A glimpse of the hidden Ann Coulter

(Sorry for not posting yesterday. A personal matter commanded my attention.)

When Brad Friedman published his first "guest blog" by Lydia Cornell, the author and actress best-known for her role in Too Close for Comfort, I sent Brad a private message telling him to do whatever he could to promote this lady's work.

This is just the sort of person we need on our side, I told him. She's the anti-Coulter. Smart, creative and appealing. Warm where Coulter is cold. Genuinely spiritual -- as opposed to Coulter's strange and acidic religiosity. In short, Lydia seems nice.

The obvious contrasts must have grated on Coulter (who, as some of you may recall, once ducked out of the second half of a radio debate with Brad Friedman). Instead of ignoring Cornell's column, Coulter responded by publishing a childish tirade -- and by printing Lydia's personal contact information, including her phone number, on her own page.

Most telling of all: She actually insulted Lydia's looks: "Well, death is certainly sexier than Lydia Cornell."

Before proceeding, let's make something quite clear.



The first two images show Ann Coulter.



These are two pictures of Lydia Cornell.

My girlfriend's first response: "Ann Coulter looks like she had her last face lift done by a Mack truck."

Now, this blog does not usually print snide remarks about personal appearance. Who am I to judge? I'm the epitome of ursine scruffiness, and I never met a lasagna I didn't like. In truth, most of us are unlovely. Go to (say) any crowded DMV in any working class neighborhood, tote up the number of good-looking individuals, and you'll find that perhaps 90% of the human race is something other than a natural friend to the camera. Yet there's a lot of love and sex out there; somehow, human beings keep finding ways to tolerate pandemic homeliness.

The trouble is, some don't easily tolerate our natural tendency toward homeliness -- at least, not when the evidence is displayed in the mirror. A certain type of person cannot hide the fact that he or she wants to be considered much more comely or handsome than is actually the case. That's always been the sad thing about Coulter: She dresses like someone who desperately longs for bombshell status, as though wrapping that hideous skeletal frame in black leather micro-minis will somehow make those prominent bones as jumpable as they are countable.

Suddenly I feel sad for Ann Coulter. I won't publish her phone number and other personal info, even though I have the data to hand and I'm just ornery enough to do that sort of thing. Her remark was much more self-revelatory than she intended: She's trapped in there, and doesn't want to be.

That's why she devotes her life to spewing venom. Even if every liberal vanished, she'd no doubt spend her time finding something to hate instead of something to celebrate. Odium is her junk; spewing insult is her way of shooting up. For most of us, life is a stew occasionally flavored by love and occasionally peppered with hate. For Coulter, hate is the only ingredient.

That's why she wants death for anyone who does not believe as she does. That's why she uses Jesus as though he were an Uzi. That's why this hard-drinking, hard-smoking, bed-hopping Femme-Domme still pretends to be a "Christian."

Consider one of her most infamous Coulterisms: "Saying 'Merry Christmas' is like saying 'Fuck you!'" Look carefully at the phrasing: Not only does she define Christianity purely in terms of attacking others, the statement carries characteristic overtones of bizarre sexuality. What kind of mind takes pride in such a sentiment? How does Ann propose to explain those words to Jesus? If you went back in time twenty, forty, fifty years and repeated that statement, everyone -- and I mean every single person, regardless of his or her politics -- would think you had gone nuts.

One doesn't need a degree in the psychoanalytic arts to see the mechanisms at work in this mind. There's one person Ann hates more than she hates any liberal: Herself.

Bugs in the White House? (updated)

Cunningham's gone, but MZM -- the "defense and intelligence" firm that paid him off -- lives on. MZM has had other clients -- among them, George W. Bush.

Toward the end of this Washington Post piece on the firm, you'll stumble across one of those sneaky little grafs that seems to hint at a much larger story:

Government procurement records show that MZM, which Wade started in 1993, did not report any revenue from prime contract awards until 2003. Most of its revenue has come from the agreement the Pentagon just cut off. But over the past three years it was also awarded several contracts, worth more than $600,000, by the Executive Office of the President. They include a $140,000 deal for office furniture in 2002 and several for unspecified "intelligence services."

A White House spokeswoman declined to comment.

The firm didn't make any real money until 2003 -- but the year before, it got a contract with the White House? That doesn't make much sense.

Even more surprising..."office furniture"? Why the hell would anyone ask an "intelligence" firm to provide chairs and desks and those nifty little green bankers' lights? Don't they have an Ikea in the DC area?

Two possibilities come to my mind:

1. W tasked MZM to plant bugs in the office furniture.
2. W hired MZM to sweep for bugs; the "office furniture" bit is just a blind.

It's worth noting that Bush's Chief Procurement officer was David Savafian, who was arrested for obstructing a federal probe into Abramoffian shennanigans. So...just who got MZM the gig?

Update: After musing on this matter while slurping up a serving of Wendy's low-fat, digit-free chili, a third possibility occurred to me: Perhaps MZM was installing bugs in the office furniture on behalf of someone else. A third party.

This "office furniture" buisness reminds me of another Abramoff-related scandal. Yes, I know -- there have been so many; who can keep track of them all? But you may recall that another Abramoff partner -- congressman Bob Ney, chairman of the House Administration Committee -- arranged for an Israeli communications firm called Foxcom to install communications equipment (which, in this case, basically means wireless connections) in the Capitol building. Ney seems to have done so at the bidding of Abramoff, who received the usual substantial lobbying fee.

Foxcom also sunk a nice chunk of change into an Abramoff-controlled charity called Capital Athletic Fund, which (according to some accounts) paid for the infamous golf junket which brought Ney, Ralph Reed, Abramoff and David Safavian to the bonny highlands of Scotland. ("Athletic fund." Heh heh. You can't say these guys don't have a sense of humor.)

By applying a liberal dose of grease, Foxcom managed to edge out another firm whose security arrangements had been cleared by the FBI and the NSA. For some reason, the Israeli company really, really wanted to set up the wireless network used by your congressfolk.

Bottom line: Whatever else he may be, Abramoff is one of those Israel-ueber-alles types. Seems to me that he went out of his way to curry favor with Ney and Savafian, both of whom were awfully well-positioned to help anyone who wanted to "listen in" on both Capitol Hill and the White House.

Am I speculating? Yeah. Is my speculation outside the limits of possibility or probability? Judge for yourself.

Madness

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce proposes taxing hybrid cars and other fuel-efficient vehicles. Meanwhile, the Bush administration refuses to use tax incentives to keep GM from transferring jobs from the United States to India. Madness!

Randy "Duke" Cunningham

Even though Randy "Duke" Cunningham is a Republican with close ties to the religious right, I cannot take pleasure in his resignation from the House of Representatives, following his guilty plea to a charge of taking bribes. Cunningham was one of the greatest pilots this country has ever produced. Some would argue that his May 10, 1972 dogfight with the North Vietnamese air ace "Colonel Tombs" was the most most impressive one-on-one aerial battle ever fought.

I wish that Cunningham had remained true to his finest self, and I hope that history remembers his heroism, not his failings.

Side note: This is a picture of Cunningham having a FAAAAbulous chat with Paul Crouch, queen of the Trinity Broadcast Network. I can't help asking: If fundamentalist Christians oppose homosexuality, then why does Christian TV display such an ultra-campy sense of style? I mean, you could catch gay just by sitting in a chair like that...

The Abramoff/Kidan/ Boulis murder case: What no-one's talking about

The Sun-Sentinel's coverage of the Gus Boulis case includes this noteworthy paragraph:

The Broward County State Attorney's Office stated in court documents that it does not intend to issue subpoenas to either Kidan or Abramoff in the Boulis case.

Granted, I've never worked in a prosecutor's office. Even so, this statement reads like a rather sweeping before-the-fact exoneration. Especially in light of the fact that cash went from Kidan to the suspected hit-dudes -- not to mention the payments Sun Cruz gave Ohio representative Bob Ney, who went on to say nasty things about Boulis in the Congressional Record.

If nothing else, Kidan and Abramoff had gone out of their way to establish themselves as Boulis enemies. So who gave them a get-out-of-jail card?

The State Attorney in Broward County is Michael Satz. If you want to get up to speed on Satz, you may want to check out this 2004 New Times story by Bob Norman. Here's the sub-head: "Broward's top prosecutor loves to protect corrupt public officials."

Yikes! That doesn't sound very encouraging.

Norman calls the top lawman "Michael Sitz," since he sits on cases -- or so sayeth Norman.

The numbers on Sitz speak for themselves: He's successfully prosecuted only two elected officials in Broward during 27 years on the job. It's been more than four years, or a full term in office, since he even charged one -- and that was former County Commissioner Scott Cowan in a case first worked up by the Florida Elections Commission. Even there, Sitz went easy, giving Cowan a break by charging him with misdemeanor offenses rather than felonies.

To put Sitz's futility in perspective, look at Miami-Dade County, where they take the subject a little more seriously. Their state attorney, Katherine Fernandez Rundle, has also been criticized for being soft on public corruption, yet she's filed criminal charges against numerous public officials in recent years, including four out the last five county commissioners to leave office. In addition to that, a special Office of Inspector General has led to more than 100 corruption arrests in six years. Oh, and it has a 100 percent success rate.

After detailing one primo example of "Sitz-Krieg" involving the lab director of a city water department, Norman summarizes:

This is classic Sitz. Spend taxpayer money on an investigation, fail to file charges, and act like you've done a public service by repeating what other investigations have already found. Bravo, boys, bravo.

And the fun is just beginning. The State Attorney's Office is sitzing on two corruption investigations right now that blow the Weber case out of the (chlorine-deficient) water. One involves North Broward Hospital District board member Dorsey Miller. Former FBI agent and current nonprosecutor John Hanlon has been working on that for months. Why so long? It takes tremendous contemplation to figure out an excuse not to file charges. Miller has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Miami-based firm called American Medical Depot, and he helped steer millions in business to the company.

Then you have the Hollywood sewage scandal in which Commissioner Keith Wasserstrom and his law partner, mayoral son Stacey Giulianti, stand to profit from a company the commissioner helped win a contract with his city.

Just the fact that Miller and Wasserstrom would take money from these companies shows how morally bankrupt Broward's political class has become under Sitz's laissez faire approach to corruption.

A lot of lefties are hoping the Boulis case will shine a spotlight on Abramoff and Kidan.

Think again. "Sitz" ain't no Fitz.

Which way does the Moon shine these days?

Some odd stories have recently appeared in Reverend Moon's Washington Times -- and in UPI's feed. UPI is the press service owned by the same pseudomessiah.

As we noted in a previous column, UPI published a story "confirming" the tale that Fitzgerald had studied an Italian parliamentary report on the Niger forgeries. Laura Rozen has persuasively argued that no such report ever existed. Why, then, did UPI claim otherwise? This was one false story that did not benefit the Bush agenda -- so why did the Moon-men spread it?

Similarly harmful to the neo-con cause is the recent Washington Times interview with former Reagan advisor Lyn Nofziger, who blasts the current regime of "corrupt" Republicans. He even issues an oblique call for ousting the party from power!

A single story of this sort can prove far more hurtful to Bush than will a thousand posts written by left-wing bloggers. Let's face it: Progressives tend to preach to the converted. Bush's base -- the entranced Jesus-junkies who make up the bulk of his remaining supporters -- will never read or heed the words produced by me, or by you, or by any other progressive scribbler. But they may take note of a piece in the Washington Times.

Has the Lord of the Second Advent lost faith in Bush?

How to win their hearts

Private security guards have taken to shooting Iraqi civilians at random -- and then, with supreme arrogance, they have used the internet to display videotaped evidence of their marksmanship skills. Since the video first appeared on a site linked to the Aegis company, most presume that the guards worked for that firm.

The video is here, although I couldn't get it to run.

Expect to see much more of this sort of thing. As political realities compel a pull-out of American soldiers, much more of the heavy lifting will shift to hired thugs. That's when the real fun will begin. If you tell a mercenary "Your mission is to win the hearts of the Iraqi people," he'll take those words as license to remove organs with a bowie knife.

These gentlemen have had their wallets stuffed with many a taxpayer dollar. How much cash are we talking about? Half a billion, some say. Others speak of a much higher figure.

Here's the kicker: You remember those supposedly "free" elections which put our puppets into pseudo-power in Iraq? Well, guess who collected the ballots...?

"Oh...sorry. Wrong Novak. Never mind...!"

Fitzgerald wants to talk with Time reporter Viveca Novak (no relation to Bob), and Blogworld Left has gone after this morsel of news the way my pooch goes after a tossed tennis ball.

I have follwed this development, of course, though not with the ravenous exhileration evinced by some Pla-maniacs. Since the journalist in question spoke to Rove's attorney Bob Luskin pursuant to an article on Plamegate, I presume that Fitz simply wants some clarity as to what, precisely, was said.

If nothing else, the Viveca Novak angle indicates that our favorite bloodhound still has the scent of turdblossom wafting through his nostrils.

That said, I must confess that I fell instantly in love with this alternate theory:

Back in May 2004, Luskin pulled the wrong "Novak" from his rolodex and left a message saying, "Hi Bob, just passing along a message from Karl. He wanted me to remind you that he can have you killed."

"Please don't bomb our supplier..."

You know why Blair talked Bush out of bombing Al Jazeera? Because Qatar (that's where Al Jazeera is) supplies the UK with one-fifth of its gas.

Abramoff and beyond

The Abramoff scandals are turning into one huge mega-scandal, in which murder, bribery, drugs, corruption, protection rackets, racism, the Israel-ueber alles faction and the Christian right all flavor the same fetid stew.

First, we have word of earwitness evidence in the murder of Gus Boulis, the fast-food magnate turned casino boat owner, who paid the price for refusing an offer he couldn't refuse:

Sometime between Thanksgiving and Christmas five years ago, the plan to kill Fort Lauderdale business tycoon Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis unfolded inside a shiny, black Mercedes Benz, if the man who appears to be the state's star witness is to be believed.

From the back seat of the luxury car, Dwayne Lavade Nicholson listened as the man he served as a bodyguard, Anthony "Little Tony" Ferrari, spoke with another man about a troublesome situation, according to court records make public Wednesday.

The other man, said Nicholson, was Anthony "Big Tony" Moscatiello, a known associate of deceased New York City mob boss John Gotti and his Gambino crime family.

The conversation, relayed by Nicholson to Fort Lauderdale police detectives three days after Boulis' murder, discussed the escalating business dispute between Boulis and the men who bought his SunCruz Casino business.

That's Kidan and Abramoff, folks.

According the Josh Marshall, the Boulis killing has been directly tied to congressional corruption:

You know that when the casino boat line SunCruz was owned by Jack Abramoff and Adam Kidan, the company paid the men who blew away SunCruz founder Gus Boulis.

Now it turns out they also had the company pay the National Republican Congressional Committee (the House GOP election committee) $10,000 on behalf of Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH). That was in exchange for Ney's putting anti-Boulis remarks in the congressional record that helped Abramoff and Kidan pressure Boulis to sell them SunCruz.

The guy who helped arrange Ney's anti-Boulis-trash-talking and the later pay-off was none other than Mike Scanlon, who later did public relations work for SunCruz, in addition to going into the Indian gaming bilking biz with SunCruz owner Abramoff.

Scanlon is the guy who just agreed to testify against, well...everybody in the Abramoff cases.

The Miami Herald has more:

When U.S. Rep. Bob Ney assailed the owner of SunCruz Casinos in 2000, it seemed puzzling that an Ohio lawmaker would go out of his way to attack a South Florida businessman who was trying to sell his floating gaming empire.

It turns out, according to federal investigators, Ney publicly called SunCruz founder Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis a "bad apple" in exchange for the company's new owners contributing $10,000 -- in his name -- to a national campaign fund to help elect Republicans to Congress.

More:

In his plea agreement, Scanlon agreed to help federal authorities in Washington and Miami.

He admitted to helping Abramoff and Kidan buy SunCruz by persuading Ney to insert comments into the Congressional Record that were "calculated to pressure the then-owner to sell on terms favorable" to the buyers.

According to court papers, both Scanlon and Abramoff "engaged in a course of conduct through which one or both of them offered and provided a stream of things of value to public officials in exchange for a series of official acts."

Finally, this note:

According to federal court records, Kidan also diverted $310,000 from SunCruz to pay for luxury sports skyboxes in the Washington-Baltimore area -- part of Abramoff's GOP fundraising enterprise where he entertained politicians and donors at FedEx Field, MCI Center and Camden Yards.

In a civil court deposition, Kidan said $236,000 in SunCruz profits went for a skybox in Maryland at FedEx Field in 2000.

The rest of the money went for another box at MCI Center in downtown Washington.

I hope Ney had a real good time at those games. He may be entering another box soon -- the non-luxury kind, the kind with bars on the door.

Daniel Hopsicker makes this observation about the Boulis murder, a point I've seen nowhere else:

After failing to pay for his purchase of Boulis’ SunCruz casino ship empire, Kidan added injury to insult, investigators now suspect, by using Boulis’ purloined company to pay for his own death.

Keep in mind, as you read all this, that Abramoff's major partner in this series of scams was professional Christian Ralph Reed. Reed's major function (if I may over-simplify matters) was to cajole naive fundamentalists into bringing anti-gambling pressures against Indian casinos, who would then pay Abramoff to lobby those troubles away.

Remember those old "Dead End Kids" movies? "Hey Mister -- we'll watch your car for a quarter." Anyone who didn't pay the quarter found his tires slashed. Abramoff and Reed were plying the same trick, albeit on a much more rarified level.

The bottom line: Abramoff, representing the Bush interests, seems to have been the point man in a crusade to take over non-Vegas gambling. At the same time this Republican "mob" asserted ever-growing control over the Indian casinos, they forced they way into the regulation-free cruise ship industry attempted to acquire the major share of online gambling.

An interesting parallel. Daniel Hopsicker pointed out an eerie historical parallel which deserves wider comment. Here's how Gus Boulis met his end:

Boulis, 51, was driving on Miami Road on the night of Feb. 6, 2001, when a car swerved in front of his BMW and slammed on brakes. After Boulis stopped, a black Mustang going the opposite way pulled alongside and its driver fired several shots into Boulis' car. Boulis drove off and crashed into a tree.

In 1987, "Poppy" Bush's friend Don Aronow -- the "speedboat king" who was heavily involved with drug-running -- was murdered in a substantially similar fashion. In the Aronow case, the shooter was on foot and the victim was given no chance to try to get away.

Interestingly, Aronow was aware that his life was in danger, and tried many times to call the elder Bush in the days leading up to the murder.

In earlier times, Bush -- who, as vice-president, was heading the war on drugs -- made sure that Aronow got a contract to supply the customs service with drug interdiction boats. Naturally, Aronow made sure that the cops received slower boats than those used by the smugglers.

Thomas Burdick, who wrote a book about the speedboat king, once spoke to a former convict named Tommy Teagle, who said that Aronow and Jeb Bush had been partners in cocaine trafficking and were $2.5 million in debt to their Colombian suppliers. Teagle, who claimed to be fearful that Bush would have him killed, later changed his story.

Question: Is there any way to make this nation's many naive Christophiles -- the ones who jumped every time Ralph Reed snapped his fingers -- understand the truth about the thugs who commanded their loyalites?

Fitrakis for Guv?

Bob Fitrakis -- the editor of the Free Press who has sone so much remarkable work exposing Ohio vote fraud -- plans to run for governor of that state. He's a Green.

And I don't know what to think.

On one hand, my realist side counsels against voting for any candidate who has no chance of winning. On the other hand, the idealist in me says that we can't let such presumptions dictate the choice of conscience. On the third hand...look, cah-MON, he really, really doesn't have any chance of winning. On the fourth hand, what non-Republican does have a chance of winning in an election game rigged by Kenny the kapo? Ohio elections have become surrealist exercises anyways. On the fifth hand, Fitrakis will surely discuss the vote fraud issue during the campaign -- AND he'll be well-positioned to mount challenges to the official tally.

Hm. You know, that "fifth hand" position is pretty persuasive. Okay, I'm sold. Fitrakis for Governor!

Robert Baer

I've never discussed former CIA agent Robert Baer in these cyber-pages, mostly because I never knew what to make of him. He's the author of Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude and See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism.

There aren't many other people who could be respectfully interviewed by both Buzzflash and David Horowitz' Frontpage. That's one indication of how hard he is to pin down.

You can get a fascinating glimpse of the man if you visit Harry Knowles' movie site and check out this interview with director Stephen Gaghan. Gaghan directed the new film Syriana, inspired in part by Baer's writings. Here's the relevant passage (with paragraph indents added for readability):

I was able to travel with Bob a lot and travel to the south of France. I didn't take a lot from his book. The movie doesn't really come from SEE NO EVIL, but the movie comes in large part from Bob's life and his own experiences and his attitudes.

The first thing he said to me was, "All right, you want to meet some of the players in the Persian Gulf? Then come with me to the south of France in August." And I was like, "What?" And he said, "Oh, yeah, if you're worth anything in the Persian Gulf, you think you stay there in August? It's 130 degrees. Everybody's on their yachts in the south of France."

So we went there and we went on boats with people who were the heads of intelligence for an African Muslim nation. We met billionaires who were in the oil business or middle men in the arms business who were billionaires. It was amazing to me that a mid-level CIA officer who was the Iraqi bureau chief in the '90s had in his cell phone the numbers of multi-billionaires. And he would call them on their personal cell phones and they'd pick up and say, "Oh, hey, Bob. Sure. Goin' out with the fam on the boat tomorrow. Come on out. Oh, you have a friend? Bring him. Sure. Bring him along. No problem."

I watched him at length with these people and I realized, one, it wasn't at all what I thought it was. That what Bob was primarily was a nexus for information. The reason these men, these well-known men, these super-powerful famous people, were interested in spending time with him was because he was of use to them. Because he knew things that they didn't know and wanted to know. These are serious people, and what they do when they get together is they exchange information. And they exchange it very quickly. And they always had... there'd be some posturing, some "Oh, the lobster tail's delicious. It's a beautiful boat." And then they'd get right down to brass tacks. Sometimes in English, sometimes in French. Often in Arabic. And it would just be this series of like...three answers. Three questions from Bob. Three more answers. Then the whole day was done. That was the point of being there. It wasn't to show this Hollywood screenwriter the world.

He always has an agenda. Millions of dollars have been spent training Bob Baer to always have an agenda. He never dropped it. Never dropped it. Layer upon layer of obfuscation and lie and deception built into him, into his character. You never get to the bottom of it. Never. You have no idea what he's really doing, what he's really thinking about. He changes his story all the time.

A few questions: If Gaghan describes the man's character correctly -- especially the part about changing his story all the time -- what attitude should we take toward his books? Why did he write them? And how does a former CIA man still command entrance to this milieu?

Happy Thanksgiving

Greetings and Salutations~
Once again this is Joseph Cannon's 'ladyfriend'. I just wanted to thank all of Joseph's loyal readers and wish them a very Happy Thanksgiving. I can tell you one thing he is thankful for; YOU, His readers.

So I am taking this moment to thank all of you for allowing Joseph his method of catharsis. If it were not for this blog, I am sure that he would have blown a gasket a long time ago. So thank you.


(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)

A petition for Barbara Boxer

The petition asks her to get out in front on the vote fraud issue. Check it out.

"Christian" mind control

In the past, I've discussed Melvin Sembler -- friend to the Bush family, former ambassador to Italy, and founder of the "Straight" program, a fake drug rehabilitation center which tortured teens until they mentally broke. Straight was part of a larger problem. A growing problem.

Abusive "Christian" schooling is a subject that deserves book-length treatment. I was both intrigued and appalled by this Buzzflash interview with Julia Scheeres, whose book Jesus Land describes in horrifying detail the abuses she underwent while growing up in a family of Fundamentalist savages.

At one point, these followers of the Prince of Peace trucked young Julia off to Escuela Caribe, a torture/mind control camp posing as a Christian reform school in the Dominican Republic. Since the off-shore location places the school beyond American law, the sadistic "instructors" can can commit pretty much any act of barbarism:

Julia Scheeres: They beat and abused children in God’s name -- using Proverbs 23, 13-14 as justification: "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell." I was very wary or leery about this. The day that I arrived, they staged a boxing match between this big, big man and an adolescent boy.

BuzzFlash: That’s the second point at which the book reaches a crescendo that is almost impossible to bear. It is horrifying. This man appears in shorts, bare-chested, and he is literally going to beat the devil out of this young kid who’s pretty weak and frail, and defiant. They call all the students down to witness this. It is like something from Abu Ghraib.

Julia Scheeres: This school is predicated on fear and humiliation. You conform or be conformed. That was the message. It’s like, this too could happen to you.

BuzzFlash: There is no chance for this kid, who is thirteen and basically a weakling, to have any power against this bulky forty-year-old. It’s a cruelty that simply is beyond imagination. He literally beats the heck out of this kid in a so-called boxing match. We’ll give you a "fair chance" if you want to say the devil’s word -- fight me, come on, show you’re stronger. He just pummels him until he practically breaks the kid’s jaw.

Julia Scheeres: He leaves him bleeding on the ground, and just stoops down and says a prayer over him...

Escuela Caribe is part of a larger network of alleged "reform schools" called New Horizons Youth Ministries. Scheer's experience was hardly unique.

I encourage readers to study the testimony found at a site called The Truth About New Horizons Youth Ministries. Some of the accounts are sickening.

For example, a victim named Tara Ketola was sent by her parents to Escuela Caribe because she had shown evidence of depression and other psychological issues, as well as "interest in world religion, the occult, and science; association with non-christian peers, music, movies, etc." For these "crimes, she received this punishment:

I was led to believe that my mother had permanently disowned me, while my mother was led to believe that I needed to be institutionalized for life.

I was forced to machete cane while visibly & severely ill (with typhus) until I finally lost consciousness.

I was under the authority & care of a house father who was later convicted of sex crimes, and whose behavior was far from appropriate. Every night before bed, for example, we were expected to line up to hug him. He had frequent and unsolicited physical contact with the girls in my house.

It was commonplace to be ordered to exercise past the point of pain, usually while being belittled, threatened & intimidated.

I was subjected to corporal punishment for rule violations I had not committed. (Whether or not swats are considered abusive, note that they were given while the child was kneeling with his or her head & entire upper body positioned under the seat of a chair.)

More:

Bathroom requests were frequently denied although it was a standard rule to drink 2-3 full glasses of water every day, along with 1-2 full glasses of milk with every meal. Repeated requests and accidents were viewed as insubordination.

Low rankers were required to ask a high ranker or staff member to visually verify incidences of fecal abnormality...

All students were forced to deny the existence of any child sentenced to isolation in the Quiet Room. This room was a small concrete cell without lighting or furniture. Students sent there first had their hair chopped off and were stripped to their underwear. They had to sleep on the concrete floor and scrub the cement for hours on end until they earned back the privilege of wearing clothes and sleeping on a cot.

These same techniques -- in particular, the strange emphasis on bathroom habits -- are also described by the victims of the Straight program.

I am becoming persuaded that these "schools" are working from the same template. The ownership may vary and the veneer of religion may be thick or thin, but the basic song remains the same. One can only wonder whether these programs were based on military research into behavior control.

Who owns New Horizong Youth Ministries? Scheers says that the place is run by a family in Indiana; alas, she gives no names. The school's official history says nothing about the individuals who bear legal and moral responsibility for these outrages -- a blank spot that I find intriguing. We do learn that a couple named Hugh and Nancy Maclellan funded the Canadian school in the 1970s.

If I may be permitted a very speculative observation, I would note that the time and location of the the ministry's origin point -- Indiana in the early 1970s -- is strikingly redolent of the early days of the Jim Jones cult. Jones, who also had an interest in thought control and jungle locales, began his operations in Indiana at a slightly earlier time. Could there be a connection?

We need to follow the money trail behind each and every one of these academies. I suspect that this trail may lead us to the rich and powerful, as was the case with Sembler.

Books about the ghastly practices of the Scientologists have shocked the world, yet these "Christians" have managed the formidable trick of making the Hubbardites seem relatively benign. In recent days, I've wondered how "our boys" could commit such atrocities in Iraq. Now I'm wondering how many of them had a history of Fundamentalist cult abuse.

Blowing their cover

The AP has discovered that a small law firm in Memphis, Tennessee may have been helping America's spooks do some extremely nasty things. The law office of Douglas R. Beaty, who claims to be a mere real estate lawyer, has the exact same address as Stevens Express Leasing Inc. They're in the "rendition" business -- that is, they fly Bush's prisoners to torture-friendly nations.

"The Federal Aviation Administration lists Stevens Express Leasing as the owner of four airplanes — three Beechcrafts and a DC-3." After reading Daniel Hopsicker's Welcome to Terrorland (a mandatory volume for anyone who wants a glimpse of what's really going on), I think the next step should be an investigation of the airport those planes call home.

Hilarious

"The Battle Hymn of the Republicans."

"Exterminate the brutes!" (updated)

As the white phosphorus story penetrates the national consciousness, George Monbiot of the Guardian argues that everything we know is wrong. Monbiot suspects that the bodies shown on Italian television -- the ones displaying intact clothing covering melted flesh and bone -- may not have been the corpses of white phosphorus victims.

So I asked Chris Milroy, professor of forensic pathology at the University of Sheffield, to watch the film. He reported that "nothing indicates to me that the bodies have been burnt". They had turned black and lost their skin "through decomposition". We don't yet know how these people died.

Monbiot posits that thermobaric weapons created the horrifying enigma of these cadavers. Alas, this theory doesn't hold water; thermobaric weapons would have ignited clothing as well as flesh.

The Islamic press has often reported that U.S. troops used chemical and even nerve agents in Fallujah and elsewhere. Most Americans would classify these claims as hyperbolic allegations from an unreliable source -- although given the lies told by the Pentagon, the administration, and our major press organs, I'm not sure just what constitutes a reliable source these days. That said, I've seen no indication that soldiers in Fallujah wore the protective gear required for the use of nerve agents.

WP remains the likeliest culprit. The Pentagon now admits that earlier denials of this weapon's use were lies. Administration defenders have retreated behind the protection of these three points:

1. WP is not a chemical weapon.
2. WP was not used on civilians.
3. We did not ratify any treaty prohibiting use of WP.

Point 1 has been effectively demolished by the revelation that American military intelligence categorized WP as a chemical weapon when Saddam Hussein used it. Even without that document, the photographic evidence sufficed. As I've asked several times, what sort of incendiary melts bone yet leaves cloth intact?

Regarding Point 2: Right-wing sites insist that civilians had evacuated Fallujah, an assertion derived from wishful thinking or propaganda. In an earlier post, I published a photo of a woman in her kitchen who died from WP. The RAI documentary shows many other civilian casualties. Monbiot says that "between 30,000 and 50,000 civilians might have been taking refuge."

Memory being short, many tend to forget that in the spring and summer of 2004, numerous reports revealed that the United States had turned back evacuees, thus forcing fleeing civilians back into a death trap.

Brig. Gen. Jack Egginton told the New York Times on April 30: "The big problem now is that friendlies, civilians and bad guys are all mixed together." A refugee told the Guardian on April 30: "The U.S. snipers are on every roof and minaret. They don't care who they shoot. They are shooting old people, women and children."

Dahr Jamail's respected Iraq Dispatches site, which accurately reported the use of unusual new weaponry in Fallujah, offers persuasive eyewitness accounts of actions taken against civilians:

Burhan Fasa'a, an Iraqi journalist who worked for the Lebanese satellite TV station, LBC and who was in Fallujah for nine days during the most intense combat, said Americans grew easily frustrated with Iraqis who could not speak English.

"Americans did not have interpreters with them," Fasa’a said, "so they entered houses and killed people because they didn't speak English. They entered the house where I was with 26 people, and [they] shot people because [the people] didn't obey [the soldiers’] orders, even just because the people couldn’t understand a word of English." He also added, "Soldiers thought the people were rejecting their orders, so they shot them. But the people just couldn't understand them."

A man named Khalil, who asked not to use his last name for fear of reprisals, said he had witnessed the shooting of civilians who were waving white flags while they tried to escape the city.

"I watched them roll over wounded people in the street with tanks," said Kassem Mohammed Ahmed, a resident of Fallujah. "This happened so many times."

Later, we read:

Believing that American and Iraqi forces were bent on killing anyone who stayed in Fallujah, Hammad said he watched people attempt to swim across the Euphrates to escape the siege. "Even then the Americans shot them with rifles from the shore," he said. "Even if some of them were holding a white flag or white clothes over their heads to show they are not fighters, they were all shot."

Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein reported witnessing similar events. After running out of basic necessities and deciding to flee the city at the height of the US-led assault, Hussein ran to the Euphrates.

"I decided to swim," Hussein told colleagues at the AP, who wrote up the photographer's harrowing story, "but I changed my mind after seeing US helicopters firing on and killing people who tried to cross the river."

Hussein said he saw soldiers kill a family of five as they tried to traverse the Euphrates...

From an April 29 Guardian report by Lee Gordonof:

It was when I saw little Ali's ruined body that I stopped being just a reporter. . The scene was a makeshift field hospital in Fallujah. A missile fired at the hospital has left the walls of the room Ali lies in pockmarked with shrapnel. Glass crunches underfoot. Four-year-old Ali is lying in a cot, the mattress matted with dried blood. He is bleeding from a horrific groin wound and his left leg has been amputated above the knee. His left arm is bandaged and bleeding, his face badly cut. His father brushes away the flies buzzing around Ali's wounds. It is a scene of almost utter hopelessness. Ali is one of the only survivors of an extended family, bombed the day before by a jet, probably an F-16. He might live, but only if he is evacuated to a Baghdad hospital within hours. Ambulances have tried to evacuate him and other seriously wounded casualties. They were turned back at U.S. checkpoints by troops carrying out orders: no one in and no one out.

One can go on, but the point is made: In Fallujah, bloodthirsty American invaders -- many of them ignorant "Christians" from our more barbaric states -- murdered indiscriminately, making no attempt to distinguish civilian from insurgent. The declaration that all the victims were insurgents is nothing more than a face-saving ex post facto lie.

What of point 3 -- the squabble over treaties? The right-wing argument is exemplified by this squib in the Sarasota Herald Tribune:

Pentagon officials say white phosphorus is not banned by any treaty that the U.S. has signed. It is covered by Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons, which prohibits its use as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations or in air attacks against enemy forces in civilian areas. Eighty countries signed the protocol; the U.S. didn't.

You can dismiss as a propagandist any news reporter or commentator who restricts the debate to the 1980 Convention without making any reference to the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. One cannot pretend that history stopped after a certain arbitrarily-chosen year; otherwise, one could argue that the U.S. Constitution allows slavery or prohibits alcohol.

Fortunately, Monbiot recognizes the existence of the 1993 convention. But even if the Bush apologists somehow managed to wipe away all trace of that year, we would still have a problem. Karen Parker, Chief Counsel of the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers, offered an interesting observation to The Cat's Blog:

The comment "Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance [WP] against civilians," assumes that therefore civilians may be targeted by WP weapons. This is an outrageous assumption because civilians may NEVER be the target of military operations -- whether using bows and arrows or white phosphorous, or any other weapon. This rule is not dependent on specific treaties but is a fundamental part of the laws and customs of war.

Once again, the matter comes down to the admixture of civilian and "insurgent." In Iraq, we do not face a regular army; we face a popular uprising against an occupation. In such an uprising, the fighters hide within the masses like rebar within a wall.

Most Iraqis hate us. Even the puppet leaders we installed via bogus elections have publicly asked for the removal of American forces.

A generation fed revisionist lies about Vietnam has had to learn anew an old truth: We can conquer a country, we can even exterminate an entire civilization -- but we cannot "liberate" a nation whose inhabitants want nothing more than our absence.

We can only kill them. All of them. Including the people we intended to liberate.

Mrs. Pope (and other hoaxes)

Xymphora published a lovely rumor that John-Paul II did cleave unto a secret wife and begat a couple of covert kids. While this claim has an endearing novelty -- a heterosexual priest, fancy that! -- I must expose the story as a probable hoax.

The original source for this assertion was a post by a DU participant code-named "emad," who seems to be a dame who has made a habit of light-hearted fibs in a conspiratorial vein.

PULL BACK TO WIDE VIEW: How should we react to hoaxes of this sort? Nobody appreciates a good leg-pull more than I do. In fact, during the 1990s, I started to put together a book titled Red Phoenix Rising: Bill Clinton and the Illuminati, written with an eye toward acquiring an endorsement from Texe Marrs. (Got a couple of chapters into the project. Wish I still had that material; it might be worth a laugh.)

Fun is fun. On the other hand...now that we've allowed hoaxers to cajole us into a $200,000,000,000 war we cannot win, this brand of fun has less amusement value.

I suppose we must judge the methodology by either intentions or results. When Virginia Woolf and five others pretended to be a Middle-Eastern potentate and his retinue, their only intention was to rib the assorted British high-and-mighties who fell for the ruse. The Tichborne claimant, by contrast, was not at all funny. The same principle applies to politics: The Lazlo Toth letters were great; the Niger forgeries are a continuing horror.

Into which category do we place the fellow who tried to establish an email account in the name of Prince William? Or that fellow who pretends to be the bass player for the Eagles? Your call.

The ultimate irony

A 1995 Pentagon document classifies white phosphorus as a chemical weapon...and excoriates Iraq for using it. Perhaps a conservative blogger would care to "explain" this document with a few strained rationalizations? That sort of thing is always good for a grim laugh.

The next war is almost here

Newt Gingrich is the latest conservative to warn of an upcoming nuclear strike by Iran against the United States. Newt, always a fan of cutting-edge technology, puts an intriguing spin on the now-standard propaganda line: He claims that Iran may use EMP weapons against us.

Gingrich pointed with alarm at a report first published in G2 Bulletin that Iran had tested the firing of ballistic missiles from a merchant ship in which warheads were detonated in midair over the Caspian Sea rather than at a land or sea target. National security experts and scientists commissioned by Congress to study the threat of electromagnetic pulse attacks on the U.S. concluded that Iran was preparing for just such a scenario.

Seems to me that this test -- if reported accurately -- probably was conducted with an eye toward defensive use in the Persian Gulf. Gingrich tries to convince his audience of the absurd proposition that Iran hopes to conquer the United States, but he presents not one shred of evidence in support of that notion. Neither does he present one shred of evidence that the Iranians are foolish enough to welcome the nuclear annihilation which would surely follow any attack on our teritory.

So why does Newt sound this alarm? I think public perceptions are being massaged.

In an important piece titled Can a Nuclear Strike on Iran Be Prevented?, Jorge Hirsch argues -- as I have argued many times -- that war with Iran is not only imminent but will quickly go nuclear:

Why are nuclear weapons an indispensable part of the enterprise? Because conventional military action against Iran would be very costly and would likely lead to disaster. Iran has dozens of Shahab 3 missiles that can reach Israel and many more short-range missiles that can target U.S. forces in Iraq, potentially with chemical warheads. It also has a 7 million-strong Basiji volunteer militia and local support from the Shi'ite population in southern Iraq, all of which would easily overwhelm the 150,000 U.S. troops and the weak Iraqi army.

Before the U.S. invaded Iraq, a conventional aerial attack against Iranian installations (like Israel did to Osirak's reactor in 1981) would also have been futile. Iran's facilities are numerous, many are underground, and partial destruction would only have led to a radicalization of Iran's regime and a full-scale drive toward nuclear weapons.

However, to justify the breaking of the 60-year-old taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, it is necessary for the lives of many Americans to be at stake. Otherwise, the American public would not condone the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. By placing U.S. forces within range of Iranian missiles and conventional forces, a situation has been created in which the American public will support the use of nuclear weapons to save thousands of American lives. This is why the invasion of Iraq was a necessary prelude to the nuclear attack on Iran.

I disagree only in part.

Iran has no motive to attack Americans in Iraq; we just installed a Shi'te-friendly government. I believe that the neocons will stage a large-scale "terrorist" event within the United States itself, which will be followed by allegedly "damning" intelligence pointing toward Iranian sponsorship. Nuclear war -- and the official end of democracy in America -- will follow.

Bad dreams...

A lot has happened on the vote fraud front, yet I've been so lax in writing about the topic that last night I had bad dreams, in which visitors from the future chided me for failing to do my duty.

Well, I can't properly fulfill that duty right now, due to a heavy work load. But I do have time to direct your attention to writings elsewhere. In particular, you should visit Brad Friedman's site.

Remember the chasm of disparity between the final polling and final results in the Ohio propositions -- the election in which Kenny the kapo oversaw the results for an initiative designed to replace his own lying self? Max Blumenthal has attempted to set our fears to rest by explaining that the polling must have been at fault.

Like Brad, I encourage everyone to read Blumenthal's piece. But I see in it no convincing explanation as to why polls always seem to worsen when the voting machinery gets Diebold-ized. And I've never understood why the errors must always favor the conservative side.

Moreover, I have disdain for an analytical approach which presumes as a given the very matter under question. If you presume that the tabulation was clean, then of course the flaw must rest within the polling. But what grounds have we for such a presumption?

This election was overseen by the same Ken Blackwell accused of criminal conduct by the heroic John Conyers -- and Conyers compiled much much courtroom-quality evidence to prove the point:

In many cases, these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio.

Given this man's perfidy, and given the "Dieb-throat" revelations of the electronic vote's hackability, common sense dictates that we must be more suspicious of the tabulation than of the polling.

Friedman makes a similar argument:

Our point, however, is that when you've got two different suspects for one murder case, one suspect with a long rap-sheet filled with all manner of homicides, theft, and general malfeasance, and the other is a Priest, an Eagle Scout, and a 4-Star General, we'd take a good long hard look at the known Criminal before presuming that the Saint must have done it. Even while either of them could have done it, Blumenthal presumes, without reason, that the Priest was likely the guilty party.

His final point is also worth quoting:

We suspect Blumenthal wouldn't put much stock in a similarly "faith-based" polling methodology where pollsters tell him "trust us, the methodology we use is very very good, you don't need to actually examine any of it to have complete confidence in our results." So we'd hope that he -- as much as anyone -- would understand that the results of an election where the methodology is allowed to be held as a secret "proprietary trade secret," should be similarly suspect and taken for what it's worth.

What happened to Air America?

I thought Air America was supposed to be trying to BUILD an audience. Instead, they've made it difficult -- impossible, in my case -- to access the shows via the internet. Listeners now have to go through an elaborate registration process (yet another password to remember...GRRR!). Once that process has been completed, you'll find that the audio players are now audio-visual centers, filling your desktop with flashy visual ads to accompany the on-air ads. And the streaming audio simply did not work when I tried it!

I suggest that everyone complain to the geniuses at Air America. Do NOT register.

Duuuude!

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi appears to have survived his most recent death. Isn't this, like, his fifteenth or sixteenth resurrection...?

Freedom and fellatio

"You should avoid oral sex," says Swedish dentist and researcher Kerstin Rosenquist. She headed (so to speak) a Malmo University study which identified oral sex as a possible means of transmitting human papilloma virus (HPV), a wart virus which can cause certain cancers.

My friends, we're fighting a war -- a war against HPV. It's a new kind of war. Defeating this enemy will require ingenuity and determination. And a lot of money.

Right now, we're spending roughly a hundred billion dollars a year to support a failing military effort in Iraq. Some of you may feel that this money would be better spent paying down the American deficit, which threatens to cripple the economy.

I used to think that way.

But now I've come to a clearer understanding of our national priorities. We must invest heavily in research to eradicate HPV. If this fight requires one hundred billion dollars a year, so be it.

Of course, paying for a massive research effort mandates an immediate removal of our troops from Iraq. America stands ready to make that sacrifice. We must withdraw in order to forge ahead. We must pull out in order to push through. We cannot stand still.

I'm sure that our fine lads in uniform -- soldiers of all political persuasions -- will sympathize with this anti-war argument. If we don't act now, a generation of brave young men may lose forever a basic freedom.

To underscore the HPV threat and the need for new priorities, American women must refuse to perform fellatio on all men who still support the misallocation of our national resources in Iraq. This ban will apply to men in the military and in the red states -- and especially to men who have never served yet support the war. Ladies, the fate of our country is in your hands.

Just your hands.

Not so fast

George in China, literally trying to escape from reporters, finds that the doors are locked. This is the funniest shot of W I've seen in months. That look on his face...!

Polls

Don't crow about latest Wall Street Journal poll, which puts Bush's approval rating at 34 percent. Okay, maybe you can crow a little: I had doubted that W's free-fall would ever crash through the 35% level.

Here's the bad news:

Cabinet members, Congressional leaders and both parties in Congress have also seen their ratings slip, with Democrats seeing one of the biggest dips in approval, the telephone poll of 1,011 U.S. adults shows....

At the same time, only a quarter of Americans polled give Democrats a positive rating in the latest poll, compared with 31% in August, while Republicans' approval ratings fell to 27% from 32%.

A generalized antipathy to both parties translates into a distrust of the very idea of government, and that attitude can only help Republicans.

(Side note: I've always felt that the Vietnam-era anti-war movement helped to sire the Reagan revolution. A generation of protestors shouted: Don't trust the government. Reagan took up the same chant: Yes, don't trust government. Let corporations run everything. That history will surely repeat itself a few years after we pull out of the Iraq quagmire.)

No matter how much hatred America shows toward Republicans, people seem to hate the Dems even more. The liberals hold very little power, yet still receive the brunt of the blame for all that goes wrong in this country. How can we explain the fact that the progressives never seem to benefit from the conservatives' record of hyper-hypocrisy and failure?

Many progressives will sing a familiar tune: "Of course Democratic numbers are dropping. They're wimps. They have to show more spine!" But Democratic leaders have been making some bravura moves during the period covered by this poll. We've seen tougher speeches. We've seen reversals of past support for the war. We've seen Harry Reids' much-lauded maneuver. We've seen, in short, some balls.

Face it: Ballsiness isn't working. It should work. I wish it would work. But you can't argue with numbers.

So what to do now? I'm looking for positive suggestions -- by which I mean something other than shouting insults at Democratic leaders, which is every progressive's favorite sport. (Beating up on your own candidates is a sure recipe for disaster, which is why you never see the other side engaging in that activity. Alas, some "liberals" seem to like losing.)

The false underdog gambit

The "false underdog" tactic is my term for one of the most common devices used by demagogues. Whenever a propagandist tries to make a privileged class seem like a persecuted minority, you are seeing the "false underdog" gambit at work.

Josef Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, believed in this tactic. That's why -- despite the misleading impression conveyed by many resource books on Nazi cinema -- he despised Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will. In Goebbels' view, emphasizing "triumph" was counter-productive. A film audience's sympathies go not to the strutting conquerors but to the outnumbered crusaders facing an uphill battle. (The erzats Nazi propaganda film in Kiss of the Spider Woman is closer to what Goebbels had in mind.)

The religious right has long benefited from portraying itself in a "false underdog" light. For example: Throughout the 1970s and '80s, this community circulated absurd rumors of a coming persecution of Christians in America. That day never came. In fact, Dominionist "Christians" have made plans to persecute everyone else.

Fundamentalists argue that gay rights equal "special privileges." They incessantly repeat the canard that Christian children are forbidden from praying in school, simply because teachers stopped foisting classroom prayer on believers and non-believers alike.

The "false underdog" mentality informs Jerry Falwell's latest crusade. He hopes to convince his flock that Christmas -- Christmas! -- is endangered.

Falwell has put the power of his 24,000-member congregation behind the "Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign," an effort led by the conservative legal organization Liberty Counsel. The group promises to file suit against anyone who spreads what it sees as misinformation about how Christmas can be celebrated in schools and public spaces.

The 8,000 members of the Christian Educators Association International will be the campaign's "eyes and ears" in the nation's public schools. They'll be reporting to 750 Liberty Counsel lawyers who are ready to pounce if, for example, a teacher is muzzled from leading the third-graders in "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing."

An additional 800 attorneys from another conservative legal group, the Alliance Defense Fund, are standing by as part of a similar effort, the Christmas Project. Its slogan: "Merry Christmas. It's OK to say it."

Maybe some schools have bent over backwards to show sensitivity toward Jewish and non-Christian students. Maybe a few people -- very few -- have gone too far in their mania for pluralistic inoffensiveness. But so what? The phrase "Merry Christmas" never has been and never will be in danger; those words will be heard long after you and I are buried and gone.

Why does Jerry Falwell pretend otherwise? Because he has an agenda.

Allons enfants de la Patrie

Rent's overdue, my work projects are late, and I need to write a major piece on vote fraud for the blog. So naturally, I've taken this opportunity to translate La Marseillaise.

What can I say? I've been going through a Berlioz phase. And since non-political posts occasionally appear here on the weekends, I am going to afflict you good people with the results.

As it turns out, a proper English translation of the French national anthem has stumped experts for more than two centuries. Literal translations are unsingable, while free translations -- including one commissioned by the French president, as well as a version by Percy Bysshe Shelley -- stray far from the intended meaning, and they still aren't very singable. None of the previous translations attempted to maintain the original rhyme scheme.

So I decided to have a go at it.

My translation sacrifices exactitude in places, but each line still conveys a sense of the original. The rhyme scheme is there, the meter remains the same, and -- much to the annoyance of my neighbors -- this version can be sung.

First, in French:

Allons enfants de la Patrie,
Le jour de gloire est arrivé!
Contre nous de la tyrannie,
L'étendard sanglant est levé
(L'étendard sanglant est levé),
Entendez-vous dans les campagnes
Mugir ces féroces soldats?
Ils viennent jusque dans vos bras
Égorger vos fils et vos compagnes!

Aux armes, citoyens,
Formez vos bataillons,
Marchons, marchons!
Qu'un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons!

Here's the Cannon version:

I call on all who love our nation
The test of glory comes today
When we face a tyrant's predation
When the banners of blood come our way
(When the banners of blood come our way...)
When you hear marching invaders
Come howling for prey in your home
Destroying everywhere they roam
And loved ones are lost to the raiders...

Raise arms unto the skies!
Batallions shall arise!
March on! March on!
We’ll bleed the foe
Until the day is won!

In your face, Shelley! This calls for a Homer Simpson-esque victory dance...

Of course, six more verses need translating. I probably won't bother you with folks with those. But as I read those verses, they seem to offer an interesting commentary on today's events. Perhaps this has been a political post after all...

Has the wind really shifted?

Normally, I don't see much point in directing readers to the major story on Kos; you've probably already seen it or will see it soon. But "Fog of War" by Hunter is particularly well-written. Hunter comments on Newsweek's Howard Fineman -- who, in turn, had some harsh comments on the White House's reactions to the Murth-quake:

The press isn't having fun anymore.

The battles are too acrimonious even for good television. The stakes, when even vaunted idols like Bob Woodward are finding themselves dashed upon the rocks, are getting too personal, and too close to home. And in cases like Fineman's, I have to wonder if what I am positive I saw, tonight, I actually saw: a man calling the White House out, rather directly. A man who was no more impressed with the attacks upon Murtha than anyone else watching, to the point where it shifted the tone of the debate, because a lighter tone, in this particular case, simply could not be conscripted.

Whether or not Karl Rove survives the excesses of being Karl Rove, I have to wonder if the same crass, one-note song will play, or if the audience has changed. When the only weapon the White House is capable of using is to impugn the very patriotism and Americanness of their opponents, what happens if the reactions to that attack change?

What happens if the press decides that dissent is, after all, patriotic?

To which a reader added:

Regarding the Schmidt soundbite, it reminded me of "what if they gave a war and nobody came?" -- what if they attacked someone's patriotism and nobody believed it anymore? Can Karl Rove still be a bogeyman if no one is scared of him anymore?

A college chum once told me that some Medieval churchmen believed that the Devil was frightening only as long as people took him seriously. Satan lost power the moment human beings started to laugh at him.

The far-rightists have thrived on lies and lucre, only to be undone by the facts of their misgovernance. No matter how well-funded their efforts to keep the public in a perpetual state of hallucination, history will break the trance.

More lying about history

So much history is being made right now -- and so many lies about current events need to be exploded -- that I feel guilty discussing the scandals of yesteryear. But the past is never really past, is it?

When Roger Ebert gave a positive review to George Clooney's Good Night and Good Luck -- the film about Edward R. Murrow and Joseph McCarthy -- one of his readers (apparently well-schooled in the Gospel According to Ann Coulter) wrote in to argue that McCarthy was right:

The Venona Project was a top-secret U.S. government effort to decode Soviet messages which ran from 1943 until 1980. Untold thousands of diplomatic messages were decrypted, providing invaluable intelligence. Some of that intelligence proved that there were, indeed, spies imbedded in the U.S. government in far greater numbers than the public suspected. Many of the people that McCarthy singled out as being spies actually were working for Russia, traitors that were selling out their country to the most murderous regime the world has ever seen.

A little Googling will tell you that this has become the standard right-wing argument -- the party line, as it were: "We were correct then; we are correct now." Most liberals -- fearful (as always) of being red-baited, and annoyed at the prospect of doing homework -- offer only a vague and inadequate response to this claim.

Discussion of the Venona project could fill several books. Bottom line: As the recent controversy over the Niger forgeries (hardly the only relevant example) teaches us, right-wingers are willing to "cook" intelligence to fulfill their ideological needs and to discredit enemies. Similarly, eavesdroppers and spy-runners who wish to rise within the heirarchy have always known that they must deliver what the boss wants to hear, even if the boss is the notorious J. Edgar Hoover.

Even if we take everything in the Venona files at face value, nothing in those pages -- and yes, I've spent some time looking at that stuff (as most righties have not) -- justified McCarthy's wild accusations against the State Department and the Army.

Donald A. Ritchie is the associate historian of the U.S. Senate Historical Office. Here's his bottom line on McCarthy and Venona:

McCarthy's defenders cite the VENONA intercepts as evidence that the senator "was on to something." The problem with this defense is that very few of those in VENONA came under McCarthy's scrutiny.

Venona produced most of its results in the years before McCarthy became a force. Even a (generally) pro-McCarthy site can say only this of Venona:

VENONA specifically references at least 349 people in the United States--including citizens, immigrants, and permanent residents--who cooperated in various ways with Soviet intelligence agencies.

Were these people in the State Department? The Army? Did McCarthy target the right people?

Let's put the matter into some persepctive: Right now, I'm sure that there are thousands of people in the United States who work for SISMI, MI6, MSS, FSB, BND, DGSE, Mossad and any number of other foreign intelligence bureaus. The presence of foreign agents in our land doesn't mean I have a right to accuse you of working for any of those spook shops unless I have evidence.

I am astonished that Venona identified only 349 NKVD and KGB hirelings. The propaganda of the time had many Americans believing that a nearly limitless number of Soviet agents infested the nation. The John Birch Society (to which Coulter has at least indirect ties, through her championing of Phyllis Schlafly) even proclaimed that Eisenhower was a knowing agent!

Everyone agrees that the Soviets had agents in the United States. But how many of them penetrated to high positions? I've yet to hear (for example) of one undisputed case of a Soviet mole reaching into the CIA, although I feel sure that such a thing must have happened.

McCarthy made his accusations based not on evidence but on politics. He believed that all Democrats were traitors. Anyone who favored maintaining the New Deal paradigm was, in his eyes, a communist. A "Soviet agent" was not someone actually employed by the Soviet Union, but someone McCarthy and the red-baiters simply did not like. (If you think about it, a genuine penetration agent would espouse right-wing beliefs.)

McCarthyism became a tool of revenge employed by the large network that favored Hitler before and during the war. These fascist sympathizers far outnumbered the communists, and they held far more powerful positions. A number of books prove the point. (If you're looking for a place to start, try Christopher Simpson's Blowback, then head toward Charles Higham's American Swastika and Trading With the Enemy.)

The anti-Communist witch-hunters employed "professional witnesses," such as Harvey Matusow, who provided false testimony designed to place labor leaders and other "undesirables" behind bars. The mania unleashed by McCarthyism targeted such entertainers as Frank Sinatra, Lucile Ball and Humphrey Bogart. McCarthyism became, in short, a racket.

In recent times, Venona has become a cheap, all-purpose device used by rightist propagandists desperate to legitimize their failed worldview. Anyone who doubts the point need merely take a look at this site:

My father was a subscriber to I.F. Stone’s famed newsletter in the 1950s and 60s. Stone was a highly regarded “independent” journalist and his newsletter was always exposing things about Sen. Joseph McCarthy and others who warned against Communist spies and agents of influence. The problem was that I.F. Stone was a Soviet agent of influence, financed by the Kremlin. My Father didn’t know that and probably wouldn’t have believed it.

The Venona decrypts referencing Stone come from the wartime years, when the USSR was an ally. Soviet intelligence did approach him; I presume they wanted him to write something about the Soviet war effort. He may have considered an offer. But no deal was consummated and no money exchanged hands. Stone simply did not work for the Soviets. Nor is there any indication in Venona that the Soviets considered Stone terribly important. (It's not as though he held a government position.)

Former KGB operative Oleg Kalunin once gave a speech widely interpreted as "outing" Stone as a Russian agent. (The speech was given well after Stone's death.) Of course, anyone who follows espionage history knows better than to trust the word of defectors, who are notorious for saying whatever their sponsors want to hear. Interestingly, the speech in which Kalugin made this revelation was mis-reported by the ideologists. From the Columbia Journalism Review:

Andrew Brown, the Independent writer who covered Kalugin's speech in March, checked in with his own clarification. In an article in the October 8 issue of The New York Review of Books, he said his original story had focused on Russian domestic troubles, but his editors had wanted more on spying. Dictating straight from his notes, he added the critical anecdote at the last minute. Material that was deleted, as indicated by the ellipsis in the original published story, would have made clear what he understood Kalugin to mean at the time: that the then-unidentified "American journalist" had not been an intelligence agent but merely someone who was useful to talk to; that he had not been paid any money, but only taken to lunch.

In other words, the right defines the term "agent of influence" so broadly as to include anyone who showed up at the occasional lunch. I've sat across the table from lots of people I neither worked for nor agreed with, and I've also shared chow with people whose backgrounds I did not really know. You can probably say the same.

The right seems to think that the very mention of the phrase "Venona" should stupefy us. To the contrary. On this front, as on every other, we must fight back, lest propaganda replace history.

That which we must never do

I know that many of you were outraged by Jean Schmidt, the Ohio representative who called combat vet Murtha a coward -- and then pretended that she really did not mean it, even though the transcript clearly indicates she did mean it.

However angry you may be, I really think that it would be out of line for you to call her at home. That is the sort of tactic best left to the Freepers. Despite all temptation to tell her off personally -- at home, in the middle of the night -- you should stick to more socially acceptable ways of expressing your feelings. You can write a letter. Or send email. You can even call her office. But whatever you do, do not call her at home.

The home telephone number that you must never dial is (513) 677-5495.

Don't disappoint me!

Correction

On November 15, this column published the following:

What did Karl Rove say after he had an orgasm?

"Oh Bob -- you really DO know the secret of Deep Throat!"

The correct name was Stephen Hadley, not Karl Rove. Cannonfire regrets the error. Deeply.

"Bush uses cocaine, Prozac, alcohol" -- no, REALLY!

Gosh, I'd love to spend some time in Tom Flocco's universe. It's so much more interesting than mine. His latest piece includes some revelations which warmed the cockels of my heart (and you know how chilly those cockels get this time of year):

Federal law enforcement agents have at different times witnessed President Bush doing lines of cocaine in the early morning hours at the White House and drinking straight shots of whiskey in the evening hours on other occasions, according to U.S. intelligence sources...

Bush's doses of Ritalin and Prozac are reportedly administered by Col. Richard J. Tubb, the White House physician; and medical journals say they can impair the President's mental faculties and decrease both his physical capabilities and his ability to respond to a crisis.

Yep, those words definitely have a cockel-inflammatory effect. But Flocco can't resist reminding us that even worse things happened under the dreaded Clinton administration:

"...in 1993 and 1994 First Lady Hillary Clinton twice decorated the White House Blue Room Christmas tree with "twelve lords a leaping ornaments -- all naked with large erections, sex toys known as 'cock rings' or phallic objects using stylistic representations of the male penis, other condom ornaments, some still in the wrapper, some not...Two condoms 'blown' into balloons and tied to small trees...and [cocaine] crack pipes hung on a string.

"When Vice President Al Gore and his wife Tipper entered the Blue Room for the annual White House Christmas party and saw the condoms, dildo vibrators, and crack pipes hanging from the First Lady’s Christmas tree, Mrs. Gore said, 'You will not desecrate Christmas and my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ;' and with one punch, Tipper Gore knocked Hillary Clinton between the eyes, flat on her back to the floor, and immediately left the Christmas party with the Vice President," according to federal whistleblower Stewart Webb who confirmed FBI agent Aldrich's pornographic tree assertions.

Goodness. We must write to Tipper Gore and express our gratitude for her pugilistic defense of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

For more on Stew Webb, who specializes in creating a hilariously hallucinatory version of history -- go here. As for Flocco, his "intelligence sources" are probably about as reliable as the madman who lives under the tree by the freeway offramp near my home.

Warping young minds

A friend of the blog sent me a link to a new children's book titled "There are Liberals Under My Bed!" Apparently, this is a serious effort by a conservative cerebellum-scrubber to wash even the tinest of brains.

What to do? One hesitates to respond in kind. Countering propaganda with counter-propaganda may be necessary, but do we really want to carry such battles over to the playground?

And we can't parody this effort, since the title already goes beyond parody. Conservatives used to despise the "...under your bed" formulation. Now they've embraced it.

Are any counter-moves advisable? This question is of some importance to me, since I've done some children's book illustration.

The books I've worked on had no political implications -- and frankly, I would rather continue to work on books meant for fun. I grew up on Dr. Suess and, later, the Oz books; the next generation deserves similar appeals to imagination. The sludge of politics can invade their noggins at a later age.

They don't get it

The Times of London admits that the "white phosphorus" story is a propaganda blow for the United States, but not a legal problem:

On the facts available now, it [the U.S. military] is within the letter of the law, even though it has not signed the most relevant protocol on the use of the weapon.

But that assertion depends on the US claim that there were few civilians left in Fallujah by the time the assault began last November. There is strong evidence to support the US position. But conflicting reports, inevitable in the circumstances, leave room for debate, and even more for rumour.

The "relevant protocol" mentioned above is Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons, which prohibits the use of incendiaries against civilians.

In other words, this argument presumes that WP is not a chemical weapon. If the Times believes that, then why don't they ask a scientist to explain how an "incendiary" weapon could melt bone yet leave clothing intact?

Then we read the following gem:

The US is a signatory to the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, but denies that this covers white phosphorus.

If judges allowed the accused party to define the law, all the jails of the world would be as empty as a concert hall during a twelve-tone festival.

The head of the organization overseeing that Convention has been quoted as saying what should be obvious to anyone who has seen the photographs: WP is a chemical weapon. His view -- not the Pentagon's -- should be considered final.

The Jordan bombings

The official story of the Jordan bombings has begun to come apart. Unfortunately, few in the mainstream media, or even in the progressive sector, have paid much attention.

The Jordanian authorites insist that suicide bombers from Iraq cased the locations, got inside, and set off explosives hidden beneath their outer garments. The authorities also have the videotaped confession of a woman, Sajida Mubarak Atrous al-Rishawi, who says that she did not succeed in killing herself, although her husband did.

Here are some pieces of counter-evidence:

1. On-the-scene photos indicate the presence of explosives planted in the ceiling.

2. The Associated Press quotes an eyewitness named Fadi al-Kessi, who insists that the electrcity failed just before one of the blasts, and that the explosion came from the ceiling. We have other reports of the lights going out just before the event.

3. Jordanian police initially told Reuters that bombs were planted in the ceiling.

4. Sajida Mubarak Atrous al-Rishawi read her statement before television cameras in a tone of voice that sounded (to my ears, at least) mysteriously untroubled, calm and rehearsed.

5. Published reports held that the police discovered her still wearing her explosives belt, even though they found her holed up at a safe house days later. Does that make sense to you?

6. The television cameras rolled while she showed off her TNT-laden accessories. What policeman would allow a suspect in custody to wear explosives to a press conference? This gesture seems theatrical and inherently unbelievable.

7. Although Al Qaeda has not been quick to take credit for previous atrocities (including 9/11), an alleged Al Qaeda website came online with mysterious rapidity to crow about the Jordan attacks. The site claimed that the attacks occurred to protest "the conspiracy against the Sunnis." Since Jordanians are almost all Sunni, this statement makes no sense.

Try this thought experiment: Imagine that a nuclear bomb takes out Dublin. Now imagine that, within hours, a never-before-seen web site appears on the net -- a site allegedly produced by the IRA. Imagine that a writer for this site makes this announcement: "We destroyed Dublin to protest the treatment of Catholics in Northern Ireland." Would you believe what you were reading, or would you suspect deceit?

The questions surrounding the Jordan bombing go beyond the knee-jerk conspiracy theories that pop up after every major event. We have a right to demand answers.

Blame

"It's not my fault I lied; it's their fault they believed me." Unfortunately, quite a few progressives are willing to agree with him. Has the "blame our side first" contingent ever helped Democrats accomplish anything?

"White" lies

The Pentagon admits to using white phosphorous as a weapon (not simply as an illumination or smoke screen device) in Fallujah. But military spokesmen are still lying about the nature of the weapon, claiming that WP is an incendiary, not a chemical weapon.

What "incendiary" leaves clothing intact while melting flesh and bone?

They also claim that civilians were not targeted. Here you can find a picture of a woman in her kitchen who died from WP. She was far from the only civilian victim.

The above-cited ABC story indicates that the substance was used rather indiscriminately to "smoke out" insurgents from buildings. In Fallujah -- as in Vietnam, as in any situation involving popular support for irregular fighters against imperialist invaders -- any action against combatants will also target civilians.

(Since the neocons, not long ago, unapologetically embraced the "we're an empire now" concept, we may safely use the term "imperialist.")

Peter Kaiser, Chairman of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons at the Hague, has categorized white phosphorus as a chemical weapon. The United States has signed and ratified this convention; we are listed here and the State Department maintains a helpful Chemical Weapons Convention web page here.

American tax dollars have paid for the use of chemical weapons against civilians in direct violation of the convention. That much is established fact; any argument to the contrary is sophistry.

We melted civilians in order to save them.

Nigergate: A new layer of disinformation

I'm a couple of weeks late, but better late than never: If you have any interest in the Niger forgeries which helped to sire the current war, download Ian Masters' interview with Laura Rozen.

I hate disagreeing with so formidable and talented a writer as Laura Rozen. Her work is vital. Her blog is a must-read. She has researched the Niger matter "on the scene" in Italy. (Will I get in trouble if I say her voice is kinda sexy? Probably. So I won't.) But I think she is wrong about the key issue of how the forgeries entered the Iraq debate. Judging from his tone of voice, Masters may also have a few doubts.

More on that later. Right now, I want to talk about a related issue.

Rozen raps the noses of bloggers -- such as yours truly -- who discussed reports that an Italian Parliamentary Commission had investigated the necon cabal behind Nigergate. We were told that Fitzgerald had obtained a copy of this report.

Rozen says that this commission never existed, and that Italy's parliament has been irritatingly inactive on these questions. Fitzgerald cannot have read a report that never saw ink.

She labels the story a "fantasy."

But Rozen misses a key point. Not all untrue stories should be thoughtlessly stashed in the file cabinet marked "rumor." To cite a relevant example: The so-called Bulgarian connection to the shooting of the Pope may have been a lie, but it was no mere rumor. Anyone using that term does history an injustice. That story was disinformation -- a different beast altogether.

Many of the same people involved with that disinfo campaign returned to work in Niger-gate.

I first read of this "Italian parliamentary commission report" by way of Larry Johnson, an associate of Vincent Cannistraro's. Both are respected CIA veterans. These are serious men, frequently quoted by mainstream news organizations. They have long kept an eye on the antics of Ledeen and company.

Justin Raimondo had his own source for the story -- apparently someone working in an Italian embassy; Raimondo has never revealed the name. In his reply to Rozen (here) he notes that Rome Public Prosecutor’s office was investigating Rocco Martino in 2003. Although Raimondo believes that this investigative effort may be at the heart of the story, I'm not sure that I can agree.

A fairly detailed version of the story is this French-language report from a group called La Voix des Opprimes:

En Italie, le parlement vient de conclure une étude sur les origines et les conséquences des faux, et selon certaines sources, le rapport mentionne parmi les principaux suspects Michael Ledeen, Dewey Clarridge, Ahmed Chalabi et Francis Brookes.

Finally, a "mainstream" news organ offered confirmation, by way of this UPI story:

...NATO sources have confirmed to United Press International that Fitzgerald's team of investigators has sought and obtained documentation on the forgeries from the Italian government.

Fitzgerald's team has been given the full, and as yet unpublished report of the Italian parliamentary inquiry into the affair...

"NATO sources" What, I wonder, does that mean?

Did Larry Johnson -- or Raimondo, or anyone else relaying this data -- deliberately lie? No.

Were they lied to? Possibly. Whoever did that job must have known how to deceive a pro.

I place the UPI report in a special category, because UPI is owned by the notorious Reverend Moon. When UPI cites a "NATO source" to confirm the existence of a report later proven non-existent, we have exited Fantasyland and entered a darker realm. Remember how a squabble over the Burkett documents deep-sixed the larger discussion of Bush's service in the National Guard? A similar tactic could explain the UPI article.

We must maintain a distinction between rumor, fantasy and disinformation. "The Vanishing Hitchhiker" is a rumor. Harry Potter is a fantasy. False accounts of the Tonkin Gulf incident were part of a disinformation effort. Of those three examples, which one begat a war?