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

Thursday, January 22, 2004

NO RICH CHILD LEFT BEHIND
Greg Palast explains how the No Child Left Behind Act is nothing more than another pack of lies from the cabal.
Go ahead, George, and lie to me. Lie to my dog. Lie to my sister. But don't you ever lie to my kids.

Deep into your State of the Siege lecture last night, long after sensible adults had turned off the tube or kicked in the screen, you came after our children. "By passing the No Child Left Behind Act," you said, "We are regularly testing every child ... and making sure they have better options when schools are not performing."

You said it ... and then that little tongue came out; that weird way you stick your tongue out between your lips like the little kid who knows he's fibbing. Like a snake licking a rat. I saw that snakey tongue dart out and I thought, "He knows."

And what you know, Mr. Bush, is this: you've ordered this testing to hunt down, identify and target for destruction the hopes of millions of children you find too expensive, too heavy a burden, to educate.

Here's how No Child Left Behind and your tests work in the classrooms of Houston and Chicago. Millions of 8-year-olds are given lists of words and phrases. They are graded, like USDA beef: some prime, some OK, many failed.

Once the kids are stamped and sorted, the parents of the marked children ask for you to fill your tantalizing promise, to "make sure they have better options when schools are not performing."

But there is no "better option," is there, Mr. Bush? Where's the money for the better schools to take in the kids getting crushed in cash-poor districts? Where's the open door to the suburban campuses with the big green lawns for the dark kids with the test-score mark of Cain?

And if I bring up the race of the kids with the low score, don't get all snippy with me, telling me your program is color blind. We know the color of the kids left behind; and it's not the color of the kids you went to school with at Philips Andover Academy.

You know and I know that the testing is a con. There is no "better option" at the other end. The cash went to end the inheritance tax, a move which will give every millionaire's son another million.

But, you'll tell me, you took tests as a youth. I know you did. And you scored on the Air Guard flight test 25 out of 100, one point above too dumb to fly. But you zoomed past the other would-be flyboys. They were stamped, "Ready for 'Nam." You also took a test to get into Yale. And though your pet rock scored a wee bit higher than you, your grandpa on the Yale board provided the "better option" which got you in.

Here in New York City, your educational Taliban, led by Republican Mayor Bloomberg, had issued an edict to test the third-graders. Winnow out the chaff and throw them back, exactly where they started, to repeat the same failed program another year. In other words, the core edict of No Child Left Behind is that failing children will be left behind another year. And another year and another year.

You know and I know that this is not an educational opportunity program -- because you offer no opportunities, no hope, no plan, no funding. Rather, it is the new Republican social Darwinism: Identify the nation's loser-class early on. Trap them, then train them cheap. The system will provide the new worker drones to clean the toilets at the Yale alumni club, to punch the McDonald's cash registers color-coded for illiterates, to pamper the winner-class on the higher floors of the new service economy order.


posted by Steven Baum 1/22/2004 11:04:55 AM | link

MISSED IT BY ONE COUNTRY
An
Expatica article (via a comment thread over at Atrios) tells us of the testimony of an Iranian defector. Too bad that five page memo probably saw the business end of an Ollie North Model 6000 Turbo Blaster Paper Shredder long ago.
The Iranian intelligence service was the initiator of the 11 September 2001 suicide-jet attacks on New York and Washington, according to a defector quoted Thursday by German police at the Hamburg terrorist trial.

One Federal Crime Office interrogator said he had taken down a statement in Berlin on Monday from a former Iranian agent who insisted that Iran had employed Saudi radical Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network to carry out the attacks.

The defector could not appear himself in court because he had been promised anonymity, two police officers told the trial of accused plotter Abdel-Ghani Mzoudi, a Moroccan student who lived in Hamburg and was friends with three of the four suicide pilots.

The shock claim emerged on the day when a verdict had been scheduled. The prosecution asked for the delay to hear the new evidence. The end of the trial may be delayed for weeks.

The defector, who stated he had fled Iran in July 2001, two months before the attacks, claimed ultimate responsibility lay with a man named Saif al-Adel, who was an official in Iran of Hezbollah, a radial Shiiite organization with close links to Iranian intelligence.

According to the defector, "Department 43" of Iranian intelligence was created to plan and conduct terror attacks, and mounted joint operations with al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden's son, Saad bin Laden, had made repeated consultative visits to Iran.

According to the unnamed agent, Mzoudi too had visited Iran for three months, though the agent said he had never seen him, and did not know at what point in time the visit took place.

The claim runs directly counter to the received wisdom about the attacks: that they were conducted by young Sunni Moslems loyal to Osama bin Laden, a radical Saudi with ideas rooted in his country's Wahabi brand of Islam. Iran's Islam is the opposed Shiite variety.

The 28-year-old police witness said the defector claimed to have first received information about Mzoudi by e-mail after his defection and from "other Iranian intelligence sources".

The defector alleged that following the 11 December release of Mzoudi from trial custody, the sources told him they believed Mzoudi had only been released so that he could be tailed by western investigators hoping he would lead them to other terrorists.

"That is why al-Qaeda is going to liquidate Mzoudi," the defector was said to have stated.

The defector also declared that immediately after fleeing Iran, he had approached CIA station officers at the U.S. embassy in Azerbaijan, a former Soviet republic adjoining Iran, to warn them attacks were planned.

"He wrote a five-page letter stating that something would happen on 10 or 11 September without precisely delineating what it could be," said the police witness.

The man claimed he had been passing information to the CIA since 1992 and had been promised USD 1.2 million in payment, but had never received the promised money after his defection. He had therefore resolved to sell information to the Germans or French.

"He says he wants to negotiate terms for further cooperation with the federal prosecutor general's office," he said. That prosecutor, assisted by the Federal Crime Office, heads Germany's fight against terrorism.

A second police officer, aged 29, said he found the claims of the defector were "not unrealistic", given what Germany know of the structures of the Iranian intelligence service. But the court was unable to establish more about the credibility of the defector.

The policeman said he did not know why the defector had waited so long to come forward with such explosive information.

Presiding judge Klaus Ruehle pressed both police officers to offer their personal impressions of the man they interrogated.

"It is noticeable that you are both very cautious every time we ask for an assessment of this witness," the judge said to them.

Federal prosecutors suddenly announced Wednesday they had new evidence, more than a week after closing arguments by both sides. The court had been widely expected to pronounce Mzoudi acquitted on Thursday.

Federal prosecutor Walter Hemberger said Thursday that though he had applied for a 30-day extension of the trial, "I don't think we will need the full 30 days." He said a week or two would be enough to weigh the Iranian's credibility.

Mzoudi is accused of assisting in more than 3,000 murders and of being a member of Egyptian student Mohammed Atta's terrorist organization in Hamburg. The state contends Mzoudi must have known what his close friends were planning and was therefore a conspirator.

Prosecutors have demanded he go to jail for 15 years, like Mounir al-Motassadeq, another Moroccan, who was convicted in Hamburg in February last year. But judges freed Mzoudi on December 11 after earlier hearsay evidence relayed by the Federal Crime Office.

In that instance, a person thought to be self-confessed plotter Ramzi bin al-Shibh said Mzoudi had not been privy to the conspiracy.

German trial procedure allows such hearsay evidence, which would be prohibited under the Anglo-American legal tradition. Judges said the second-hand statement they attributed to bin al-Shibh created reasonable doubt about Mzoudi's guilt.

Hezbollah is a militant Shiite movement with Iranian and Lebanese branches.

After the 11 September attacks, US diplomats are alleged to have put out feelers to the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah, offering a truce with the anti-US group in exchange for all the Shiite group knew about the activities of rival Sunni terrorists.

Hezbollah's spiritual leadership claimed in late 2001 they had received such approaches, but denounced them as an attempt to drive a deeper wedge between the two main denominations of Islam.

The US government has accused Iran of harbouring al-Qaeda operatives, but has not alleged that Iran was behind the attacks.


posted by Steven Baum 1/22/2004 10:33:57 AM | link

Wednesday, January 21, 2004

CHENEY CAGES PROLES
Imagine what the hysterical reaction of the agitprop hacks would be if the following (via
Undernews) had happened in Venezuela, where the opposition press - which led the call for and organizing of the failed coup attempt last year - regularly calls for removal of Chavez by any means necessary. For that matter, imagine what the reaction of the cabal would be to a coup attempt. Ooops, never mind.
PORTLAND TRIBUNE. President of Vice Dick Cheney made a fundraising tour through the Pacific Northwest this week, with a stop in Portland, Oregon, on Jan. 13. Cheney charged $1,000 a plate for dinner, and $5K for a photo-op with supporters.

The Vice President also exploited a recent Federal court decision, in the criminal case of U.S.A. v. Bursey to expand the use of euphemistically dubbed Free Speech Zones, to literally cage protesters at the event.

Protesters were not allowed to approach the event at a hotel near the Portland Airport, but were directed by police to a muddy field at least 100 yards away, {where, after they assembled, they were enclosed behin an eight-foot-high chain-link fence topped with razor wire.} Will Seaman, of the Portland Peaceful Resource Coalition, said of the caged area, "It was completely inaccessible," and a half-mile from the nearest public transit. . .

Protesters heeded the police's admonition to get out of the street, but then started shaking the fence. "Since they put us in a cage, we decided to rattle our cage," Seaman said. At 6:10 p.m., the protesters were informed, via loudspeaker, that any attempts to pass or tamper with the barricade could subject them to the use of force, including chemical agents or impact weapons, as well as to arrest and criminal.


posted by Steven Baum 1/21/2004 10:16:14 AM | link

STANDARD TACTICS
First, claim the "enemy"
illegally attacked you on your side of the border.
Hizbollah guerrillas killed an Israeli soldier on the Lebanon border on Monday in an attack that Israel seized upon as an example of why it is rebuffing peace feelers from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The incident raised tensions along the border and the possibility of Israeli reprisals.

Hizbollah said its guerrillas fired an anti-tank missile at an Israeli bulldozer which had crossed into Lebanon, destroying it. The Israeli army said one soldier was killed and another seriously wounded.

Major-General Benny Gantz, chief of Israel's northern command, said the bulldozer crossed an Israeli security fence to clear bombs planted by the Syria-backed Hizbollah but operated short of the international frontier.
...

Second, retract your "inoperative statement" the next day, although still maintaining that the "enemy's" response to your provocation was the real provocation.
The Israeli army, changing its account of a Lebanese border incident, said on Tuesday that an Israeli soldier killed by Hizbollah guerrillas on Monday was several metres inside Lebanon at the time.

"We deviated (from standard procedure) by going into Lebanon," Brigadier-General Yair Golan told reporters in northern Israel.
...
"From their (Hizbollah's) standpoint (the attack) is legitimate, although not from ours," Golan said, signalling that retaliation was still an option. "It is very serious and an escalation...it is a provocation by Hizbollah."
...

Third, use the response to your provocative act as an excuse to attack those you provoked.
Israeli fighter jets today attacked Hizbullah guerrilla targets in south Lebanon, Israeli military officials said.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the officials said that Israeli warplanes hit Hizbullah bases in the Bekaa Valley, the area of south Lebanon that is closest to the Syrian border.

Israel's Channel Two TV said that at least four explosions were heard. There were two targets but no immediate reports of casualties, the report said. The air strike followed a border incident yesterday, in which Hizbullah guerrillas fired an anti-tank missile at a bulldozer clearing explosives. An Israeli soldier was killed and another seriously wounded.
...


posted by Steven Baum 1/21/2004 09:57:37 AM | link

PUT 'EM IN THE DOCK
Some Iraqis remember that Saddam didn't just magically appear from the evil void. They recall how useful he was to some good pals in the 1980s.
If Iraqis ever see Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) on trial, they want his former American allies shackled beside him.

"Saddam should not be the only one who is put on trial. The Americans backed him when he was killing Iraqis so they should be prosecuted," said Ali Mahdi, a builder.

"If the Americans escape justice they will face God's justice. They must be stoned in hell."

The United States continued to feel the backlash of its move to give Saddam prisoner of war status Tuesday as thousands of Iraqi protesters called for his execution.
...
"Saddam was a top graduate of the American school of politics," said Assad al-Saadi, standing with friends in the slum of Sadr city, formerly called Saddam City, a Shi'ite Muslim area oppressed by Saddam's security agents.

"My brother was an army officer who was executed. Saddam is a criminal and the Americans were his friends. We need justice so that we can forget the past."

Saddam was captured on December 13 hiding in a hole near his hometown of Tikrit. A month later the United States declared him a prisoner of war.

But his new POW status has only added to skepticism about American promises after toppling Saddam in April.

"The Americans and Saddam should face justice. Do you really think the Americans are going to put themselves on trial?" said Ali, a U.S.-trained policeman.

"Of course we hope the Americans and Saddam will face trial. But will it ever happen? I doubt it."


posted by Steven Baum 1/21/2004 09:45:28 AM | link

Tuesday, January 20, 2004

CHARLIE WILSON
Although I've
previously posted a wee bit of an eXile review of George Crile's Charlie Wilson's War, I went back to reread it after encountering Calpundit's review of same. Here's an even lengthier excerpt (i..e pinch) from the eXile review. It would be most interesting to hear that tiresome moral scold and unctuous sack-of-shit WIlliam Bennett explain exactly where Wilson and Avrakos fit in his framework of "moral clarity".
...
This is the true story of Wilson, a Texas congressman who singlehandedly forced the CIA to give the Afghan mujahideen the weapons they needed to defeat the Soviets, above all the Stinger surface-to-air missile, the US’s most advanced shoulder-fired anti-aircraft weapon. So the book argues that this hammy Pol singlehandedly beat the Russians and won the war.

Wilson is a drunk; A cokehead; A lecher; a braggart; a sentimental egotist sliding by on grease (or as the author calls it, “charm.”) In short, he had all the tools needed to become president.

And of course it turns out that Wilson’s a good guy after all. The author, George Crile, is hopelessly infatuated with his subject, and scolds Wilson as unconvincingly as Aunt Polly dressing down Tom Sawyer.

In fact, Crile loves the whole filthy DC world: every fascist spook, tyrant’s bagman and rightwing nutcase. Sometimes his worshipful narrative is inadvertently comic, as when he introduces “…a former CIA agent who, like Kurtz in Heart of Darkness, had taken to serving the interests of dark forces.” This is rather like describing someone as “a former child molester Satanist who went bad.” But Crile’s a Network TV product. They don’t see it; to borrow one of Stevens’ lines, “They think that things are all right.”

Criles’ crush on Wilson is really nothing, though, compared to the truly sick adulation he bestows on Gust Avrakotos, a CIA thug who ended up working with Wilson to funnel high tech weapons to Afghanistan. Crile spends whole chapters on Avrakotos’s youth as a swaggering punk in smalltown Pennsylvania, treating this beast’s crawl to the CIA as the heroic tale of a Greek-American boy who made good.

Avrakotos’ big career break came in Greece in 1967, when a group of extreme-rightist officers seized power. It’s fascinating to see Crile try to tiptoe through this awkward episode:

“On April 21, 1967, [Avrakotos] got one of those breaks that can make a career, when a military junta seized power in Athens and suspended democratic and constitutional government. Liberals in the United States and elsewhere were outraged, but overnight ‘the Colonels’ coup’ turned Avrakotos into one of the CIA’s indispensable, frontline players….Avrakotos understood that the colonels had expected the United States to thank them, however discreetly, for preventing the anti-American candidate, Andreas Papandreou, from taking power [because] the polls had indicated that Papandreou would win the election…”

This is what Crile calls a “big career break” for Avrakotos: being CIA enforcer in Athens just when Phalangist colonels seized power to prevent a Leftist from winning a fair election.

But it gets worse. Avrakotos’s friends the colonels arrested Papandreou, who had taught in America for years and had, inconveniently for the Junta, an American passport. The colonels asked Avrakotos what to do with Papandreou:

“…the [US] embassy sent Avrakotos to [tell] the Junta to permit [Papandreou] to leave the country. ‘That’s the official position. You should let him go,’ [Avrakotos] told the colonels. ‘But unofficially, as your friend, my advice is to shoot the motherfucker because he’s going to come back to haunt you.’ This was vintage Aliquippa [PA, the small town where Avrakotos grew up] wisdom [!] and just the right kind of statement made at just the right moment to cement a true conspirators’ friendship.”

So Avrakotos’ “wisdom” is telling the Junta that they should kill Andreas Papandreou, a revered intellectual and statesman who went on to serve as Prime Minister, working well with the United States and NATO.

And Crile, the smitten spook groupie, praises the wonderful timing of Avrakotos’ suggestion that they assassinate Papandreou!“ calling it “just the right kind of statement made at just the right moment…”

What is this, Miss Manners for the Coup Planner? Crile’s completely crazy, but his madness made it through god knows how many sub-editors, proofreaders, copy editors and critics. The book is a big hit. Dan Rather compares it favorably with the work of Tom Clancy. So Criles’ madness is mainstream.

It’s a simple syndrome, grounded in the belief that only Americans actually feel things. Others--the Greeks, the Afghans--are only chips in a career game. Criles’ only emotional involvement is a soppy crush on his two heroes, the drinkin’, fuckin’, snortin’ Texan and the squat Greek psychopath.

That’s why I can’t really settle on a stance to take with this book. If Crile were evil...but he’s not. He’s a silly girl, a cheerleader applauding when her jock-asshole boyfriend spears somebody’s knee.
...


posted by Steven Baum 1/20/2004 02:23:55 PM | link

THE NO JOBS PRESIDENT
James Galbraith writes of the reality of the cabal's jobs program, or should that be pogrom? The quick and very accurate summary:
The president's backers want a stagnant job market -- it keeps the help from getting uppity.
The longer version:
...
The Bush years are a study in deliberately wasted effort: Repeal of the estate tax. Tax exemption for stock dividends. Ballistic Missile Defense. The USA PATRIOT Act. The war on Iraq. Each of these initiatives has a clientele. None of them seriously aims to achieve its stated goal, be that economic recovery or homeland security or national security writ large.

The method is clear to any who choose to study closely: It is a method of subterfuge and deception. It is the systematic and relentless pursuit of partly hidden agendas, sold to the public with slogans. The tax cuts were not aimed to produce recovery and jobs; they were a reward to the rich. The war on Iraq was not waged to help the war on terror; it was about getting Saddam, as we have now had confirmed by Paul O'Neill's report on the Iraq agenda Bush carried from the beginning. Missile defense is not about North Korea, and still less about Iran or any other "rogue state"; it's about the contracts. In all these cases, the decision on what to do came first -- then the circumstances of the day were arranged to suit.

So it is today on the economy. What does Bush want? He wants a growth rate high enough to get him through the election. That's obvious. After that, he doesn't care. His clientele -- the military contractors, oil companies, pharmaceutical firms and big media that control this government -- make their money on patents, contracts and the exercise of monopoly power. (Case in point: Bush is pressuring impoverished Central Americans, in trade negotiations, to add 10 years to the length of drug patents.) These people have no interest in full employment. They like unemployment, weak labor, low wages and a government that bullies on their behalf. And after the election, if Bush wins, that is what they will get for four more years.

Bush has levers to keep the economy warm through the 2004 vote. Child credits kicked in during the third quarter of 2003. Households spent them at once, hence the 8 percent annualized growth rate that mesmerized the country for a moment. Tax refunds are due in the next few months; that should give spending another kick. The cost of war was the first big push that the economy got last year. Now much military equipment needs replacing; spending on that may be felt soon.

Most important, monetary policy is toeing Bush's line. Alan Greenspan and his deputies were all over the economists' meetings in San Diego this month, promising that interest rates will stay down. Don't misunderstand me: This is the right policy. But for how long will it last? Low interest rates imperil the global dollar. The pressure to defend the dollar is out there. Will it prevail once the election is past? Remember: After November, George Bush will not care.

And after the election, the stagnation his backers want will not be hard to achieve. Our economy still faces major barriers to sustained growth. Capacity utilization in industry is low: a barrier to sustained growth of investment. Household debt burdens are high: a barrier to accelerating consumer spending, which will be aggravated when the housing bubble eventually pops. Federal, state and local budgets are riddled with structural deficits; these will not go away with growth. In the states and localities, spending cuts and tax increases are the only agenda. At the federal level, the deficit hawks -- a well-meaning group, but prone to obsess on the wrong issue -- will be on the march next year.

In short, the most likely outlook is for strong growth in the first half of the year, and stagnation thereafter. Businesses know this. So they will ramp up production to meet demand, but remain resolutely reluctant to hire new workers for the long term.
...

And now a bit about the supposed immigration "reform":
...
The new class of migrants would have to leave when their permits are up, unless renewed. They would have to leave if fired from their jobs. In a word, employers would judge who stays in the country and who is kicked out. Forget labor rights. Forget unions. Also forget family, home, neighborhood, things like that. Anyone wanting to protect those things will stay out of sight.

Worse, workers coming into the program would in practice be giving up their path to political rights. They would, for the most part, never become citizens. They would never get to vote. No one will represent their interests. No one will speak for their schools, their clinics, their wages. No one will stand in their defense when they are abused on the job, hurt, sacked, blacklisted, and sent home.

There is worse still. Bush made clear that this program is not just for workers presently in the country, as the press has mostly been reporting. It is not just for those who may soon arrive. No, it is far broader than that. Here's the president's speech: "If an American employer is offering a job that American citizens are not willing to take, we ought to welcome into our country a person who will fill that job."

This program will permit any employer to admit any worker. From any country. At any time. The only requirement is that it be for a job Americans are not willing to take. But it is easy to create such jobs: Cut wages. Terminate the unions. Lengthen the hours. Speed up the lines. Chicken farmers have known this for years. Bush's plan is a blank check for every bad boss this country has.

There is no reason why principal recruitment of new workers would be from Mexico. It might be, very massively, from China. Or perhaps from India, with its large English-speaking population. Temp agencies would go out on recruiting missions. Some of this competition may displace Mexican and Central American nationals presently working illegally in the United States (and hoping to stay). That would only drive them even further underground.

And for those who take up the program, register as temporary workers, and then see their permits expire? Bush is at pains to say that he expects this group to go home. But who will make them? Will the government organize a mass campaign of roundups and deportations? Or will the workers just quietly disappear back into the sub-underground of the truly illegal?

And for those who do go home, who will replace them? Another cohort of strangers? This is a program to create a rotating underclass of foreign workers, who never assimilate to American ways or adopt American values. It's hard to imagine anything worse for our social life -- more productive of petty crime -- or for that matter, riskier for our national security.

For millions of citizen workers, what would happen? The answer is clear: Bad bosses drive out the good. Good bosses will turn bad under pressure. The terms of our jobs would get worse and worse. Who would want a citizen worker? A bracero will be so much cheaper, more loyal, and under control. And who among us, in our right mind, would want to look for work? Unless, of course, we needed to eat. Or pay the mortgage. I am not exaggerating: This is a threat to us all.
...


posted by Steven Baum 1/20/2004 11:27:48 AM | link

EMPIRE OF BASES
The latest
Tomgram contains a lengthy piece by Chalmers Johnson, which provides a sample of what you can find in his latest book: The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic.
As distinct from other peoples, most Americans do not recognize -- or do not want to recognize -- that the United States dominates the world through its military power. Due to government secrecy, our citizens are often ignorant of the fact that our garrisons encircle the planet. This vast network of American bases on every continent except Antarctica actually constitutes a new form of empire -- an empire of bases with its own geography not likely to be taught in any high school geography class. Without grasping the dimensions of this globe-girdling Baseworld, one can't begin to understand the size and nature of our imperial aspirations or the degree to which a new kind of militarism is undermining our constitutional order.

Our military deploys well over half a million soldiers, spies, technicians, teachers, dependents, and civilian contractors in other nations. To dominate the oceans and seas of the world, we are creating some thirteen naval task forces built around aircraft carriers whose names sum up our martial heritage -- Kitty Hawk, Constellation, Enterprise, John F. Kennedy, Nimitz, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Carl Vinson, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, John C. Stennis, Harry S. Truman, and Ronald Reagan. We operate numerous secret bases outside our territory to monitor what the people of the world, including our own citizens, are saying, faxing, or e-mailing to one another.

Our installations abroad bring profits to civilian industries, which design and manufacture weapons for the armed forces or, like the now well-publicized Kellogg, Brown & Root company, a subsidiary of the Halliburton Corporation of Houston, undertake contract services to build and maintain our far-flung outposts. One task of such contractors is to keep uniformed members of the imperium housed in comfortable quarters, well fed, amused, and supplied with enjoyable, affordable vacation facilities. Whole sectors of the American economy have come to rely on the military for sales. On the eve of our second war on Iraq, for example, while the Defense Department was ordering up an extra ration of cruise missiles and depleted-uranium armor-piercing tank shells, it also acquired 273,000 bottles of Native Tan sunblock, almost triple its 1999 order and undoubtedly a boon to the supplier, Control Supply Company of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and its subcontractor, Sun Fun Products of Daytona Beach, Florida.

It's not easy to assess the size or exact value of our empire of bases. Official records on these subjects are misleading, although instructive. According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and HAS another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories. Pentagon bureaucrats calculate that it would require at least $113.2 billion to replace just the foreign bases -- surely far too low a figure but still larger than the gross domestic product of most countries -- and an estimated $591.5 billion to replace all of them. The military high command deploys to our overseas bases some 253,288 uniformed personnel, plus an equal number of dependents and Department of Defense civilian officials, and employs an additional 44,446 locally hired foreigners. The Pentagon claims that these bases contain 44,870 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and that it leases 4,844 more.
...


posted by Steven Baum 1/20/2004 11:16:25 AM | link

CHENEY INSTRUCTING THE APPARATCHIKS
CNN reports on yet, yet, yet another tiresomely predictable conflict of interest in the cabal. Anyone who thinks that Scalia et al. - who would have found a rationalization for requiring that Clinton turn over his grocery shopping lists from the 1970s had the task been appointed - are going to rule against Cheney in this case is living in a different quantum reality than me. To maintain a sufficient sense of outrage, engage once again in the mental excercise of imagining the shrieking, howling outrage that would have arisen had anything remotely like this occurred during the last administration. Hell, it probably would have led to the appointment of yet another special prosecutor.
Justice Antonin Scalia has not indicated whether he will pull out a of an upcoming Supreme Court case involving Vice President Cheney, following reports the two recently went on a hunting trip and had dinner together.

Scalia denies doing anything improper.

Groups involved in a lawsuit against Cheney over his handling of an energy task force Monday questioned Scalia's impartiality, but so far have not said the justice should recuse himself from the executive privilege case.

"In a major constitutional case where the vice president's personal conduct is an issue, we are concerned," said David Bookbinder, Washington legal director for the Sierra Club, which helped bring the suit. "It certainly raises questions about the appearance of impropriety."

Bookbinder said his group is exploring its legal options.

Cheney invited Scalia, an old friend, to Louisiana earlier this month to hunt waterfowl on a private reserve. The trip occurred three weeks after the court agreed to hear the case, scheduled for sometime in April. Details of the trip were first reported by the Los Angeles Times.

The two also had a private dinner with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Maryland's Eastern Shore in November, when the justices were still considering Cheney's appeal.

Cheney is fighting a federal court's order that he release internal files of a task force he headed for the Bush administration. A lawsuit claims he made improper contacts with energy industry lobbyists when developing government policy.
...


posted by Steven Baum 1/20/2004 10:03:03 AM | link

PROGNOSTICATION
For those interested in such things,
Al Giordano predicted the Iowa results. On December 7, he outlined a scenario wherein Kerry - then down in the polls and pronounced dead by many - could make a big comeback. Then, on January 18, he noted how strong Kerry was polling in Iowa and predicted a win. Giordano on Kerry:
...
After six months of underestimating him, Kerry's rivals can't - nobody can - take a piece out of him. Kerry was so pummeled last year, so left for dead, that he has now developed scar tissue upon scar tissue, layers of armor, and Teflon, that would make Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton envious. Like no other Democrat, Kerry has already been toughened up by the process: That's what the retail campaigning in small states like Iowa and New Hampshire is meant to do.

If Kerry comes in a strong second or better in Iowa on Monday night, watch Dean collapse in New Hampshire, watch Clark collapse in New Hampshire, watch Gephardt collapse, and watch the frontloaded primary process go to work as it was intended: to deliver an early nominee who can start fundraising and campaigning by springtime for the fateful November battle against Bush II.

Let me now crawl even farther out on this limb…

Kerry's vice presidential pick: I have a hunch, and I want to go on record as the first to predict it: His good friend and fellow Nam Vet from the South… Former U.S. Senator Max Cleland of Georgia. Max may not win him Georgia, but he will turn other Southern states, possibly including North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Florida, into the blue zone.

Go ahead. Laugh if you like. One place where they ain't laughing is in the illigitimately occupied building at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

If Al's Big Left Outside isn't already on your "must read" list, put it there. I've been following him for several years, mostly via the now-resurrected Narco News. Unlike most ostensible practitioners of the profession, he gives journalism a good name.

On a not unrelated note, Juan Williams sounded downright depressed this AM on NPR , what with cabal-favored candidate Dean going down in flames and a man who can physically and morally kick Shrub's ass in the ascendancy. Mara's undoubtedly in tears, although I'm sure she'll recover soon enough to receive her newly revised marching orders from Roger Ailes. The only thing preserving NPR's morning wake-up station status is that the alternatives are still worse, although the gap is narrowing. It's too bad "Democracy Now" doesn't start an hour earlier.
posted by Steven Baum 1/20/2004 09:44:32 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