Write Your Own Caption

Bush enlists some unsuspecting residents of the United Arab Emirates to join him in his impersonation of The Temptations hit song 'The Way You Do the Things You Do."

 

Tabloid Politics

You didn't have to hang around supermarket checkout lines this past week to get your fill of hyperventilated, manufactured claims. The various so-called legitimate pages of the MSM were dishing out sensationalism left and right. No, not about Batboy. But, unless you live in a cave or just haven't been paying attention, the guano being flung around between various surrogates (and people labeled 'surrogates' who were no such thing) of the Obama and Clinton campaigns made people like me don full-sized body condoms for protection. It's been nasty.

The issue, of course, has been racism. No small topic. But the way it has all been handled has been despicable and that has diminished both campaigns. No matter who you think is to blame for what may or may not have been a coordinated effort to smear one or the other candidate, the fact is that neither Obama nor Clinton ordered an official ceasefire to this war (for those insurgents they actually could control) until late Monday. Neither completely rose above the fray to display what they have been assuring Democrats and other Americans will be their style of governance: change, unity, hope. As a result, they have both let the issue steamroll into an ugly example of tabloid politics ie. any publicity is good publicity. Who's running their campaigns? Paris Hilton?

There can be no doubt that there is a hunger to have a national dialogue about racism and the current status of the civil rights movement in America. No one, it seems, has quite yet figured out how to do that without inflicting casualties - real or metaphorical. It's a hypersensitive reality. Had both candidates grasped this opportunity to come together, despite the fact that they are currently political opponents in the race for president, they could have shown their country what they claim Democrats are capable of doing: ending division, working in partnership for the common good and taking on the tough challenges that face America. On that front, they failed miserably. But, for that to have happened, I suppose you'd have to hang your hat on the belief that Democrats really do stand for such ideals and, considering the extremely low approval ratings of the Democratic congress, it seems much of America hasn't bought the idea that they actually do and the politicians sure haven't acted like it.

What's happened this past week seems to be a reflection of the Democratic party itself: it talks the talk but just doesn't walk the walk when it really matters. And neither do Obama and Hillary. That, in the end, may be the final result of this chapter of this very public family feud. When you strip away the racism issue this has all been lurking behind, you find two people - the Democratic party's most recent stars - who have managed to garner a lot of attention and headlines but who, in the end, have shown very little talent for actually following through on whatever promise their portfolios advertized.

So, what's it going to be, you two (and the MSM that has played right along)? Coverage worthy of the Weekly World News or something a tad more substantial? Reading and encouraging sensationalist Batboy-style diversions might be entertaining but they don't do much to advance world peace, heal racial divides or to put food on the table, now do they?
 

Sunday Food for Thought: Gore Vidal on American Democracy

Apparently, a democracy is a place where numerous elections are held at great cost without issues and with interchangeable candidates.

~~~

As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests.

~~~

Fifty percent of people won't vote, and fifty percent don't read newspapers. I hope it's the same fifty percent.

~~~

Our form of democracy is bribery, on the highest scale.

~~~

The corporate grip on opinion in the United States is one of the wonders of the Western world. No First World country has ever managed to eliminate so entirely from its media all objectivity - much less dissent.

The Joints Chiefs Chairman Thinks Gitmo Should be Closed

And just what is his main concern?

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba - The chief of the U.S. military [Admiral Mike Mullen] said Sunday he favors closing the prison here as soon as possible because he believes negative publicity worldwide about treatment of terrorist suspects has been "pretty damaging" to the image of the United States.

I just happened to watch the documentary The Road to Guantanamo on Sunday afternoon about the experiences of three young British men now known as 'The Tipton Three' who, due to circumstances beyond their control, ended up in Gitmo falsely accused of being al Qaeda 'terrorists'. They were eventually freed, having never been charged with anything but having endured the brutal interrogation regime the US military now infamously employs at Gitmo and elsewhere in its military gulags.

So, when I see a statement from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs stating that he wants to shut down Gitmo because it has damaged America's precious image, I can't help but ask why he didn't express any concern about the irreparable damage it's down to peoples' lives. There is no humanity to be found in the Bush administration. None.

On Friday:

WASHINGTON (AFP) — A US court Friday turned down a claim by four British former detainees that they were tortured at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, saying accused officials acted as part of their jobs.
[...]
Without addressing the details of the alleged treatment, the judge said the officials could not be made individually responsible for it under the terms of the suit brought against them, since they were doing their jobs.

"While the plaintiffs challenge the methods the defendants used to perform their duties, the plaintiffs do not allege that the defendants acted as rogue officials or employees who implemented a policy of torture for reasons unrelated to the gathering of intelligence," the ruling said.

They were just doing their jobs. Where have we heard that before?

...under the Nuremberg Principles, "defense of superior orders" is not a defense for war crimes, although it might influence a sentencing authority to lessen the penalty.

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

The United States military adjusted the Uniform Code of Military Justice after World War II. They included a rule nullifying this defense, essentially stating that American military personnel are allowed to refuse unlawful orders.

But now, they don't even have to refuse illegal orders because the US judicial system allows them to get away with that defence unless they're acting as 'rogue' agents and CIA agents were granted immunity for torture with the passage of the Military Commissions Act (which Mr Anti-torture, John McCain, voted for). In which moral universe does this even make sense?

If the Joint Chiefs chairman is so damn concerned about his country's image, maybe he'd better take a good look at the people surrounding him in Washington and start questioning how it managed to get so bad. He can start with someone like the current Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell:

"You can do waterboarding lots of ways ... I assume you can get to the point that a person is actually drowning," McConnell said in the New Yorker article, which paraphrased him as agreeing that this would certainly be torture.

You just know there's a qualification coming after that statement though ...and here it is:

McConnell said he could not be more specific because "if it ever is determined to be torture, there will be a huge penalty to be paid for anyone engaging in it."

No doubt. If McConnell acknowledged the US was actually torturing people, someone, like his buddy Michael Mukasey at the justice department who can't even bring himself to admit waterboarding really is torture, just might have to do something about it. And that's exactly why every single lawsuit filed against the Bush administration on torture issues has either been explained away like the one I noted above or has simply been dismissed on grounds of 'national security' which has just become a coded phrase the Bush administration uses to cover up its war crimes.

If the US is so proud of its 'legal' interrogation techniques, why did the CIA destroy videotapes of those practices in 2005?

The US government, no matter who is running it once the Bush cabal leaves office, will definitely have a huge uphill battle restoring its image, credibility, and respect in the world. The place to start, however, would seem to be a tacit admission of all of the lives it has ruined through its torture, illegal invasion of Iraq and simplistic and sadistic neocon foreign and domestic policy stances that have amplified what have been longstanding, but often forgiven practices by successive US administrations. And, among the current crop of front runners in the presidential primaries, there is not one - not one - who would willingly stand up on the world stage, pledge to start with that sorely needed honesty and who would then follow through by destroying the culture within the government, intelligence agencies, and the military that has so corrupted the lives of millions around the world. 'Change' ought to be more than an empty campaign promise. And frankly, I don't care much if the US ever regains its exalted reputation in the world - so undeserved for so long - but, for the sake of those Americans who have fought against the military industrial and corporatist/capitalist pariahs for years on end - for those individuals - I do care.

Related: The Center for Constitutional Rights response to Friday's court case.

Amnesty International's Six years of illegal US detentions includes videos of protests held on Friday to mark the 6th anniversary of Gitmo.

Voice of America has more protest coverage.

Andy Worthington: Six Years Of Guantánamo: Enough Is Enough

Those concerned about the continuing imprisonment of child soldier, Omar Khadr, should contact Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs to push for his release because our minority Conservative government (Bush's newest poodle brigade) refuses to act on his behalf.
 

Bush in the ME: Iran, Iran, Iran

The question that needed to be asked about George Bush's first visit of his presidency to Israel last week was: why now? I suppose it was easy to write it off as Bush trying to salvage some sort of legacy when it comes to making any inroads in the Middle East peace process since his administration basically abandoned any effort towards real change via its' much ballyhooed 'road map' but the broader events in the region, most particularly the ongoing escalation of rhetoric and sanctions towards Iran, seemed to me to be the real reason for his sudden Middle East adventures and now the White House has confirmed that suspicion:

In a speech described by the White House as the centerpiece of his eight-day trip to the Middle East, Bush tried to speak directly to the people of Iran as he urged nations to help the United States "confront this danger before it is too late."

And it would be nice to think that the MSM wasn't playing along with neocon fantasies this time around like they did in the run up to the Iraq war, wouldn't it? It's obvious that when they write statements like this, their pandering to Bush administration policies and rhetoric has hardly diminished:

The comments Sunday were part of a Bush speech devoted to advancing the cause of freedom and democracy in the Middle East.

(my emphasis)

No they weren't. They were 'devoted' to Bush pursuing more warmongering against Iran.

When the administration released its' questionable video this past week of supposed Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats 'threatening' a US ship in the Straits of Hormuz, more warning bells went off for those with saner heads. The American version of the audio that accompanied the situation didn't match the Iranians. Add to that the 'Filipino Monkey' theory posted by the Navy Times and it seemed Bushco was crying wolf yet again. Since the administration's 'evidence' of Iranian provocation seemed to fall flat on its face, the Pentagon then revealed that during a December confrontation with Iranian Guard boats, the US had fired 'warning shots'. You'd think, if that was true, the Pentagon would have made that public immediately following the incident since the use of warning shots in that incident would seem to provide more ammo (pun intended) to Bushco's assertion that Iran is such a huge threat that action needs to be taken against it ASAP. That didn't happen. Why? Could it simply be that Bush needed to trot out more 'evidence' to convince those he met with in the ME to go along with his aggressiveness towards Iran? It seems like pretty handy timing to me.

Last week, The Asia Times published a piece about the possibility that Iran may be needed as a new ally in the GWOT as a result of the instability in Pakistan and the growing concern about the fate of the war in Afghanistan. As always, the Bush administration also has to tread very carefully when it comes to dealing with Iran because of its dealings with Russia and China - two very formidable forces which would not stand by idly if the US attacked on Iranian soil. So, the geopolitics of the broader situation trump the simplistic Bush-style rhetoric of justifying bombing Iran for its own good - this 'freedom and democracy' bullshit excuse that the neocons have used the past 8 years as a rationale for their illegal war in Iraq.

And, while Bush has been focusing on Iran, al Qaeda has been threatening the Saudis who would need US military help if attacked on such a scale that the Saudis could not deal with it themselves. Bush visits the kingdom on Monday and Tuesday of this week - when the public can expect an announcement by the administration about the status of US arms sales to the country - to the tune of $20 billion. As for the Saudis and the Iranians, witness this uncomfortable exchange between a member of the press and some unnamed 'Senior Administration Official' at the latest press briefing:

Q King Abdallah has also formed a relationship with the President of Iran, and has invited him personally to come to the Hajj.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's what we are told, interestingly enough. We are told that Ahmadinejad, as he has done from time to time, invited himself. And one of the things about the Hajj is that it is -- the Saudi Arabian government makes it very much open to all Muslims to come. So if someone asks to come, the Saudis' view is, it's very difficult for them as the custodian of the two holy mosques, which is the whole point of the Hajj, for them to say no. So I think the Saudis would tell you they did not invite him, he invited himself, and they let him come, as they do generally when Muslims come and want to participate in the Hajj.

Q They were photographed arm in arm at the GCC.

Whoops.

So, as much as Bush and the neocons are itching to go after Iran militarily while Israeli hawks like Benjamin Netanyahu are pushing him down that road, the political calculations are much more messy and complex than the administration would like the American public to believe. Such a move could have major consequences, even beyond the ramifications of the decision to invade Iraq, which could set back America's international relations to a point where the resulting political instability could well be far more devastating than what Bushco has already wrought in the world.

While the rest of us are waiting to find out what Bush's final act in the Middle East will be, only he knows how his term will end and what sort of legacy he'll choose to leave for the next president. And that is probably the scariest thing in all of this, given his track record of death and destruction.
 

Harper Ties Aid to Budget's Approval

Governing by threats and bribes. That's the Conservative way.

PM offers $1B to ailing communities

TRACYVILLE, N.B. – Prime Minister Stephen Harper has announced a $1-billion aid package to help single-industry towns suffering economic hardship because of volatile commodity and financial markets.

The money will be used for what Harper called a “national community development trust fund” aimed at helping vulnerable communities and laid-off workers.

Well gee, that's nice of him, right?

Not exactly.

The money will come from a one-time allocation from the federal government’s budgetary surplus, which means the fund won’t survive unless the opposition parties in Ottawa agree to support the next budget.

The opposition parties have been pounding the Conservatives for months about their inaction on this front - expressing major concern about the forestry and manufacturing sectors - and now the Cons, knowing that there are rumblings of a possible spring election that could be the result of a budget rejection by any of the parties, have found a way to threaten the opposition to avoid that possibility: blackmail.

Classic.

Update:

Industry reaction

The Forest Products Association of Canada welcomed the news but said Harper and the premiers needed to give more help to an industry that employs 300,000 people.

The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union slammed the fund as a useless political gimmick which had no money specifically dedicated to the forest industry.

"Our union, our membership, our communities are outraged at this frivolous announcement ... our industry is bleeding. This isn't even a Band-Aid, it's not a stitch," union president Dave Coles told the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.

Sidebar: It's interesting that the Cons chose $1 billion as the amount of the aid - the same amount they let US interests keep when they signed the softwood lumber agreement. It's a bit late now to be playing catch up.
 

Sunday Food for Thought: Hope and Fear

Hope is nature's veil for hiding truth's nakedness.
- Alfred Bernhard Nobel

That's a fine quote and I could leave it at that but there's been much more on my mind about the subject of 'hope' the past few days since Barack Obama's Iowa speech which has sent some so-called left-wing bloggers like Ezra Klein to rediscover the religion of politics. If Obama keeps up this kind of rhetoric, I fully expect those who were so apparently so incredibly and inspirationally bowled over to start taking snake-handling lessons next week as a testament to their new-found faith.

Lord almighty, indeed.

It is practically tantamount to blasphemy to regard the idea of hope as being basically useless. All of the major religions, except Buddhism (of which I am a student), preach about the deliverance that comes through hope and faith. And that works for people who tend to see some sort of 'just reward' in their future. Zen Buddhism, being a much more practical and logical sort of belief system relies on living in the moment. I won't go into a Zen lesson here or claim that I live it faithfully - especially since I'm just a generalist Buddhist (not adhering to any particular sect and if there is such a thing although I suppose there must be since I am one) - but I did write a post On Hope in 2006 that more fully explores the thinking behind not living on hope as a concept and how it applied for me to the political situation at that time. I won't rehash all of that now but here's a snippet:

I thought I knew in 2004 that John Kerry would be elected. I had hoped it would be so. This time, I'm more of an observer who's decided not to feast on the empty calories of hope. If the Democrats win, I'll rejoice (even though I don't know how much of a difference they'll be able to make any time soon, but a change is as good as a rest, they say). If they fail to regain control of the house and/or senate, then here we'll all be again for the last two years of Bush's so-called presidency railing against the injustices and trying to put one foot in front of the other as he continues to lead America down an already dangerous and unsteady path aided by Republican guides who have no idea what they're doing besides hoping that at least one of them knows one end of a horse from the other. And so far, the only thing we know for sure is that they're most comfortable following the horse's ass who's running the country while hoping that the enormous amount of shit he's caused will be cleaned up by someone else sometime in the future.

My how things change (or don't) in a short and brutal two years. The Democrats (who I no longer support) did regain control and seriously mishandled their power so people are still waiting for someone to clean up the mess.

And that's where this faith in Obama's message of 'hope' comes in. Because of his ability to give inspiring speeches, he's being heralded as the new messiah and, for atheists like me, that spells danger.

Just look at the effect his last speech had on Ezra Klein, a member of the so-called 'reality-based' community:

In the days to come, just as in the days that have passed, I'll talk much more about Obama's policies. About his health care policy, and his foreign policy, and his social policy, and his economic policy. But so much as I like to speak of white papers and scored proposals, politics is not generally experienced in terms of policies. It's more often experienced in terms of self-interest, and broken promises, and base fears, and half-truths. But, very rarely, it's experienced as a call to create something better, bigger, grander, and more just than the world we have. When that happens, as it did with Robert F. Kennedy, the inspired remember those moments for the rest of their lives.

And therein lies the problem: when words of any kind can be strung together by a politician separate from their actual policy positions and held in such esteem that they surpass or suspend reality, you know you have just listened to a master politician at work. Never forget that Obama is not the leader of a movement, like Martin Luther King Jr. (who he's often been compared to and who he likes to harken back to just as often). He is a man running for the highest political office in the US of A. You can certainly view a politician in terms of their ideology and their platforms but they must work together as a cohesive unit - as they did with RFK (and I'll leave the Kennedy historians to fight that one out). Obama's don't.

Let's look at some of Obama's policies: his belief in violating Pakistan's sovereignty to go after al Qaeda without the permission of that country's government, his refusal to call for universal, single-payer health care (bowing down to the established forces in health care), his use of a lobbyist as his campaign chair in New Hampshire while he rails against the influence of lobbyists in DC, his pandering to AIPAC where he railed against the supposed evils of Iran and these statements from his Thursday nite speech (which ought to be troubling to anyone who thinks his 'hope' rhetoric is nothing but a positive message):

* Hope -- hope is what led me here today. With a father from Kenya, a mother from Kansas and a story that could only happen in the United States of America.

* Hope is the bedrock of this nation. The belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us, by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is, who have the courage to remake the world as it should be.

So, what's wrong with that, you ask? Well, anyone whose temperature rises when they hear the echoes of American exceptionalism: [...difference is often expressed in American circles as some categorical superiority, to which is usually attached some alleged proof, rationalization or explanation that may vary greatly depending on the historical period and the political context] would immediately recognize that sentiment in Obama's "only in America" comment. It's an egotistical way of seeing one's country as being the sole provider of any supposed 'good' thing. Just think about how foreign interventionists like the idea of 'spreading American-style democracy' around the world, which brings me to the second bolded phrase - remaking the world as it should be.

There is nothing that smacks of empire more than that statement - this idea that somehow the USA has the right or the responsibility to 'remake' the world. Haven't we already seen enough of that throughout America's history? Failure after failure as the result of CIA-sponsored coups and assassinations while threats and bribes have been the tools of these American style extreme makeovers. Just how much more blood are Americans willing to spill in the name of recreating this supposed Eden known as the United States of America around the world? That is Obama's foreign policy dream. Does that inspire hope to you? Is that "change"?

One thing people often forget is that hope and fear are often two sides of the same coin. Let me use a current, common advertizing scheme that generates billions of dollars per year based on exactly those two emotions as an example of what I'm talking about. You've all seen the ads:

Queue the picture of a woman's aging face. This is how anti-wrinkle products are sold (and remember, politicians are nothing more than products sold to the electorate and they're about as effective as these numerous creams as well):

The fear message: Your wrinkles are ugly and no one wants to see them.

The hope message: Use this cream and your wrinkles will disappear.

As with every product, it's not the cream that's actually being sold, it's the underlying message: It is socially unacceptable for a woman to show an aging face because it makes her less desirable. Therefore, for the sake of society and the woman, this flaw must be corrected.

We're all exposed to whatever the big corporations choose to throw at us via ads every day about our numerous flaws (bad breath, stained teeth, limp hair, bad body odour...ad nauseam) and we buy the products because they give us hope - that inspirational feeling that Klein and others who have seen religion after listening to Obama's speech are currently experiencing. America is broken and Obama is the cream to fix it. Before you buy that, it might be useful to look at the actual ingredients (policy statements) in that Obama cream and how effective or desirable they are before you waste your money (and your emotions) on something that might make you feel or look good for a couple of hours but cannot deliver on the larger promise of actually fixing your so-called problem for all time.

So, going back to the fact that there is a message you're being sold every time a politician campaigns for your vote, you'd do well to closely examine what that is - not only from Obama, but from all politicians - because, in the end, whether it's coming across as fear or hope-based, I think you'll find the message is the same.

Can I get a chant of 'USA! USA!'? Hallelujah!

You'll see now why I chose that quote by Nobel to lead this off. Don't be sold fear or hope. Invest in the truth. It's as simple (and rational) as that and you certainly don't need to be a Zen master to figure that one out.
 

Write Your Own Caption

 
Photo credit: Reuters
 

Tonite's New Hampshire Debates

Yes, the Republicans and Democrats are at it again (although the field has been mercilessly chopped by ABC News).

For those looking for online access or play by play action, check in at ABC's Political Radar blog. The guy running it doesn't know what the hell is going on - apparently the main network can't carry the debates for some reason but local stations can - but he's trying to find an online site (which will probably crash from the sudden influx of viewers) although I've heard that some people who actually have lives will be (gasp!) 'going out' since it is Saturday nite.

Anyway, as soon as I find out where to watch it, I'll fill you in. In the meantime, grab your popcorn and drinks. Don't spill anything on the rug and please use the coasters.

(I am planning to write a longer post about Obamamentum but that'll come later. And, fwiw, all the frontrunners in the Dem party are basically policy clones so I don't have much use for any of the BIG 3.)

Seabiscuit (Dennis Kucinich) has been fighting back against ABC for excluding him from tonite's debate:

5:45 pm ET: High drama behind the scenes at ABC, barely an hour before the first debate. Dennis Kucinich filed for a temporary restraining order with a judge here in New Hampshire, claiming it was a violation of FCC rules to keep him off the debate stage. That prompted a wave of panic among the folks who have spent months planning tonight's live events. David Westin, the president of ABC News and a lawyer, personally worked the phones and got the judge to dismiss it. Elapsed time: about 15 minutes. Years off our collective lives: Maybe 15, as well.

'Democracy - American Style'.

Update: KITV's site says it is carrying the debate live online. Okay, scrap that one. It's virtually impossible to find their live feed link. I found a digital cable channel here in Calgary covering it: WXYZ from Detroit.

Dear ABC News,

What if your corporation held a presidential debate and nobody could find an online site to watch it on?

Think you should have thought of it more than half an hour before it began? Geez. My, how you suck.

Update: OKAY! Check out this site for an online feed.
 

Happy 2008!

I stole these fireworks from Sydney, Australia. Enjoy.



Oh yeah...I almost forgot the...

cheesecake!

Happy New Year! Bonne et Heureuse Année!

(It has to be better than last year...right??)