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.'