After the 2001 attacks, Bush broadened the CIA's authority and, as a result, the agency has rendered more than 100 people from one country to another without legal proceedings and without providing access to the International Committee of the Red Cross, a right afforded all prisoners held by the U.S. military. --The New York Times 17 March 05
My dictionary lists a dozen meanings for the word "render." Definition number five is "To surrender or relinquish; yield." I suppose this is the intended meaning behind "extraordinary rendition": to surrender, relinquish, or yield a prisoner to another country.
Yet, given the reality of our government's policy --the real world consequences of that policy -- another meaning of "render" strikes me as apropos here, definition number eleven: "To reduce, convert, or melt down (fat) by heating."
I grew up in a small Midwestern town, just south of which stood a rendering plant. This plant's big orange trucks would travel far and wide to collect dead animals which were brought back to the plant to be rendered. We kids always called it the "stink factory," since the stench its processes produced was powerful indeed: the range of offense could be measured, quite literally, in miles. When we rode by it, we would all ritually hold our noses, regardless if we were up or downwind. In our minds, the factory became an objective correlative for disgust.
Yet the odor from this plant was nothing compared to the stench given off by the Bush administration's practice of spiriting off terror suspects to foreign countries, knowing full well that they will be rendered by those into whose hands we deliver them. That's "render" number eleven: To reduce, convert, or melt down by heating.
"Extraordinary rendition" is, of course, a euphemism. In that respect it is like "collateral damage." Some among us have learned to read through the latter euphemism to see the horrific reality behind it: dead women and children, dead at the hands of our forces. So "extraordinary rendition"? Let us call it what it is: the outsourcing of torture. Having other countries do our dirtywork for us. And it stinks to high heaven.
To further illuminate the real effects of extraordinary rendition, we might reflect a moment on the meanings of a word that comes just before "render" in the dictionary, that is "rend": 1. To tear or split apart into pieces violently. 2. To tear (one's garments or hair) in anguish or rage. 3. To tear forcibly; wrest. 4. To pull, split, or divide as if by tearing. 5. To pierce or disturb with sound: a scream rent the silence.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have become what we claim to loathe.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
mock borowitz: wolfowitz
-WASHINGTON, March 16. President Bush has given Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz the nod for the job as head of the World Bank. "Paul is committed to development," said Bush at a press conference, adding, "He's a compassionate, decent man who will do a fine job."
At the same press conference, Wolfowitz was asked by reporters about initial policy directives. "First thing, I'm going to do away with those draconian overdraft charges. Jesus, you overdraw your checking account one time, JUST ONE TIME IN TEN YEARS, and the motherfuckers are all over you like ugly on an ape -- like you're the fucking enemy or something." After pausing for a moment to slick back his hair with a great gollop of saliva, Wolfowitz concluded, "We'll see what sending in a few dozen tomahawks will do to soften their resolve, the bitches."
At the same press conference, Wolfowitz was asked by reporters about initial policy directives. "First thing, I'm going to do away with those draconian overdraft charges. Jesus, you overdraw your checking account one time, JUST ONE TIME IN TEN YEARS, and the motherfuckers are all over you like ugly on an ape -- like you're the fucking enemy or something." After pausing for a moment to slick back his hair with a great gollop of saliva, Wolfowitz concluded, "We'll see what sending in a few dozen tomahawks will do to soften their resolve, the bitches."
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Another turn of the thumbscrews
The Easter Bunny has been very kind to the credit card companies. After years of intense lobbying they finally got Congress to pass an anti-bankruptcy law last week. By this law many individuals who previously would have been able to wipe out their debt under Chapter 7 will now be required to file under the much more stringent Chapter 13. President Bush and other Republicans have praised this law as an effective means of cracking down on deadbeats trying to game the credit system.
True, the number of bankruptcy filings have increased sharply in the last decade. Yet analysts have established that many of these filings are by individuals crushed under huge medical debt. Rather than looking upon this increase in bankruptcies as a symptom of very sick health care system, the Bush administration has chosen, characteristically, to place the blame squarely on the victims. It’s not that health insurance is beyond the means of many honest working class Americans. No. It’s that our society is full of lazy jerks trying to weasel their way out of paying their debts.
(As for those poor, put-upon credit card companies: in the last eight years their profits have increased a mere 163%. Can you blame them for wants to squeeze a bit more out of us?)
So, to those of you who voted Republican in the last election: when you are working that double shift at Valuemart in a futile attempt to pay off those huge hospital bills, at least you can take comfort in the fact that you continue to possess the right to bear arms to protect yourself against gays with the itch to marry.
True, the number of bankruptcy filings have increased sharply in the last decade. Yet analysts have established that many of these filings are by individuals crushed under huge medical debt. Rather than looking upon this increase in bankruptcies as a symptom of very sick health care system, the Bush administration has chosen, characteristically, to place the blame squarely on the victims. It’s not that health insurance is beyond the means of many honest working class Americans. No. It’s that our society is full of lazy jerks trying to weasel their way out of paying their debts.
(As for those poor, put-upon credit card companies: in the last eight years their profits have increased a mere 163%. Can you blame them for wants to squeeze a bit more out of us?)
So, to those of you who voted Republican in the last election: when you are working that double shift at Valuemart in a futile attempt to pay off those huge hospital bills, at least you can take comfort in the fact that you continue to possess the right to bear arms to protect yourself against gays with the itch to marry.
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Appointment Shocker
WASHINGTON, March 7 - President Bush on Monday chose John R. Bolton, a blunt-spoken conservative known for his sharp skepticism of the United Nations and international diplomacy, as the new American ambassador to the world organization. --from NY Times
"Bolton once opined that "There's no such thing as the United Nations," and that if the U.N. building in New York "lost 10 stories it wouldn't make a bit of difference." In 2000, Bolton said, "If I were doing the Security Council today, I'd have one permanent member [the United States] because that's the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world." --from website of American Progress Action Fund
WASHINGTON, March 8 --President Bush on Tuesday shocked many Washington insiders with his appointment of Reynard the Fox as Keeper of the Henhouse.
"Reynard is a highly-experienced, hard-nosed keeper," remarked Bush at a morning press conference. "He has our complete confidence, and we can be sure that he will make those fucking chickens toe the line."
Reynard's comes as the latest in a long line of controversial presidential appointments, including Alberto Gonzalez as Attorney General, John Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence, the Marquis de Sade as Chief Investigator of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and William Burroughs as Drug Czar. The last two appointments are particularly controversial given that both appointees are dead. "Dead or alive, they're still good men and I expect them to do a bang-up job!" remarked Bush, who farted audibly to emphasize the point.
Elsewhere forensic experts discovered traces of President Bush's seminal fluid in Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice's mesial groove. When asked about this by reporters, a clearly-exasperated Bush snapped, "Well whaddaya think I meant when I called her my 'work wife'?'"
"Bolton once opined that "There's no such thing as the United Nations," and that if the U.N. building in New York "lost 10 stories it wouldn't make a bit of difference." In 2000, Bolton said, "If I were doing the Security Council today, I'd have one permanent member [the United States] because that's the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world." --from website of American Progress Action Fund
WASHINGTON, March 8 --President Bush on Tuesday shocked many Washington insiders with his appointment of Reynard the Fox as Keeper of the Henhouse.
"Reynard is a highly-experienced, hard-nosed keeper," remarked Bush at a morning press conference. "He has our complete confidence, and we can be sure that he will make those fucking chickens toe the line."
Reynard's comes as the latest in a long line of controversial presidential appointments, including Alberto Gonzalez as Attorney General, John Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence, the Marquis de Sade as Chief Investigator of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and William Burroughs as Drug Czar. The last two appointments are particularly controversial given that both appointees are dead. "Dead or alive, they're still good men and I expect them to do a bang-up job!" remarked Bush, who farted audibly to emphasize the point.
Elsewhere forensic experts discovered traces of President Bush's seminal fluid in Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice's mesial groove. When asked about this by reporters, a clearly-exasperated Bush snapped, "Well whaddaya think I meant when I called her my 'work wife'?'"
Friday, March 04, 2005
mock borowitz: Iraqi Shocker!
"ABU GHRAIB, Iraq, March 2 - The American military's major detention centers in Iraq have swelled to capacity and are holding more people than ever, senior military officials say. The growing detainee population reflects recent changes in how the military has been waging the war and in its policies toward detainees, the officials say."
The above from today's (4 March 05) New York Times. We continue the story:
"The plan now," said Colonel Schiesskopft, chief executive officer in charge of Iraqi detention and waterboarding, "is to continue to detain more and more Iraqis until we've got the entire native population under lock and key. We're betting this will significantly decrease the incidence of terrorist attacks."
When asked by reporters about this change of policy, White House spokesman Scott McClellan referred to it as a "bold move," and "one that will be good for Iraq, good for America, and, moreover, good for business." No-bid contracts to construct the approximately 50,000 needed detentions centers have been awarded to Halliburton -- which contracts should net the company an estimated five hundred billion dollars over the next ten years. Shortly after the announcement of the contracts, Vice President and Ex-Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney was overheard clicking his heels thrice while humming merrily the tune "We're in the Money!"
McClellan also announced that the White House has named recently-sprung jailbird Martha Stewart to a post as special advisor for interior design in the new prison system. "Looks like this year shackles will be a good thing," remarked Ms. Stewart.
Elsewhere, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez tapped ex-White House correspondent Jeff Gannon as a special consultant on internet obscenity. "We thought Jeff was a good fit for the job," remarked Gonzalez, "a very tight fit."
Go ahead Jeff!
The above from today's (4 March 05) New York Times. We continue the story:
"The plan now," said Colonel Schiesskopft, chief executive officer in charge of Iraqi detention and waterboarding, "is to continue to detain more and more Iraqis until we've got the entire native population under lock and key. We're betting this will significantly decrease the incidence of terrorist attacks."
When asked by reporters about this change of policy, White House spokesman Scott McClellan referred to it as a "bold move," and "one that will be good for Iraq, good for America, and, moreover, good for business." No-bid contracts to construct the approximately 50,000 needed detentions centers have been awarded to Halliburton -- which contracts should net the company an estimated five hundred billion dollars over the next ten years. Shortly after the announcement of the contracts, Vice President and Ex-Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney was overheard clicking his heels thrice while humming merrily the tune "We're in the Money!"
McClellan also announced that the White House has named recently-sprung jailbird Martha Stewart to a post as special advisor for interior design in the new prison system. "Looks like this year shackles will be a good thing," remarked Ms. Stewart.
Elsewhere, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez tapped ex-White House correspondent Jeff Gannon as a special consultant on internet obscenity. "We thought Jeff was a good fit for the job," remarked Gonzalez, "a very tight fit."
Go ahead Jeff!
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Bushian Theidiocies
My undergrad students have been writing about the Iraq war. Many are reflex conservatives, dyed-in-the-wool Bushites. I show them how all the justifications the Bush administration has offered for the war --i.e., defense against WMD, subversion of a terrorist threat, humanitarian concern for the peoples of Iraq, etc. -- are as leaky as sieves. Some, at a loss for any other way to defend Bush, suggest that he is probably in possession of some secret knowledge that, were it to be divulged, would make everything he does make perfect sense. But of course it can't be divulged, since to do so would be to compromise national security... or something. So we simply have to give our president the benefit of the doubt. Father knows best.
Whence this ingenious defense of their hero? From religion. It's called "theodicy." How to account for the fact that an omnipotent and loving Deity allows evil to exist? The answer: our perception of evil is a misperception -- a distortion of vision resulting from our lack of knowledge. Were we to take a God's-eye view of the universe, could we take in the divine plan in all its complexity, then we would see that the plan is good, perfectly good, and in the end evil is an illusion. Mere mortals, however, can never attain God's knowledge, gain the perspective He possesses, so we must simply have faith in God, in His infinite goodness and in the infinite goodness of His Creation.
What's hilarious, of course, is the equation of George W. Bush with God; the idea that this beady-eyed, rat-brained schemer is on level with the Almighty (epistemologically speaking) and that we should consequently pay him comparable respect, manifest for him a comparable reverence, hold him in comparable awe.
And those sorry-arsed reprobates who refuse the equation? Let them be humbled like Job.
Whence this ingenious defense of their hero? From religion. It's called "theodicy." How to account for the fact that an omnipotent and loving Deity allows evil to exist? The answer: our perception of evil is a misperception -- a distortion of vision resulting from our lack of knowledge. Were we to take a God's-eye view of the universe, could we take in the divine plan in all its complexity, then we would see that the plan is good, perfectly good, and in the end evil is an illusion. Mere mortals, however, can never attain God's knowledge, gain the perspective He possesses, so we must simply have faith in God, in His infinite goodness and in the infinite goodness of His Creation.
What's hilarious, of course, is the equation of George W. Bush with God; the idea that this beady-eyed, rat-brained schemer is on level with the Almighty (epistemologically speaking) and that we should consequently pay him comparable respect, manifest for him a comparable reverence, hold him in comparable awe.
And those sorry-arsed reprobates who refuse the equation? Let them be humbled like Job.
Saturday, February 05, 2005
An Army of Fun!
"Actually it's quite fun to fight them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot . . . .It's fun to shoot some people. . . .I like brawling."
The words of Lt. General James Mattis, who commanded Marine expeditions in Afghanistan and Iraq. In response to questions about these remarks, General Michael Hagee defended Mattis, calling him "one of this country's bravest and most experienced military leaders."
"While I understand that some people may take issue with the comments made by him, I also know he intended to reflect the unfortunate and harsh realities of war," he said in a written statement. "Lt. Gen. Mattis often speaks with a great deal of candor."
I wonder, what if some of those being put on trial for torture at Abu Ghraib manifested a similar candor? As thus: "Actually it's quite fun to torture them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to torture some people. I like humiliating and causing them pain. Tee-hee!"
Would we praise such candor? And why not? After all, those soldiers were doing the job they were ordered to do: softening up prisoners preparatory to interrogation so that those interrogation sessions might be more productive, yield valuable intelligence that might help us win the War on Terror. Wouldn't their candid admission that they enjoyed their work equally reflect "the unfortunate and harsh realities of war"?
Not all the brass leapt to Mattis' defense. "I was a little surprised," said retired Vice Adm. Edward H. Martin. "I don't think any of us who have ever fought in wars liked to kill anybody."
If we can be disturbed by Mattis'"candor," we can be disgusted by Martin's lack thereof. Of course there will be those fighting in war who like to kill people. Isn't combat training, in large part, an attempt to desensitize people to killing, make soldiers more efficient killing machines? And isn't this why so many combatants, when they return to civil society, have such great difficulty adjusting? How does one reverse the conditioning that created tactical sociopathology? How to turn off the "kill switch," so to speak, once you've turned it on?
Rather than prosecuting the "bad apples" who are torturing prisoners or executing wounded enemy soldiers, perhaps we should be going after the "bad apples" who made this war in the first place, who put good and civilized people into a situation that must necessarily brutalize them -- indeed, turn some of them into monsters. As one mother of a disgraced soldier remarked, "I gave them a good boy, they sent me back a murderer."
The words of Lt. General James Mattis, who commanded Marine expeditions in Afghanistan and Iraq. In response to questions about these remarks, General Michael Hagee defended Mattis, calling him "one of this country's bravest and most experienced military leaders."
"While I understand that some people may take issue with the comments made by him, I also know he intended to reflect the unfortunate and harsh realities of war," he said in a written statement. "Lt. Gen. Mattis often speaks with a great deal of candor."
I wonder, what if some of those being put on trial for torture at Abu Ghraib manifested a similar candor? As thus: "Actually it's quite fun to torture them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to torture some people. I like humiliating and causing them pain. Tee-hee!"
Would we praise such candor? And why not? After all, those soldiers were doing the job they were ordered to do: softening up prisoners preparatory to interrogation so that those interrogation sessions might be more productive, yield valuable intelligence that might help us win the War on Terror. Wouldn't their candid admission that they enjoyed their work equally reflect "the unfortunate and harsh realities of war"?
Not all the brass leapt to Mattis' defense. "I was a little surprised," said retired Vice Adm. Edward H. Martin. "I don't think any of us who have ever fought in wars liked to kill anybody."
If we can be disturbed by Mattis'"candor," we can be disgusted by Martin's lack thereof. Of course there will be those fighting in war who like to kill people. Isn't combat training, in large part, an attempt to desensitize people to killing, make soldiers more efficient killing machines? And isn't this why so many combatants, when they return to civil society, have such great difficulty adjusting? How does one reverse the conditioning that created tactical sociopathology? How to turn off the "kill switch," so to speak, once you've turned it on?
Rather than prosecuting the "bad apples" who are torturing prisoners or executing wounded enemy soldiers, perhaps we should be going after the "bad apples" who made this war in the first place, who put good and civilized people into a situation that must necessarily brutalize them -- indeed, turn some of them into monsters. As one mother of a disgraced soldier remarked, "I gave them a good boy, they sent me back a murderer."
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Deja Vu Again
Hope is a knave that befools us evermore
Which until I lost no happiness was mine
I strike from hell to grave on heaven's door:
"Abandon all hope ye who enter here."
--Nicholas Chamfort
"At polling centers hit by explosions, survivors refused to go home, steadfastly waiting to cast their votes as policemen swept away bits of flesh."
--New York Times article of 2/2/05
Ah, the post-election euphoria! Something about it seems . . . familiar. Perhaps it's like the euphoria most Americans felt at the sight of Saddam's statue being torn down by our soldiers in Baghdad. Or like the euphoria many felt at Bush's victory speech aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. Or the euphoria some (fewer) felt in the wake of Paul Bremer handing over "sovereignty" to the Iraqi interim government.
Can one develop a tolerance for euphoria, the way one can for cocaine?
So many pundits growing teary-eyed while describing the voter turnout in Iraq! "People actually showed up to vote! Lots and lots of people! Hurrah!"
Well, maybe not the Sunnis, not so much. Hardly at all, in fact.
"But the Kurds turned out in huge numbers, right?"
True enough. And Peter Galbraith reported in the New York Times that these same Kurds, upon exiting the polls, were polled again and voted ten to one that, if they had their druthers, they'd druther form a country of their own, independent of Iraq. Can you say "civil war"?
"Well, how about the Shiites? Huge numbers there, right? Masses of happy people voting [as conservative editorialist David Brooks would have it] against Saddam, against the old tyranny."
And maybe voting against Uncle Sam as well, a little bit? Against his continuing, and heavily-armed, presence in their midst? Voting for him to get the hell out of Dodge?
"But there was so little violence -- I mean, compared to what was predicted."
Fifty Iraqis lost their lives on election day. Fifty people slaughtered. Imagine if that had happened in the United States: fifty people whacked for daring to vote. The election would be considered a disaster, a nightmare.
But of course we are not talking about the United States, we are talking about Iraq, where one has to adjust one's expectations a bit. Lower the bar, as it were, civilization-wise.
Where's my anti-euphoria medication?
Which until I lost no happiness was mine
I strike from hell to grave on heaven's door:
"Abandon all hope ye who enter here."
--Nicholas Chamfort
"At polling centers hit by explosions, survivors refused to go home, steadfastly waiting to cast their votes as policemen swept away bits of flesh."
--New York Times article of 2/2/05
Ah, the post-election euphoria! Something about it seems . . . familiar. Perhaps it's like the euphoria most Americans felt at the sight of Saddam's statue being torn down by our soldiers in Baghdad. Or like the euphoria many felt at Bush's victory speech aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. Or the euphoria some (fewer) felt in the wake of Paul Bremer handing over "sovereignty" to the Iraqi interim government.
Can one develop a tolerance for euphoria, the way one can for cocaine?
So many pundits growing teary-eyed while describing the voter turnout in Iraq! "People actually showed up to vote! Lots and lots of people! Hurrah!"
Well, maybe not the Sunnis, not so much. Hardly at all, in fact.
"But the Kurds turned out in huge numbers, right?"
True enough. And Peter Galbraith reported in the New York Times that these same Kurds, upon exiting the polls, were polled again and voted ten to one that, if they had their druthers, they'd druther form a country of their own, independent of Iraq. Can you say "civil war"?
"Well, how about the Shiites? Huge numbers there, right? Masses of happy people voting [as conservative editorialist David Brooks would have it] against Saddam, against the old tyranny."
And maybe voting against Uncle Sam as well, a little bit? Against his continuing, and heavily-armed, presence in their midst? Voting for him to get the hell out of Dodge?
"But there was so little violence -- I mean, compared to what was predicted."
Fifty Iraqis lost their lives on election day. Fifty people slaughtered. Imagine if that had happened in the United States: fifty people whacked for daring to vote. The election would be considered a disaster, a nightmare.
But of course we are not talking about the United States, we are talking about Iraq, where one has to adjust one's expectations a bit. Lower the bar, as it were, civilization-wise.
Where's my anti-euphoria medication?
Friday, January 21, 2005
Repetition macht frei!
In Bush's second inaugural address, which lasted all of seventeen minutes, he used the word "freedom" twenty-five times. His reference, of course, is to our mission in Iraq (although, curiously, the word "Iraq" never passed his lips). Talk about protesting too much!
Ohhhhhh! FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM
Viola! Iraq is free!
The word "liberty" appeared fifteen times in the speech. Apparently Bush is hoping that if he repeats that word often enough the American people will, when they think of the war in Iraq, picture in their minds' eyes Lady Liberty, lifting her lamp beside the golden door. Unfortunately a more likely candidate for war icon -- and a truer reflection of the reality--is the image of a hooded man perched on a box with electrodes attached to his hands. Not exactly lamps and golden doors here. Rather another sort of monumentalism, one reflected in the words "All hope abandoned ye who enter in."
Perhaps Dante's caveat should be inscribed by the provisional authority over the arrival gates at Baghdad International Airport.
Ohhhhhh! FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM
Viola! Iraq is free!
The word "liberty" appeared fifteen times in the speech. Apparently Bush is hoping that if he repeats that word often enough the American people will, when they think of the war in Iraq, picture in their minds' eyes Lady Liberty, lifting her lamp beside the golden door. Unfortunately a more likely candidate for war icon -- and a truer reflection of the reality--is the image of a hooded man perched on a box with electrodes attached to his hands. Not exactly lamps and golden doors here. Rather another sort of monumentalism, one reflected in the words "All hope abandoned ye who enter in."
Perhaps Dante's caveat should be inscribed by the provisional authority over the arrival gates at Baghdad International Airport.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Accountability Moment
“Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election. And the American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me, for which I'm grateful.”
Am I alone in finding the above comment made by George Bush in a recent interview not only stupid but downright chilling? I mean like the remark, “Who today still speaks of the massacre of the Armenians?” THAT kind of chilling?
What is he saying? “Since 51% of the American people who voted voted for me, that means I am not to be held accountable for anything I did, any decision I made, in my first term.” Is it something like that? That his re-election makes him immune from any blame?
Sounds like a guilty man, acquitted by an incompetent jury, breathing a huge sigh of relief as he cites his constitutional protection from double jeopardy. Think of O.J. Simpson post murder trial.
Because Bush has been re-elected, he is no longer accountable, for example, for war crimes committed by our side in Afghanistan and Iraq? (Recall that after WWII it was primarily the Nazi leadership, rather than the soldiers who committed atrocities, that were tried and condemned).
Bush is not accountable for the long-term effects of the “Bush Doctrine” of pre-emptive war? If he is not, then who is? Is it God? Should it instead be called the "God Doctrine"? Perhaps, because, after all, it was God who put Bush in office. So Bush assures us.
Perhaps it is God alone who will ultimately hold Bush responsible for his actions, since -- God knows!-- the American people clearly lack the wisdom, and Congress the backbone, to do so.
Am I alone in finding the above comment made by George Bush in a recent interview not only stupid but downright chilling? I mean like the remark, “Who today still speaks of the massacre of the Armenians?” THAT kind of chilling?
What is he saying? “Since 51% of the American people who voted voted for me, that means I am not to be held accountable for anything I did, any decision I made, in my first term.” Is it something like that? That his re-election makes him immune from any blame?
Sounds like a guilty man, acquitted by an incompetent jury, breathing a huge sigh of relief as he cites his constitutional protection from double jeopardy. Think of O.J. Simpson post murder trial.
Because Bush has been re-elected, he is no longer accountable, for example, for war crimes committed by our side in Afghanistan and Iraq? (Recall that after WWII it was primarily the Nazi leadership, rather than the soldiers who committed atrocities, that were tried and condemned).
Bush is not accountable for the long-term effects of the “Bush Doctrine” of pre-emptive war? If he is not, then who is? Is it God? Should it instead be called the "God Doctrine"? Perhaps, because, after all, it was God who put Bush in office. So Bush assures us.
Perhaps it is God alone who will ultimately hold Bush responsible for his actions, since -- God knows!-- the American people clearly lack the wisdom, and Congress the backbone, to do so.
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
The Hackery of Machan
In a recent editorial entitled "The Incompetence of Rather," Tibor R. Machan, who bears the impressive title of "R.C. Hoiles Chair in business ethics and free enterprise at Chapman University in Orange, California," takes to task the long-time CBS anchorman for the part he played in the scandal over forged documents related to Bush's Texas Air National Guard service.
Machan notes that Rather testified he "still believes that the content of the documents is true because 'the facts are right on the money,' and that no one had provided persuasive evidence that the documents were not authentic." These assertions by Rather are "preposterous," says Machan. "Facts are established by proofs, by evidence, not by the absence of disproof or the lack of counter-evidence." Machan complains that Bush is presumed guilty by Rather, is forced to prove his innocence, to "prove a negative." This is very bad form indeed for any respectable journalist.
It appears to me, though, the Machan is deliberately conflating two claims by Rather. I agree that it is preposterous for Rather to continue to insist that the documents are not forgeries. They clearly are. That this is the case, however, does not mean that their "content"--what they suggest about Bush's National Guard service--is not true. If "content" refers to the claim that Bush blew off the final year of his Guard service, that claim may very well be, probably is, true, though the documents CBS produced to "prove" this claim may be fraudulent.
An analogy: I can believe that Mark Fuhrman was a real sleazeball, a bad cop who planted evidence to try to get O.J. Simpson convicted of murdering his wife. I can believe this and still believe, as most reasonable people do, that O.J. Simpson murdered his wife.
It appears to me the Bushites are very much interested in encouraging the sort of logical confusion that Machan deliberately fosters here. They are hoping the John Q. Public will assume that, since the documents meant to prove that Bush behaved irresponsibly were fraudulent, then there must be no truth to the claim the Bush was a naughty boy. But clearly he was. If Bush did not blow off the final year of his Guard service, why does he not produce evidence of this? How difficult could it be to find one person who remembers serving with him at that time? To continue to claim that it is possible that Bush did his Guard duty in full is just as "preposterous" a position as any Machan blasts Rather for taking.
Another thing. "Facts are established by proofs, by evidence, not by the absence of disproof or the lack of evidence." I think it impossible that Mr. Machan could write those words and not hear in them the echo of Donald Rumsfeld's infamous gloss on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." What Machan accuses Rather of doing to Bush--of presuming him guilty and making him prove his innocence--is precisely what Bush and his men did to Saddam Hussein. They accused him of having weapons and demanded that he prove that he did not--to prove a negative. Of course we know now that Saddam was being put in an impossible position since the weapons did not exist. Machan writes, "such a defendant would have no way to go about showing that none of these things happened since in order to do so, one would need to know what evidence exists for the claim. But none had been provided." What solid evidence did the Bush administration provide that Saddam possessed WMD? None. The best it could do was the dog-and-pony show poor Colin Powell was forced to put on at the United Nations -- not exactly one our our country's finest moments.
"Dan Rather," writes Machan, "appears to believe that whenever someone says something damning about people he doesn't much like, that must be 'right on the money,' simply because no one has proven it wrong." Once again, how can Machan not observe that this precisely describes Bush's attitude toward Saddam, a person Bush "doesn't like much," to put it mildly ("This is the guy who tried to kill my dad"). Bush didn't much like Saddam, therefore the claim that he possessed WMD must be "right on the money." Bush didn't much like Saddam, so the claim that he was in bed with Osama bin Laden must be valid. And so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
Machan concludes that "Dan Rather should be fired" for his misbehavior. Allowing him to retire early, apparently, was not enough; a much greater mess should be made of him. So how about Bush? As for Rather's ethical lapse, what damage did it do, except to his own and his news organization's credibility? Compare that to the damage caused by Bush's lapse: thousands of lives lost, billions of dollars down the drain, and our country's reputation in the world a smoking ruin.
Machan notes that Rather testified he "still believes that the content of the documents is true because 'the facts are right on the money,' and that no one had provided persuasive evidence that the documents were not authentic." These assertions by Rather are "preposterous," says Machan. "Facts are established by proofs, by evidence, not by the absence of disproof or the lack of counter-evidence." Machan complains that Bush is presumed guilty by Rather, is forced to prove his innocence, to "prove a negative." This is very bad form indeed for any respectable journalist.
It appears to me, though, the Machan is deliberately conflating two claims by Rather. I agree that it is preposterous for Rather to continue to insist that the documents are not forgeries. They clearly are. That this is the case, however, does not mean that their "content"--what they suggest about Bush's National Guard service--is not true. If "content" refers to the claim that Bush blew off the final year of his Guard service, that claim may very well be, probably is, true, though the documents CBS produced to "prove" this claim may be fraudulent.
An analogy: I can believe that Mark Fuhrman was a real sleazeball, a bad cop who planted evidence to try to get O.J. Simpson convicted of murdering his wife. I can believe this and still believe, as most reasonable people do, that O.J. Simpson murdered his wife.
It appears to me the Bushites are very much interested in encouraging the sort of logical confusion that Machan deliberately fosters here. They are hoping the John Q. Public will assume that, since the documents meant to prove that Bush behaved irresponsibly were fraudulent, then there must be no truth to the claim the Bush was a naughty boy. But clearly he was. If Bush did not blow off the final year of his Guard service, why does he not produce evidence of this? How difficult could it be to find one person who remembers serving with him at that time? To continue to claim that it is possible that Bush did his Guard duty in full is just as "preposterous" a position as any Machan blasts Rather for taking.
Another thing. "Facts are established by proofs, by evidence, not by the absence of disproof or the lack of evidence." I think it impossible that Mr. Machan could write those words and not hear in them the echo of Donald Rumsfeld's infamous gloss on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." What Machan accuses Rather of doing to Bush--of presuming him guilty and making him prove his innocence--is precisely what Bush and his men did to Saddam Hussein. They accused him of having weapons and demanded that he prove that he did not--to prove a negative. Of course we know now that Saddam was being put in an impossible position since the weapons did not exist. Machan writes, "such a defendant would have no way to go about showing that none of these things happened since in order to do so, one would need to know what evidence exists for the claim. But none had been provided." What solid evidence did the Bush administration provide that Saddam possessed WMD? None. The best it could do was the dog-and-pony show poor Colin Powell was forced to put on at the United Nations -- not exactly one our our country's finest moments.
"Dan Rather," writes Machan, "appears to believe that whenever someone says something damning about people he doesn't much like, that must be 'right on the money,' simply because no one has proven it wrong." Once again, how can Machan not observe that this precisely describes Bush's attitude toward Saddam, a person Bush "doesn't like much," to put it mildly ("This is the guy who tried to kill my dad"). Bush didn't much like Saddam, therefore the claim that he possessed WMD must be "right on the money." Bush didn't much like Saddam, so the claim that he was in bed with Osama bin Laden must be valid. And so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
Machan concludes that "Dan Rather should be fired" for his misbehavior. Allowing him to retire early, apparently, was not enough; a much greater mess should be made of him. So how about Bush? As for Rather's ethical lapse, what damage did it do, except to his own and his news organization's credibility? Compare that to the damage caused by Bush's lapse: thousands of lives lost, billions of dollars down the drain, and our country's reputation in the world a smoking ruin.
Sunday, January 16, 2005
Freedom on the March!
What George W. Bush said:
"As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva."
What happened as a consequence:
"According to ICRC [the Red Cross], one prisoner 'alleged that he had been hooded and cuffed with flexicuffs, threatened to be tortured and killed, urinated on, kicked in the head, lower back and groin, force-fed a baseball which was tied in his mouth using a scarf and deprived of sleep for four consecutive days. . . . When he said he would complain to the ICRC he was allegedly beaten more. An ICRC medical examination revealed hematoma in the lower back, blood in urine, sensory loss in the right hand due to tight handcuffing with flexicuffs, and a broken rib.'"
In a detainee's own words: "They threw pepper on my face and the beating started. This went on for half and hour. And then he started beating me with a chair until the chair was broken. After that they started choking me. At that time I thought I was going to die, but it's a miracle I lived. And then they started beating me again. They concentrated on beating me in the heart until they got tired from beating me. They took a little break and then they started kicking me very hard with their feet until I passed out."
Another. "They stripped me naked, they asked me 'Do you pray to Allah?' I said 'Yes.' They said 'Fuck you ' and 'Fuck him.'. . . Someone else asked me, 'Do you believe in anything?' I said to him, 'I believe in Allah.' So he said, 'But I believe in torture and I will torture you.'"
As Andrew Sullivan notes, "These are not allegations made by antiwar journalists. They are incidents reported within the confines of the United States government" (NYTimes, 13 Jan 04).
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free; the wretched refuse of your teeming shores . . . and I will torture the hell out of them.
"As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva."
What happened as a consequence:
"According to ICRC [the Red Cross], one prisoner 'alleged that he had been hooded and cuffed with flexicuffs, threatened to be tortured and killed, urinated on, kicked in the head, lower back and groin, force-fed a baseball which was tied in his mouth using a scarf and deprived of sleep for four consecutive days. . . . When he said he would complain to the ICRC he was allegedly beaten more. An ICRC medical examination revealed hematoma in the lower back, blood in urine, sensory loss in the right hand due to tight handcuffing with flexicuffs, and a broken rib.'"
In a detainee's own words: "They threw pepper on my face and the beating started. This went on for half and hour. And then he started beating me with a chair until the chair was broken. After that they started choking me. At that time I thought I was going to die, but it's a miracle I lived. And then they started beating me again. They concentrated on beating me in the heart until they got tired from beating me. They took a little break and then they started kicking me very hard with their feet until I passed out."
Another. "They stripped me naked, they asked me 'Do you pray to Allah?' I said 'Yes.' They said 'Fuck you ' and 'Fuck him.'. . . Someone else asked me, 'Do you believe in anything?' I said to him, 'I believe in Allah.' So he said, 'But I believe in torture and I will torture you.'"
As Andrew Sullivan notes, "These are not allegations made by antiwar journalists. They are incidents reported within the confines of the United States government" (NYTimes, 13 Jan 04).
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free; the wretched refuse of your teeming shores . . . and I will torture the hell out of them.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
CBS Purge
Today CBS, in a broad mea culpa gesture, fired four people involved in the Sixty Minutes segment on Bush's National Guard service. Here the network attempts to salvage its news department's reputation by holding people accountable for bad journalism.
Gee whiz! Imagine if the Bush administration demonstrated a comparable level of accountability! For example, what if it held people accountable for the WMD fiasco, or the Abu Ghraib torture scandal? A deafening silence would descend upon the West Wing, upon certain corridors of the Pentagon -- given the sudden absence of the many individuals responsible.
I guess the difference is that the Fourth Estate is willing to admit that it is capable of making mistakes, whereas the Bush administration, as we all learned during the presidental debates, is mistake-proof.
The real news, of course, is that the administration secretly paid the right-wing editorialist Armstrong Williams a quarter of a million dollars (this tax dollars, by the way) to promote its No Child Left Behind program. So much for independent journalism. Psyops targeting, not the Iraqi people, but the American.
Gee whiz! Imagine if the Bush administration demonstrated a comparable level of accountability! For example, what if it held people accountable for the WMD fiasco, or the Abu Ghraib torture scandal? A deafening silence would descend upon the West Wing, upon certain corridors of the Pentagon -- given the sudden absence of the many individuals responsible.
I guess the difference is that the Fourth Estate is willing to admit that it is capable of making mistakes, whereas the Bush administration, as we all learned during the presidental debates, is mistake-proof.
The real news, of course, is that the administration secretly paid the right-wing editorialist Armstrong Williams a quarter of a million dollars (this tax dollars, by the way) to promote its No Child Left Behind program. So much for independent journalism. Psyops targeting, not the Iraqi people, but the American.
Saturday, January 01, 2005
A Tsunami of Stupidity
We give them money; are they grateful?
No they're spiteful and they're hateful.
--Randy Newman, "Political Science"
In the wake of the tsunami--death toll now estimated 150,000--Dubya emerged on the third day from his Crawford retreat to deliver tidings of comfort and joy. He pledged $35 million for disaster relief. Just think: almost as much in aid for the one of the greatest natural disasters of the last hundred years as he is likely to spend celebrating his re-election on inauguration day! It was only after a few days of being called a cheapskate by the world that Bush uped the figure to $350 million.
In the light of the this reluctant good samaritanism, consider again the current justification for our war in Iraq: that we are there spending billions of dollars (and hundreds of lives) because of our deep and abiding love for the Iraqi people. If our occupation is motivated by compassion -- and not by greed -- why not a comparable expenditure for the tsunami victims? Are they less worthy of our love?
I've been listening off and on for the last few days to what Bill Moyers, in a recent valedictory speech, characterized as "the nattering nabobs of no-nothing radio": Beck, Limbaugh, et al (I know, I know, but they're all I can get on the radio around here...). All of these instant geniuses are suggesting that ANY disaster relief we offer is more than those brown bastards deserve. "After all, we give more in humanitarian and developmental aid than the rest of the world combined and nobody appreciates it!" So saith the radio preachers.
Never mind the reality: "According to a 2001 poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes based at the University of Maryland . . . the average American believes that the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on assistance to developing nations, more than 20 times the actual figure." Whereas the money so far pledged by Sweden for tsunami relief amounts to $8.40 for each of its citizens, the money Bush initially pledged (the 35 million) amounts to "twelve cents per capita" (Charles Sennott, "Global Analysts Dispute Perceived US Generosity," the Boston Globe, 12/31/04).
Tsunami an irresistible metaphor now. For example: the tsunami of stupidity we experienced on November 2nd. Particularly in our part of Ohio. This a working-class area, suffering from severe economic depression, yet the people vote overwhelmingly to return to office a guy whose main goal as president is to loot the Treasury for the sake of his bloated plutocrat friends? A guy who is doing absolutely nothing to help working class people--is in fact positively harming them?
No, one need not have been listening all that closely on November 2nd to hear throughout Ohio's fourth district an immense collective "DUH!" The crashing of the moronic wave.
No they're spiteful and they're hateful.
--Randy Newman, "Political Science"
In the wake of the tsunami--death toll now estimated 150,000--Dubya emerged on the third day from his Crawford retreat to deliver tidings of comfort and joy. He pledged $35 million for disaster relief. Just think: almost as much in aid for the one of the greatest natural disasters of the last hundred years as he is likely to spend celebrating his re-election on inauguration day! It was only after a few days of being called a cheapskate by the world that Bush uped the figure to $350 million.
In the light of the this reluctant good samaritanism, consider again the current justification for our war in Iraq: that we are there spending billions of dollars (and hundreds of lives) because of our deep and abiding love for the Iraqi people. If our occupation is motivated by compassion -- and not by greed -- why not a comparable expenditure for the tsunami victims? Are they less worthy of our love?
I've been listening off and on for the last few days to what Bill Moyers, in a recent valedictory speech, characterized as "the nattering nabobs of no-nothing radio": Beck, Limbaugh, et al (I know, I know, but they're all I can get on the radio around here...). All of these instant geniuses are suggesting that ANY disaster relief we offer is more than those brown bastards deserve. "After all, we give more in humanitarian and developmental aid than the rest of the world combined and nobody appreciates it!" So saith the radio preachers.
Never mind the reality: "According to a 2001 poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes based at the University of Maryland . . . the average American believes that the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on assistance to developing nations, more than 20 times the actual figure." Whereas the money so far pledged by Sweden for tsunami relief amounts to $8.40 for each of its citizens, the money Bush initially pledged (the 35 million) amounts to "twelve cents per capita" (Charles Sennott, "Global Analysts Dispute Perceived US Generosity," the Boston Globe, 12/31/04).
Tsunami an irresistible metaphor now. For example: the tsunami of stupidity we experienced on November 2nd. Particularly in our part of Ohio. This a working-class area, suffering from severe economic depression, yet the people vote overwhelmingly to return to office a guy whose main goal as president is to loot the Treasury for the sake of his bloated plutocrat friends? A guy who is doing absolutely nothing to help working class people--is in fact positively harming them?
No, one need not have been listening all that closely on November 2nd to hear throughout Ohio's fourth district an immense collective "DUH!" The crashing of the moronic wave.
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Passionism vs Peterism
Let us for a moment step away from the debate over Evolution vs. Intelligent Design and consider another, perhaps more crucial debate: Passionism vs. Peterism.
"God, having become human and descended to the earth, allowed Himself to be horribly slaughtered; he then rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, prefiguring thereby the salvation of all true Christians."
That is, more or less, the Easter story taught in most American Sunday schools. The fact is, however, that no one alive actually witnessed any of this. It's all just an ancient rumor, a kind of theory. Let us call it the theory of Passionism.
There is another familiar Easter story. It goes something like this: "A giant white rabbit wearing a purple vest each spring comes hippity-hoppiting down the bunny trail leaving brightly-colored eggs for all the good little children of the world."
This story can stand as the basis of an alternative theory of Easter. Let us call it Peterism (as in "Peter Cottontail"). Although hardly ever taught in Sunday schools, Peterism has clear advantages over Passionism: its foundational story is slightly more probable and certainly far less violent.
My question: why not let both theories, Passionism and Peterism, be taught in our Sunday schools? Why not let the children decide -- after careful and mature consideration, of course -- which of these competing theories they want to embrace? What are the Passionists afraid of?
"God, having become human and descended to the earth, allowed Himself to be horribly slaughtered; he then rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, prefiguring thereby the salvation of all true Christians."
That is, more or less, the Easter story taught in most American Sunday schools. The fact is, however, that no one alive actually witnessed any of this. It's all just an ancient rumor, a kind of theory. Let us call it the theory of Passionism.
There is another familiar Easter story. It goes something like this: "A giant white rabbit wearing a purple vest each spring comes hippity-hoppiting down the bunny trail leaving brightly-colored eggs for all the good little children of the world."
This story can stand as the basis of an alternative theory of Easter. Let us call it Peterism (as in "Peter Cottontail"). Although hardly ever taught in Sunday schools, Peterism has clear advantages over Passionism: its foundational story is slightly more probable and certainly far less violent.
My question: why not let both theories, Passionism and Peterism, be taught in our Sunday schools? Why not let the children decide -- after careful and mature consideration, of course -- which of these competing theories they want to embrace? What are the Passionists afraid of?
Monday, December 20, 2004
Bush Confidence Game
An email from a person using the pseudonym "Michael Moore" responding to a recent letter I penned to the Lima News, beginning his response by informing me I was an "idiot." Insult answered in spades. Mr. Moore shocked at my rudeness. In reference to my assertion that the REAL Michael Moore (which gentleman my interlocutor despises, of course) is accurate in his portrayal of Bush cutting taxes for the rich while telling the average American to go fuck himself, the ironical Moore replies:
"to go fuck himself" - I must have missed when that happened. Was it while Kerry was voting for higher taxes, or was it during Moore's movie? A movie which, most will agree, is hardly a truthful documentary. Somehow Moore manages to bend the truth just a bit...kind of like making it sound like cutting taxes is a bad thing for the middle class while raising them is good. Hmmm......
My response (written more, of course, to help me articulate and clarify my position for myself than in any hope that this prime cut of moron will ever get it):
Cutting taxes FOR the middle class is certainly a good thing for the middle classes. But Bush did not cut taxes for the middle classes in any significant way. The typical American got about $500 from Bush's latest tax cut. That's about the equivalent of one month's house payment for most folks. The majority of those cuts went to the super-wealthy, those making a million or more a year. For example, John Snow, Bush's do-nothing Treasury secretary, was estimated to get back about $250,000. Like he needed "tax relief."
What Bush did, clearly, is loot the Treasury for the sake of a fortunate few--those most likely to support him and other Republican candidates -- then throw the average American chicken feed to keep him quiet. It worked. Meanwhile the lack of revenue coming into the federal government means not only a ballooning deficit but also a lot less money flowing from the fed government to the states, which of course means that state and local taxes shoot up, which of course eats up Joe Smoe's $500 tax cut, which means Joe Smoe ends up with nothing or in the hole. Meanwhile Joe Plutocrat, who probably does not pay taxes in the first place (the super-wealthy can afford clever accountants) has a nice fat check to deposit in his off-shore account. Comprende, Meester Moore?
It's amazing that educated middle class people are too thick to see through this racket.
The reason they are too thick, of course, is that Bush and his gang are appealing to their greed. This is the sine qua non of all confidence games. Most people would be sensible enough to see through the game, if not for being blinded by their greed -- compelled by greed to believe the unbelieveable. Take for example pyramid schemes. Anyone with a lick of sense can see that, eventually, the pyramid, which is built on nothing --on thin air -- must collapse, that most of those who put money into the scheme are going to be losers; the prospect of making a killing before the collapse, however, is too much of a temptation for many, so they plunk their money down and cry "foul" afterwards. Hard to feel sorry for them then.
"to go fuck himself" - I must have missed when that happened. Was it while Kerry was voting for higher taxes, or was it during Moore's movie? A movie which, most will agree, is hardly a truthful documentary. Somehow Moore manages to bend the truth just a bit...kind of like making it sound like cutting taxes is a bad thing for the middle class while raising them is good. Hmmm......
My response (written more, of course, to help me articulate and clarify my position for myself than in any hope that this prime cut of moron will ever get it):
Cutting taxes FOR the middle class is certainly a good thing for the middle classes. But Bush did not cut taxes for the middle classes in any significant way. The typical American got about $500 from Bush's latest tax cut. That's about the equivalent of one month's house payment for most folks. The majority of those cuts went to the super-wealthy, those making a million or more a year. For example, John Snow, Bush's do-nothing Treasury secretary, was estimated to get back about $250,000. Like he needed "tax relief."
What Bush did, clearly, is loot the Treasury for the sake of a fortunate few--those most likely to support him and other Republican candidates -- then throw the average American chicken feed to keep him quiet. It worked. Meanwhile the lack of revenue coming into the federal government means not only a ballooning deficit but also a lot less money flowing from the fed government to the states, which of course means that state and local taxes shoot up, which of course eats up Joe Smoe's $500 tax cut, which means Joe Smoe ends up with nothing or in the hole. Meanwhile Joe Plutocrat, who probably does not pay taxes in the first place (the super-wealthy can afford clever accountants) has a nice fat check to deposit in his off-shore account. Comprende, Meester Moore?
It's amazing that educated middle class people are too thick to see through this racket.
The reason they are too thick, of course, is that Bush and his gang are appealing to their greed. This is the sine qua non of all confidence games. Most people would be sensible enough to see through the game, if not for being blinded by their greed -- compelled by greed to believe the unbelieveable. Take for example pyramid schemes. Anyone with a lick of sense can see that, eventually, the pyramid, which is built on nothing --on thin air -- must collapse, that most of those who put money into the scheme are going to be losers; the prospect of making a killing before the collapse, however, is too much of a temptation for many, so they plunk their money down and cry "foul" afterwards. Hard to feel sorry for them then.
Sunday, December 19, 2004
Golden Opportunities in the New Iraq!
First, the sales pitch, from the Sandi Group homepage:
Welcome to The Sandi Group
The Sandi Group and Iraq’s private sector are both on the threshold of extraordinary growth. The combination of massive infusions of aid for reconstruction, the resurrection of Iraq’s oil industry and the release of pent up consumer demand are creating a vast range of business opportunities. The Sandi Group is uniquely positioned to take advantage of these opportunities directly and to assist our partners and customers in doing so as well.
There is no doubt that the environment in Iraq is challenging. Wrenching social and political change has created security issues as well as legal, political and regulatory ambiguities. It will be some time before multi-national corporations and international investors will be able to operate effectively on their own in Iraq.
The Sandi Group has been designed to solve this problem. We offer a focused and complementary menu of services to allow multi-national companies and foreign investors to thrive in this environment. Our customers can rely on our execution skills and professionalism to deliver solutions to the challenges of Iraq, whatever their needs. At the same time, The Sandi Group is investing in facilities that complement these services, especially in the hotel sector.
Over the past year, the Group has emerged as one of Iraq’s corporate leaders, helping the country on the way to stability and prosperity. Going forward, we will continue to grow and deepen our superb management team, expand our core businesses and deepen our international partnerships. We will also adhere to our corporate philosophy of not simply doing well in Iraq, but doing good as well.
And now, the reality, from today's New York Times:
Also, insurgents claiming to represent three Iraqi militant groups issued a videotape showing what they said were 10 abducted Iraqis who had been working for an American security and reconstruction company.
Masked insurgents in the video said they represent the Mujahedeen Army, the Black Banner Brigade and the Mutassim Bellah Brigade, all previously unknown groups. Nine blindfolded hostages could be seen lined up against a stone wall and a 10th was lying in a bed, apparently wounded.
The militants said they would kill the hostages if the company, Sandi Group, does not leave the country. They also threatened more attacks on its Iraqi operations.
Chad Knauss, an American and deputy chief operations officer of Sandi Group in Iraq, declined to comment on the claims. The company, based in Washington, employs 7,000 in Iraq.
I wonder, is there a company functioning in Iraq that converts human corpses into high-grade fertilizer for the export market? If so, I'll open my wallet. Otherwise . . .
Welcome to The Sandi Group
The Sandi Group and Iraq’s private sector are both on the threshold of extraordinary growth. The combination of massive infusions of aid for reconstruction, the resurrection of Iraq’s oil industry and the release of pent up consumer demand are creating a vast range of business opportunities. The Sandi Group is uniquely positioned to take advantage of these opportunities directly and to assist our partners and customers in doing so as well.
There is no doubt that the environment in Iraq is challenging. Wrenching social and political change has created security issues as well as legal, political and regulatory ambiguities. It will be some time before multi-national corporations and international investors will be able to operate effectively on their own in Iraq.
The Sandi Group has been designed to solve this problem. We offer a focused and complementary menu of services to allow multi-national companies and foreign investors to thrive in this environment. Our customers can rely on our execution skills and professionalism to deliver solutions to the challenges of Iraq, whatever their needs. At the same time, The Sandi Group is investing in facilities that complement these services, especially in the hotel sector.
Over the past year, the Group has emerged as one of Iraq’s corporate leaders, helping the country on the way to stability and prosperity. Going forward, we will continue to grow and deepen our superb management team, expand our core businesses and deepen our international partnerships. We will also adhere to our corporate philosophy of not simply doing well in Iraq, but doing good as well.
And now, the reality, from today's New York Times:
Also, insurgents claiming to represent three Iraqi militant groups issued a videotape showing what they said were 10 abducted Iraqis who had been working for an American security and reconstruction company.
Masked insurgents in the video said they represent the Mujahedeen Army, the Black Banner Brigade and the Mutassim Bellah Brigade, all previously unknown groups. Nine blindfolded hostages could be seen lined up against a stone wall and a 10th was lying in a bed, apparently wounded.
The militants said they would kill the hostages if the company, Sandi Group, does not leave the country. They also threatened more attacks on its Iraqi operations.
Chad Knauss, an American and deputy chief operations officer of Sandi Group in Iraq, declined to comment on the claims. The company, based in Washington, employs 7,000 in Iraq.
I wonder, is there a company functioning in Iraq that converts human corpses into high-grade fertilizer for the export market? If so, I'll open my wallet. Otherwise . . .
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Larry, Moe, and Curly Receive High Honor
"One of the highest distinctions of history is to be called a liberator, and Tommy Franks will always carry that title." --G. W. Bush
"The dolt is seldom solitary." --Samuel Beckett
Remember that scene in Catch-22 where Yossarian and the other members of his bombing crew, rather than being courtmartialed for chickening out on a bombing run and dropping their payload in the sea, instead are awarded medals--this because the brass thought it more politically expedient to reward than to punish them? They are given medals for destroying fish? Remember that absurd scene?
More such farce. Our Commander in Chief, Generalissimo Busho, hanging Presidental Medals of Freedom around the necks of George Tenet, Tommy Franks, and Paul Bremer -- this for their "good work" in the war in Iraq. Talk about bombing fish! Could these three guys have screwed up any more than they did? Tenet, who assured Bush that finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq would be a "slam dunk"? Franks, who went right along with Rumsfeld's bright idea that we could do Iraq on the cheap? And Bremer, whose decision to dismiss the whole of the Iraqi army has fueled mightly the blazing insurgency our soldiers now face? And these guys got medals? A firing squad would have been more appropriate ("To encourage the others," as Voltaire would say...).
Cronyism run amuck. This scene within hours of Rudi Guliani's strong right hand, Bernard Kerik -- who, during his brief stay in Iraq, did such a bang-up job training the Iraqi police force -- withdrawing his name from consideration for Chief of Homeland Security. I wonder what paragon of virtue and integrity Bush will come up with next for that spot? Perhaps Lyndee England is available?
Where have you gone Ambrose Bierce? And you, H.L. Mencken? And you, George Orwell? Where is the journalist who is courageous enough and intelligent enough and indignant enough and eloquent enough to expose this gang for what they are? Can it be that such voices of sanity are suppressed in today's corporate controlled news media?
God help the Republic!
"The dolt is seldom solitary." --Samuel Beckett
Remember that scene in Catch-22 where Yossarian and the other members of his bombing crew, rather than being courtmartialed for chickening out on a bombing run and dropping their payload in the sea, instead are awarded medals--this because the brass thought it more politically expedient to reward than to punish them? They are given medals for destroying fish? Remember that absurd scene?
More such farce. Our Commander in Chief, Generalissimo Busho, hanging Presidental Medals of Freedom around the necks of George Tenet, Tommy Franks, and Paul Bremer -- this for their "good work" in the war in Iraq. Talk about bombing fish! Could these three guys have screwed up any more than they did? Tenet, who assured Bush that finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq would be a "slam dunk"? Franks, who went right along with Rumsfeld's bright idea that we could do Iraq on the cheap? And Bremer, whose decision to dismiss the whole of the Iraqi army has fueled mightly the blazing insurgency our soldiers now face? And these guys got medals? A firing squad would have been more appropriate ("To encourage the others," as Voltaire would say...).
Cronyism run amuck. This scene within hours of Rudi Guliani's strong right hand, Bernard Kerik -- who, during his brief stay in Iraq, did such a bang-up job training the Iraqi police force -- withdrawing his name from consideration for Chief of Homeland Security. I wonder what paragon of virtue and integrity Bush will come up with next for that spot? Perhaps Lyndee England is available?
Where have you gone Ambrose Bierce? And you, H.L. Mencken? And you, George Orwell? Where is the journalist who is courageous enough and intelligent enough and indignant enough and eloquent enough to expose this gang for what they are? Can it be that such voices of sanity are suppressed in today's corporate controlled news media?
God help the Republic!
Mandate?
7 Dec 04
Yesterday, on C-Span, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol strutting and crowing about the "new Republican America," about the overwhelming Republican victory in the election and how significant it is. To Kristol, this election means Republican hegemony to the far horizon—as far as the eye can see. Red States Rule, Baby!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Bush win Ohio by just 2%? And if that had been switched around, if Kerry had won by 2%, wouldn’t Kerry be president elect? That’s an overwhelming Republican victory?
The reality is that the country is split right down the middle. Half the people support the Bush administration; half the people can’t stand the Bush administration. Make no mistake, a small minority of Democrats who voted were voting FOR Kerry—most saw him as a cipher, as the Man Who Wasn’t There. Most Democrats were voting ABB, Anybody But Bush. They were voting against Bush because they see him and his gang as a positive menace to our society and to the world. That’s fifty-five million Americans who hate Bush’s guts. And this is a mandate?
Maybe what Kristol was saying was something like this: “Look, Bush could not have done any worse in his first term. The economy is a disaster. He took a huge budget surplus and turned it into a huge deficit. He looted the treasury for his rich friends and told John Q. Public to go be fruitful and multiply with himself. On the world front, he took the immense goodwill expressed toward America after 9/11 and turned it inside out; now all the world hates us. He’s led us into a disastrous and unwinnable war in Iraq that is costing us hundreds of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. And yet, in spite of this unprecedented record of failure, Bush won! Can you believe it? HE WON! Hell, the Republican party could run a rabid and explosively-incontinent baboon and still win. THAT’S how strong the party is these days!”
Yesterday, on C-Span, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol strutting and crowing about the "new Republican America," about the overwhelming Republican victory in the election and how significant it is. To Kristol, this election means Republican hegemony to the far horizon—as far as the eye can see. Red States Rule, Baby!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Bush win Ohio by just 2%? And if that had been switched around, if Kerry had won by 2%, wouldn’t Kerry be president elect? That’s an overwhelming Republican victory?
The reality is that the country is split right down the middle. Half the people support the Bush administration; half the people can’t stand the Bush administration. Make no mistake, a small minority of Democrats who voted were voting FOR Kerry—most saw him as a cipher, as the Man Who Wasn’t There. Most Democrats were voting ABB, Anybody But Bush. They were voting against Bush because they see him and his gang as a positive menace to our society and to the world. That’s fifty-five million Americans who hate Bush’s guts. And this is a mandate?
Maybe what Kristol was saying was something like this: “Look, Bush could not have done any worse in his first term. The economy is a disaster. He took a huge budget surplus and turned it into a huge deficit. He looted the treasury for his rich friends and told John Q. Public to go be fruitful and multiply with himself. On the world front, he took the immense goodwill expressed toward America after 9/11 and turned it inside out; now all the world hates us. He’s led us into a disastrous and unwinnable war in Iraq that is costing us hundreds of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. And yet, in spite of this unprecedented record of failure, Bush won! Can you believe it? HE WON! Hell, the Republican party could run a rabid and explosively-incontinent baboon and still win. THAT’S how strong the party is these days!”
impossible profession
2 Dec 04
A painfully frustrating quarter, teaching a freshman comp course with the topic “9/11 and After.” So many of my students are knee-jerk right-wingers who equate George W. Bush with Jesus H. Christ. And his War on Terror? A righteous crusade, of course. This despite all the evidence to the contrary.
For example, one student wrote in his final paper as follows:
"After September 11th we went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan. I strongly agree with these actions, and I am completely behind Bush in his decision. If we were attacked, why shouldn’t we go after those responsible? I know people don’t think Iraq had anything to do with it, and we haven’t turned up any weapons of mass destruction. I say they are responsible for the attacks and need to pay for what they have done. I feel that you should be behind what our government does because this is where you live. If you don’t feel safe by what they do then you are in the wrong country."
I could not restrain myself from replying as follows:
"Come on! We live in a democracy where we are supposed to be critical of our politicians: keep an eye on them, and, if they make mistakes, correct them. “My country, right or wrong!” is an ethically indefensible position and not one reasonable people take. If you can’t defend the war in Iraq on the basis of real evidence and on rational grounds, then don’t defend it."
Thus I spoke to the void. The student continued,
"This war against terrorism is a great idea. I didn’t have any family members that died in the trade towers, but I know that if I would have then I would want the war even more. Also, I don’t have any family members in the military, but if I did I would want them to go and fight for our country. I would go and fight in the military, but I have had a life-long dream of becoming an architect and opening my own business. I have even talked to recruiters and they have said that there isn’t an architecture program in the military."
Again, I couldn’t resist. After his last line “Aw shucks!” and then, “So, like Dick Cheney, who took five deferments during the Vietnam war, you have ‘other priorities’ than fighting the war you deem so noble and just?” My point, of course, will be completely lost on the writer. He’s not a very attentive person to begin with, obviously.
Of the forty or so students I have in two sections this quarter, I would say half of these proved to be evidence-proof. By that I mean they did not allow the evidence I supplied that the Iraq war is an unmitigated disaster, both strategically and morally, trouble in the least their faith in the infallibility of their glorious war president and his Big Stick foreign policy.
Dubya, right or wrong!
A painfully frustrating quarter, teaching a freshman comp course with the topic “9/11 and After.” So many of my students are knee-jerk right-wingers who equate George W. Bush with Jesus H. Christ. And his War on Terror? A righteous crusade, of course. This despite all the evidence to the contrary.
For example, one student wrote in his final paper as follows:
"After September 11th we went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan. I strongly agree with these actions, and I am completely behind Bush in his decision. If we were attacked, why shouldn’t we go after those responsible? I know people don’t think Iraq had anything to do with it, and we haven’t turned up any weapons of mass destruction. I say they are responsible for the attacks and need to pay for what they have done. I feel that you should be behind what our government does because this is where you live. If you don’t feel safe by what they do then you are in the wrong country."
I could not restrain myself from replying as follows:
"Come on! We live in a democracy where we are supposed to be critical of our politicians: keep an eye on them, and, if they make mistakes, correct them. “My country, right or wrong!” is an ethically indefensible position and not one reasonable people take. If you can’t defend the war in Iraq on the basis of real evidence and on rational grounds, then don’t defend it."
Thus I spoke to the void. The student continued,
"This war against terrorism is a great idea. I didn’t have any family members that died in the trade towers, but I know that if I would have then I would want the war even more. Also, I don’t have any family members in the military, but if I did I would want them to go and fight for our country. I would go and fight in the military, but I have had a life-long dream of becoming an architect and opening my own business. I have even talked to recruiters and they have said that there isn’t an architecture program in the military."
Again, I couldn’t resist. After his last line “Aw shucks!” and then, “So, like Dick Cheney, who took five deferments during the Vietnam war, you have ‘other priorities’ than fighting the war you deem so noble and just?” My point, of course, will be completely lost on the writer. He’s not a very attentive person to begin with, obviously.
Of the forty or so students I have in two sections this quarter, I would say half of these proved to be evidence-proof. By that I mean they did not allow the evidence I supplied that the Iraq war is an unmitigated disaster, both strategically and morally, trouble in the least their faith in the infallibility of their glorious war president and his Big Stick foreign policy.
Dubya, right or wrong!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)