C.I.A Says Pakistanis Gave Iran Nuclear Aid
So says an article burried in the Washington section of today's New York Times. In keeping with the Chomskian method of mainstream media analysis, let's take a look at the last paragraph first. It informs us that a new intel report from the CIA:
"...restates longstanding concerns that outside experts, including a Pakistani nuclear engineer, may have provided assistance to Al Qaeda as part of its quest to acquire nuclear weapons. "One of our highest concerns is Al Qaeda's stated readiness to attempt unconventional attacks against us," the report says."
Umm-hmm. Now, is anyone else feeling that deja-vu? And who wants to bet me that, in a few months (after a new economic down-turn, or some other damn thing) senior Administraton officials will be quoting this article (or others like it) as the basis for their belief that Iran is sitting pretty on tons of WMD's, all of them poised to strike in the United States?
God, I hope I'm wrong. But you never know...
Well, that's not true. Because I did know. I remember where I was when President Bush gave his now-infamous address to the U.N., all the way back in 2002. I knew. As soon as he opened his mouth I knew, damn him, that we were going to have a war.
I've yet to have any similar experiences with Iran...thank God for small favors...but with a new cabinet full of unqualified yes-people, a Congress full of maniacs, degenerates and outright monsters, and a CIA which has been thuroughly purged of all desenting voices...I'm offering two-to-one odds in favor of *some* military action.
Let's bring 'um on, as the Chimp likes to say. I'm open to all takers.
(With news like this is it any wonder why I waste so much time playing video games?)
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Condi Rice Can Kiss My Black Ass
Noam Chomsky said something once. Lots of things, actually, but only one is relevant to today’s discussion. “If whenever you read the newspaper, read the last paragraph first. There’s usually something interesting in there.”
And, by God, the old Jew is still on the money. Don’t take my word for it: let’s try an experiment. Yesterday’s Washington Post has a modest little puff piece on Condi Rice written by Staff Wordslinger Glen Kessler. Title: The Power-Values Approach to Policy. The last paragraph reads as such:
“ ‘The reality is that 'multi-polarity' was never a unifying idea, or a vision,’ Rice said. ‘It was a necessary evil that sustained the absence of war but it did not promote the triumph of peace. Multi-polarity is a theory of rivalry, of competing interests—and at it worst—competing values’—which, she said, led to World War I, World War II and the Cold War.”
Right off the bat you gotta ask yourself: “Multi-polarity”? That’s a new one on me, another entry in my rapidly expanding “Bush-speak” dictionary. It’s best to nail these phrases down as soon as they appear because they tend to have two (or sometimes three) meanings: the official and the real. So, interest peeked, we proceed to the front of the article. The first paragraph:
“Condoleezza Rice, whom President Bush nominated last week as his next secretary of state, was pegged early in her career as a disciple of the ‘realist’ school exemplified by Henry A. Kissinger, more concerned with great-power relations than moral issues. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, she has been viewed as an enabler of the ‘neo-conservative idealism’ that believes evil governments must be confronted -- and toppled.”
Ah, yes. Kissinger. And in my head I can hear a young William Shatner call for Yellow Alert. It’ll be a short lived Yellow, thanks to the following bit four paragraphs later:
“At their core, [Condi’s] speeches and writings reveal a determined individual willing to knock aside established doctrines, especially in this period of international turmoil, but grounded in a strong belief in American values and the essential good of U.S. power.”
Emphasis mine, of course, because that’s the key. With a little bit of decoding the meat and potatoes of this bit becomes clear. “[W]illing to knock aside established doctrines,” is kind of a softball. There’s almost no need to ask, “Which established doctrines?” because we all know the answers well enough by now. If not, there’s always the public record. Inalienable human rights, national sovereignty, the Geneva Convention, personal privacy (except for the Chief Executive Officer, that is)…these mean little or nothing to a “realist” like Condi Rice, as anyone who survived the Kissinger Era can tell you. Why? Simple, really. Condi doesn’t need to trouble herself with such piddling things. After all, she’s got that “strong belief in American values and the essential good of U.S. power.”
That phrase is harder to shift through, given all this talk of “values” lately. Given that we’re reading the Washington Post “America values” means “whatever the hell the Party in power says it means.” What they say changes with time and tide…except for one thing, the Core, if you will: this belief in “the essential good of U.S. power”.
To them (and by “them” I don’t just mean the Bush-ies; this belief is as widespread and dangerous as AIDS) the United States is a golden land of selfless, kind-hearted people who (by virtue of our infallible Democratic System) throw up naught but selfless, kind-hearted leaders. We may (or may not, depending on who you talk to) have made some mistakes in the past but that’s the past, for fuck’s sake, and in American we are always looking forward. Not that there’s any need to worry: our selfless, kind-hearted leaders will never abuse their authority, or betray the public trust. They certainly won’t launch long, bloody, pre-emptive wars for anything other than the most serious of reasons.
And what’s more, they never have. Ever. Not once in our glorious 238 year history. Anyone who tells you different is being “un-American.”
With this as our background, this doctrine of “the essential good of U.S. power” becomes crystal clear. We, being America, are always in the right, no matter what we do or how we chose to do it. After all, we’re America, the Most Powerful Nation in theFree World. This, the foundation of the Kissinger Foreign Policy Worldview (paraphrased as “might makes right, so go fuck yourself”—sounds a little like the Dick Cheney worldview, doesn’t it?) means never having to say you’re sorry. Indeed, we never have.
Those prisoners we’ve tortured in Cuba and/or Iraq? Hell, they were all guilty anyway, because we said they are, and being that we’re a nation of selfless, kind-hearted people, what possible reason would we have to lie? So, yes, they were all guilty.
“Even,” some of you might ask, “the dead ones?”
Oh, especially the dead ones.
Those 1200 dead bodies rotting in Falluja? They were all insurgents. Every single one. Not a single civilian died during the entire operation. Every house we leveled was a nesting ground of brown-skinned devils bent on raping our women and selling our children to the Red Chinese. In fact, we’ve never bombed a civilian target in the entire course of our military history. Because that would be wrong, a slight to our high-minded American values.
“Well,” some of you might ask, “what about Dresdin? Or Hanoi? Or Kabul? Or Tokyo? Or Hiroshima?”
Those were all military targets. Every single one.
“But I heard that the first atomic bomb went wide of its target and blew up 100 feet above a hospital full of burn victims from the previous week's firebombings.”
This, like most facts that jibe with the Doctrine of Essential Good, would likely earn you a pregnant silence, followed by something to the effect of, “Why do you hate America?”
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe its because American seems to be governed by two-faced, nihilistic thugs who don’t even have the common decency to come up with original lies. Instead,
“Rice argues that ‘the terrorist ideology is the direct heir to communism, and Nazism, and fascism -- the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. The struggle against terror is fundamentally a struggle of vision and values.’”
You like that? This, ladies and gentlemen, is our new Secretary of State (since, at this point, there seems to be nothing standing between any of Bush’s appointees and their shiny new jobs—certainly not an opposition party). Seems to have a nice, balanced, educated understanding of the Enemy, don’t you think? There’s the little matter of it being completely ass backwards, but since when has that stopped the Chimpanzee Man and his herd of pigs?
Remember, from their (and again, I use the all-inclusive, bi-partisan their) perspective, “terrorism” (defined as “the terrorism they do to us”—we like to mask our “terrorism” behind phrases like “counter-insurgency” or “low-intensity conflict”) must be the heir to communism and Nazism. How else can they justify these massive, overseas military adventures and the billions of dollars they cost us every day? Never mind that, twenty years ago, Rice’s old boss, Ronald Reagan, called these terrorists “freedom fighters.” Never mind that (unlike Nazism and Stalinist state-communism) these “terrorists” have specific (and, for the most part, reconcilable) grievances with the United States that are well known and widely circulated…and (if government documents are to be believed) have been known (and ignored) since the Eisenhower Administration. Never mind that Christians and Muslims both worship the Nameless God of Abraham, and that their fundamentalist visions and values are (once they’re stripped of their cultural specifics) indistinguishable from each other. Since we (America) are so damn good they cannot be anything but the latest incarnation of Ultimate Evil. Because you can't have one without the Other.
Back to the Post article, page two, paragraph three:
“In an article in 2000 for Foreign Affairs, the bible of foreign policy thinking, Rice wrote that (sic) ‘power matters, both the exercise of power by the United States and the ability of others to exercise it.’”
(Which is true, but that doesn’t mean you should take that sentence at face value. As any survivor of the Sixties can tell you, Kissinger-ian Realism requires the United States to destroy “the ability of others to exercise [power]” by any means necessary. After all, you think the U.S. got to be the Most Powerful Nation in the World by letting other nations exercise power? As the young Lenord Nemoy in my head might say, "I find your logic...deeply flawed.")
Back to the same paragraph:
“But [Condi] said that because many in the United States are uncomfortable with the notion of great power, there is ‘a reflexive appeal instead to notions of international law and norms, and the belief that the support of many states—or even better, of institutions like the United Nations—is essential to the legitimate exercise of power.’
“Rice instead argued that ‘multilateral agreements and institutions should not be ends in themselves’ and the ‘United States has a special role in the world and should not adhere to every international convention and agreement that someone thinks to propose.’”
Or any of them, for matter. Because they’re all such pesky, inconvenient things. But we shouldn't trouble ourselves over them. After all, we're special (i.e., powerful).
“While Rice wrote that ‘it is simply not possible to ignore and isolate other powerful states that do not share those [American] values,’ she made the case that pursuing U.S. interests together with countries that share similar values, ‘the world becomes more prosperous, democratic and peaceful.’”
For us, that is…and maybe we’ll toss Tony Blair a few bones every now and again. He’s been such a good little doggie through all of this, and besides, he’s so cute. The rest of the world can (to paraphrase our Vice President) go fuck itself. Though we (being America) always reserve the right to break off a little piece for ourselves.
But we were trying to find a definition of “multi-polarity” weren’t we? Wow, this is turning into one all-hell of a tangent. Just as well, since it doesn’t even show up until the second-to-last paragraph.
“After the Iraq invasion, when French officials in particular were pressing the idea of trying to counter U.S. ‘hyperpower,’ Rice traveled to London in June 2003 to address the issue. She argued that it was essential for great powers to work together, not balance each other in a constant state of tension.
“The reality is that 'multi-polarity' was never a unifying idea, or a vision,’ Rice said. ‘It was a necessary evil that sustained the absence of war but it did not promote the triumph of peace. Multi-polarity is a theory of rivalry, of competing interests—and at it worst—competing values’ -- which, she said, led to World War I, World War II and the Cold War.”
So. “Multi-polarity” is what we in the biz used to call a “balance of power.” Just how it “sustained the absence of war” and led to every major conflict of the 20th century is left unexplained. I’m not sure even Condi could address the issue. She’ probably end up asking me why I hate America.
I’ve got my reasons. The “terrorists” have theirs. But we (as a nation) aren’t going to get anywhere unless we have leaders who are willing to take the time, study the record, and take long, hard, honest looks at the answers to that famous question our Chimpanzee Man is so fond of asking. That old saw, "Why do they hate us?"
This rather simple exercise in intellectual honesty is (from the evidence at hand) so far beyond Condi Rice it might as well be on Mars.
And this is the woman who will represent the United States (that means you, me, and your bean-snappin’ momma) to every country in the world.
Indeed, God help us all.
And, by God, the old Jew is still on the money. Don’t take my word for it: let’s try an experiment. Yesterday’s Washington Post has a modest little puff piece on Condi Rice written by Staff Wordslinger Glen Kessler. Title: The Power-Values Approach to Policy. The last paragraph reads as such:
“ ‘The reality is that 'multi-polarity' was never a unifying idea, or a vision,’ Rice said. ‘It was a necessary evil that sustained the absence of war but it did not promote the triumph of peace. Multi-polarity is a theory of rivalry, of competing interests—and at it worst—competing values’—which, she said, led to World War I, World War II and the Cold War.”
Right off the bat you gotta ask yourself: “Multi-polarity”? That’s a new one on me, another entry in my rapidly expanding “Bush-speak” dictionary. It’s best to nail these phrases down as soon as they appear because they tend to have two (or sometimes three) meanings: the official and the real. So, interest peeked, we proceed to the front of the article. The first paragraph:
“Condoleezza Rice, whom President Bush nominated last week as his next secretary of state, was pegged early in her career as a disciple of the ‘realist’ school exemplified by Henry A. Kissinger, more concerned with great-power relations than moral issues. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, she has been viewed as an enabler of the ‘neo-conservative idealism’ that believes evil governments must be confronted -- and toppled.”
Ah, yes. Kissinger. And in my head I can hear a young William Shatner call for Yellow Alert. It’ll be a short lived Yellow, thanks to the following bit four paragraphs later:
“At their core, [Condi’s] speeches and writings reveal a determined individual willing to knock aside established doctrines, especially in this period of international turmoil, but grounded in a strong belief in American values and the essential good of U.S. power.”
Emphasis mine, of course, because that’s the key. With a little bit of decoding the meat and potatoes of this bit becomes clear. “[W]illing to knock aside established doctrines,” is kind of a softball. There’s almost no need to ask, “Which established doctrines?” because we all know the answers well enough by now. If not, there’s always the public record. Inalienable human rights, national sovereignty, the Geneva Convention, personal privacy (except for the Chief Executive Officer, that is)…these mean little or nothing to a “realist” like Condi Rice, as anyone who survived the Kissinger Era can tell you. Why? Simple, really. Condi doesn’t need to trouble herself with such piddling things. After all, she’s got that “strong belief in American values and the essential good of U.S. power.”
That phrase is harder to shift through, given all this talk of “values” lately. Given that we’re reading the Washington Post “America values” means “whatever the hell the Party in power says it means.” What they say changes with time and tide…except for one thing, the Core, if you will: this belief in “the essential good of U.S. power”.
To them (and by “them” I don’t just mean the Bush-ies; this belief is as widespread and dangerous as AIDS) the United States is a golden land of selfless, kind-hearted people who (by virtue of our infallible Democratic System) throw up naught but selfless, kind-hearted leaders. We may (or may not, depending on who you talk to) have made some mistakes in the past but that’s the past, for fuck’s sake, and in American we are always looking forward. Not that there’s any need to worry: our selfless, kind-hearted leaders will never abuse their authority, or betray the public trust. They certainly won’t launch long, bloody, pre-emptive wars for anything other than the most serious of reasons.
And what’s more, they never have. Ever. Not once in our glorious 238 year history. Anyone who tells you different is being “un-American.”
With this as our background, this doctrine of “the essential good of U.S. power” becomes crystal clear. We, being America, are always in the right, no matter what we do or how we chose to do it. After all, we’re America, the Most Powerful Nation in the
Those prisoners we’ve tortured in Cuba and/or Iraq? Hell, they were all guilty anyway, because we said they are, and being that we’re a nation of selfless, kind-hearted people, what possible reason would we have to lie? So, yes, they were all guilty.
“Even,” some of you might ask, “the dead ones?”
Oh, especially the dead ones.
Those 1200 dead bodies rotting in Falluja? They were all insurgents. Every single one. Not a single civilian died during the entire operation. Every house we leveled was a nesting ground of brown-skinned devils bent on raping our women and selling our children to the Red Chinese. In fact, we’ve never bombed a civilian target in the entire course of our military history. Because that would be wrong, a slight to our high-minded American values.
“Well,” some of you might ask, “what about Dresdin? Or Hanoi? Or Kabul? Or Tokyo? Or Hiroshima?”
Those were all military targets. Every single one.
“But I heard that the first atomic bomb went wide of its target and blew up 100 feet above a hospital full of burn victims from the previous week's firebombings.”
This, like most facts that jibe with the Doctrine of Essential Good, would likely earn you a pregnant silence, followed by something to the effect of, “Why do you hate America?”
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe its because American seems to be governed by two-faced, nihilistic thugs who don’t even have the common decency to come up with original lies. Instead,
“Rice argues that ‘the terrorist ideology is the direct heir to communism, and Nazism, and fascism -- the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. The struggle against terror is fundamentally a struggle of vision and values.’”
You like that? This, ladies and gentlemen, is our new Secretary of State (since, at this point, there seems to be nothing standing between any of Bush’s appointees and their shiny new jobs—certainly not an opposition party). Seems to have a nice, balanced, educated understanding of the Enemy, don’t you think? There’s the little matter of it being completely ass backwards, but since when has that stopped the Chimpanzee Man and his herd of pigs?
Remember, from their (and again, I use the all-inclusive, bi-partisan their) perspective, “terrorism” (defined as “the terrorism they do to us”—we like to mask our “terrorism” behind phrases like “counter-insurgency” or “low-intensity conflict”) must be the heir to communism and Nazism. How else can they justify these massive, overseas military adventures and the billions of dollars they cost us every day? Never mind that, twenty years ago, Rice’s old boss, Ronald Reagan, called these terrorists “freedom fighters.” Never mind that (unlike Nazism and Stalinist state-communism) these “terrorists” have specific (and, for the most part, reconcilable) grievances with the United States that are well known and widely circulated…and (if government documents are to be believed) have been known (and ignored) since the Eisenhower Administration. Never mind that Christians and Muslims both worship the Nameless God of Abraham, and that their fundamentalist visions and values are (once they’re stripped of their cultural specifics) indistinguishable from each other. Since we (America) are so damn good they cannot be anything but the latest incarnation of Ultimate Evil. Because you can't have one without the Other.
Back to the Post article, page two, paragraph three:
“In an article in 2000 for Foreign Affairs, the bible of foreign policy thinking, Rice wrote that (sic) ‘power matters, both the exercise of power by the United States and the ability of others to exercise it.’”
(Which is true, but that doesn’t mean you should take that sentence at face value. As any survivor of the Sixties can tell you, Kissinger-ian Realism requires the United States to destroy “the ability of others to exercise [power]” by any means necessary. After all, you think the U.S. got to be the Most Powerful Nation in the World by letting other nations exercise power? As the young Lenord Nemoy in my head might say, "I find your logic...deeply flawed.")
Back to the same paragraph:
“But [Condi] said that because many in the United States are uncomfortable with the notion of great power, there is ‘a reflexive appeal instead to notions of international law and norms, and the belief that the support of many states—or even better, of institutions like the United Nations—is essential to the legitimate exercise of power.’
“Rice instead argued that ‘multilateral agreements and institutions should not be ends in themselves’ and the ‘United States has a special role in the world and should not adhere to every international convention and agreement that someone thinks to propose.’”
Or any of them, for matter. Because they’re all such pesky, inconvenient things. But we shouldn't trouble ourselves over them. After all, we're special (i.e., powerful).
“While Rice wrote that ‘it is simply not possible to ignore and isolate other powerful states that do not share those [American] values,’ she made the case that pursuing U.S. interests together with countries that share similar values, ‘the world becomes more prosperous, democratic and peaceful.’”
For us, that is…and maybe we’ll toss Tony Blair a few bones every now and again. He’s been such a good little doggie through all of this, and besides, he’s so cute. The rest of the world can (to paraphrase our Vice President) go fuck itself. Though we (being America) always reserve the right to break off a little piece for ourselves.
But we were trying to find a definition of “multi-polarity” weren’t we? Wow, this is turning into one all-hell of a tangent. Just as well, since it doesn’t even show up until the second-to-last paragraph.
“After the Iraq invasion, when French officials in particular were pressing the idea of trying to counter U.S. ‘hyperpower,’ Rice traveled to London in June 2003 to address the issue. She argued that it was essential for great powers to work together, not balance each other in a constant state of tension.
“The reality is that 'multi-polarity' was never a unifying idea, or a vision,’ Rice said. ‘It was a necessary evil that sustained the absence of war but it did not promote the triumph of peace. Multi-polarity is a theory of rivalry, of competing interests—and at it worst—competing values’ -- which, she said, led to World War I, World War II and the Cold War.”
So. “Multi-polarity” is what we in the biz used to call a “balance of power.” Just how it “sustained the absence of war” and led to every major conflict of the 20th century is left unexplained. I’m not sure even Condi could address the issue. She’ probably end up asking me why I hate America.
I’ve got my reasons. The “terrorists” have theirs. But we (as a nation) aren’t going to get anywhere unless we have leaders who are willing to take the time, study the record, and take long, hard, honest looks at the answers to that famous question our Chimpanzee Man is so fond of asking. That old saw, "Why do they hate us?"
This rather simple exercise in intellectual honesty is (from the evidence at hand) so far beyond Condi Rice it might as well be on Mars.
And this is the woman who will represent the United States (that means you, me, and your bean-snappin’ momma) to every country in the world.
Indeed, God help us all.
Monday, November 08, 2004
This wave must rise
If you’re like me, you know that the Public Discourse is little more than a stagnant parade of lies, damn lies, and statistics—a Mark Twain quote that’s gotten plenty of play this election season. But if, by some odd coincidence, you’re not like me then what follows will be news to you.
And that’s fine. But here’s something that’s not so fine: Ever since Black Tuesday (Part Duex) Talking Heads from across the board have pointed fingers and lobbed their mud, blaming (or praising) all in sundry for the Bush Junta’s supposed victory. A chief target? The so-called “youth vote” that somehow “didn’t” show up and magically sweep John Kerry into office with the singular force of their drug-and-rap-fueled mental powers.
Hopes that “the kids” (that would be anyone aged 18-29) would put Bush down with their paper ballot bullets were dashed for a number of reasons (say, widespread, systemic, racist voter fraud). But anyone who tells you that they failed to turn out is a damn liar. Over twenty million (that’s 20,000,000) of the little bastards exercised their Constitutional rights…for whatever that’s worth in this age of corporate voting.
More importantly (from my perspective), a few of “the kids” are beginning to realize the simple and obvious truth: that only a sustained, popular action will do anything to change this country for the better. And God bless ‘um for the realization.
The prime example comes to us from the shadow of Columbine…namely Bolder, Colorado, where 16 students of Bolder High School staged a sit-in Thursday, spending the night in their high school library. In protest, you see.
Their action raised enough of a stink on the local level to attract U.S. Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO), who came flying in Friday morning, vulture-like, smelling a photo op from miles away. There was much nodded and shaking of hands. Udall even promised to join a “summit with local youth” at the School to give them a means of “expressing their opinions ‘without having to camp out in the library.’”
Now, I know fuck-all about the Honorable Mr. Udall…apart from what I’ve just learned on his website and opensecrets.org. But I like to think I know a thing or two about the “democratic” process in this country. And a cynical individual might look at this little sit-in and smell the stench of pandering.
Not that I’m a cynic…I am, but that’s not the point. After all, forty years ago these kids would’ve been suspended, beaten with sticks and thrown right into juvy, Do Not Pass Go. So we’ve come that far. But I’m afraid it’ll take a lot more Boulders before we can move any farther. Twenty million vote are fine and dandy…but until we clog the high schools…until we empty into the streets…until we’re force to doge the mace, the tear gas and the bullets…I’m afraid it’ll be a cold day in hell before those in power truly listen to any of us.
I wish I could fly to Boulder right now and tell that to their faces. Somebody's got to, and they're most certainly not going to learn it in public school. Those who remember high school should have no trouble recalling the One Great Lesson that four year stint in Hell is designed to impart: Namely, “sit down, shut up and be deferent to authority.”
We can see where that attitude’s gotten us, can’t we?
And that’s fine. But here’s something that’s not so fine: Ever since Black Tuesday (Part Duex) Talking Heads from across the board have pointed fingers and lobbed their mud, blaming (or praising) all in sundry for the Bush Junta’s supposed victory. A chief target? The so-called “youth vote” that somehow “didn’t” show up and magically sweep John Kerry into office with the singular force of their drug-and-rap-fueled mental powers.
Hopes that “the kids” (that would be anyone aged 18-29) would put Bush down with their paper ballot bullets were dashed for a number of reasons (say, widespread, systemic, racist voter fraud). But anyone who tells you that they failed to turn out is a damn liar. Over twenty million (that’s 20,000,000) of the little bastards exercised their Constitutional rights…for whatever that’s worth in this age of corporate voting.
More importantly (from my perspective), a few of “the kids” are beginning to realize the simple and obvious truth: that only a sustained, popular action will do anything to change this country for the better. And God bless ‘um for the realization.
The prime example comes to us from the shadow of Columbine…namely Bolder, Colorado, where 16 students of Bolder High School staged a sit-in Thursday, spending the night in their high school library. In protest, you see.
Their action raised enough of a stink on the local level to attract U.S. Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO), who came flying in Friday morning, vulture-like, smelling a photo op from miles away. There was much nodded and shaking of hands. Udall even promised to join a “summit with local youth” at the School to give them a means of “expressing their opinions ‘without having to camp out in the library.’”
Now, I know fuck-all about the Honorable Mr. Udall…apart from what I’ve just learned on his website and opensecrets.org. But I like to think I know a thing or two about the “democratic” process in this country. And a cynical individual might look at this little sit-in and smell the stench of pandering.
Not that I’m a cynic…I am, but that’s not the point. After all, forty years ago these kids would’ve been suspended, beaten with sticks and thrown right into juvy, Do Not Pass Go. So we’ve come that far. But I’m afraid it’ll take a lot more Boulders before we can move any farther. Twenty million vote are fine and dandy…but until we clog the high schools…until we empty into the streets…until we’re force to doge the mace, the tear gas and the bullets…I’m afraid it’ll be a cold day in hell before those in power truly listen to any of us.
I wish I could fly to Boulder right now and tell that to their faces. Somebody's got to, and they're most certainly not going to learn it in public school. Those who remember high school should have no trouble recalling the One Great Lesson that four year stint in Hell is designed to impart: Namely, “sit down, shut up and be deferent to authority.”
We can see where that attitude’s gotten us, can’t we?
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Ed Gillespie is a Vicious Little Toad
Because I’m such a masochist I took the time to watch Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican National Committee, hold court over at cspan.org. The great toad was positively glowing with masturbatory self-congratulation. “This is a historic victory,” he said. What with that vast, 3% of the vote and all. With Black Tuesday’s “historic” results, Dubya becomes the first Republican President with House and Senate majorities since 1924.
Pop quiz, hot shot: who, pray tell, was President in 1924?
That would be Silent Cal Coolidge, ladies and gentlemen, the greatest man ever to come out of Plymouth, Vermont. And God knows what a great mandate he received. "His great task was to restore the dignity and prestige of the Presidency when it had reached the lowest ebb in our history ... in a time of extravagance and waste...” So said Alfred E. Smith, whom whitehouse.gov calls “a Democratic admirer.” Whatever the fuck that means.
What, you might ask, does Coolidge have to be admired for? Well…
On May 15, 1924, Congress passed the Bonus Act providing for twenty-year certificates to WWI veterans below the rank of major. Coolidge vetoed it and Congress was all like, “Fuck you,” passing it over him on May 19. The Act would go on to cause all holy hell for Coolidge’s successor, Herbert Hoover. Eight years later 15,000 Veterans in the dark heart of the Depression swarmed the Washington Mall, demanding their money like so many angry pimps. But that’s a story for another time…
Coolidge seemed to have no problem signing the Immigration Act of ’24, which established a strong quota system for immigrants, setting a 154,000 annual limit. Too keep out the Italians and the Jews, don’t you know. Because at the time everybody knew that wops and yids don’t make “good Americans.”
Let’s see, what else…ah, yes: the McNary-Haugen Bill. Never heard of it? Well, why should you’ve? Ol’ Stone Face vetoed the damn thing both times it passed Congress. Had it passed the bill would’ve established a government corporation (back when there were such things) to buy surplus farm goods for overseas resale. To Coolidge, this smacked of price fixing…somehow.
Five years later, a chronic surplus would send prices into the dirt, driving millions of dirt herding farmers out of the Midwest as oily bankers (white, Anglo Saxon Protestant bankers, mind you, as opposed to the usual Jews) moved in to bulldoze their houses and steal their land. One hopes Silent Cal got some egg on his face.
And…ah, yes. In 1928 Secretary of State Frank Kellogg drafted the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Eventually, 15 other countries (the core League of Nations) would sign onto the Pact, renouncing war as means of settling disputes. Boy that sure held up, didn’t it?
Thoroughly depressed by these and a whole host of other facts, I went trolling for some fun Coolidge quotes. Like this one: “I don’t work at night. If a man can’t finish his job in the daytime he’s not smart.”
The George W. Bush version? “If a man can’t finish his job in time to watch his dogs root for armadillos than he’s…uh…whassat, Dick? You’re breakin’ up. ‘scuze me while I check my ear piece. Hey, any a’ you guys usin’ a cell phone?”
Then there’s this cherry, passed to a friend after Coolidge left the White House: "The president shouldn't do too much. And he shouldn't know too much…The president can't resign...So I constantly said to my cabinet: ‘There are many things you gentlemen must not tell me. If you blunder, you can leave, or I can invite you to leave. But if you draw me into all our departmental decisions and something goes wrong, I must stay here, and by involving me, you have lowered the faith of the people in their government.”
Then it hits me like a fully loaded 747: By God, I thought, that’s it. That’s the fucking kicker. Junior has ripped a page straight out of the Calvin Coolidge playbook and stuffed it firmly into his ears.
I was going to spend the rest of this ranting against the malignant and promiscuious voter fraud that has officially put a bullet into our democracy’s head…but, whaddya know, Greg Pallast already beat me to it. Go read his thing at tompaine.com. And while you’re at it, read something that’s not connected with the election…like
this little gem from today’s LA Times.
Pop quiz, hot shot: who, pray tell, was President in 1924?
That would be Silent Cal Coolidge, ladies and gentlemen, the greatest man ever to come out of Plymouth, Vermont. And God knows what a great mandate he received. "His great task was to restore the dignity and prestige of the Presidency when it had reached the lowest ebb in our history ... in a time of extravagance and waste...” So said Alfred E. Smith, whom whitehouse.gov calls “a Democratic admirer.” Whatever the fuck that means.
What, you might ask, does Coolidge have to be admired for? Well…
On May 15, 1924, Congress passed the Bonus Act providing for twenty-year certificates to WWI veterans below the rank of major. Coolidge vetoed it and Congress was all like, “Fuck you,” passing it over him on May 19. The Act would go on to cause all holy hell for Coolidge’s successor, Herbert Hoover. Eight years later 15,000 Veterans in the dark heart of the Depression swarmed the Washington Mall, demanding their money like so many angry pimps. But that’s a story for another time…
Coolidge seemed to have no problem signing the Immigration Act of ’24, which established a strong quota system for immigrants, setting a 154,000 annual limit. Too keep out the Italians and the Jews, don’t you know. Because at the time everybody knew that wops and yids don’t make “good Americans.”
Let’s see, what else…ah, yes: the McNary-Haugen Bill. Never heard of it? Well, why should you’ve? Ol’ Stone Face vetoed the damn thing both times it passed Congress. Had it passed the bill would’ve established a government corporation (back when there were such things) to buy surplus farm goods for overseas resale. To Coolidge, this smacked of price fixing…somehow.
Five years later, a chronic surplus would send prices into the dirt, driving millions of dirt herding farmers out of the Midwest as oily bankers (white, Anglo Saxon Protestant bankers, mind you, as opposed to the usual Jews) moved in to bulldoze their houses and steal their land. One hopes Silent Cal got some egg on his face.
And…ah, yes. In 1928 Secretary of State Frank Kellogg drafted the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Eventually, 15 other countries (the core League of Nations) would sign onto the Pact, renouncing war as means of settling disputes. Boy that sure held up, didn’t it?
Thoroughly depressed by these and a whole host of other facts, I went trolling for some fun Coolidge quotes. Like this one: “I don’t work at night. If a man can’t finish his job in the daytime he’s not smart.”
The George W. Bush version? “If a man can’t finish his job in time to watch his dogs root for armadillos than he’s…uh…whassat, Dick? You’re breakin’ up. ‘scuze me while I check my ear piece. Hey, any a’ you guys usin’ a cell phone?”
Then there’s this cherry, passed to a friend after Coolidge left the White House: "The president shouldn't do too much. And he shouldn't know too much…The president can't resign...So I constantly said to my cabinet: ‘There are many things you gentlemen must not tell me. If you blunder, you can leave, or I can invite you to leave. But if you draw me into all our departmental decisions and something goes wrong, I must stay here, and by involving me, you have lowered the faith of the people in their government.”
Then it hits me like a fully loaded 747: By God, I thought, that’s it. That’s the fucking kicker. Junior has ripped a page straight out of the Calvin Coolidge playbook and stuffed it firmly into his ears.
I was going to spend the rest of this ranting against the malignant and promiscuious voter fraud that has officially put a bullet into our democracy’s head…but, whaddya know, Greg Pallast already beat me to it. Go read his thing at tompaine.com. And while you’re at it, read something that’s not connected with the election…like
this little gem from today’s LA Times.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Bush Uber Alles 2: Four More Years
Months ago I read Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72, Hunter S. Thompson's account of the failed challenge to Richard Nixon. Given that I finished it in January (as the primaries were kicking into high and rocous gear) I couldn't help but notice certain uncomfortable parallels between '72 and '04: A widely-despised incumbant who not only bungled one war (Vietnam: Afghanistan) but *expanded* its reach into other areas (Cambodia, Laos: Iraq) with only tenuious and every-shifting connections to the wider conflict. A slew of Democratic candidates who became living embodiments of the Left's self-destructive internal conflicts (Kennedy, Muskie, McGovern, Humphrey: Kusenich, Dean, Kerry, Lieberman). A stodgy, somewhat stiff, dark horse candidate who emerged from the fray thanks (in part) to garnering support from the unwashed masses of freaks, weirdoes and young hooligans (including Your Humble Author) who've been near-criminalized by the Incumbent Administration.
And, finally, defeat. Unbelievable, irreconcilable defeat. Though reasons for the Incumbent’s defeat are so blatantly Legion, the American Public (a *majority*, no less) seems content to glue its blinders firmly into place and march toward the New American Century.
I made a point of not publishing these thoughts at the time. Fear of the Jinx, don’t ya know. But that fear was unfounded, as it always is. I have precisely as much sway over this election as everyone else in the country…apart from the corrupt thugs who’ve done such a wonderful job cajoling the ig’nant masses.
“The people have spoken, the dumb fucking bastards.”
This from my father, who, great Rev. Dr. that he is, has perfectly captured the mood of the nation…or half of it, at any rate. There is (thankfully) none of the exhausted commiseration that followed Gore’s defeat at the hands of the Supreme Court. The Left, though dejected, does not seem to be slumping away into the good night. The oft-repeated consternation on Air America Radio goes a little something like this:
“Hey, look: The Republican Party’s taken forty years to build their great multi-media/politico disinformation machine. We’ve had two years. What the heck did you expect?”
The answer? I expected better of the American people…though in hindsight I’ve no idea why I got my hopes up. After all we gave Nixon two terms. And just look at the wonderful things he did with that mandate.
Look and see the future because it’s all there in the past. Seeds once planted will inevitably bear fruit, just as pigs, once fed, will always return to the trough.
These pigs in the White House are no exception. Nor is their smirking, Chimpanzee-man mascot. Thankfully the feeding frenzy isn’t on yet. With any luck they’ll hold off until January 20th, when the Chimpanzee-man will once again put his hand on That Damned Book and swear to defend that two hundred year old fish wrapper we call the Constitution. But when it begins we must be there to record every gruesome mastication. The next four years will be a horrific trip of Tim Leary-ish proportions. We must stand together and be counted lest we all fall into the waste lands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)