Friday, March 31, 2006

I almost don't want to post this...

...because we all know what what happens every time the dreaded acronym WTC7 appears on any web site. Is it possible to discuss 7 World Trade Center without the "bomb-in-da-building" zealots seizing upon any excuse to proselytize the faith? My purpose here is to discuss another mystery.

A few years ago, the brief New York Times report that the CIA had offices within that structure intrigued me, so I tried to find out more. Those findings deserve some presence on the net, even if the matter does not, in the final analysis, carry tremendous weight. What follows below the asterisks is yet another chunk from my yet-unpublished piece on WTC7 (the final version of which will have complete footnotes):

* * *

The Spooks of 7 World Trade Center


Of all the government agencies which called 7 World Trade Center home, one name rivets the attention of parapolitical researchers: The Central Intelligence Agency.

Only those “in the know” can say which of the building’s offices housed the CIA. That famed three-letter acronym did not appear in the lobby directory, nor did it appear on any phone bill sent to that address. The Company did not advertise its presence in New York City because the CIA’s charter prohibits domestic operations. Of course, the Agency’s interpretation of that charter may differ from yours or mine.

According to James Risen, the New York Times journalist who broke this story, “The agency's New York station was behind the false front of another federal organization, which intelligence officials requested that The Times not identify.” I was not a party to this deal, and I have never understood why the American taxpayer should remain forever ignorant of data which foreign intelligence organizations must consider old news. Two sources – one of them a private detective based in New York City – have informed me that the CIA has often used the Defense Investigative Service (DIS) as a cover when operating within the United States. In 1999, the DIS changed its name to the Defense Security Service, or DSS.

Of course, the scuttlebutt one hears from private detectives sometimes proves off-kilter, but in this case the suggestion makes sense. The Defense Security Service (DSS) is the agency of the Department of Defense charged with “clearing” individuals entrusted with sensitive military information. Many civilians undergo these background investigations, which are a routine fact of life for anyone who wants to work in an industry related in any way to defense. To establish a job applicant’s trustworthiness, DSS agents pry into credit histories and criminal records, and will even interview friends and family members. The goal: Weeding out individuals who show signs of instability or susceptibility to foreign influence.

One does not need much imagination to understand why the CIA would view DSS/DIS as an excellent domestic cover. If (presuming you are an American) someone showed up on your front step, flashed CIA credentials, and started asking intrusive questions about a friend’s personal habits, you might well become anxious or indignant; the scene could even end with a shouted reference to George Orwell and a slammed door. But if that same visitor showed DSS credentials, you would probably go out of your way to cooperate – after all, you would not want to ruin your friend’s career prospects.

The DSS web site lists the service’s field offices. In the state of New York, offices are located in Westbury, Syracuse, Liverpool, Rome, and Griffiss Air Force Base; no mention of any past or present office in New York City proper. News accounts of the disaster do not record either DSS or DIS as a tenant of any building in the trade center complex. Yet in the fall of 2001, the Southwest Bell SMARTpages online directory listed a phone number for the “US Defense Investigative Svc” at 7 World Trade Center.

Perhaps someone forgot to tell CIA about the name change.

An official told reporter Rizen that CIA personnel vacated these offices “soon after the hijacked planes hit the twin towers.” This version of events places the evacuation order after 9:06, the time of the second strike, even though most other building tenants left immediately after the first strike at 8:48. The account, if accurate, conjures up a grimly amusing image: Were the intelligence professionals the last people in the building to figure out that they were under terrorist attack?

The New York Times report raises the question of classified material falling into the wrong hands:
The recovery of secret documents and other records from the New York station should follow well-rehearsed procedures laid out by the agency after the Iranian takeover of the United States Embassy in Tehran in 1979. The revolutionaries took over the embassy so rapidly that the C.I.A. station was not able to effectively destroy all of its documents, and the Iranians were later able to piece together shredded agency reports. Since that disaster, the agency has emphasized rigorous training and drills among its employees on how to quickly and effectively destroy and dispose of important documents in emergencies.

As a result, a C.I.A. station today should be able to protect most of its secrets even in the middle of a catastrophic disaster like the Sept. 11 attacks, said one former agency official. "If it was well run, there shouldn't be too much paper around," the former official said.
The implication here is that CIA personnel destroyed scads of documents during that all-important 49 minute period between 9:06 and 9:55. One wonders why they would bother. Why not simply leave and lock the doors? After all, according to the official chronology, fire had not yet broken out within 7 WTC -- and even if smoke alarms were already ringing, no-one should have expected a building collapse. Nothing of the sort had ever happened before.

In all likelihood, un-shredded classified materials were left inside the building, and went down with the proverbial ship. A federal judge gave the CIA jurisdiction over the building 7 clean-up operations, no doubt to prevent sensitive documents from falling into the wrong hands – presuming that any such documents survived.

The fact that the CIA gained this jurisdiction bears upon a related matter: Remarkable caches of gold, drugs, and arms were stored beneath the WTC complex. Since much of this material rested beneath structures other than 7 World Trade Center, we shall deal with this issue in a separate chapter. (Some conspiratorialists will tell you that the existence of this underground trove somehow “proves” the intelligence community’s complicity in the attacks. This argument -- if it can even be called an argument – resists any attempt at logical analysis.)

* * *

Forgive an in medias res ending. One day, I really must finish that book. And now is the time for certain readers to do precisely what they were asked not to do; no doubt, they will take umbrage at my accusation of fanaticism while providing evidence of same. If you must, you must. Take it away, bomb-brigadiers...!

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Late-breaking news on the RFK assassination

Cannon here: Thanks to Gary Buell, I stumbled across an interesting document pertinent to the RFK assassination, brought to you by the good folks over at the Smoking Gun. The information amounts to little more than a tale told at second- or third-hand -- but, as we shall soon see, we may be able to track down a first-hand witness.

This FBI memo from August of 1971 summarizes an interview with a lady named Lila Hurtado, who, in 1968, had worked for one William R. Huntington, an interior decorator "to the stars" who kept an office on Sunset Boulevard. (The text makes it clear that he was gay, a fact which may be relevant.) Huntington told her of a tape recording made by a friend of his, an attorney named Ronald Buck who owned or ran a club called The Factory.

A side note: A little googling reveals that a club by that name still operates in West Hollywood; apparently, it caters to a gay clientele. I don't know if that was the case in 1968, or even if we are dealing with the same place.

Back to our story. According to Hurtado, Buck had made a secret tape recording of several "wealthy individuals" hobnobbing with bigwigs from Washington. These worthies were "gloating" over the deaths of JFK and Martin Luther King, and discussed plans to deal similarly with Robert F. Kennedy, who was then running for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Buck later played the tape for Huntington, who called Robert Kennedy. (How did he get the number? Probably via Peter Lawford, who was one of Huntington's clients.) RFK personally heard the tape while in California, and responded: "I can't do anything about that until I become President."
Hurtado learned from Huntington during this time, the names of three individuals who had attended the private party; however, she could only recall the name of a Mr. Hunt, who was a millionaire from Texas.
This would seem to be a reference to H.L. Hunt, a racist fanatic long rumored to be the money man behind the assassination. (Incidentally, Ken Russell's Billion Dollar Brain features a hilarious caricature of Hunt.) The idea of old man Hunt showing up at a private party held in a gay club is more than a little odd -- but, as noted above, I don't really know what sort of patronage The Factory attracted back in '68.

Huntington later claimed that he had received threats on his life. He died of a heart attack in 1971. Hurtado, his confidant and the teller of this tale, began to feel that she might herself be in some danger. Thus, she made contact with the FBI.

An interesting story -- but, alas, no more than that. The tape would be good evidence, if it still exists. Even a first-hand "earwitness" would benefit the credibility of this account. Might such a witness still exist?

Hurtado listed the names of several individuals who, she believed, might corroborate her story. One of these names struck me as familiar:
Lea Perwin (phonetic)
Ronald Buck's former Secretary
now employed with Diamond Jim's in Los Angeles
"Diamond Jim's" was the name of a chain of ritzy steak houses in Southern California; as it happens, my mother worked for this firm in the late 1970s. At first, I wondered whether this connection might be the reason why the name "Lea Perwin" struck a chord.

Then it hit me: "Lea Perwin" may refer to the woman who now styles herself Lea Purwin D'Agostino, known to the criminal class as "the Dragon Lady," a nickname she is said to relish. (I believe she married a man named D'Agostino.) Now a respected Deputy District Attorney in Los Angeles, she became famous through her aggressive prosecution of director John Landis in the "Twilight Zone" case. I would not be surprised to learn that her legal career began with a stint as a secretary to a well-known lawyer.

I'll let you know how this tale develops...

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Two women

Any true gentleman will rush to the aid of a lady in need. I would like to introduce you to two women who could use your help, even if all you can offer is a kind word.

1. Viva Nancy! Nancy Skinner -- early progressive talk show radio host and partial inspiration for the entire Air America experiment -- is running for Congress in Michigan's 9th District. Yes, she's raising funds -- and yes, I know that you, like me, may be tapped out to the point of eating meatless pasta. But do her a favor -- do yourself a favor -- and watch her video. Its a compilation of her appearances on television throughout the early years of the Bush administration, when she spoke out against war and tax cuts for the wealthy at a time when doing so won her no friends.

She was phenomenal in combat. Not only that: This video compilation reminds us of just how wrong -- and how utterly ARROGANT -- the right-wing pundits were at that time. I defy anyone to watch this presentation without wanting to grab the nearest tire iron to smack the smirks off the faces of those ignorant sunsabitches.

If you live in Michigan -- and even if you don't -- support Nancy Skinner.

2. If you live in California -- and even if you don't -- support Debra Bowen. She's the California state legistlator fighting to overturn the reign of electoral misrule instituted by the Arnie-appointed Secretary of State Bruce McPherson. This is a national issue: If McPherson succeeds in his evil scheme to Dieboldize California's voting booths, no Democrat will ever again win the presidency.

But that's not the only evil scheme up Brucie's sleeve. Bowen has uncovered a new plan: McPherson, taking his cue from Katherine Harris, has instituted a new voter registration database, designed to "weed out" the poor and the homeless. (And there will soon be plenty of them, once the housing bubble bursts.)
More than 14,000 new voter registration and re-registration applications just from Los Angeles County were recently invalidated under this new stringent set of regulations — and other counties are seeing similar results.

This is a 43% rejection rate! In fact, virtually all of these applications would have been accepted before Secretary McPherson rolled out his new statewide voter registration database. Typically rejection rates are 1-2%. This is outrageous.
By the way, Bowen will be on the Al Franken show between 9:30 and 10:00 a.m. this Friday. The topic will be keeping the vote clean and non-computerized. Much as I admire Franken, he hasn't always been good on this issue, so let's hope she can turn him around -- or, better still, electrify the audience.

Perhaps I should end with a nod toward a third courageous woman. As I've noted on a couple of previous occasions, Lydia Cornell hopes that her piece on Ann Coulter will win the Koufax award for best blog post. Alas, voting has closed. Even so, Lydia deserves all the good will she can get, since she will soon become the target of an epic right-wing hate campaign, due to her new book on Coulter. My prediction: The hatemongers try to portray Lydia -- a sweet-natured mother of two, and one of the few genuine Christians -- as a scarlet Hollywood liberal, "out of touch with mainstream America" -- just as they will try to paint the venom-spouting, hard-drinking, bed-hopping "Mistress Ann" in hagiographical hues. That show could prove quite entertaining!

Debate and distraction

Why are mainstream Democratic politicians so afraid to stand up to an unpopular president? Because even when on the ropes, conservatives still decide which issues will predominate. They still frame the debate.

Right now, the administration remains mired in unending scandals. The economy is in a perilous state. Global warming could destroy civilization. Gas prices continue their escalator ride. Oil may indeed be peaking. Iraq devolves into civil war. Bush has responded to the crisis he created in that country by calling for replacement puppets. Our ill-educated and ill-treated troops on the ground have concluded that all Muslims are the enemy -- an attitude which, predictably, has fathered a number of atrocities. On the pretext of preventing Iran from getting the bomb, the administration prepares for yet another unwinnable war, which will end only when we use nuclear weapons to stop the use of nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the Saudis have quietly been trying to put together their own nuclear armamentarium. They may already have one.

That's what's going on, folks.

So what is the burning issue of the day in America? Immigration.

Yes, immigration is a genuinely important problem. Has been for decades. But why is it the number one topic this morning? Because the right would rather we didn't talk about all that other stuff.

The new Islamic bomb

Worried about nukes in the hands of Islamic despots? Don't look at Iran. The real problem may be Saudi Arabia. An Indian newspaper, citing the German magazine Cicero, claims that Pakistani nuclear scientists (using a pilgrimage to Mecca as a cover) have been helping the Saudis acquire nuclear know-how.

Those tempted to dismiss the report should read Joseph Trento's Prelude to Terror:
In 1975, the royal family was approached by Pakistan’s government for help in financing a pan-Islamic nuclear weapon. [Saudi Intelligence chief Kamal] Adham and his advisers had simultaneously reached the conclusion that the royal family could not survive if they let the Israeli nuclear-weapons program stand unchallenged.
So what, precisely, makes nuclear weaponry acceptable in Saudi Arabia and not in Iran?

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

If this Card could speak...

The resignation of White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card conjures up all sorts of fascinating scenarios which will probably go unrealized. What if he decides to talk?

He probably won't, of course. But we can still speculate: What if he spilled the beans on just two issues -- Plamegate and the World Trade Center attacks?

WHIG. Because Card has always kept such a low profile, few understand that he played a key role in the war conspiracy.
The White House Iraq Group (WHIG) was formed in August 2002 by Andrew Card, President Bush's chief of staff, to publicize the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. WHIG operated out of the Vice President's office.

The group's members included Rove, Bush advisor Karen Hughes, Senior Advisor to the Vice President Mary Matalin, Deputy Director of Communications James Wilkinson, Assistant to the President and Legislative Liaison Nicholas Calio, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
The purpose of this group was to create public support for a war which (as we now know from the Downing Street memos and other sources) was pre-determined. In other words, this group focused on pushing propaganda -- the Niger forgeries, the aluminum tubes hoax, Atta in Prague and so forth. They also felt threatened by Joe Wilson.

Oddly, although journalists and pundits have offered much speculation about which WHIG member did what, few of those speculations concern Card, the organizer of the group.

We know, though, that when the Justice Department launched a criminal probe into the outing of Plame, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave Andrew Card a twelve-hour "heads up," which provided plenty of time to clear damning information from the White House computers.
...when Gonzales was notified about the investigation on the evening of Monday, Sept. 29, 2003, he waited 12 hours before telling the White House staff about the inquiry. Official notification to staff is meant to quickly alert anyone who may have pertinent records to make sure they are preserved and safeguarded.
Just what did Card do during that twelve hours -- and in subsequent days?

Recently, we learned about the 250 pages of "Now you see 'em, now you don't" emails which Rove recently "discovered" and supplied to Patrick Fitzgerald. These very same emails went missing during the original Justice Department inquiry, perhaps during those key twelve hours. (The deadline to turn over all materials was October 10.) Andrew Card could probably tell us some very interesting details about this strange matter.

One possible explanation for the disappearance and re-emergence of the emails concerns the idea of blackmail, or insurance. During the window of opportunity, someone might easily have made personal copies of those messages as a matter of self-protection. Later, someone else in the White House (call him Karl) arranged for the same emails to vanish. Once Karl learned that incriminating copies of these missives still existed, he would have been forced to "find" the emails again, in order to avoid accusations of participating in a cover-up.

(This scenario is very speculative, of course -- but there is historical precedent for this sort of thing. Nixon could not erase the Watergate tapes because the CIA had its own copies.)

And who might the original "someone" have been? Andrew Card would be my primary suspect, since he was the one who received advance warning from Gonzales. For a brief time, only he -- and those he chose to inform (if anyone) -- knew about the probe. The President himself did not learn about the investigation until the next morning, according to one published report.

The alternative theory, of course, reverses the roles: Perhaps Card was the one who tried to make the emails vanish, while Rove cleverly made them re-appear when the time was right. Although this is the more popular scenario, I tend to discount the idea, if only because I think Rove has more to hide.

Many believe that Card has had an adversarial relationship with Karl Rove. They disagreed over the Harriet Miers nomination: Card pushed for Miers, while Rove probably aided the conservative groups who called for her to withdraw. Some observers aver that Card quickly lost enthusiasm for the Iraq war itself.

As Needlenose points out:
Given this uneasy relationship with Rove, it's possible that the Plame leak was the proverbial last straw for Card, and when he learned that there would be a full Justice Dept. investigation, he decided to make it clear that he wouldn't be going down with Rove's ship.
Card could well be the senior White House official who told the Washington Post that at least six reporters received the Plame leak before Novak published the information. As you will recall, the earliest "Plamegate" reports fingered Rove as the likeliest source for Novak. Whoever circulated those stories had it out for "Bush's Brain."

All of which suggests that conspiracy-minded folks might want to check up on an overlooked AP story from November 27 of last year:
A small, twin-engine plane carrying White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card made an emergency landing in Nashville Saturday after smoke began pouring into the cockpit, officials said...

The plane left Texas, where Card has been meeting with President Bush...at his ranch in Crawford, White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said.
Pure coincidence, of course. Even so, Card did once say that "Karl is a formidable adversary."

The Day of the Goat. Another set of mysteries involving Card concerns the events of September 11, 2001.

I've always felt that Bush's undignified, incompetent reactions on that day indicate that he did not have foreknowledge of the attacks, or at least of their extent. At the end of the original version of The Manchurian Candidate, Senator Iselin is given a dramatic, moving "impromptu" speech to declaim on national television in the aftermath of an assassination; surely W could have made similar arrangements? At the very least, he would have made a mental note: "Attack planned for today. Try not to look like idiot in front of cameras."

Unforgivably, Bush entered the classroom and listened to the goat story (the Greek for goat provides the root of tragedy) even though he had already been informed of the first strike. We don't know when he was told or who told him. Was it Card or Rove?

On more than one occasion, Bush made a statement which many took as a claim that he had seen the impossible:
And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot.
Of course, there was no footage of the first impact available at that time. Perhaps we should blame W's infamous difficulties with the English language. If you presume that he meant "I saw that an airplane had hit the tower," the statement makes more sense, even if his actions do not.

Bob Fertik summarizes one version of the tale:
According to ABC's John Cochran, Bush discussed the first crash with his Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, before he left his hotel. As Bush approached his car, a reporter asked, "Do you know what's going on in New York," and Bush said he did - and would say something later.
He had no business going to that school, of course. Everyone suspected terrorism from the moment the first jet hit; the President endangered those children by placing himself in their presence at such a time.

Bush stayed in that school some 25 minutes after being informed of the second strike. Even if he didn't have the presence of mind to leave, why didn't Andrew Card think of the obvious course of action?

The first reporter to interview the retired Card should ask that question.

Monday, March 27, 2006

Kill for Jesus!

Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo (whose last name is an anagram for "acned rot") likes to earn the occasional bucket of ink by making outrageous statements in front of microphones. His most notable outburst: Calling for the nuclear annihilation of Mecca and Medina should Muslim extremists ever set off a weapon of mass destruction within our borders. Tommy, who considers himself a good Christian, thinks that Jesus would applaud a mass slaughter of the innocent.

Recently, Tom the Toon had it out with Hillary Clinton over her claim that the Republican anti-immigration bill "would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself." Tom's reply:
"Hillary Clinton doesn't know the first thing about the Bible. Her impression, her analysis, her interpretation of both the law and the Bible are certainly wrong."
So. What lesson do we draw from all this? According to Tancredo, Jesus loves the idea of killing millions of innocents to avenge a wrong done by a handful of fanatics. Meanwhile, we should consider Hillary an inferior interpreter of the texts written by a people who became history's most noted migrants.

Let me clarify my positions: Although Hillary may have overstated the parallel, she was not out of line to suggest that the Samaritan story, and perhaps the biography of Jesus himself, might offer interesting points of reference. (Jesus was an immigrant. Remember the escape to Egypt? His family probably stayed with the huge Jewish community in Alexandria.) That said, I think our borders must become less permeable, and I remain no great fan of Hillary Clinton.

But at least she isn't a theocratic thug. Whenever goons like Tancredo offer Bible lessons, I feel happy to remain caught 'twixt Gnosticism and Agnosticism.

TW3

The Week of the War; Year Four commences

The anniversary of our invasion of Iraq brought us more denial; big surprise, as that seems to be the theme. Hell, W can’t say the "w" word, much less the civil “w” word, or executions, or murders, and more murders, much less address the fact that, in addition to all the killing and maiming, it’s leaving those who come home, crazy.

Evidently, the only battle this pseudo-hayseed prez of ours can tolerate is with his straw men. And needless to say, none of these idiots will speak of all the corruption, except maybe the former head of USAID. And did I hear someone not say permanent bases?

Oh, and just in case the media forgets how it's supposed to speak, FauxNews shows how to do the double speak, pure Orwell.

Not even Orwell could make this stuff up.

Did you get the memo?

The latest Downing Street Memo proves -- again -- that despite public pronouncements, George W. Bush was always intent on war with Saddam Hussein, even if international arms inspectors scoured Iraq and determined the place to be clean and WMD-free.

The administration does not question this document. Yet Scotty McSpokesman refuses to budge from the previously-determined spin:
McClellan noted previous U.N. resolutions had warned Saddam Hussein of serious consequences if he did not comply with U.N. mandates over weapons of mass destruction and its compliance with the inspection regime.

Saddam had been given numerous opportunities to do so but chose not to, McClellan stressed.
But Saddam did comply. Inspectors had free run of Iraq. And the memo, along with plenty of other evidence, proves that compliance was never the issue; Bush was determined to invade no matter what Saddam Hussein did.

In a bad (really bad) '60s sex comedy called A Guide For the Married Man, you can find one good joke: A philanderer caught by his wife in flagrante dilecto manages to talk his way out the situation by denying everything. Even as the man and the mistress get out of bed, dress, and give each other a quick farewell smooch, he tells the wife: "Don't be silly, dear. I would never do such a thing. There's no other woman. You're just imagining things."

Are people really stupid enough to fall for a denial that flies in the face of concrete evidence? Scott McCellan thinks so.

Scalia: "That's Sicilian!"

An interesting story comes to us by way of Reverend Moon's UPI:
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia startled reporters in Boston just minutes after attending a mass, by flipping a middle finger to his critics.

A Boston Herald reporter asked the 70-year-old conservative Roman Catholic if he faces much questioning over impartiality when it comes to issues separating church and state.

"You know what I say to those people?" Scalia replied, making the obscene gesture and explaining "That's Sicilian."
No, Tony. My grandmother's version of manicotti was Sicilian; your gesture was just thuggish. (By the way, she pronounced "manicotti" with a long O. Please, folks...no more "mani-CAWT-i"...)

The snit-fit factor

Over at the TPM Cafe you can find a discussion of Kevin Phillips' American Theocracy. The conversation has veered off into a number of different directions, as such conversations usually do. Here's a quote that got my goat:
What Limbaugh is, is something different. He's a propagandist nothing more. As to his popularity among many. One has to go read Thomas Frank "Whats the Matter with Kansas". The short answer is this: When the Clinton betrayed the working class(blue collars) and pushed through NAFTA during the nineties many ordinary Americans saw the Democrats as no friend of theirs. Which caused many of these folks to turn away from the party since it didn't want them.
The obvious problem with this assessment is the chronology: Limbaugh achieved his popularity well before the Clinton presidency. But that's not what bugs me.

What bugs me is the proposition that working class people, feeling (justifiably) betrayed by Clinton over this decision, would storm off and spend the next couple of decades voting for Republicans. As some of you will recall, most Democrats opposed Clinton on NAFTA, while nearly all Republicans -- including Rush Limbaugh -- supported the agreement.

Any working person cognizant enough to have known about NAFTA must also have known that most conservatives loved it and most liberals loathed it. Any working person educated enough to know what the acronym stands for must also be bright enough to know that the G.O.P. loves to ship American jobs to China and India.

I'm reminded of the long-ago (yet still present) debate over gays in the military. In 1993, I felt furious that Clinton wasted so much of his short-lived political capital on that one obviously-doomed issue. Yet many gay people felt just as furious because Clinton did not spend all of his capital fighting for the right of openly gay people to die in needless imperialist adventures. So furious were they that some of them declared that they would vote Republican henceforward. As though the Republican party would defend their interests.

That's the problem, and it is one we will face if the Dems ever win high office again. If -- when -- a Democratic president annoys one sector of his supporters over one issue, those supporters will announce their decision to pick up their marbles and leave the game. And off they go, voting once more for the party of debt, theocracy, war and corruption.

I call it the snit-fit factor. It tends to hit Democrats -- never the other side. Why is that?

Sunday, March 26, 2006

Our worst covert op

Which covert operation undertaken by members of the United States intelligence community did us the most harm in the long run? That was the question posed a few days ago over on The Next Hurrah. In my view, the 1953 ouster of democratically-minded Iranian leader Mossadegh should top the list. Restoration of the Shah led to the Iranian revolution, which helped spread Islamic fanaticism.

One can take this point further. Many believe that the CIA aided the rise of Khomenei in the late 1970s, once they understood that the Shah could not maintain power. Our spooks considered an Islamic Republic preferable to the socialist alternative which had once seemed poised to take power in Iran after the Pahlavi dynasty fell. A region-wide religious resurgence had the potential of helping to undermine the Soviet Union -- or so it was once felt.

Of course, the boldest voices will tell you that worst crimes committed by our spooks were the assassinations of the 1960s.

Worse than you think

This Daily Kos diary by gjohnsit is must-read material. The headline: "America is effectively bankrupt." The message: If we calculate our federal deficit honestly, using the same accounting methods recommended for corporations, our red ink comes down to a whopping $3.7 trillion dollars. That's ten times the amount Bush claims.

Even if the tax rate were 100%, we would not be able to pay what we owe. Printing money will thus become the only way to remove the debt monkey from our collective back. That means inflation. And -- although Williams won't make the point explicitly -- that also means fascism will probably come a-knocking at the door. Such is the lesson of history.

Bad news on unemployment, too. If we count all the severely discouraged workers (the lumpenproles, as Uncle Karl used to call 'em), the government's claimed 5.5% unemployment rate shoots up to 12.5%.

Are these assertions valid? gjohnsit draws his conclusions from the work of respected economist Walter J. "John" Williams. You can hear a good interview with him here. As the interviewer prefaces: "It's not for the faint of heart; strap yourselves in." John Williams' website is here; you'll also want to visit OpEd News.

In the afore-cited interview, we learn that the government has understated the GDP by some three percent -- meaning we are in a recession right now. But you already knew that, didn't you?

Other signs of economic ragnarok:

-- Iran is not the only Middle Eastern nation switching away from the dollar. Saudi Arabia and the UAE look ready to make the jump to the euro.

-- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke (an expert in the causes of the Great Depression) has announced that the possibility of a future "disruptive correction" of the trade deficit "cannot be ruled out." When a Fed chairman says something like that, what he really means is "Watch out!" The trade gap will bite us in the ass, and the U.S. dollar -- which has been losing value slowly -- will soon plummet in value. And since oil may no longer be denominated in dollars, that fill-up will hurt your wallet a lot more than it does at present, because we will have to pay in more valuable euros. Higher trasportation costs means higher costs for...well, everything.

-- Isabel V. Sawhill and Alice M. Rivlin of the Brookings Institution announced darkly that
"...the federal budget deficits pose grave risks - a category 6 fiscal storm - to the U.S. economy. The current course is simply not sustainable. Promises to the elderly, especially about medical care, cannot be kept unless taxes are raised to levels that are unprecedented or other activities of the government are slashed. Postponing such action would be reckless and short-sighted. Massive amounts of capital have flowed in from around the world, financing much of America's federal deficit, as well as its international (or current account) deficit. While this inflow of foreign capital has kept investment in the American economy strong it means that Americans are accumulating obligations to service these debts and repay foreigners out of their future income. As a result, the future income available to Americans will be lower than it would have been without the government deficits.
The right-wing spin-meisters are preparing Americans for this by pretending that Bush brought about this problem through an over-abundance of "compassion" -- not through military misadventure and corruption.

-- The percentage of mortgage delinquencies keeps rising. The same dummies who kept voting for Bush also thought that adjustable rate mortgages were just ever so nifty-neato. Truth be told, one cannot easily feel sorry for people operating at that level of doltishness.

The end of the housing bubble may be even uglier than you ever imagined. Check out what John R. Talbott, author of "Sell Now!", has to say:
The problem, he says, is that home prices are way overvalued -- just as Internet stocks were during the 1990s before that sky collapsed. As evidence, he points to the growing discrepancy between Bay Area home prices and rents, an indicator commonly used by economists to determine a property's true value...

To buy these overvalued homes, he says, many consumers overextend themselves financially by borrowing more from banks. They end up paying an inordinately high percentage of their monthly income on mortgages. In Los Angeles, he points out, the average new homeowners, usually a young couple, are spending 55 percent of their monthly income on a mortgage payment...

Banks are lending more, he says, because they are sticking to their old qualifying formula of computing the ratio of the loan applicant's salary to the mortgage payment. They're doing this, he said, without adjusting for inflation.

"So the banks are using the same stupid formula. They convince these young couples to borrow a million-dollar note that they're never gonna get out from under..."
More:
Because of the above factors, Talbott predicts a wave of loan defaults and foreclosures. Bank presidents will be fired for making so many risky loans. The new presidents, wanting to clean up the mess, will unload the properties at a loss, perhaps for 40 to 60 cents on the dollar. This will flood the market and deflate home prices further.

And then, according to Talbott's prediction, the financial impact will, like an especially vicious virus, spread. First, the real estate industry will falter. Then, industries tied to real estate -- including banking, construction, home supply stores -- will be hurt.

"And then you've got a real recession," he says, "that will wash across the middle of the country."
Some of you may be thinking: "That will be the time to buy! Low housing prices!" Yeah, but -- in a depression, will you continue to have a job? Of course, one must ask how to reconcile the predictions of resurgent inflation, due to the printing of money to pay off our debtors, with the falling home prices that will occur once the current bubble bursts.

When that famous fan gets hit by a certain brown-n-smelly substance, rest assured that red-state idjits (the ones who keep voting for pork-lovin' Republicans) will continue to tell themselves that we got into this mess by taxing the rich and tossing too much money at welfare cheats and not praying to Jeebus often enough. Such people are beyond education.

How to open a Republican's wallet

Yesterday, we poked a little fun at Kathleen McFarland, a possible opponent to Hillary Clinton. McFarland had spouted some nonsense about Senator Clinton's alleged use of black helicopters and spies -- loopy accusations which received wide publicity via Rupert Murdoch's New York Post. My piece elicited this interesting observation from a reader:
Don't take anything you read in the NY Post too seriously -- Murdoch has some kind of a sweetheart deal with Hillary. For some reason, she (unlike any other democrat) gets very positive coverage.
Hmm. Why would that be? One answer which occurs to me is this: The right-wing wants Hillary to be the Democratic presidential candidate in 2008. Obviously, she has to keep her present gig if she hopes to seek higher office.

Even if she doesn't run, her mere presence -- the threat that she may run -- will assure an avalanche of donations to the Republican party from Hillary-haters. Does anyone doubt that Regnery will publish at least one book about her "candidacy" -- even if her name does not appear in a single primary race? Does anyone doubt that the Clintonian menace will be Topic A in all RNC fundraising materials? If she did not exist, the right would have had to invent her.

Saturday, March 25, 2006

Hillary's helicopters

Hillary Clinton will be fortunate to have an opponent like Kathleen "KT" McFarland in her upcoming Senate race. McFarland recently claimed that the all-powerful Hillary sent helicopters to spy on her. Worse, according to the New York Post (which is nobody's idea of a liberal rag), McFarland claimed that Hillary has been spying in her bedroom window...!
"She wasn't joking, she was very, very serious, and she also claimed that Clinton's people were taking pictures across the street from her house in Manhattan, taking pictures from an apartment across the street from her bedroom," added the eyewitness, who is not involved in the Senate race.

Suffolk County Republican Chairman Harry Withers, who hosted the reception in East Islip, confirmed McFarland's paranoid statements.
Despite these eyewitness reports, Kathleen now pretends that her comments really were nothing more than tomfoolery. Surrrrrrre.

Those of us who recall the 1990s know that reactionaries got a lot of mileage out of distributing ultra-paranoid stories detailing the Evil Clinton Conspiracy. Get a clue, Kathy: This ain't 1995. No-one's buying that crap any more.

Friday, March 24, 2006

Red State

Until today, this column has said nothing about the Ben Domenech affair. As you no doubt know, this youthful reactionary gained a mysteriously prominent writing gig: A blog called "Red State" published by the Washington Post. Domenech isn't a particularly gifted writer, but talent doesn't matter in today's world. As the Jeff Gannon scandal demonstrated, if you express a willingness to perform verbal fellatio on the powerful, rewards follow.

Truth be told, I rather like the title of Domenech's blog. It emphasizes the similarity between the Stalin and Bush cults of personality.

Today, Domenech announced that he has vacated his Post post, due to exposure of his history as a plagiarist. He'll be back, of course. Guys like Domenech never really go away. For now, take note of this passage from his farewell apologia:
My critics have also accused me of plagiarism in multiple movie reviews for the college paper. I once caught an editor at the paper inserting a line from The New Yorker (which I read) into my copy and protested. When that editor was promoted, I resigned. Before that, insertions had been routinely made in my copy, which I did not question. I did not even at that time read the publications from which I am now alleged to have lifted material. When these insertions were made, I assumed, like most disgruntled writers would, that they were unnecessary but legitimate editorial additions.
Is this story believable? Hardly.

Some years ago -- did you ask how many years? Don't be rude -- while attending a well-known university, I used to edit entertainment reviews contributed by students. Translating those reviews into English was not always easy; editors often had to rephrase whole paragraphs. In those days, we considered "I was really stoned last night" a perfectly legitimate excuse for turning in unreadable copy. Once, I rewrote an entire film review submitted by a young writer who spent his college years bonging and 'shrooming through the realms beyond Tiphareth. He's now a well-known movie critic.

So, yeah, I understand that, at certain times, editors must show no mercy. But...inserting text from previously published material? Come off it. No editor in the world, not even a young one working at a university newspaper, would do such a thing.

Young Domenech's plagiarism did not amount to much of a sin; one should forgive a college-age transgression of that sort. I would even overlook the later examples of word-pilferage which apparently have peppered this young man's work. A slap on the wrist, a warning not to do it again, and no more need be said.

But for chrissakes, Mr. Domenech -- when you're caught, you're caught. Just 'fess up and face the music. Stop trying to blame others for your mistakes. Stop being such a goddamned Republican.

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Thankz 2 Neil Bush, kidz is lerning real gud

There's something odd about the Ignite Learning software company owned by Neil Bush, the presidential brother infamous for his role in the Silverado swindle. Thanks to "No Child Left Behind," Ignite has received some very lucrative contracts to place their software in Florida and Texas.

1. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Ignite has received big contracts as part of the Katrina rebuilding effort. This, at a time when homeless Katrina victims are being evicted from shelters. There's no money for them, but plenty of bucks for the brother of the prez.

That's a huge scandal right there. Yet no-one is talking about it!

2. Neil has been pushing the same software in former Soviet states. His partner in that effort is a tough-guy Russian tycoon and accused criminal named Boris Berezovsky, who is said to have plotted a coup against Putin.

3. NB also went to Dubai to hunt for investors for Ignite.

4. He also got investors from Taiwan, Japan, Kuwait and the British Virgin Islands -- not to mention some $23 million from stateside venture capitalists.

5. NB has also formed a strange partnership with the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. And with the Scientologists.

Rarely has the acronym "WTF" been so applicable. With his brother in the Oval Office, and with those fat nepotistical contracts under his belt, Neil should have no need to head off to Dubai (of all places!) for investment capital. Why does the history of an educational software firm read like the script of a James Bond movie?

There must be a hidden story here.

Incidentally, many teachers have accused Ignite of "dumbing down" education. For example, the Constitution is reduced to a rap song.

Ask not "Is our children learning?" Ask "What is our children learning?"

More Promptergate proof?

Bob Fertik brings to our attention a possible further indication that W is wired:
While Bush listens to a reporter ask his question, Bush nods with mild contempt and mentally formulates his dismissive answer.

But then Karl Rove starts speaking into his earpiece (always kept in his right ear), which causes Bush to turn reflexively towards his right - a dead giveaway that he is wired!!!

Bush immediately realizes his mistake and quickly jerks his head back to face the reporter who asked the question - a move he has probably practiced hundreds of times.

But the jerk is so conspicuous on tape that Blogenlust calls it Tourette's.
Blogenlust has the clip in question. In my view, the movement is rather odd, but not necessarily proof of either Tourette's syndrome or Rovian shennanigans. I would note, however, that the one photo which seemed to show something in Bush's ear happened to be a shot of his right ear.

When I first began discussing "bulge-gate," many scoffed at the idea. Now, most people -- even the Bush supporters I ocasionally meet -- seem to accept it.

Cascading contradictions...

dr. elsewhere here

Hm. I don’t normally listen to talk shows. But tonight on my way home, I had NPR on, and the talk show On Point was discussing Sandra Day O’Connor’s concerns about threats to the judiciary.

I was only in the car a few minutes, but I did catch a call in from a lawyer from South Carolina who made this terrific point. In the Moussaoui sentencing case, where they'll decide if the government gets to execute him, the prosecution is asserting that, had Moussaoui alerted the authorities, the FBI would have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks.

The caller’s point was that, if the prosecution's assertion is true, then the USAPATRIOT Act was not, and is not, needed.

What an elegant observation. Add this to your growing list of internal contradictions coming out of the WH. Not surprising, given their agenda is neither honesty nor integrity, instead simply covering their sorry asses.

Oh, and while the administration’s claim renders the USAPATRIOT Act irrelevant, it does bail out the airlines who are being sued by 9/11 families. Maybe they think that frying Moussaoui and saving the airlines are more important than justifying the USAPATRIOT Act?

NOT the last word on controlled demolitions

My readers were kind enough to respond to my post describing my discomfort with the theory that planted bombs brought down World Trade Center 7 and perhaps the Twin Towers. (Scroll down.) My response to (most of) these responses may be of sufficient interest to justify a new post.

1. "Annealing is done to soften steel, which does not necessarily cause it to lose much of its strength."

After exposure to temperatures well below 1500 degrees, a rasp can be shaped into something non-raspy. Many believe that the "transfer truss" design is inherently unstable under the best of circumstances. How much loss of strength is necessary to bring ruin to a design which was poor to begin with?

2. "I'll note that though some firemen claimed there was structural damage to the building, AFAIK none of them claimed there were diesel-fueled fires."

I didn't know that firemen in the process of fighting a fire usually offered opinions as to what caused the blaze.

3. "A team of researchers at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts studied steel samples from WTC7 and were quite mystefied by their "evaporation" from a high-temperature sulfidative attack. WPI still has an article on its web site "The Deep Mystery of the Melted Steel." The researchers could not explain the source of the sulfur..."

If the Worcester Polytechnic Institute is puzzled by the presence of sulfur, I suppose I ought to be as well. Even so, this laymen would like to remind you of the presence of 109,000 gallons of oil, and that the type of oil used in the generation of electricty has (as a little googling will tell you) a notable sulfur content which would be dispersed into the air as the oil burns.

From the WPI's introduction to the "Mystery of the Melted Steel" study: ""The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary--as acid rain."

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

4. "Your use of the interchange between Silverstein and the fire chief is itself a quote out of context. We don't have any record, as far as I'm aware, of what conversations Silverstein and the fire department had before that..."

I did quote in context. For quite a while now, bomb buffs have referenced that Silverman quote as though it were the holy effing grail. Now that I've pointed out that this quote doesn't mean what the buffs THINK it means, they say: "Pfft. His words are unimportant."

C'mon, guys. Play fair. This isn't Calvinball -- you can't change the rules as you go along.

5. "Joseph, can you actually find us evidence of an explosion that brought WTC7 down?"

By which you mean, I presume, an explosion involving the deisel tanks. In the first place, the burden of proof is on those positing a conspiracy. (I accept this challenge speaking as one who has posited a few conspiracies in his time.) Second, photographs show that fire broke out on the very floors where deisel tanks were stored. Coincidence?

6. "There is a lot of buzz here in NYC, because major local media are actually beginning to take 9/11 truth issues seriously."

Good. Maybe folks will start to ask about some of the real issues: Who is Magdy El-Amir? Who is Wally Hilliard? Why were the hijackers visiting those SunCruz boats?

But if the focus remains on this bombs-in-the-buildings crap, then I despair. Numbers of believers do not make a proposition true. If 75% of the public believes that a flying saucer crashed at Roswell, does that mean a saucer crashed at Roswell?

7. Every time I ask the "Why bother?" question, the answer comes down to this: "More psychological oomph. People would not have gotten really, really, REALLY scared unless they saw buildings fall."

Cah-mon, folks. Do you really expect me to believe that this posited "oomph" factor justified the drain on the economy and the loss of life?

Okay. Let us posit that someone -- call him Mr. Evil -- pushed a button and set off bombs in the south tower (the first building to go). Why didn't he wait until the building was evacuated?

A conspiracist might answer: "Because it was important to maximize the loss of life! He needed to SCARE people! Oomph! They needed lots of OOMPH!"

Okay. But if that "oomph" factor made it so bloody important to maximize the loss of life and scare people, why didn't Mr. Evil make BOTH buildings go down at once? Why wait until the north tower was evacuated?

"Um...maybe he was SOMEWHAT evil but not TOTALLY evil? Maybe he needed just a certain degree of OOMPH but not too much OOMPH?"

Yes, I know that I've argued with a straw man, which is, I suppose, a very presidential thing to do. I doubt that any real life debater will be able to make the scenario more convicing to me.

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Controlled Demolitions: The last word (I hope)

Some readers get angry when I denounce the "semi-official" conspiratorialist view of the World Trade Center tragedy. They believe that my dismissal of the bombs-in-the-buildings scenario amounts to a blinkered acceptance of the Bush administration's pronouncements.

In my view, this emphasis on controlled demolitions diverts us from matters which truly merit investigation, such as Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff's ties to an accused Al Qaida financer, or the possible links between Bin Laden and intelligence-connected drug routes. These areas of research remain under-discussed. Meanwhile, the "bomb brigade" includes some of the loudest loudmouths on the internet.

Alas, actor Charlie Sheen has joined their company.

His eyewitness description of 9/11 is worth reading. Nevertheless, I feel that he has bought into some misleading information:
Regarding building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, Sheen highlighted the use of the term "pull," a demolition industry term for pulling the outer walls of the building towards the center in an implosion, as was used by Larry Silverstein in a September 2002 PBS documentary when he said that the decision to "pull" building 7 was made before its collapse. This technique ensures the building collapses in its own footprint and can clearly be seen during the collapse of building 7 with the classic 'crimp' being visible...

"The term 'pull' is as common to the demolition world as 'action and 'cut' are to the movie world," said Sheen.
Let's look at what Larry Silverstein actually said...

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

This is from an Alex Jones web page:
In a September 2002 PBS documentary called 'America Rebuilds,' Silverstein states, in reference to World Trade Center Building 7, "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
In context, the true meaning of Silverstein's report is clear. Firemen were inside the building trying to save it. Silverstein didn't want them to risk their lives. Better, he felt, to give the building up for lost -- to pull it down and build anew. The phrase "maybe the smartest thing to do" indicates a decision made on the spot -- a decision made by firemen ("they made the decision"), not by Silverstein and not by any band of conspirators. Nothing in this quote indicates a pre-arranged plan to pull the building that day. Nothing in this quote specifies that the building fell because it was "pulled."

As Oscar Wilde noted: "Quotation may be slander/If you gerrymander." This particular gerrymandered quotation represents just one of the ways the bomb theorists have misled the public.

Here's another commonly heard misconception: "Steel melts at 2800 degrees Fahrenheit; the fire caused by the exploding jet fuel could not have reached that temperature." Other sources give 1500 degrees.

My response comes in the form of what may seem a rather odd question: Did you know that you can make your own dagger? People do it all the time. They buy steel rasps (files) from the hardware store, and then they "cook" them in a fireplace or over the coals of an outdoor barbecue. This process is called annealing, and it is the first step in making the steel workable. I do not know how hot an outdoor barbecue gets, but I feel fairly sure that the temperature stays somewhere below 2800 degrees.

Point being: A piece of steel loses structural integrity at a much lower degree than is necessary to turn it into a running liquid.

For a while now, I've threatened to post an unpublished piece I wrote in early 2003 on the WTC7 collapse. Here are a few selections, detailing facts which the "bomb boys" don't want you to know:

* * *

In 1998, Mayor Rudolph Guiliani situated his Emergency Operations Center -- headquarters of the Office of Emergency Management -- on the 23rd floor. To provide this command post with power even if the rest of the city went dark, he arranged for the installation of a 6000 gallon fuel tank. According to New York City fire codes, such a unit must rest at or below ground level, encased in concrete. Technically, the tank was on the ground floor – although much depends upon how one defines the term: It sat atop a 15 foot pedestal, in order to escape possible flooding. Nobody knows if the fireproofed enclosure was adequate, or if the shock of the nearby collapses caused a rupture....

7 World Trade Center hid other diesel caches. Just below ground on the southwest side, four tanks held an astounding 36,000 gallons. Pipes connected this fuel to three 275 gallon tanks on the fifth, seventh and eight floors -- the same general area first hit by the fire, as documented by the photographic record. These smaller tanks, in turn, fed generators that serviced various tenants...

An engine from the first plane sailed through the South Tower and described, in its path of descent, an arc that took it very near Building 7. The engine finally landed on the street behind 7 World Trade Center. The other engine, or a flaming chunk of the South Tower, might well have sailed into the building itself. Granted, I’ve seen no photographic evidence of an "entrance wound," but, as the axiom has it, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. After scouring the web and flipping through many photo books, I have yet to find a single clear, detailed image showing what the key areas of building 7 looked like before 9:55. Cameramen focused on buildings one and two, while the eight-story tall 6 World Trade Center did much to obscure the lower region of its 47-floor sibling.

Within that structure, pipes carried diesel from the massive ground floor units up to the smaller tanks on floors five, seven and eight, where fire broke out. Any fiery rupture of that piping could have ignited the upper fuel deposits. (Alternatively, an aircraft engine could have struck one of the tanks directly.) If gas flowing within that pipe turned to flame, the 36,000 gallon underground tanks might have ignited, and one can easily guess how the resulting explosion would have affected both the lobby area and the Mayor’s cache of emergency fuel. In all, 7 World Trade Center hosted some 43,000 gallons of diesel -- perhaps more, if the CIA maintained its own fuel supply, as some believe that agency did. This potential explosive power far exceeded that of the bomb Timothy McVeigh (and friends?) stuffed into their infamous Ryder truck.

Irving Cantor, the engineer initially baffled by the fall of the edifice he had helped create, accepted the preliminary findings of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA pointed an accusing finger at the diesel tanks, which did not feature in the original plans.

Although this scenario explains how the tower became an inferno, we still have no answer for the most important question: How did fire bring about the collapse of Building 7? In theory, skyscrapers should withstand an uncontrolled blaze.

If you have ever stepped inside a large open space within the ground floors of a tall building, you may have wondered how such a vast expanse could support the floors above. Architects use huge steel beams known as transfer trusses to distribute the weight – and such trusses played a major role in the construction of 7 World Trade Center. The design had to enclose ten previously-existing, 35-foot tall power transformers, much as one might use a paper cup to cover a ping pong ball. These transformers contained 109,000 gallons of oil, adding even more potential fuel to the fire. The transfer trusses over the power stations ran through floors five, six and seven; the fire-resistant spray-on coating on these beams probably crumbled when the nearby collapses shook the area. Fire weakened the trusses, and the weight of 30-odd floors brought the building down.

(By comparison, a foot-thick sheath of protective tile surrounded the steel support beams within 90 West Street, the 1907 structure which remained standing even when gutted by fire. Modern builders consider tile too heavy and too expensive for fire retardation purposes.)

* * *

End of self-quotation. I would argue that a similar situation contributed to the downfall of towers 1 and 2, both of which suffered from poor design and inadequate fireproofing. The gas lines running throughout the buildings may well explain the anecdotal reports of explosions.

As I've said more than once, the allegations of a controlled demolition rest upon an absurd premise. Setting up such a demolition is an ostentatious, laborious process; covert operatives running bombs into the building would have run a great risk of discovery.

Why would anyone have bothered? The image of airliners hitting the towers provided all the casus belli needed for any devious plan the neocons wanted to put into action.

I've asked this question numerous times, and have yet to receive an answer that I found even partially persuasive.

Remembering Rachel and forgetting freedom

dr. elsewhere here

In reviewing last week, I was dreadfully remiss in leaving out two very important events. One was the President's signing of the USAPATRIOT Act extension, essentially making our descent into a police state official. Don't know what else to say about that that has not already been said. It's true, Liberty's torch has gone out with little more than a whimper.

The second event was the anniversary of Rachel Corrie's death while defending the home of a Palestinian pharmacist against an Israeli tank about to crush it. Instead, the tank crushed her, orange vest and all. Last week was also supposed to be the debut of a play written from her emails and letters, but certain, er, forces in NYC stopped it. Philip Weiss's story on this is stunning, and raises the question few will ask: How is it that Israel holds so much power over our country and its policies and now activities?

Twenty-five years ago (I once had knitting needles confiscated before boarding a plane from Huntsville to Memphis; this is an old nightmare), in a class on Death and Dying, I asked a visting rabbi a similar unspoken question: Do Israelis and Jews consider that their treatment of the Palestinians has made them the very monsters who persecuted them in the Holocaust? He was stunned, clearly, but to his credit, he took the question seriously enough to request that we discuss it in depth after class. That was interesting, in that he seemed confused and unable to land anywhere with an answer, so he simply listened.

The question has never been answered. I don't intend here to fan the clearly intense flames of anti-semitism or anti-anti-semitism. But I am also highly disinclined to ignore reality when it hits me square in the face. The influence of Israel's interests in this administration are now legend, especially as regards policies in the middle east. We export democracy, but reject the outcome if it is not in Israel's best interests. And now the influence of "Jewish sensitivities" in this case of free speech and art from a young woman who died for the right of a family to keep the roof over their heads....

Will someone please help me understand why these questions are never asked in public, and all too often, not even in private?

Child pornography

This column has addressed few topics as distasteful as kiddie porn.

Last week, news accounts spoke of arrests involving a ring that had been involved with transmitting live acts of child molestation via Internet Relay Chat. The story caught my attention because Bushfolk Alberto Gonzales and Julie Myers rushed to get in front of the cameras in order to take credit, even though the actual work in the case was overseen by none other than Patrick Fitzgerald, the man going after the Plamegate perps. (Myers is a high-ranking Homeland Security official. Is kiddie porn really a Homeland Security matter? Did she have anything to do with Fitz' good work?) The image of Gonzales hogging a spotlight that belongs to our Fitz is rather irritating.

I googled some of the people accused in the indictment, on the theory that one of them might turn out to be a Republican activist. (Hey, you never know!) I was unnerved to find that one of the accused, Brian Annoreno, appears to have previously made attempts to adopt children via the AdoptionChoice Yahoo Group. HuffCrimeblog did some excellent research into this individual, who is accused of molesting an infant on camera. His former girlfriend believes that the child was one he had with her; unfortunately, the court declared the mother unfit and placed the baby in his care, even though a few minutes' worth of internet research would have revealed indications of his unhealthy interests. I'd love to publish the name of the judge who made that brilliant decision.

This same Annoreno apparently left the message "Let's kill all the Niggers!" on this web site. So perhaps I was justified in my initial suspicion concerning the political leanings of child molesters. (Incidentally, the most recent fish caught in Fitzgerald's net is, I am sorry to say, a priest.)

The main reason I bring up the topic concerns a couple of disgusting images I stumbled across the other day. As you know, I'm a graphic artist and illustrator, and a recent gig required me to draw a picture of a gorilla. You know what Picasso said: Immature artists borrow; mature artists steal. So I fired up Google Images and tried a few key words, including "Tarzan illustration," with an eye toward finding some of Burne Hogarth's work. (Hogarth, who drew the Tarzan newspaper strip for some years, did great gorillas.)

Two very disturbing images turned up. I did not click on the actual pages, but the thumbnails on Google revealed that someone had created extremely explicit and unsettling kiddie porn paintings involving the young Tarzan from the animated Disney version of the story. The artist emulated the look of the film; at first glance, these paintings looked very much like the studio's official product.

Previously, I had felt that no-one should go to jail based on a mere piece of art. These images turned that opinion around. Whoever painted those things not only belongs in a cell -- he belongs in solitary.

But then the question arises: At what point does pornography earn its label? Any number of great paintings include naked children -- cherubs, putti, infants in the lap of the Madonna. And then there's Maxfield Parrish's Daybreak. Even if you consider this work kitsch (as I do not), no-one can deny that this is one of the most famous paintings ever produced by an American. It is also a work which, if it were created today, might cause some legal trouble for the artist. Parrish worked from photographic reference. (Oh, don't look shocked: So did Norman Rockwell and some of the Pre-Raphaelites.) Most people do not realise that the naked standing figure in Daybreak derives from a photograph of a child, reproduced at a larger-than-normal size in relationship to the reclining figure.

No-one presumes Parrish to have been sexually interested in the underaged; he operated in a different era. But if the term "child pornography" includes paintings as well as photographs, then can we arrive at a definition which allows Parrish while damning the creator of those stomach-turning images I ran into on Google?

As always, it's not so easy to know just where to draw the line...

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Pants on fire

When the president says something like this (re: Saddam)...
And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.
...we must ask: Does he really believe this nonsense, or does he simply expect us to believe it? (The quote, by the way, comes from his recent press conference.)

Aside from the words "And we did," every statement of fact here is false. Saddam Hussein did allow the inspectors in. He disclosed everything; we know that he had no secrets because we had one of his chief aides on the CIA payroll. The world is not safer than it was in 2002. I even doubt that Bush was the one who had to make that "difficult decision."

Yet one-third of the country will believe this codswallop. If W said that a statue of Bullwinkle stood atop the Capitol building, die-hard Bush-backers would squint until they saw antlers.

Da mob and JFK

Did mobsters give JFK his victory? The story has passed into common belief, even though the tale never had much basis beyond the testimony of Judith Campbell Exner, who was exposed as a liar long ago. (She kept "remembering" new details as the years passed.) Now, a Professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago looks at the evidence and finds it...nonexistent. (A tip of the hat to Gary Buell.)

Monday, March 20, 2006

Responding to angst and anarcholibertarians

dr. elsewhere here, again.
Comments on my second angst piece were fascinating for their division into at least two distinct camps, camps reflected in the piece itself, though clearly not articulated well. I resist setting up divisions that way, as folks tend to do that freely without any assist. Furthermore, as per Hume’s dictum (“If you can name it, you can divide it), there’s always a way to split a concept, so any division – be it male/female, old /young, Republicans/Democrats, Christians/heathens, Muslims/infidels – can easily be supplanted by another for whatever purposes, good or ill.

To those of you who seemed to be reflecting from a similar angle as I was targeting, I thank you for your kind, supporting, and ever-insightful words. Though it is always good to learn of kindred spirits, it is also good to learn that one is not merely preaching to the choir.

One ultimately dissenting (though apparently confused) comment presumed that my position was “anarcholibertarian,” which could not be further from the truth. The long quote m.jed shared proceeded to spill abundant contradictions and counter-positions to my own, so it may be that m.jed did not read my words too carefully, or that I did not present them carefully enough. Either way, his (I’m assuming) raising the issue of anarcholibertarianism, and his inclusion of that long quote, made me realize that those sentiments have a real and powerful following within our borders (I choose that image intentionally), and that certain elements of that philosophy have had a disturbing influence on the American zeitgeist in recent decades. I would therefore like to respond directly to that long, anarcholibertarian quote m.jed shared, and attempt to more precisely frame my position, with respect to both the libertarian notions and the persistence in framing our current situation in repub/dem, conservative/liberal, right/wrong dynamics. It is my opinion that all these dichotomies, as well as the others listed in my first paragraph, miss the mark by miles, and in so doing dangerously risk a perpetuation of our ills rather than a transcendence of them.

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

First, here is the long quote submitted by m.jed, from http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3564:

What egalitarianism attempts to do is remove social tensions, the very source of societal dynamism, in order to create a society where all will be equal in every conceivable way.

From that ideology comes the theory and concept of "social justice". It is a theory that believes desired outcomes can be implemented through government which [sic] will ultimately reshape human nature.

Thus the belief that since a "right" to home ownership, "living" wages, "free" education and health care and a certain level of retirement are desireable [sic], society (and thus human nature) should be reshaped to achive [sic] those desires since all will be better off for that. These are things to which we're all entitled, whether we earn them or not, so the group, as a whole, is better off, even if certain segments and individuals in the group aren't.

To be implemented, social justice requires the acceptance that, in the name of equality, somebody should have the power to determine what to take away from you in order to give it to others who receive it without any obligation to earn it. The natural inequalities of nature require this unnatural solution to create the leveling required by the ideology. It cannot happen any other way. Without some measure of totalitarianism (or authoritarianism if you prefer), social justice is unachievable.


Point one, the aim of egalitarianism is NOT to ease social tensions, although it is a predicted and desirable outcome. On the other hand, to see such tensions as essential for societal dynamism overlooks other, less destructive sources of dynamism, and presumes that the absence of these particular tensions leads to stagnation, both patently absurd notions. Just as importantly, though, both the presumption and the aim of the notion of equality – as expressed in both our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, just as examples – are social justice. The quoted libertarian position is a crude distortion of the philosophical process that supports the assertion and ideal of human equality, a philosophy dating back to at least the early Greeks. The stated libertarian position situates social justice as some afterthought, like so much ideological fallout, when it is, in fact, the original motivation and point of egalitarianism. Moreover, notions of human equality – which the founders of our democracy posited as a “self-evident” truth – waste no time whatsoever with the absurd idea that “all will be equal in every conceivable way,” as the libertarian author is quoted to say. Nor do the founders’ notions presume that government can reshape human nature in an attempt to force a “desired outcome” of equality. On this latter point, because that equality is a “self-evident” truth, it is the starting point of their philosophy and cannot also be a desired outcome; it just is, and is not even questioned or even anticipated as a future potential, desired or not. Any “outcome” would simply be that this self-evident truth be preserved in the assurance of equal social justice for all beings. The point regarding reshaping human nature to a desired outcome will be taken up directly.

The quoted libertarian, and most of those I have ever encountered, completely misconstrue the founders’ intention of equality. There is nowhere in our founding documents a goal of rendering everyone equal, as in identical with no differences, but instead an understanding that every human should have equal standing in the face of the law, and that laws as agreed upon by the majority or more of a people would thereby prevail over the inherent differences between humans – be these of religion or wealth or lineage or station (and, by extrapolation many years thereafter, by race or gender, and hopefully some day by sexual orientation) – thus maintaining their equal value under the law. In fact, it’s entirely possible, even preferable, for individuals to celebrate their differences at the same time they celebrate their equality under law. This is a point I think the anarcholibertarian credo misses completely, which is all the more telling given how selective they are in bringing up these inherent differences; we don’t see them championing ANYTHING in the name of diversity, mind you. Instead, the bulk of libertarian arguments relying on notions of differences focus on the differences in earning power, which always overlook the many ways in which those differences expose the failures of social justice and our self-evident truth of equality before the law. Their arguments thereby serve the selfish agenda of preserving their hard-earned, riches with a thinly veiled contempt for those they see as parasites, but without so much as a hint of awareness of the possibility that these “parasites” might resent the riches “earned” from the breaking of their hard-working backs.

This notion of entitlement is the second point addressed in the long quote, where the author finds objectionable the notion that anyone should expect such basic survival needs as shelter, health care, education, and a living wage, if a person does not earn them. What child has “earned” an education, such that any fellow human could grant or deny it, other than simply existing? The same question can be asked of health or shelter. The libertarian’s open disdain for granting even the most basic needs to our fellow citizens is a sentiment that the far right has capitalized upon, but one that embodies a blatant contradiction. Nowhere is there a more emphatic insistence on entitlements than in the libertarian rant. They demand “their” possessions, which include resources commonly regarded as the “commonwealth” (such as water; would they own the air we breathe?), while rejecting even the kindergartener’s sense of sharing and refusing to consider the far-sighted importance of responsibilities that must accompany any rights. Entitlement, indeed!

The libertarian fears that “someone” will decide to take his toys away, while simultaneously complaining that someone else who did not “earn” them will benefit. But the libertarian never grasps the fact that the “someone” who agrees to rules of equality under law and “promoting the general welfare” (Preamble to the US Constitution, in case that’s forgotten), this government, is none other than We, the people. We, the people, decide what the rules will be. We, the people, will decide what the consequences will be for infringements. True to their infantile insistence on getting everything they want, when they want it, as if they earned every penny without so much as a hint of exploited social inequalities, they see big bad government instead as that inconvenient and mean old daddy who persists in placing limits on their childish hording.

Third, it seems almost silly to respond to the quoted notion that the theory of social justice (as opposed to a self-evident truth) believes that government can “shape human behavior toward desired outcomes.” Well, of course it does; why would any American deny that? Two simple points: One, rules – explicit or implicit – exist for that express purpose, to shape human behavior toward desired outcomes. Explicit traffic rules exist to reduce collisions. Implicit conversation rules exist so everyone can talk but not all at once, so they can be heard (clearly libertarians dominate the airwaves!). Arguing in disdain against the egalitarian position, the libertarian author takes the twisted tack of social Darwinism that only the fittest are the survivors, the rest be damned because damned is what they are.

The fact is, rules emerge spontaneously throughout all levels of nature, all the way from laws of gravity and electromagnetic forces to social contracts and traffic laws. It is the balance against chaos, which anarchists prefer to rules, but I’ll let them drive in Bombay and see if that makes them feel more liberated. Because anarcholibertarians seem to have such a radical reaction to any rules limiting their “free” range individualism, one cannot help but suspect they have the same reaction to responsibilities and consequences placed on their behavior. Again, this position fits the infantile mentality that drives it; “you’re not the boss of me!” Theirs is not only a decidedly undemocratic and unchristian self-service, it is a bone-chilling nihilism, which is precisely what I felt throughout the drudgery of forcing myself to read Ayn Rand. While championing their “success” in conquering nature “red in tooth and claw,” they expose their veins as void of blood, their hearts empty of humanity.

Fourth, like all radical ideologies, anarcholibertarianism suffers from vacuous arguments based on weak premises that are easily proven wrong, at which point the entire house of cards tumbles. The complaint that social justice requires “somebody” to “have the power to determine what to take away [their toys]” fails for the reasons noted above, but additionally because the same question must also be applied to their own theory. Who decides what “earn” means, or what behavior will be allowed in a society? Let’s do a thought experiment. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that our libertarian, while driving like a bat outa hell in Bombay, runs over a poor native man, killing him and leaving an ailing widow with four small children and no other means of support. The extreme anarcholibertarian view would say, tough; the wretched are wretched, the rest of us are not, so this is where the chips have fallen. But most reasonable folks, even reasonable anarcholibertarians, would say well, clearly there must be some laws, like traffic laws and consequences for breaking them, and so situations like this one would be covered. Maybe not in Bombay, but certainly in more civilized countries, like America. But (even ignoring the fact that the rules do not always work in America) if they allow for some laws, and not for others, where is that line drawn? And who is that somebody who decides where it is drawn? And who decides who will decide? And so on.

So clearly, only the radical extreme version of anarcholibertarianism differs in any significant way from the rest of us who recognize that we do need some rules and consequences for breaking them, and gosh I suppose that means we’ll have to have folks who decide those rules and what to do about them, and so on. Except for those who insist that the reckless driver of that car is free to make the decision that he was responsible, and therefore should of his own free will take it upon himself to care for his victim’s family and their needs. Now, why would he do this? If the answer even leans in the general direction of a moral reasoning, because it is the right thing to do, then the anarcholibertarian argument again fails because this intuitive understanding of what is the right thing to do, this instinct toward a moral response, is in itself an implicit rule, one that exists in every society and culture on the planet throughout history. The fact that there is a moral code puts the final nail in the anarcholibertarian coffin; to beg that argument makes their entire enterprise an oxymoron.

Fifth, the social justice “beliefs” listed in the quote are not only untrue as presented, they all hinge on money and resources, thereby exposing the libertarian’s breathtaking selfishness, as well as a profound lack of foresight and depth, not to mention ignorance of the Constitution. That document announced not only the intent to form “a more perfect union” (can this be interpreted in any other way as a “desired outcome?”), but the responsibility “to promote the general welfare” (can this be understood in any other way than to promote the general welfare??). These determinations were extremely liberal for their time, but they also expressed the moral assumption that found such eloquent expression in the Enlightenment, though it is embedded in the Classics. The listing of these “rights” – to living wages, free education and health care, and home ownership – as if anyone should dare to require such basics of life, frankly took my breath away. The only alternative to these basic rights is that the wretched (one presumes) must remain beholden to the blessed (one presumes) for a roof, a doctor, an education, and a living wage, while the blessed are free to exploit the work of the wretched for their own gain. Pretty picture. And all without obligation to anyone or anything, not even that implicit social contract. The most brazen absurdity in this position is that it completely misses the irony that, while whining about the demand for these basic rights of food and health and shelter as “entitlements,” they are demanding their right to exploit the less fortunate with impunity, and the right to ravage their way to the top with complete disregard for whomever and whatever might be destroyed in the process. Again; entitlement, indeed. There is never even the first thought of “consent” from those at the brunt end of their “liberties,” let alone the immediate consequences, or even the generational future. And the insistence that all recipients of benefits must “earn” them is beyond laughable. Aside from wondering again just who decides how much one must do to earn a roof or an education or a living, one cannot help but wonder if the anarcholibertarian “earned” his wealthy parents, or her quick wit, or his fine intellect, or her beauty, or his lineage, or her social charms, or his or her gender. Most folks have little control over whether or not they come equipped with these gifts, so how do we parse out who is really “earning” anything that is not advanced by such talents? And how do we condemn those who not only missed out on these advantages, but suffer all manner of handicaps? There can only be a moral response to this question, and it must be taken as a social contract invested in social justice. Anything less is intentional social injustice. This point was so richly implicit in Havel’s solution as to be self-evident; I am so sorry that m.jed missed it.

The final paragraph of this quote again follows the hollow logic of assuming errors, as listed above, but it also hobbles toward the absurd conclusion that social justice is only achievable through some measure of totalitarianism. How does one address a conclusion that is a contradiction in terms? Social justice exists only within a totalitarianism?? In addition to concluding an oxymoron, this extreme interpretation of the case again reduces our options to the extremes; either we have individual freedom without social justice (because, gosh, life is not fair), or we have social justice only under an authoritarian government, in which case some segments of the population (presumably the rich) will not be “better off.” Better off than what, than they were before the government (we, the people) taxed their millions at 45%, leaving them with only less millions? Better off than their neighbors? Better off than the Joneses? They should keep their “better off” while the other segments of the population go without their “better off” of basic survival needs? My heart bleeds peanut butter.

The truth of their complaints is that they’re not happy unless they are allowed to decide where their money goes or doesn’t, or what they do or don’t do with “their” property. Ironic in the face of their stated abhorrence of “authoritarianism,” this smacks of a demand to be themselves the authority, the “somebody” that makes these decisions. Because of course the wretched masses should not be allowed to decide what to do with “their” property. Authority is fine as long as it’s theirs; rules are fine as long as they make them. An observation that should, of course, be applied to the wretched masses, as well, but there are differences in the outcomes. When the masses make the rules, those rules apply to the wretched and the blessed alike; when the libertarian makes the rules, they only apply to the wretched to keep their own situation secure and to keep the wretched wretched (any “charity” from this station is only patronizing, by definition; “Where there is justice, there is no need for charity”). Or better stated, they only benefit the blessed. Also, the blessed tend to be a minority, even when we let LaHore fix the calculations. And the wretched tend to be the majority. But in a democracy, as per the very basic notion of a social contract, the majority does rule, not the self-appointed aristocracy.

It is this general presumption – no matter who posits or lives by it – that certain folks, by luck of birth, have the right to exploit others with only bad luck their whole damn lives that truly turns my stomach. It is this fundamentally infantile, astonishingly amoral, and increasingly pervasive attitude in our country that frightens me. It is this ironically authoritarian paternalism of the unenlightened and dominating alpha male, the slave master, that alerts me to the very real dangers we face. It is this extension of “might makes right” and “greed is good” that just leaves me thoroughly dumbfounded that these folks can actually survive in this world, let alone prevail in it. But then I see the state of this world, and their sentiments explain just about everything.

So, no, my position was the furthest thing from anarcholibertarianism that you can get. My position is based on the fundamental premise of the Declaration of Independence, which the libertarian philosophy so utterly distorts as to render them fully un-American, not to mention arguably unchristian. And my position did not encourage government in the abstract to be rendered irrelevant or “quaint,” nor was this the position of our founders or Gandhi or Havel. Each of their situations was expressing a revolt against the governments that were oppressing them, that were violating their basic and self-evident rights to simply survive. Anarcholibertarians, as far as I can tell, spend the bulk of their time demanding their right to thrive, even if it means death – or worse – to the wretched.

My position instead stems only from the observation that we are in a heckuva mess, and it’s not likely we’re going to get out of this easily. Who knows how bad it will get, but let’s assume – as I suggested – that it will get bad, very very bad, and in far more ways than just economical, though that is certainly key to the mix. We may find ourselves oppressed by fascism or feudalism, or fundamentalist fascist feudalism, or even worse versions of these than we already suffer. Even worse than these, we will likely find ourselves at the mercy of nature’s rejection of all the ways we have brutalized her bounty. It could be some combo of both nature and politics, and likely will be. I honestly don’t have much hope that even an economic recovery implemented by the Democratic Party will save us from the worst of the fates that await us, nor do I really have any hope that they can or will do that anyway. The problems of corruption and exploitation have become just so much larger than what one party can do to correct them; it’s going to take local community actions toward recovering both rights and resources.

My position was not intended to suggest that “acting locally, thinking globally” was the answer, nor that my position would protect us, either from Republicans or fascists or the planet’s recovering herself. My position of taking back control of our basic needs for survival at the local level was intended as a coping mechanism for any and all these possible futures. And when it comes down to that crucial survival edge, none of us will be wondering about why the Democrats let our democracy get stolen, or how the Republicans became so corrupt, or why no one heeded the writing on the wall from all the history within our lifetimes and all the science at our disposal. We won’t be blaming the repugs or the Southerners or the fundamentalists or even the terrorists or Bush. Not if we have any sense, as we won’t have time; we’ll be too busy just trying to survive.

And in that bare, raw moment of survival, not just of individuals but of the species, when most animals including humans become beasts, I am hoping that some of us remember what is truly of importance, even beyond food and clean water and shelter, even beyond life itself. I am hoping that some of us remember that the moral impulse is designed to preserve the species if not the individual, and may be our only prayer for surviving our fate, a fate we – as fierce individualists – have blindly crafted for ourselves and a progeny that may never happen. If enough us are to remember what things we truly hold as important, if we are to heed the moral impulse, then it would seem wise to throw ourselves full-throated into discussion at that level, a level the Republicans have co-opted as farce but that is easily elevated to its proper heights by anyone who cares, Democrats and Republicans alike. There is profound reason to fear that more than our survival is at stake.