again, as is true in every war, the media parrots back the clichés and jingles of the state. Imbibes and promotes the myth. In wartime, a press is-- the press is always part of the problem.

And that we are about to engage in that ecstatic, exciting, narcotic that is war. And that if we don't get a grasp on the poison that war is, then that poison can ultimately kills us just as surely as the disease.

MOYERS: What have you learned as a journalist covering war that we ought to know on the eve of this attack on Iraq?

HEDGES: That everybody or every generation seems to have— seems not to listen to those who went through it before and bore witness to it. But falls again for the myth. And has to learn it through a tragedy inflicted upon their young.

That war is always about betrayal. It's about betrayal of soldiers by politicians. And it's about betrayal of the young by the old.

MOYERS: I believe that George W. Bush tonight as you and I talk is convinced he's about to do good. A necessary act that he thinks is making a moral claim on the world. Do you believe that?

HEDGES: I believe that he feels that. But I think anybody who believes that they understand the will of God and can act as an agent for God is dangerous.
...


posted by Steven Baum 3/8/2003 09:48:03 AM | link

Friday, March 07, 2003

"IT'S THE KISSINGER PLAN"
Robert Dreyfuss describes the thirty-year old plan for U.S. control of the Persian Gulf. The biggest stumbling block seems to have been the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, although it only took a couple of years for the wolf-crying to transmogrify from "the evil Soviets are going to take our oil!" to "the evil ragheads are going to take our oil!".
...
Ever since the oil shocks of the 1970s, the United States has steadily been accumulating military muscle in the Gulf by building bases, selling weaponry, and forging military partnerships. Now, it is poised to consolidate its might in a place that will be a fulcrum of the world's balance of power for decades to come. At a stroke, by taking control of Iraq, the Bush administration can solidify a long-running strategic design. "It's the Kissinger plan," says James Akins, a former U.S. diplomat. "I thought it had been killed, but it's back."
...
The genesis of the plan:
...
In 1975, while Akins was ambassador in Saudi Arabia, an article headlined "Seizing Arab Oil" appeared in Harper's. The author, who used the pseudonym Miles Ignotus, was identified as "a Washington-based professor and defense consultant with intimate links to high-level U.S. policymakers." The article outlined, as Akins puts it, "how we could solve all our economic and political problems by taking over the Arab oil fields [and] bringing in Texans and Oklahomans to operate them." Simultaneously, a rash of similar stories appeared in other magazines and newspapers. "I knew that it had to have been the result of a deep background briefing," Akins says. "You don't have eight people coming up with the same screwy idea at the same time, independently.

"Then I made a fatal mistake," Akins continues. "I said on television that anyone who would propose that is either a madman, a criminal, or an agent of the Soviet Union." Soon afterward, he says, he learned that the background briefing had been conducted by his boss, then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Akins was fired later that year.
...

The steps:
Step one: The Rapid Deployment Force
In 1973 and '74, and again in 1979, political upheavals in the Middle East led to huge spikes in oil prices, which rose fifteenfold over the decade and focused new attention on the Persian Gulf. In January 1980, President Carter effectively declared the Gulf a zone of U.S. influence, especially against encroachment from the Soviet Union. ... To back up this doctrine, Carter created the Rapid Deployment Force, an "over-the-horizon" military unit capable of rushing several thousand U.S. troops to the Gulf in a crisis.

Step two: The Central Command
In the 1980s, under President Reagan, the United States began pressing countries in the Gulf for access to bases and support facilities. The Rapid Deployment Force was transformed into the Central Command, a new U.S. military command authority with responsibility for the Gulf and the surrounding region from eastern Africa to Afghanistan. ... And in 1987, at the height of the war between Iraq and Iran, the U.S. Navy created the Joint Task Force-Middle East to protect oil tankers plying the waters of the Gulf, thus expanding a U.S. naval presence of just three or four warships into a flotilla of 40-plus aircraft carriers, battleships, and cruisers.

Step three: The Gulf War
Until 1991, the United States was unable to persuade the Arab Gulf states to allow a permanent American presence on their soil. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, while maintaining its close relationship with the United States, began to diversify its commercial and military ties; by the time U.S. Ambassador Chas Freeman arrived there in the late 80s, the United States had fallen to fourth place among arms suppliers to the kingdom. ... All that changed with the Gulf War. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states no longer opposed a direct U.S. military presence, and American troops, construction squads, arms salesmen, and military assistance teams rushed in. ... Another boost to the U.S. presence was the unilateral imposition, in 1991, of no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq, enforced mostly by U.S. aircraft from bases in Turkey and Saudi Arabia. "There was a massive buildup, especially around Incirlik in Turkey, to police the northern no-fly zone, and around [the Saudi capital of] Riyadh, to police the southern no-fly zone," says Colin Robinson of the Center for Defense Information, a Washington think tank.

Step four: Afghanistan
Military facilities on the perimeter of the Gulf, from Djibouti in the Horn of Africa to the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, have been expanded, and a web of bases and training missions has extended the U.S. presence deep into central Asia. From Afghanistan to the landlocked former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, U.S. forces have established themselves in an area that had long been in Russia's sphere of influence. Oil-rich in its own right, and strategically vital, central Asia is now the eastern link in a nearly continuous chain of U.S. bases, facilities, and allies stretching from the Mediterranean and the Red Sea far into the Asian hinterland.

Step five: Iraq
Removing Saddam Hussein could be the final piece of the puzzle, cementing an American imperial presence. It is "highly possible" that the United States will maintain military bases in Iraq, Robert Kagan, a leading neoconservative strategist, recently told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time," he said. "When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies."


posted by Steven Baum 3/7/2003 10:41:02 AM | link

SHUT UP 'N PLAY YER GUITAR
Ed Driscoll provides the history behind and reviews some of my favorite Zappa stuff, i.e. the Rykodisc 3 CD Shut Up 'N Play Yer Guitar.
...
Unlike many rock guitarists, whose electric wank-fests are built on simple blues progressions, Zappa's solos in the Shut Up 'N Play box sets were really mini-compositions, on top of mini-compositions underneath played by his large backing band. They originally served as long instrumental breaks connecting his more well-known numbers on tours in the in the late 1970s. Here they're highlighted as individual pieces, joined together as a unified whole on each CD by typically Zappa-esque disembodied voices and sound effects.
...

posted by Steven Baum 3/7/2003 10:19:14 AM | link

TAXICAB CONFESSIONS
Hullabaloo offers a delicious parody of Peggy "The dolphins ARE Jesus!" Noonan.
Celebrated Dada author and diviner of notions, Peggy Noonan, reveals to viewers the intimate thoughts of unwary fares as they motor along with her, in the her magic taxicab, through the busy streets of the nations capitol. This week, Peggy channels the convictions of an aging Republican supply-sider couple visiting from Charlotte North Carolina, who silently long for the bygone halcyon days of right wing latin American death squads, Jim and Tammi's waterslide and the lost splenders of the Shining City giftshop on the Hill.

Next in the cab is a black couple from Baltimore, who reveal to Peggy, through a series of psychic gospel rhythmns, their soul deep regrets at ever having heard of that philanderer priest Jesse Jackson or Tavis Smiley or the NAACP, and their quiet agonized yearning for the buccolic lost splender of the plantation porch swing.

Next Peggy mirrors for us the supressed regrets of an old hippy who wrestles with horrific naked lunch flashback nightmares of long ago candlelight peace vigils and lurid fleeting Hollywood images of a scantily clad tattooed Goldie Hawn wiggling around like a distempered sex-viperess on the Rowan and Martin Show.
...


posted by Steven Baum 3/7/2003 10:06:32 AM | link

"THEY ALWAYS GIGGLE"
TBOGG found some interesting comments by Chris Matthews on the Don Imus Show. He then asks the obvious question of why Matthews doesn't confront Wolfowitz et al. with this instead of putting his tongue down the back of their trousers. I think Media Whores Online might have an answer to that one.
"Well, you know my gut, I've been against this war. They said it was anthrax, then they said they did '93, then they said they did 2001. They've got every excuse, it's like throw it against the wall and see if it sticks, and it's basically an attitude that the guys around the President are ideologues, they don't like despotisms, they want to go in there and knock off those Arab leaders, they want to change the Middle East around so it's peaceful and the Israelis can cut a better deal, and it's all about ideology and, to some extent Israel, but it's hardly any of it is about guns. I think the gun part of this thing has always been BS.

"It's about changing these governments around so that they play ball with us and I think that's what the game has been from Wolfowitz and Feith and Rumsfeld and Cheney -- they're all hardliners. You know, when they get off the air with me they always giggle, 'You know, I hope they don't disarm.' That's their worst fear, that Saddam Hussein will throw all his guns out in the street in front of 'em, then we can't go to war and these guys will be miserable. It's not about guns. It's about ideology. These guys want to change that part of the world and they're damned, they'll come up with any excuse to do it. And look, that's an idealistic Wilsonian notion. I think it's squirrelly. It's going to make every Arab kid grow up to hate our guts for the next thousand years, but that's they're(sic) point of view and I've got mine."


posted by Steven Baum 3/7/2003 09:40:10 AM | link

THE BEST WE CAN DO
Unqualified Offerings offers a bloody fine evisceration of Kenneth Pollack's The Threatening Storm, a book that's apparently supposed to make fence-sitters and peaceniks see the true wisdom behind the Cabal's stiffy for Iraq.
...
And this is what Pollack does over and over again in his article: adduce, as evidence that Saddam can not be deterred, instances where Saddam was deterred.
...

posted by Steven Baum 3/7/2003 12:36:55 AM | link

Thursday, March 06, 2003

BUSH THE THEOLOGIAN
Charles Pierce makes mincemeat out of a particularly execrable and egregious piece of Howard Fineman idolatry. The bit about such statements being unremarkable in Texas is true, although when you congratulate the bloviating knuckle-dragger on consigning all Jews - including the state of Israel - to an eternity of torture you usually get to hear some delicious waffling, e.g. "Well, none of us knows for sure whether those hell-bound folk are definitely hell-bound, and I number Jews among my best friends."
...
In any event, this grisly masterpiece is full to its gunwales with moments that make gongs go off in your head. Like this one:

"In 1993 - the year before he ran for governor - Bush caused a small tempest by telling an Austin reporter (who happened to be Jewish) that only believers in Jesus go to heaven. It was a theoretically unremarkable statement, at least in Texas."

Theologically unremarkable.

Wow.

Albeit a statement that’s at the root of over 1900 years of sanguinary European history, and one that also could have been called "theologically unremarkable" during the First Crusade.

(NEWSWEEK is redeemed at least in part by an essay from the redoubtable Martin Marty, who probably doesn't count as a theologian any more because he doesn’t have his own talk show. Young Churchill should take some pause at Marty’s assertion that he could take lessons on humility in leadership from this genocidal old bastard.)

However, this is the line that buries the needle on the Unmitigated Bullshit Meter: "There have always been Bible-study groups there (in the White House); even the Clintonites had one."

Even the Clintonites...

("Clintonites" is a nice touch. It makes, say, Donna Shalala sound vaguely Albegensian.) What in the holy name of Jeebus is that supposed to mean? That the religious faith of the members of the previous administration was less authentic than this passel of buccaneer Bible-bangers? That their faith was less genuine, their piety less sincere? How does former seminarian George Stephanopoulos feel about having his religious convictions diminished in comparison to those of, say, Karl Rove? Speak up, George. You've got the platform now, although it might be a lot tougher than selling out your former boss for a buck.

In sum, this egregious pile of claptrap is as essential to understanding the coverage of this president as that famous Sally Quinn POS was in understanding the coverage of the last one. It’s an altogether bravura performance by a man whose deference to established power lacks only an organ grinder to make it complete.
...


posted by Steven Baum 3/6/2003 11:46:06 PM | link

BEARISH BUFFETT
Better start stuffing those mattresses
if Warren Buffett is even remotely correct which, given his financial history, is worth considering.
Warren Buffett is poised to issue his most doom-laden forecast for the state of the world economy yet, including a damning verdict on the derivatives industry he fears could cause a global financial crisis.

In the upcoming annual letter to shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway, Mr Buffett drops his usual folksy style to warn that banks do not understand the hidden risks lurking on their balance sheets.

He labels derivatives "time bombs, both for the parties that deal in them and the economic system" and "financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal".

The views of the world's second richest man are closely watched and his apocalyptic vision will do little to steady nerves on Wall Street or in the City of London. Extracts from his annual letter, to be delivered on Saturday but posted on Fortune.com yesterday, reveal that he has little optimism for the stock market.

"Despite three years of falling prices which have significantly improved the attractiveness of common stocks, we still find very few that even mildly interest us. That dismal fact is testimony to the insanity of the valuations reached during the Great Bubble. Unfortunately, the hangover may prove to be proportional to the binge," he writes.

Until now vague warnings about the pyramid nature of derivatives contracts have led to bland assurance from banks that there is no threat to their stability.

Mr Buffett says the banks simply have no idea what their exposure could be. "When Charlie [Munger, his business partner] and I finish reading the long footnotes detailing the derivatives activities of major banks, the only thing we understand is that we don't understand how much risk the institution is taking."
...


posted by Steven Baum 3/6/2003 11:33:55 PM | link

GANGS OF D.C.
Chris Floyd wields his rhetorical sword again to great effect.
The war is always coming, it's always here, either in utero, full fury or chaotic aftermath. The newest war -- the invasion of Iraq -- will come because a gang of like-minded men is willing it into being. They want it -- it's as simple as that. They want what they believe this war will give them: wealth, dominion, and empire.

The ultimate goal is not Iraq -- that bombed, blockaded state partially controlled by a witless thug whom the gang once succored -- but domination of the world's oil supplies in the coming century, when the surging nations of China and India will reach their economic peak. These vast entities could eventually tilt the imbalance of world wealth away from the Anglo-American elites who have for so long held the high and palmy ground of privilege. But the voracious economies of the Asian behemoths will require unstinting draughts of the oil reserves now locked under the sands of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. There is oil elsewhere, yes -- but nowhere else in the world are there reserves deep enough to satisfy the thirsts of China and India as they come into their own.

Therefore it is imperative for the Anglo-American elites to dominate this indispensable resource, if they are to maintain their wonted ease beneath the palms. Or so they believe. Actually, the narrowly-concentrated wealth of the West is so staggeringly great that these elites could quite easily devote abundant resources toward developing new forms of energy, national self-sufficiency, and what used to be known in Abraham Lincoln's day as "internal improvements" -- roads, schools, hospitals, parks, the extension of liberty, leisure and opportunity -- and still keep their corpulent noses planted deep in the trough of their unearned riches.

But alas, they too -- like the thugs they hire and fire so easily (Noriega, Saddam, bin Laden) -- are moral idiots. They don't care about their own nations. They don't care about the hapless people they rule -- except, of course, as cannon fodder or hired help. The "national interest" is what best serves the elites and their retainers.
...


posted by Steven Baum 3/6/2003 10:52:35 PM | link

PARTNERS IN DECEPTION
Paul Thompson lays out many more puzzling details concerning the supposed capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the most powerful and dangerous man in the universe (after, of course, Mr. Neutron). His last couple of paragraphs nicely summarize the lying game the U.S. and Pakistan started playing long before 9/11. The only remaining pertinent question is: Why do the dozens of smoking howitzers in Pakistan not constitute a reason to invade while spurting water pistols in Iraq do?
...
The Washington Post has noticed that Musharraf "has paid no price for lying to Powell about ending terrorism in Kashmir or about cooperating fully in crushing al-Qaeda. The only consequences for duplicity have been rewards and protection." [Washington Post, 10/24/02] This is because the Pakistani and US governments are lying together to protect their mutual interests. I have argued in a separate essay that the ISI was actually very much involved in the 9/11 attacks. The fact that Mustafa Ahmed Al-Hawsawi was supposedly arrested shows how the US works with Pakistan to hide the crimes of the ISI. That name was an alias used by Saeed Sheikh, the convicted killer of reporter Daniel Pearl who is also an al-Qaeda and ISI agent who clearly helped fund 9/11 so by claiming that Al-Hawsawi is a real human being, Saeed Sheikh's role is covered up. Please read the essay, Sept. 11's Smoking Gun: The Many Faces of Saeed Sheikh, to fully understand the ISI's role in 9/11 and the US's role in covering that up. As that essay shows, all these curious circumstances about Mohammed have a parallel in what happened to Saeed Sheikh, another man who knew too much about the ISI. As the Guardian puts it, " For the wider public in Pakistan and elsewhere, [Sheikh's trial] demonstrated that judicial process, truth and accountability were pretty elastic concepts where powerful interests were in play. If there were secrets to be kept in the Sheikh case, how many more might be buried in the story of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a man unlikely to see a public trial in any country?" [Guardian, 3/6/03]

As the Asia Times has explained, "Clearly, no one has the final word on whether Khalid is dead, was captured earlier, or is still free." [Asia Times, 3/6/03] It is impossible to say, because everything is hidden behind the veil of "national security" and the Bush Administration has shown that it cannot be trusted, and needless to say, neither can the Pakistani government be trusted. But the notion that Mohammed was captured on March 1, in part by ISI agents, and then turned over to the US where he might expose the ISI's role in terror acts from Operation Bojinka to 9/11 and more, is the most implausible possibility of them all.


posted by Steven Baum 3/6/2003 10:42:35 PM | link

THE BABBLING BOOB
I fortunately missed the pathetic performance of a little man as he attempted to go off script, but the proprieter of
What Really Happened took the shrapnel for me.
Bush's replies to the reporter's questions are not even answers. The Reporter from Bloomberg asked why, if all the other nations in the UN had the same intelligence information that the US claims justifies viewing Iraq as such a dire threat that immediate military action is justified, then why don't those other nations agree with the US course of action? This is a valid question, and deserves an answer, but Bush just rambled back to "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction", and what a threat Saddam is without actually addressing the reporter's question. In fact, Bush is sounding like a stuck record, simply repeating the same "jingoisms" over and over in place of real answers to real questions.

Bush looks like he is losing it, stammering, stuttering, jumping from one catch-phrase to the next with no clear progression of thought.

While Rumsy, Cheney and Ari all have a sufficient mass of living grey cells to disseminate in a sophisticated postmodern style, the Cabal's figurehead can manage not much more than repetitive absurdist dialog.
posted by Steven Baum 3/6/2003 10:24:31 PM | link

MORE SURREALITY
PakNews relates some puzzling things about the latest Hitler of the Century of the Week. Hey, they all look the same and they're all evil, so what's the prob? And besides, this is PakNews, i.e. another bunch of "them", and we know if it ain't O'Reilly or Matthews telling us something, then it just ain't true.
There are shrill cries of success and sighs of relief surrounding a news report that is being hailed as the biggest catch so far: No.3 man, Sheikh Khalid Muhammad, of the dreaded Al Qaida is captured, alive! The biggest success in the global war against terrorism. This is certainly excellent news and both the Pakistani and the American authorities deserve congratulations.

Unfortunately, while the coalition is claiming success, there is a run for taking the credit. The American version of the news from likes of CNN, Foxnews, MSNBC hardly mentions the Pakistani role and makes it sound like Sheikh Khalid Muhammad was captured somewhere in Texas, not from Rawalpindi. The Pakistani version earlier claimed this to be a joint operation but now it is claimed to be 100% Pakistani operation.

The contradictions do not stop here. Americans claim that Sheikh Khalid Muhammad is in their custody and is now being interrogated for the second day. Whereas, the Pakistanis are saying that he has not been extradited to any country. Furthermre, it is being said that Sheikh Khalid will be extradited to Kuwait.

Now why Kuwait one asks? Sheikh Khalid Muhammad is being referred to as a citizen of anywhere from Kuwait, Pakistan, Yemen, up to holding 20 passports of different countries. What is his real nationality?

Now, about his role as the key planner of all past terrorism acts and all future acts. It is said that Khalid was the chief/key planner of 9/11 attacks? But wasn't that attributed to Osama Bin Laden? But wait! It was not too long ago that it was claimed that "key planner of the attacks on World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh" was arrested.

So, who is the real man?

A more troubling problem is that it was reported by both American and Pakistani authorities back in September 2002 that Sheikh Khalid Muhammad was killed in a raid. The reason we remember him vividly was the way his death was dramatized. He was reported as writing words on a wall with his own blood as he was dying.

It was reported a few days after the report of a raid that Khalid's wife and children were in custody and being interrogated.

So, maybe all this very confusing to an average buch of people like us, but perhaps someone can tell us who the real Sheikh Khalid Muhammad is? How can Sheikh Khalid Muhammad be in America, Pakistan and Kuwait at the same time? If he died in the gun battle on Sept 15, 2002 in Karachi, who has been raided and arrested on March 3, 2003?

We will all feel much safer when told the truth, rather than some raids and captures which do not add up, as it seems.


posted by Steven Baum 3/6/2003 10:02:30 PM | 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