Mitzvahpalooza

The New York Daily News reported on Nov 29
"History will forever record Elizabeth Brooks' bat mitzvah as "Mitzvahpalooza."
For his daughter's coming-of-age celebration last weekend, multimillionaire Long Island defense contractor David H. Brooks booked two floors of the Rainbow Room, hauled in concert-ready equipment, built a stage, installed special carpeting, outfitted the space with Jumbotrons and arranged command performances by everyone from 50 Cent to Tom Petty to Aerosmith...."

The article goes on to list the other big names brought in for the event, and the estimated price tag of 10 million dollars.

Meanwhile the wearers of Mr. Brooks's bullet-proof vests are kicking down doors and torturing brown people from Bagdhad to Bali to Baltimore. That ten million dollars came from the premium the rich pay so they and their agents can shoot poor people without risking injury to themselves. It must be *nice* to be the beneficiary of so much greed coupled with such a strong desire to deny freedom to other people. I'm sure that whatever god blesses crusaders, zionists, and jihadists will look down on Ms. Brooks and smile.

You can tell how much injustice a nation has by the number of cops it takes to keep it that way. So what's it going to take? How many more cops will it take before ignorant rich bastards don't feel scared anymore? Humph. The extent of ignorant fear is near infinite. Maybe the real question is, how many 10 million dollar bat mitzvahs will it take before all of Bush's supporters have had their fill? Or, maybe it's how many ten million dollar bat mitzvahs will it take before the US Gov't's Asian Creditors start to lower the boom.

Speaking of the Asian Creditors, what is their angle on the war in Iraq? Clearly, if bankers in China and Japan said 'Stop the war, or we stop paying for it,' then the chicken hawks would have to stop and take notice. It must be that China and Japan have been promised some or possibly most of Iraq's oil, once it gets developed. That would give them a reason to back Bush with their money, if not out loud in the world.

It's not even real to most Americans that this money will have to be paid back. When that time comes, it should wipe out the rest of the social programs, virtually everything the government does that does not involve violence. This is part of the Republican plan to 'drown the US government in a bath tub' after having wrecked its finances, robbed its treasuries, dishonored its military, and basicly rammed the ship of state straight onto the iceberg of destruction, with the nuclear drive Fully Engaged.

But heck, who wouldn't rather have 10 million dollar bat mitzvahs than a free country, anyway?

Cheating and Lying

It was in the late '90's that I noticed a story in the news that two thirds of American college kids admitted cheating on exams and papers. Two thirds is an important proportion of a population. It's the center of the bell curve. When two thirds of a group agree on something, the remaining minority know they are _really_ a minority, and the issue has been settled, and any further discussion will be regarded as in poor taste. So it was in the late 90's that an American concensus formed around the notion that cheating and lying were just part of succeeding in today's world. This concensus included a generation of future leaders, from the country club set on down, and it included their parents, teachers, and the entire adult power structure, at least to the extent that all these encouraged cheating by looking the other way.
To me this seemed a disheartening change at a foundational level of the country's values, and I wondered when and how it would start to 'hit home' in terms of real consequences. I suppose we are seeing it, in the current Bush administration.
The Katrina cockup, for example, spread far and wide to every level of government. It seems like a sort of generalized shotgun blast of trouble all over a lot of different groups, but it all makes sense when one realizes that all the trouble boils down to people not doing their jobs, and routinely signing off as if they did. In other words, it boils down to individuals choosing to cheat rather than do what they are supposed to do.
Individuals make this choice in an atmosphere where 'everyone is doing it,' and there is pressure on everyone to 'cheat' so that they enter the code of silence of the guilty. This 'cheating' phenomenon was endemic at every level from the New Orleans Police Dept to the Oval Office.
Related to the 'cheating' phenomenon (kissing cousins, perhaps) is the phenomenon of Lying , repeatedly, and shamelessly, and expecting others, particularly those of lower status, to accept the Lie and pretend to believe it. This is the usual dynamic in abusive households, and the USA is nothing if not an abusive household writ large.
I have made a careful study of the current occupant of the white building on Pennsylvania Ave, and I am certain that virtually all the times he tells a lie, his lips can clearly be seen to move. Hyper-analysis of thousands of hours of video footage reveals a virtual one-to-one correspondance between the Subject's lips moving, and the emanation of a lie therefrom. (Sounds that were not lies tended to be grunts and coughs with no apparent information content.) This is what poker players call a 'tell.' A 'tell' is a nervous habit other players can see that indicates a given player is attempting to deceive them, either bluffing or faking a bluff. Virtually every time Mister Bush appears before a camera and moves his lips, his intent is to deceive, to dissemble, to disinform, to distort, and then to dictate to the scared and stupid that they must flock together behind him with the other War Sheep, or else Santa Claus, Jesus, and the FBI will put them on the Naughty list.
Here in the Shopping Season, we take heart because once again we call Jesus to be born in our world. And like Pagans everywhere I pray earnestly that Jesus show up to lead his Flock with his Righteousness, and in Glory to Someplace Far Away where they can only harm each other. Failing that, I hope He shows up and tells them to give their wealth to the poor (just like before,) and they scatter like chaff before the wind.

Why am I proud to be Pagan? Simply, because my two least favorite living humans, Great White Beast Bush and Osama Bin Laden agree on exactly one thing: They both hate Pagans, and call each other Pagans as a slur. Good. Whatever they both fear most is what I want to be.

A friend of mine used to say that the Truth is the most powerful weapon in a world powered by lies. Maybe if we all made a point of telling some uncomfortable Truth in our own lives this season, the resonance could carry all the way to the highest levels, and shake away the veils of deception behind which todays mass murderers hide.
The Truth is the US Military, which used to have some honor, kicks in the doors of innocent people, shoots journalists in the head at close range, burns and dishonors the bodies of its victims, rapes children and posts pictures of all these atrocities on the internet. And every one of them is a volunteer, who hopes to gain monetarily from supressing the Iraqis or the Afghanis. In short, they are a mercenary army sent far away to steal somebody else's country, and every man and woman of them volunteered. That's the Truth.
The Truth is that about half of Americans who bothered to vote actually voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004. It may be possible to believe that in 2000 some people did not know that Bush would be such a disaster. But by 2004, there was no mistaking what was plainly the Truth, that Bush had damaged the USA more thoroughly than any terrorist or enemy ever could. The Americans who voted for Bush in 2004 freely approved crimes against humanity, torture, and the theft of billions in public money.
No people anywhere was so brazenly Evil that it voted for the 911 terror attacks. You can't find lists of thousands of people who gave their money specifically to see Americans die. But the same is not true of the atrocities of the US military. Millions of Americans saw the torture pictures from Iraq and actually voted for more of the same. Thousands of Americans gave big money to continue the war crimes. These people should be exposed for what they are, and neither they, nor their children, nor their children's children should ever be allowed to forget what they did to our country.

Who won the Cold War?


When I was a kid, there was this thing called the Cold War. The world was split between two competing ideologies that went out of their way to offer contrasts with one another. We were The Free World, and they were Behind The Iron Curtain. We had Free Speech, and they had jailed writers. We had Freedom of Religion, and they were Godless Communists who told you what to believe. We earnestly believed that every American who'd ever fought in Uniform had fought For Freedom, and if he died fighting, it was a noble sacrifice for a Great Cause. G.I. Joe might as well have been Martin Luther King. We believed Others might fight because they loved their country, especially the British or French, but just about every other army in the world was of brainwashed conscripts kept on rabbit food. And in any event, love of country was a lesser thing than fighting 'for freedom' which was the lofty motivation of every American who'd ever killed a stranger on command. Our side, which was conveniently called 'U.S.' in case we forgot who to cheer for, also harped constantly on the Commies about Human Rights. Freedom, of course, meant you could not be picked up by government agents and whisked off to some secret torture camp in Romania. You had rights. They couldn't do anything to you without a public trial (unless you were Black.) In ONE respect the two opposites mirrored each other exactly. We had their civilian population as hostage to our nuclear weapons, and they had our civilian population as hostage to their nuclear weapons. This ingenious compromise (hey, world leaders were Smart Guys, right? so anything that incomprehensible had to be genius...) was called Mutually Assured Destruction, or 'MAD' for short.

Then the Cold War ended. Our leaders gloated as the Soviet Union fell apart. Freedom Reigned Supreme, and the good guys had kicked serious ass by just spending money (giving it to defense contractors) faster than the Russians could match, for forty years. The Russians were big losers, and the defense contractors were the big winners. That might help explain how the weapons business has spread its tentacles into virtually every city or town. Almost anywhere in America, in any room full of respectable people with jobs, you can bet at least two or three of them work in the defense business, owe their careers to it, and will vociferously defend every last dollar that has ever been spent on defense, and darkly hint that They, doing Their Job are the only thing keeping you safe from the Enemy Du Jour.

But now that the Cold War is over, it is harder to recognize our side. We used to criticize the Soviets for occupying Afghanistan and committing war crimes there. Now our side occupies Afghanistan and commits war crimes there. We used to criticize the Soviets for violating human rights, and now our side asserts that neither the Geneva Conventions nor any other law apply to 'terror suspects,' or to anyone the President/military/CIA claims is a terror suspect. (If they are being held secretly, then they _must_ be terror suspects.) The Russians used to be the main trading partner of Red China, and so were partially responsible for human rights abuses there. Today our side is the main trading partner of Red China, and is billions of dollars in debt to Red China, and never mentions China's human rights abuses. We used to criticize the Soviets for having a vast secret police/torture infrastructure, and today our side are using the very same sites for the very same purpose.

I say 'our side,' but is it really? Who is really on our side? Is the United States Government really on our side? What has the U.S. Government become? What have We the People become?

Secret Prisons

The Washington Post carries a story this morning about a network of secret prisons the CIA is operating in 8 foreign countries, in 'cooperation' with the intelligence services of other countries.

A trans-global network of black operations spooks, above the law in any country, with their own network of torture chambers: that's what the 'War on Terror' is all about, on the top levels.

It's ironic they have chosen a 'Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe,' a site presumably used for internment and interrogation (read abduction, torture, murder) of enemies of the State under Communism. It must feel really interesting to American government employees (some of whom must have known George Sr. personally) to torture people in the same very rooms where the KGB used to torture people. For that matter, I'd bet the compound is actually a site used for the same purpose by Hitler. After all, why would the Soviets have built a new one with so many left lying around?

Ever since The Butcher assumed the presidency, he has struck me as the American Hitler: the political embodiment of Nationalistic demons, the ugly side of a culture. He embodies the very worst of the Plantation culture, the Victorian Militarist culture, and the West Texan bush-wack oil bandito culture. He speaks for the very worst Americans, on their very worst days, pursuing their very worst ideas, with a lot of borrowed money.

Do the Republicans think they are going to get away with this? I mean the actual, individual people who vote Republican and give them money. Do they glibly imagine that nothing and no one is going to hold them responsible for what they have done to our country?

I think it is possible with a little research to find out exactly who these people are, and exactly how they thought they might profit from helping turn the US into a Fascist Police State. These stories should be written, with the names named and the addresses noted. These people should be exposed for what they are: a conspiracy to undermine the US Constitution.

Armageddon?

This morning Drudge has a headline that says 'This One Is Going to be Armageddon.' The picture shows a skinny white woman with a Benneton sweater and expensive hair raising her hands in the air in a 'praise jesus' gesture in front of the graven images of the Supreme Court.

Everyone it seems is gearing up for the 'ideological fight' over Bush's new nominee, the Italian Conservative from New Jersey. The news junkies are sharpening their electronic pencils and waiting for the political equivalent of a major play-off game-- a fight that presages a midterm election and later a presidential one, and more importantly will be the place where the Supreme Court's slide to the right is either arrested or accelerated.

As momentous as all that sounds, though, when compared to concrete realities like a war we can neither win nor escape, and man-made ecological disasters to which we seem unable to respond competently, questions of how law is interpreted strike me as, well, somewhat abstract and etherial, something after the nature of a huge game of Let's Pretend.

Who really cares? The law as it stands forbids torture by police, military, or corrections officials, but what does it matter? They do what they do, and judges almost inevitably back them up. Only the rarest cases, like those caught on film, ever reach the public eye. Whining that the law against torture isn't strong enough won't stop torture. Suppose police obey anti-torture laws as well or as often as they obey other laws, like speed limits, parking regulations, or laws against domestic violence. How often would that be? And what difference does it really make if a Supreme Court Justice is generally pro-cop as a matter of course, or if the Justice is viralently and emphatically pro-cop in ways that push the boundaries of any kind of sense?

I guess it makes a difference, sort of. But still it looks like a distraction from the real problems that demand real action, sooner not later, and not a lot of pious platitudes about how The Law we inherit from the Roman Empire via the British Empire might be applied in some theoretical world where laws are understood, followed, and make a difference.

I guess for some it will feel good, the familiar territory of theory marked with the well-worn paths of slogans we grew up with, and a break from the tactile too-real-ness of people getting blown up, flooded out, or just dropping dead. And let's not forget the bills that are accruing for the 'nation' as well as for us as individuals. I guess in times of stress, cultures like people instinctively grope for what is familiar and comfortable. And there is nothing more familiar and comfortable to Americans than rehashing the political cleavages of the past 400 years as a colonizing power.

Once again, we will congratulate ourselves. The Right will congratulate itself for being Tough and Smart, and the Left will congratulate itself for being Humane and Progressive. Everybody will prance across the stage on the TV screens, and have their say. (Everybody will have their say except those of us not in the script, of course.) And then, whoever Wall Street wants will become Supreme Court Justice. It would have been the same way if Democrats ran things.

But the real problems will not have gone away while we were in the huddle selecting a new Grand Poodle, Supreme Whatever. His position is essentially one of Public Relations, that is, explaining why the laws all apply strictly to you and me, but not to corporations, or politicians, or soldiers, or cops, and explaining it with sufficient legalistic effluvium to cow the herd.

General Zod

While the last election disaster was still fresh in everyone's mind, I remember hearing some pundit or other saying that in the 2008 race, there'd be three main candidates: a republican, a democrat, and an Internet caandidate of some sort. Today I discovered that Christopher Walken is running for president. Why not? He plays a good obsessed lunatic. But the Surrealism award for the day has got to go to General Zod.

Doesn't he just look like the Boy Next Door, Who Went On To Do Good?
Here is the opening statement from the campaign website:

"Vote for your ruler

When I first came to your planet and demanded your homes, property and very lives, I didn't know you were already doing so, willingly, with your own government. I can win no tribute from a bankrupted nation populated by feeble flag-waving plebians. In 2008 I shall restore your dignity and make you servants worthy of my rule. This new government shall become a tool of my oppression. Instead of hidden agendas and waffling policies, I offer you direct candor and brutal certainty. I only ask for your tribute, your lives, and your vote.

-- General Zod
Your Future President and Eternal Ruler

Well that about says it, doesn't it? Reminds me of the campy pseudo-totalitarianism of the Schwa Corporation a few years ago.

more from the website:

---

Zod kicks off campaign in Philly PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) -- General Zod launched his 2008 Presidential bid yesterday, greeted by a crowd of over 25,000. "I am General Zod!" he bellowed, surveying the masses. "Listen to me, people of the Earth! Today I bring a new order to your planet! Your lands, your homes, your possessions, your very lives -- all of this and more you will gladly give to me! In return, I promise you lower taxes and cheap gas prices!" The promise was met by wild cheers and a fanfare of balloons and confetti. He continued: "It is as useless for you to deny me your vote as it is for me to annihilate you. You will only bring death and destruction upon yourselves, while I lose the potential products of your labor. In return for your vote, you will have my generous protection! In other words - you will be allowed to live. "Hear me now! There is now one law, one order, one ruler who alone will determine your collective destiny! Kneel before me! From this day forward - there is only Zod!" The reception among the crowd was enthusiastic. Said Doris Eddins, 53, of Trenton, "That's my President right there. I hear he's gonna put a lien on my house, but he's promising tax refunds. You hear that? The President's gonna send me a check!" Zod is expected to make stops in Cincinnati and Indianapolis tomorrow.

[story ends]

Could Zod be the One? Could this be the simple strength that unites the left and the right, the red states and the blue? Security fetishists will love his get-tough policies, and Liberals will go all woogy for his 'totally butch dominator thing.' Fiscal Conservatives will love the simple expedient of all citizens' property becoming assets of the Zog hedge-fund which gives an iron-clad guarrantee of 300% returns in the first five years. What's to love about replacing the nation's economy with a pyramid scheme? Very simply,

"Zero Wealth = Zero Taxes!!!


That's Right! Simply sign it all over to Zog, and then
YOU PAY NOTHING!
Finally, the dreams of both the right and the left could be realized: Conservatives could drown the social service agencies in that proverbial bathtub they are so fond of, and Leftists would awake to discover that everyone was finally equal.


Hail ZOG!

Question: What does a Conservative Militarist do when he's losing a war?
Answer: He starts another one.

According to the NY Times, the US military has fought several 'cross boarder clashes' with Syrian troops along Iraq's border with Syria. The article goes on to report that Bush has undiplomatically called the Syrians 'allies of convenience' with international terrorists, and for good measure lumped in Iran as well in that designation.

Look at the maps above. The US currently occupies Iraq and Afghanistan, at least in theory, though no American is safe in the 'countryside' of either place. Americans are seen as fat and ruthless torturers and pornographers standing with their boots on the necks of proud and ancient peoples. Resistance to American domination uses the porous borders of both Iraq and Afganistan to shuttle in supplies from 'safe' zones in bordering countries where the US is not operating. This is not new. It was the reason for the secret bombing of Cambodia in the '70's. Then as now the US is an institutional power that has to observe such things as national borders and sovereignty of other nations (at least in theory,) but the enemy of the US exists outside institutions.
Look at Afganisan. The US controls major cities and has tenuous agreements with the warlords that control the rest of the country. The US's main ally on a border is Pakistan. Pakistan is also the main ally of the Taliban and the Jihadists. Pakistan is ruled by a fairly nutty dictator, and REALLY DOES have WMD's, and REALLY HAS helped terrorists all over the world. In other words, all the false accusations Butch has made about the US's enemies turn out to be true about the US's friends. (And not just Pakistan, but also Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.)

Across the Northern border of Afghanistan lie the former Soviet countries of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. There's been trouble in Uzbekistan, reports of an attempt to overthrow the government, violently put down. Of course, that could mean anything. The aggressing party could have been the government, the rebels, some US black operation, or one by the Russians. Anyway, the Uzbeks have asked the US to leave, and actually sent troops to deny the US access to an air base the US has been using there. (The base was moved or is moving to a site in Kyrgyzstan.)

Rice, (with that nails-on-chalkboard really-bad-liar voice she uses) is bopping around central Asia trying to scare up some support for the US. She must have brought a candy jar of some sort, because she's not going to get far on charm. And I doubt she can convince the Central Asians that relative peace and stability will come while the Americans are still there. I assume that war on a border makes these countries nervous. On the other hand, war on a border can be the route to a lot of money, if a government is corrupt. I suppose she's feeling them out on how their cooperation can be bought or compelled. It may be harder than she thinks, and the candy jar may empty out quickly, considereing that any nation that starts cooperating with the US should expect things to start blowing up soon after.


Sun Tsu, in _The Art of War_ , says that one should not attack one's enemy unless there is some place one wants the enemy to retreat into. It sounds like common sense, but many American conservatives have a Patton fetish and take the opposite view that 'I am here to kill the enemy, so let's get on with it.'

It occurs to me the two views are products of their times. The Chinese Sage wrote in a time when professional armies with roughly equal capabilities were fighting all over China. An army repersented a huge investment, and gave its 'owner' prestige. So they were resistent to just grinding their armies away against each other.
The US Army, on the other hand, has not faced an 'equal' army since WWII and Korea. The US Army is in the same place as the British Army was in 1898 when it went to war against the Boers in South Africa. The British had won many wars, but had not faced an enemy that WORE SHOES in fifty years. They were an Imperial Army, used to winning easily against spear-weilding Zulus.

Similarly, the US Army has not faced an enemy in battle with a real Air Force, a real Navy, real satelites, and the current generation of other weapons since the 1940's. It's the equivalent of having fought barefooted tribesmen for 60 years. It is no wonder that the military is migrating more and more into police-like roles, since no actual military presents itself as a plausible enemy.

If the War on Terror hadn't come along, Conservative American Militarists would have invented it. Perhaps they did. After all, who trained Osama bin Laden? Who financed him and the Islamic Jihad in its formative years? The good ol' USA, that's who.

But just as the Brits faced the Boers with absurdly high confidence, American Militarists think they can start and win wars with every nation that borders a nation they already can't control.

It was bad enough when Butch was only trying to start a war with Iran. Iran is between Iraq and Afghanistan, and in theory the US would have the Iranians fighting a two-front war. The critical fact to know about Iran is that something like 70% of the population is young and unemployed. (That's an exageration, but it makes the point.) In the past, Iran dealt with this situation by going to war with Iraq. It would probably work just as well to fight the US in Iraq.

What would happen then? Well, the US is well nigh unbeatbale in stand-up war between armies, but weak as long-term occupiers. Supply lines are too long, and the American attention span is too short. At least that is the impression the US makes on more rooted and grounded peoples. So if the Iranians are smart, their institutional government would disappear into the woodwork, and the occupying forces would be left to negotiate with the Mullahs themselves. Meanwhile, the resistance would become generalized, with constant bombing and terrorism and sectarian civil war from Pakistan to Palestine.

But Butch is going further, picking fights with Syria. The New York Times has weighed in with an article about how corrupt the government of Syria is, already helping to frame Syria up for the ol' regime change argument. This would put the US in a two-front war in Iraq, and a one-front in Afghanistan. Actually, in Iraq the US would be fighting the Iranians, the Syrians, the Islamists, the Bathists, the Shia, and the local militias. (And the Truth.)

Could the US ago to war with Syria and not Iran? Perhaps. But while US attention is focused on the Syrians, I would expect increased activity across all the other borders, especially that with Iran... spreading war would be difficult to avoid.

Could the US not attempt to invade any additional countries? Butch is weak, and getting weaker. He's a one-trick pony, and his trick is starting wars. He may WELL start another war in time for 'patriotism' to peak in conjunction with the 2006 elections. I believe Americans are weary of war, and that such a 'Wag the Bush' trick would backfire, but that won't stop them from doing it.

It's all about the money, imho. Just as in Viet Nam, the people pushing us further and further into war are those who are making the money on it. And those who make the money do so whether their side wins or loses. Congress just passed a new military spending bill that amounts to over $2000 for every American with a job. Obviously, that money will be borrowed from the Japanese and Chinese, who own the mortgage on America. Where will it go? It will go to thousands of little defense contractors in thousands of American towns, most of them dues-paying Republicans. It will create new jobs dreaming up new ways to take away people's freedom without having to get close to them. Jobs for Conservative Militarists.

Why is it that Americans are so willing to use military force to affect political change in another country? Why could neoconservatives assert that American forces would be 'welcomed' to Iraq, and have anyone believe it? Some would say it's because the U.S. has never been invaded. The argument is that all other great powers experienced invasion and occupation in WWII, except Britain, which still experienced major bombing of its cities, but the U.S. knows nothing of the humiliation, or the sense of pointless destruction that comes from invason and occupation. This, they say, is the reason why Americans are so cavalier about using military force to spread their 'values.'
It's partly true to say that the US has never been invaded. To find an invasion, one has to look all the way back to the American Civil War, when the rebellious Confederate States were invaded, largely destroyed, and occupied by the US military, much as is happening to Iraq today. Americans who grow up in the South often have an accute sense of having been invaded and occupied, during the Civil War and Reconstruction.
The parallels between the American Civil War and the one in Iraq do not end there.
In Iraq as in the South, the goal of the US Government is 'regime change.' In the South, their aim was to change the 'regime' of slavery and its attendant economies, because the South's slave-based agricultural export economy offended northern sensibilities, and their share prices. Today in Iraq their goal is to change the 'regime' of 'Bathism,' a secularist nationalist ideology modeled loosely on European Fascist/Phalangist movements, dominated in Iraq by Sunni Moslems. The Sunnis are painted as bad guys, as a minority which used force and the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to dominate and terrorize the poor helpless Kurds and Shia. That is certainly one way of looking at it. But the Sunnis and ex-Bathists in Iraq have a lot in common with the disposessed Planter class in the Reconstruction. On the one hand, they represent the old regime, the one the US is trying to change, but on the other hand, they represent much of the pool of available talent that actually knows how to make things work.

In the effort to build a government, army, and police force in Iraq, the U.S. planners continue to be puzzled at the low quality of the recruits that come to them, not to mention the mass infiltrations. But any reader of Southern literature would know that those who cooperate with an invading army are beneath contempt, scalawags, traitors. Only very marginal people, with no respect to lose would come forth and actually offer themselves to serve the U.S. Occupying Forces. Anyone with 'friends' or 'family' would be so afraid of shame and retribution they would never be seen appearing to fraternize with The Yankees.

The ferocity of the terrorist attacks in the Iraqi Insurgency continues to take U.S. officials by surprise. The irony is that so many members of the occupying forces are Southerners from proud military families, most male members of which having been members of the Klu Klux Klan back in the days when it was fashionable. Today, the boot is on the other foot. The Iraqi Insurgency has a lot in common with the KKK, usually considered the largest domestic terrorist organization in the US. Both operate as open secrets in order to maximize their power to intimidate. The goal in both instances was/is to use terror and intimidation to preserve some part of the old power structure in the face of 'regime change' forced from outside. The methodology in both instances involves/ed ominous warnings scrawled on public walls punctuated with the mutilated remains of people who'd pissed them off and had been made 'examples.' It must be noted that the KKK was successful in its goals because it was a clandestine extension of the normal power structure: veteran officers, land-owners, lawmen. There was no other power anyone could turn to that wasn't most likely part of it. Similarly, the respected and responsible 'tough men' of the Sunni Iraqi community have probably been approached, asked to join the 'network,' or whatever, and if they were reluctant, perhaps they were threatened, or worse. Few would be reluctant indeed. Only the terminally anti-social would refuse the introduction to join up with the Local Group, kind of like neighborhood watch, I imagine, but a bit more pro-active.


In occupying Iraq, as in occupying the South, the U.S. Army is a bit confused about exactly what its goals are. It wants to promote Democracy, but not if that Democracy is going to end up substantially resurrecting the old regime. It wants to promote some highly progressive societal change, polititcal reform, and economic transparency, but not if it is going to be a threat to either the oil flow or the no-bid contracts. The U.S. military occupying the South had a similar confusion, from some in Congress who wanted real equality between the races (provided the races stayed in the South and did not move North or West) and others in Congress simply wanted to hurt the South any way they could in revenge for 'causing' the war, while others, probably most, just wanted to get back to business-as-usual as soon as possible. So with this broad spectrum of intent going into what the military was ordered to do, and then with the military's special ability to interpret orders in its own way, and finally the practical reality of the facts on the ground, it should be no surprise that so much does not work now as it did not then.

Bush Plan for Flu Crisis Shows U.S. Not Ready
That about says it all, doesn't it. Yes, highly paid professionals will prepare for the flu pandemic with the same can-do efficiency that they used when they prepared for a category 5 hurricane hitting New Orleans. That is, resources are at the direction of incompetent cronies. (The president has many friends, but tends to misrust those smarter than him, who speak in irrelevencies and psychobabble. So most of his friends are pretty dumb, or act really dumb in a way that dubya can't detect.)
The plan, if they make one, will be cooked up at double-time by military planners. It will involve combat troops in bio-warfare uniforms (the ones that look like hefty garbage bags with goggles) cordoning off the 'clean' zones, which will tend to be Rich Folks Neighborhoods, and Business Districts, Ski Resorts, and Country Clubs, to stop the Diseased (that will be the rest of us) from getting in there and infecting them with the dread flu we all have...
Well, what if we don't all have it? It won't matter. Unless we are somehow on the 'safe' side of the line George W Bush orders the military to draw across the civilian population, in the collapse of public order (predicted by their report) it's just a matter of time before most everyone not on the 'clean' list will be dead. After a suitable time, the military can 'mop up'... and control the story.
After all, that's what a 'Quarantine' is.

And isn't that more-or-less what has happened in New Orleans?
Ethnic Cleansing by Planned Failure in the Face of Predicted Natural Disaster.

Some questions I would like to pose to Ms. Myers, (or Mr Roberts, for that matter.)

Are you the most qualified person you can think of for the post of Supereme Court Justice?

If so, are you one of the great legal minds of the age?
(If not, then why are you here?)

Which of your writings do you think would best reveal your genius?

Under what circumstances does the Constitution say that the Supreme Court should decide contested elections?

If 'None,' then,
Are you saying you wouldn't have put the President in office? After all, he's trying to put you in office, right? ...
(If any other answer, pull out a copy of the Constitution and ask them to show where it says that.)

If you were a Jurist in, say Ancient Rome, and your country, your nation, was fighting against a terrorist insurgency somewhere in its far-flung empire, how much 'mistreatment' would you allow of suspected terrorist ring-leaders?
Exactly how far would you have allowed them to go, in torturing Jesus?

Emperor Narrow Serenades the Needy

(thanks for the picture, Zac)
Well, Hello.
My name is Steve Lupo, and I read radio news at a community radio station in Charlottesville Va. WNRN. My views are what I call 'Post National.'



Oct 4 email to Raed of ‘Raed in the Middle’ Blog. http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com//
Title: Hang in there

I don't understand it. People everywhere know how to live in peace. After all, we do it every day, in the places we live, with all the practical hassles and insufferable neighbors we all have. What makes people travel thousands of miles to kill strangers? Clearly those who do so on any side expect the approval of their elders, maybe their country, their deities, and many expect to get paid, or have their families paid.

Personally, I try to embrace what I call a 'post-nationalist' ethic. I don't believe in countries or churches as mechanisms to legitimize violence. Responsibility rests and remains with the individual, and to say 'I was under orders' is just a lame excuse. In my book, violence is just violence, and those who do it are in the wrong, and if they are doing violence blindly under orders, then that is even worse. For this reason, in any war, I tend to support the 'home team,' the side which is defending against outside aggression. Sadly, I have never been able to 'cheer for' the USA side in any war in my lifetime. (I had to settle for helping to pay for it.) If I had my way, any armed man anywhere in the world who was more than 50 miles from home would be assumed to be a criminal and arrested. (By a gang of local citizen soldiers, I suppose.) Clearly he's up to no good. -30-

Post Nationalism
What comes after the nation-state?
Two possible answers come immediately to mind: the Corporation, and the Tribe. In all likelihood the future will continue to be both more corporate and more tribal, leaving less of the ‘pie’ for the Nation-state, church, nuclear family, or any other institutions.
Corporate, because the corporation has become the institution of choice for the aristocrats of our age. The corporation creates a shell from within which money and power can be, indeed must be, pursued with dedication, discipline, and utter disregard for the consequences. From within that shell, individuals can behave in ways they would never do as their ‘actual’ selves, which is to say, ways they never would if they were not at work.* Huge resources can be wielded from within the shell, by any number of hired people, in any number of countries, above-board and below. Why would ambitious people bother with government, then? For the most part, they don’t. They pay politicians because it costs less than the taxes would if they did not pay politicians. But they do not Become politicians, unless they are lunatics.
Tribal, because in a broad sense, our affinities and identities will be with those we know and perceive to be like us. Corporate people will have a tribe-like feeling for one another, and corporations will strive to social-engineer just the right group self-image. But other tribes will emerge. Some will be based in part on geographic nearness, and or ‘blood’ like traditional tribes. Others will be based on some similar interest (motorcyclists come to mind.) Many new tribes we can now only imagine will emerge based on computer networks, electric mafia-cults, strange drugs, waking gods, people whose common bond is some disaster, like the recent one-two hurricanes, or one of the interesting new diseases, networked hordes of bargain-hunters and figurine collectors... Fundementalist movements, of all stripes all over the world, are deeply tribal in nature. They are tribes that systematically recruit and indoctrinate individuals (to recruit and indoctrinate...)

I need to watch that, writing with confidence about the future, or the fundies. I don't really know. As Robert Anton Wilson says, all perception is a gamble. On the other hand, I feel like saying things will be more corporate and more tribal is a pretty safe bet, (especially given the flexibility of the terms) and we are seeing the growing irrelevence of, say, institutions of government.

What this means is that the things we used to count on the government for, like education, transportation, protection, basic services, social safety net, we now need to do for ourselves. We need to find new ways to make these functions happen without Santa Claus, Jesus, or Big Brother. (FDR, either) We need to discover new competencies in ourselves, and new ways to network those competencies to get things done within the 'alternative community.'